<< Back to General Forum   Search

Posts 1 - 27 of 27   
Improved AI?: 5/7/2011 19:43:30


Maximus 
Level 10
Report
With all the improvements of this website the biggest downfall I personally think is the AI.

It is quite stupid and often downgrades to a spoiler/kamikaze than an actual opponent.

It not only makes games with AIs frustrating but it makes single player games outside of the challenges boring.

My two cents.
Improved AI?: 5/7/2011 21:53:18


Doushibag 
Level 16
Report
Perhaps with the Google AI challenge thing some AI's will be made that could then be incorporated into the game as options. IE you'd have options for which AI(s) you wanted to play against. They could be rated based on general difficulty to help with selection as well. That's some ways off though I'd guess. Additionally I don't think there's a whole lot of demand for better AI's in relation to other features and it would probably be hard to do.

You should consider putting something to this effect on uservoice and see how many people vote for it. That will help gauge the demand for such a thing and help Randy to evaluate if he should re-prioritize. As it is now I'm sure he has a ton of things he wants in and most of them probably have a much higher priority and are probably not so difficult and time consuming as an AI. Although if it was a higher priority and with the AI google challenge more effort might be made to help people in that aspect (like making the visualizer).
Improved AI?: 5/8/2011 01:56:01


NoZone 
Level 6
Report
One improvement I could see adding would be to maybe give a little "personality" to each of the AIs by randomly assigning an aggressiveness factor to each of them at the start of each game. It would make the interactions less predictable from game to game. I assume there is an algorithm that determines when they attack which could have a modifier added or something. Says the man who has no idea how these things work.
Improved AI?: 5/8/2011 22:34:36


Kleyton Manning 
Level 17
Report
I want the Montezuma AI on my team.
Improved AI?: 5/9/2011 23:59:29


Maximus 
Level 10
Report
The AI never using abandons is one thing I think would improve it greatly.

It should use the abandons in obvious situations, better than giving a player free reign to mow the AI down knowing he doesn't have to worry bout a huge abandon.
Improved AI?: 5/10/2011 06:26:53


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
Max, the AI never uses any card but R.. and those as soon as it gets them *presuming no players on same team*
means you can count on 'alot' of things..
Improved AI?: 5/10/2011 12:02:30


NoZone 
Level 6
Report
Not using cards is a hard one to overcome. That is pretty sophisticated decision making. Placing armies can follow a reasonably limited rule and work. But using cards is a level of detail that will be hard to achieve. It involves not only decisions about the AIs behavior, but the ability to interpret the human player's intentions and respond accordingly. Very tough to do.
Improved AI?: 5/10/2011 12:16:54


NoZone 
Level 6
Report
Actually, discussing this raises an interesting idea. What about an AI design challenge? And there can be a tournament style "robot wars" if enough people design some.
Improved AI?: 5/10/2011 12:30:48


NoZone 
Level 6
Report
Whoops, already been discussed: http://blog.warlight.net/index.php/2011/04/warlight-as-a-candidate-to-the-google-ai-challenge/

Good idea! I encourage those with the skills to pitch in.
Improved AI?: 5/10/2011 21:45:58


TrueJon
Level 50
Report
It would be nice if there was some amount of human intervention when it comes to AIs. Maybe, when creating a game, there could be human intervened AI and standard AI.

In a game where there are no cards, or at least no gift cards, it is impossible to get the AI to take the last piece for a bonus if that piece is already controlled by a teammate. Wow, run on sentence, I apologize.

The human intervened AIs can be controlled completely or in partial by the teammate with most games played, or least amount of boots by percentage. Or maybe, if the game is 3v3, then controlled by most games won by that specific game type.

I almost feel that this would be easier to engineer than it would to engineer different AI levels, ie beginner, easy, intermediate, hard, veteran, etc...

These are just a few thoughts, probably stupid to boot!
Improved AI?: 5/11/2011 07:56:48


Diabolicus 
Level 58
Report
In team games, if a team mate gets booted or surrenders and the AI takes over, there should be an option for the remaining team members to take control of the substitute AI and if necessary revise its orders.
Improved AI?: 5/17/2011 01:28:38


Maximus 
Level 10
Report
^Agreed. A team could still fight to win if they control the AIs territory.
Improved AI?: 5/17/2011 01:56:29


x 
Level 58
Report
Alternatively, a randomly chosen player on the booted/surrendered player's team could take control of the territories controlled by the booted player. So the team would lose the 5 (or however many) army base reinforcement but a human player would control the rest of the reinforcements and have strategic position.

If that didn't make sense, essentially what I mean is that the colour of the territories controlled by the booted player would switch to the colour of one of their teammates'.
Improved AI?: 5/17/2011 02:14:18

The Impaller 
Level 9
Report
The problem with one person controlling all of that players territories is that idea is it allows for being booted to be a legitimate strategy that could help the team win. I don't like that being an option.

For example, if there is a landlocked player making 30 armies per turn, it might be advantageous for him to get booted so another player can then make 30+ armies per turn and use that to bust through the enemy team.


I do think letting a teammate control the booted player's turn would be a good idea, I just don't think that giving those territories to the player would be right.
Improved AI?: 5/17/2011 02:46:16


Maximus 
Level 10
Report
Re:Impaller

I would think it'd be advantageous if the player who overtook the guy stockpiling 30 would now be able to stockpile 50 or more with their combined income.

But teammates do that all the time, transferring the troops they put on board.

While I do see the advantage, the player would still need to be booted, and he's there to play he would try his best not to.

OR, how about this, in games where the option for teamates to overtake teammates AI, none of the team's players are allowed to boot their own teammate.

Then you might have some arses that go away to get booted by the other team so their team might get an advantage but let's be realistic and understand that would be a glaring minority.

Also, so as not to turn this into too big a mess how about setting limitations of how many teamates one teammate could control, as so:

3 Player Team=Only 1 AI can be overtaken, so no 1 guy controlling 3 players
4 Player Team=Same as above, only 2 live players can continue all their teammates
5 Player Team=Must have at least 3 live players
6 Player Team=Must have at least 3 live players
Improved AI?: 5/17/2011 02:52:44

Dragons 
Level 56
Report
I agree with Impaller.

Team mates can transfer the troops they put on the board, but in the situation Impaller is describing, they are not near the front line and will take several turns to be useful.

Getting booted is easy. For one, in some games there is the auto boot. If you don't have that option, oftentimes you just have to annoy the other team with consistent turn overages.

Being able to modify orders for the AI is a much fairer solution, IMO. There's no reason to combine territories if you can put some human intelligence into the AI.
Improved AI?: 5/17/2011 06:23:27


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
the Imp,
I don't think anyone is suggesting 'combining' players.. the landlocked players armies won't suddenly be playable in the Regents country.. only in the landlocked players country.. so the armies would still take just as long to get to the front as if said player didn't get himself booted.. anything besides that in that situation would be highly illogical, imho..
Improved AI?: 5/17/2011 06:40:53

The Impaller 
Level 9
Report
Actually, Perrin. That is exactly what was suggested. Not that the armies would "combine" but that one player would get the income of another player added to their own income. It doesn't matter if the armies combine or not, it could still be a huge income boost to one player who is currently balls-deep in combat with an enemy player. Those extra armies to deploy each turn would certainly be on the front lines immediately.
Improved AI?: 5/17/2011 08:36:37


Diabolicus 
Level 58
Report
Exactly .. especially on huge maps where airlift cards are scarce merging a booted player's territories with the rest of the team would be too big an advantage. Plus there might be meta bonuses (think big new york or east asia map) that get unlocked once a single player holds all the territories formerly controlled by his booted team mate.
Revising AI orders would be much fairer. The right to change AI orders should be rotated among the remaining players of a team, so each turn another player gets to control the AI.
Improved AI?: 5/17/2011 08:37:26


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
I see the suggestion differently... I read it more similar to a player running two accounts.. the two players would be more cohesive then two actual players, but a landlocked player sends his armies to the non-landlocked ally anyways.. as I said in my previous post.. the idea of giving the income of two players to one merely because that one is acting regent of one player is highly illogical.

honestly.. what's the difference between player A placing 10 armies in Mexico to send to South america every turn to reinforce Player B, and Player B controlling player A to place 10 armies in mexico to send to south america every turn..

no one mentioned a complete collusion of the player and would be AI's empires.. merely a sister nation that is the would be AI that is controlled by the player..
Improved AI?: 5/17/2011 08:39:26


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
alright, I just re-read, and X had suggested a complete collusion.. which as i stated before is highly illogical.. I was reading more into the guy with a backwards name
Improved AI?: 5/18/2011 00:06:39


x 
Level 58
Report
I don't see how a player controlling the orders of another player would work.

I think the landlock and meta-bonuses situation described are problems, but they are rare, and I don't see how the current situation is fairer than the one I described.
Improved AI?: 5/18/2011 05:46:48


Perrin3088 
Level 44
Report
X, you can already view another players orders mid-game.. when booted it could be designated a player to take over for them, or the idea for them to be AI with modifiable via the view orders screen... the main problem I could see with another player taking over is if that other player is eliminated.. it could either stall games, or make the taken over player effectively worthless..
Improved AI?: 5/18/2011 06:25:34


x 
Level 58
Report
The order list panel only lets you change the orders moves are made in, or delete moves, so that wouldn't work.
Another problem is that in large maps in real-time games, having to move for two players could put you over the time limit.
I don't understand the final point you made, or who you were adressing.
Improved AI?: 5/18/2011 15:42:11


NoZone 
Level 6
Report
A variation on allowing one of the remaining teammates to take over the booted player's territories could be a random division of the booted player's territories among the remaining teammates, if teams are >2.
Improved AI?: 5/18/2011 15:51:07


x 
Level 58
Report
No, you would lose all the bonuses of the booted player, and it would be a mess.
Unless you mean it would be done by bonuses ... I don't know if that's possible. That would solve the meta-bonus problem at least.
Improved AI?: 5/19/2011 08:49:35


Diabolicus 
Level 58
Report
Of course, still the most elegant solution would be to re-announce the game on the open games tab and allow a substitue human player to take over for the booted player.
Posts 1 - 27 of 27