My Final Verdict (until the next patch, that is...)

Kodos · #1 December 3rd, 2000, 03:11 AM

Personally, I can live without Multi-player. (I just think games 4X games like SEIV are too big and long to work that route).

On the other hand, I also think the criticisms of the AI are spot on! The same behavior (or lack thereof) I commented on in the demo still seem to be in place with the full Version: Races that are described as Xenophobic or Psychotic and supposedly "never make treaties" (direct quote from race description), come begging for alliances a few turns after I encounter them. And they never seem to break them or get PO'd at my actions: When I took to blowing up one supposedly Violent race's ships via Intel Ops, all said race ever did in retaliation was send a strongly worded note!

I don't want a MOO2 clone (as some people around here seem to), but I would like to see some distinct personality traits instilled into the AI races. Or, at least, a little agression!

Talenn · #2 December 3rd, 2000, 07:38 AM

From what I can tell, the 'personality type' of the AIs are immaterial. A 'Berserk Psychotic' acts no differently than a 'Serene Engineer'. This is because they share the same 'Angry file' and the same 'Politics file' as well as the same 'Speech' file.

The game data is set up so that each race can have its own files, but at present, they dont. They seem to all use the default...hence VERY flat personalities. I'm tweaking it for my data, but with no info on what the files MEAN, its trial and error. Its very time consuming.

Also, I can manage to get it to be hostile towards the players, but there seems to be way to instigate it to INITIATE attacks. I've seen it happen occasionally, but more often than not, it sits idly by and is squashed piecemeal.

I think the only things needed are:

1) to flesh out the files for each race, so that they are distinctive.

2) to make the AI in general (and ESPECIALLY the 'aggressive' types) more likely to pick fights with the other players.

3) to have the AI engage in 'punitive' raids and raids bent on economic destruction. I'd like to see it seen fleets (not individual ships like I see now more often than not) in the opponent's backfield and laying waste to their colonies.

If the AI was simply forcing the players to REACT instead of act, its other flaws would be greatly diminshed or at least not as noticable. If anyone else has played SSI's Imperialism II, you know just how unpleasant the AIs can be. They dont cheat, but they do know how to kick you when you are down!

All in all, it just seems like it just needs some more time invested in the AI dept. Now that I think the 'mechanics' of the game are fairly stable, MM should be able to begin working on the 'flavor' a bit more. I hope so as its the only thing really missing from an otherwise great game.

If anyone is interested in experimenting with the AI, I'm more than willing to test.

Talenn

Voidhawk · #3 December 3rd, 2000, 09:25 AM

I think you've got it nailed down, Talenn. I've been perusing the AI texts and what you say seems to be the case. I think perhaps a little too much emphasis was placed on the player's ability to customize the AI and not enough on basic hard-coded AI behavior. If you're able to do anything significant with it, let me know! I'd love to beta for you

.

Richard: Thanks for the tip, I'll do just that. As far as the AI being pretty good, I'll admit that it does perform basic strategic tasks well enough. I also understand that AI algorithms for 4x games are probably some of the hardest to code convincingly. However, there are many fundamental features lacking. The destruction/takeover of an AI homeworld for example (instead of invoking a good measure of irrevocable AI hatred against the offending player), merely takes the current AI's diplomatic stance down a couple of notches. This is only one of the more glaring issues I've come across, but I'll save the rest for my e-mail

.

Kodos: Sure, I could easily overlook the lack of multiplayer features... with a more challenging AI element. I'd vote for getting the AI up to snuff BEFORE working on the multiplayer anyday.

Trancejeremy: I have to strongly disagree. There are many popular turn-based games of "epic" proportions that have thrived via the Online gaming community. SSG's Warlords series and multiplayer Civilization/Civ2 Gold are two that pop into mind. Also, I have a 5-workstation LAN in my home and I would be (almost) ashamed to admit how many countless hours have been spent with friends playing "live" turn-based strat games

. Allowing the host to save the game when everyone decides to call it a night and continue at a later time is an easy workaround for the lucky people who have "lives" to get back to. Myself, I'd be more than willing to spend an all-nighter or three on SEIV with some good human competition

. I'm guessing I'm not the only one.

Reading through these Posts and learning of MM's awesome reputation for customer satisfaction, I'm confident they'll come through with some better AI. Turn-based gamers tend to be a patient lot, and I'm certainly no exception.

Jubala · #4 December 4th, 2000, 02:29 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Voidhawk:
Myself, I'd be more than willing to spend an all-nighter or three on SEIV with some good human competition . I'm guessing I'm not the only one.

You're damn right about that. You're not the only one. SEIV would be a perfect game to play over the dorm network at univ (a very big network with all dorms connected

) or back home with my friends on our LAN. Lugging around a bunch of computers and setting up a LAN at someones house for a weekend of gaming is not unheard of. Quite common actually.

seldon99 · #5 December 4th, 2000, 05:27 AM

I agree with the original poster, this game has everything except the most important element: competition.

There is so much to like about this game it is a really pity that the AI is so inept.

My first real game (I played the demo once) I made maximum difficulty for the computer (I guess I could give the CP advantages) and proceeded to play. Now being very unfamiliar with the technologies, and the mechanics I made a lot of mistakes.

However, by turn 90 I had almost 3x the points of the nearest computer player. Every turn all of the computer wanted to be my ally. I never attack a CP and they never attacked me.

I was getting very bored and was curious about the new tech. So I proceeded to build research center and for the next 60 turns I just simply clicked on the next button. I didn't move a single ship, at the end of the period. I was still beating the computer players by a wide margin. There were plenty of undefended colonies for the computer to attack and at least one empire had the same environment I had. You'd think that the AI would prioritize attacking a Huge
world with good resources and the right atmosphere. I don't think a 10 small satellites would stop a determined attack!

Tampa_Gamer · #6 December 5th, 2000, 02:53 AM

I also agree with the original poster. I did some extensive research over the weekend into the AI files and how they are interacting with my ver 1.00 mod. I am in the process of cleaning up my notes and putting them into my "SE4 Anaylsis.xls" spreadsheet that I posted on the scenario/mod board two weeks ago. I plan to update this spreadsheet as I find out more. One of the more interesting facts is that the AI_Research files for many races does not research a tremendous amount of items that human players would not do without. Perhaps this is b/c the existing AI hard code cannot handle some decisions??? Anyway, it would be helpful for everyone to compare notes on how/what they are specifically tweaking in the AI files even if it is just a readme.txt file posted.

Mephisto · #7 December 4th, 2000, 03:35 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Tampa_Gamer:
One of the more interesting facts is that the AI_Research files for many races does not research a tremendous amount of items that human players would not do without. Perhaps this is b/c the existing AI hard code cannot handle some decisions??? Anyway, it would be helpful for everyone to compare notes on how/what they are specifically tweaking in the AI files even if it is just a readme.txt file posted.

You are absolutely right. I have looked into the files too and have found "bugs" i could not believe.
Ever wondered why the AI does not use Quantum Reactors, more PDCs, ECM, ECCM and the like?
Well, its simple. The AI constructs a ship "down" a list, item for item, and at the end fills up left space with the first weapon choice. But the placement rates for weapons, shields and armor is so high that there isn't any space left for quantum reactors and the like. I have modified my files just a little bit and now the AI uses all the available systems.

Another BIG "bug" is the inability of the AI to research and build planet condition improvement plants like the atmosphere converter. The AI builds facilities till the planet is full. It does make upgrades, but it never tears something down. As the improvement facilities are only developed later in the game, the AI will not use them BECAUSE THE PLANET IS ALREADY FULL! The AI should look after its planets once on a while an scrap some buildings to build atmosphere. converters. When the AI is doing this it only has to check if the atmosphere is already the desired one so not to build a converter or to scrap the old one. The AI already does something very similar with system wide facilities like space ports.

Philipp