Dominions 2. AI. Suggestions, that how to fix it.

Mortifer · #1 November 12th, 2003, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NTJedi:

quote:
Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
If the thread keeps jumping up then I will jump back in to discuss things further.

50% of the recent Posts here are from you jumping back in keeping the thread at the top. I think the devs got what they needed... did you?

Well, IF the devs want us to make detailed examples like what should the AI build, than I will post MY ideas. But those will be my ideas, prolly we all have different opinion about this topic. That is why I've said that details like this are not vital for the devs...IMHO.
I guess they will know how to fix those things from the list. BUT if they really need such details, I will be glad to help in that.

[ November 12, 2003, 15:18: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

licker · #2 November 12th, 2003, 05:17 PM

I don't know if the devs got what they needed or not. Anyway, its silly to just stop the discussion, though you are free to stop reading it if it bothers you for some reason.

What is unknown at this point is how the bug and balance changes will influance the AI's army composition (since that's mainly what we are dealing with here). There's no reason to stop debating what a good army mix should be, even as we hope that the simple fixes (coming in the patch I assume) may have fixed some of these issues.

Besides Gandalf is playing an important role in these discussions, he's challenging everyone who steps in and says 'this isn't good' to give some details on how they would make it better. The more specifics you give the better off the discussion will be. If you arn't interested (or cannot supply) the specifics then don't bother complaining when someone else tries to provide some.

Anyway, we all seem to have faith in the devs, but even they benefit from reading these discussions, as I said, if you don't benefit from it, stop reading it.

Mortifer · #3 November 12th, 2003, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by licker:
I don't know if the devs got what they needed or not. Anyway, its silly to just stop the discussion, though you are free to stop reading it if it bothers you for some reason.

You are right licker...but I hope that you understand my point about this.

{{This is a very complicated thing, thus we all have different ideas. Now if we will post 20 different things, that surely won't help.}}
Hm however it won't cause any probs at all, so yes why not..

licker · #4 November 12th, 2003, 05:40 PM

I wasn't actually replying to your post Mortifer

It just got in the way, that's all

I think all of this discussion is worthwhile and interesting. If the devs agree, great, if they don't... it's still not hurting anything, and some of us can read between the lines and improve our own games from this discussion

LordArioch · #5 November 12th, 2003, 06:22 PM

I'd advise testing the AI on different difficulty levels. The easiest game I had against the AI was against all impossibles, about default settings. I personally defeated 2 ai players by turn 20, which is unheard of by me on even normal difficulty. Admittedly jotunheim with a blade wind casting pretender didn't hurt...but even so.

Gandalf Parker · #6 November 12th, 2003, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
The AI is not cheating on normal level. At higher levels it gets more design points and earns more money. Thats about it.

I got an idea regarding AI dependancy on LI when I was away. Vacations are 'foyson' for the mind.

Regarding fort construction. I'm not sure how the AI works, but where would you build a fortress? Consider fort type, nation, geography, income, resources etc.

What is the most important matter? How should they be weighted? How much shall current wars affect the spending of time and money. What army should build the fortress?

I wouldn't mind a numerical evaluation of this such as:
Castle cost / 2 < Income + res + gem income x 25 + neighbors x 5
Add a couple of other conditions.

Just to make you think. Eventually it might result in something good.

What I saw when I dove in here strongly was a series of Posts putting the list back up to the top of the thread. My efforts were trying to get things back into the track requested by the devs in responses in this thread.

We can tackle any of the things that are on the wish list of this thread but the goal should be to give testable examples and suggested formulas. Im not one to jump on people for saying "its broke" and not helping out. But saying its broke over and over doesnt do much.

Shall we continue work discussing army formulas or shift to something else on the list?

Gandalf Parker · #7 November 12th, 2003, 06:41 PM

I'd advise testing the AI on different difficulty levels. The easiest game I had against the AI was against all impossibles, about default settings. I personally defeated 2 ai players by turn 20, which is unheard of by me on even normal difficulty. Admittedly jotunheim with a blade wind casting pretender didn't hurt...but even so. [/quote]

That is part of the problem. Telling the AI to build armies a certain way only works best for certain settings. The AI now seems to do best when the game is set at independents 5 or 6. I usually set it at 7. The AI then seems to properly seek expansion with mass troops, then builds decent armies when it can afford to, then work on magic.

Indeps set at 3 (the default) tends to create a "rush game" but the AI set on difficult makes it think its in for a long hard game. The harder AIs definetly perform better in harder games.

I havent tested it but Im rather curious if the easy AI might not actually do better in a low indep game than the hard AI does.