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

Gandalf Parker · #1 November 11th, 2003, 09:43 PM

Quote:

I have to say though that as the game progresses those %s need to change, and probably heavilly. Especially if there is a good nature/death gem income to create armies with more summons. If that's the case then the poison slingers need to go up along with the poison immune units, while some amount of either blessable or heavy hitters (falchioneers and EWs) are kept around.

I think it would be best if the formulas handled the game progression. Either by using the number of turns as a factor (LI should be 50 - turns) or by having them in the %'s with a clause to ignore it if its not possible.

Such as... If I said HI 20%, undead 20%, Hvy Cavalry 10%, non-undead summons 20%, LI 50% (in that order) then of course thats more than 100%. But early in the game the undead and summons cant be done which would cause LI to be built. If only undead at %5 can be done then the rest would fill in. But even late in the game when it can make ALOT of undead it still wont end up with a completely undead army. My math sucks so Im hoping the concept is clear here. The %'s dont have to add up to 100% if the sequence is considered.

The same could be done for making magic items or casting global spells (probably before unit building). Telling the AI to create something wont matter if it cant afford to create it. As soon as it can afford it, it gets made.

I still think this might be a job for a real-life budget manager to tackle

[ November 11, 2003, 19:44: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

licker · #2 November 11th, 2003, 10:32 PM

I like your suggestion Gandalf, seems more easy to implement than using a ton of if then else structure.

Hopefully once the full game hits we'll have ample time to see if the AI is actually doing things better after turn 40 than it appears they are before. Also there was mention of a patch, so maybe some of the formulae were already tweeked to improve the AI...

Only time (or a dev) will tell

Mortifer · #3 November 12th, 2003, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by licker:
I like your suggestion Gandalf, seems more easy to implement than using a ton of if then else structure.

Hopefully once the full game hits we'll have ample time to see if the AI is actually doing things better after turn 40 than it appears they are before. Also there was mention of a patch, so maybe some of the formulae were already tweeked to improve the AI...

Only time (or a dev) will tell

Yes, but if the early game of the AI is so weak.....anyways wait for the full and we will be wiser.

As for this suggestion by Gandalf. Do you think, that it is a good idea to post deatiles like.. XY would like to see 10% LI, 30% HI etc. in the early game, this and that in the late game....I think this won't work.
Someone have said that the devs will know that what and how. I agree with this. They've scripted the AI, they know the major AI weaknesses now. We've made our suggestions already. Just my 2 cents.

[ November 12, 2003, 08:09: Message edited by: Mortifer ]

Gandalf Parker · #4 November 12th, 2003, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mortifer:
Someone have said that the devs will know that what and how. I agree with this. They've scripted the AI, they know the major AI weaknesses now. We've made our suggestions already. Just my 2 cents.

OK we can back off on the discussions if everyone REALLY feels its left in the Devs hands. But the devs havent said they agree with all of those suggestions.

I thought the people who kept raising the list to the top wanted to pursue the subject along the lines that the devs had mentioned in their response. If the thread keeps jumping up then I will jump back in to discuss things further.

NTJedi · #5 November 12th, 2003, 04:57 PM

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?

Mortifer · #6 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 · #7 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.