Underestimate the AI: Reap the consequences.

[Arryn]

Originally posted by Zen:
Don't make me lock a thread

Locking a thread would punish everyone EXCEPT the guilty party (or parties), who will just take their shenanigans to another thread (assuming they hadn't already). Analogy to your solution: a teacher finds two students in a class of thirty throwing things at each other. The teacher locks the door to the room and puts everyone in the class on detention. Not exactly fair to the other twenty-eight kids.

The proper solution is removal of offending Posts, and if that doesn't get the message across, removal of the offenders themselves. Please don't do something heavy-handed (and senseless) like throwing the baby (the thread) out with the dirty bath water (the miscreants).


Respectfully,

Arryn

[Boron]

Originally posted by Arryn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zen:
Don't make me lock a thread

Locking a thread would punish everyone EXCEPT the guilty party (or parties), who will just take their shenanigans to another thread (assuming they hadn't already). Analogy to your solution: a teacher finds two students in a class of thirty throwing things at each other. The teacher locks the door to the room and puts everyone in the class on detention. Not exactly fair to the other twenty-eight kids.

The proper solution is removal of offending Posts, and if that doesn't get the message across, removal of the offenders themselves. Please don't do something heavy-handed (and senseless) like throwing the baby (the thread) out with the dirty bath water (the miscreants).


Respectfully,

Arryn

---

good points and good examples to further strengthen them

A heavy handed approach would be to ban the offending parties Arryn. I am not going to spend my time in moderation of this Board selectiely pruning away certain Posts of certain people (who consistantly post the same things). Maybe with your constant suggestions that I could do things for this board, (such as take extremely poorly worded and antogonistical 'wish lists' and clean them up for developers to take an look at regardless of how they are approached) and community I don't have the time or desire to take it to that personal level.

This is not kindergarden, but if people wish to approach it like kindergarden they will be treated like children. If people can act like mature adults who simply have a difference of opinion (which is most of those who choose to read the Boards) then there would never be a reason to lock a thread based on personal insults and attacks.

But since I don't want to be seen as targeting single individuals particular Posts (Cainehill, Storm, Norfleet, yours) as some sort of vendetta I will allow the poorly worded Posts to stay (until there is a forum software change) and lock threads that people feel the need to taint with their personal venom.

While I respect your opinion of how you think things should be done, I don't have the time to prune, then send PM's, then delete the 'replacement Posts' then the prune the flame Posts for 'singling out' people and other such things. Perhaps if you feel that way, you could try talking to those who constantly barrage us with their immature behavior and get them to treat each other with at least enough respect that they don't feel they need to insult each other at every concievable opportunity.

[PrinzMegaherz]

Originally written by Boron:
[Roll Eyes]

i think here you don't get norfleets point :
i understand it that norfleet means :

the ai can give orders to each unit the whole battle while you can only give indirect orders for the first 5 actions .

under this viewpoint norfleets statement is quite true and even wisely [Big Grin]

so the ai has full control of every unit while you have only really little control for the first few turns if you give orders yourself .

Sorry Boron, but I think Stormbinder is correct.
If no orders are given, Both your units as well as those of your AI enemy will use the same Algorythms to determin what to do. But you can override this for the first five turns which can give you an advantage. The AI obviously can't override itself.

[NTJedi]

Cheezeninja... of course what could have happened is if you placed guards around a few of your commanders in the back. Then when the harpies were set for hold and attack rear the harpies attacked the rear most which were the few guards standing near the commanders.

[Norfleet]

Originally posted by PrinzMegaherz:
If no orders are given, Both your units as well as those of your AI enemy will use the same Algorythms to determin what to do. But you can override this for the first five turns which can give you an advantage. The AI obviously can't override itself.

Unfortunately, this works entirely in his favor, because now the AI is controlling BOTH of your units. Thus, the AI always has full control, and can do whatever it wishes, whereas you can't.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Boron:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Norfleet:
You're missing the point that in this case, the AI still controls its own units. You don't.

LOL. And he is still not geting it. Oh well, since I wouldn't want to continue what some people feel is namecalling, all I can say is: No future comments.

---

i think here you don't get norfleets point :
i understand it that norfleet means :

the ai can give orders to each unit the whole battle while you can only give indirect orders for the first 5 actions .

under this viewpoint norfleets statement is quite true and even wisely

so the ai has full control of every unit while you have only really little control for the first few turns if you give orders yourself .

---

Oh, I understand what Norfleet means very well Boron. It is he who is not able to grasp my explanations.

Norfleet is simply confused by his own terminology. He thinks that because both tactical AI, which is more precisely just an automatic battlefield spell selection algoritm, and Strategic AI - who is your real computer opponent , are both programs and can be both roughly called "AI", that means that they are somehow part of the same evil "computer opponent", who is out there to get him.

As a senior software engineer with background in AI programming, I can tell you that tactical AI and Strategic AI have absolutely nothing to do with each other. "Tactical AI" is just a simple tool, which works exactly the same for all human and computer players, and which can be used by both your and Strategic AI - who is your real opponent.

Botton line is - the tactical battlefield AI do not give any unfair advantage to computer opponents. It works exactly the same for human and computer opponents, and humans have an option to using it from the begining, by switiching mages to "spells", if they choose to. Unlike computer-controlled players though, humans can also scrip first 5 spells manualy, if they choose to. Strategic AI obviosly lack this option, by being, duh, AI.

[ August 02, 2004, 23:37: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]