Dammit

[Evil Dave]

Arryn said:

They also desperately need someone with experience in AI (preferably neural-net AI). Of course, people with experience in AI are in severely short supply in the entire gaming industry. It's just that the games that most need good AI (ie: strategy games) are often the ones with the worst AIs. Probably has something to do with the genre's popularity and typical budgets.

When I'm not playing Dom2, I spend my time thinking about data mining and machine learning. (Yeah, it's my job.) So, I'm curious what you mean.

When you say "AI", you do mean "machine learning systems" or "decent software to play games"?

Why do you think neural nets would play Dom2 well? I work with a neural net guru, and the problems he takes on are far simpler than playing Dom2.

I agree folks who write games don't know a lot about how to get software to play them, but I'm not sure the problem is just lack of money. The problem is hard. Or at least, I think the company I work for would pay could good money for any software that could play Dom2 well, cause it could do lots of other hard things well, too.

[magnate]

Cainehill said:
You didn't use a smiley. And you're bloody stupid if you think or expect that people can tell when you're trying to be jocular in a pure text medium when you _don't_ use emoticons or some other means to display the mood in which something was written.

This is a longtime problem with the internet and text mediums. Intelligent people, and even rutabagas if they're been on the net long enough, figured this out and use things like " " or " <sarcasm> ... </sarcasm> " or whatnot.

You don't have the clues of tone of voice, of body language, and usually not even the benefit of some knowledge of the other person.

And you posted a one liner that was at least as easily interpretted as sarcasm or bitterness than good natured humor / joking.

That's ... not particularly bright. And even worse is your response of indignity because someone didn't have the telepathy to know how you meant it!

Oh - that'll be five pounds for the tutoring in basic communications theory 101. <img src="http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif" alt="" />

Hello Cainehill - nice essay. I think you undervalue the power of language though. I don't think my one-line post was easily interpreted "as sarcasm or bitterness", unless I seriously overestimated my audience. So far you and Arryn seem to be the only people who misinterpreted it. I'm not saying emoticons aren't useful - they are indeed, and they can be fun - but they're not mandatory, except for the linguistically challenged. As you probably know, a large proportion of humour arises from ambiguity, and that's lost if you use a smiley.

Besides, my indignity was not actually at Arryn's misinterpretation, but at the nasty and supercilious tone of her reply. Even if I had meant it seriously (which would have been a little sad), it would not have warranted such an unpleasant response.

Cainehill said:

Oh, Goddess forbid that anyone use what someone wrote against them! Maybe you'd prefer that they editting your words, misattributed who said what, and used subtle innuendo in conjunction with the words that you didn't exactly say?

I'm also curious how Arryn used what you wrote out of context. After all - it _was_ just a one line sentence of a post. <img src="http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif" alt="" /> Hard to use that out of context.

No of course it's better to quote people than to edit or misattribute - but if you deliberately change the context, that's still as bad even if you quote verbatim. I wasn't referring to Arryn's quoting of me in that particular instance, it was a more general observation after reading her Posts for several months, and a specific reference to her recent dispute with Pickles in another thread. But since I didn't bother to spell that out, I wasn't expecting anyone to know that telepathically ....

CC

[magnate]

Kristoffer O said:

There is nothing that distinguishes a SC from any other commander. Commanders rout when their armies rout. Mages and commanders rarely can stand up to an army by themselves. Therefore commanders follow their routing armies.

SC's are exceptions in that you want them to fight on. The categorization of a SC is highly subjective. Is a Banelord an SC? Is a Banelord with a wraith sword an SC? Is your Wight mage with a wraith sword an SC? The Lamia queen with a wraith sword and an active astral shield might well work as a SC, but you would never want your pretender arch mage with the same equipment to fight on when the enemy army has beaten your troops.

The rout rules allows an exeption to lone commanders. Therefore SC's and pretender monsters can conquer provinces by themselves, but if they follow and lead armies they are subject to the normal routing rules.

There are other reasons as well. Do you want me to elaborate or is this OK for now? (I almost fell in the teacher trap and asked you to come up with two other reasons the rout works as it does <img src="http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif" alt="" /> )

Thanks v much for the response - I'm clear on the current design. First of all, I was never recommending that any special or different rules be applied to SCs, for the very reason that you give - it's impossible to define what's an SC and what isn't.

If I've understood correctly, the main reason for commanders routing when armies rout is that in most cases they'd get slaughtered if they hung around. That's perfectly logical in a normal wargame. But as someone said in another thread (it may even have been Norfleet), this game is about big badass monsters - there's a whole game mechanic (the HoF) dedicated to encouraging their use.

So, if in a decent proportion of cases there is at least one commander who wouldn't get slaughtered just because the troops have routed, and may well go on to win the battle by himself or with mage support, I think it's fair to ask whether the current system is doing what you want for the game? As someone else has said (Sly Frog I think), this mechanic causes players to learn non-obvious tactics to work around it.

What this interesting but very varied discussion is revealing (in between people posting about their favorite games), is that there would be consequences to changing the auto-rout to a morale check. Someone said it would make SCs more powerful by allowing them to take chaff along - well yes I guess so, but that's both intuitive and realistic in a RP sense. Boron said it would make mages more powerful, which I still don't understand. Someone else said it would endanger low-hp pretenders and prophets because they have 30 morale, which I confess I hadn't considered ... but surely the sheer number of hps you have remaining could be factored into morale checks, as well as % lost.

Anyway, thanks again for chipping in - I appreciate that thought was put in to the current system (not for a moment did I think otherwise!), but I'm still not quite convinced that it wouldn't be better (as well as more intuitive) to change it to a morale check. Yes, people would occasionally see their foolhardy low-hp commanders killed by hanging around, but I think if the morale check mechanism is sensitive enough, the difference between 10 and 30 will eliminate most of those cases. Yes, you'd have to be very careful with pretenders and prophets!

I ought to thank you for writing what may well be my favourite game ever, but since I managed to install it at work my life has gone downhill in a big way. I never have time to get anything done any more!

CC

[Arryn]

magnate said:
I don't think my one-line post was easily interpreted "as sarcasm or bitterness"

Actually, that's precisely the impression I got from it. Cainehill has pretty much said everything else I could say about it, so I'll leave it at that.

magnate said:
I'm not saying emoticons aren't useful - they are indeed, and they can be fun - but they're not mandatory, except for the linguistically challenged.

You must not do very much reading of novels in real life, because if you did, you'd understand Cainehill's point about your having omitted any clues as to tone, et cetera. Writers of novels are much more descriptive so that the "body language" which you left out is presented to readers so that they can get a proper rendering of the situation as the author intended for it to be. Leaving out such clues has nothing to do with whether the reader is "linguistically challenged", and has everything to do with whether you have an understanding of the communications medium, its limitations, and if you really care about how your message is received. A skilled writer takes responsibility for making sure that the reader does not need to be psychic in order to correctly interpret a message. Alas, far too many people nowadays fail to understand the concept of taking responsibility for their own actions (or lack of action).

So, if you write a post that could be (mis)interpreted as flamebait, you should not be surprised or indignant if the response you get is ... a flame. Remember the old (and tired) adage about sowing and reaping, and the other one about casting of stones.

[magnate]

Arryn said:
So, if you write a post that could be (mis)interpreted as flamebait, you should not be surprised or indignant if the response you get is ... a flame. Remember the old (and tired) adage about sowing and reaping, and the other one about casting of stones.

I do read a lot of novels in real life and am well aware of the advantages of descriptive prose. We'll have to agree to disagree about the linguistics - I don't believe that my post was in any way complicated or nuanced (and therefore in need of clarification), it was simply and deliberately ambiguous, because I thought that would make it funnier.

Interestingly you have neglected to comment on my most significant point, which is that even if you had correctly interpreted my post as serious, your response was unnecessarily unpleasant. A simple statement of your differing viewpoint, that you didn't think it was actually at all important, would have sufficed without opening hostilities.

CC

[Arryn]

magnate said:
I don't believe that my post was in any way complicated or nuanced (and therefore in need of clarification), it was simply and deliberately ambiguous, because I thought that would make it funnier.

There can be a great deal of "nuance" in ambiguity. You cannot argue that you were being vague in order to promote inference (and multiple possible interpretations) and then protest innocence of intent of nuance. You cannot have it both ways.

By way of an analogy to your actions, why don't you try your technique of deliberate ambiguity in a pub sometime, and see how "funny" it might be? Walk over to a stranger (preferably an inebriated and muscular dock worker), spit on the floor vaguely (ambiguously) near to them, and then observe whether their reaction to you is positive (or, most likely, not). Perhaps your idea of humor is getting punched in the face and sent to the nearest hospital. Some people have an odd sense of humor.

magnate said:
Interestingly you have neglected to comment on my most significant point, which is that even if you had correctly interpreted my post as serious, your response was unnecessarily unpleasant. A simple statement of your differing viewpoint, that you didn't think it was actually at all important, would have sufficed without opening hostilities.

What you find "significant" may not be what others do.

It *was* a "simple statement of a differing viewpoint". I said the discussion of the topic was a waste of time (and I even explained why, just so you needn't be psychic), and I contradicted your allegedly humorous one-liner regarding your feeling that the thread's topic was "important". That apparently offended your tender sensibilities (was "unnecessarily unpleasant" as you put it). It was you who chose to "open hostilities", and to twist *my* words. You chose to put words into my mouth I did not say, and to misconstrue what I did say. Shall I quote the text of your various personal attacks? Or will you choose to berate me (again) for quoting your own words, which you find inconvenient to have pointed out to you? If you don't like someone quoting your words back to you, you should be more careful of what you say.

[magnate]

Arryn said:

There can be a great deal of "nuance" in ambiguity. You cannot argue that you were being vague in order to promote inference (and multiple possible interpretations) and then protest innocence of intent of nuance. You cannot have it both ways.

We're talking about very minor changes (or not) to a superb and complex piece of software, which is a hobby we all pursue in our spare time. It genuinely did not occur to me that anybody would think that the word "important" could seriously be used to describe anything in this thread, which is what I meant by lack of nuance. In that sense it was obvious. The ambiguity was simply the absence of a smiley. I don't think I am trying to have it both ways, though your argument is phrased well.

[snips painfully stereotypical and thoroughly un-illuminating analogy about dockers]

Arryn said:
What you find "significant" may not be what others do.

It *was* a "simple statement of a differing viewpoint". I said the discussion of the topic was a waste of time (and I even explained why, just so you needn't be psychic), and I contradicted your allegedly humorous one-liner regarding your feeling that the thread's topic was "important". That apparently offended your tender sensibilities (was "unnecessarily unpleasant" as you put it). It was you who chose to "open hostilities", and to twist *my* words. You chose to put words into my mouth I did not say, and to misconstrue what I did say. Shall I quote the text of your various personal attacks? Or will you choose to berate me (again) for quoting your own words, which you find inconvenient to have pointed out to you? If you don't like someone quoting your words back to you, you should be more careful of what you say.

Here we have a simple difference of opinion. You believe that your response to my one-liner was completely inoffensive, and that I took offence completely erroneously and chose to open hostilities. My view is that your response was unpleasant and hostile, and that I merely responded in kind. For the benefit of other people's bandwidth, we should perhaps leave it there.

CC

[Arryn]

magnate said:
We're talking about very minor changes (or not) to a superb and complex piece of software, which is a hobby we all pursue in our spare time.

Well said, especially the praise, but I disagree with your belief that the changes might be minor. And I especially disagree that even if they were, the devs should (much less would) do anything about it. But that gets into rehashing what's already been said (and said again, and again, and again).

magnate said:
It genuinely did not occur to me that anybody would think that the word "important" could seriously be used to describe anything in this thread, which is what I meant by lack of nuance. In that sense it was obvious. The ambiguity was simply the absence of a smiley. I don't think I am trying to have it both ways, though your argument is phrased well.

Thank you. And I'll accept what you say regarding the (mis)interpretation of your use of "important". Which goes back to mine (and Cainehill's) point regarding how one's intentions can be easily misconstrued if one isn't very careful with how one goes about communicating one's thoughts. But we've beaten this horse bloody and I think we are in some reasonable approximation of agreement that there's been plenty of error and blame on both of our parts that we can call it even and let it go.

magnate said:
[snips painfully stereotypical and thoroughly un-illuminating analogy about dockers]

Hey! Where's *your* sense of humor?

magnate said:
For the benefit of other people's bandwidth, we should perhaps leave it there.

Agreed.

[Cainehill]

I notice that for all the talk of salient points being ignored, none of the proponents of Panther's "new and improved" morale system (where commanders simply make a morale check when a troop of soldiers routs) has responded to my pointing out that this would be totally broken, because _all_ pretenders and prophets (morale 30) would stay and be slaughtered, even with a mere 10 or less base hit points.

[Arryn]

Cainehill said:
none of the proponents of Panther's "new and improved" morale system (where commanders simply make a morale check when a troop of soldiers routs) has responded to my pointing out that this would be totally broken, because _all_ pretenders and prophets (morale 30) would stay and be slaughtered, even with a mere 10 or less base hit points.

In order for such a system to work, the devs would also have to implement the capability for additional orders, such as "retreat if no troops remain under my command", or "retreat if no friendly troops remain on the battlefield", etc. In short, the changes need to be much more involved than the simplistic ideas that have been proposed thus far. IMO.

A partial "fix" is much worse than leaving things well enough alone. Let's not go and break one thing trying to fix another.