Underestimate the AI: Reap the consequences.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Cainehill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arryn:

quote:

---

Originally posted by pinko commie:
[qb]but there is no need for name-calling and flaming, is there?

Stormy and Norfy have a 'history' of mutual ... antagonism. I'm afraid that any calls for reason, calm, and restraint will fall upon deaf ears.

---

Stormy has a history of hypocrisy as well, demanding as a condition of my joining his game that I swear to stop flaming him, while obviously never passing up any opportunity to nail Norf.

---

That's not entirely correct, as we both know. The first condition I requested was that you would not start any flame wars in our game thread agaist any fellow players, incuding Cohen, whom you never pass opportunity to flame, just like I do with Norfleet. So I would be carefull in your place with accusations of hypocricy. As I said, I have no desire to see another game thread with you in it to desintigrate into nasty flamewar. I think you understand my position.

On topic : Am I the only one who wishes that the phantom AI wouldn't decide that unscripted B1 sages should ... charge the attacking barbarian horde?

Just change them "holdx5"+"stay behind" or "retreat", while positioning them far int he back. Or give them blood+1 item so they would have *something* to cast, even when they don't have any bloodslaves.

But yes, perhaps it would be nice if any mages who don't have any efficient spells to cast, would just hold thier spot, instead of switihing to "stay behind" routine. Or maybe if devs would add "stay in your position" order to the script commands. I hate seeing my archers charging after they run out of arrows as well and geting slaugtered.

[ August 02, 2004, 21:08: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

Alright, I've had enough of the Storm/Norf jabs. It seems with my recent allowance of people to express their opinion, that certain parties feel they need to get back on their very tired and dead horse.

Don't make me lock a thread just because two of you can't take your bluster and brawl to the playground and have to bring it here.

Hint taken?

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Cheezeninja:
well in any event, be it a lucky attack rear that laid me low, or an actual Dom1 order, i think it should stay. Its good to be surprised by the AI every now and then and i dont mind that at all.

Agreed.

[Stormbinder]

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.

[ August 02, 2004, 21:59: Message edited by: Stormbinder ]

[Boron]

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 .

[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.