Would people actually be interested in a Civ4 SGOTM?Methos said:Ok, dont even be joking about that! Ive been hoping they would start up a CivIV SGOTM ever since IVOTM came out.
Would people actually be interested in a Civ4 SGOTM?Methos said:Ok, dont even be joking about that! Ive been hoping they would start up a CivIV SGOTM ever since IVOTM came out.
Gyathaar said:Would people actually be interested in a Civ4 SGOTM?
You are vastly overestimating the abilities of this AI. And vastly underestimating just how much more simplistic chess is than CivIV.The best example is a simple game like Chessmaster. The computer knows more about chess than you, and will beat you every single time if you let it. The difficulty settings allow the computer more time to think of a move. On the easiest level, the computer only gets time to evaluate about 35 different moves, and takes the best one. On the most challenging (and not actually possible to beat) level, the computer looks at every possible game outcome from every possible move, and chooses the move that gives him the best chances to win, negating anything you might try to do.
CB Droege said:There are many games that make the AI 'smarter' (read: gives the AI more strategic options or allows the AI more time to discover strategies)
The best example is a simple game like Chessmaster. The computer knows more about chess than you, and will beat you every single time if you let it. The difficulty settings allow the computer more time to think of a move. On the easiest level, the computer only gets time to evaluate about 35 different moves, and takes the best one. On the most challenging (and not actually possible to beat) level, the computer looks at every possible game outcome from every possible move, and chooses the move that gives him the best chances to win, negating anything you might try to do.
CB Droege said:Playing against an AI like that is educational, and helps you improve your game. Another example (that is more like Civ) that uses smarter AIs is the Age of Empires franchise. The higher difficulties do not have to give the AIs and advantage, they only open up new strategies for the AI to use and make the AI more agressive. Again, this is an AI that you can learn from when you lose.
LulThyme said:Not this again...
This comes back everytime, with the comparison with chess.
It's not the same.
Let's be clear.
If the best AI programmers in th world took 6 months to program a static AI for civ (meaning once its programmed, it doesnt change, even if it has some randomness in its decision process, the actual process doesnt change), it would still get TRASHED in a fair fight against a good human of the 'net community after maybe a few weeks of understanding the changes...
Anybody comparing civ to chess doesn't really understand how a chess AI works and how the same process applied to civ would fail miserably.
CB Droege said:RTS AIs are never made to 'cheat', like Civ AIs are.
CB Droege said:If I enjoy running a good footrace, but I always win and want a greater challenge, what I want is to compete against a better runner.
I would not have fun if my 'greater challenge' was simply the same poor runner with a 15 meter head start
It may not be possible to find a better runner, but that's still what I want, and I would rather win everytime against the poor runners, than give any of them a head start.
CB Droege said:If you want a greater challenge in Civ, it can be found in the settings, or in personal goals (my original exam[ple of a Duel sized world with 18 civs and 'diplomatic victory' the only possible win is very tough (even on noble, yes)) you could, for example, try to win by twice as many points as the second place civ, or you could try to get the space race victory a hundred years earlier. These are all ways of making the game tougher without making it unfair...
I wasn't moaning about you?whb said:I find it strange that you moan about my contrasting the game with chess (actually in response to CB Droege bringing up the comparison), and then make exactly the same point I did about why it is different from chess and why a chess-like AI is not suitable.
CB Droege said:He couldn't be talking about me... I do understand how a chess AI works, and I still stand by all of my points (even though you all seem to have missed the biggest point I was making).
Besides, You colectively talked me into playing the GOTM despite prince, and I was right, it wasn't fun. I gave it a real changce, I even enjoyed it for a few turns, but when I was slaughterd, I knew that it was only because the computer was given the advantage, not because it played a better game.
Whether or not it is technically possible to make the AI play a better game is entirely irrelevant to my points. My discussion in that realm was completely hypothetical.
Also, WarCraft 2 was the last game to really have the 'infinite mouse pointers' issue with the AI. Developers are aware of the issue, and have since built limits into the AI which address that problem. My comparison still stands:
RTS AIs are never made to 'cheat', like Civ AIs are.
I'm not trying to start an RTS is better than turn-based argument... I prefer turn-based games myself. I'm just tryint to say that I do not have the ability to have fun against a cheating AI, and I feel that this is not a flaw in myself, but a flaw in the game that only bothers a few fairness-oriented people.
This might be a better analogy than discussing chess and RTS and stuff.
If I enjoy running a good footrace, but I always win and want a greater challenge, what I want is to compete against a better runner.
I would not have fun if my 'greater challenge' was simply the same poor runner with a 15 meter head start
It may not be possible to find a better runner, but that's still what I want, and I would rather win everytime against the poor runners, than give any of them a head start.
The contest is meaningless if it is not fair.
If you want a greater challenge in Civ, it can be found in the settings, or in personal goals (my original exam[ple of a Duel sized world with 18 civs and 'diplomatic victory' the only possible win is very tough (even on noble, yes)) you could, for example, try to win by twice as many points as the second place civ, or you could try to get the space race victory a hundred years earlier. These are all ways of making the game tougher without making it unfair...
CB Droege said:... but when I was slaughterd, I knew that it was only because the computer was given the advantage, not because it played a better game. ...
Judging from:CB Droege said:He couldn't be talking about me... I do understand how a chess AI works, and I still stand by all of my points (even though you all seem to have missed the biggest point I was making).
But like most games, a good player can quickly get beyond the ability of the best RTS AIs (on a level playing field), and often beyond the ability of multiple AIs teamed up against him. In every computer wargame I've ever played, be it turn based or real time, the games are challenging at first, and then eventually become utterly trivial at anywhere near a level playing field.The higher difficulties do not have to give the AIs and advantage, they only open up new strategies for the AI to use and make the AI more agressive. Again, this is an AI that you can learn from when you lose.
Getting back to CIV -- think of it this way: if Noble was a fair challenge, you ought to be losing 86% of your games against 6 AIs.Besides, You colectively talked me into playing the GOTM despite prince, and I was right, it wasn't fun. I gave it a real changce, I even enjoyed it for a few turns, but when I was slaughterd, I knew that it was only because the computer was given the advantage, not because it played a better game.
AlanH said:We have recently invited GOTM-AI to play some of the Civ3 Conquests games, taking the human role, and you can find his posts in the recent COTM spoilers.
CB Droege said:Would you be willing to play against a group of humans who all got their productions costs halved? poly not. It wouldn't be fun.