Gameplay variety aside, that's only true if you assume the scoring system is perfect. In case of top choice at 100 and 2nd choice at 99 due to a slight mis-scoring, weighted random choice would still have 49.5% chance of taking the actual better option, rather than a 100% chance of picking the worse option.No. It's better to get $10 instead of $1 100% of times, than 90% of times.
there are plenty of subpar policy choice cause of no randomness. imagine siam progress, or authority carthage with their boats.No. It's better to get $10 instead of $1 100% of times, than 90% of times.
I think this would fun to try, at least briefly. Partially because the scoring system isn't perfect, but also because it would cause variety.Should we be instead adding randomized choices to deity AI?
Ok, that makes sense. Still how could the scoring system be improved if it's flawed?Gameplay variety aside, that's only true if you assume the scoring system is perfect. In case of top choice at 100 and 2nd choice at 99 due to a slight mis-scoring, weighted random choice would still have 49.5% chance of taking the actual better option, rather than a 100% chance of picking the worse option.
Secondly it makes AI very predictable/railroaded into the same pattern, thus it's actually harder to judge if the scoring is good enough (since you can only see 1 out come every time in the same situation). If there're multiple outcomes you can at least deduce how the AI scored specific options based on their weight, and you can match it with your own experience to know if that scoring is good enough or not to adjust accordingly. Having AI only pick the top options you will never know if the 2nd choice is 99 vs 100 or 10 vs 100.
And lastly, gameplay variety.
So it's like AI would make a good choice by an accident. If getting the Oracle is that good than maybe AI scores this tech too low.It also means there are AI who waste hammers not getting the Oracle. There is easily a situation where a random fluctuation to Drama before Philosophy not only hurts the player, but could help the AI, because now they get a wonder, where as before they would have missed it.
You don't need to change the whole system, just adjust the scores for each elements that contributed to the score of each options. Balance patches happen frequently, thus those scores should also get adjust accordingly. The system itself is working fine.Ok, that makes sense. Still how could the scoring system be improved if it's flawed?
Yeah, I didn't mean to change the whole system, only tweak it, so it's less flawed.You don't need to change the whole system, just adjust the scores for each elements that contributed to the score of each options. Balance patches happen frequently, thus those scores should also get adjust accordingly. The system itself is working fine.
I think this would fun to try, at least briefly. Partially because the scoring system isn't perfect, but also because it would cause variety.
A good example is that Oracle almost always gets built before Parthenon on Deity. This makes the parthenon a very safe choice for the player.
It also means there are AI who waste hammers not getting the Oracle. There is easily a situation where a random fluctuation to Drama before Philosophy not only hurts the player, but could help the AI, because now they get a wonder, where as before they would have missed it.
No, its because the more AI choose tech X, the better tech Y becomes. So by forcing all the AI to always do the same thing, an imbalance is created. On Deity it isn't uncommon for 7 AI to enter industrial era through the exact same tech, its very exploitable. I'm very confident that more randomization would make Deity harder, not easier.So it's like AI would make a good choice by an accident. If getting the Oracle is that good than maybe AI scores this tech too low.
No, its because the more AI choose tech X, the better tech Y becomes. So by forcing all the AI to always do the same thing, an imbalance is created. On Deity it isn't uncommon for 7 AI to enter industrial era through the exact same tech, its very exploitable. I'm very confident that more randomization would make Deity harder, not easier.
There was the very good example posted before where sometimes they will assess two things, thing A scores 600, thing B scores 595. Should they always choose thing A? If people are really worried about the AI taking odd social policies, what if we just add randomization for everything but social policies?
But it can be an issue with lack of randomization though.This is more of an issue with that particular tech's scoring then the lack of randomization. Scoring is/should be influenced by policies, pursued victory type, leader flavors etc. When taken together it should be very rare for 7 (I assume on the Standard size, so all?) AIs to have the same tech as the top scoring option. If that happens, that's an issue which we realize thanks to the lack of randomization and needs to be addressed.
Again, it's a misconception that the lack of randomization will railroad all AIs to choose the same thing, top scoring option for different AIs will/should be different depending on AIs status, needs and policies even without randomization.
Yes, in some cases - but it allows us to observe the problems and improve on them.dang, should have vetoed this. i kind of assumed you had given up on it
always picking the "top" choice even when there are multiple option with a similar score makes the AI worse. not better.
Devs. Whoever made improvements to scoring so far, probably. Is that a tricky question?so who will implement all those magical scoring improvements which likely will have side effects?