Programmed Irritation

[Buttercup]

Lol!

 

[timerover51]

timerover51

Excellent analysis. I agree 100%. But I think we might be straying a little too far from Buttercup's thread subject, so it might be a good idea to continue this on the Age of Sail questions thread in the Creation & Customization section? I've seen the mangled remains by the side of the highway of those who had annoyed Buttercup before.

You are correct, Scratchthepitch, we have strayed a bit fair from the original intent of the thread.

Probably the most irritating thing about the whole argument is that it is not possible to resolve it one way or another, as we cannot access the source code. Given that several members and groups on the forum have approached Firaxis about buying or in some way getting access to it, with notable lack of success, that will not occur.

 

[scratchthepitch]

It would be nice to have the source code for modding. Really nice.

 

[Elephantium]

timerover51

Excellent analysis. I agree 100%. But I think we might be straying a little too far from Buttercup's thread subject, so it might be a good idea to continue this on the Age of Sail questions thread in the Creation & Customization section? I've seen the mangled remains by the side of the highway of those who had annoyed Buttercup before.

Or perhaps...those who have Irritated Buttercup before?

 

[vorlon_mi]

It appears that I may have misunderstood the OP and main point of the thread.

First, the word irritation (or "Irritation") carries a negative connotation for me. If it carries a smaller negative connotation for Buttercup, then fine. I'm starting from the wrong basis.

Next, an example from statistics. A null hypothesis is something which you posit, or assume, and then set out to prove or disprove with testing. I think I may have mis-characterized Buttercup's null hypothesis.

Consider the difference between the following statements:
1a) The AI take actions that don't have any strategic value for themselves, but serve to annoy/irritate the human player.
1b) The AI take actions that annoy/irritate the human player.

I agree with 1b) ; indeed, nearly every time the AI declares war on me, or settles in a spot I had hoped to settle, or they get to an isolated island before I do, I am slightly annoyed or irritated. If an AI built the UN and won the election, I would be even more annoyed or irritated.

I disagree with 1a) ; I just have not seen any evidence that supports that hypothesis.
Moreover, there are ways to test 1a, that I will get to a bit later.

Consider also:
2a) The barbarians take actions that don't have any strategic value for themselves, but serve to annoy/irritate the human player.
2b) The barbarians take actions that annoy/irritate the human player.

Since the barbs have no way to actually *win* the game, these two statements are identical. The barbs could *end* the game, if their attack served to eliminate the human player. The human player would lose, but the barbs wouldn't win. And yes, Buttercup, we agree; the barbarians are Irritating for my play style.

Another observation: the actions of the barbs are more annoying if one is pursuing a peaceful builder strategy. If one is pursuing an "always war" strategy, then the presence of barbs is (at worst) a speed bump, and (at best) a stepping stone and cheap source of victories and promotions. Rather than irritating (or Irritating), an AW player would *welcome* the presence of cannon fodder barbarians.

Going back to the first set of hypotheses: if one were trying to prove, or disprove, 1a how would you test it? One path of logic would say -- play with two or more human players, and see if the AI take the same actions towards humans as they do in single player games. If the AI are programmed to Irriitate one human player, would they not be programmed to Irritate all human players? Since I don't play multiplayer, that avenue is less attractive to me.
Another path suggests -- observe the actions of the AI vs. the human player, and compare with its actions toward another AI faction, which has a tech lead or stronger military. Does the AI treat other AI differently than the human?
And a third path -- which is the one I've been following -- asks this question. Do the actions of the AI towards the human player advance its own interests? If we can identify AI actions that are negative towards the human, and do not advance its own interests, then that is evidence for proving 1a.

And having said all that, and re-read your last few posts, Buttercup, I think that I misunderstood. You have been arguing all along for 1b, not 1a.

 

[Buttercup]

Or perhaps...those who have Irritated Buttercup before?

vorlon_mi:

It's a combination of the two.

Once we've established that the AI is not playing to win, but can win (or at least destroy the human or stumble upon a victory) if the human player does not play 'well', then the AI must have a purpose otherwise the game would just be a lumberjack game of cutting down static Units and cities.

The end result is a process whereby almost every encounter with the AI in any respect seems to be of an irritating nature, as opposed to ineffectual (Cheiftan level excluded) or, conversely, actually challenging. Even on the harder difficulties the element which makes the game harder is enhanced irritation rather than improved intelligence, such as even more severe city/Unit spamming and even worse auto-tech-trading-between-AIs-which-the-human-isn't-invited-to, at least not in any logical way as any human player will refuse 25 Gold Per Turn in exchange for a few saved tech turns, something the AI won't refuse, though this is an element the human player can manipulate to their advantage in some circumstances, but this wasn't the intention.

So with the programme being so irritating in design, it suggests that, for some events, an Irritation modifier is directing AI motivations as well.

As you rightly say, the difficulty is the proof.

When that AI settler gets to your spot quite literally 1 turn before you do, is it all simple coincidence or does the AI 'see' what you're building, where your moving said built Unit to and 'prepare' accordingly to intentionally get there that 1 solitary turn before you do?

Or, on an even more paranoid level, does it just 'magic up' a Settler out of the fog in order to add drama to the game?

Or is it all simple coincidence?

Logically, and because I'm not a generally irrationally paranoid person, I would plump for coincidence. However, the sheer number of times I've started a game and had to rage quit because of this example of Irritation is beyond calculable. Therefore it's not the event itself which is suggesting Programmed Irritation, but the ceaseless repetition of the event which occurs in exactly the same manner across many games. A pattern if you will.

And there are hundreds of little Irritations like this throughout the game, from awkward battles to least ideal terrain placement (you know, when a square is just in the wrong place to be used by any city without putting a city in a stupid spot, etc). All of which seem to happen too often to be sheer coincidence but are not of enough significance to be, individually, evidence of 'blatant' programming.

I guess my use of the word "Irritation" has been a bit of a stumbling block for many on this topic, but then I had no idea people would approach the word with such negativity. Irritation seemed like the perfect word, to me, to describe an underlying programme which could/would effect all the game to ensure the human player keeps in the mood to fight. And even in an all peace game one still has to be prepared for a fight should one arise.

For me irritation means 'slightly annoying leading to rage if persistent'. I have no idea what it means for you. Ernest (of Ernest Goes To Camp fame), for example, has made a career out of being irritating, but people like being irritated by him (in small doses) and I would have thought the word would be used in that type of context. For me it's certainly a light hearted word. Perhaps people are not as tolerant as they used to be and Irritation has developed a new, more angry, definition than it used to have?

 

[scratchthepitch]

When that AI settler gets to your spot quite literally 1 turn before you do, is it all simple coincidence or does the AI 'see' what you're building, where your moving said built Unit to and 'prepare' accordingly to intentionally get there that 1 solitary turn before you do?

That is an interesting point you bring up. The AI does seem to be programed to react more to player moves, than to have been programed with much strategy. I don't know if the programing is that tight they can narrow it down to getting a city site one turn before, but they would not need that exact result to have the desired effect on the player to keep them on edge and interested. Knowing the player is building the settler, the game could simply send over a settler to the logical nearby area that player settler could be used at. Rather than just strategic reasons for city placement, the program is also based upon tactical pieces of coding designed to deprive the player of sites. One overriding the other, depending on circumstances and or perhaps a percentage chance?

 

[Cyc]

The AI has stepped in front of my exploring Warriors a thousand times in the last 10 years. I've popped goody huts and gotten maps which reveal the AI camped alongside Barb camps, just waiting for the human player to show up, so they can take the camp just before you get there. I too have been beaten to city sites by a turn repeatedly. That's why I don't use the "go to" beyond my cultural borders (that seems to help in my games). The AI, no, the entire game is set up to react to the human player. If your strategy is to expand quickly, one of the tribes will try to outpace you. If you are a culture builder like me, when you start a University or even a Temple (in some games) the AI will automatically start building Wonders to keep up with you. It's all reactive. Which is why you need to diversify your strategies to a point (umless you're just a war monger). Again, I play different maps than most players. So my circumstances are different. I don't like to kill off the AI in their infancy. I let them develop into large nations, then I kick their butt.

But as I said in one of my posts in this thread, the irritations that are a core part of this game mostly drive me onto victory.

 

[PaperBeetle]

I've popped goody huts and gotten maps which reveal the AI camped alongside Barb camps, just waiting for the human player to show up, so they can take the camp just before you get there.

Maps don't equal line of sight; popping maps from a hut doesn't show you any foreign units that you wouldn't have seen without the hut. Of course you might sometimes have seen AI units fortified next to barb camps. I propose that is for the same reason you'll sometimes find my units fortified next to barb camps: not because I expect Cyc's archer to show up any turn and I want to tease him, but because I found two barb units in the camp, got wounded while killing the first barb, and fortified to heal up before attacking the second.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Well, I've been very happy with what's been discussed about my little examples of early game Irritation.

I think (or hope) I'm correct in concluding that:

1) The Barbarian's job is pretty much Programmed Irritation.
2) Wandering AI Warriors may appear to want to Irritate, but that is not what they are programmed to do.
3) Path blocking is something which might be Programmed Irritation but also might be coincidental depending on the scenario and is probably the hardest area (aside from RNG influenced battles) to specifically prove as a specifically Programmed duty of the AI.
4) The issue of Iron placement is likely Programmed Irritation as no-one seems to be arguing that it's likely random or coincidental.

1) You can, if you want see the barbarians as intentionally put there to annoy you, to harm you, maybe even to irritate you. But that holds true for the barbs overall. Pointing out specific examples seems kind of pointless in that case.

2) Correct.

3) There are special situations in which the AI blocks paths. And what is more is, that this sticks out and seems almost as if it was explicitly programmed behaviour. What I am thinking of is that the AI will not only place units on chokepoints, no, they will, if they are able, build a fortress/barricade too. And whosoever is blocked is blocked. It does not seems to be aimed at the human player. In fact, the other AI the other AI know the tile is blocked, the human player might not. Here is an example:

Spoiler :

The French build the thing; it is occupied by a Pikeman and a Longbow. The main purpose, I think, is for defense, however it will block anybody's path just fine. (Although it is not quite clear against who the French are defending.)

Compared to that, nearly all (all?) the examples for "Programmed Irritation" seem rather far fetched and a little like entrail reading.


4) Not so quick. There are definitely more options than just random/coincidental and "Programmed Irritation". For example, it could be a (failed?) attempt at creating a fair, yet challenging distribution of resources, or it could be "We don't know exactly what we want either, but after some tweaking this looks ok."

 

[Cyc]

Maps don't equal line of sight; popping maps from a hut doesn't show you any foreign units that you wouldn't have seen without the hut. Of course you might sometimes have seen AI units fortified next to barb camps. I propose that is for the same reason you'll sometimes find my units fortified next to barb camps: not because I expect Cyc's archer to show up any turn and I want to tease him, but because I found two barb units in the camp, got wounded while killing the first barb, and fortified to heal up before attacking the second.

Thank you for the informative post PaperBeetle. I understand your gameplay may be restricting your proposals to very rudimentary proposals, but that's ok. Perhaps one game you will pop a hut on a mountain and take the long way around to the Barb camp. Or maybe you'll cross the range of mountains, watching the Barb camp and AI unit remain immobile. But then again maybe not. Try to keep in mind not all of us may have a limited amount of experiences to draw from. Thanks again!

 

[scratchthepitch]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

"2) Wandering AI Warriors may appear to want to Irritate, but that is not what they are programmed to do."

2) Correct.

I wish I was such an authority.

Compared to that, nearly all (all?) the examples for "Programmed Irritation" seem rather far fetched and a little like entrail reading.

You're an expert on entrail reading, too? That is very impressive.

 

[Theov]

Originally Posted by Buttercup

"2) Wandering AI Warriors may appear to want to Irritate, but that is not what they are programmed to do."

I wish I was such an authority.

You're an expert on entrail reading, too? That is very impressive.

Are we really having this discussion? I mean, I'm all for open discussions but are we really suggesting that the AI is programmed to irritate or annoy the player?
There's a difference between programming that irritates you and programmed irritation.
No. I don't think the makers were out to annoy us. That wouldn't make a lick of sense.

 

[vorlon_mi]

vorlon_mi:

It's a combination of the two.

Once we've established that the AI is not playing to win, but can win (or at least destroy the human or stumble upon a victory) if the human player does not play 'well', then the AI must have a purpose otherwise the game would just be a lumberjack game of cutting down static Units and cities.

The end result is a process whereby almost every encounter with the AI in any respect seems to be of an irritating nature, as opposed to ineffectual (Cheiftan level excluded) or, conversely, actually challenging. Even on the harder difficulties the element which makes the game harder is enhanced irritation rather than improved intelligence,
.... snip, snip ...
As you rightly say, the difficulty is the proof.

When that AI settler gets to your spot quite literally 1 turn before you do, is it all simple coincidence or does the AI 'see' what you're building, where your moving said built Unit to and 'prepare' accordingly to intentionally get there that 1 solitary turn before you do?

Or, on an even more paranoid level, does it just 'magic up' a Settler out of the fog in order to add drama to the game?

Or is it all simple coincidence?

That first point is where we differ (respectfully, I hope). I agree that the barbarians are not playing to win. I believe that the AI are, in fact, playing to win -- but only through the space race victory condition. I think that has been confirmed by CivFanatics who were part of the Civ3 beta test, ages ago, and by Firaxians who posted here. While they may stumble into a UN victory, I don't believe that the AI are programmed to conduct long-term campaigns of wars that would lead to conquest or domination victories. I've seen the AI build the Apollo program and spaceship parts.

The AI are also programmed to build great wonders, just because they're shiny. They tend to build aqueducts and hospitals so cities can grown into metros, and they build all the buildings they can. You've hit the nail right on the head w.r.t. difficulty levels - the AI are using the same logic at Sid as they are at cheiftain. The only difference are the starting units and the production/research penalties or bonuses.

Now, why do most of the single-player losses at Sid / deity / demigod usually take the form of military defeats, rather than an AI launching the spaceship first? I find that pretty easy to explain ... military weakness. One of the prime aspects of the AI programming is to identify a rival tribe which is weak, and attack it. At the higher difficulty levels, and especially if the aggression levels are turned up, the human player looks weak. If the human player is on-par with the AI tribes, then they turn on each other. Dogpiles are common.
If the various AI tribes are on-par militarily with each other, unfortunately, they tend to settle into a sort of stasis. Not perceiving the other as weak enough so that a quick victory is possible, they refrain from attacking each other. Since riflemen don't require any resources, all the AI can build them and thus deter other AI attackers. I don't think this is a good thing, but this is just a weakness in the algorithm, not a design feature to annoy/irritate the humans.

I love your comment about "magic up" a settler, just in time to beat you to the spot! I guess that I've been beaten to the spot by two turns, or three turns, often enough that I don't ascribe it to magic or Murphy's Law.

 

[Spoonwood]

1) You can, if you want see the barbarians as intentionally put there to annoy you, to harm you, maybe even to irritate you. But that holds true for the barbs overall. Pointing out specific examples seems kind of pointless in that case.

2) Correct.

3) There are special situations in which the AI blocks paths. And what is more is, that this sticks out and seems almost as if it was explicitly programmed behaviour. What I am thinking of is that the AI will not only place units on chokepoints, no, they will, if they are able, build a fortress/barricade too. And whosoever is blocked is blocked. It does not seems to be aimed at the human player. In fact, the other AI the other AI know the tile is blocked, the human player might not. Here is an example:

Spoiler :

The French build the thing; it is occupied by a Pikeman and a Longbow. The main purpose, I think, is for defense, however it will block anybody's path just fine. (Although it is not quite clear against who the French are defending.)

Compared to that, nearly all (all?) the examples for "Programmed Irritation" seem rather far fetched and a little like entrail reading.


4) Not so quick. There are definitely more options than just random/coincidental and "Programmed Irritation". For example, it could be a (failed?) attempt at creating a fair, yet challenging distribution of resources, or it could be "We don't know exactly what we want either, but after some tweaking this looks ok."

Does that screenshot come from your Sid Small Histographic game, or some other one?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Does that screenshot come from your Sid Small Histographic game, or some other one?

Yes, it does. Well spotted.

 

[PaperBeetle]

Thank you for the informative post PaperBeetle. I understand your gameplay may be restricting your proposals to very rudimentary proposals, but that's ok. Perhaps one game you will pop a hut on a mountain and take the long way around to the Barb camp. Or maybe you'll cross the range of mountains, watching the Barb camp and AI unit remain immobile. But then again maybe not. Try to keep in mind not all of us may have a limited amount of experiences to draw from. Thanks again!

Oh? Who here does not have a limited amount of experiences to draw from?
Your condescending tone is not called for here, nor indeed would it be called for anywhere.

 

[Spoonwood]

The three Horsemen each take out one Spearman as clean as a whistle and capture the city (which was the Capitol by that point). Well now, how Irritating is that?

It does come as a bit unusual, but it does come as possible enough that you can't necessarily infer that the programmers programmed the game to mess with your psychological state.

The above Programmed Irritations are not isolated incidences and have occurred in enough games for me to notice these two examples are definite Programme devices designed to Irritate.

You haven't provided anything which indicates them as anything but isolated incidences. Where have you shown that they have a connection to anything else?

You would need to have a thorough and long list of battles of exactly what happened in what situations. Honestly, one can discount the implication of the original report by sampling bias. Is Buttercup (or Darski for that matter) just as likely to report an instance of where the RNG behaves more in his (her) favor? No. So, sampling bias may come as present here. In fact, since the examples seem rather contrary to each other in terms of results in a certain sense, which would logically imply the conclusion without having to actually look at how the game works more empirically with a significantly larger data set, sampling bias seems likely. So, nothing of this report means all that much.

Looking even more closely at this:

In a different game, played the same day, I advance a stack of Swordsman, Ancient Cavalry, Horsemen on a similarly defunct AI Civilisation's Capitol city. A total of 5 units of which Horsemen counted for just 1. If I don't get them all because the AI's just spammed Spearmen then, fine, I'll finish them off the next turn. Least that's what would make sense if it wasn't for Programmed Irritation...

My VASTLY superior Units to those exampled in the 1st Irritation not only failed to take the city but also suffered such a heavy battering that all I was left with for the next turn was one Ancient Cavalry with 4 Hit Points remaining... In both cases the defence was 3 Spearmen Units...

I think the examples I have provided so far are exemplary examples of this theory.

So you have four 3 attack units, one 2 attack unit vs. 3 spearmen fortified in a capital. A size 1-6 capital defends like a 7-12 city elsewhere (50%), and a 7-12 capital defends like a metro (100%). Plus you have to figure in the flatland 10% or hill 50% bonus (or if you attacked across a river), and 25% for fortification. Thus, the spears get .5 each for fortification, .2 each for flatland, and 1 each if you fought them in a size 1 capital town. So, each spear you attacked had a defense of (2+.5+.2+1)=3.7... and I might have left something out. That four 3 attack units and one 2 attack unit vs. those spears don't win, is NOT surprising at all, and NO, your units were NOT VASTLY superior. What should you expect to happen in such a situation if you attack a capital like that? Probably about what did happen, if not worse. Why didn't you bring along some artillery type units? Didn't I show you with several saves a few months ago that artillery type units can really help in fighting wars? Do I need to dredge up that thread where you made several statements, which I then proceeded to show basically dead wrong? It works out rather simply...

More artillery type units generally implies fewer hitpoints for the AIs when attacking them which generally implies less irritation.

And, please, from a 'game' perspective, what is the difference in hassle, planning and decision making between producing 3 Horsemen compared to 2 Swordsmen, 2 Ancient Cavalry, 1 Horseman? I would say a 'vast' difference. How exactly does one 'plan' a battle with any kind of 'logic' and 'certainty' if the 'game' is suggesting both routes are as meaningless as each other? It's 'crackpot' design.

Sure, there exists a difference, but not enough. The game doesn't suggest both as meaningless. You basically end up thinking of both routes of meaningless, because you've only looked at two examples of such. If you looked at a much larger data set here, you almost surely wouldn't see such as meaningless. You also aren't all that likely to report or even think twice about two instances like these two which *both* acted in line with what one might predict from the game's logic, especially since (as demonstrated by your frustration with the second set of battles) you don't have all too good of a grasp of the game's logic in the first place.

 

[Cyc]

Oh? Who here does not have a limited amount of experiences to draw from?

Well, I for one. I have about 10 years of experience. But I agree that your posts seem to be from someone who only has experience to play the game well enough to boastfully post about how someone else is wrong.

Your condescending tone is not called for here, nor indeed would it be called for anywhere.

Oh? You didn't like my proposal? Hmmm. That makes us even then, I suppose. And that's a good thing, PaperBeetle.

 

[MPK]

Originally Posted by PaperBeetle
Oh? Who here does not have a limited amount of experiences to draw from?


Well I don't. Why I'm just reading and learning... ... ... who needs a news paper in the morning with a Thread like this one.....