PCGamesN just posted a preview for GalCiv 3

from GalCiv3 Forums

Here is the link. It's quite interesting, but what especially caught me eye was this:

With Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes, Wardell noticed he was seeing a lot of complaints about AI player despite the AI playing what he thought was a pretty strong game. What he realized was that, because the AI didn’t cheat and acted rationally based only on what it knew, players were reading far more mistakes into its behavior than it was actually making. It was a critical moment for his understanding about how players regard AI.

“It's having the AI communicate with the player more, having dialogues come up where the AI actually is explaining in a conversational way, ‘I see what you're doing there, and I'm going to go and do this,’” Wardell says. “By communicating more with the player, even if the AI is making a bad strategic decision, the player can at least understand why they're doing it.”
End of quote

51,432 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Wardell - sees what we did there...

Reply #2 from LittleTinyFrogs Forums Top

Yea, people say they don't like the AI to cheat but then they turn around and lambast the AI for being "stupid" because it moved a unit into a dangerous spot when it couldn't really see the danger.

+1 Loading…
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Well, if nobody probing your perimeter with scouts, yet somehow manages to get into the gap you left between two outposts unnoticed, that's probably cheating.

If there were scouts, then it's probably not cheating - they simply found breach in your defences. But scouts should, actually, find that breach, otherwise, it's kinda hard to believe they spotted unprotected southern flank while they were poking around northern one. Unless, of course, their sight range is long enough, allowing them to "scan" through your defences in a single glance.

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I am one of those players who prefer the AI, in almost all circumstances, to play by the same rules, that the user is bound to.  I remember a game of Civ3 where I noticed the scouts of the Ais seem to have total knowledge of where everything was in the world, and were making a beeline towards other civs to establish contact / diplomacy.  Early game, I placed a string of units creating a wall across the isthmus that the scout could not get thru.  I watched.  It kept bouncing along the wall of units, vainly attempting to get past my area and to the civ behind me.  It was cute – but totally destroyed immersion for me.  Why bother with the mechanic of having to actually make contact with units to ‘meet’ another civ.  If the Ais magically know the entire map t start, skip the scouts and just put them all in contact with one another according to some sort of schedule.  Sour taste for me.

I am all for the AI playing by the same rules as the User.  I think creating a suite of strategic plans (or grand tactical?), opening approaches, etc. from which each AI civ may choose is an awesome idea.   And then have each AI attempt to implement that plan, just like we do.  Having the particular civ’s predilection towards (or against) choosing certain behaviors adds spice. 

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

This is a point where I have greatest sympathy with game designers and especially game AI designers.

 

I am not the greatest computer gamer, but I am pretty good at a lot of games, especially the various board games I have played with folk over the years.  I have been accused of "cheating" at various games just for playing smart, especially if I am using knowledge of rules and foresight to set myself up in some advantageous position.  The funniest was a Monopoly game, where I had to ask what particular move was cheating when every one else at the table was watching.  (And they watch closely; nit-picking rules and game process is a fanatic hobby in my family and a source of great enjoyment.)  I never got a specific answer and ended up letting it slide so as not to start a big argument.  Whatever I had done was just not fair and I had cheated, even if it was legal.  It just goes to show it is not just AI perception.  It is a perception people have of all sorts of opponents and challenges.  "That's not fair!" is a big line and attitude.  "Cheat" is a magic word in both real life and gaming forums.  It can be used to immediately polarize a discussion and make scapegoats to account for someone's frustration. 

 

I have to take the whole "you cheat" with a sense of humor.  I am both a stickler for rules and one that bends them to almost broken.  I can't really blame folk for frustrated misconceptions.  And, I try to play games with the idea that everyone should have fun of some sort.  However, as a game designer, you don't have such luxury.  You have to meet the whole different perceptions thing from all sides at once.  Myself, I don't mind if the AI plays with handicaps.  I find a middle level difficulty that works for me and concentrate on having fun.  As far as a game designer is concerned, I'm easy.  As far as the others go, I can only advise game designers to know in their heart of hearts that the user community itself "cheats" by loudly demanding impossible or contradictory things.  It won't make the challenge any easier, but it should be emotionally satisfying.  In the long run, that seems to be the main purpose of yelling the word "cheat" in the first place, emotional satisfaction and release.

 

Me, I cheat and gain my emotional satisfaction and release by loving my family more and more.  It may sound all gushy to you, but it works for me.  It also frees me to be even nastier when we play board games like Risk.  ;-)

Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Here is another reason for having sympathy with game designers. If a player hasn't read the back story and the AI takes advantage of what has been pointed out in the back story, the player will often have unexpected bad things happen to him/her, and then insist that the AI cheated.

Case in point: It is stated in the back story that all of the non Terran players have been exploring the galaxy for many tens of Millennial with unmanned remote probes and already know which stars have planets and what those planets look like. The Terran (human) player does not. Without the knowledge of the back story, it looks like the AIs are cheating when they scarf up all of the best planets before the human player can find them. This happened to many players when GC1 was released.

(Interesting question: Since I have always played only the Terran race, what happens when one plays one of the other races? Do you get full knowledge of what all of the planets in the galaxy look like? Does the Terran AI get hampered with not having explored to find what planets are around which stars?)

Reply #7 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 6

Here is another reason for having sympathy with game designers. If a player hasn't read the back story and the AI takes advantage of what has been pointed out in the back story, the player will often have unexpected bad things happen to him/her, and then insist that the AI cheated.

Case in point: It is stated in the back story that all of the non Terran players have been exploring the galaxy for many tens of Millennial with unmanned remote probes and already know which stars have planets and what those planets look like. The Terran (human) player does not. Without the knowledge of the back story, it looks like the AIs are cheating when they scarf up all of the best planets before the human player can find them. This happened to many players when GC1 was released.

(Interesting question: Since I have always played only the Terran race, what happens when one plays one of the other races? Do you get full knowledge of what all of the planets in the galaxy look like? Does the Terran AI get hampered with not having explored to find what planets are around which stars?)
End of Lucky's quote

The AI for every race in GCII knows where all the galactic resources, asteroids and planets are, but they don't claim the planets until they scout them out first.

Reply #8 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting ParagonRenegade, reply 7
The AI for every race in GCII knows where all the galactic resources, asteroids and planets are, but they don't claim the planets until they scout them out first.
End of ParagonRenegade's quote

Yes, (still talking about GC2) but what about a human player playing the YOR or Drengin race? Does the human player get to see where all of the galactic resources, asteroids, and planets are, and what they all look like from the first turn in the game?

Reply #9 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting ParagonRenegade, reply 7
The AI for every race in GCII knows where all the galactic resources, asteroids and planets are, but they don't claim the planets until they scout them out first.
End of ParagonRenegade's quote

Not according to Frogboy:

Quoting Frogboy, reply 19
In GalCiv II, the AI didn't know where the good planets were, it just knew where the stars were. It had (and did) scout them out.
End of Frogboy's quote

Still, I'm pretty sure, that the minor races did know where all galactic resources where.

As for Lucky Jack's questions, if you play another race, you simply start with Stellar Cartography already researched. In other words, you know how many planets there are in a star-system, but that's all.

Reply #10 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 8

Yes, (still talking about GC2) but what about a human player playing the YOR or Drengin race? Does the human player get to see where all of the galactic resources, asteroids, and planets are, and what they all look like from the first turn in the game?
End of Lucky's quote

The alien races start with stellar cartography, so you can see the planets. It's really only useful on larger maps with fewer planets. Otherwise, it's the same.

^Out BR'd by Guanathor

Reply #11 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Gaunathor, reply 9


Quoting ParagonRenegade, reply 7The AI for every race in GCII knows where all the galactic resources, asteroids and planets are, but they don't claim the planets until they scout them out first.

Not according to Frogboy:

Still, I'm pretty sure, that the minor races did know where all galactic resources where.
End of Gaunathor's quote

I hesitate to call Brad freaking Wardell out on an AI oversight in his game, but I know for certain the AI knows where the habitable planets are, they just don't colonize it until they have sensor coverage on it. I found this out when the AI sent a scout followed a few turns back by a colony ship to the ass-end of nowhere where there was a single star with one habitable planet.

The AI KNEW the planet was there, I can't think of any other explanation. 

If it was a human player, I'd think he was sending the colony ship preemptively to save time in case there was a planet, but the AI doesn't do that.

Reply #12 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Gaunathor, reply 9


Quoting ParagonRenegade, reply 7The AI for every race in GCII knows where all the galactic resources, asteroids and planets are, but they don't claim the planets until they scout them out first.

Not according to Frogboy:


Quoting Frogboy, reply 19In GalCiv II, the AI didn't know where the good planets were, it just knew where the stars were. It had (and did) scout them out.

Still, I'm pretty sure, that the minor races did know where all galactic resources where.

As for Lucky Jack's questions, if you play another race, you simply start with Stellar Cartography already researched. In other words, you know how many planets there are in a star-system, but that's all.
End of Gaunathor's quote

Yes, I guess that could do it. And I guess I read something into the back story that wasn't quite there, when I read the part about the other races having sent probes exploring the universe for 70,000 years. Or there may have been something slightly different in the back story when GC1 was shipped, but since I can no longer access www.galciv.com (it just redirects me to www.galciv3.com) I have no way of accessing it.

Reply #13 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 12
Yes, I guess that could do it. And I guess I read something into the back story that wasn't quite there, when I read the part about the other races having sent probes exploring the universe for 70,000 years. Or there may have been something slightly different in the back story when GC1 was shipped, but since I can no longer access www.galciv.com (it just redirects me to www.galciv3.com) I have no way of accessing it.
End of Lucky's quote

The address for the GalCiv 1 homepage has been slightly changed. In any case, you don't need it, as that part of the backstory is also mentioned in the manual (pg. 55-56 "Since the alien civilizations have had thousands of years (in some cases) to explore the galaxy with remote probes, they already know where all the best planets are located and they will actively pursue them.").

It is also still mentioned in the databanks for GalCiv 3: "Unfortunately for the humans, the aliens had long since mapped out the galaxy – they knew where the best planets were."

Reply #14 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Gaunathor, reply 13
In any case, you don't need it, as that part of the backstory is also mentioned in the manual (pg. 55-56 "Since the alien civilizations have had thousands of years (in some cases) to explore the galaxy with remote probes, they already know where all the best planets are located and they will actively pursue them.").

It is also still mentioned in the databanks for GalCiv 3: "Unfortunately for the humans, the aliens had long since mapped out the galaxy – they knew where the best planets were."
End of Gaunathor's quote

Brad, did you know this when you programmed the AI for GC2?

Reply #15 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Lucky, reply 14
Brad, did you know this when you programmed the AI for GC2?
End of Lucky's quote

He wrote the story, so he most definitely knew this. He even wrote about it in the dev journals:

But in GalCiv II, you don't necessarily play as the humans. So to be true to the story, the humans, when controlled by the AI, have to actually explore out the galaxy with scouts and what not. In the process of doing this, we discovered that it doesn't make as big of a difference as we thought to the effectiveness of the computer player. Moreover, on a modern machine (i.e. Pentium IV processor) it's not a major factor either.

Because in GalCiv I the AI got to know where the good planets were, some people would say "Well sure the AI in GalCiv is lethal -- it gets to know where the good planets are!". So we've decided to eliminate this. The AI colony ships no longer know where the good planets are. They have to go out and explore the galaxy just like a human player would.
End of quote

Reply #16 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

OK. It makes sense.

Reply #17 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Here's my definition of a cheating Ai one that starts out with, or is hampered by a economic bonus, or minus.

Other than the Thalan, or the Torian I can out expand them with a better economic, production, and better scientific system. I have never seen a resource grab, or mega event that can offset this. When I'm talking about the Torians I'm as good as them in the mid game, but better in the late game. I like the Thalans because I can't beat them. 

  Paul I beg of you don't hinder the colony rush on the Ai. You could scale the Thalans down a little, but more important you need to up the Drengin, Yor, and the Korath. I think the others have been fixed as far as expansion goes. I'm not talking about taxation, approval, morale, and farming, or the Torians or Iconians building improvements that still needs to be fixed. It's not the computer fault that they can use stellar cartiography while it actually gets in my way of colony expansion. Honestly I can find no cheating on the part of the Ai in the colony rush, or the resource grab. Personally the small races need more help. If a small race has an advantage over a major race they need it.  If you did what others are talking about on planetary expansion or grabbing resources I hope that don't slow most of the opponents.

Lets deal with real cheating that is giving the Ai arbitrary economic bonuses instead of them playing better.

Reply #18 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 17

Here's my definition of a cheating Ai one that starts out with, or is hampered by a economic bonus, or minus.

 

........

 

Lets deal with real cheating that is giving the Ai arbitrary economic bonuses instead of them playing better.
 

End of admiralWillyWilber's quote

 

For me, that is exactly what "cheating" isn't.  In my vocabulary, that is the handicapping needed for game balance AI vs human.  It is not cheating if I spot my kids a pawn in chess because they are beginners.  It is not cheating if a tournament level player spots me 2 pawns and a knight because I am so much weaker than her.  I am not sure why you think this requires the emotional laden word "cheating".  It would be cheating if I started moving my bishop like a queen without the opponent agreeing to that.  It is the prior agreement that seems to me be the key.  And I consider myself in prior agreement to the rules of the computer game I just bought.

As a slight rant:  I get horrible impressions from the standard gamer throwing around the word, "Cheat".  I find it a misleading and hyperbolic conversation tactic.  The word cheat is often an indicator of an emotional reaction instead of an analytic one and therefore the poster comes across as whining.  Or, the word "cheat" is a deliberate attempt to troll reactions from other gamers.   Either way, it usually means I mentally reject posts from people I might otherwise admire and listen to.

Avoiding that reaction leads to this:

Your last line says, to me, that you would prefer an AI that didn't require economic handicap.  I definitely agree.  However, I am not sure the technology offers that option yet.  I am hoping that Stardock uses their experience and skills to approximate it even closer than they managed in GC2.  (And I am impressed by GC2.)  Remember, it doesn't actually have to be intelligent, it just has to convince people it's intelligent.  That's a slightly different thing and more achievable than true intelligence.   After all, there are bunches of people walking around who think I am very intelligent, which shows how easy it is to fake that!!  I do still expect some degree of handicapping for balance and difficulty levels, though.  I just cant see that the designers will be able to fully get around that necessity.  We will see what they come up with.

 

Reply #19 from Stardock Forums Top

The Reason I think we use the word cheat is that the nature of the "handicaps" ( Edit: or even their existence)  has long been hidden from the player. Even in Fallen enchantress, where it is seemingly stated at what level the AI starts to have bonuses, the nature and magnitude of those bonuses are not clearly stated. It can also be frustrating sometimes when you see an AI act in a completely idiotic way and get away with it because of huge bonuses. ( Total war games are often guilty  of that with the suicide generals )

But since we do not have yet an AI in any game that can play like a high level human player does, we have to do with cheating AIs.

But then the humans also cheat by using loopsholes in the game and flaws in the AI and by using their flexible organic brains to go around problems. So everyone and everything cheats :D

Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top

And here I am... ranked 113 overall in the metaverse, and only on level "Tough" and I think the AI is really hard! I find that playing as the Thalans works best for me. I like that the other races have to scout the galaxy too. I am currently battling the Arceans, and win against each race a dozen times before moving onto another. I would never win at a game that included more than one, not that good yet! I do not know what I would do if the computer was cheating ;p