Next DG Discussion

[Mead]

Arg just suggested something that sounds good.

Originally posted by arginine
have 2 human teams, each as a progenator. Also, a person for each of the 5 'human' factions and the human can control only perform ONE ACTION and control diplomacy, while the computer does everything else. (to keep those factions largely AI or something like that) Up to 3 (maybe 2) humans may win together through cooperative victory.

I was never comfortable having AI's in the game with human teams. Even if the the AI factions were super enhanced (which in these ACDG games they have been given a lot of extra advantages), the human teams can easily win. The AI just can't cope with human tactics.

I also had problems with the 'AI' being played by a human. Because if we did that it would just be another human faction.

What Arg is proposing is a hybird. An AI that has some human guidance to make it tougher to deal with, but not totally under human control.

We could fine tune just how much we let the AI do.

Having the human assistant handle diplomacy is a good idea.
Limiting the human assaistant to only one action per turn is too limiting though. Do we mean one move, one attack of a chopper, one series of attacks by a chopper, an attack against one base with multible units, etc.?

Can we set up the game to allow spilt control?

I am no expert but I offer the following refinement. I welcome other suggestions.

How about for the AI factions we have:


Governor On in all bases - (perhaps with a focus area or not);

Human AI assistant cannot set or change build ques (perhaps can rush);

If possible - AI, not human AI assistant, decides what to research;

All formers are either autoimprove home base or fully automated;

Human AI assistant, handles all diplomacy;

Human AI assistant, handles all unit moves (except formers) and attacks;

Human AI assistant can set SE.

This ought to make the AI far less of a pushover, but still keep the it from becoming just another human led faction because one of the most important function of the human direction is what to build and what to research.

We can vary the division of control between the AI and the AI human assistant however we want. Where do we need to draw it? Additionally, we would need 1 to 6 volunteers (People who are not on a real team) to perform the role of human AI assistant. The same volunteer could serve as the AI assiatant to more than one AI team. With all of the automation it should be far less micromanagement and the same volunteer should be able to easily handle more than one faction.


I like the idea in that it makes the AI a lot more responsive ... and dangerous.


What do you all think?


Mead

[Net Warrior]

If a human can control an AI faction then it's not really an AI faction as far as bonuses the game engine grants the faction.

[Mead]

Originally posted by Net Warrior
If a human can control an AI faction then it's not really an AI faction as far as bonuses the game engine grants the faction.

Can the game designer tinker with it to get those bonuses back?


Mead

[AndiD]

A "human AI" player should definitely be able to prevent infiltration and techsteal in a decent manner if the AI is enhanced in some way.
(By repeatedly pointing to this problem I indicate that I regard greatly enhanced AIs in regard to tech as potentially unbalancing towards technically more challenged factions....)

I'm rather new around here - what is a Police State game?

[Snoddasmannen]

An alternative to "human AI" players is to go one step further and use "limited human" players. They would play all of their factions moves, but their object in the game wouldn't be to win at all, only to serve as an actor playing the part of their faction.

They could play their turns quickly, and they wouldn't need to be very good players either. These players could maybe even participate in other "proper" teams, or at least have some kind of mod priviledge to read their private forums to keep them interested in the game. And if they miss a deadline or lose interest entirely, they could be turned over to an AI without it being a complete disaster.

I for one think it would be a lot of fun to play such a faction, so dibs on one of them it actually happens

EDIT: To answer to Meads comment earlier:

I also had problems with the 'AI' being played by a human. Because if we did that it would just be another human faction.

I think that if handled correctly it won't be like a human faction. It won't be trying to win, it will be slightly stupid and just trying to play its part.

[binTravkin]

I for one think it would be a lot of fun to play such a faction

I volunteer!

[GeoModder]

I volunteer as well.

't Is something I proposed for the current DG, but wasn't voted for by the starting members.
Edit: gimme a prog faction, and you'll see some really weird roleplay.

[AndiD]

Originally posted by Snoddasmannen
An alternative to "human AI" players is to go one step further and use "limited human" players. They would play all of their factions moves, but their object in the game wouldn't be to win at all, only to serve as an actor playing the part of their faction.

This concept would allow an ACDG4 with seven factions but without an AI - solving myriads of problems (balancing, AI stupidity, ...).

This could be even expanded into an academy - more inexperienced members play these limited factions and get regular feedback from an "elder".

These "limited factions" could be either controlled by individuals or by small groups - so that we would have four "winning" teams and three "lesser" teams (or vice versa?) - restricted by maybe turnplay speed (max. 24 hours?), team size (< 5?). starting position (island? less landmass? aquatic?) etc.

This is even reflected in some ideologies, e.g. Pirates ("pillage and burn"), Angels ("the jazz"), Drones? ...

[Mart]

Such factions might be asigned some hidden for all other players aims. These aims might be not necessarily to win, as mentioned earlier, but maybe achieve some specific goal. Also additional scenario rules might be required from such player. In another words, a human player controling such faction in DG would be required 100% roleplay.

[GeoModder]

The drawback is turnrate of course... with so many turnplayers there's bound to be a delay somewhere on the road.

[Mart]

There can always be time zone optimization, especially in SMAX.
I also thought about one player controlling for example 2 or 3 factions. They could be in some Pact, as in some challenge scenario such things are setup. They could still be roleplay limited. For example, in order to keep PK-University, Zakharov might be required from Lal to hav democracy all the time. On the other hand, Zak might be required to have limited military compared to Lal. Something like that.

[Hercules]

We may also like to consider this:

Two teams but with each team controlling two factions and 3 independent AI to complete the set up.

Within each team the two factions would be pacted. This allows for some fast research and ample scope for role play and a quicker game. The big advantage should be bigger active teams.

Also it should mean that once factions have contact in game everyone can join in open forum discussions as you will not be breaching diplomacy issues.

It would be a two team/two faction head to head.

So the big attraction would be faster research, and with just two teams, a faster game. Also with having two factions to run, more things to do and to delegate.

[Mead]

Originally posted by GeoModder
The drawback is turnrate of course... with so many turnplayers there's bound to be a delay somewhere on the road.

One turnplayer could play more than one faction. Or, a few turnplayers could play all the non-player factions. It looks like we already have three volunteeers (I suspected there would be no shortage). The timeline on the 'AI' teams would be very short and any of the 'AI' mods could play the 'AI' factions.

The 'AI' factions gameplay need not be perfect or even very good. It merely needs to be competent and fast. The goal of the 'AI' mods would be to get the turn out quickly. With at least 3 mods the turn (total for all the 'AI' factions) should take less than 12 hours. Absent whatever adminstrative methods they use to determine who plays, whichever of the mods gets to it first plays it.

These players could maybe even participate in other "proper" teams, or at least have some kind of mod priviledge to read their private forums to keep them interested in the game.

I'm not sure we want them [the 'AI" mods] to be a member of a regular team as well. There's just too much temptation for bias in favor of their real team. Even if they did not favor their own team there still could be the appearance of bias which would life difficult for them and unpleasant for eveyone else.

I think they'll remain interested in the game. They'll have enough to do. They'll have access to diplomacy and infiltration, if they can get it. At least at the start of the game will have vastly more info than the real teams. Note: we may need to limit their ability to tech trade amonst themselves, otherwise they may end up transcending before the regular teams have HEC.



Mead

[Modo44]

Any computer-controlled AI would have to be terribly rigged, to compete against humans. Even more so if the humans cooperated.

If a player (or players) should control an "AI", then there is the problem of this becoming more duty, than fun, once (not "if") the faction becomes very weak. The good thing is, this does make for a faster game.

Me, I prefer a straightforward PBEM with heavier focus on roleplaying both in- and outside of the private forums. One in which there would be no way in hell Gaia and Morgan join a pact.


EDIT: One thing I would really vote for is switching to blind research.

[Snoddasmannen]

Originally posted by Mead

One turnplayer could play more than one faction. Or, a few turnplayers could play all the non-player factions. It looks like we already have three volunteeers (I suspected there would be no shortage). The timeline on the 'AI' teams would be very short and any of the 'AI' mods could play the 'AI' factions.

Yes I had this exact same thought
I doubt that the 'limited' (I don't like the term AI - they are played by humans perhaps 'acted' factions is better?) factions together could ever take more than 12 hours to play if we had 4 players to manage them. Especially if those have contact over ICQ or something like that.

I'm not sure we want them [the 'AI" mods] to be a member of a regular team as well. There's just too much temptation for bias in favor of their real team. Even if they did not favor their own team there still could be the appearance of bias which would life difficult for them and unpleasant for eveyone else.

I think they'll remain interested in the game. ...

Yes, good points
Let's hope so.

At least at the start of the game will have vastly more info than the real teams. Note: we may need to limit their ability to tech trade amonst themselves, otherwise they may end up transcending before the regular teams have HEC.

Well .... I don't think they should act like they have more information. Granted, this makes for some strange gaming, pretending to send out ships to explore etc ... But remember that these players (unless they get carried away) should not play to win, but only to have fun with roleplaying.

Posted by Modo:
If a player (or players) should control an "AI", then there is the problem of this becoming more duty, than fun, once (not "if") the faction becomes very weak. The good thing is, this does make for a faster game.

I don't know Modo, I think it would be fun I can imagine these factions getting up to all crazy sorts of things. I'm sure they can stage invasions, launch violent propaganda movements on the public (or private) forums, betray alliances etc ... It'll be all the fun without the need for any of it to be good for the game