Honestly, im pretty outraged by seeing people actually taking seriously the idea of those "do your base for you" groupAIs. Sure, a lot of people are suggesting it (okay 2 or 3 actually), but people suggest very stupid crap like "ooo make TA have poligon-based hit damage" or "oooo make this RTS more realistic by doing X". Sure, in their simple minds it might sound fun, but it completely screws up the balance and gameplay.
Those group AIs would give people using them a massive advantage, which for anyone remotely familiar to game balance means cheating/unbalanced features.
What we really need, more than a GUI, more than Moderators, more than night time is simply modifying group AIs and the global AIs:
-Make GlobalAIs be able to cheat without the .cheat command. This is obviously fine for multiplayer since it only affects normal AIs only used allowing for easier testing and super-hard AIs without having the user type .cheat every single time (its especially tiring for testing)
-Make Group AIs a server-side allowance so you dont get smart ass noobs having metal classes or economy planners on when other people dont want them to. Or hell, even completely disabling them would be better than what they currently are, its a big fat exploit waiting to be used . As i said AF, please dont code group AIs just for a bit of recognition, me and many players will lose their respect they have for you, its a plain stupid idea to allow those builder AIs out.
I know some people wont agree with me and think im quite rude towards the idea of advanced group AIs, but if you are actually a good, experienced player (eg not a noob who played for 15 hours total and went forum-happy), then id be happy to discuss it and maybe change my stance, but I see those unrestriced groupAIs as an aberration to what good sportsmanship (gamemanship?) should be all about.
I understand devs are overloaded with work at the moment. All i ask is that the things listed above are heard and that no AI developer actually releases group AIs that aid the player with information or controls their units for them anymore than a simple on-off.
Group AI and Global AI
Moderators: hoijui, Moderators
You do realise this can easily be hacked around by any developer? Best thing is just to ask people not to make these lame AIs.So, K, is what you're asking for just an option to allow / disallow Group AIs in a game? That's a good idea.
Some group AIs could be nice, for example one that allows you to copy a piece of base to another area.
What I'm opposed against are dgunning AIs and scouting AIs, since they actually perform a specific task that only a skilled player can do well. A resource building AI... well I doubt it will be much of a difficulty for the skilled gamer to beat someone using that. I'd get pretty irritated because the AI would build on wrong places, or starts a new fusion at exactly the wrong time
Oh? I actually didn't. I figured that the GroupAI talked to the server machine, and not just to the client. My bad.
Honestly, I'd like the challenge of making a good like, resource AI, or whatever. Or possible one that's good at fighting.
I guess I don't see what the problem is. Algorythmic AIs can't possibly beat a human player. so all you're doing is promoting crappy players to mediocre.
Honestly, I'd like the challenge of making a good like, resource AI, or whatever. Or possible one that's good at fighting.
I guess I don't see what the problem is. Algorythmic AIs can't possibly beat a human player. so all you're doing is promoting crappy players to mediocre.
SoftNum, AIs can beat humans at micromanagement and calculations. My metal class can improve ANY player's mex placement from WHATEVER_LEVEL to PERFECT. Anyone who used it would reap rewards in most maps and would generally place mexes better than ANY other player. AIs have instant reflexes and almost infinite micromanaging ability.
An AI would lose against a human, but that doesnt mean AIs arent better than humans at certain things. Group AIs allow players to get the good bits without having to cope with their lack of critical thought, planning ahead or whatever.
The problem is that crappy players should be just that, crappy, unless all players agree they should be promoted, which is not the case. Right now anyone could put groupAIs that improve their game even if the other players disagree with it and them poor losers wont even be able to tell someone is using those AIs so they cant do jack about it.
If there was some sort of control for Group AIs, then it would be fine to make whatever you wanted. But then you have the problem that there would be millions of versions of the same AI, or someone making an uber-AI and replacing the metal maker AI with it, etc etc...
As spring grows more popular we will see a sharp increase in problems like that (take Counter-Strike as an example, cheats come out everyday and must be kept in check by thousands of people from valve, unitedadmins, server mods etc...). Trust me, goodwill and lack of exploiting dont last long as the number of players grows!
An AI would lose against a human, but that doesnt mean AIs arent better than humans at certain things. Group AIs allow players to get the good bits without having to cope with their lack of critical thought, planning ahead or whatever.
The problem is that crappy players should be just that, crappy, unless all players agree they should be promoted, which is not the case. Right now anyone could put groupAIs that improve their game even if the other players disagree with it and them poor losers wont even be able to tell someone is using those AIs so they cant do jack about it.
If there was some sort of control for Group AIs, then it would be fine to make whatever you wanted. But then you have the problem that there would be millions of versions of the same AI, or someone making an uber-AI and replacing the metal maker AI with it, etc etc...
As spring grows more popular we will see a sharp increase in problems like that (take Counter-Strike as an example, cheats come out everyday and must be kept in check by thousands of people from valve, unitedadmins, server mods etc...). Trust me, goodwill and lack of exploiting dont last long as the number of players grows!
Well, I agree with the ideas about restraining the use of GroupAIs in multiplayer, the server could block the use of specific AIs, or even the player if he reports the use of such AIs, but that's a matter of cheat detection and player politics.
But I don't agree with the yada yada about downplaying AI developers who develop such AIs, if I, you or anyone want to make such a "lame" Group AI, fine, but please, don't think about those developers as people who don't deserve your respect.
But I don't agree with the yada yada about downplaying AI developers who develop such AIs, if I, you or anyone want to make such a "lame" Group AI, fine, but please, don't think about those developers as people who don't deserve your respect.
I have no problem with people making them, i really dont! I do have a problem if they release them, however, for the reasons explained above...
If someone develops a hack for a game, cool! if someone releases that hack, NOT cool!
Once there is a tighter control for groupAIs even I will be making a groupAI!
Its not about the development, its just the releasing of them at this moment that would seriously hurt the community and players...
If someone develops a hack for a game, cool! if someone releases that hack, NOT cool!
Once there is a tighter control for groupAIs even I will be making a groupAI!
Its not about the development, its just the releasing of them at this moment that would seriously hurt the community and players...
I find that proposal (see GroupAI arguement thread and the list fo possible failsafes Is uggested before storm tried to quash thema s irrelevant).
My suggestion eb that GrouPAI's simpyl wotn run untill they recieve chat messages from each and every player sayign they agree that ti can be ran.
For example a resourcing GroupAI would oynlw ork if every single player typed in "+resourceAI", fi you dont agree then you dont type ti and it doesnt get used,a nd it only gets used if everybody agrees.
But all fo this is useless really, all ti takes is a single line added to your player entry in the game script to make the engien assign you a skirmish AI helper, whcih will play the game for you, and dependign on the AI, you can itnervene and tweak bits. (JCAI & AAI wont work for this because of the way their cosntruction systems deal with unit stalls, and how JCAI checks a unti si doign what it's supposed to be doing.)
And no i did nto say I was going to create those GroupAI's, I said the source is there, ti'd eb relatively easy to rip it out of NTAI and create GroupAI's, but onyl nwo sicne future sources will use a new system that will be much harder to tear out. I'llc ode useful AI's, that help the player make decisions, not AI's that make the decisions for the player, sucha s the cursor ally groupAI, AI's thatd raw information the player ahs in a better format, sucha s the white lines signifying LOS, or even just a 3D model of the map displayed in lines.....
My suggestion eb that GrouPAI's simpyl wotn run untill they recieve chat messages from each and every player sayign they agree that ti can be ran.
For example a resourcing GroupAI would oynlw ork if every single player typed in "+resourceAI", fi you dont agree then you dont type ti and it doesnt get used,a nd it only gets used if everybody agrees.
But all fo this is useless really, all ti takes is a single line added to your player entry in the game script to make the engien assign you a skirmish AI helper, whcih will play the game for you, and dependign on the AI, you can itnervene and tweak bits. (JCAI & AAI wont work for this because of the way their cosntruction systems deal with unit stalls, and how JCAI checks a unti si doign what it's supposed to be doing.)
And no i did nto say I was going to create those GroupAI's, I said the source is there, ti'd eb relatively easy to rip it out of NTAI and create GroupAI's, but onyl nwo sicne future sources will use a new system that will be much harder to tear out. I'llc ode useful AI's, that help the player make decisions, not AI's that make the decisions for the player, sucha s the cursor ally groupAI, AI's thatd raw information the player ahs in a better format, sucha s the white lines signifying LOS, or even just a 3D model of the map displayed in lines.....
Re: Group AI and Global AI
What in the world gives you the right to dictate how a game should be played out? Everybody likes to play a game in there own way. The Yank Spankers made spring with the ability to incorporate groupAI to reduce the boring micromanagement that some players hate. The way they did it was to include the MMAI(I am NOT saying that they are approving of the AI's I've suggested). The MMAI does give a player an advantage and is, from what I understand, in your view "cheating/unbalanced features" since it is after all a resource balancing AI. Now should it be banned? Even though it is IMHO used and/or accepted by most of the players? Or should it be considered as an aid to improve game play?krogothe wrote:I understand devs are overloaded with work at the moment. All i ask is that the things listed above are heard and that no AI developer actually releases group AIs that aid the player with information or controls their units for them anymore than a simple on-off.
Games are and will always be improving. That is why TA was so great when it came out since it had its own "smart" units which other RTS games didn't have. Units would fire at anything in range even when moving. Con-units would repair, help build and even gather resources at will and when needed when set on putrol. These are all great features which are considered as cheating, lazy or even "AI playing for you" for many StarCraft fans. But we all know that TA is better since we don't have to micro that much ( compared to SC) when ever we run an army through the enemies base, right?
Well I've been playing TA on and off for several years now and I consider myself as an OK player. So I hope you were not saying I've only played for 15 hours?
I've played MANY different RTS games. Both real time and turn based so I really hope I know my share. Doesn't make me an expert, but at least a little wiser? I hope that at least gives my suggestion some credibility.I suggested the AI's as I(!!!) and others belive that it could be a great addition to the existing game play and sometimes even a more relaxing game. As SJ said once about GroupAI's "just be able to site down for a relaxing game of spring one day"(he did say that didn't he?
)I understand that it just ain't your cup of tea and I totally respect it. But don't tell me and others on how the game SHOULD be run. Don't dictate to me what is fun and isn't fun. I will be enjoying my game of Supreme Commander when it comes out and you can boo and hiss as much as you want at it's built inn auto-base building features
Re: Group AI and Global AI
A pretty post with lots of smileys and emotion, but please take your time to actually read my posts in full instead of skimming it so you wont waste your time writing big posts.CrowJuice wrote:What in the world gives you the right to dictate how a game should be played out? Everybody likes to play a game in there own way. The Yank Spankers made spring with the ability to incorporate groupAI to reduce the boring micromanagement that some players hate. The way they did it was to include the MMAI(I am NOT saying that they are approving of the AI's I've suggested). The MMAI does give a player an advantage and is, from what I understand, in your view "cheating/unbalanced features" since it is after all a resource balancing AI. Now should it be banned? Even though it is IMHO used and/or accepted by most of the players? Or should it be considered as an aid to improve game play?krogothe wrote:I understand devs are overloaded with work at the moment. All i ask is that the things listed above are heard and that no AI developer actually releases group AIs that aid the player with information or controls their units for them anymore than a simple on-off.
Games are and will always be improving. That is why TA was so great when it came out since it had its own "smart" units which other RTS games didn't have. Units would fire at anything in range even when moving. Con-units would repair, help build and even gather resources at will and when needed when set on putrol. These are all great features which are considered as cheating, lazy or even "AI playing for you" for many StarCraft fans. But we all know that TA is better since we don't have to micro that much ( compared to SC) when ever we run an army through the enemies base, right?
Well I've been playing TA on and off for several years now and I consider myself as an OK player. So I hope you were not saying I've only played for 15 hours?
I suggested the AI's as I(!!!) and others belive that it could be a great addition to the existing game play and sometimes even a more relaxing game. As SJ said once about GroupAI's "just be able to site down for a relaxing game of spring one day"(he did say that didn't he?
I understand that it just ain't your cup of tea and I totally respect it. But don't tell me and others on how the game SHOULD be run. Don't dictate to me what is fun and isn't fun. I will be enjoying my game of Supreme Commander when it comes out and you can boo and hiss as much as you want at it's built inn auto-base building features
I dont mind group AIs (that includes all existing ones) as long as they are controllable server-side, and i stated that several times, and i think pretty much any veteran will agree with me on that point.
-
Guessmyname
- Posts: 3301
- Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 21:07
Yes, Group AI should only be used by consent, additionally I think it would be useful if the more powerful ones annouced that they were being used.
As an anticheating measure, it should be possible to tell if an AI is being used by analising a replay. Not that we have a replay analising tool, it could be an interesting project for someone.
As an anticheating measure, it should be possible to tell if an AI is being used by analising a replay. Not that we have a replay analising tool, it could be an interesting project for someone.
I didnt know that! lol loving area commands more and more *plans out evil flanking strategy with mass transportsZaphod wrote:That's already possible with repeat + area pickup commandsHowever GroupAIs can be useful. For example: a Transport AI, where a player-designated transport will automatically pickup units built by a player-designated factory, and then drop them off at a player-designated location
*Guys, no one will have a problem with group AIs (id even like to try them, for a minute or two to take a break from real gaming), but just wait until we work out a way to keep it from being used when the other players in the server dont want it (even the MM AI, in my opinion, and i use it all the time)
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29