|
Westminster System posted:I mean they have functioning AI, its just woefully inadequate against any learned player. Making good AI for a strategy game is not making one that plays in the most optimal way, but one that gives the perception of an adaptable opponent that provides regular challenge or believable behavior without feeling unfair, in other words, contribute to the fiction of the game, and that's way way harder than building something that will crunch the numbers and poo poo out winning moves.
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 05:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
ZearothK posted:Making good AI for a strategy game is not making one that plays in the most optimal way, but one that gives the perception of an adaptable opponent that provides regular challenge or believable behavior without feeling unfair, in other words, contribute to the fiction of the game, and that's way way harder than building something that will crunch the numbers and poo poo out winning moves. I think this is why the "bad AI" is less noticeable in a game like CK2 than it is in something like HoI4. In CK2 the fiction of the game is that each individual character is an independent agent with their own agenda, which the AI is generally good at doing. Sometimes they make boneheaded decisions but they're boneheaded in a way that makes sense as something the character would choose to do, because they're imperfect at best and inbred morons the rest of the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 07:47
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:along with Groogy making a save-game converter for Stellaris. No ZearothK posted:Making good AI for a strategy game is not making one that plays in the most optimal way, but one that gives the perception of an adaptable opponent that provides regular challenge or believable behavior without feeling unfair, in other words, contribute to the fiction of the game, and that's way way harder than building something that will crunch the numbers and poo poo out winning moves. This person knows whats up. Also why CK2 mostly gets AI love on non-map strategic elements. It also works out because there's thousands of agents doing random stuff all the time, eventually one of them is going to get something right and interesting going for the player to follow. e: Also honestly several times when we've in EU4 and CK2 made the AI act like the player to give it the same advantage, our forum usually gets flooded by complaints when the AI is using their own tricks against them. Though usually they can't see the irony in it either. Groogy fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Nov 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 09:28
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:I love that episode of Star Trek where Kirk defeats the evil world-controlling computer by tricking it into an infinite loop of checking who it can castrate. This is probably my favorite bug to ever exist in any Paradox game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
Pakled posted:This is probably my favorite bug to ever exist in any Paradox game. By the end of the Byzantine Empire, the Ministry for Castration had grown to encompass on third of the world's economy. The bureaucracy stripped the Black Forest bare in search of paper, and drove hawthorn to extinction in want of ink. The clacking of the abacuses in the Houses of Calculation was so loud, day and night, that no glass could be brought into street opposite, for fear of it shattering. To evaluate a single individual could take as long as a decade; in the best case, when the subject was a woman, exclusion took three months. Simply retrieving an evaluation from the archives took so long that no such request was ever successfully filled. By this stage, the Empire could not afford to employ a single man skilled in castration, and the operation itself had not been performed in centuries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 14:02
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I think this is why the "bad AI" is less noticeable in a game like CK2 than it is in something like HoI4. In CK2 the fiction of the game is that each individual character is an independent agent with their own agenda, which the AI is generally good at doing. Sometimes they make boneheaded decisions but they're boneheaded in a way that makes sense as something the character would choose to do, because they're imperfect at best and inbred morons the rest of the time. *shiftily glance at Total War Warhammer’s AI that skirts the border of your movement circle to an inch and never attacks the player unless it can crush it in a 2:1 ratio*
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:I´ve actually sometimes wondered about Paradox doing a horse breeding game, because 1) people that like horses are insane about them 2) there was a lot of stuff around it and it would be a cool look into history and whatnot and 3) horses are neat Insane person spotted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 19:17
|
|
|
Groogy posted:e: Also honestly several times when we've in EU4 and CK2 made the AI act like the player to give it the same advantage, our forum usually gets flooded by complaints when the AI is using their own tricks against them. Though usually they can't see the irony in it either. I feel the AI acting in a metagaming fashion has a place on the highest difficulty levels, whose target market should be the demographic that has triple digits of hours in the game and wants a greater challenge, but is certainly not the kind of scripting that fits on the difficulties the average person is going to play, an end user that is actually perfectly fine with the AI being kind of dumb as long as it doesn't break kayfabe. Of course, even the former demographic is likely to be peeved by the AI using gamey strategies because 1) it breaks the fiction and 2) it ruins the players' power fantasy; so the people who do enjoy this behavior is going to be a smaller hardcore base.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 19:35
|
|
|
Which game is more fun at the moment - CK2 or EU4? I'm way behind on the DLCs and I can only afford to catch up on one of them (because Paradox never actually bothers doing 75% sales on old DLCs anymore).
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 19:45
|
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:Which game is more fun at the moment - CK2 or EU4? Both are tons of fun, both are very different on focus. Do you want to play a country or a dynasty? Do you want to guide a nation to greatness or stave off inbreeding and/or aztec/mongol/chinese hordes? Personally I've always gotten more replay value from CK2 because each game is always batshit different. EUIV is for when I'm stable and sober enough to puzzle out all those decisions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Martha Stewart Undying posted:Both are tons of fun, both are very different on focus. Do you want to play a country or a dynasty? Do you want to guide a nation to greatness or stave off inbreeding and/or aztec/mongol/chinese hordes? Personally I've always gotten more replay value from CK2 because each game is always batshit different. EUIV is for when I'm stable and sober enough to puzzle out all those decisions. I've played both, I'm just about a year or two behind on the mass of DLC. I'm more wondering which is better at the moment and which has improved more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:I've played both, I'm just about a year or two behind on the mass of DLC. I'm more wondering which is better at the moment and which has improved more. Ahhh, ok. Well I'm 3 expansions behind on EUIV, so I've of no help here.  I think CK2 has gotten better by leaps and bounds though. Jade Empire's made that eastern half of the map a blast to play on or observe from a safe distance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:Which game is more fun at the moment - CK2 or EU4? CK2 if you want something closer to a pen-and-paper rpg, EU4 if you want something closer to a boardgame.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
ChrisAsmadi posted:I've played both, I'm just about a year or two behind on the mass of DLC. I'm more wondering which is better at the moment and which has improved more. AAAAA! Real Muenster fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Nov 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
Did they at least fix it so Granada/morocco can't get day 1 tributary status anymore?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
Not sure if they ever could, but they certainly can't now. Looking around, and it seems like no one but countries in Ming's immediate vicinity can ask to be tributary and Ming can only get those countries and also randomly Jharkhand in northeast India (though they can get Bengal soon after with a small bit of work).
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Well Ming can't even see that far at the start but hyperbole aside they haven't majorly changed the tributary stuff since it was first introduced, no. The next patch seems to be about Southeast Asia so hopefully it'll finally address some of it. I think the complaints ITT tend to be a bit overblown but it's still definitely a major issue.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
Groogy posted:e: Also honestly several times when we've in EU4 and CK2 made the AI act like the player to give it the same advantage, our forum usually gets flooded by complaints when the AI is using their own tricks against them. Though usually they can't see the irony in it either. Yeah this is why I hate how many people keep saying they want the HoI4 AI to be smarter - it's not actually fun to play against an enemy that just always beats you. If a computer had human intelligence it would never lose against a human player, because it would be smart enough to understand strategy AND also have infinite attention and micromanagement ability so it would never actually make a human mistake like forgetting to check on a distant front in a while, or just getting lazy and dumping all your divisions into one huge front rather than making sure all the special forces are lined up along their terrain of choice, all the mobile and armored divisions are lined up against open plains, etc. I mean it's a pretty well-known thing in fighting games that if you want to make an AI that never loses it's trivial to do - you just give them perfect reflexes and they're counter anything the player does. Making good AI isn't just about making them "better". It's about making them interesting to play against.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
That said I'd love to see some time in 2050 when we have true sapient AI perhaps and stellaris sector AI that isn't bad and can correctly optimize.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:That said I'd love to see some time in 2050 when we have true sapient AI perhaps and stellaris sector AI that isn't bad and can correctly optimize.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
Most people want an AI that makes them feel smart when they beat it with their clearly amazing strategies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:That said I'd love to see some time in 2050 when we have true sapient AI perhaps and stellaris sector AI that isn't bad and can correctly optimize. This is how the "Death by paperclip maximizer" robopocalypse scenario that LessWrong Wiki people handwring about ends up happening, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
I was not aware of there being an AI in Paradox games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:I was not aware of there being an AI in Paradox games. It doesn't, all instances of the game directly connect to the Paradox offices and foreign countries are played by interns, Chinese videogame slaves or even main staff on slow days.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
there is no ai, there is only state machines
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:I was not aware of there being an AI in Paradox games. HEH
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:This is how the "Death by paperclip maximizer" robopocalypse scenario that LessWrong Wiki people handwring about ends up happening, isn't it? It will turn out that the videogame industry, not the MIC, will be responsible for creating Skynet and unleashing it on the world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Danann posted:It will turn out that the videogame industry, not the MIC, will be responsible for creating Skynet and unleashing it on the world. "All we were trying to do was teach an AI how to most effectively win wars against humans. Who would have thought that could ever go wrong!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 03:03
|
|
|
Kainser posted:Most people want an AI that makes them feel smart when they beat it with their clearly amazing strategies. Yeah, this. The challenge of AI is not only making one that could beat the player if they really wanted to, but to make one that puts up enough of a stiff fight to give the player a sense of accomplishment and struggle, but folds up anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 03:24
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:"All we were trying to do was teach an AI how to most effectively win wars against humans. Who would have thought that could ever go wrong!" like, kinda, Patriot-ish
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Feels good to use cool and innovative strategies like the 'Maginot Line', after Germany declare war on you for no good reason(they had completely annexed Poland and Romania already), to completely annihilate their armed forces before the full frontal advance into Berlin. All while being pressured to end the war before Japan and their puppet China can join the Axis and extend the war into Asia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:I'm not sure if it would be better if they designed an AI that would launch a series of wars that would be ultimately be drawn out but winnable in a satisfying way  This would be a pretty awesome plot twist for a sci-fi story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
The solution to good AI is play multiplayer, because humans make the best AIs
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 04:59
|
|
|
I did once and the other human quit when the game turned in my favor slightly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 05:06
|
|
|
Wooper posted:I did once and the other human quit when the game turned in my favor slightly. See, it's so much better that you don't even need to do a victory lap against a weak-willed adversary. Join the MP Discord and find people who will gladly bankrupt their own countries in a hellwar to stop you from conquering a single two development province.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 14:12
|
|
|
Probably both the best and worst part of playing against players. Players can't really evaluate the cost/benefit of ending a war early for a poo poo province you don't really care about. For players, that poo poo piece of dirt is a do-or-die situation. I've seen games where a player would run their entire nation into bankruptcy just because he refused to surrender a single colony province.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Groogy posted:Probably both the best and worst part of playing against players. Players can't really evaluate the cost/benefit of ending a war early for a poo poo province you don't really care about. For players, that poo poo piece of dirt is a do-or-die situation. I've seen games where a player would run their entire nation into bankruptcy just because he refused to surrender a single colony province. Well yeah, but if you yield that single province they'll think you weak and come back for more later; better to try and drag out the war into MAB territory
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
There's also the metagame aspect at play. If you fight hellwars even over what should be an easily-taken province, over the course of several games people learn to pick on other targets. If you give up provinces easily then you become everyone's first choice of target if they have an army and nothing to do with it. There are definitely still times where it's correct to just roll over, but the nature of playing several multiplayer games with the same group of people biases things towards hurting your attacker as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
I love playing as Coptic Ethiopia! Had a great game going. But I lost the Solomonid line! Can I get them back?! When is paradox going to create more intricate family trees? I refuse to believe there are onoly two living solomnids at any given time 
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 19:33 |
|
|
Jabor posted:There's also the metagame aspect at play. If you fight hellwars even over what should be an easily-taken province, over the course of several games people learn to pick on other targets. If you give up provinces easily then you become everyone's first choice of target if they have an army and nothing to do with it. Yeah that's definitely a strategy I've used before, if you're going to lose then at least make it hurt the other guys enough to make them think twice about trying again in the future. There is a good middle ground between rolling over and dying and crippling your economy. Usually if you put up enough of a fight you can get them to peace out for 20-30% warscore. Nobody likes to lose in games but in EU4 it can be really infuriating to lose a war in MP. You can grow strangely attached to your borders, and losing just a couple provinces can derail long term plans. But losing gracefully can lead to future opportunities that can turn out to be much more lucrative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 24, 2017 16:17
|
|
