 |
| |
|
|
Mead
|
|
In the Northern Hemisphere the days are getting longer, the sun is getting stronger.
Cutting icy gusts turn to gentle caressing breezes.
Birds are chirping. Flowers are blooming.
The thoughts of young and old ACDGers turn to ...
***
and New AC Democracy Games.
It may be a little too early to discuss this ... but ... do we want to have a new ACDG?
If so, how do we want to structure it?
ACDG I Style (all one team vs. greatly enhanced AI)
ACDG II Style (multiple teams collaborative victory allowed)
ACDG III Style (multiple teams collaborative victory not allowed)
In addition to the three variations above we could vary the rules some more.
My personal thoughts - initial
I like:
The idea of choppers can't attack cities.
I don't like:
Collaborative victory not allowed.
There is no rush, we should have at least 1 maybe 2 months before this game will be wound up, but we should start thinking about and discussing what comes next.
Mead
|
|
| |
|
|
|
-SafaN-
|
|
what about an evil planet, with the two alien factions on it. Then the factions, something like hive and peacekeapers have to work together to claim a bit of land?
its just a proposal
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hercules
|
 |
in Tir Na Og
Sep 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
Actually I feel atm this game is quite good and full of intrigue.
There was no foregone winning alliance (in my view) last ACDGgame, contrary to opinion, but by MY2150 approx it was foregone.
I have a feeling we need to run two games in parallel:
One like this, no co-op victory allowed, so that there is a degree of tension around and in parallel, a tough SP Demo game at transcend/librarian level.
Then a second game where participating members can interact freely. No doubt there will be 'obscure' references to the MP game amongst
the SP game players. But I think that will be part of the fun.
Last edited by Hercules on 18-03-2005 at 04:41
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
The progies are supposed to always be at war, so there can't be peace between them. Also, a progie successfully killing another progies will give the killing team a 'draw' if it sucumbs to the humans.
Interracial atrocities (including PBs) will be considered acceptable behavior (same goes for atrocities between the progenators).
I would have infiltration last for only 5 turns, the human factions get +1 or 2 to probe (since they can't direct probe defenses).
some suggested game changes:
Adjust unit costs so that:
planes have normal weapon costs (making them more expensive).
choppers have double weapon costs (making them even more expensive)
hovertanks and AA come earlier.
Last edited by arginine on 18-03-2005 at 06:53
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Mead
|
|
Arg just suggested something that sounds good.
quote:
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mead
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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:
quote:
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.
Last edited by Snoddasmannen on 18-03-2005 at 13:01
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mart7x5
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mart7x5
|
|
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
|
|
in Tir Na Og
Sep 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
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.
Last edited by Hercules on 18-03-2005 at 21:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mead
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Snoddasmannen
|
|
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
quote:
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
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-03-2005 09:22
With the current turnplay speed we'll perhaps play seven turns in the next two months. Talking of which, why is your turn delayed btw if I may ask? It can't be urgent diplomacy - the PTS raid was already three years ago so that can't count as a reason - nor can it be an acute and unexpected absence of members - otherwise you wouldn't be posting here.
|