 |
| |
|
|
arginine
|
|
1) There will be only 2 teams (instead of the current 4) to divide among the players.
2) The humans should be mostly automated (requiring far less effort) and hopefully use just a single player.
Ideally, I would see a game of team 1 vs team 2 with the 5 people controlling the 'humans' doing a bunch of negotiating in a REQUIRED roleplay mode. In fact, I think the human AIs should go to the people that can roleplay their faction the best.
Also, if a human AI is late in taking their turn, a mod can play the turn for them, automating any units that need to be moved.
Hell, there'd be a Prog 1 forum, a Prog 2 forum and a 'planetary council' forum can be activated once all the humans meet each other.
quote:
In a real roleplay, there's no way in hell Morgan and Gaia would Pact. |
I think that they could pact, Morgan would just have to switch to a 'green' economy and have low ecodamage levels. 
Last edited by arginine on 19-03-2005 at 04:04
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Snoddasmannen
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hercules
I think this Human/AI idea is not really a goer over a period of 18 months.
(snip)
So lets just be mindful of the total potential active pool of players. I 'd guess around 25 at present.
|
How about if the limited players also act as mods? Or perhaps rather, put the mods and a few other guys in charge of the limited factions. This would even help keep the mods active. So say we lose 5 players to Hollywood duties, there'd still be 20 players left (though I cautiously consider this a slightly pessimistic estimate judging by activity in Sparta). 20 players should be enough for 2 or 3 teams.
quote:
Originally posted by arginine
My idea is that each of the humans has a faction that they control, but can only do limited micromanaging. and allow movement (and only movement) of all combat units every several years. I think this should be determined by rolling a dice by one of the mods. I think that when a human AI is allowed to move, it should be kept secret. If a unit has to be moved, it must either be automated, put on standby, or on hold.
|
Would these players play to win?
My concern is that this would result in a pretty stupid player anyways. They certainly wouldn't be able to play the game consistently with their role-play. "We will destroy you and your feeble legions! ... as soon as our troops get around to it.".
I think it would be better to go with fully human controlled factions, which do things consistently and more interestingly than an AI or a semi-automated player.
As for a single player controlling every faction, I'm really concerned that this would cause activity problems ... There could certainly be a single player officially in charge of every team, and who by default plays the turn. Perhaps he is given some time where no other member in the Hollywood group can play his moves. This could certainly be agreed upon within that group. But I think it is important that these teams do not take too much time.
The suggestion by Mart that any available 'limited' players play the turn as soon as it pops up, is still very good imo, with the possible reservation of allowing the official player some time before his faction is 'played'.
quote:
Ideally, I would see a game of team 1 vs team 2 with the 5 people controlling the 'humans' doing a bunch of negotiating in a REQUIRED roleplay mode.
|
I agree that negotiations are by far the most important part these players should play. However, backing the negotiations up with some consistent game-play is also good. Imagine all the deals you can strike with a player that you could not with an AI. Remember Mr. Moneypenny? 
quote:
In fact, I think the human AIs should go to the people that can roleplay their faction the best.
|
Audtions, anyone?
EDIT: I misquoted, give credit where credit is due
Last edited by Snoddasmannen on 19-03-2005 at 12:18
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mart7x5
|
|
The more I think of this idea of single human controling a faction so that "AI" is enhanced, I feel it should be like permanently pacted all of them, and played by the same player. This way there goes problem of all those additional diplomacy between all those single-player played factions. If there are going to be like 5 of them compared to 2 regular teams, imagine how much diplomacy would be outside of those 2 teams. Having one player doing it all, in the name of some "Union" would solve all these problems.
And the increase of game speed. It is worth it.
One player playing 5 factions? Could be tiring, but this function might go from one Mod to another if someone got very tired...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Snoddasmannen
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mart7x5
The more I think of this idea of single human controling a faction so that "AI" is enhanced, I feel it should be like permanently pacted all of them, and played by the same player. This way there goes problem of all those additional diplomacy between all those single-player played factions. If there are going to be like 5 of them compared to 2 regular teams, imagine how much diplomacy would be outside of those 2 teams. Having one player doing it all, in the name of some "Union" would solve all these problems.
And the increase of game speed. It is worth it.
|
This is certainly not a bad option  But I'm not sure I think the idea of all of them being permapacted from day 1 is such a fun thing. The way they could be used by the real teams gets limited. One of the teams might want to form an alliance with one limited faction against another for instance ...
Rather than them being pacted, there could be just trivial diplomacy between them. Remember, relations between these factions is not really concerned with making good decisions, but rather good rp. So any decisions will probably be made very quickly, or perhaps I should say as quickly as the limited players would like.
quote:
One player playing 5 factions? Could be tiring, but this function might go from one Mod to another if someone got very tired... |
The risk is that this player is missing. One of the other mods should step in, but could be slow to do so. Give x number of players all equal responsibility and human nature will tend to insure this makes people more responsible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
freshman
|
|
If humans play all factions, 1 human controlling 5 of them, doesn't the 5 have a major advantage over the other 2? I understand the time acceleration, and the challenge factor, but just dont understand the odds... 5:2 ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
arginine
|
|
quote:
Would these players play to win?
My concern is that this would result in a pretty stupid player anyways. They certainly wouldn't be able to play the game consistently with their role-play. "We will destroy you and your feeble legions! ... as soon as our troops get around to it.". |
Since when is the AI ever able to be consistent with ITS threats and boasts? A player will be an upgrade in intelligence. Instead of being an increadibly stupid faction, the faction will be just somewhat stupid and difficult for humans to easily exploit.
By using lots of automation, the human spends a little amount of time playing. If someone has to play a turn, but misses a deadline, a mod can play it and everything that needs to move will be put on 'automate unit'. Heck, a person might opt to let a mod play a turn, hitting 'automate unit' on all the units that need to move.
If the humans try to win, they have a specific role to play in the game. Hopefully, no one will spend to much time on the human factions...
I don't see why we would want to remove the intra-human diplomacy. That's part of the intrigue. If only 2 or 3 human factions can win jointly, there shouldn't be any ganging up.
It is possible to give some of the human factions some secret goals, or hidden agendas. (ie the Spartans are promised transcendence by the Usurpers in exchange for their cooperation).
quote:
Ideally, I would see a game of team 1 vs team 2 with the 5 people controlling the 'humans' doing a bunch of negotiating in a REQUIRED roleplay mode. |
They wouldn't have to roleplay ALL THE TIME, but some roleplaying would certainly be required.
Last edited by arginine on 20-03-2005 at 01:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mead
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AndiD
***
Perhaps we should conduct a survey why interest fades towards the midgame - especially because there is much more to do, compared to to the two colony pods and the lone scout at the beginning.
*** |
Even when I'm playing SP my interest in the game takes a dip towards mid game. Usually by then, I have discovered just about all of planet, found out where all the other factions were, and the outcome of the game as already decided.
Perhaps we are seeing the same thing happen in these ACDG games. Allowing collaborative victories could delay the point where the game is decided, but that point would still eventually come.
The game is exciting at the beginning, even with only 2 CP and the scout, because there is so much that is possible. After the game progresses and it becomes apparent how it's going to turn out, it gets boring. Think of how low your interest sinks when your are playing SP and you know you have the game won but are just waiting around for the oppurtunity to end it. The same thing happens in DGs. It's even worse for factions that are second, third, or fouth place (again allowing collaborative victory could help this, but won't remove it).
Mead
PS
The only time I kept interested in an SP game until the end was when I was playing a One City Challenge. I will usually play the SP games to the end but will end then as early as I can (diplo victory) because it becomes more of a chore to continue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Snoddasmannen
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by arginine
Since when is the AI ever able to be consistent with ITS threats and boasts? A player will be an upgrade in intelligence. Instead of being an increadibly stupid faction, the faction will be just somewhat stupid and difficult for humans to easily exploit.
|
My point is simply that a partially automated faction is probably considerably worse than a manually run faction, or more importantly, considerably less fun to play with/against. Of course I agree that both of these options are far better than an AI team.
But for instance, how do you carry out an invasion or respond to unexpected events if you have to automate your moves with a certain degree of probability? It just seems too limiting...
Perhaps if you explain the main advantages of using automation extensively, rather than controlling the factions manually, you could convince me that this is a better path.
quote:
By using lots of automation, the human spends a little amount of time playing. If someone has to play a turn, but misses a deadline, a mod can play it and everything that needs to move will be put on 'automate unit'. Heck, a person might opt to let a mod play a turn, hitting 'automate unit' on all the units that need to move.
|
Another way to solve this without resorting to automation (which I consider too restrictive) is to use a pool of players (mods and volounteers) who are all roughly equally capable of playing the turns for the limited teams. Read the discussions earlier in the thread for more details on this approach.
quote:
It is possible to give some of the human factions some secret goals, or hidden agendas. (ie the Spartans are promised transcendence by the Usurpers in exchange for their cooperation).
|
I always liked having hidden goals for factions. But I rather prefer to think of the limited factions as actors, who are not trying to win the game at all, but are only played to act their part and add to the experience. This would be their only purpose, not to win the game.
quote:
There are lots of possibilites between the two extremes - "finding out which team is best" (current) and just "having a good time together" (first?).
|
Wow. For me, it's having a good time. I hadn't even considered any other option, even for this game
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AndiD
|
|
SOO of Morgan Industries, ACDG3
May 2004
time: 06:37
|
|
So how about something radically different:
No AI, large map, up to 7 teams, all human, all with a faction size of about 5-6 people and a turnplaying time of 24 hours sharp - maybe 1 or 2 turns that may take 48 hours are allowed every ten years ("critical turns").
Each team would consist of people that are roughly online at the same time (timezone, working hours etc.)
Roleplaying gets a strong emphasis - Cooperative victory would have to be debated (no? 2 max? 3 max? all?).
General Advantages could be:
+ smaller faction size => less "fading" interest towards midgame
+ shorter turnplay time makes for faster game (7*24 h = 168 h; 4*48 = 192 h now!)
+ more factions => more ideologies => more diplomacy => more chance of switching sides => less idea of actual game outcome
+ even with little roleplay from some factions there would still be some roleplay. Heck, with six or seven people representing their factions, we could even do kind of weekly council or something.
+ Cooperative victory off would ensure fierce battle till the end
+ Cooperative victory with up to 2 (3?) teams would allow long-term diplomacy (although long-term diplomacy might be still feasible wihout coop just to crush five teams first and then turn against each other)
I don't know whether techstag or blind research would add or spoil the fun...
(Imagine something like Pirates, Drones, Sparta, Morgan, CyCon, Gaia, Believers thrown together and being actively roleplayed...)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AndiD
Question is - which goals do we want to achieve with ACDG4?
There are lots of possibilites between the two extremes - "finding out which team is best" (current) and just "having a good time together" (first?). |
Not really. The first was run like a democracy game - elections, parties, agenda's, everyone competing for power, but us all debating and discussing, and then playing the turn in a turnchat, so we did 7 turns every week. Yes, towards the end (we're talking 2200+) interest dropped off a lot, but less so, IMHO, than the last DG.
An SP DG avoids the main problems - slow turnplaying, not being able to converse until 6 months into the game, lack of discussion, very few people in a team, leading to less diversity of playing styles, and vastly less RP. Plus the main thing for me, the nastiness. In both DGs people have been trying to do bad to other teams, things like trying to put penalties on them, asking mods to punish them, etc. It's not sportsmanlike, and more importantly, it's not pleasant. ACDG2 was much worse than 3, which is why I refused to play in a team in a DG again - I got nasty emails and personal crap.
I'm enjoying modding this, having a birds-eye view of everything, seeing how different factions work and play the turn, the strategies involved, etc. However there's a huge lack of any RP, any anything communal. It'snot a patch in terms of involvement, fun and activity on ACDG1, with parties, voting, elections, huge debates about the philosophy behind decisions, and learning a lot more about playing the game, as there were many more people in your team to learn from.
Yes activity dropped off a lot at the end, but you must remember this was in 2200 something, and activity was still very high at 2160, as it is in this. Of course when the result is obvious interest drops off, but it was much higher at the same times in ACDG1. Moreover, even right at the end with 10 people, that's still more active people than in any team currently. Having 5 active people makes the game pretty boring, IMHO. Having ~25, as we'd expect all being in one faction, is a lot more interesting.
Please, most people here haven't tried the SP DG and seen how it worked, at least give it an opportunity. Maybe it's just me, but the enjoyment seems to have been seriously lacking from the last two ACDGs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
AndiD: Even with 48 hour turns, we constantly have problems and extensions. Smaller teams usually mean more people losing interest, and dramatically increase the consequences when it happens - we've had teams close to dropping out due to lack of interest in both team DGs. We don't have 6 or 7 people per team, we currently have on average about 4 or 5 active in each, and that's with 4. 7 teams would mean we'd end up with 2 or 3 people playing each team, no roleplay (we can't communicate on the main forum until all 7 meet each other), teams having to drop out and, IMHO, a pretty boring game.
I can see the reasoning for having two teams, but we still have the nastiness and splitting of the group and we still have to play one turn at a time, so it's slow play. SP DGs remove that, and with a beefed up AI, it'd be great. I learned so much for ACDGI and I'd love to try and hold one again.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
arginine
|
|
The standard computer AI is increadibly stupid. I just want the next demo game to include some opponents smarter than the average AI.
I must say, playing against an unpredictable, yet intelligent opponent (human) makes the gameplay more interesting and, albeit, more demanding... No computer could have pulled off the surgical strike on Morgan Industries.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-03-2005 02:21
Most people here haven't tried an SMAC SP DG, and we've just had two multiplayer options. Having a human AI still gives us the biggest problem, that of turnplay - we can only do one turn at a time. The 7 turn turnchats we're great, playing as a team was nice, and gave us more discussions and a more activity, and the RP element was *much* greater.
|