 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Mead
|
|
Whichever style we choose (ACDG 1, 2, or 3) I like the idea of Human 'acted' AI.
One to three 'actors' could share the 'starring' roles of the non-team factions. To ease their burden, and to make it less likely that they will get 'too human' we could place the below or similar restrictions and powers:
quote:
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 actor, decides what to research;
All formers are either autoimprove home base or fully automated;
Human actor, handles all diplomacy;
Human actor, handles all unit moves (except formers unless they are being used defensively as a garrison) and attacks;
Human AI assistant can set SE. |
With 1 to 3 actors, they could taking turns playing the AI turns. One could do one years worth of turns, and so on.
Mead
PS
There is no magic number of actors we need, just enough so that they are not too burdened, and not so many that we lose too many people to being an actor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by arginine
The standard computer AI is increadibly stupid. I just want the next demo game to include some opponents smarter than the average AI. |
Not when beefed up. DGs aren't just about haing a good game, or else we'd be playing a regular PBEM. They're about interaction, playing as a team. That doesn't matter what opponant you have. Last time it was on Thinker and it worked, though yes, it was too easy. But the fun came from trying to get your agenda across (I was leader of a green party, trying to rid Planet of Boreholes and promote a stable environment), from the ways you worked together, with different strategies. This isn't happening when we have 3 or 4 active people playing the turn in most teams. It does when we have 20 people in a team.
With tweaks we can make the AI challenging, even virtually invincible. Sure, it's not a human player, but that's doesn't matter, it plays like an AI we've never played before, very differently to the normal AI.
quote:
Originally posted by Mead
Whichever style we choose (ACDG 1, 2, or 3) I like the idea of Human 'acted' AI. |
I really don't. If you have a human opponant, then you can only play one turn at a time, and only in a PBEM fashion. Plus this person would need to be banned from Apolyton, or the forum made private. The slow pace of a game played one turn before sending on is a major disadvantage of multiplayer DGs, and not worth it just to get a different type of AI than a tweaked one. Indeed, with us knowing each others playing styles, to some extent, it may be more predictable than a heavily tweaked AI.
What we play now are hardly democracy games. There's no elections, no teams of any great size - it's just a glorified PBEM. Bring back a proper democracy game, so we can all experience what it's like.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mead
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
quote:
Originally posted by Mead
Whichever style we choose (ACDG 1, 2, or 3) I like the idea of Human 'acted' AI.
|
I really don't. If you have a human opponant, then you can only play one turn at a time, and only in a PBEM fashion. |
If you bunched all the 'AI' acted factions one right after the other, then ther would be only one 'delay' per turn. Especially if there was only one human faction then the turn rate would be very fast.
quote:
Plus this person would need to be banned from Apolyton, or the forum made private.
|
That's OK, the human forum or forums if more than one human team, could be made private. Plus, I would not expect the 'AI' actor to peek at the human forums. They are not in it to win; merely play their role well and have fun.
quote:
The slow pace of a game played one turn before sending on is a major disadvantage of multiplayer DGs, and not worth it just to get a different type of AI than a tweaked one. |
Again I fail to see the great delay. Right now we have four factions that require 48 (we hope) hours to play a turn. If we had one human faction (with 48 hours) and six 'AI' actor factions requiring 12 (maybe 24) hours for the actors to make their moves for all the 'AI' factions, we would have a turn every 36-48 hours verses the 192 hours it takes now.
Mead
|
|
| |
|
|
|
arginine
|
|
quote:
Plus this person would need to be banned from Apolyton, or the forum made private. |
Some people had voluntered to be AI players. Maybe if we asked to see how many were willing...
I still think that 'automated' human players playing against us would be most desirable. The governing humans can act all important in diplomacy in their own special embassy, while the silicon handles most of the menial tasks. The big IF, is IF the automation really will save lots of time.
quote:
DGs aren't just about haing a good game, or else we'd be playing a regular PBEM. They're about interaction, playing as a team. That doesn't matter what opponant you have. |
True, but a decent opponent is more satisfying than complete bozo. The tweaked AI may be a decent opponent. Also, A 'human' gives better diplomacy than a tweaked AI. I've never played a tweaked AI, so it would be interesting for me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mead
I really don't. If you have a human opponant, then you can only play one turn at a time, and only in a PBEM fashion. |
If you bunched all the 'AI' acted factions one right after the other, then ther would be only one 'delay' per turn. Especially if there was only one human faction then the turn rate would be very fast.
Yes, but that would still be playing turns individually. They'd be a delay after each turn. ACDG1 worked well playing 7 turns at a turnchat. It meant the game went much quicker and more interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Mead
Again I fail to see the great delay. Right now we have four factions that require 48 (we hope) hours to play a turn. If we had one human faction (with 48 hours) and six 'AI' actor factions requiring 12 (maybe 24) hours for the actors to make their moves for all the 'AI' factions, we would have a turn every 36-48 hours verses the 192 hours it takes now. |
If people were on at the right time, I'd be amazed if they manaed to do 6 factions moves in 12 hours, and 48 is meaning people go over now, which would be much more likely with 20 players. I'd guess turns would move closer to every 100 or so hours, with 72 for the main faction and 24 minimum for the PBEM factions. Moreover, that is slow, being one turn at a time, and doesn't happen at regular intervals. The idea of a turnchat is we meed on IRC once a week and play a few turns. In ACDG1, that meant 7 per week.
quote:
Originally posted by arginine
True, but a decent opponent is more satisfying than complete bozo. The tweaked AI may be a decent opponent. Also, A 'human' gives better diplomacy than a tweaked AI. I've never played a tweaked AI, so it would be interesting for me. |
The tweaked AI could be made so it would be virtually impossible for us to win. However more likely it would be made challenging, but doable. I agree we need a decent opponent, but a tweaked AI is that, and it's vastly quicker than a human player, means we can do a turnchat, which gets everyone involved, rather than just one person playing the turn, and means we can keep the forum public, so people can drop in, it's easier for newbies, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Net Warrior
I like Drogues idea of a beefed up AI in a SPDG with many factions WITHIN the human team. I'd like to see a Science Committee ruling over all aspect of research, a Dept of Defence ruling over all military operations, a Covert Ops Dept, a Dept of Interior to rule over former use, etc, etc. |
Exactly.
What we had for ACDG1 was different political parties, at the beginning loads, but boiling down to 3 at the end:
STEP - Save The Environment Party - who wanted to keep the land green and beautiful, without boreholes. Obv. going for Green economics.
DLP - Democratic Libertarian Party - who wanted a Free Market and everything run for maximum production and profit.
CCCP - Chiron Citizens Communal Party - who wanted a Planned, Eudaimonic society run for happiness of the citizens.
These parties put people up for positions in government (as well as independant candidates), then once a month we voted, for everything from the leader, who plays the turn, to Directors of Science, Social Engineering, Base Operations, Foreign Policy, etc. When our faction got large, we had governors for different regions, so the region STEP controlled (Akiria) was without boreholes and has lush green land, etc. They also campaigned for different policies and the like.
There was a consitution that said what every position was responsible for, and how the faction was run. Everyone met at 10pm, GMT on a Sunday, IIRC, and played the turns.
This means we can have a fulfilling game, taken to the end game, rather than necessarily winning before 2200, in under a year, as opposed to the 18 months it usually takes to get to 2180 or so and winning. Hell, the factions usually take well over 6 months to meet each other, meaning the main forum can't be used in a PBEM style game.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:37
|
|
I thought we'd play as the PKs again, for roleplaying sake. We're playing as a democracy game, and the PKs mean the grand discussions, elections and referendums are all in character.
I don't think we could play Morgans, Drones or Gaians, as that removes options we may want to choose in SE, and a lot of discussion. Hive and Believers stop us being democratic, which would seem a little strange.
Uni might be good, though it might stifle ethics and value arguments. CyCon is possible, though somehow a democracy game and elections doesn't seem to go well with having a common mind. Angels could be interesting, but they do have something of a set agenda, and being Sparta could be a problem for values discussion, as well as being a momentum faction.
I think the PKs are easily best, but we'd probably poll it, all factions first, then a run off between the top 3 or 4, or something.
quote:
Originally posted by GeoModder
Yes, I can see that, Drogue. But having an agreed weekend day in which the turns must be played means that some participants won't be able to promote themself for one of those director posts in case they have weekend workshifts or whatever else social happenings, for playing 7 turns in a row means for sure obstacles will happen. |
True, but that's what orders are for. I do see the problem, though it didn't seem like a major problem last time. I do see there could be an issue, but we can discuss what time is most suitable and it can change. Having a turnchat every night means we never have more than a few people there. I personally liked the idea of meeting up as a team and playing it at that time.
quote:
Originally posted by GeoModder
It might be more profitable to only found so many bases as there are (active) governors available for them, and give a great deal of independency to those governing players. It means of course a great deal of processing incoming orders, and it could always happen that a given governor becomes non-active in which case unfortunately a base should be given AI-governed controll 'till a replacement player is found.  |
Governors were for a particular region, not for individual bases.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GeoModder
|
 |
The most erratic Overlord!
Jan 2004
time: 06:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
Governors were for a particular region, not for individual bases. |
Yes, I already knew that, but what's the harm in trying to detail it a little more? I feel that it would keep us all a bit more on our toes, and it would preclude a runaway ICS effect in which we're bound to win too soon from the AI-factions.
Even if there are so many participants we need say 20+ bases, there could be a rule that every main department head was not allowed to govern a base.
quote:
Originally posted by Drogue
I thought we'd play as the PKs again, for roleplaying sake. We're playing as a democracy game, and the PKs mean the grand discussions, elections and referendums are all in character. |
In case of the Believers it could be an issue in trying to find a balance between beliefs and freedom of speech.
What I like in this faction is that it can have all possible SE settings. We're not bound to be a fundamentalistic faction, and it would make roleplay so much more challenging.
Also, it wouldn't give us too soon technological superiority over the AI's. Again, this keeps us on our toes way longer. And stray acts from private governors could always be explained as 'the will of god' as they saw it. 
Last edited by GeoModder on 23-03-2005 at 01:10
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-03-2005 01:20
Even Marx acknowledged that as the highest form of capitalism 
|