Question about AI Quality

[DaemianLucifer]

Me and my nephew had an interesting thing here:When playing allied,hed ask for same cash,Id give him what he asked,plus 1 gold.Hed return the 1 gold,and gave me 1 gold more,and so on

[Elvin]

So we think alike?I don't know if I can live with this Anyway with allies when I had rampart my friend would give me all his money exploit my treasury
...Right.I think that's offtopic enough!

[Blaze85]

The difference between a cheating ai and a good ai is not so clear imho. Somebody mentioned RoN. The ai can do a lot of things at the same time. Build 10 different buildings, choose several technologies and meanwhile controlling it's units, AT THE SAME TIME. Nobody can be so fast. Is that ai cheating or not?
I don't want to defend the homm V ai, because it has flaws. Obvious ones that can be fixed rather easily. But all ais are "cheating" and they will in the future too.

[DaemianLucifer]

The difference between a cheating ai and a good ai is not so clear imho. Somebody mentioned RoN. The ai can do a lot of things at the same time. Build 10 different buildings, choose several technologies and meanwhile controlling it's units, AT THE SAME TIME. Nobody can be so fast. Is that ai cheating or not?

Actually thats not cheating because a human would be able to do the same with the right equipment(the fact that such an equipment isnt available at the present time is not an issue),so here the computer just uses a better equipment.However,the same AI sees everything that you do,even when you are behind the fog of war.Thats cheating.

[Humakt]

"Perfect" AI might not be even that fun to play against. Otherwise we all would be playing some decent chess game and losing to AI everytime. To me it's not that much fun outhinking opponent who can calculate moves to some hundred moves ahead and do it so fast you could never win on time. And even if you happen to win, there's not much joy out of it: you've beaten machine which doesn't think or feel.

I haven't played HoMM5 enough to judge AI, but it doesn't seem to be much worse off than in H3 or H2 (but it should be better, those AI's were pretty bad anyway). The ridiculous bonuses it gets in higher difficulties aren't that big deal, it's still not as much advantage as Firaxis gave to Civilizations AI in higher difficulties and that doesn't bother me either. To me H5's fault are in design decisions. It's way too heavy in larger maps, propably mainly because of 3D engine (which strategy games could do fine without). Too much support for multiplayer compared to the ridiculous little support given to map editor, which is on par with Heroes 2 editor at best. No scripts in multiplayer (I have to wonder whatkind of halfwit came with this idea; If map maker wants to cheat in multiplayer, he can do it easily without scripts and opponent would propably never notice. Likely the reason was something else though it's still unexcusable). Dialog options and editor performance are other things. And frankly, this game feels a bit too much like previous Heroes, which means that it will quickly become boring to me without solid editor and good performance in game.

Despite all it's fault, I admit, H5 is very good game. Especially with expansion.

[DaemianLucifer]

"Perfect" AI is might not be even that fun to play against. Otherwise we all would be playing some decent chess game and losing to AI everytime. To me it's not that much fun outhinking opponent who can calculate moves to some hundred moves ahead and do it so fast you could never win on time. And even if you happen to win, there's not much joy out of it: you've beaten machine which doesn't think or feel.

I enjoy beating galciv AI very much.Besides,an opponent that thinks faster than you losses that advantage in turn based strategies.As for planing in advanced,that is the essence of turn based strategies(actualy that is the essence of all strategies).Besides,I preffer being beaten by an enourmously advanced chess AI than beating the HV AI on heroic.

Too much support for multiplayer

I dont know about that...

[Humakt]

Too much support for multiplayer

I dont know about that...

Good job leaving the essential part of that above clause out of quotation.

[DaemianLucifer]

Good job leaving the essential part of that above clause out of quotation.

Considering how MP turned out to be,I doubt that theyve put more into it then into the editor.

[Caradoc]

Remember, if you want the AI to play like a human and also to play competitively, you must prevent the human player from doing anything that the AI cannot. Honestly, I can't imagine that being any fun.

Resource handicapping might not be the best way of boosting the AI, but what would you prefer -- shifting combat odds in its favor, awarding it extra levels, adding creatures to its armies, giving it more movement points? What do you propose?

[Mytical]

Actually I think H3 AI could be improved, as well as all the HoMM games AI could be improved. Because the game was more enjoyable (better storyline, less camera issues, and the fact that it had more then 4 difficulty settings) it didn't bother me as much. I am not the best player in the world, I have troubles sometimes playing the computer on normal, but I do like to challenge myself sometimes. When I do, all I ask is that I get what I am told I get, and not something entirely different. When you look up the description of the difficulties you are told basically this.

Easy - Human players start out with a lot of resources, neutral stacks are smaller, AI has few resources(starting out), and builds only so often.

Normal - Human player starts out fewer resources, neutral stacks are 'normal size', ai has more resources(starting out), builds only so often

Hard - Human has even few resources, neutral stacks become slightly bigger, AI has more resources(starting out), and builds (if it can) every turn.

Heroic - Human has very few resources, neutral stacks are the biggest they can be, AI has a lot more starting resources, and builds every turn.

Nowhere does it say, oh yeah they get extra creatures, purchasing creatures is less expensive, and they get free extra resources every turn. That is the big problem here imo. If it spelled out (in the official manual or in the game) exactly what was what, it would be a little easier to swollow for me. At least then you would know your enemy. I still might not like it, but at least then I could better gage what to expect

[azzy]

some of you guys are pathetic

You complain and want to enchance the AI because it beats you?!? WTF!!!

I am completely behind JJ on ALL his arguments. One can complain about the AI only if he finds it too easy. Now the "stupid" computer beats you and you want to downgrade him in order to win... well, get better yourself, its not impossible. When you start beating the AI on regular basis come back to this topic and flame as much as you want, but now you are just making fools of yourselves in some people's eyes.

[Humakt]

Good job leaving the essential part of that above clause out of quotation.

Considering how MP turned out to be,I doubt that theyve put more into it then into the editor.

Considering they put special modes like dual and ghost to it and even made simultaneous turns in the expansion, they DEFINITELY saw lots of times more trouble with multiplayer than with map editor.

[Jolly Joker]

Umm, you can play Duel mode against the AI as well.

[DaemianLucifer]

some of you guys are pathetic

You complain and want to enchance the AI because it beats you?!? WTF!!!

I am completely behind JJ on ALL his arguments. One can complain about the AI only if he finds it too easy. Now the "stupid" computer beats you and you want to downgrade him in order to win... well, get better yourself, its not impossible. When you start beating the AI on regular basis come back to this topic and flame as much as you want, but now you are just making fools of yourselves in some people's eyes.

Uuu!Mister |33t guy,please have mercy on us,and learn to read.No one complains that AI is beating him/her but how it is beating him/her.I lost a lot of games against good human players and never once complained(btw,that reminds me I should chalenge someone again),because those guys played better and didnt cheat.Having the AI beat me because,and only because,it cheats is really frustrating,especially now when you know that a good AI can be made.Again,I prefer being beaten by a good AI than beating a cheating AI,no matter how hard it ressists.

[Jolly Joker]

DL, you cannot be outwitted by the AI in Heroes. You can be outnumbered but not outwitted. Not with a bit of experience.
I can't believe what you are expecting from a gaming AI.
Since you are so overwhelmed by the GalCiv AI I took the trouble and read the manual, page 56 and 57.
What you can read there is the following:
Incredible: The AI's economy runs on 200% of normal.
This means that the AI takes double the normal benefit out of the economy, which means a lot more than simply having double the money available in that game, it basically doubles the progress as such.
I don't see the difference here to paying only one third for buildings and troops, to tell the truth. If you call one cheating then the other is certainly cheating as well.

[DaemianLucifer]

DL, you cannot be outwitted by the AI in Heroes. You can be outnumbered but not outwitted. Not with a bit of experience.

Thats exactly why I am complaining.

I can't believe what you are expecting from a gaming AI.

Why not?I dont expect it to be an expert player,but at least it could play as a newbie.

Since you are so overwhelmed by the GalCiv AI I took the trouble and read the manual, page 56 and 57.
What you can read there is the following:
Incredible: The AI's economy runs on 200% of normal.
This means that the AI takes double the normal benefit out of the economy, which means a lot more than simply having double the money available in that game, it basically doubles the progress as such.
I don't see the difference here to paying only one third for buildings and troops, to tell the truth. If you call one cheating then the other is certainly cheating as well.

Yes,but I wasnt talking about incredible,I was talking about inteligent setting,when the computer plays its best and doesnt cheat.

[Jolly Joker]

DL, dammit, in Heroes that's not possible. On equal terms the AI MUST fail. What do you think would happen with Gal Civ, if the planets to be colonized would be guarded by bases and/or ships and when fighting them in tactical fleet battles would lead to massive experience boosts for said ships (or their "commanders").
In heroes you'd have to build algorithms for each and every situation because there are enough situations where you'll need a combination of things to get the job done, where, for example, a normally scarce resource has been found in easy accessible piles, so that you don't have to risk everything to get the mine. Worse, since the AI cannot reload, it cannot risk everything. It cannot attack a guarding stack, only to find that it's actually 47 Succubi guarding it and lose it's entire force; you don't want to play the game only to find the AI hopelessly behind half of the time because it lost too many units. So the AI would have to "play it reasonably safe" (losing each and every surprise moment on the way).
You'd need very variable priority lists, you'd have to have a variable hero development strategy as well for the AI AND you'd have to have a very competetive BATTLE AI at that.
In the end, in a game like heroes, even a halfway decent non-cheating AI would be a helpless victim for everyone. I mean, get real here. No one is even halfway able to sketch a usable algorithm on how to play generally and successfully with any town.

[DaemianLucifer]

DL, dammit, in Heroes that's not possible. On equal terms the AI MUST fail. What do you think would happen with Gal Civ, if the planets to be colonized would be guarded by bases and/or ships and when fighting them in tactical fleet battles would lead to massive experience boosts for said ships (or their "commanders").

You mean something like playing a small galaxy,with ultra fast research and enormous fleets?

In heroes you'd have to build algorithms for each and every situation because there are enough situations where you'll need a combination of things to get the job done, where, for example, a normally scarce resource has been found in easy accessible piles, so that you don't have to risk everything to get the mine. Worse, since the AI cannot reload, it cannot risk everything. It cannot attack a guarding stack, only to find that it's actually 47 Succubi guarding it and lose it's entire force; you don't want to play the game only to find the AI hopelessly behind half of the time because it lost too many units. So the AI would have to "play it reasonably safe" (losing each and every surprise moment on the way).
You'd need very variable priority lists, you'd have to have a variable hero development strategy as well for the AI AND you'd have to have a very competetive BATTLE AI at that.

Why would it have to play reasonably safe?Tell me,on your first runs through the heroes game did you calculate all your losses and play only the battles you knew youd win without losses?Did you know what exactly several means?Did you know how dangerous those neutrals are just by glancing at them on the adventure map?Of course you didnt,because you were a newbie to the game.You had losses,and a lot of them,but you still played somewhat good.And thats what I was saying AI can be made into.

Oh,and lets not forget here that AI uses quick combat when fighting neutrals.The same quick combat that can enable you a flawless win when playing it normal you are bound to loose something.

In the end, in a game like heroes, even a halfway decent non-cheating AI would be a helpless victim for everyone. I mean, get real here. No one is even halfway able to sketch a usable algorithm on how to play generally and successfully with any town.

Oh come on,you are saying that its imposible to preprogram a dozen hero development paths that the AI would use depending on the offered skills and its close mines and guards?

You are the one living in the cluds here.Heroes is not the uber complex game you are making it to be.It is just as complex(or even less)as the other TBSs out there.

[azzy]

DL noone is so leet here, at least not me. I just got a little agitated because what I read is: the AI is unbeatable because it cheats too much.

NO it is definately NOT unbeatable, just very challanging.
And thats good. If the AI is developed in terms of better combat, better skill selection I will be more than happy, but to tell that the problem with it is the amount of resources it recieves...

edit:
DL one more tip - quick combat s*cks, every time you lose some army replay, you'll get better with each battle and at the end you'll kick *ss.

Dont you think that the preprogrammed development paths for AI will s*ck elephant d*ck? There is no perfect combination of skills, there are variations, which are useful in particular situations. Moreover it will make the AI bloody predictable and boring.

[DaemianLucifer]

NO it is definately NOT unbeatable, just very challanging.
And thats good. If the AI is developed in terms of better combat, better skill selection I will be more than happy, but to tell that the problem with it is the amount of resources it recieves...

Yes it is chalenging,but it is chalenging because it cheats so much,not because its good.And its only chalenging in the begining.If you play a large map and rush it,youd soon have the same armies as the AI,and considering that youd develop your heroes better,it wouldnt be a chalenge anymore,right?So how can you say that its ok then if it only is chalenging when it can rush you in the first month?