Suggestion: seperating difficulty to three parts

from Stardock Forums
I think the AI difficulty level consists of three rather seperate parts:

1) How smart the AI is in general: overall diplomacy and strategy, battles, trading techs, etc. "fuzzy AI things".

2) How good the AI is at optimizing tech tree research, building social projects and economy. "exact AI things".

3) How much better/worse starting resources the AI gets. Genious or Incredible seems to have always very high quality starting planets, while fools have almost invariably only class 16.

Now, it would be great if these three parts could be controlled seperately in the opponenet setup screen. I'd love to play against the best possible 'general' AI so that it would seem as smart and human as possible. On the other hand, I think the AI's ability to optimize research, social projects and economy at 'incredible' level is bit too much, especially when combined with better starting planets and 'seeing' all level 15+ planets and resources.

Or if the 'general AI' and 'build order AI' are not seperatable easily in the code, then at least possibility for having equal starting planets for all would be nice.

-Henkka
287 views 7 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
That is good idea. Even when I think all you need are 2 levels.
1) advantages/bonuses etc. AI gets
2) AI brainpower

I haven't yet played against AI on hardest level, but still would like to see AI do its best in starbase management etc.


~SDC~
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
People have been requests seperate settings for intelligence and starting conditions/bonus since the beta. There are some good reasons not to do this though. Balance! It would be a nightmare to score games for the Metaverse if you added in this complexity. The AI 'intelligence' and the AI starting bonus sort of go together in generating a difficulty level to play against.

Paul.

~SDC~
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Balance! It would be a nightmare to score games for the Metaverse if you added in this complexity.
Paul.
End of quote


Actually, there is already a balance issue which rates five AI players around Sub-Normal to Normal higher than a Single Incredable AI. In one way, this is correct - there is less worry about doing an all-against-one. In another way, it's incorrect - the AI is much more powerful than you, and can tear you to shreads.

If you want a simple method to start balancing the split difficulty settings, use a weighted average that gives a double weight to the lowest setting. For example, an Inredible AI (level 8) has the resource bonus equivalent to a Fool AI (level 1). The result would be level 3, similar to Sub-Normal (which sounds correct - no matter how intellegnt you are, you can't do much if you have nothing.)

The other possible calculation using raw AI levels works in the same way: If Incredible=100 and Fool=4, the resulting difficulty would be 36, equal to Sub-Normal.
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
Paul: Isn't the customer always right? If people have been requesting this AI vs. Resources difficulty level seperation since beta-releases then it certainly seems like an important thing to implement, no?

The scoring system that Sigma 7 proposes seems reasonable. Though, i don't care about the metaverse personally, and i'd be happy to have the split difficulty implemented even as an 'ini-file only' hack which would disable metaverse submissions completely.

-Henkka
Reply #5 from Stardock Forums Top
No the customer is not always right!

The amount of times I've seen games ruined by trying to please all customers simultaneously! Customers want different things and you can't make them all happy, you just have to do the best job you can with the resources you have and hope that enough people like the job to buy the game.

As for splitting the AI available options, the AI chance of responding, and the AI resources, I would be in favour and indeed suggested this during beta.

Paul.

~SDC~
Reply #6 from Stardock Forums Top
I'd rather be able to tune the ai level on a slider (it is a number as far as I understand, with intelligent = 100 and incredible = 150). I'd like to be able to play something between genius and incredible (120 or 130 maybe).
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
The amount of times I've seen games ruined by trying to please all customers simultaneously! Customers want different things and you can't make them all happy, you just have to do the best job you can with the resources you have and hope that enough people like the job to buy the game.
End of quote


That is true, but there is a way to please all customers without disrupting quality. The trick is to divide the target audience into three groups: Impulsive buyers, regular customers, and trolls.

The impulsive customers that purchase a game without doing a minimal background check are so obviously pleased with the game in such a manner that their complaints couldn't possibly be real (e.g. complaints about basic design features like combat.) After they learn the game (or after they resell it to someone else), there is no need to worry about them.

The more significant and difficult portion are those who suggest major or minor enhancements that are missing from the game, but should be implemented. Such things include changes to the fleet defence bonus, or updates to an out-of-date manual.

The third and final group are those who post on random message boards stating "G@1C1\/ 5ux". This group is known as trolls and probably haven't legally purchased the game. They don't need to be satisified.

As a result, by dividing the target audience into three groups, it is possible to satisify all buyers.