>>2083390
Chess

File: Vmv2_title.jpg (24 KB, 374x266)

24 KB JPG

>>2083390

>Highly realistic AI gets accused of cheating even more often than its dishonest brethren, because on some level, all players are unnerved by the idea that a computer could outsmart them. Part of the fun is learning the patterns of the AI and successfully predicting them, and when computers don't act like computers, the only psychologically safe assumption is that they must have accessed information they shouldn't have. AI isn't allowed to gamble, or behave randomly, or get lucky-even though humans do al l of these things on a daily basis- not because we can't program it, but because experience tells us that players will get frustrated and quit, The same phenomenon doesn't happen when both opponents are humans, because they've already tempered their expectations for the possibility that the other guy is crazy. computers are too smart to be crazy, so if they start acting that way, we can't shake the suspicion that they know something we don't. Thus, from the designer's perspective, brilliant AI is usually not our highest priority.
>t. Sid Meier

>>2083998
Cope.

>>2083390
the traditional (not blackbox) method with state-based and heuristic-based decision making can be built to be more modular, and devs tend to go that route because its easier to modify whenever you add/edit a feature in the game, even if minor. however that has the drawback of retarding it, which some devs have tried to fix by adding "personality" and hidden goals.
on the other hand reinforcement learning would work, but then you would need to unfreeze layers and retrain every update, because it could schizo out even if you wanted to add a minor hotfix to something

They could just generate a heat-map of player decisions from telemetry and generate AI decisions by sampling it. Now you are playing against variations of other human players.

>>2083390
AOE2DE has decent AI
It doesn't have the variety and unpredictability of a human player but it plays competently and doesn't cheat no matter what difficulty you play it on

>>2083390
it is extremely hard to code emergent activities in AI behavior without them essentially having a form of "slow godmode." As in the AI fully knows what you are doing at any given time and will plan strategies and release them at a crawl. Even then, you can't have any ingenious moves coded by AI. It's not like you could have an AI program a pure "resource bash" run against a player's eco and target nothing else unless it's just hard-coded to want to smash eco. Most of the time when you code shit like this in it leaves it open for repetitious gameplay anyway.

The only difficulty comes from opponents who are capable of thinking more than two steps ahead.

>>2083390
Because you can just play against another human.

If an AI would be competent it would be just playing against another competent human and then people would get mad just like they always get mad when playing against another human.

What even is the point of playing against an AI then?

>>2083390
Have you seen ChatGPT trying to play Pokemon? Just because "AI" is a hyped topic nowadays doesn't mean it's actually any good.

>>2083390
because society and technology started to regress sometime after the late 00s recession

>>2083998
mother of all copes
>umm we can't make good AI because you wouldn't even like it! we just know somehow you wouldn't!

Sid Meier really is a hack

>>2083998
That sounds like complete bullshit and I don’t believe a single word I just read

>>2084060
Main issue is it goes full retard and trickles units into castle and towers. I feel like it wouldn't be too hard to program it to focus on massing up a suitable attack force before moving out.

>>2083998
This happens in aoe2, AI is hot garbage against people that know at least half of what they are doing, feels like is cheating for people that don't want to put the effort to learn to play, but is decent at the end of the day.

>>2084086
>What even is the point of playing against an AI then?
The AI is up at 3am and ready to play for 7 hours nonstop without breaks and with much faster turn times

>>2083998
>if we made realistic AI players would accuse it of cheating
>so we made shitty AI that cheats

>>2084104
>>2084102
>>2084000
>>2084674
Yeah, it's the game designer that's coping. Gamers are so well known for their gratitude and appreciation of all the hard work developers are doing. :^)

Bait so weak I’m not even gonna reply.

>>2083998
based Sid Meier's® Sid Meier making anons seethe. Meier is like an autist hyperfixated on what makes normgroids tick.

You have 30 seconds to explain why you need super-AI when multiplayer exists

>>2085489
I'm gonna pirate the game

>>2085489
"sorry gtg grandma just died :("

>>2084682
I mean, he wasn't able to implement good AI, so he tried to claim he never even wanted to. He is indeed coping.

>>2085503
You mean he's not talking from experience of beta testing games?

>>2083998
Proof that Civ was never good

>>2085489
I don't want AI to be super challenging I just want it to not be boring. Program it with say a dozen different tactical approaches that can't be cheesed, rather than one single approach that can be cheesed like now.

>>2085506
The first few Civs were good, when they weren't yet minmaxxed to appeal to as many people as possible (actually they already were, but the audience using computers were different back then).

>>2085489
multiplayer games take forever to setup and fall apart after just a few sessions because people leave/no show

>>2083390
Because you're supposed to play against humans.

>>2084674
The AI cheats but is still dumb. The challenge is bumped up numbers, spawning doomstacks and maphack.
But once you know, you can fight back. You'll notice more and more patterns. And you're now playing a game of cracking the code, which will result in making the AI look very dumb.
Look at these Warcraft 3 vids of 1 guy vs 7 Insane AIs. He shouldn't have ANY chance, but wins, because he knows every single move that the AI can do.

>>2085489
I like playing long games and I don't want to wait for other players to finish their turns. And most players can't roleplay for shit.

>>2084674
I lol’d thanks anon you have a good night

>>2083998
All of this is absolute bullshit considered the ridiculous boni they give AI to make them competitive. Isnt that cheating? Computers arent smart, and they cant make them smart.

>>2086551
AI is not supposed to be competitive, that's the whole point. If you want unpredictability and real challenge you play against humans. Unless you're one of those faggots who think that literally everybody copies one build order and somehow plays exactly the same everytime then please don't reply.

>the zoomies in this thread seething at Sid Meier because they truly believe it is lack of capacity that made him (and others) not program an AI (a machine capable of taking instant actions relatively to humans) to play his games perfectly and always curbstomp the player
Lmao

>>2083390
Magarena did pretty well for MTG. For the nerds:
https://github.com/magarena/magarena/wiki/AI-Overview

>>2083390
Why are you so afraid to play against other human beings?

>>2085489
>You have 30 seconds to explain why you need super-AI when multiplayer exists
The desire to press pause whenever and for whatever reason I want.

>>2086551
>Computers arent smart, and they cant make them smart
lol

lmao

Last win by a human against a top tier chess bot was November 5, 2005.

>>2087191
Whoops, Novemeber 21st.

>>2083390
I didn't play very much with it, but the time I spent with Brutal AI mod for OpenXcom was fun and made the AI capable of pulling off legitimately clever tactics at times.

>>2087286
It was a lot of fun on normal maps but utter cancer in base invasions with blaster launchers involved.

>>2085504
I've read the book, he never gives any examples. He's full of shit.

Like I said before we need wet wired humans instead of AI. Round up some street urchins off the streets of Brazil, India, and the Philippines. Amputate their legs so they cant escape. Get them all hooked on some highly addictive drugs Shove them in a secure basement and force them to learn how to play a variety of games, if they win they get their drugs, if they lose they get none. Pretty soon they will be good enough to provide an excellent opponent in any of the major gametitles. Now insert electrodes directly into their brains. This allows them to play several different games simultaneously and removes the need for screens and controllers. Not all will survive the procedure but enough will. Keep them strapped into chairs with tubes delivering nutrients and removing body wastes. Then interface them into a server. The server is marketed as a "smart human-like AI service for gamers". For a small fee you connect to the server, choose the game you want to play, and the kid on the other end provides the opposition. For all intents and purposes you think you are just playing against a human-like AI, with all the devious cunning, variation, and uniqueness of an actual human. In fact you are playing against a wet wired drugged up amputee who has had a lot of practice playing whatever game you choose. Its smart but also fallible, so you dont always lose. Its available 24/7 to play for however long you want, its always available the next day, never rage quits, never gets bored or ghosts you. A database will keep track of your winds and losses.. By altering the dosage of drugs the kid can be dumbed down so you dont lose too often. A bit of cold turkey is good to keep them on edge.
Now the burn out on these kids will be high, continuous under performance for any reason will result in the flow of nutrients and drugs being cut permanently. But there are plenty more of them to be found on the street as replacements. The best part is nobody will miss them. Happy gaming!

>>2083998
/thread

I participated in Patrician 4 playtests and you DON'T want AI that's either competent or proactive, unless the goal is to simply defeat the player and do so in a very quick order. And that's just a simple trading game. Machine by design is immensely more efficient at churning data and never gets distracted.
People who bitch about "good AI" usually have no idea what it means in practice when the computer isn't playing under artificial handicaps, but is using all the resources effectively and focuses on winning moves and only winning moves. Not even hyper-autists play like that, while machine can. Which will always result in the same outcome: AI beating your ass, so it will be accused of cheating. Especially when it is not cheating or even can't cheat to begin with.
Another aspect of bitching about AI are Paradrones, who are so used to the vanilla AI intentional idiocy, when you throw at them custom AI personalities (possible to be simply modded in), they get instantly overwhelmed, because AI no longer has a glass ceiling limiting its reach. Another good example, and Sid-related, is AI in SMAC/SMAX. Flip around few basic patterns and brace yourself for hyper-competent AI that won't need artificial resources to own your ass, because it will simply stop doing useless terraforming and plant its bases in far more efficient way, ALWAYS achieving maximum efficiency, and always needing for that the 5 seconds the turn cycles, not a conscious, 5 minute effort a human needs to plan and execute.

>>2086551
You can just say bonuses dude

>>2087455
Don't you know the 0.3 second saved by not typing the actual world allows zoomershit to accumulate per day about 10 extra seconds, which is enough to watch one more TikTok clip?

>>2085489
I don't want to embarrass myself infront of other people.

>>2085489
>when multiplayer exists
People suck

>>2086738
Instant actions are useless if you don't know what the fuck you are doing.

>>2085489
I'm not goycattle who only plays the newest releases.

>>2083390
Too much investment for little return.

For me good enough AI is the one that doesn't have maphack, doesn't have infinite resources and tries to use the same tactics a human player would have tried to use. Like how in Tiberian Sun for example the AI most of the time just sends waves of infantry and vehicles, but occasionally it might send Subterranean APC's full of Engineers and Cyborgs as Nod to fuck your base up if you didn't put any pavement, or send a pack of Hover MLRS through water ways as GDI to flank you, now if the AI was also able to sneak in Cyborg Commando as Nod using the APC, or drop Mammoth Mk2 inside your base using Carryall as GDI, it would have been based. Now how good the AI should be at that is the right question. Moving on to later games in the C&C series, C&C 3 has handicap option that can be applied to anyone, not just AI, but all it does is reduces the stats of units and buildings, so even a squad of junkies in nothing but hoodies can rip to shreds multi-trillion dollar three-barreled super tank/harvester in a matter of seconds. Now, even if the AI was put into the same constrictions as the player, its still has the total control over all his forces simultaneously, a handicap option can be made that can limit how many actions per minute the AI can make. Also camera view for the AI, so it would see the battlefield the same way as player does, not literally, what i mean is that AI would be able to focus only on one portion of the map at the time, the same way as the player.

>>2084674
Players want tougher AI, not smarter AI. An enemy that will put up a fight and won't quit, so that after three hours of grinding your forces against his you could say 'man, that was so much fun'. If you want a competent opponent who will outplay you from the start, defeat you in a matter of minutes, and mock you for being a noob, you might as well get into a multiplayer match.

>>2087445
Best post in a thread full of fuckwits.

>>2087445
This isn't 40k dude

>>2087445
The best part is we can fulfil our DEI requirements and shield ourselves from accusations of racism because we only hire minorities.

>>2088216
So if we implemented it for DoW it'd be ok?

The truth is the time and resources need to make actually good AI is beyond the scope of pretty much any game dev, they would have to focus solely on the AI first to make good AI at the expense of everything else.

In which case the game would basically just be a bunch of dots with really good AI.

Guess what
That doesn't sell

Better to make strategy games that look nice and interesting and strategic but then play like shit

Cause guess what? By the time the player realizes the AI is shit, they already bought it lmao

Its been the exact same for decades
Gamers are stupid, and Game devs are incompetent greedy assholes

>>2083431
this

>>2083390
Master of Orion / Remnants of the Precursors
Old World
Age of Empires 2 Definitive Edition
AI War 2

>>2083998
This sounds plausible, and maybe it was true in the 90s or whenever Sid wrote it, but today it's just cope.

Example: Lichess has Maia bots that are specifically designed to emulate human play at a specific rating. These bots have played millions of games, they are very popular. They are much more fun to play against that ordinary chess bots (that either crush you, or occasionally play a shitty move on purpose). People don't get frustrated playing them since they already expect them to play like a human.
I don't see why the same type of bot wouldn't be popular in any strategy game. The important part is that the bots emulate human play at a given rating, instead of some frustratingly perfect world-class performance.

>>2083390
The truth is that making good AI is hard which is why real AI companies rely on blackbox with reinforcement neural training. In comparison game AIs are very simple as the devs have to manually code every interaction and it's weights. In the future well get actual nerual bots, but it's probably too costly rn. For example Cicero was able to communicate in an online version of the board game diplomacy, a game where communication is the only path to victory and win a real tournament.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8bEKCGNA04&t=144s

>>2087453
so make the ai play slower, not dumber

File: sun tzu.png (16 KB, 630x630)

16 KB PNG

>>2084102
It's literally true for Paradox games. There's very little incentive for the devs to invest resources in making sure the AI can actually use all the new systems introduced during their endless DLC pump in any kind of coordinated manner. The average player gets discouraged if they lose a war and they reload or eventually stop playing and buying their shit. The players think they want a competitive AI, but they really just want to feel like they're outplaying the enemy, no matter how bad it is.
Shit like HOI4 was/is incredibly popular while the AI probably still doesn't know how to build and use fleets properly lol. It's really not a priority for devs, no matter what the players think they want.

That one ex-Total War dev even confirmed it in his blogpost: he was directly told to not make the AI able to use rallying cry or something, and not use developing time to make sure the AI remembers units that go behind their line of sight. They just immediately forget, and everyone can see how fucked the AI formations get in those games. Yet they've been popular forever. The AI mods don't even really fix much, but the players are coping that now they're playing against good AI if they download Darthmod.

>>2087445
Your edgelord post got me thinking about the return on investment of hiring some indian on demand to play against a player as some sort of special paid feature to increase difficulty or create a diverse gameplay, and if it would be better to pretend it actually is ai or come clean.

>>2094470
>t. clueless retard
If you are making AI slower, you are making it dumber, you absolute moron.

>>2087453
Tell me more about these smac AI settings

>>2094501
if you let out that you were paying people to play the game then you'd have millions of people trying to get you to pay them to play the game

>>2095210
>you'd have millions of people trying to get you to pay them to play the game
That would just mean that you can suppress wages even more and keep a bigger piece of the payment given by actual users.

>>2083390
AI WARS. PLAY AI WARS

>>2100145
And then they wonder why the genre is dead

>>2083390
Because programming ai takes effort and modern devs are allergic to that, not to mention a complete lack of passion. It's why they use pre baked engines and store bought assets

>>2083998
vst copes and seethes at this post, but the truth is most self-proclaimed strategy gamers don't want to play games where coming up with good strategy is necessary, they instead want games that allow them to roleplay as master strategists, and for this it is necessary to have easy wins against a stupid enemy ai that fields stronger than normal armies

>>2100170
>Make good AI
>It obliterates players with ease
>Game sells like shit, gains opinion for being unfair
vs.
>Make AI that's either predictable, roleplays or both
>Even a drunk faggot playing for 5 minutes can figure it out
>Game sells like hot cakes, money rolls in
But sure, tell me how it's lack of passion and talent, while repeating like a good monkey the exact same fucking moves in your game of choice and having a perfect build for it, too.

>>2094488
>AI probably still doesn't know how to build and use fleets properly lol.
AI still doesn't know how to build a division, even if they've changed base mechanics regarding that thing TWICE, and introduced three different DLCs affecting it just for a good measure.
>but the players are coping that now they're playing against good AI if they download Darthmod.
The mother of all cope is Pirates Uber Alles for Empire, since it's not just "the AI Is better!" (it actually can't play the mod for shit, but is handled better units with tech tree progression and free upgrades) and also the fact there is now bazillion of units to pick from, so players think they are outsmarting anyone, because their musketeers now have +2% higher chance of score the shot and the bayonet upgrade offers 0.0125% increased chance of instantly killing enemy unit on charge. AI is still as incompetent as it was, economy is still largely broken and naval combat is still a complete joke, but you've got sooooo many options to dominate the AI, rather than just shitting out 6 units of line infantry per turn and then marching a stack of them toward enemy army

Said all that, I still enjoy FotS. Precisely because AI can't play it for shit, and playing against human players allow me to abuse the shit out of how broken various mechanics are on someone, ruining their day.

get a T injection and play multiplayer, pussy

>>2083998
AI play Civ 3 like a person with 100 IQ would
>plays Civ 3 like a person with 100 IQ would

>>2094488
that's bullshit and the devs could have multiplayer bots/agents that simulate how real players would play

>>2085489
it means I can still have fun even after the game dies

>>2101958
Why don't they? Because there's no financial incentive, because the players don't actually care enough.

>>2102110
there's a financial incentive to play against people that you think are people.
great way to keep games alive if there's no organic multiplayer market (potentially could attract one).
think of it as a turing test for gaming

>>2102199
>potentially could attract one
solve the chicken & egg problem of getting a critical mass of players to catch on.
have a temporary fake critical mass supplemented by AI bot/agents, then replace that with organic traffic as it comes into the game.
eventually the critical mass is replaced by human players and the game sustains (and if it dips, you supplement with AI bots that fill in the hot seat).

>>2087462
Boni is the actual latin word, mongo

>>2101847
Easily solved by doing something like against the storm does and lock the harder difficulties past a few wins

100% of players who refuse to play MP and that say they want a challenging symmetrical AI are lying

>>2102221
and you're not writing latin are you, faggot retard?

>>2083390
civ4 with Kmod , Stalker with AI mods, Caster of magic for windows, BG1/2 with SCS mod

>>2102933
MP is just meta shit, I want an opponent that is intelligent but not just focused solely on meta so they can win

MP with a friend who is on your own mindset of having fun and not just being comp shit is the best but of course its hard to find that

>>2083390
Have you tried Xcom Long war? It's pretty good.

>>2094626
Thinker mod

I think what single player strategy players want is not super smart AI, but rather AI "personas" that can roleplay their faction well. Getting curbstomped at turn 15 by meta-abusing AI is not fun but being defeated by a moustache twirling evil overlord AI who acts like one, can be fun.

>>2083431
what are some decent pc chess games that aren't over the top graphics slop fests that are actually offline?

>>2084682
Name 1 (ONE) single game that has a good AI and had players complained that it's too good.

>>2102939
Then use an english word for bonus, mongo.
Oh right.

>>2101847
This is never how it is. It's either an AI hardcoded to perform a sequence of moves that's just better than what a beginner player will do, and can only be beaten by repeatedly bashing your head against it until you figure out a good-enough solution to fuck it (probably an exploit of predictable AI moves instead of fundamental gameplay), or it doesn't understand the game mechanics at all and just does random shit with the only challenge being from the raw resources it gets to throw around. Neither are good AI. Good AI just means that it plays the game fairly well, something I've literally never seen. Oh, it wouldn't be popular? Every single game with a moddable AI has "better ai" as a top 5 mod.

>>2107022
>Every single game with a moddable AI has "better ai" as a top 5 mod.
Impressive, very nice. Now let's see the ratios of normie vanilla players vs try-hard modded ones.

>>2107052
Let's see the strategy game market share over time. There are an absurd amount of hardcore gamers around now that social media made everyone aware of those ways to play, but because they've all been alienated from mainstream strategy games and only the normies who want a sandbox to larp around in uncontested are left the devs are convinced that's the only type of gaming that could ever work for the genre. And I mean, do you talk to normie gamers? The #1 complaint against strategy games is fucked up and uninteresting single player because of no good AI opposition. I'm absolutely convinced this whole thing is just devnigger cope. That thing you all want, are constantly struggling to build and that you talk about for decades whenever you find some part of it? Yeah, you actually don't want it. Buy my slop and be grateful.

command and conquer generals contra mod

>>2107074
>And I mean, do you talk to normie gamers?
I don't talk to normies, and you are wrong in taking social media as representative of all gamers, even plebbitors strategy gamers -way less autistic than people here- aren't representative of the gaming population as a whole; casual "oh, that looks interesting I will buy it and play it a couple of hours a weekend to relax" gamers are the majority of players for all games and genres except for incredibly hardcore autismo games like WitE or Aurora, and thus most games are designed around them (after all, grognards can be trusted to mod the game themselves if they really want to).

>>2087445
>posts a self-own

>>2083998
Remember how Xenonauts used to have AI that could figure out where you were by figuring out where you weren't and would carpetbomb you with explosives? Noone liked that for a reason.

>>2094240
AI War has easily the best AI I've seen. The dev had an interesting series of blogposts where he discussed his rationale and approach to designing the AI in those games, don't know if they're still out there but made for a good read.0

>>2084674
I chuckled

>>2103174
don't ALL the Xcom games cheat like hell?

>>2083998
don't have Sid game give the Computer Player production bonuses and shit on harder difficulty mode. this guy is full of poop and didn't look into the code.

>>2087192
>>2087191
chess competitions on the global level didn't purposely give computer chess players extra pieces or give them a headstart, you fucking trolloc.

>>2094240
>Master of Orion / Remnants of the Precursors
i never played the shit woke remake but OG MOO1 literally made the Computer Player pop up hundreds of ships at the beginning of the game out of thin air, if you ever go to war with them in early game. That should be impossible to do and obvious cheating.

>>2108089
>don't Sid game give the Computer Player production bonuses and shit...

>>2083390
Just. Fucking. Copy. Other. Human players.

Use a LLM and create a customizable AI based on human profiles.

>>2108315
>Use a LLM and create a customizable AI based on human profiles.
that's been before with FPS games like Unreal Tournament. but /vst/ AFAIK. and chess. which aren't /vst/

>>2108315
They did this with Blitzkrieg 3. The ai they named Boris was trained on human pvp behavior and plays like an opponent that you would find online and doesn't have access to resources or information a player wouldn't and everyone hates it.
The majority of people that play strategy games don't actually want a challenge to overcome they want something that makes them feel smart.

>>2108665
No, they want to play the game the way the programmers intended and not the way tryhard tourneyfags want them to play.

>>2108665
>>2108701
i don't play Blitztanks games, they're gay german nazis. the point is: majority of /vst/ cheat like hell and double cheat on harder modes, and devs are too lazy or dumb to prog reasonable AI.
famous devs like Sid straight up lie about it >>2108089 >>2083998

if what Sid said was true, FPS and Sim game genres would be long dead. but the opposite is true= /vst/ is an almost dead genre along with graphic adventures and VNs.

>>2108701
Yeah and programmers make games to job to the player and make the player feel smart. That's why in Age of Empires and other traditional RTS if you turtle the ai just sends small waves of units to die to you instead of expanding and taking all the resources on the map you are letting them have and making a huge army to kill you with (the "tourneyfag" behavior you're complaining about).
In other words the AI is created for you beat. It's intended for you to win, the ai might cheat on higher difficulty but it's still designed to lose. There are expanded ai scripts for Starcraft that do things like make the AI do things like expand and punish you for mistakes but nobody uses them because again they only want to feel smart after beating a target dummy.
>>2108715
>FPS
Fps is THE power-fantasy genre in the same way strategy games are intelligence fantasies. They are all about being space marine super soldier or an elite special forces tacticool operator. Enemies in fps games exist only to be killed by the player. Doesn't matter if you're talking about Doom or Cod or anything in between. They don't have the same capability as the player. That's why in Cod you can mow down 100s of helpless soldier-dudes even though they look just like you but you go online and get farmed by a 15 year old kid.
They could make the fps campaign enemies act like players but then actual human players would hate it.

>>2083390
dominions

>>2083982
This game does have pretty decent AI.

File: ai-skirmish-mode-just-got(...).jpg (92 KB, 1080x562)

92 KB JPG

>>2083390

File: 28FF755C-C90C-488E-8E70-F(...).jpg (124 KB, 1080x1329)

124 KB JPG

IMO rts don’t need good AIs because if you want a challenge you can just go into ranked multiplayer.
Singleplayer strategy games on the other hand, like Total War games, Paradox games or Civ games would benefit from a truly competent AI (and that’s why Sid Meier is full of shit, his point about an AI being too good stands for 1v1 games, but not HIS games). Also keep in mind that in these games, the player is just one faction among many AIs, and these AIs fight eachother as much as they fight the player (or at least they should).

>>2108723
>fps
They could make better quake 3 like botmatches and people would love it.

>>2108723
>They could make the fps campaign enemies act like players but then actual human players would hate it.
No.

Unlike in rts games the player's forgiveness and tolerance of smart AIs is based on whether or not the bots telegraph their actions. This is why FEAR's simple and rudimentary tactics cause players to like getting ambushed instead of hating it. They voice out that they are there and what they are doing.

>>2085489
I'm too good at video games to play against friends and organizing a game with strangers that is longer than 30minutes is like basically fucking impossible

>>2085489
because MP games don't last forever? its pretty simple

>>2108782
It's tough because there's a balance between challenge and immersion. If you're playing a single player game, do you want an AI that will act essentially like a human player and be as calculating and clever as possible to win, using every possible advantage it can? Or do you want the AI to behave in a lore friendly way with all the behavioural constraints that entails which a human player can take advantage of?

>>2094280
Requires large datasets, otherwise everyone would do it. Chess has hundreds of years and and in excess of 10^12 games to pull data from. You're not gonna anywhere near that amount of data even for a seasoned strategy game, let alone a brand new one that's in the process of being made.
Should a game become that popular, the developers would simply handwave the need for better AI by stating that the game is already popular, so why bother?

>>2108817
>Or do you want the AI to behave in a lore friendly way with all the behavioural constraints that entails
This

>>2108817
>If you're playing a single player game, do you want an AI that will act essentially like a human player and be as calculating and clever as possible to win, using every possible advantage it can? Or do you want the AI to behave in a lore friendly way with all the behavioural constraints that entails which a human player can take advantage of?
Both as a toggle option

>>2085489
My Rule the Waves campaigns last longer than most wars.

>>2108701
If programmers intended the players to play the game a certain way then maybe they should make their game meta be that way instead of the tourneyfag tryhard way.

>>2108851
Wouldn't it be possible these days though with all the improvements to learning AI? Every game you play could be used to improve the AI

>>2083431
BOOOOOORING

>>2102933
Challenge and fun aren't the same thing, but MPniggers would never be able to understand that.

File: 3353562-warlock-master-of(...).jpg (96 KB, 561x800)

96 KB JPG

The Armageddon mode of Warlock: Master of the Arcane is pretty neat against AI due to heavy asymmetry making up for AI's shortcomings.

>>2114859
Did you miss the whole thing with alpha star with starcraft? They self trained it and had pros play against it. Had to put restrictions on it since the optimal strategy with unlimited apm and perfect micro was blink stalkers.

If I wanted to play MP exclusively, I would stick to tabletop games. When I play a computer game, I want as many things computerised as possible, even the opponents. Ideally, said computer opponents would be as simple and stupid, or as human-like and competent, as preferred.

>>2084674
Sins of a Solar Empire fits with this post.

>>2083390
civ4 + ai mods, caster of magic

>>2120779
I really wish the Master of Magic remake wasn't shit

>>2102933
That's a very niche group of people you're talking about with your little bait-and-switch trick. Most people just want AI that's not a complete pushover. If it was all about challenge, who gives a fuck if it's symmetrical? People who are into strategy games tend to want AI that plays by the same rules as the player. It's ALL about how the game is structured rather than how challenging the game is.

Most people just play strategy games until they are done with the story campaign or until they have won a 4X game couple of times with their favorited faction.
People who sink hundreds of hours into these games aren't really the developer's main concern.

>>2102952
>I want an opponent that is intelligent but not just focused solely on meta so they can win
This. Seeing the AI use units that complement each other instead of a meta of 1-2 unique unit cheese.

>>2083390
there would have to be a decent game first.

>>2120720
I have seen it, but I'm not familiar enough with SC2 to judge it properly. It does looks pretty good though. Btw, the unrestricted AI was straight up cheating too as it had no fog of war, ultra high APM can be kinda cheating too as no human will be able to achieve it. I just wonder why this tech isn't utilised anywhere as traditional scripted AI can be quite easy to solve.

>>2120742
Autism?

>>2108091
OP asked for decent AI, not AI that never cheats.
>muh woke
kys

>>2087445
this is unironically how gpt and friends work
but that info won't be available for a while

File: Pravens hall.jpg (843 KB, 2560x1440)

843 KB JPG

The Gender Inequality mod makes the game much more immersive.
You see the wives and daughters of lords bored out of their minds while their husbands are off to war, and you take the opportunity to play board games with them (which increases Charm and relations) and court them. Much better than meeting them in that armor on the field with them giving you the fluoride smile
I am now a master of Mu Torere.

>>2083390
civ 4 with adv civ 1.12
https://github.com/f1rpo/AdvCiv/tree/1.12

Stars in Shadow

>>2129998
>manual is 650 pages
>it's just documenting balance, AI, and UI changes
Autism but the good kind

>Dude just make human level AI for your game thats going to peak at 2000 players

>>2083390
What makes a decent AI? If it could beat you 100% of the time by making perfect choices every time, would it be considered good? A bot opponent is intrinsically different from a human opponent, it never makes mechanical errors, it never loses focus or fails to notice something, and its attention cannot be divided. It's not possible to make an AI that plays just like a human, so the logical step would be to make the AI players play by different rules entirely. the AI war games are based on this premise and handle it quite well. What is lost by this approach? The ground was never level to begin with between a human and a bot, so trying to make the bot play by the human player's rules seems silly.

>>2130608
Variety or "creativity"

>>2130612
so decent AI means playing suboptimally the majority of the time?

>>2130632
But in an entertaining way and not a way that pisses me off

>>2130608
How would an AI in a turn-based game that also has random luck in it win 100% of the time? Say if they made a real AI for Civ 5, it'd still be fun to play against. It'd win most of the time but humans can also win against it. You could adjust the difficulty by how often it makes suboptimal moves.
That'd be a good AI design imo.
For M&B tactical AI, I guess you could limit it to acting every second, instead of say, 100 times per second.
It'd be difficult to play against but not unwinnable.
If the AI then trends towards a very gamey meta play, then you should patch the game instead of saying AI bad.

>>2130608
A decent AI either:
>believably behaves like a human player
>is skilled with the game enough to not need to cheat with extra resources or information
AoE2 DE AI does the second but not the first. It has crazy-good APM but doesn’t control its units in groups or expand in a “human” way.

>>2130637
you're correct, but also delivering the opposite of what (almost) anyone complaining about the lack of "decent ai" asks for when asked to be specific

File: 1756030923826756.jpg (553 KB, 1366x1494)

553 KB JPG

>>2130637
pissing the player off is a legitimate gameplay/engagement mechanic

>>2130608
It should be entertaining to fight against, it should cheat as little as possible and resist getting cheesed.
I liked the Hard AI in Total Annihilation in those scenarios that had minimal scripting. It would relentlessly expand, control resources, send units at you non-stop, and eventually upgrade enough to pound you with long range artillery which might as well be a game over in most cases. You had to take decisive moves to get an upper hand, sometimes even prepare something of a build order to make it in time.
It would perform less proficient in skirmish on smaller maps because it would put its commander in danger. I'd say if you want to design an entertaining artificial enemy, you shouldn't focus on making it a fair fight and design the AI and scenarios with asymmetric warfare in mind.

>>2131121
>pissing the player off is a legitimate gameplay/engagement mechanic
Eh...I suppose there could be a good reason to do it, but I have a hard time believing that whatever reason that is would be better handled in a way that *doesn't* piss the player off.

>wants difficult AI
>too scared to play against real people
i dont understand is it the social aspect?

>>2131572
>wants difficult Artificial Intelligence
>why not just play against humans??????

>>2131572
By that logic why play video games at all? Just go outside and start fighting people

Now that's real gameplay!

>>2131575
>>2131600
i get it you cant handle people saying mean words

>>2083998
Show me one (1) game where the AI doesn't cheat and the steam reviews are full of people complaining about the AI.

>>2131572
>join multiplayer lobby
>wait 2 hours for enough people to connect because the game has a low playerbase
>match starts
>2 players start lagging the shit out of the lobby because they are playing from afghanistan
>game disconnects
yeah, right

>>2084080
hopefully with new AI developments this will change.

>>2108807
Yeah, the key there is that F.E.A.R's AI isn't actually that smart, it just does a really good job of making the player think it is with the voice callouts, plus the level design helps it a ton since it can interact with it in ways you don't see in most FPS games. Strategy game devs need to figure out how to translate that kind of design into their games, rather than stuffing their AI with cheats or making it play in a way that is technically optimal but annoying to deal with.

>>2087191
>Chess
>Smart
Pick one.

>>2107129
Xenonauts 1 AI has wallhacks. It just pretends it doesn't most of the time.

>>2136840
Old World and Panzer General (in fucking 1994) have already figured out that one of the keys to make turn based strategy AI more competitive is to give units a lot of mobility and to give the edge to attackers instead of defenders.