This idea comes from AnnihilatorX. I know it's simple, but I think it's brilliant. So, GPG and Stardock, please think about this. And EVEN IF you didn't completely remove the gold/exp awarded from killing an AI, you could at least cut it by 3/4 or something. Please consider this because at the moment, if a player drops early in the game, it's almost futile to even keep trying. If a player drops late in the game when everyone is higher level, it's not AS MUCH as an issue, but the farming issue definitely still causes problems. So, think about it, and let us know?!
- andpancakes
Here's what I don't like about the idea, at least, as it's been presented so far.
Personally, I think that if the online arena is going to be labeled 'competitive', then the AI has no business being there in the first place and I'm with MrBoingy in simply saying "Get it out of there."
Now, clearly that idea doesn't fly with everyone. Ok. Fair enough but that suggests to me that there's value in keeping the AI around. What exactly 'is' that value? If you prefer to keep it rather than lose it, than obviously, that value is greater than -0-.
If someone quits, is the AI going to play better or worse than the quitter? What if the quitter was a horrendous player and the AI actually does a better job. If that's the case, why should the AI only offer 0-1/2 value when killed? How would the game measure what the actual value should be?
I'm not meaning to dismiss the idea outright but I don't think a general flat decrease is the way to go here. If this option does fly, I think Arisal's thought about making various values an option in custom games is a better way to go but again, personally, I'd just rather see the AI dropped entirely.
Anyone remember Sins, and the "Pirates or no Pirates" debate. They just added a toggle option: Pirates or Pirates Inactive. I'm guessing they'll do the same in this case, or a "slider" as metioned above: AI replacement gives 100% 75%;50%;25%; No XP & Gold; No AI replacement.
But that could take a while, and I think we need a quick fix one way or another, and a basic "standard" for Skimish/Parth (like 50% less). Anything other than an AI replacement that hands the enemy gold/XP like a 1990s bank handed out home morgages. They'll never make an AI anywhere as good as a human, EVEN a human noob, because you can tell the human "don't take on 2v1" or "don't run into towers" or "stay behind us" and they may actually listen and learn.
The funny thing is the post is 4 pages long and no one from GPG/SD replied.
Cause in MAJORITY of the cases the AI will be worse than a human player, and I have addressed that concern previously in the post.
But regardless, having a AI (of which offer no disadvantage) to take over teammate is BETTER than leaving the other team, whose teammate quit wasn't their control with NOTHING.
Human > AI > Nothing.
Now that's a clear choice.
I thought the AI was going to be removed from Pantheon in an upcoming update, anyway?
AI players have absolutely no business in that setting whatsoever.
No. It really isn't. If the AI is > Nothing, then the gold value of the AI should be > Nothing as well.
We appreciate your ideas, but take your condescension elsewhere.
Oh quit crying. Just because someone believes your idea (well, annihilators...) isn't all that great doesn't mean you need to attack them.
You are part of the minority in arguing against what 90% of the communtity would deem fit or appropriate in this particular case.
Frankly I don't care. The number of supporters of a proposals has no bearing in my eyes as to the value of the proposal. And it shouldn't. For example, how many people supported the stimulus (answer: lots! not me though; just 'cuz someone says it would work wasn't enough for me... it was clearly ill-timed and ill-conceived). DId it work? No.
And, no, you aren't a prodigy with a counter-culture opinion that just so happens to be valid.
Because it's impossible someone's idea would be better than your own or what? I mean, now who's being an unreasonable wanna-be prodigy?
Sure, what you are saying is meticulous and reasonable and should complement what this thread proposes, but our suggestions are simply more fit and appropriate. You have ignored every comment I have made about the underlying fact of the matter of this entire situation.
I like how you say I'm being meticulous and reasonable and then act like I've ignored every comment you've made. Also, ignoring every comment you've made is quite a huge exaggeration. Apparently I need to reply to every sentence (annoying, but it's apparently what you need) or I'm "ignoring" people. Frankly, you want me to comment on something, you ask my opinion of it. I am not quoting every sentence of every person in this thread and giving my spin on it. I will for you, at least now, since you are being particularly insistent upon it.
That is, as long as AI exist, there will be AI farming. There are no ifs/ands/buts about that fact. It is truth, and everyone but you seems to realize it.
You are wrong. I acknowledge it's a problem; I'll even acknowledge that its a significant problem at this time. However, with all the changes that are on the way, I do not acknowledge that we know it will be a significant problem after these changes are deployed. So let's worry about it then and decide if it is problem worth tackling or if there are more pressing issues.
And because AI farming will always exist, there needs to be something done about the way it is being exploited right now. There is no work-around to that fact; it is a fundamental reality of this entire topic. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?
It's easy for me to comprehend; it's hard for me to believe this is the most pressing problem that is stiffling the size of the community. It's called triage.
This isn't about software design philosophy or a band-aid fix; it's about a competitive aspect of a quintessential competitive game that needs to be addressed in order for the majority of online matches to proceed more fairly.
I'm saying, if we are going to say HEY STARDOCK/GPG WE FIGURED OUT THE BEST SOLUTION DO THIS it shouldn't be a decision of "Yes this" or "no not this". If someone says "I have a nail I want to drive into a wall; should I use a broken bottle or a shoe?" it takes a pretty ignorant community to consider ONLY these options rather than propose a better solution. I'm looking for the hammer. This isn't it. Deal with it.
We the proponents in this thread for the suggested idea in my OP will only need to re-evaluate our suggestion if AI are miraculously taken out of the online gaming experience of Demigod (because no AI means nothing to exploit) - which, by the way, probably won't happen and, in fact, doesn't need to happen.
But thanks be to the one who thought outside the box to actually consider another solution and weigh the pros and cons vs. what is on the table.
Considering this threads been out for several days with no official comment, I don't think I'd hold my breath they plan to do much about it anyway, which clearly is fine by me at this time.
Until then, however, the logic behind this idea trumps anything that you could possibly come up with, no matter how eloquent, articulate or clever it may be or you may sound.
because you say so? once again, who's the prodigy? Get over yourself dude.
Oh, I directly asked you what points you wanted me to discuss. Let me know specifically what feedback you are looking for, because clearly it wasn't in your last reply... i searched through every sentence...
This is exactly what I proposed. I guess I have another on my side eh. (quote tag broken for me on this one)
We are growing in numbers.
How about this: I will acknowledge Annihilator and pancakes as offering the underpinnings of my more refined (direct) solution if they acknowledge the solution is more robust, worthwhile, versatile, consistent, and adds more value than their hack and use this solution as the one to pitch to Stardock.
Not a good sign eh.
Sure, stick whatever u like in Custom. Just add a slider with all the other options.
BUT!!!!!!!!!!!
Keep Pantheon pure.
No premades, no AI, no anything.
Humans v Humans, START the game with equal number of players on either side.
BUT!!!!!!!!!!! Keep Pantheon pure. No premades, no AI, no anything. Humans v Humans, START the game with equal number of players on either side.
Fine by me, but I think we can do better with how pantheon (and skirmish) games are set up. I think the players should have SOME pull on the options that go into the game. In particular, I think we should be provided with some mechanism to be able to vote on settings like the map, what to do about AI, which mode to play on, etc. along with a "don't care" option.
A well-stated refinement of my (direct) solution from page 1 of the thread.
Thank God the "OP yes-men" are being phased out. All it takes is one person to go against the flow and we have a fruitful discussion yielding better and more refined solutions. You don't have to thank me for my time and effort fighting the stack, but you can if you want... all for the good of the game.
double post, sorry
So you meant you will acknowledge others when they worship you lol.
I actually acknowledged your solution since I too like options. But I am asking for 0 gold/exp to be the DEFAULT setting since many people just leave game settings at default.
I just want you guys to quit being so insistent that your solution is best when others are clearly better.... your stubborn-ness is holding up progress in this thread....
Good. I look forward to hearing if pancakes will make a similarly wise decision.
If the debate is now what the default value should be, I vote 100%... it makes sense that every demigod that dies should yield the same value, and its the default option at the moment anyway so it's what players expect.
I am going to propose
1. A slider option to control AI exp and gold handicap, and leave default 0.
2. Replace the message "XXX killed YYY" to "XXX killed an AI" when AI replaced dropped player YYY
Just so we're clear, are we expecting this slider to affect only AI fill-in's or AI players in general?
Be a shame if people got screwed in skirmish games by default. As Sly said, I think the default should be 100% which puts all players, AI or otherwise, on equal footing and, yes, it's what players are already used to.
AI fill-ins only. Can't affect matches with AI starting if for some weird reason people would like to play with geniune AI.
If you put it to 100% you deny the existence of this thread and the problem of AI farming and we just went round in circles back to the starting point. (Most people uses default settings when hosting game)
For what it's worth, I like this general concept.
No you don't... it went from a default (unchangeable) setting to a default (changeable) setting. That is not where we are now.
?
Terrible idea because the AI will then become a suicide machine. This is a player vs. player game, and bots should not provide any advantage. If someone drops, tough luck, you should lose. Bots should not be altered to allow teams with fewer human players to win.
No it doesn't provide advantage. Most players play better than the AI.The player who was replaced by the AI would likely to play at equal or better footing than the AI anyways.
Think about it, currently AI farming gives the quitter team huge disadvantage. But having no AI also disadvantages the team for the sole reason of, as you said "tough luck". This solely change it from being disadvantaged to, pretty much fair.
Double post. Forum went bonkered.
The whole point of having to change the AI as far as how much gold and xp they give is due to how gankable they are.
I can think of a few RTS games that have different AI personalities (Agressive, Researcher, Defensive) and not just difficulties like easy, normal, hard. Those might work out better than the current AI. I would think any AI that had a personality that stuck to other players like glue and played rather defensive would be an AI I would want on my team after a rager left early game. Right now we have the agressive rusher AI, if you will, since he is not afraid of anything . He may call it confidence but us players know it as stupidity.
If they can come up with this kind of AI that can assess the situation based on how risky it is to move forward and be agressive vs when to back off because they are about to get ganked. Under no situation should the AI ever approach a tower unless there are no other player in sight. It is the cardinal rule of AI ganking .
I suppose this will do. My point this entire time has simply been that AI will always be exploitable. I simply wanted a step in the direction of preserving fairness if at all possible. Even if the frequency of player-drops decreases in the future due to the upcoming regulations being laid down, that doens't change the fact that when drops do occur, AI will stake take over - and they'll still be exploitable. To put it simply, as someone mentioned above, the AI is so easily ganked.
So, a "slider" is fine with me as long as it allows me to decrease the gold/exp awarded from AI to anything less than what it is now. That's basically what I've been asking for this entire time. And, by the way, isn't this "slider" just a fancy way of conceding to what this topic has been proposing this entire time? I mean, sure, people can leave the default to 100% gold/exp from AI, but regardless, the underlying issue is handled with the slider. Why in the world did it take you so long to agree - albeit a stubborn agreement. Or am I missing something?
On another note, I apologize Squash if I offended you earlier. You just seemed so pompous, so I had to throw in my two cents. I thought I was rather polite about it.
Sly....The points you bring up are stupid... I managed to read most of the 1st page before needing to reply.First of all, if were going by 2v2... you lose 50% of your teamwork when you lose a partner. You can no longer work together, coordinate on a target.... thats a huge disadvantage.... ever had a game where you teammate does what he wants? Ya thats like the AI.... Except the AI doesn't even help with citadel at least in my games....If its 3v3... you lose a big chunk once again... now you got 1 guy going off getting raped by 3 and then its 2v3... Having AI worth same as normal player is brutal... You already get punished so hard when a player quits... today I played a 3v3... we were winning thx to their reggie who was feeding us... luckily they had a very strong oak player who did very well for them. We lost our TB about 1/2 way through with disconnect. The damage alone from losing that player killed us, since any team can realize staying as a pack is best way to push a lane. Now, the extra reward that the other team got was just overkill.... but it wasn't even needed.... sometimes there is small chance to win down a player.... but when someone realizes AI will chase them into towers, teleports rarely as much anymore and tends to fight battles it cant win and runs far to late... well.... farming it becomes easy....I agree with OP and idea suggestior.. why give the team that gets AI a double negative?Sorry that this is long, but one more point. You argue that the team with the dropper would of lost anyways, or that the AI can replace a feeder....Even with a feeder you can sometimes get them to hang around you and work with you, its extra damage. AI usually isn't much better then a feeder since it doesn't change much. As for team losing anyways... well not always true... usually a strong DG setup can prevail, but if you got a team abusing the free gold/xp then ya its automatic loss. Why not give teams a chance?
on board for my improved solution. Good boy. Perhaps edit your OP to convey that a better idea has arised from my dissention?
But it won't matter nearly as much because the frequency of disconnects will be lower. So the overall value of developing/testing/rebalancing this type of change will be lessoned. And, like I said, the OP was a hackish solution anyway. We can do better, and at this point it's pretty clear that we have.
So, a "slider" is fine with me as long as it allows me to decrease the gold/exp awarded from AI to anything less than what it is now. That's basically what I've been asking for this entire time.
Yeah, and your device for doing so was a hack. I cited it as being unintuitive and undocumented. By making it an option, it becomes intuitive, versatile, and cleanly documented. It is no longer a hack.
And, by the way, isn't this "slider" just a fancy way of conceding to what this topic has been proposing this entire time?
No. If you read my posts, you will find that, though in about 10 seconds of thinking about it I was able to devise a more robust solution than you and about 30 yes-men, I still do not support it's implementation at this time. I feel we should wait until the 6-7 relevant fixes & features are implemented and reinvestigate the value of implementing such a thing at that time. My wish to Santa Claus this year will be that I don't need to repeat this.
I mean, sure, people can leave the default to 100% gold/exp from AI, but regardless, the underlying issue is handled with the slider. Why in the world did it take you so long to agree - albeit a stubborn agreement. Or am I missing something?
I just threw that solution out there to satiate those people who couldn't understand that the "real" solution is to fix the underlying issues that encourage rage quitting (thus propogating the unwanted AI's) and to improve the AI's themselves. This solution is better; both you and Annihilator have conceded this, but I'm just throwing a bone to all you AI whiners out there. Do you think I'm going to play my games with the slider at less than 100%? Nope. The nice thing about this solution is that all camps get what they want. If you had your hackish solution implemented, then some camps would be disappointed. The people who want no AI would have to deal. The people who want 0 gold from AI would have to deal. The people who want 100% gold from AI would have to deal. This is the difference between a hack and a robust solution.
Apology accepted. I'm really a nice guy. Heck, I'll probably even karma you and annihilator for being big enough to adopt my solution despite the stink you put up about it. [/quote]
whatever
bunch of whining about how the AI has lost him games in the past
Already covered with the 3 scenarios. Read page 2+
You sure you want to be in this camp? Not even the OP and the idea suggestor believe their original proposals are best anymore; they've adopted mine. If you're gonna be a yes-man, get with the trends.
See my (direct) solution.
I'm confused about what the current state of this topic is, but there are a few ways to deal with AI:
Reduce XP/gold, make them Nightmare difficulty, make a slider, or remove them(or a combination). Improving the AI just isn't feasible seeing as how they'll never match a human.
As it currently stands a 2v2 becomes a 3v1 with your AI teammate working against you through feeding the opponent XP/gold. Do you seriously think AI is OP when it takes <5 seconds to kill one?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
