It was mentioned that the (now so-called) AI will reach its maximum skill at the "Normal" level. Above "Normal," advantages are given to computer players so they can play "better." (All quotes are mine.)
This is very disappointing. I had higher hopes for this game.
Perhaps it's because AI is my career, and I believe no game should need to cheat to win (or at least tie). I think the team decided to give up before the job was finished. I don't mean to be harsh.
Maybe I'm alone on this. I'm genuinely interested to know what other people think, no, feel about this situation. Some people care that the physics is modeled correctly, others that black holes look realistic. I care about the...hmm, not sure what to call it...although the term AI is overused today, I hesitate to use it when it applies to what might just be a deterministic set of if...then...else rules, or whatever is being used. It's not like I expected anything like "learning" behavior, but I did expect heuristics and other techniques and algorithms in sufficient quantity and quality to produce the same playing field that real world systems thrive in every day. Why is the bar set low for a game like this?
Is anyone else disappointed?
Blue, you missed the whole picture. The ai will be completed but its maximum strength without cheats such as production bonuses will be 'normal'.
The Ai is NOT done yet and when it is Normal will be the difficulty that most will play on. I took it as he was explaining what the difficulty levels will be, not what they are or will be for Betas.
Hi Larsenex,
I don't think I missed anything. When the game is released, computer player game levels above "Normal" will cheat; they will not be any "better" players, they will have advantages human players won't. Note my thesis, that the game should be able to at least tie anyone without any cheats (and ignoring random events). So, according to me, if the "AI is completed", then there is no need for a level beyond "Normal". I don't remember Deep Blue saying, "Hey, Gary Kasparov! Look over there!", and then stealing a piece off the board. That's what I mean for setting the bar low.
I thank you for your feedback, but you didn't really answer my question. Does it disappoint you that the game will have to cheat to give you a challenge? You see, it's playing a different game than you are. I find something less satisfying about that.
As a fellow programmer and someone a little knowledgeable in AI, I'm a little disappointed in the OP's narrow view, at least as I interpret it. Chess is a great analogy. If I play against Fritz in "normal" mode, that means I'm playing against Fritz without forcing it to make blunders. "Normal" Fritz (ELO probably >2800) is going to obliterate me and 99.9999% of chess players every time.
The fallacy is equating "normal" to "moderate" difficulty, which would imply that the devs cannot make the AI much stronger than the average player. That may in the end turn out to be the case, but at this stage it is a mistake to assign a relative human scale to the AI scale, especially since the AI is still a work-in-progress. Or perhaps like Fritz the AI will be able to obliterate most humans in maximum-strength-without-cheats normal mode, in which case going higher than that (with cheats) might be only for the masochistic. In short, it's too early to infer the maximum-strength-without-cheats AI will be relatively weak based simply upon the loaded but perhaps misinterpreted label "normal".
Dude. You are asking a question that does not exist and had no answer. I can't feel disappointed at the "AI" cheating to win, when the AI learns from you every game, and uses all its processing power and algorithms at normal difficultly. I standard which you would draw the line on. Like you said, anything past that would be a extra challenge, (not to mention its all moddable) so when the AI can't get smarter than, people like to give the AI bonuses because its all you can do after that to make the gam harder.
DARCA.
If you insist on using the emotional word "cheat" then I don't need to be a part of this conversation. It is deliberate red flag waving. You sound more than smart enough to know that.
There is a handicap system coming. Yes. It is my understanding that you cannot create a truly intelligent AI without some long term experience with the game, after the mechanics have settled down, and after players have shown various strengths and weaknesses in the systems and strategies. That starts getting coded into the AI at its harder levels and people like you get a better challenge. But it all requires patience. That is the true secret ingredient and you will get nothing that you want on this subject without it.
deleted
How does it not work to make the AI as smart as possible at the normal level vs trying to scale it's intelligence throughout all levels. How have they given up?
One of the most irritating things about working on AI intelligence is the law of unintended consequences. By doing it this way they reduce the problem by a factor equal to the number of levels.
I agree with blue oyster i want a smarter ai not one that gets bonuses you don't. Me and erschild can't converse on ai. For the reason that arbitrary bonuses is cheating. According to the forums the ai is going to work in four ways. On normal the ai is going to borrow your ship designs when you make better ships, and have an adaptive ai. Im happy with a game going to adapt to my tactics. In time normal will get insanely hard. Now at harder levels it's going to cheat. One thing i learned about reading about the community update posts is that you can mod a harder game. Please can someone make an insanely hard mod without cheating. Possibly multiples.
I am not a programmer, just a incurable cynic. The reason the AI will never be insanely difficult at normal is because it will always be, more or less, stupid. They will always colonize the wrong planets, build the wrong improvements and play the typical AI game of attrition.
This will end someday, I suspect, but it will end somewhere like MIT and not at Stardock
In a traditional game like Go or even Golf, a better player will receive a "handicap" in recognition of being the better player. This is not considered "cheating". It merely evens the odds.
Having experience in both programming and AI, I can say it's virtually impossible to create a 4X game AI that will beat experienced human players. The only way to compensate is to give the human player a handicap. (Or conversely, by giving the computer players a bonus.)
Of course I would love an adaptable super-genius game AI. But I understand why that will never happen: complexity of the game's rules, small team, limited time and budget, etc.
If anyone thinks they can do better, try it
I have expkained how it can be done before. It can be done.
O.k. ican't play, and i don't watch the game, but you are telling me that in a world class championship some not all player's get handicapped.
Don't forget that the AI has to do more than win. An AI that only tries to win gives you vanilla civ 5, which imo takes a lot of fun out of the game.
In gal civ players need to be able to manipulate the AI. From simply researching diplomacy techs to get better trades and increased friendliness out of the AI to allying with it and keeping that alliance while the player goes for one of the victory conditions. The AIs also need to behave differently (and therefore not optimally) to make the game more interesting. ie some are predispositioned to being friendly or hostile, traders, expansionist, going for influence, etc.
Because of this the player has advantages the AI doesn't. Bonuses at higher levels is pretty much the only way to go.
The fallacies are yours. I didn't equate "normal" to "moderate", you did. I made no claims about average. Neither did I assign a "relative human scale". I am saying the game should be able to be beat or tie ALL players, and stopping short of that is setting the bar lower than it need be. And that is lower than I hoped. Which is the opposite of implying the AI cannot be made much stronger than the average player.
You didn't answer my question, which is what I'm interested in, just knowing if this bothers other people.
I'm not sure where to start. The question exists, of course. And, no, the AI doesn't learn from you every (or even a single) game. And, although I cannot be sure at this time, the kind of mods possible are not likely to include any kind of sophisticated AI work, but instead most likely manually tweaking values and parameters and similar things. This is pure speculation, and I will try to remember to backtrack when the day comes we can prove otherwise. I would be happy to be mistaken about this. We'll see. But I'll put you down as "Undecided."
The fallacies are yours. I didn't equate "normal" to "moderate", you did. I made no claims about average. Neither did I assign a "relative human scale". I am saying the game should be able to be beat or tie ALL players, and stopping short of that is setting the bar lower than it need be. And that is lower than I hoped. Which is the opposite of implying the AI cannot be made much stronger than the average player.You didn't answer my question, which is what I'm interested in, just knowing if this bothers other people.
no one said the ai will be stupid they said it will play without bonus's at the normal level
in previous dev streams they have said that their intent is to make the ai always play at the peak of its ( not sure if this word fits) intellectual abilities , and also to make most players go crying to easy so they can win a few games
so essentially the bar is set that normal will be insanely difficult and only the best players will play at higher difficulty levels
Hello erischild,
I don't insist on the word "cheat"; it is not deliberate flag waving. You should know that a keyboard command that automatically gives one more gold or ships outside the normal play of a game is often called a "cheat." And for decades, we've been trying to do AI without "cheating." Kindly consider it a term of art, please.
That is true.
without some long term experience with the game, after the mechanics have settled down, and after players have shown various strengths and weaknesses in the systems and strategies.
There is a lot to agree with there, but I think you are talking about balancing. I system that can plan, form strategies, and execute tactics to achieve those strategies has that structure designed in from the beginning. One isn't going to add it later. It would be fabulously expensive. And besides, we're talking about plans revealed today that say they will STOP improving the AI, and after that rely on che...um, I mean, special benefits that are outside the rules under which the human player must operate.
That starts getting coded into the AI at its harder levels and people like you get a better challenge.
I never represented myself as having skill at this game.
But it all requires patience. That is the true secret ingredient and you will get nothing that you want on this subject without it.
Sorry, I'm completely baffled by that last sentence. I am trying to find out if other people feel disappointed by the fact it's been decided to create more difficult levels of play without using what is widely termed "AI". You see, giving the computer disadvantages and advantages is a way to create all sort of levels of play; but there are other ways, too, and they provide a richness, so why abandon them after using them? It disappoints me. I wonder if it disappoints others.
Hello Franco,
I'm not quite following you; I think my point is that they are NOT making the AI as "smart as possible." And I wonder if that disappoints anyone. You didn't answer my question.
im sorry but did i miss part of the dev stream ill admit i was tired and nodding off but i dont recall them saying 'well we got the ai to the point where it can beat a 7th grader now we will just give it some bonus's and hope for the best'
How is this going to be any different from GC II, which, as I understand it, was lauded for a fairly good AI?
Hello leiavoia,
So you're saying that chess and football and darts and foosball aren't traditional games because players don't get handicaps?
Having experience in both programming and AI, I can say it's virtually impossible to create a 4X game AI that will beat experienced human players.
Oh my well I guess that settles it...except hey wait a minute, I'VE got experience, too! Oh dear now we've created a paradox. Since you're claiming the absolute, that it's virtually impossible, would you mind pointing us to your published, peer-reviewed paper (or someone else's equivalent) that settles this question? I believe the claim to be false.
The only way to compensate is to give the human player a handicap. (Or conversely, by giving the computer players a bonus.)
You've declared that the computer can't get very good, so your argument is circular.
Much more difficult things than this have been achieved. And I'm sure you're right about the size of the team and the limited budget as major drivers. Hey, wait a minute, just a little ways up above you said because of your experience you could say it was:
impossible to create a 4X game AI that will beat experienced human players.
So...which is it? Impossible? Or a matter of resources? Hyperbole?
But, the question is, does it disappoint you?
Hullo androshalforc,
I will confidently state that no one said 'well we got the ai to the point where it can beat a 7th grader now we will just give it some bonus's and hope for the best'.
Let's assume everyone at stardock hasn't changed who they are. After galactic civilizations 2 twilight of the arnor came out they left code alone. They made four patches. This was modifying text files, but not playing with code, untill the community update. Now what would keep them from doing the same thing. They had two broken ai's. Which translate to five retarded races. Even with five retarded races they wouldn't fix the ai with four patches. Thid time i hope your right and they will adjust the code not just text files as we go. Ps. Adjsting text files is better than nothing. It bothers me tjat they use bonuses instead if a harder ai. Please someone make an advanced mod for people who need a better chalange without giving the ai better bonuses.
This thread has exploded, but I'd like to point out that in the stream he said that the normal AI in Beta 5 will play with the same rules as the player. I don't think they said that that was how it would be at gold. Which, of course is not to say that the AI will be good enough at gold to justify it being set above normal, but I'm just throwing it out there for accuracy's sake.
I think you are confused about what this means. Even if they tripled the AI complexity, they would still set it to normal. Maximum AI complexity is just labeled normal.
Well you're getting hostile, so I'm not going to throw fuel on your fire. No, I'm not bothered at all. I will assume that the AI, playing at its peak ability without cheating, will be able to kick my butt, just as it does in most other games. Until proven otherwise, I'm not going to throw a big stink about it.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
