Frogboy Frogboy

Fallen Enchantress v1.3 fun

▼

Fallen Enchantress v1.3 fun

from JoeUser Forums

Lest you think Legendary Heroes is going to get all the fun, plain old Fallen Enchantress is getting a ton of love too.  We’re working on 1.3 and wow. I don’t want to oversell it but gameplay wise, this will be the biggest change since the pre-release builds IMO.

Where do I start? Let’s start with Diplomacy.

Diplomacy

IMO, the biggest weakness of Fallen Enchantress is the diplomacy system.  There’s still a lot of stuff that could be done here but my biggest beef has been the way the AIs interact with players and you.  One minute they’re your buddy and the next they’re declaring war.

image

Now, the schizophrenic behavior of AI players is nothing new. Heck, multiplayer games are much worse in that regard.  But it’s one area that single player games can be much better at. 

I tinkered around the edges in 1.1 and 1.2 but ultimately decided it had to be tossed out.  Sometimes, you have to nuke the system from orbit.  And so the 1.3 diplomacy system won’t really seem different at first glance but under the covers it’s a whole new world.  First, the AI no longer “calculates” relations. Instead, it fills a bucket of love (or hate) that gradually changes over time.  Because it’s now a bucket (that means your history with them matters) there’s a lot of interesting behind the scenes “stuff” I can do. 

Unfortunately, most users won’t even be aware of these changes but I think the expert players will.  For instance, AI players will be more inclined to offer peace even if they’re stronger. That’s because it’s not calculation relations, it’s looking at your history together and the history of others.  So it’ll look at what is in its best interests overall.

Smarter

The AI is quite a bit smarter.  The problem with these games is that it’s hard to have the AI be “smart” if the designer isn’t that good at the game.  I’ve gotten a lot better at the game thanks to those players who post YouTube videos of their strategies. I incorporate those into the AI (and use them myself).  For example, you very well may get creamed by the AI getting the Forge of the Overlord (spell of mastery victory) as a lot of players win that way and the AI focused too much on conquest.

Balance

We’re also doing a lot on the balance front.  One of my pet peeves is how many “empty” turns there are.  It’s a habit we brought over from GalCiv II that we’re curing (or starting to cure) with v1.3 of FE.  Things will definite “move” a bit faster.

For instance, the differences between Towns, Conclaves, and Fortresses has been significantly increased.  Towns provide a lot more gold. Conclaves a lot more research. And Fortresses a lot more production.  The AI has the advantage here because it’s able to calculate the right balance based on looking at other players (you can look at other players too but most human players don’t – but it’s fair game to the AI since we let you look at the other player stats).

World Generation

1.3 is the first version with procedural tile yield support.   That basically means that the map generator will look at a lot of other factors when deciding the tile yield of a given tile is.  The result is a lot more variance.

image

FUN!

Generally speaking, FE 1.3 is just a lot more fun.  That said, the best way to make the game more enjoyable is to get more units for each side.  The AI doesn’t design its own units. It uses what you create. The more units you give a faction, the smarter the AI gets.

Why?

So why are we putting so much effort (and hence $$$) into making Fallen Enchantress even better? Well first, it’s important that Legendary Heroes be distinct. Legendary Heroes is an expansion pack. It’s not supposed to make the game funner by “fixing” things in FE.  It’s about expanding on concepts already there and adding new ones. FE 1.3 is about taking an already fun game, taking feedback and what we’ve learned and polishing it. 

I’m pretty excited for 1.3 to get out. I don’t have a date yet. My guess is probably in 2 weeks.

Spell of Making: DEFEAT

image

Ultimately in my test game, Pariden won by casting the spell of making.  I’m requesting some tweaks so that there’s more warning when the various factions are constructing the towers leading up to it since this caught me by surprise and I only had 10 moves to do something about it.

170,693 views 103 replies
Reply #76 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Alstein, reply 75
I don't mind AI ganging up on me if it makes sense.  It's when it doesn't make sense that I have a problem with it.

 

 

Agreed 100000000%.

Reply #77 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 70
If I had a game of my own to work on I would, but I don't; I have ideas for games, as many people do, but that's far from having a game to work on for ai purposes, there's a lot of other things in the game that's needed before it gets to the point where you can focus on ai.  This leads to one of the obnoxious catch-22's;  you dont' have experience so you can't get a job, you don't have a job so you can't get experience.

I picked up Teach Yourself C in 21 days and wrote my own game.  That's how I got started.

I have no doubt you could provide pseudocode that would help the AI.  No doubt at all.  And I appreciate that!  The problem is that on *commercial* games half the battle is figuring out what is the best use of finite time.

 

 

Making a full game myself is beyond what I am capable of doing.  I just don't have it in me to take on such a project alone; I require a group to work with.  Designing a game alone I can do, but all the coding, network, artwork; that's not something I can do alone.

TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #78 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Alstein, reply 75
I don't mind AI ganging up on me if it makes sense.  It's when it doesn't make sense that I have a problem with it.

 

Yoo're HUMAAN the ai is just digits and no intelligence at all so it ALWAYS MAKES SENSE! ;)

Reply #79 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Mtn_Man, reply 76
Agreed.  The AI shouldn't be coordinating with the sole purpose of defeating the player.

I disagree because as humaans when we play games against one another that IS the SOUL purpose in playing the game...defeating the others. And if one player is taking the lead it is the soul purpose of those other players behind to go after that person. I've played enough RISK to know this even. ;)

Reply #80 from Stardock Forums Top

While I don't think the AI should illogically gang up against the player, I do think it would be appropriate for AIs to create coalitions against dominant powers. This is pretty common in war-sims, for example some of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games will do exactly this. When the AI only takes into consideration power and becomes increasingly acquiescent as you gain momentum it just makes the end-game increasingly one-sided (and boring).

I've actually never completed a (serious) game precisely because of this actually. Due to my preferences I like to play with a large number of factions, but by the time I had defeated only 1-3 of the 8-27 factions on the map, the AI was so scared of me that there was no true resistance. (Ok, this isn't 100% true due 1.12's tech bug with somewhere around +14 factions...)

The AI should play to win, and that should entail sabotaging dominant factions that pose a threat... Not simply cannibalizing weaker factions.

Quoting zlefin, reply 77

Making a full game myself is beyond what I am capable of doing.  I just don't have it in me to take on such a project alone; I require a group to work with.  Designing a game alone I can do, but all the coding, network, artwork; that's not something I can do alone.

You should at least be comfortable enough with coding to create a rough prototype of your project. Things such as a lack of art assets isn't really an excuse: Look at Dwarf Fortress.

I'm pretty wary of anyone who essentially says, "I want to be a Game Designer but don't want to do any (or significant) coding/art asset creation."

Reply #81 from Elemental Forums Top

It's also not advisable to openly insult the CEO when offering your services (i.e. "Two decades of knowledge is great; it doesnt' mean you're so smart and knowledgeable noone can help improve it"; "At this point I have to think you're just being defensive rather than effective, sorry to say, but it's true.").

Two-decades of practical game design experience beats out cocky internet expert any day of the week.

Reply #82 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Mtn_Man, reply 76
Agreed.  The AI shouldn't be coordinating with the sole purpose of defeating the player.

Agreed.

Reply #83 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting willie, reply 80

Quoting Mtn_Man, reply 76Agreed.  The AI shouldn't be coordinating with the sole purpose of defeating the player.


I disagree because as humaans when we play games against one another that IS the SOUL purpose in playing the game...defeating the others. And if one player is taking the lead it is the soul purpose of those other players behind to go after that person. I've played enough RISK to know this even.

Forming an alliance to defeat a human player who is in the lead is one thing.  The AI coordinating attacks throughout the game, with or without an alliance, is something else.

Reply #84 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Mtn_Man, reply 84



Quoting willie sanderson,
reply 80

Quoting Mtn_Man, reply 76Agreed.  The AI shouldn't be coordinating with the sole purpose of defeating the player.


I disagree because as humaans when we play games against one another that IS the SOUL purpose in playing the game...defeating the others. And if one player is taking the lead it is the soul purpose of those other players behind to go after that person. I've played enough RISK to know this even.


Forming an alliance to defeat a human player who is in the lead is one thing.  The AI coordinating attacks throughout the game, with or without an alliance, is something else.

Have you not ever played a game of RISK or DIPLOMACY where there were at least 2 or 3 players bound to stomp you and/or get you out of the game? I have. ;) Sometimes you just don't like a player because of who he is or the faction he is playing. I know in RISK many times we went after the guy who owned Australia first just because of the advantagous opening he got. That's the kind of AI I want to see in this game "from time to time". Some sort of RANDOM choice the AI makes before the game on whether it likes the humaan player or not. The not knowing by the humaan player what he's up against from the start is the fun and challenge of the game. When you see 4 or more AI players marching down upon you, you're going to have a glorious time trying to survive. ;)

Reply #85 from Elemental Forums Top

I don't agree with you either Willie Sanderson, the AI should not make decisions based upon who is an AI player and who is a human player...

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #87 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting DevildogFF, reply 87
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=I6zjRD-F4P4     

Errh, wrong forum?

~ K

Reply #88 from Elemental Forums Top

RE: Spell of Making,

I would like to see a large popup where one of your advisors (or champions) alerts you to the fact that Kingdom/Empire X is constructing the towers that lead to the spell of making.

"My Lord, our (agents/spies) report that the (Kingdom/Empire) of ("xxxxxxxx") is constructing the Forge of the Overlord in the city of ("xxxxxxx")."

My Lord, our agents report that the Kingdom of Tarth is constructing the Forge of the Overlord in the city of Nottingham.

My Lord, our spies report that the Empire of Magnar is constructing the Forge of the Overlord in the city of Spynx.

Reply #89 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting willie, reply 85
Have you not ever played a game of RISK or DIPLOMACY where there were at least 2 or 3 players bound to stomp you and/or get you out of the game? I have. Sometimes you just don't like a player because of who he is or the faction he is playing. I know in RISK many times we went after the guy who owned Australia first just because of the advantagous opening he got. That's the kind of AI I want to see in this game "from time to time". Some sort of RANDOM choice the AI makes before the game on whether it likes the humaan player or not. The not knowing by the humaan player what he's up against from the start is the fun and challenge of the game. When you see 4 or more AI players marching down upon you, you're going to have a glorious time trying to survive.

What you're describing would make the game decidedly less fun for me (I never had much fun when it happened in Risk, either).  If something like this were implemented, I would want it to be optional.

Reply #90 from Stardock Forums Top

I want to play with an AI that has no ability nor desire to win.  I also like playing basketball with my 8'6" tall Nigerian team against a bunch of midgets in wheelchairs.  To each their own I say!

Reply #91 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting IlluminaZero, reply 81
While I don't think the AI should illogically gang up against the player, I do think it would be appropriate for AIs to create coalitions against dominant powers. This is pretty common in war-sims, for example some of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms games will do exactly this. When the AI only takes into consideration power and becomes increasingly acquiescent as you gain momentum it just makes the end-game increasingly one-sided (and boring).

I've actually never completed a (serious) game precisely because of this actually. Due to my preferences I like to play with a large number of factions, but by the time I had defeated only 1-3 of the 8-27 factions on the map, the AI was so scared of me that there was no true resistance. (Ok, this isn't 100% true due 1.12's tech bug with somewhere around +14 factions...)

The AI should play to win, and that should entail sabotaging dominant factions that pose a threat... Not simply cannibalizing weaker factions.

Quoting zlefin, reply 77
Making a full game myself is beyond what I am capable of doing.  I just don't have it in me to take on such a project alone; I require a group to work with.  Designing a game alone I can do, but all the coding, network, artwork; that's not something I can do alone.
You should at least be comfortable enough with coding to create a rough prototype of your project. Things such as a lack of art assets isn't really an excuse: Look at Dwarf Fortress.

I'm pretty wary of anyone who essentially says, "I want to be a Game Designer but don't want to do any (or significant) coding/art asset creation."

try reading more carefully; because i never said that.  your reading comprehension is poor.  I said I cannot do it ALONE.  With others in a project I can do significant coding and maybe sound assets.  Without others I cannot.  I do not have the will to work on a large project without others also working on it.  It is easier for me to work when others are relying on me than if it is only myself to whom I answer.  Please read words moer carefrully before you assume.

 

 

Quoting Mtn_Man, reply 82
It's also not advisable to openly insult the CEO when offering your services (i.e. "Two decades of knowledge is great; it doesnt' mean you're so smart and knowledgeable noone can help improve it"; "At this point I have to think you're just being defensive rather than effective, sorry to say, but it's true.").

Two-decades of practical game design experience beats out cocky internet expert any day of the week.

Nobody ever said my people skills were good.

If there is a reason why the use of genetic algorithms and the other things I have mentioned would not work I would very much like to know.  As far as I can see the changes I suggest are feasible; only moderately time consuming to code; improve the ai over time; and use very little processing time.  They are also things that are almost never done in game ai design; hence why I believe its' an inadequately explored area.  The advantages of using large scale distributed processing for difficult problems are documented; but such are rarely used for game ai.

Hmm, I think i'll ponder what alternative ways of designing units might look like.

Reply #92 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting willie, reply 85

... That's the kind of AI I want to see in this game "from time to time". Some sort of RANDOM choice the AI makes before the game on whether it likes the humaan player or not. The not knowing by the humaan player what he's up against from the start is the fun and challenge of the game. When you see 4 or more AI players marching down upon you, you're going to have a glorious time trying to survive.

I actually think the foundations for this type of behavior is already in-game. You have initial faction hostility (Kingdom vs Empire) + Sovereign personality quirks (Unstable, Warmonger, Paranoid, ect?). If these personality quirks were more prominent then it seems feasible that such things could be implemented by simply modifying what is already in-game.

Reminds me of the Civilization Ghandi jokes. If these personality quirks were more evident in the diplomacy screen; such as effecting their posture or generated dialogue, I'm guessing it would be all the more awesome. It would be nice if we could modify these in Sovereign creation as well, as the only way to create your own unstable/warmonger/(ect) Sovereigns is to make XML modifications.

It would also allow the access to "experimental" Sovereign AIs that are not associated with the default Sovereigns. I would be surprised if there were not interesting AI behaviors observed in development that were shelved simply because it would not be appropriate with the "core" game. Letting players access this overflow might be really fun.

Quoting zlefin, reply 92

try reading more carefully; because i never said that.  your reading comprehension is poor.  I said I cannot do it ALONE.  With others in a project I can do significant coding and maybe sound assets.  Without others I cannot.  I do not have the will to work on a large project without others also working on it.  It is easier for me to work when others are relying on me than if it is only myself to whom I answer.  Please read words moer carefrully before you assume

"Designing a game alone I can do, but all the coding, network, artwork; that's not something I can do alone."

The implication seems the same to me, especially since there is an assumption that you can work in a team and design the game in complete isolation from the input of your team, play testers, audience, or extraneous circumstances (exp: scope). On reflection if it is truly different, this may actually even be worse than the former interpretation.

There are plenty of examples of decent games that have been created with extremely small teams. Some that come to mind aside from Dwarf Fortress being Minecraft (initially) and Mount and Blade (original, husband + wife). Note also that I didn't even specify a completed game but merely a computational prototype. A prototype treated as a "large project" is... Odd. If you are not willing to even give a proof of concept with a prototype, why should others allow you to lord over them as their "designer?"

Quoting Rhaegor, reply 91
I want to play with an AI that has no ability nor desire to win.  I also like playing basketball with my 8'6" tall Nigerian team against a bunch of midgets in wheelchairs.  To each their own I say!

We already have that, it's called "novice" difficulty. :P

Reply #93 from Elemental Forums Top


FUN!
Generally speaking, FE 1.3 is just a lot more fun.  That said, the best way to make the game more enjoyable is to get more units for each side.  The AI doesn’t design its own units. It uses what you create. The more units you give a faction, the smarter the AI gets.

Don't get this. I have to design units for a faction in one game and then later play against that faction in a new game. To have a better experience. I don't play that many FE games! Please improve the game for me by giving the AI additional useful unit designs.

 

Reply #94 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Nathan, reply 94
Don't get this. I have to design units for a faction in one game and then later play against that faction in a new game. To have a better experience. I don't play that many FE games! Please improve the game for me by giving the AI additional useful unit designs.

I made a bunch of units for FE if you want them...
Look at my reply here: https://forums.elementalgame.com/440288

Goes for the unmodded game though, 15ish units for each faction.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #95 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Nathan, reply 94

quoting post
FUN!
Generally speaking, FE 1.3 is just a lot more fun.  That said, the best way to make the game more enjoyable is to get more units for each side.  The AI doesn’t design its own units. It uses what you create. The more units you give a faction, the smarter the AI gets.


Don't get this. I have to design units for a faction in one game and then later play against that faction in a new game. To have a better experience. I don't play that many FE games! Please improve the game for me by giving the AI additional useful unit designs.

 

 

It appears there are some of these units in the 1.29 beta.  Seeing more things pop up than Spear Maidens.

 

Reply #96 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Nathan, reply 94

quoting post
FUN!
Generally speaking, FE 1.3 is just a lot more fun.  That said, the best way to make the game more enjoyable is to get more units for each side.  The AI doesn’t design its own units. It uses what you create. The more units you give a faction, the smarter the AI gets.


Don't get this. I have to design units for a faction in one game and then later play against that faction in a new game. To have a better experience. I don't play that many FE games! Please improve the game for me by giving the AI additional useful unit designs.

 

The idea is that the AI will use what you've used in the past so that it ultimately plays the game in a manner similar to you.  It was a fairly non-trivial effort to make it do that and it's one of the best bang/buck features in FE (and something I think makes it stand out).

There are no "better" units objectively. There are only units that you find more effective and therefore, having the AI use those units too will make it more effective against you.

Reply #97 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Rhaegor, reply 91
I want to play with an AI that has no ability nor desire to win.  I also like playing basketball with my 8'6" tall Nigerian team against a bunch of midgets in wheelchairs.  To each their own I say!

That is, of course, a straw man argument.  Nobody is asking for an AI that just rolls over and let's the player win.  All we're asking for is that the AI doesn't base its decisions on whether or not another player is a human.

Reply #98 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Frogboy, reply 97
There are no "better" units objectively.

Well we could start discussing some of the weaker traits... for the cost/effect anyhow :)

I never use the defender trait for once, especially not in the unit design package I made, because I know the AI won't just be standing around waiting to use its counter attack. (only real reason I see for getting more defense when I skip my turn)

I for one do like the feature that the AI grabs some unit designs and throws them at you, makes games much more interesting, I could argue that the game could have shipped with more unit designs, but then again, when to stop adding unit designs? :) And I experienced first hand how tedious and boring it is to add unit designs for each faction :D

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Reply #99 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Nathan, reply 94




quoting post

FUN!
Generally speaking, FE 1.3 is just a lot more fun.  That said, the best way to make the game more enjoyable is to get more units for each side.  The AI doesn’t design its own units. It uses what you create. The more units you give a faction, the smarter the AI gets.



Don't get this. I have to design units for a faction in one game and then later play against that faction in a new game. To have a better experience. I don't play that many FE games! Please improve the game for me by giving the AI additional useful unit designs.

 

I don't get this either. What happens if I'm bad at making units? The AI is getting worse.

Or, what if I design a unit to work a cetain way under certain conditions. The AI doesn't know this, and so pumps out units are are all but useless.

 

Reply #100 from Elemental Forums Top

I like the sound of diplomatic recalculations, as described. Seems like a good first step to help remedy a strong game's worst feature.