Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
Bugs on the verge of self awareness!
|
|
Alpha Centauri Forums
The Game
Bugs on the verge of self awareness!
|
| Author | Topic: Bugs on the verge of self awareness! |
| Alkis |
posted 05-04-99 04:03 PM ET  
When I bought this game I thought it was a nice thing. Time has proved how silly I was. The worst of it all, is that it's in fact addictive. I played this game for maybe hundreds of hours. The problem is it makes me so mad I want to destroy my computer. No, it's not that I cannot win. I won several games on Transcend Ironman. It's that this game in all it's greatness is full of bugs. I posted some messages about defective AI, but anyway since Firaxis prefers to call them bugs, I' ll use the same term. 1. In the game the faction leaders have a certain "mood" where seething is the worst and magnanimous the best. Sometimes they declare war when they are in magnanimous mood. This has happened to me many times. I don't know if it was a coincidence but it always happened with Morgan and Diedre. Btw there is something wrong with Diedre. It says Pacifistic but she declares war more easily than anyone else. 2. Many years ago there was a game (great in it's time), yet primitive in ours called civilization. In that game the AI was granted Wonders of the world. The makers of that game saw how stupid (and annoying) this was, so in the second version of the game the AI had to build the Wonders. It also gave you a warning. Nice, definately an improvement. In SMAC however there is sometimes a warning and sometimes not. This makes the game less of a strategy and more of a gambling game. Definately antistrategical and annoying. Fix it please! 3. When a faction leader wants to speak with you even when you close the channel, it stills displays it's monotonous message "that he will have you executed" or "give your technology to responsible hands" etc. It's ok if it happens once but to have this nonsense a hundred times in one game it's just too much. Sometimes, (rarely I admit), you are given the message... "I have an urgent message from..." etc. You clic ok then again the same message, you clic ok then again the same message. Is this a bug or what? In some other games you have the option to ignore the other leaders. Much better and less annoying. 4. The AI constructs some bases who are real jewels of stupidity, in deep ocean for instance with practically no squares to use, or with so many squares overlapping. It's not so difficult in my humble opinion to insert a command like this...if a new base has more than say 5 squares useless or overlapping with other bases, then DON'T build it there. 5. I know that to fix this Firaxis has to change it's whole attitude towards game-making but I post it anyway. There is a concept in the game (which I call Artificiall Difficulty) where if your position is bad (in other words if you are a bad player) the computer gives you goodies. When you step on a pod you get some nice technology, or an artifact, opponents are willing to exchange technologies or offer pacts, etc. When you have a good position (in other words if you are a master player) then the AI fights you in every possible way (in other words it cheats), pods are xenofungul blooms, faction leaders are irrationally hostile, you try to build somewhere and you find swarms of mindworms, AI builds Secret Projects without a warning etc etc. Some people may think that this, is in fact good, but they have no idea what strategy game really means. In a strategy game you have to be punished for your bad moves and benefit from your good ones. In SMAC there is a tendency to level things down. 6. It's really sad when someone gives you a present and then takes it away from you. You can imagine what I have in mind, of course, borders! They have included the concept of borders (very nice) but as for sea borders the situation is total anarchy. Include sea borders as well PLEASE! |
| Cadrys |
posted 05-05-99 10:29 AM ET
Ah, I'm not the only one who had the problem with pact-breaking out of the blue. I was Dierdre, Miriam to my south. Pact Sisters. She was giving me units, we were passing tech back and forth, I hadn't made any SE choices that would anger her.. ...and in mid-conversation immediately after a tech trade, she breaks off our pact. WTF? The bit about the Project being finished with no warning was either (1) sunspots or (2) the faction BOUGHT the project, or (3) switched from another project when the one being built was finished by someone else. |
| David Johnson |
posted 05-05-99 02:05 PM ET
I guess I don't mind diplomacy getting worse as you get more powerful -- although it always seems silly to me that all my "conversations" with the other factions after a certain point in the game go something like "faction: this planet isn't big enough for the both of us, me: since I have the capacity to create 20 times your total strength *per turn* there's only one logical way you can bring about that goal, so good luck to you." But the idea that the random elements are slanted by success seems odd. Surely that's what difficulty levels are for? Is this for real? Seems like something that could be creatively abused.... Is there an official place to list bugs? I've noticed that air units cost me less if they have armor. I can never get a "Golden Age" to happen. "Hollographic Theatre" never appears as a possible build. If you are building a prototype and then retire the prototype the accumulated production isn't halved when it's converted to energy [or at that point back to anything else again]. More a loop hole than a bug. Build crawlers at low industrial cost, switch to high industrial cost to double their worth, add to a prototype, zilch the protoype == a way to launder [and double] production into money. [Which you really ought to be able to do without all the hassle...] Incidentally is there any way launder money to research? [other than via production as above, buying crawlers?] |
| Alkis |
posted 05-06-99 06:37 PM ET
Cadrys, About the Secret project, there were no sunspots, neither did the AI changed production from another SP, so it remains the third possibility that it bought the project. Still it should give a warning, I could have bought it too, actually I just needed a couple of rounds to have it build. It was the Virtual world btw which was later destroyed. In the end I won that game but I had to build about 40 holo theaters! David, You probably play an earlier version of the game. You can update to version three from this site. |
| Va1en |
posted 05-06-99 07:10 PM ET
Oh my GOD! You should read the instruction book!!! Magnanimous is when the faction feels overwhelmed by your power. It is a sort of special case where the faction becomes desperate. It is in no way a good mood, but it is neither bad. It isn't even neutral. Once again, magnanimous is when your are many times more powerful than they. They feel overwhelmed and become desperate. |
| Shining1 |
posted 05-06-99 07:41 PM ET
Va1en: Actually, that's submissive. Magnanimous is when the faction likes you a lot. As for the random stuff, I'm not 100% sure that bad stuff only happens to you when you are leading the game. A.I base building is much better under version 3.0, and there are tactical reasons for some of its actions. Diplomatic A.I is indeed troublesome, most especially with Morgan. Deirdre hasn't caused me problems. Project warnings are indeed infrequent. An irritation only, since it's a kind of player cheat anyway - but it would be nice to see it spelt out that the warning are infrequent. While this is a bug, is isn't necessarily a bad one. Brian still hasn't explained the sea borders issue. Approximately 90% of players seem to agree that sea borders should be part of the game, as they are in real life. Shining1 |
| CatsAt8 |
posted 05-06-99 11:47 PM ET
Its a GD game....and nothings perfect...UNTIL the I in AI actually becomes INTUITIVE...I suppose we mere mortals have to either EXPECT less than PERFECTION....or DO the damn thing ourselves..which I gather NONE of you have .... Sorry for that but I hate FREAKING whiners that want perfection and EXPECT a F*****G PROGRAM to ANTICIPATE the whims of each and every player.Unless you believe in GOD and believe GOD also writes these games...you aint getting perfection. Since HUMANS of limited means (like myself and you guys) wrote these programs...GET F*****G real on the * I wants*....you aint a kid...or are ya ? CatsAt8 |
| yin26 |
posted 05-07-99 12:40 AM ET
Praise Be to the Lord of Mediocrity! |
| Shining1 |
posted 05-07-99 01:14 AM ET
CatsAt8: ??? Was that little rant directed at anyone in particular? It sounds as if you are trying to convince yourself more than anyone else. Typical cat lover... |
| Bingmann |
posted 05-07-99 12:16 PM ET
CatsAt8: All they need to do is add an AI interface so that the hundreds of nerdy addicts (like myself) could write new and improved AI. In fact, they wouldn't have to write AI code for any of their games; I'm sure the on-line community would immediately take up the task, and the cross-fertilization of hundreds of AI hackers on the net would create a truly powerful AI that would easily evolve over time. I doubt Firaxis has even a single person devoted to writing AI code full time and to updating it as new tips and strategies are discovered (as players update their own PI by reading these forums). |
| CatsAt8 |
posted 05-07-99 12:23 PM ET
Shining1:...Not directed at anyone ...just that I have never seen so many whiners about a game as on these boards.Its a goofy damn game ..LOL. My comments were more in general about people that pay for a game and than piss and moan cause it isnt perfect. As for me..LOL...there are bugs in every program that are fixable.But complaints I have read are more along the line of "why doesnt the AI KNOW what I expect".Its hilarious.... Anyway...No offense to you intended Shining1...so please dont look at it that way. CatsAt8 |
| Giant |
posted 05-07-99 12:29 PM ET
A few little nags that ought to be addressed: One of the things I disliked about Civ2 was that other nations would simply gang up on you and/or make horrendous demands as soon as your nation was at the top of the dominance list. This might be justified if you had been bombing them into submission or had a bad reputation. However, it always occured regardless of how peacful you might have been acting. Now, I had hoped this might be have been axed for SMAC. Alas, no! My current campaing has the Green's off in their little corner of a very huge map going about the business of building a prosperous faction. No hostilities of any kind with anybody save two exceptions: The Hive didn't like my democracy. Fine, that makes sense. And the Spartan's didn't like being told to leave my territory. Her transport full of missle infantry landed, I killed them, we pledged truce. No problem. My other interactions with the rest were always peaceful. Reputation was noble, might unsurpassed. I built the first planet buster and had it sitting around for a good 25 - 30 years. Now, within 3 years my loyal allies ditched me, and pronounced vendetta. Same with the other factions. So, without posing a military threat to anyone I had them all sending my little idle threats about how the other factions would do XYZ if I was foolish enough to yaddayadda. Totally unrealistic. There is simply no basis for this in a game where all conquest options are allowed. And, realisitcally, you would think someone would be happy to have the most powerful faction on their side etc. And, if this was triggered by having a planet buster, it seems a bit weak. As we all know, the Hive, for example, is not adverse to commiting atrocites which makes such a deterrent valuable. This leads to nag #2: Another planet UN item is needed, namely to disarm planet busters. The idea is to have the START treaties and such incoporated. This action would require the same tech needed for a planet buster itself. As soon as one faction had discovered the tech then a new item would appear: "Approve arms treaty." This would be subject to the usual vote. If approved then the manufacture of a planet buster would be prohibited and existant busters would be disbanded. There could be no covert production. Alternatively, all factions would decalre war on the violator. This might seem redundant with the charter business but I disagree. Busting is such an atrocity that it might merit special condition. Speaking of the UN: It seems foolish for those factions who lack orbital spaceflight to be able to vote on the various UN options that involve spaceflight. If you have no capacity to even get something into space then you ought to keep your mouth shut. Another UN thing: If there is but one abstain then there can be no unanomous vote, the veto still works. Abstain is delgating the decision to others which should not compromise the veto power. Back to AI: Bear with me, two more things This brings me to another issue relating to faction-faction interaction. I would love another preference menu for diplomacy. Items such as "threaten vendetta if other faction colonizes within your territory" and "auto-refuse all loan proposals" would be most useful. How about asking factions that do not settle in your turf but settle so that they gain possession of improvments you have made to pay up. This might also be a cause for war too, one that does not harm you rep. Another point here is the static nature of the dialogues themselves. Morgan always bithced at me to give up my planned or green economy. Fine, that suits him. But you would think he might stop complaing when that same green econmy makes his look pitiful. The bogger had no right in demonizing my model that was outperfomring his. Maybe that could be worked in, e.g., "Well, I am surprised that your green economy is so vibrant but I am sure you could do better by removing environmental regulation etc." In other words, a more dynamic dialogue based on how well each faction is doing. In a similar vein, I dislike it when I try to contact a faction with whom I have a war and can only crush them, apologize and pay or apologize and pay a little less. The missing option is "No, Chairman, is is you who must apologize to end this waste of resources." The idea is that you inform the other faction that you have the upper hand but are willing to let the matter slide. I don't think this is truly possible with the current set-up. The last matter is the AI, again: In this game of mine, everybody hates me. Fine, I'm over it What is skewed is their means to combat their own self-fulfilled prophecy. They are doing everything the can to raise the sea-levels. I can't veto them. Fine. Makes sense that they want to somehow get me (although I'm the only power with satellites so I'm intrigued how they want to do this, but I digress...) This seemed vaild and such. But, I jest you not: Every other faction lost cities to the rising sea levels, except me! The bastards killed themselves and did not want to lauch solar shade to lower the sea-levels again. AI that dooms itself to destruction is just a bit tiresome. That is a bug, not a feature, in my book. In any event, I really like the game but found these few bugs/nags. BTW, the Greens marched to victory in this game, of course. I would appreciate any comments, esp. from FIRAXIS. Thanks for your patience and time... Oh, game is most recent version with most recent patch etc. No tech. problems at all. Just playability issues. Sorry if this is a repost, I'm new here... Christopher |
| alienz |
posted 05-07-99 12:51 PM ET
Chris made some really good comments above :  Although I've only been playing the game a short while I love the replayibility and the game itself. Of the things mentioned by Chris that I would like to see the most is the option to tell a faction you are at war with that they have to concede to you. Many a times I would have liked to have ended a war if only for a few turns so I could concentrate on alittle research or expansion but even when I have the upper hand I can only end it by giving in. That's kinda annoying. One last thing has anyone won by Peace in Our Time? |
| MoSe |
posted 05-07-99 12:56 PM ET
of course |
| Xerxes314 |
posted 05-07-99 03:35 PM ET
I think we're being a little bit unrealistic when comparing the AI to the way a real human player acts. For example, if the AI wants to buy a secret project and you don't get any warning. That's a damn shame for you, now isn't it. I don't see the computer getting a chance to buy your precious HS out from under you. Seriously, give the AI a break, it's got a hard enough task as it is without you cheating all the time. As for the AI's not submitting immediately since it's obvious to even the most casual observer that my faction is the best thing since sliced bread: would you surrender under those circumstances? If the computer asks you to make peace and quietly wait out your remaining days while it achieves transcendence, you'd never accept. Why should the computer? Just because you expect to win doesn't mean that the AI should expect you to win. That being said, there are still some pretty bad issues with underdog AIs declaring war on the major powers. I think we should take a look at what human players do when they're in a bad situation. Obviously, there are better ways to go about things than just declaring vendetta against anybody more powerful than you. |
| Giant |
posted 05-07-99 04:51 PM ET
Hmm, I'm not saying that the AI might act like a real human. That's an impossibilty. And, I approve of the AI being able to buy SP's without the player knowing. We do that all the time so why not computer opponents...? My beef, as it were, is with the predicatabilty of the AI and the downright silliness of it all. It makes no sense for, as illustrated using the most recent game I was in, computer players to raise sea level when only their bases are drowned due to their inability to build pressure domes. And, given six other factions, one could reasonalby argue for some variation in response. So now, whenever I play for transcedence I can expect the others to gang up on (like in Civ), push demands that are unrealistic, makes claims they can not back up, declare without any *real* reason and so on. That is not AI in my book, but rather boring. I will certainly play for conquest and turn of the victory by transcedence option... A pity really. My other point was to improve the overall interaction between factions by having dialogue be morerealted to what is actually happening. Again, Morgan ought to stuff it about the inadequacies of the planned economy model when he himself is being outperformed, economically speaking. This sems to me to be realtively easy to do. If Morgan "senses" his economy is lacking he should have the requisite blurb inserted in the .txt file that has his responses archived and so on. That's the rub, IMHO. Christopher |
| HolyWarrior |
posted 05-08-99 01:29 AM ET
David Johnson, you may not be seeing the Holographic Theater come up, because you have the Virtual World secret project, which makes all nodes double as theatres. And since with UoP you get nodes automatically, you may well have holo theaters and not realize it. |
| Alkis |
posted 05-08-99 12:52 PM ET
Giant, Thanks for your detailed post. You exppress many things I' ve also experienced. As it is now the situation is, as you rightly remark unrealistic, it's like a small country like Luxemburg declares war on the USA because the Americans have too many aircrafts! Absolutely unrealistic. Instead they should have made a worthwhile AI, an AI who could compete with you on Ascending to Transcendance. I wonder what is the meaning of Transcendance victory as it is now. Ok, I think this a common secret, in order to win in this way you have to beat all the computer players but not kill them, just keep them alive in order to complete the final wonder. Stupid and childish. But I also did it at least once. Btw all of you who say the same things, that it's too hard to make a good AI, and that all these are whining etc etc just ask yourself if you treated this game more than a child's toy, if you ever played a serious game of Smac, that's all I have to say. |
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).  |
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.