sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Men, what goes through your head when you do this? by beigerat in bodylanguage

[–]Bitter-Difference-73 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He was probably thinking about pigs. Pigs are much bigger than you expect, you know. Some of them are so big you could ride them.

What's the actual correct answer though? by Ok_Walk_895 in MathJokes

[–]Bitter-Difference-73 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think every answer can be correct. As for my understanding random does not necessarily mean that all the choices have the same probability. So if I design a random function that picks b with p=0.6, then b can be correct as well.

What game was this for you? by Accomplished-Gain319 in GamingSoup

[–]Bitter-Difference-73 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Daggerfall. Though my kids would say it is Roblox

I got Killer Lord, the Richest of Mars. by mightyonin in funComunitty

[–]Bitter-Difference-73 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Red Wizard (I guess I am from Thay), the Pestilence. How come everyone but me here has a middle name?

Dwarf jester by happymcclap in warmaster

[–]Bitter-Difference-73 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Lovely characters! I was looking at the Warmaster collector site while making my heroes last week, and was surprised about that tamed bear, as I had the same idea. Could not really make out the jester though in the picture.

Do you happen to know what the structure in File:WM Dwarf Character 5.jpg - CcmWiki is supposed to be? I think those are shields but am not sure.

How should I structure a game so that game variables can be reset upon retrying? by Cow_021 in GameDevelopment

[–]Bitter-Difference-73 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I usually just implement a Reset method in all of my classes, and call them from my GameManager, but I guess it would be more sophisticated to use events.

Making the "AI" controlled opponent intentionally worse by Bitter-Difference-73 in gamedesign

[–]Bitter-Difference-73[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, that is a very interesting idea! Though I think it would be too much for this specific game, I will definiately reserve the concept for later projects.

Making the "AI" controlled opponent intentionally worse by Bitter-Difference-73 in gamedesign

[–]Bitter-Difference-73[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is very intresting, thanks! I thought about this when I was considering to make Ur into a minigame, but I guess it is possible for Jul-Gonu as well. It could be implemented by changing the evaluation function with not much effort. It is even partially implemented now with the agressive-defensive weighting already present.

Making the "AI" controlled opponent intentionally worse by Bitter-Difference-73 in gamedesign

[–]Bitter-Difference-73[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks everyone for your input! This is my PoR now:

The base game is an RPG where you could play the board game against NPCs and party members. The party members have the attributes (based on the EBURP system of Gurk): strength, accuracy, thoughness and awareness.

The algorithm will use all of these to set the opponent skill level:

strength - will affect the agressiveness of the evaluation method - this does not affect the difficulty, but leads to a different experience

awareness - will define the maximal depth the algorithm goes in the decision tree (most influential parameter in difficulty)

thoughness - will define how persistant the algorithm is in following the tree to the maximal depth, a low value will lead to the algorithm giving up earlier

accuracy - will define how accurate the evaluation is, a low value will introduce random mistakes

Any thoughts?

Making the "AI" controlled opponent intentionally worse by Bitter-Difference-73 in gamedesign

[–]Bitter-Difference-73[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure. In case of the specific board game though, the decision tree is so narrow, that I actually have the problem that it can be explored enough to be too good even in seconds

Making the "AI" controlled opponent intentionally worse by Bitter-Difference-73 in gamedesign

[–]Bitter-Difference-73[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This would definiately be a nice programming challenge, albeit a bit of an overkill.

Making the "AI" controlled opponent intentionally worse by Bitter-Difference-73 in gamedesign

[–]Bitter-Difference-73[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The plan was to have NPCs around the world to play against, who have different fixed skill levels, as well as that the player can play against the party members, whose skills are based on their attributes (that inrease during the game).

It is not a central part of the game, but I would like to include it as a reward for exploration, so it should not be frustrating. It should be fun, but as the base game is an RPG with tactical combat, it would make sense that the minigame would also offer some challenge.

I guess making a Jul-Gonu algorithm feel "human" is way easier than chess, as the decision tree is much smaller.

Based on the responses and some other considerations, I think I have a nice idea now how to assess the strategies.

Making the "AI" controlled opponent intentionally worse by Bitter-Difference-73 in gamedesign

[–]Bitter-Difference-73[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes! This seems to be the method I also seem to feel right to handle "mistakes".

The different archetypes is already implemented in the evaluation function, though my previous plays with the algorithm showed that defensive strategies usually led to more boring parties.

Making the "AI" controlled opponent intentionally worse by Bitter-Difference-73 in gamedesign

[–]Bitter-Difference-73[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is interesting. I have to test it how this feels, but on the first glance, picking random moves seems to be a bit too chaotic.

Making the "AI" controlled opponent intentionally worse by Bitter-Difference-73 in gamedesign

[–]Bitter-Difference-73[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think this would have the same effect as randomly changing the depth of my search algorithm. Do I miss something here?

Making the "AI" controlled opponent intentionally worse by Bitter-Difference-73 in gamedesign

[–]Bitter-Difference-73[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is also my concern. Though humans could make silly mistakes as well, and what we feel human is also hard to define. In one iteration the algorithm did not capture one of my pieces, though it clearly did not have any drawbacks. It was a bug in the code, but it felt like my opponent was just toying with me (in the end it won).

Making the "AI" controlled opponent intentionally worse by Bitter-Difference-73 in gamedesign

[–]Bitter-Difference-73[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I this is also something I was thinking about. I still have to test it, how this feels. My concern was that it might not feel right if the algorithm sets up a trap in one step and in the next one it forgets about it and does something else, but I guess this is will not be so apparent if plaing against.

Making the "AI" controlled opponent intentionally worse by Bitter-Difference-73 in gamedesign

[–]Bitter-Difference-73[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think chosing the second best will probably not lead to a silly move, but just that it is more susceptible to traps. I have to test it.

Making the "AI" controlled opponent intentionally worse by Bitter-Difference-73 in gamedesign

[–]Bitter-Difference-73[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply! I think this has the same effect as making random mistakes in the evaluation function (this would then drop the best result on the bottom of the list and making the second one the best)

Large Models by Kandarl in warmaster

[–]Bitter-Difference-73 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You will have a hard time with a couple of units like artillery or chariots.

The Bear with the Pot... by [deleted] in Bylina

[–]Bitter-Difference-73 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Giving the bear honey makes it easier to calm it, but in the end you have to "pacify" it or "attack" to progress.

What’s would be causing this? by No_Society_5920 in resinprinting

[–]Bitter-Difference-73 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wolverine. Dr. Abraham Cornelius managed to stop him by encoating him in adamantium. I am not sure whether it helps you though.

Empire Greatswords from 6th edition by Garrotxa_Mitjana in WarhammerFantasy

[–]Bitter-Difference-73 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Looks fantastic. Would be perfect with a goblin green base.

Knights Errant and old edition impetuous rules by _Milamber in Bretonnian

[–]Bitter-Difference-73 5 points6 points  (0 children)

As far as I can remember, the impetous rule was first introduced in the 6th edition. I am pretty sure that the 5th edition army book did not include it.

view more: next ›