Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
El autor de este tema ha marcado un mensaje como la respuesta a su pregunta.
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
The thing about the AI knowing where everything is on the map is a misconception born of turns being resolved by the AI before the animations complete. I've tested the auto-move "reveal" that's supposed to prove that.
What people think is happening: The AI sees pickups through the fog of war and rushes straight to them.
What actually happens: The AI moves until a pickup appears in its line of sight, then alters its path to pick up that thing. However if they're in range of the pickup on the same turn, this change happens before the animation actually "reveals" the pickup to the player, leading to the illusion that the AI knew it was there all along.
All games do.
For the games you play age of empires 2 definitive edition have a ai that is probally cheat free in regarding to resources and units, did not look the code yet to see if it uses or see units on fog of war but if not its a 100% cheat free ai in regards to rules, it may not respect human body limits do how many actions per second or micro manage it can do but thats its another type of cheating, usually we only care for this second part when the ai is beating the best players with is not the case of aoe2, cause even if the ai can control more units than a human, human still is managing it better so the human limitations cheat is different from game Rules cheat.
If we go for human limitations chess ai is cheating too as its not limited at the same amount of calculations or moves best humans can play, this is something we Don't care about.
There is always multiplayer, get some friends or some randoms and go play without anyone "cheating".
And it definately sees the whole map as was already learned in one of the opendev versions.
Thank you for this link. Gives me a good idea of what to expect per difficulty.
Maybe it doesn't do it in Age of Empires 2, I don't know. But pretty much all turn-based strategy games do on higher difficulties. Civilization 5 & 6, all Total War games, Advance Wars, Europa Universalis 4, Anno 1800, hell, even in non-strategy games like Breath of the Wild, the enemies' weapons are unbreakable. RPGs like Baldur's Gate 2, RTSes like Starcraft 2, Warcraft 3 and Red Alert, fighting games like Tekken 5, hell, you could even say that bosses in video games like Dark Souls are "cheating" just because they have a lot more health than you.
Video game AI has to cheat, because the player is just that much better almost all of the time. This applies even more so to strategy games with a bigger scope - Total War and Civilization AI needs to cheat, because there's so many variables that can't be coded in. I'd imagine Humankind is even HARDER to code for in that regard, since the AI switches cultures, and thus, playstyles, several times in a game.
All games are stacked in the computer's favor, whether that be more health on enemies or more resources in a strategy game.
Breath of the wild dont have bots and is not a pvp game, unless the bot is simulating a human player the devs have creative freedom to make then the way they want, its when its replacing a human player that it should be cheat free as much as possible we can only judge cheating when its getting different rules you are playing as zelda on botwl not as the enemy..... So its not same character, but lets say you playing with zergs on starcraft and the ai is also with zergs then its another thing, also in the campaing it dont matter if it cheats or not could be a story that make it get free enemys or other things like reinforcements it dont mattet its not a bot on the campaing its dev creative freedom, its when you place a bot in a multi-player mode even if solo that it does because the function of a bot is to replace a human, starcraft 2 is cheat free as well the devs made the ai up to the elite difficulty cheat free and its pretty okay/good when you learning the game and if someone wants theres a option to make then cheat, also google made a ai alphastar that did not cheat and beat professional players on starcraft, they had to change a few versions of it to reduce the few advantages cheating it had like makinf it spend the limited apm moving the camera on the last version, but in the end it was around same level.
Bosses in dark souls dont cheat again they are not replacing a human player its not the same thing, they are not a bot 🤷♂️.
The other games you said i know they cheat like civilization and is one of the reasons i did not play it tho i know its possible to find custom AI that plays better and cheat less but not sure if someone made one 100% cheat free yet and its annoying to have to study the game learn how the modding works just to fix something to be able to play so i skiped...
, not sure if baldurs gate have a pvp mode and bots... But the others yeah i know it already, alot of games have cheating ai but as i answered the other guy its not all games and many games offer a option cheat free.
Why does it matter if it replaces a human? I have literally never played Civilization 6, Humankind or any turn-based strategy games online, and I'm sure 90% of all players don't play online either. Why can an AI cheat in a PvE game, but not in a PvP game? And once again, Civilization 6 is likely not a PvP game for the vast majority of players. But even if it was, why is the AI not allowed to be stronger there, but it is in games like Dark Souls? Why can't an AI cheat in a game just because it has PvP? It's not like you can play ranked against the AI in such games either, and a ranked mode doesn't even exist in Humankind or Civilization 6, for that matter.
Actually, that's not true. Google's DeepMind could be trained to do it. It already plays Go and StarCraft (and other games).
True, but that's Google. Amplitude doesn't have their resources.
I think there are several misconceptions and globalizations here.
Games had AI ways before Google even existed, games had positively "challenging" AIs, and even AIs playing with the same rules as humans do. That does not exist in all games, but that existed in some very good ones.
You know that guy in his garage programming his game as an indie in the 90s? well, that guy can program an AI, and even a good one, and he does not have Google resources either.
Most of the strategy games we play (even more turn based ones of course...) can be understandable as some kind of "board game", and as you know, in a board game, the opponents use the same rules that you do.
Even some RTS games of the past (clearly not all) even managed to program proper AI despite being limited in CPU cycles allowed on a realtime strategy game with so many units.
I think several assumptions should be reevaluated.
There are "several games" which work with a cheating AI. I even think 80% to 90% of them do.
That does not mean we should scorn the guys looking for the last 10%, considering a good AI is also the guarantee of a good replayability.
To understand OP's question, he was asking if the game AIs follow the same rules as the human player does, and as I remember from beta answers during beta, the answer was "no"; it was replied at that time that AIs have an "omniscient" programmation in this game.
I find this sad, but this is how they programmed it. To their defense, many programmers do that nowadays, quite possibly (but here I go into the territory of my very own opinion) because many new developers think that an AI needs google-like resources, and "assume obstacles", lacking the "garage-programming" culture where obstacles are experienced, not assumed.
I don't think anyone was attacking or scorning OP, I was just trying to figure out why they're against cheating, when almost all games stack the odds against a player to offer a challenge in some manner. If one were to say that the final boss of Dark Souls has 10 times the average player's HP, most people wouldn't be bothered, but if one were to say that the AI of Total War: Warhammer 2 on the hardest difficulty (essentially the "final boss") has 2 times as much gold as the player, a lot more people are bothered by it.
I understand and fully approve of AI evolving enough to face a player without any cheats, but like you said, most developers believe that to be too difficult. I know nothing about coding, but Chess and GO have a lot less variables to tackle than 4X games. Just as an example, the combat alone in Humankind is similar to Chess, except with a lot more rules.
In fact, I think a cheating AI can heighten the experience, because when you beat it, you feel so much better for beating something that was much stronger than you.
To summarize, I don't think it's wrong to want an AI that does not cheat, but I don't think that a cheating AI detracts from the experience either, seeing as how the vast majority of games do it and remain enjoyable.
Edit: Just for the record, I realize that I might sound hostile in these posts, but that is not my intention, and I apologize if that's the case.