My place to discuss game related stuff, as a gamer and developer.

I think that the current diplomacy system still needs to be tweaked. 

I have started an all-fast game on a huge map against hard AIs (unlocked teams of course). 

While I had some fights initially, the game quickly evolved to a state where most AIs were happy with me.

I picked a single empire to fight, which quickly got  4 AIs to get happy with me as a collateral bonus to my actions. I by basically defending from another one's attacks, I got 2 more to befriend me by doing nothing. 

I got peace treaties and all basic pacts with them all, and the other AIs were basically ganged upon by everone else.

I got the game to a state where 6 AIs were fighting each other, and I was allied with everyone. It certainly didn't feel hard to do, it was just a collateral accomplishment by my actions. 

In this state, it's also easy (though slow) to colonize without fighting. AI is exceedingly slow to send a colonize vessel once a planet is razed. Since i was allied to everyone, I placidly watched the fight between the AIs for a planet, and stationed a colonize vessel close to the planet. as soon as it was razed, my vessel took it over. The AI can leave a gravwell uncolonized for several minutes before sending a vessel to it.

I think that it all needs to be more fleshed out. I have already suggested to have the possibility of bargaining, which s currently nonexistent. Military cooperation should also have more if's, as the current glaring exploit. 

I think that military cooperation should be a treaty, and one hard to accomplish, since it's so crucial for the game. This would open the doors for setting military missions. Without a military cooperation treaty it would not be possible. Empire A (AI) should be able to plan long term and set an objective to 'colonize planet X', and correspondingly ask empire B to help. But if empire B sneakily colonizes first, this should be seen as treachery and carry a heavy relationship penalty. 

The empires should also be aware of military actions against third parties. If A is allied to B and at war with C, and B is allied with both, A attacking C would carry a penalty to A. If there is a military treaty between B and C the penalty is worse. If C asks for help from B and B refuses, their relationship would also deteriorate. 

I also think that without a military cooperation treaty, jumping ships to a gravwell of another empire should carry a penalty, even if both empires are at peace.

I would like to have the option of trade and diplomatic missions. 'Send a diplomatic envoy to planet X in Y minutes', for instance, or 'do a commercial embargo on empire A to pressure him to stop attacking me'. Or 'send a convoy of at least 500 metal and 500 crystal to planet Z'. That would give interesting uses for trade ports and refineries. I could have buttons to build convoys, each ship holding 100 of one resource  type, and setting a target for it. the player would have to escort it (or not, but that would be risky). Some would be trade missions with a primarily monetary bonus, while others could be answers to distress calls to help colonizers. the player could spend the cash by himself to help the gravwell, or set it as a mission to another empire - in the case of success it would carry a diplomatic bonus.

Other trade/diplomatic missions could be 'help planet X colonizers to develop infrastructure to house more people'. Translating: ask another empire to pay for a planet upgrade in exchange for a relationship boost. 

Another thing is that I just can't use tactical and logistic slots if there are leftover structures from an friendly race. I am A, and allied with B and at war with C. C attacked B and colonized one of his planets, and after I razed the planet, B seemed uninterested in reacquiring it. I would like to be able to help an ally 'liberate' a planet i.e. getting it back to him. I got fed up of waiting and colonized it, but then there were some structures from B, my ally, taking up several logistic slots, and I couldn't attack them without breaking the alliance, nor scuttle - and they were still taking up logistic slots. Maybe foreign structures could cost no slots, or would gradually deteriorate. As a last option, having structures on the gravwell would have an 'ownership' connotation, thus colonizing a gravwell with structures of an ally would carry a penalty, because I should have left it for him to retrieve for his empire. 

 


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jan 14, 2010

YAY! gr8

Brazilian_Joe approves it

please dont forget that defensive actions (fighting in my own gravwells) should not incur in negative penalty

on Jan 14, 2010

"We're toying with the idea of making it so that when you attack a faction, you also incur a negative military action penalty with all of that person's allies.  Look for it in the next public build."

Great. Love it that you take into account the feedback! Beta testers, how does the  AI's diplomacy compare to other rts/tbs you know?

on Jan 14, 2010

"Beta testers, how does the  AI's diplomacy compare to other rts/tbs you know?"

 

I sincerely expected more. All I see is that they've added another not-so-usefull-because-you-get-them-too-late-to-make-any-big-difference thingie to the diplomacy tree. Great, where's the diplomacy, though?
Definition of Diplomacy:

"Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics and culture. International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians.

In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or polite manner. The science of diplomatics, dealing with the study of old documents, also owes its name to the above, but its present meaning is completely distinct from that of diplomacy."

 

Outake from Wikipedia: Clicky linky

I feel that something about Soase Diplomacy is lacking some... diplomacy

Make something like the government system of the guild 2!

on Jan 14, 2010

           I love this game to death but, an ai that cant make something as simple as building superweapons is going to be really lacking in something as complex as diplomatic relations. I see no point in diplomacy....

on Jan 14, 2010

Brazilian_Joe
YAY! gr8

Brazilian_Joe approves it

please dont forget that defensive actions (fighting in my own gravwells) should not incur in negative penalty

 

That how it currently works.

on Jan 15, 2010

"We're toying with the idea of making it so that when you attack a faction, you also incur a negative military action penalty with all of that person's allies.  Look for it in the next public build."

Neat! ^^

on Jan 15, 2010

I dont like the idea of them not liking you for attaking thier allies. That just kills all the momentum you had built up to make pacts. as it is you lose pacts too fast because they move thier envoys and the envoy bonus drops like a rock. I really wish pacts wouldnt go away imediatly upon losing that envoy bonus level. Mabye like 2 under what it took to get that pact and you lose it.

on Jan 26, 2010

The abysmal AI is one a the major reasons Diplomacy fails (a contender being logical fallacies such as the example of faulty metagame logic pointed out above by Darvin). The irony of it is funny though, basing a whole expansion pack around the relationship to the AI when the AI is completely broken in the first place.

Being a naysayer sucks, and yet I'm not going start to post suggestions on what to fix instead. I could fill page after page about metagame problems such as the aforementioned one. To me, however, this seems pointless as I have no confidence in any serious attempt being made to remedy the issues. The problems are simply too 'core' in the game, and seeing how Diplomacy is slated for a February release date isn't going to sway the dev's minds either. Truly repairing the metagame would require on the developers' part a taking the game seriously on a wholly different level rather than viewing it as another 'entertainment product' that simply needs to be complete enough to be 'fun for a while', satisfying the majority but clearly not the real connoisseurs.

What I'm going to suggest instead to anybody serious about creating a decent AI would be to take a look at Civilization IV. Even that AI is nowhere near perfect but it's heads and tails beyond what Sins has to offer - heck, not only do the different AI's know how to play the game, they even have different personalities!

To anybody to whom it might not be clear, I'm not here to simply bash Diplomacy (which would be utterly pointless). The only reason I'm on the forum in the first place is because I deemed Sins worthy of my time. Yet, I'm certainly here to vent my frustration about how Diplomacy yet again showcases the eternal lack of attention to game's logic/the metagame which is the case with so many PC games. Please, developers, it is no good we have shiny graphics, lots of units or few minidumps if core elements of the metagame is simply broken!

on Jan 26, 2010

That's actually a fine and logical mechanic. Your allies getting attacked, that's bad for you. Hence, lower relationship when attacking AI allies. If you don't want that breaking your pacts, don't attack. It's part of better AI.

As for quality of AI, of course a TBS AI will beat an RTS AI. There's no way to compare them equally. You can't wait 10 seconds for each AI as they to decide what to do. You're limited by what the AI can realistically do in real-time without destroying the computer's processor.

Also, the current Diplomacy Beta has been out for quite a while now, and a number of the features were newly implemented in it. It's highly likely the AI wasn't implemented for those features then, but have been internally now. Work continues whether you see it or not.

 

on Jan 26, 2010

What I'm going to suggest instead to anybody serious about creating a decent AI would be to take a look at Civilization IV.

Way to compare TBS AI that has essentially an infinite amount of time to do what it needs to do and an RTS AI that has much more limited resources and timetables.

on Jan 26, 2010

Edit: Double post ftl.

on Jan 28, 2010

While it's clear that a TBS has some advantages over a RTS in this regard, explaining the poor AI decisions by this would be make-believe. The issues I see are not ones that would be consuming a lot of computational ressources - they're about how the game is built in the first place. Darvin's example showcases this, to name just one instance: A missing option for 'there can be only X' and the AI's missing understanding of this concept has nothing to do with being a RTS.

2 Pages1 2