Why does an AI have a -1 disposition towards me?


#1

Couple of questions regarding the new AI system. Observations from an earlier ‘all AI’ game I had created a few months ago led me to believe that they would not attack you (or indeed each other) unless provoked, or in the case when you both launch at a neutral star at the same time thus inadvertently causing a battle. So I was a little surprised when in a game I’m currently playing one of the AI (from a quitter) who is neighbouring me had a -1 disposition and attacked me completely unprovoked. Because I had a couple of ships on the star it caused a battle, and then the disposition dropped further. After a bit of toing and froing ended up at -4.

So firstly, why the initial -1 disposition when I hadn’t had anything to do with this AI? I am currently the game leader, does that have anything to do with it?

Secondly, does the level of disposition actually make them behave differently, or is just to make it more expensive to pay them off?

I’ve just had to shell out a heck of lot of money to stop things from escalating out of control with this AI (since I’m at war with 2 real players already) and we’re now back to “neutral 0” but will it stay this way or is the AI going to fall again?


#2

My understanding is game leader gets -1 regard with AI by default. Not aure if this goes away back to 0 if they are no longer the leader.


#3

I believe that if you attack someone that AI is “friendly” with you will get negative regard with it.

Also, if you attack other AI, the AI’s seem to get mad together.

Just send it some cash to shut it up :wink:


#4

It dropped to -1 again, for no reason other than the explanation of me being in the lead so it looks like I’ve got to keep paying money to stop being attacked? :unamused: This is proving a bit crippling as I’m losing money I can spend on industry & science. It basically means that striving for the leading position is pretty penalizing.

Is the idea of this to help the lower ranked players, or make the AI seem more like real players?


#5

Regardless, I like it to be honest. The leader should have to manage diplomacy headaches more…and honestly he probably just needs to defend against the AI and not try to buy it off. My experience is that AI with a -1 regard will only attack if the assault is extremely likely to succeed, whereas with -8 regard it is much more aggressive. I would suggest just biting the bullet and moderately reinforcing your borders with AI. I don’t believe regard goes further than -1 strictly from just having the lead alone. Deciding when to make the leap and attempt to conquer the AI will be an important risk vs. reward decision.

In my opinion, having the AI balance the scales is a good thing.


#6

I think this actually deserves a lot more thought. I just won a game purely because the other remaining player had to deal with 3 AIs at once while I had to take on only one in a game with 6 AIs. That was just really unfair for him.


#7

Ditto what Valhallan said - if you are the leader, the AI’s should target you!


#8

Sounds to me like it’s working as intended. One players against 3 live players would not go easily, either.


#9

Overall I agree it’s a good thing to give the lower ranked players a chance to catch up but I still think it needs some fine tuning.

I’ve now got 5 players attacking me :smiley:


#10

No, but if they were not AI, he would not be fighting them all at once.

He would have maybe one ally there, and one NAP while he concentrated on one player. He would not be so down on tech. The other players would have other players to attack. Granted, AIs do indeed attack each other, but just not enough to give it the real feel. In my opinion AIs should be indeed Artificial Intelligences. Seperate Intelligences, not one working as one. They should behave more like real player. They should be REPLACEMENTS to the quitting players or the AFK players as a replacement PLAYER, not something which heads off in a completely different direction, forming a sometimes unbeatable gang with all the other AIs.


#11

Omnimal has hit the nail on the head there, the way to improve them is for them to have individual motives.

The new AI is definitely a huge improvement, but when the leader already has the eyes of all the real players on them, it seems unfair that the AI also joins in. I don’t like the idea that I should be trying to avoid doing as well as possible so that the AI won’t gang up on me, it seems silly.


#12

I have limited experience with the upgraded AI, so forgive me. But is he able to buy one or more of them off? In essence, engage in a little diplomacy. 3v1s are not uncommon among real players, especially in the absence of countervailing diplomacy.


#13

The leader needs to avoid peaking too early, much like a competitive end game.


#14

It’s possible, but far too expensive to be of any real advantage. Sending tech is usually not an option either, because if you have anything higher than the AIs at all, it would be weapons or perhaps manu or terra, not something you would give the AI simply to boost one point which would inevitably be lost soon.

And I kind of disagree with the peaking early thing. Logically thinking, it would be a very possible happening, but in reality, I’ve found that ganging up on the leader very rarely happens. Usually, the early leader goes on to win. I think the main type of game where things tend to differ more are 64 players, where AIs aren’t a problem anyway. Most people keep up their alliances, and in smaller games, one, or in bigger games, two loyal allies are enough to secure a victory assuming that this leading alliance is generally leading on tech, stars and infrastructure.


#15

You have hit on the nub of the issue. I don’t doubt that in the majority of games (including 64 games) the early leader is the ultimate winner. Meaning there is not a competitive end game.

fwliw I think that a game where the early leader is the ultimate winner is a boring game. Leaders should be challenged. If there are two or more balanced alliances battling it out, great. But if it is unbalanced, everyone should be playing to improve their standing. I wouldn’t want to put words in Jay’s mouth, but I think he would agree with that sentiment.

Before the AI was upgraded, any game with high AFK rates ended just like you described: One or two leaders would chew through passive AI and race for the win. That would include the vast majority of beginner games, and many 64 games as far as I can tell. And more than a few premium games.

The whole point of the AI upgrade was to make AI players more competitive, and to make it more difficult for leaders to blow throw them to take an easy win. And to give human challengers a better shot at unhorsing a leader in games with high quit rates. Sounds like Jay is on the right track!


#16

I really would like the AI to eventually understand “factions” or teams, and support a player who is on the same team, at least until the player is close to winning, at which point I would like it to mercilessly backstab the player.


#17

Of course, I understand that the new AI is, without doubt, an improvement and a huge step in developing them further.

And yes, Jay is definitely on the right track (keep it up!) :smiley:


#18

One suggestion I’d make is that the disposition score shouldn’t drop further when the star they’re attacking has ships defending it.

Case in point: AI has -8 towards me. I send it tech and it lowers to -7. Then it decides to launch a carrier at me, which dies as I was able to defend, and the score increased to -8 again :confused:

It’s like someone hitting you, then getting even more angry with you because they hurt their fist doing so!


#19

I hate the new AIs, but in a good way. They’ve basically destroyed a basic game I was playing. Nasty yellow menace is going to consume me.

Is it possible to make it’s happiness points go down once it grabs a few big stars in a certain period of time?

And that purple AI Grits teeth Just. Won’t. Die! Definitely major improvement over the old ones, who wouldn’t do much other than throw tech bac at each other and look threatening or tempting. Or both. :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:


#20

Similar topic, different question, maybe this has been answered elsewhere.

A neighboring player went AFK, and despite:

  • No attacks to or from them in several turns and
  • Me not being the leader in star count,

I started out with a -8 rep with the AI. Any ideas why?