87 replies to this topic

[Zenoth]

You just know that if you release 1.65 and the AI never ever builds any mines, eventually the general public will notice and start complaining about it.

But if we let the mines be, the general public might well just complain about the path-finding issues it can potentially create.

If the "general pulic" follows the development, our chatting about the whole thing, the tests, if they see the results, they will understand it'd be better, at least right now, not to have them.

We need to find a balance that would be appreciated by the majority of players enjoying this A.I Mod.

I for one prefer to see them complaining about no mines, then see them complaining about path-finding issues or the waste of resources.

Edited by Zenoth, 15 January 2006 - 03:20 AM.

[ThetaOrion]

Well, I personally liked not having the mines there in Beta1, Beta2, and Beta3 -- it gives me yet another way to gain a strategic advantage over the AI, by my proper placement of a mine and/or by my not having to work my way through a wall of enemy AI mines. I can take my time more and not be in such a hurry, because I know that the AI isn't going to lay anything nasty along my path if I'm slow getting to the front. <grin>

But I'm not sure that the rest of the world agrees with me or that the rest of the world will agree with me.

On the other side of the coin, I do indeed remember seeing replays where the IG were getting tripped up or somehow blocked up by their own mines -- some sort of bug? The AI should be able to drive right over or walk right over the tops of their own mines as if the mines weren't there, but that didn't seem to be working right for the IG. Is my memory deceiving me, or do mines really cause pathfinding issues for the different factions of the AI?

If Thudos plan is implemented though, there will be mines, but only a sprinkling of them. And hopefully with some experimention, the right balance can be found so that the mines aren't thick enough to be interferring with pathfinding, if the mines do in fact mess up path finding.

[LarkinVB]

Oh lord. Now they are discussing mines also.

Next time the AI should build transports too, right ?

[ThetaOrion]

Next time the AI should build transports too, right ?

WRONG!!

Transports chew into your vehicle caps so for the 20 units you get of vehicles you want the best vehicles.

But there is no cap or limit on mines, thus unlimited AI defense is possible in theory with mines. And there really isn't anything wrong with mines if the AI doesn't have anything better to do with its time and resources. Mine laying is better use of builders and resources late game than to have builders standing around doing nothing.

Mines aren't the same thing as transports -- completely different theories of offense and defense.

[ThetaOrion]

Now in practice or practical usage, I would rather have the AI laying endless fields of turrets rather than endless fields of mines.

But . . . last I checked the AI could put mines practically anywhere, whereas the AI could only put turrets around listening posts and strongholds. Mines can go where the turrets can't go.

Edited by ThetaOrion, 15 January 2006 - 09:06 AM.

[LarkinVB]

So you are talking about mines when the AI has full 20 vehicle/inf cap on the field and enough resources to replace casualties fast, right ? Only then mines make any sense IMO. Same for turrets. I'm only talking about AI vs human.
Or would you allow a turret to cause damage to your army worth his cost ?

Why are turrets/mines rarely if ever used online ? The answer is true for AI too.

Mines aren't the same thing as transports

They are. Useless most of the time.

Edited by LarkinVB, 15 January 2006 - 10:22 AM.

[ArkhanTheBlack]

The build programs can't control the amount of mines to be built. The counting rountines for buildings doesn't work with mines and the build controller uses those rountines.

[ThetaOrion]

So you are talking about mines when the AI has full 20 vehicle/inf cap on the field and enough resources to replace casualties fast, right ? Only then mines make any sense IMO.

Right, mines after AI has done everything else and is still standing around waiting to be attacked. Mines after AI has built all the turrets it is going to build. Mines at the very end of the list of priorities. Mines only make sense if the AI engineers are just standing around doing nothing and the buildings have stopped producing while the resource reserves are building up towards infinity -- then and only then give the AI builders something to do to spend those excess reserves laying mines.

The build programs can't control the amount of mines to be built. The counting rountines for buildings doesn't work with mines and the build controller uses those rountines.

If Thudo's trick of making the mines costlier as the AI tiers to the next level doesn't provide the necessary control, then we'll just have to leave the thing the way it is and forego the mines. But, if Thudo's trick works and if you want to let the AI go as far as it can go and be all that it can be, then the AI should be allowed to lay mines after it has gotten done with all the other things it is going to do.

There is no cap on mines and no restrictions on placement of mines, so the AI can in theory become as powerful as our laziness lets it become just by building mines after all else is built and done. Mines are not an evil thing, especially if you are wanting the AI to be all that it can be.

Edited by ThetaOrion, 15 January 2006 - 12:25 PM.