[bug/else] Hard AI indeed gets extra resource boost, bug or intended?

I hope it was intended. All AI are easy to beat in this game. Check out my post here:
https://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/319532

Oh well, the thing is that it is stated only Unfair AI gains extra resource.


Well, it is AI.... What do you expect from mere AIs? you should not expect them to be about as competitive as human players.


I'd say they rather need more optimized code, not really resource boost.

I think they need better BOs.They tend to get Siege Frigates at the beginning of the game where they could get LRMs or Carrier to make their fleet stronger.

I read both the threads listed in the creator's post. Neither proves anything about Hard difficulty getting a free boost to resource income. Considering the changelogs have definitively stated that only Unfair gets such a boost as well as numerous players, I'll wait until Stardock or Ironclad gives us info to this effect.

I recommend to read carefully then.

Mazuo, it is disappointing that the changelogs are incorrect in this point. But Hard does get an 'unfair income bonus/boost'. More players have responded in this regard, at those referenced posts, since you've last read them.

If by 'more players' you mean you and the topic creator, then yes.

Unfortunately, Annatar, Kitkun and the official developer word disagrees with you. As for the suggestion to read more carefully, here's a suggestion for you. Don't post things as fact when you have zilch to back it up with.

Sometimes I wonder how people can be ignorant like this....
There are already proofs around here. You merely decide to not read them and be stupid

I believe AI gets more credit income FROM PLANET. I ended a game against 9 AIs, and noticed that credits coming from trades and such were pretty much the same, but AI had huge credit income coming the planets only. Even when I had more planets then them.

You believe everything you read then? If enough other people say its true it must be true. Everyone who does not agree with said conjecture is stupid?

Ask yourself this- What reason does the Developer have to withhold the truth about this. Whats the percentage, whats in it for them? Why would they lie?

It is a hard AI, it doesn't get any boost over and above what other players do. It does Micro Manage at light speed, if you could move that fast you too could reap the benefits.

I can prove the unfair AI is researching without research stations, planning attacks on worlds that haven't been scouted yet, among other things. I see no such evidence of that on the Hard AI and tax rates, credits and resources all seem normal.

It is easy enough to prove one way or the other if you use he right tools. Speculation and informal graphs are not the right tools. If its not based on fact it is not proof it is nothing more than theory.

I choose to believe that the only AI to get a boost is the Unfair. Just call me Stoopid.

I won't call you anything cause this is a forum, and its only right to allow everyone thier own opinions and not take it to the level of personal attacks. Especially since the only truly concrete thing we have is the word from the Devs.

I will say that based on what I see here, many people seem to need the Hard AI to have a boost. Not good for the self esteem getting pwned by a machine that isn't cheating, I guess

Ah, FoePa, seem you have not read anything I wrote yet. I'd suggest you read first.

At very second of beginning of the game the credit rate gaining from Hard AI is 15, not 10 as us human players (unfair is 20, while normal is 10) Which effectively means Hard AI gets 1.5x resource rate compared to normal AI and human players, while Unfair AI gains 2x.

Quoted myself


I recommend you to see these pictures first. They show the income rate of players at time of 0:00:00 of the game. This is a plain hard fact, not a theory.



Finally, as one who also does some programming, I would not so confident about my program, let alone complex, group worked one like games. There are many cases what Dev saying about their games are completely false (e.g infamous 16x healing in Dawn of War, some nuke missile in Supreme Commander actually does not penetrate shields, etc)

The only reliable source you should trust first is one from ingame, not in the change log or someone else's saying.

I read it, read all of the posts, I don't agree with you. I'll look at the pictures again when you learn to program a link thanks.

My source is from in game, the debugger actually.

I can't verify a thing you say.

I can verify that the Unfair AI indeed gets a boost. The Hard AI gets no boost as far as I can see. My research is no less valid than yours. I will not represent one hour of research under uncontrolled conditions and a single map as fact. It is enough to cast doubts on your methods and theories.

I am not going to do anymore research at this time. I really don't care all that much. I just don't feel you should post unsubstantiated research as fact.

My suggestion is if anyone wants to take it a step further load up the debugger, and take a look at the game from all angles and develop your own opinions.

I have no idea what your references to other games and devs has to do with this subject at all.

For some reason, "[img]" does not work on these pictures.

You know, please don't bother write like this if you just decide to not even try to see the pictures. That's really -I am serious now, no more jokes for you- ignorant in extreme.



-wnmnkh-



Edit : Of course, the very first thing I've done after confirming on the graph was look through the reference files provided by Ironclad, but this seems hardcoded.

From you I get-


I am not joking, I disagree with you thats all. Your the one that came off as condescending by inferring that I had not even read your theory and investigated it myself.

If you are making this personal by calling me ignorant, I would ask that you back off.
At no time did I cast aspersions on your character. I looked at the same information and did not find conclusive proof.



You also admit that you have no conclusive proof. If it is hardcoded. The only people that can in fact verify it either way are the people with access to that code. You are looking at a graph and saying thats it right there 100%. I looked at the ingame information real time with the debugger.exe and found no evidence to back up your theory. I did not spend enough time and effort to say anything 100% - I suggested that others do the same and form their own opinions.

I will not post again on this topic. I do not agree with you. I am not stupid or ignorant. I find your proof inconclusive. Deal with it.

I did the math, the Hard AI is getting an income boost. Numbers don't lie. If you add up all income/resources that Hard spends, it is 1.5 times what Normal spends. In other words, Hard gets 50% more income to spend, than we do!

Since people still had questions, I tried a couple different angles, to get a conclusive answer. In both cases, I compared total income spent, total metal spent, and total crystal spent (ie: added up each of the last categories on the charts). First, I played as Advent against Advent on Point Blank - a tiny matched/balanced Desert map. Then I played again on the huge Arelion Sector map, against 9 other Advents - 3 Normal, 3 Hard, and 3 Unfair, each with identical settings. The total resourses spent in both cases, equaled exactly a 1 to 1.5 ratio for Hard compared to Normal (1 to 2 for Unfair).

This conclusive evidence, along with the third income charts, as well as my observations regarding what/when & how much tech the Hard AI buys, all supported my original feelings that the hard AI was not completely "fair". The hard AI really isn't that smart, they are primarily benefitting from a big income boost!



[P.S. The income spent charts don't include a category for income spent on research! An odd omission, since the Hard (& Unfair) AI spend much of their income on research (in an apparent shot-gun manner, hoping to get what they might really need). So, to get the math to add up exactly correctly, you need to quit, or compare before the AI starts spending income on research. In that case: spending + original available = accrued income + available. Exactly!]

Hmmm....well let me start by saying...

Proof or STFU!!

Now, both sides of the argument, bring forth your proof.

The official word from the devs have always been that only the unfair AI get any sort of boost or cheat.

...we really need dev's word I guess. I assume that they are already looking for this issue.

I said I wouldn't post here again and I apologize. I can't say anything definitive about the Hard AI not getting a boost. This is why I doubt it. These are the realtime screenshots from the beginning of a game.

screenshots from sins_developer.exe_game_vs_hard_AI Make your own decisions. I am done here.
 (:( 

I don't think this screenshot proves anything. FoePa You actually need to quit the game and look at the graphs. You'll see that the income coming from the AIs planets is more important than the player's planets.

In the game I did against 9 hard AIs, I quitted midgame, then checked the graph. While I took no pictures, here's what I saw: (note that I was dominating all the AIs, having more planets than all of em)

I was 3rd in credit earnings.
I was 1st in credits received from trades
I was 8TH in credits received from planets (wtf?? I had more planets than all of them?)

The rest seemed okay...

FoePa: what does the debug exe say income is for Unfair AIs? If it's 20 at game start, you've proved your point. On the other hand, it's possible that the income rate is modified after it's rendered to the debug boxes--sounds silly at first, but on the other hand, income rates happened well after release, and I can see developers forgetting to update at which point the debug information is output.

Hard-AI-gets-bonuses people: why do you trust in the endgame charts so blindly? If the scenario that would invalidate FoePa's argument is possible, then why isn't it possible that there's a mistake in the display? Either way, some simple experimentation with the debug exe could either disprove FoePa's argument or provide further evidence for yours. Stop posting the same arguments over and over and show us multiple sources of information, all corroborating your opinion.

Hmm, just curious: In FoePa's screenies the debug output states hard AI credits being 3030.2 vs. 3020.1 for player - assuming the game was paused all the time, would that not indicate hard AI indeed get's a bonus?

Actually no, I even put it in the caption that is after 1 sec. The human was at zero. I my fingers got a little key happy and I hit the pause instead of the printscreen, first. So it was just a single heartbeat before realizing my mistake and repausing.

Just for the record if you read my posts. I am not trying to prove that it doesn't get a boost. I am only defending my position, that I disagree with the meaning of the charts posted. They said 0 secs into the game the historical chart showed. 1, 1.5 and 2.



Summary I never set out to prove anything. I was just defending my right to my own opinion. Without being called stupid and ignorant. What I post shows why I have doubts that the hard gets a boost. It may, I don't know and I don't care enough to spend more time on this.

Edit:Honestly I have no reason to doubt the Devs. If people really want me to try and figure it out I will, as long as everyone keeps their arguments civil. Otherwise I'll work on testing other bugs.

Wow, this must be an imaginary thread of blah blah b blah blah. So what ether way. The Ai sucks generally. Doesn't do anything decisive. It moves in penny packs of ships usually. ON HARD yes. Generally you need to team 2 up just to be a challenge.

Well thanks for your enlightened opinion. Right on topic too. So I take it Dark Cloud that you could program a better AI one that doesn't suck. I bow to you. Your the Man. Sorry for all the blah blah though sometimes I don't know when its time to quit. Is my writing that unclear? Cause I really am frustrated by this thread. I tried to make a simple point and my words just kept getting twisted. I just need to let it go...

Yes I did. Nobody's going to convince the other, because there can't be any definitive proof with the tools we have, and there's evidence for both theories. Technically speaking, the burden of proof is on the "Hard AI gets a boost" to provide the proof, since they're the ones challenging the standing knowledge that Hard AI does not. Unfortunately their evidence, while supportive, is not conclusive and not definite.. so basically, until (and if) Ironclad comes out and says so, nobody's really going to know for sure.