Monster Distribution overhaul


From my experience and what I read on the forums the monster distribution system needs an overhaul badly. Point one and two being the major issue. point three is more of something to do besides kill AI late game for xp, fighting the same army types repeatedly for xp gets boring.

1. Monsters being exteremely high level at start of game preventing or destroying expansion.

2. AI unaffected by monsters aggression and wandering.

3. Lack of monsters late game.

Monster population distribution should be based on the turn/season of the game. This would prevent the umberdroth swarms and dragons and such from being anywhere in the start. It gets really old being unable to expand because you are bordered on two sides by AI and the other two sides have monsters you will never defeat. I say never because by the time your one city is able to build anything capable of killing it you will be so far down the power scale the AI will tromp you first or take all your godl and make you unable to afford the units.

Start of the game should be broken down into easy, normal, tough, hard (being extremely rare.) Like a breakdown of 30% easy (mites, single imps, etc), 50% normal (spiders, imp armies, etc), 15% tough (cave bears) , 5% hard  (three ogre group.)  Those initial lairs produce nothing but those units until later in the game.

Later in the game like turn 100 (depending on the speed) you start populating newer higher level monsters into unpopulated/uncontrolled areas. Or have those monsters in the special zones start wandeirng out through the world. Have exisiting lairs create more monsters. Maybe even a few rare events of monsters appearing in controlled territory.

Bring back the random type event of players releasing more monsters into the world from EWOM. Late in game there is usually nothing left except to kill AI players and that kinda makes it hard to get an xp for units created late in the game. Which also bring another point of the huge unguarded areas of empires because you choke the AI players from entering your continental area, so your cities are empty of units.

Have any tiles not covered by a city influence or warden influence be eiligible as uncontrolled when it comes to new monster generation. This would put more purpose into making warden outpost or destroying them. This would be a semi-decent solution to outpost spam because players spamming outposts are most likely not taking time to upgrade.

The wandering monsters are kind of out of hand. Far too many times I can see a tough monsters and ignore it. Then ten to fifteen turns later it starts wandering off from its lair. First off the monster should never leave its lair unguarded. It should wait until a second unit is created by its lair then wander off. Too many times it becomes too easy to aquire high end equipment because you play dance around the tiles with the tough spawns until you get into the lair.

Then on the other hand you have the annoying wanderers that wander five to six tiles just to destroy resources. Warden outposts was supposed to be a solution for that, but they do not work.

The monsters ignoring the AI is something everyone is sick of seeing. Monsters do not attack the AI players. Then depending on what the army stack is the AI will either attack the monsters or ignore it, sometimes even stack in same tile with it. AI and monsters should NEVER stack in the same tile. Then monsters should have an aggression any players weak units, resources, and outposts. Attacking cities should be a very rare occurence unless it was something like an army of multiple units or a dragon caliber type unit. Having one cave bear wipe out three militia units (becuase of its oveprowered maul) and the city destroyed seems more on the lame and far fetched side.

 

 

96,267 views 31 replies
Reply #1 Top

The monsters don't ignore the AI.

There was a bug in beta 3 regarding FOW (the monsters didn't get their own but borrowed the player's which created that issue). But late Beta 3 and now Beta 4 addressed this.  As the AI coder, I can assure you the AI gets whacked as much, if not more (because they're not always as careful as they should be), by monsters as the human player does.

Reply #2 Top


Personally,  I don't think the monsters are working as intended.  Since the AI builds like mad and the monsters ignore them all the real estate will be bought up whether the player expands or not.  I guess that hits all three of your points.   I was hoping the monster issues were gone.. guess not.

 

One last thought, are you taking into account monsters from dangerous quest zones?  Areas where you get next to them you trigger some kind of screen and quest.  They typically spawn wandering monsters along its borders.  Kill some, it will just make more. 

Reply #4 Top

I will continue to monitor the AI, but let me assure you that the Monster AI is in many cases ignoring the Faction AI. There are several threads from beta 4 highlighting this issue.

Reply #5 Top

The monsters don't look at who owns a given unit or structure. It simply looks to see if it can destroy it.

Reply #6 Top


A couple games ago I watched the AI run through the middle of a forest full of monsters and steal two heroes I was unable reach due to monsters being too tough. The AI ignored the monsters and the monsters ignored the AI. A few turns after the AI passed through my territory into this forest the AI sent two heroes it hired (so I lost the chance to hire two) back north through my territory.  So between the non-existant AI/monster relations and the fact the AI passed through my territory multiple times (after being told repeatedly to leave) it creates an imbalance in the game.

I am not saying the AI never attacks the monsters. I know for a fact it does. Soon as a champion or sovereign has a couple units with it they start clearing everything (including unhired opposing faction heroes.) 

Maybe the chance to pursue/destroy units is out of tune. I only say this because it seems that most everyone sees it fail more often than anyone seen the monsters attacking the AI. I also say this because I have literrally reloaded to a previous save and had the monster wander in a different direction instead of atacking a city.

The monster AI just seems really dumb. Players dance around tiles avoiding it while it chases, then steal their loot. They only seem to become aggressive after a certain period of time (ie they forget they have a lair.) Then it goes to the other extreme of having a monster so tough only the AI can use that part of the map.

 

 

 

Reply #7 Top

Look.. the wandering monsters.. just aren't fun.  at all.. ever .. that's the bottom line.. 

I appreciate the amount of work that it's taken to get them where they are in the game and the AI work that it takes to get them to be neat separate uncontrollable forces in the world etc etc.. Trust me as a developer I understand the work that that takes, but.. from a player perspective, they are uncontrollable random things that wipe away hours of investment in gameplay, and THAT is a major issue.

I've played a couple games now.. and have quit all of them because of unpredictable random things that prevent me from playing this strategy game Strategically.  Random events are fun.. but randomly being punched in the face.. isn't.  That's the key distinction here.  If the AI is being picked on equally but I don't know it..and thus it didn't happen in my view of the world, and therefore it feels like the AI is picking on me. 

Please believe me when I say, don't let this be another E:WoM where, in hindsight SD didn't listen to the testers.  It's soooo close to being such an excellent game! and we're all rooting for it otherwise we wouldn't be here on Saturday night, but the wandering Gods of Death & Destruction .. just kinda kill the fun.

 

 

 

+1 Loading…
Reply #8 Top

If Warden could make it so that no monsters came within the vicinity of its control, that would pretty much fix everything. Currently Wardens, built at an outpost, seem to politely dissuade monsters. The mechanic needs to provide security from monsters. Why else would I build it? Make it more expensive to build if that is needed, but don't let a monster sit next to my outpost for 50+ turns, waiting for the random value to roll in favor of killing my outpost. If you watch my let's play videos, you'll see some pretty damning evidence that monsters ignore the AI and don't notice Wardens. Might be worth a second look.

Reply #9 Top

What would be the differentiating factor then, if they are just looking at who it can destroy? This is the exact sequence of events I was experiencing.

1. Small enemy city right next to a forest dragon parked in his lair.

2. My army walks into the city and takes it over because it was undefended.

3. Forest dragon wakes up the very next turn.

What criteria is it using where an undefended small city is a less opportune target than the same city with an army in it? Is there a large amount of variability involved and that's what I'm seeing? (Sometimes they get mad and start moving about, sometimes they just ignore it?)

 

Maybe there needs to be a series of magical spells that provide strategic map area control (temporary magic walls to hedge off areas). They could vary wildly with ways to dispel them or walk through them for a cost (hp, curse), and could act as a deterrent and/or buy you precious time.

Reply #10 Top

So if the monster is not seeing us as different, perhaps the AI is simply not seen at all? If the monster never saw the city next to him and then suddenly noticed it when it was taken over, that could explain the behavior. Perhaps we should look at the same situation when an AI takes over an AI city with a dangerous monster nearby. If the monster still attacks after the capture, that is a good sign. It would then either be blindness or the fact that a damaged army is weak and easy to kill. If the monster leaves it alone, I blame  :frogboy: .

Reply #11 Top

My biggest worry is that the world is getting tame. I want to be beaten down if I overexpand. I dont want to just build a building (on the outpost) and be protected from all peril. I wish there were a slider for moster dangerousness or something like that. I want monsters to take undefended cities sometimes.

Reply #12 Top

Quoting joasoze, reply 12
My biggest worry is that the world is getting tame. I want to be beaten down if I overexpand. I dont want to just build a building (on the outpost) and be protected from all peril. I wish there were a slider for moster dangerousness or something like that. I want monsters to take undefended cities sometimes.

 

That is exactly what I am looking for. Something that prevents easy expansion, but not so overwhelming it will take hundreds of turns to research and build units to conquer the monsters to expand. However I do not beleive in destroying cities simply because the game has no ability to restore the settling ability to that tile. If the game reverted the tile to its original settle values I would not mind. Some random maps the spots to settle are extremely rare, evne then they still probably suck.

I do not mind wandering monsters or rare sudden appearances within your territory as long as they are not wandering and leaving their lairs empty. They also are equal opportunity wanders meaning they harass the AI jsut as much.

What is no fun is the overwhelming invulnerable killing machine monsters that appear during an innappropiate turn of the game. For example if I am playing an epic game I do not even want to see a dragon unless I spawn it with a quest until it is past turn 500. Then if it kicks my ass it is my own fault and not some random whim of the games AI.

Reply #13 Top

yeah but this is not an adventure

 

you cant have the game put in sequence a wolf, a bear, a ogre, a fire elemental and finally a drake

 

either its random or its not, so you have to live with having to face some stronger monster imo

 

 

what should be improved is the "wake time"

 

drakes should be there ofc, but not wander until some turn, same for big elemental parties etc etc, this maybe should be balanced more, making monsters appear and wander after an appropriate amount of time

Reply #14 Top

Quoting drakkheim, reply 8
Look.. the wandering monsters.. just aren't fun.  at all.. ever .. that's the bottom line.. 

 

Couldn't agree more.

Reply #15 Top

Without the wandering monsters, this game would be static and rather hollow for me.

The issue is rather how to avoid the strong monsters from triggering their movement too soon. That should not be too difficult (for the Frog to reprogram). People seem to want huge changes to the game, instead of going to the core of the issue here. The core is that the AI settle near tough monsters and trigger them. Then they go on a rampage way too early. I also think its strange that there are complaints about being knocked down by a monster after investing hours into a game. When you have played for hours you could tackle pretty tough monsters. To me it sounds like any game not won is a letdown. If I get beaten I start again a little wiser.

 

Reply #16 Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 9
If Warden could make it so that no monsters came within the vicinity of its control, that would pretty much fix everything. Currently Wardens, built at an outpost, seem to politely dissuade monsters. The mechanic needs to provide security from monsters. Why else would I build it? Make it more expensive to build if that is needed, but don't let a monster sit next to my outpost for 50+ turns, waiting for the random value to roll in favor of killing my outpost. If you watch my let's play videos, you'll see some pretty damning evidence that monsters ignore the AI and don't notice Wardens. Might be worth a second look.

 

I agree completely with seanw3, and perhaps also provide a "warden"-type improvement for cities as well?

Reply #17 Top

Quoting Magog_AoW, reply 15
Quoting drakkheim, reply 8Look.. the wandering monsters.. just aren't fun.  at all.. ever .. that's the bottom line.. 

 

Couldn't agree more.

Couldn't DISAGREE More - if I wanted a static, easy game I would have played HoMM...

Reply #18 Top

Quoting ins2, reply 18

Quoting Magog_AoW, reply 15Quoting drakkheim, reply 8Look.. the wandering monsters.. just aren't fun.  at all.. ever .. that's the bottom line.. 

 

Couldn't agree more.

Couldn't DISAGREE More - if I wanted a static, easy game I would have played HoMM...

I find the exploration in the early game much more interesting than defending from monsters, especially since tactical combat is rather pointless.

Anyway, it is a personal preference and I'm glad I can turn down monster density in the options. It makes it a whole different game imo, just as changing the pacing does.

Perhaps these options should be explained more clearly in the final release. Getting the right settings for the right player is vital for how much enjoyment they will have from the game.

Reply #19 Top

I would like to add that there are still monsters that simply ignore the AI. I spotted an excellent spot for a settlement, but it had a fel drake right on top of it, so i decided to train a bit and get back there later (thinking that it should be save for others aswell with mr. drake guarding it).

So to my surprise i saw the AI pioneer spam me and build a settlement right next to that drake. Instead of eating all those helpless AI's, the drake decided to go away, take a tour of 5 seasons and knock on the door of one of my settlements a mile away from his initial "lair".

 

Another game i played whas with some weird meteor shower, 2 "strong" groups with (one with 2 fire elementals and the other with 3 snakes) spawning next to all my settlements. No way i could defend that in one turn, so the monsters ate most of my expansions (do note that this whas still in the early-mid game) and i lost.

 

I love this game and i find navigating between all those monsters enjoyable, i even like that some monsters roam around and eat up some undefended lands/outposts/etc. That is just my fault for not defending it well enough, but when some "strong" roaming monster pack happens to walk by a few of my outposts with wardens on it in the early game that feeling of helplessness just sucks.

To say it on other words; if i could've defended it, but i whas too late/ occupied/ etc i'm okay with it, but even if i'm there and there is no way i can defend it because the mobs are still too strong it irks me a bit.

Reply #20 Top

since I last played in early .93, the monster AI is significantly better in all the areas you seem to mention.

 - They don't kite anywhere near as much as before. (less free loot)

 - The wake radius seems to only be one, giving far more freedom for scouts than before.

 - Strong and above monsters are never on your doorstep, but are more likely the further they are away from you.

 - Tough monsters SHOULD block expansion

And my fave ...

 - 'dispossessed' monsters are wrecking balls of fun that can be used offensively deep within AI territory.

 

And yes, I've had the odd rampaging Golem, even 5 stacks of ogre magi that followed me back from a failed raid on the swamps. Fighting them off to desperately hold a choke city (that I eventually lost) was the most exciting part of the game yet.

 

What may need some work is communicating what is happening in the game:

Quoting drakkheim, reply 8
If the AI is being picked on equally but I don't know it..and thus it didn't happen in my view of the world, and therefore it feels like the AI is picking on me.

Why not have word spread if a previously known AI outpost or town has fallen? This would be an indicator that something's on the warpath, even possibly mention the offending unit if it was scary enough to feature in the rumour: "Dragons have wiped out a Kraxis outpost to the NorthEast!".

Reply #21 Top

Something has to be done about this.
In the last 3 threads i read today (including this one), the issue with AIs settling peacefully beside guardians, who only wake up when the player overtakes the area of influence, was part of the topic..... and accounted to problems concerning wildland strength, early game expansion and the new city spam bias.

Even encountered it in myself last game, AI built an outpost beside..... those big wingless dragon things (name escaped me ATM), as soon i took the outpost, it went on a stroll and killed my army...then the outpost.
And no, the enemy in question was not Tarth, but Kraxis or Magnar.

I do want to believe you frogboy, but if it's true, that monsters value human and AI threats in the same amount now, then some other mechanic must be responsible for this visible bias.

Reply #22 Top

I can confirm what Frogboy has said, as I saw an obsidian golem smash an enemy sovereign and his empire. Still, I have also been the victim of a large wandering party of shrills (with an overpowering "king" shrill) that had wandered halfway across the map and randomly meandered through my city (destroying it). 

 

I think that the problem with the wandering monsters isn't so much that they discriminate more against the player, it's the fact that they are so unpredictable. Half the time, they attack the AI in the vicinity and the other half they sit motionless. Another problem is that the wandering bands of higher level monsters do not stick to their initial spawn vicinity. 

 

I've had problems with forest drakes that had wandered aimlessly around a quarter of the map (and this was a large map!). They were so unpredictable with their wander paths that I just could not let them live, so I dedicated an army to destroy them. 

Reply #23 Top

Yes, the problem is that the wandering monsters are so, shall we say "random"?  I don't think it could hurt for certain individual monsters or monsters coming from a lair site to hold a grudge and target the city/outpost or player that woke them up first.

Reply #24 Top

Frogboy, you really need to stop doing this.

Quoting Frogboy, reply 1
The monsters don't ignore the AI.

There was a bug in beta 3 regarding FOW (the monsters didn't get their own but borrowed the player's which created that issue). But late Beta 3 and now Beta 4 addressed this.  As the AI coder, I can assure you the AI gets whacked as much, if not more (because they're not always as careful as they should be), by monsters as the human player does.

 

I know you're an AI coder. You know your code. You believe in it. But it is perceived as buggy and you take it personal instead of fixing the code or fixing the perception.

 

What we discuss here might be perception of bugs, not the bugs themselves. It is plain wrong approach to tell your customer and your beta tester that hi is blind or stupid, becuase he can't see the inner working and has a perception of 'monsters ignoring AI' or any other case.

 

You fight perception with facts, not with statements that are only going to antagonize sides. One side sees the code, but is unable to test all the possible test cases, the other sees the result but is unable to see/understand the code. If you force your will and the perception of buggy AI prevails in the released version, you'll damage your sales, because people will post on game pages, that they told you but you did nothing about it. At the least people stop telling you about bugs, which kinda kills the beta test reason. 

 

In this particular case, the solution to fight perception is to provide the players with information.

It's probably not that difficult to display on the monster stats window with more information

- it's current aggravation level (ie. how much more it will endure before lashing out measure up to 100% - but not rolled, replace it with certainity - if it aggravate to 100% it will lash back, it's impossible to aggravate the monster beyond 100%)

- it's current mood (ie. is it wandering aimlessly, is it seeking revenge, after hero, who claimed it's lair, is it destroying structures, outposts, cities, that encompassed it's lair, is it returing to lair, is it founding new lair, is it spawning, is it fleeing from threat)

It's probably not that difficult to display on the map (when hoveirng cursor over monster), what is it aggravated about (hero, city, nothing at all etc).

It's probably not that difficult to display on the map (when hovering cursor over monster) the aggravation zone (using the ZoC code but allowing overlaps) (along with information on chance and scope of possible aggravation, ie. passing weak army give +5%, passing pioneer +1%, neighbouring ZoC +1%, encompassing ZoC +10%.

 

It's probably all in the code, all you need is to make that information accessible. And it will prove why that dragon is standing near the AI city (hasn't been aggravated enough), or why the drake is killing your city (because your hero, destroyed it's lair and fled to it). Simple.

Reply #25 Top

This is why I think monsters should be tied to smaller sets of wildlands. In that case they could generally stay in their marked territory and defend it from human and fallen expansion. Larger, more dangerous wildlands could send out raiding units, but then we could send a warning to all players that they are coming.