-
Those wishing to contribute to the game by making suggestions (both small and large) should read the following before doing so.
Bushtarion largely runs completely automatically, and has been designed intentionally to be as self-maintaining as possible, with mechanics and balance considered at a completed point.
Please do not spend large amounts of time coming up with complex suggestions in the hope that they will be read and possibly implemented in the future, unless you just enjoy the discussion, theory-craft, and such.
The most likely changes will be rules-changes, specific number-tweaks to units, techs, and similar sorts of changes, and only if a large community consensus is reached as "proof" that a change would, overall, be an improvement, and are more likely to be done in batches, occassionally, not as a regular thing.
Bot Alliances!
- Thread starter Max
- Start date
while i love the idea, even if our admin was active, how easy would be it be to implement? While bot alliances doesnt have to be too complicated, how difficult would it be to set up a world with programmable bots, as well as provide the means by which they can actually be programmed...
LuckySports
Landscape Designer
You need to program the bots to do a lot of things for this to be even semi-successful (Otherwise it will be as someone else said.. silly easy to draw defense)
They need to know what routes counter what, so CFs calc would need to come into affect
They would need to be programmed to be able fake according to what they are doing.. IE - You aren't going to see a robo first-ticking an RPG, and blockers should be sent for last tick, ect.. Otherwise you begin to make them too predictable.
They will need to account for defense already sent, and since they apparently automatically know what troops are there, it will be easy to pick a fake if they are based off troop score, so you need to program an all-or-nothing fake that would include all bots in the ally at the time, otherwise you'll end up with some fake some real mobs sent to the same defense.. and you can always assume the last mob sent to defend is real (if once again, it is trying to get an equal troop score)
It would take a lot of programming to get this to work Effectively.. Not so much as in a lot of actual code, but there will be a lot of trial-and-error that will need to take place to prevent 1-3 folks from abusing this system for too-easy land..
Unless thats your point, in which case.. You can just do a basic program for defense and let em have it
They need to know what routes counter what, so CFs calc would need to come into affect
They would need to be programmed to be able fake according to what they are doing.. IE - You aren't going to see a robo first-ticking an RPG, and blockers should be sent for last tick, ect.. Otherwise you begin to make them too predictable.
They will need to account for defense already sent, and since they apparently automatically know what troops are there, it will be easy to pick a fake if they are based off troop score, so you need to program an all-or-nothing fake that would include all bots in the ally at the time, otherwise you'll end up with some fake some real mobs sent to the same defense.. and you can always assume the last mob sent to defend is real (if once again, it is trying to get an equal troop score)
It would take a lot of programming to get this to work Effectively.. Not so much as in a lot of actual code, but there will be a lot of trial-and-error that will need to take place to prevent 1-3 folks from abusing this system for too-easy land..
Unless thats your point, in which case.. You can just do a basic program for defense and let em have it
There are simpler, more elegant ways of programming an alliance AI. Given that the game is turn based, and that the AI can both see the staff details of attacking mobs and doesn't have to worry about players going afk, I could write a comprehensive defending AI in less than an hour. Easily. Infact, I could make it better than any human alliance.
The problems people face when organising defence are keeping track of what units the enemy has, what units your alliance has available, where the enemy might be fake, what they might have sent, whether people will be online to send, online to recall etc etc. An alliance controlled by the ticker wouldn't have to worry about any of that.
You wouldn't even need a complicated 'what counters what' script. You have the ticker's battle calculator sitting idle between ticks. You can just run an iterative check on BR outcomes and decide what to send based on those results.
The problems with this idea aren't technical. The problems are having an Admin around to implement it and, as Polo says, whether we want to flood the game with AI players.
The problems people face when organising defence are keeping track of what units the enemy has, what units your alliance has available, where the enemy might be fake, what they might have sent, whether people will be online to send, online to recall etc etc. An alliance controlled by the ticker wouldn't have to worry about any of that.
You wouldn't even need a complicated 'what counters what' script. You have the ticker's battle calculator sitting idle between ticks. You can just run an iterative check on BR outcomes and decide what to send based on those results.
The problems with this idea aren't technical. The problems are having an Admin around to implement it and, as Polo says, whether we want to flood the game with AI players.
tl;dr see below.
While it is possible for the bots to know the details of attacking mobs, you wouldnt write an AI script based on those details.
What I would have bots do is if there was incoming is:
1. hack the attacker. Even if they know what they have, they should still hack (only needs to be one of the online bots, you can choose the bot at random)
2. Analyse size of mob in comparison to visible units. This would involve:
a. Count total INN (if sent eta 5 ignore tractors/combines) and basics (h/y).
b. If mob sent > total INN + basics, take difference.
c. If difference > 0.2*other units (non-INN/basics) then assume real (number is arbitrary, could be different). (However, determine ratio of troop scores of attacker to target. If target has less than 0.05*troops score (non-INN only) of attacker (including INN), take 50% chance to assume mob is pure flak).
else assume real with 90% likelyhood (that is, for incoming that could be possibly be pure flak, assume 90% of the time that it is real)
3. If assumed fake, all bots to defend send fake.
If assumed real, bots send real defence. As willy said, if the first bot to send was going to send real, then all others to defend would be real. So far its been determined whether to send real or not so you dont get some fake, some real mobs at same inc.
If there is more incoming, the decision does not need to be changed, since real is only sent 50% of the time on first incoming, so real may be sent to following inc.
4. Determine which bots will send (regardless of real or fake). For all intents and purposes assume real. Take attacking route into consideration. If RPG, defend with SA. If an SA is online, they will send to match attacking troop score (assuming real). If they send all LET and still do not match troop score, then the second most appropriate bot will be locked in to send to provide adequate score, and so on.
5. Troop score of attacker will be assumed to be the maximum possible based on number of troops sent. Eg a striker send 100k troops when he has 10m striker and 10m apache, mob is assumed to be 100k apache. If stealth mob inc, the bots will know troop score due to stealth units. They can assume all stealth has been sent.
If stealth you can take chances with what to send. Eg POM. You can fake 50% of time anyway. If multiple stealth mobs show, pick one at random to defend real, and rest fake. Tier will determine how effective the bots are at detecting stealth rolls.
6. By now, which bots are to send are locked in. This all happens the tick the inc shows. Bots cannot send within 10-15 seconds of inc showing (allows for rushes). If stealth, the bots may assume with 50% probability inc was sent eta 4 rather than 5. Since the bots to send and whether they are real or not has been determined, the bots send as appropriate to defend inc depending on the eta of their units.
7. If multiple inc show the same time, the one that is easiest to defend (based on how easily troop score can be matched as per step 4) will be locked in first.
If a train, the first mobs are determined. Since the mobs will be sent to cover that inc, it can be assumed that 50% of the first defensive troops will survive to defend following inc. Then additional bots can send as required to match troop score for second tick (assuming only 20% of first attacker survives first tick)
NB. Bots dont have to send to match troop score. An effectiveness ratio can be determined between routes. If SA vs RPG, effectiveness can be something like 2, while RPG vs SA would be something like 0.2. Take the inverse, and thats the effective troops score sent. EG, defending RPG with SA, 1/2 = 0.5. If the maximum troop score of RPG mob is 100m, the SA sends troops with an 'effective' troop score of 100k, which is actually 100m*0.5 = 50m actual troop score.
And numbers are examples only.
Thats were I'd start anyway.
-----------
tl;dr
who cares anyway?
While it is possible for the bots to know the details of attacking mobs, you wouldnt write an AI script based on those details.
What I would have bots do is if there was incoming is:
1. hack the attacker. Even if they know what they have, they should still hack (only needs to be one of the online bots, you can choose the bot at random)
2. Analyse size of mob in comparison to visible units. This would involve:
a. Count total INN (if sent eta 5 ignore tractors/combines) and basics (h/y).
b. If mob sent > total INN + basics, take difference.
c. If difference > 0.2*other units (non-INN/basics) then assume real (number is arbitrary, could be different). (However, determine ratio of troop scores of attacker to target. If target has less than 0.05*troops score (non-INN only) of attacker (including INN), take 50% chance to assume mob is pure flak).
else assume real with 90% likelyhood (that is, for incoming that could be possibly be pure flak, assume 90% of the time that it is real)
3. If assumed fake, all bots to defend send fake.
If assumed real, bots send real defence. As willy said, if the first bot to send was going to send real, then all others to defend would be real. So far its been determined whether to send real or not so you dont get some fake, some real mobs at same inc.
If there is more incoming, the decision does not need to be changed, since real is only sent 50% of the time on first incoming, so real may be sent to following inc.
4. Determine which bots will send (regardless of real or fake). For all intents and purposes assume real. Take attacking route into consideration. If RPG, defend with SA. If an SA is online, they will send to match attacking troop score (assuming real). If they send all LET and still do not match troop score, then the second most appropriate bot will be locked in to send to provide adequate score, and so on.
5. Troop score of attacker will be assumed to be the maximum possible based on number of troops sent. Eg a striker send 100k troops when he has 10m striker and 10m apache, mob is assumed to be 100k apache. If stealth mob inc, the bots will know troop score due to stealth units. They can assume all stealth has been sent.
If stealth you can take chances with what to send. Eg POM. You can fake 50% of time anyway. If multiple stealth mobs show, pick one at random to defend real, and rest fake. Tier will determine how effective the bots are at detecting stealth rolls.
6. By now, which bots are to send are locked in. This all happens the tick the inc shows. Bots cannot send within 10-15 seconds of inc showing (allows for rushes). If stealth, the bots may assume with 50% probability inc was sent eta 4 rather than 5. Since the bots to send and whether they are real or not has been determined, the bots send as appropriate to defend inc depending on the eta of their units.
7. If multiple inc show the same time, the one that is easiest to defend (based on how easily troop score can be matched as per step 4) will be locked in first.
If a train, the first mobs are determined. Since the mobs will be sent to cover that inc, it can be assumed that 50% of the first defensive troops will survive to defend following inc. Then additional bots can send as required to match troop score for second tick (assuming only 20% of first attacker survives first tick)
NB. Bots dont have to send to match troop score. An effectiveness ratio can be determined between routes. If SA vs RPG, effectiveness can be something like 2, while RPG vs SA would be something like 0.2. Take the inverse, and thats the effective troops score sent. EG, defending RPG with SA, 1/2 = 0.5. If the maximum troop score of RPG mob is 100m, the SA sends troops with an 'effective' troop score of 100k, which is actually 100m*0.5 = 50m actual troop score.
And numbers are examples only.
Thats were I'd start anyway.
-----------
tl;dr
who cares anyway?
The whole point would be that the person who writes the script for the bot to follow would have to implement these things! It shouldn't be a question of 'Can bots do this? Can bots do that?', because the programmer would be deciding what their bot can do... The more effort put in, the more flexible their bot would be, and the more intelligently scripted they are, the better they will play.
This would be what makes the system competitive...
Dax
Hydroponics Developer
More bots is helpful for the lower end, and to inject land into the higher realms as a result. Consider the fact that the problem is the lack of land, meaning higher alliances grow out of range far slower than they normally would. I noticed this round that there is a relative lack of land considering that more players are around this round than last.
It helps newer players learn the skill of flakking with less consequence, and just generally gives a little boost. More bots is the only feasible option to really give this effect, without a bundle of new people suddenly appearing from the void accepting the game with open arms.
It helps newer players learn the skill of flakking with less consequence, and just generally gives a little boost. More bots is the only feasible option to really give this effect, without a bundle of new people suddenly appearing from the void accepting the game with open arms.
Alcibiades
Plant Geneticist
Wrong. The problem is lack of players. Period. Land is more or less irrelevant to the equation when it comes to bots. There are more than enough bots to inject land into the game, and into the higher ranks. The problem is players, not bots.
Adding more bots would just be a last ditch effort to make the game more amusing. It's utter folly in my opinion, there are already way too many bots in this game, if you add more and make bot alliances, that will truly be the final nail in the game coffin. Adding bots will be a very bad idea for the game, leaving us awash in bots, and while it's not likely that hordes of new players will arrive, I think it's probably a good idea to start accepting the conclusion that this game is dying, and cannot be resuscitated in it's current incarnation with it's current Admin. No number of bots will ever change that immutable fact.
Last edited:
He has a point, what fun is a game where you just fight against loads of bots, which are really terrible anyways. Bots are predictable unless very thoroughly programmed not to be. You never know what another player is planning, henceforth they are an awful lot more fun to play against!
Toast
Pruner
If you do code the bot ally, don't forget to add the part where they sign up on forums and cry over being 2 v'd 1 post after post.
Alcibiades
Plant Geneticist
I forgot to address this in my original post.
I think the lower amount of land would probably be due to a lack of an overwhelming first place out of the gate alliance rather than anything to do with bots. The style of gameplay changes when there is slightly more competition in the top 3 ranks which leads to everyone having more conservative amounts of land since they are forced to buy troops, rather than just flakking their 30%. More troops, equals less flak troops for land, and more competition equals more land changing hands between the three alliances, but doesn't add a lot of land to the three alliances since they're all just swapping each others land (comparatively). Also it means that while the lower ranked allies are getting bashed to some degree, it's limited by the "fear" induced by the thought of being all out on a lower ranked ally and getting annihilated by one of your competitors.
Simples.
I think the lower amount of land would probably be due to a lack of an overwhelming first place out of the gate alliance rather than anything to do with bots. The style of gameplay changes when there is slightly more competition in the top 3 ranks which leads to everyone having more conservative amounts of land since they are forced to buy troops, rather than just flakking their 30%. More troops, equals less flak troops for land, and more competition equals more land changing hands between the three alliances, but doesn't add a lot of land to the three alliances since they're all just swapping each others land (comparatively). Also it means that while the lower ranked allies are getting bashed to some degree, it's limited by the "fear" induced by the thought of being all out on a lower ranked ally and getting annihilated by one of your competitors.
Simples.
jamesNchina
Tree Surgeon
^ +1
I stopped reading after this post, as I just assumed that everyone is pretty much saying similar things to what has already been posted.
Anywho: I'm somewhat inclined to agree with toby. That being said, whilst we do have a lack of players, this would help to alleviate many of the problems for alliances with low activity as it'll spread out a lot of the inc - an issue which you've mentioned is something that we need in other threads. It's by no means a perfect solution, but would still be nice in the short term. If for any reason the playerbase starts to pick up again, it can always be removed or reduced in some way. Maybe have the number of bots playing dependent on the number of actual players, so when there are relatively few players (like now) there will be a more bots than there would be if we suddenly gained a couple of hundred players.
Alcibiades
Plant Geneticist
Bot alliances FTW! And yeah, we need a fwew more Bots, But some "pro" bots. Dont class them as Bots, and let them get some better ratio's etc. Bit more intelligent and agressive, let them have 2 pnaps, wich have a 33% chance to defend each other.
tobapopalos
Hydroponics Developer
The fact that you all seem to think this is a good idea is seriously ****ing depressing.