Lessons from recent IE playthroughs

[BruceVC]

 

I can see a lot of exploiting of the A.I. with this. Play as dumb adventurers, using underpowered spells and then when you encounter an enemy that is familiar with your combat abilities, pull out the big spells.

Which would be a way cool strategy. Also something entirely believable -- keeping your best stuff in reserve and not letting the enemy find out about it makes total sense.

 

 

 

Don't mean to nitpick but how would that be realistic? Every enemy you meet is its own sentient being, they have there own though processes and goals. So if you are making a point this would be realistic I am confused how the giant troll you meet in one place knows that you used magic missile against a Ogre in the forest?

[PrimeJunta]

I didn't realise so many people were in favour of gaming the system, exploiting the game's A.I. We see people say on these forums, BG2 is broken by exploiting the game's A.I., using exploits, but now want to do it in PoE? And now it's called strategy.

:sigh:

 

Playing a system designed to be played is not degenerate. It's called "playing the game." What we're discussing here is a gameplay system -- a layer of strategic intelligence to the enemy AI, with associated intelligence-gathering subsystems. It is designed to introduce a new element into the game. It is intended to be played.

 

A strategy is only degenerate if it involves exploiting a flaw in a system in a way to gain a massive and unintended advantage.

 

For example, in the IE games, setting a trap and then luring the enemy into it is not degenerate. It's tactics. However, exploiting a flaw in pathfinding which stops the enemy from reaching you so you can plink it to death with arrows is degenerate.

 

Whether the layer of strategic AI allows degenerate strategies or not depends on how well it is designed and implemented.

[Mor]

^ Just FWIW, random != dynamic. You can hand-craft dynamic content, instead of just having it pick a bunch of factors out of a hat, and end up with neither static nor random "crap." 8P

*sigh* FWIW the unified mechanics JS employed should allow to quantify builds strength and make something like this possible, with something like 'Path of the Damned' mode, but i'd be really disappointed. ( I hear Bethesa has been doing some great stuff with such dynamic encounters if that your thing)

 

This an RPG! you guys want to choose a crazy travelling troupe, go for it! but deal with consequence that you probably encounter hardship on your adventures! We already made all classes capable in combat and flexible, that its impossible to go wrong. Sure there are few unique rock-paper-scissors aspect between class groups, but overall most class abilities overlap or even different by name only. So f*** your damn scaling encounters, lets not make our party choice completely meaningless. I prefer to adjust my party composition based on where I go from what I learned (dialogue/cyclopedia/etc), I want to feel that certain compositions work better in then other, I want to discover which compositions work better then other as I push into Endless Paths of Od Nua lower levels. I don't want to meh its just scale to whatever I bring.... If the devs have extra to build\test something like this i'd prefer more nuances in dialogue based on my character race\class\dispositions\........

 

With all those thread, my first thought upon seeing this thread was: 1 front-line\both heavy hitters\1 support\2 magic users. Which is last thing I want to think about in RPG.

 

/rant.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Mor

[PrimeJunta]

Don't mean to nitpick but how would that be realistic? Every enemy you meet is its own sentient being, they have there own though processes and goals. So if you are making a point this would be realistic I am confused how the giant troll you meet in one place knows that you used magic missile against a Ogre in the forest?

 

See post #85.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

ROFL.

 

I didn't realise so many people were in favour of gaming the system, exploiting the game's A.I. We see people say on these forums, BG2 is broken by exploiting the game's A.I., using exploits, but now want to do it in PoE? And now it's called strategy.

 

 

Well, if you exploit stupid AI, that's exploiting the AI, if you exploit fairly intelligent AI, that's strategy

 

Seriously, for a moment, stop seeing it as a system. If you are an NPC, would you not want to gather info about that adventuring party wrecking your **** all around, and act upon the info you gathered when confronting them?

[BruceVC]

 

Don't mean to nitpick but how would that be realistic? Every enemy you meet is its own sentient being, they have there own though processes and goals. So if you are making a point this would be realistic I am confused how the giant troll you meet in one place knows that you used magic missile against a Ogre in the forest?

 

See post #85.

 

 

I agree that the concept of enemies basing there initial combat strategy on what you did in the past could be explained through some sort of hive mind but that's one of the only times it would be realistic. How many examples of this type of enemy hierarchy would you expect to see in the game?

 

Don't get me wrong it does sound fun but for me its unrealistic and if Obsidian just enforced this type of AI across the board it would also lead to people being able to abuse a system that is suppose to add a level of challenge

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

I didn't realise so many people were in favour of gaming the system, exploiting the game's A.I. We see people say on these forums, BG2 is broken by exploiting the game's A.I., using exploits, but now want to do it in PoE? And now it's called strategy.

:sigh:

 

Playing a system designed to be played is not degenerate. It's called "playing the game." What we're discussing here is a gameplay system -- a layer of strategic intelligence to the enemy AI, with associated intelligence-gathering subsystems. It is designed to introduce a new element into the game. It is intended to be played.

 

A strategy is only degenerate if it involves exploiting a flaw in a system in a way to gain a massive and unintended advantage.

 

For example, in the IE games, setting a trap and then luring the enemy into it is not degenerate. It's tactics. However, exploiting a flaw in pathfinding which stops the enemy from reaching you so you can plink it to death with arrows is degenerate.

 

Whether the layer of strategic AI allows degenerate strategies or not depends on how well it is designed and implemented.

 

 

And what I'm saying is if you know the enemy A.I will counter your party by watching your combat abilities and so you decide to play dumb because of it to get an advantage down the track, that's not strategy. That's exploiting the A.I. You will always save your best spells for later so you can rip through that hard enemy encounter that's not expecting it.

 

For instance, if you're travelling through an area and fireballing, chain lightning everything, the enemy AI is not taking notice and then get to the boss at the end of the dungeon, the game will probably have a powerful enemy to overcome. That's what we have in the IE games.

 

What you're proposing is the A.I. changes to your combat abilities. So now we have two possible scenarios:

 

1) You're travelling through an area and fireballing, chain lightning everything, the enemy AI is taking notice and then get to the boss at the end of that area, the game will probably have a powerful enemy to overcome. Because you were using powerful spells, the boss has scaled to your abilities. Lets call it a form of level scaling.

 

2) If you know the game's A.I. is taking notice, you won't be using those spells and using low powered stuff. You get to the boss and then rip through him because he's not expecting fireballs and chain lightning. He's an underpowered boss. The A.I. has scaled down the boss to those low level spells and abilities that your party was using, in effect scaled down the difficulty.

 

And when you're doing this intentionally, that's exploiting the A.I. and you're all for it?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

2) If you know the game's A.I. is taking notice, you won't be using those spells and using low powered stuff. You get to the boss and then rip through him because he's not expecting fireballs and chain lightning. 

 

 

Now this is the assumption where you are mistaken. It's more like "you fight the same powerful boss, only this time he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks".

[PrimeJunta]

And what I'm saying is if you know the enemy A.I will counter your party by watching your combat abilities and so you decide to play dumb because of it to get an advantage down the track, that's not strategy. That's exploiting the A.I. You will always save your best spells for later so you can rip through that hard enemy encounter that's not expecting it.

Keeping your most powerful weapons secret until they're needed is not strategy. OK, glad we got that cleared up.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

 

2) If you know the game's A.I. is taking notice, you won't be using those spells and using low powered stuff. You get to the boss and then rip through him because he's not expecting fireballs and chain lightning. 

 

 

Now this is the assumption where you are mistaken. It's more like "you fight the same powerful boss, only this time he doesn't have all his important minions and lieutenants with him and didn't put up buffs that provide protection against your favorite attacks".

 

 

This is where you're mistaken. It's not the same powerful boss if he doesn't have his minions and spell protections. It's a boss with no important minions and lieutenants and no spell protections. In other words, the encounter has been scaled down but you're still the same awesome party with good spells.

 

 

And what I'm saying is if you know the enemy A.I will counter your party by watching your combat abilities and so you decide to play dumb because of it to get an advantage down the track, that's not strategy. That's exploiting the A.I. You will always save your best spells for later so you can rip through that hard enemy encounter that's not expecting it.

Keeping your most powerful weapons secret until they're needed is not strategy. OK, glad we got that cleared up.

 

 

It's not when you're taking advantage of the A.I. and know the encounter will be scaled down due to exploiting it. But you seem to have difficulty grasping this concept.

Edited May 23, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II

[PrimeJunta]

It's not when you're taking advantage of the A.I. and know the encounter will be scaled down due to exploiting it. But you seem to have difficulty grasping this concept.

Guilty as charged. I do have trouble grasping the concept that strategic deception is not strategy if it produces the desired result.

 

Especially as this strategy involves a meaningful trade-off -- you're making things harder for yourself now in order to gain an advantage later. Same thing as, oh, dual-classing in BG2. You commit to a stretch of seriously underpowered play in order to get major advantages later. Do you consider that exploiting a flaw in the AD&D character system, or playing strategically? If the latter, how is it different from playing against our hypothetical strategic AI?

[illathid]

I agree that the concept of enemies basing there initial combat strategy on what you did in the past could be explained through some sort of hive mind but that's one of the only times it would be realistic. How many examples of this type of enemy hierarchy would you expect to see in the game?

 

Don't get me wrong it does sound fun but for me its unrealistic and if Obsidian just enforced this type of AI across the board it would also lead to people being able to abuse a system that is suppose to add a level of challenge

Well it wouldn't be for every battle/AI. It would be limited to the intelligent antagonists and organizations that it would make sense for. Take the original campaign in NWN2, after you've gained the attention of Black Garius he starts scrying you as you battle the githyanki. A character with a high spot could possibly notice the scrying was occurring. Regardless of that, Garius watches your fights and determines you do lots of fire damage, so when he sets up a fight for you makes sure to give his minions fire resistance. If you noticed the scurrying though, you could decided to use only cold damage instead. See no hive mind needed, just a reasonably smart opponent willing to acquire information about the party and then use it.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

It's not when you're taking advantage of the A.I. and know the encounter will be scaled down due to exploiting it. But you seem to have difficulty grasping this concept.

 

 

So, not knowing before would make it strategy? Or if you'd do the same thing against a human opponent? 

 

Seriously, complaining about exploiting a systemic feature that exists to be exploited is like saying that using Dispel Magic and True Sight were exploiting the obviously unintended flaws of protective magics.

Edited May 23, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Hiro Protagonist II]

 

 

It's not when you're taking advantage of the A.I. and know the encounter will be scaled down due to exploiting it. But you seem to have difficulty grasping this concept.

 

 

So, not knowing before would make it strategy? Or if you'd do the same thing against a human opponent? What exactly does "exploiting the enemy AI" mean? 

 

 

 

 

It's not when you're taking advantage of the A.I. and know the encounter will be scaled down due to exploiting it. But you seem to have difficulty grasping this concept.

Guilty as charged. I do have trouble grasping the concept that strategic deception is not strategy if it produces the desired result.

 

Especially as this strategy involves a meaningful trade-off -- you're making things harder for yourself now in order to gain an advantage later. Same thing as, oh, dual-classing in BG2. You commit to a stretch of seriously underpowered play in order to get major advantages later. Do you consider that exploiting a flaw in the AD&D character system, or playing strategically? If the latter, how is it different from playing against our hypothetical strategic AI?

 

 

Hilarious.

 

The case for level scaling taken to it's absurd extreme. These guys want level scaling based on what combat abilities you do in the game. Not what you have access to.

 

So if I'm a level 10 Mage acting like a level 1-3 Mage using level 1-3 spells, then the boss fight should be around level 1-3 because that's the spells and abilities I've been using? No minions for the boss, no protection spells. Because I'm using strategic deception!

 

You even said you were for a boss encounter without spell protections and without the bosses minions and lieutenants based on what you've been doing, not your characters level or what you have access to. Seriously, why would a boss have all these minions and lieutenants and protection spells and abilities and then decides, "you know, I have all this at my disposal but I'm not going to use them." Sends away his minions and lieutenants, doesn't use any spell protections and then goes into battle and dies.

 

And this is not exploiting the A.I. at all. No! This is strategy.

[BruceVC]

 

I agree that the concept of enemies basing there initial combat strategy on what you did in the past could be explained through some sort of hive mind but that's one of the only times it would be realistic. How many examples of this type of enemy hierarchy would you expect to see in the game?

 

Don't get me wrong it does sound fun but for me its unrealistic and if Obsidian just enforced this type of AI across the board it would also lead to people being able to abuse a system that is suppose to add a level of challenge

Well it wouldn't be for every battle/AI. It would be limited to the intelligent antagonists and organizations that it would make sense for. Take the original campaign in NWN2, after you've gained the attention of Black Garius he starts scrying you as you battle the githyanki. A character with a high spot could possibly notice the scrying was occurring. Regardless of that, Garius watches your fights and determines you do lots of fire damage, so when he sets up a fight for you makes sure to give his minions fire resistance. If you noticed the scurrying though, you could decided to use only cold damage instead. See no hive mind needed, just a reasonably smart opponent willing to acquire information about the party and then use it.

 

 

This is a completely reasonable and feasible way of implementing this type of AI. I agree with you. This would only apply to certain examples of course. All I'm saying is lets not sacrifice realism for a perceived challenge  around AI

[PrimeJunta]

The case for level scaling taken to it's absurd extreme. These guys want level scaling based on what combat abilities you do in the game. Not what you have access to.

I wasn't actually thinking of scaling at all. I was thinking of changes in enemy tactics and group composition.

 

Suppose you have three categories of units, crushies, shooties, and zappies, where shooties counter zappies, zappies counter crushies, and crushies counter shooties. If you've been fielding lots of shooties, then you'll start seeing the enemy group composition shift towards having fewer zappies and more crushies. They'd still be the same overall strength. The strategic deception you could pull off is to convince the enemy e.g. that you don't have any zappies, then break them out at a critical moment.

 

So if I'm a level 10 Mage acting like a level 1-3 Mage using level 1-3 spells, then the boss fight should be around level 1-3 because that's the spells and abilities I've been using? No minions for the boss, no protection spells. Because I'm using strategic deception!

Yes, that would be pretty lol.

 

You even said you were for a boss encounter without spell protections and without the bosses minions and lieutenants based on what you've been doing, not your characters level or what you have access to. Seriously, why would a boss have all these minions and lieutenants and protection spells and abilities and then decides, "you know, I have all this at my disposal but I'm not going to use them." Sends away his minions and lieutenants, doesn't use any spell protections and then goes into battle and dies.

That wasn't me. That was AlO3.

 

I would do that differently; instead of scaling the boss encounter in power, I'd change it in composition. If the boss encounter is with Baron Invidius, <minion> and <bodyguard>, I'd have <minion> be Archmage Necrosius, Champion Invictus, or Master of the Hunt Oriol, and <bodyguard> consist of a mix of elite shooties, crushies, and zappies, depending on what you had done up to that point.

Edited May 23, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

So if I'm a level 10 Mage acting like a level 1-3 Mage using level 1-3 spells, then the boss fight should be around level 1-3 because that's the spells and abilities I've been using? No minions for the boss, no protection spells. Because I'm using strategic deception!

 

 

If you are a level 10 Mage in a dungeon designed for a level 10 party and manage to survive using only level 1-3 spells, congratulations. But if you manage to pull it off, that's the fault of the encounter design, not the AI.

 

 

You even said you were for a boss encounter without spell protections and without the bosses minions and lieutenants based on what you've been doing, not your characters level or what you have access to. Seriously, why would a boss have all these minions and lieutenants and protection spells and abilities and then decides, "you know, I have all this at my disposal but I'm not going to use them." Sends away his minions and lieutenants, doesn't use any spell protections and then goes into battle and dies.

 

 

"Why would a boss have all of his minions and lieutenants always near him when they could be out there, working towards his goals?" is a much, much better question, I think.

 

Also, the fact that he doesn't use his spell slots to put up protection spells doesn't mean he won't use those spell slots to turn your party into a fine pink mist. Or to put up those defenses during the fight.

Edited May 23, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Sensuki]

Since this discussion has turned into a discussion about enemy AI - here is a glimpse at how enemy AI is designed for PE, which some of you may not have seen. This focuses mostly on determination of what action to do.

One of the devs (Josh, Adam or Steve) said that good AI is predictable and deterministic.
 

silkvalley asked: Answering about AI, enemy types and their abilities, Adam said that there will be some randomization on ability selection. What kind of randomization; AI randomly uses preassigned abilities or do enemies have some abilities randomly assigned? Will there be a substantial number of enemies that have all abilities/talents assigned by hand?

Abilities are never randomly assigned, but the AI may select semi-randomly from the abilities it has based on a variety of criteria. The creature is given a set of abilities in its prefab (data file) and then its instruction set has an entry for each of those abilities. Each entry has a relative weight and set of conditions applied to it. When the AI analyzes the validity for any entry’s conditions, it adds that entry’s weight into the mix and randomly selects from the valid choices.

E.g. this fake enemy has the following fake entries in its fake instruction set:

Cast Magic Missile - Condition: Enemy more than 3m away. - Weight 20

Cast Cure Light Wounds - Conditions: Ally with less than 50% Stamina, Ally less than 5m away. - Weight 40

Drink Potion - Condition Self at less than 50% Stamina. - Weight 80

Use Weapon - No Conditions - Weight 10

In this circumstance, assuming all conditions are true, the lowest entry, Use Weapon, has a 10/150 chance of occurring. Let’s say that all are true except Self at less than 50% Stamina. The only valid options are Cast Magic Missile (20/70 chance), Cast Cure Light Wounds (40/70 chance), or Use Weapon (10/70 chance). If none are true, there is a 10/10 or 100% chance the AI will use its weapon.

This is a very basic (and again, fake) example, but I hope it illustrates the basics of how the system works.

[JFSOCC]

wow excellent post OP.

it's true that it's been BG2 where I learned to "save often and in different slots" I don't consider that a good thing, any more.

 

I do appreciate having a huge quest hub like Athkathla, however, my time on this forum convinced me (and Josh's post set me on that path) that some kind of quest-staggering is a good thing. I would have kept the amount of quests in the city, but I would not have made all of them available at once. I'd have given the player reason to come back to places at various points in the game. I believe it would end the "I did all the quests and now this place is devoid of interesting content, lets move on" attitude I get from playing many games.

 

for the rest of your post, all good points, and I find I have little else to add. Evil is dumb

[PrimeJunta]

@JFSOCC I would've made an even smaller intervention: I would just have spread out the questgivers geographically more, with the tougher quests available from people who are further away from the areas you first visit. There were suitable locations; there's no compelling reason IMO so many of those things had to start in the Copper Coronet or the marketplace.

[sarkthas]

I dislike the way romances were implemented, most often you could finish the game before you even had the chance to get halfway through it. 

 

But also the randomness of companion/npc quests in general were kinda annoying at certain occasions. Like doing Edwins quest in front of a Dragon for example....

 

Dragon: Oh hey there! Don't mind me, just finish your conversation...I can wait^_^

Edited May 23, 2014 by sarkthas

[Valorian]

 

I can see a lot of exploiting of the A.I. with this. Play as dumb adventurers, using underpowered spells and then when you encounter an enemy that is familiar with your combat abilities, pull out the big spells.

 

Seriously, I want this feature. It would introduce a whole new gameplay element without all that much effort. 

 

"without all that much effort"

 

Also, it's literally an invitation to game the system.

 

Oh look, spies. Let's all be in light armor* while they observe us (remember, there are no dump armor categories in PoE, the heavier the armor the bigger the action speed penalty), but light and fast weapons are especially effective against low DT.

Show up for the "adapted encounter" with your suits of plate armor donned and look them struggle trying to scratch you with light weapons.

 

*You can substitute 'light armor' with 'chain mail' or 'slashing weapons' etc.

 

This system would actually cripple the AI.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

it's literally an invitation to game the system.

 

Oh look, spies. Let's all be in light armor* while they observe us (remember, there are no dump armor categories in PoE, the heavier the armor the bigger the action speed penalty), but light and fast weapons are especially effective against low DT.

Show up for the "adapted encounter" with your suits of plate armor donned and look them struggle trying to scratch you with light weapons.

 

*You can substitute 'light armor' with 'chain mail' or 'slashing weapons' etc.

 

...If we assume that opponents can switch weapons, why can't we also assume that they carry their original weapons with them, too? In the IE games, any reasonably fighty class had 4 weapon sets to switch between, why would the opponents be exempt?

 

Yes, there are a lots of ways to make an adaptive system ****ty. There are also a lot of ways to make a non-adaptive system ****ty. Yet your first assumption upon looking at a game with a standard encounter system is not "this game will surely have ****ty encounters". Why?

[PrimeJunta]

It is an invitation to game the system. That's the point of a gameplay system. Jeez!

 

And yes, I do contend it would be a relatively low-hanging fruit. At its simplest:

 

(0) Categorize units as crushy, zappy, and shooty.

(1) Track who shows up at each battle, how they're equipped, and what abilities they use.

(2) Adjust party_profile based on this data (e.g. 20% crushy, 40% shooty, 40% zappy). This happens incrementally over time, and does not automatically track the latest encounter.

(3) Adjust enemy_encounter_profile to counter party_profile (e.g. 20% zappy, 40% crushy, 40% shooty).

 

Each encounter would have a pool of shooty, crushy, and zappy units to draw from, and final composition would be determined by the current party_profile.

 

This would already be an interesting-enough system to play against. 

 

To make it more interesting, add intelligence-gathering subsystems the player can mess with. For example, if (encounter is in remote location) and (encounter has no survivors) then (don't adjust party_profile). Or write up a quest where the questgiver is also an enemy spy, will have observers following the party as it performs the quest, and will try to pump the party about what they did afterwards. The party's actions will determine how party_profile is adjusted based on this. And so on.

 

But no, this isn't hard, compared to standard stuff like, oh, I dunno, writing branching quests, or coding up a character class with talent trees and what not -- and it will make replays a good deal more interesting as the encounters will be different.

Edited May 23, 2014 by PrimeJunta

[Valorian]

 

it's literally an invitation to game the system.

 

Oh look, spies. Let's all be in light armor* while they observe us (remember, there are no dump armor categories in PoE, the heavier the armor the bigger the action speed penalty), but light and fast weapons are especially effective against low DT.

Show up for the "adapted encounter" with your suits of plate armor donned and look them struggle trying to scratch you with light weapons.

 

*You can substitute 'light armor' with 'chain mail' or 'slashing weapons' etc.

 

...If we assume that opponents can switch weapons, why can't we also assume that they carry their original weapons with them, too? In the IE games, any reasonably fighty class had 4 weapon sets to switch between, why would the opponents be exempt?

 

Yes, there are a lots of ways to make an adaptive system ****ty. There are also a lot of ways to make a non-adaptive system ****ty. Yet your first assumption upon looking at a game with a standard encounter system is not "this game will surely have ****ty encounters". Why?

 

 

Enemies could switch weapons on the fly without the whole spy and scry thing so what's the point? I think it would trivialize the player's choice of armor if enemies can simply switch weapons to specifically counter whatever they're currently hitting.

They can't switch armor on the fly though.

 

Because you haven't offered anything remotely concrete about what would be countered specifically and how would the AI adapt beyond saying that it'll prepare itself for "your favorite attacks".

 

 

 

@PJ

I don't think you understand what 'gaming the system' means.

 

It would be lots of work to prepare encounters for anything beyond your banal and simplified crushy, shooty, zappy example (which would only cripple the AI anyway). Spies, the mechanics of intercepting spies and dialogue for them wouldn't fall from the sky either.