Why are people so quick to bandy around the term "cheat"?

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Grumbold
There are probably fewer bugs per line of code and there's no such thing as a standard PC any more. Unfortunately each software title has got about a hundred thousand times bigger since I first started playing games and learning how to write programs.

I would say there are few bugs per line of code than stupid user (yes, I know there is no such thing as stupid user, only stupid program, right?). For example, just when I thought I have taught the program to detect all stupid user errors and display appropriate messages to guide them to enlightenment....guess what they did? They inserted the floopy disk into the crack between the front cover of the two openning bays, then complained why the program couldn't auto-detect the floopy and worst, they couldn't even reject the floopy either.

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
I quite two of my jobs because my stupid bosses didn't want a clean cut and good program... they want a program that was done in the speed of "I want it yesterday!".

I know what you mean. If you want a clean cut and good program, you probably need to spend extra time (going beyond the line of duties and working night and weekend) to make it better. The life of the programmer is a tough one. No matter how much time, heart and soul. you put into it, it's never going to be enough. Moreover, the end users often see bugs; that's it! Very few of them would notice that they are looking right into some poor programmer heart and soul.

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
Of course, Chess AIs have done pretty good, and perhaps the best ones I've read.

Oh yes, the Chess AIs...I have heard about them. How do the AIs in Chess work? The smarter Chess AI means the further its calculate all future moves. It's pretty much trying to play out all the moves to see if it wins or not. If you try that same technique on Civ3, you would be waiting for eternity for the AI to make a move. Even with only 32 units on a Chess board, at the most difficult level, it would take the AI forever to make its move. In a game like Civilization, there are a couple hundred units for each players, if each of these units or stack of units calculate their moves according to Chess, eternity would be too soon.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Demerzel
It always amazes me that people can take a game so seriously that they'll accuse others of being lame or cheating for not playing it "fair". For instance, I saw someone accuse another of cheating because they restarted the game for having a bad starting position.

Surely, if individual A has bought the game then that individual has every right to do what they want with the game as long as no-one else if affected? For multi-player, a fair playing field must be maintained I agree but why does individual B feel (s/)he has the right to criticise another for playing/altering the game they want to ensure they have the most fun possible?

I suspect the answer is that it is fine to do any form of cheating as long as you do not come into public forums and taut your accomplishments. This is of no value to others who are not doing that and can not make a valid comparison. People that edit games and then discuss their findings without revealing those ploys are made to look better than they are. You are correct, if you do these things and do not come to theses boards and exclaim your exploits without acknowleding those cheats...

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Coracle
Why does the AI when on the defensive just build defensive units?? I once attacked China with tanks. They should have had enough cavalry and marines, and some tanks, to offer a nasty counterattack. But there was no counterattack as the stupid AI JUST BUILT DEFENSIVE units. All this proves is Soren knows nothing about strategy and planning.

Actually that is not a logical conclusion. It does not prove that Soren does or does not understand. You may be right, one can not say with that data. It is likely he does understand it as well as the next person and has opt to do this for any number of reasons.

[Lee Johnson]

Coracle says:

Take away stupid, sloppy programming, you will, ipso facto, have a "smarter" AI.

You're making some big assumptions about code you've never seen. It's always such an easy, matter-of-fact thing to do--when you're not the one who has to do it.

Qilue says:

Considering the bug-riddled state of software these days, I would think anyone would be too ashamed to actually admit to being a 'professional programmer'.

Like giving the job to amateurs is going to make the situation better.

I am a professional programmer with 19 years of on-the-job experience. There is a broad continuum of skill in this profession and yes, some people aren't very good at putting software together. However, we're not all lackwits, thank you very much.

[vmxa1]

I have to expose myself, but I have been in systems programming for a long time, does not mean anything, but there it is (started in 1963 for the record).
Making a better game AI is not always about programming skills. Sometimes it is about money and time. Sometimes it is about where to draw the line. I mean by that, how good should one make the AI, even if one can make it better? Say you have the skills and time to remove any "helps the ai now uses and make the game smarter, do you really want to? Will it help sales? What about the impact on the boxes required to run the game.

[Lee Johnson]

Well, vmxa1, now you're trying to be practical. You make a good point: In the Real World, it's always about business realities and tradeoffs. Software is never finished, only released.

(vmxa1... Hey, does that mean you've worked with VM/XA? I was a VM operator one co-op term, a loooong time ago.)

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by vmxa1
Making a better game AI is not always about programming skills.

Absolutely! Even if we know how to program Commander Data (in Star Trek - Next Generation), we would not have the appropriate hardware for his software. Regardless of the cost of the game, nobody would want to wait for eternity (figure of speaking) for the AI to make a move. Therefore, hardware requirement is also a big part of the equation.

[vmxa1]

Yup, that was my main field for a long time and I even taught it to other sysprogs for Candle.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Moonsinger

I know what you mean. If you want a clean cut and good program, you probably need to spend extra time (going beyond the line of duties and working night and weekend) to make it better. The life of the programmer is a tough one. No matter how much time, heart and soul. you put into it, it's never going to be enough. Moreover, the end users often see bugs; that's it! Very few of them would notice that they are looking right into some poor programmer heart and soul.

That's why I'm considering going into another field.

My first boss wanted me to take a DOS tax program, and ADD to it. I told him I found a bug in the calculations that could suddenly make total taxes owe to 0, even though no one has ever had that happened yet. I told him about this potential bug, he told me just to add stuff to it.... I quite. I guess being a programmer means giving up your morals.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Moonsinger


Oh yes, the Chess AIs...I have heard about them. How do the AIs in Chess work? The smarter Chess AI means the further its calculate all future moves. It's pretty much trying to play out all the moves to see if it wins or not. If you try that same technique on Civ3, you would be waiting for eternity for the AI to make a move. Even with only 32 units on a Chess board, at the most difficult level, it would take the AI forever to make its move. In a game like Civilization, there are a couple hundred units for each players, if each of these units or stack of units calculate their moves according to Chess, eternity would be too soon.

I have to wait an hour for a chess move anyway. Bring it on! This would give me a good reason to get a new 2GHz computer. BUt until then all this "extra horse power" is being used only for flashy graphics. I would of been happy if Civ3 was a DOS text screen... seeing that most of the wait time is just graphical.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by DeepO


Hehe, I used to be an AI programmer (well, technically software engineer), I moved on. But I have yet to hear of any bugs in my products... and I can call them mine because I did more then half of the code on them. The reason why you're seeing bugs is that applications get so big, they become incontrollable. And the rush to market is also quite strong... Plus, there are millions of professional programmers at work, surely you don't imply that I have to feel responsible for some of the mess others are making? I'm still proud of what I did, and until someone tells me that I was wrong somewhere (and proofs it with bugreports an inch thick) I won't change my mind

Thramn05, chess AIs are indeed well done, but you can't compare these to the Civ III AI. (I'm repeating here, but what the heck). Big Blue was an engineering feat, and a big accomplishment in parrallel computing. The algorithms used for decision making, however, were very slim. It simply computed far more possibilities than Kasparov could, without taking any shortcuts or pattern recoginition that most of the times defines the I in AI. On a purely game level, it was worse then some of the available commercial packages (ChessMaster x000, for instance), as these are indeed relatively intelligent.

But even then, you can't compare ChessMaster to Civ. It is a series, which is centered around the AI, not around graphics. As such, it has a long standing evolution of its code (over 10 years), which progressively got improved. Civ III doesn't have this, the programming is far less focused on the AI, and it is a completely new system from both Civ II and SMAC.

Further, the level of complexity in Civ is far greater then a 'simple' chess board with limited moves. Chess is made for humans: the best (Kasparov) can foresee about 17 turns deep what is going to happen, and plan according to that. DeepBlue, through shear CPU power could see 23 turns... in Civ, I can plan ahead some 50-100 turns (inaccurately, of course), while my computer has trouble with 3 of them. So other algorithms are needed, as it is not a simple matter of doing all the possible moves, and judging what the results are. That's whay we need such 'stupid' algorithms that aim for some goal when certain conditions are met. Aiming for empty cities is obvious, but as the humans quickly see through these 'tactics', it becomes an exploit. If you want better strategies and tactics on the AI part, you either need cheats, or a development time of lets say 20 years... which in turn means you don't pay $50 for CivIII, but more like $500.
DeepO

Paragraph 1: Yes, I totaly agree. Look at AvP, it took over a year, then look at AvP2, which only took about 8 months.

Paragraph 2: Mmm, both Chess and Civ are TBS. Both have units with certain abilities, both can capture/kill a unit. Basicly, Civ is just an advanced form of chess. In fact, all war games are an advanced form of chess. I wouldn't be surprised if the basic underlining AI code in Civ3 is similar to most chess software.

Paragraph 3: No deniging that.

Paragraph 4: I would pay $500 for a smart AI. Besides, I have had more fun against computers then other people in MPs games, why? Well, isn't there a thread about ICS in the general forum? Check that one out.

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
I have to wait an hour for a chess move anyway. Bring it on! This would give me a good reason to get a new 2GHz computer. BUt until then all this "extra horse power" is being used only for flashy graphics. I would of been happy if Civ3 was a DOS text screen... seeing that most of the wait time is just graphical.

Yeah, but if Firaxis do that, they would be in bankruptcy soon. Since most people don't have a 2GHz machine anyway, few copies of civ3 would be sold. Even though the AIs aren't tough in this game, it already gave most of us a good run for our money.

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
That's why I'm considering going into another field.

My first boss wanted me to take a DOS tax program, and ADD to it. I told him I found a bug in the calculations that could suddenly make total taxes owe to 0, even though no one has ever had that happened yet. I told him about this potential bug, he told me just to add stuff to it.... I quite. I guess being a programmer means giving up your morals.

You don't have to go into another field, you know. Have you considerred starting your own software company? This way, you don't have to give up your morals.

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
Paragraph 4: I would pay $500 for a smart AI.

Very few people could afford $500 for a game. A lot of people don't even earn $500 a week. Even if I'm a milliionare, I would never pay $500 for a game. I would never be able to sleep at night if I spend $500 on a game while many people in the world don't even have enough money for food.

Besides, I have had more fun against computers then other people in MPs games, why?

Me too. I have more fun against the computers than any human players. For one thing, the computer doesn't abandon its game because it isn't doing well. And the computer doesn't get too emotional either. Sometimes the human players know that they couldn't win, so they go on a suicide mission to prevent me from winning. Their slogan usually is "if you hurt me, I will make sure that you are going down with me". There is no fun in that!

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
Paragraph 2: Mmm, both Chess and Civ are TBS. Both have units with certain abilities, both can capture/kill a unit. Basicly, Civ is just an advanced form of chess. In fact, all war games are an advanced form of chess. I wouldn't be surprised if the basic underlining AI code in Civ3 is similar to most chess software.

It's not about being the same genre, it is not about handling the same kind of units. Chess on a 100x100 board instead of on a 8x8 would also be impossible for AIs.

Let's calculate a little to show you what I mean. Algorithm: a simple Min Max tree, where every possible move and countermove gets calculated, and after a number of plys the end result is that move that will mean that whatever the opponent does, it is the best favorable thing to do. (This is a classical chess-AI, only there they use an extra technique called alpha-beta pruning).

For chess, you have around 8 possible moves (i.e. not forbidden, and not overly stupid things like moving your king into reach of a enemy piece) each turn. A tree 20 plys deep would consist of 8^40 leaves (end nodes), each of which have to be calculated. 8^40 ~= 10^36 . A big number, but with enough CPU power, and some pruning techniques this is within the current possibilities (e.g. DeepBue).

For Civ, it is a lot more difficult. you don't have 8 possible moves, you have, let's say, an average of 50 units that each have 10 possible moves. These alone will give 10^50 of combinations for 1 turn(!). Your opponents have the same kind of troops, so with 5 opponents, the total number of combinations can total 10^300 for one ply. If we build the tree again, 20 plys deep, this would get to 10^6000 combinations, which, even with pruning and all the world's computers in parrallel, is uncomputable.

Of course, the calculations here are rude approximations, but you can't say that I favored the Civ case: in more then one game, there are more then 50 troops running around, and, to make it easier, I didn't take into account that most of them have more then 10 different moves (e.g. with railroad each tile with RR is accessible, and can count as a move). Plus, the chance instead of the fixed behaviour of units in combat means that it should even be higher, and more spread out.

So, I hope this shows that you cannot, from an AI point of view, consider Chess and Civ of the same class. Plus, just upgrading your computer from a 500 MHz to a 2 GHz won't do any good either, that's just a factor 4, where you need a factor of 10^1000 to be noticable.

Another conclusion is that this also means that underlying AI of Civ cannot have the same principle as the one of chess, or it wouldn't get anywhere. Which brings us to our initial point: smart AI for Civ is almost impossible to build without either spending decades on its development, or without 'cheats'. I chose for the latter.

DeepO

[Meldor]

Let us also add into the mix that chess is never more complex for the AI than the mid game. The openings have more pieces, but more stupid moves, the end game has a lot less pieces and fewer good moves. In civ3, almost the entire game the for the AI, things are gietting more and more complex.
In chess, there are only 6 different units, you can't re-build units, or upgrade units, or research new units. There are no resources to capture in order to be able to use certain units, no luxes to make people happy, no wonders, no commerce, no cities to manage, etc. Each of these things adds to the complexity of the choices the AI must make. The research and othe factors limit the choices so as to make it a lot more managable, but it is still a huge task. And then, on top of everything else you through in a Rndom map of a different sizes, each combination needing slightly different strats. My hat is off to them for the job they did.

[TacticalGrace]

comparing chess to civ is like comparing apples and oranges

[Moonsinger]

DeepO: You did a great job in explaining it! Me lazy and don't really want to get involve with the Chess algorithm debate, because it's very time consuming. However, I think there is something Firaxis could do to make a better AI for civ3. For example, let's go back to Chess again The basic open moves in Chess are usually the same. In Chess Master, it usually starts the game with a sequence of moves randomly pick from the collection of famous Chess players in the world. Well, we could apply this same technique to civ3. Instead of program the AI to calculate all possible combination of moves which is impossible with today technology, we just program it to randomly emulate the moves of the world famous civ3 players (like you, Thrawn, or even me).

For example, the AI civ would randomly pick my strategy or your strategy out of a library of strategies from the world top players. I think the AI would become very deadly right there, no doubt! That's just a small window to what artificial intelligent is really all about. The AI is making its decision based on a library of knowledge, the bigger the library of knowledge, the more intelligent it may seem. Of course, if anyone really want to make a real AI for civ, they could try to make it learns the moves and the styles of the human players, especially when it's losing against them (which would prevent it from making the same stupid move again), and add that to its library. Of course, we (except Thrawn05) don't really expect Firaxis or anyone to program the AI that way since we couldn't afford $500 for the game.

[Moonsinger]

To Meldor: Whille I was typing up my long post and was answering phone call at the same time, your post got accept before me...since our ideas are similars, just want you to know that I wasn't repeating your idea.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by TacticalGrace
comparing chess to civ is like comparing apples and oranges

More like apples to USA food distribution network.

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by vmxa1
More like apples to USA food distribution network.

I'm not even aware that we have a food distribution network.

[DeepO]

Moonsinger: indeed, some opening strategies to pick from would maybe make the Civ AI more intelligent, but what makes you think these are not already included? I'm pretty sure that Firaxis has some good players as well, plus they have access to the specific game rules from the start.

As starting strategies vary wildly with the situation you are in, my guess is that one of a few recipes gets selected, and followed. It's the only way I know of that will give good results with a limited amount of time. After that, there will most likely be a differentation between some long term goal planning, and planning on how to fulfill a particular goal (rules, I'm sure. No MinMax tree here).

Other comments on Civ being even more complex than what I already described: sure. But I thought my example was bad enough, and I didn't want to make it worse Besides, from a MinMax point of view, a city is just a unit, which again has a certain number of choices it can make each turn. It would only make the number of combinations higher...

DeepO

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by Moonsinger


I'm not even aware that we have a food distribution network.

Ok maybe I should have said the food distribution system in the US. You know my grand kids point nits out when I say it is 6:30 instead of 6:28. I must have been wrong to think my meaning would have been understood. For the record I did not mean to say the gov runs the food system. They do howerver have one of their own, so I guess I was correct actually. Sorry

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by DeepO
Moonsinger: indeed, some opening strategies to pick from would maybe make the Civ AI more intelligent, but what makes you think these are not already included? I'm pretty sure that Firaxis has some good players as well, plus they have access to the specific game rules from the start.

That's true. However, it doesn't hurt if they decide to include our strategies in the game. I wouldn't mind to collect a small royalty from this game. Think of it as a small reward for loyal fans who play civs day and night.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by DeepO
So, I hope this shows that you cannot, from an AI point of view, consider Chess and Civ of the same class. Plus, just upgrading your computer from a 500 MHz to a 2 GHz won't do any good either, that's just a factor 4, where you need a factor of 10^1000 to be noticable.

Another conclusion is that this also means that underlying AI of Civ cannot have the same principle as the one of chess, or it wouldn't get anywhere. Which brings us to our initial point: smart AI for Civ is almost impossible to build without either spending decades on its development, or without 'cheats'. I chose for the latter.

DeepO

I only said 2GHz because that's the best out there at this point. There is no difference between a 500MHz and a 1GHz or even 2GHz. HOWEVER, a 10GHz (which I am currently saving up on) has a noticable difference. By that time (I think in about 2 years), bus speeds will be at least twice as fast as the ones Intel has out now (~500MHz bus I think? not sure).

You basicly made my point. In order to make a "hard" AI, you need to allow it to cheat. You would think ever sing PONG, companies would be working together in order to make a smart AI class that can be applied as easily as DirectX (which I think a headache in itself anyway ).

Hey DeepO, lets get cracking, we'll make an AI with O(0) and make millions!

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Moonsinger


That's true. However, it doesn't hurt if they decide to include our strategies in the game. I wouldn't mind to collect a small royalty from this game. Think of it as a small reward for loyal fans who play civs day and night.

I've been asking Firaxis, that by the time Civ5 or Civ6 comes out (which in these seems bleak ), to release the code of Civ3. Rebellion released the AvPGE code within a year, and most of us modders have been happy ever since with that.


Although I've kept this on the back burner, since I considered the fact that all of the "hate this" threads that poped up in the begining of this year, and didn't want to add to the burden.

[DeepO]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
Hey DeepO, lets get cracking, we'll make an AI with O(0) and make millions!

Believe me, if I thought it would be possible, I would have started already If you ever get a serious idea on how to do it, you know where to drop me a note

DeepO

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Moonsinger


I'm not even aware that we have a food distribution network.

OT: USA basicly feeds the world... on paper. Most of the time it never gets there. Usualy stolen from local warlords.