#[Neutral Inactivity Behaviour], Broken?

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

mighty gust
#

Alright, I am intrigued. I am going to need some explanations for the NO votes on my latest Risk Idea submission.

I suggest that any AI that is a bot from beginning of a game have automated behaviour. It should only be the AI that takes over for inactive players that would go passive.

I play a lot of World Domination games, with Fixed Cards (Yeah I know, let's not go there here). When hosting, I use Neutral Inactivity Behaviour.

I have noticed that when players fail to ready up their spots are filled with bots. The players have not gone inactive. They are no longer in the game. These players have been replaced. Those bots have the same robot icon of bots added to the lobby by the host.

Why should these bots function any different than bots introduced from the lobby? Currently bots added to the lobby by the host, have automated behavior in the game with Neutral Inactivity Behavior selected, in contrast.

Are you guys saying that even the bots added to the lobby should be passive?

Neutral bots never attack, and thus never collect cards. They just deploy troops and grow. This is not ideal in a fixed card game. It can't be much better in progressive card games.

One bot being neutral can be dealt with. However when multiple bots are neutral, this becomes a real problem. They just get in the way all too much.

This is why I am suggesting that only players (that started the game as players) can go inactive and thus become neutral.

fervent meadow
#

I can't speak for why others disagreed on this, personally I like what they do currently because:
-> Playing on massive maps, can opt to eliminate a non ready up players territory if it's an obstruction, or keep it to act as a soft blizzard - it doesn't generally get in the way, it's more of a "detour needed" to avoid wasting troops.
-> Playing Caps / Progressive cards - so the troops gained is negligible later on, but great for separating multiple players so they can't steam roll an area as a benefit to that player failing to ready up
-> Manual Placement so the bot placement is randomised but not massively on any one area, not so much luck based as auto placement

It really depends on how you use them currently for how players will feel towards them, I certainly wouldn't want them like that in a fixed cards game - because troops added/turn can easily match your own after fighting others.

crisp drum
#

I hate the bot takeover for people that not ready up. It's a bad system in itself, and if I sign up for a game without bots I don't want to see one in my game just because someone doesn't ready up.

old garnet
#

Perhaps a lobby return system would be better. If someone doesn’t ready up the game bounces back to the lobby and the host has the option of firing the game with one less player or waiting for another player this would be even better with a few pre-canned chat options available in the lobby… “everyone ready?” , “good to go? “4 players ?” Etc.

(Also to ride my particular hobby horse: Bot outs should always get last place as soon as 2-3 minutes have passed without reconnection.)

mighty gust
# crisp drum I hate the bot takeover for people that not ready up. It's a bad system in itsel...

Interesting.

I, actually, agree with you. I would prefer that bots didn't take over for those who fail to ready up. For example, a 6-player game where one player fails to ready would just turn into a 5-player game.

I assume this would require a little more work from the developers. So, I suggested the above first. My idea in a way would be implemented by default, after removing bots for those who fail to hit ready.

@old garnet I, in fact, have some similar ideas on improving the lobby screen. I don't know if a recall back to the lobby would be necessary if a number of them were implemented. Going to make a Risk Idea post all about it in the near future.

wheat jewel