Thread: [Essentials script] Pokémon TCG mod
View Single Post
  #131    
Old February 8th, 2013, 03:44 PM
Maruno's Avatar
Maruno
Lead Dev of Pokémon Essentials
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Quote:
Originally Posted by the__end View Post
Colorless Energy is useless for Charizard. Any Colorless energy card can only be used to pay for Colorless energy requirements on a Pokemon. For example, if a Charizard required a Fire energy for one of its attacks, you cannot use a Colorless energy card for it.
However, any energy card can be used to pay for any Colorless energy requirements.
That is why it is much easier to pay for Colorless energy requirements and that makes the Colorless energy worthless/dispensable. Double Colorless is a useful card because it provides two energy at once and that is good for some cards with more then one colorless attack requirements.
I see you're forgetting Charizard's Pokémon Power. I know how energy works, and I still say that Double Colorless Energy is great in the right deck.


Quote:
Originally Posted by the__end View Post
You are right about it taking more effort and time to create AI profiles. But IMO its worth it. I know a guy who is improving the AI from the good old "Age of Empires 2" because the included AI was dumb. You could beat the computer opponent in minutes in "extreme" mode. But after i updated with his patch i cant even beat in "middle". You know what he did? He made an independent AI for each Civilization! This way he maximized the use of their advantages in battle and minimized their wasteful behavior in terms of resources. If you are a AoE2 player i can link you to his site if you want.
The point is that in some games it is smarter to make an specific AI which can handle a situation perfectly instead of making an general AI that can handle any situation average. I don't know if the TCG is one of these games but i think so.

This is a good point! I can imagine that troubleshooting would be more time consuming if you have more then one AI which uses the same broken part. On the other hand you would know where to fix the other AI before you even look at it.
But like i said i don't know much about programming myself. I just see interesting stuff people do and i try to apply it theoretically on other things.
AoE is a bit different because a given civilisation's units are always the same, and the progression between ages and tech trees and all that are fixed. TCG decks can contain many different cards, and cards are drawn randomly in a duel. I think it's far too much hassle to make multiple AIs, given this randomness which would need to be accounted for.

As I've said, all you can really do is work with what you're given, and what you're given is some random cards from your deck. Now, you can go into any amount of detail you like when it comes to making the AI for a particular card (e.g. defining circumstances in which it will prefer one target over another), but it would get very convoluted if you get too invested in it. Even so, taking each card as it comes is a modular system, and easier to manage and tinker with.


One thing I'd like to hear from someone who knows about AI is: is my idea any good? Is there an alternative system to calculating desirability for each action that would be more suitable for this kind of game?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Maruno View Post
As for how the AI will actually work, I have a vague idea. At the start of its turn, it looks around the duel and lists everything it is able to do (play a card from the hand, use an in-play effect such as a Pokémon Power, retreat, etc.), and then assign a desirability value to it. Calculating this value for each action depends a lot on the environment, and is the convoluted part. Once all the values are calculated, it will do the most desirable action and repeat (recalculating the values for what's left). Once there's nothing left to do, it will attack if possible and desirable - the good thing is that an attack is always the last thing in a turn (and there's always just 1 attack per turn), which makes it a bit simpler.
__________________
Reply With Quote