This thread is entertaining.

Lots of people have been annoyed, and nobody can really be sure of the actual answer. Awesome.

Hey, only I can be allowed to derive guilty pleasure from this thread.

...

Well, okay. You've been good - you get to do it, too.

I've never really examined the files or anything, but I think the reason why Hard AI has more spent is that perhaps normal AI is not designed as efficient, and thus it does not spend it's resources as fast?

Please correct me if I'm wrong about the way the game works.

But then there definitely is a bug - the first & third income charts don't jibe! They conflict.

Three players can't all have the same "Credit income rate", yet have three different "Credits gained from planet income". But they do/will! Hard's credits gained are 1.5 times that of Normal's. And Unfair's is 2X.

Same bug for Metal & Crystal charts.

Still only a possible bug as those charts are more for entertainment value than use as a debugging tool. You can as a player derive some really useful information from them. But you don't know exactly what informational points they are monitoring or even that all the points are always on the same scale. I like them though, but I wouldn't ask the Devs to spend hours of there valuable time trying to make them more specific(look at the sheer number of charts, lots of time very little benefit to the game). Tools already exist for root cause analysis.

FoePa, your debug screenshots do NOT necessarily conflict with the evidence provided by the endgame graphs. All we see in your screenshot is a "value" of 10.1. So what are the possibilities for what this 10.1 is?
1) # of credits received last tick.
2) # of credits to be received next tick.
3) internal "credit income rate" which could undergo further transformations in order to determine actual credits received by the player.

Honestly, I think (3) seems logical and makes sense from a code architecture standpoint. The scenario is that you have a core game engine object which is separated from the individual player objects (This is a good thing as it prevents AI 'cheating' by looking directly into the engine. If the AI only has access to the same entry points as a human player, it gets affected by the same "fog of war"). So the core engine calculates a credit income value based on planet populations, research, etc. Then, a higher level part of the engine controls the actions that are taken each tick (one of those being awarding income). This part knows the players and each tick it takes that player's credit income value and determines how many actual credits to award. This could be based on a number of factors, but so far we've only seen evidence for AI difficulty (human being treated as 'normal') via the third graph.

For all those crying for definitive proof...make a game against some AIs, and record it a few seconds after start. Watch the recording and pause it after every credit increase. Then examine each player's credit totals. I did that and have put the results in the table below (sorry if formatting doesn't come through). Please explain what micromanaging the hard AI could possibly be doing that awards it an extra 5-6 (and only 5-6) credits every second.



ticks my creds normal creds hard creds unfair creds


1 3011 3011 3017 3023
2 3023 3023 3034 3046
3 3034 3034 3051 3068
4 3046 3046 3068 3091
5 3057 3057 3085 3114
6 3068 3068 3102 3137
7 3080 3080 3119 3159
8 3091 3091 3137 3182
9 3102 3102 3154 3205

uh, these are the specific ones I was refuting. So yes they do.



Your tick theory only looks at credits, are these all the same race, with the same research and racial bonuses applied, for that matter do all the races get equal resources each tick?

You could be right, then again you don't have all the variables accounted for and it would take a whole lot of time and experimentation. To actually try and prove this theory, without access to the hardcode. I can't disprove it, without spending tedious hours experimenting myself. I can doubt its validity, based on the evidence at hand. I choose to go with - Why is it so hard for people to believe what the Devs are telling us.?

In that same scenario Unfair starts at the same place as Human and Hard at 0 seconds but they already have wormhole navigation, with no research stations, orders to attack unscouted planets, and ... I don't remember it all and I failed to get a screenshot. So postulate more from there or load up developer.exe and go have a look. Good luck with that by the way.

Thanks JediLennier, an excellent table, and as good of definitive proof as any. I surely don't know of any possible micromanaging that could possibly award an extra 5-6 credits per seconds (a 50% boost over Normal's 11.33 cred/sec rate!). And I've looked for one, as well as examined Hard's early moves, and there simply isn't an explanation. Remember, my original questioning was prompted by an analysis of Hard's early tech tree purchases, (w/ multiple sources of information, rather than "blindly trusting the endgame charts").

Some notes & observations: We start the game (at tick 0) with 3000 credits available. By your tick 3, the 1.0 to 1.5 to 2.0 ratio of income for Normal to Hard to Unfair is clearly appararent (51/34=1.5 & 68/34=2). I assume the slight variation from these ratios is due to rounding errors.

Regards, Obi Won   

FoePa, you've got to be kidding! So they are just made up numbers? Of no value? Come on! Do U even know how to read a chart??? I know that they could be in error, but I've analyzed them, and I understand the information source points, and they generally make sense.

When you compare the first and third income charts (of equal opponents except for the Hard & Normal settings), do you know why those two don't make sense?

Your arguments are getting ridiculous. To suggest that Lennier used different races, or that there was research completed within 9 seconds is riduculous. Also, it wouldn't take "tedious hours experimenting" to replicate. I could replicate similar results in minutes. And I fully believe his definitive proof, and I've examined this from enuf multiple angles and sources to know what is right!

Then maybe you could spend a few less minutes insulting FoePa for not accepting your claims on faith alone and actually provide proof of concept here.

Hi!
A duck test: If it floats and says "quack", it's a duck.

BR, Iztok

Sage, I never said they were useless. I said you don't know what points are monitored. You you can not reasonably use them as a diagnostic tool because you have variables that you can not account for. You really just like to argue don't you. Tell you the truth your don't confuse me with the facts style is impressive.

So why haven't you loaded up the debugger and presented this conclusive evidence?
Put up or shut up. You prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am not argueing that you are wrong remember, I am arguing that I don't know positively and neither do you.

I never said that he used different races. I just said it wasn't accounted for in his post. A master of the strawman as well I see.

Have you thought about a career as a spin doctor, I understand they are very rewarding.

Thanks Mazuo for taking care of the minutes argument, I was really sweating that one.

All you really have to do is get someone from IC to say we changed it it cheats now.

SageWon you need to think like a TEC scout. An axiom for you, "If its out there I'll find it." or Maybe something from the Xfiles "I want to believe."

Can't we just agree to disagree and end this?

Vaihlor, I've had similar experiences! I've led the whole game in "Credit income rate", and been ranked #1 in Economy (Credit/Metal/Crystal) thru most of the game, and like you, had more planets (also ranked #1 in Colonization), yet lagged considerably in "Credit gained from planet income", as well as spent considerably less, with less "Credits available" left over! And upon examination of the replay, I could actually see that they had spent way more than I could have ever possibly accumulated, even tho I was supposedly leading.



Lederdemain, I agree, there could be a mistake in the display. But I would like to point out that I have already used multiple sources of information. I've never used a debugger. I wouldn't know what to do with it. (I'm not a programmer, I'm an economist, I have an MBA.)



Arayn, yeah, I wonder about that too. FoePa's very own screenies show the 1 to 1.5 ratio that he is debating (after you subtract out the original 3000 available)!



Mazou, you should note, that up until that frustrating comment, I had refrained from insults (even from your original insult). Nobody should accept my claims on faith alone, they should spend a few minutes, and test it for themselves.

Regarding your comment: "changelogs have definitively stated that only Unfair gets such a boost". I wonder if you are referring to these statements in the 1.03 changelog?
"-New AI Difficulty "Unfair" that gives the AI a tax income bonus and resource income bonus from resource asteroids (there is no other AI cheating in the game even at the Unfair difficulty level)."

Note that the changelog says nothing about the Hard AI. Only that the Unfair AI doesn't do any additional cheating.



Anatar, you've been around here alot longer than I have. I am I missing something? What is the evidence for the other side? Are there additional comments from Devs that I am unaware of?

Finally, JediLennier, from one Jedi to another, forgive me for hijacking your thread, and giving the impression that you are a strawman. I should have let you argue for your own evidence. Let it be known that I would never stoop using a strawman.

Oh wise one, Jedi Obi Won   

I think you have it backward there Mazuo. We HAVE been providing proof, and he chooses not to believe it based on faith in "official" posts and accepted common knowledge. I, and Legerdemain before me, have already pointed out that his supposed counter proof doesn't actually counter the argument as there is ambiguity in what his numbers represent, but he chooses to ignore those comments. I'm still waiting for an actual verifiable counter argument here, but I won't be holding my breath....

You quoted it:

Kittun, do you think it is possible that Frogboy was mistaken? Or possibly meant to refer to the Unfair difficulty level only?

Lying about the AI settings isn't enough now? I didn't insult you in either of my posts on page 1. Weak tactic here.



And as multiple people have tried to inform you previously, there are quite a few variables that simply looking at in-game income charts aren't going to uncover.



Kitkun addressed it before I could reply, but this statement is definitive. Once you start arguing with this, you're saying that a few screenshots of strange behavior is enough to nullify the developers' statements.

I'm totally open to the idea that the Hard AI cheats. However, I'm frankly quite tired of multiple posts being hijacked on this forum with links to these topics claiming that it's been definitively proved that people having trouble fighting the Hard AI are facing difficulty because the AI cheats.

Coming from a too-long stint on WoW, I find this statement quaintly amusing. Do you honestly think that the person who wrote that is the same one who wrote the income distribution system or that there could have been no miscommunications and that all statements in the entire changelog were thoroughly fact-checked against the entire codebase?

PS "no other AI cheating" could be referring to other forms of cheating besides income boosts.

Right. So we should instead treat all statements in a changelog as suspect as well as developer comments. Fine.

Meanwhile, I'm going to keep on the logical train of thought and ask that people actually prove their claims before claiming they've been proven.

Not all, silly. Just the ones you have contradictory evidence for.

Mazou, What hypocrisy! You seem to be accepting the changelogs claims on faith alone. Maybe you should spend a few less minutes insulting me for not accepting the changelogs claims on faith alone. (Lying! What lies? I don't lie)

That single little tiny changelog statement is hardly definitive! Whereas our multiple proofs are. You could literally test them in minutes, and NO there are NOT that many, or even any variables in the first few minutes of the game, but you refuse to try. Simply understanding the conflicting first & third income/resource charts are proofs. (And simply understanding how Unfair cheats is proof!)

Hard AI's cheating is evident in the first second. That changelog comment is wrong. The Hard AI cheats. Let me say it again, Hard gets an unfair income and resource bonus. I am certain. It's been proven. By several people now. And no verifiable counter arguments. Hard Cheats!

Does someone really have to explain this to you? You assume statements from the devs are true unless proven otherwise. The italicized word there is what you've been missing.



You've lied twice now. I haven't insulted you yet in this topic. If you'd like me to start, I'm certainly game.



Saying that outside of the resource boost given to the Unfair difficulty AI, there are NO other AI methods of cheating isn't definitive? Wow.



You seem to also fail to understand what a proof is. The rest of your post is more bluster revolving around the notion that if you say it enough times, people will believe you. Good luck with that.

So now, are you going to continue to spell my name wrong and harass me because you haven't provided sufficient evidence of your claims, or are you going to get back to actually figuring out how exactly the Hard AI cheats in resource income with facts to back it up? I bet you can figure out what my guess is.

anyway.... even if hard AI get boosted credits, I kicked its ass anyway

It just seems to be a mountain, but really it's just a mole hill.

@FoePa
Actually I am on your side of things. As far as the whole ai thing goes. Take deep breath.

@All
This thread needed a little lighting up. So flame away.

LOL, In summary, these are the key points in this long thread: