Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-ai: May 2002:
[freeciv-ai] Re: long-term ai goals

[freeciv-ai] Re: long-term ai goals

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [freeciv-ai] Re: long-term ai goals
From: Christian Knoke <chrisk@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:26:15 +0200

On Thu, May 23, 2002 at 01:42:11PM +0200, Per I Mathisen wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2002, Christian Knoke wrote:
> > > I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by open and closed, but an AI
> > > that has the same limitations as a human player is ideal. However, AIs
> > > requiring omniscience should also be possible. The current AI will not
> > > work without it.
> >
> > So who is going to decide whether it's a human or an AI client connecting?
> The server admin decides who gets cheating priviledges. A "list" command
> should show prominently who is getting what cheating priviledges. This can
> be useful also for giving newbies a bit of help, not just AIs.
> > It shouldn't be too hard to hack the standard client to be omniscient, too.
> That is not up to the client to decide.

Ok, this sounds reasonable. Although I still don't see the advantage 
of moving the existing AI out of the server then (the admin has to set
up both, server and AI's, right?), its up to you.

> > To build a cheat interface into freeciv just for this reason, is a bad way,
> > IMO. Of course I know there is already cheating in the protocol by now, but
> > I hoped we will get rid of it some time, now you are working such a lot
> > on the AI.
> Raimar has posted a patch that should fix the remaining cheat
> possibilities in the protocol. I hope it will go in before release.

Great! Please do, I'd say, but this needs a lot testing, doesn't it?

> Yours,
> Per


Christian Knoke     * * *
* * * * * * * * *  Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse dividendum.

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]