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: "Ross W. Wetmore" <rwetmore@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Per I Mathisen <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <freeciv-ai@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [freeciv-ai] Re: long-term ai goals
From: Gregory Berkolaiko <Gregory.Berkolaiko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 18:52:22 +0100 (BST)

On Sat, 25 May 2002, Ross W. Wetmore wrote:

> Making sure that any system is not just AI-specific is I think the best
> way to deal with the cheating issue. This means ruleset, and/or console
> control with the ability to turn it on/off securely, possibly on a per
> channel basis. 
> Note, instead of a constant (TRUE) or FoW boolean (bool get_known()), you
> need to introduce a weight in the range 1...0 and a pseudo-random selector.
> The current FoW sort of does this with a time dependent grey-level, but
> a weight-level could do the same thing.
> If you assigned a float or scaled int instead of the TRUE/FALSE bit, then
> aging of any values less than 1 can be done on a turn update. Any values
> reported on map updates or queried during player-specific server
> computations would be gated by having get_known() or get_known_and_seen()
> return the condition (known_rand_computation() > weight(pplayer)). For
> weights of 1 and 0 this will be just the current trivial FoW boolean or
> omniscient TRUE.

Alternatively you can introduce a delay on the FoW onset.  The 
weaker player will be allowed to see the tile he has left for N turns and 
then it will become shaded.  I much prefer it to the random model.


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