Toxicadam wrote: Well, if we are going to pretend like defense matters (and rewards players with points that make defenses), we need an AI that makes better choices than it currently does. Putting precedent on a three match that will destroy 2-3 'special' tiles of the opponent over a simple 3 match that only collects a few AP for an ability isn't game-breaking. It's the way the game should already be.
Toxicadam wrote: That's also why I said '2-3' tiles in a 3 way match should get precedent and not just any strike/web tile. If an opponent is laying down that many strike/web tiles to where they are bunching up, it's in the AI's best interest to get rid of them. You can always slightly increase the damage of the strike tiles to off-set the increased fragility.
Phantron wrote: Toxicadam wrote: Well, if we are going to pretend like defense matters (and rewards players with points that make defenses), we need an AI that makes better choices than it currently does. Putting precedent on a three match that will destroy 2-3 'special' tiles of the opponent over a simple 3 match that only collects a few AP for an ability isn't game-breaking. It's the way the game should already be. Characters like Psylocke or Punisher would be borderline useless if the AI actually tried to destroy your special tiles.
sms4002 wrote: Phantron wrote: Toxicadam wrote: Well, if we are going to pretend like defense matters (and rewards players with points that make defenses), we need an AI that makes better choices than it currently does. Putting precedent on a three match that will destroy 2-3 'special' tiles of the opponent over a simple 3 match that only collects a few AP for an ability isn't game-breaking. It's the way the game should already be. Characters like Psylocke or Punisher would be borderline useless if the AI actually tried to destroy your special tiles. Not really though, Half the time they are not in a position to be matched right away or even for a long time. Why should the AI be stupid just to let us win more? If you were playing a human they would 100% get rid of the specials / go for 5 of a kinds everytime. I have wondered if it would be good to have abilities where they can put tiles down like black widow's purple just in one long row so they get a 4 or 5 of a kind. It would be so much more frustrating because of many many more losses but winning because the AI is dumb seems, well, dumb.
Phantron wrote: The AI plays Spiderman well enough given its 'one ability per turn' restriction. Try to play Spiderman with the same restriction and he's suddenly not as powerful because it'd be almost impossible to keep 3 guys stunned even with a very large amount of blue AP because your web tiles will be exposed. The whole point of the AI is that it doesn't assign any value to any tiles/abilities because otherwise you might as well just tell it how to play, and there's nothing hard to tell the AI to make a match 5 with Magnetic Field every single time. It doesn't do it because it doesn't know what Magnetic Field actually does, and that's by design. It's not supposed to have knowledge of how the game works because if it did, you'd just lose most of the time, especially if it has the 'one ability per turn' restriction lifted as well. It might as well pop up a box like 'I got the next 50 moves figured out already, you should hit retreat and save yourself the embarassment' if it actually was trying to win.
gamar wrote: Phantron wrote: The AI plays Spiderman well enough given its 'one ability per turn' restriction. Try to play Spiderman with the same restriction and he's suddenly not as powerful because it'd be almost impossible to keep 3 guys stunned even with a very large amount of blue AP because your web tiles will be exposed. The whole point of the AI is that it doesn't assign any value to any tiles/abilities because otherwise you might as well just tell it how to play, and there's nothing hard to tell the AI to make a match 5 with Magnetic Field every single time. It doesn't do it because it doesn't know what Magnetic Field actually does, and that's by design. It's not supposed to have knowledge of how the game works because if it did, you'd just lose most of the time, especially if it has the 'one ability per turn' restriction lifted as well. It might as well pop up a box like 'I got the next 50 moves figured out already, you should hit retreat and save yourself the embarassment' if it actually was trying to win. Why would you lose most of the time? Attackers always go first, can choose what characters to target or attack with, and know what the opponent's characters are capable of. They could let the computer go after your special tiles and try to deny your strong colors, use abilities "correctly" when they activate them, and use multiple abilities on one turn, and yet, ESPECIALLY if they don't let the computer look ahead of its current turn or make smarter, complex choices of which abilities to use, you'd still have a big advantage.
Phantron wrote: But you're still saying the AI should be handicapped in some way to make it more beatable and it's already handicapped pretty significantly, and deciding what handicap is fairly arbitrary.
Phantron wrote: Assuming both players always destroy 3 tiles each round, then to get 3.5 hits means a total of 21 tiles have been destroyed, which is roughly 1/3 of the board. So you can say 33% of the time it is not going to do better than 200 damage per red AP (worse than Adamantium Slash) and 66% of the time it'll be better.
Phantron wrote: the computer can certainly be expected to destroy more tiles per turn than a human player if it's programmed to do so due to its superior analysis of the board.
Phantron wrote: But what if the AI focuses on tile destruction? If it can bump up the chance to destroy your tile to 50%, now you got an ability that is 50% of the time better than 200 damage per red AP and 50% of the time it is not. Why would you use that over an ability that simply does 200 damage per red AP? In this case, you'd just use lazy Thor, who should be expected to do 200 damage per red AP 100% of the time. There's no uncertainty here. In fact pretty much all balanced 3* abilities are done this way. If the enemy focuses on nailing your strike tiles on Judgment, it'd likely end up doing less damage than something like Thunderous Clap that's just straight up damage. All you'd get is teams end up being something like Hulk/lazy Thor/whoever because no balanced ability that depends on special tiles can possibly have any use if the opponent is set out specifically to stop it (otherwise it'd be way overpowered if you can't even stop it).
Vinny J wrote: I posted this a while ago in suggestions - perhaps a simple, self limiting adjustment for SPidey is to keep him exactly as is - however, make his web tiles blue. It will do a few things: 1. stop the potentially endless stunlock; very quickly, if you want more blue, then you will be destroying your own webs - which means total "stun-turn" is self capping. 2. if you are burning up the blue to keep the stun going, y'all won't have many web tiles to heal with. stun vs heal becomes a strategic choice. BTW, I have 5 blue spidey; and use him - when I am not using OBW
noknuckles wrote: If we're assuming 3 tiles get randomly removed from the board, then on each turn there's a 61/64 chance of it staying. Over 7 matches, that is (61/64)^7 = .7145.... 1 - 21/64 is not correct because you are not accounting for the tiles getting replaced, so you will see more than 64 tiles on the board 1 - 21/85 (you meant 85 and not 82, right?) is also not correct because you're assuming every tile seen has the same likelihood of dying. Tiles that only show up in later rounds have less chances of disappearing by the 7th match, since we're assuming that at any one turn, every tile has an equal chance of disappearing