And just to confirm... I was playing planar bridge yesterday and he had a straight line match 5 in green (I think) and a landfall match 4 in white (I think) available. Regardless I checked his mana gains after he took the match 4 and they were identical between the 2 colors. So he chose to take a match 4 over a match 5 which got him 1 less mana. There were no servos, tokens, supports, activate gems, or anything else even on the board, much less affected There were also no connecting combos on either line and since they were both horizontal they had the same odds at the top of the board.
I mean, they clearly prioritize match 4's over match 5's now right? All else the same? Seems like an intentional nerf to me.
shteev said: Gunmix25 said: DumasAG said: shteev said: Ohboy said: Before I go to the trouble of digging. Please state for the record that you do not recall constantly complaining about the incompetence of the coding. I hereby state for the record that any earlier statement Ohboy pulls out of the forums will be something I stand by, AND ALSO will be able to fully justify in the context of this thread.Go! That is some next-level politician stuff there It certainly is. He never stated for the record that he did not recall constantly complaining about the incompetence of the coding and stated that he would stand by any earlier statements he has made. A standard, I will neither confirm nor deny, stance. "..., there really doesn't appear to be anywhere in this thread where I said that Hibernum aren't incompetent, does there?"//Removed Inappropriate Content -Brigby
Gunmix25 said: DumasAG said: shteev said: Ohboy said: Before I go to the trouble of digging. Please state for the record that you do not recall constantly complaining about the incompetence of the coding. I hereby state for the record that any earlier statement Ohboy pulls out of the forums will be something I stand by, AND ALSO will be able to fully justify in the context of this thread.Go! That is some next-level politician stuff there It certainly is. He never stated for the record that he did not recall constantly complaining about the incompetence of the coding and stated that he would stand by any earlier statements he has made. A standard, I will neither confirm nor deny, stance.
DumasAG said: shteev said: Ohboy said: Before I go to the trouble of digging. Please state for the record that you do not recall constantly complaining about the incompetence of the coding. I hereby state for the record that any earlier statement Ohboy pulls out of the forums will be something I stand by, AND ALSO will be able to fully justify in the context of this thread.Go! That is some next-level politician stuff there
shteev said: Ohboy said: Before I go to the trouble of digging. Please state for the record that you do not recall constantly complaining about the incompetence of the coding. I hereby state for the record that any earlier statement Ohboy pulls out of the forums will be something I stand by, AND ALSO will be able to fully justify in the context of this thread.Go!
Ohboy said: Before I go to the trouble of digging. Please state for the record that you do not recall constantly complaining about the incompetence of the coding.
"Aren't?" Yes, I agree. No where in the forums is there a statement by you saying that the people of Hibernium 'are not' incompetent, so at least we have that statement. That leaves us your likely opposing opinion, because you are certainly not neutral.
On a different note: @octal9 your explanation of poor decision making makes sense. I've seen PW connected to red go specifically for supports and skip over landfall opportunities. Whereas I have seen green PW avoid supports with the exception of say an Animist's Awakening activation gem, in which it will try to swap it every single time. Blue appears to ignore supports and attempts landfalls; black is the same. Thank you for giving us the low down.
octal9 said: shteev said:Wait, don't all L-shaped match5's contain a landfall? Fair. It would be more accurate for me to state that the L shape contained a Match-4.
shteev said:Wait, don't all L-shaped match5's contain a landfall?
fiirst said: octal9 said: shteev said:Wait, don't all L-shaped match5's contain a landfall? Fair. It would be more accurate for me to state that the L shape contained a Match-4. @octal9 @shteev no landfall in that move ..... but not sure whether it is the only available matching at that moment....
babar3355 said: fiirst said: octal9 said: shteev said:Wait, don't all L-shaped match5's contain a landfall? Fair. It would be more accurate for me to state that the L shape contained a Match-4. @octal9 @shteev no landfall in that move ..... but not sure whether it is the only available matching at that moment.... Erm, couldn't you move the 2nd from top dot down? Which happens to be what Greg does every time now.
Steeme said: I also noticed that the "hint" the AI gives you on your turn has also modified its behavior. It told me ignore a five swap and take a lesser one.
Gunmix25 said: Steeme said: I also noticed that the "hint" the AI gives you on your turn has also modified its behavior. It told me ignore a five swap and take a lesser one. Saw this post and tested that out. He's right. I usually ignore that suggestion unless completely stumped. But yes, it recommends a lesser swap and frequently suggests swaps for loyalty gems.
shteev said:Do the hint and the AI use the same code to decide their moves?
[arNero] said: Frankly, while I do understand what OP means about AI nerfing (quite a few times indeed I see AI miss out of match 5), given that they still get infinite cascades anyway, I don't see any real difference. Sure, they miss out match 5.... and then the next gems they get is literally match 5 anyway, so what nerf?
tfg76 said: When I started playing this game I was sure there was some bonus I didn't understand about match-4s. The AI seemed to be consistently going for them, regardless of other things.
Hey guys, I've been paying attention to this a bit more, since I usually try and predict the AI's next move.
I have a feeling the introduction to eternalize / aftermath is catching the AI's attention. It looks like "Greg" is more interested in destroying activate gems than it is supports.
When I have activates on board, they get removed pretty efficiently. For example, when I pop Elspeth's second to generate two +4/+4 activates on board, the AI will attempt to remove them next turn, while at the same time ignoring my supports.
When I have no activates on board, sometimes it will prioritize my support, sometimes it won't. I haven't figured out what's up here. However, I found it strange that it completely ignored a Deadlock Trap that I dropped until that support actually disabled one of its creatures. It then proceeded to focus directly on removing that support. That is, it looks like it changed priorities on the fly.
This is quite anecdotal so I'm basically just sharing an experience. Perhaps there is an internal "aggro" or "threat" meter which affects Greg's decisions.
@volrak Are you on slack or discord? I had a completely mind boggling one the other day where an opponent J1 ignored a straight line match 5 red and instead selected a match 3 led. I could show you the board.. my screenshots always disappear after a day on the forums.
No activates, no matches of either color available, 1 higher value match (green vs red) but it had his support on it. He ended up taking the match 3 red at the top right of the board, so perhaps once they reach the "nothing better" point they don't differentiate between a match 3 and a match 5 thing and then just select the move at either the top left of the board or one of those two priorities?
babar3355 said: an opponent J1 ignored a straight line match 5 red and instead selected a match 3 led.No activates, no matches of either color available, 1 higher value match (green vs red) but it had his support on it. He ended up taking the match 3 red at the top right of the board, so perhaps once they reach the "nothing better" point they don't differentiate between a match 3 and a match 5 thing and then just select the move at either the top left of the board or one of those two priorities?
an opponent J1 ignored a straight line match 5 red and instead selected a match 3 led.
Gilesclone said: When in doubt they try to pick a match close to the top left corner.
I always thought it did this to "not disturb the board". That is, if it chose something at the bottom, then it could potentially set the player up for a nice counter-move.
I sometimes do the same thing by taking a harmless loyalty swap near the top.