next »

[gameleaper]

A.I. in any boardgame for solo play can be done like this:

devide each discition into percentages, eg: 40% left, 30% right, 20% retreat, an 10% wait.

then roll 2 10 sided dice, and get a percentage score, if less than 11 wait, if inbetween 10 and 30 retreat(remember all the scores are added ), if between 30 and 60 go right, and above 60 go left.

you can do this with any decsition you like

the idea is to make a few rational plans , then decide on which with dice, this gives the plans well thought out responses that are not random,

any number of percentages can be used , no magic numbers

what I'm suggesting, My idea is simple like mythic GM, you piechart all possibilities out of a 100 then roll and do the action on the piechart. I know its simple , that's the goal of it, and I know we have all thought of diecing , but to formulate 4or5 plans prior and then diceing you get a real feeling of a real opponent


quote
so you are saying you would change the percentages based on the most likely decision? I would guess there could be several combinations depending on the situation. Maybe even some as simple as 75% retreat/25% attack.
endquote

yes you get the idea, each situation is estimated down to a percentage, there can be 100 possibilities, or just two.

[gameleaper]

each decition in a game is analysed and split into percentages then a set of 10 sided dice are thrown (or a d100 is thrown) and then look at the analysed results that correspond .

this is done for every situation, you cant have a results table, because all results are thought out just before you roll

[s0]

 how does this account for hidden information?

EDIT: nvm

[s0]

this is done for every situation, you cant have a results table, because all results are thought out just before you roll

but then isn't this just playing solo "against yourself", except with dice rolls?

i mean it sounds like it could kinda work for simpler games, but for more complex ones it would require you to have fairly deep knowledge of the game AND on top of that be able to mentally model 4 or 5 different opponents if you actually want it to be challenging.

[gameleaper]

hidden info would be a problem I havnt bumped into yet, but I will think on it. this system really normally uses 4-5 choices of different importance, its thought-out for only one A.I. opponent . I only play solo so its great for me but it wont do all foe everybody

[TitoOliveira]

Coincidentally enough, i recently had to design a single player board game for a course. And the end result is not very fun to play because it's just not fun to be rolling dies and following instructions to play the AI.
Well, it all had to fit in one A4 paper with the optional of two D6 dices, and a week to make. Maybe without those restrictions it could been better. I don't know.

[s0]

The trick to designing a solo/co-op board game is to have the player(s) playing against the mechanics themselves, not against a simulated opponent (tho a few games do the dice AI thing well, like race for the galaxy) and keep the amount of bookkeeping to a minimum. Popular example of this would be Pandemic: You only have a simple semi-predictable RNG in the form of card draws to distribute the disease cubes. The game then consists of using the resources you have available to puzzle out the situations the RNG throws at you. The limited pool of infection cards you end up drawing from ensures that each game feels somewhat different.

[gameleaper]

good thread about it here

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1573128/i-any-boardgame-solo-play-can-be-done

here is a quote from "kyle" there "This thread will revolutionize how designers and publishers deal with bots. Look out "

[Willy Elektrix]

I'll revive this thread.

My idea is simple like mythic GM

This is unrelated to the rest of your post, but I recently started using Mythic GM for solo role-playing. It's a really cool system and a really different way to look at role-playing (and gaming in general).

Instead of playing a game against yourself, you are really writing a story with yourself. Essentially, the player uses randomness, logic, and interpretation of certain keywords. It's too complex to explain here, but I think lots of game designers (of any type) could benefit from reading the Mythic GME rules. More video games could stand to take an approach like this where the player is creating content for themselves to explore and interact with. This is different from many creation-focused games, where the player is creating something to show to others (i.e. an awesome looking Minecraft house).

I hope I explained that well.

The trick to designing a solo/co-op board game is to have the player(s) playing against the mechanics themselves, not against a simulated opponent (tho a few games do the dice AI thing well, like race for the galaxy) and keep the amount of bookkeeping to a minimum. Popular example of this would be Pandemic: You only have a simple semi-predictable RNG in the form of card draws to distribute the disease cubes. The game then consists of using the resources you have available to puzzle out the situations the RNG throws at you. The limited pool of infection cards you end up drawing from ensures that each game feels somewhat different.

These types of board game are always a little unsatisfying. In order to make the game work, the player must (obviously) be familiar with the rules. However, once the player understands those rules, then he quickly realizes the correct answer to any decision based on probability. It's why these cooperative games so often involve one player telling everyone else how to play. If you understand probability, and you understand the game's possible outcomes, there is only usually one best choice (best on probability) in any situation.

This is true in a lot of video games too. However, the difference is that these mechanics are hidden in many video games. The player does not necessarily know an enemy's AI routine until they have played the game for many hours. With the board game, the player is forced to learn how the game behaves on their very first game.

[s0]

These types of board game are always a little unsatisfying. In order to make the game work, the player must (obviously) be familiar with the rules. However, once the player understands those rules, then he quickly realizes the correct answer to any decision based on probability. It's why these cooperative games so often involve one player telling everyone else how to play. If you understand probability, and you understand the game's possible outcomes, there is only usually one best choice (best on probability) in any situation.

i can't say ive had that experience in many co-op board games i have played. actually out of the ones i've played (and that's a lot) i can't think of any that can be easily solved just by learning the rules. the alpha player problem comes more from social dynamics in a group than solvability usually.

i guess in theory you could memorize every component of a game and then calculate probabilities to figure out the optimal move. so in a game that e.g. uses a random event deck, you could try to memorize every single event card before playing. the question tho is: who actually wants to do that?

[Willy Elektrix]

Let me try and explain. Let’s use Pandemic for instance. It’s been about 12 months since I’ve played it, so forgive me if I get the game’s terminology wrong.

Once the game gets underway, the primary decisions of the players are whether to work toward a cure or to try to treat the disease at various cities to prevent an outbreak. This is an interesting choice.

However, if the player chooses to treat the disease, there are really only ever a couple viable choices on where the player should treat (based on their board position). Also, since the city cards and shuffled and placed on top of the draw deck, the player can calculate the probability that the city card will come up and an outbreak will happen. Therefore, an intelligent player can easily make the decision based on a few factors: How likely is it that the city card will be drawn? How many disease cubes are on the city? How close am I (or another player) to that city?

Pandemic does get a little more interesting when that player is forced to decide whether to prevent an outbreak, or instead work toward a cure.

In any case, what I’m trying to say is this: Board games must be simple enough that they are easy to learn and do not take an excessive amount of bookkeeping to play (i.e. tracking lots of resources). However, in order for that to work, they tend to have a limited number of variables. When a board game is played against another player, they tend to be more complex because the of that interaction. But when one or more players cooperate against the board game, there is a simple system of rules but without the complexity of two human minds working at odds with each other.

Did I explain that well?

[s0]

well duh, of course co-op games are usually less deep than competitive games, i never argued that. also most of them are solvable. i don't consider that a negative though (unless they are too easy to solve, but even that might not be a problem if the game is more about theme than mechanics). learning to master the game's mechanics is its own kind of fun and a distinct experience from competitive games.

you were saying that co-ops are "unsatisfying" and can be solved by learning the rules which is what i was objecting to. pandemic is not a particularly deep or complex game, i just brought it up as an example because it's a popular game that most people itt are familiar with. and even pandemic has some ambiguous decisions and can definitely not be solved by learning the rules. try something like mage knight and things get much more complex.

you took my post out of context anyway, i was saying that a player vs. system game is better than player vs dice AI for solo.

[Willy Elektrix]

I see. It sounds like we feel the same way about this!

I definitely agree that player vs. system is probably better than player vs. dice AI. Maybe compelling dice AI could be created, but I think actually playing within it would be pretty tedious. For it to be complex enough, lots of dice rolls would have to be made.

As an aside: Certainly Pandemic is not the most complex (or most fun to play) example of a player vs. system game. I've heard of Mage Knight, but I didn't realize until now that it could be played solo.

[s0]

mage knight has competitive and co-op modes, but really shines as a solo game, especially with the expansion.

btw, sorry if my tone was a bit aggressive before. i was kinda having a bad day the other day. 

[Willy Elektrix]

mage knight has competitive and co-op modes, but really shines as a solo game, especially with the expansion.

Cool! It's a fairly impressive feat to design a board game that plays well competitively, cooperatively, and solo. I can't think of another example of that. I need to check this game out.

btw, sorry if my tone was a bit aggressive before. i was kinda having a bad day the other day.  

No harm. No foul.

[s0]

well it acually doesn't play that well competitively. i mean it's ok if you're into euro-style competitive gameplay, meaning you're basically just "racing" the other players and there is very little direct interaction. there are optional pvp combat rules but i don't really like them. also the game has a lot of downtime due to how complex and analytical it gets. it's good with 1 or 2 players, but 3 is already really pushing it as far as game lengths. especially if there are people who suffer from analysis paralysis involved haha.