Sharing the "Granular" Details

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darian[Supercell]

It is for every troop. Without going into the granular tech details, it largely means troops will select their attack positions more intelligently.

---

But I like granular tech details.

A few months ago, I put out this thread about more detail in patch notes. I was very pleasantly surprised at the response I got from Darian, and whether my thread had anything to do with it or not (I'm certainly not taking credit), we got more details in our patch notes. Costs of new troops, new levels, stats of said troops and levels, as well as defensive upgrades and all of that good stuff is in there now. It's great. I love it.

But I'm gonna push my luck a little bit and ask for more.

The "From the Dev's Desk" posts on this forum are among my favorites. It's a shame there are only like...2. I'm not proud sharing this information, but I've actually read and re-read the Dec '15 posts about shields and leagues, just because I get a kick out of getting so much detail and insight about how things work.

This most recent update, we got an AI change. People noticed. It's been mentioned once or twice on the forums, maybe you've seen it. And we feel a bit like we're in the dark about the changes

What I would love to see, and I would be surprised if no one backed me on this, are more "From the Dev's Desk" style posts about these technical changes. Wouldn't even have to put them in General anywhere, just hyperlink it to the main sticky and redirect us to Announcements. I would love to read about what changed and why. Why extend troop sightlines? What does that improve? How far were they extended? What's the deciding factor when it comes to going through or around a wall? Does this apply to some troops or all troops?

I know that you're pretty well in tune with how much this particular community cares about this game. You've made that pretty clear, and it's great to see. But I think you do still underestimate our enthusiasm a little bit. I realize that this style of post (or video, you seem to like videos) is quite a bit more work than a one line write-off in the patch notes. But it would be so worth it

This post wasn't meant to talk to Darian directly, but it kind of ended up that way. I was hoping it would come off as me talking loudly and him overhearing it. Oh well. I've never been good at subtlety

Agreed! It does seem that some 'granular' details are left out that would benefit us. I would love to have more detailed information.

I agree with OP.

Forget the granular details. Just change the AI back to the way it was before the update.

Agree. There are plenty of clans in war during updates. That is not the time to find out what the new AI does.
Example would be balloons from June update.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by john4938

Agreed! It does seem that some 'granular' details are left out that would benefit us. I would love to have more detailed information.

---

Definitely, this data would be very useful to those of us who like to know why things happen :thumbsup:

As a systems engineer with many years experience and technical sports coach I love exploring cause and effect, triggers for events, logical decision making etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by loki6720

Forget the granular details. Just change the AI back to the way it was before the update.

---

Okay. Fair enough. But would you mind the new AI so much if its rules were laid out clearly? Right now, the problem I have with it is that I don't know what to expect. My heroes, Queen in particular, are doing things I don't expect them to do. If I knew what rules they play by, it would be a lot easier to get a handle on how to use them.

It's very possible that the new AI is better, but it looks like garbage now because we're trying to use them according to the old AI. But that's the problem. We don't know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

But I like granular tech details.

---

Another vote here for granular tech details.

War at TH10+ is crazily hard... but the information provided is more applicable to a very casual game. There's a real dissonance between the crazy detailed planning required to do a successful attack at TH10+ and the minimal information provided on the game rules/mechanics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

Okay. Fair enough. But would you mind the new AI so much if its rules were laid out clearly? Right now, the problem I have with it is that I don't know what to expect. My heroes, Queen in particular, are doing things I don't expect them to do. If I knew what rules they play by, it would be a lot easier to get a handle on how to use them.

It's very possible that the new AI is better, but it looks like garbage now because we're trying to use them according to the old AI. But that's the problem. We don't know

---

Yes I would. From what I have seen so far it is even harder to funnel troops then before and once you get them into the core they have no sense of direction. At least with the old AI you could go back and say ahhh that is why they went that way. With this new AI you can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

Okay. Fair enough. But would you mind the new AI so much if its rules were laid out clearly? Right now, the problem I have with it is that I don't know what to expect. My heroes, Queen in particular, are doing things I don't expect them to do. If I knew what rules they play by, it would be a lot easier to get a handle on how to use them.

It's very possible that the new AI is better, but it looks like garbage now because we're trying to use them according to the old AI. But that's the problem. We don't know

---

I don't think the new AI will ever be good. With the increased sight range its become quite easy to screw with troops. Try experimenting with defenses in your lawn and you will see what I mean, if your not already aware. Having such long sight is just plain bad imo.

OOOh, detail junkie. Count me in yes please.

They buff the troops but worsen the AI so it wont get op. Buff the troops, golemn valkyries to get people to gem.

But worsen their AI to keep players suffering.

Desperate Supercell. The game is in decline but its still great. Why cant they accept it. In their struggle to maitain its past numbers they kill the game fast. Stupid and greedy but isnt this whole modern world defined by that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flobber

Definitely, this data would be very useful to those of us who like to know why things happen :thumbsup:

As a systems engineer with many years experience and technical sports coach I love exploring cause and effect, triggers for events, logical decision making etc etc.

---

I agree. And unfortunately, I think this goes to crux of why SC keeps this (and other things) secret. Holds it close to the vest. I believe there is the general thought that if one segment of players are aware of the "granular" or important details, such as exact changes in AI- well that gives them an advantage over the casual, uninformed player. SC wants that level playing field. I've long been of the belief that when SC talks about balance- it's not about an offense to defense thing- it's about bad player to good player.

So I don't see SC being in any rush to give out details that would help those that seek it perform better than those unaware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clark11308

I don't think the new AI will ever be good. With the increased sight range its become quite easy to screw with troops. Try experimenting with defenses in your lawn and you will see what I mean, if your not already aware. Having such long sight is just plain bad imo.

---

I've not given it much testing myself. I prefer air at the moment (unrelated to AI changes), and whether or not a troop is going to be bothered with a wall or not is a forgone conclusion for me. So I concede to others on the new AI, all I can do is ask questions.

Or, you know...read a super detailed post from our main man, Darian

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cnaf

I agree. And unfortunately, I think this goes to crux of why SC keeps this (and other things) secret. Holds it close to the vest. I believe there is the general thought that if one segment of players are aware of the "granular" or important details, such as exact changes in AI- well that gives them an advantage over the casual, uninformed player. SC wants that level playing field. I've long been of the belief that when SC talks about balance- it's not about an offense to defense thing- it's about bad player to good player.

So I don't see SC being in any rush to give out details that would help those that seek it perform better than those unaware.

---

There's a scary thought I'd never considered. I hope you're wrong, but I could see that being the case

I'm very much pro details. "Small" things like a gol walking around a quarter of the base to get to a mortar because we weren't aware of sight line changes can really hamper an attack. Suddenly we as a community have to sit down and run tests to figure out troops we had already "mastered" will now path so we can put together these very complicated "multiphased" attacks that's result in the "very rare and rewarding" 3*s Supercell seems to hate.

The other side not discussed with lacking AI "granular" details is the tin foil hat community on here of which I'm finding myself becoming more and more a part of. Ever since the secret miner nerf had such a catastrophic effect, people can't trust troops to stay as they are. Look at the vast number of "valk/bowler/wb AI change?" threads that pop up a month from people failing attacks and thinking another secret nerf occurred. Then once the loon pathing change and unchange happened (despite silence and an apparently refusal to discuss it from a company) we had to investigate it ourselves and figure out what happened. I'm still not entirely sure how my loons path today, but I know that sometimes they don't go as expected. NOW, we have a general AI change and myself along with a few others are sitting there having to do numerous fc with weird custom bases (and wait a day for the most part) to figure out how things will path. Why can't we have a text post to explain that a sight line increase happened and these troops have been effected?

Long post I know but post update "hidden changes" threads are great as long as it's "kings picture changed a tad" or "hey queen got shoes finally", not "hey my troops behave in a way totally different than I've practiced with them for the last year" changes. We need some clarity on these AI changes when they occour, not just sweep them under the rug and ignore them

I'm always a proponent of sharing more minute details and data. Knowledge is power, especially with changes to AI. I wouldn't mind changes like this at all if I actually knew what the changes entail.

It should be stated that gamers embrace unexpectedness to some extent. Its also part life you ve got to learn to enjoy it.

But its different from ADVOCATING CHAOS

And we as players are not naive. We know why you do it.

AS LONG AS THEY SUFFER THEY CANT LEAVE THE GAME

How have you devolved as a company!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iching

It should be stated that gamers embrace unexpectedness to some extent. Its also part life you ve got to learn to enjoy it.

---

Agreed

Quote:

---

But its different from ADVOCATING CHAOS

---

Strong word choices, but I'm still with you

Quote:

---

And we as players are not naive. We know why you do it.

---

Where are you going with this...?

Quote:

---

AS LONG AS THEY SUFFER THEY CANT LEAVE THE GAME

---

Lost me. I'm not going to play a game that I don't enjoy and that makes me suffer.

I'm asking for transparency, not heads on a stick

I wouldn't mind more details. I definitely would like to know why my battle machine continues to walk right by acceptable targets to go to the core and stand next to a crusher.

My kids play LoL, and that game will be having a major overhaul of it's mechanics. Think the changes were announced about 6 months in advance, and the devs do a video explaining the different changes, seems like they do one about once a month.
From what my son says, they are explaining in depth each change, and how it will effect game play.
First time I have seen a game company do such in-depth communication, on something months in advance.
To me it just prepares the player base well in advance, and lessons the shock of wide sweeping change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

Agreed



Strong word choices, but I'm still with you



Where are you going with this...?



Lost me. I'm not going to play a game that I don't enjoy and that makes me suffer.

I'm asking for transparency, not heads on a stick

---

Its the devil s mind. I work in the advertising industry. I know the process, the devil s mind. Honestly, can you still quit or is it too late.

Another vote for more details about AI and troop changes when they are updated. I like to look at it this way.

We all have played board games (think monopoly or settlers of Katan). Those games come out with new versions/updates all the time....and guess what the rules change for the versions. However, there is an instruction sheet that lists the new rules and how they work. So we all read them and play them. Part of the fun of getting the new versions, is that you have to come up with new strategies....(one of my favorite things about COC).

However, do you know what is the single most annoying/frustrating things of these games? Is when you play with that one friend that has "house rules". And those "house rules" change everytime you play, and he doesn't tell you the rules until you are mid way into the game...."oh by the way, this time to win you need to use up all of your houses" or "rolling a 7 now means you have to give up one of your cards...when yesterday it meant you get to pick a resource".

Right now SC is basically this kid....constantly changing the rules without tell you before you start playing.

Great post, OP. Agree 100%.

This is the largest change I've seen in quite some time that affects pretty much every troop across the board. Yes, it would help to know the specifics of the A.I. changes, but more importantly, I would like to know the devs reasoning behind completely overhauling how our troops behave.

Sad that the complaint with AI was specific to the BH, but, the changes effect all troops...

These type changes should be detailed. Great post OP!

Yes please, I would love to not find out while doing a war attack that my golem rather walk for miles to get an open defense building, than to try to reach the one in front of him behind a wall.

I’m pro granules as well :)

Totally agree, Tiler. Would be very helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GarinOregonHeavy

Great post, OP. Agree 100%.

This is the largest change I've seen in quite some time that affects pretty much every troop across the board. Yes, it would help to know the specifics of the A.I. changes, but more importantly, I would like to know the devs reasoning behind completely overhauling how our troops behave.

---

I would hazard to guess that the devs didn't fully understand what would happen with the AI changes. Here is my best guess on the timeline over at SC:

1) The changes were a good faith effort to address some of the wonky play mechanics seen in the BB. (We hear you forum!)
2) Testing by the devs showed an improvement in target selection.
3) With the improvement, presumably on a small data set, the AI was rolled out to all troops. (See we can get stuff out quickly.)
4) Reports now come rolling into HQ about how the changed AI is negatively altering game play. (Uh oh...)
5) CoC team is consumed with Forum vs Reddit event and can't react to this latest fire as quickly as needed. (Let's just get through this FvR event)
6) The dev team will start to address the issue.

At least that's the way I hope it is going. I would really hate to think this is the way they intended the game to be played.

I am not too concerned with the "why" they made the change that they made but would like to know what the changes are so that we can be prepared and adjust our strategies accordingly. It is not fun, that through no fault of your own, a troop suddenly behaved differently than what you expect while in the past you have made the same deployment hundreds of times and the troop behaved the same. It is even worst if it cost you the victory that you were expecting. Getting the rules changed while in the middle of a contest without notification would cause an outrage in any other competitive game or sport.

How did I miss this thread??:facepalm:

Agreed Tiler.
Giving granular info helps you to understand each and everything regarding the update.

don't judge a book by its cover(update changes), Open in and discover(granular details).
Only then you can be pro Player. XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gorbash098

I am not too concerned with the "why" they made the change that they made but would like to know what the changes are so that we can be prepared and adjust our strategies accordingly. It is not fun, that through no fault of your own, a troop suddenly behaved differently than what you expect while in the past you have made the same deployment hundreds of times and the troop behaved the same. It is even worst if it cost you the victory that you were expecting. Getting the rules changed while in the middle of a contest without notification would cause an outrage in any other competitive game or sport.

---

It's pretty well caused an outrage here as well, hence the call for details to be shared. And I can agree that the "why" definitely takes a backseat to the "what", but in this particular case, a lot of people are wondering "why", now that we're starting to figure out "what". Why fix what wasn't broken on the main base? Though I bet the answer has to do with it being easier to change all of the AI instead of just BB.

Good post Tiler, completely agreed. I've for years seen uninformed AI changes being complained about on the forums with not a peep from sc. I've noticed them myself, and the loon change in June unexplained still to this day, remains just another source of cynicism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

It's pretty well caused an outrage here as well, hence the call for details to be shared. And I can agree that the "why" definitely takes a backseat to the "what", but in this particular case, a lot of people are wondering "why", now that we're starting to figure out "what". Why fix what wasn't broken on the main base? Though I bet the answer has to do with it being easier to change all of the AI instead of just BB.

---

Perhaps my definition of outrage is a bit high. I see how people got riled up over the MMA, privacy issues, BB, etc. that this topic (in my opinion) is dwarfed compared to those that I mention. I wish that people do speak out about this is as much as they did on other issues as the changes does affect everyone.

I have a different view on asking the "why" question but since I consider it as my own personal preference. I think it would be best not to potentially derail this thread trying to defend my personal preference.

The "why" is important because it gets at the fundamental mindset of supercell developers. It taps into their soul and holds clues to the future of clash of clans.

If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say Darian's/SS response on this topic will be something like the following:

The devs want to keep things feeling fresh. They want new metas to form. They don't want attack strategies to get stale, which could cause boredom in players. Thus, they felt overhauling troop A.I. was a way to do this.

Darian described this sentiment in the Q&A video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

It's pretty well caused an outrage here as well, hence the call for details to be shared. And I can agree that the "why" definitely takes a backseat to the "what", but in this particular case, a lot of people are wondering "why", now that we're starting to figure out "what". Why fix what wasn't broken on the main base? Though I bet the answer has to do with it being easier to change all of the AI instead of just BB.

---

I'll be honest, I'm struggling a bit with the new AI, too, but I wouldn't exactly say that there wasn't anything "broken" in the main base. One of the issues that players have long been complaining about is that while they see the entire map, their troops don't. Having troops with limited vision, or with variable vision has always caused inconsistencies. There are also inconcistencies around seeing specific elements. A troop might be able to see the townhall, but from the same spot it might not be able to see the EAGLE when placed in the exact same spot as the Townhall. I've had many times when I wished my troops could see the EAGLE or past a random wall pieces dead zone.

My guess would be that previously, computing power and device API limitations forced Supercell to limit troop "vision" but now some of those limits no longer exist. It's my firm belief that the only way you can have the best AI is to not limit what the troops can see on the map, but to let them see the map as we do. That doesn't mean that I think a golem should wander all over the map or valks should ignore the threat in front to go after a corner hut. I'm only saying that in order to have a shot at making the right decision, troops have to be able to weigh both options. Previously, they didn't even know it was there.

As for geting detailed info with more granularity, I agree. I'd love to see more writeups of what to expect and even a little before-and-after video. For example, when poison was changed so that troops won't just sit there soaking it up, I remember seeing a short video that showed how troops would step outside the radius. More of that would be great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrideOfSharky

I'll be honest, I'm struggling a bit with the new AI, too, but I wouldn't exactly say that there wasn't anything "broken" in the main base. One of the issues that players have long been complaining about is that while they see the entire map, their troops don't. Having troops with limited vision, or with variable vision has always caused inconsistencies. There are also inconcistencies around seeing specific elements. A troop might be able to see the townhall, but from the same spot it might not be able to see the EAGLE when placed in the exact same spot as the Townhall. I've had many times when I wished my troops could see the EAGLE or past a random wall pieces dead zone.

My guess would be that previously, computing power and device API limitations forced Supercell to limit troop "vision" but now some of those limits no longer exist. It's my firm belief that the only way you can have the best AI is to not limit what the troops can see on the map, but to let them see the map as we do. That doesn't mean that I think a golem should wander all over the map or valks should ignore the threat in front to go after a corner hut. I'm only saying that in order to have a shot at making the right decision, troops have to be able to weigh both options. Previously, they didn't even know it was there.

As for geting detailed info with more granularity, I agree. I'd love to see more writeups of what to expect and even a little before-and-after video. For example, when poison was changed so that troops won't just sit there soaking it up, I remember seeing a short video that showed how troops would step outside the radius. More of that would be great.

---

Nice to know details, i think troops need to manage if the building in front behind walls.is or isn't worth than a building 30 tiles away, healers are crazy too their just leave the first group to heal up the second part of the attack even if the two groups are correctly separated like in the past, but great to know that there are less program limitations.

Can we get SC to add an option for the warden to just take himself out when the healers leave the queen and target the warden?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrideOfSharky

I'll be honest, I'm struggling a bit with the new AI, too, but I wouldn't exactly say that there wasn't anything "broken" in the main base. One of the issues that players have long been complaining about is that while they see the entire map, their troops don't. Having troops with limited vision, or with variable vision has always caused inconsistencies. There are also inconcistencies around seeing specific elements. A troop might be able to see the townhall, but from the same spot it might not be able to see the EAGLE when placed in the exact same spot as the Townhall. I've had many times when I wished my troops could see the EAGLE or past a random wall pieces dead zone.

---

I didn't mean to imply that the AI was perfect, or even really that good. It definitely had its flaws, and people definitely complained about it. But it was workable. Some things didn't make sense and were aggravating, but it was at least relatively consistent. Regardless of how good or bad we all thought it was though, it did need improvement. I can agree to that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrideOfSharky

My guess would be that previously, computing power and device API limitations forced Supercell to limit troop "vision" but now some of those limits no longer exist. It's my firm belief that the only way you can have the best AI is to not limit what the troops can see on the map, but to let them see the map as we do. That doesn't mean that I think a golem should wander all over the map or valks should ignore the threat in front to go after a corner hut. I'm only saying that in order to have a shot at making the right decision, troops have to be able to weigh both options. Previously, they didn't even know it was there.

---

That's an explanation that makes sense to me on a technical level. I wish it (or whatever may be correct) would come from someone that doesn't have to guess, but it's food for thought, at least. And I'm not of the mind that the new AI is trash. I know a lot of people don't like it, but I personally think that has a lot to do with not being familiar with it. Once people start to understand it and get accustomed to it, we might like it more. But before we learn and understand it, we're going to have a lot go wrong with our attacks that we aren't necessarily expecting. So detail exactly what changed so that we can study and learn the new rules on our own terms. Not just when an attack goes sideways and we have to watch the replay and say, "Oh, well, I guess Valks are gonna run off for that builder hut instead of attacking the wall. That's good to know."

The thing that surprises me most about this is SC has been pretty firm with making subtle adjustments to the war matchmaker. The logic has been to do subtle changes instead of radical sweeping changes as to not throw everything for a loop. Yet they did exactly that with the AI overhaul. Whether it's good in the long run or not remains to be seen, but to change something so radically without any note beyond "Improvements on troop attack position selection" is surprising to say the least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2222

Can we get SC to add an option for the warden to just take himself out when the healers leave the queen and target the warden?

---

Wow I would love this. I have failed several war attacks from this.

Just gonna leave this here...
http://i66.tinypic.com/awok5u.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

It's pretty well caused an outrage here as well, hence the call for details to be shared. And I can agree that the "why" definitely takes a backseat to the "what", but in this particular case, a lot of people are wondering "why", now that we're starting to figure out "what". Why fix what wasn't broken on the main base? Though I bet the answer has to do with it being easier to change all of the AI instead of just BB.

---

Well, Super(not all that super anymore) Cell's philosophy is obviously "if it ain't broke then break it". Maybe if they had a truly "Super" team (as in adding members to their "sleeping" cells") they could have actually truly fixed something instead of breaking everything so it all matches now. But alas, and as the cells are so tiny that they are borderline useless - have to spend time on ordering lunch I am sure - and then have meetings to discuss having meetings - and other very busy stuff; they have to shoot for easy instead of effective. Really sad! OFC this is just my opinion based on what I see.:unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TADP0LE

Just gonna leave this here...
http://i66.tinypic.com/awok5u.png

---

Tadpole - it obvious that the AQ finds that piece of wall very offensive and it MUST GO! All the other things - like cannons and teslas and stuff shooting at her really are inconsequential. Maybe this "fix" gives us an insight into the thought process of the developers?

I remember reading your last thread, and couldn't agree any more. Same with this one. I have an odd fascination with the small stuff. I usually am more interested in that sort of stuff the main updates. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TADP0LE

Just gonna leave this here...
http://i66.tinypic.com/awok5u.png

---

Moments like this I wanna pull my hair out

Oh Tadpole that sucks!

The AQ is on crack in my opinion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TADP0LE

Just gonna leave this here...
http://i66.tinypic.com/awok5u.png

---

^^this is exactly what happens when you had 9 extra shots by accident last night! #hangover #brainfreezed. #Horrible_AI
lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady Maverick

^^this is exactly what happens when you had 9 extra shots by accident last night! #hangover #brainfreezed. #Horrible_AI
lol.

---

Failing to see how you had them by accident !! I do it on purpose but it still doesn't make my attacks look any better !! :)

Although I'd absolutely love to get the details and reasoning behind the AI changes, I think cnaf was right on the money with his comment earlier in the thread. Thus sadly, I doubt it'll happen :( yet hopefully await Darian proving me wrong.

I too would absolutely love to see the technical details of every change they make. I play in league wars and put a lot of time and effort into understanding the way troops move, see, and interact with buildings and each other. Changes to their AI are extremely important. I know I’m not even close to being alone on this. SC and Darian really need to share details with us hardcore guys. We’ll eat it up!

100 % cnaf

balance

Has anyone else had troops go back and forth between structures (and not attack/shoot them) so much that they die before they even start attacking or shooting anything?
I have watched troops like pekkas, valks, and giants do this so many times.

yes,I´ve seen it too

:thumbsup: Agreed. Please disaggregate.

Just happened in war.... :mad::mad:

https://i.imgur.com/PenSIZZ.jpg




Final result
https://i.imgur.com/seGqTOn.jpg


Nice work Queen. Nice. :thumbsdown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aRtikMania

Just happened in war.... :mad::mad:

https://i.imgur.com/PenSIZZ.jpg




Final result
https://i.imgur.com/seGqTOn.jpg


Nice work Queen. Nice. :thumbsdown:

---

Wow, it's rough.
I cannot control my queen anymore since the update.

Still no reply from a SC rep, pretty sad. You change the entire game, then just throw us to the wolves. But do we expect anything less? Lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheOldGods

Still no reply from a SC rep, pretty sad. You change the entire game, then just throw us to the wolves. But do we expect anything less? Lol

---

It's all good though, we got builder base level 7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GarinOregonHeavy

It's all good though, we got builder base level 7.

---

Don't forget builder base lvl8 is ready to go as well.

The improvement done in A.I. of all troops is very dangerous !!!. Yesterday in my Builder hall base sneaky archer is not targeting the right gold mine in front of her, but the building besides that gold building and hidden tesla killed her.......:mad:

Frustrated players spend gems to attempt to buy their way out of dependence on things they can't control. It's one of the core mechanics of the business model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaronjs

Frustrated players spend gems to attempt to buy their way out of dependence on things they can't control. It's one of the core mechanics of the business model.

---

Great, except this thread isn't about independence or gem spending, it's about transparency. And I'd like to keep it that way. We aren't gonna get any reply from Darian if this thread gets shut down for going off the rails.

Now, if someone would be so kind as to bring out the tools we use to summon Darian...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darian[Supercell]

WHO SUMMONS ME FROM MY SLU...err...FROM MY DESK AT THIS NOT-REALLY-SPAWN-FORSAKEN HOUR? You didn't obey the proper summoning ritual and provide me with In N Out Burgers.

---

Apparently it involves offerings of food... :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarthPat

Apparently it involves offerings of food... :)

---

But I don't live in California. And I don't think they would stay hot while shipping to Helsinki, so I'm at a bit of a loss if I can't just say pretty please

Agreed! These details are integral!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaronjs

Frustrated players spend gems to attempt to buy their way out of dependence on things they can't control. It's one of the core mechanics of the business model.

---

It depends on why they are frustrated. If it because things are moving too slow....then that would be correct. They attempt to buy their way to a faster result. If it is game play...then players do NOT buy gems....they quit once they have had enough.

This discussion is for the later....

Darian,

Any feedback at all on MM? something involving trends? Something other than anecdotal evidence from the forums?

I asked a couple of times for some numbers that would indicate the direction we are taking. Something like percentage of wars decided by tie-breaker before and after MM tweaks, and same for wars decided by five or more stars.

If we cannot get the actual numbers, is there some qualitative feedback you could give us, such as number of ties is more than before, number of wars is down, size of wars is up.

Anything that would inform the discussion would be welcome.

Thanks. Clash on.

I agree OP, would love more details on this so we can have an idea on how are troops are gonna path!

z

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TADP0LE

Just gonna leave this here...
http://i66.tinypic.com/awok5u.png

---

Time to hit that red button and start again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

But I don't live in California. And I don't think they would stay hot while shipping to Helsinki, so I'm at a bit of a loss if I can't just say pretty please

---

Like so so soooo many threads on AI changes before, it seems the official stance from supercell is silence. This thread and a few others documenting the AI changes has been out for days and we have heard nothing back, despite a specific supercell employee posting on other threads a few hours ago. I'm getting really frustrated with the player base obviously trying to figure out the new mechanics, then figure out what caused them and asking questions the whole time, and nothing. Troops changing behaviour is a massive change and all we get are "oh it's too much work to explain, k bye."

I wouldn't be holding your breath for an official explanation based on the track record

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithaminator

Like so so soooo many threads on AI changes before, it seems the official stance from supercell is silence. This thread and a few others documenting the AI changes has been out for days and we have heard nothing back, despite a specific supercell employee posting on other threads a few hours ago. I'm getting really frustrated with the player base obviously trying to figure out the new mechanics, then figure out what caused them and asking questions the whole time, and nothing. Troops changing behaviour is a massive change and all we get are "oh it's too much work to explain, k bye."

I wouldn't be holding your breath for an official explanation based on the track record

---

Nah, I started breathing again when he went the day without posting here. But this thread isn't just about the AI. That's definitely the catalyst, but it also applies to any intricate change that happens. The example I gave in the OP was in regard to the Dec '15 update. That was great. Major changes, the introduction of major content, significant rebalancing...I think all of that is deserving of a little more than a mention.

But yeah, I would like to start with the AI this time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

Great, except this thread isn't about independence or gem spending, it's about transparency. And I'd like to keep it that way. We aren't gonna get any reply from Darian if this thread gets shut down for going off the rails.

Now, if someone would be so kind as to bring out the tools we use to summon Darian...

---

My point was that everything about this game that frustrates players, including AI, is intended to entice players to buy and spend gems. SC has a vested interest in having as little transparency as possible about this issue. I am a skeptic and have very serious doubts that after 5 years there are still unintended AI problems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

Nah, I started breathing again when he went the day without posting here. But this thread isn't just about the AI. That's definitely the catalyst, but it also applies to any intricate change that happens. The example I gave in the OP was in regard to the Dec '15 update. That was great. Major changes, the introduction of major content, significant rebalancing...I think all of that is deserving of a little more than a mention.

But yeah, I would like to start with the AI this time

---

100% agree with you, but I seriously doubt it'll happen. Forum doesn't even represent 1% of the player base and the other 99% of players may either not have even noticed the changes or simply think that they are dropping their troops slightly differently to what they were before.

Releasing actual AI mechanics and the reasoning behind them would give forumers a distinct advantage over people that didn't read them. I know they'd be posted on reddit and the official wiki as well as various fan sites but even so I doubt even a quarter of the player base would read and digest the information.

By not publicising the details, all of the players are in the same boat, where nobody is quite sure why troops are doing what they are.

Queen is doing some odd stuff. The pictures in here are great evidence of what we are all seeing. My Queen seems to prefer to hit benign structures instead of the ones killing her. She will seriously target every single benign structure first, even going out of her way to avoid the defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaronjs

My point was that everything about this game that frustrates players, including AI, is intended to entice players to buy and spend gems. SC has a vested interest in having as little transparency as possible about this issue. I am a skeptic and have very serious doubts that after 5 years there are still unintended AI problems.

---

But this is the sort of frustration that drives players away, not gets them to buy gems. What do I buy to understand the AI better? How many gems do I have to spend for a post explaining the AI to pop up? I don't think that's the issue here. I know they aren't super excited about transparency, but our update notes have seen a significant uptick in quality and quantity of information being released. So we are at least moving in a good direction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaz1966

100% agree with you, but I seriously doubt it'll happen. Forum doesn't even represent 1% of the player base and the other 99% of players may either not have even noticed the changes or simply think that they are dropping their troops slightly differently to what they were before.

Releasing actual AI mechanics and the reasoning behind them would give forumers a distinct advantage over people that didn't read them. I know they'd be posted on reddit and the official wiki as well as various fan sites but even so I doubt even a quarter of the player base would read and digest the information.

By not publicising the details, all of the players are in the same boat, where nobody is quite sure why troops are doing what they are.

---

That's something cnaf brought to my attention, and something I'm afraid is a very real possibility. But it also doesn't make a lot of sense. Attack strategies and base layouts are both things that a player can take initiative to look into. A player who takes the time to watch YouTube videos to learn about attacks is going to be at an advantage over someone who doesn't. If Supercell's philosophy is to keep the players like us, the ones who study and share information of all kinds with one another, even with Joe Blow who couldn't tell you what gowipe is, it won't happen.

The thing is, SC post or not, we will get the details about the AI. Some great forumers have already run tests and done experiments to see exactly what our troops are doing. So it's not a matter of if we'll know what's going on, it's when. For them, posting the information is (should be) more about a showing of good faith towards their most hardcore and vested players. Not about tipping the scales in our favor. It saves us from frustration and trial and error, and it doesn't put us in any greater an advantage than we'll already gain for ourselves

Yeah, but it's like the war MM isn't it..... We think we have a pretty good understanding of how it works, but really, it's all based on observation and supposition. We don't actually know. There are obvious reasons why telling us about that would be bad, and I tend to think those same reasons are applied to troop AI too.

My own thinking on this (based purely on the screenshots in this thread) is that it's possible that the AQ's AI is looking further ahead than simply the next target, and that there is some weighting involved too. Why shoot a wall next to an x-bow (which she could reach) unless she is trying to get to the TH, which is still standing in the first image ? TH is obviously a desired target if your AI is programmed to look ahead at things like that. It's possible some of the AI changes implemented a 'look ahead' much like the AI in chess or Go, where multiple different moves and outcomes are examined. I don't think it's that deep, but I do think it's a possibility that (certainly heroes at least) are 'looking' at more than just the next target.

AQ has always liked shooting walls though so I could be waaay off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

But this is the sort of frustration that drives players away, not gets them to buy gems. What do I buy to understand the AI better? How many gems do I have to spend for a post explaining the AI to pop up? I don't think that's the issue here. I know they aren't super excited about transparency, but our update notes have seen a significant uptick in quality and quantity of information being released. So we are at least moving in a good direction.



That's something cnaf brought to my attention, and something I'm afraid is a very real possibility. But it also doesn't make a lot of sense. Attack strategies and base layouts are both things that a player can take initiative to look into. A player who takes the time to watch YouTube videos to learn about attacks is going to be at an advantage over someone who doesn't. If Supercell's philosophy is to keep the players like us, the ones who study and share information of all kinds with one another, even with Joe Blow who couldn't tell you what gowipe is, it won't happen.

The thing is, SC post or not, we will get the details about the AI. Some great forumers have already run tests and done experiments to see exactly what our troops are doing. So it's not a matter of if we'll know what's going on, it's when. For them, posting the information is (should be) more about a showing of good faith towards their most hardcore and vested players. Not about tipping the scales in our favor. It saves us from frustration and trial and error, and it doesn't put us in any greater an advantage than we'll already gain for ourselves

---

It's true that some players will be driven away by frustration but those are the types of players who are unlikely to buy gems in the first place. There are also people who will decide that the best way to overcome poor and unpredictable AI is more powerful troops and heroes....right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aaronjs

It's true that some players will be driven away by frustration but those are the types of players who are unlikely to buy gems in the first place. There are also people who will decide that the best way to overcome poor and unpredictable AI is more powerful troops and heroes....right now.

---

I have 40/38 royals. Gemmed the last 5 lvls of my queens time because I didn't want to attack without her and I chose to pay supercell for thag privilege. Gemming a troop or hero upgrade so they shop stronger isn't going to fix my attacks? It does infuriate me. I'm far more likely to quit playing a game who's rules keep changing than to pay the game more money to be better at being confused. I doubt there's anyone foolish enough to think another gol lvl will make the gol ignore the outside defence it walked half a map to get to, or another queen level will make the queen stay in the core instead of repathing to the outside, but they would consider leaving the game

You will never get this information. They want you in the dark. The more chance there are to your attacks, the more you struggle, the more they think you will play.

This mindset supercell has, may have worked for a little bit, but it has no longevity. They refuse to add end-game content and instead keep trying to get us to re-learn the same stuff over and over. They increase the amount of "chance" and decrease the amount of "skill" needed to 3 star a base with each update.

I know why they do it, they do it to combat the flood of information out there and the ease at which people could 3 star a base once certain tactics hit the mainstream internet channels. If you remember about 3 years ago everyone was getting 3 stars and I assume supercell (and probably the community) felt that if the game was too easy people would get bored and quit.

They decided to slowly remove skill from the game, just a little at a time, and replace it with chance. Chance is uncontrollable, no amount of internet research can combat chance. The only way to be sure that you will get a 3 star is to attack 1 or 2 townhalls lower. Overpowering a base is about the only way to combat the chance they have built in. Hence the explosion of engineered bases the last couple years.

So, no, you will never get these details and that is purposeful. They do want you to struggle, it is what they hope will keep you playing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithaminator

I have 40/38 royals. Gemmed the last 5 lvls of my queens time because I didn't want to attack without her and I chose to pay supercell for thag privilege. Gemming a troop or hero upgrade so they shop stronger isn't going to fix my attacks? It does infuriate me. I'm far more likely to quit playing a game who's rules keep changing than to pay the game more money to be better at being confused. I doubt there's anyone foolish enough to think another gol lvl will make the gol ignore the outside defence it walked half a map to get to, or another queen level will make the queen stay in the core instead of repathing to the outside, but they would consider leaving the game

---

Think of how foolish the average person is, and then realize, half of them are more foolish than that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ClasherClash443

You will never get this information. They want you in the dark. The more chance there are to your attacks, the more you struggle, the more they think you will play.

This mindset supercell has, may have worked for a little bit, but it has no longevity. They refuse to add end-game content and instead keep trying to get us to re-learn the same stuff over and over. They increase the amount of "chance" and decrease the amount of "skill" needed to 3 star a base with each update.

I know why they do it, they do it to combat the flood of information out there and the ease at which people could 3 star a base once certain tactics hit the mainstream internet channels. If you remember about 3 years ago everyone was getting 3 stars and I assume supercell (and probably the community) felt that if the game was too easy people would get bored and quit.

They decided to slowly remove skill from the game, just a little at a time, and replace it with chance. Chance is uncontrollable, no amount of internet research can combat chance. The only way to be sure that you will get a 3 star is to attack 1 or 2 townhalls lower. Overpowering a base is about the only way to combat the chance they have built in. Hence the explosion of engineered bases the last couple years.

So, no, you will never get these details and that is purposeful. They do want you to struggle, it is what they hope will keep you playing.

---

I think in this line too. They did not so much change the AI as add inconsistency to it. Like a golemn may wander to a far away mortar in this attack, but if you repeat the attack, it wont act the same way?

Apart from said reasons, is this how they hope to better deal with modders?

You got my vote!

Im little skeptical about sharing AI info, but I do expect dev's respond to our feedbacks.

I understand that sometimes we just have to adapt to changes, and its fine.
But the new AI has its flaws and should be fixed, people around here gave countless examples to different troops' behaviour that is just wrong(!)

So even tho the forum is just a small part of the community, we still have impact.
After all they did post a thread about October Update Feedbacks, so I want to belive they want our voice to minimize bugs in the game.

Right now, while we are trying to adapt to the new AI, its flaws happens to often. And we are confused rather its AI flaw or the troop really need to go that way.

As much as I agree with Tiler on this subject, I have concluded from past experience that we won't get a response.

I am still waiting on Anoushka 'I'll check with the team and get back to you tomorrow' regarding the silent loon AI change from the June balancing update.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevejnr

I am still waiting on Anoushka 'I'll check with the team and get back to you tomorrow' regarding the silent loon AI change from the June balancing update.

---

Ugh, thanks for that reminder. I recall a similar promise when the forums were in a frenzy about the Reddit link that had appeared. I found the post you're talking about. That's the last post that was made she's made that wasn't an announcement.

Some say she's still looking for answers about the Loon AI...

Anyway, thanks to a lot of you for crushing my naïve optimism. It was good to be hopeful for a day, but it's about time I get my expectations grounded again. I maintain that the note we got in the update thread borders on dishonest for as wild an understatement as it is, and absolutely needs to be expanded on. But I can also see that I asked too much this time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stevejnr

As much as I agree with Tiler on this subject, I have concluded from past experience that we won't get a response.

I am still waiting on Anoushka 'I'll check with the team and get back to you tomorrow' regarding the silent loon AI change from the June balancing update.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

Ugh, thanks for that reminder. I recall a similar promise when the forums were in a frenzy about the Reddit link that had appeared. I found the post you're talking about. That's the last post that was made she's made that wasn't an announcement.

Some say she's still looking for answers about the Loon AI...

Anyway, thanks to a lot of you for crushing my naïve optimism. It was good to be hopeful for a day, but it's about time I get my expectations grounded again. I maintain that the note we got in the update thread borders on dishonest for as wild an understatement as it is, and absolutely needs to be expanded on. But I can also see that I asked too much this time

---

im glad to see I’m not the only one still waiting for Anoushka to get back on that subject...
Btw - I was watching the Reddit vs Forum stream and to me it looked like they struggled some with the new AI. Just saying...

I would have to agree with the OP on this one. It would be invaluable to just know the range of eyesight, or how much that has changed, for example, golem will target open defense within x number of spaces now instead of the x number it used to. That really only seems fair. Truthfully it is making my "attack...and cancel...scout again...repeat at least 15 times" into more of a 20+ times kind of thing...so I personally could use a little reprieve.

Would be nice to get some stats. Seen a few war fails now from valks targeting. Dropped 8 valks same spot and got 3 different destinations. Makes it more of a slot machine than a calculated attack. Pls share more detailed info. Some of us care to see it. Thx in advance.

Ok....So what will happen if they shared full specs and tech detail about troop al change?
Does your queen will start avoid walls?
Does your valks will not choose different targets even if they dropped on same spot at same time?
What I understand about this game is such information will not gonna help at all to plan your attacks.
Because you can plan where to put troop, but how can you determine after that where it will go?
For example in case of AQ walk queen will take nearest target first, but to take down that she can take every possible route and most of time she found a wall and you can't changed it even if you have all the stats.
So, in my opinion not sharing the "granular" detail is just fair enough move.

change in AI cost us a war. our top player was able to 2 star but with changed AI royals didnot go where they used to go. and ended up with 1 star.

grannular details are needed to adjust attack strategy.

You guys talking about AI?
Attachment 206331

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Neminoppan

im glad to see I’m not the only one still waiting for Anoushka to get back on that subject...
Btw - I was watching the Reddit vs Forum stream and to me it looked like they struggled some with the new AI. Just saying...

---

Reddit thread first got moved. And then closed without any response from anoushka,
It's not just saying. There was lots of examples found which had AI issues. I thought of taking screenshot of each and share. But when I'm pretty sure I'm not gonna get any response, I don't wanna waste my time, you know,,, time is precious!!

Maverick, I wouldn't have wasted my time taking screenshots and uploading them to SC either. You're literally wasting your time. So well done on realising this!

They will not get back to you, they will not help you, they will not try to improve your gaming experience. They are about the builder base and the money it makes. I hope to see some SIGNIFICANT main base content near the end of the year. Let's hope shall we.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeepBop

You guys talking about bad AI?
Attachment 206331

---

That one actually makes sense. Your BM is trying to get at the GP troop that's attacking him. That AI is familiar and has had to be dealt with since this game came out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JONSNO

Ok....So what will happen if they shared full specs and tech detail about troop al change?
Does your queen will start avoid walls?
Does your valks will not choose different targets even if they dropped on same spot at same time?
What I understand about this game is such information will not gonna help at all to plan your attacks.
Because you can plan where to put troop, but how can you determine after that where it will go?
For example in case of AQ walk queen will take nearest target first, but to take down that she can take every possible route and most of time she found a wall and you can't changed it even if you have all the stats.
So, in my opinion not sharing the "granular" detail is just fair enough move.

---

Okay, but with the proper knowledge you know whether she's going to target a wall or not. If you know what might happen during an attack, you can adapt to it better. If you know that troops are more likely to not attack a wall, you might bring more wallbreakers. Saying that having this information wouldn't help beyond the first couple seconds of an attack is flat out wrong

I think its pretty obvious what happened. They took the (always perfect and cutting edge) AI of the builder machine and applied it to the bk and aq.

Sarcasm implied...

Who would've thunk by giving troops greater visual distance would make them worse? An apparent increase in ability is actually a nerf to the previous AI.

After four years and several "adapt or quit" AI overhauls I'm getting tired of adapting. It's neither fresh or a new challenge. It smells of lacking in ideas to improve game play and moving goal posts to buy time under the banner of "keeping it fresh". One seemingly insignificant sentence in the "detailed" release notes yet changes the entire game play is more sneaky than detailed!

But the SILENCE after massive changes is getting OLD too. A change to the AI of this magnitude deserves more than one sentence and at least some explanation. But in the GAME so everyone gets the same information.

Sorry Tiler, looks like SC have ignored your completely reasonable thread completely. So sad. Just shows what they think of us eh? AI is a vital part of the game. They can't even take the time to explain their changes.

edit: funny how I see certain people in charge posting in other random threads that have nothing to do with possible sensitive issues, but ignoring the important ones ;)

Ah well, at least they're transparant in their behaviour and what it shows us about their thought process, if not transparant with what they did to the AI.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darian[Supercell]

The Jump Spell provides a temporary pathing option for troops where there usually wouldn't be one (ie - over walls), but if a path of less resistance (ie - another path or broken wall or greater threat) your troops will take that path. The Jump Spell doesn't automatically pull troops to it if there are better paths around the obstacle. This is why using the Jump Spell can require some careful planning and skill.

---

Well here is some granular detail. This may start to explain why troops are walking around inferno towers to hit other defensive structures, the golem's pathing changes depending on what defensive structures are behind the walls and why sometimes bowlers go on walkabouts.

Back to play testing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skydvr74

Well here is some granular detail. This may start to explain why troops are walking around inferno towers to hit other defensive structures, the golem's pathing changes depending on what defensive structures are behind the walls and why sometimes bowlers go on walkabouts.

Back to play testing...

---

That's like looking a granule through the wrong end of a set of binoculars. Yes, it's information, but it's vague at best and doesn't really explain anything.

Though maybe if we log everything Darian says, we'll be able to write our own post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tiler

That's like looking a granule through the wrong end of a set of binoculars. Yes, it's information, but it's vague at best and doesn't really explain anything.

Though maybe if we log everything Darian says, we'll be able to write our own post

---

If we create a details thread out of only Darian posts, you think he'd reply to that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mithaminator

If we create a details thread out of only Darian posts, you think he'd reply to that?

---

Do it in Off-Topic. That seems to be to the place he spends the most time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rephren

Sorry Tiler, looks like SC have ignored your completely reasonable thread completely. So sad. Just shows what they think of us eh? AI is a vital part of the game. They can't even take the time to explain their changes.

edit: funny how I see certain people in charge posting in other random threads that have nothing to do with possible sensitive issues, but ignoring the important ones ;)

Ah well, at least they're transparant in their behaviour and what it shows us about their thought process, if not transparant with what they did to the AI.

---

yes, it is a bit funny, isn’t it....