[quote who="Borg999" reply="7" id="3635177"] Districts really? Someone needs to call up Sid and friends and remind them that the Civ series is a civilization building game, not a city building game... Furthermore, you have to build districts in order to have certain buildings. That is just ridiculous. Heck, even city
haven't played too much stellaris, but the pacing is definitely atrocious if i play it at the intended speed it's too slow if i play it without pausing, the UI becomes frustrating if i play it by using the speed accelration controls and pausing for commands, i spend more time playing with the time controls than i spend playing the actual game i'm maybe 5% of the way through a 1v1 on the smallest map. in that muc
i've seen some forums that autosave periodically
recently, microsoft let a twitter bot "learn" from humans interacting with it and it became so offensive that Microsoft had to delete tweets it may be capable of inventing jokes ? if so that's pretty advanced i'm not asking for idiotic twit
real intelligent AI (not just components that don't coordinate in any optimal way) is a very hard problem simple modding can influence the scripting of individual components, but to actually write something that assesses the entire gamestate and decides what to do (like a "player"), you kind of need an API (eg. BWAPI) or SDK (eg. civ4) even with those tools, it's hard to imagine how there would be a good AI that gets written for free. only starcraft 1 got stuff done 10
exponential growth is always tricky to balance with cheating i think some solutions in other games have been to add more bonuses at different stages of the game for example, in the early game the AI can start with bonuses that help with the first few expansions and research in the later game, the AI can get bonuses that help with military and improvements it ends up being more fun that flat bonuses from the beginning
this type of game becomes completely useless the moment build orders become the optimal way to play the focus needs to be on adapting to random maps and reacting to what other players are doing or else it will become solved way too quickly randomness is a tricky thing to get right, especially when there's very little that can be actively done to disrupt other players' plans. in a normal RTS i'ts much easier because fog of war and lots of mana
i think the issue is that many of the more advanced strategy gamers have been around way too long to invest time in learning/mastering the beta or 1.0 version of games when they know it's just going to change and improve over time it's kind of unfortunate because it's better to get feedback early, but almost nobody knows how to ship a complete & finished game at release anymore so the veteran players are conditioned into waiting for patches + expansions
in a world where the developer has infinite resources... exploits are things that they would remove from the game strategies are things they would not remove
some developers put this as an option in the settings menu. i see no downsides with that
might be fun to play 4x-style empire-management gameplay with tower defense objectives. eventually you should get overrun, but the goal is to see how long you can survive.
some people reload a lot because nobody knows the detailed rules of the game until they have hundreds of hours of experience with it. 4X games are generally full of hidden mechanics and poorly explained gameplay systems. i'd say for most "competitive" strategy gamers (i.e. people who like adversarial games), the major difficulty in most 4X games comes from understanding the rules because tutorials cover a small fraction of what goes on. actually figuring out which decisions to mak
when an AI gets bonuses that humans don't, it's not as hard to make it a challenging adversary. it can even be better than "perfect" if perfection is defined by how well you can do without any bonuses. i personally wouldn't rate anything that doesn't play fair too highly, but it can still be fun to play against as long as the cheats/handicaps are designed appropriately. i do think that the personality and character of opposing empires becomes mor
it was more challenging than any other civ-like game I had played i don't know how much of that is because of cheats or because of intelligence. but from what I recall, it needed pretty heavy bonuses to stay challenging. RTS games didn't need to cheat anywhere near as much galciv2 had much more customization than regular civ games, so humans still had tons of interesting choices to make even when the AI cheated
for a lot of veteran strategy gamers "not worth playing" is the expected conclusion after spending enough time with most games strategy gaming nowadays is like chasing a mirage everyone has fond memories of some old game that was really fun when they were a novice and didn't know how to find the optimal tactic or play better than an AI. they remember it having a pretty hefty learning curve, so they will spend dozens of hours learning the systems in t
for a game like this, you kind of want people who will stick around. the best chance of that happening is if the game is 100% complete before going on sale also the game probably needs some really fun team-based mode i haven't played more than 2 hours, but i'm not sure the game will be deep enough or popular enough to survive off some 1v1 or free-for-all mode
[quote]Why is the bar set low for a game like this? Is anyone else disappointed? [/quote] the bar is low because all the strategy game developers have set it low. until customers expect competent AI, they won't ever get it because developers are lazy (translation: seeking profit instead of quality) chess has good AI because chess is ridiculously easy and simple, but also because tons of smart people have put a lot of effort into it</p
[quote quoting="post"] Greetings! Today I would like to ask you guys some questions about strategy games. 1. What specific features of diplomacy do you traditionally like the most? I want you to be as specific as you can be. Which parts of diplomacy from any game do you like the most? What parts do you remember long after playing the most? 2. Looking back, how many turns do your favorite games last? This is important to know the specific number
do you have a RSS feed?
tachyon sounds neat I can count the number of conveniently playable multiplayer strategy games on 1 finger
It's easy to call something outdated and leave it at that it's much harder to point to another 4X game that gets it right. "today's standards" are half-assed games like civilization 5 that are more like a simulation of empire than a strategy game that is interesting to play for people who know what they're doing you mention that other games have 'better ideas'. how many of them are intuitive and easy for the player to start making
galciv 2 gave extremely massive bonuses to the AI on higher difficulty levels, but I think they were constant throughout the whole game i think they'll add something like that if they haven't already
[quote who="OsirisDawn" reply="48" id="3463117"] Quoting The_Biz, reply 42so many people are just dismissing AI as some impossibly hard problem the AI in 4X games is terrible because developers are a combination of lazy, poor, and incompetent ... That is quite insulting. Or are you in any position to objectivly rate the effort of AI programmers?[/quote] it's not insulting or derogatory. it's jus
so many people are just dismissing AI as some impossibly hard problem the AI in 4X games is terrible because developers are a combination of lazy, poor, and incompetent if you put skill levels on a scale between 0 and 3000 (eg. some type of elo rating), then the AI you see in 4X games today is way less than 1000 getting it to 3000 might be hard when you want a game to run on a laptop, but that doesn't mean it can't play at 2000 or 2500 which migh
what differentiates "powerful magic" from the type of magic in all the civilization+magic games because people make those with adversarial multiplayer, so there must be some hope for balance usually creativity + ingenuity (hard AI problems) are only required to create strategies, not to execute them. eg. an AI doesn't need to understand how to create a strong custom sovereign in order to play as one eg. an AI can follow build orders without i