Vaul_Darkhour

[quote who="jpmcconnell" reply="7" id="3062358"]Why not simply have two different sliders? One for AI intelligence and one for AI bonus. Give us the option. If we want to play against the smartest AI brad can come up with but with no bonuses then by all means let us. If we want dumb AI but huge bonuses let us. This seems like such an easy and obvious fix that I'm amazed that its included on zero actual games that I can think of.[/quote] Yes I think this solution w

just have an option to auto-place..

updated to Brad's patch but no difference. enemy AI ignores even some of the basic goodie huts surrounding their cities no threat to my city from monsters and AI at all.. I can simply found my first city, recruit a few champions and walk around killing stuff and then wipe out an enemy AI's kingdom despite it having built numerous buildings, cities and units.. I don't even have to build one!! I know there is still balance iss

yes i agree, I've had the same issues.

[quote who="TorinReborn" reply="3" id="3061415"]The AI should not have whole map vision and know everything. The best games are when the AI needs to cheat the least. So for AI taking over your empty city AI should need to scout your city first.[/quote] Their city was bordering mine! They knew exactly where my city was and that my units weren't guarding it.

Yes I agree, but it should be the norm and how the AI is measured overall rather than what exists now. The current system almost hides the ability or inability of the AI behind bonuses so the end user has no real appreciation of how the uncrippled AI should handle with no bonuses.

I have started games of FE, where as a disclaimer I believe has moved in the right direction, but on Normal difficulty there is no incentive for me to build units and buildings in the early game despite having the option to build so many of them.. The AI is key to this and game balance. Ok sure there is an environment to explore and defeat but it needs to interact not simply sit there as fodder. The AI needs to WANT to win also, not simply sit there as a simple measure of your empire

yeah very annoying.. at least have an option to change it in the settings guys..

Nice to see you back on the forum Derek and a nice post to boot. Again is it my imagination or have the trees above been tweaked in FE or is it the perspective?

since these questions weren't answered in the last thread Brad... ------------------------------------------------------------ Are wind and water walking spell options? In the screenshots I've seen above you have toned down the appearance of dead tree forests it seems. Is this so? If so, this is a good thing because I have advocated, and still do, the remaking of the ugly thick dead trees ingame. The river reeds also imo need to be light

I'm reasonably impressed with the play and game in this thread although it is an aar which may hide some of the gameplay. I would concur with some comments made in this thread. Terraforming needs to be balanced (and a massive effort to cast) and the AI needs to be able to use it very well otherwise it needs to be scrapped. There are so many game ideas that are cool in concept but destroy the AI. Obviously the AI is still being worked upon and the AI's use

maybe champions should be primarily spell casters rather than beasts of battle.. then at least it gives reason, meaning and balance to tactical combat..

[quote who="Tomasp3n" reply="50" id="3048352"]But the AI is supposed to cheese spam rush. I just want it to be unpredictable. I want Bastard AI AND angelic AI. Friendly and Hostile, Stupid and Smart, Might and Magic. What I don't want is an AI that never rushes me, I just don't want it to ALWAYS rush me. I think I'm with Vaul on this one.[/quote] exactly..!! ;)

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="49" id="3047632"] "Need" is a 3 month coding process, minimum otherwise you'd just have players exploiting it. I've written this kind of AI for decades and it's a time sink, and for what? It's not even very fun. [/quote] because watching the AI play out ingame to see how it plays and how effectively it can mimic human decision making.. thats my idea of fun!

Whilst ganging up on a powerful enemy (human player) through diplomacy and force of arms is a good strategy to keep the game challenging, and I would hope this is a normal mechanic of the AI, I do hope its intelligently approached so its not annoyingly frustrating to the human player.

[quote who="Thormodr" reply="46" id="3047705"] Quoting Vallu751, reply 39For those thinking of the challenging at all costs AI vs a fun AI, here are links to a very good presentation on the topic by Soren Johnson. In case you haven't seen it yet. The presentation is an hour long, but the second link has just the slides, if you want to browse through it faster: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJcuQQ1eWWI http://www.designer-notes.com/PlayingToLose.zip &

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="43" id="3047625"]It's safe to assume that if Brad is successful, and we're all hoping he will be, the AI will kick your butt. It just will try to do it in a way that makes the game more interesting instead of devolving it into a spreadsheet game. You're acting like the AI is nerfed, but these posts by Brad are about making the AI more competitive. Let me clarify my point that you didn't understand from before. If B

[quote who="Satrhan" reply="33" id="3047404"] Yuck. That's completely the opposite of what I would like. I don't play games like this to have them over as quickly as possible, I play them to enjoy them. I enjoy exploring the map and expanding my empire. If I go to war with an AI player, I do it for reasons that make sense immersion wise; because they are controlling something I need, because they're doing something I don't like, because they attacked my friends, or becaus

[quote who="sweatyboatman" reply="32" id="3047391"] Not to be obnoxious but Brad is talking about real feedback from real users in a real game and you're talking about your response to a hypothetical situation in an unreleased game. I think Brad's real-world experience kinda trumps your particular understanding of the issue. And I do think you're misunderstanding what Brad is talking about. He's talking about making his game enjoyable. As he n

oh and specifically as far as early game strategy.. bring it on!! If as a player I cannot adapt (through multiple games) to the AI taking early advantage and rushing me, then I don't deserve to be playing the game imo or at least on normal difficulty. Once again, this shouldn't be a factor for every AI and then when it is... DIPLOMACY! Two things. 1. Necessity is the mother of invention. 2. Diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means.

[quote who="Frogboy" reply="26" id="3047328"] On harder levels (like challenging) I may do this kind of thing. But 20 years of AI writing has taught me that fun > cutthroat. My first AI for OS/2 had the AI doing all kinds of nasty stuff to players that the humans could do too but they were always too lazy to do. People hated it. At the end of the day, we're making a commercial game. My job is to make the AI beat you in a fair fight. S

One thing I don't understand is how you can develop and reach conclusions about the AI before all the AI is actually working and hooked up (AITraits)?

I've been saying it for a while... Please redo the dead trees!!.. They are plain ugly and chunky.. They need to be spindlier and cooler looking..

[quote who="Derek"] It helped answer the questions of “Who am I?” and “Why am I here?”. It gave some flavor and personality to the starting sovereigns. And it made the starting game feel different. I pitched the idea to the rest of the team. We hashed out the pros and cons. We could make it work with custom sovereigns if we tied it to their history (so if you picked Adventurer as your history you would get Relias’s starting q

nice..