[quote who="Frogboy" reply="12" id="3414860"] 2 of the 3 founders are professional AI developers and someone in here thinks we won't put effort into that? [/quote] this sounds unlikely: 1) there aren't enough resources to work on AI when there are lots of people on a project 2) reduce team size to 4 3) prioritize AI but I'd be happy if I'm wrong :)
let's hope the multiplayer is good reading between the lines, there will be 0 effort put into AI
modding probably isn't going to make a game popular, but it will prolong the life of a popular game there are exceptions like Minecraft or Little Big Planet, but I don't even consider content creation to be "modding" in those games because it's kind of the entire point multiplayer can actually make a game popular that isn't to say multiplayer belongs in every game and modding belongs in no games. it obviously depends on the
[quote who="flagyl" reply="11" id="3396566"] Quoting The_Biz, reply 10 multiplayer is almost necessary in any symmetric game that's a large chunk of games... Again, how do you know that? The games that I see that last forever (CounterStrike, NeverWinter Nights, Baldur's Gate) do have multiplayer, but also have modding. How can you be sure in your assertion that multiplayer is 'almost necessary in any symme
multiplayer is almost necessary in any symmetric game that's a large chunk of games...
The AI is actually pretty bad in absolute terms it needs massive cheats just to provide a challenge against a decent player although it may be good in relative terms, since most 4X games have terrible AI
I always thought a champions vs. monsters mode would be fun that part of the game is executed far better than the empire-management which the AI just can't do without insane bonuses it would be interesting to see if this is playable / balanced without forcing you down a specific path (eg. beastlord) maybe a mod could make it fleshed out a bit more
sounds like a job for modders
from the makers of Endless Space http://www.iceberg-games.com/index.php?dispatch=news.list screens: http://imgur.com/a/N8mne
[quote who="rithkil" reply="30" id="3389706"] Quoting The_Biz, reply 29 I think it needs a lot of refinement and balancing strategy game quality = proportional to how frequent, difficult, and interesting the decisions are FE/LH have a setup that allows for this, but it feels like the game can be very formulaic because there's no challenge that requires the player to adapt or think mayb
I think it needs a lot of refinement and balancing strategy game quality = proportional to how frequent, difficult, and interesting the decisions are FE/LH have a setup that allows for this, but it feels like the game can be very formulaic because there's no challenge that requires the player to adapt or think maybe the player can set up his own challenges (eg. win without using X, win without abusing Y, with with giving
the game is supposed to be about not having enough mana to do everything you want to do if you're not running out of mana all the time, maybe add more monsters and raise the difficulty
[quote who="Victor5" reply="57" id="3385675"] there are endless multiplayer options just in the 4x strategy world alone.[/quote] lol? Every game is completely dead except Civ V which is absolutely terrible calling Sins a 4X is a very big leap. Rise of Nations felt a lot closer I think the first and last multiplayer 4X worth playing was Civ IV. Given the state of the industry, it will probably remain that way for a long while until some RTS d
the game can't even function with proper multiplayer you would literally be staring at the screen doing nothing while other players are busy with tactical battles even if it's 1v1, you have fights against monsters at different turns so even that wouldn't work maybe it could support play-by-email, but you're talking about a fraction of a fraction of the already low player base who would care at that point
look at your CPU usage in SC2 vs SC1 lol that said custom AIs that people have written 10-15 years after Brood War came out use way more CPU and perform much better than the default AIs
cd projekt / valve and other popular & wealthy companies can afford to play nice even if Stardock releases a free update who is ever going to hear about it? they can only do what everyone else is doing: put the base game on some 50%-75% off sale and hope people buy the DLC...
does this have the expansions as mandatory? is the AI for the last one still worse than the previous ones?
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="4" id="3381852"] One advantage I have these days that I didn't used to have is thanks to the Internet and Skype, I can just ask Jon or Soren or Brian or some other AI coder a question and get their point of view or at the very least, cry with them.[/quote] also thanks to the Internet, you don't have to develop and sell games like a mass market title, because maybe better AI isn't going to be appreciated by the mass market...<
[quote who="Nick-Danger" reply="83" id="3380280"] If the above sounds a bit harsh, my apologies, but I hate the idea that when AI is not up to par, that the solution would be to dumb things down instead of improving the AI. I think the folks at SD are capable of giving us very good AI, much better than currently exists in the game. It'll just take some time and the will to do it.[/quote] I think with the current level of game development talen
[quote who="Frogboy" reply="55" id="3373812"] developers are absolutely clueless about how to play games, let alone write AI for them I used to play for PGL and used to be in diamond league in Starcraft and was the top ranked player in Total Annihilation's Boneyards's service. I like to think I can play. However, writing "good" AI for a game like this is very difficult because players often play the game in drastically different ways and often t
biggest problem is that level 5 is the end there needs to be level 6 & 7 and a cap on how much other cities can affect a single city's growth... spamming cities mindlessly shouldn't be so optimal
the 4X games are usually fine in terms of design the problem is AI developers are absolutely clueless about how to play games, let alone write AI for them you cannot have a rewarding symmetrical game where your choices matter in the beginning and in the end unless you play on crazy difficulties (which make the game asymmetrical) if you made the right decision, you should be rewarded for it with a huge advantage... taking that away
relying on your own production to win is impossible sometimes... it kind of forces you into the overpowered tactics that would be banned in a hypothetical multiplayer environment instead of being able to use all the strategies as they were designed the AI can get attack/defense that you cannot possibly have by that time period even with amazing land
I think FE will be more fun with an AI that is unpredictable rather than optimal it isn't a great symmetrical strategy game, so I'd prefer the rogue-like approach where luck matters more and excitement is created by not being able to predict the outcome of battles
just mp4 compression should be 1 GB / hour for a slow-paced game like FE