 |
| |
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by punkbass2000
Precisely. You readily admit to little programming knowledge, yet continue to insist that everything you propose should be 'easy to fix'. I just can't fathom how you consider yourself superior to the dev. teams that create these massive computer games. |
Are you going to read my whole post or not? I proposed the reason is that it is easier on the Devs to not bother, since less work gets the job done. As someone said, against lesser players, who do not make decent defenses, such tactics can work, but experience players know better. Perhaps reasoning that massive AI cheats and many inexperienced players would satisfy the desire for AI (and later multiplayer), they didn't put forth as much effort as they could have.
And I know enough about programming to know that it would be an easy fix, but you clearly know less than me. Simply having the AI not engage in futile attacks would be a massive improvement, and that is not a big change. I've already proposed a method that could be used to tell wether the AI should attack or wait until it has more troops. A very numerical method (hence easy to code), but apparently you think this is somehow impossible to program, but I see no comments by you on how it wouldn't be possible.
I don't know why you are so gung-ho about the AI programming. It is ok, but it isn't great. That's true of many Civ-type games, and in Call to Power II, the community was able to make much better AI than what was shipped with the game. I know that will be the same here if the AI isn't improved a good bit from the Civ III.
I can only assume you have never programmed anything on a computer at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by punkbass2000
Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. THis is going nowhere. I simply think your idealism is a bit naive. |
I agree to disagree, but I don't think a pragmatic suggestion with a proposed simple method on how to implement it is naive.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vince278
|
|
Just looked at the poll results. The answer appears to be very clear on what people want.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nostromo
|
 |
Montréal, Québec
Mar 2002
time: 00:37
|
|
One element is missing: how about improving the gameplay? Some elements in Civ3 are fun, others are not doing it for me. Here are some of my pet peeves:
- Combat in Civ 3 is boring compared to SMAC. And it should be fun, since its HUGE part of game.
- Having to manage a zillion of cities is boring. (If you ask me, managing 12 cities is already too much) Of course, if you want to win, you have to build and manage a zillion cities. In other words, you either use ICS, or you lose. Of course, this is a central problem with all Civ games.
- It lacks depth somehow. I'm not talking about the depth of the simulation: Civ is not meant ot be a simulation. I'm talking about strategic depth, or gameplay depth. Why Civ has less depth than SMAC, for instance? It's hard to say. Because SMAC is more complex? Maybe. Why chess has more depth than Civ 1, Civ 2, SMAC and Civ 3 combined? Well, it's certainly not because it's more complex.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
Well... even one out of two would be better than nothing ;-)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I strongly doubt that any player could program a better AI than Mr Johnson (or whatever his name). The only problem with AI, other than the traditional problems, is the programmer is generally not a master player. Therefore, having a heuristic algorithm as part of the AI will greatly help matters. Or at least make it upgradable. |
And if you had the AI scripts editable, then the open source community would outdo what cIV comes with. It isn't any *one* player writing the script, it is a whole community of them, drawing upon advice from a whole community of expert players. The AI would get better, it is that simple.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vince278
|
|
Open sourcing may open a can of worms:
1. Everybody has their own idea of whats good and may not be able to come to a consensus.
2. We don't necessarily want the programmers to feel superfluous. We'll have less people (and incentive) working on add ons and future versions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drachasor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
How about no.
I thought you got a degree in Computer Science? You should know it's far more complicated than this.
Now go away. |
You aren't that familiar with how open source programming works, are you?
Or is that you think there'd be basically no one interested in improving cIV's AI? I guess you are saying that CtP II had more programming fans than Civ does? I would inform you all that having a programmable AI would even *attract* programmers from the open source community.
While I am not diminshing the value of the people at Firaxes, I think you are cutting the cIV community a more than a bit short. They'd have more people and hence more man-hours working on things. Since the game would be released, they'd have access to test results by very, very good players. They'd also have a larger pool of creative talent in designing the AI.
Does anyone have any good reasons to think a whole community couldn't outdo one person? With all due respect to Firaxas, it isn't like they are experts in the AI field. I am not buying the "no one can do better", for by itself it is extremely weak.
-Drachasor
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-07-2004 00:19
Drachasor got trolled. 
|
|