06-07-2004 21:33									#1
	best captured slave race? Remove this text

Silicoid.

even though they do breed slowly, they still rule. Usually if the silicoids are close to me I take them first. Silicoids are my #1 pick , and Alkari are my #2 pick. Alkari have artifacts homeworld ..$$

	06-07-2004 22:12									#2
	Inflate your Upload Space

Yea, silicoids, especially when they get lith/tol/+2 prod/sub.

	07-07-2004 00:13									#3
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Whoha Yea, silicoids, especially when they get lith/tol/+2 prod/sub.

I'd like to see the 'impossible' ai play uni/tol on a small map. that would definately be an interesting prewarp game, especially on small.

I wish they would've actually made the AI smarter rather than give them production/science bonuses, but I still think the ai in MOO2 is more refined than most ai.

	07-07-2004 00:27									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Dunnagan I wish they would've actually made the AI smarter rather than give them production/science bonuses, but I still think the ai in MOO2 is more refined than most ai.

You have to rememebr that when games are created they are not aimed at the players that will become experts at it.

If they spend more money to make a better AI, it will make the players on the bottom of the ladder not want to play.

You will only have one AI, so the only means of scaling the difficulty is to handicap the human in some way.

This can be done with bonus starting items and or making the human pay more for reserach/production. Games like Civ use both methods.

You have to understand that as a percentage the vast majority of buyers will never beat the game on even hard. So how much would it make sense to spend to make it tougher for a few elite players?

	07-07-2004 00:57									#5
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by vmxa1 You have to understand that as a percentage the vast majority of buyers will never beat the game on even hard. So how much would it make sense to spend to make it tougher for a few elite players?

Yes this is true. This is one of the reasons I am trying to make an AI that learns, and tries to go for a draw, and not to win. Otherwise it might get more elite than you. Games are most fun when its a close match, and that you have the feeling that if you make a slight mistake, you'll lose, and when you pull off your strategy and win, you feel great.

Back to topic. I like the Silicoids, but the Sakkra make good food farmers too. They usually end up on a poor terran world. Klackons are ok too, since they have +food and +prod, since I usually play unitol warlord.

	07-07-2004 01:52									#6
	Support Apolyton

Aside from best though, Population is population, the more of it you have the better.

	07-07-2004 02:09									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by vmxa1 You have to rememebr that when games are created they are not aimed at the players that will become experts at it. If they spend more money to make a better AI, it will make the players on the bottom of the ladder not want to play. You will only have one AI, so the only means of scaling the difficulty is to handicap the human in some way. This can be done with bonus starting items and or making the human pay more for reserach/production. Games like Civ use both methods. You have to understand that as a percentage the vast majority of buyers will never beat the game on even hard. So how much would it make sense to spend to make it tougher for a few elite players?

very good point.

maybe it's just me, and my perspective..But if I was at the bottom of the ladder getting beat on easy (considering I knew what all the techs were and how to play the game), I'd respect the designers for making such an insanely humanlike ai. a game that's tough to complete because of an advanced AI is seriously something alot of game magazines would compliment.

also getting beat by a machine over and over again on 'easy' due not to 'upped variables' (ie they get 5 spies at start, lame things like that) but to an adaptive AI that doesn't make the same mistake twice, that would fascinate me.

i remember when i first started playing moo2. klacks sent a battleship over but I only had a missile base, but before he got hit he'd retreat. computer did this about twenty turns before I could get a ship out, retreat, come back, retreat, come back. Things like this just make me sigh. imagine seeing a computer opponent's arrival at T30 on 'Average' with a cruiser,destroyer,and 2 scouts all armed with nukes, maneuvering the scouts like we do, etc..that would be insane.

not pre-planned actions, but actions they adapt to by decisions you make. /dream off

	07-07-2004 02:27									#8
	Remove this text

You may enjoy it, I may enjoy it, but most customers will just be mad.

If you think not, look at Age Of Wonders II. Experienced players had a hard time with the very first scenario in the first campaign.

They had to make a lower than easy setting to make it so most players could beat it. Do you think this was good for sales?

Not only did it hurt sales, but it cost them money to alter the game and issue a patch.

I have a lot of experience with helping friends learn to beat some of these games, so I know that even smart people will struggle without some experience.

I have seen any number of players losing at Chief on CivIII, so you have to realize hardcore gamers are not the norm.

Publishers cannot afford to make games geared for hard core players very often, as that will reduce its larger appeal.

	07-07-2004 02:59									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by vmxa1 If you think not, look at Age Of Wonders II. Experienced players had a hard time with the very first scenario in the first campaign.

They had to make a lower than easy setting to make it so most players could beat it. Do you think this was good for sales?
----------------------
I haven't played that one. Pretty lame to make the first level tough on the easy setting though, and I'd bet my wallet on payday that the difficulty was due to odds, rather than advanced ai.

quote: Not only did it hurt sales, but it cost them money to alter the game and issue a patch.

Yeah, I'd hate to be the guy that made the final decision on the difficulty for that first level. He probably got his ass handed to him at a meeting by an executive (this is microsoft I think, which gives me the corporation-type view of it)

quote: I have a lot of experience with helping friends learn to beat some of these games, so I know that even smart people will struggle without some experience.

Imagine seeing an AI opponent do this: He sends in a small force of his military (say archers, or a projectile unit). When you come to attack them, he backs off a little bit, but still firing arrows; bringing you away from your base, town, whatever to come kill it. It is then that he strikes you with an unseen force when you least expect it, for he had an couple of guys waiting for your troops to chase the other projectile units. now your undefended town is taken over, and any smart person would realize it's because of superior AI, and not a variable increase imbalancement.[/QUOTE]

quote: Publishers cannot afford to make games geared for hard core players very often, as that will reduce its larger appeal.

good point. however you get the gems, Dooms, X-Coms(why this game isnt multiplayer I don't know, I wish someone would make some network coding for it)

and of course my few personal favorites, river city ransom, super dodge ball, and mike tysons punch out. (Tyson was very difficult to defeat but everyone absolutely loved that game, reason being the difficulty was geared at the end of the game, rather than the beginning, like in AOW2)

I give the oriental designers of RCR props any day of the week; that game was "by far" the absolute best thing that could come out of an 8bit console.