Rendorax Rendorax

Don't expect the AI to get any better.

Don't expect the AI to get any better.

"If you can win ... you must be [cheating]." - Brad


A challenge that will take more time to deal with is that the computer players have reached the level where they are plenty tough for me. That is, unless I'm playing on a very specific setting or playing with a very specific style, the AI at higher than tough difficulties will cream me. My view is that anyone being 1.2 at anything higher than tough consistently is probably doing some sort of exploit at which point you just gotta decide whether you want to play a game or game the program? The AI doesn't "care" whether it loses. So if you figure out that you can some starbase/resource/ship combo or find some diplomacy trick to "Win" then knock yourself out. But I won't be spending my summer weekends trying to "fix" something like that.


I was just going over some of the past journals here, trying to get a feeling for the developers and the directions they intend to take the game, when I ran across this gem. Now, I think I understand Brad Wardell's remark in a previous thread I started, about finding Tough, Painful, and Crippling difficulty way too easy. He said that, basically, only cheap tactics could possibly win beyond Tough. I think I know why he said that now -- he, himself, despite designing and playing games for 15 years, according to the same journal post, can't win the game beyond that level. Argh.

Previously, I saw an interesting post from Brad Wardell on Civfanatics, where he said that he liked playing as the Romans on Small, Pangaea (one continent) worlds, in Civ 4. Ugh. Talk about cheap. If you're not familiar with Civ 4, the Romans have an insanely overpowered unique unit that stomps all over the rest of the world for quite some time -- certainly long enough to conquer a Tiny or Small, Pangaea world.

I don't like the insinuation that I must be using cheap tactics to win this game. The entire reason that I bought this game was because everyone kept talking about how the AI was so great and they had such a difficult time winning. I didn't buy it because it has no DRM (it does -- the fucking long ass serial number that I had to enter something like three times, when I installed the game), the "humor" (which generally consists of "I'm too lazy to enter any text here - ha ha, isn't that funny?", generic technobabble, or tedious, banal references to TV shows, and, worst of all, reads like some crap written by a fanboy (or Iliad, the dumbass who writes User Friendly)), the graphics or sound (which are essentially throw-away), or the "science fiction" background (which is total bullshit -- this game is about as scientific as Star Wars. I, too, used to hate it when people made a huge stink over whether Star Wars was "true SF" or whatever, but, as I progressed in my science background, I got more and more sensitive to what got classified as "science fiction", rather than "space opera" or "fantasy". As a result, I guess I'm much more a fan of what people'd call "hard science fiction", where the science actually makes sense. I do apologize for being such a wanker, in this respect. I still don't like those people so much, even though I've generally come to agree with them.).

Yes, yes, I know what you'll say. I'm being a nerd, and I can't relax and enjoy the game, for its humor. I hate this kind of humor. And, yes, I am a nerd. I've been a gamer for twenty five years (take that, Brad Wardell, with your paulty fifteen! I mean, hey, if we're going to be bragging here...). I used to write computer games like "The Political Machine" or whatever bullshit Stardock wrote before GalCiv. Back then, everyone was a programmer, because computer games were so rare (and, quite frequently, poorly done, so the bar was quite a bit lower than today). I also wrote quite a lot of fiction. Not all of it was good, to be sure, but I'd like to think that it was above the level of Master of Orion fanfic. I mean, really!! Is there no one amongst you who has ever played MOO? It's a one-to-one correllation, essentially: humans as diplomatics and traders, the mysterious "precursors", the powerful civilization that comes out of nowhere to randomly destroy colonies, starbases, etc. I could go on all fucking day.

I'm sick of people who don't have a creative bone in their body simply referencing pop culture. The Yor? Cylons. The Drengin? Klingons. Wink, wink. Yeah, I caught all the hidden references in the game. The same, tired, overused quotes and references to Star Trek, Hitchhiker's Guide, etc. I've heard people quote these things so often, I'm beginning to think that now I've got the entire movies, books, or TV shows memorized, too. I'd rather fill my head with useful information. I'm not obsessive-compulsive, but I'm starting to feel like I've been turned into one, thanks to all the fanboys on the internet.

Modding. Before I close, I just wanted to say that the back of the box lied. There is no modding in this game. This game is as moddable as a title from the 1990s! Oooh, you can change the names of the races! Ooooh, you can change the names of the techs! Do you people know what a true mod is? Try looking at Oblivion or Civ 4. You know what's sad? Alpha Centauri, released probably ten years ago, is just as moddable as this game, and it has more features, better music, more plot, actual science, insightful points (Lal's speech on freedom, for example), and the same horrible AI. Alpha Centauri was a great game, but it wasn't very moddable, and it was too easy. But -- here's the catch -- it was multiplayer. Tell me, Brad, exactly what features did Alpha Centauri have not implemented, due to being MP? It has more fucking features than your game!

Argh! MP! You know why this game doesn't have MP? It's because none of you people have the self-confidence or ability to play against another human being. I can't believe so many people here find this game difficult! You want to know what my strategy for winning on the high difficulty levels is? Here:

1) Rush a small handful of colony ships. You don't need all that many. The AI goes berserk in trying to colonize every single planet. Just take whatever it leaves you.
2) Ignore any threats. Without Planetary Invasion, they can't do shit. Much to my annoyance, neither can I.
3) Research a few diplomatic or influence technologies, as desired. The AI never researches either, so you'll have a monumental bonus to your diplomacy and/or influence soon.
4) Trade a few techs to the weakest AIs. They'll give up everything they have, just to have the scraps you feed them, thanks to your overwhelming diplomacy ability. Half of the AIs in the game will also be inexplicably stuck doing no research, on Genius and Incredible. Why? I don't know. Ask Brad. He's the one insinuating that my strategy is cheap. Because, as we all know, his AI is INCREDIBLE. My best guess is that he programmed them to spend every single dime they have buying colonizers. Why is that ridiculous lease system even in the game? The only reason I can fathom is because he wants to cripple half the AIs.
5) Build a token amount of defensive ships. Someone probably has Planetary Invasion by now. Or you probably do. Once, I did use a cheap tactic involving putting five lasers on a cargo hull. Hah! That was funny. The AI was scared to death of me for about 25-50 turns. No matter that the cargo ship had 1 hit point, no sensors, no life support, no defenses, no engine, nothing. Just five lasers. Yep, great AI that you'd have to use cheap tactics to beat. I became disgusted with myself for taking such bad advantage of his poor AI skills, and I swore to never do this again.
6) Build up your economic infrastructure. Build a starbase or two, build some trade ships, do a social project that makes money, whatever. They're all good choices, and the more, the better.
7) Build up more infrastructure, such as wonders. Or declare war on one of the AIs. Either works fine, at this point. Preferably, antagonize an Evil civilization into declaring war on you. If you want, antagonize a Good one, instead. If they declare war on you first, all your allies with intercede and no one will make a stink about you being too warlike. Or, if you feel like not being so diplomatic and sneaky, just declare war on everyone at once.
8) Make some ships that will utterly annihilate your chosen enemy. They probably haven't researched a single defensive tech, and they typically only research one single weapon tech. In the odd case that an AI has researched a defensive tech, simply take away one of the other components (such as a second engine or additional life support), and add another weapon. They never put more than one or two defensive structures on their ships.
9) Slaughter their entire fleet. This is the easiest part. It's like a knife through butter. I feel almost guilty destroying AI after AI like this, because they can't muster up the simplest challenge to my ship design. What the fuck are they thinking when they send fleet after fleet to suicide themselves against my custom-designed Korxbusters or Drenginslayers?
10) Make a few troop transports. Optimally, it'd be better if you made them MUCH earlier. But, that's not necessary, if you're feeling lazy. After having his military devestated, the AI will basically just sit there, waiting for your troop transports of doom to carve out massive portions of his empire.
11) He'll surrender to someone else. Don't fret. It's not that big of a deal. You probably conquered all the good planets, anyways. Who cares if you lose out on conquering a PQ 3 world?
12) You're probably number one in military strength now. Accept all the tribute that you're given. Build up your infrastructure and economy again. I like to pump out about 25 or 30 constructors after a big war, in order to finance my rebuilding of the conquered worlds. The AI can't build infrastructure for shit.
13) Declare war on an evil race, or wait for the Iconions to do it. Join the Iconions. Or, hell, declare war on the Iconions. Depends on how aggressive (and evil) you feel. If you're playing the Yor or Drengin, might as well go ballistic.
14) Join in with the good races on the glorious war of conquest against the evil races, subjugate the good races, or trade with everyone. My strategies are actually somewhat FLUID. Not cheap. Fuck you, Brad. I'm sorry that I can beat your pathetic AI so easily.
15) Win the game. Since you have most of the galaxy either eating out of your hand (Good) or scared shitless of you (Evil), go for political. This is particularly easy for Good races who've been devious in their diplomacy (playing the evil races against each other, for example). This is much harder for Evil races, unless you went ballistic and killed nearly everyone. Whoever is left will be all-too-willing to form an alliance with you. If you're neutral, you have more work cut out for you, perhaps. Go for an influence victory or side with the Good races and purge the universe of Evil. Or, form an alliance with both the Good and Evil races, for an even easier political victory than the Good races. The tech victory is also quite easy for Neutral races, given the overpowering advantage they have in the Neutrality Learning Centers. Just engage in a bit of trading, maybe a few surgical strikes against anyone who acts all uppity, and then go back to researching. Conquest is a bit long and tedious for my tastes. I prefer a quick, decisive military strike against anyone who won't play nice, then a return to my victory strategy.
13) If you're still having trouble with the Drengin going ballistic on everyone, and you feel you're next, build up your military. Make some ships custome-designed to kill the Drengin. Don't use the throw-away default ships. They suck beyond belief. Just name your ships Drenginslayer MK1 or whatever, load it up with a few weapons, a few defenses, and about 25 to 30 speed. This will give you an unstoppable advantage. No Drengin planet is defended by more than three or four ships, so just send in your surgical strike, take a few planets, and the Drengin will be begging you for peace. Depending on your current mood, grant it or eliminate them.

I could go into more detail here, but I'm seriously having trouble imagining what points need elucidating. I mean, yeah, I could give you point-by-point instructions on how to make a Korxbuster. But that's something you probably need to learn for yourself, through a couple games. Usually, the AI doesn't use enough defense. Use this to your advantage. Usually, the AI makes high offense fleets with very little defense. Use this to your advantage, too. Usually, the AI puts its weakest ships in reserve, as defenders, then sends out its most powerful ships to some random location. I dunno. Just hunt them down and blow them away. That's what I do. It's usually not very difficult to find them, with no sensors, and without Eyes of the Galaxy. Send out a few fleets on recon duty. Keep a fleet or two around to destroy any stragglers, near his core planets. Always make sure you've got a fleet in reserve around your own core planets, in order to destroy the inevitable, pittiable force your enemy sends. Don't play defensively. I did that once, and my ships -- while good -- were destroyed easily by the AIs fleets. Very bad strategy. That's how the AI plays. Learn from the AI's mistakes.

Okay, finally -- what's with the Cult of Brad here? I don't understand it. He calls you cheaters, tells you he's done with improving the game (because HE can't win it anymore), and you cheer him on? The fuck? I don't take well to that. No game developer I've ever heard of in the history of gaming has EVER done that before. He's like some whiney kid in an FPS saying that you're too good at the game and must be cheating. But he just has absolutely no clue how to play the game.

I'm usually not good enough at FPSes to get claims of cheating. I can hold my ground, though, even though I'm almost 35 and have dulled reflexes. I understand how to play the games. Hell, I LIKE trying my luck against other people, even the 14 year olds who can destroy me quite easily, in every session. Sometimes I get lucky. Who knows. But I'm not so chickenshit that I hide behind this "online gamers are too haaaard! other people have skiiiiiill! they might beeeeeeat me!" whine. Oh, please. Once I help my girlfriend with her initial strategies, she can learn awesome strategies herself and surpass me -- even when she thinks that she's going to suck at a game, because it's a genre with which she's unfamiliar. It doesn't take that much time or effort; just a willingness to learn.

Yes, I know that I'm banned. Yes, I know that I should just uninstall the game and play something else. Yes, I know that I shouldn't let the door hit me on the way out. And, yes, I know that you think I'm a whiney, bipolar (you'd actually be right about that one. I'll give you that.), elitist (yeah, probably true) asshole (and I should probably admit to that one, too).

So, whatever you say is probably true. I'll grant you that. But try to think about what I've said, under all of the venom and snarkiness. Is it true, too?

Finally, let's just say that I don't like when game developers promise to improve a game's AI, then whine that it's too much effort to do so. It's your fucking job, man. Do it. Don't whine about it. And, for God's sake, don't whine about it in a "blog".
86,353 views 87 replies
Reply #51 Top
Ray, you've gotta be kidding me. Most reviews have said the AI is good. That is for the general gaming audience and in relation to other games. That is not hype. If you are unable to put positive reviews in that context, then, well...I won't say it.

But please interpret the reviews correctly before making an ass out of yourself with another reply.


Congratulations, sir! It's been a long time since someone has called me an ass for saying the exact same thing that they said, only much, much better than they did. Huzzah!
Reply #52 Top
Ray Radeline said:

"Congratulations, sir! It's been a long time since someone has called me an ass for saying the exact same thing that they said, only much, much better than they did. Huzzah!"

LOL  
Reply #53 Top
Constructive criticism is very valid, and often necessary, but this guy is so intelligent, that he has to resort to flaming/insulting/swearing/ at people who are, and will probably do, more in their lifetime than he will proably ever do.

BTW - For someone who pretends to be so clever, your grammer is so sadly lacking.

Take no notice of this idiot.
Reply #54 Top
Moosetek13, i completely agree with you. I'm beginning to think there's a bug that confuses the AI that for some reason with my play style usually happens. Planetary management is just so hit and miss with the AI. Sometimes is does a real good job, other times you see where they're still trying to build a industrial center at the end of the game.

I'm beginning to think it's because i set anomolies to un-common, which i do because the player can hog them. However i think it causes the AI economic hardships early.

Another thing i think thats missing is better feedback from the planetary management code back to the research priorities. IE if you find yourself building a third or fourth farm, maybe you should research the next farm tec. Also I think the AI doesn't manage the upgrade queue very well. (do the factories first, don't bother building the farm when you're no where near the pop limit)
Reply #55 Top
As someone who works in professional counseling, I'm sitting here wondering what the OP's real problem is. It appears to go beyond gaming. It's a shame because he is apparently an intelligent person who could have a lot of good to offer.

As a few other replies mentioned, you are not going to get an AI that matches an intelligent, determined human. Look how long it took to get chess programming that could challenge the best human players - and that involves only 32 pieces on an 8 by 8 grid. Those who expect computer games to play like "Lt. Data" are taking their SciFi way too seriously. To those of you who are winning all the time at "suicidal," I admire you and thank you for demonstrating the incredible superiority of the human mind. I'm still having fun down at "tough" and "painful," and I look forward to future improvements in the AI.

Actually ... (confession is good for the soul) ... I don't *like* getting creamed by a computer opponent. There is enough difficulty and disappointment in real life. I like a challenge in a game, but I really, really like to win! That is why, if you will check my metaverse games, you will see that I am not in a big hurry to make my way up the difficulty levels!
Reply #56 Top
Uh, no. You put a negative spin on good reviews by referring to it as 'hyped', by which you meant overhyped, and then implied that stardock was being irresponsible for referencing them on their site, thus contributing to said hype. And thus you seem to be blaming both reviewers and stardock for making the hardcore believe that the AI would provide a persistent challenge to them. Please, deny that was the point you were getting at.

But I doubt there was any group think involved. The AI was simply good on its merits in relation to other AIs. It was the fault of the hardcore on this board for reading what they wanted to into the reviews. The reviews were mostly accurate. You implied they weren't. We disagree.

Now please, continue making an ass out of yourself.
Reply #57 Top
Man, he must not want to show his face around here...
Reply #58 Top
[quote="Argh! MP! You know why this game doesn't have MP? It's because none of you people have the self-confidence or ability to play against another human being. I can't believe so many people here find this game difficult! Y"]Argh! MP! You know why this game doesn't have MP? It's because none of you people have the self-confidence or ability to play against another human being. I can't believe so many people here find this game difficult!

Not everyone wants to play Multiplayer. It doesn't mean we don't have the confidence to do it MULTIPLAYER DOES NOT NEED TO BE IN EVERY FREAKING GAME!!!!!

Oh, and another thing: Not everyone can sit around and play games all day. All of us are at a different level. I find your attitude offensive because you have to berate those of use that are not as advanced as you. Get over it!
Reply #59 Top
Thank you Future Guy.  
Reply #60 Top
I think what must be weighed about the AI is just how many people CAN beat the AI on anything higher than normal or perhaps tough? That's the most important issue here. If only 2% of the community or people that purchased the game can beat the game above normal or tough then Stardock has done an excellent job with the AI. Of course there's no clear way to get a real stat on what percent of the game sales can beat the game above normal or tough. But, with all the good reviews, the number of sales and the majority of positive feedback. This game's AI is great. Compared to RTW's AI it's Supermachine, vidaBLUE, it's the best AI ever made. RTW's ai was so pitiful I just deleted the whole game from my harddrive never to be seen or played again. When I can beat an AI on it's hardest difficulty the VERY FIRST GAME then that ai SUKS ooodles of balls. I always start every new game I get playing on the highest difficulty and determine the value of the AI from there. I certainly didn't beat GalCiv2's ai on the hardest difficulty. And with RTW's ai one could tell immediately that well over 2% of the community felt it was too simple, too stupid and too easy. To me one of the worst ai's in a decade. So, long live GalCiv2's ai and future ai's for its FANTASY BASED GAMES???
Reply #61 Top
re: the limitations of the AI

I laughed hard when I saw all the fan boys posting their anti multiplayer diatribes

Im sorry but the AI has limitations - in fact calling it AI is even wrong - lets call it PR (programmed response) cause its clearly not intellegence - right

Once you figure out the formula for defeating the AI (and there will be plenty of gamers who love this challenge) then thats it - you win - congratulations you beat the computer

then it comes down to ways to restrict your playing to let the computer do a bit better - provide some challenge

THE COMPUTER IS NEVER GOING TO BE AS CHALLENGING OR FUN AS PLAYING ANOTHER HUMAN

some of you SP fanboys wanna get out more really

"we didnt put multiplayer in because we wanted to make SP better" - well theres a road to nowhere

basically from that point on you are limiting the games "lifespan"

for the people going - yeh but you havent beaten the game at suicidal - your right i havent - cause I cant be bothered beating the computer and am playing other games


Its not a criticism - all games are bound by the fact that PR will have this limitation

so the games implement window dressing to make the game entertaining to make it enjoyable to repeatedly defeat the AI and still be entertaining - they also implement MP to mean as long as you can find opponents interested in playing this game - you can play it - this increases longevity of a game alot - except if your a no-mates loner - in which case this will add nothing

The window dressing of this game shows limited imagination in my opinion - when based on the future and the universe as a setting - the races are almost laughably cliche and the techs are.. well off the back of the cornflakes packet, and if you play huge maps at anything above the lowest res - the game crawls so agonisingly slowly and causes system meltdown - but hey I liked the game - for awhile - and now the thought of playing it bores me to tears - but thats just me - Im sure theres a heap of SP fanboys that are still gettig their rocks off on ways to make the AI put up a challenge. And making perty ships has some novelty for a bit.

So is the AI good - Im sure it probably is - within the limits of progammed responses
Does it make the game endlessly replayable - sadly no this has its limits too

should the developer have considered a limited form of MP for this reason - absolutely

because you can tweak the SP game with more window dressing but its like putting curtains on the titanic




Reply #62 Top
"we didnt put multiplayer in because we wanted to make SP better" - well theres a road to nowhere

basically from that point on you are limiting the games "lifespan"


From a different point of view, implementing multiplayer at the sacrifice of a 'better' SP experience would also be limiting the game's lifespan. Users who have no interest in playing GCII in a multiplayer capacity most likely would be getting less out of the game if resources were diverted to implement MP. Stardock made a business decision to concentrate on the SP experience; did they lose some potential customers who only buy games if MP is included? Of course. You also need to ask, though, would they have sold as many copies of GCII if the SP experience was less than it current is?

Stardock is a business. Concentrating on SP and not implementing MP isn't some conspiracy against online gamers; it was a business decision that consumers, regardless if you agree with it or not, should respect.

Besides, GCII sells for $40USD. If you have played the game long enough to completely master it, then most likely you've probably gotten your money's worth. If you don't feel you have, you may want to examine what $40 buys in today's world.
Reply #63 Top
Besides, GCII sells for $40USD. If you have played the game long enough to completely master it, then most likely you've probably gotten your money's worth. If you don't feel you have, you may want to examine what $40 buys in today's world.


Dont worry I wont be making that mistake again

and I dont believe the whole we wouldve had to sacrifice the SP game for MP - that is devicive BS

and since buying GC2 and watching all the excuses from the Devs about MP - posting this sort of anti-MP logic and splitting the community - STINKS

I wouldnt buy another SD product for this reason alone

they can keep their SP only market and loyal fans waiting for the next upgrade to keep the game exciting enough to make it playable

Reply #64 Top
Well, you won't be missed, I'm sure.

So long.
Reply #65 Top
1. In version 1.2, the AI has gotten better about what to build, but not the pace of planetary improvements. I'm still surprised to find mid- to end-game AI planets that aren't fully developed...

2. Have the AI actually spend their excess cash. .

4. Have the AI prepare for war...not just declare it without having been prepared with appropriate fleets/transports. Again, that leads to updating the attacking fleets to defend against my strengths and attack my weaknesses.

Move the fleets towards the planets/bases then surprise attack just like every Human player does. This would go a long way to making a game more challenging.


My observations as well ^^^

Reply #66 Top
I laughed hard when I saw all the fan boys posting their anti multiplayer diatribes

Im sorry but the AI has limitations - in fact calling it AI is even wrong - lets call it PR (programmed response) cause its clearly not intellegence - right

Once you figure out the formula for defeating the AI (and there will be plenty of gamers who love this challenge) then thats it - you win - congratulations you beat the computer

then it comes down to ways to restrict your playing to let the computer do a bit better - provide some challenge

THE COMPUTER IS NEVER GOING TO BE AS CHALLENGING OR FUN AS PLAYING ANOTHER HUMAN

some of you SP fanboys wanna get out more really

"we didnt put multiplayer in because we wanted to make SP better" - well theres a road to nowhere

basically from that point on you are limiting the games "lifespan"

for the people going - yeh but you havent beaten the game at suicidal - your right i havent - cause I cant be bothered beating the computer and am playing other games


Its not a criticism - all games are bound by the fact that PR will have this limitation

so the games implement window dressing to make the game entertaining to make it enjoyable to repeatedly defeat the AI and still be entertaining - they also implement MP to mean as long as you can find opponents interested in playing this game - you can play it - this increases longevity of a game alot - except if your a no-mates loner - in which case this will add nothing

The window dressing of this game shows limited imagination in my opinion - when based on the future and the universe as a setting - the races are almost laughably cliche and the techs are.. well off the back of the cornflakes packet, and if you play huge maps at anything above the lowest res - the game crawls so agonisingly slowly and causes system meltdown - but hey I liked the game - for awhile - and now the thought of playing it bores me to tears - but thats just me - Im sure theres a heap of SP fanboys that are still gettig their rocks off on ways to make the AI put up a challenge. And making perty ships has some novelty for a bit.

So is the AI good - Im sure it probably is - within the limits of progammed responses
Does it make the game endlessly replayable - sadly no this has its limits too

should the developer have considered a limited form of MP for this reason - absolutely

because you can tweak the SP game with more window dressing but its like putting curtains on the titanic


..and I laughed MY ass off when I read this. I especially like the way you see your opinions as fact. When you talk of lifespan, you mean according to you. I've played certain single player games for years after I bought them, without ever going online to play them (the civ games, starcraft, and many more). Here's yet another person who can't understand that people like different things. I wouldn't expect any less from a multiplayer-fanboy though.
Reply #67 Top
Why is it that the most vocal AI critics don't have a metaverse posted game on the higher levels?

Someone who hasn't played a game beyond challenging is in no position to be an expert in the AIs limitations.

Its good enough now to make the game interesting and replayable, and the devs are commited to getting it better.

Its a challenge at the higher levels, I have to fight to win, and I'm no stooge.

Reply #68 Top
, let's just say that I don't like when game developers promise to improve a game's AI, then whine that it's too much effort to do so. It's your fucking job, man. Do it. Don't whine about it. And, for God's sake, don't whine about it in a "blog"


BTW this is an absolutely clueless unfounded insult to the Stardock devs and to Frogboy in particular. It would be nice if the OP had a clue.
Reply #69 Top
Just to ask:

Wouldn't a Gigantic game with LESS than 9 other races be more difficult (more time/space for the AI to "grow" before facing the player)?

Reply #70 Top
Why is it that the most vocal AI critics don't have a metaverse posted game on the higher levels?

Someone who hasn't played a game beyond challenging is in no position to be an expert in the AIs limitations.


Maybe because most AI critics:

1) Don't see much point in competing in the metaverse.

2) Don't want to waste their time repeatedly finishing off every last AI to claim victory. It takes even more time to maximize the score.

Just because they haven't posted their scores doesn't mean that they haven't won. They generally claim victories on "crippling" to "suicidal". Is it your position that they are all liars?

In my third game ever, I easily beat "masochistic" difficulty. *If* I decide to play again, I will try "suicidal". You won't see my victories in the metaverse, for the reasons above. But the fact remains that the AI in this game has serious weaknesses -- "cheese" or no "cheese". The reality just doesn't support the hype.
Reply #71 Top
I believe the point of the original post is that the AI will not improve and Brad isn't doing his job etc. (plus yet another "OMFG this game has no multiplayer, it's the suXXorz!!!111" rant).

Of course the AI needs work, and it is being worked on. Oh, and most of us here would prefer more SP features to MP. So what? Get over it.
Reply #72 Top
So because they sold a game as single player, never posted any intention of making it multiplayer, and even conducted a poll of their customers which rated MP as a low priority, you feel somehow hard done-by?

I['m no programmer, but even I know that writing code takes time and effort. You seem to think Stardock has infinite resources to instantly create features.
Reply #73 Top
Kosty, I resent that.

I haven't submitted any metaverse games because the metaverse doesn't interest me. I don't see why that disqualifies me from commenting on the AI.

I like to play the game on equal terms. If I wanted to play against a cheating game which gives the AI an unfair headstart, I'd play Civ3.... and be bored again.
Reply #74 Top
Not directed at you V1M.

You've been playing for a while. Nothing wrong with not submitting to the MV. ANd I think all your comments have been civil and constructive.

Its not actually even directed at any in particular in this thread. Its just an observation that the most critical AI posters seem to be either new or set in their ways and seem to be unnessarily abusive.

I think the AI can certainly improve. So do the developers. They obviously listen and provide this internal forum for feedback. The AI has improved in every Beta and in every patch.

Constuctive criticism is wanted. Stupid abuse rants are not.

Rant off
Reply #75 Top
OK, fair enough.

BTW, carried on playing my first 1.2 game. I was somewhat surprised to find that the Torians actually had better weapon tech than me. Luckily, they went for beam, same as the Arceans I was preparing to crush. "Small" hulls with 22 moves, Mass Driver 86, Shield 50 should give those greenies a shock ;o)