|
Civ's AI was never good but it was serviceable because the combat was simple, it eventually figured out doom stacks, and city management isn't that hard. But with 5 they added way too much poo poo they AI couldn't understand, and in 6 the AI is also pretty useless. I'm a big fan of games being designed not just to be fun for the player, but for the AI to also be able to play properly too.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Kitchner posted:I think it's just different experiences. In Civ it always felt like the other Civs were just different types of players all playing the same board game. When you play CKII, EUIV, or Stellaris, you feel if someone is nice or a dick it's because they, in the game, is nice or a dick. Some of the people you meet are basically only there to be nice and die to a bad guy. Nah, I have a decent bit of insight here and AI simply isn't a priority for most strategy game developers. There are many reasons for this, a big one is that there's simply not a good knowledge base in the industry about how to make strategy game AI. There's tons of people with experience coding FPS bot AI and they tend to be hired to make strategy game AI, but making a bot AI and a strategy game AI are completely different disciplines. There's other issues, like the fact that game developers don't play their own games, but I'm completely honest when I say that players being utterly dreadful when it comes to feedback about AI is no small factor. From the perspective of people who make the decisions, you basically always get the same amount of 'the AI is completely braindead and broken' because people will say this and only this no matter how large or small the issue they encounter is. Like you'll hear it just as much over AI literally ceasing to take any actions as you will over the AI, say, picking something that gives it 5 resources instead of 6. It's utterly toxic and completely discourages companies from giving a poo poo about AI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Nah, I have a decent bit of insight here and AI simply isn't a priority for most strategy game developers. There are many reasons for this, a big one is that there's simply not a good knowledge base in the industry about how to make strategy game AI. There's tons of people with experience coding FPS bot AI and they tend to be hired to make strategy game AI, but making a bot AI and a strategy game AI are completely different disciplines. There's other issues, like the fact that game developers don't play their own games, but I'm completely honest when I say that players being utterly dreadful when it comes to feedback about AI is no small factor. From the perspective of people who make the decisions, you basically always get the same amount of 'the AI is completely braindead and broken' because people will say this and only this no matter how large or small the issue they encounter is. Like you'll hear it just as much over AI literally ceasing to take any actions as you will over the AI, say, picking something that gives it 5 resources instead of 6. It's utterly toxic and completely discourages companies from giving a poo poo about AI. How can we as players give better feedback on paradox game AI ? I'm really glad you guys give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
The way Civ games' AI works always seemed particularly weird to me, because if you're not going to teach the AI to actually play the game even vaguely competently, and the AI exists only to make the game challenging, then you might as well have the AI play the game by entirely separate rules which produce the desired challenge level for the human player. But no just give the crap AI more numerical bonuses and slap the human player with awful handicaps at higher difficulty levels, sounds good.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:40
|
|
|
Especially since: Properly responsive AI is often a really hard problem. You want to make the AI good but not TOO good. You need it to be smart, but also to be stupid - but the right kind of stupid. You often need to build multiple AIs for different difficulties... and if you want it to be genuinely good, you also want multiple AI's for different "personalities" as well so the players have to fight against various strategies instead of the same thing over and over again.
GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 22:43 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:41
|
|
|
The combat AI in civ is so inexcusable because I've played some old groggy hex based wargames where the AI is ridiculously good. Like there's a human player who is making very good guesses at what my plan is and taking very good measures to counter it, or seeing the trap I've laid and avoiding it. The AI in Star Sector is also pretty amazing too, but that's not a strategy game (yet)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:46
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Mostly they don't care, because it doesn't really affect sales much and you get about the same amount of poo poo from customers regardless of how good or bad your AI is. Well it worked. You guys got me addicted with EU1 and I have not touched a Civ game since Civ3 despite dealing with buggy and broken games on launch. Paradox is just a Swedish drug dealer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:The way Civ games' AI works always seemed particularly weird to me, because if you're not going to teach the AI to actually play the game even vaguely competently, and the AI exists only to make the game challenging, then you might as well have the AI play the game by entirely separate rules which produce the desired challenge level for the human player. But no just give the crap AI more numerical bonuses and slap the human player with awful handicaps at higher difficulty levels, sounds good. That's actually how original Civ worked (the AI didn't build stuff, it just got given stuff periodically), and everybody thought it was too crazy. Hence the introduction of those bonuses and penalties in Civ2. I have such mixed feelings about the Civ franchise; I really loved 2, SMAC, and 3, 4 was a bit of a miss personally (despite being an objectively great game, I just couldn't get over how stupid the square tiled map looked, you gotta rotate those squares). Then 5 is just a complete disaster kinda outta nowhere. Hexes were great, 1UPT was an interesting idea at least, but then the AI doesn't know how to use 1UPT at all, the maps are too small to manoeuvre with 1UPT (probably a big cause of the previous issue), and the tile yields and culture system force you to build either exactly four cities, or as many cities as humanly possible on every eligible square. You'd also see huge chunks of continents that the AI just never bothered to settle well into the late game. Then BE had pretty much all the same problems (with the new addition that the AI would suicide it's trade units into you over and over again giving you infinite free money). Much nicer to play EU and CK, where the games have real depth and feel different on separate playthroughs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:52
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Baronjutter posted:How can we as players give better feedback on paradox game AI ? I'm really glad you guys give a poo poo. There's really just two rules: - Avoid generic, sweeping statements like 'Sector AI is stupid' or 'the military AI is brainhead'. It doesn't help us in the slighest and just contributes to developers not wanting to engage with the poo poo flinged their way. - Try to be as specific as you possibly can. 'The sector AI is bad at building farms, I regularly see my planets starving' is helpful. 'Here is a specific case where the sector AI is letting my planet starve' is even better. AI issues often come down to edge cases and the more we know about the specific case, the easier it is to locate the problem. The best thing you can possibly do is provide us with a save and a detailed report. If the issue is reproducable from the save, we can usually fix it in no time at all, whereas in the worst cases it could take weeks or months for the issue to be reproducable for us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:54
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Especially since: Properly responsive AI is often a really hard problem. You want to make the AI good but not TOO good. You need it to be smart, but also to be stupid - but the right kind of stupid. You often need to build multiple AIs for different difficulties... and if you want it to be genuinely good, you also want multiple AI's for different "personalities" as well so the players have to fight against various strategies instead of the same thing over and over again. It's a difficult and thankless job. I also happen to enjoy it a lot.  Even for me though, the toxic negativity gets really old sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Nah, I have a decent bit of insight here and AI simply isn't a priority for most strategy game developers. There are many reasons for this, a big one is that there's simply not a good knowledge base in the industry about how to make strategy game AI. There's tons of people with experience coding FPS bot AI and they tend to be hired to make strategy game AI, but making a bot AI and a strategy game AI are completely different disciplines. There's other issues, like the fact that game developers don't play their own games, but I'm completely honest when I say that players being utterly dreadful when it comes to feedback about AI is no small factor. From the perspective of people who make the decisions, you basically always get the same amount of 'the AI is completely braindead and broken' because people will say this and only this no matter how large or small the issue they encounter is. Like you'll hear it just as much over AI literally ceasing to take any actions as you will over the AI, say, picking something that gives it 5 resources instead of 6. It's utterly toxic and completely discourages companies from giving a poo poo about AI. I'm messing around with Machine Learning stuff in both Keras and Tensorflow. I'm curious what tools game devs typically use to code their AI, and if there's any type of machine learning / deep learning algorithms they tend to prefer. Basically I'm trying to get a sense of which style of neural networks / ML algorithms they implement. It's also really neat to read your description of the issues from the designer perspective, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:I'm messing around with Machine Learning stuff in both Keras and Tensorflow. I'm curious what tools game devs typically use to code their AI, and if there's any type of machine learning / deep learning algorithms they tend to prefer. Basically I'm trying to get a sense of which style of neural networks / ML algorithms they implement. It's also really neat to read your description of the issues from the designer perspective, thanks. I've gone into depth on this topic many a time, so I hope this doesn't come off as dismissive, but... as it stands, machine learning is a complete pipe dream for games of any real level of complexity. About the only games that can employ it outside of highly limited/selective implementations is fighting games, and even there it's in its infancy. The belief in technology and algorithms over simple iterative work is actually a huge issue with strategy game AI, people want easy solutions and they just don't exist. It's about hard work, a bit of design know-how and a thorough understanding of the game you're working on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Wiz posted:Nah, I have a decent bit of insight here and AI simply isn't a priority for most strategy game developers. There are many reasons for this, a big one is that there's simply not a good knowledge base in the industry about how to make strategy game AI. There's tons of people with experience coding FPS bot AI and they tend to be hired to make strategy game AI, but making a bot AI and a strategy game AI are completely different disciplines. There's other issues, like the fact that game developers don't play their own games, but I'm completely honest when I say that players being utterly dreadful when it comes to feedback about AI is no small factor. From the perspective of people who make the decisions, you basically always get the same amount of 'the AI is completely braindead and broken' because people will say this and only this no matter how large or small the issue they encounter is. Like you'll hear it just as much over AI literally ceasing to take any actions as you will over the AI, say, picking something that gives it 5 resources instead of 6. It's utterly toxic and completely discourages companies from giving a poo poo about AI. This reminds me, the AI in Galactic Civilizations II could do impressive poo poo like using the player to fight a proxy war for them. Why is no-one in the industry hiring those guys to make their AI? At least oddly machiavellian decisions like that made a game interesting, even if the AI ploughed you under. It's not like the really unfun AI in Lost Empire, where the AI-players relentlessly steamroll you if you're not min-maxing as hard as you can from day 1. In the first case, the AI being too good adds to the fun by just messing with you, in the latter case you're just stressed out trying to keep up with your robotically efficient adversaries.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:01
|
|
|
Libluini posted:This reminds me, the AI in Galactic Civilizations II could do impressive poo poo like using the player to fight a proxy war for them. Why is no-one in the industry hiring those guys to make their AI? At least oddly machiavellian decisions like that made a game interesting, even if the AI ploughed you under. It's not like the really unfun AI in Lost Empire, where the AI-players relentlessly steamroll you if you're not min-maxing as hard as you can from day 1. In the first case, the AI being too good adds to the fun by just messing with you, in the latter case you're just stressed out trying to keep up with your robotically efficient adversaries. The Gal Civ AI is the work of one guy with (as far as I understand it) basically the same approach we at PDS have. Tons of people rag super-hard on the Gal Civ AI, btw, further emphasising my point above. The reason other companies don't do this is that the approach is basically 'leave me the gently caress alone for six months so I can play the game and do iterative work' and that doesn't go over well at most companies. I had an incredible amount of autonomy when I came in as AI programmer at PDS and fought to give that same autonomy to our newer AI programmers, that's basically why we have the AI we have today. Wiz fucked around with this message at 23:06 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:The AI in Star Sector is also pretty amazing too, but that's not a strategy game (yet) Star Sector has some of the best AI I have seen in any game to the point that I often just let the AI do most of the work for me. But I think it might be straying to far in the other direction by being too good at times. Like in Fallout Las Vegas the party members are quicker and better than you because the AI has little or no handicaps without actually cheating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:05
|
|
|
Wiz posted:I've gone into depth on this topic many a time, so I hope this doesn't come off as dismissive, but... as it stands, machine learning is a complete pipe dream for games of any real level of complexity. About the only games that can employ it outside of highly limited/selective implementations is fighting games, and even there it's in its infancy. The belief in technology and algorithms over simple iterative work is actually a huge issue with strategy game AI, people want easy solutions and they just don't exist. It's about hard work, a bit of design know-how and a thorough understanding of the game you're working on. So current strategy game AI is mostly decision trees and hard coded behavior? I'm curious if you feel ML is out of the picture because the game states / decisions are too complex, or if the computing requirements are excessive. I understand the computational concerns, though I think there's aspects that would be interesting to explore. I haven't had a lot of luck finding resources to look at some sample game AIs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Rakthar posted:So current strategy game AI is mostly decision trees and hard coded behavior? PDS AIs are largely utility machines. Decision trees are not a very good way to code a complex AI because you end up with really rigid behaviour and if something breaks at one point in the chain it affects everything that follows. That's one of the biggest issues with the Total War battle AI, for example: It's a giant tree of decisions flowing down from higher to lower level AI agents, and one bad decision at the top will screw everything below. EU3 had a similar agent-based system that I tore out and replaced with the utility machine that runs the EU4 AI, which more or less became the prototype for HOI and Stellaris AIs. It's mostly the complexity. Good ML is all about defining good/bad outcomes and in a game with thousands of things affecting thousands of other things it's simply not doable. The computational issues are there too, but they're not nearly the biggest issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Wiz posted:I've gone into depth on this topic many a time, so I hope this doesn't come off as dismissive, but... as it stands, machine learning is a complete pipe dream for games of any real level of complexity. About the only games that can employ it outside of highly limited/selective implementations is fighting games, and even there it's in its infancy. The belief in technology and algorithms over simple iterative work is actually a huge issue with strategy game AI, people want easy solutions and they just don't exist. It's about hard work, a bit of design know-how and a thorough understanding of the game you're working on. From the bits and pieces I remember, the problem with using machine learning to make game AI is that this only works really well if you're building a customized AI and then slowly feed it with knowledge about your game. In the end, you've expended tons of resources and years of hard work on this and get a really, really good AI for your game. Which will only and only work for this one game and immediately break when the devs try to port it into a future project. I remember IBM spending years of work and tons of money on a new AI capable of being a really good search engine. They even made it play Jeopardy and win against Human players. But while their result was certainly impressive, it wasn't really cost-effective to get a slightly better search engine this way. So you could use machine learning for strategy game AI, it would just need even more hard work, know-how and a thorough understanding of your own game to get slightly better results then the normal way. And you'd need to hire expensive experts on this kind of thing. FPS-AI programmer probably won't cut it. There's therefore no reason for a company making video games to invest so much for so little gain.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Libluini posted:From the bits and pieces I remember, the problem with using machine learning to make game AI is that this only works really well if you're building a customized AI and then slowly feed it with knowledge about your game. In the end, you've expended tons of resources and years of hard work on this and get a really, really good AI for your game. Which will only and only work for this one game and immediately break when the devs try to port it into a future project. A search engine playing Jeopardy is a much more fertile soil for machine learning because it has clear win/loss states. Let's try to translate that to say, EU4. What's a win/loss state there? Well, clearly being annexed is a loss, so if the machine AI gets annexed it's making bad decisions. Only, which particular decisions led to it getting annexed? Was it raising stability, fabricating claims? Was it the alliance it formed? Furthermore, there are countries that are going to do much worse on average than others, so you'd have to filter for that as well. At some point you accumulate so much data, it's simply impossible to filter the useful stuff from the noise. You could have a crack team of AI experts going at it for decades and I still don't think it'd be better than something I can put together in six months with a utility machine and some heuristics.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Wiz posted:The Gal Civ AI is the work of one guy with (as far as I understand it) basically the same approach we at PDS have. Tons of people rag super-hard on the Gal Civ AI, btw, further emphasising my point above. Interesting, sounds like AI-programming is more art than science.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Interesting, sounds like AI-programming is more art than science. Or to put it another way... the best AI programmers tend to also be hobby game designers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
I mean, the issue with artificial neural networks is that they're basically artificial animals, because we don't know how to generate most of the high-level abstract behavior that a human can engage in but most animals can't. You're going to need quite a while to evolve something that's more or less functionally equivalent to an insect brain, like the Jeopardy engine, into something that can evaluate a Paradox game.
Jazerus fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
The expectations for an AI in a paradox game isn't one that's good at winning, but one that's good at seeming like it's an actual human king or what ever trying to run their country with their own personal goals and motives. A human player knowing they're playing a game as the god-spirit ruler of a nation state may refuse annexation or vassalization, but an actual in-game king or duke or what ever may not. Paradox game AI's don't just have to be "good at the game" but they also have to make convincing NPC's role playing the leaders of countries or who ever. Then you also have people who will flip out and get mad over an AI doing something not historical.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
There was a good article on behavior tree vs utility AI on gamasutra a while back: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JakobRasmussen/20160427/271188/Are_Behavior_Trees_a_Thing_of_the_Past.php
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Wiz posted:A search engine playing Jeopardy is a much more fertile soil for machine learning because it has clear win/loss states. Nor do I expect you to. I am a complete layman when it comes to AI, but even I understand that the more complex the application and the larger number of variables introduced increases the difficulty in designing an AI to be competent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Sindai posted:There was a good article on behavior tree vs utility AI on gamasutra a while back: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JakobRasmussen/20160427/271188/Are_Behavior_Trees_a_Thing_of_the_Past.php Yep. I highly recommend this article if you want a good understanding of one of the big issues holding back strategy game AI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Sindai posted:There was a good article on behavior tree vs utility AI on gamasutra a while back: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JakobRasmussen/20160427/271188/Are_Behavior_Trees_a_Thing_of_the_Past.php Thanks for the link, this is what I was hoping for!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Fun fact: The EU4 army AI essentially consists of one gigantic evaluation where each AI army asks itself 'which province do I want to be standing in' every single in-game day. It has no concept of strategy, no long-term plan, just a list of provinces ordered from 'most want to stand in' to 'least want to stand in' with dozens upon dozens of weights and special cases that have grown out of endless iterations. This has some drawbacks, but it also makes it incredibly robust, because it's not trying to follow some long-term strategy that might have ceased to be valid weeks ago. When the EU4 military AI breaks, it usually just does something like pick a poor fight or walk back and forth between provinces for a few days. Conversely, when the Stellaris military AI (which does have a layer of strategic thinking) breaks, it tends to freeze up completely. EDIT: Oh yeah, the one exception in the EU4 military AI is the naval invasion AI, which does try to follow a rigid plan, and is also the part of the AI most prone to catastrophic breakdowns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Wiz posted:There's really just two rules: How about "don't complain about the AI being broken when you're playing with mods?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Wiz posted:A search engine playing Jeopardy is a much more fertile soil for machine learning because it has clear win/loss states. Personally, I think machine learning will only start working for complex problems like this one after we completely learned to replicate the decision making our own brains are capable off. But at that point the very true AI we could make would probably take as long as a real human to properly train and prepare for real life. And at that point it would make more sense to wait a couple years for the new AIs to get citizen rights and then just hire one for your company, instead of spending a couple hundred million dollars on making your own. The real irony of this is of course, to get good strategy games having true AI isn't enough if the AI just gets bored and vomits out bad FPS-level AI, so you'd need to hire an AI who is Wiz posted:Or to put it another way... the best AI programmers tend to also be hobby game designers. a hobby game designer itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
Quixzlizx posted:How about "don't complain about the AI being broken when you're playing with mods?" Eh, depends on the mod. Like, if you're playing with some giant kitchen sink mod that reworks every area of the game your feedback probably isn't useful to us, but Blorg Pith Helmets aren't going to mess up the sector AI.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
That reminds me on how in older Paradox games where the AI would 'fall asleep' after awhile. You had to save then reload the game to get the AI to start performing actions like to do any diplomacy. What was the cause of that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:35
|
|
|
Kilravock posted:That reminds me on how in older Paradox games where the AI would 'fall asleep' after awhile. You had to save then reload the game to get the AI to start performing actions like to do any diplomacy. What was the cause of that? Decision trees breaking down, most likely. The older paradox AIs were full of specialized AI agents taking temporary control to do a specific thing (like move a unit) and if that agent got stuck in its logic that part of it was then lost until game restart, when it would be reassigned back to the main AI agent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
My only problems with sectors was just that they didn't seem to construct aggressively enough. Unemployed pops, empty bonus tiles, tons of resources in the bank and a large positive resource balance yet they would seemingly only build one thing at a time sector-wide. This got seemingly fixed then robots did something fucky, that got seemingly fixed. People still angry sectors don't built planets "optimized" but that's a hard thing to determine since there's no correct optimal state, it depends on your priorities. I'm excited to see how sectors are by 1.5. As long as they aggressively build up their planets and are within 10-20% as "optimized" as me doing it by hand I'm all good. The sector AI though doesn't understand my own goals though. Sometimes I'll be playing with a personal goal of "max happiness" but the sector AI not sharing that goal doesn't prioritize happiness buildings. But how are they to know? So many changes to ethos and happiness coming in 1.5 I really can't wait.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:My only problems with sectors was just that they didn't seem to construct aggressively enough. Unemployed pops, empty bonus tiles, tons of resources in the bank and a large positive resource balance yet they would seemingly only build one thing at a time sector-wide. This got seemingly fixed then robots did something fucky, that got seemingly fixed. People still angry sectors don't built planets "optimized" but that's a hard thing to determine since there's no correct optimal state, it depends on your priorities. I've basically completely recoded the sector AI in 1.5 to prevent unnecessary resource accumulation, and the new tooltip I added shows you exactly what they are planning to do with the resources they have. I want to add a 'prioritize happiness' setting if there's time, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Wiz posted:I've gone into depth on this topic many a time, so I hope this doesn't come off as dismissive, but... as it stands, machine learning is a complete pipe dream for games of any real level of complexity. About the only games that can employ it outside of highly limited/selective implementations is fighting games, and even there it's in its infancy. The belief in technology and algorithms over simple iterative work is actually a huge issue with strategy game AI, people want easy solutions and they just don't exist. It's about hard work, a bit of design know-how and a thorough understanding of the game you're working on. Have you followed that team that taught their AI to play Brood War on ladder?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Wiz posted:I've basically completely recoded the sector AI in 1.5 to prevent unnecessary resource accumulation, and the new tooltip I added shows you exactly what they are planning to do with the resources they have. That's really great to hear. I hope along with endless vague complaints and semantical arguments you also take in the fact that you guys have made some really amazing games and your dedication and "actually giving a poo poo" are really appreciated. Also maybe people over complain about paradox games because you guys have raised the bar so much they have unreasonable expectations and think you mind reading gods that can make massive changes to the game within the standard patch cycle? Then when you do finally make them happy they're too busy enjoying the game to thank you? Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:42
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Have you followed that team that taught their AI to play Brood War on ladder? Yes. It's cool, but Starcraft is also a much, much simpler game for this sort of thing than a PDS title. It has far fewer actors and far less randomness and you can essentially achieve an optimal build order purely through brute force trial and error. Baronjutter posted:That's really great to hear. I hope along with endless vague complaints and semantical arguments you also take in the fact that you guys have made some really amazing games and your dedication and "actually giving a poo poo" are really appreciated. Oh yeah, no worries, I'm definitely feeling a lot more love than hate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
Any chance that we'll be able to go full Zeon and smash conquered space colonies into inhabited planets in the same system?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:13 |
|
|
Bloody Pom posted:Any chance that we'll be able to go full Zeon and smash conquered space colonies into inhabited planets in the same system? I'd just be happy with some moo style planet glassing via fleets. The "cost" should be severe diplomatic reactions from most of the galaxy plus the lost opportunity of invading and taking that planet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:50
|
|