| 1 |
@[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng: If you believe players would become bored if not challenged, then I believe that they should just look into fighting harder AIs if they're too skilled to fight against one or more easier AIs. After all, in my opinion, easy AIs should never, EVER be a challenge for anyone UNLESS they're new to RTS games in general. Instead, I believe that normal AIs, as I said before, should be a suitable challenge for most players, especially intermediate-skilled players who are familiar with general basic RTS concepts, but are still trying to learn and master Zero-K's own particular slew of game mechanics and features.
|
1 |
@[GBC]1v0ry_k1ng: If you believe players would become bored if not challenged, then I believe that they should just look into fighting harder AIs if they're too skilled to fight against one or more easier AIs. After all, in my opinion, easy AIs should never, EVER be a challenge for anyone UNLESS they're new to RTS games in general. Instead, I believe that normal AIs, as I said before, should be a suitable challenge for most players, especially intermediate-skilled players who are familiar with general basic RTS concepts, but are still trying to learn and master Zero-K's own particular slew of game mechanics and features.
|
| 2 |
\n
|
2 |
\n
|
| 3 |
Speaking of, although I might support preventing very easy and easy AIs from using artillery, air units, units that remain cloaked while moving, units and structures that provide large shield coverage to other units and structures (such as Aegis or Aspis, but with the exception of combat units like Thugs or Felons), or heavy units in general, perhaps restricting them for use by harder AIs only would be too much of a nerf for normal AIs? I'm pretty sure that most players would try to learn how to effectively use these kinds of units or structures anyways, and would have to learn how to counter them when facing off against other players, so why keep them out of the hands of normal AIs, especially when they're supposed to be the ideal difficulty level for most players?
|
3 |
Speaking of, although I might support preventing very easy and easy AIs from using artillery, air units, units that remain cloaked while moving, units and structures that provide large shield coverage to other units and structures (such as Aegis or Aspis, but with the exception of combat units like Thugs or Felons), or heavy units in general, perhaps restricting them for use by harder AIs only would be too much of a nerf for normal AIs? I'm pretty sure that most players would try to learn how to effectively use these kinds of units or structures anyways, and would have to learn how to counter them when facing off against other players, so why keep them out of the hands of normal AIs, especially when they're supposed to be the ideal difficulty level for most players?
|
| 4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
| 5 |
Perhaps
it'd
be
better
to
set
limits
to
the
micromanagement
and
macromanagement
capabilities
of
any
AIs
below
hard
difficulty
instead?
Alot
of
the
difficulty
issues
that
I
have
with
the
current
easy
AIs,
such
as
being
overly-aggressive
and
meticulous
at
reclaiming
wreckage,
actively
(
instead
of
passively
for
my
ideal
for
Normaldifficulty,
or
not
at
all
for
my
ideal
for
Easy)
trying
to
preserve
the
health
of
heavier,
more
powerful
units
(
especially
through
the
use
of
constructors
being
sent
to
the
damaged
units
in
question)
,
and
actively
ordering
groups
of
certain
units
(
such
as
anti-air
units)
to
attack
enemy
units
that
they
counter
well
(
such
as
gunships
or
aircraft)
all
seem
to
ultimately
boil
down
to
how
well
the
AI
micromanages
and
macromanages
its
forces.
In
StarCraft
2,
for
example,
I've
noticed
that,
at
easier
difficulty
levels,
the
AI
wouldn't
use
the
special
abilities
of
various
units
(
such
as
the
High
Templar's
Psionic
Storm
AoE
ability)
a
whole
lot
(
if
at
all)
,
but
at
harder
difficulties,
they'd
use
these
special
abilities
at
the
right
place
at
the
right
time
(
such
as
if
there
are
a
bunch
of
enemy
marines
for
the
High
Templar's
Psionic
Storm
ability
to
slaughter)
.
|
5 |
Perhaps
it'd
be
better
to
set
limits
to
the
micromanagement
and
macromanagement
capabilities
of
any
AIs
below
hard
difficulty
instead?
Alot
of
the
difficulty
issues
that
I
have
with
the
current
easy
AIs,
such
as
being
overly-aggressive
and
meticulous
at
reclaiming
wreckage,
actively
(
instead
of
passively
for
my
ideal
for
Normal
difficulty,
or
not
at
all
for
my
ideal
for
Easy)
trying
to
preserve
the
health
of
heavier,
more
powerful
units
(
especially
through
the
use
of
constructors
being
sent
to
the
damaged
units
in
question)
,
and
actively
ordering
groups
of
certain
units
(
such
as
anti-air
units)
to
attack
enemy
units
that
they
counter
well
(
such
as
gunships
or
aircraft)
all
seem
to
ultimately
boil
down
to
how
well
the
AI
micromanages
and
macromanages
its
forces.
In
StarCraft
2,
for
example,
I've
noticed
that,
at
easier
difficulty
levels,
the
AI
wouldn't
use
the
special
abilities
of
various
units
(
such
as
the
High
Templar's
Psionic
Storm
AoE
ability)
a
whole
lot
(
if
at
all)
,
but
at
harder
difficulties,
they'd
use
these
special
abilities
at
the
right
place
at
the
right
time
(
such
as
if
there
are
a
bunch
of
enemy
marines
for
the
High
Templar's
Psionic
Storm
ability
to
slaughter)
.
|
Some feedback about how AIs of each difficulty should perform