Tweet
Originally posted by Glak. on 10-14-1999 11:16 PM
>>That's fine to want to play a difficult opponent, but that doesn't mean the game's toughness should be sacrificed for that reason, it would only make the opponents that much better if they can cope with these situations.
>No, because players cannot generate these situations. Also if we look at Chess I think everyone will agree that you don't just have random peices going around hunting down your pawns. The board is just a grid and can't hurt anyone.
That's the reason it makes it more difficult because u can't create those circumstances. If everything was created because of users this wouldn't be a very good gane. Chess doesn't have randomness but it isn't trying to be more than a strategy game like clash is.
>Are you talking computer players? See what I mean? You shouldn't be able to beat 7 computer players. You must have developed strategies that are good against beating computer players. However they aren't likely to work against humans.
Its true that the AI on warcraft sucks. I guess what i should say is i have defeated seven players (good players, i don't know about expert) once. WC isn't the type of game where 8 differnt opponents on one map work well since the maps can't be really big.
>>It isn't too hard with today's technology. The addon's to quake2 for a deathmatch against the pc are considered excellent. I have another friend who is very good at that game and he played the new AI and he said if it were inserted into a multiplayer game, u'd not notice the differance.
>Glad to see that you agree with me. I think it would be nice to focus on multiplayer and then have the AI try to be like a human. So you can play q2 in 3 basic modes right? single player campaigns, multiplayer, and simulated multiplayer. The game rules for the last two are the same right? (I don't actually know but I think I
Well yes they are but u can combine the last two like i said and have them on a multiplayer game.
>Ahhh you used the sim word. Sims are bad.
Yes i did. What i meant to say way it has just about as much simulation as it does strategy. A bit or rp added also, though a very little bit.
>Ok I agree. What I am saying is you should not make it optional. When given an option people will take it unless they are slackers. So by all means don't let the player boss everything around.
>But what if I talk five minutes each turn? Communication is the key to any game with more than two players, whether you are talking teams or ffa.
Well it could be like what was proposed that u have a certain time limit per turn and if ur not done within that period u loose whatever u've not done to the AI.
>>That's fine to want to play a difficult opponent, but that doesn't mean the game's toughness should be sacrificed for that reason, it would only make the opponents that much better if they can cope with these situations.
>No, because players cannot generate these situations. Also if we look at Chess I think everyone will agree that you don't just have random peices going around hunting down your pawns. The board is just a grid and can't hurt anyone.
That's the reason it makes it more difficult because u can't create those circumstances. If everything was created because of users this wouldn't be a very good gane. Chess doesn't have randomness but it isn't trying to be more than a strategy game like clash is.
>Are you talking computer players? See what I mean? You shouldn't be able to beat 7 computer players. You must have developed strategies that are good against beating computer players. However they aren't likely to work against humans.
Its true that the AI on warcraft sucks. I guess what i should say is i have defeated seven players (good players, i don't know about expert) once. WC isn't the type of game where 8 differnt opponents on one map work well since the maps can't be really big.
>>It isn't too hard with today's technology. The addon's to quake2 for a deathmatch against the pc are considered excellent. I have another friend who is very good at that game and he played the new AI and he said if it were inserted into a multiplayer game, u'd not notice the differance.
>Glad to see that you agree with me. I think it would be nice to focus on multiplayer and then have the AI try to be like a human. So you can play q2 in 3 basic modes right? single player campaigns, multiplayer, and simulated multiplayer. The game rules for the last two are the same right? (I don't actually know but I think I
Well yes they are but u can combine the last two like i said and have them on a multiplayer game.
>Ahhh you used the sim word. Sims are bad.
Yes i did. What i meant to say way it has just about as much simulation as it does strategy. A bit or rp added also, though a very little bit.
>Ok I agree. What I am saying is you should not make it optional. When given an option people will take it unless they are slackers. So by all means don't let the player boss everything around.
>But what if I talk five minutes each turn? Communication is the key to any game with more than two players, whether you are talking teams or ffa.
Well it could be like what was proposed that u have a certain time limit per turn and if ur not done within that period u loose whatever u've not done to the AI.
Comment