Please don't lower the game to the AI's it's level.

[Zealot]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I can believe that that is technically possible in MoO2. If so, it´s a design error.

No! It's not an error! It's your oppinion! You're saying that because you have never really played any MP TBS game!

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
With a TBS, like with a puzzle, you should need to use just about everything that´s in there to win the game, especially on the higher levels.

What you're saying could be fun, but this isn't an RPG, where you need to have a really powerful character in order to end the game. Maybe Warcraft III will change something about that. Let's wait and see. But I don't think a player should be forced to wait to get to the "end of the game" (whatever you mean by that, either getting all the technology, killing all opponents, or something else).

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I realize it takes some skill to find those shortcuts, but those skills should be employed by the playtesters, and the shortcuts they find should then be killed. (Only the shortcuts, not the people who invent them, or at least only in the gravest cases. )

Do you really think that is possible?
Starcraft is one of the most played strategy games ever! And it has changed its concepts several times!
For example: Carriers used to cost 300 minerals, and everybody seemed to go for Carriers and built lots of them. So about six months ago they released a patch increasing its cost up to 350 minerals. Now, for a game released in 1998, that is still heavily played, only in mid-2001 gets a tweak in carriers show how much testing a game sometimes needs in order to the developers find out how the playing standards are accepted by the playing community.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Zealot
Starcraft is one of the most played strategy games ever! And it has changed its concepts several times!
For example: Carriers used to cost 300 minerals, and everybody seemed to go for Carriers and built lots of them. So about six months ago they released a patch increasing its cost up to 350 minerals. Now, for a game released in 1998, that is still heavily played, only in mid-2001 gets a tweak in carriers show how much testing a game sometimes needs in order to the developers find out how the playing standards are accepted by the playing community.

You have a point here, but this is a tiny balance issue. At least there is no balance problem with the rules themselves; that at least they got right before release.

Second, Starcraft is not a TBS. I hate RTS games; imo, they shouldn´t influence the TBS genre at all. For example, I believe CivIII has been influenced by Age of Kings, and not to its advantage. Simplicity is necessary for an RTS, for obvious reasons, but with a TBS game, simplicity is not a necessary evil. It´s *just* evil.

And again, you should never be able to win the game in the opening stage. I am more interested in SP than MP, and if Rushing is viable in SP, then where is the point in *not* doing it? You know you can always guaranteedly win by Rushing, which makes the entire game pointless in my eyes. There is no skill at all involved, once you figure out the method how to do it.

[paulmagusnet]

AI

A TBS that does very well with its AI is SSI's Imperialism I & II. The AI plays by the same rules as the player and makes no distinction between the player and the other empires.

You have the option to specify what, if any, advantages you want to give the AI's and a number of game conditions. All in all, it is very well done.

The user interface is very good also. Not a lot of excess physical stress required and easy on the carpel tunneling. And no placebo buttons (buttons you have to click to find out you can't use them)

I want to know that the AI is playing by the same rule book and gets information just like I do. The human and the computer have different advantages, but that does not justify giving one special privleges.

I want to play against an intellegence, not someting that is overpowered or omnicient. If I want to fight someting that is specifically designed to attack me I can go to the video arcade.

[paulmagusnet]

And Again

For an example of a truely horrible user-interface and rampent program cheating borrow or steal a copy of Merchant Prince II (don't pay money for this travesty).

Ten years ago this game design would be shameful, as a 21st century second generation game it is unforgivable.

[Whoha]

Starcraft games either last 5 minutes or an hour

i still remember this 3v3 where my 2 allies and myself were zerg and...
If moo3 has no risky payoff strats that either end in victory(or with some advantage to having taken the strat) or defeat(or loss of some kind) then it will become a do this and win type game. So that means that there will of course be, atleast in multiplayer games, short ones. I myself prefer longer games though.