Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 8 years ago
dominion fed and klink are done as of now rommie and borg are left
Original comment by jtaylor...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2010 at 4:36
BTW - you realize some people are going to bitch and whine about these trees
hardcore, right? I mean, I like them, but some people are going to gripe
something
fierce about how it's so hard and takes so long.
Then again, compared to most 4X games, Sins was always a bit fast and the
improvements were a bit small, so I don't understand why anyone should be
complaining.
Original comment by thomas.s...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2010 at 5:10
The possibility of bitching has come up in discussion before. I'm not 100%,
but I'm
fairly positive the agreement was that we didn't particularly care. :)
Original comment by aaron...@hotmail.com
on 23 Jan 2010 at 9:20
As the Federation I was able to beat 5 AI (1 rom, 2 dom, 1 borg, 1 klingon)
alone
with actual tech trees, without much problems despite having assigned them more
space
than mine for expansion (to ensure lots of resources and logistical slots each
to
reach tier 8).
I think the problem is that they don't build good capitals or they evolve too
slowly
or either the capitals are too much stronger compared to frigates. Or maybe all
three. I think I never even built one actually in that match.
After that I tried a solo against 1 dominion and it was no match really.
2 hours to get to tier 8 and 10 minutes of warp walzing on enemy plantes.
I am maybe the most inexpert here but I feel something is not working.
Original comment by gianmari...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2010 at 9:31
Might be the perfect tech tree for multiplayer purposes eh, but the AI is cannon
fodder now.
Original comment by gianmari...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2010 at 9:33
I don't think the AI is all that bad, but maybe that's because I've never
expected
much out of it (being able to beat the pants off it in any form). I will admit,
however, that the AI was better before the tech tree changes. The changes are
great
for human multi-player, but not as great for the bot (note, the klink bot seems
to be
better than others).
Perhaps it is worth putting both a multi-player version and a single-player
version
out on the street to let people have as much fun as they can.
Alternatively, if you want to be comprehensive about it, you could probably
create
"alternate" versions of each race only for the AI to play. The AI version
would be
the versions that was beta tested until the tech trees were revised and cap
ships
started requiring research. You could name the races "AI-Fed" and "AI-Klingon"
etc.,
that way it would be clear during multi-player games whether people were
'cheating'
by using the version that's only supposed to be for the bot. This should be
pretty
darn easy, since you would only need a new player.entity file for each "AI"
version
of each race. In fact, if anyone has the player.entity files from last week (I
think
I might), it would take all of a few minutes to create I think.
I'm sure you'll get all kinds of kudos for it if you do that, though time may be
limiting for a January release.
Original comment by thomas.s...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2010 at 10:00
what are your playing as hard , easy ???
I agree with you on the ai sentient player files
the problem with that is they would also need all of there own research entity
files
and i am not sure sins can handle it .
Original comment by jtaylor...@gmail.com
on 24 Jan 2010 at 6:14
made changes to the ai itself please play on aggressive
Original comment by jtaylor...@gmail.com
on 24 Jan 2010 at 6:21
I only play on unfair, though I leave the strategy as random.
good point on the research files. If sins was smart, the player files would
have the
"map" for location and pre-requisites, but instead it's intrinsic to the
research.
With 5 races already we're probably getting up against the hardcode limits for
the
max number of files allowed (presumably a stupid limit to avoid taxing RAM) as
is, so
you're right we may not be able to pull that off.
Yuck yuck.
Original comment by thomas.s...@gmail.com
on 24 Jan 2010 at 7:03
Original comment by jtaylor...@gmail.com
on 27 Jan 2010 at 3:02
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
thomas.s...@gmail.com
on 23 Jan 2010 at 3:52