Fake Difficulty Level

[krisslanza]

that's a complete crock of . you and me know it.

have played games from start to finish zero probs recently. bioshock/company of heroes2/bf4 single player/europa universalis 4 to name a few have completed without trouble...played hours of darthnap and empire no trouble...i can go on and on but u get the picture..

No that's completely how bugs work. I have done a little bit of coding myself, in a C++ like format, and even when I copy/pasted code into it from another source, it wouldn't work. Try a game from scratch, use the same code? Worked flawlessly. Bugs are weird. Sometimes all it takes is a single extra space somewhere, a inproper indent, an extra character, etc.

Or sometimes code just freaks out. It's weird like that.

And no, that doesn't paint a picture. That just proves my point: bugs aren't always something that happens. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. And also, they might happen, you just might not notice it, or may not realize it wasn't supposed to work that way in the first place. Is every bug as easy to spot as, say, the randomly flying mammoths, or the "being punched to the moon" that happens in Skyrim? Nope. Sometimes a bug is a simple, little thing you don't notice.

[daelin4]

or you are seriously telling me in 2013 we dont possess either the brains nor the technical know-how to make this happen...

No, most would say the problem lie in economics and business side of making our dreams a reality.

Truth is, the amount of time and effort (which translates to money) would be pretty big, and it was decided among CA people that it was best to make the game more about graphics with a cheating AI. I mean hey in worked before in every TW game, so...

feasible based upon what? who has stated this?

Economics/ business, I presume. Given time and money I am sure CA would be able to pull it off. Of course they don't, so...

and no bugs dont increase just because you make the game more complex. that's solved by beta testing and attention to the code.

Which is true, but again, they don't give themselves (or are not given) the time to properly do this. Hence a product like Rome2 turns out like , as predicted.

In the end, it's not really so much that the effort is hard, but it takes a long time. Something CA has routinely failed to appreciate.

[krisslanza]

Which is true, but again, they don't give themselves (or are not given) the time to properly do this. Hence a product like Rome2 turns out like , as predicted.

In the end, it's not really so much that the effort is hard, but it takes a long time. Something CA has routinely failed to appreciate.

The amount of time it takes to develop a game has absolutely nothing to do with how good it actually is. If anything, if it takes too long, the game suffers horrendously. The rate at which we develop new technology means spending more then a year or two on a game is already pushing it before your game might be out of date, or have new technology you want to use.

For a prime example look at Duke Nuke 'Em Forever. That game was in development for 15 years, and it was awful.

[Sun Jetzu]

All you get when you increase the difficulty is more cheats for the AI, which translates to a more frustrating gameplay.

Welcome to the world of Difficulty levels. I cant even remember the last time a game actually just made AI smarter when you up the difficulty instead of giving them buffs.

[Takizama]

The amount of time it takes to develop a game has absolutely nothing to do with how good it actually is. If anything, if it takes too long, the game suffers horrendously. The rate at which we develop new technology means spending more then a year or two on a game is already pushing it before your game might be out of date, or have new technology you want to use.

For a prime example look at Duke Nuke 'Em Forever. That game was in development for 15 years, and it was awful.

People will never accept your opinion even though it is right. Everyone is living in a pipe dream that ca was just lazy. However they were rushed by Sega to get the game out.

[krisslanza]

People will never accept your opinion even though it is right. Everyone is living in a pipe dream that ca was just lazy. However they were rushed by Sega to get the game out.

While there may have been rushing as a factor, this is the way the business world works. Releasing at this time period may have been commercially risky, as its competing with Christmas sales, and the release of the Xbox One and the PS4. They're not PC games, of course, but they're still a factor in how the game might sell. There's also the fact that extending the deadline increases the expenses with the game, risks further setbacks (something unexpected happens), and potentially hurts your sales because people lose confidence in the product for not releasing on time.

Some people might say "I would've been happy waiting another 6 months for a better Rome 2!" but that's only because you have Rome 2 now and have already seen it. Let's say in some alternate reality, Rome 2 was delayed for 6 months: I doubt the reaction would be as "positive" as some people say - they'd probably be bashing on CA for being lazy and unable to keep a deadline. But really, we can't say since that isn't what happened.

[the lightning legion]

People will never accept your opinion even though it is right. Everyone is living in a pipe dream that ca was just lazy. However they were rushed by Sega to get the game out.

plus since he/she/it has acknowledged and defended a few of the good features of the game this person has no credibility with the more vocal element on these forums

[daelin4]

The amount of time it takes to develop a game has absolutely nothing to do with how good it actually is. If anything, if it takes too long, the game suffers horrendously.

For a prime example look at Duke Nuke 'Em Forever. That game was in development for 15 years, and it was awful.

That is incorrect thinking. The actual time it took for the game to develop actually lasted far less than that, because it was constantly being changed between concepts, engine and developers. I meant when actual work is being done. Compare Starcraft 2, which took what, ten years? And it wasn't even that revolutionary. And yet it's one of the best games out there right now, because it was popular, AND it's not a buggy piece of .
It takes a long time for things to get ironed out and developed. The more time spent actually making the game better is a good thing. DNF is a bad example because none of the time spent was really doing anything to make it good.

The rate at which we develop new technology means spending more then a year or two on a game is already pushing it before your game might be out of date, or have new technology you want to use.

Oh please, by the time new tech comes out a lot of time is needed to be traind into using it well, you don;t just pick it up the day it's released. By that logic, why is CA not ditching the Warscape engine? Because it would take forever to create a new (re not necessarily better) one, which means a lot of time. They made Warscape specifically to not have to make as many new engines as possible.

[Kenios]

CA has already addressed this question during Shogun 2 development. You can probably dig it up with a search. CA brought up the example of Deep Blue, a specially designed computer built by IBM to play chess against world champion Kasparov and defeat him. At its day, Deep Blue was the 259th most powerful supercomputer in the world and it cost IBM millions of dollars. CA simply doesn't have the money, time or expertise to create the kind of AI players want, especially since Total War is much more complex than chess. Total War is only a video game sold for $50 (or so) per copy for a market only a few hundred thousand big. Out of each $50 copy sold, CA only sees 30% or so in its pocket.

Secondly, it is impractical to create a different AI routines for different game difficulty levels. If there are 5 difficulty levels, that means there are 5 different AI routines. A simple change means CA has to spend alot of time and resources to test and check things are functioning properly on each difficulty level. It's just too expensive and time-consuming. That's why games simply give enemies more health, make them react faster, shoot more accurately on higher difficulty levels.

[krisslanza]

That is incorrect thinking. The actual time it took for the game to develop actually lasted far less than that, because it was constantly being changed between concepts, engine and developers. I meant when actual work is being done. Compare Starcraft 2, which took what, ten years? And it wasn't even that revolutionary. And yet it's one of the best games out there right now, because it was popular, AND it's not a buggy piece of .
It takes a long time for things to get ironed out and developed. The more time spent actually making the game better is a good thing. DNF is a bad example because none of the time spent was really doing anything to make it good.

Yes and no. It did shuffle hands a lot, but part of that was because when it got close to being done, there was some new engine out that worked better - so they started over again, instead of just finishing it up. There was certainly a legal battle over it though.

And actually StarCraft 2 was in development for about 7 years. It was revealed to have been started being made in 2003, although it was never announced until 2007. Plus this is Blizzard we're talking about - they make more money then CA does in the past decade, in probably a few months. (Okay maybe not quite that extreme, but Blizzard is rolling in cash)

While it does take a long time to iron everything out, its an issue of cost. Games nowadays are obscenely expensive, and the longer they stay in the development, the costs just keep rising. And there's no way to ensure you make a return on that investment either.

Oh please, by the time new tech comes out a lot of time is needed to be traind into using it well, you don;t just pick it up the day it's released. By that logic, why is CA not ditching the Warscape engine? Because it would take forever to create a new (re not necessarily better) one, which means a lot of time. They made Warscape specifically to not have to make as many new engines as possible.

Correct. Engines are a big investment of time and money, which is why CA is still using Warscape, instead of making a specific engine per game.
But the longer a game is in development, the higher the chances of your game going from "cutting-edge" to "old news". Which can, of course, hurt your sales. Warscape is probably starting to show its age already, but we'll see if they can keep it dancing.

[T-Duke]

1) AI using new battle tactics, rather than the single "Attack head on and flank with cavalry" available to it

This is the main issue had me leaving the game. Actually it's not properly a Rome II issue, but a Total War one. The 20 units stack limit, fast routing, no reserve system, no need for scouting (yes Rome II implemented a good FoW system which is unfortunately useless when ai always charge you frontal...)

I played the saga since Shogun I, even with its many flaws I can surely state the campaign improved and evolved a lot. The tactical battles simply not. On the other hand I have to admit CA tried to introduce something brand new this time (victory points, baggage train defense) but the feedback was quite negative.

Probably most of you still like these dynamics. As for me, after 11 years, I 've had enough of this.

[RakeinWaiting]

I disagree with some here claiming the AI needed to make this game more challenging and fun is beyond our reach.

I remember way back in Empire CA was saying a nation you fought against would fight in unique ways. They never went real deep into this (and it,along with much more, was thrown out the window anyway), but I assume these AI behaviour mirrored historical tactics: maybe the native american tribes would use hit and run tactics on a line of infantry, or Middle-eastern armies would deploy large numbers of horses balanced with archers.

Now, there are only a set number of major factions in Rome 2. If these were given their own unique fighting style (even their CULTURE given unique fighting styles), something similar to above, I would be immediatly sucked back into the game. To reach this goal, the only thing needed is time.

At the end of the day, giving the AI cheats is just a faster and easier way to make a game.

[pajomife]

The TW AI never was that good,but in this game it is miserable,it simple can't can lead with most of game situations,mainly the new feature,the instant transport. The armies simple goes to the sea just because they can without any purpose leaving their cities alone. If CA can't made a good AI at least they should script the game wisely.

[Adreno]

when you understand that a supercomputer can barely beat the best chess player in a game with rules as simple as chess.. guess how far they are with proper AI for videogames which are infinitely more complicated?

[Rittsy]

I don't think any strategy game has ever had an AI that changes with difficulty levels. In games like Star Craft II to Evil Genius, harder difficulties lead to more aggressive AI, an AI more likely to target the player, 'stronger' units/economy for the non-player etc. The 'AI' itself doesn't change.

[lollaaja]

when you understand that a supercomputer can barely beat the best chess player in a game with rules as simple as chess.. guess how far they are with proper AI for videogames which are infinitely more complicated?

There are seemingly only a handful of people on this whole forum who understand this. The rest of the muppets cry endlessly about how bad the AI is. It's infuriating.

[Adreno]

There are seemingly only a handful of people on this whole forum who understand this. The rest of the muppets cry endlessly about how bad the AI is. It's infuriating.

and honestly its not really all that bad.. ok AI in sieges can still use a lot of work.. but for field battles i feel its pretty adequate.. at least better than anything we have gotten before..

[Tullaris]

There are seemingly only a handful of people on this whole forum who understand this. The rest of the muppets cry endlessly about how bad the AI is. It's infuriating.

No what is infuriating is your terrible myopic post, showing a complete lack of understanding of what AI in Total war games is all about.

AI in Total War games means scripting. AI in chess is calculating.

AI in Total War games is about guiding AI behavior through parameters. You break down the army composition for the AI. For example, if the AI is defending in Shogun II, but it has less archers than you, it will attack you. Which is a logical script.

If the AI in Shogun II has more archers than you, it will move into archery range and fire upon you untill you have to charge.

This is basic scripting. The AI gets challenging when it is really well scripted to deal with standard human behavior. In Shogun II the enemy cavalry often targets your general while going around your flanks.

You don't need a frigging supercomputer for a challenging AI. You need GOOD scripting. This is what Darth Vader tried to improve upon in his mods.

In Rome II the AI battle scripting is far worse than in Shogun II. It is badly suited to deal with most situations and this is not because it is so complex and unachievable. It is just because it wasn't scripted very well or extensively. You see battle AI gets usually done last because you don't want to rewrite your AI scripts every time designers change a feature of the game.

[Medina]

Every if and else in a AI has negative outcomes that have to be offset by another piece of code of if else that will result in another negative outcome and external effects.

[T-Duke]

when you understand that a supercomputer can barely beat the best chess player in a game with rules as simple as chess.. guess how far they are with proper AI for videogames which are infinitely more complicated?

Mhh do you really think chess is less "complicate" than a TW game (or other videogame)??? C'on mate...