View Full Version : Creative Assembly No Shoggy 2 until the AI is "perfect"
Alexander the Pretty Good
10-19-2010, 23:46
Courtesy of Rock, Paper, Shotgun, this link:
http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/pc/games/162638/features/135903.20101019.Craig-Laycock-on-Shogun-2/
Mike Simpson, our creative director, has basically said 'this game is not going out the door until the AI is perfect'. AI really has been a bit of an issue for us in the past. But even Napoleon was better than Empire. I mean, one of our goals for Napoleon was to fix the issues we had in Empire, and I think to an extent we did that really well. But in terms of Shogun 2 we're not going to release it until it's perfect. There's the line-of-sight stuff we're introducing - basically, if any of our designers are playing the game and see something stupid, it's like everyone stops. Everyone gets around the PC to have a look at it, and see what can we do to fix it. We want to get it so there's nothing stupid happening in the game. We don't want to see stupid AI. It is a big thorn in our side, and it's something we've really had to work on. We're pretty confident about Shogun 2.
Really sticking your foot in it now. Not only is perfect impossible but "acceptable" has been elusive for a long bloody time. Either CA has achieved revolutionary success in AI design or they need to stop talking to the press.
But we'll forget all about this with a shiny new cutscene reveal. Then the reviewers will 9/10 it without playing it, and we'll all buy DLC uniforms.
AggonyKing
10-19-2010, 23:49
screw the AI! Until MP is perfect I say! :furious3:
tibilicus
10-20-2010, 01:29
So the cycle begins.... Again...
Gregoshi
10-20-2010, 02:43
Of course you will be disappointed when you insist on taking the (ill chosen) words literally. There is no talk of "brilliant" AI, just "not stupid" - which will be a challenge in itself.
Edit: And I agree with the comment about stop talking to the press. As much as I want to know about the game, sometimes I feel it works against them when things said early in the development cycle don't pan out. All it does is fuel the "they lied to us!!!" crowd.
pevergreen
10-20-2010, 03:26
Even if the AI is 'good' by their standards, they can't say it until we, the fanbase, agree. As Alexander said, they'll all 9/10 it without seeing half the game because they don't understand it.
Kagemusha
10-20-2010, 08:06
Well i hope CA will stick to their word and keep honing the game until all the rough edges are gone before releasing it.
Big words & I really hope they can actually release a product that lives up to them.
I don't believe anything, first off they probably win more customers by saying this than they lose from those who are disappointed if it doesn't meet their expectations.
Secondly it's always the same, if the devs say nothing, there is a lack of communication to the community and their marketing is bad, if they say something, they said the wrong things and they're liars and their marketing is evil etc.
That's not to say I'm happy with all TW products or the things they say but maybe I'm a bit of a hypocrite myself sometimes as well. :laugh4:
A big AI improvement would be very welcomed, if the demo will have a scripted battle, we can draw our own conclusions. ~;)
What did you expect them to say?
"Hi, we're spending millions on creating this big title and we can already tell you the AI will be rubbish not live up to the absurdly high expectations of some of our fans" ? The AI won't be able to play extremely well and at the same time do your homework, cook a delicious meal and write an elaborate essay about the criticism of Popper on the dialectical methods of Hegel.
Customers and people in general having extremely high expectations and demands on about everything is an illness of our time. Imho, it's not possible (and it won't be for a long time) to create an AI for this type of game that'll be as intelligent as an above average TW player.
And you can't hold it against game developpers that they'll say stuff to sell their games. The second hand car salesman will also tell you that the 6 year old car he's selling you is as good as new. You know it isn't true.
It's called "marketing". It doesn't really matter what CA, or anyone else, say about the game, now. It's probably more prudent to wait until it's actually released, read the previews, reviews and opinions of those that do play it, then decide. Filtering through all of the usual pre-release hype searching for "promises" to hold the developer to, is a pretty pointless exercise.
A perfect AI is impossible, I don't think it should be described as such. An AI with somewhat of a challange that performs better than in past games would be acceptable to me, depite a few inevitable flaws. It is nice to hear that the game will be withheld somewhat to polish it however. Hopefully the extra time (if it is indeed taken) will be worthwhile to those who end up purchasing the game upon release.
Magyar Khan
10-20-2010, 19:03
Im willingly to travel to london and spent a day behind their computer and check if its perfect...... i personnally can accept small failures..... i would say the game is not released untill MP is smooth, crispyclear and stable
Swoosh So
10-20-2010, 21:15
Yes i agree perfect is a strong word (did they really use that!?) if so this thread should be called simply No shoggy 2.
If they said AI that plays like swoosh when heavily intoxicated playing with 1 hand at 5 frames per second on a turn time limit while doing my nails then i still wouldent think they could manage it..
And i dont mean that to dis ca but the fact is in a game like this with so many variables the AI will always be mediocre its just a fact they can make improvements here and there for sure but it will never be "perfect" or on par with a heavily intoxicated swoosh playing with 1 hand at 5 frames per second on a turn time limit while doing my nails
Eignar gudminiinunson already made a crazy statement in that battle video, the ai wont notice what your doing with your cav behind the the archer cause its off doing other things? Come on! a good player wouldent miss it... So the ai has to be handicapped to look like a bad player? oh please just be honest! This is just one statement dont want to slate the guy for it i hope he brings a better ai than we have seen so far and good luck to him its a tough job he has!
Magyar Khan
10-20-2010, 21:57
well swoosh i think i have the solution of teh way they are heading hahhahahah
the best AI is provided by a human enemy, so in making the MP part perfect they en passant (tthats french and a chess term) have a perfect "AI".... get online et voila (french again for its there) ;)
Swoosh So
10-20-2010, 22:12
Maybe theyre planning to clone AMP and have him play as the ai in a huge cloning factory in every single player shogun 2 game ever played?
Gregoshi
10-21-2010, 00:50
Maybe theyre planning to clone AMP and have him play as the ai in a huge cloning factory in every single player shogun 2 game ever played?
And that is how the machines took over the world...
Eignar gudminiinunson already made a crazy statement in that battle video, the ai wont notice what your doing with your cav behind the the archer cause its off doing other things?This is the challenge of the 'believable AI' discussed in an earlier thread.
Its easy to make a bot that will know exactly what you are doing several million times per second and which in a simple game like a FPS will be able to hit you every shot from across the map.
What is hard is simulating the AI having a limited observation/response capacity that 'feels' like a real person who might get distracted & not notice you moving some units behind terrain to flank but isn't completely retarded.
I'm very happy with the suggestion that they are re-implementing LoS for the AI (& hopefully for the player too!)
In Shogun you often wouldn't know where the enemy was as you advanced.
eg your lead unit crests a ridge-line then suddenly the enemy appears formed up en-masse right behind the ridge-line & is immediately charging at you before your army has time to form ranks.
This could leave you fighting with gaps in the line, key units in the wrong place & with the disadvantage of a significant morale penalty for being attacked by recently hidden enemies that could turn this situation into a chain rout despite your army being stronger.
Swoosh So
10-21-2010, 08:15
Hoom enjoy beating your easy ai then... Its nothing to do with line of sight... the archer unit could see the cav unit running behind the hill also the ai army left an entire flank of its army wide open. Anyway the point is theyre not implimenting LOS for the ai where did you read that? Let me say this if they do impliment true los for the ai it will be the worst ever seen in a totalwar game bar none.. Take a minute and think about it this would give the player a huge advantage over an already poor ai that struggles to cope with even making a battle line let alone cover flanking or anything else.
You cant hope for a believable ai and a good ai with the state the ai has been in the past years. You could have an ai thats got a monkey in command that would be believable. Did you play shogun? there was no true LOS there the enemy wouldent suddenly appear behind the ridgeline what are you talking about? and in shogun missles could even fire through hills thats not true los either.
Kagemusha
10-21-2010, 08:20
I think they should just give LOS for the human player. Tie up the players vision to what the general can actually see and running battles would turn out lot more complicated instantly. As AI hardly can beat human brain to begin with.Why do we have an edge over it with a bird eye view?
Swoosh So
10-21-2010, 08:27
I dont think we have with the bird eye view kage. Player says that was easy i rolled that flank and the ai dident even respond! ai programmer says yes in order to make the ai believable it was off doing other things ahem *cough* LOS for the player would be a welcome handicap ofc but im telling you if they do give this los to the ai its gonna be laughably easy. The only way a player is going to feel like theyre facing a real general is to play a drop in battle the AI is so far off the mark here its unbelivable.
Kagemusha
10-21-2010, 08:34
I agree that further handicapping the AI is definetely not a good idea.
There's the line-of-sight stuff we're introducing
Did you play shogun? there was no true LOS there the enemy wouldent suddenly appear behind the ridgeline what are you talking about? and in shogun missles could even fire through hills thats not true los either. :daisy: are you talking about? You seem to have forgotten I think.
Archers most certainly did not shoot through hills.
The Radar map represents the LoS model in Shogun.
If you were hiding in trees, behind a ridge or the battle day was foggy, the AI had to go search for you because your army didn't show up on its radar map.
Likewise the player couldn't see the enemy on radar unless he has LoS.
With unrestricted camera & in some circumstances with the restricted camera you could see enemy moving in the distance in the actual battle screen but not on radar.
For that reason I always played Shogun on restricted camera because it mostly prevented the LoS advantage from having unrestricted.
In later games everything shows up on radar unless its hidden in trees & regardless of the intervening terrain.
Kagemusha
10-21-2010, 10:48
hoom you are making a solid point there.Lets just keep the language at nice level.
Magyar Khan
10-21-2010, 16:51
i see no need in handicapping the PC-AI much more, its hard enough for it to beat a human....
Revolting Friendship
10-21-2010, 17:38
There are so many things the player can do at this point to get an edge over the AI. Unrestricted vision and birds-eye view is just two of them. He can also pause the game to micromanage his units and respond to critical changes in the situation.
I think to make the battles harder, CA could at least implement optional difficulty-features that would prevent the player from exploiting the game so much. We can already choose to have restricted camera, but truly hardcore players should have the option to restrict camera to their general. Thus, he would be forced to leave command of some units to the AI since he cannot be at all places at once.
Moreover, one should be able to check off the ability to issue orders on paused, which would further limit the players advantage.
A final touch that would be neat to have is order latency. If you issue an order to a unit that is far away from your general it would take some time for it to go through. In worse cases it could even come out wrong or fail to get through at all.
Touches like these would put the player in a more realistic situation and would also give the AI some reprive.
I think a big part of the AI's flaws is not due to it being awfully bad, it's largely due to the great advantages the player has on his side, and the fact that these allow him to orchestrate his battles in very difficult and intricate ways. Then it comes as no surprise that the AI cannot adapt.
Historically, generals could not play it like this. They had predefined army formations that they largely stuck to, unless lining up the army along a defensible position. They didn't do this out of preference but pure nessecity, since it was the only way for them to control their armies with any semblance of cohesion. These formations were also sluggish to reform and once an avenue of approach was taken it was exceedingly difficult to just suddenly change it in response to unexpected turns. Moreover they had to delegate the leadership of the army's units to vassals/generals who were entrusted to carry out their part of the strategy, and did ofcourse not always comply to the satisfaction of the overall commander. They might have different ideas or motivations, which often caused problems in the execution of a plan.
I can assure you that if we got the chance to face any of the great generals of previous ages with the same advantages we are given in this game we could confidently beat any one of them, Napoleon, Alexander, Hannibal, Gustavus, Hideyoshi, you name him. Because the things they had to struggle with the most wasn't the battleplan at any given moment, but the execution of it. If they could with as much ease as us, form and reform their army and move all units in cohesion and exact formations with such perfect timing, they could've overcome any challenges with rediculous ease, in the same way that we do.
Intrepid Sidekick
10-21-2010, 17:44
Hi Guys
Please see this official thread:
http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php?t=2685&p=38019#post38019
I.S
Swoosh So
10-21-2010, 18:03
LOL hume changing the statement are we? the statement was "your lead unit crests a ridge-line then suddenly the enemy appears formed up en-masse right behind the ridge-line & is immediately charging at you before your army has time to form ranks." I can say without a doubt that would never happen in shogun unless you played with camera on the ground. I remember perfectly shogun1 and who said arrows of course the arrow arced through the sky but guns did not ie LOS was not functional.
Alexander the Pretty Good
10-21-2010, 20:45
Hi Guys
Please see this official thread:
http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.php?t=2685&p=38019#post38019
I.S
It's not a rumor when the developers say it (twice in one interview, no less).
AggonyGrudge
10-23-2010, 04:54
And that is how the machines took over the world...
This is really getting entertaining.
Veho Nex
10-23-2010, 07:55
There are so many things the player can do at this point to get an edge over the AI. Unrestricted vision and birds-eye view is just two of them. He can also pause the game to micromanage his units and respond to critical changes in the situation.
I think to make the battles harder, CA could at least implement optional difficulty-features that would prevent the player from exploiting the game so much. We can already choose to have restricted camera, but truly hardcore players should have the option to restrict camera to their general. Thus, he would be forced to leave command of some units to the AI since he cannot be at all places at once.
Moreover, one should be able to check off the ability to issue orders on paused, which would further limit the players advantage.
A final touch that would be neat to have is order latency. If you issue an order to a unit that is far away from your general it would take some time for it to go through. In worse cases it could even come out wrong or fail to get through at all.
Touches like these would put the player in a more realistic situation and would also give the AI some reprive.
I think a big part of the AI's flaws is not due to it being awfully bad, it's largely due to the great advantages the player has on his side, and the fact that these allow him to orchestrate his battles in very difficult and intricate ways. Then it comes as no surprise that the AI cannot adapt.
Historically, generals could not play it like this. They had predefined army formations that they largely stuck to, unless lining up the army along a defensible position. They didn't do this out of preference but pure nessecity, since it was the only way for them to control their armies with any semblance of cohesion. These formations were also sluggish to reform and once an avenue of approach was taken it was exceedingly difficult to just suddenly change it in response to unexpected turns. Moreover they had to delegate the leadership of the army's units to vassals/generals who were entrusted to carry out their part of the strategy, and did ofcourse not always comply to the satisfaction of the overall commander. They might have different ideas or motivations, which often caused problems in the execution of a plan.
I can assure you that if we got the chance to face any of the great generals of previous ages with the same advantages we are given in this game we could confidently beat any one of them, Napoleon, Alexander, Hannibal, Gustavus, Hideyoshi, you name him. Because the things they had to struggle with the most wasn't the battleplan at any given moment, but the execution of it. If they could with as much ease as us, form and reform their army and move all units in cohesion and exact formations with such perfect timing, they could've overcome any challenges with rediculous ease, in the same way that we do.
I like that idea.
Swoosh So
10-23-2010, 10:09
The ai should be able to control units faster than the player. I think people are being abit light on the ai. I played alot of napoleon single player last night and was able to win 90% of my battles totally outnumbered by just setting up my army and not moving at all the other 10% i had to move a cav or 2. And im talking reduced 20 man units x13 vs full armies of full units. Their cav would simply run around infront of my guns back and forward as would the line infantry in stupid patterns just getting shot up. The problems are alot deeper than some camera views infact the camera views are minor. Imo CA need to focus on the big problems the simple fact that the ai cannot in any way form a battle line. The ai never seems to 'deploy' in battle its contsantly moving doing stupid things. This is the big problem maybe they can make it stick to some rigid groups and ranks. The advantages listed above would be huge player vs player ofc but were talking about the ai here its not like your all over the battlefield countering it you can just sit and go sigh theres another full stack i held off with some peasants and 20 man units. Even when the ai is defending it never takes up defencive positions in treelines - never unless by some random chance that its stupid lines overlap the forrest. And for shogun2 they talk about the ai attacking from defence if it outnumbers? why? players already kill large stacks with ease this attack from defence nonsence just makes it 10x easier. its just not capable have it sit and at least make life a little difficult for the player. My eyes will bleed in shogun2 if im attacking a large hill like bungo to see the ai's archers not deploying and not raining down hell on my units.
Kagemusha
10-23-2010, 10:20
I think a modder called Darth Vader has issued a quite handy solution to the AI´s weakness in forming battle lines and formations, by creating absolutely wonderfull pre set formations for the AI to use. I hope some of his work are being looked upon while developing S2TW.
Well, the games already have preset formations for groups of units, I've been wondering before why the AI doesn't even use these. :shrug:
Kagemusha
10-23-2010, 11:31
Well, the games already have preset formations for groups of units, I've been wondering before why the AI doesn't even use these. :shrug:
Well i dont know about anything after M2TW, but changing those predestinated formations really do have a large effect on how formidable an AI´S attack or defense is. Just try a Darthmod and see for yourself.
I played alot of napoleon single player last night and was able to win 90% of my battles totally outnumbered by just setting up my army and not moving at all the other 10% i had to move a cav or 2. And im talking reduced 20 man units x13 vs full armies of full units. Their cav would simply run around infront of my guns back and forward as would the line infantry in stupid patterns just getting shot up.
I agree that this is a problem. I am a terribe general but have still encountered the same situation on many an occasion! I have heard about darthmod but don't like nor understand mods for ETW (I don't have NTW) and wish not to install them. I might be too hard for me as well!
Well, the games already have preset formations for groups of units, I've been wondering before why the AI doesn't even use these. A lot of it is in the unit stats balancing.
A bunch of the mods bring out much better AI than the release version by simply rebalancing the terribly bad unit stats in a way that allows various branches of the AI routines to actually be taken.
screw the AI! Until MP is perfect I say! :furious3:
Amen.
No matter how perfect AI will be, it will remain exploitable and a poor subsitute for human adversery and contact.
Amen.
No matter how perfect AI will be, it will remain exploitable and a poor subsitute for human adversery and contact.
Yup, it quite never seems to understand my delicate in-game taunts and jokes, no matter how witty I try to be.
Crazed Rabbit
10-27-2010, 02:22
The AI in Shogun 2 is shaping up to be the strongest in the entire Total War series.
Well I'm sure they mean it this time. (https://img41.imageshack.us/img41/2371/twpunchessml.jpg)
CR
pevergreen
10-27-2010, 09:26
I love your work CR.
Swoosh So
10-27-2010, 18:08
Yes the mods with formations make the ai abit better, CA should just rip anything out of the mods they like, Blizzard do this with wow and make no apologies about it and have made tons of improvements to the game that the modders designed way waaaaay to many to mention but basically all the UI and communication improvements in wow were at 1 point user mods.. Basically anything you make with their game is their property.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-28-2010, 17:39
LOL hume changing the statement are we? the statement was "your lead unit crests a ridge-line then suddenly the enemy appears formed up en-masse right behind the ridge-line & is immediately charging at you before your army has time to form ranks." I can say without a doubt that would never happen in shogun unless you played with camera on the ground. I remember perfectly shogun1 and who said arrows of course the arrow arced through the sky but guns did not ie LOS was not functional.
The ai should be able to control units faster than the player. I think people are being abit light on the ai. I played alot of napoleon single player last night and was able to win 90% of my battles totally outnumbered by just setting up my army and not moving at all the other 10% i had to move a cav or 2. And im talking reduced 20 man units x13 vs full armies of full units. Their cav would simply run around infront of my guns back and forward as would the line infantry in stupid patterns just getting shot up. The problems are alot deeper than some camera views infact the camera views are minor. Imo CA need to focus on the big problems the simple fact that the ai cannot in any way form a battle line. The ai never seems to 'deploy' in battle its contsantly moving doing stupid things. This is the big problem maybe they can make it stick to some rigid groups and ranks. The advantages listed above would be huge player vs player ofc but were talking about the ai here its not like your all over the battlefield countering it you can just sit and go sigh theres another full stack i held off with some peasants and 20 man units. Even when the ai is defending it never takes up defencive positions in treelines - never unless by some random chance that its stupid lines overlap the forrest. And for shogun2 they talk about the ai attacking from defence if it outnumbers? why? players already kill large stacks with ease this attack from defence nonsence just makes it 10x easier. its just not capable have it sit and at least make life a little difficult for the player. My eyes will bleed in shogun2 if im attacking a large hill like bungo to see the ai's archers not deploying and not raining down hell on my units.
Talking about minute details of the game as in you worry about if a arrow is going to hit your enemy's trooper in 1 second or two bascially? Really?
Amen.
No matter how perfect AI will be, it will remain exploitable and a poor subsitute for human adversery and contact.
AI is always going to be 'stupid'. You can never replace a great general with a computer. You and A.King should get a medal for this. King of Swissland got to send you guys some Cashews and Milk. :balloon2:
Yup, it quite never seems to understand my delicate in-game taunts and jokes, no matter how witty I try to be.
Lol.
Yes the mods with formations make the ai abit better, CA should just rip anything out of the mods they like, Blizzard do this with wow and make no apologies about it and have made tons of improvements to the game that the modders designed way waaaaay to many to mention but basically all the UI and communication improvements in wow were at 1 point user mods.. Basically anything you make with their game is their property.
Making apologies would be silly indeed. I've never seen a modder say: 'sorry I changed your game CA'. And that would be silly too. I think there will be several ways to do things right, but I've also seen it more than once that a company (not related to totalwar) copies/implements ideas from users and got it so unworkable wrong. It's not a series of incidents, but a pattern. I wonder whether this is done on purpose.
While apologizing to make a mod for a game, a mod on a mod or a commercial game using inventions/improvements of a mod is silly, giving some credit is nice.
Making decent formations can make a lot of difference, but that depends a lot on the performance/balancing of the units too. Good formations do work because of good units at the right place (a good unit can also be a weak unit.. in the right place).
I'm not 100% sure about the archer unit not noticing the cavalry in their back, because they are focusing on what's happening in front. I guess that could happen. But the argument that a human player will never fall for that is something I simply don't buy: it happens, and more than incidentally.
A feature I liked in RTW was general view, even better that each player could decide himself to use it or not. Of course the performance of my army wasn't just at my fingertips then, just because I couldn't be 'everywhere' at once. My units would do their thing to some extent and make AI mistakes, just like the AI army (I admit: it frequently was better if I did nothing at all).
I guess each unit could have a unitleader too (they already do), allowing the player to jump from unit to unit and get the LOS of that unit only then. It might even be possible to allow this for a given unit as long as the original unitleader is still alive. The game already has something like this, the player should be able to tune this to his liking.
Another option would be fast small messenger units, they will add some LOS (from their view) and optionally also boost morale a bit on some flanks (or drop it: 'oh no what does the general want now!?!). Units receiving a morale drop due to too many orders was implemented in STW too. Sadly it couldn't be disabled. Enabling that would give players extra challenge if they wanted and also add realism in some way, because loyalty/motivation did swing.
And for shogun2 they talk about the ai attacking from defence if it outnumbers? why? players already kill large stacks with ease this attack from defence nonsence just makes it 10x easier. its just not capable have it sit and at least make life a little difficult for the player.
I agree with that, the logical sound thing is to camp. Sometimes not, but that's a very difficult decision to make). It's also a behavior a user should be able to tune. Different generals have different styles, so the game must have mechanisms to disable certain decision routines (txt files in STW strongly suggested the intention to make it like that). En- and disabling such routines by the user (maybe with some user adjustable chance to be taken) will give a more flexible way to play the game to a users individual taste than just boosting the fighting power of the AI units.
Prodigal
10-29-2010, 13:25
Never been very fussed about the battle AI, sure it wasn't perfect but didn't have any great complaints about it either, (am in the unit balance camp on that)...'Course the campaign map AI is another story, if it remains at the level it was in ETW it'll be a crying shame, (not to mention a total waste of money); the ludicrous diplo options used to hide the shared border=attack code almost made me weep.
That aside, I'd prefer if they didn't build up expectation on any one feature too much but gave more insight into the strategy for the game as a whole.
Now please excuse the off topicness of the following but I'm both excited and fearful about the return to Shogun; ETW was a soul crushing disappointment to me in the end, but I wasn't really that interested in playing the period so no biggy; STW on the other hand is more than a title, it holds a very and special place in my cold black heart.
STW conjures pure, shiny, happy memories, and so long as they don't brutally violate that by shlapping a 2 on the end and rushing out a brain dead bug ridden horror, I for one will be satisfied with almost anything.
Magyar Khan
10-29-2010, 19:07
best way to improve the battle ai in sp dramatically is allowing an easy to use drop-in battle mode....
Swoosh So
10-29-2010, 21:59
[QUOTE=AntiKingWarmanCake88;2053221405]Talking about minute details of the game as in you worry about if a arrow is going to hit your enemy's trooper in 1 second or two bascially? Really?
Warmann i never understand what your saying half the time?? what do you mean? and where are you getting that from?
AI is always going to be 'stupid'. You can never replace a great general with a computer. You and A.King should get a medal for this. King of Swissland got to send you guys some Cashews and Milk. :balloon2:
Neuh no need. It's not like I am stating something new, it is the reason why we want to play MP after all. Though Milk and Cookies are always welcome :)
GAH!
Vanya is a "glass half full" kind of fiend. As such, He asserts that any improvement over what came before must therefore be "good", and thus, worthwhile.
While Vanya could argue that "goodness" is defined by the absence of "badness", He admits that that does not necessarily satisfy all conditions. But, that is a different discussion altogether.
GAH!
Welcome back Vanya :) been a long time. So many years since we used to 2v2 as LinkVanya and Linkspoon, hope lifes treated you well in that time :) I still speak to Linksan
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
11-12-2010, 00:01
[QUOTE=AntiKingWarmanCake88;2053221405]Talking about minute details of the game as in you worry about if a arrow is going to hit your enemy's trooper in 1 second or two bascially? Really?
Warmann i never understand what your saying half the time?? what do you mean? and where are you getting that from?[/QUOTE
Because I am a strange man, that's why :pimp:.
[QUOTE=Tempiic;2053224297]Neuh no need. It's not like I am stating something new, it is the reason why we want to play MP after all. Though Milk and Cookies are always welcome :)
I see what my Carebears can do :pimp:.
GAH!
Vanya is a "glass half full" kind of fiend. As such, He asserts that any improvement over what came before must therefore be "good", and thus, worthwhile.
While Vanya could argue that "goodness" is defined by the absence of "badness", He admits that that does not necessarily satisfy all conditions. But, that is a different discussion altogether.
GAH!
Welcome Back Vanya. Though we never met, I heard much about you. King of Swissland wishes to welcome you back. :balloon2:
GAH!
Vanya feels His glass filling.
Seeing that last sig, makes Vanya remember an old saying He heard thereabouts one time... "Mercenaries don't die; they go to Hell to regroup." Though Vanya also admits Hell is not what it used to be... There are too many advocacy groups there demanding humane treatment and a "condemned" bill of rights. All that chatter and bureacracy has stifled the flames; it's more like a neighborhood BBQ now, with the condemned singing songs while holding hands with the Devil and discussing each other's feelings as they endure their eternal punishment.
It's no wonder Vanya left that moribund place eons ago and found solace in chopping heads off!
GAH!
Kagemusha
11-12-2010, 15:43
Wellcome back Vanya!:bow:Gah!
Vladimir
11-18-2010, 00:34
Wellcome back Vanya!:bow:Gah!
Ditto!
quadalpha
11-18-2010, 02:37
Ah, yes! The-guy-who-says-GAH is back. :)
Hooahguy
11-18-2010, 19:57
I think a modder called Darth Vader has issued a quite handy solution to the AI´s weakness in forming battle lines and formations, by creating absolutely wonderfull pre set formations for the AI to use. I hope some of his work are being looked upon while developing S2TW.
Yea, Darth pretty much saved the AI in ETW. His mod made my experience of ETW so much better. When NTW came out he actually refused to mod the game because he wanted to concentrate on ETW and because the devs promised a fixed AI and it wasnt, so it was kinda in protest. Or something like that.
Vladimir
11-18-2010, 23:31
Yea, Darth pretty much saved the AI in ETW. His mod made my experience of ETW so much better. When NTW came out he actually refused to mod the game because he wanted to concentrate on ETW and because the devs promised a fixed AI and it wasnt, so it was kinda in protest. Or something like that.
Weird. I thought he was bitter about not being hired by CA after the work he did on M2.
Hooahguy
11-19-2010, 05:29
Possibly, but he never said that outright, at least not that I can remember.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.