You feelings on fake difficulty?
- Thread starter Aircross
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This is a perfect reason for me to ***** about Super Smash Bros. Brawl. While I liked the thing while it lasted, raising the difficulty on the AI only made them hit you further, rather than making them more responsive. Why the hell did the developer take that route? It probably had to do with the utter shit quotient of the Wii not being able to run a good AI, so that could certainly explain the issue.
How can you make the AI of the husks better? They're techno-zombies with no brains and no ranged weapons. They're best bet will ALWAYS to mass-charge you, no matter the circumstance. Zombies don't take cover.Byr0m said:
Though I do understand what they mean with RTS'. It difficult to make a computer play most strategy games better than a human, simply because it's difficult to make an AI be creative. Humans can think up of new strategies on the fly, AIs cannot. It's only because chess has a relatively defined structure that computers can beat us at all. Age of Empires is has much more varied circumstances than chess.
Most of the time it doesn't annoy me apart from in racing games with rubber banding cause eventually you hit the point where your on the limits of what is possible for the car your in to do and the AI start overtaking me it does my head in.
Making you less OP and giving you less margin for error is a valid way to increase difficulty in most games. I would not class that as fake difficulty. Fake difficulty is when something is more chance than skill based. It?s not like it?s easy to just write better AI and its going to be predictable. Tho in strategy games yeah higher difficulties should have the comp using better tactics not just nerfing you.
The problem with ramping up the ai is that in total war they already do that with how skilled the general your fighting against is. So, to make the ai smarter they would need to do it once for every rank in each difficulty. Sounds like a lot of work to me.Aircross said:
Also Rome is quite old now , are we sure they haven't fixed this problem already?
Fake difficulty is what I didn't like about Kingdom Hearts 2's proud mode. The enemies just did more damage to the point where one hit would take out almost all your HP. Increasing the Damage:HP ratio isn't making the game harder it's making the game obnoxious.
MGS does difficulty very well with more soldiers, better AI, and less ease when sneaking around causing you to strategize more before you rush in to a place. Yes, the enemies also do more damage but that shouldn't be the only thing that constitutes a higher difficulty.
MGS does difficulty very well with more soldiers, better AI, and less ease when sneaking around causing you to strategize more before you rush in to a place. Yes, the enemies also do more damage but that shouldn't be the only thing that constitutes a higher difficulty.
Most games actually do that. I know the Left 4 Dead games do that (possibly Half Life also) where damage basically translates to how much damage the enemies do. In Black Hawk Down, difficulty just changes the players HP (50/100/200). It's just easier to do rather than more programming for different levels.Aircross said:
Well no.JFrog84 said:
Shogun 2:
They have for the battles, they have made the battles harder and the ai smarter.
On the campaign there is little change other than THE ENEMY GETS A BIG LUMP OF MONEY THE HARDER THE DIFFICULTY.
Which sucks.
Still love total war!
I don't mind it. Writing a brilliant AI is hard, the odd shortcut here or there is fine if it gives the game a playable harder difficulty it wouldn't otherwise have had.
Because making the AI more intelligent would take tons of hours, manpower and money to do, while just nerfing you/buffing them takes much, much, MUCH less than that and most of the time, hitting you with the nerf-stick forces you to create alternate tactics, make you put more effort into battles and force you to be more careful in order to fight the cheapness.Byr0m said:
The worst kind of difficulty isn't the one where you get hit with the nerf-stick, it's the one where the enemy will counter anything you're doing at any time, basically forcing you to either try until the AI LETS you win or use an exploit.
Besides, ME2 insane isn't that bad, depending on your class. Don't get me wrong though, nerf-sticks aren't the best way to alter difficulty, but it's not THAT bad and it's probably going to be the main difficulty-changing system for a long time.
Enemies being stronger, faster and live longer when the difficulty goes up, not a problem. Memorizing spawn, swarm, attack timing patterns and learning where safe zones are located are not a problem either.
It's when the AI rubberbands so you can't catch up no matter how hard you try. Also when LUCK is a huge factor and It's completely out your control that's a BIG problem.
It's when the AI rubberbands so you can't catch up no matter how hard you try. Also when LUCK is a huge factor and It's completely out your control that's a BIG problem.
I like challenges, not things that are unfair and ridiculous. Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2 is a challenge, enemies deal stronger amounts of damage(as well they should, being run through would usually kill someone), they're more agile, and they're smarter. You best be prepared to block, dodge, counter attack, and use the walls to your advantage, because the higher difficulties will kick your ass.
Dead Island? That's just unfair. When you have three Rams and 5 Infected all after you at one time, that's not a challenge, that's just not right. Especially when the Infected rush you as you're getting up from being hit by the Ram. And especially when you're playing the game solo. -.-
Dead Island? That's just unfair. When you have three Rams and 5 Infected all after you at one time, that's not a challenge, that's just not right. Especially when the Infected rush you as you're getting up from being hit by the Ram. And especially when you're playing the game solo. -.-
I was going to write a huge thing about this but then got lazy about it.
There is such a thing as difficulty Vs. fun. I turn cheats on when fun is the priority. Like in Prototype, GTA4, and free roam games where destruction is key. So if I'm not having fun, I tend to make it fun with trainers.
There is such a thing as difficulty Vs. fun. I turn cheats on when fun is the priority. Like in Prototype, GTA4, and free roam games where destruction is key. So if I'm not having fun, I tend to make it fun with trainers.
I think Sid Meier said something along the lines, that an AI should not try to copy how a human would play but provide some kind of steady resistance. More like a force of nature for the player to overcome than a real opponent.
I think Starcraft and other RTS games are good examples of games that often have both modes of AI. Skirmish AI games are attempt at mimicking human opponents, and provide for reasonably good multiplayer practice. Campaigns create a steady resistance for the player to overcome.
In 4X games and RTS games one issue with efficient AI's that don't cheat, is that they are ruthlessly efficient at economics and micromanagement but very bad at actual tactics and strategy. That results in some rather odd gameplay.
There are so many ways to create AI opponents and the best approach very much depends on the specifics of the game. Generally I'd say that it's fine if an AI cheats as long as players don't notice too often. But the more transparent the game gets the less cheating is possible.
When developers create computer opponents that cheat, the purpose is to make the challenge more fun. And this is the core of the issue - what kind of AI behaviour and game balance is fun.
I think it's important to have computer opponents that acts in a way that makes sense for the setting and helps immersion. In many cases a computer opponent is more like an actor or game master than a real opponent.
I actually think the worst part of cheating is when I get the feeling that the AI or the game is letting me win on purpose. Scaling difficulty is one of the worst mechanics in this regard, because it takes control away from me as a player.
I like when a strategy game shows the baseline setting, the one where neither the player or computer is given a handicap. That makes it easier for players to decide if they want to put the difficulty slider above or below that baseline.
I think Starcraft and other RTS games are good examples of games that often have both modes of AI. Skirmish AI games are attempt at mimicking human opponents, and provide for reasonably good multiplayer practice. Campaigns create a steady resistance for the player to overcome.
In 4X games and RTS games one issue with efficient AI's that don't cheat, is that they are ruthlessly efficient at economics and micromanagement but very bad at actual tactics and strategy. That results in some rather odd gameplay.
There are so many ways to create AI opponents and the best approach very much depends on the specifics of the game. Generally I'd say that it's fine if an AI cheats as long as players don't notice too often. But the more transparent the game gets the less cheating is possible.
When developers create computer opponents that cheat, the purpose is to make the challenge more fun. And this is the core of the issue - what kind of AI behaviour and game balance is fun.
I think it's important to have computer opponents that acts in a way that makes sense for the setting and helps immersion. In many cases a computer opponent is more like an actor or game master than a real opponent.
I actually think the worst part of cheating is when I get the feeling that the AI or the game is letting me win on purpose. Scaling difficulty is one of the worst mechanics in this regard, because it takes control away from me as a player.
I don't know about Rome:Total War, but in some strategy games it feels like that because lower difficulty levels give the player overpowered units and then even out the difference at higher settings. Sometimes making the computer a worse strategist can be even harder than making it better. Inverse cheating happens very often.
I like when a strategy game shows the baseline setting, the one where neither the player or computer is given a handicap. That makes it easier for players to decide if they want to put the difficulty slider above or below that baseline.