That's a very interesting subject you taking on here.Īs LeaderEnemyBoss pointed out, relying on bonuses can feel really lazy and unrewarding for the player. How strong that drive is can ofcourse be dependant on the difficulty setting
AIs should ideally do both, provide flavor and a "good experience", but also have at least have some drive towards winning the game.Its one of the main reasons, why the ELCP AI is better in the late game. If you teach the AI to do this in a somewhat sensible manner, lategame suddenly becomes way more interesting, even if the player is in a good spot to win. Even if the game doesnt allow for formal alliances, this kind of thing happens - often without players being able to communicate. In any FFA-Game - doesnt matter if its 4X, RTS, FPS or 2d-Shooters like Invisigun - the meta typically revolves around teaming up to stop snowballing players. The reason why many 4x AIs struggle in the lategame, is because they dont recognize a snowballing player correctly and use diplomacy in a sensible manner to combat that.It feels bad if you get "punished" for doing well. This holds especially true, if its implemented as a rubber banding mechanism like you proposed. I think adaptive bonuses are not a good solution to the "human player snowballing problem".Not everyone needs to play on the highest level. The space of viable strategies always gets smaller, the more competitive you play, its the same when playing against human players. High difficulties are for the most experienced players.We already had this kind of discussion in the internal forums. Whereas on higher difficulty settings, the AI should be able to crush players who play suboptimally. For instance, if the player starts to snowball against the AI in Humankind, perhaps the threshold for getting Era Stars could be lowered for the AI, allowing them to possibly catch up.Īs far as the question of: Should the point of the AI be to win the game or to provide a good experience for the player? I feel like on Normal it should probably be to provide a good experience, making the game more accessible. It seems like adaptive bonuses would be easier to program for a 4X game with one victory condition. Having a single victory condition (apart from wiping everyone out I assume) should make it more clear for both the AI and the player on the kinds of things they should be focusing on to win the game.
I assume the Fame mechanic was designed in part to help combat some of the issues described above, as it helps to simplify the problems. *Should the point of the AI be to beat the game themselves, or to provide the player with a good experience? This gives the player more flexibility in how they play the game as the bonuses the AI receives aren’t so big from the start.Īdaptive Bonuses: Once the player starts to snowball, the bonuses the different AI receive depend on the type of game they’re playing (a military focused AI might receive a reduction in cost to making units, etc.)
#Total war three kingdoms difficulty differences mods
There are mods for Civ VI and Endless Legend that increase the bonuses the AI gets as the game progresses rather than give a constant flat rate from the beginning. *A couple interesting ways to combat the player snowballing against the AI and creating a boring endgame: *How do you combat the player snowballing against the AI without frustrating the player?
*It’s difficult to combat snowballing in 4X games and the endgame can become boring after you have snowballed, especially if you are going for a peaceful victory condition. This reduces the number of viable strategies, which makes the play experience less flexible/fun. *The bonuses that the AI receives to make up for their suboptimal play can be so large on the highest difficulty setting that it forces players to play a certain way to combat these bonuses. I watched an interesting video recently called AI and Difficulty in 4X Games.
0 kommentar(er)
