Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

I see JLS. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Don't worry, I am not watching you, but merely... erh... ensuring that no post is missed. *Smirks* *Checks if the prone-to-be-discovered probe is working fine, and if the other transparent-near-impossible-to-detect probe is also working and chuckles* http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

It is generally a bad idea to leave vague descriptions on components and facilities... it is a very simple procedure to just open up the text files and look at the exact values anyways. Save the hassle and just tell us what they do in the descriptions! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Agreed Fyron. However, there are some Weapons with existing lengthy defined descriptions, it may be best to have the new weapon’s phrases and or comments in the Right click screen.

A matter of preference for the most part http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ November 22, 2003, 17:02: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Well ability tags are part of the overall description I was refering too... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif That is the best place for the descriptions of abilities (as well as to hit bonuses and penalties, which should ALWAYS without fail be mentioned).

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Then we agree for the most part. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

However, I do not want to be too textbook with exact absolute discriptive equations in AIC and since this is just a number that is further modified, many feel "This newly Protyped weapon will have a slight decrease in weapons accuracy." is just as appropriate as "-2 to hit."

[ November 22, 2003, 17:15: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I am currently playing a FQM Standard cluster no-warp to test the AI’s use of your neat Asteroids and other strategies they may initiate on there own.
(Eee warped in 6.7 years) And the AI is doing VERY WELL in no-warp with FQM http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
- - - -

After about 150 or so turns I plan on testing (actually playing) a large amount if not most the Major AI Players plus only Kithra. In a very congested FQM quad environment.
Then start tweaking the v4.11 AI from there, then repeat from the first starting save, tweak and then repeat again and pass along any and all AI file changes.

[ November 22, 2003, 18:34: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Ah, but it is not as appropriate. It should definitely mention how much the penalty is. There is no reason to force players to have to look in components.txt to see what their stuff actually does.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Perhaps Fyron. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And to consider nothing will be carved in stone http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

[ November 22, 2003, 17:55: Message edited by: JLS ]

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

Ah, but the to hit modifiers are carved in stone. It is a hassle to have to check the data files just to see what the to hit bonuses from a weapon are.

Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
 

In respect of:
<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Fyron your preference has been made.
In addition, that this one to-hit value is only part of a total multitude of modified values, that in the end; most players may not have this known absolute executed value, in any one given situation http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Your point is of academics and is of coarse a valid point to reinforce your preference http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

[ November 22, 2003, 18:28: Message edited by: JLS ]