
July 27th, 2004, 05:37 PM
|
Private
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 20
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: AI Campaign => For a Challenging AI opponent
Quote:
Originally posted by QBrigid:
quote: Originally posted by madkillercat:
Oh...then are you saying you have a better way of organizing reality? Or are you saying SE4, and particularly its AI, is meaningless since it is based on mathmatical presumptions Aaron/MM made?
|
What are you talking about now This:
Quote:
Originally posted by JLS:
Mathematical formulas are tangible to contrive an accounting of something of everything;
however, mathematical formulas are intangible, no mater how one wishes the contrivance - it will never fill the void and can not ever answer the final questions.
|
I should have said: What are you talking about now
and quoted him before I questioned him, eh?
My interpretation of JLS's above words are:
"Math, what's math. who cares. I like things the way they are, and so do my friends and probably their doggie too."
Quote:
Originally posted by QBrigid:
madkillercat, you said the stock se4 AI was stupid and se4 was limited not JLS
quote: Originally posted by JLS:
Se4 is very far from a limited game engine, and the se4 AI is not as stupid as you may believe.
|
The way I understand it, JLS wanted to "introduce a way that would not render small hull sizes to become obsolete when the next Hull is researched".
Quote:
Originally posted by JLS:
Actually, many of the AIC Players do like the AIC Hull structures and the options that they provide thru out the game and that many of the AIC Hulls - will not fall obsolete
|
As you said yourself it is a fine balance that AIC acheived [snip]
Maybe you missed the part where JLS explained this and the benifits that the small Hull Classes have to offer thru out our AIC games.
I think you stated your point madkillercat and I am also not in agreement with you {I like the AIC Hull manuver Ratings}.
[/QB] I "saw" JLS's explanation. As I mentioned, I consider hull specific changes to be "pre-determined" efficiencies. In short, my already stated opinion is such hull "balancing" is a work-around for weak AI. or pre-determined efficiencies is work-around for de facto weak AI. I could already see my impending loss in the polls regarding this opinion. I did not/do not "expect" anyone to support my view on the AI. My goal with that Last post was to clarify since JLS SEEMED to misinterpret what I said:
pre-determined efficiencies <= bad AI
as
no-obsolete-small-hulls => pre-determined efficiencies <= bad AI
no-obsolete-small-hulls <=> bad AI
no-obsolete-small-hulls <=> bad AIC
no-obsolete-small-hulls <=> bad AIC, it sucks, its sooo bad
Quote:
Originally posted by QBrigid:
Bottom line is we like the ingame flexibility of the AIC Small Hulls and I wouldn’t change much JLS
|
I did not see that coming.
The AI is strong. The AI is god. SE4 is greatness. There is nothing wrong with MY game.
Hell, SE5 isn't even needed. Just slap Star Fury graphics onto SE4, and us fanatics, no fans will have 3D greatness too.
Anyway, don't change the hulls if you don't want. I just thought it strange to have such inconsistancy when almost everything looked like consistant within the AIC universe rules. I also would have thought it strange if the Millenium Falcon appeared in the middle of a Federation battle with the Dominion. But then, flexibility and understanding do make the world go 'round--or something.
|