|
Klydon -> RE: Sad, sad, sad....... (12/17/2015 9:24:07 PM)
|
I guess part of the issue is what defines a "good" AI and a "bad" AI?
All AI's are "bad" as far as some people are concerned because they supposedly can be either 'gamed' or so easily beaten or perhaps have so many obvious cheats that it makes it sort of problematic.
There are a lot of games out there that have good AI's and a lot of them go back a long way when there were far fewer resources to work with in terms of computing power, etc. According to one of my programmer friends, the biggest reason behind "bad" AI's is the programmer isn't very good at the game in question and typically doesn't have access to people who are good at it. It isn't that the programmer doesn't know how to make a good AI.
In the case of this game, the programmer that will be working on it is also a good player of the game along with having enlisted a lot of early help from the community in terms of strategy for the various positions, etc (again, see the work already done in the AI thread). In short, while the game may be very complicated from a AI standpoint of view, the game also has eliminated one of the biggest issues with AI's in that the programmer knows how to play the game well from a strategy standpoint of view and has additional help from other players who are good at the game as well to help counterbalance some of that complexity.
Will it ever happen for this game? I hope so, but I also know it is going to be a ton of work and it may never get off the ground because it doesn't make financial sense to invest into doing a AI for the game. The big thing is it was promised as something that would come along. Hopefully it will be delivered at some point along with several of the other promises made as well.
|
|
|
|
