Is the game fun again?
- Thread starter WCH
- Start date
Kael
Deity
I guess it depends on what changes you didn't like. I enjoy playing High to Low games on large maps. Less crashes and hangs is also good.
Kael
Deity
You might also want to play on a lower difficulty where the AI suffers production disadvantages so you won't encounter those massive stacks.
I dont really understand it but I've heard from quite a few players how they enjoyed early versions of FfH where the AI was bad because they got to build a hero or a few favorite units and travel the world causing chaos with them. Almost like a turn based RPG. They let their cities build buildings and generally expanded their empire but their real fun was running around defeating armies with their super units.
Then when the Ai got better that was no longer possible. AI would develop an adequate defense (in Civ that means big stanks) and destroy wandering heroes. That ruined some players enjoyment of the game.
My solution to that would be to invite those players to lower the difficulty. But so far the players I have talked to hadn't wanted to do that. They feel a bit insulted to play at lower difficulty settings. They want to beat the game at Noble.
As a game designer that really confuses me. My job is to make the AI more effective. And the difficulty settings are there for the player to determine how easy or hard the game should be. It shouldnt be insulting to play on lower levels. And Im delighted the Ai is producing massive stacks that threaten or crush human players.
So yes, at a given difficulty level the game should be more challenging. If that makes the game less fun then you should drop the difficulty (I play games on low difficulty but I play High To Low to keep it interesting). If you are already playing on the the easiest difficulty and the game is to hard to be enjoyable then we may have a design problem (in that the easiest difficulties should be even easier).
While I appreciate the AI improvements regarding the economy, city placement and stuff, I wouldn't really agree that the AI improved much in warfare. The bigger stacks partly result from the better economy, but while the AI does a few things better in warfare other things got just worse/weird.
I understand the "better" AI is still in developement and I wouldn't mind those changes, if they hadn't introduced insanely long AI turn times in the mid-/endgame and made the endgame unplayable unless you enjoy small maps with a few civs or large maps in pbem playstyle.
That's the reason I stopped playing FfH2 at least, although I enjoy Wildmana once in a while, which is probably even worse performance-wise considering all the additions and suffers from the same issues listed above.
During war I also prefer an AI with a rather higher unit production bonus that constantly sends dangerous and damaging, but not superior stacks (well, at least if you prepared yourself) than an AI with one huge stack (that gets unnecessarly shifted around during peace time only resulting in higher turn times), which leaves its cities basicly undefended after it goes down.
For me the AI became too alike to a human in this case (ironically). Only moving out its stack when far superior might be challenging to some players, but to me it's boring and the increased turntime during which the AI builds up this stack contributes to that aswell.
I understand that you can't please everyone with the changes. I was just trying to give a piece of my mind and preference, since I'm probably not the only one. Also I think you went a little bit too much the easy way in your reasoning and reference to players refusing to drop difficulty levels.
I understand the "better" AI is still in developement and I wouldn't mind those changes, if they hadn't introduced insanely long AI turn times in the mid-/endgame and made the endgame unplayable unless you enjoy small maps with a few civs or large maps in pbem playstyle.
That's the reason I stopped playing FfH2 at least, although I enjoy Wildmana once in a while, which is probably even worse performance-wise considering all the additions and suffers from the same issues listed above.
During war I also prefer an AI with a rather higher unit production bonus that constantly sends dangerous and damaging, but not superior stacks (well, at least if you prepared yourself) than an AI with one huge stack (that gets unnecessarly shifted around during peace time only resulting in higher turn times), which leaves its cities basicly undefended after it goes down.
For me the AI became too alike to a human in this case (ironically). Only moving out its stack when far superior might be challenging to some players, but to me it's boring and the increased turntime during which the AI builds up this stack contributes to that aswell.
I understand that you can't please everyone with the changes. I was just trying to give a piece of my mind and preference, since I'm probably not the only one. Also I think you went a little bit too much the easy way in your reasoning and reference to players refusing to drop difficulty levels.
Yeah, my problem was never that it got too hard, more that it got monotonous. The AI making good use of its civilization's distinct flavour and strengths is awesome, but it's like "unrestricted leaders" got turned on and everyone ended up as Einon Logos of the Clan of Embers. Hordes of worthless units, and a downright pacifistic playstyle.
Really? The only AI I've noted grandstanding with SoDs with the latest patch is the Sheaim, and I figure that's probably because they began the game by walking over the Hippus, then got stuck in a tech hole and have slowly made their way to AV.
My current game is heaps of fun, Perpentach stomped on Auric early on, then decided I (Alexis/Calabim) was a target after I settled on his "continent" and caught me out with a few stacks of beefed up Mimics (heroic attack and defence 2!!!), cats and adepts. Meanwhile Valledia and Sheelba have been going toe-to-toe, Faeryl has pushed Logos into a corner, Sandalphon made the mistake of thinking that being more powerful meant he could take on Kandros Fir, Decius (Malakim) and Garrim Gyr wont quit beating each other up and Amelanchier is getting a little trigger happy with privateers.
Given we're only halfway through the tech tree and the AC just reached 10, I can't wait to see how things end up.
My current game is heaps of fun, Perpentach stomped on Auric early on, then decided I (Alexis/Calabim) was a target after I settled on his "continent" and caught me out with a few stacks of beefed up Mimics (heroic attack and defence 2!!!), cats and adepts. Meanwhile Valledia and Sheelba have been going toe-to-toe, Faeryl has pushed Logos into a corner, Sandalphon made the mistake of thinking that being more powerful meant he could take on Kandros Fir, Decius (Malakim) and Garrim Gyr wont quit beating each other up and Amelanchier is getting a little trigger happy with privateers.
Given we're only halfway through the tech tree and the AC just reached 10, I can't wait to see how things end up.
Regarding game design and difficulty, I was actually thinking about this lately. I think what I want, in terms of challenge, is for there to be a couple civilizations near me that I can, with a bit of effort, overcome (whether economically or militarily), but for there to be a couple others doing just as well as me elsewhere in the world. So, say there are 9 players in the game... I want 6 of them to get swallowed up by three, and I want to be one of those three. Then I want an epic struggle to ensue wherein I may win, or may not, but will have to work hard for it.
To make it even more fun, anything that gives the game a specific feel is a plus. "Interesting geography," let's say, whether that be physical geography or political geography. FfH has an advantage there because of the variety among the civilizations... if the orcs acted like orcs and the dwarves acted like dwarves, it'd be an extremely awesome game. There was some progress in the direction of getting the AI to do what the civ was good at, ala Amurite firebows, but it just seems like it never really got taken far enough.
To make it even more fun, anything that gives the game a specific feel is a plus. "Interesting geography," let's say, whether that be physical geography or political geography. FfH has an advantage there because of the variety among the civilizations... if the orcs acted like orcs and the dwarves acted like dwarves, it'd be an extremely awesome game. There was some progress in the direction of getting the AI to do what the civ was good at, ala Amurite firebows, but it just seems like it never really got taken far enough.
Verdian
King
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2006
- Messages
- 654
Haha, I was one of those people. I find combat with huge stacks very tedious (which is why I was so thrilled to hear that sod were being eliminated for civ 5), so while I still enjoy the current FFH version, a lot of the combat fun was lost to me. The specific combat style I was looking for was for the ai to build a few elite squads of units for my squad to try and conquer. Instead I got the massive stacks of doom that I so dislike.
The problem of lowering difficulty is that it doesn't eliminate the stacks, you just get a lot of weaker units. What it does eliminate is the tech, wonder, and religion race, which I do enjoy a lot. So I play on higher difficulties, and generally turtle until I can get enough super units to crush my enemies (like I used to do, but now I have to wait longer). But this makes the end game rather boring, as it takes forever and I have nothing to do because my techs are maxed out. *sigh*
I say all this to give you my perspective, and because I know you are working on a new game, and hope you take this info into account.
mcwill123
Pretender to the Throne
What somewhat irks me about the SoDs is there is really no way in hell the AI should be able to pay for buying and supporting them.
I'm not sure what more you really want here. The elves sit in their forest, planting trees, producing longbowmen. The khazad mine everything out, sit on a stack of money, and build siege engines and champions. The Sheiam go on a necromantic doomsday rush. The Hippus do everything with horses. Angels and demons cause war and rampage. All the nations have unique units and artwork. How much further do you want things to go?
Doesn't this get back to the difficulty level issue? Even a one level change in DL means quite a big difference in the AI's ability to fight this way. I had to move down a level when the new AI came out, but I still have it arranged that I get a reasonable game (I win about 30% - 50%); but now, I DO have to play the game differently, and as Kael said, I don't win simply by using the pre-arranged formula.
Indeed, when the new AI FIRST came out, I had to move down 2 levels because I kept trying my old tricks that didn't work any more. Now I have a whole arsenal of new strategies - so I think the game is quite a bit better.
And now I can compete on Immortal again, because the new changes in the AI FORCED ME to become a better player. I am better at the economy, better at diplomacy, better at building, I have better tactics. I wouldn't have developed any of these additional skills hadn't the AI changed and I could win the game easily with the old formulas.
Best wishes,
Breunor
Kael
Deity
I say all this to give you my perspective, and because I know you are working on a new game, and hope you take this info into account.
Yeap, its good feedback. SOD's are a part of the Civ4 paradigm but Im with you in believing that "steamroller" isn't a very exciting strategy. So much so that when Elemental was announced and I had a chance to ask Brad Wardell a few questions that was on the top of my list (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1532137&postcount=5).
I think FfH does some cool things to combat stacks with spells, attrition attacks (summons) and counter stack mechanics (assassins, etc). But I definitely understand where you are coming from and its something Ive been noodling on for a long time.
I appreciate the feedback and its heavy on my mind as I work on future projects.
I agree with Verdian and civ_king, although it depends on the civ in question. Clan should absolutely go for horde tactics, for example. That doesn't mean a single stack that wanders aimlessly through their land failing to protect cities and otherwise being useless, mind you, but they should definitely swarm you. Grigori, on the other hand, should favour their adventurers, using non-hero units primarily as support, and Hippus should use hit and run tactics.
Do they actually, though? Last I remember the Hippus just spammed melee units like everyone else, and the Angels and Demons caused other civs to automatically declare war on each other but then not actually get involved in it themselves.
Kael
Deity
Can I just mention again that I think FfH has the best fans. Every time I venture into a gaming forum I'm always appalled by the amount of aggression some people have when providing feedback. But you guys always give such great advice and even when you dislike something you communicate that in a helpful way.
I know its easier since FfH is free (since by the end you haven't lost any money if you don't like something). But it still takes up your time and effort and I really appreciate how nice everyone is.
I know its easier since FfH is free (since by the end you haven't lost any money if you don't like something). But it still takes up your time and effort and I really appreciate how nice everyone is.
Monkeyfinger
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,002
The free XP certainly doesn't help matters on the higher levels (emperor+) now that the AI actually builds decent armies and has help maintaining them. I never liked it, but at least before I could see why it was needed as a crutch... it's not anymore.
Maniac
Apolyton Sage
I have recently downloaded and played Battle for Wesnoth, and I'm completely blown away by it!
If FfH3 is a TBS, I'd suggest to check it out. It's good inspiration for a non-SoD combat system in a fantasy environment, including multiple damage types as FfH has.
ScottishViking
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2008
- Messages
- 63
Are you kidding? We wouldn't be this nice if the game wasn't so good. All the "problems" FFH has are piddling compared to other games of this type. But fans nitpick -- it's what we do. You're right though -- the CivFanatic fans are usually much more cerebral about it.
Similar threads
