Video Game Rants: Of Noobs and Rage Quits

[Commodore]

There are some things that have been frustrating me in video games lately and it got me thinking that we could really use a rants thread specifically dedicated to all the things in gaming that just chaps our butts.

The rules for this thread are the same as the other rants thread, so you guys know the drill.

Anyway, I'll kick things off:

I hate it when developers have to give the AI cheats in a game just to make them competitive against human players. It just reeks of developer laziness and poor game design. And I don't want to hear any crap about how "programming AI is hard!" Yeah, it is hard. However, there are plenty of developers out there who have been able to program game AIs that can provide a real challenge to human players without giving the AI cheats and unfair boosts. And some of those developers are indie devs with crap budgets, so if they can do it there is no reason every game developer out there can't do it as well.

The thing that inspired this rant (and therefore this thread) was the mod for Medieval 2 Total War, Third Age Total War. The developers of that mod decided to compensate for what they saw as an incompetent AI by programming the mod to give AI-controlled factions free units if their cities were under siege and free money if they went too far into debt. It also gives them free units if the human player becomes too powerful, so they can stay competitive. Now this sounds good in theory, but for me it takes all the immersion and fun out of the mod. I mean, if the AI attacks me and I deal them a crushing defeat, it doesn't mean anything because the game will just automatically give them more units to replace the ones they lost. It turns the campaign into a grindfest where you never get that satisfying "killing blow" that you get in vanilla Total War games when you crush a faction's main army and force them on the defensive as they desperately try to recover.

It's okay though, I just went into the mod files and removed the scripts that allow the AI to cheat like that. Now they are on a level playing field with me.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I know that "rant" and "discussion" do not go hand in hand...but are there really games where the AI is straight out programmed to be competitive? Every game I can think of uses the "just give stuff to the AI, and if the player wants to raise the difficulty give them even more stuff" method. Sounds like the modders there did go overboard though.

 

[Commodore]

I know that "rant" and "discussion" do not go hand in hand...but are there really games where the AI is straight out programmed to be competitive? Every game I can think of uses the "just give stuff to the AI, and if the player wants to raise the difficulty give them even more stuff" method. Sounds like the modders there did go overboard though.

The best game AI I've ever encountered was in Galactic Civilizations 2. The devs for that game decided not to put multiplayer in the game and dedicate those extra resources to AI programming. The result was an AI that adapts to the player's playstyle over time and will do things to counter the player if they start getting too powerful. For example, if you designed ships that relied heavily on missiles, then the AI would re-focus their research on missile defenses and redesign their ships if you went to war with them. And if the player started becoming more powerful than every other AI faction, they would start forming coalitions and team up against you to knock you back down a few pegs. The diplomacy AI was also really good too, even on the easier difficulties.

They also added an option with one of the expansions that would dedicate extra CPU resources to the AI to make it better. So essentially, as you upgrade your PC in real life, the more challenging the AI in the game will become.

 

[Ajidica]

I hate it when developers have to give the AI cheats in a game just to make them competitive against human players. It just reeks of developer laziness and poor game design. And I don't want to hear any crap about how "programming AI is hard!" Yeah, it is hard. However, there are plenty of developers out there who have been able to program game AIs that can provide a real challenge to human players without giving the AI cheats and unfair boosts. And some of those developers are indie devs with crap budgets, so if they can do it there is no reason every game developer out there can't do it as well.

A lot of it comes down to game mechanics not being conducive to the AI. For example, Fall from Heaven (civ4 fantasy mod) implemented a spell system for units that was really intuitive for the player. You upgrade the unit to have Death I, you can not cast skeletons by clicking the "cast skeleton" button on the unit. Despite the intuitive nature for the player, it took several years of pretty complex coding to get the AI even aware that the button existed, let alone of when to cast it. I agree GalCiv2 has probably the best AI ever, but macro-scale turn based strategy games are probably the easiest to code a strategic AI for. Trying to code a battle map AI for Total War is something else entirely; and something I'm not sure will ever really be a thing.

The thing that inspired this rant (and therefore this thread) was the mod for Medieval 2 Total War, Third Age Total War. The developers of that mod decided to compensate for what they saw as an incompetent AI by programming the mod to give AI-controlled factions free units if their cities were under siege and free money if they went too far into debt. It also gives them free units if the human player becomes too powerful, so they can stay competitive. Now this sounds good in theory, but for me it takes all the immersion and fun out of the mod. I mean, if the AI attacks me and I deal them a crushing defeat, it doesn't mean anything because the game will just automatically give them more units to replace the ones they lost. It turns the campaign into a grindfest where you never get that satisfying "killing blow" that you get in vanilla Total War games when you crush a faction's main army and force them on the defensive as they desperately try to recover.

Yeah, garrison scripts have ruined a lot of Total War mods for me. Sounds like you need to try Fourth Age: Total War though. Still set in Middle Earth but impeccably balanced, brilliant strategy map, and the only script is run once at the start of the game to slightly rebalance some start positions.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

And yet the AI in GalCiv II still uses the old standby...on higher difficulties the AI gets production and research bonuses.

 

[Farm Boy]

Am I the only one that kinda likes that AI mechanic? If I want to play a game I know algorithms outcompete me at, I can play chess. If I get decent at civ, I want to feel like a strategic god as I mow down an absurd number of troops every turn. And I can even tailor the advantage to my chops, sort of like doing conditioning on different grade hills.

Rant thread, so rant... erm, I dislike pretty much everything ever about the multiplayer chat and voice chat functionality in Blizzard games. Hearthstones is the worst - "we won't let you autosquelch the emotes, because if we did, everyone would use it."

 

[Commodore]

And yet the AI in GalCiv II still uses the old standby...on higher difficulties the AI gets production and research bonuses.

Uses them sure, but it doesn't rely on them. The difference between GalCivII and other games is the production and research bonuses are there on higher difficulties just to add an extra challenge for players who want it, whereas other games do it just to keep the AI from getting roflstomped by human players.

Trying to code a battle map AI for Total War is something else entirely; and something I'm not sure will ever really be a thing.

Funny thing is, the mod developers for Third Age wrote an AI script that actually results in a semi-competent AI in tactical battles, but is still pretty derpy at the strategic level. The AI in Third Age, when storming a city will try to attack from multiple angles once they breach the walls instead of funneling all their troops down one easy to defend chokepoint like the default AI seems to do.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Uses them sure, but it doesn't rely on them. The difference between GalCivII and other games is the production and research bonuses are there on higher difficulties just to add an extra challenge for players who want it, whereas other games do it just to keep the AI from getting roflstomped by human players.

Depends on the human.

The AI doesn't use, and cannot account for, a freighter full of engines with a single gun. Outrun their defenses, destroy their trade. Their fleets will chase it like dogs chasing a car (ie, they can't catch it) so you can move them out of the way of your own fleets and raze their planets. The only way to keep GalCivII challenging was to self impose a "no marauder ships" limitation.

 

[Commodore]

Depends on the human.

The AI doesn't use, and cannot account for, a freighter full of engines with a single gun. Outrun their defenses, destroy their trade. Their fleets will chase it like dogs chasing a car (ie, they can't catch it) so you can move them out of the way of your own fleets and raze their planets. The only way to keep GalCivII challenging was to self impose a "no marauder ships" limitation.

True. But the only way an AI could possibly account for stuff like that is if it were a self-aware, sapient AI like Skynet. So, while the AI in GalCivII can still be exploited by human players, it is still leagues ahead of where most other games are with their AI.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Better, absolutely. I don't necessarily go with "leagues ahead," but okay.

Rant: I took this patrol mission in X3 thinking it would be a little action while I waited for a couple of automated and remotely operated traders to complete some last transactions so I could complete a delivery of goods mission I've been working on for a while. It took FIVE Xenon Corvette kills, plus all their escort ships, before I could move on from the first sector. Now I've got everything I need to make the delivery and forward the plot, but I have to finish this patrol...and my own corvette took such a beating in the first sector that I can't use it until I get it repaired. I'm on my third 'save this and take a break' layoff because there's a limit to how many outnumbered and outgunned dogfights in a row my frazzled nerves can deal with.

Edit: They JUST.....KEEP.....COMING!!!

And the clowns who hired me for this patrol apparently think that hiring someone means they don't need to send any of their own forces AT ALL. Three more enemy corvettes down, along with their escorts. Since I'm stuck in my heavy fighter I have to lure the escorts away and kill all of them before I can go after the corvette, so each one takes about twenty minutes of intense flying.

I could mention here that AI pilots are weak, and the only thing making this challenging is that they appear in swarms. If the programmers had the ability to program a human quality pilot this would be a much different game. Of course those programmers would be working for the military not a game company.

 

[Synobun]

I don't like playing video games with people who approach it from a position of competitiveness. I once enjoyed playing RTS games with someone quite a bit until they got into Starcraft 2, and from that point onward it was a nightmare. They'd employ the hotkey memorization tactic to any RTS after that, and playing against them was no longer enjoyable. It was an exercise of achieving victory instead of just having fun. I don't care enough about video games to buckle down and take it that seriously.

 

[Angst]

This is a useful thread! I know we have a normal rants thread, but this is a good place to vent specifically to a community of gamers.

No, I'm serious, I do sound sarcastic, but I'm not. It's suitable for a game forum to have both threads.

I'm not sure what I should rant about however. Hmm. Well, I dislike the toxicity of MOBAs.

 

[Commodore]

I don't like playing video games with people who approach it from a position of competitiveness. I once enjoyed playing RTS games with someone quite a bit until they got into Starcraft 2, and from that point onward it was a nightmare. They'd employ the hotkey memorization tactic to any RTS after that, and playing against them was no longer enjoyable. It was an exercise of achieving victory instead of just having fun. I don't care enough about video games to buckle down and take it that seriously.

This has probably been my biggest complaint about the gaming community since competitive multiplayer became a big thing.

 

[dusters]

I don't like playing video games with people who approach it from a position of competitiveness. I once enjoyed playing RTS games with someone quite a bit until they got into Starcraft 2, and from that point onward it was a nightmare. They'd employ the hotkey memorization tactic to any RTS after that, and playing against them was no longer enjoyable. It was an exercise of achieving victory instead of just having fun. I don't care enough about video games to buckle down and take it that seriously.

I don't understand guys like you. I never play for fun unless it is vs AI. If it is humans, I want to win. It is in genes, in my competitive spirit. I have been doing sports since age of 5. of course I want to be the best or at least among elite. I can go easy on someone only after I have crushed them completely.

 

[Commodore]

I don't understand guys like you. I never play for fun unless it is vs AI. If it is humans, I want to win. It is in genes, in my competitive spirit. I have been doing sports since age of 5. of course I want to be the best or at least among elite. I can go easy on someone only after I have crushed them completely.

Yeah, but why? What do you get out of making a game completely unfun for the person you are playing against? Because that's what you are doing when you act ultra-competitive. The reason the ultra-competitive attitude doesn't sit well with a lot of gamers is because unless you are MLG, games aren't really supposed to be that way. Multiplayer is there for you to get together with some people and just have some fun playing a game and maybe make some new friends in the process. The one guy in the group that absolutely has to win, talks trash to his opponents and criticizes his teammates when they don't play up to his standards is the guy everyone else in the group secretly makes fun of for acting like a d-bag and doesn't get invited back for another round. There is absolutely no excuse to act that way in multiplayer gaming.

 

[dusters]

Well, if I want to get better I need super high standards or I will never become pro or be near pro level.

I completely agree with you in case one is playing with friends, but if I'm playing a competitive game with ELO system like League of Legends, Dota, Chess, Hearthstone, against strangers I show no mercy.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Ratings and rankings in online games are designed to be digitized crack cocaine. The intense craving you feel for winning isn't the spirit of competitiveness, It's preemptive withdraw symptoms caused by the prospect of losing some arbitrary numbers.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Every family turkey bowl football game has that one idiot cousin that still believes an NFL scout might stumble across him any day now.

 

[dusters]

Ratings and rankings in online games are designed to be digitized crack cocaine. The intense craving you feel for winning isn't the spirit of competitiveness, It's preemptive withdraw symptoms caused by the prospect of losing some arbitrary numbers.

What If i get 120 euros per evening streaming league of legends like some dude who is both 0.1% of top players and really entertaining? That's what I'm looking for if I keep playing.

 

[dusters]

Every family turkey bowl football game has that one idiot cousin that still believes an NFL scout might stumble across him any day now.

You talk as if you knew how good I am.