Dynamic AI Difficulty

Users who are viewing this thread

Arkyll

Recruit
I might have just had a based idea.

Why not those combat difficulty settings go up or down depending on the tier of the enemy troop?

So like recruits have low difficulty and high tier and nobles have high difficulty?

It feels like higher tier units are smarter but that could be down to them just having higher proficiencies.

I will state that I do not like the top combat difficulty setting because the AI just indefinitely spams feints. (through your blocks, which looks bad and doesnt make sense)
But it sounds like a cool idea on paper.

Thoughts?
 
eerrrrrr... Current GENERALS - LORDS are creating huge armies, and moving them to Revyl where they starve the soldiers to death.. waiting .. waiting.. for ???

Good idea .but current AI is tarded beyond belief ..so lets fix this first.

This is funny because Siege AI is good - defending soldiers wait at the base of walls until enemy tower reach the walls, before climbing the stairs to defend the walls. If they stayed on the walls, enemy archers would have killed them all.

.
 

Aurex

Veteran
WB
I might have just had a based idea.

Why not those combat difficulty settings go up or down depending on the tier of the enemy troop?
Pretty based, would be interesting (not to mention cool) to see lower tiered troops just spazzing out and panicking, not knowing what to do and targeting the wrong troops (with a delay, too) while the veterans form a nice shieldwall and do something useful instead. It would also be fun if the recruits with low morale literally started ignoring orders and lagged behind hoping to be spared the fight.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
They showed of something like this before about how good the combat AI would be depending on level of the NPC (and skills?) and of course each tier of troops has a level, but I guess they abandoned it. As is, I don't think there's even a difference between the difficulty settings, I mean challenging pretty incompetent I can't imagine it being any worse if it was turned down. The only difficulty comes from absolute NO BALANCE AT ALL and unreasonable damage calc, not from any actual performance of the AI. Like the AI is overturned to shoot you but they'll miss 30 horse archers for an hour, the AI is over tuned to hit mounted units when on foot (why?), but mounted units are horrible at hitting foot units (unless swinging polearm) but if you're ever at even loadouts, the AI seems really durpy and easy to fight...... however low tier ranged units seem unreasonable fast compared to player experience with the same gear, it's stinks of cheaty cheat cheat.

I like the idea a lot though and when combined with some actual work on balance it could have a rewarding experience. It's a huge problem that tiers of troops are so similar and they've done a lot of bad tinkering (and omissions of other stuff) to keep it that way and I think it stinks. Like for example just look at the bows, you have 5 types of crappy bows, they almost the same, then a slightly better one, then the best in game (for nobles only now) why? It so ON PAPER they can say each tier is different, but actually it's almost the same and it's a huge waste. Just have the low tier ranged be really really bad, like only good against low tier armor-less slow troops, then each tier a significant step up. Likewise weak recruits need to be slow and wimpy and improve each tier.... oh and have the high tier be fast and tuff and powerful.... not slow and dependent on SW.
 
Top Bottom