WMD

[icarus]

will there be really REALLY! powerful weapons of mass destruction in battlescape and if so what will they be

im talking along the lines of clean nukes (a thermonuclear bomb that has no fallout because it uses lasers to detonate instead of a nuclear bomb so radiation is limited to what is created at the blast site which usually lasts for about a weak as apposed to 1000nds of years)

and plasma bombs (could be a more destructive alternative to napalm)

and chemical and biological weapons (maybe you could mix and mach different combos of geneticaly engineered virus' for interesting results)

any more suggestions

[Fost]

Orbital lasers are my personal favourite I always try and get them in every game I've ever worked on, so far no luck though

[Poo Bear]

Nukes definitely (sounds bizarre saying that), only problem is you have to limit there use or it gets silly I suppose.

[icarus]

just make noamal nukes comtamnate the area and have cleen nukes at the top of the tech tree and make all nukes expencive

and if you have orbatal supperwepons you have to have space combat (for moonrker stile space camando raids)

[Dunbar]

Forget orbital lasers, go straight for mass drivers. Lasers can have problems with bad weather and such, but not much is going to stop a large hunk of rock hurled at your target from space

[Poo Bear]

I'm starting to think there are two types of players:

a) people who like a good realistic battle, they want the AI just right and real things like morale implemented. Large selections of well balanced units that expose many different tactical options on the battlefield and hours of strategic options to play with when building and customizing an army.

b) people who want a little of everything from (a) just enough so the game holds together and makes sense but still keeping everything simple so it is quick to get into. Then what they really want is the spectacle, the smoke, the explosions, the grinding of metal. The visceral pleasure of watching hundreds of loyal troops under your command clash headlong into some evil opponent and annihilate them. Nuclear weapons, orbital lasers, air strikes, titanic robots striding through the carnage, trees burning, giant craters, wrecked vehicles, heroic figures, grenades exploding, bodies flying. This is what they really want.

I think I'm a (b) type person too.

[icarus]

i want bolth relistic carnige

[starscape junkie]

Im in favor of two things:

a.) a decent ai that is somewhat challenging, i dont care if it cheats lies and steals, as long as its not perplexed by corners or an obstacle in the way

b.) lots of units, lots of explosions

[icarus]

[Dunbar]

Actually I'm 99% sure that the computer in starcraft doesn't cheat. It's just really really effecient. I remember back in the day when I first played starcraft on-line against people and got my butt kicked. I couldn't figure out how they got so many units so fast. So I played a bit against computer opponents and learned to rush.

When I got good at it, I could build up units as fast as the computer could. Fighting computer opponents doesn't prepare you for fighitng other players in a whole game, but it can teach you to rush and to defend against a rush.

However, I agree that a computer opponent that cheats is really annoying. On the other hand, designing a good AI is very very hard; which is why so many games resort to computer opponents that cheat. It gives the computer an edge so it doesn't matter as much that it doesn't play the game very well.

It has to be said that the starcraft AI isn't that bright; it can rush well, but if you survive that, the computer is toast.

In the end, though, games against computer opponents get old. You can learn how the computer plays and how to beat it. The real challenge in RTS games is always against human opponents, so the most important thing to me is a functional multiplayer mode and a way to find people to play on-line. I'm not sure how feasible that is for the Moonpod team to implement, however....

[icarus]

yah but evean if thay have to harvest like evruone else thay still can countrol evry unit simontaniously and are 1000 times more eficent than me in battlescape i want the coumputer to do things s l o w l e y

[Sorrow]

Icarus is right you should add in a "human" variable [aka random stupidity ]

[Weeble]

[icarus]

my point exactly

[Dunbar]

Well as far as Starcraft goes, I pretty much assumed the campaign AI was scripted and cheats to some degree. Obviously if it played with any type of skill it would easily mop the floor with you, though.

I was referring to playing against the computer in a head to head match up in a multiplayer game (my apologies for not making this clear). I didn't realize that the comp didn't have to scout though...that's a pretty major advantage. But as far as unit build-up goes, it plays fair...though it doesn't feel like it the first time you try it, before you have a decent build order and the comp comes busting in with a dozen marines when you only have 4 zerglings, lol.

But as far as Icarus's other point, about the computer being able to multitask far better than a human (loads of ghosts locking down lots of different units at once, for example), while that is true, it doesn't really bother me. The computer AI is very beatable, and to be honest does need whatever edge it can get to be competitive. So I think it's a good thing.

After all if you dumb down the computer opponent to the point where it is never a challenge, even when you first play against it, what is the point of having it in the game? Though it might be good to have various levels of computer opponents...so only tougher versions would get "cheats" like knowledge of the map or insane multitasking, and the toughest versions could get extra resources or other advantages so it can continue to be a challenge.