So the AI is notoriously useless if not broken and you release a patch that adds a store with micro-transactions. So your game's arguably unfinished and you're looking for more money. You have GOT to be kidding.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Its not like everyone in a company works on the same thing. The ppl working on AI improvements can work in parallell with DLC development and other stuff. Calm down. You come across as rather rude
To be fair, they DID have the entire development cycle to fix the wretched AI present in the first game before releasing this...and they failed to do so. They left their first game woefully broken...should we expect anything more the second time around? Sadly, I did expect more and it appears I may have been a fool to give them the benefit of the doubt. I hope I'm wrong...but I won't hold my breath.
It is a pity, that you expected better AI, then we delivered. The AI is much better and complicated than in Warlock 1. It has its flaws, we are working to make it better.
I guess I was also one of the people who expected better AI, but I imagine it's not easy to code good AI. Just look at how many advantages the AI in a huge title such as Civ V has to get in order to be hard. It's basically cheating.
I could also argue that you guys should have tested the AI better before releasing, and seen how easy it actually was to beat on Impossible level. But in that regard, I have previously (when beta testing another game) had the experience that the developers of a game were - and I'm sorry to say this - shockingly bad at their own game.
Perhaps this shouldn't be any surprize (I mean, I can imagine that many devs have looked at their game so damn much that they don't want to actually play it too much), and I believe it was BjornB (who isn't actually a dev, but still) who has said a couple of times that he was having a hard time with the hard AI, but still.
At any rate, I think you should perhaps look at some of the suggestions made by us players. And not to toot my own horn here, but I think some of the suggestions I (among others) have made that are more practical in nature (cutting diplomacy, no water maps, more AI advantages, etc.) would be easy to implement.
I appreciate that you guys are still working on the game, and I hope you are able to fix it, but I want to make sure that you believe us when we claim how ridiculously easy the game is to win on Impossible difficulty. I'm not saying it to brag or anything. I'm not very good at the game, and I would have my butt handed to me on a platter in a multiplayer game against most people, but the AI is simply just a pushover. (The monster faction with all its spawns is usually the bigger challenge - and going into another world in late game, to find the world jam-packed with high tier monsters is usually the ultimate challenge, but sadly, it's one that you don't have to take to win.)
I've rambled long enough now, but one final comment. One of the things that made Warlock 1 hard was the Armageddon game mode. The Dremers were a pain in the ass.
But then, they had a lot of advantages - but sadly no real game plan. They sort of just annoyed you where they spawned.I think the world building and mechanics of this game are fantastic.
Great concepts expertly executed.
The problem is that the game is impossible to lose even on the hardest difficulty. So in the end, it plays like minecraft.
If I can't lose then there is no value in winning. Crusader Kings 2 was also easy: but at least you COULD lose. It was possible.
This is partially a problem with AIs, but also partly not giving enough effective bonuses to make up for the weak AI.
Diplomacy? Diplomacy is worse than an afterthought.
You need to make a version of the game that has a goal (like the exile mode) that is literally IMPOSSIBLE for a player to beat. Then tone it down from there.
Great concepts expertly executed.
The problem is that the game is impossible to lose even on the hardest difficulty. So in the end, it plays like minecraft.
If I can't lose then there is no value in winning. Crusader Kings 2 was also easy: but at least you COULD lose. It was possible.
This is partially a problem with AIs, but also partly not giving enough effective bonuses to make up for the weak AI.
Diplomacy? Diplomacy is worse than an afterthought.
You need to make a version of the game that has a goal (like the exile mode) that is literally IMPOSSIBLE for a player to beat. Then tone it down from there.
I hope you realise it is extraordinarily difficult to believe that, since the AI has exactly the same issues it had the last time you released the game.
Indeed, in a great many ways, Warlock 2 feels like a mod by authors who had only very limited access to the source code.
Last big thread about AI: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?774308-AI-non-existent
Collection of AI Problems and AI related threads: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...out-the-AI&p=17119025&viewfull=1#post17119025
Yes, I want to add:
- same problems as in W1, but even more, already said here, point 1.-4. in that posting: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...n-existent&p=17371926&viewfull=1#post17371926
Last edited:
Maybe I missed it but I don't remember the AI sitting around shooting inferior transport arrows at enemies when trying to invade over water in the first Warlock game. I mean, I understand that programming AI is hard but I mean, there are plenty of 4X games out there where the AI actually knows how to do an amphibious assault.... I am sorry but it is hard to think the AI is better....
If you want a better AI, maybe you should consider buying some stuff from said store. Nothing is free and we live in a world in which this pay structure opens up possibilities that never existed before. If you really like something you can pay for it be developed more and more, if you're not interested, then move on.
^Actually, I completely disagree.
If you want specific item, then buy it. If you think it's too expensive, or not worth it, then do not buy it. That way, based on sales feedaback, something else will be offered for the sale, if demand for current items is not high.
Do not buy stuff you do not need, just to "support the developers". It would just add to impression that people want more DLC gimmicks then in-game improvements, like AI. Or actual expansions that add a lot of content.
Vote with the wallet for things you do want, not for things you do not want.
If you want specific item, then buy it. If you think it's too expensive, or not worth it, then do not buy it. That way, based on sales feedaback, something else will be offered for the sale, if demand for current items is not high.
Do not buy stuff you do not need, just to "support the developers". It would just add to impression that people want more DLC gimmicks then in-game improvements, like AI. Or actual expansions that add a lot of content.
Vote with the wallet for things you do want, not for things you do not want.
Agreed. Do I want to encourage the dev to work on bullshit bells and whistles when a essential element of the game is broken? Do I want to encourage the Dev to release unfinished games? Do I want to support that kind of Dev at all? No, no and no. I was foolish enough to buy the game before checking forums 2 weeks after launch. I'm not going to compound the error by throwing good money after bad. I will continue to press for a finished product.
