Matrix Games Forums

No real man can be satisfied playing on easiest Erik.

[:D]

Semi-seriously, as a marketing decision, maybe the difficulty should start at normal and a couple other generals should be inserted in the marshall/general levels to make up the slack for the wimpy sounding difficulty levels.

[8|]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The fact remains there is a level (the lowest one) where the AI gets no resource bonuses and it is otherwise no different. If the bonuses really bother you and you wish to judge the AI without those bonuses, please play at the lowest level and then get back to us with your opinion. The AI itself is frankly, in my experience, much smarter with or without bonuses than most strategic/tactical AIs I've played against.

On the easier and easiest difficulty levels, the AI might not be receiving a bonus, but I am. And on normal, the AI starts cheating.

So the designers built a game where there is no possible way to play by the same rules as the AI. Is that correct? If so, its mind-boggling. What is the point of having almost a dozen difficulty levels if on not one is the game balanced?

maybe, because you are going to be smarter then the AI is ?

I have never, ever, played a computer game where the "AI" doesn't "cheat" in some fashion. It's so standard that for me, this discussion is silly, no offense intended to anyone. A truly "level" playing field, as it were, would, no surprise, prove very little challenge to most human players.

In point of fact, I've played my fair share of ftf board games where some of the human players cheat [:D]

I see.  So its acceptable to have difficulty levels where the AI cheats, because that provides a player with an adequate challenge.
 
And it must be acceptable to have difficulty levels where the human cheats, because CoG has two of those.
 
But it's just ridiculous to imagine a difficulty level where no one cheats.  That's just silly and absurd.

Tampax. Aisle 8.

ORIGINAL: jscott991

I see.  So its acceptable to have difficulty levels where the AI cheats, because that provides a player with an adequate challenge.

And it must be acceptable to have difficulty levels where the human cheats, because CoG has two of those.

But it's just ridiculous to imagine a difficulty level where no one cheats.  That's just silly and absurd.

1) Yes, to compensate for the fact that most human players are a lot smarter than any game AI - standard in the gaming world

2) Easiest levels in many games often provide advantages ("cheats") to a human player, to help them learn the game without becoming discouraged - again, standard fare

3) Not ridiculous, just probably not very challenging for many players, thus the (again) standard game design practice of giving the AI "advantages" (cheats)

But the difficulties where the human is receiving bonuses must not be very challenging either, right?  But CoG still has those.
 
Why is it too much to ask for a level where there is no cheating at all?
 
This idea that the AI cheats in every strategy game is also a bit far-fetched.  Whether it cheats in every Matrix or WCS game is beyond my pale of knowledge.  It certainly doesn't cheat in Stardock's games, unless Brad Wardell is one of the biggest liars in the industry.  Paradox has been known to design shortcuts for the AI when it can't handle individual concepts (inflation in the EU games for a brief period, supply in several games), but that's not quite the same as what CoG is doing, dumping huge amounts of resources to someone in a very blatant manner on every difficulty level. 
 
But whether cheating is standard or not is almost beside the point.  I can't believe that no one thinks it weird (the softest word I can use) that WCS offers difficulty modes where the human player cheats, a huge number where the AI cheats, but not one single option for a game where neither side is cheating.
 
I also love that my being astounded and upset by this is some great shock to everyone, even though both threads that I bumped on this topic also included a number of players surprised, plus several posts by forum moderators that claimed that cheating wasn't going on -- instead pointing out that AI uses their money differently than players, something completely contradicted by ericbabe's infamous and brief post.  I'm a pilgrim in a strange land here, but the crux of the issue is that I've thrown my money away on a game built mostly for a different kind of player (conquer-the-world types and PBEM players rather than people interested in a historical experience -- you can't have a historical experience when economic balance is impossible).

He's right. I'm never playing again after this infamous revelation. Their money coffers are killing my immersion.  

*Hands Ox a tissue* There, there now. Its gonna be alright . . .

my issues with these posts, we got a guy complaining about the AI and what the AI gets and does, and he can't, but from most of his posts, he is not even running his Nation as well as the AI is, so complains the AI is cheating

and in the long run, his main complaint is that he can see what the AI has, if he didn't see a number and know what the AI has, would he be complaining about how much the AI is cheating ?

he is not complaining about what the AI is doing with it's massive Evil Gains, just that it has it

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

*Hands Ox a tissue* There, there now. Its gonna be alright . . .

..and a hug too

No doubt, when real artificial intelligence comes about, humans will be asking for more powerful cheats.

The only balance issue I see with the AI being given so much free money is when I knock them around I always end up with the loot.  Maybe they should have faster build times on developments and units and other bonuses that dont transfer so readily to an aggressive player.
 
[:D]

I not so sure, when I go to war with somebody, and they have a good stockpile of money, they are normally close to broke by the time I defeat them

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

*Hands Ox a tissue* There, there now. Its gonna be alright . . .

but...but... the money!! What happens when you take Vienna and hold it for ransom for 1 MILLION DOLLARS!?

ORIGINAL: TheOx

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

*Hands Ox a tissue* There, there now. Its gonna be alright . . .

but...but... the money!! What happens when you take Vienna and hold it for ransom for 1 MILLION DOLLARS!?

Hmmmph. One Milllyion dawlers . . . that would be in kons sekwential . . .

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

my issues with these posts, we got a guy complaining about the AI and what the AI gets and does, and he can't, but from most of his posts, he is not even running his Nation as well as the AI is, so complains the AI is cheating

and in the long run, his main complaint is that he can see what the AI has, if he didn't see a number and know what the AI has, would he be complaining about how much the AI is cheating ?

he is not complaining about what the AI is doing with it's massive Evil Gains, just that it has it

Thanks for the mischaracterization. I'm whining because I want bonuses too! That's ridiculous. I've explained repeatedly that one of my problems with the game is that either I can have bonuses or the AI gets them. There is no option where no one gets them. But I'm sure the problem here is that I stink at the game, and this is my way of expressing that frustration (truthfully, if anything frustrates me about this game other than this, its the horrible click and move interface, not the difficulty).

The fact the AI's cheating is so obvious makes it harder to tolerate the game, but it doesn't excuse the fact that the AI is getting these free resources.

I still find it absurd that the idea of having just one difficulty level where neither side receives an economic boost is so offensive to everyone here, because in reality, it is a pretty standard thing to have an actual "normal" difficulty level, where the rules are "normal."

Also, if you read every post in these topics carefully, you'll notice a pattern of confusing and contradictory answers on this topic; either because people don't actually understand what is happening in the game or for other reasons.

But forum moderators and beta testers have said the following, at different points:

1. The AI is not cheating on normal. This is contradicted by ericbabe and mountains of evidence.

2. Easiest is the only difficulty where the AI isn't receiving a resource boost. This could be true, but on easier, the player receives a boost. It makes little sense, to me at least, that there is one difficulty level where the player gets a boost and so does the AI. What's the point of that? I suspect the AI doesn't get a boost until normal.

3. That easiest is the balanced game level. This isn't true, the human player receives substantial resources on easiest.

4. That the manual clearly explains these bonuses. This DEFINETELY isn't true. The manual explains that AI boosts start above normal. In fact, they start at least on normal. This is one of the more irritating responses, because it implies I'm an idiot for not reading 11 pages into the manual, when in fact, I did and that's why I'm upset the AI is cheating on normal.

5. That power bonuses effect economics. I don't think they do. I think they only effect startup forces. I didn't see an economic effect when I added power to my own nation before start.

So, the gist of most players responses is that I'm some kind of a halfwit for not understanding that these bonuses are in the game and why, when, in fact, almost no one (from experienced players to people associated with WCS) seems to understand exactly what is going on. I get that most of you don't care. But I don't think I'm either alone or a fool for expecting CoG to provide at least one opportunity for a balanced game on both sides in order to produce an immersive single player experience.

So maybe all JScott is interested in seeing is the following:

Upon starting a new game, allowing a player to set the following items independently from each other:

1) Attrition level
2) Player economy cheat assistance
3) AI economy cheat assistance
4) AI battle cheat assistance
5) AI other cheat assistance

Or?  Would that be interesting for you JScott?  After all, I am sure that everyone knows that in order to provide a human with a challenging game, virtually all strategy games aid the AI with a bit of "cheating" at higher difficulty levels.  And that isn't a shock to anyone I am sure.

(which is why I highly recommend finding human opponents for all of their games from Matrix and other companies...it doubles the fun for me)

I think that would solve all the problems and be a major plus

But even that isn't quite necessary to address my major issue.  I just want one difficulty level where the AI and the player don't cheat, and the AI is "fully functional" (though its been said that the AI acts no different on any difficulty level, so this is probably a moot point in CoG).

Thanks for the mischaracterization. I'm whining because I want bonuses too! That's ridiculous.

funny you talk about people not being able to read, and then you can't read what I said, I didn't say you want bonuses, I said you are not able to do what the AI can do, the AI does a lot of things to cut it's costs, while you are not

to be fair, most of the testers said that Normal has no cheats for both sides, since that is what we were told, but to give the "testers" there due, most of them didn't do much testing at Normal, I know from the begining I was asked to test the game at the higher levels, as I wouldn't be able to tell much playing at the lower levels

I also think something changed from the time the info was sent off to the manual and the time the game was finished

but again, my point is, what is the AI gaining from what it gets ?, most of it is going to the stockpile

I think the may gain the AI gets, is that it don't go broke as fast when it goes to war, with out the "cheat" it would break down and start disbanding troops soon after a war breaks out