Sakhari

The last three threads that I see on the subject make a point of both the gold and the exp. Basically, what you're saying is that one team paying for priests should potentially offer as much or more exp. per wave (or at least, per similar unit in a given wave) for the opponents. No other upgrade in the game demands that sort of potential tradeoff for the gold spent. That was the problem. Buying armor doesn't give your opponent more gold or exp for killing you.&n

[quote]their xp value earlier was fine, i don't know of anyone who complained about it[/quote] Is this your first time to this board? It's been a pretty consistent complaint for quite a while now. Especially in the last two weeks. And yes, this was an excellent change.

I think there were some overblown expectations around here but so far, I'm pleased with what we got. Keep it up and all that.

[quote]I thought it would be a flag they set and if all the people on your team set the flag then the game would end.[/quote] That was the impression that I got but in the end, if that were the case, it really wouldn't have helped much. If people were barred from conceding by the team of randoms, they still would have simply disconnected/quit. All I figured that we'd get out of this feature is that the winners would no longer have to screw around with AI replacements.</p

[quote]- Improved Angel anti-Demigod focus.[/quote] Oh, is that their intended purpose? Good to know. Like what I see on paper. Interested to see how it pans out in-game.

[quote]A suggestion... would be to change all costs of each favor item to the same price and try balance out the effectiveness of each.[/quote] I disagree with the examples that you chose to illustrate the problem but I do agree with this suggestion. I think we can all agree that there are quite a few favor items that see little to no use and could stand a good look. I'm of the mind that no favor item should be outright 'better' than another one (which is essentially how

Well there it is. Good to finally see some proof of it. Shame the manual lied...

[quote]1. A slider option to control AI exp and gold handicap, and leave default 0.[/quote] Just so we're clear, are we expecting this slider to affect only AI fill-in's or AI players in general? Be a shame if people got screwed in skirmish games by default. As Sly said, I think the default should be 100% which puts all players, AI or otherwise, on equal footing and, yes, it's what players are already used to.

[quote]and I think we need a quick fix one way or another, and a basic "standard" for Skimish/Parth [/quote] I thought the AI was going to be removed from Pantheon in an upcoming update, anyway? AI players have absolutely no business in that setting whatsoever. [quote]Now that's a clear choice.[/quote] No. It really isn't. If the AI is > Nothing, then the gold value of the AI should be > Nothing as well.

Here's what I don't like about the idea, at least, as it's been presented so far. Personally, I think that if the online arena is going to be labeled 'competitive', then the AI has no business being there in the first place and I'm with MrBoingy in simply saying "Get it out of there." Now, clearly that idea doesn't fly with everyone. Ok. Fair enough but that suggests to me that there's value in keeping the AI around. What exactly 'is' that value? If you

I would have said play on Hard (Skirmish) but since everyone seems convinced that Hard also cheats (which, frankly, I haven't seen and I wipe the floor with the Hard AI on a routine basis) I decided to bring it a step down. If we're talking solely about Tournament mode (which was never made clear), then I'd say there's more wrong on that front than a simple 'no cheats' toggle could address. But, if an overwhelming number of people prefer tournament to a more controlled skirmish

Basically, what he's saying is that it's better to fix the actual problems instead of swatting at symptoms like this idea is doing. I agree.

[quote]The depressing thing to me is that LoL is relevant at all. [/quote] Even if what you said were true, why is that depressing? Personally, I wish there were more small developers out there making games worth playing.

The toggle already exists. Play on Normal.

"Well, at least you can thank your lucky stars that we don't live in Paraguay!"

[quote]I have been playing quite a while now but I haven't even tried all DG builds yet. [/quote] "Quite a while" can mean very different things to different people. I've been playing since release (which I'd say is quite a while) and I'm having trouble thinking of a build/map combination that I haven't played yet. And I'm hardly an obsessive player. I'm sure other people who play it regularly have exhausted the current options far more thoroughly than I have.

That, I can agree with. Outright stupidity like poor pathing and standing around are things that I took for a given as needing to be fixed. Making the AI actually 'play' better once those issues are out of the way... (naively suggesting that the other issues are an 'easy' fix) that's the hard part.

This conversation isn't likely to go anywhere useful if it's just going to be about AI in general. Demigod isn't the other games that are getting name-dropped here. It's a completely different environment than you'd find in SupCom, GalCiv, or your typical great single-player game. It's a relatively small-scale engagement with a very limited selection of actions available to the player at any one time. I'm certainly not going to say that it's impossible to improv

[quote]Supreme Commander comes to mind, actually.[/quote] Supreme Commander also gives players (AI or otherwise) a much larger amount of tactical options and space in which to employ them. The AI is more challenging in larger games like this because it's better managing several tasks at once than most players (and as you know, multi-tasking ability is incredibly helpful in SupCom since there is 'always' something you can be doing). The AI's overall strategy tends to come u

In tournament, your team gets Normal AI's regardless of the difficulty so you're at a marked disadvantage on Hard and Nightmare levels in that setting. As was said though, the Hard AI by itself doesn't get any specific advantage over you and, having played quite a few matches against it, I've never seen it do anything that it shouldn't have the capacity to do.

Under the 'everything else works fine' scenario, I'd realistically pay $5 and while I wouldn't mind if they were sold in singles, it'd probably be best if they were released in pairs. Hell, I'm not bothered at all with the connections issues as it is so I'd pay that now. I know my local friends probably would, too. As long as the content is optional and meaningful, I much prefer frequent updates to waiting a year for an expansion.

[quote who="HateForest" reply="4" id="2255427"]THIS is ruining gaming. Pay-for DLC is evil. I'm happy to pay for a full-blown expansion pack, but the level they have taken it to with DLC is horrendous. Next we'll be paying to put a clown hat on Oak. [/quote] *shrug* Nobody's ever forced me to buy horse armor in Oblivion, character costumes in Soul Calibur, or other worthless features that are generally offered as DLC. People paying extra money for useless junk hasn't affect

[quote who="ImpossibleReality" reply="23" id="2257221"]I don't think selling idols and buying new ones is not an exploit - the amount of gold you lose is fine by me for you to have two extra units for a brief period. [/quote] This has already been confirmed as an exploit (or 'unintended game mechanic' for the semantics enthusiasts) which is why it's being fixed in the 1.1 patch.

Whatever you want to call it, I think it's obviously not an intended function of these items and it should be fixed.

I'll still be buying products that appeal from both Stardock and GPG. Supreme Commander has been my RTS of choice since it released and despite the connection issues (which I've been largely unaffected by), Demigod is still one of my more entertaining distractions these days. Elemental and SupCom 2 are both high on my want-to-play list.