Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
5 
Report this post
No, Dev does not really care about admin tools nor SP experience.
We were hosting a realtime server once, asked for support over a period of 30 days, but no ♥♥♥♥♥ given.
Our playerbase was between 200-500 players.
Everything broke down to a bug appearing specifically on Realtime-Servers.
The answer to this problem from the dev was "The game was not designed in that way".
This was 2 years ago. Since then I am checking updates about this game, but those updates have no real impact for SP nor Realtime MP.
The only thing this dev is focusing on is "ass slow" servers and the community servers.
Everything else he does not want to give a damn about, especially because he does not want to hire more people to support a faster development.
You can wait for many years, till you will get something remotely to AI empires, if even.
Mate the complexity around just developing your city as a player is hard enough. It's a one man project and having a sook about not being able to play somebodies passion project the way YOU want to is no good.
This game is a lot of fun, it sucks you can't play singleplayer very well but the entire premise of the game is that it is based off a real world. The Nation and area you start in wont necessarily have what you need to progress. Figure it out. Thats the fun of the game. Join the discord: https://discord.gg/VFtcMs7k
I dont think so.
AI opponents just need a script and be abstracted. They do not need to follow the same rules as the player.
The single Dev just has no motivation to create an "AI".
If there were some kind of tradebot that would allow you to selloff the excess production then it would be hella much easier.
I see a few of the typical misunderstandings of what AI is in terms of game design within this topic. As I said, this game engine is heavily jury rigged, there's nothing stopping the creator from *writing* a simple system for enemy empires, where the issue begins is making the engine accept it without lagging itself into the abyss. "Writing an AI" for this game should, in theory, of been so easy the creator could of done it years ago; so then if he could of, why not? I think the easiest answer was stability reasons or engine limitations, which are both perfectly acceptable/normal reasons not to develop a feature.
What I wish the big porco chief would do is cut his losses and develop a remaster on a real engine that can contain his ambition.
Unity isn't an engine designed for strategy game. It's a very generic engine with framework for the development of just about any game, strategy or otherwise.
A* isn't an AI, it's a search algorithm. Implementing A* can be done in literally any engine/language, but it doesn't constitute enough to run an entire civilization. It would just be pathfinding. In fact, it or a similar algorithm have probably already been implemented, given how the game understands which squares are inaccessible, and how the AI-controlled units path to your stockpiles.
Also, the dev makes it very clear it's a one-man passion project. It sucks, but he clearly has a design in mind, in which the game is multiplayer focused. The last thing he's going to do is compromise a design he likes to acquiesce to armchair developers.
I want a SP game like this as much as the next guy, but most of what you said is just gibberish.
Your first point is irrelevant, Unity would be far more logical than the current engine. I suggest looking up older topics on the forum regarding the engine used for this game, there are a lot of limitations.
You would also know that search algorithms are not created equally, which makes that whole paragraph moot. Again, the game engine limitations.
Then you spit out the "one man dev" card linking this to incorrectly stating that because it's a multiplayer focused game it can't have NPC empires. We get it, you want to be part of the conversation, but please don't just troll the people that know what they are talking about.
The first point is only irrelevant if the effort of converting the game to Unity is less than the cost of continuing to develop the game, which is something that neither of us have the capacity to know without having access to the codebase. It is possible that the developer prefers the current engine, and that their preference and comfort outweighs, in their mind, the cost of moving to another engine.
The second point - the whole paragraph isn't moot because any search algorithm can be implemented regardless of the engine or language. Your claim doesn't mean anything because you have no access to the codebase and therefore cannot know what search algorithm is used for pathfinding. And even so, merely having pathfinding isn't sufficient to have a fully-functioning AI. You need more than just a search algorithm.
And the third point - I never said it CANNOT have NPC empires, merely that the developer WONT develop NPC empires because that's not his priority or focus. He has a design in mind, and likely wants to maintain sovereignty over the vision of his game, which is evident in the fact that he's not allowing anyone else to develop the game with him.
I'm not trolling you. I'm merely a guy who works in the enterprise software engineering industry who was genuinely confused by the nonsensical claims about AI, search algorithms, engine limitations, development capacity, and feature prioritization you're proclaiming. For example, everything you said about A* is nonsense. I've implemented A* and other search algorithms plenty of times in my career, and never in a video game for the purpose of enabling AI players.
If you'd like to have a discussion about what A* is, I'd be happy to IM you. Just add me.
Simply put: there's a reason (and a DAMN GOOD ONE!) why the vast majority (likely upwards of 99.99%) of all city-builder games ever made were either singleplayer-only or at least singleplayer-focused. Some game elements simply don't mix well enough together that basing an entire game on the concept doesn't work. This game is in need of a singleplayer mode. NOT because the genre demands it, but because the PLAYERS, and thereby PAYING CUSTOMERS, demand it.
If a person wants to distribute a game that they fiddle with on their own and solely for their own amusement, then that person should do what Tarn and Zach Adams did with Dwarf Fortress: make it FREE. If you put a price tag on something, and thereby open up the possibility of others PAYING for that something, then you're obligated to at least cater to what the customers want out of a product.
Granted, the whole "give the public what they want" bit only goes so far, but it's NOT, BY ANY DEFINITION, unreasonable for players (and thus buyers) of city-builder games to expect a singleplayer mode in that genre.
I'll say it again: there's a reason why multiplayer city-builder games are so rare, and that's because they're just not a good combination overall. I'd like to invest in this game, but at the current price and with the frankly insulting lack of a singleplayer/offline mode, it's just not worth it (for me). Not even by a long shot.