安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
1 
举报此帖
I have implemented this in Endless Legend 1 by reverse engineering and hacking the difficulty xml. I didn't bother getting into how an actual mod is made, and I only created the progression for my preferred difficulty. If you'd like, I can easily post a snippet here, since the whole setup ended up being quite simple.
*Context
Usually what happens with higher difficulties in 4x is the initial bonuses are ridiculous until the player 'solves' the game to either cheese out a win or snowball harder by implementing smarter economic and/or exploitative strategies (e.g., the higher difficulty is too frontloaded while endgame still ends up predictable - just more of a tedious slog wading through inferior doomstacks).
I am about to pick up this title, but played tons of EL1. The difficulty balance wasn't bad from the getgo, and thus this is likely far from a 'worst offender' title which desperately needs time-scaling difficulty - but I would always advocate for this in ANY decent 4x (speaking with several thousand hours' playtime across 20+ titles, usually on hardest difficulty).
This option would tailor AI bonuses to ensure the start, middle, and end of the game feel balanced against a player's initial logistical limitations and their (usually) superior longitudinal management. The alternative to this, as suggested by OP, is often that high difficulty is beatable but NOT in a fun way (cheese to survive early -- snowball mid -- slog late to mop up)
+1
+1
And then some
This is because a player will have more breathing room and an easier time developing when they are not spending the early game avoiding 'the super-bots of immediate doom' and have more freedom to build away. Essentially, lower AI buffs early game justifies greater AI buffs late game (so it can keep up with its respective difficulty level).
What I would suggest:
- Establish times for early, mid, and late game
- Slide the AI buffs in increments to:
50% of their buffs vs static difficulty at the start
87.5% of their difficulty-related buffs at mid-game (after 1/3 of the expected number of turns)
125% of their difficulty-related buffs at late game (after 2/3 of the expected number of turns)
Another cool trick is to allow the player to set these sliding scales (e.g., the start and end % buffs) - so they could select 50% - 150% for instance if they wanted more late-game challenge after easier building. Presets could easily be offered which entice different playstyles, and these presets could then be incorporated into interesting DLC events (e.g., especially thinking cataclysm here).
In my opinion, this would be huge. Would also mark the game as a great trend-setter for an overlooked but presumably easy-to-implement feature (making some assumptions here, but presumably correct ones)
I would like to add on that this is not a catch all to fix bad AI. For me it vastly improves the game experience in any case, but critical issues my still arise. Case in point: The AI in Endless Legend 1 is utterly incapable of fighting a late game war. Both because it cannot handle startegic movement (primarily: reinforcement mechanics), and because it doesn't know how to handle the apocalyptic threat of a Gios, for example.
'Adaptive difficulty' as described = yes please!