Posted By Kashius at 09:21 AM - Sun Oct 14 2018
Darius - I get where you're coming from but we can't overestimate how complex the AI will be. I can't expect that an AI will be able to do with information what a player would be able to. I also can't expect that a player who receives a communication will not use out of game communication to verify the information if it is new, unexpected, or otherwise.
Nostro brings up the point of forgery - it could in essence be rendered useless because folks will just verify out of game. Or even worse, send communication in game requesting out of game contact!
There is no way to prevent it either unless they have some code in the game that will prevent it from running if you have some type of TS program running in the background. But that would just be ridiculous, especially considering how much Discord and the like have been used consistently throughout the development process.
-Kash
NPC Scout: Sir, an army is advancing.
You: (Writes out a missive and hands it to the scout) Take that to the pigeon cote and send it to the patrol tower in the field, it tells them to run delaying attack guerrilla action while I notify the Duke and we can gather our armies.
In said scenario, the 20 man patrol isn't led by a player, as most players despise what they consider boring patrol work, but NPC's are more likely to hold those positions. IMO that will be very common and easy for basic AI programming...and impossible to talk to that AI by voip. Sure, I can then talk to my Duke on voip, he can summon the troops in game by in game messages and on voip for those that are lead by players....but the delaying attack actions initiated by me that slows down and saves possibly 1 town, maybe many towns, by starting that NPC patrol was all by in game action. And that is just one of the many many scenarios that are available...not to mention if SBS successfully makes the AI very complex.