RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;)

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;)

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 11/30/2005 9:30:16 AM

ravinhood

Posts: 3891
Joined: 10/23/2003
Status: offline

quote:

Should AI act like a human opponent, make mistakes, be random etc.. or should it be the perfect 'grandmaster'? Should AI cheat to make a harder game or be 'pure' but perhaps easier?.

Here I feel it should do and be ALL of those, giving up to random human behavior. A "personality" code so to speak added along with the game code as well.

For instance I liked that game by Triumph Studios Age of Wonders (origional) where you could select how the AI played or even select random. They were "defensivie", "aggressive", "trash n burn", "normal" and "random". With these types of choices for the player each game even on the same map had many diffferent outcomes depending on the AI personality for that game. I used "random" a lot. Because I didn't want to know what it's personality was, but, as you played you could start to see who was what, when the undead started razing everything in its path you knew it was trash and burn. When the elves had 100's of units all near it's starting cities you knew it was defensive, heh, lemme tell yah a game with 12 trash n burn AI's is fun and not fun at the same time. ;) I mean that in a good way. ;)

I would think what most gamers want is an AI that knows the "victory conditions" and proceeds to obtain them an WIN. Not just be something that just blindly hinders us from that path. This is Combat Missions fault in its AI, it doesn't even know when it's winning and proceeds to do things to cause it to lose.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 61

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 11/30/2005 11:26:50 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

quote:

Should AI act like a human opponent, make mistakes, be random etc.. or should it be the perfect 'grandmaster'? Should AI cheat to make a harder game or be 'pure' but perhaps easier?.

Here I feel it should do and be ALL of those, giving up to random human behavior. A "personality" code so to speak added along with the game code as well.

For instance I liked that game by Triumph Studios Age of Wonders (origional) where you could select how the AI played or even select random. They were "defensivie", "aggressive", "trash n burn", "normal" and "random". With these types of choices for the player each game even on the same map had many diffferent outcomes depending on the AI personality for that game. I used "random" a lot. Because I didn't want to know what it's personality was, but, as you played you could start to see who was what, when the undead started razing everything in its path you knew it was trash and burn. When the elves had 100's of units all near it's starting cities you knew it was defensive, heh, lemme tell yah a game with 12 trash n burn AI's is fun and not fun at the same time. ;) I mean that in a good way. ;)

I would think what most gamers want is an AI that knows the "victory conditions" and proceeds to obtain them an WIN. Not just be something that just blindly hinders us from that path. This is Combat Missions fault in its AI, it doesn't even know when it's winning and proceeds to do things to cause it to lose.

I prefer the toughest opponent I can get in an AI - but that's me as a player. As a designer, a variety of skill levels and playing styles is clearly a good thing. The game must have a high replay value to be any good and an AI with only one style and/or level of play does not provide that. The more variety the better, even at the expense of not making the 'perfect' move. Most war games of any interest offer the player a chioce of ways to proceed, and the AI should travel each of those paths sooner or later. One way of getting more variety is to change styles in mid-game - that should keep the human player honest.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 62

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 11/30/2005 11:08:49 PM

Fred98

Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline

For me it doesn't matter how good the AI is. Win or lose I don't get satisfaction from playing the AI. I prefer a human opponent.

_____________________________

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 63

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/3/2005 6:00:43 AM

Zap

Posts: 3639
Joined: 12/6/2004
From: LAS VEGAS TAKE A CHANCE
Status: offline

After reading all the posts would it be nieve of me to say that a college AI coding (class or course) might help coders. The class could specifically deal with computer wargames coding? The How to's and what not's to do.
Or, as it has been stated, too many developments, too fast would make this almost ineffective.

_____________________________

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 64

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/3/2005 12:03:14 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap
After reading all the posts would it be nieve of me to say that a college AI coding (class or course) might help coders. The class could specifically deal with computer wargames coding? The How to's and what not's to do.
Or, as it has been stated, too many developments, too fast would make this almost ineffective.

I, without a degree, worked professionally in AI for several years (1988 - 1990) and we developed a fairly effective system. Just before I left our group had grown to 32 (up from 5) and was working on about a dozen different projects. Our system was to take a problem that the manufacturing company I worked for had, and then try to find something in university-published technical papers that could be brought to bear on it. Basically the idea was to take concept papers done on trivial little problems and turn them into practical applications. This paid off very well for our company, saving millions of dollars by finding software solutions to a very diverse set of problems.

I mention this as a way that universities and corporations together can advance the understanding of how to make things work. The fundamental principles come from the university. The application to the real world problems requires getting one's hands very dirty in practicalities, which is a poor use of the university professors' talents. A reasonable analogy is the working realtionship between an architect and an engineer. Both are needed to build things and neither is very good at the other one's job.

I have less enthusiasm for the universities' ability to train professionals. This is especailly hard to do in a developing science. At the earliest stage, a new concept is very raw, with new words being created just so the people studying/thinking about it can talk to each other. That vocabulary evolves over time and pertains to the basic elements of the concept. As some knowledge is gained, the most promising branches are explored in more detail. Many of those branches yield no fruit. If the potential benefit/payoff is large enough (e.g., genetics) then a separate industry arises whose sole purpose is to facilitate getting a better understanding how everything works - both together and separately. Ultimately a new industry is born that brings the original concept into a practical reality. Ideally, the new industry doesn't polute the world too badly. I would estimate that most of the practical application of new technology is in the hands of individuals outside the university system. These people become professionals through their dedication to one subject over their lifetimes. It is only after an industry has existed for a very long time that professional organizations arise with government (or quasi-government) certification in the field. Universities can then offer courses whose syllabus focuses on certification.

Different subfields of AI are at different stages of this development process. Today, robotics are standard in manufacturing automobiles. That was not true in 1975. Google uses search techniques that didn't exist in 1975, and aggressively seeks to improve the ones they have. These are not exactly mature industries, but they are no longer wet behind the ears. Other examples from the last 30 years are graphical user interfaces in general, methodologies for rendering 3D graphics on a 2D surface, computer animation, microchip design, ... the list is long.

My wife learned to code while working at a bank. She swears that it was the best system she has ever seen - and I believe her. The bank had experienced programmers mentor those who were learning to program. The classes focused on writing actual code for typical problems the bank had. This was in Cobol for business applications and IBM assembler for systems applications. Every student wrote code that was critiqued by an experinced programmer, line by line. There were standards for documentation, naming variables, and a host of other programming basics. Failure to follow standards was failure. The result was that in a couple of years the bank created dozens of very skilled programmers. They were the first bank to introduce automated teller machines in the early 1980's. Most of the programmers they created went on to senior management positions in IT.

Ideas from the universities is almost essential. People in industry who are trying to make things work every day rarely have time to explore crazy new ideas. They lack the social environment where they can kick those crazy ideas around and separate the good from the bad. They are under trade secrets restrictions and can't publish their best papers for rigorous examination by their peers.

On the other hand, the university types don't grasp the realities of missing variables, or the introduction of another 50 additional variables, or the implications of expanding a test case from 6 to 47,000,000,000. Only in industry can the benefit be compared to the cost of implementation. Industry will pare down a large general idea to the bare bones it needs to accomplish a specific task.

And so there is a disconnect between what the university teaches and what new industries need. In the late 1980's, AI had the curious situation (may still have for all I know) that graduates with a degree in AI were sucked up by industry. What exactly they worked on then was never clear to me; but the money was good and the facilitiies (hardware/software) being offered were quite wonderful. I don't know if the love affair continues or not. There are a few other neo-industries in comparable situations today, I believe. If you know someting about it, and have a degree that proves it, then you're hired.

If I were a betting man, I would give good odds that a lot of those graduates weren't very productive for a long time. I make this judgment simply on the fact that new graduates do not know the industry to which they are trying to apply their knowledge.

quote:

a college AI coding (class or course) might help coders

.

Only if taught by someone who has a lot of experience writing code and if it is focused on a specific application(s).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Zap)

Post #: 65

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/3/2005 9:29:36 PM

rhondabrwn

Posts: 2570
Joined: 9/29/2004
From: Snowflake, Arizona
Status: offline

Steve, you make some excellent points.

I was back in college getting my teaching license until last May. My student job was supervisor for the Student Technology Centers at a major state university. Many of our computer lab consultants were Computer Science or Informatics majors so I had a lot of conversations with them (especially on Graveyard Shifts). Without exception, they all felt the programs were very irrelevant to the "real world". For example, you could get a BS in Computer Science and never even have an opportunity to take a class in personal computer hardware. The professors in the program still focused on "big iron" and apparently still thought of PC's as toys. I was much envied because I can build a computer from scratch parts (self taught, of course). Anyway, I'm sure these graduates will spend years in business getting productive!

There is some hope though... I mentioned "Informatics" above. That is a new concept that is just getting off the ground that seeks to tie the computer theoretical with the computer practical. Informatics majors take a core set of classes and then specialize in business/industry related specialities where they learn "real world" skills that can be coupled with their computer knowledge. This is still in it's early stages and they are still adding faculty, but it's a good start. The Computer Science Department will eventually be entirely subsumed by the New Informatics program.

I'll close by recounting that when I worked for a major Property Casualt Insurance company in the 70's (one very well known for being at the cutting edge of mainframe business automation) ALL of our programmers were taught in our own program by our own experienced programmers. The entire operation was home grown and it paid off (at least initially). Eventually, however, the company got stuck in it's own incestrous culture that ignored external developments in programming. I remember back then talking to IBM consultants who came in and they were privately very critical of how inefficient our programs were and how we just threw money at buying bigger and bigger mainframes to compensate. Of course, they were quite happy to sell us those upgrades without being overtly critical!

So, there are benefits to the "homegrown" approach, but any company that tries that needs to periodically bring in technically skilled people from traditional Computer Science programs just to get a window into the latest developments.

*****

Change of topic... I really like the idea of variable AI's that play with different styles as mentioned above. I would go a bit further and advocate that the AI change mid-game in response to victory conditions. If it is losing, it might shift to a more aggressive mode or get defensive once certain goals had been obtained. That would really keep you guessing and you wouldn't be able to deduce which AI you were playing.

_____________________________

Love & Peace,

Far Dareis Mai

My old Piczo site seems to be gone, so no more Navajo Nation pics :(

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 66

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/3/2005 10:42:27 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Change of topic... I really like the idea of variable AI's that play with different styles as mentioned above. I would go a bit further and advocate that the AI change mid-game in response to victory conditions. If it is losing, it might shift to a more aggressive mode or get defensive once certain goals had been obtained. That would really keep you guessing and you wouldn't be able to deduce which AI you were playing.

Yes. It is important for the AI to not be too predictable. Perhaps even essential.

Of equal importance, I would argue, is for the AI to not become 'stale'. One of the delights of playing human opponents is the diversity of their ideas and how they implement them. If you play the same opponent over and over again (human or machine) a game can lose its enjoyment pleasure because what to do when and where becomes routine (plan #37A). The game itself might have a lot more potential if you were playing a different opponent. My point here is that by writing AIs that take advantage of all (or at least most) of a game's potential avenues of attack and styles of defense, the authors can enhance the value of their product substantially. Though this is similar to removing predictability, it goes beyond simply adding a few more calls to a random numer generator. In particular, it requires a deep understanding of the interrelationships between the game elements and how they can be exploited to win.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to rhondabrwn)

Post #: 67

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/3/2005 11:55:21 PM

JSS

Posts: 781
Joined: 10/15/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Yes. It is important for the AI to not be too predictable. Perhaps even essential.

Of equal importance, I would argue, is for the AI to not become 'stale'. One of the delights of playing human opponents is the diversity of their ideas and how they implement them. If you play the same opponent over and over again (human or machine) a game can lose its enjoyment pleasure because what to do when and where becomes routine (plan #37A). The game itself might have a lot more potential if you were playing a different opponent. My point here is that by writing AIs that take advantage of all (or at least most) of a game's potential avenues of attack and styles of defense, the authors can enhance the value of their product substantially. Though this is similar to removing predictability, it goes beyond simply adding a few more calls to a random numer generator. In particular, it requires a deep understanding of the interrelationships between the game elements and how they can be exploited to win.

Depends on the game structure, but in general I think highly of the approach SSG took with DB series. The AI is able to adapt to changing situations (i.e. maps, forces, scenarios, etc...) by a two tier input approach beyond the basic code...

Each scenario designer must state in the scenario database:

1. Defined geographic regions of action
2. Forces allocated by OOB to each task force used by the AI
3. Data on whether holding an objective is a critical task or not
4. Data on whether taking out a specific strongpoint is critical to the AI or not
5. Suggested places within each region to place supply units, AAA units, bridging units, defensive lines, etc...

The AI takes the scenario database info and then looks for operation order direction.

The operation order places a time factor and operational attitude on the database structure. The AI is set up to choose (randumly) from up to 10 operations orders per scenario. This allows for everything from an aggressively offensive opponent to a staunchly defensive opponent (and every mix inbetween).

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 68

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/4/2005 2:25:03 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JSS

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In particular, it requires a deep understanding of the interrelationships between the game elements and how they can be exploited to win.

Depends on the game structure, but in general I think highly of the approach SSG took with DB series. The AI is able to adapt to changing situations (i.e. maps, forces, scenarios, etc...) by a two tier input approach beyond the basic code...

Each scenario designer must state in the scenario database:

1. Defined geographic regions of action
2. Forces allocated by OOB to each task force used by the AI
3. Data on whether holding an objective is a critical task or not
4. Data on whether taking out a specific strongpoint is critical to the AI or not
5. Suggested places within each region to place supply units, AAA units, bridging units, defensive lines, etc...

The AI takes the scenario database info and then looks for operation order direction.

The operation order places a time factor and operational attitude on the database structure. The AI is set up to choose (randumly) from up to 10 operations orders per scenario. This allows for everything from an aggressively offensive opponent to a staunchly defensive opponent (and every mix inbetween).

It would be interesting to lay these parameters side by side with the rules for playing the game - by which I mean the underlying restrictions on player actions that constitute the game's simulation of the real world. To my mind every game rule should be taken into consideration by the AI.

The list you provided appears to address mostly operational issues (1, 2, 5) and strategy-lite (3 and 4). What you called "operation order" I generally think of as tactics. So I would call the attitudes the AI's tactical stance. The developers leave out of this mix any direct control by the player of the details of the AI's tactics. I say that as an observation, not with any judgment attached to it.

I learned the following definitions from the fine work done by the editors and authors for Strategy and Tactics magazine in the 1970's:
Strategy: who to declare war on and when & grand plans for winning the war,
Operations: what forces to send to which theater of operations,
Tactics: in-close fighting.

Still, the approach you described could be improved upon rather simply, even within the design structure as given. If each scenario contained multiple entries in the database (instead of just the single entry, as I gather from what you said), a lot more variety could be included without much additional effort. Indeed, I would expect that swapping various map locations in and out of the lists for 3 and 4, and throwing together a dozen or so alternatives for 2 could provided a whole host of variations that would require the human to play against the current map situation (as he would against a human) rather than what he remembers the AI doing the last time he played the game.

For me, it is really nice to discuss the topic of designing AI opponents with others. Thanks.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to JSS)

Post #: 69

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/4/2005 3:27:34 AM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

Even though I am not interested in playing against AIs, what I would like to see someone do is create a "pluggable" AI. Where the users can edit/replace the thing themselves. There are N embeddable scripting languages available which would be suitable for this.

That way, once the customers realise how extremely difficult it is to do, they might stop complaining so much ;)

--
On computer education: I agree that universities/colleges tend to be too abstract. However, I would not like to see them go down the route which many schools (up to age 18) have in this country (UK). This is where an "Advanced IT Course" involves learning how to use MS Excel and MS Access. Useful skills to be sure but not what I would call "advanced IT".

In the real commercial world there are five platforms that matter: IBM Mainframe, AS400, VMS, UNIX and Windows. The same concepts are applied differently in each context. A good practical course, whether it be programming-oriented or not, would involve showing how to achieve an equivalent result in all five contexts.

--
Just rambling ... :)

_____________________________

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 70

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/4/2005 3:50:30 AM

JSS

Posts: 781
Joined: 10/15/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Even though I am not interested in playing against AIs, what I would like to see someone do is create a "pluggable" AI. Where the users can edit/replace the thing themselves. There are N embeddable scripting languages available which would be suitable for this.

That way, once the customers realise how extremely difficult it is to do, they might stop complaining so much ;)

Both BIN and BII allow any player to write their own AI operations orders... so what you mention is fully possible... but as you note it is really a significant amount of effort to get the order right :)

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 71

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/4/2005 4:58:22 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Even though I am not interested in playing against AIs, what I would like to see someone do is create a "pluggable" AI. Where the users can edit/replace the thing themselves. There are N embeddable scripting languages available which would be suitable for this.

That way, once the customers realise how extremely difficult it is to do, they might stop complaining so much ;)

--
On computer education: I agree that universities/colleges tend to be too abstract. However, I would not like to see them go down the route which many schools (up to age 18) have in this country (UK). This is where an "Advanced IT Course" involves learning how to use MS Excel and MS Access. Useful skills to be sure but not what I would call "advanced IT".

In the real commercial world there are five platforms that matter: IBM Mainframe, AS400, VMS, UNIX and Windows. The same concepts are applied differently in each context. A good practical course, whether it be programming-oriented or not, would involve showing how to achieve an equivalent result in all five contexts.

--
Just rambling ... :)

You know, an interesting course would compare and contrast those 5 platforms. It could include: (1) their creation and evolution from inception to the present, (2) which industries prefer which platforms and why, (3) why those industries are reluctant to change platforms, ... I might even be interested in such a course. Though I would prefer to simply read a book on the topic. If done right, the book would be quite long - and I like a good read.

The benefit to the student would be an understanding of the current and future job market for IT professionals. As a first course in an IT degree program, it would enable the students in later courses to ask their professors some really hard questions along the lines of "Why are you teaching us this?" "How does this apply to ...?"

Of the 5 you list, I have extensive experience on 3. I haven't worked on the AS400 and have only done a limited amount of coding for Unix. But there are another dozen platforms I have written code for that are no longer around.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 72

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/4/2005 4:59:18 AM

JSS

Posts: 781
Joined: 10/15/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

It would be interesting to lay these parameters side by side with the rules for playing the game - by which I mean the underlying restrictions on player actions that constitute the game's simulation of the real world. To my mind every game rule should be taken into consideration by the AI.

The AI plays out its turn using the same set of considerations the players follow. In fact the Combat Advisor (highly useful to all players) started as the routine for the AI to establish possible combat odds.

The operations orders help the AI to choose wisely... especially those things that are very easy to decide visually.

quote:

Still, the approach you described could be improved upon rather simply, even within the design structure as given. If each scenario contained multiple entries in the database (instead of just the single entry, as I gather from what you said), a lot more variety could be included without much additional effort. Indeed, I would expect that swapping various map locations in and out of the lists for 3 and 4, and throwing together a dozen or so alternatives for 2 could provided a whole host of variations that would require the human to play against the current map situation (as he would against a human) rather than what he remembers the AI doing the last time he played the game.

The AI rarely plays the same way twice. If it uses the same operations order you'll see the same basic tactical scheme but each game will be unique based on the current situation. If the AI has taken more losses in the current game than in a previous game it may well break off its attack and go over to the defensive. There's also settings that limit or permit the AI from attaching units from other AI task forces to reinforce an ongoing operation. If you allow the AI to grab units from other task forces, you get a unique response on each turn, even down to each combat action.

Playing the AI is very much like playing another human.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 73

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/4/2005 5:43:37 AM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
(3) why those industries are reluctant to change platforms, ...

That is an interesting question. It does happen sometimes, albeit slowly.

One thing most people outside IT don't realise is how slowly everything changes. Completely the opposite to the common perception.

I bet we'll still be using IBM mainframes 100 years from now. Who is going to apply an unnecessary risk to all that data?

Web apps are the block mode terminal re-incarnated.

_____________________________

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 74

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/4/2005 12:12:44 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
(3) why those industries are reluctant to change platforms, ...

That is an interesting question. It does happen sometimes, albeit slowly.

One thing most people outside IT don't realise is how slowly everything changes. Completely the opposite to the common perception.

I bet we'll still be using IBM mainframes 100 years from now. Who is going to apply an unnecessary risk to all that data?

Web apps are the block mode terminal re-incarnated.

I gather you understand why indusrtries are reluctant to change platforms. But my personal theory is that the inertia of an object at rest is a more powerful force than the inertia of one moving. As my wife so caustically puts it: "Yes I am in a rut, but I happen to like this rut, I am comfortable here, and I can't be bothered to even try to change it." Given that most management doesn't even understand what the IT types are talking about when it comes to platforms for applications, change can be quite terrifying too. There has to be an enormous amount of pressure to change. Cynical me would say that the hype for the new technology buzz words needs to reach a certain critical density in the popular business magazines for senior management to demand IT platform changes.

And "block mode terminal" applications? My, my, we are old aren't we.

To bring this sidebar back on topic, the Windows platform is undergoing continual tinkering by Microsoft, with patches and new releases to both operating systems and compilers keeping the froth bubbling. As developers we are reluctant to integrate those changes into our products because of the work involved to learn the new stuff and the risk of blood loss when striving to be on the leading edge of technology. At times though, it is quite important to make the transition, or else lose out to leaner meaner types ("kids these days...").

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 75

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/4/2005 11:35:04 PM

nazerti

Posts: 5
Joined: 12/4/2005
Status: offline

Matrix games are cool and i think that they are doing a good job

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 76

RE: A Lesson for Matrixgames. ;) - 12/7/2005 9:23:11 PM

Akira110

Posts: 6
Joined: 12/7/2005
Status: offline