|
Camile Desmoulins -> Timelimit (10/25/2003 6:40:51 AM)
|
I think that is very interesting the idea that peskpesk proposes about an automatic resolution system that the AI activates. I'm sure that the work with AI is excellent, but, however, I have been referee many years of EiA PBEM games and there are two ideas that it is necessary donīt lose of view, seemingly contradictory:
a) The problem of a bad player is not for that player, but for the other ones six, because the game is of a very subtle balance: if fall one of the pieces, collapses all the game. It is sometimes better to wait a little more and to maintain a good player or to avoid a movement AI that destroys an entire strategy that to throw for the time, because it is not a short time game, and a game of months can fail for a precipitation.
b) the worst illness in a PBEM game is the delay, if there is not tension there is not game. It is better a simply good player at time than the greatest player delaying every turn
How we conjugate both ideas?. I think that any serious group of players that tries to play EiA should have a referee and/or a web as reference, that organizes the players and substitute those that are delayed; the human hand is the only one able to solve this problem and it should not be to the judgment of a machine of inflexible approach. This is better than causing mistaken movementsthat harm to the group of players. Even itīs better that the game condemns to not moving that to cause a movement AI, let us don't say a movement AI diplomat.
|
|
|
|
