RE: (Long Post) Where are games at?

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: (Long Post) Where are games at?

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: (Long Post) Where are games at?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/21/2007 11:47:20 PM

marcusm

Posts: 776
Joined: 12/8/2007
From: G�teborg/Sweden
Status: offline

I am not a leading AI expert but it is the general opinion that his AI design
is way ahead of anyone elses.

Giving AI + is not exactly cheating. It is a handicap. Handicaps are perfectly viable
in eg. Golf to even the field. Part of the game rules even. I think it's a great way to make the
match more interesting. The Civ4 BTS AI is good enough that i haven't even started with the bonuses to AI yet :).

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 31

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 12:46:52 AM

hazxan

Posts: 69
Joined: 11/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor
It's not Advanced Tactics that has all the elements of success, nor any wargame, its the developer himself that has to (and in this case does) have the necessary components. Though the game is not without its flaws, its the primary reason I believe why the game is good in the first place and will only get even better in time. This unfortuneately to me, is the exception, not the rule. That AT can be looked at as such a great game in the first place is proof of where standards are at in computer wargaming. Though I can't really disagree with its stance as an exceptional product, I do on the otherhand kinda wish standards were higher (for everything from its graphics to its hard to manuever editor to its somewhat limited UI to the AI issues, lack of decent included tutorials, and so on). It takes more than one game to raise the bar though...

I agree in that I find AT a very playable game, despite it's many quirks, not because of them. The long AI turn is my only real complaint, but hardly anyone else seems to care so......

On AI in games I have a question regarding the Panther Games HTTR and COTA. I've never played them (no demos) but they seem to have a lot of real ground breaking ideas. For a start, 'no hexes' looks excellent - surely all computer strategy games should do this?

However it's the command structure that I find most interesting. My understanding is that you take control at a higher level of the OOB and sub-formations use their own initiative (the AI) to achieve your goals. What I wonder is surely that means the AI is basically playing itself as the AI opponent will be fighting back using exactly the same AI routines. Fair enough the high level aim has been set by the human, but I'm still too doubtful to make the purchase. From the forums, it seems that opinion is that the AI is not too bad but not too good either.

So I'm wavering because to me it's a good thing that you don't micromanage your whole force - also very realistic. But then the AI takes over and well, maybe this isn't quite so satisfying. Any comments appreciated!

< Message edited by NotaGrog -- 12/22/2007 12:49:44 AM >

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 32

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 1:19:23 AM

leastonh1

Posts: 879
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: West Yorkshire, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor
Sorry but I respectfully think your wrong here. Since those are the rules by which the game was setup, and thats what every single other human player in games I've played has done, there is no reason why the AI shouldn't be capable of making the most intelligent first few turn moves also. In fact this is the easiest part of the game to make an AI good at (The first few turns). So its a double failure. While I will not argue that the game design is flawed in that regard (Its a big reason why I now refuse to play random games until its fixed) given that its the current rulesset the AI should understand it. That it wasn't caught sooner is just proof of poor playtesting since nearly everyone agrees this is a big issue. Or maybe its back to that most players/playtesters focus too much on historical nitpicks instead of the things that should really matter (like gameplay rules, UI, and so on). To take the otherside, briefly though, how do you get enough playtesters for games that aren't going to sell that many copies anyway?? You'll loose half your potential sales.

Sorry Veldor, I don't think I explained myself properly there. What you said above is absolutely correct, but not what I meant. What I was trying to say was that it's a game mechanic that can be exploited to win the game as opposed to a potentially real life type scenario. By exploited, I don't mean cheated, I mean a design feature or flaw or whatever in a game or AI that wouldn't normally/ever be replicated in real life. Take NotaGrog's point about the choice in programming AI to be very good, or to make the same mistakes as a historical person/leader/army etc. Do you go for an AI that has all the answers and just works by numbers to get the best outcome no matter what or one that is programmed to mess up a specific aspect of it's behaviour in order to replicate something historical, but is more "human" and fun to play? Chess programs can beat just about everyone on the planet except the top Super GM's, but you can change a setting to dumb them down to play with human-like flaws during play. Hmmm, I'm still not happy that I've explained that the right way...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor
CUZ IT CHEATS!!!!!!!!!
Give the computer 5 extra cards in a regular poker game and I guarantee you'll loose everytime. A great AI that does not make!
Specifically regarding AT I'll reserve my judgement until the patch. Given the AI currently ignores many of the units in the game entirely I don't think you can call it the "best AI" even if it may be "good".

I don't know whether it cheats or not as I know nothing about programming AI or the algorithms behind it. It's one of the best that I personally have seen in a long time. It's just my opinion and I wasn't stating for a fact that it is THE best. Read my post again.

Regards,
Jim

_____________________________

2nd Lt. George Rice: Looks like you guys are going to be surrounded.
Richard Winters: We're paratroopers, Lieutenant, we're supposed to be surrounded.

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 33

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 1:33:09 AM

Arjuna

Posts: 17785
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

Great discussion guys. As a dedicated AI programmer myself I do agree that the AI has to be an integral part of the game design, not something tacked on.

While there is a role for scenario specific scripting, relying on this alone can only result in a fairly predictable gaming experience. The real payoff comes with "generic" AI - ie AI that can make credible decisions regardless of the scenario. For this to work the AI needs to be situationally aware - ie it has to be able to interrogate the scenario data ( eg GIS/map, entities/units, weather, objectives etc ) and make its own assessments. It then must be able to develop its own plans, issue its own orders, respond to those orders, react to events and reassess its own plans.

Once you have these capabilities, the AI will be able to respond in any scenario without the need for scenario specific scripting. ( Note scenario specific scripting can still be useful. )The end result is a more dynamic game, where the AI responds to developments as and when they occur. The result is infinitely less predictable and this provides a more rewarding gaming experience.

For a truly generic AI to work you also need to model a command system, replete with a hierarchical structure.

With few exceptions ( including our products ) most wargames use a two tiered command structure. By this I mean that all decisions are made at two levels, the strategic level ( ie the side ) and the tactical level ( ie the unit ). The strategic level makes decisions on what objectives to go for - ie how best to win. The tactical level manages each and all units - eg where and when to move and fire. The overall plan for a side is done at the stratgic level. This allocates units to go to X etc. In effect all units report directly to the side boss. Now many wargames complicate this somewhat but ultimately they are characterised by the fact that all units are micromanaged by the side boss.

The trouble with this approach is twofold. First, the behaviour of sub-forces tends to be predictable, with no variation for the particular situation faced by the sub-force. They don't delvelop their own plan tailored for the terrain and enemy they face right now. Thus the behaviour is not as realistic as it could be. Second, it makes it extremely difficult to code a powerful AI of this type that can cater for the myriad of situations that are likely to be encountered.

However, if you at the outset design your system to model a hierarchical command structure where orders are passed down the chain of command and where at each level local AI controlled commanders assess their situation, develop their own plans, react to events and reassess their own plans, then you have scaleability. If you combine this with a system of doctrine that manages the development of plans, the reactions and reassessments then you can have AI controlled subordinates that behave in a realistic manner. Moreover, you have a code base that can be developed more easily.

That is not to say that developing such an AI is easy. If it were, everyone would be doing it. But there are better paths to success in this endeavour.

When we set out to design our Airborne Assault game engine, we echewed abstraction wherever possible. ( And a two tiered command structure is a massive abstraction. ) We endeavoured to simulate what happens in reality rather than come up with some "slick" methodology that "looked like" it was doing the right things. At the outset this meant a lot more work designing the system, but the payoff later on has meant we can model behaviours more easily and with less complications than had we gone down the quick and easy abstraction route.

Developing AI is not easy and its not cheap. We have invested around 40 years of effort into our engine, over half of that on AI. That is a huge investment in AI by industry standards. Has it been worth it? Financially, probably not. But professionally it has been very rewarding.

In a risk averse industry, that the triple A titled game industry has become, they are not going to take the risk and invest that kind of money on something with that kind of development risk. So that's why you will continue to see only minor improvements to AI in the likes of your mainstream strategy games. In the miniscule niche wargames market it is financial stupidity to invest that sort of effort into AI. The fact that it happens at all is due to the love of the hobby by a few designers. Whether that will continue is problematic. For it to have any chance, wargamers must become more willing to pay significantly more for such product.

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to marcusm)

Post #: 34

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 1:42:36 AM

ravinhood

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: NotaGrog

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor
It's not Advanced Tactics that has all the elements of success, nor any wargame, its the developer himself that has to (and in this case does) have the necessary components. Though the game is not without its flaws, its the primary reason I believe why the game is good in the first place and will only get even better in time. This unfortuneately to me, is the exception, not the rule. That AT can be looked at as such a great game in the first place is proof of where standards are at in computer wargaming. Though I can't really disagree with its stance as an exceptional product, I do on the otherhand kinda wish standards were higher (for everything from its graphics to its hard to manuever editor to its somewhat limited UI to the AI issues, lack of decent included tutorials, and so on). It takes more than one game to raise the bar though...

I agree in that I find AT a very playable game, despite it's many quirks, not because of them. The long AI turn is my only real complaint, but hardly anyone else seems to care so......

On AI in games I have a question regarding the Panther Games HTTR and COTA. I've never played them (no demos) but they seem to have a lot of real ground breaking ideas. For a start, 'no hexes' looks excellent - surely all computer strategy games should do this?

However it's the command structure that I find most interesting. My understanding is that you take control at a higher level of the OOB and sub-formations use their own initiative (the AI) to achieve your goals. What I wonder is surely that means the AI is basically playing itself as the AI opponent will be fighting back using exactly the same AI routines. Fair enough the high level aim has been set by the human, but I'm still too doubtful to make the purchase. From the forums, it seems that opinion is that the AI is not too bad but not too good either.

So I'm wavering because to me it's a good thing that you don't micromanage your whole force - also very realistic. But then the AI takes over and well, maybe this isn't quite so satisfying. Any comments appreciated!

If I comment on it there will be a flood of negative feedback upon my soul and body. Let's just say you are quite correct in your theories an assumptions about this series. Namely "the game plays itself". ;)

I also think though a game can have a fair/average AI, but, if there are difficulty levels that improve the "Challenge" of the game then I'll grade that game highly as well. Like the Civilization series, Master of Magic, Master of Orion, HOMM II and several more. I don't care that an ai get's handicaps an advantages. Just like someone else said, that's exactly how we make sports like bowling and golf fun and competitive amongst one another as one is better than the other there is a handicap system in place to bring them closer to equal. Same thing with games that give AI's handicaps and advantages. I don't see that as "cheating" at all.

I know when I played face to face with friends in board wargames we'd give one another handicaps an advantages depending on the sides we played because historical games are always out of balance. That's one reason I don't like historical simulations. I'd rather developers make "whatif wargames" with historical scenarios for the history grogs to play and a huge selection of whatifs and random generated maps and units for us whatif types. I don't really care to play the Civil War like it was or WWII like it was or Battles of Napoleon like it was. All I want are the components of those wars/engagements and then I want to be the one to decide who to attack first or who to try to ally with. Much like the Total War games and Combat Mission and even Steel Panthers WAW and Making History games. These are more fun and enjoyable to me than playing Stalingrad for the umpteenth time or the battle of Gettysburg or Waterloo.

We need more MOM and SCI-FI games instead of yet another WWII D-Day or Bulge game really. Though I like the Bulge games, they just get old and samey too fast. We need an X-COM GALAXY game, where you're not just fighting on one planet, but, 100's all over the galaxy and having not only X-COM battles on land and underwater, but, in ice and snow, and off planet ship to ship battles where you board or they board your ship and you fight it out in space as well as planets. Yeah I'd like that. ;) Most 4x space games are so boring because they don't have a land based tactical game with them or a decent AI. X-Com is the exception though. I don't think it really has that great of an AI as it has a great challenging aspect to it as you increase in power so does it without having to build buildings x, y and z to do so.

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 12/22/2007 2:09:46 AM >

(in reply to hazxan)

Post #: 35

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 2:00:11 AM

Veldor

Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: marcusm
I am not a leading AI expert but it is the general opinion that his AI design
is way ahead of anyone elses.

My only point in this is thinking a game has a great AI design because it slaughters you when its getting massive production bonuses, bonuses to combat results, and so on is hardly valid. I can't say I've ever seen any group of people agree on what was or wasn't a good AI in the first place. Well on any neutral ground that is. Given most people don't even realize the handicaps in place no majority opinion would really be valid even if it did exist.

I've still won at Advanced Tactics at AI++. That by itself doesn't have to be proof of anything more than needing an AI+++. But where do you stop? AI++++++ with 1000 times AI production, 10x the AI combat effectiveness, and so on?

quote:

Giving AI + is not exactly cheating. It is a handicap. Handicaps are perfectly viable
in eg. Golf to even the field. Part of the game rules even. I think it's a great way to make the
match more interesting.

Wargaming isn't golf. And since you don't have handicapping in ANY OF THESE games for player vs player its not needed for play against the A.I. in any other fashion than covering up (usually dishonestly) how bad the actual AI is in the first place. For starters it should be onscreen what the handicaps and bonuses to the various AI levels actually are. At least then all players would be aware of whats actually going on. Then I've no problem with the extra A.I. levels being there. As that provides a fairer way to make sure everyone understands exactly how good the base AI is or isn't.

_____________________________

(in reply to marcusm)

Post #: 36

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 2:20:01 AM

ravinhood

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

Actually Combat Mission does put it on screen what the advantages are +10% more troups to +200% more troups. How hard is that to understand? It also shows you can give them veteran units to your average or green units. Real easy to see the handicaps the AI is getting. Plus, I don't agree with you that wargaming doesn't need handicaps or advantages. Perhaps a "simulation" shouldn't have them, but, everything in wargaming is NOT a simulation. Many are abstracts of wars or new wars that the games make themselves as you play like the Civilization series or Master of Orion or Master of Magic. These are wargames as well as strategy games. There are wars within them so they qualify as a wargame. Plus we are talking about AI's in general not the systems in which they are presented. AI's are bad in most ALL type of games from sports, to The Game of Life to wargames. AI's encompass all games not just wargames or wargame simulations.

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 12/22/2007 2:21:18 AM >

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 37

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 2:26:23 AM

leastonh1

Posts: 879
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: West Yorkshire, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor
Wargaming isn't golf. And since you don't have handicapping in ANY OF THESE games for player vs player its not needed for play against the A.I. in any other fashion than covering up (usually dishonestly) how bad the actual AI is in the first place. For starters it should be onscreen what the handicaps and bonuses to the various AI levels actually are. At least then all players would be aware of whats actually going on. Then I've no problem with the extra A.I. levels being there. As that provides a fairer way to make sure everyone understands exactly how good the base AI is or isn't.

The AI will always need to be given bonuses, simply because it's not human. It can't really be compared to a person because by its very name, the intelligence in any game has to be artificially programmed to mimic us. Isn't it all a con when you really get down to it? You just can't replace people. That's probably why so many people prefer playing pbem or ftf rather than the pooter, because the unpredictability, creativity, subterfuge and sneakiness is all there, which you'll never really get with a PC game without allowing it to cheat. Again, I'm guessing based on what I've experienced and know zilch about AI programming.

The question is, does this cheating or exploiting or whatever you call it need to be implicit or explicit? Should the player need to know more than that the AI seems to play a "good" game or "bad" game? To me, AT has a good AI because that's my perception of the things it does, the way it moves units and because I get beaten a lot by it. That's also partly because I'm not a grognard and because of my own lack of skill/knowledge/understanding of military doctrine etc. You may think the AI is ok, good or awful because you can beat it on the highest setting. Then again, you may be lousy at chess/tiddlywinks/whatever and I could beat you hands down because I'm just more experienced and better at it. There is no straight answer.

Isn't this pasttime about immersion and the ability to suspend disbelief? If you enjoy the game, is it important what's going on underneath? Isn't the whole point to play the game and enjoy the experience rather than spend time comparing the AI's bonuses to yours? I don't go to the cinema and pick apart all the cgi stuff. I'm probably peripherally aware of it and sometimes spot it easily, but if the film is good, I don't care that much because I'm enjoying myself. Which is why I still keep going to the cinema and playing games.

Secondly, the problem with presenting the info you mention to the player is that you come back to the age old argument about whether to hide the stuff we don't really need to see or show it and put some players off who really don't care? I don't really want to be presented with that info on screen as it would just make the whole thing very sterile and really would defeat the object of playing in the first place. That's my opinion though and you may disagree.

Regards,
Jim

_____________________________

2nd Lt. George Rice: Looks like you guys are going to be surrounded.
Richard Winters: We're paratroopers, Lieutenant, we're supposed to be surrounded.

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 38

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 3:10:25 AM

Veldor

Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

...Developing AI is not easy and its not cheap. We have invested around 40 years of effort into our engine, over half of that on AI. ....

You've been working on your game engine since 1967?

Nah I know what you meant...

I agree with everything you said, though some of it is a bit specific to the style of game one might be making. For instance, at this point, some of the possibly more advanced styles of A.I. I've experimented with would probably be pretty difficult to implement into a game engine like that whereas much more applicable to say a more fixed hex-oriented turn-based game.

That is to say where you mention not doing any specific scenario scripting but rather a more what I'll call 2nd generation A.I I'm refering to a more 3rd generation "learning style" AI. The advantage to the "1st generation" scripted style is ease of programming and implementation, with all the negative effects you mentioned. The problem I think with the 2nd gen style you've mentioned is having to do so much of that work to seed the system with values and information upon which to make such decisions (The 20/40yrs of effort you mentioned to say best case achieve a 12yr old mind). the more 3rd gen style just starts your AI dumb and self-seeds and grows (So from an infant to hopefully more like a 16yr old ... vs the 12yr old). In testing that though the main problem is in order to get a certain base level of ability (Say to take your AI to age 8 in comparison) you either need to run it forever (not practical without tons and tons of computing horsepower) or seed it against a more standard AI opponent (also not so practical as then you have to develop a full 2nd gen AI to help seed the 3rd gen AI). The second is a guess as I've not tried that one and am having difficulty finding any real applicable reference that applies enough to wargaming needs. Maybe a scripted opponent could be enough for it to play against?

Even if that was all done then to take it from an 8yr old to 12yr old (So just to 2nd Gen AI levels) you'd probably need a good base of actual live players. I dont think wargames sell in enough quantity for that to actually ever be enough data back to the central system (assuming users would even agree to the data transmissions). And of course to then take it past 12yrs old might take years to get enough results. Which isn't really gonna help sales day one other than being really really cool (at least to me).

Though I'll probably never get such a thing working in a game or have 40yrs alone to spend on it perhaps someone else will use something along those lines to further advance wargame A.I.

I wonder if you think I am crazy?

_____________________________

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 39

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 3:25:33 AM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

So I'm wavering because to me it's a good thing that you don't micromanage your whole force - also very realistic. But then the AI takes over and well, maybe this isn't quite so satisfying. Any comments appreciated!

Well what would you like? Not to micromanage, but not have the AI do it?

It's quite simple with the HTTR/COTA engine...you can take command at platoon level (for some units (AT?)), company level, battalion level and regiment level (and higher still) and give orders at ANY of those levels.

You can give orders at your highest command level and then, as the battle unfolds, you will undoubtedly have to go down the levels to adjust your battle plan.

You most certainly can select your highest HQ and give it an order to attack and go out for a two hour walk. But you are not guaranteed anything there except missing out on one of the best command level games out there, bar none.

If you do play that way, you're missing the point of the game (as ravinhood always does - mainly because he doesn't own it, so makes wild, characteristic, crazy assumptions).

The beauty of the game is the level of flexibility you have with your units. I NEVER give a command to the highest command. I generally give commands at regimental level, often give commands at battalion level and very often take command of companies (when I want to hold a road closed whilst the rest of my units retreat). But I like to walk my units through combat. And micromanaging in this is not the same as micromanagement in WitP for example.

Unlike RH, I will not force my opinion on you. Each to their own. Horses for courses. I love it, you may hate it. I can only tell you what I know (and unlike some people, this is not an uneducated guess, it's from someone who owns and plays the game) and that is that the game and it's engine are ground breaking.

I was not at all interested in the battles in Greece and that region...but the game has some fantastic battles and the maps are beautiful. What's more, if you have the patience, it has a great editor.

Sup to you. I've said my piece.

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 40

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 3:29:06 AM

Veldor

Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim_H
The AI will always need to be given bonuses, simply because it's not human.

Not true. Someone's already mentioned the Chess AI can beat any human with no bonuses. That difference is simply a difference of game complexities vs current computering power. Plus a bit of AI programming technique. Computing Power increases exponentially nearly every year. Likely true today but you said will "always"

quote:

It can't really be compared to a person because by its very name, the intelligence in any game has to be artificially programmed to mimic us.

See other post about 3rd generation AIs.

quote:

Isn't it all a con when you really get down to it? You just can't replace people.

Again I cite the chess AI which COMPLETELY replaces a person. A simple difference of computing power rapidly changing.

quote:

That's probably why so many people prefer playing pbem or ftf rather than the pooter, because the unpredictability, creativity, subterfuge and sneakiness is all there, which you'll never really get with a PC game without allowing it to cheat.

FINALLY now some might see my point on cheating AI's. Re-read your sentence. Does allowing the AI to cheat really help make it more unpredictable, creative, or sneaky??? I think not thus why it really doesnt truly increase the AI's true ability.

quote:

Again, I'm guessing based on what I've experienced and know zilch about AI programming.

Were all equals here. I guess unless you have that Matrix logo by your name...
Though some might think otherwise...

quote:

The question is, does this cheating or exploiting or whatever you call it need to be implicit or explicit? Should the player need to know more than that the AI seems to play a "good" game or "bad" game? To me, AT has a good AI because that's my perception of the things it does, the way it moves units and because I get beaten a lot by it. That's also partly because I'm not a grognard and because of my own lack of skill/knowledge/understanding of military doctrine etc. You may think the AI is ok, good or awful because you can beat it on the highest setting. Then again, you may be lousy at chess/tiddlywinks/whatever and I could beat you hands down because I'm just more experienced and better at it. There is no straight answer.

Well, not saying your wrong, you make a good point... but... under that theory it would also be ok if the AI looked at your production queues, or how many Production Points you had left, looked under the shroud without some sort of equal fog of war etc. Of course it might actually do all those things I dont really know not having programmed it... But I don't think anyone would be happy if that were the case. But then again, if it didnt appear obvious that the AI was doing that.. and it made the AI opponent more challenging...

It's not like we have federal regulations against it :) But on a programmer to programmer basis I dont think you'll get much respect for using techniques like that in your code. Certainly its then unfair for people to think you've made a superior AI then versus someone elses....

quote:

Secondly, the problem with presenting the info you mention to the player is that you come back to the age old argument about whether to hide the stuff we don't really need to see or show it and put some players off who really don't care? I don't really want to be presented with that info on screen as it would just make the whole thing very sterile and really would defeat the object of playing in the first place. That's my opinion though and you may disagree.

But using the golf analogy your told that one player has a handicap.

_____________________________

(in reply to leastonh1)

Post #: 41

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 3:34:28 AM

ravinhood

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

What I've never understood and I've asked for this feature many times in the past is why can't developers use a learning database storage feature that the AI learns the "patterns" of the player. For instance every game I play I go after a particular city at the start, the AI should store this in a database just like a saved game. Then it should use that information to setup a defensive or offensive stance for that type of play. As I change my playstyle after seeing that it's got my number it should also store new offensives I take and store in that file to take a percentage calculation of if/when I will attack point A or point B. It also should store how I play the infrastructure game. I play more building up troup stacks than I do building up my infrastructure and I notice the AI always does the opposite and I hit him with so many more troups�its built up infrastructure doesn't help it. SO, it should store how I build and what I build thus being able once again to build a defensive or offensive posture for when I attack it. Something else I do in a lot of games is build a "reaction force" this is a force that is about half the size of a main force and it's centered between two or three cities/towns/objectives to be able to reach them in a turn or two to thwart any offensives towards those elements. The AI should be programmed to protect it's elements in the same way instead of leaving everything unprotected and open for easy conquering. Nearly every game I play the AI never protects its rear and a sneak maneuver down the flanks always leads to overwhelming defeat for the AI.�

I have to commend Battlefront in their CMAK game and I think CMBB also (never played it much don't like russian/german warfare)�they finally started having the AI place units on the far flanks to thwart this kind of maneuvering. Warlords IV has an excellent AI now as well that can sack a human player in the blink of an eye if the human player doesn't build up and carefully plan their attack and even then without proper relics in the game the AI can still overrun them and send them back to playing the easy level of difficulty. lol I'll never forget my first game of Warlords IV v1.04a edition. I started out playing on the hardest difficulty and the AI overwhelmed me in a matter of a few turns. Man I never saw so many stacks of armies and hardened veteran troups coming at me at once in any game. I applauded the AI victory and commenced the going back to normal difficulty until I had a better understanding of that ole AI. ;) Warlords IV is an excellent game now for those that thought it sucked out of the box which it did. Get v1.04a patch and you'll be good to go.

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 12/22/2007 3:36:51 AM >

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 42

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 3:36:11 AM

Veldor

Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

.....Well what would you like? Not to micromanage, but not have the AI do it?

It's quite simple with the HTTR/COTA engine...you can take command at platoon level (for some units (AT?)), company level, battalion level and regiment level (and higher still) and give orders at ANY of those levels.

You can give orders at your highest command level and then, as the battle unfolds, you will undoubtedly have to go down the levels to adjust your battle plan.
.................

I have to agree here. My possibly simpler example would be Uncommon Valor even where the A.I. does certain things for you and you can micromanage them further if you'd like.

This is really how those extra levels of complexity, if present and REALLY necessary, should be handled in every wargame. Not just playing against the AI, but rather having an AI "Helper" with you whether playing the AI or another real person.

The ONE PROBLEM I have with this though is that such systems usually favor the player who goes ahead and does all the micromanagement anyway. That comment is more in reference to turn-based games such as UV/WITP.

But It's something we need to see more of and I applaud those wargames that have it (They are usually amongst my favorites).

_____________________________

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 43

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 3:54:22 AM

hazxan

Posts: 69
Joined: 11/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
If I comment on it there will be a flood of negative feedback upon my soul and body. Let's just say you are quite correct in your theories an assumptions about this series. Namely "the game plays itself". ;)
s x, y and z to do so.

Negative or positive - I want accurate feedback.

I'm surprised someone at Matrix hasn't come on to tell me it's got the best AI yet seen blah blah or maybe offer me a 2 for the price of 1 deal. Even more suprised that Arjuna who wrote the AI appears to have ignored my question. Surely if anyone has an opinon then must be he?

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 44

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 3:58:22 AM

Veldor

Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

What I've never understood and I've asked for this feature many times in the past is why can't developers use a learning database storage feature that the AI learns the "patterns" of the player. For instance every game I play I go after a particular city at the start, the AI should store this in a database just like a saved game. Then it should use that information to setup a defensive or offensive stance for that type of play. ....

It's not a bad idea by any means. But realize most of what I describe as Gen1/Gen2 Wargame AIs is still basically all statically programmed AI values. The only real model that would be flexible enough to incorporate such data would be the Gen3 style which to my knowledge hasn't really been used yet. Since thats challenging enough just to work in and of itself the level you describe, while logical, is probably not very practical. It might not even be necessary given Gen3 might already produce a smart enough opponent.

It could though, perhaps in some way, help teach such an AI opponent enough to grow it from 8yrs old to whatever other comparible age. But the main reason its not likely to be too useful is most of how those systems work is by running the AI against itself litterally millions of games. There just isnt enough data in a couple hundred games against real opponents and the average wargame has just far too many possibilities to ever "seed" it in such an inflexible way.

I suppose the thing too point out here is FOR SURE the one thing a computer can't do yet or anytime soon is LEARN the same way a human does. What you describe would be how you would teach me how to play a game well. A computer really only learns from massive repetitions then combined with dynamically adjusted algorithms to produce decision making based purely upon math.

_____________________________

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 45

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 4:10:24 AM

leastonh1

Posts: 879
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: West Yorkshire, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor
Not true. Someone's already mentioned the Chess AI can beat any human with no bonuses. That difference is simply a difference of game complexities vs current computering power. Plus a bit of AI programming technique. Computing Power increases exponentially nearly every year. Likely true today but you said will "always"

Hehe, yes I did use the word "always". Damn!

Yes, the power increases exponentially, but interestingly, chess computers still can't beat ALL players. Their win rates haven't increased at the same rate, exponentially. They are getting better, but aren't there yet. Why is that? Is it because chess hasn't been "solved"? The AI will never be a perfect player until or unless the game it's used for is solveable. Surely that's a given? I used "never" this time hehe!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor
Again I cite the chess AI which COMPLETELY replaces a person. A simple difference of computing power rapidly changing.

Hmmm, I'm still not agreeing here Veldor. There is no chess AI that can completely replace human players...yet. I think it will come eventually, but the Super GM's still beat the best AI consistently. Ok, to use another example, Go. Go, from what I've read, is vastly more complex than chess and as things stood fairly recently, nigh on impossible to write a totally effective AI routine for it because mathematically, it can't be solved. Yet. We aren't limited in the same way AI is. The AI has limits on it's capability to determine best outcomes, whereas humans don't have any such constraints.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor
FINALLY now some might see my point on cheating AI's. Re-read your sentence. Does allowing the AI to cheat really help make it more unpredictable, creative, or sneaky??? I think not thus why it really doesnt truly increase the AI's true ability.

No, it doesn't help it do these things, BUT may help with the illusion of such. This point is continued below.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor
Well, not saying your wrong, you make a good point... but... under that theory it would also be ok if the AI looked at your production queues, or how many Production Points you had left, looked under the shroud without some sort of equal fog of war etc. Of course it might actually do all those things I dont really know not having programmed it... But I don't think anyone would be happy if that were the case. But then again, if it didnt appear obvious that the AI was doing that.. and it made the AI opponent more challenging...

I think you've hit the nail on the head here...for certain games. If the game cannot be solved using a mathematical algorithm and the AI needs to be "strong" in order to cater to the grognards (to take wargames as the example again), then surely the programmer has no choice but to use insider information to win? Chess computers have ALL the variables of the game to hand and nothing is hidden. There is no shroud or fog of war and a limited number of pieces on a limited number of squares. Yet, they still lose games to humans. As a wargame cannot be solved due to the sheer number of variables (I'm hazarding a guess here), then something else must come into play in order for it to seem strong to the human player. However, this is where I may be just showing my own ignorance of AI.

So, if the programmer is sneaky enough to hide all this "cheating" by the AI from the player in a convincing way, then why should it matter? If it's closed code, who would ever know anyway?

Regards,
Jim

_____________________________

2nd Lt. George Rice: Looks like you guys are going to be surrounded.
Richard Winters: We're paratroopers, Lieutenant, we're supposed to be surrounded.

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 46

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 4:39:01 AM

Veldor

Posts: 1531
Joined: 12/29/2002
From: King's Landing
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim_H
The AI will never be a perfect player until or unless the game it's used for is solveable. Surely that's a given?

Perhaps but two things to point out vs Chess. First would be that a wargame, on average, has far more randomness in it. Though this isn't true of all of them (Diplomacy for example), its true of most. The biggest problem in Chess is one mistake is all it takes to loose. In most wargames you get a few more chances than that, if not many more. Second is that its possible for a human to remember conceptually anyways similar to what a computer can. In case of Grand Masters they likely know/remember all the exact following plays etc. vs the computer as well. In your average wargame, given the much much larger scope.. The computer can and will remember and/or be able to calculate far far more possibilities to a far far greater length into the game then you ever could. So its highly feasible for it to be a perfect player from that standpoint. I suppose the greatest challenge would be in simulating the sneakiness and unpredictability mentioned without sacrificing the quality of the play though sometimes its the unexpected itself that lends to that quality and rather not the actual mathematical logic behind it.

quote:

Hmmm, I'm still not agreeing here Veldor. There is no chess AI that can completely replace human players...yet.

Ok let me modify my statement. There are many chess AI's that can completely replace an "average" or even "above average" human player 100%. Nothing, whatsover, is lost. I'd not even know whether I was playing a real human or an A.I.

_____________________________

(in reply to leastonh1)

Post #: 47

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 1:51:09 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

ravinhood...you seem to talk a good game (I expect it's because you like the sound of your own voice) so why don't you get into development? I mean, what better game to sate your requirements than one you developed yourself with the best AI ever (I presume you would tout it as such).

I'll give you your dues, you appear to know what your talking about. So rather than run around and spread your venom, why not get involved? Matrix quite often look for beta testers...

Like I said, you seem to talk a good game.

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 48

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 2:47:30 PM

Arjuna

Posts: 17785
Joined: 3/31/2003
From: Canberra, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NotaGrog
On AI in games I have a question regarding the Panther Games HTTR and COTA. I've never played them (no demos) but they seem to have a lot of real ground breaking ideas. For a start, 'no hexes' looks excellent - surely all computer strategy games should do this?

However it's the command structure that I find most interesting. My understanding is that you take control at a higher level of the OOB and sub-formations use their own initiative (the AI) to achieve your goals. What I wonder is surely that means the AI is basically playing itself as the AI opponent will be fighting back using exactly the same AI routines. Fair enough the high level aim has been set by the human, but I'm still too doubtful to make the purchase. From the forums, it seems that opinion is that the AI is not too bad but not too good either.

So I'm wavering because to me it's a good thing that you don't micromanage your whole force - also very realistic. But then the AI takes over and well, maybe this isn't quite so satisfying. Any comments appreciated!

NotaGrog,

Sorry for not replying to this. In truth I missed your post. It's been a bugger of a day. I have just moved house/office. So only saw this thread today after getting reconnected and then we had a deluge of rain this morning that flooded the garage with all our unpacked cartons of stuff. Looks like my board wargame collection has copped it. So I've been somewhat distracted.

In answer to your question about whether the AI is playing itself, I'd say that that is correct in part. As you point out, where a side is human controlled, the player issues orders and the AI manages the subordinates that carry out those orders. The human player can micro-manage everything by giving orders to each and every unit, if he so wishes. However, this is a bit like buying a porche and then insisting on pushing it. If the opposing side is also controlled by a human player then they too will issue their orders and the AI will manage their subordinates.

If the AI controls the side, then it will use the strategic level AI to determine the best plan for it to achive victory. In doing so it weighs up the relative victory value of the objectives set for it by the scenario designer. These are the same as the victory objectives set for a human player, with the possible addition of one or more AI objectives ( these don't acrue VPs and are used sparingly to assist the strategic AI come up with a good plan ). Many scenarios do not have AI objectives. Objectives are rated for suitability and culled or filtered by a range of factors using various algorythms. Forces are then allocated to the various surviving objectives and orders sent to them. This process equates to the human player developing its plan and issuing orders. Therafter the subordinates of both the human player and the AI controlled side use the same AI to manage the subordinates.

However, having said that, it should be noted that the AI is generic. It is not scenario specific scripting. The plan developed by it for each and every order will vary according to the situation - ie according to the commander and forces assigned to it, to the type of order ( eg attack/defend/delay etc ), to the doctrine the force will use to implement that order, to the terrain at and around the objective and in between the force and the objective, to the prevailing weather, to the current supply situation, to the current intel reports on nearby enemy etc. In other words there are many factors that come into play specific to the individual situation that result in the AI developing a different plan from one order to the next and from one force to the next.

For instance, a green foot infantry battalion with a timid commander ordered to secure hill X from the south will develop a plan quite different to a veteran Armoured Bn with a gung-ho commander ordered to secure the same hill from the north. Further, the veteran Armoured Bn will most likely develop a different plan again if it knows of the enemy inf Bn and different again if the intel report is of an enemy armoured force instead.

I believe it is very realistic and I find it very satisfying, but then I'm a tad biased, so I'll let others comment on that.

I hope that answers your questions. Regards,

_____________________________

Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com

(in reply to hazxan)

Post #: 49

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 5:14:09 PM

leastonh1

Posts: 879
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: West Yorkshire, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor
Perhaps but two things to point out vs Chess. First would be that a wargame, on average, has far more randomness in it. Though this isn't true of all of them (Diplomacy for example), its true of most. The biggest problem in Chess is one mistake is all it takes to loose. In most wargames you get a few more chances than that, if not many more. Second is that its possible for a human to remember conceptually anyways similar to what a computer can. In case of Grand Masters they likely know/remember all the exact following plays etc. vs the computer as well. In your average wargame, given the much much larger scope.. The computer can and will remember and/or be able to calculate far far more possibilities to a far far greater length into the game then you ever could. So its highly feasible for it to be a perfect player from that standpoint. I suppose the greatest challenge would be in simulating the sneakiness and unpredictability mentioned without sacrificing the quality of the play though sometimes its the unexpected itself that lends to that quality and rather not the actual mathematical logic behind it.

I totally agree. The GM's remember board/piece patterns as much as anything else and can spot similarities on the board with their store of existing images. At least that's what some of the current research points to. Couple that with highly developed analytical and creative minds and well trained memory and you have a killer combination. As you say, the wargame gives you many more chances to redeem yourself than chess (thank goodness!!!) when you make a mess of things. The creativity and guile of a human does factor into the ultimate result. Even now, they say that some chess AI can be beaten by the player who makes a move or combination that is unexpected, unpredicted or illogical. The AI isn't programmed to deal with it. Which begs the question: Could that be classed as an exploit, or is it just creativity on the part of a human that the computer lacks?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor
Ok let me modify my statement. There are many chess AI's that can completely replace an "average" or even "above average" human player 100%. Nothing, whatsover, is lost. I'd not even know whether I was playing a real human or an A.I.

Being a bit of a chess fanatic, I have the Fritz, Hiarcs and Junior programs, along with Chessbase database. You can set each to play more humanlike by tweaking the engines that come with them. Each plays a different game anyway as the engines are created by different people, so there's lots of variation on style. I'm an average club level player and cannot tell I'm playing a ches computer. Set at a lower level, the game does make mistakes that the average humam would and I'm not just talking about individual moves. They can fall into typical opening traps, play a great tactical, but poor strategic game and vice versa and many other things. It's amazing to watch and great fun to play against. By the same token, I'm not a particularly strong wargame player, so am generally easy to beat. That's great because every game is a challenge and I rarely get bored with beating the AI because it doesn't happen that often hehe!

Regards,
Jim

_____________________________

2nd Lt. George Rice: Looks like you guys are going to be surrounded.
Richard Winters: We're paratroopers, Lieutenant, we're supposed to be surrounded.

(in reply to Veldor)

Post #: 50

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 5:22:59 PM

leastonh1

Posts: 879
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: West Yorkshire, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd
ravinhood...you seem to talk a good game (I expect it's because you like the sound of your own voice) so why don't you get into development? I mean, what better game to sate your requirements than one you developed yourself with the best AI ever (I presume you would tout it as such).
I'll give you your dues, you appear to know what your talking about. So rather than run around and spread your venom, why not get involved? Matrix quite often look for beta testers...

Would Matrix want him/her? Moan, moan, moan. This is crap, that is crap. I want it cheaper, for free. etc. etc.

Would you argue with yourself if you were developing a game?!

Oh, and although it's OT (sorry), I meant to say this a few days ago...Sorry Ravinhood, but I still haven't a clue whether you're male or female. You picked me up on this in one of your posts recently. Put yourself in my position though...Your name is ambiguous and your avatar is female. I don't really care what gender you are, but just bear in mind when you start moaning and pointing the finger, that we aren't mind readers and I was trying to be polite by saying him/her, rather than making an assumption. Now, do you get it? Not everything is a dig, you know? Even so, you are an easy target because you deliberately go out of your way to be one.

Regards,
Jim

_____________________________

2nd Lt. George Rice: Looks like you guys are going to be surrounded.
Richard Winters: We're paratroopers, Lieutenant, we're supposed to be surrounded.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 51

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 10:11:37 PM

ravinhood

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

quote:

Would Matrix want him/her? Moan, moan, moan. This is crap, that is crap. I want it cheaper, for free. etc. etc. Would you argue with yourself if you were developing a game?!

The best beta testers are critics. If you had any common sense you would know that. It's a beta testers job to be critical of the design and the flaws and search for bugs. It's not their job to just apply to be a beta tester just to get a free game. Note you won't see my name on any beta tested Matrixgames. So, if I were after free games don't you think I'd be on every beta test program of a game I might be interested in? So really you should stop trolling and keep your fingers shut about things you know absolutely nothing about Jim_H. You fall for JD's crap all too much and he knows nothing of what I do, what I own and what I play and when I play it. He's doing nothing more that speculating and just making up lie after lie about me. When he can look over my shoulder and see into my computer room and all the avenues I have of playing games, then he can make informed�comments, until then he's just trolling as usual and telling his usual lies.

Oh and to show you how easily JD lies without thought here's a snippet from another thread that someone else quoted something he said as usual another lie:

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

My apologies and I commend you.

I'll leave him alone now...unlike him, I have some games requiring my attention

You are a gentelman, as many here are-thankfully.
Give peace a chance for at least 120 hours-it might make a difference. Just maybe.

JD could no more leave me alone than he can stop playing with himself. lol

< Message edited by ravinhood -- 12/22/2007 10:27:49 PM >

(in reply to leastonh1)

Post #: 52

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 10:52:58 PM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

lol...so you know nothing about me, but in 3 threads...

I'm a puppy dog
I'm a troll
I'm a liar
I'm a freeloader
I'm a person who knows the pleasures of the palm

Is that it? Finished with your pathetic attempt at character assassination? Pathetic little man.

By the way, Mr Imtoodamnlonelytobehappy...point 4 is a classic. At least I attempt to support the industry who help me to enjoy my hobby and don't just run about bitching about not getting my own way and bleating about being picked on.

Enjoy your Christmas ravinhood.

Mine has just got better

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 53

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 11:10:41 PM

hazxan

Posts: 69
Joined: 11/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
NotaGrog,

Sorry for not replying to this. In truth I missed your post. It's been a bugger of a day. I have just moved house/office. So only saw this thread today after getting reconnected and then we had a deluge of rain this morning that flooded the garage with all our unpacked cartons of stuff. Looks like my board wargame collection has copped it. So I've been somewhat distracted.

Many thanks for replying - very sorry to hear of the problems you've been having. I'm hoping you're covered by insurance and will be able to replace the damaged games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
For instance, a green foot infantry battalion with a timid commander ordered to secure hill X from the south will develop a plan quite different to a veteran Armoured Bn with a gung-ho commander ordered to secure the same hill from the north. Further, the veteran Armoured Bn will most likely develop a different plan again if it knows of the enemy inf Bn and different again if the intel report is of an enemy armoured force instead.

That sounds really interesting to me. I had thought that AI control on both sides could work if officers had some kind of personality.
I've been digging out old games I never finished due to lack of interest in new games - now I may have get one of your games - especially now they're on special offer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
I hope that answers your questions. Regards,

Yes, thanks again.

(in reply to Arjuna)

Post #: 54

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/22/2007 11:13:50 PM

hazxan

Posts: 69
Joined: 11/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NotaGrog

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
NotaGrog,

Sorry for not replying to this. In truth I missed your post. It's been a bugger of a day. I have just moved house/office. So only saw this thread today after getting reconnected and then we had a deluge of rain this morning that flooded the garage with all our unpacked cartons of stuff. Looks like my board wargame collection has copped it. So I've been somewhat distracted.

Many thanks for replying - very sorry to hear of the problems you've been having. I'm hoping you're covered by insurance and will be able to replace the damaged games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
For instance, a green foot infantry battalion with a timid commander ordered to secure hill X from the south will develop a plan quite different to a veteran Armoured Bn with a gung-ho commander ordered to secure the same hill from the north. Further, the veteran Armoured Bn will most likely develop a different plan again if it knows of the enemy inf Bn and different again if the intel report is of an enemy armoured force instead.

That sounds really interesting to me. I had thought that AI control on both sides could work if officers had some kind of personality.
Due to lack of interest in new games, I've been digging out old games I never finished - now I may have get one of your games - especially now they're on special offer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna
I hope that answers your questions. Regards,

Yes, thanks again.

(in reply to hazxan)

Post #: 55

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/23/2007 1:01:10 AM

leastonh1

Posts: 879
Joined: 2/12/2005
From: West Yorkshire, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
The best beta testers are critics. If you had any common sense you would know that. It's a beta testers job to be critical of the design and the flaws and search for bugs. It's not their job to just apply to be a beta tester just to get a free game. Note you won't see my name on any beta tested Matrixgames. So, if I were after free games don't you think I'd be on every beta test program of a game I might be interested in? So really you should stop trolling and keep your fingers shut about things you know absolutely nothing about Jim_H. You fall for JD's crap all too much and he knows nothing of what I do, what I own and what I play and when I play it. He's doing nothing more that speculating and just making up lie after lie about me. When he can look over my shoulder and see into my computer room and all the avenues I have of playing games, then he can make informed comments, until then he's just trolling as usual and telling his usual lies.

RH, all I go on is the crap I see you post in thread after thread. I don't need Judge to think for me. You bait the Matrix staff. You complain endlessly about their products. You b**ch constantly about the games, the devs, the beta testers, the prices etc. etc. etc. All on the Matrix forums. I and JD aren't the only ones who don't enjoy your posts. It's funny the first time to read about how you think their games are too expensive and how you won't pay the prices, but after the tenth thread with this sort of nonsense in it (smiley at the end of your commment or not!), it gets old really quickly. If you don't like Matrix products and prices, why keep coming back here? Other than to wind people up, why do you insist on continually doing this? That's a genuine question. If you posted constructive and polite criticism, you'd probably be well respected and people, including Matrix, may take more notice of what you have to say. I think you do have some very good points to make, but you are so rude and obnoxious that your interesting ideas are lost amongst the other rubbish you come out with. I think that's a damn shame. You're a good critic RH, but have a terrible way of going about it.

I don't know you and you don't know me. You're quite correct. I know that I'm not a fan of your style of posting and judging by your replies, that's mutual. Fine, I'm a big boy and can deal with that. I reply to your posts with sarcasm or I join in when other people make a comment about you and happen to agree with them or find it amusing. If you can't take that flak, then stop posting things to irritate people.

I happened to agree with JD about you. You talk enough about it, so perhaps you would be a good dev or beta tester. I really think that's a good idea. You'd probably find more bugs than most because I truly think you do care. But, your approach to this just gets on people's nerves. I can't help getting irritated and posting something in reply to you or other people because that's precisely the response you expect and want from us. Why else post something inflammatory?

You infer that all beta testers are out for a free game and don't test properly etc. Maybe there are a number of them who are like that, but not all, I can assure you. Believe it or not RH, some people really do have integrity and are honest. Don't forget, beta testers are just ordinary gamers who are trying to find the showstoppers and anything else they can before the game is sold. They aren't paid and some spend tens of hours testing and trying to find problems. What do they get for their trouble? A free copy of the game. Big deal. It's not a yacht or a million pounds (dollars). Those people who beta test because they are genuinely motivated to help, don't do it for a free game that's probably worth a fraction of the hours they put in.

Regards,
Jim

_____________________________

2nd Lt. George Rice: Looks like you guys are going to be surrounded.
Richard Winters: We're paratroopers, Lieutenant, we're supposed to be surrounded.

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 56

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/23/2007 1:27:17 AM

JudgeDredd

Posts: 8573
Joined: 11/14/2003
From: Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

They aren't paid and some spend tens of hours testing and trying to find problems. What do they get for their trouble? A free copy of the game. Big deal. It's not a yacht or a million pounds (dollars). Those people who beta test because they are genuinely motivated to help, don't do it for a free game that's probably worth a fraction of the hours they put in.

At the risk of being branded your little puppy dog, Jim_H, I'd expand on that by saying hundreds of hours.

Also, having a free game at the end of it isn't the draw...it's having your chance to put in the feedback, whether or not the devs agree.

It isn't a case of "I'm a beta tester and I don't think that's going to work". That isn't a carte blanche "Ok, we'll change it" statement...there are other people testing the game who may well not agree with you, nevermind the devs. On top of that, the game may well be too far ahead to change something and you can shout till you're blue in the face about a feature not feeling right....it just will not get done if the devs have moved on from that section or it will mean too big a revamp.

When you think about it, there are only 3 advantages to being a beta tester

Having the chance to have your input
Getting your game for free
Playing the game early

But here's the rub...the first point is genuine. The third point just doesn't work, because you are playing with a beta version...there are plenty of things that get on your wick when you are playing a beta. And don't forget, you aren't "enjoying" the game....you're too busy trying to find bugs to just go with the flow of the game.

And as for the second point? OK...it's nice to not have to pay for a game, but by the time you get that, you're probably all gamed out on it. Besides, being a beta tester, you are privvy to certain "key aspects" of the engine...and for me, that kind of strips the fun away...to know that x result is going to be based on y factor and a random die roll....it just takes away the innocence of the game.

So the only true benefit for a BETA tester (for me anyway) is having my input.

If that makes me a freeloader, then there you are.

Now Jim...where did you put my doggie biscuits? (apologies for you getting dragged into and labeled on ravinhoods lust for me...wasn't my intention)

_____________________________

Alba gu' brath

(in reply to leastonh1)

Post #: 57

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/23/2007 2:13:07 AM

ravinhood

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

quote:

If you don't like Matrix products and prices, why keep coming back here? Other than to wind people up, why do you insist on continually doing this?

Because it was one of the reasons we now have PRINTED MANUALS again for new games and even some of the older ones. I gave FEEDBACK and INPUT into that cause for a long long time. We now have that feature. Would we have gotten it if gamers like me hadn't been persistant about it (and I wasn't the only one on here pushing for printed manuals either even as a horde of others said they didn't need them or were required). As far as prices, same thing, if we just say "Oh I'll pay anything for this and that game" you think they won't listen and start jacking up the prices? If you do then you're an idiot an a fool. Consumers drive the market moreso than publishers or distributers in case you didn't know. We are the ones that can bring prices down and get new products and items and changes on the floor by our FEEDBACK and even COMPLAINING. People who are complacent like you will never get anything done in life or create "change". I'm about giving feedback to create change, maybe not a change YOU want to see, but, certainly a change "I" want to see. I don't have to like what you like anymore than you have to like what I like. But, I'm damn sure going to give my opinion about it and more times than one if I so choose.

Bottom line here is have any of you ever seen Erik, Marc or David tell me I can't have an opinion? Nope. So what makes you think you can come onto their board and tell me I can't eh or even how many I can and how often eh? Why don't you just let Erik or Marc or David tell me what I can say and keep your own comments about such to yourselves eh? Talk about the game, even rebuttal my opinion, but, lay off of me cause you aren't going to ever stop me. Youse guys ain't no higher in rank here than I am. :)

Also new viewers come to this forum nearly everyday and I'm sure they don't go searching for my old posts Soooooooooo I have to bring them back up again so new viewers can be "informed" of the negative aspects of these games as well as the "fanboi" views. When I goto new forums that's exactly what I look for also. Past the fanboi responses to the more informed reviews and views that list the negative aspects of the game(s). I'm also pretty certain that I would have been banned a long time ago if my views weren't accepted as an alternate view of these games. Like I said Erik and David and Marc don't seem to have issues with the majority of my posts and when they do I have always bowed out and complied as respect for them because it is THEIR forum not yours, not JD's not Terminus's or anyone elses. You should learn to comply as well. Erik put up a post to stop the OTing and sidestepping and you and JD don't seem to care or comply.

(in reply to JudgeDredd)

Post #: 58

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/23/2007 6:12:48 AM

Fred98

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
The best beta testers are critics. ��.It's a beta testers job to be critical of the design and the flaws and search for bugs.

I have been a tester on a few games. For me the sole purpose of being a tester is to have influence.

I have pointed to what I thought was a poor design decision. The problem is that by the time the testers receive the beta, the design decision has already been taken. It is too late to change that thing.

Often testers are asked to check straight forward things. For example to check that naval units cannot move over land hexes.

If you get a game and feel it has a basic design flaw, we testers have already brought it up. If you find a naval unit can cross a land hex the reason is that there are 5,000 hexes on the map and between us we have not tested every one of them.

< Message edited by Joe 98 -- 12/23/2007 6:14:06 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to ravinhood)

Post #: 59

RE: (Long Post) Where are games at? - 12/23/2007 7:17:04 AM

06 Maestro

Posts: 3989
Joined: 10/12/2005
From: Nevada, USA
Status: offline

ravinhood

There is a place for a devils advocate in gaming, and it looks like you could be a good one. In your 3000 plus posts, I�m sure that there was something good accomplished. However, having said that, I have an issue with your method of critiquing games that you have not played.

I frequently see new games that I have little interest in playing-so I don�t buy them. The reasons for the lack of interest in purchasing a game vary. There are times that I suspect that a game style/engine is just not my cup of tea-regardless of the subject. I have openly stated that I would not buy a game because of the graphics, or that is was an IGOUGO system. However, regardless of the impressions I get from reading about a game, I will not make profound statements as to how a game plays, unless I have actually bought, played the game, and am confident that I know the system.

I have no problem with calling a developer on the carpet for some problems with their product-that which I�m sure that exists-because I own it. On the other hand, I would never critique a developer/game that I have little knowledge of. That would be similar to seeing the name of a movie, reading a few pieces of script from it, then standing outside of the movie theater telling everyone the movie stinks to dissuade them from buying a ticket. That type of behavior is difficult for me to understand. I can�t help but to wonder if there is some other hidden agenda.

To attack and slander a developers work without even giving him the courtesy of taking a good look at it is not, well, gentlemanly. You seem to enjoy being a critic, and that is fine, but you should make a more thorough study of your subject. If you make cutting remarks based on faulty knowledge/ideas/feelings, don�t be surprised if some players take issue with your statements, and you.

(in reply to Fred98)

Post #: 60