Matrix Games Forums

AI?, PBEM?, Solitaire?, Netplay?, Hotseat?

Please post your thoughts here if you wish.



GSB

I thought this topic had already been addressed in another thread.
In any event.... AI for me only.

ORIGINAL: Harold Haralson

I thought this topic had already been addressed in another thread.
In any event.... AI for me only.

It was requested that the topic be moved out of the "When" thread.


GSB

And a good idea it was to do so.

i had been going to post my rant/rave there, but see it's been moved here! Please don't mind me, but I feel like having a moan....

to declare my credentials, i'm a pro-AIO, that's the only way i'll play it, period. i'm rather disappointed to read in the "When" thread how late on the development we are seeing discussions/realizations about the importance of the AI and its coding. even if you're not one who wants/cares about the AI, given the decision that it's going to be there, seems to me you should be concerned about how far it sounds like to has to go (for release)...

ORIGINAL: JonBrave

i had been going to post my rant/rave there, but see it's been moved here! Please don't mind me, but I feel like having a moan....

to declare my credentials, i'm a pro-AIO, that's the only way i'll play it, period. i'm rather disappointed to read in the "When" thread how late on the development we are seeing discussions/realizations about the importance of the AI and its coding. even if you're not one who wants/cares about the AI, given the decision that it's going to be there, seems to me you should be concerned about how far it sounds like to has to go (for release)...

I have read many of the ai threads that you will find above in the stickied threads. Maybe Steve still has the coding to take care of, but you will find hundreds of hours have already been poured into how the ai should "play".

ORIGINAL: gridley

Maybe Steve still has the coding to take care of, but you will find hundreds of hours have already been poured into how the ai should "play".

I am aware of the postings on AI strategy etc. I am indeed talking about the description of just what is still to go on the AI coding side, plus comments about only very recent agreement between developers & publishers on the importance of AI for the product. divided by the release date.

ORIGINAL: JonBrave

ORIGINAL: gridley

Maybe Steve still has the coding to take care of, but you will find hundreds of hours have already been poured into how the ai should "play".

I am aware of the postings on AI strategy etc. I am indeed talking about the description of just what is still to go on the AI coding side, plus comments about only very recent agreement between developers & publishers on the importance of AI for the product. divided by the release date.

I wouldn't call it "recent agreement", since that implies a previous disagreement.

It is more like:
"Did the team win last night?"
"I'm pretty sure they did; they were ahead late in the game."
"I just looked it up. They did win."

Without doing some kind of market research, everyone has opinions, usually backed up with anecdotal evidence. But even small surveys can be hugely useful in clarifying the situation.

30 years ago an old Sgt. from WWII told me, "Opinions are like buttholes everybody has them and they all stink. So do what the !#$$@ lieutenant wants and remember he stinks the place up just like the rest of us." [:D] 

I want Matrix to make a game that will strike a proper balance between (a) being fun for me and (b) appealing to a large enough segment of the game-buyer public that they stand to actually make a profit. Yes that is correct, I most definitely _want_ Matrix to profit, and Steve and whomever else is involved in making this product. When creators of these things are rewarded, it sets in motion a positive feedback loop that benefits our hobby in a long-term sense. This is not to disparage the tremendous service which the legions of committed volunteers in our hobby give to our hobby (testers, modders, etc.). Just to say that, ultimately, these games are commercial products, and if they do not turn a reasonable profit, the makers will either shrink size, quality, diversity of product line, or just plain go out of business. If companies that punish us with stuff like the DRM go out of business, great in my opinion, but Matrix is not punishing us. Matrix is our friend.
 
It is always easy to stand outside another man's house/business and take on a callous perspective like 'who cares if he and his wife are in there starving, I still want him to keep his lawn mowed,' i.e., to take the view that Matrix (and the developers) making a profit off of a game is irrelevant.
 
But if the game does _not_ make a profit, then in the long term it is unlikely that the game will be supported, patched, improved, modded, or that additional, perhaps even better games, be made in 2, 3, 5 or 10 years hence.
 
Based on all of this, any discussion of "no AI?" versus "AI?" seems pretty much irrelevant. I'm not aware of any computer games sold today that do not have AI. So in effect, if my anecdotal knowledge of the market is correct, making a computer-based strategy-game-=-no matter what the original foundation on which it is built was like-=-=-that does not have an at least half-arse AI in it (but preferably a decent to moderately good one) is market suicide.
 
Now maybe I'm wrong, so I'll repeat my question from the post in the other thread.
 

I'm very hesitant to post this because this just seems to be an endless round and round in circles, but  . . . I guess I cannot resist [:D]

Do you "anti-AI" guys actually believe that a game like this, _without_ an AI, would represent a potentially profitable commercial venture for Matrix?

If so, do you have some sort of market data to back up such conclusions?

I certainly don't have detailed knowledge of computer-game markets, let alone strategy wargames markets. But my anecdotal observation is that all computer-based games of which I'm aware _have_ an AI. Are there computer-games that do not have an AI that are sold? How big a segment of the overall market is that?

The issue of the game being so complex that a 'good' AI is unlikely, or the issue that 'there aren't any that are worth a durn' so far, both seem true to me. Can't argue with either of those points: most computer game AIs are a joke frankly.

But if there is no real market to sell an -without-AI- game to, and no precedent for games without an AI making a publisher like Matrix some profit, then the issues of the challenges of building one with a superlative AI are effectively moot. As far as I can tell, games with mediocre or even crappy AIs make LOTS of profit, and that is sadly just the state of affairs in this hobby/market. Isn't this new Empire Total War game like a huge profit maker despite the fact that it is basically impossible to not win against the AI?

< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 6/12/2009 7:09:46 PM >

&nbsp;
Hoping this will not be taken as antagonistic, I just wonder if all you fellas have fully thought through the implications.

Steve,

In your 1st June Update Report, you said

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

... This was motivated by a conversation with David Heath about how important the AI Opponent will be.
... I now agree with Dave: the AIO is crucial for sales.

That was 6 weeks before supposed release date. That's what "concerns" me. I would have thought that was figured long ago, I have been returning to the thread for years. Polls can be conducted well in advance if wanted.

I do realise my tone is critical. But I do not mean to offend.

ORIGINAL: JonBrave

Steve,

In your 1st June Update Report, you said

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

... This was motivated by a conversation with David Heath about how important the AI Opponent will be.
... I now agree with Dave: the AIO is crucial for sales.

That was 6 weeks before supposed release date. That's what "concerns" me. I would have thought that was figured long ago, I have been returning to the thread for years. Polls can be conducted well in advance if wanted.

I do realise my tone is critical. But I do not mean to offend.

This project was a mountain of work. Armed with a little white plastic spoon, I have been working away at the mountain, which kept me plenty busy (and productive). But given numerous comments of "Now? Now! Now? Now!", we considered a prerelease and perhaps a partial release. To make those decisions we needed more data to refine our unsubstantiated belief that "all 3 main modes of plays are important".

As for "figured out long ago", you don't worry about what color you are going to paint the rooms when you are working on digging a hole for the foundation.

Anthropoid,

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
I certainly don't have detailed knowledge of computer-game markets, let alone strategy wargames markets. But my anecdotal observation is that all computer-based games of which I'm aware _have_ an AI. Are there computer-games that do not have an AI that are sold? How big a segment of the overall market is that?

I developed "War In Europe" for Decision Games, and we released to market on march 30 this year with no AI. There's no doubt that a computer port (with no AI) of a 'monster' boardgame is a niche within an niche (within a niche even?). But we knew that when we started, and the results so far are that we have 'hit' the target we were aiming for. It just happens to be a fairly small target!

Well if you guys are making a profit and/or having fun with it, I say MORE POWER TO YA! [:)]

Good to hear that even a niche-within-a-niche among us gamers can still carve itself into place!!

ORIGINAL: cwie
I developed "War In Europe" for Decision Games, and we released to market on march 30 this year with no AI. There's no doubt that a computer port (with no AI) of a 'monster' boardgame is a niche within an niche (within a niche even?). But we knew that when we started, and the results so far are that we have 'hit' the target we were aiming for. It just happens to be a fairly small target!

The new CWIE has brought back many fond memories. I am pleased with it. And I also look forward to CWiF being finished.

It is all good.

Mostly AI although I probably will play a pbem game or two.

I want it all:
AI-to play for fun
PBEM-every once in a while
LAN, TCP/IP, Internet Play-I play wargames against my dad, and I can only play against him with games that have an online feature because he hates PBEM.
HotSeat-Dont see how this could not be added.

I'm expect Matrix will charge $50 bucks minimum, War in the Pacific Price Maximum.If I'm going to pay this much for a game, it better have AI and a good one at that.

ORIGINAL: JonBrave

Steve,

In your 1st June Update Report, you said

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

... This was motivated by a conversation with David Heath about how important the AI Opponent will be.
... I now agree with Dave: the AIO is crucial for sales.

That was 6 weeks before supposed release date. That's what "concerns" me. I would have thought that was figured long ago, I have been returning to the thread for years. Polls can be conducted well in advance if wanted.

I do realise my tone is critical. But I do not mean to offend.

What "Dave" said is totally true. You can see the effect of a dumb AI in the results of the launch of Empire Total War, in terms of prestige (future sales) and in terms of inmediate sales cut through the feedback of online forums. Even though they tried to patch it decently afterwards.

As for me, I will play AI, like (i believe) 95% - 99 of the possible buyers. Honestly I don't think people will ever (with some extremely rare exceptions) Solitaire.

Hotseat is a possibiity but considering how extended is internet and computers, it's most probably obsolete in benefit of Netplay.

PBEM is another very minoritary option, although I believe it is not totaly substitued by Netplay. It may still be useful.

So, for me would be AI+ ocasionally Netplay. For the general market, i would include a niche for those who still need PBEM. I would say the other options are totally outdated. For example: How many people you know who play chess against themselves?

Well, pretty much every chess player I know DO play chess against themselves... usually as analysis of their previous games or preparation on new opening.
&nbsp;
Often the simple fact of turning the chessboard around and playing in more "competitive" way help see the position on a new light.
&nbsp;
Dont mess with the chessplayers because they are easily angered and prone to sillyness...

Okay, I was meaning "normal" chess players, those like any of us, who play chess just for fun. Of course I know people who are involved to a higher or lesser extent and level in champeonships or leagues and they can play against themselves, but not (in my experience) the usual chess player. Yes, I have a friend who is or was in competitions and they palyed against themselves or checked their play from the other side, but that's just one, and i know many more people who play chess and doesn't. Maybe 100:1 relation, at least in my circle.[:)]