When?

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

I have to agree macgregor is NOT a troll. Although we disagree on some things and agree on other items; believing in what you do and standing firm is admirable.

Thanks abj9562. This poll...it came out 2 or more years after Steve started work on WiF(that would be 12 years since ADG announced it would be released). I wouldn't overestimate it's significance. Steve, an avid golfer, was simply dropping grass blades to see which way the wind was blowing. He had already shot from the tee however.

[Cyote13_MatrixForum]

Well, as one of the guys with my name on the CWIF list, I am disappointed that the the release date has been pushed back again, but understand and accept that the quality is what needs to drive the release date. And that the whole game, including am ok AI needs to be part of it. Yes we are all frustrated with each date and push back, but I am willing to wait.

Just as a note, I will play this a lot "disconected" I am on my 4th deployment since 2001, and...well internet access can be spoty at times.

Keep up the good work Steve.

[paulderynck]

Seconded. (especially the bolded)

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

Mac,

I am a WiF boardgame player...currently playing in two seperate ftf games with two seperate groups here in south Florida. No need for you to watch quietly, I find myself agreeing with much of what you write and find it valuable(not that it matters what I or others think, Steve is the one you need to appeal to). I think yvesp...not that I have anything against him...but calling you a troll that he's feeding is unwaranted...you've been around 5 years longer than he has.

What Bo writes is even more outrageous and incorrect. As Steve has written in post #1210 above..."...with a stronger preference for NetPlay over AIO." Bo wrote: "...it seems you ignore what you want to ignore like the survey...which was overwhelming in favor of a good AI". I guess its Bo who is doing the ignoring. And...Steve was not able to add the Yahoo WiF list poll...yes, some of them also voted in the MWiF poll(both for and against AI), but I know for a fact that there are many over there who will be interested in buying this product and have no interest in any kind of AI. Here in south Florida there are 4 who are not on either list, and two others that only lurk on the Yahoo WiF list who will be interested in buying MWiF and are not interested in any AI...and I can speak for them since we talk about it every week we get together.

I think debate is healthy...and heated debate is even more healthy...it shows excitement and interest in this game...someone wrote a while back: take a look at some of the other game forums...they're dead.

One more thing...yes, there will be an AI...so the pro-AI people should be happy. In my opinion, a simple AI that can do basic tutorial-like(basic) quality from 1939 to 1945 is a huge thing and a big victory for Steve if he can pull that off in a complicated game like WiF(I think a few turns worth of tutorial quality is good enough)...the pro-AI people should be happy with what Steve has already decided to do for them...asking anything more than a basic tutorial quality AI is greedy on their part and unfairly prolongs the release if the non-AI part of the game is ready.C

ORIGINAL: macgregor

My opinion is apparently unwanted here. The so-called wif boardgame players I mentioned may not exist after all or I would've thought they'd have posted by now. I will now watch quietly. My apologies Steve if you think I've become a burden, though I will not apologize for my POV.

[Anthropoid]

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?

[Jagdtiger14]

Bo, I dont mean to flame you too much...but I am not talking about the Yahoo WiF list poll...unless that is what Steve meant when he posted that there was "a stronger preference for NetPlay over AIO". I am assuming that was the result of the poll done here for MWiF, not Yahoo. I could be mistaken though. If not, then I think the Yahoo poll would add even more to NetPlay over AI. You should be happy since you are getting what you want. Just dont delay my pleasure any longer than need be by expecting a better and better AI.
C

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

As Steve has written in post #1210 above..."...with a stronger preference for NetPlay over AIO."

Outrageous amd incorrect [oofa!]I guess you did not like the poll just taken by Steve. If I have missed something here Jadg then I stand corrected, a Yahoo poll? I would have never got into any confrontation with anybody if people here posted with respect to others but that did not happen, why dont you come down on the person who started all the crap about AI people, but then I guess not because you totally agree with MAC, I also respect your opinion and will only challenge one thing, what damn poll are you talking about, it cant be Steves latest poll thats for sure so you dug up some obscure poll somewheres to back up the no AI mania by just a very few. And I didnt know that this game was being put on the computer for the board game players and to be played like a board game of WIF and if it is then I am entirely wrong in my feelings and deeply apoligize to one and all. Going to Ocean City for a week and at this time next year I hope to be playing MWIF with or without an AI, [&o] so be nice to me Jadg while I am gone PLEASE!

Willy

[macgregor]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

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 to win against the AI?

I think this is a valid question. While I am extremely anxious of a project whose original ADG mandate made no allotment for an AI(15 years ago) I realize that this AI will be included and it will be good because that's Steve's vision and it has always been so. That's why i'm so willing to back out of the argument. He's my friend. I don't want him to do it my way -I want him to do it his way. I then thought there would be a way release a non-ai version to those who have patiently waited over ten years for one and then then finish the ai. He's since assured me that it would be an inefficient to the extreme use of time to do so, and I'm not going to argue with him. Everything else I see no need to repeat.

[Froonp]

Why not make a separate thread for this discussion ?
So that I can ignore it easier [:D]

[Anendrue]

Hey macgregor, why not get into the beta test if you have time. Then you get to play early without an AI. Kind of takes care of what you want eh...

[gridley]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Why not make a separate thread for this discussion ?
So that I can ignore it easier [:D]

I agree.

[yvesp]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

I think yvesp...not that I have anything against him...but calling you a troll that he's feeding is unwaranted...

Hum... I did not want to start this... Just thought that the topic had been discussed long enough... I'm sorry if MacGreggor took it personally and I hope he would accept apologies. This was not intended.

you've been around 5 years longer than he has.

This one is not very nice ; is seniority the main criterion on which you decide whether an argument is acceptable or not ?

Still, this would suits me ; just have a look at that somewhat old forum from another planet (at least for me now), which will show you that things are not always as they look...

Still, there are times where I have nothing to say, which is why I did not post here for a very long time, and today should be such a day where I shut my mouth because I know I am now writing stupid things... Oh well...


Yves

[gridley]

Seriously guys. The "When" thread, the most viewed thread on the forum, is probably not the best place for your back and forth discussion.

I know it started off on a "when" type theme...If it wasn't for the AI it could be released now...but it isn't anymore.

Thanks.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: gridley
...If it wasn't for the AI it could be released now...

Who said that ?

[gridley]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: gridley
...If it wasn't for the AI it could be released now...

Who said that ?

I was paraphrasing. But the gist of the arguement from some in the last few pages has been just that.

[peskpesk]

People lets get Steve some space to breathe, a very heated discussions about pro this and anti that is a bit counter productive at this stage. All I can say and see for myself is that we are making progress, and the game is ready when it’s ready. But what a game it will be! [:)]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: gridley

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: gridley
...If it wasn't for the AI it could be released now...

Who said that ?

I was paraphrasing. But the gist of the arguement from some in the last few pages has been just that.

Yes, but no people participating in the developpement of MWiF said that, so people here are aguing on thin air. So why not arguing somewhere else ?

[macgregor]

I didn't want to be a burden on Steve by ruffling so many feathers, not by having the argument. The greater burden on Steve i think would be asking him to sort it out or explain things -which i don't think anyone has done. Froonp can't decide if he want's to kick us off his thread or engage someone for even referencing the original argument. Are we wasting webpage or something? The argument, while perhaps trivial in the sense it's over a moot point, is indeed germane to this thread.

[Mike Parker]

Mac,
 
Froonp wasn't rude, he nicely asked to take this argument somewhere else.  I will join him, please take this to its own thread now.  I used to really enjoy this thread, now it just kicks me in the teeth pouring through seemingly endless posts that are NOT applicable to the main point of this thread.
 
I am not taking sides one way or the other.. I do agree with you neither Froonp nor I nor anyone other than Steve or Matrix folks have the ability to kick you off the thread.  I am just asking nicely.  (or at least I am trying to ask it nicely.. I do not intend offense I promise).
 
 

[BallyJ]

I must say I agree with this statement. Enough is enough. Let's give it a rest and try to be constructive please

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Why not make a separate thread for this discussion ?
So that I can ignore it easier [:D]

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I didn't want to be a burden on Steve by ruffling so many feathers, not by having the argument. The greater burden on Steve i think would be asking him to sort it out or explain things -which i don't think anyone has done. Froonp can't decide if he want's to kick us off his thread or engage someone for even referencing the original argument. Are we wasting webpage or something? The argument, while perhaps trivial in the sense it's over a moot point, is indeed germane to this thread.

Macgregor, you have to take into account where you are posting. Matrix makes computer wargames, most of which are hex/turned based, and virtually of which heavily target AI only gamers. As I stated way up stream, I'm on your side to the extent that I don't play this style of game, AI only, or even on a PC, for that matter. That said, I'm not gonna waste a whole lot of keystrokes trying to convince the Romans that they shouldn't be speaking Latin. And while I haven't communicated with the developer regarding any of this, I strongly suspect that they'd be publishing it with some other company were they to insist on "stiffing" the AI players.

Suffice it to say, our hobby has changed pretty dramatically. Divergent opinions on the relative value and merit of a human opponent to gamers is a reflection of that. But, its certainly not new.

As I mentioned in another post in this thread, Avalon Hill was making solo-only games for something like fifteen years before the company failed. Some of them were actually pretty-well "programmed." Tokyo Express comes to mind in that regard. Before that, guys were punching out pieces and soloing the game to learn the rules and plan strategy. Even then, though, there were some people who just didn't want to play against humans. And as hard as that is for me to relate to, I have to acknowledge that for them, computer games with the sort of artificial opponent that's planned for WiF is something of a godsend.

One of these days WiF will emerge from the belly of the beast. I hope that "it" works, which is not to say that its stable, but that its internals are sound and that guys like you and me can have confidence in it, that it won't be buggy and elicit a boatload of "house-rules" for all the stuff that doesn't work or isn't faithful to the boardgame. To me that'd be a whole lot greater tragedy than any delay that *might* be attributable to the developer working to satisfy another audience.

Agreed?

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Start a new thread for the discussion on mode of play. I will delete any more posts on the topic of mode of play that appear in this thread. This is your only warning.