Matrix Games Forums

I voted, I play solely versus AI.

It took me awhile to get up the courage to play PBEM. There is a big difference between the computer that is always on and ready versus the unsettling aspects of dealing with real live people. I'd be interested in knowing how many people would go back to the AI after playing a live opponent. I think it is in the PBEM community's best interest to convert those stodgy AIers; since the bigger our market share, the more likely companies like Matrix will be to cater to our whims and use ever increasing amounts of computer capacity for things like way-points and intelligible land movement rules.

So, what can we all do to convince players to try PBEM?

There's no possible way to produce a non-scripted, flexible AI that will beat a halfway competent player without cheating and/or ahistorical OOB's.  Writing a routine with the subtleties required to organise a LRCAP ambush over a constatnly bombed base, or determine when it is safe to run cripples through a sea area that may or may no have enemy subs in it, plus all the multitude of other aspects of the game that would be required is never going to happen.  It's an issue of complexity if nothing else.  Better management of the sort niceguy was asking for would be nice, but won't ever approach the aptitude of even an average player.
 
I will happily play PBEM's for the rest of my life without complaining that there is no single player option.  It's unrealistic to expect it to be really challenging.

For me, I had played both PacWar and UV by PBEM. I knew that PBEM would provide a much better experience.

I’m new to WitP so I’m only playing against the AI. I’ve played some of the smaller scenarios and I am about 3 months into my first full game as the allies. I know the AI is scripted but it’s doing a good job against me so far, certainly it’s good enough that I can use it as a learning aid to better understand the game.

I only play PBEM now. I started with AI when witp was released but as soon as you understand the game and you try a human opponent you can never get back imho.
It's like for the grizzly bears...when they taste the human blood they will always go hunting for humans...[:D]

Well currently I am playing against the AI. Granted it does some things exceptionally well, and some things exceptionally stupidly.

In my current game I am playing as Japan and decided to leave KB at PH for a bit to finish the job...something that a live player would have certainly punished me for...the AI decided that Hawaii needed 3 new artificial reefs named Enterprise, Saratoga and Lexington. The exceptional stupidity here was that the AI sent its carriers after me and they all arrived 1 day apart, something no player would allow to happen. So I got away with Akagi having 20% systems damage, and none of my other carriers was even hit...an overwhelming victory for me, and I have free run of the Pacific for several months now.

On the other hand, the AI was smart enough to not send Force Z to Kuala Lumpur...

I have played against the AI in the beginning when learning. Now I play head-to-head against myself - still for learning. Saves some time, compared to two parallel games Allies vs. AI / Japan vs. AI. Also have a PBEM going. [/align]

I only play AI as I am not in a position to commit fully to a long game and I would not like to get in a position where I would have to let an opponent down!!

Doesn't stop me digging through the books when I do have a few moments though!!

Actually, this poll will only be relevant to players who are also using the forum..Some players have never even been on the forum.
Still, I think this poll shows the AI players in larger numbers than some had bellieved, (for whatever reason).

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Just for your info, Gary spent countless hours trying to improve the AI. The fact that the game takes so long to resolve was just one limiting factor. I can't count the number of times we found KB out of fuel and passed saves to Gary, only for Gary to try and fail to improve it. We also noticed problems in Burma that he was never able to fix. I think the routines just got too complicated and the AI had too many things it was trying to do that contradicted itself and Gary couldn't keep them all straight. Trying to improve the WitP AI would be a daunting task.

By the way, my guess is that 80% of WitP buyers play AI only. I am currently playing 3 PBEM games of War Between the States with testers. I love PBEM when I can find time to do it, espeically for games that I really understand as only human players can really surprise you. However, I don't think most people have the time or inclination to play PBEM, and as much as I like PBEM, the vast majority of my gaming (and testing) is versus the AI.

I was wondering at first if you were talking about this game specifically or more computer games in general. My answer is the same - AI only. In all fairness, though the AI "may" be worse in this game than the average computer game, it is a game that is more unsuited to PBEM than most, so the numbers are likely to be skewed when comparing to games which are more friendly to shorter duration. I am surprised we have so many PBEM'ers in this forum, because if there was ever a game to give up the PBEM option on, it was this one, akthough "if" the AI is particularly inept, that would tend to swing things more to PBEM feasiblity.

ORIGINAL: TommyG

It took me awhile to get up the courage to play PBEM. There is a big difference between the computer that is always on and ready versus the unsettling aspects of dealing with real live people. I'd be interested in knowing how many people would go back to the AI after playing a live opponent. I think it is in the PBEM community's best interest to convert those stodgy AIers; since the bigger our market share, the more likely companies like Matrix will be to cater to our whims and use ever increasing amounts of computer capacity for things like way-points and intelligible land movement rules.

So, what can we all do to convince players to try PBEM?

There's so many PBEM'ers that display this sort of thinking, yet very few, if any, AI'ers that do. What I mean, is how do you feel if an AI'er were to make the judgement that the game would be so much better if they didn't spend any effort on PBEM, and instead spent it on the very things you want?

I also prefer future development for all players, (if I am reading your posts correctly?)

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I also prefer future development for all players, (if I am reading your posts correctly?)

Oh yes, you are.

ORIGINAL: TommyG

It took me awhile to get up the courage to play PBEM. There is a big difference between the computer that is always on and ready versus the unsettling aspects of dealing with real live people. I'd be interested in knowing how many people would go back to the AI after playing a live opponent. I think it is in the PBEM community's best interest to convert those stodgy AIers; since the bigger our market share, the more likely companies like Matrix will be to cater to our whims and use ever increasing amounts of computer capacity for things like way-points and intelligible land movement rules.

So, what can we all do to convince players to try PBEM?

Who says the AI players don't want that too? Having way points, even if I was limited to only one would vastly reduce my micro management.

Bill

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Just for your info, Gary spent countless hours trying to improve the AI. The fact that the game takes so long to resolve was just one limiting factor. I can't count the number of times we found KB out of fuel and passed saves to Gary, only for Gary to try and fail to improve it. We also noticed problems in Burma that he was never able to fix. I think the routines just got too complicated and the AI had too many things it was trying to do that contradicted itself and Gary couldn't keep them all straight. Trying to improve the WitP AI would be a daunting task.

Writing complex and fast code can be very tough. I've done a lot of real time programming (not games, real world stuff) and a few times I had to juggle lots of factors. Sometimes you just have to make compromises nobody will like.

I found doing a careful design before writing a line of code was critical to getting it to work right. It's too easy to get sloppy and things get out of control otherwise.

I don't know how formal a programmer Gary is, but if there are just too many contradictory variables, you could end up in a world of hurt.

From just trying to guess what the program is doing for some tasks, I'm guessing that there are some inefficiencies in the code. The one that bugs me the most is the long time delay when I create a task force. It can take up to 10 seconds on my laptop to do whatever it's doing, which I assume is primarily looking for an empty task force slot to stick the new task force into. I know it's also sticking some ship information into the new task force once it finds a slot, but I'm sure the searching is taking the bulk of the time.

Bill

I think it is interesting that thus far the pole is fairly even, as noted elsewhear in a much older pole that I to seamed to recal from a couple years ago it was note so even with most poled playing the AI.
 
  This could be because the real long term interest in the game is from fans who like the chalange of PBEM and the evelution of the game through mods to try and make it better.

ORIGINAL: Brady

I think it is interesting that thus far the pole is fairly even, as noted elsewhear in a much older pole that I to seamed to recal from a couple years ago it was note so even with most poled playing the AI.

This could be because the real long term interest in the game is from fans who like the chalange of PBEM and the evelution of the game through mods to try and make it better.

I had this game on pre-order too, sir, one month before it was released, so I am a plank owner as well...

Forgive me if I misunderstood your point, but let's not turn this into a "yeah, but we PBEM'ers are more loyal!" kinda thread.

Brady, you and I have different recollections. I remember older polls showing a smaller percentage of AIers than this poll.

Either way, I think it is likely that a majority of players play the AI, once one counts people who don't post on these boards. I have several friends who play WITP who are also members of my "guild" from MMORPGs; none of those guys post here, and none of them play PBEM.

Incidentally, I've played a half-dozen PBEMs (several of the shorter scenarios, one unfinished grand campaign), but for now now I'm playing only the AI, as time is just too tight. That may change if my job ever lightens up (dream on). So I voted "AI majority of the time," though maybe I should've voted "only AI".

I remember a poll asking if we would pay $100+ for a "perfect" WitPII that had no AI or a slightly flawed WitPII that DID have an AI. That launched a lively debate like this one. I only play the AI but I'm also sure a game against a human is better. This game is like playing a game of chess where ALL your pieces move every turn while your opponant is moving ALL his pieces. Then multiply that by 4 years worth of games with each being dependant on the game before it . I know I'd get plenty p1ssed if my opponant bailed in 43 (winning or loseing).