What the **** is up with the AI Opponent?

[CrusssDaddy]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi everyone and to the original poster,

I'm sorry you are disappointed at the lack of AI. AI was removed from the release plan years ago and as a result, AI was not promised for the initial release and we have not promised a timeline for when AI will be available. However, we do want to and plan to do an AI. I'll post below what I've written here and there before, including to bo who has been the biggest champion of AI among the beta team.

We are all working every week and doing everything we can to progress with our stated post-release strategy with the functional area fixes. Those are needed for solo, NetPlay and AI games, regardless of mode of play so they take first priority. This path was endorsed by most of our beta team as well as customers when we discussed it earlier.

Our #1 priority is to make sure that everything that was actually part of the release is 100% working. Any features that were not promised for that release (AI) have to wait. If we were to now stop progress on fixing bugs that affect all games and also stop plans to finish fixing NetPlay in order to implement an AI even for the smaller scenarios, I believe most customers would be quite unhappy. We have to first do our best to make sure the game works well in all areas for all the existing owners and then get the AI done.

Steve remains committed to working on the AI. It's probably his favorite area of programming. As long as his health holds up, I believe it will eventually be done.

We agree that a good working AI would be the single best thing we could do for the game, once the rest of the existing issues are resolved. However, if we had gone down that route and waited to release until an AI was finished, because of the limitations we were working under, there would likely have never been a release and no game at all. The only way to have a chance of eventually getting an AI was to separate it out from the original release so that the release could be finished within the available time.

Morally, the right thing for us to do is to make sure that everything we promised works well for all the customers first and only then to add more.

Regards,

- Erik

This should be an eye-opener, even for the diehards. I couldn't write a more conclusive epitaph for the AI if I tried.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Common sense? - re-read posts 14, 17 & 19.

Paul I do hope we can respect each others post whether we agree with them or not, I rarely disagree with anything you say other than the AI, you are in that camp of net play and nothing will change it, and nothing will change me either, I was answering a question by Darkstar and tried to answer it from my perspective and no one elses.

Posts 14,17,& 19 are opinions from trusted posrters and I have no argument with them out of respect BUT that does not make them right. I would like a better explanation as to why this is the first and only game in the history of Matrix to be released without an AI in tack, and Numy I am that old so forgive me if I dont do a smiley, nothing against you of course.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: CrusssDaddy

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Hi everyone and to the original poster,

I'm sorry you are disappointed at the lack of AI. AI was removed from the release plan years ago and as a result, AI was not promised for the initial release and we have not promised a timeline for when AI will be available. However, we do want to and plan to do an AI. I'll post below what I've written here and there before, including to bo who has been the biggest champion of AI among the beta team.

We are all working every week and doing everything we can to progress with our stated post-release strategy with the functional area fixes. Those are needed for solo, NetPlay and AI games, regardless of mode of play so they take first priority. This path was endorsed by most of our beta team as well as customers when we discussed it earlier.

Our #1 priority is to make sure that everything that was actually part of the release is 100% working. Any features that were not promised for that release (AI) have to wait. If we were to now stop progress on fixing bugs that affect all games and also stop plans to finish fixing NetPlay in order to implement an AI even for the smaller scenarios, I believe most customers would be quite unhappy. We have to first do our best to make sure the game works well in all areas for all the existing owners and then get the AI done.

Steve remains committed to working on the AI. It's probably his favorite area of programming. As long as his health holds up, I believe it will eventually be done.

We agree that a good working AI would be the single best thing we could do for the game, once the rest of the existing issues are resolved. However, if we had gone down that route and waited to release until an AI was finished, because of the limitations we were working under, there would likely have never been a release and no game at all. The only way to have a chance of eventually getting an AI was to separate it out from the original release so that the release could be finished within the available time.

Morally, the right thing for us to do is to make sure that everything we promised works well for all the customers first and only then to add more.

Regards,

- Erik

This should be an eye-opener, even for the diehards. I couldn't write a more conclusive epitaph for the AI if I tried.

+1

Bo

[bo]

So Bo how much longer would you want Steve to have worked on this before release? Without getting any payment at all?

Numdydar


Numy that is not my concern or yours that is on them. They worked out a contract to suit them and ADG, many games are released with problems no question about that. This is beyond that IMO, Steve knew what he was getting into or should have, personally I think there are some egos involved here that we can do anything and I respectively disagree with that assumption. Without any knowledge there was so many things that could have been done here and were discussed years ago.

I want the game out as bad as any body here but I have lost all my confidence that not only the AI may never come to pass but net play might be in danger and PBEM where is that playing.

This is getting a little deep for me now and I do not want any animosity occuring between me and other posters. I speak from the heart and I do not mean to anger anyone, I was giving an opinion to Darkstar thats all

bo

[bo]

Hey Eric, you said Bo is the biggest champion about the AI on the beta team, how about the only champion [:D]

Bo

[Numdydar]

Well maybe it is just me then. But I have been playing games without an AI for years now. So playing both sides is not that big of a problem for me. So I really do not understand the AI or nothing type of argument. Even games with an AI I would much rather play both sides versus the crappy AI that is in most games. I have yet to any strategic level game where everyone was praising the AI and how great it is. Every forum I have been on, and more than just Matrix, says pretty much the same thing, the AI is great to learn, but to REALLY have a good game you need to play multiplayer.

If an AI gets done for WiF then great. If it sucks then it will be no worse or better than what the industry has today. Then we will have people posting the same things here as everywhere else about you need a human to have a good game. So since humans will give a MUCH better experience than whatever AI will be developed, then getting the game engine fixed and NetPlay working is the absolutely the best approach to take.

To me the AI is just a way to learn, but NOT a way to learn to play well. And that applies to any game not just WiF. Which is Why Decision Games' War in Europe does not have an AI and will never have an AI. And you know what, it is still an awesome game. Which is exactly what WiF will be with no AI as well.

Of course I do not understand CrussDaddy's continued bashing of the game and Matrix. As I have said before Cruss can post some really good stuff about the game (and I really wish you would do more of that) that I really enjoy reading. But every time I read a post like the one above I just do not see the point. But I could just be too dense to get it too [:)] But as you have told me before Cruss, you do not have to explain anything to me (or anyone else for that matter) but just know some us just do not get it [:)]

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Well maybe it is just me then. But I have been playing games without an AI for years now. So playing both sides is not that big of a problem for me. So I really do not understand the AI or nothing type of argument. Even games with an AI I would much rather play both sides versus the crappy AI that is in most games. I have yet to any strategic level game where everyone was praising the AI and how great it is. Every forum I have been on, and more than just Matrix, says pretty much the same thing, the AI is great to learn, but to REALLY have a good game you need to play multiplayer.

If an AI gets done for WiF then great. If it sucks then it will be no worse or better than what the industry has today. Then we will have people posting the same things here as everywhere else about you need a human to have a good game. So since humans will give a MUCH better experience than whatever AI will be developed, then getting the game engine fixed and NetPlay working is the absolutely the best approach to take.

To me the AI is just a way to learn, but NOT a way to learn to play well. And that applies to any game not just WiF. Which is Why Decision Games' War in Europe does not have an AI and will never have an AI. And you know what, it is still an awesome game. Which is exactly what WiF will be with no AI as well.

Of course I do not understand CrussDaddy's continued bashing of the game and Matrix. As I have said before Cruss can post some really good stuff about the game (and I really wish you would do more of that) that I really enjoy reading. But every time I read a post like the one above I just do not see the point. But I could just be too dense to get it too [:)] But as you have told me before Cruss, you do not have to explain anything to me (or anyone else for that matter) but just know some us just do not get it [:)]

I cannot disagree nor do I want to disagree with you or anyone else, what you say makes sense, most AI's are poor no question about that, you would think with all the knowledge of computers and such that after 20 some years of programming experience somebody somewheres could come up with a viable AI. Guess not huh.

Numy where do you get that game you mentioned? Who makes and where is it sold [Matrix, battlefront?]

Ok just checked it out it seems they are mostly a board game company charging 60 dollars for a game with out an AI seems kinda high to me.

I am not in crussdaddy's camp but I understand frustration, I happen to agree with that post that is why I gave it a plus 1, he is like me if you see something that does not make sense in our opinions you bring it out in the open instead of letting it fester inside you, or at least I do Numy, cannot answer for cruss[:D] I mean remember he called me the goofy general when I did the AAR on Fascist Tide did I let that bother me of course not, did I pout and get upset of course not

Bo

[Numdydar]

My friend and I played the War in Europe board game a lot when we were younger so it was a no brainer for us. It is pretty amazing how well it recreates the board game on the computer. Just like WiF I might add [:)] We never got into WiF but always wanted to. So again it was not much of decision for us to buy WiF on release either.

But if anyone is a fan of WiE, then DGs computer version is well worth the price [:)] And Bo, if you ever want to play WiE let me know. I can promise you I am much better than an AI [:D]. Of course I did not say how much better I was lol.

[juntoalmar]

Thanks for your post Erik, and even if we all would like to have all features by tomorrow, I totally understand your position.

Resources are limited, and we have to use them wisely (well, we play wargames and we know that... we should, at least).

First, to fix the bugs that will affect any single game.

Second, add whatever is quickest to do. You say that is Netplay, and I believe it too. I think (and this is just a wild guess) that Netplay could take 6 months to finish, while AI something like 1.5-2 years.

So, yes, this timeline is good for me.

For now, we have to enjoy what we have. We all knew that there were issues on release, and even if they are taking longer to fix than expected, I'm still happy with what I have.

Cheers,

[WIF_Killzone]

+5

[WIF_Killzone]

I have worked in computers for over 30 years and truthfully there is only one way to logically proceed, the way Matrix and Steve are proceeding. I wont go into to the why's and wherefores, trust me.

Have you idiots actually considered the complexity of this game. Take a look for example at the bugs the latest beta release addresses. You think that is easy to track down, you think that is easy to code in the first place? In my industry, corporate computer world, you are looking at 20 to 30 million to accomplish the frigging task to begin with. You are lucky to have anyone supporting this niche market. Just because you wish it, doesn't make it technically or economically feasible to deviate from the path to fix the issues in the order they are proceeding with. Create an AI on top of bugs would be a disaster as netplay has proven... They simply do not have the resources (people-money) to pour into a different approach. Wake the f up.

God you piss me off, where is my postal worker outfit, im going to lose it. Ignorance is bliss obviously.

Did I go to far, ha

[bo]

ORIGINAL: WIF_Killzone

I have worked in computers for over 30 years and truthfully there is only one way to logically proceed, the way Matrix and Steve are proceeding. I wont go into to the why's and wherefores, trust me.

Have you idiots actually considered the complexity of this game. Take a look for example at the bugs the latest beta release addresses. You think that is easy to track down, you think that is easy to code in the first place? In my industry, corporate computer world, you are looking at 20 to 30 million to accomplish the frigging task to begin with. You are lucky to have anyone supporting this niche market. Just because you wish it, doesn't make it technically or economically feasible to deviate from the path to fix the issues in the order they are proceeding with. Create an AI on top of bugs would be a disaster as netplay has proven... They simply do not have the resources (people-money) to pour into a different approach. Wake the f up.

God you piss me off, where is my postal worker outfit, im going to lose it. Ignorance is bliss obviously.

Did I go to far, ha

Yes way to far WIF, I do not talk to anyone like that, and I do not call anyone idiots regardless of their opinion or if I disagree with them. And I never treated you like that, now the only way I could forgive your jerk demeanor is that your half drunk or on pot take your choice. As for ignorance your the only one who has displayed it on this post.

Bo

[HansHafen]

1. What good is an AI if the GAME doesn't function properly. That's like having software for a computer that doesn't turn on.
2. AI will be EXTREMELY hard, difficult and not easy to program. It will take a lot of time to implement even in a rudimentary form.
3. This is the only way this game was ever going to be made into a computer game. So arguing over how long its taking is senseless. The alternative was/is that it was/is never developed.

[WIF_Killzone]

I'm not done yet. Take for example the original development and beta testing. In my world, I would have had a full set of requirements to develop to. In this case the rules as coded (or whatever the game rules are called ) actually constitute pretty good requirements, albeit complex as hell. You then have to come up with the system design, program it all, unit test, the functional test and then user acceptance test (UAT). Functional testing alone, with negative testing (the reverse of what the code should do) would constitute say 5000 test cases, but probably 20000 due to complexity. Generally you run 3 iterations of those test cases, with full regression testing after each release (that fixes issues found). Think for a moment the time and money just to write the test cases, let alone execute them. Think of the people required to do it in a somewhat timely manner.

In this case there is no team, no big budget. A different approach is required but one that is also industry acceptable. That's called beta testing. Sooo, a callout for beta testers is asked. The community responds. (good on them). Are they professional testers, no, but they are willing to do their best, for the love of the game. Are there test cases written that test all those hundreds of thousands of code paths, not frigging likely. They do there best. Good on them. The system (game) generally has gone through due process, bugs are reported, bugs are fixed through multiple iterations. The bugs reach a level where it is generally acceptable to release the game (i.e. no critical bugs and bug count down to an acceptable level), is there risk, yes, always is, but there really is no choice, unless you never want it.

So I say, we call out the beta testors (bo) and line them up and shoot them. Need I go on? Everyone involved is doing there best and I think the game is awesome. What an accomplishment!

[bo]

ORIGINAL: HansHafen

1. What good is an AI if the GAME doesn't function properly. That's like having software for a computer that doesn't turn on.
2. AI will be EXTREMELY hard, difficult and not easy to program. It will take a lot of time to implement even in a rudimentary form.
3. This is the only way this game was ever going to be made into a computer game. So arguing over how long its taking is senseless. The alternative was/is that it was/is never developed.

Thats true HansHafen and my answer to Blackstar seems to have annoyed certain people, it was just my opinion right or wrong. I put my time into this game to try to make it run properly as a beta tester, but you reach a point where you have to wonder will it ever be finished.

Bo

[WIF_Killzone]

Drunk, true. It's just so, how should I say, "transparent", to me is all, too much experience in the system development arena. It gets my blood boiling. Bo, you are one of those guys who created this work of art, I congratulate you, I certainly didn't have the time to contribute. Patience is what is needed now, as before. I still have the faith, the game is awesome as is but I too am dying for AI.

[76mm]

Dear Erik:

Thanks for your post. While I can't argue with the logic of your proposed path forward, I am very frustrated with the starting point--ie, the state of the game upon release. When I bought the game, I knew that the AI would come later, and that NetPlay "wasn't quite finished". What I didn't realize was that after several months, the dev team would still be focused solely on "functional area fixes," with netplay and AI still over the horizon and no word even about the release of the single-theater scenarios.

To other posters: sorry if some of us idiots want to express our opinion now and then, sorry for expressing opinions contrary to your exalted wisdom. And I don't agree that it is "senseless" to argue about how long this process is taking, or that no other approach was possible--alternative approach(es) would have been to (1) delay release until more of the bugs had been fixed prior to, rather than after, release; or (2) explicitly warn potential buyers that they were not buying a game without AI (to be released sometime) or netplay (to be released soon), but rather a beta release without AI or netplay. I for one would have kept my money in my pocket.

The idiot that I am is not prepared to buy unfinished games for full price, so I guarantee this is the last big Matrix game I buy without waiting a couple/several months after release to see if it is fully baked.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: bo
Not being smart in any way flip but why dont you get involved with MWIF they could use some help with netplay [&o]

Bo

Bo,

I do not have the time or desire to sink my teeth into another game related software project. Back in the 1990's I only joined the Third ReichPC team
because that was a game I had enjoyed for many years. My experience in BETA in that project was good (I didn't join to "play" the game, I joined to make the game "better")
up until the resources ran out. The game could have been GREAT (not the AI, but in the sense that all the rules/map worked properly).

It ISN'T' but when I win Powerball I will attempt to buy the rights and redo it properly.

[Samichlaus]

The missing AI is the ONLY reason why I didn't buy the game yet...
And I'm pretty sure, that there are many others that didn't for the same reason.

[Joseignacio]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

Dear Erik:

Thanks for your post. While I can't argue with the logic of your proposed path forward, I am very frustrated with the starting point--ie, the state of the game upon release. When I bought the game, I knew that the AI would come later, and that NetPlay "wasn't quite finished". What I didn't realize was that after several months, the dev team would still be focused solely on "functional area fixes," with netplay and AI still over the horizon and no word even about the release of the single-theater scenarios.

To other posters: sorry if some of us idiots want to express our opinion now and then, sorry for expressing opinions contrary to your exalted wisdom. And I don't agree that it is "senseless" to argue about how long this process is taking, or that no other approach was possible--alternative approach(es) would have been to (1) delay release until more of the bugs had been fixed prior to, rather than after, release; or (2) explicitly warn potential buyers that they were not buying a game without AI (to be released sometime) or netplay (to be released soon), but rather a beta release without AI or netplay. I for one would have kept my money in my pocket.

The idiot that I am is not prepared to buy unfinished games for full price, so I guarantee this is the last big Matrix game I buy without waiting a couple/several months after release to see if it is fully baked.

+ 1