Which way do you prefer to play multiplayer games?

[Dane49]

Information theory is a branch of applied mathematics, electrical engineering, and computer science involving the quantification of information. Information theory was developed by Claude E. Shannon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory


Basics of Information Theory
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Tutorials/Info-Theory/

[andrey12345]

Who made the decisions in the wars you are depicting?  Who is making the decisions in any present conflicts?  It's humans, not ai. 

"It was only then that relative computing power of today's computers are 100500 times much lower than the most stupid human, and is approximately equal to the cockroach does not give AI to rule the world."


"Made the decisions" - how this does not prevent people to be extremely predictable?

Big Blue beat the Russian chessmaster because almost all the variables of chess could be programmed. 

Yes its about cockroach level - small ammount of variants - can be enumerated and computed at current AI level.
Some time and car driving will be on AI, and than ... decisions too. And then finally disappear such strange things like MP games. It is inevitable 

In war, the variables are hugely more numerous. 

Yes, as long as computational power is not enough, I wrote.  But how this does not prevent people to be extremely
predictable?

The variables are very much greater than 2 choices.  If an ai had only 2 choices, it would be highly predictable too. 

No, human predictable at ~90%, AI will not. Its real state of things. Please read about Shannons investigations.

[Tanker]

Who made the decisions in the wars you are depicting?  Who is making the decisions in any present conflicts?  It's humans, not ai. 

"It was only then that relative computing power of today's computers are 100500 times much lower than the most stupid human, and is approximately equal to the cockroach does not give AI to rule the world."


"Made the decisions" - how this does not prevent people to be extremely predictable?

My point was that you are making a simulation of WW2 and later battles.  The actual battles were humans pitted against humans.  The best way to simulate that is human vs. human players, not human vs. ai.  An ai that you compare to a cockroach. 
Or am I misunderstanding you?

[andrey12345]

The best way to simulate that is human vs. human players, not human vs. ai. 

No, because there were specially trained people from another time - other habits, other knowledge, other worldview. But you play with untrained from nowadays (Let me remind you that recently slavery was normal, and even a little before humans ate other humans. For WWII days the difference is not so obvious, but it is essential). If an AI can theoretically learn and simulate a military leader from the past, the average modern player - no. At least the game developers do not have such opportunities.

But while there is a lack of computing power and a number of unsolved problems with AI, these moments are not appears in the light of some stupidness of AI.

The only thing now as a human player will stand out from the AI ​​- it's a brilliant solution of geometrical problems (in wargames and RTS this one of the main tasks). This is what it bestowed thousands of years of evolution, which was not for the AI​​.

[StkNRdr]

AI may be able to predict human decision outcome 90% of the time however one human cannot predict the outcome of another human 90% of the time and that is why H2H is so enjoyable.  Human vs AI will never have the experience of human vs human because of imperfect factors from both human players that effect the eventual outcome.  A human can be overly cautious and miss opportunities, can take bold risks and be rewarded or devastated, can overlook threats, can just be a bad tactician, etc.  When you pit 2 humans against each other with that mix of uncertainty on both sides, the result will be different than when one side can predict the outcome of the other side 90% of the time. 

One last thing an AI can never replace and that is the social aspect of H2H play.  Many times your human opponent is someone you have known many years.  You can reminisce on past games played and laugh at various aspects.  In a co-op mode there are tactical or strategic decisions over offense or defense that must be discussed amongst the players.  You develop a camaraderie with your teammates.  You get to know their strengths and weaknesses.  You can't talk to the AI.  Playing solely against AI, over time, becomes sterile and impersonal, without any social contact, sort of like old single player arcade games where the only thing you could accomplish is beating your last highest score.  So, even though an AI can be programmed that cannot be beat, AI will never replace a human as the better opponent.

[Tanker]

Thanks for pointing out the social aspect StkNRdr.  I neglected to mention that.  I don't get the same sense of satisfaction when I beat the ai as when I complete a game against a human, whether I beat him or not.

[Tanker]

The best way to simulate that is human vs. human players, not human vs. ai. 

No, because there were specially trained people from another time - other habits, other knowledge, other worldview. But you play with untrained from nowadays (Let me remind you that recently slavery was normal, and even a little before humans ate other humans. For WWII days the difference is not so obvious, but it is essential). If an AI can theoretically learn and simulate a military leader from the past, the average modern player - no. At least the game developers do not have such opportunities.

But while there is a lack of computing power and a number of unsolved problems with AI, these moments are not appears in the light of some stupidness of AI.

The only thing now as a human player will stand out from the AI ​​- it's a brilliant solution of geometrical problems (in wargames and RTS this one of the main tasks). This is what it bestowed thousands of years of evolution, which was not for the AI​​.

 

You seem to agree with me that at the present time the ai is not equal to humans.  You seem to think that in the future, greater computing power and solving some problems with ai will make it equal or superior.  It seems to me that, if that is true, a player vs. player option is essential for the time being to get the best out of the game.

[andrey12345]

AI may be able to predict human decision outcome 90% of the time however one human cannot predict the outcome of another human 90%

Yes of course, human is very limited even in basic things.

of the time and that is why H2H is so enjoyable. 

Sorry, but I dont know any wargame wherever H2H gameplay can be enjoyable or even simple interesting.

But may be chess ...

Human vs AI will never have the experience of human vs human because of imperfect factors from both human players that effect the eventual outcome. 

I dont know any wargame with proper simulation and with AI. Even wargames where the environment is very sketchy and going of the blocks and the units are represented by material points without physics - where the ideal conditions for the creation of AI at this stage - the AI ​​is not present, so to say definitely difficult.

Perhaps you're right, but I'm still of the opinion that the AI ​​is much better together.

A human can be overly cautious and miss opportunities, can take bold risks and be rewarded or devastated, can overlook threats, can just be a bad tactician, etc.  When you pit 2 humans against each other with that mix of uncertainty on both sides, the result will be different than when one side can predict the outcome of the other side 90% of the time.

All the same can be done for the AI​​, specifically for these stages there are no obstacles in the current level of computing.

One last thing an AI can never replace and that is the social aspect of H2H play.  Many times your human opponent is someone you have known many years.  You can reminisce on past games played and laugh at various aspects.  In a co-op mode there are tactical or strategic decisions over offense or defense that must be discussed amongst the players.  You develop a camaraderie with your teammates.  You get to know their strengths and weaknesses.  You can't talk to the AI.  Playing solely against AI, over time, becomes sterile and impersonal, without any social contact, sort of like old single player arcade games where the only thing you could accomplish is beating your last highest score. 

This aspect is unimportant. There are lots of any programs, medias and games with which to realize the social aspect - it makes no sense to drag this into wargame.

So, even though an AI can be programmed that cannot be beat, AI will never replace a human as the better opponent.

Well, actually a network mode in wargames gives fail in 90% of cases, due to lack of opponents. What do you say? What is the social aspect can be if a problem with find someone to play with? Let's get back to the real world from the world of fantasy

[Aces]

Hi Andrey,

Although my preference is to play offline games vs AI opponents I don't see any reason why the wargaming genre cannot be a social activity. If one wishes to play with/against a good friend online H2H and derives enjoyment from such what is wrong with that?.

Kind regards

Aces

[andrey12345]

Although my preference is to play offline games vs AI opponents I don't see any reason why the wargaming genre cannot be a social activity.

It may be so, but it must meet certain conditions. At begin to start calling things by their names  . 2 people playing against each other is not a social element, but anti social. As a closed club with restricted acess.

And when I asked earlier about really social elements, such as made ​​random battles in WOT. All that is said they - will not play. And then it's all about the social elements brings a smile in the context of the fact that the same people terribly indignant about the potential introduction of a social game elements  . So let's define already?

If one wishes to play with/against a good friend online H2H and derives enjoyment from such what is wrong with that?.

But this is not social, sorry


P.S. Traditional anti social MP mode 1 vs 1 is one of reasons why wargames is not popular. In conjunction with the strange interfaces, bad graphics and high complexity of it all led to what is now.

[Tanker]

Sorry Andrey but you are twisting definitions to fit your argument.  This is about the ability to enjoy a game with players of your choosing, not egalitarianism.  I don't think too many people will agree that 1 vs 1 is actually anti-social. 

The very fact that one person is interacting with another makes it a social interaction.  The number is relatively unimportant.  I have no objection if the game allows x vs. x number of players as long as I can define whom those will be.  I actually consider the behavior of large groups of random strangers (WOT for example) to be, potentially, much more anti-social than a 1 vs. 1 set up.

To say that you know of no wargame in which 1 vs. 1 is enjoyable, or even interesting is intriguing.  Isn't that what you are trying to develop your ai to simulate? 

Even more interesting is that you say that the social aspect of gaming is unimportant. 
It's your game but you seem to be dismissing the wants of a fair number of your potential customers because of personal predjudices.

[Tanker]

Although my preference is to play offline games vs AI opponents I don't see any reason why the wargaming genre cannot be a social activity.

It may be so, but it must meet certain conditions. At begin to start calling things by their names  . 2 people playing against each other is not a social element, but anti social. As a closed club with restricted acess.

How many people must be playing to be classified as not anti-social?  Is there a defining number?  A solitary player could be considered the most exclusive club of all, lol.

And when I asked earlier about really social elements, such as made ​​random battles in WOT. All that is said they - will not play. And then it's all about the social elements brings a smile in the context of the fact that the same people terribly indignant about the potential introduction of a social game elements  . So let's define already?

I think the indignation came from introducing the idea of a random game lobby such as WOT, not from having more than 1 vs 1.

If one wishes to play with/against a good friend online H2H and derives enjoyment from such what is wrong with that?.

But this is not social, sorry

Of course it is.  Is having a tennis match with a friend or having dinner with your wife anti-social?  Of course not.


P.S. Traditional anti social MP mode 1 vs 1 is one of reasons why wargames is not popular. In conjunction with the strange interfaces, bad graphics and high complexity of it all led to what is now.

The nature of the war game genre is the main reason that they don't have mass appeal.  I'm doubt that introducing a mp game lobby, a la WOT, would enlarge the player base for the game.  Mass appeal requires a dumbed down game with non stop adrenaline fueled action.  That's not a war game, it's an FPS.

[Aces]

Hi Andrey,

If I go to the pub for a drink and a laugh with a mate is this a social activity? or do I need to invite all my friends along? in order to qaulify as a social creature? . I would have thought that playing a game (any game) against a friend is much more "social" than sitting alone playing against a computer which could be easily regarded as a very anti-social, even "nerdy" activity in modern society.

Semantics aside, I share Tanker's view that the genre is a niche one and hardly likely to attract players via an online lobby type approach but a 1 vs 1 human game between two human military strategy enthusiasts sharing a common interest could be a very interesting scenario especially if this had the option to extended over a campaign.

Kind regards

Aces
 

[StkNRdr]

Sorry, but I dont know any wargame wherever H2H gameplay can be enjoyable or even simple interesting.

Maybe you don't.  There are many that do.  Here is an online club for playing H2H for many different wargames: http://www.theblitz.org/

There are over 5000 registered members.  I am sure some members are more active than others but they all have one thing in common.  They all like playing wargames and they all like to play them against one another.

EDIT:  The 5000 is just a subset of the universe of H2H players that decided to join that specific club.  The number of H2H players is probably much higher.

I dont know any wargame with proper simulation and with AI. Even wargames where the environment is very sketchy and going of the blocks and the units are represented by material points without physics - where the ideal conditions for the creation of AI at this stage - the AI ​​is not present, so to say definitely difficult.

Perhaps you're right, but I'm still of the opinion that the AI ​​is much better together.

AI, and a very good AI, is necessary to handle the individual troops on the ground in GTOS or any other PC squad level wargame.  Their ability to advance at the right intervals, assault in correct fashion, react to an ambush, etc. must be handled well.  AI is not necessary to instruct unit movement from point A to point B, when to assault, etc., a human can handle this against another human.  Obviously AI must handle all aspects well for SP.

This (social) aspect is unimportant. There are lots of any programs, medias and games with which to realize the social aspect - it makes no sense to drag this into wargame.

I can think of 5000 reasons why.  Many of them potential sales.  I can only speak for myself.  I bought this game while on sale at 50% off.   Had it been full price I would never have purchased it because of the lack of MP.  I will play GTOS to fill the voids of when I am not in a H2H game with a player, which isn't very often.

EDIT:  To say that H2H, or any game play, be it in person or over the net, between 2 or more players is anti-social is a real twist of logic.  Playing a game solely against a computer algorithm, by yourself is the quintessential definition of anti-social, not that there is anything wrong with that.    

Well, actually a network mode in wargames gives fail in 90% of cases, due to lack of opponents. What do you say? What is the social aspect can be if a problem with find someone to play with? Let's get back to the real world from the world of fantasy

I can think of 5000 reasons why you are not correct.  Some have been members of that club for 14 years.  I have been playing wargames for many decades.  PC wargames are nothing more than an extension and refinement of the board games of 40 years ago, which were played across the table from one of those pesky humans.  I personally have friends that play many different wargames against humans H2H online.  They were interested in GTOS when I brought it to their attention but specifically did NOT buy it because it lacked MP.  Direct quote from one, "With that level of detail I wonder why they didn't make it multiplayer off the bat."  Go figure.  

[Schuck]

Well guys,
While i do not believe 1v1 is in anyway anti-social, quite the opposite in fact.
In my experience this type of MP doesnt last, well at least not for long.
The thing with humans is they dont like to be beaten, certainly not over and over again, this soon leads to a situation where you cannot find an opponent to play.
The joy of AI is its always there, when you get home from work, early in the morning, week ends, anytime you want.
You can beat his ass a 1000 times and he's always back for more.
So while MP sounds good in theory, In practice, i dont think it would work for this style of game.
I havent played WOT, so i cannot comment.
I personally think the time and resourses needed to develope MP would be better used instead to improve the game and AI further.
But please dont crucify me for saying so, its just my opinion.

[Aces]

I agree in part with what you're saying, of course, dare I say it we could have BOTH styles of play available and that would suit both prefernces at any time. .

Regards

Aces

[andrey12345]

Sorry Andrey but you are twisting definitions to fit your argument.  This is about the ability to enjoy a game with players of your choosing, not egalitarianism.  I don't think too many people will agree that 1 vs 1 is actually anti-social. 

The very fact that one person is interacting with another makes it a social interaction.  The number is relatively unimportant.  I have no objection if the game allows x vs. x number of players as long as I can define whom those will be.  I actually consider the behavior of large groups of random strangers (WOT for example) to be, potentially, much more anti-social than a 1 vs. 1 set up.

Apparently we somehow have different understandings of the term social. I do not know how to lead a discussion, if you do not use words according to their purpose, but as you like.
If you like to call black as white, good   . I have no objection, the problem is that this not be a constructive discussion.

To say that you know of no wargame in which 1 vs. 1 is enjoyable, or even interesting is intriguing.  Isn't that what you are trying to develop your ai to simulate? 

AI in our game at the moment is not a key feature. It ensures functioning of the game in any settings, and makes a variety of it. This is largely a forced necessity, because the game mechanics. No more.

In the direction of the AI​​ (not that usually mean instead of AI - script processor, pathfinding) - this still has not seriously was doing and will not know when..

Even more interesting is that you say that the social aspect of gaming is unimportant. 

Absolutly. We are surrounded by numerous social networks and any other tailored programs (and even special sucking money social games), it makes no sense to drag it to where it is not needed.

It's your game but you seem to be dismissing the wants of a fair number of your potential customers because of personal predjudices.

We have no goal to sell our game to anyone at any costs, only those to whom it is interesting. I understand that this approach is not in high esteem  .

[andrey12345]

Maybe you don't.  There are many that do.  Here is an online club for playing H2H for many different wargames: http://www.theblitz.org/

There are over 5000 registered members.  I am sure some members are more active than others but they all have one thing in common.  They all like playing wargames and they all like to play them against one another.

Okay.

Many games and only 5000 members?
Each of our games have more buyers (and they are extremely unpopular and not well known).

EDIT:  The 5000 is just a subset of the universe of H2H players that decided to join that specific club.  The number of H2H players is probably much higher.

No, it's the number of registrations. According to the statistics of active players in the best case is 10% of this number (this is for a very well-known and popular genres).
I understand that you like to play in MP games and Tanker too, but do not engage in wishful thinking.

Perhaps you're right, but I'm still of the opinion that the AI ​​is much better together.

This is so, because people did not really evolution for many thousands of years, and sooner or later it will overtake the AI. And in abstract worlds such as mathematics or chess has already surpassed. Sooner or later it (AI) will come to the real world.
Games is more abstract world than real. It will happen soon.

AI, and a very good AI, is necessary to handle the individual troops on the ground in GTOS or any other PC squad level wargame.  Their ability to advance at the right intervals, assault in correct fashion, react to an ambush, etc. must be handled well.  

But all this listed it is not AI. AI is the decision-making, and not about the mechanistic function.

AI is not necessary to instruct unit movement from point A to point B, when to assault, etc., a human can handle this against another human.  Obviously AI must handle all aspects well for SP.

Yes of course - all aspects, and it can handle all aspects better, for example more like a military leader of WWII than averaged modern human. It theoretically possible, but train to do the same a sufficient number of players and get them to play in the desired time for you - not.

I can think of 5000 reasons why.  

No, in best case 500 (more realistic is 50), sorry its statistic.
Our games without MP buys a lot more people even more than 5000.

Many of them potential sales.  

1 DLC get more.

I can only speak for myself.  I bought this game while on sale at 50% off.   Had it been full price I would never have purchased it because of the lack of MP.  I will play GTOS to fill the voids of when I am not in a H2H game with a player, which isn't very often.

You all measures the on their own. This is a dead end road, it never gives the right results.

EDIT:  To say that H2H, or any game play, be it in person or over the net, between 2 or more players is anti-social is a real twist of logic.  Playing a game solely against a computer algorithm, by yourself is the quintessential definition of anti-social, not that there is anything wrong with that.    

Yes AI vs Human adn 1 Human vs 1 Human - is both anti-social. But I unlike you do not say that 1st case is socially. That's the whole difference  .

I can think of 5000 reasons why you are not correct.  

Its 5000 registrations - pure virtuals not interesting. You are confusing the real with the virtual, it's bad.

But suppose hypothetically that this is so . Here are all the 5000 real players who rush to play our game as soon as it appears MP mode. Here is such an abstract ideal world  .

The problem is that this amount is insufficient to game based by MP, ie just a not enough, even in the best case.
Just look at the number of registrations in the "clubs" of successful MMO - there are hundreds of thousands and even millions. And not in 14 years, as you have written here, but for months, better days (for example WOT on consoles - 70K from week!). And here is a socially and here it makes sense in terms of money. 5000 - alas no, and 50 to be real, do not.

[andrey12345]

If I go to the pub for a drink and a laugh with a mate is this a social activity?

If every time in a different pub and with different ... then yes.

Sociality is about the interaction of the masses of people. And not 2 people many times. Well, imagine a social network where you can communicate with only one person? And to change it once a month. Nobody is not call a social? And why the games differently somehow?

or do I need to invite all my friends along? in order to qaulify as a social creature? . I would have thought that playing a game (any game) against a friend is much more "social" than sitting alone playing against a computer which could be easily regarded as a very anti-social, even "nerdy" activity in modern society.

1H vs 1H and 1H vs 1AI - both anti-social.

Semantics aside, I share Tanker's view that the genre is a niche one and hardly likely to attract players via an online lobby type approach but a 1 vs 1 human game between two human military strategy enthusiasts sharing a common interest could be a very interesting scenario especially if this had the option to extended over a campaign.

Yes I am share this view too  .
With two amendments:
1) Now this is not social.
2) Need to fight the causes of why it happened (unpopular genre) - make the game more friendly, beautiful and attractive., but not the WEGO, PBEM, IP4 with friend  and other crutches, which further exacerbate the problem.

[andrey12345]

While i do not believe 1v1 is in anyway anti-social, quite the opposite in fact.

Here, figuratively of course. Antisocial this is robbery or murder for example. Here is the view "not socially".

In my experience this type of MP doesnt last, well at least not for long.
The thing with humans is they dont like to be beaten, certainly not over and over again, this soon leads to a situation where you cannot find an opponent to play.
The joy of AI is its always there, when you get home from work, early in the morning, week ends, anytime you want.
You can beat his ass a 1000 times and he's always back for more.
So while MP sounds good in theory, In practice, i dont think it would work for this style of game.
I havent played WOT, so i cannot comment.
I personally think the time and resourses needed to develope MP would be better used instead to improve the game and AI further.
But please dont crucify me for saying so, its just my opinion.

Thanks for your understanding and emphasizing the main problem.
AI have an absolute advantage in the fact that he is always ready to play on your rules.

AI is not going to work, not sleep, not go on a binge, do not go on vacation, he has no wife, children and dogs  . Finally, for each player has its own AI.

P.S. I do not understand how anyone could not want to play with such great opponent, but instead look for some weird humans, enters a strange set of 4 numbers in the hope that someone will respond  .