Playtesters you should be ashamed

[Yogi]

I think that would suck. Major publishers would use it as an excuse to jack the prices. You'd never know if it was worth getting until the game had already been out for 1/2 a year.

--------- No way I'd ever go for a no AI version of anything.

I understand rleete. But the thought of paying more for AI may be what is needed to get a good one. And it goes with the rest of my post, "If a company can get the reputation of creating the best AI around, there will be many ready to buy each and every release of their products." A company that charges extra and puts out a lousy AI will be avoided.

The point is that too many, the AI is very important. In the ideal world we would be given that great AI automatically at no extra charge. That just hasn't been happening so far. (at least very seldom) If some incentive to create a good AI is needed before a company puts the needed effort in, at least we might get a few games worth a little extra.

I agree that a no AI version would not be very attractive, I was thinking more of an enhanced AI version, and only if worth it.

Maybe AI expansion packs would have a place? If making a great AI becomes profitable - some one will make it. Sounds like, "If you build it, they will come."

[ June 15, 2006, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Yogi ]

[Agamemnon]

I said before how they botched up Third Reich so bad that no one has attempted to do it again.

I think of SC1 and SC2 as Third Reich, only better. That was my first imppression of SC1. As far as the AI being bad, I expect that. Most games don't have a very good AI. It's a rare game that has an AI that can come close being really good. BTW I have not tried the AI. I just felt it wouldn't be very good from the beginning.

[rleete]

Originally posted by Yogi:

And it goes with the rest of my post, "If a company can get the reputation of creating the best AI around, there will be many ready to buy each and every release of their products."

Which is why we're all here, and Hubert has a ready market. The dedicated support, and the desire to give us the best bang for the buck keep us coming back. So, in that you are right.

But the no AI version had better be significantly cheaper, or I don't see it being a good seller. Basically, if I gotta pay extra for the AI, it had better be a hell of an opponent. Otherwise, the game will become essentially a HTH only one, and that's not a business model I'd care to support.

[Exel]

You do realize that the big releases of big companies are not big hits because of having great AIs? They make big because they have big money behind them - or for the same reason fail big.

I can point out a great many hugely successful RTS games that have flat out awful AIs. Making a good AI is difficult and as a result expensive. A game with millions poured in can't be delayed a couple of months just for a competitive AI - no one buys a game for a good AI. It is far cheaper to just make the AI cheat, which is what 99% of games do. SC2 AI does not cheat unless you make it (exp bonus).

[Yogi]

You do realize that the big releases of big companies are not big hits because of having great AIs?

Yes I do, but perhaps no one has really tried to find the market.

Making a good AI is difficult and as a result expensive.

Yes as I put in my post. That is why I am willing to accept higher cost for a better AI.

However, the higher cost may not be needed, as I still feel that strong AI development will in the long run result in more copies sold. Until the "long run" comes through, maybe the extra cost would be the incentive the companies need.

[Dulak]

I'm quite dissappointed too with the AI ...

Now I'm not blaming the testers persay but IMO there did seem to be alot of time devoted to mutiplayer while it appears most people are playing this game single player.

I wanted a game where if played on the hardest setting it would be very difficult to beat. I wanted something challenging.

I wouldnt have bought this game if I knew that the AI wouldnt be that challenging

[jon_j_rambo]

What did I tell you guys? The A.I. doesn't count. It's impossible to program a good one with a new game that has complex strategies. This isn't chess with regression solutions.

"Let it go, that mission is over" -Col. Troutman

-Legend

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

It's impossible to program a good one with a new game that has complex strategies.

We're not asking for an AI that does complex strategies, we're asking for an AI that does a D-Day.

And, no, sending 5 US troops without a HQ to the UK, without any protective ships and the other 30 US units just staying for ever around Washington does NOT count as a D-Day !

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Dulak:

I'm quite dissappointed too with the AI ...

Now I'm not blaming the testers persay but IMO there did seem to be alot of time devoted to mutiplayer while it appears most people are playing this game single player.

I wanted a game where if played on the hardest setting it would be very difficult to beat. I wanted something challenging.

I wouldnt have bought this game if I knew that the AI wouldnt be that challenging

Stick around, it will improve by alot.

Try some of the mods at cmmods.com some impressive scripting in there.

[jon_j_rambo]

@ToJo --- How do you expect the AI to DDAY if you can't do it properly as a human? The USA is a joke. No tech, no units, no cash, no supply, no nothing.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

@ToJo --- How do you expect the AI to DDAY if you can't do it properly as a human? The USA is a joke. No tech, no units, no cash, no supply, no nothing.

Keep working at it JJR, one day you'll figure out how the game is played.

I can't believe a redneck has no clue how to play his own country. I guess that is watching too much fox news does to someone's brain, turns it to mush .

[ChrisND]

Yeah, like CNN or any other news program is any better.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

Yeah, like CNN or any other news program is any better.

Hehe, agreed. But Fauxnews is the king of misinformation.

[Major Spinello]

When I was still living in Cal, I was at times desperate because of all those ****ty US news formats on TV - well, at least the print media with San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times were up to world standard. Oh, and I had to watch Mexican channells to see some decent soccer matches too ...

[ChrisND]

SF Chronicle and The New York Times are the biggest hack jobs on the planet... even worse than CNN.... did I mention I hate the media?

BTW, what is world standard? Is it a standard program format for a news channel?

[Blashy]

World standard means doing your own research and making your OWN opinion.

Report what happened with NO bias (it use to exist).

[ June 16, 2006, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[ChrisND]

It USED to exist?

[Major Spinello]

What Blashy said. New York Times do their own research and articles (well, at least partly) and they always seemed rather unbiased to me.

[ChrisND]

To each his own I guess.

[jon_j_rambo]

@AntiUSA crowd --- Are you kidding me about the USA? Do the math. Add up the costs for historically correct USA. Good luck buying 82nd, 101st, Patton, Ike, Tanks, Armor, Fighters, Bombers, etc. The MMPs aren't there! And think of the MMPs you'll need for technology.

It's a joke,

-Legend

[Blashy]

I don't have a problem whatsoever having those troops and tech pretty much accross the board with many of them maxed out.

2 hqs, 2afs, 2bombers, 4armies, paratrooper and a tank easily for Dday, all with top notch tech. Most likely a few more but I can not remember.

And possibly 3+ other units in the queue.

That is over half a million men landing in one turn, seems good enough to me.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

@ToJo --- How do you expect the AI to DDAY if you can't do it properly as a human? The USA is a joke. No tech, no units, no cash, no supply, no nothing.

Oh you CAN do it properly as a human.

Instead of buying 35 level zero armies and fighters, you can invest in tech, get your armies to level 3/5/2 (or 3/3/2, that's enough), your planes to 5/5 (or 4/3) and land with 10 armies and two HQ, leaving only about 5 troops in the US.

But the AI simply does not do it, it does a "D-Day" with 5 troops and leaves all the others in the US.

You should toggle Fog of War off at the end of the game, it's really depressing.

[Dan Fenton]

Three cheers for the play testers!

Play testing is a hard job. Playing the finishing product is a lot of fun for us. But that isn’t what play testers get to do. They work with the raw unfinished product for many months with all sorts of flaws and bugs that we never saw because they did.

On top of that, most play testers seldom get anything more than a hearty thank you from the designer and a free game. That is their reward after months and months of work. Most play testers also have jobs and a family along with other responsibilities. Play testers give up months and months of fun time to do this work unselfishly so that we can have a better product and more fun.

With all of the campaigns along with all of the scenarios that they had to test from both sides with all of the different setting choices how could they possibly be expected to find every flaw in the AI in less than one month?

The 1.02 version of Strategic Command 2 (SC2) is far better that the fully patched version of Strategic Command (SC). Have people forgotten the Air Fleet dominance problem of SC? That has been fully fixed. What about the U-Boats being like fish in a barrel to be shot in that little pond of the Atlantic in SC? It has been fixed and we can have a real Battle of the Atlantic now. What about the tech issues of SC? Remember the non-consumable research point issues and the miraculous instant upgrading of all units? That’s fixed along with many other improvements in the basic design of SC2. I liked this game so much that I bought a copy for me and one for my e-mail opponent.

I have discovered that I can accomplish a lot more in life by treating people with respect than by complaining at them. When we have issues with SC2, if we present them in a non-hostile manner Hubert and his play testers will be a lot more willing to address them.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by TaoJah:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

@ToJo --- How do you expect the AI to DDAY if you can't do it properly as a human? The USA is a joke. No tech, no units, no cash, no supply, no nothing.

Oh you CAN do it properly as a human.

Instead of buying 35 level zero armies and fighters, you can invest in tech, get your armies to level 3/5/2 (or 3/3/2, that's enough), your planes to 5/5 (or 4/3) and land with 10 armies and two HQ, leaving only about 5 troops in the US.

But the AI simply does not do it, it does a "D-Day" with 5 troops and leaves all the others in the US.

You should toggle Fog of War off at the end of the game, it's really depressing. </font>

[SeaMonkey]

Here! Here! An appropriate oratory Mr. Fenton, I applaud your observations.

See you pathetic humans, the truth does not evade all of you.

There still may be some hope for your species.