The Ghost of Christmas Future, II

[loftar]

A human can never outdo a properly designed automaton. If a person is outdoing his/her automata, then they really need to work on the designs and programming more.

I don't think that's a universal statement, though. To take an obvious example, most games' AI opponents are usually close to trivial for (well trained) humans to beat, but far from trivial to further improve. :)

[Robben_DuMarsch]

I guess the less important fact is not if a bot can outdo a human in all instances.
But whether bots, as they are deployed in Haven (and may be deployed in Haven 2), are able to increase performance for a to such a degree that it renders others unable to compete, and therefore must bot or be placed at a severe disadvantage.

[Xcom]

If you want to change botting change the mindset of those who use them. People will do what they will. The only true solutions is to have the need for them diminish and people to not support the use of them. All of that though must be in good will. It is a game after all.

Hear hear. I salute you for this. One that finally gets it.

I don't think that's a universal statement, though. To take an obvious example, most games' AI opponents are usually close to trivial for (well trained) humans to beat, but far from trivial to further improve.

Challenge accepted. Time to make a combartz bot that can outdo a human. If it works, will there be a reward in form of rally mechanics (not the pornstarkind) possibly?

[_Gunnar]

A human can never outdo a properly designed automaton. If a person is outdoing his/her automata, then they really need to work on the designs and programming more.

I don't think that's a universal statement, though. To take an obvious example, most games' AI opponents are usually close to trivial for (well trained) humans to beat, but far from trivial to further improve.

http://overmind.cs.berkeley.edu

although its true it was far from trivial for them to make it this good :p

most game developers wouldn't bother making a good ai, because who wants to be beaten constantly anyway?

personally i would love it if bots you ran into tried to fight you in haven, i imagine it wouldn't be hard to write a bot that could do basic movement combat, but i bet anyone experienced would be able to glitch it... however currently it would be impossible to actually kill one, just make it run away (although i guess you could herd it into a lake)

[rye130]

A human can never outdo a properly designed automaton. If a person is outdoing his/her automata, then they really need to work on the designs and programming more.

I don't think that's a universal statement, though. To take an obvious example, most games' AI opponents are usually close to trivial for (well trained) humans to beat, but far from trivial to further improve.

I believe most AI opponents are intentionally dumbed down to an interesting level to play against.

[NaoWhut]

A human can never outdo a properly designed automaton. If a person is outdoing his/her automata, then they really need to work on the designs and programming more.

I don't think that's a universal statement, though. To take an obvious example, most games' AI opponents are usually close to trivial for (well trained) humans to beat, but far from trivial to further improve.

I believe most AI opponents are intentionally dumbed down to an interesting level to play against.

Gotta agree with you there

[Kaios]

And by the by,

I would assume there would be less one would be able to actually modify with a closed source client in comparison to an open source

That's not true.

So why exactly would almost any other game developer take steps to prevent the modification and duplication of their client if it is such a fruitless endeavour? You'd think they would take a similar approach to yours and just have an open source client rather than wasting time, effort and resources in creating something that clearly must have no effective purpose.

[Woot]

I'm sorry I brought it up
Stand your ground loftar, Your reasoning makes sense to me, Most vocal does not mean most correct.

Secondary question, Are half the rivers and clay nodes and swamps still going to be penis shaped?
And I saw you jump off a cliff, is there going to be cliff climbing?

[jorb]

You'd think they would take a similar approach to yours and just have an open source client rather than wasting time, effort and resources in creating something that clearly must have no effective purpose.

Yes. You really would think that. If they would care to enlighten us with their reasons then that should be most interesting.

[Kaios]

I'm sorry I brought it up
Stand your ground loftar, Your reasoning makes sense to me, Most vocal does not mean most correct.

Don't be dumb, it's not as if I have a personal vendetta. I am merely attempting to convey my opinion on a topic I feel rather strongly about. Being the most vocal doesn't mean I think I am correct, it simply means hardly anyone else is adding their input on this.

In the past, there had always been a general consensus that while custom clients did in fact provide a better playing experience than the default client, it did not mean players enjoyed their existence. They were a means to an end, mostly due to the incapability of the default client to be maximized (At least that was my main issue). However, they have certainly advanced far past the early stages of their creation and in my opinion have only become a bane on the overall atmosphere this game is intended to offer.