This is exactly why we use correct terminology; you cannot even communicate your thoughts with others when you do not, which I see happening all the time with you. I know, I know, there's a few nooks here and there on the net that use incorrect terminology when "classifying" games. Cool. Doesn't change the fact that you are constantly struggling to communicate with people on these forums.
yeh .. and "correct" terminology by industrial research firms, this site (and don't give me that they will fix it later speech, they have not yet) and many other mmo sites & reviews clearly indicate that many (but not all) MMOs are lobby games, without persistent virtual worlds.
Oh, i doubt there is any communication issues, since most here can seem to read my mind.
4. This is about open world games, simplistic games like lobby (Diablo) games (and lobby like games like WoW) doesnt really need smart AI, they opted for simplistic and completely different gameplay that cant really stand in open world.
No it is not. It is about MMOs.
You said it yourself before, its pointless for WoW like/Diablo like/lobby like games. You should really keep on on what youre posting better.
and many MMOs are lobby games ... so yeah .. I am keep on posting whatever I am posting.
Sure you can, it doesnt have any value in just stating same thing when discussion was past that....on like page 3.
Sure you can, it doesnt have any value in just stating same thing when discussion was past that....on like page 3.
Of course it does .. just not to you.
You don't think i am here trying convince others, or bring anything new, do you? You don't know this forum is mostly flogging the dead horse, and there is really no new arguments to be had?
Sure you can, it doesnt have any value in just stating same thing when discussion was past that....on like page 3.
Of course it does .. just not to you.
You don't think i am here trying convince others, or bring anything new, do you? You don't know this forum is mostly flogging the dead horse, and there is really no new arguments to be had?
Of course it doesnt to me, i try to stay out of flogging dead horses as much as i can.
Sure you can, it doesnt have any value in just stating same thing when discussion was past that....on like page 3.
Of course it does .. just not to you.
You don't think i am here trying convince others, or bring anything new, do you? You don't know this forum is mostly flogging the dead horse, and there is really no new arguments to be had?
Of course it doesnt to me, i try to stay out of flogging dead horses as much as i can.
Does not seem like it though .. you are still flogging the dead horse about flogging the dead horse. You know that comes up a lot, right?
Sure you can, it doesnt have any value in just stating same thing when discussion was past that....on like page 3.
Of course it does .. just not to you.
You don't think i am here trying convince others, or bring anything new, do you? You don't know this forum is mostly flogging the dead horse, and there is really no new arguments to be had?
Of course it doesnt to me, i try to stay out of flogging dead horses as much as i can.
Does not seem like it though .. you are still flogging the dead horse about flogging the dead horse. You know that comes up a lot, right?
Flogging the horse on what exactly? Ai is definitely not dead horse, its just a pony right now and very much alive.
AI's aren't meant to be useful in MMO's to any extent. They are mostly there for quest story basics. To give you a reason to relate to the quest. That's all
Sure you can, it doesnt have any value in just stating same thing when discussion was past that....on like page 3.
Of course it does .. just not to you.
You don't think i am here trying convince others, or bring anything new, do you? You don't know this forum is mostly flogging the dead horse, and there is really no new arguments to be had?
Of course it doesnt to me, i try to stay out of flogging dead horses as much as i can.
Does not seem like it though .. you are still flogging the dead horse about flogging the dead horse. You know that comes up a lot, right?
Flogging the horse on what exactly? Ai is definitely not dead horse, its just a pony right now and very much alive.
Aren't you not flogging the dead horse on "flogging the dead horse"? The "flogging the dead horse" phenomena came up very often here.
In fact, every time someone don't like an opinion (and lets be frank, nothing is really new here), they will play the "flogging of dead horse" card.
Sure you can, it doesnt have any value in just stating same thing when discussion was past that....on like page 3.
Of course it does .. just not to you.
You don't think i am here trying convince others, or bring anything new, do you? You don't know this forum is mostly flogging the dead horse, and there is really no new arguments to be had?
Of course it doesnt to me, i try to stay out of flogging dead horses as much as i can.
Does not seem like it though .. you are still flogging the dead horse about flogging the dead horse. You know that comes up a lot, right?
Flogging the horse on what exactly? Ai is definitely not dead horse, its just a pony right now and very much alive.
Aren't you not flogging the dead horse on "flogging the dead horse"? The "flogging the dead horse" phenomena came up very often here.
In fact, every time someone don't like an opinion (and lets be frank, nothing is really new here), they will play the "flogging of dead horse" card.
Nope, reliance on dumb Ai is flogging dead horse, thats what youre doing. So once youre done, maybe you could do some healthy posts instead?
Sure you can, it doesnt have any value in just stating same thing when discussion was past that....on like page 3.
Of course it does .. just not to you.
You don't think i am here trying convince others, or bring anything new, do you? You don't know this forum is mostly flogging the dead horse, and there is really no new arguments to be had?
Of course it doesnt to me, i try to stay out of flogging dead horses as much as i can.
Does not seem like it though .. you are still flogging the dead horse about flogging the dead horse. You know that comes up a lot, right?
Flogging the horse on what exactly? Ai is definitely not dead horse, its just a pony right now and very much alive.
Aren't you not flogging the dead horse on "flogging the dead horse"? The "flogging the dead horse" phenomena came up very often here.
In fact, every time someone don't like an opinion (and lets be frank, nothing is really new here), they will play the "flogging of dead horse" card.
Nope, reliance on dumb Ai is flogging dead horse, thats what youre doing. So once youre done, maybe you could do some healthy posts instead?
what do you mean by "nope"? You are still flogging the dead horse about i am flogging the dead horse, are you not?
I never deny that I am doing so .. since there is nothing new (almost nothing .. except that thread about diablo-like games) here anyway. But it is funny that you are not honest about what you are doing.
Look at how many post you have made about "flogging a dead horse". If that is not flogging a dead horse, what is?
Sure you can, it doesnt have any value in just stating same thing when discussion was past that....on like page 3.
Of course it does .. just not to you.
You don't think i am here trying convince others, or bring anything new, do you? You don't know this forum is mostly flogging the dead horse, and there is really no new arguments to be had?
Of course it doesnt to me, i try to stay out of flogging dead horses as much as i can.
Does not seem like it though .. you are still flogging the dead horse about flogging the dead horse. You know that comes up a lot, right?
Flogging the horse on what exactly? Ai is definitely not dead horse, its just a pony right now and very much alive.
Aren't you not flogging the dead horse on "flogging the dead horse"? The "flogging the dead horse" phenomena came up very often here.
In fact, every time someone don't like an opinion (and lets be frank, nothing is really new here), they will play the "flogging of dead horse" card.
Nope, reliance on dumb Ai is flogging dead horse, thats what youre doing. So once youre done, maybe you could do some healthy posts instead?
what do you mean by "nope"? You are still flogging the dead horse about i am flogging the dead horse, are you not?
I never deny that I am doing so .. since there is nothing new (almost nothing .. except that thread about diablo-like games) here anyway. But it is funny that you are not honest about what you are doing.
Look at how many post you have made about "flogging a dead horse". If that is not flogging a dead horse, what is?
Ahhhhhh, so telling you to not flog the dead horse is actually flogging the dead horse. mmmmkay.
Sure you can, it doesnt have any value in just stating same thing when discussion was past that....on like page 3.
Of course it does .. just not to you.
You don't think i am here trying convince others, or bring anything new, do you? You don't know this forum is mostly flogging the dead horse, and there is really no new arguments to be had?
Of course it doesnt to me, i try to stay out of flogging dead horses as much as i can.
Does not seem like it though .. you are still flogging the dead horse about flogging the dead horse. You know that comes up a lot, right?
Flogging the horse on what exactly? Ai is definitely not dead horse, its just a pony right now and very much alive.
Aren't you not flogging the dead horse on "flogging the dead horse"? The "flogging the dead horse" phenomena came up very often here.
In fact, every time someone don't like an opinion (and lets be frank, nothing is really new here), they will play the "flogging of dead horse" card.
Nope, reliance on dumb Ai is flogging dead horse, thats what youre doing. So once youre done, maybe you could do some healthy posts instead?
what do you mean by "nope"? You are still flogging the dead horse about i am flogging the dead horse, are you not?
I never deny that I am doing so .. since there is nothing new (almost nothing .. except that thread about diablo-like games) here anyway. But it is funny that you are not honest about what you are doing.
Look at how many post you have made about "flogging a dead horse". If that is not flogging a dead horse, what is?
Ahhhhhh, so telling you to not flog the dead horse is actually flogging the dead horse. mmmmkay.
Of course .. in fact .. just go look at however posts are there in this topic, and others and accuse others of flogging the dead horse.
Combat A.I. needs to be balanced for the various types of people that play. There are younger and older gamers, disabilities (eyesight, deafness, etc.), and casual/hardcore gamers. Stop being so self-centered. Whatever you think might be trivial to you, might be difficult for others.
Some of you need to be more specific. Should A.I. be challenging for quest mobs? trash mobs? dungeons? raids? What is the appropriate time that an encounter should be finished? Or what is the determining factor for the success/fail rate, that deems an encounter too easy, or too challenging? Until you have metrics of your target audience, it would be impossible to know.
Besides combat A.I., there is also non-combat A.I., which takes even greater logic into consideration.
Too many people generalize about A.I., without even understanding the fundamentals of it, then they use a broad brush saying, "A.I. is stupid". It's actually ironic.
Originally posted by ArtificeVenatus AI can only be as smart as the people programming it.
I highly doubt the programmers who created Deep Blue which beat Kasporov are even 1/100 the chess player that Kasporov is.
Computers calculate better, there is no doubt about that. Still it took an enormous advantage in the speed of calculating moves and a lot of effort into programming them to best use their advantage before machines started consistently beating the best chess players and chess is a simple game. It has enormously complex strategies but it has easy to understand rules and the rules leave nothing to the imagination. It is a game of pure calculation. Thus it is easy (atleast compared to other task) to teach the machine how to use it's natural advantage. We on the other hand don't need to calculate the insanely high number of moves per second in order to formulate good strategies, especially if we have experience.
Now when someone is trying to program a machine to do a more complex task that requires more then the calculations of simple rules than it is a much harder feat and indeed it takes a skilled programmer. Machines can be programmed to calculate better than us for simple task, it is true but they can't be taught to be "smarter" or more "intelligent" then us yet.
At best it depends how you define intelligence, but it's like comparing a savant who can calculate multiplications of any number up to so many digits to someone like Einstein or Newton.
Now when someone is trying to program a machine to do a more complex task that requires more then the calculations of simple rules than it is a much harder feat and indeed it takes a skilled programmer. Machines can be programmed to calculate better than us for simple task, it is true but they can't be taught to be "smarter" or more "intelligent" then us yet.
In the case of chess, they are "smarter".
Another example. Optimization. DHL (or was it UPS) uses optimization math from a MIT professor to figure out the optimal routes of their trucks.
No human on earth can figure out those routes. Now the MIT professor is pretty smart for sure, but "smarter" than the computer in looking at billions & billions of possibilities and find the best one? I don't think so.
If we are that smart, we would not be using the AI for those tasks.
Now when someone is trying to program a machine to do a more complex task that requires more then the calculations of simple rules than it is a much harder feat and indeed it takes a skilled programmer. Machines can be programmed to calculate better than us for simple task, it is true but they can't be taught to be "smarter" or more "intelligent" then us yet.
In the case of chess, they are "smarter".
Another example. Optimization. DHL (or was it UPS) uses optimization math from a MIT professor to figure out the optimal routes of their trucks.
No human on earth can figure out those routes. Now the MIT professor is pretty smart for sure, but "smarter" than the computer in looking at billions & billions of possibilities and find the best one? I don't think so.
If we are that smart, we would not be using the AI for those tasks.
I wish you read/quoted/responded what I put beneath that, because I already anticipated that response and addressed it.
You mean this? "At best it depends how you define intelligence, but it's like comparing a savant who can calculate multiplications of any number up to so many digits to someone like Einstein or Newton."
Of course it depends on how I define intelligence. Because you can clearly define it to support your point of view.
and yes, it is exactly as you said .. like comparing a savant to Einstein ... and when we are talking about complex possibilities, optimizations and so on ... the "savant" (i.e. computer) is more "intelligent" in the measure of abilities of finding solution and solving problem.
In fact, the important quality of Einstein & Newton is creativity ... not raw intelligence power. But again, we are differing in definitions.
You mean this? "At best it depends how you define intelligence, but it's like comparing a savant who can calculate multiplications of any number up to so many digits to someone like Einstein or Newton."
Of course it depends on how I define intelligence. Because you can clearly define it to support your point of view.
and yes, it is exactly as you said .. like comparing a savant to Einstein ... and when we are talking about complex possibilities, optimizations and so on ... the "savant" (i.e. computer) is more "intelligent" in the measure of abilities of finding solution and solving problem.
In fact, the important quality of Einstein & Newton is creativity ... not raw intelligence power. But again, we are differing in definitions.
Well we seem to be in agreement now other than the definition of intelligence. The savant can be considered more intelligent but by the same token an idoit like me can be considered more intelligent than certain savants when it comes to certain things. So it depends how we define intelligence and therefore I raised it twice before engaging you further in this conversation. Now personally I think intelligence is a very broad thing and ability to calculate is definitely a part of it. As I conceded in my first sentence in my original reply to you machines are well ahead of us in that regard, I think I said without doubt. All I dispute is that intelligence is only the ability to calculate within strict confines.
Comments
yeh .. and "correct" terminology by industrial research firms, this site (and don't give me that they will fix it later speech, they have not yet) and many other mmo sites & reviews clearly indicate that many (but not all) MMOs are lobby games, without persistent virtual worlds.
Oh, i doubt there is any communication issues, since most here can seem to read my mind.
Sure you can, it doesnt have any value in just stating same thing when discussion was past that....on like page 3.
Of course it does .. just not to you.
You don't think i am here trying convince others, or bring anything new, do you? You don't know this forum is mostly flogging the dead horse, and there is really no new arguments to be had?
Of course it doesnt to me, i try to stay out of flogging dead horses as much as i can.
Does not seem like it though .. you are still flogging the dead horse about flogging the dead horse. You know that comes up a lot, right?
Flogging the horse on what exactly? Ai is definitely not dead horse, its just a pony right now and very much alive.
Aren't you not flogging the dead horse on "flogging the dead horse"? The "flogging the dead horse" phenomena came up very often here.
In fact, every time someone don't like an opinion (and lets be frank, nothing is really new here), they will play the "flogging of dead horse" card.
Nope, reliance on dumb Ai is flogging dead horse, thats what youre doing. So once youre done, maybe you could do some healthy posts instead?
TL;DR for anyone who doesn't want to read 20 pages:
Smart AI is bad mmmkay?
Why?
It would rape your face 9/10 times and you would hate the game
Nuh-uh!
Yes-huh!
etc etc etc.
Well, if you read the topic (you can skip all posts by certain poster safely) you would notice your post is nonsense.
etc etc etc
Oh, yeah I forgot a line, so it is nonsense. Insert this as the first line, and then its pretty accurate.
what do you mean by "nope"? You are still flogging the dead horse about i am flogging the dead horse, are you not?
I never deny that I am doing so .. since there is nothing new (almost nothing .. except that thread about diablo-like games) here anyway. But it is funny that you are not honest about what you are doing.
Look at how many post you have made about "flogging a dead horse". If that is not flogging a dead horse, what is?
Ahhhhhh, so telling you to not flog the dead horse is actually flogging the dead horse. mmmmkay.
Of course .. in fact .. just go look at however posts are there in this topic, and others and accuse others of flogging the dead horse.
Don't tell me you think is a new thing.
A lot of you are missing the point.
Combat A.I. needs to be balanced for the various types of people that play. There are younger and older gamers, disabilities (eyesight, deafness, etc.), and casual/hardcore gamers. Stop being so self-centered. Whatever you think might be trivial to you, might be difficult for others.
Some of you need to be more specific. Should A.I. be challenging for quest mobs? trash mobs? dungeons? raids? What is the appropriate time that an encounter should be finished? Or what is the determining factor for the success/fail rate, that deems an encounter too easy, or too challenging? Until you have metrics of your target audience, it would be impossible to know.
Besides combat A.I., there is also non-combat A.I., which takes even greater logic into consideration.
Too many people generalize about A.I., without even understanding the fundamentals of it, then they use a broad brush saying, "A.I. is stupid". It's actually ironic.
I highly doubt the programmers who created Deep Blue which beat Kasporov are even 1/100 the chess player that Kasporov is.
Computers calculate better, there is no doubt about that. Still it took an enormous advantage in the speed of calculating moves and a lot of effort into programming them to best use their advantage before machines started consistently beating the best chess players and chess is a simple game. It has enormously complex strategies but it has easy to understand rules and the rules leave nothing to the imagination. It is a game of pure calculation. Thus it is easy (atleast compared to other task) to teach the machine how to use it's natural advantage. We on the other hand don't need to calculate the insanely high number of moves per second in order to formulate good strategies, especially if we have experience.
Now when someone is trying to program a machine to do a more complex task that requires more then the calculations of simple rules than it is a much harder feat and indeed it takes a skilled programmer. Machines can be programmed to calculate better than us for simple task, it is true but they can't be taught to be "smarter" or more "intelligent" then us yet.
At best it depends how you define intelligence, but it's like comparing a savant who can calculate multiplications of any number up to so many digits to someone like Einstein or Newton.
In the case of chess, they are "smarter".
Another example. Optimization. DHL (or was it UPS) uses optimization math from a MIT professor to figure out the optimal routes of their trucks.
No human on earth can figure out those routes. Now the MIT professor is pretty smart for sure, but "smarter" than the computer in looking at billions & billions of possibilities and find the best one? I don't think so.
If we are that smart, we would not be using the AI for those tasks.
I wish you read/quoted/responded what I put beneath that, because I already anticipated that response and addressed it.
You mean this? "At best it depends how you define intelligence, but it's like comparing a savant who can calculate multiplications of any number up to so many digits to someone like Einstein or Newton."
Of course it depends on how I define intelligence. Because you can clearly define it to support your point of view.
and yes, it is exactly as you said .. like comparing a savant to Einstein ... and when we are talking about complex possibilities, optimizations and so on ... the "savant" (i.e. computer) is more "intelligent" in the measure of abilities of finding solution and solving problem.
In fact, the important quality of Einstein & Newton is creativity ... not raw intelligence power. But again, we are differing in definitions.
Well we seem to be in agreement now other than the definition of intelligence. The savant can be considered more intelligent but by the same token an idoit like me can be considered more intelligent than certain savants when it comes to certain things. So it depends how we define intelligence and therefore I raised it twice before engaging you further in this conversation. Now personally I think intelligence is a very broad thing and ability to calculate is definitely a part of it. As I conceded in my first sentence in my original reply to you machines are well ahead of us in that regard, I think I said without doubt. All I dispute is that intelligence is only the ability to calculate within strict confines.
Does having more intelligent AI make more money? Answer is No.
End of story.
TSW - AoC - Aion - WOW - EVE - Fallen Earth - Co - Rift - || XNA C# Java Development