Vote Here! Fixing the MPC As a Solution to Poor AI?

**=HighXplosive=** · February 12, 2010, 07:03 PM

Summary

Someone once said that a working MPC would be the holy grail of TW games.

That said, from reading a lot of the anger and frustration at in this forum (much of which I share) against the numerous problems with the game (of which for me the biggest is the BAI) I find it strange that very little attention has been directed at this possible lateral solution. Fixing the BAI is an impossible task: I do not consider the AI to be programmable to a state whereby it would constantly offer fresh challenge and thus act like and think like a human being. I simply cannot see this happening.

I can see the BAI at least lining up properly and fighting me instead of doing its current ludicrous crap but since CA has confirmed their lack of enthusiasm in "fixing" the BAI (a smart move in my opinion seeing as satisfaction can never be reached here), I propose that instead of fixing the BAI the more obvious and potent lateral solution of focusing on the so far woefully underworked and tokenistic effort MPC that has been given to us.

It has a lot of potential, but CA has directed its resources towards NTW and abandoned in all but written word ETW in its currently disappointing state. I suggest we get a run this poll to what the title says and see what everyone thinks. Personally, I'd be happy if this was implemented for ETW OR NTW: I think its a total waste of potential to abandon the MPC and I think its the best change of "fixing" the AI problem.

My Perception of the AI Problem

Two things are apparent:
- CA cannot be reasonably expected to program AI to the satisfaction of every player. They have neither to time nor the technology to do so.
- AI is exactly as it stands: Artificial Intelligence, its purpose is to try to simulate intelligence to, in this case, offer a challenging game.

My simple proposal is why the hell bother with AI? Why not simply repurpose the game as one between people. Just because Total War is it's own type of game, there is no reason why it cannot replicate the multiplayer functionality of other games. Why have artificial intellgence when you can just have human intelligence (stupidity?). I think CA needs a radical change of thought processes and realise that they are digging a grave if they try and persuade us they can fix the AI: it is an impossible task.

Everyone's defintion of fixed will differ: I personally would never be satisfied by the challenge offered by AI because if its good I know its cheating and if its poor it breaks immersion.

Multiplayer Models

There are many different possible ways of modelling multiplayer gameplay between players for a TW game including, but not limited to:

- An MMO campaign between millions of players (think a massive grand campaign on a server)
- Adverserial campaigns between many to many players, via dedicated servers (like current GC but better).
- Adverserial battles between many to many players, via dedicated servers (better battles in general and better customisation).
- Join in progress rolling battles with reinforcements as players (like most other multiplayer models on other types of games).
- Progressive set piece campaigns (think Day of Defeats linear flag progression as an analogy).
- etc

The possibilities are endless: shared control of armies, multiple player armies, "Risk" style campaigns, grand campaigns that work and don't lag. On the issue of time, since not everyone can play a campaign online from start to end, there is no reason why a good solution to suit people without much time cannot be met. I simply propose that multiplayer is a good way to fix the AI problem (campaign or not).

I also strongly advocate dedicated servers due to the poor performance of P2P matchmaking systems.

I also strongly advoate the model that World in Conflict adopts (an RTS game): drop-in, join in progress multiplayer model.

I doubt this will actually happen, but I hope some of you will be encouraged to think outside the box and entertain the idea TW could be different in an amazing way.

**♔Dignan♔** · February 12, 2010, 07:23 PM

Would you replace your washing machine with a human who hand washes your clothes????? Of course not.

I assume "MPC" refers to Multiplayer. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If I'm right then my answer is NO WAY. Multiplayer is not a solution for the poor BAI. Most people don't have time to do MP battles or campaigns. I bought the game to play single player. If I want good multiplayer to play against another human I'll go play chess with someone.

The beauty of PC games is that you can play against the PC. They need to give us at least a semi-competent BAI.

MPC has nothing to do with the BAI or CAI for that matter. You can't fix "artificial intelligence" with human multiplayer gaming.

**=HighXplosive=** · February 12, 2010, 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by Dignan

I assume "MPC" refers to Multiplayer. Correct me if I'm wrong.

If I'm right then my answer is NO WAY. Multiplayer is not a solution for the poor BAI. Most people don't have time to do MP battles or campaigns. I bought the game to play single player. If I want good multiplayer to play against another human I'll go play chess with someone.

The beauty of PC games is that you can play against the PC. They need to give us at least a semi-competent BAI.

MPC has nothing to do with the BAI or CAI for that matter.

Dignan, I encourage you to think outside the box: you say "no time". Perhaps my poll is poorly worded, but I don't suggest the MPC be exactly as it says on the tin but I do suggest that multiplayer is the way to go. The AI simply doesn't cut it. It all depends on how it is modelled and if it is done correctly, players like yourself with little time can still enjoy challenging campaigns/battles. Nothing says multiplayer matches have to take days.

I'm also well aware its not really a fix, but any reasonable player will accept a true fixed AI is not possible since we all differ in out interpretation of what fixed means. To me, AI is a lazy version of multiplayer. Since the AI CANNOT by definition be fixed to an acceptably challenging level, why bother wasting time on it?

**♔Dignan♔** · February 12, 2010, 07:35 PM

Originally Posted by =HighXplosive=

Dignan, I encourage you to think outside the box: you say "no time". Perhaps my poll is poorly worded, but I don't suggest the MPC be exactly as it says on the tin but I do suggest that multiplayer is the way to go. The AI simply doesn't cut it. It all depends on how it is modelled and if it is done correctly, players like yourself with little time can still enjoy challenging campaigns/battles. Nothing says multiplayer matches have to take days.

In a perfect world, yes...I would prefer to play against a human. The challenge would be greater and the opponent would be much more reactive to your tactics.

The convenient thing about single player is that you can come home from work and immediately fire up a game. The downside....the BAI sucks (hopefully CA will fix it in the upcoming patch). My issue is that if I started a multiplayer campaign with someone, I would feel bad when I have to delay the game due to real life issues. I appreciate your aim and your intention...I just think that MP is MP and BAI is BAI. One can't replace the other. If a workable solution to the "time issue" could be figured out, then I would probably play more MP.

I took you up on your challenge to "think outside the box" and here's what I came up with:

If players could somehow save an "imprint" of what sort of tactics they used in a battle and other players could download different "tactics approaches" from Steam to load into their games that the AI would then employ. That would be a good solution. Or if Steam could save different trends in campaign strategies that real human players used in MPCs then people could download these different campaign strategies and tactics that their game would then try to emulate. That would be awesome. I'm sure the programming for something like this would be horrendously complicated but we can dream...

PS. I Love your signature quote

**=HighXplosive=** · February 13, 2010, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by Dignan

In a perfect world, yes...I would prefer to play against a human. The challenge would be greater and the opponent would be much more reactive to your tactics.

The convenient thing about single player is that you can come home from work and immediately fire up a game. The downside....the BAI sucks (hopefully CA will fix it in the upcoming patch). My issue is that if I started a multiplayer campaign with someone, I would feel bad when I have to delay the game due to real life issues. I appreciate your aim and your intention...I just think that MP is MP and BAI is BAI. One can't replace the other. If a workable solution to the "time issue" could be figured out, then I would probably play more MP.

I took you up on your challenge to "think outside the box" and here's what I came up with:

If players could somehow save an "imprint" of what sort of tactics they used in a battle and other players could download different "tactics approaches" from Steam to load into their games that the AI would then employ. That would be a good solution. Or if Steam could save different trends in campaign strategies that real human players used in MPCs then people could download these different campaign strategies and tactics that their game would then try to emulate. That would be awesome. I'm sure the programming for something like this would be horrendously complicated but we can dream...

PS. I Love your signature quote

That's a good idea, but you are correct to say it would be a programming nightmare. I suggest multiplayer vs humans because its already an obvious thing in other types of games. It just the TW series have been responsive to the demands of the player base which doesn't think outside the box. People are happy with SP focused TW because they haven't thought of the other side of the story, nor are they interested in change. I'm sure if enough people advocated a change CA would recognise it.

Like I said though, my poll is probably poorly worded. Have you ever played the game World in Conflict? It uses a join-in-progress, drop in model for multiplayer using dedicated servers. It's an RTS game. What I'm saying is there's nothing to stop CA modelling the MPC and MP so that it can suit people short on time: for example, a perpetual campaign with many players whereby you personally don't always have to be present because others will.

**Neddy** · February 12, 2010, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by =HighXplosive=

I'm also well aware its not really a fix, but any reasonable player will accept a true fixed AI is not possible since we all differ in out interpretation of what fixed means. To me, AI is a lazy version of multiplayer. Since the AI CANNOT by definition be fixed to an acceptably challenging level, why bother wasting time on it?

Cannot? Acceptably challenging?

Darth and hip69

have managed to make an "acceptably challenging" AI without modding tools and within the Empire framework. OK, so I have not lost a battle on H/H, but that does not mean I have not been challenged. I also worked hard (when I played) to attain favourable battle conditions before allowing contact between the AI enemy's and my units.

Are they, I, and everyone who enjoys DM/DMUC "unreasonable players"?

An acceptable AI is quite possible, and by setting your heights for AI so high, you discourage attempts to even get the AI's units to line up and shoot at you. I don't believe it is impossible at all, and if CA gave up on it then I would simply not bother playing TW games.

**=HighXplosive=** · February 13, 2010, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by Neddy

Cannot? Acceptably challenging?

Darth and hip69

have managed to make an "acceptably challenging" AI without modding tools and within the Empire framework. OK, so I have not lost a battle on H/H, but that does not mean I have not been challenged. I also worked hard (when I played) to attain favourable battle conditions before allowing contact between the AI enemy's and my units.

Are they, I, and everyone who enjoys DM/DMUC "unreasonable players"?

An acceptable AI is quite possible, and by setting your heights for AI so high, you discourage attempts to even get the AI's units to line up and shoot at you. I don't believe it is impossible at all, and if CA gave up on it then I would simply not bother playing TW games.

Even with Darth's AI improvements the AI still can't line up and shoot at me...I'm I still setting my expectations too high?

**Neddy** · February 13, 2010, 06:55 AM

Originally Posted by =HighXplosive=

Even with Darth's AI improvements the AI still can't line up and shoot at me...I'm I still setting my expectations too high?

The what?!

When I had DMUC running, I had the AI lining up for almost every battle. The first battle in which the AI enemy did this shocked me. It was so strange to have the enemy actually stand and fight.

To tell you the truth, I haven't come across another DM user that hasn't been happy in this regard. Even the poll on DM has the very large majority voting that DM has resolved the melee bug either %100 or %75. I personally haven't voted yet because I was only part-way through my campaign when I deleted Empire altogether. My impressions up until then were very good though.

DM Melee Poll Here

I think it would be a good idea to contact Darth or Syntax on the DM forums (try 5.Xx feedback thread which the above poll contains), if you haven't already, and let them know. You might also want to take some screenshots of what happens in the battle when your troops and the AI's come within firing range and thereafter.

**Neddy** · February 12, 2010, 07:23 PM

I generally (as opposed to specifically, with "Empire" representing the specific) prefer to play single player campaigns. That's my thing with TW and that's where the fun is at for me. If a workable multi-player campaign was up and running, I might be tempted to try it on occasion. That would not make up for the state of the BAI for me though.

The BAI needs to be fixed [full-stop]. CA need to devote resources to it, and they need to have done that within the first few weeks/months of Empire's release. They haven't/they couldn't/they didn't, and no-one can rewind time, but they had an obligation to get the game into some sort of satisfactory state before moving on to the next project. Even now ... the TW fans are still around and still hoping for the BAI to be fixed. They must be the most devoted and persistent fans I've ever come across. Good on them, and shame on CA for abusing that.

Personally, the instability of the game is the deal breaker though. For all the faults and delays, the DLCs while the game still sucks, for all those pesky and distracting problems, with a little help from DM and DMUC, I could still play this game. When the game crashes at every turn, as it does for me, there is no enjoyment left to be had.

That said, the MPC form of the game alone will never be enough for me.

**Gallienus** · February 12, 2010, 07:51 PM

Umm nowhere in your post is MPC defined. My understanding is that it means multi-processor core. Currently I run Empire Total War on a Quad Core 3.0 Ghz system. I like multiple processors because they make computer programs go fast. Anyone who doesn't like them or who makes a poll complaining about their use has to have something wrong with them. I'm sorry but that's how it is.

**l33tl4m3r** · February 12, 2010, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by Gallienus

Umm nowhere in your post is MPC defined. My understanding is that it means multi-processor core. Currently I run Empire Total War on a Quad Core 3.0 Ghz system. I like multiple processors because they make computer programs go fast. Anyone who doesn't like them or who makes a poll complaining about their use has to have something wrong with them. I'm sorry but that's how it is.

MPC = Multiplayer Campaign; a Grand Campaign with multiple real-world players taking control of other factions and playing in the same game at the same time with you.

**♔DoomBunny666♔** · February 13, 2010, 07:43 AM

A MPC would be awesome, but what if you have noone to play, or if you have bad net connection?

**=HighXplosive=** · February 13, 2010, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by DoomBunny666

A MPC would be awesome, but what if you have noone to play, or if you have bad net connection?

What if everyone played and you had a good connection?

**rubenandthejets** · February 16, 2010, 08:14 PM

I voted no.
I want a single player game that works please. I have so much trouble getting a game on MP that it's not worth it.

**Rilder** · February 16, 2010, 08:29 PM

If I wanted Multiplayer I'd get a MMO or an FPS, I Play Total war to play singleplayer, not multiplayer, for all I care they could remove the ability to do anything multiplayer.