Jump to content


It's not the bots, it's your decisions that make or break a game.


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

CorvusCorvax #1 Posted 09 April 2019 - 06:49 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4278 battles
  • 4,435
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Lately, there has been a lot of in-game chatter about how the only reason one or the other side won/lost is due to how the bots played.  When looking at the after-game stats, it doesn't really look like either side had any kind of bot advantage, but one side or the other had a human advantage.

 

I was playing my T9 Batwing the other day.  I got into a battle where on the other team, a well-known GAA pilot was flying a T9 GAA.  This was an asymmetric Albion map with two plants on one side, and two garrisons on the other, with a central airbase.  I played well, but ultimately we lost because the things I did well were not the things that needed to be done, when they needed to be done.

 

My first good decision was going to the far Plant, and helping my GAA take it by shooting down the red GAA bot and his red MRF "helper."  This led to my first bad decision - I stuck around, waiting for the human GAA to show up.  I waited 20 seconds before figuring out that I should have IMMEDIATELY gone to the other plant.  I can influence which targets my bots will attack by damaging parts of them.  I could have spent that 20 seconds blowing up all the unarmored non-flak parts of the plant, then moving on to do the thing I should have done in the beginning.

 

With two plants, we would have had a comfortable lead in points production.  I just need to prowl and make sure the red GAA don't take the plants back.  But my delay caused us to hold only one plant, while the red team went about taking the other three non-plant sectors.  By the time I got over to the other plant, it was being attacked by two GAA, one bot, one human.  and that human was concentrating on shooting down my team's GAA.  If I had been smarter, and made the right decision, I could have got there and tied him up while my GAA did the hard work.

 

So, I have two targets, and decided (poorly, again) to work on them both at the same time, working the overheat cycle on my 20mm cannon.  What I should have done is just work on the human, and worry about the bot GAA later.  The bot GAA was zero threat to me, but the human knew his stuff.   If I had concentrated on the human, I would not have put my plane in a position to have him hose me down with 30mm and blow me up, flipping the plant to red.  If I had instead got the human first, then the other GAA, It would have been half way to blue.

 

My final bad decision was to go and finish the human GAA off before the squall line.  I should have waited another ten seconds to begin my attack run.

 

As it was, he got to respawn, and I got to get triple-teamed by red bots.  

 

Even though I finished on my team far and away the top points getter, and did some stuff really well, I made a series of costly errors that denied us even the opportunity at a victory.  Both team's bots did about the same.  But I chose poorly and was rewarded properly for my poor choices.

 

The bots are not the reason that you win or lose.  The choices that you make or don't have much more influence.



wscarter007 #2 Posted 09 April 2019 - 07:48 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 5951 battles
  • 224
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    10-31-2017
Well written brother, as you said it comes down to choices made during battle.  One of the main points I try to make to new players is this game comes down to arial chess. You need to always try to stay 1 step ahead. 

LMG #3 Posted 09 April 2019 - 08:20 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2436 battles
  • 1,986
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Well, I had a bots-only match on an Albion layout with 4 Garrisons and one Forward Airstrip in the middle, I was flying the Me P.1099 B-2 at the time. I capped two garrisons and flew past the airfield that was actively contested and already had most ground targets blown off. Then as I reached the third garrison and began flipping the thing my bots lost the other two sectors back-to-back, as well as the airfield, giving the enemy team a very early superiority.

 

What followed was me capping the garrison I was in, the one next to it while the enemy bots flipped the one I just got, going back to flip the garrison the enemy bots just captured, and the match ended as I flew over the airfield once again in a loss. In total I got 5 sectors, the enemy team got 7, and my bots barely managed to capture the airstrip right before the game ended. So my bots kept focusing on the airstrip while dying one by one, while the enemy bots kept capturing everything I had just gotten, and I was desperately trying to catch up to the more coordinated bots, while being entirely unable to assist in the aerial battle.

 

I don't really think that's how it should work :sceptic:


Edited by LMG, 09 April 2019 - 09:00 PM.

This is my IL-2 (t). There are many like it, but this one is mine. :child:

Stygian_Alchemist #4 Posted 09 April 2019 - 08:56 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 11452 battles
  • 2,295
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018
I'd say the truth lies -somewhere- between a lot of reasons as to why you lose. Can/are bots a factor sometimes? Certainly. Are they the -only- factor or even the primary one? That's obviously up for debate.

I do agree that a lot of matches are won and lost by bad decision making. I know I certainly almost immediately know when I derped up and it could cost me the match.. but every time you make a mistake, hopefully it gets removed from your repertoire or messups and you learn.

CorvusCorvax #5 Posted 09 April 2019 - 09:01 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4278 battles
  • 4,435
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostLMG, on 09 April 2019 - 08:20 PM, said:

Well, I had a bots-only match on an Albion layout with 4 Garrisons and one Forward Airstrip in the middle, I was flying the Me P.1099 B-2 at the time. I capped two garrisons and flew past the airfield that was actively contested and already had most ground targets blown off. Then as I reached the third garrison and began flipping the thing my bots lost the other two sectors back-to-back, as well as the airfield, giving the enemy team a very early superiority.

 

What followed mas me capping the garrison I was in, the one next to it while the enemy bots flipped the one I just got, going back to flip the garrison the enemy bots just captured, and the match ended as I flew over the airfield once again in a loss. In total I got 5 sectors, the enemy team got 7, and my bots barely managed to capture the airstrip right before the game ended. So my bots kept focusing on the airstrip while dying one by one, while the enemy bots kept capturing everything I had just gotten, and I was desperately trying to catch up to the more coordinated bots, while being entirely unable to assist in the aerial battle.

 

I don't really think that's how it should work :sceptic:

 

In this scenario, I think the airfield was a higher-priority target than you assigned it, for exactly the reason cited:  it's a bot-magnet, and you have to make it blue so they go do other stuff.  In my scenario, taking and keeping the two plants was more important than taking the central airbase.  I can patrol (with the Batplane) two adjacent plants, and if I can keep them for 4.5 minutes, we win going away.  Four garrisons and an airfield?  Take two garrisons and the airfield, and you might actually find yourself near superiority at the end of the battle.

Edited by CorvusCorvax, 09 April 2019 - 09:01 PM.


Booze_Morgan #6 Posted 09 April 2019 - 10:14 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 750 battles
  • 586
  • [A_C_E] A_C_E
  • Member since:
    10-01-2018
Who was the enemy human GAA?
Spoiler

 


losttwo #7 Posted 09 April 2019 - 10:30 PM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 5412 battles
  • 13,986
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

Just because someone says to always play 22 Black

doesn't always mean it is the right choice.

As long as their are bots in the game the human element for winning is lessened.

Good decisions or bad.

Only Madam Ruby can tell you if you will win or lose.

 

The point is that you try to win regardless of the circumstances.



hoom #8 Posted 09 April 2019 - 11:56 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 10255 battles
  • 2,021
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Block Quote

 In this scenario, I think the airfield was a higher-priority target than you assigned it, for exactly the reason cited:  it's a bot-magnet, and you have to make it blue so they go do other stuff. 

 That.

Sometimes/map layouts you have to go help flip a particular point thats typically lower priority just to make sure the bots don't spend too long to capture it, you gotta get in there & flip it quick so they go attack more important targets.

 

Though not exactly an easy thing to do in a GAA where the cap is an Airfield with most/all ground targets already destroyed & large, possibly high-altitude furball above it...

And pretty often the reason your bots are failing to take that airfield is gonna be a player in a turn fighter slaughtering them -> freeing up his bots to go chase you round the map re-capping everything you cap.


Edited by hoom, 09 April 2019 - 11:57 PM.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le SerB.

Captain_Rownd #9 Posted 09 April 2019 - 11:59 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2443 battles
  • 1,113
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015
Unfortunately a lot of computer gamers erroneously feel like they "should" be able to play a perfect "unbeatable" game and always win as a result, and any other outcome is "a problem".  That might be true if the competition is strictly one-on-one, but not when you are on a team of either players or bots.  Sometimes your team performs poorly, and that's just part of the game.  Panties get in a bunch, a lot of useless blaming begins, and self-indulgent conspiracy theories run wild.  You can do everything "right" and lose badly, or do everything "wrong" and win, and that's completely OK.  Accept it and go back to enjoying blowing things up. 

Edited by Captain_Rownd, 10 April 2019 - 12:00 AM.

Favorites:

SPAD S.510:: MiG-3 :: I-250 :: Ju 88 P :: He 100 D-1 :: Caudron C.714


Stygian_Alchemist #10 Posted 10 April 2019 - 12:16 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 11452 battles
  • 2,295
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View PostCaptain_Rownd, on 09 April 2019 - 05:59 PM, said:

Unfortunately a lot of computer gamers erroneously feel like they "should" be able to play a perfect "unbeatable" game and always win as a result, and any other outcome is "a problem".  That might be true if the competition is strictly one-on-one, but not when you are on a team of either players or bots.  Sometimes your team performs poorly, and that's just part of the game.  Panties get in a bunch, a lot of useless blaming begins, and self-indulgent conspiracy theories run wild.  You can do everything "right" and lose badly, or do everything "wrong" and win, and that's completely OK.  Accept it and go back to enjoying blowing things up. 

 



CorvusCorvax #11 Posted 10 April 2019 - 12:52 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4278 battles
  • 4,435
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCaptain_Rownd, on 09 April 2019 - 11:59 PM, said:

Unfortunately a lot of computer gamers erroneously feel like they "should" be able to play a perfect "unbeatable" game and always win as a result, and any other outcome is "a problem".  That might be true if the competition is strictly one-on-one, but not when you are on a team of either players or bots.  Sometimes your team performs poorly, and that's just part of the game.  Panties get in a bunch, a lot of useless blaming begins, and self-indulgent conspiracy theories run wild.  You can do everything "right" and lose badly, or do everything "wrong" and win, and that's completely OK.  Accept it and go back to enjoying blowing things up. 

 

There is no argument from me that there is RNG that happens.  And sometimes, you get a really low number.  :)

 

But the really weird thing is that it happens much less often to talented players.  Hmmmm.  Correlation, yes?  And I will argue a cause - because the player who has a high win rate does the right thing, at the right time much of the time.



CorvusCorvax #12 Posted 10 April 2019 - 12:53 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4278 battles
  • 4,435
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postlosttwo, on 09 April 2019 - 10:30 PM, said:

 

As long as their are bots in the game the human element for winning is lessened.

And sometimes, with bots in the game, your chances of winning improve.  Surely you have been in a battle where your human team mates were complete potatoes, yes?

hoom #13 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:16 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 10255 battles
  • 2,021
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Block Quote

 And sometimes, with bots in the game, your chances of winning improve.  Surely you have been in a battle where your human team mates were complete potatoes, yes?

Fo' shizzle.

Not even just potato players, I've had more than a few high player-count battles where my team got stomped despite being highly stacked with better players.


C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le SerB.

Captain_Rownd #14 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:33 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2443 battles
  • 1,113
  • Member since:
    09-28-2015

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 10 April 2019 - 12:52 AM, said:

 

But the really weird thing is that it happens much less often to talented players.  Hmmmm.  Correlation, yes?  And I will argue a cause - because the player who has a high win rate does the right thing, at the right time much of the time.

 

And generally does the things they do much more effectively

Favorites:

SPAD S.510:: MiG-3 :: I-250 :: Ju 88 P :: He 100 D-1 :: Caudron C.714


Bobby_Tables #15 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:47 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 8183 battles
  • 1,873
  • [-DOW-] -DOW-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

View Posthoom, on 09 April 2019 - 07:16 PM, said:

Fo' shizzle.

Not even just potato players, I've had more than a few high player-count battles where my team got stomped despite being highly stacked with better players.

 

Private Potato here, reporting for duty, SIR! :honoring:



Stygian_Alchemist #16 Posted 10 April 2019 - 01:51 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 11452 battles
  • 2,295
  • [A-S-S] A-S-S
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018
Something about this entire thread has tickled in my brain since you first posted it. Your entire argument seems to come from the premise that -one- player makes or breaks a match at all times. One error, or one set of errors. I appreciate the notion, but I would say that far fewer games are determined by a single player's (AI or Human) decision set. Like air crashes, train crashes, etc... there are a bunch of things that lead to the loss as far as I see it.

Sometimes it -is- the bots. Sometimes it is -your- decisions.. sometimes no one made a -bad- decision.. including the bots.. but one team had more success with the good options they choose. Sometimes it's all of everything you can think of. I can't name the # of DC on load games I've lost because it took me too long to get back in and they already had a huge capture advantage either.. so bugs also cannot be discounted (JS Players should all too keenly understand this one) as reasons for losses.

It is very sound and sage advice though to examine what you did and did not do and what choices you had to make through the battle and try to figure out where you, as an individual, may have cost the game or adversely effected it.

losttwo #17 Posted 10 April 2019 - 02:13 AM

    which way do we go?

  • Community Ace
  • 5412 battles
  • 13,986
  • [S-S-G] S-S-G
  • Member since:
    05-15-2012

View PostCaptain_Rownd, on 09 April 2019 - 06:59 PM, said:

Unfortunately a lot of computer gamers erroneously feel like they "should" be able to play a perfect "unbeatable" game and always win as a result, and any other outcome is "a problem".  That might be true if the competition is strictly one-on-one, but not when you are on a team of either players or bots.  Sometimes your team performs poorly, and that's just part of the game.  Panties get in a bunch, a lot of useless blaming begins, and self-indulgent conspiracy theories run wild.  You can do everything "right" and lose badly, or do everything "wrong" and win, and that's completely OK.  Accept it and go back to enjoying blowing things up. 

 

:honoring:

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 April 2019 - 07:53 PM, said:

And sometimes, with bots in the game, your chances of winning improve.  Surely you have been in a battle where your human team mates were complete potatoes, yes?

 

Of course with bots in the game your chances of winning improve.

Once you learn their programing then your chance of winning increases.

 

Have you ever played computer Chess ?

Level 1 is easy to win. The basic program is 1 move deep.

Each piece is evaluated for points and capture at the current position.

 

The higher the level the " if this then this " begins.

Program seems to think ahead more than 1,2,3 or more moves.

 

Similar to Chess computers the WOWP bots are also programed with limited number of patterns and moves.

You learn their patterns for each BOT plane you increase your chance of winning.

 

Humans are unpredictable. Bots are predictable.



LMG #18 Posted 10 April 2019 - 02:24 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2436 battles
  • 1,986
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 09 April 2019 - 04:01 PM, said:

In this scenario, I think the airfield was a higher-priority target than you assigned it, for exactly the reason cited:  it's a bot-magnet, and you have to make it blue so they go do other stuff.  In my scenario, taking and keeping the two plants was more important than taking the central airbase.  I can patrol (with the Batplane) two adjacent plants, and if I can keep them for 4.5 minutes, we win going away.  Four garrisons and an airfield?  Take two garrisons and the airfield, and you might actually find yourself near superiority at the end of the battle.

 

There were several problems with capturing the airfield:

  1. I was on a Me P.1099 B-2, which aside of having the usual issues of being a GAA, is equipped with long-range quad 30s that are horribly unreliable in defense, let alone offense. So shooting planes on it is out of the question.
  2. It was a contested Forward Airstrip. A neutral Forward Airstrip needs you to kill most ground targets to cap. If a single ally dies, the sector cannot be captured solely by ground targets and you'll need to go shooting planes, something my plane cannot do reliably. And wouldn't you know it, the first thing my bots did was die there :)
  3. Being on a ground pounder, my main job is to capture sectors. Doubly so if I'm the only human ground pounder in my team, let alone the only human in the entire match. If I'm not getting the caps, no one is, and in this scenario my bots certainly did not spread out like the enemy bots did.

 

Considering the above issues, the best case scenario in case I would have gone for the airfield would be that we cap it and the enemy gets the garrisons, all 4 of them. The next move would be to secure the garrisons, but considering my bot's performance so far, chances are they'd end up losing the airfield before I get a Garrison, resulting in superiority. I could not try to defend the airfield due to the inherent weaknesses of my plane, and because my team needed caps and would not go get them on their own. At that point we can't reasonably catch back up without a superiority of our own, something my bots are clearly incapable of. It's a case of "I cannot do everything on my own" :facepalm:


This is my IL-2 (t). There are many like it, but this one is mine. :child:

hoom #19 Posted 10 April 2019 - 04:15 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 10255 battles
  • 2,021
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Block Quote

 Your entire argument seems to come from the premise that -one- player makes or breaks a match at all times.

Not every time at all times.

 

But a lot of the time I can see immediately that I should have done something that I chose not to or I made a silly handling error & that meant we lose a cap we shouldn't/fail to take one we should have -> lose.


C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le SerB.

CorvusCorvax #20 Posted 10 April 2019 - 04:34 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 4278 battles
  • 4,435
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostWhite_Widow18, on 10 April 2019 - 01:51 AM, said:

Your entire argument seems to come from the premise that -one- player makes or breaks a match at all times.

 

Please read the final sentence of my original post.  It was written that way on purpose.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users