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

SgtZak #41 Posted 15 April 2019 - 01:28 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 4884 battles
  • 108
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    04-29-2014
Perhaps you explain the following:  Game vs BOTS.  Watched my missile base fail to fire anything for last 3 minutes, EXCEPT it did fire a shot at my airbase.  Watched my BOTS win and get to 800 first.  Garage - it was a defeat.   Hmmmm…..mmmm……...

CorvusCorvax #42 Posted 15 April 2019 - 02:53 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2948 battles
  • 3,226
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSgtZak, on 15 April 2019 - 01:28 PM, said:

Perhaps you explain the following:  Game vs BOTS.  Watched my missile base fail to fire anything for last 3 minutes, EXCEPT it did fire a shot at my airbase.  Watched my BOTS win and get to 800 first.  Garage - it was a defeat.   Hmmmm…..mmmm……...

 

How do you have time to watch what your military base does for three minutes?  Air combat requires actual participation, yes?

 

So, first, I want to see a replay of this battle.  If there is still a bug about the military base attacking blue sectors, it needs to be reported.

 

Second, if its not a bug, and you're keeping track of what your military base is doing, you're not focusing on your primary task.  If you watch your bots win, then you died after the squall line.  That one's on you, too.  You made a bad choice, and paid for it.



SgtZak #43 Posted 15 April 2019 - 03:33 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 4884 battles
  • 108
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    04-29-2014

"he choices that you make or don't have much more influence."  Final Sentence.  It does not explain.  Moreover, while I enjoy your erudite posts.

You fail to account for the programming that does in fact have far more effect on the outcome.  I could fly with an entire OWSS team and still lose to a bot team.

What your saying isn't untrue, the point is simply overstated.



CorvusCorvax #44 Posted 15 April 2019 - 04:43 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2948 battles
  • 3,226
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSgtZak, on 15 April 2019 - 03:33 PM, said:

"he choices that you make or don't have much more influence."  Final Sentence.  It does not explain.  Moreover, while I enjoy your erudite posts.

You fail to account for the programming that does in fact have far more effect on the outcome.  I could fly with an entire OWSS team and still lose to a bot team.

What your saying isn't untrue, the point is simply overstated.

 

Wrong.

 

If you're flying with OWSS and lose, I want to see the replay.  I've played with and against them, and they know their business.  If bots determined the outcomes of games, the win rate for everyone would be about 50%.  More or less, but about 50%.  But there are folks out there with win rates that are approach 80%.  That means that bots DO NOT determine outcome.  Stats don't lie.  

 

Every loss I had this weekend was due to humans on my teams.  Including me.  Every win I had this weekend was due to humans on my team.  Including me.  In fact, for one battle, I was the bait to distract the other team's humans.  It was about as hilarious as it gets.  But our team won going away - it was a stomp.

 

Bots don't make choices, they respond only to their coding.  Once you figure out what their coding tells them to do, you can defeat them 100% of the time.  If you can only win 50% of the bot-only battles, then it's not the bots that are the problem.



StoptheViolins #45 Posted 15 April 2019 - 04:55 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2167 battles
  • 1,212
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
I held two sectors in my Tu-2 while the AI death flailed trying to capture the central airfield instead of defending the other two capture points.  So the match ended in a loss.

SgtZak #46 Posted 15 April 2019 - 05:11 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 4884 battles
  • 108
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    04-29-2014
Corvus:  Appreciate the response.  Perhaps you're right many times.  But there are outcomes that you cannot explain.  That's due to MM.

CorvusCorvax #47 Posted 15 April 2019 - 05:15 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2948 battles
  • 3,226
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostStoptheViolins, on 15 April 2019 - 04:55 PM, said:

I held two sectors in my Tu-2 while the AI death flailed trying to capture the central airfield instead of defending the other two capture points.  So the match ended in a loss.

 

And you know the mistake you made there, right?  We all know that the central airfield is a bot magnet.  If you don't have it, your bots will be attracted to it like moths to a flame.  So, either you help take it, or your bots will die repeatedly trying to take it.  Once the central airfield is red, you might as well stop whatever you think you're doing, and go take it back, if you think you need the bot help.

 

Edit:  If the battle also includes a single mining plant, you can get away with not taking the airfield, sometimes.  The red GAA/bomber bots will spawn there and fly immediately to the plant.  Where they can be shot down repeatedly while your bots who aren't trying to take the airfield go out and capture other sectors.  But that's situational, and doesn't always work.


Edited by CorvusCorvax, 15 April 2019 - 05:25 PM.


CorvusCorvax #48 Posted 15 April 2019 - 05:21 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2948 battles
  • 3,226
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostSgtZak, on 15 April 2019 - 05:11 PM, said:

Corvus:  Appreciate the response.  Perhaps you're right many times.  But there are outcomes that you cannot explain.  That's due to MM.

 

Now THAT we can agree on.  I was playing, and noticed after a while I seemed to get matched up in a lower tier.  So I started keeping track.  Except for the battles where I selected a T10 aircraft, I was in the bottom tier 87% of the time.  At least four of those battles, every human on my team was lower tier.  

 

But the human element for those battles can't be ignored - the red team humans made the right choices 3 out of those 4.  And the one game we won, it was because those top-tier humans did some STUPID stuff!  Ground attack with a Yak-1?  WHAT????  Hey, eat some Bf-110B lead, you dummy.  :)

 

Matchmaking can really provide those W.T.F. moments we all enjoy.



StoptheViolins #49 Posted 15 April 2019 - 05:22 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2167 battles
  • 1,212
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 15 April 2019 - 12:15 PM, said:

 

And you know the mistake you made there, right?  We all know that the central airfield is a bot magnet.  If you don't have it, your bots will be attracted to it like moths to a flame.  So, either you help take it, or your bots will die repeatedly trying to take it.  Once the central airfield is red, you might as well stop whatever you think you're doing, and go take it back, if you think you need the bot help.

 

Manure.  That invalidates your whole point to the thread - it's the bots fault for being stupid about capping a point.  Duh.

 

Not my mistake - just bad bots.  Also bad game play design - airfields shouldn't be a central capture point as it can quickly lop-side a match.  But still bots bad behavior, not mine.



Prenzlau #50 Posted 15 April 2019 - 07:30 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 9054 battles
  • 978
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

    I purposely left this thread alone to see where it would go, and what people would say.

 

    I'm not going to pick on specific opinions and points, because I agree with so many, more or less. 

 

    Keep in mind, however, that we all have "cognitive bias" when it comes to expectations and also we all react on an emotional level to just about all things. So when we win, we appraise things differently, and when we lose, we react with bias and usually some amount of disappointment. 

 

    Individuals and teams take the credit for victories, of course and we search for explanations and scapegoats when we lose. 

 

    Since every battle is unique and no two battles are exactly the same, like every instant of life (from our level of perception) you never can track a reliable pattern because the variables are always different. We learn through comparisons and contrasts, and one good battle never compares equally to one bad battle, so we end up guessing and using our intuitions. We try to piece together things that sound logical, but that logic is nothing more than a card house. 

 

    Each battle is made up of as many "instances" as you wish to divide them into. Actions for both bots and humans are made up of these instances. As I have stated in previous threads, every action has it's value and many of them are not accountable given how the current stats are recorded, yet these unaccountable actions can alter a battle, positively or negatively. 

 

    I often look at the stats for the other team and when I lose, sometimes it appears the other team did not do that much, at least according to the stat system we have, and yet I know there are many actions that are unaccountable but still could be battle altering. So the current recorded stats never really explain the whole story of a battle and how it was determined. 

 

    The more complexity we search for, the more complexity we find. 

 

Cheers!

 

Prenzlau


Edited by Prenzlau, 15 April 2019 - 07:31 PM.

 

 

 

 


CorvusCorvax #51 Posted 15 April 2019 - 09:19 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2948 battles
  • 3,226
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostStoptheViolins, on 15 April 2019 - 05:22 PM, said:

 

Manure.  That invalidates your whole point to the thread - it's the bots fault for being stupid about capping a point.  Duh.

 

Not my mistake - just bad bots.  Also bad game play design - airfields shouldn't be a central capture point as it can quickly lop-side a match.  But still bots bad behavior, not mine.

 

Wrong.

 

Your choice to not take bot programming into account is where the fault lies.  The bots only do what they are programmed to do.  Your choice to ignore that is what caused your loss.  Bad programming or bad map design is something humans have to work around, but once you learn the rules, you can predict, and defeat, the bots every time.



StoptheViolins #52 Posted 15 April 2019 - 10:35 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2167 battles
  • 1,212
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 15 April 2019 - 04:19 PM, said:

 

Wrong.

 

Your choice to not take bot programming into account is where the fault lies.  The bots only do what they are programmed to do.  Your choice to ignore that is what caused your loss.  Bad programming or bad map design is something humans have to work around, but once you learn the rules, you can predict, and defeat, the bots every time.

 

Wrong, your choice is to assume that it's not the bots fault when it is.  Bad programming is never my fault.  It's your choice to blame everyone else but the bots.  Your wrong now, you'll be wrong later.

bradk62 #53 Posted 15 April 2019 - 10:35 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 3849 battles
  • 122
  • [335TH] 335TH
  • Member since:
    08-03-2013

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 15 April 2019 - 05:15 PM, said:

 

We all know that the central airfield is a bot magnet.  If you don't have it, your bots will be attracted to it like moths to a flame.  So, either you help take it, or your bots will die repeatedly trying to take it.  Once the central airfield is red, you might as well stop whatever you think you're doing, and go take it back, if you think you need the bot help.

 

Well I didn't know that - thanks!

 

I guess it makes sense that the bots perform very repeatable/predictable rule-based responses to the game playing out.  They clearly don't respond to any of my requests.

 

I get so focused on the mechanics of flying and shooting that I miss the forest for the trees.



White_Widow18 #54 Posted 15 April 2019 - 10:55 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 6719 battles
  • 1,168
  • [I_D] I_D
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018
My experience states that the humans who go fight in the middle airfield lose. Repeatedly.

Go figure.

Corvus' entire premise on what is the right decision and not is anecdotal and that's all it is. Arguing over it is silly.

I do happen to disagree with you btw Corvus on this specific stance. Learning to play with bad programming doesn't make the bots any less a failure or you more a success. It means you are capable of taking advantage of poorly written/buggy code. Which is a talent all its own admittedly, but one could readily argue that the programmers (the main human component of your team, even above yourself) are scrubbing out on you as the bots repeatedly do non-sensical things. I had a team last night literally all leave the cap nodes.. no enemies anywhere near 'em.. just.. fly off... by the time they all turned around the enemy was already halfway through capturing 3 nodes. 
Opinions are like certain body parts. Everyone has them and most of the time they stink.

Bobby_Tables #55 Posted 15 April 2019 - 11:18 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 5828 battles
  • 1,674
  • [-DOW-] -DOW-
  • Member since:
    06-16-2014

I think I suffer from bad programming, yet I am not a bot.  

 

In 2.X, I find myself SQUIRREL!!! 

 

Lost sometimes and doing stupid things for stupid reasons that I only realize after the battle is over.  Going to the central airbase?  Almost never unless I feel I have to.  Diving down on ADA mini planes in my big bad heavy fighter?  Yeah, I am a moron. 

 

Sue me.  



CorvusCorvax #56 Posted 16 April 2019 - 01:14 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2948 battles
  • 3,226
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostWhite_Widow18, on 15 April 2019 - 10:55 PM, said:

Corvus' entire premise on what is the right decision and not is anecdotal and that's all it is.

 Learning to play with bad programming doesn't make the bots any less a failure or you more a success. It means you are capable of taking advantage of poorly written/buggy code. Which is a talent all its own admittedly, but one could readily argue that the programmers (the main human component of your team, even above yourself) are scrubbing out on you as the bots repeatedly do non-sensical things. 

The win/loss stats are numerical.  They have absolutely no flavor or anecdote.

 

If the bots determined win/loss, everyone would have a more or less 50% WR.  Everyone.  From the most potato to the most talented.  But that isn't the case, the stats show that the proper choices can indeed be made, and approaching 80% of the time.  And that's how guys like HHJ, who has more battles in an Me-410 than I have total battles in all aircraft, seems to not be able to buy a win.

 

The bots' programming might indeed be bad, but throwing up one's hands and claiming that it's random is what is nonsensical.  Just because folks haven't figured out the bot behavior doesn't mean it isn't predictable.  ADA will drag you so that you fly in a straight line for other ADA to shoot at you, and so flak is more effective.  Expert bots will always counter your control inputs in real time, while dragging you out-of-zone and lower altitude.  GAA bots will always start with AA/AAA installations, unless there is already a damaged section of a more valuable target.  Bot MRFs always enter a zone and release their GA ordnance before dogfighting.  These behaviors might not make sense, but it's what they do.  Making sense of it does not gain victory.  Understanding what they do (and not why they do it) is the key.  The "why" of it doesn't even matter.

 

Folks complained bitterly about the release of 2.0, because the rules completely changed.  It went from being a deathmatch air to air game to being both a strategic and tactical game.  You not only had to know how to get to best of another aircraft, you had to know when and where to do it.  Figuring that part out is absolutely no different than figuring out how bots will respond and play.  It might not make me a more-skilled pilot if I figure it out, but it does make me a more-skilled game player.  Bot behavior is not random, and winning is not by chance.  The first is self-evident.  The second is borne out by win/loss stats.



CorvusCorvax #57 Posted 16 April 2019 - 01:36 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2948 battles
  • 3,226
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostBobby_Tables, on 15 April 2019 - 11:18 PM, said:

I think I suffer from bad programming, yet I am not a bot.  

 

In 2.X, I find myself SQUIRREL!!! 

 

Lost sometimes and doing stupid things for stupid reasons that I only realize after the battle is over.  Going to the central airbase?  Almost never unless I feel I have to.  Diving down on ADA mini planes in my big bad heavy fighter?  Yeah, I am a moron. 

 

Sue me.  

 

Well, I really does come down to whether you care, or not.  I sometimes care (victory condition required for some bit of shiny, or medal, or grinding something), but mostly, it just amuses me to fly around and shoot at stuff.  I don't care much about W/L%, because while I'm grinding a plane, I lose a lot trying to figure out what it can, and can't do.  I don't care about winning at all, just about seeing what the plane's limits and strengths are.  After a while of flying a plane enough, I get bored with it, and move on to the next grind.  Lose a bunch, start winning, and get a new plane!  Lather, rinse, repeat.  I am just now, after all these months of ownership, finally getting good with the Me-262.  But my stats in that plane overall are abysmal.  Using it for ground attack?  Sure, why not?  Tangle with turny fighters?  Heck yes.  Tail-ride a human-powered bomber? Sure.  Give me a side order of "who gives a carp" for some of it, like bomber escort mode, and all of a sudden, I can be riding a 40% win rate in a plane I absolutely love to fly.  

 

If it were random, and my choices didn't matter, that win rate would be closer to 50%.  I have enough battles in it to have a decent sample size.  But it isn't.  The early battles was me making bad choices because I didn't know they were bad. (Learning the plane.)  The later battles was me making bad choices because I wanted to see if I could do some outlandish thing. (The answer?  NOPE.)  Then there are the battles where winning was something that I had to do in order to grind something.  Lo and behold!  Victory.  How is it that a 40% scrub has a specialized Me-262 and can literally double the personal points of the top scorer on the other team?  Luck?  Bots did all the work for me?  All uber-bots on my team (but without the stats to separate them from the uberpotatoes on the other team)?

 

Yes, sometimes the MM can really deal you a carp hand.  Of the smelly, runny kind.  And unless you've chosen a carry plane on your tier, you probably aren't going to do anything but help, or at best, be a neutral factor.  So that part of the game can really suck.  But that has nothing to do with bots.  The bots are the same, and their programming is the same, as if you were in a top-tier carry plane, specialized, with your best pilot, and you on your A-game.  

 

Yes, there are some times when the sum of bot programming deals a big Whisky Tango Foxtrot.  That's why there are no 100% WR players.  That's probably why there will never be a 90% WR player.  Sometimes, all the wrong events add up to make you shake your head.  BUT:

 

That human on the other team?  The person who just benefited from all that crazy circumstance?  He still has to be there to take advantage of it.  His choice to click "Battle" at that particular time was the most significant choice of the battle.  There is no denying that it happens like that occasionally.  But to suggest its completely random all the time, and out of our hands, is just not borne out by facts.



White_Widow18 #58 Posted 16 April 2019 - 02:18 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 6719 battles
  • 1,168
  • [I_D] I_D
  • Member since:
    10-08-2018

View PostCorvusCorvax, on 15 April 2019 - 07:14 PM, said:

The win/loss stats are numerical.  They have absolutely no flavor or anecdote.

 

If the bots determined win/loss, everyone would have a more or less 50% WR.  Everyone.  From the most potato to the most talented.  But that isn't the case, the stats show that the proper choices can indeed be made, and approaching 80% of the time.  And that's how guys like HHJ, who has more battles in an Me-410 than I have total battles in all aircraft, seems to not be able to buy a win.

 

The bots' programming might indeed be bad, but throwing up one's hands and claiming that it's random is what is nonsensical.  Just because folks haven't figured out the bot behavior doesn't mean it isn't predictable.  ADA will drag you so that you fly in a straight line for other ADA to shoot at you, and so flak is more effective.  Expert bots will always counter your control inputs in real time, while dragging you out-of-zone and lower altitude.  GAA bots will always start with AA/AAA installations, unless there is already a damaged section of a more valuable target.  Bot MRFs always enter a zone and release their GA ordnance before dogfighting.  These behaviors might not make sense, but it's what they do.  Making sense of it does not gain victory.  Understanding what they do (and not why they do it) is the key.  The "why" of it doesn't even matter.

 

Folks complained bitterly about the release of 2.0, because the rules completely changed.  It went from being a deathmatch air to air game to being both a strategic and tactical game.  You not only had to know how to get to best of another aircraft, you had to know when and where to do it.  Figuring that part out is absolutely no different than figuring out how bots will respond and play.  It might not make me a more-skilled pilot if I figure it out, but it does make me a more-skilled game player.  Bot behavior is not random, and winning is not by chance.  The first is self-evident.  The second is borne out by win/loss stats.


TL;DR No. Bot Behavior isn't always predictable. Bugs alone make that a thing.

You want to argue win-rate is some sort of perfect indicator.. and it isn't.... but I'll humor you.

The bots also bug out and that isn't predictable behavior. The bots have repeatedly and observably done things they are specifically programmed not to do and that's been talked about. You've been in those threads. And your own pointing to players with 80% win rates still leaves them with 20% loss rates.. meaning at least some of those matches.. bot behavior arguably meant something.

At this point, I have to say again "Win-rate is determined by a combination of factors, bot behavior is one of them if you are not a dominant enough player to wreck every plane in the air no matter how it behaves... and even then that's obviously not a 100% guarantee if the bots or (when there are other players) other players make the right decisions to block you." Which still means... bot behavior is a thing... and because bugs (or maybe intentional programming).. they don't -always- act predictably.

Flighting is a way to increase win rate.
Understanding the basic precepts of the bot behavior patterns is a way to increase win rate.
Understanding basic tactical concepts is a way to increase your win rate. 
Many, many things are ways to increase win rate...

But again.. 20% loss rate is still 1 out of 5 is a loss.. and? That still means 1 in 5 matches was outside of their ability to see the patterns and control it because the bots -aren't- predictable.. and that 1 in 5 loss rate increases with every bit of prowess/skill less than those "most dominant" players. The fact that -the majority- of players seem to have a win-rate in the 50-60% range would argue that you must discount the outliers as theirs is an inaccurate representation of how it all actually functions as well. Meaning the 80% win-rate players are part of the argument I don't consider to be entirely valid as some sort of stick-point. So again.. the bots freaking out or making mistakes? It's a thing that has an effect on win-rate. AS IT SHOULD. Sometimes defensive fighters or offensive fighters were simply ineffective, full stop... weirdly that adds to the realism of the game when I stop and think about it.

The more player-heavy a match becomes the more weird the game becomes unless its two evenly matched skill and plane teams which is rare in my experience. However, assuming they are evenly matched.. then tactics become primary with bot behavior a secondary concern, but still a concern and sometimes the bots still completely derp out because of glitches and bugs.

Sometimes everything can still be overridden by players who are simply dominant enough to wreck it all regardless of the behavior of the bots, but even then... you keep citing 80%.. so we'll go with that.. that's still got a loss rate to it. Meaning the game is not perfectly predictable and ergo it is -not- entirely your decisions that determine win rate. Which tracks with the idea that they no longer wanted people to just be able to 100% flat out carry matches solo.

Edited by White_Widow18, 16 April 2019 - 02:20 AM.

Opinions are like certain body parts. Everyone has them and most of the time they stink.

CorvusCorvax #59 Posted 16 April 2019 - 12:58 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 2948 battles
  • 3,226
  • [JG52] JG52
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostWhite_Widow18, on 16 April 2019 - 02:18 AM, said:


TL;DR No. Bot Behavior isn't always predictable. Bugs alone make that a thing.

You want to argue win-rate is some sort of perfect indicator.. and it isn't.... but I'll humor you.

 

I just deleted the rest after this, unread.

 

Two things wrong here, because you continue to make this strawman argument.  I have nowhere made these absolute statements (unless you take individual sentences out of context.)  There may be bugs, but without evidence it's a bug, that's just an excuse for not grasping the programming.  Weird behavior isn't evidence of a bug - but it might be evidence of incomplete programming.  Especially if the weird behavior is repeatable.

 

And win rate isn't perfect, and nowhere have I claimed it is.  But it IS a numerical indicator.  Not anecdotal. 



Prenzlau #60 Posted 16 April 2019 - 04:09 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 9054 battles
  • 978
  • [OWSS] OWSS
  • Member since:
    12-14-2015

    I do not know how many battles I have won or lost because of something a bot did. I do not know how many battles I have won or lost because of something a human player did. I do not know how many battles I have won or lost because of game issues and glitches. I do not know how many battles I have won or lost because of the selections the match maker made. I do not know how many battles I have won or lost because of events.

 

My win rate is 73.96%

 

    Whatever I do, however I play, and whatever bots and other humans do, it all culminates into that one statistic. That win rate is the total sum of all my warplanes efforts, achievements, skill, experience, etc. Some people think it does not matter. Since I don't know anything else specifically as to all the battles I won or lost and why, that number is all I have that allows me to understand where I stand. 

 

    In the end you are what your stats say you are. On any given battle or session you can either out perform or under perform. It is always an interesting debate on what factors are more important than others, but in the end, we all swim in the same ocean, and in theory we all face the same MM, same bots, same humans, same maps, same game glitches and issues, etc. If one person does not take winning as important as another, so be it. If one person likes to drop out of battles that are perceived losers, so be it. If one person understands bots and the game better than someone else, so be it. 

 

    If this game is not giving you what you want, then why play? No matter where a person is at, there is always a challenge somewhere. Understanding the bots, certain patterns, teaming up with flight mates, buying planes or equipment, consumables, learning from other players who have something to teach, etc. These things help your game, and it is not a crime to progress and become "better". There are a lot of players I do not like, but I don't want them going anywhere or leaving the game because I like the challenge and the fun. It is a game, and it is entertainment, and I think sometimes everyone forgets the entertainment part, even WG. 

 

    I think the human decision part extends far beyond what you do in any battle, and you set your own table, make your own personal rules, follow your own path and you decide what is fun and what is not.

 

    So maybe the debate itself is folly and not very useful?

 

Cheers!

 

Prenzlau


 

 

 

 





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users