5 ms·

Do bots watch ads? For the last several weeks I've been an avid generals player. For awhile I was even ranked #7 on the FFA ladder. And I have to say that this

by mninm 10y ago

Do bots watch ads? For the last several weeks I've been an avid generals player. For awhile I was even ranked #7 on the FFA ladder. And I have to say that this is the second change in about a week that has left me confused about who generals is trying to appeal to. Maybe the bots will be fun for humans to play against but I doubt it. Maybe this will be a benign change and the quality of the bots that play generals on the non-bot servers won't improve much from what they are now. But either way why is an ad-supported game encouraging bots to try and take it over? What happens when the bots become so good and so prevalent that humans can't hope to compete? Why would anyone want to play? Though I guess in the end I don't really care all that much as the recent changes to the movement scheme have really put me off the game. High level play used to be about feints and visibility, cutting off your opponents tendrils whilst building your own, pulling their forces away from your king while trying to find theirs. It really had a nice balance. Now, not so much. I don't want to seem too sour. I had a lot of fun with generals [thanks devs] but now I'm in search of a new favorite game. PWG

popey456963 10y ago
I think I'd like to point out two very important points you may be missing: 1. This was implemented directly to combat the prevalence of bots on the EU & NA servers (and the annoyance some players were facing when they were just playing AIs all the time), where you're now not allowed to bot on. Players have the option of choosing whether or not they wish to play against bots, but if they wish not to they can still play on the NA and EU servers. 2. We're supported by ads, but that doesn't mean we want to stop people enjoying the game in their own ways. We still have tens of thousands of players daily on the other servers, so a few tens of pounds on a bot server for people to compete in programming against one another doesn't seem too problematic. And, to address your movement concern, it was a tough decision to make. But we wanted to allow everyone to enjoy the game, even people with lag or on mobile devices (where control is significantly harder). If you dislike the new movement settings, you are able to disable them in the options menu.
- chadnickbok 10y ago
  I've spent far too much of my life playing you're damn game, and now you just went ahead and ruined my weekend. Thanks! Keep up the great work ;)
- ikeboy 10y ago
  Are you going to implement anti-bot measures on those servers?
  - baby 10y ago
    Let's be honest, this is not possible.
    - ikeboy 10y ago
      Yeah but they could try and it would be fun to watch. The point I was implicitly making is that setting up a new server for bots and declaring "no bots allowed" on the main servers is not quite enough.
      - popey456963 10y ago
        We have some naive heuristics to try to detect bot movements (low ping, not many queued moves, moves every turn, etc) in the works, some of which are already implemented to try to reduce the numbers of bots on the main ladders. It's a tiny bit tricky to do however, most of the methods are still just going through testing. We're hoping that people consider the reason we're trying to limit their access to the main ladders and do the honourable thing of keeping the bots in the bot ladder. It's slightly harder than just changing the URL, which we hope will help dissuade individuals.
        ReverseCold 10y ago
        Neural nets will behave pretty human like. Now that you've told everyone, we can start building bots that do these things. (I wasn't using a bot if it wasn't clear.)
Kiro 10y ago
> the recent changes to the movement scheme What was changed? I don't remember how the game worked when I first tried it.
- popey456963 10y ago
  We added the capability to queue moves through/into unknown territory. Before you had to keep on clicking & moving, clicking & moving.
  - zhoujianfu 10y ago
    I just want to say that I at least LOVE the new scheme!
- paulddraper 10y ago
  Formerly, you could only queue moves in territory you owned. Now, you can queue anywhere. It takes away a key advantage in obtaining territory.
adoos 10y ago
I think everyone agrees (even if unconsciously) with your feelings. Most players had a defense advantage in movement speed before, but no longer. Reduced security and other implications favor large troops and rush strategies. Which leaves traditional strategies you mentioned less effective. The problem is, war, in the real world almost always has some kind of defensive advantage. So the cohesion of the General narrative was disrupted negatively as this core expectation is broken. My 2 cents even if non-specific, because I think this is the right perspective for highest-level analysis. I don't necessarily feel the new change is bad. But it changes game mechanics to favor play-styles where do not tell a cohesive story. My example is just anecdotal. I used to play and, in just 300 moves was able to tell a full story. Of how I advanced, beat a certain enemy through an interesting battle. How I went into unknown territory and was surprised by what I found. There really was a cohesive narrative and nice story-telling in the previous version. This is what made the game fun, fundamentally. Mini stories of kingdoms locked in war, with interesting battles. Now, the stories are not told well. Since I am queuing constantly, I am not even paying attention to where my general is most of the time. I am half-blind charging on my bull hoping I run over a general. And likewise, if I am on the defensive there is nothing to do but hope the huge army does not snake through and hit my general. The sense of a story was largely destroyed. And that's why I think the game is less fun now, even if it is not so obvious why.

by mninm 10y ago

popey456963 10y ago

I think I'd like to point out two very important points you may be missing: 1. This was implemented directly to combat the prevalence of bots on the EU & NA servers (and the annoyance some players were facing when they were just playing AIs all the time), where you're now not allowed to bot on. Players have the option of choosing whether or not they wish to play against bots, but if they wish not to they can still play on the NA and EU servers. 2. We're supported by ads, but that doesn't mean we want to stop people enjoying the game in their own ways. We still have tens of thousands of players daily on the other servers, so a few tens of pounds on a bot server for people to compete in programming against one another doesn't seem too problematic. And, to address your movement concern, it was a tough decision to make. But we wanted to allow everyone to enjoy the game, even people with lag or on mobile devices (where control is significantly harder). If you dislike the new movement settings, you are able to disable them in the options menu.

chadnickbok 10y ago
I've spent far too much of my life playing you're damn game, and now you just went ahead and ruined my weekend. Thanks! Keep up the great work ;)
ikeboy 10y ago
Are you going to implement anti-bot measures on those servers?
- baby 10y ago
  Let's be honest, this is not possible.
  - ikeboy 10y ago
    Yeah but they could try and it would be fun to watch. The point I was implicitly making is that setting up a new server for bots and declaring "no bots allowed" on the main servers is not quite enough.
    - popey456963 10y ago
      We have some naive heuristics to try to detect bot movements (low ping, not many queued moves, moves every turn, etc) in the works, some of which are already implemented to try to reduce the numbers of bots on the main ladders. It's a tiny bit tricky to do however, most of the methods are still just going through testing. We're hoping that people consider the reason we're trying to limit their access to the main ladders and do the honourable thing of keeping the bots in the bot ladder. It's slightly harder than just changing the URL, which we hope will help dissuade individuals.
      - ReverseCold 10y ago
        Neural nets will behave pretty human like. Now that you've told everyone, we can start building bots that do these things. (I wasn't using a bot if it wasn't clear.)

Kiro 10y ago

> the recent changes to the movement scheme What was changed? I don't remember how the game worked when I first tried it.

popey456963 10y ago
We added the capability to queue moves through/into unknown territory. Before you had to keep on clicking & moving, clicking & moving.
- zhoujianfu 10y ago
  I just want to say that I at least LOVE the new scheme!
paulddraper 10y ago
Formerly, you could only queue moves in territory you owned. Now, you can queue anywhere. It takes away a key advantage in obtaining territory.

adoos 10y ago

I think everyone agrees (even if unconsciously) with your feelings. Most players had a defense advantage in movement speed before, but no longer. Reduced security and other implications favor large troops and rush strategies. Which leaves traditional strategies you mentioned less effective. The problem is, war, in the real world almost always has some kind of defensive advantage. So the cohesion of the General narrative was disrupted negatively as this core expectation is broken. My 2 cents even if non-specific, because I think this is the right perspective for highest-level analysis. I don't necessarily feel the new change is bad. But it changes game mechanics to favor play-styles where do not tell a cohesive story. My example is just anecdotal. I used to play and, in just 300 moves was able to tell a full story. Of how I advanced, beat a certain enemy through an interesting battle. How I went into unknown territory and was surprised by what I found. There really was a cohesive narrative and nice story-telling in the previous version. This is what made the game fun, fundamentally. Mini stories of kingdoms locked in war, with interesting battles. Now, the stories are not told well. Since I am queuing constantly, I am not even paying attention to where my general is most of the time. I am half-blind charging on my bull hoping I run over a general. And likewise, if I am on the defensive there is nothing to do but hope the huge army does not snake through and hit my general. The sense of a story was largely destroyed. And that's why I think the game is less fun now, even if it is not so obvious why.