> [...] feels like they were still outplaying you for much of the game and you won because they made one or two blunders. That's why I don't like winning in mu

> [...] feels like they were still outplaying you for much of the game and you won because they made one or two blunders. That's why I don't like winning in multiplyer games. Usually when you win you either feel like the opponent just played comically bad on sufficient number of occasions or that they played well but in few instances you got undully lucky and it could have gone either way. Very rarely you get the desired feeling that opponent played well but you just played a little better overall so your win is deserved. It almost always seem like it's not that you are winning but the opponent is losing instead. And none of that is about AI. Making AI that lets you win symmetrical games satisfyingly and teaches you with your losses in a satisfying manner would be a billion dollar business. I don't think it can be done without some serious psychology research.