AI or Human Opponents - What's worst?
I cannot remember if I have brought this up before, but having just returned from two games of Turf Takeover I find it inherently wrong and extremely frustrating (which is the reason I'm letting off ...
Forum Discussion
There are really only 2 problems you encounter:
When the AI units are severely overpowered OR when one team is outnumbered.
A good example of broken AI are the Scaredy-shrooms with infinite ammo.And a good example of outnumbered teams is simply when you have 4+ players less while the enemy team camps, shoots through walls/floor while masses of AI units take the base no one can defend.
I still say AI utilization should be restricted when a team is outnumbered. But if a team in an even match cannot deal with AI units its their fault.
That's where we disagree because, despite even numbers of players, the game isn't even for the simple reason that you as a defender also have to defend yourself against bots who are just as proficient in taking over a Garden/Graveyard as a human opponent. In other words, I am defending myself against a mixed bunch of 12+ opponents. I don't find that reasonable.
As I wrote initially (though not in that many words), I look upon multiplaying as a match between two teams where the success of a team is measured in terms of who is best able to position themselves, know the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing characters, use the ability best suited to their particular role in the game and read the way the game is developing. I just don't see bots as being part of that. PopCap seems to see it a bit my way in that they don't have bots in Mixed Mode (barring Gnome Bomb) where they perfectly well could have been part of the games in that game mode.
The bots have undoubtedly been included to give variation to the game, but if one is to have these things then at least not make it possible for them to take over a Garden/Graveyard. I could live with that.
@Anonymous wrote:[...] the success of a team is measured in terms of who is best able to position themselves, know the strengths and weaknesses of the opposing characters, use the ability best suited to their particular role in the game [...]
And this is exactly where the AI fits in. It is part of the plan and requires strategic thinking. It mean people have to deal with AI units and not only focus on other players. It means to deploy counter-measures. If a team cannot stop a couple AI units it is incompetent and deserves to lose. It is easy to distract AI units and stop them.
If anything the AI units need to be made more effective at taking over bases simply to counter spawn camping and other awful things where no one cares about the actual objective.
I've been in plenty of games where a single doom shroom or an ice shroom ended the game. Because no one in the zombie team cared to take those out, so the few zombies with the intention to take the garden were in for a surprise. You would think after 3 or 4 people got rekt by those potted plants, someone would take care of those. But no. And that is when one team deserves to lose.
With all my experience i can tell you that AI units mostly fail and are free points. What you fear is only a very rare problem and sometimes even a solid strategy to crack the defenses. If you cannot stop AI units because you are under constant fire, its your teams fault for not providing you with cover. If its 12 versus you its your teams fault again. The AI units have very little impact on the flow of the match.
There is no need to be patronizing during this discussion. It is not really a question of what I fear or don't fear or whether my team is competent or not. Our discussion here is a result of us having fundamentally different views on what a multiplayer game should comprise. AI should not be part of it, and they remain to my mind a superfluous and irritating distraction.
@Anonymous
I don't see what he wrote as being patronizing. He, too, is giving his considered opinion of why we should have spawnables. He disagreed with you but did not treat your opinion as being stupid. What I see is simply a continuing, civil argument.
Cheers!
