PvP issues

[Beriadan]

I can't tell you how many times I've started a game and the first thing the opponent does is let the cpu take over. I consider this a form of cheating as I believe the cpu has a better chance of winning. What I think should happen when your time runs out a draw is called. Nobody wins, nobody loses, everyone gets their 20 coin back, and we all play another game with someone who actually feels like playing. I've only been playing for a few months, so if I'm wrong on something, please correct me.

[Hodari]

If the other player intentionally leaves and lets the cpu take over, they automatically lose anyway..just that you have to still beat the cpu in order to get the win.  If it went with your suggestion and just gave a draw and refunded everyone's money, even more people would leave as soon as it became apparent they were going to lose.

[Beriadan]

......

I knew that.... ^^;

[Wonder]

I can't tell you how many times I've started a game and the first thing the opponent does is let the cpu take over. I consider this a form of cheating as I believe the cpu has a better chance of winning. What I think should happen when your time runs out a draw is called. Nobody wins, nobody loses, everyone gets their 20 coin back, and we all play another game with someone who actually feels like playing. I've only been playing for a few months, so if I'm wrong on something, please correct me.

I don't know whether the player is doing it on purpose or if the connection is bad. But either way, the AI is no match for an actual player. A player can predict what to play and what not to play simply based on their opponents mark. Where as an AI cannot.
For example, if I joined a game and my opponent had an Entropy mark, I immediately would think of Antimatter and that would stop me from playing my strong creatures. However, an AI would not give it a second thought and just play everything.
If anything, playing an AI should be easier for you.

[vrt]

If zanz could code an AI that was smarter (and thus better) than a human player, without using 'cheats' (such as playing cards, knowing what the opponent's hand is), then he'd most likely be working for a major software company or university, not making websites and flash games. :p

[fighter buster]

If zanz could code an AI that was smarter (and thus better) than a human player, without using 'cheats' (such as playing cards, knowing what the opponent's hand is), then he'd most likely be working for a major software company or university, not making websites and flash games. :p

                agreed

[Hodari]

If zanz could code an AI that was smarter (and thus better) than a human player, without using 'cheats' (such as playing cards, knowing what the opponent's hand is), then he'd most likely be working for a major software company or university, not making websites and flash games. :p

This would basically be similar to writing a chess engine in that it would have to examine the position after every possible move and calculate how good or bad it was..except that it would be significantly more difficult here since there are FAR more possible moves and the computer wouldn't even know what moves the other player has available(thus would have to somehow be able to make intelligent guesses based on mark, cards already played etc.) 

[Alyzia]

it would be significantly more difficult here

Without wanting to discount the difficulties in creating an elements AI, the chess problem is still several orders of magnitude greater. Think how many people put years of their lives into it before chess programmes could start to compete with actual humans, whereas zanz managed to single-handedly write an AI that, while not being as good as humans, at least isn't boring to play against.

It might come close if we'd expect the AI to also choose the deck (including participating in the metagame).

[Hodari]

Having the AI be able to play at all is easier only because nearly all cards' effects are in some way good whereas in chess, it is much easier to make a move which is actually BAD.  However I suspect trying to find an optimal strategy in elements would be significantly more difficult since as I said, there are far more possible moves to choose from on each turn as well as not having complete information about the position(ie not knowing your opponent's hand or even what cards you will be drawing in the next few turns).  While the AI may be able to play at a level which is at least halfway decent in most cases, how often do you see it do something completely stupid like playing a dune scorpion, immediately followed by quintessence? 

  Also, it would be a bit unfair to compare the difficulty of writing a chess program which can compete at a grandmaster level vs. an Elements AI playing at the level of an average player.  And even then, the only AI level which presents a significant level of difficulty for a reasonably skilled player with a good deck is FG's and then ONLY because they are given significant advantages like double hp and draws, triple mark, larger deck etc.  Making a chess engine that could be the world champion would also be fairly easy if it could make 2 moves at a time and move pawns up to 3 spaces forward

[EvaRia]

As far as I know, there's no way to force yourself to play the AI.

You can force your opponent to play the AI in a variety of ways, but I won't go into that.

This can be filed under desync, I am currently attempting to communicate with Zanz and see if we can fix some issues.

[Hodari]

As far as I know, there's no way to force yourself to play the AI.

Sure there is...click level 0, level 1, level 2, level 3, top 50, level 5, or quests -> level 6