Winning with AI's, is it a true win?

[C64 nostalgia]

This poll will help determine how meaningful a game with AI's is in a ranking system.

[dynadan]

Ok the answer I wanted wasn't in the poll....so I answered yes with 1 AI.

I think beating another human (or multiple humans) is a factor of how your skill matched up to those other players.   The bot just becomes another semi random factor in the game, and whoever uses him the best will win.  I do think a win is much more meaningful in a 4 player game, but only because you had to over come 3 other real opponents instead of 1 or 2.

I understand everyones hatred for bots.  I hate playing with them also.  Mostly because watching the free market work is what makes this game great.  and you need real peoples minds and emotions to do that.  But some people grew up playing this game always against 1 human opponent, so i don't think it's morally right to pass judgement on how someone wants to enjoy the game of mule.

Now as far as this concerns rankings....  I don't think games that start with AI should be eligible for the quest for the Golden Mule.  I do think that games that start with AI should count for the hi-scores wins.  And for the new ranking system I think they deal with AI games perfectly by just ignoring the AI's and changing rankings by how the real players compared to each other.

Not many people are going to defend the poor bots.  Mostly because we have had several players who abuse the system by ONLY playing against 1 person and 2 bots and then quitting or kicking if they are going to lose....or just for the fun of it.  But honestly now that the host advantage is (mostly) gone I don't have that big of a problem with the usual suspects as long as they play a clean game.

[Oort]

The bots make it easy. They may mess up driving up ore costs or what not, but in exchange for that you really don't need to worry about energy or food because they tend to choose that over other stuff and quite often supply food and energy for pretty cheap.

In an all human game you might find someone who sells you food/energy, but usually if they do its going to cost you big if you aren't producing any yourself and humans will leave you high and dry if it is to their advantage. The ai don't work in those terms so one can focus on just aquiring stite or smith plots and building them up knowing that the AI will usually keep them fed and powered.

IMO the AI take a crucial element of planning and tactic out of the game.

[Chuckie Chuck]

I think I get the thoughts here, and possibly what might be helpful, unless they figure out how to make AI work well, is offer a passive AI option, where the AI just fills the space in the game, but does not claim land or participate in the auctions, so only the human players are actually active in the game, then it is still a true human skill game even with fewer players.  In any case, 4 player human games should still hold the most weight.  Games with active AI players should hold the least, even if they are included in the ratings.

Something like...

Weight  - Game

100% - 4 Players
90% - 3 Players - Passive or No AI (Dummy Slot)
70% - 2 Players - 2 Dummy Slots
40% - 3 Players - 1 Active AI
20% - 2 Players - 2 Active AI

[Keybounce]

The biggest difference i have found is this:

When bots are in the game, Crystite has value, and smithore does not.
When bots are not in the game, people will try to drive up smithore, and if you can either ride that, or catch them off-guard on food or energy, you win. But Crystite's value is much, much less.

[Blitzen]

Bots suck... they suck so much that it isn't Mule with them in the game...

- none of the markets will ever get really hot: they underpay and undercharge
- they can't calculate the true value of land: they grossly underpay
- they inevitably play a very predictable strategy and are easily abused

B