[Rules] Limit New Recruit for 16 games in settings and maps

[Queen_Herpes]

Sure, having AI opponents available would be a nice feature.

It would if you had it as an option, or even if it was required for the first 1-3 games. There's no way in hell I would join a site that told me I had to play 80 games against a crappy AI before I was allowed to play a real human. Besides that, you should look into what it takes to program an AI. I've done quite a bit of programming through the years, and my guess is that it would take lack a good 1-2 months of full time work to get the simplest of AIs working on a single map. It would be enough to teach people how to attack and enter moves. That's about it. It's a huge undertaking to try to train a decent AI, and it's completely impractical for this site. Even if it was possible to get one up and running, playing against it for 80 games is essentially the same thing as playing against a single person for 80 games. At the end of that time you don't learn to play well against anybody, you learn to play well against your specific opponent, and it reinforces bad habits that take far longer to unlearn.

I respect the fact that it could be difficult and time consuming to train a decent AI, which is why I suggested that the first AI implemented should be an "easy" opponent. However, AI have been done before for RISK games and for many other video games, so, perhaps it might be possible to find the source code for PS or PS2 risk...or the source code for the many other AI Risk games that have been around online for a long time. I'm just saying. It wouldn't be the first time someone copied and pasted code before.

At the end of that time you don't learn to play well against anybody, you learn to play well against your specific opponent, and it reinforces bad habits that take far longer to unlearn.

The point of AI (at this point) is not to learn strategy. The point is 1) to learn "the game" in a general sense. I've played plenty of noobs who don't have a clue about what is going on in the game. Even a terrible, terrible AI opponent would provide the learner an opportunity to feel out the game. Another point is 2) to learn the maps and how the territories are connected. I've had plenty of players (seasoned and otherwise) who have deployed or forted armies to places where they could not attack from due to "walls" or other "impassables" or even deplys to within their own territories where they "trap" their own armies. A final point would be 3) to learn how the game options work. I think it is fair to provide a brand new player with a chance to play a nuclear spoils, freestyle, foggy game against an AI before they go up against a veteran with those same settings.

And I'm sorry if I misread your previous comment.

[Doc_Brown]

And I'm sorry if I misread your previous comment.

Fully understandable. I reread what I wrote last time and while it was meant to be humorous, I think it was unreasonably harsh. I do agree with your basic idea. As an example of what you're describing, http://www.battleforces.com/ is another war gaming site based on the Axis and Allies mechanic rather than the Risk mechanic. They require all new players to play against an AI prior to joining public games. I think it requires 1 completed game, though it may be 3. It wouldn't be that big a deal to require new players to complete 1-2 games against a computer player. That might also reduce the number of people that join games and then never log into the site again. But playing against a computer can get very tedious, and requiring someone to play a significant number of games (read: more than 3-5) before being allowed to play a human will become frustrating. You can probably assume that a new player would complete a game against the computer into 15-30 minutes. They'll probably get through 2-3 in a day. 80 games against the computer is a month and a half before they can even play a single game against friends! That's why I said this was even worse than your original suggestion.

So, as before, my objection is not with the the general concept you're presenting, it's with forcing new players into restrictions that impractical for this site. I do think that new players would probably enjoy the ability to play an AI. Some of the more established freemiums might even take advantage of the ability to beat up on a computer for 20 minutes if they're a bit bored waiting for people to join or play in their other games.

The flip side of this is that there is a single-player Risk game put out by Hasbro (as you mentioned). A single player implementation here would likely be seen as direct competition and would be subject to legal challenge. I'm pretty sure lack isn't willing to risk something along those lines.

[Queen_Herpes]

And I'm sorry if I misread your previous comment.

Fully understandable. I reread what I wrote last time and while it was meant to be humorous, I think it was unreasonably harsh. I do agree with your basic idea. As an example of what you're describing, http://www.battleforces.com/ is another war gaming site based on the Axis and Allies mechanic rather than the Risk mechanic. They require all new players to play against an AI prior to joining public games. I think it requires 1 completed game, though it may be 3. It wouldn't be that big a deal to require new players to complete 1-2 games against a computer player. That might also reduce the number of people that join games and then never log into the site again.

Point Taken.

But playing against a computer can get very tedious, and requiring someone to play a significant number of games (read: more than 3-5) before being allowed to play a human will become frustrating. You can probably assume that a new player would complete a game against the computer into 15-30 minutes. They'll probably get through 2-3 in a day. 80 games against the computer is a month and a half before they can even play a single game against friends! That's why I said this was even worse than your original suggestion.

I understand the tediousness, but I believe that a player given an opportunity to play what is essentially a speed game would be much less tedious than waiting 24, 48, 72, 96, 120, or more hours in a multiplayer game on this site for your next turn to come around. If the problem here at CC is that players want instant gratification, then that's what I'm offering to them via the addition of AI into my suggestion. 1 hour per day of gameplay against computers where the user gets to play when the log on -versus- logging on once per day to see that your turn still hasn't come up? Perhaps the limitation after playing computers for say 20 games should be to one v one games with humans? I only say that because the more players involved in a game, the less likely the player is going to be able to take a turn when he/she logs on once per day. If playing one v one, the player is almost guaranteed an opportunity to take a turn at a once-per-day logon. Just thoughts, I'm running out the door...

So, as before, my objection is not with the the general concept you're presenting, it's with forcing new players into restrictions that impractical for this site. I do think that new players would probably enjoy the ability to play an AI. Some of the more established freemiums might even take advantage of the ability to beat up on a computer for 20 minutes if they're a bit bored waiting for people to join or play in their other games.

I agree

The flip side of this is that there is a single-player Risk game put out by Hasbro (as you mentioned). A single player implementation here would likely be seen as direct competition and would be subject to legal challenge. I'm pretty sure lack isn't willing to risk something along those lines.

I'm sure lack has dealt with Hasbro enough and is savvy enough to write an AI and create a platform for play against the computer that wouldn't violate Hasbro's "right" to Risk. Personally, I think Hasbro sucks for not doing what lack and other sites like this have done.

Thanks again for your comments.

[AAFitz]

Your summary comments are funny, perhaps an attempt to lighten the mood, and I will take them as such. But, for the record, I've had sex with men who had never masterbated (prior to their first sexual experience with a woman--me), and had sex with men who had masterbated before their first sexual experience with a woman(which happened to be with me). There is a big difference between men who have experienced themselves and men who had no experience. So your reference, unfortunately for you, helps prove my point.

I get it that playing against humans is better than playing against computers. It certainly is why we are here. We could play the PS or PS2 Risk game or the Hasbro Online Risk game against computerized opponents. Instead, we choose to play here. Well, truth be told, I've picked up the PS2 and popped the PS2 Risk game in the machine to play on several occasions in the past year. As I was introduced to this site and this game by my husband, so also did he introduce me to the PS2 versions. For lack of a tutorial program at conquerclub, the computerized opponents were a huge benefit to me to learn the game.

I still enjoy going back and playing the computer opponents, "AI" is probably the right term. As the PS2 opponents are programmed with different strategies AND can be differentiated to "easy," "intermediate," and "difficult," there are some varieties in strategies that I have seen and still, oddly, feel as though I can learn from. Of course, their only application is towards what we at CC refer to as the "Classic Map."

I believe the type of learning that is available via playing against AI is valuable. It can help a new player learn a map without the possibility of getting "farmed" or being mistreated by the opponent. Ocassionally, I like playing the computers so that I can have a less-spirited interaction against an opponent that won't deadbeat, won't bitch to me about dice, and won't allow me an easy win because they use terrible strategy or don't know the map.

I would relish the opportunity to play many of the maps I've never played at CC as well as the new maps that haven't been entered onto playable maps list AGAINST AI. I would love to learn the map that way before playing it against humans. I think there are other out there that would enjoy that opportunity at first as well.

I also think there are other players out there who would enjoy playing against AI to learn maps or settings. I think new players would especially enjoy the opportunity.

Further, I think new players and freemium players would enjoy an opportunity to play an opponent in "real time" as you...AAFitz...have pointed out as an important part of the reason that players leave the site. Restated, AAFitz feels that players leave the site because they don't want to wait 24 hours for their opponents to take turns. The additional aspect of adding AI to the site would allow new players to get that "speed game" experience without having to pay for premium. This may be enough to turn those players into permanent players....rather than players who bail after logging in for the first time.

So the question to you, AAFitz, and others...do you want more players on CC? Do you want those players to have the knowledge of the maps and the settings before they play you? Or do you want to play against noobs who don't know the map, don't know how the territories are connected, and don't know the settings? It would seem to me that an opponent of AI would necessarily be a proponent of farming. AI can only help the site. I challenge you to prove how AI could ruin the experience of players on CC and how it would turn players away.

ell, I am really not against the idea of AI per-se. My only concern with it, is that a very small amount of players would actually play it, that I happen to think it isnt very fun, but mostly that it would probably take quite some time to program, and that programming could probably be better spend on human v. human games, which is the backbone of CC. This is really something for the owner of the site to decide if he wants to offer or not.

For the most part, the amount of time put into it wont really reap any vast rewards, because I still contend that new players come here to play against people.

Most importantly however, I think you wrongly assume why people are leaving. You seem to think they are leaving because they are losing games, and I contend that that is not a major reason for people leaving. I certainly think that players like yourself that are rude and controlling in the chat are far more likely to go send a person packing, even as you kill them most of the time, other than a polite player that is welcoming, and possibly even helpful.

I believe labeling maps and options in respective difficulty ranges will solve nearly any problem when it comes to players getting farmed, or leaving because of losing, because they will know exactly what to expect, and therefore if they are in a difficult game, will be getting exactly what they chose to play. If they leave, it wont be because of that.

Im certainly not against it, as there is nothing wrong with having the option. What I am against is blocking new players so severely from all the great options CC has to offer...and absolutely completely 100% would be against forcing them to play your imagined CCBots exclusively when they come to CC, simply because you think they are children devoid of the intelligence to play against human beings first. That would be even worse than blocking them from the maps, because that would block them from the core game of CC, and its greatest strength, which is its many options, and great community, which, also includes some low rated players too.

So AI is great. If lack has some time and wants to program some bots, all the power to him. Maybe some will play, maybe some wont. He made a completely other site too, with a completely different game...all the power to him. Its not something I play, but hes free to make what he wants. Hes also free to block people from his game options like children based on the fantasies that these people are coming to the site without the necessary skills to learn this game, and dont deserve the option to try it out.

I however think it would be utterly foolish to do so, since blocking people from all the different maps, all the options, and now as youre suggesting, the actual CC community, would really be blocking them from CC. I think as a suggestion to improve flow of new players to other world domination sites, that this would be a fantastic idea. I think it would help those struggling sites that cant keep up with CCs many options and maps, and would allow them to hook all the potential CC customers, while you were busy trying to guide them through, learning how to click some armies and take over the board.

However, since Im more interested in keeping people at CC, I think without a doubt some changes are needed, but those changes should not include removing the best parts of CC, but improving them. And if there is any blocking to be done, to keep people at CC, there is no doubt that the blocking should be of rude controlling players who have earned really low ratings from other players, because they make the game not fun. I think blocking all players without a rating of 4.6, for 100 games would undoubtedly, and immediately improve customer retention, because it would let them get used to the great community at CC, without having to deal with the few negative players that cant control themselves in game chat, especially with new players, who are just trying to have fun learning the game.

So, by all means, lets keep more new players at CC. But lets not be silly and try and block them from the best parts of CC to do so. Lets block them from the bad parts of CC, so they can have a truly informed decision before they are so rudely yelled at for making a little mistake as they get started. I just think its too bad a player like yourself can put so much time into pushing ideas for making CC better, but not have the control in chat to do it one game at a time, and treat new players to the site with respect, and really hook them. It was the warm welcome I got from CC that hooked me and the many different options and maps(since the classic map was pretty boring and standard)

So sure, lack wants to make a CC robot thats great. More options the better. Should he block people from CC people, options and maps, because you feel they dont want to try them? Absolutely not. He might as well get rid of the freemium option too at that point, and possibly start fading out CC completely, because those are the very things that keep people at CC, and certainly are the very things that get players hooked in the first place.

If you yourself want to help out, perhaps instead of earning your 4.5 rating with no care of the gaming experience of noobs as you farm them...perhaps you could make a difference, and instead be helpful in the games, or at the very least, be polite, or silent, if incapable of the other two.

[chipv]

Are you guys going to get a room or what

[AAFitz]

Are you guys going to get a room or what

Nah, ratings are too low.

[Queen_Herpes]

So you're saying you like the idea. Thanks AAFItz.

[concrete]

While it's hard to agree with everything someone writes, I certainly agree that nooby's need to be limited to what they can join. The biggest problem I face playing noobys is that they get frustrated with the rules, what they can and cannot do, what the hell is bombarding, etc. then they deadbeat the game from lack of understanding and them falling behind early.
I really like Queen's ideas on e-mailing or pming the new ones after 10, 20, 30, etc. that they have unlocked new things, (ie. flatrate, maps and so on)
Get her over seeing this department and get the ball rolling. Noobys are joining and quitting all the time. Make it "rewarding" to grow in rank and make them want to stick around.

[Mr_Adams]

If maps and settings are unlocked over time, you can also break down the different rules. when they unlock chained, for example, they could get a pm "you have unlocked chained fortification! Chained fortification is a game style in which...explanation. This is one of many game option offered by conquerclub"

[PLAYER57832]

doc, I'll get back to you soon. My infant daughter has a fever and so do I. .

Good luck with your daughter (and you, too).


The biggest problem is defining which maps are "easy" and which maps are not. In truth, the classic is not the easiest map to play, it just happens to be one with which more people are familiar.

I am in favor of better methods of letting people know what certain maps are about. I know am not the only one that thought there was a computer glitch the very first time I saw AOR, back the first day it was introduced. However, those quickly became my favorite maps.

Before that, I gained experience on Coral Cairns and Age of Merchants. The very things that drive some people batty attracted me to them... at least at first. Had I been limited to ONLY "classic" I never would have bought premium twice or stuck around as long as I have. Too many people are just way, way too good on that map.

[Evil Semp]

The biggest problem is defining which maps are "easy" and which maps are not. In truth, the classic is not the easiest map to play, it just happens to be one with which more people are familiar.

That's one of the problems with this idea. Who decides what maps and settings? Who is the one that KNOWS ALL? Who is arrogant enough to decide for everyone else? I do have one player in mind...

[ender516]

So you're saying you like the idea. Thanks AAFItz.

Really? AAFitz gives you a polite considered response, and you summarize it like that, with the closest thing to a lie? When you started your campaign for change, I thought you seriously wanted to help the site, but the more of your posts I read, the less I agree with your ideas, or your methods of presenting them.

The problem is player retention.

If the immediate cause is frustration caused by waiting for turns, then I fear that the root cause is the widespread need for immediate gratification. There's always something else going on online, so I doubt we can do much more than minimize the inconvenience to active players by making it clear to new players BEFORE they join a game that some waiting is necessary.

On the other hand, if the immediate cause is frustration caused by other players with bad attitudes, then AAFitz's idea to protect new players from players with poor ratings sounds like one worth pursuing.

[Evil Semp]

I can imagine reading this somewhere on ont the internet.

How many sites do I need to join before I am allowed join Conquer Club? The sites that I join do they have to be real sites or can they be fake sites?

I think this suggestion is regressing rather than progressing.

How can limiting player interaction be good for CC? If they wanted to play AI than they could just stick with playing RiskII or whatever game they have. Isn't interacting with others what all those multi player games are about?

And no do not interpret this as support for your idea.

[AAFitz]

So you're saying you like the idea. Thanks AAFItz.

Yes, I like the any idea that adds to the site, including an optional AI, if someone felt like making it, and blocking low rated players from new recruits to perhaps keep them. Its nice to see you agree with this, and I hope this means you see the logic of treating new players well from now in chat and not farming them as much..two things you wrote you do for some odd reason, all while spending hours making suggestions blocking them from the best maps and options CC has to offer.... in some interesting goal of keeping them around.

Im sure the other world domination sites are thankful you are working so hard to make suggestions to keep new players from staying at CC, but its Its nice to see you will be changing your ways and actually working to keep them around from now on. As a benefit, your ratings will go up too...and your goal of improving the site for those "noobs" as you so lovingly refer to them, will be much more believable.

I knew eventually you would come around. Sorry, its been such a long road getting there.

[Queen_Herpes]

While it's hard to agree with everything someone writes, I certainly agree that nooby's need to be limited to what they can join. The biggest problem I face playing noobys is that they get frustrated with the rules, what they can and cannot do, what the hell is bombarding, etc. then they deadbeat the game from lack of understanding and them falling behind early.
I really like Queen's ideas on e-mailing or pming the new ones after 10, 20, 30, etc. that they have unlocked new things, (ie. flatrate, maps and so on)
Get her over seeing this department and get the ball rolling. Noobys are joining and quitting all the time. Make it "rewarding" to grow in rank and make them want to stick around.

Thank you for the comment.

[Coleman]

I'm sure somewhere in these 13 pages the things I am about to say have been pointed out and debated but I just don't have the time. My apologies.

In the rare event they have not I feel compelled to respond.

I once tried to make the map makers agree on what maps were most or least difficult to a new player. The process went on for several months and ultimately got nowhere. Some map makers took offense to the idea that their map was complex and no rating system that could be converted to an unlock system could be established. Although that was not my original goal, I wanted lack to provide a way to sort maps by complexity by default for new players.

If we did live in a magical world where all the people could agree or the powers that be would be willing to just force this upon the community without their agreement there would still be other problems.

I do however see the financial potential for making yet another benefit of paying for the site being full unlocks. Unfortunately at this stage of the game I am sure the risk of alienating the current non-subscribers, in effect insuring that they leave and will never subscribe, is too great to implement it.

[Queen_Herpes]

So you're saying you like the idea. Thanks AAFItz.

Yes, I like the any idea that adds to the site, including an optional AI, if someone felt like making it, and blocking low rated players from new recruits to perhaps keep them. Its nice to see you agree with this, and I hope this means you see the logic of treating new players well from now in chat and not farming them as much..two things you wrote you do for some odd reason, all while spending hours making suggestions blocking them from the best maps and options CC has to offer.... in some interesting goal of keeping them around.

Im sure the other world domination sites are thankful you are working so hard to make suggestions to keep new players from staying at CC, but its Its nice to see you will be changing your ways and actually working to keep them around from now on. As a benefit, your ratings will go up too...and your goal of improving the site for those "noobs" as you so lovingly refer to them, will be much more believable.

I knew eventually you would come around. Sorry, its been such a long road getting there.

I'm glad you like AI. I like it also.

As to the remainder of you, having AI available is good practice. When you go to the gym to "shoot baskets" or "practice free-throws" or "run layups," you are essentially "practicing" against a non-human opponent. You are "range-finding" and testing your limits and improving your ability to make deifficult plays. When you are done "practicing" you then move on to playing a game or two against opponents.

When you go to the gym to "lift weights" or "run on the track" or "get on the erg" or "run on the treadmill" or "take a spinning class" you are helping your body to "practice" for your future athletic endeavors. Most experiences in the weight room or on an elliptical machine are solitary where the experience is preparing you for whatever interactive athletic event comes next in your life.

When you "draw up a draft" or "take notes" or "read a text book" or "perform online research," you are preparing for discussing your research paper with a colleague and preparing for presenting your thesis to a board of review.

When you "draw up a lesson plan" or "photocopy reproducibles" or "read a teacher's edition textbook," you are preparing for teaching a lesson to a group of students. Perhaps you run through the lesson once before you are in the classroom.

When you play against AI, you are practicing and preparing yourself for games against human opponents.

It is ridiculous to assume that by adding AI to the Conquer Club that the site would suddenly fall into the likes of an "addictinggames.com" where all of the users would simply play against AI.

Conquer Club has an opportunity to improve itself exponentially by providing an AI that can be used as practice for the players who need the practice. Players new to the site need an opportunity to learn the maps and the game settings in a safe environment where they can also practice skills before playing against human opponents. Existing players need an opportunity to hone their skills, learn maps, understand game settings and jump into and out of the AI opponent games while playing human opponents.

Every advanced, successful video game provides a "campaign" or "vs. Computer" option. Of those games that also have an online component, players still play online versus real opponents in those games.

[Queen_Herpes]

If maps and settings are unlocked over time, you can also break down the different rules. when they unlock chained, for example, they could get a pm "you have unlocked chained fortification! Chained fortification is a game style in which...explanation. This is one of many game option offered by conquerclub"

I fully agree. There is a LACK of helpful data for new players and a similar LACK of helpful information for existing players. Your comment makes sense and should be integrated into the site. Players should receive PMs as you mentioned here.

[Doc_Brown]

While it's hard to agree with everything someone writes, I certainly agree that nooby's need to be limited to what they can join. The biggest problem I face playing noobys is that they get frustrated with the rules, what they can and cannot do, what the hell is bombarding, etc. then they deadbeat the game from lack of understanding and them falling behind early.

Is this true of all newbies? A majority? Or just a small fraction?
Also, yet again we have someone talking about how this suggestion would be good for other players. Have you noticed that every single person that applied this suggestion to himself was completely against it? Just once I'd like to see someone say:

This is a great suggestion. I really wish it had been in place when I joined. I'd have benefited so much from being restricted to a tiny portion of the content of this site for a full 6 months to a year. It would have been so much more enjoyable for me to have to play the same map with the same settings over and over again before I was allowed to play any other game types or maps.

If you can find a single person that really honestly believes this, I'll cease posting any further in this thread or the other version of it.

[Queen_Herpes]

I do see the financial potential for making yet another benefit of paying for the site being full unlocks.

Another benefit to this suggestion. The site will see more premiums. Lack can afford to pay faster programmers to program the site.

[AAFitz]

Well, AI might be fun for a while...but every single one of us could go play AI somewhere right now, and we choose to play against humans instead.

AI works out to this...pick a difficulty level, and you will win on it or lose on it. It takes out all real strategy, and is essentially just luck...not only dice luck now, but luck of what the computer "decides to attack".

We all came here for human interaction, sure, playing against a computer is sometimes fun, but guessing what a computer will do is infinitely different than playing against a human, and when you pick the difficulty level on AI, you actually know what the computer will do.

For the incremental amount of fun that some people may get out of adding AI, I cant imagine it would be worth the trouble. CC does everything AI does, which is provide interesting games, that allow for much learning, and, with the added benefit of not possibly predicting the skill of the opponent. Again, Id play it a few times if it was around, but I think you are vastly exaggerating how useful it would be. Anyone can go play AI risk right now, but instead they are here playing against people. Its silly to think they are doing so but would rather play against computers. Again, having played both extensively, there is just no contest. One game against a human is infinitely more satisfying against some computer, which of course is the reason for the massive success of human v human games, and the essential demise of human v computer games.

I think you may be overestimating the actual skill it takes to click on one territory, and attack another, shoot for a bonus, cash some cards, and win the game. I dont think you can compare this to a free throw shot, if someone needs that much practice getting used to this rather simple game, they probably will never, ever get good at it.

I suggest that anyone who thinks AI would be good for CC, go try the many options available out there. Some have been around for over 20 years...Once youve had a few games of solitaire, with absolutely predictable results, come back and play just one game against a completely unpredictable group of people....all who do not want to let you win, and may even hate you if you do. The stakes on any game are marginal, but the stakes on an AI game are non existent. Its solitaire. There is no way CC is losing people because they are not offering this, and there's no way its going to hook an uprising in customers, because it simply isnt anywhere near as fun as playing against people.

Discussing the benefits of this one are pretty much moot anyways, considering the considerable investment of time and resources, I tend to think such a decision wont be made considering the rants of a couple of people who happen to play on the site, and Im pretty sure nearly every last player on CC would rather see more updates, than the inclusion of a game, that one can already go play somewhere else very easily.

The reason people like CC is because of the community and the options. Both become fairly irrelevant when playing a computer.

Again though, glad to hear youre going to work on your game chat and really invite new players from now on. I really do love to see improvements to CC, that will actually help people stick around. Once the rating goes up too, you wont have to get blocked when the update goes through.

[Doc_Brown]

Another benefit to this suggestion. The site will see more premiums.

Or, more likely, just fewer players altogether.

[Queen_Herpes]

AI works out to this...pick a difficulty level, and you will win on it or lose on it. It takes out all real strategy, and is essentially just luck...not only dice luck now, but luck of what the computer "decides to attack".

We all came here for human interaction, sure, playing against a computer is sometimes fun, but guessing what a computer will do is infinitely different than playing against a human, and when you pick the difficulty level on AI, you actually know what the computer will do.

I think you may be overestimating the actual skill it takes to click on one territory, and attack another, shoot for a bonus, cash some cards, and win the game. I dont think you can compare this to a free throw shot, if someone needs that much practice getting used to this rather simple game, they probably will never, ever get good at it.

AAFitz, You're missing the point. The purpose of AI on this site would be to learn the maps and the settings. There is also some basic game strategy that can be gleaned from playing against AI. You're thinking that I am suggesting AI as a method to completely mimic the play of a human. I am not suggesting that. I am not suggesting that players use the AI opponents consistently as a replacement for playing against humans. The AI opponents could truly help new players learn the maps, settings and gameplay. The AI opponents could also help experienced players to learn a new map.

[Queen_Herpes]

Another benefit to this suggestion. The site will see more premiums.

Or, more likely, just fewer players altogether.

Explain to me how existing players will leave the site. I'd love to hear it, as I can't understand why.

[Evil Semp]

I do however see the financial potential for making yet another benefit of paying for the site being full unlocks. Unfortunately at this stage of the game I am sure the risk of alienating the current non-subscribers, in effect insuring that they leave and will never subscribe, is too great to implement it.

The answer was in the original post. You failed to quote the whole thing.