Real AI in a game would involve the game studying the players habits
over time, and adapting the game play to it. For decades, marketing
douchebags have preyed on the imagination and naivete of single player
gamers by discussing "AI" in games, and leading them to believe that
machine learning has somehow been incorporated into NPCs and bots. But
it couldn't be farther from the truth... the only real cognitive
challenge in gaming over the last 40-50 years (that wasn't an illusion
of cognitive challenge) has come from multiplayer games, whether
online or otherwise. Anyone who wanted a challenge against an
opponent that could, with sentience, actually be aware of the players
capability and (potentially) adjust difficulty or ancillary behavior
accordingly was pretty much limited to one of two cases: multiplayer
games (most of which are online) competing against HUMAN players, or
simply foregoing an understanding of technology altogether, retreating
into their autistic spectrum world and believing that those storm
troopers or aliens or whatever they saw
bobbing/weaving/evading/attacking etc were somehow aware of what the
player was doing, as opposed to just simple execution of procedural
if-then logic.

So, now that AI as a technology is much more advanced (and likewise,
the term itself is better understood such that game vendors will
hopefully be less likely to casually toss the term around for fear of
lawsuit / deceptive sales practices, etc.)....., do you think AI in
gaming will reach a point where it could convincingly match what's
already been available in human vs human play online over the last 30
years?

AI, as it's currently being sold, on its best day operates off of mass
quantities of historic data. It does not perform well on things that
happened more recently than a few months ago. So unless someone
(looks at Gabe Newell) invents a way to mine years or decades of data
about the way a particular player behaves in a game, and uses that as
basis to offer a feature that allows a game to compete with a player
against their historic habits, then for the most part AI in games will
never be a thing.

Prove me wrong.

The good news is that a video game doesn't need "REAL AI" to test your
hand eye reflexes, your puzzle solving ability, or (for most modern
titles) your willingness to endure insufferable amounts of cutscenes.

Those who are in search of "a story" in their games (and presumably
the same audience that led to the crash of video games that long cut
scenes has caused), will probably find better results simply watching
TV or movies (at least the acting is better) than a bunch of cobbled
together 3D rendered cartoons that were funded by misappropriated game
development financial decisions.

On 3/2/2024 6:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>
> Real AI in a game would involve the game studying the players habits
> over time, and adapting the game play to it.

I've read of devs trying just normal game AI (not the real thing) being
too good and having to deliberately lower it's effectiveness to make
games not too hard to play against.

Very obvious in the chess world, would you want to play against a fully
functional Deep Blue every time?

AI chat capabilities are more likely, so the world or NPCs feel more
real. There's a mod for skyrim where it does this with one an NPC party
member at least, a strange Vid, but I enjoyed it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXcM4vZA2i0

And of course using AI to generate more static bits of games, making it
much faster & cheaper . Art, dialog, plot, voice acting, maps, code
etc. That seems far more likely, and has probably been done with some
of that already (especially code) without disclosing it has.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote at 02:39 this Sunday (GMT):
>
> Real AI in a game would involve the game studying the players habits
> over time, and adapting the game play to it. For decades, marketing
> douchebags have preyed on the imagination and naivete of single player
> gamers by discussing "AI" in games, and leading them to believe that
> machine learning has somehow been incorporated into NPCs and bots. But
> it couldn't be farther from the truth... the only real cognitive
> challenge in gaming over the last 40-50 years (that wasn't an illusion
> of cognitive challenge) has come from multiplayer games, whether
> online or otherwise. Anyone who wanted a challenge against an
> opponent that could, with sentience, actually be aware of the players
> capability and (potentially) adjust difficulty or ancillary behavior
> accordingly was pretty much limited to one of two cases: multiplayer
> games (most of which are online) competing against HUMAN players, or
> simply foregoing an understanding of technology altogether, retreating
> into their autistic spectrum world and believing that those storm
> troopers or aliens or whatever they saw
> bobbing/weaving/evading/attacking etc were somehow aware of what the
> player was doing, as opposed to just simple execution of procedural
> if-then logic.
>
> So, now that AI as a technology is much more advanced (and likewise,
> the term itself is better understood such that game vendors will
> hopefully be less likely to casually toss the term around for fear of
> lawsuit / deceptive sales practices, etc.)....., do you think AI in
> gaming will reach a point where it could convincingly match what's
> already been available in human vs human play online over the last 30
> years?
>
> AI, as it's currently being sold, on its best day operates off of mass
> quantities of historic data. It does not perform well on things that
> happened more recently than a few months ago. So unless someone
> (looks at Gabe Newell) invents a way to mine years or decades of data
> about the way a particular player behaves in a game, and uses that as
> basis to offer a feature that allows a game to compete with a player
> against their historic habits, then for the most part AI in games will
> never be a thing.
>
> Prove me wrong.
>
> The good news is that a video game doesn't need "REAL AI" to test your
> hand eye reflexes, your puzzle solving ability, or (for most modern
> titles) your willingness to endure insufferable amounts of cutscenes.
>
> Those who are in search of "a story" in their games (and presumably
> the same audience that led to the crash of video games that long cut
> scenes has caused), will probably find better results simply watching
> TV or movies (at least the acting is better) than a bunch of cobbled
> together 3D rendered cartoons that were funded by misappropriated game
> development financial decisions.

I think there was already an indie(?) AI game called Facade that
looked interesting.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 3/4/2024 8:40 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote at 02:39 this Sunday (GMT):

> I think there was already an indie(?) AI game called Facade that
> looked interesting.

Wow, from 2005!

I remember someone on dragonsfoot playing around with ai.dungeon.com -
an AI text D&D game. It's more freeform than actual D&D, and you can do
that with any generative text AI.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote at 18:23 this Monday (GMT):
> On 3/4/2024 8:40 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote at 02:39 this Sunday (GMT):
>
>> I think there was already an indie(?) AI game called Facade that
>> looked interesting.
>
> Wow, from 2005!

Huh, that old? I only heard about it recently..

> I remember someone on dragonsfoot playing around with ai.dungeon.com -
> an AI text D&D game. It's more freeform than actual D&D, and you can do
> that with any generative text AI.

That stuff is pretty funny sometimes, tho I miss the simplicity
of something like Botnik (i don't think they operate anymore)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On Sat, 02 Mar 2024 21:39:14 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, Rin
Stowleigh wrote:

>
>Real AI in a game would involve the game studying the players habits
>over time, and adapting the game play to it. For decades, marketing
>douchebags have preyed on the imagination and naivete of single player
>gamers by discussing "AI" in games, and leading them to believe that
>machine learning has somehow been incorporated into NPCs and bots. But
>it couldn't be farther from the truth... the only real cognitive
>challenge in gaming over the last 40-50 years (that wasn't an illusion
>of cognitive challenge) has come from multiplayer games, whether
>online or otherwise. Anyone who wanted a challenge against an
>opponent that could, with sentience, actually be aware of the players
>capability and (potentially) adjust difficulty or ancillary behavior
>accordingly was pretty much limited to one of two cases: multiplayer
>games (most of which are online) competing against HUMAN players, or
>simply foregoing an understanding of technology altogether, retreating
>into their autistic spectrum world and believing that those storm
>troopers or aliens or whatever they saw
>bobbing/weaving/evading/attacking etc were somehow aware of what the
>player was doing, as opposed to just simple execution of procedural
>if-then logic.
>
>So, now that AI as a technology is much more advanced (and likewise,
>the term itself is better understood such that game vendors will
>hopefully be less likely to casually toss the term around for fear of
>lawsuit / deceptive sales practices, etc.)....., do you think AI in
>gaming will reach a point where it could convincingly match what's
>already been available in human vs human play online over the last 30
>years?
>
>AI, as it's currently being sold, on its best day operates off of mass
>quantities of historic data. It does not perform well on things that
>happened more recently than a few months ago. So unless someone
>(looks at Gabe Newell) invents a way to mine years or decades of data
>about the way a particular player behaves in a game, and uses that as
>basis to offer a feature that allows a game to compete with a player
>against their historic habits, then for the most part AI in games will
>never be a thing.
>
>Prove me wrong.
>
>The good news is that a video game doesn't need "REAL AI" to test your
>hand eye reflexes, your puzzle solving ability, or (for most modern
>titles) your willingness to endure insufferable amounts of cutscenes.
>
>Those who are in search of "a story" in their games (and presumably
>the same audience that led to the crash of video games that long cut
>scenes has caused), will probably find better results simply watching
>TV or movies (at least the acting is better) than a bunch of cobbled
>together 3D rendered cartoons that were funded by misappropriated game
>development financial decisions.

Probably "Global Thermonuclear War." That or Tic-Tac-Toe. Not sure.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Mon, 4 Mar 2024 07:45:38 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On 3/2/2024 6:39 PM, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
>>
>> Real AI in a game would involve the game studying the players habits
>> over time, and adapting the game play to it.
>
>I've read of devs trying just normal game AI (not the real thing) being
>too good and having to deliberately lower it's effectiveness to make
>games not too hard to play against.

Adjusting a game's difficulty through traditional mechanisms is very
easy though. All they have to do, for example in a combat scenario,
is lower the range of damage a player can take from an enemy weapon,
or lower the probability that a shot toward the player registers at
all, slow the fire rate, increase gun jamming or other failures etc.

>Very obvious in the chess world, would you want to play against a fully
>functional Deep Blue every time?

Well let's not assume that "well implemented AI' and "AI playing at
its max skill level" are the same things. Let's say for example we
define a "good chess game" (one that we would want to purchase on the
grounds it has been optimized for fun factor as opposed to brutal
human defeat)...

.... let's take that a step further and say the chess game has a
"purpose" slider, that can be moved to adjust difficulty across a
spectrum from left to right. When the slider is moved all the way to
the right, the chess game is set to improve the players game and train
them, such that it always plays slightly above the players ability...
when moved all the way to the left, the game plays just far enough
below the players ability, that the player will almost always win, but
in a satisfying way that was not easily achieved.

So this would imply that the AI has the challenge of learning the
human player's playing style and playing slightly above or below that
players skill level. It should never just mercilessly beat the pants
off them, nor should it ever be so easy that the player can beat the
computer without focusing.

This scenario is harder to achieve than just player vs Deep Blue.

>AI chat capabilities are more likely, so the world or NPCs feel more
>real. There's a mod for skyrim where it does this with one an NPC party
>member at least, a strange Vid, but I enjoyed it:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXcM4vZA2i0

I think that with AI chatbots becoming increasingly integrated with
every day chores like product tech support, having "Eliza-like
conversations" (referring to the conversation simulator Eliza from the
1960s) is probably not going to produce enough of a wow factor in most
games for AI to be a worthy selling point or feature.

>And of course using AI to generate more static bits of games, making it
>much faster & cheaper . Art, dialog, plot, voice acting, maps, code
>etc. That seems far more likely, and has probably been done with some
>of that already (especially code) without disclosing it has.

I'm sure this is already happening now to some extent, but this of
course is utilizing AI at the content creation level rather than the
gameplay level.

I believe in order for a game to legitimately claim it uses AI, there
needs to be some real-time aspect to it.

For example, imagine something like Animal Revolt Battle Simulator
that's a goofy sandbox battle sim. Imagine if none of the 3D models
were created in advance, but instead the player could use natural
language to describe what the competitors on each side of the battle
should be.. like maybe "a half dozen fire breathing dragons against
one giant cyclops" or whatever, and everything about the art,
animation and outcome of the battle is a factor of how the player has
described it and what the model knows about these elements from prior
learning, much in the way that image generation through DALL-E 3 for
example works today.

Granted, what I've just described is probably more of a generative
animated movie maker than a game, but I think illustrates the point.

On 3/4/2024 11:50 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote at 18:23 this Monday (GMT):
>> On 3/4/2024 8:40 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote at 02:39 this Sunday (GMT):
>>
>>> I think there was already an indie(?) AI game called Facade that
>>> looked interesting.
>>
>> Wow, from 2005!
>
> Huh, that old? I only heard about it recently..
>
>> I remember someone on dragonsfoot playing around with ai.dungeon.com -
>> an AI text D&D game. It's more freeform than actual D&D, and you can do
>> that with any generative text AI.
>
> That stuff is pretty funny sometimes, tho I miss the simplicity
> of something like Botnik (i don't think they operate anymore)

Is that https://botnik.org/ voicebox?

I was looking around and also found this, which looks far more
interesting than Facade, also released 2023.

Suck Up! A game where you play a vampire trying to get people to let
you into their house, it actually listens to what you say through the
microphone and has each person react. Pretty primitive looking graphics
wise. I could imagine this combined with VTM and it might be really
impressive.

A little clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-C7sLvI-ck

The game website:
https://www.playsuckup.com/

I read it's not on Steam as Steam won't accept actual AI games.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote at 21:58 this Monday (GMT):
> On 3/4/2024 11:50 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote at 18:23 this Monday (GMT):
>>> On 3/4/2024 8:40 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>>>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote at 02:39 this Sunday (GMT):
>>>
>>>> I think there was already an indie(?) AI game called Facade that
>>>> looked interesting.
>>>
>>> Wow, from 2005!
>>
>> Huh, that old? I only heard about it recently..
>>
>>> I remember someone on dragonsfoot playing around with ai.dungeon.com -
>>> an AI text D&D game. It's more freeform than actual D&D, and you can do
>>> that with any generative text AI.
>>
>> That stuff is pretty funny sometimes, tho I miss the simplicity
>> of something like Botnik (i don't think they operate anymore)
>
> Is that https://botnik.org/ voicebox?

Yea! I used to binge their youtube channel, it has some pretty fun
stuff :)

> I was looking around and also found this, which looks far more
> interesting than Facade, also released 2023.
>
> Suck Up! A game where you play a vampire trying to get people to let
> you into their house, it actually listens to what you say through the
> microphone and has each person react. Pretty primitive looking graphics
> wise. I could imagine this combined with VTM and it might be really
> impressive.
>
> A little clip:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-C7sLvI-ck
>
> The game website:
> https://www.playsuckup.com/
>
> I read it's not on Steam as Steam won't accept actual AI games.

Oh cool. I think I saw it reccomended on yt, but I assumed
it was clickbait.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 04/03/2024 18:23, Justisaur wrote:
> On 3/4/2024 8:40 AM, candycanearter07 wrote:
>> Rin Stowleigh <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote at 02:39 this Sunday
>> (GMT):
>
>> I think there was already an indie(?) AI game called Facade that
>> looked interesting.
>
> Wow, from 2005!
>
> I remember someone on dragonsfoot playing around with ai.dungeon.com -
> an AI text D&D game.  It's more freeform than actual D&D, and you can do
> that with any generative text AI.
>

I'll assume you mean aidungeon.com as the link you gave is for a
somewhat different site!

I have played with AI Dungeon and you can use it to play a D&D style
setting, that's one of many themes, but the way it plays is really quite
different. It's more a co-op story game where the player directs the
action (you can literally say something like I find a key in the
person's pocket) and the AI makes the story reactive to you. It's fun
but no substitute for a TT RPG experience.

I have also seen some videos of people's experience with playing D&D
with ChatGPT as the DM and it seems quite a mixed bag and not really
there yet. I've also seen some thoughts on its application in TT RPG's
in general and some of the places I think it could be useful is in
aiding the creation of locations and NPC's, either out of game or
in-game. Personally I quite like those moments where the characters come
up with a good idea that isn't in the scenario and you then have to make
something up on the fly and reward them for being inventive.

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I've read of devs trying just normal game AI (not the real thing) being
>too good and having to deliberately lower it's effectiveness to make
>games not too hard to play against.

Usually though this is because the computer has some advantage over the
player that doesn't really have anything to do with how smart it is.
For example in an FPS the computer controlled enemies could easily be
programed to shoot with pinpoint accuracy even with snapshots fired from
the hip from long distances. In stragegy games with multiple computer
controlled opponentsm, an easy to way for them to gain an advantage is
for them to gang up on the player.

Basically, just like in the films, the rebel heroes in games would have a
rather hard time of it if they were facing stormtroopers with precise aim.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On 3/7/2024 8:42 AM, Ross Ridge wrote:
> Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I've read of devs trying just normal game AI (not the real thing) being
>> too good and having to deliberately lower it's effectiveness to make
>> games not too hard to play against.
>
> Usually though this is because the computer has some advantage over the
> player that doesn't really have anything to do with how smart it is.
> For example in an FPS the computer controlled enemies could easily be
> programed to shoot with pinpoint accuracy even with snapshots fired from
> the hip from long distances. In stragegy games with multiple computer
> controlled opponentsm, an easy to way for them to gain an advantage is
> for them to gang up on the player.
>
> Basically, just like in the films, the rebel heroes in games would have a
> rather hard time of it if they were facing stormtroopers with precise aim.
>
Or stormtroopers with even a basic idea of which end of the weapon to
point at the heroes....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Ross Ridge <rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote at 16:42 this Thursday (GMT):
> Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I've read of devs trying just normal game AI (not the real thing) being
>>too good and having to deliberately lower it's effectiveness to make
>>games not too hard to play against.
>
> Usually though this is because the computer has some advantage over the
> player that doesn't really have anything to do with how smart it is.
> For example in an FPS the computer controlled enemies could easily be
> programed to shoot with pinpoint accuracy even with snapshots fired from
> the hip from long distances. In stragegy games with multiple computer
> controlled opponentsm, an easy to way for them to gain an advantage is
> for them to gang up on the player.
>
> Basically, just like in the films, the rebel heroes in games would have a
> rather hard time of it if they were facing stormtroopers with precise aim.

Another good example is all the rubber banding that happens in
Mario Kart. Or how the AI got exclusive items in Super Mario Kart.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote at 18:43 this Thursday (GMT):
> On 3/7/2024 8:42 AM, Ross Ridge wrote:
>> Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> I've read of devs trying just normal game AI (not the real thing) being
>>> too good and having to deliberately lower it's effectiveness to make
>>> games not too hard to play against.
>>
>> Usually though this is because the computer has some advantage over the
>> player that doesn't really have anything to do with how smart it is.
>> For example in an FPS the computer controlled enemies could easily be
>> programed to shoot with pinpoint accuracy even with snapshots fired from
>> the hip from long distances. In stragegy games with multiple computer
>> controlled opponentsm, an easy to way for them to gain an advantage is
>> for them to gang up on the player.
>>
>> Basically, just like in the films, the rebel heroes in games would have a
>> rather hard time of it if they were facing stormtroopers with precise aim.
>>
> Or stormtroopers with even a basic idea of which end of the weapon to
> point at the heroes....

"Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise"
(full disclosure ive hardly watched any of the starwars movies)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 04/03/2024 20:32, Zaghadka wrote:
> Probably "Global Thermonuclear War." That or Tic-Tac-Toe. Not sure.
>

How about a nice game of chess?

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
writes:

> "Only Imperial Stormtroopers are so precise"
> (full disclosure ive hardly watched any of the starwars movies)

I think that line is from the Star Wars novel, no? It's a little weird
how in the movies those precise and efficient stormtroopers got whaled
on by some randos with no military training. And apparently some of the
randos got promoted to generals too.

Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>I think that line is from the Star Wars novel, no? It's a little weird
>how in the movies those precise and efficient stormtroopers got whaled
>on by some randos with no military training. And apparently some of the
>randos got promoted to generals too.

"Only Imperial Stormtoopers are so precise" is a line from the first
movie. Obi-Wan Kenobi says it in regards to "blast-points" on a destroyed
Jawa crawler, arguing thwy couldn't have be made by Tuskan raiders.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On 3/13/2024 4:03 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:
> Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>> I think that line is from the Star Wars novel, no? It's a little weird
>> how in the movies those precise and efficient stormtroopers got whaled
>> on by some randos with no military training. And apparently some of the
>> randos got promoted to generals too.
>
> "Only Imperial Stormtoopers are so precise" is a line from the first
> movie. Obi-Wan Kenobi says it in regards to "blast-points" on a destroyed
> Jawa crawler, arguing thwy couldn't have be made by Tuskan raiders.
>

Of course at that point we don't know anything about Imperial
Stormtroopers (besides the boarding action earlier where they actually
did hit quite a few people), and Obi-Wan has been stuck on Tatooine for
a while.

kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote at 14:13 this Thursday (GMT):
> On 3/13/2024 4:03 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:
>> Anssi Saari <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>>> I think that line is from the Star Wars novel, no? It's a little weird
>>> how in the movies those precise and efficient stormtroopers got whaled
>>> on by some randos with no military training. And apparently some of the
>>> randos got promoted to generals too.
>>
>> "Only Imperial Stormtoopers are so precise" is a line from the first
>> movie. Obi-Wan Kenobi says it in regards to "blast-points" on a destroyed
>> Jawa crawler, arguing thwy couldn't have be made by Tuskan raiders.
>>
>
> Of course at that point we don't know anything about Imperial
> Stormtroopers (besides the boarding action earlier where they actually
> did hit quite a few people), and Obi-Wan has been stuck on Tatooine for
> a while.

Fair point, he never had experienced how bad aim they were :D
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 3/14/2024 7:13 AM, kyonshi wrote:
> On 3/13/2024 4:03 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:
>> Anssi Saari  <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>>> I think that line is from the Star Wars novel, no? It's a little weird
>>> how in the movies those precise and efficient stormtroopers got whaled
>>> on by some randos with no military training. And apparently some of the
>>> randos got promoted to generals too.
>>
>> "Only Imperial Stormtoopers are so precise" is a line from the first
>> movie.  Obi-Wan Kenobi says it in regards to "blast-points" on a
>> destroyed
>> Jawa crawler, arguing thwy couldn't have be made by Tuskan raiders.
>>
>
> Of course at that point we don't know anything about Imperial
> Stormtroopers (besides the boarding action earlier where they actually
> did hit quite a few people), and Obi-Wan has been stuck on Tatooine for
> a while.

They only appear really bad because of the force sensitive are
unconsciously altering their aim. All it takes is the tiniest nudge.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 3/14/2024 2:24 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 7:13 AM, kyonshi wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 4:03 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:
>>> Anssi Saari  <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>>>> I think that line is from the Star Wars novel, no? It's a little weird
>>>> how in the movies those precise and efficient stormtroopers got whaled
>>>> on by some randos with no military training. And apparently some of the
>>>> randos got promoted to generals too.
>>>
>>> "Only Imperial Stormtoopers are so precise" is a line from the first
>>> movie.  Obi-Wan Kenobi says it in regards to "blast-points" on a
>>> destroyed
>>> Jawa crawler, arguing thwy couldn't have be made by Tuskan raiders.
>>>
>>
>> Of course at that point we don't know anything about Imperial
>> Stormtroopers (besides the boarding action earlier where they actually
>> did hit quite a few people), and Obi-Wan has been stuck on Tatooine
>> for a while.
>
> They only appear really bad because of the force sensitive are
> unconsciously altering their aim.  All it takes is the tiniest nudge.
>
FANWANK!! FANWANK!! FANWANK!!

:D

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 3/14/2024 5:25 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 2:24 PM, Justisaur wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 7:13 AM, kyonshi wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 4:03 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:
>>>> Anssi Saari  <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>>>>> I think that line is from the Star Wars novel, no? It's a little weird
>>>>> how in the movies those precise and efficient stormtroopers got whaled
>>>>> on by some randos with no military training. And apparently some of
>>>>> the
>>>>> randos got promoted to generals too.
>>>>
>>>> "Only Imperial Stormtoopers are so precise" is a line from the first
>>>> movie.  Obi-Wan Kenobi says it in regards to "blast-points" on a
>>>> destroyed
>>>> Jawa crawler, arguing thwy couldn't have be made by Tuskan raiders.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course at that point we don't know anything about Imperial
>>> Stormtroopers (besides the boarding action earlier where they
>>> actually did hit quite a few people), and Obi-Wan has been stuck on
>>> Tatooine for a while.
>>
>> They only appear really bad because of the force sensitive are
>> unconsciously altering their aim.  All it takes is the tiniest nudge.
>>
> FANWANK!!  FANWANK!!  FANWANK!!
>

I learned a new word today. Thanks, I hate it.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On 3/15/2024 8:39 AM, Justisaur wrote:
> On 3/14/2024 5:25 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 3/14/2024 2:24 PM, Justisaur wrote:
>>> On 3/14/2024 7:13 AM, kyonshi wrote:
>>>> On 3/13/2024 4:03 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:
>>>>> Anssi Saari  <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>>>>>> I think that line is from the Star Wars novel, no? It's a little
>>>>>> weird
>>>>>> how in the movies those precise and efficient stormtroopers got
>>>>>> whaled
>>>>>> on by some randos with no military training. And apparently some
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> randos got promoted to generals too.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Only Imperial Stormtoopers are so precise" is a line from the first
>>>>> movie.  Obi-Wan Kenobi says it in regards to "blast-points" on a
>>>>> destroyed
>>>>> Jawa crawler, arguing thwy couldn't have be made by Tuskan raiders.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Of course at that point we don't know anything about Imperial
>>>> Stormtroopers (besides the boarding action earlier where they
>>>> actually did hit quite a few people), and Obi-Wan has been stuck on
>>>> Tatooine for a while.
>>>
>>> They only appear really bad because of the force sensitive are
>>> unconsciously altering their aim.  All it takes is the tiniest nudge.
>>>
>> FANWANK!!  FANWANK!!  FANWANK!!
>>
>
> I learned a new word today.  Thanks, I hate it.
>
You're welcome. :D

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote at 21:24 this Thursday (GMT):
> On 3/14/2024 7:13 AM, kyonshi wrote:
>> On 3/13/2024 4:03 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:
>>> Anssi Saari  <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>>>> I think that line is from the Star Wars novel, no? It's a little weird
>>>> how in the movies those precise and efficient stormtroopers got whaled
>>>> on by some randos with no military training. And apparently some of the
>>>> randos got promoted to generals too.
>>>
>>> "Only Imperial Stormtoopers are so precise" is a line from the first
>>> movie.  Obi-Wan Kenobi says it in regards to "blast-points" on a
>>> destroyed
>>> Jawa crawler, arguing thwy couldn't have be made by Tuskan raiders.
>>>
>>
>> Of course at that point we don't know anything about Imperial
>> Stormtroopers (besides the boarding action earlier where they actually
>> did hit quite a few people), and Obi-Wan has been stuck on Tatooine for
>> a while.
>
> They only appear really bad because of the force sensitive are
> unconsciously altering their aim. All it takes is the tiniest nudge.

That's..actually a really interesting explanation. If only the movie
mentioned it..
(i haven't watched the movies but i assume it's not mentioned
considering fan perception)
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 3/15/2024 1:30 PM, candycanearter07 wrote:
> Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote at 21:24 this Thursday (GMT):
>> On 3/14/2024 7:13 AM, kyonshi wrote:
>>> On 3/13/2024 4:03 PM, Ross Ridge wrote:
>>>> Anssi Saari  <anssi.saari@usenet.mail.kapsi.fi> wrote:
>>>>> I think that line is from the Star Wars novel, no? It's a little weird
>>>>> how in the movies those precise and efficient stormtroopers got whaled
>>>>> on by some randos with no military training. And apparently some of the
>>>>> randos got promoted to generals too.
>>>>
>>>> "Only Imperial Stormtoopers are so precise" is a line from the first
>>>> movie.  Obi-Wan Kenobi says it in regards to "blast-points" on a
>>>> destroyed
>>>> Jawa crawler, arguing thwy couldn't have be made by Tuskan raiders.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Of course at that point we don't know anything about Imperial
>>> Stormtroopers (besides the boarding action earlier where they actually
>>> did hit quite a few people), and Obi-Wan has been stuck on Tatooine for
>>> a while.
>>
>> They only appear really bad because of the force sensitive are
>> unconsciously altering their aim. All it takes is the tiniest nudge.
>
> That's..actually a really interesting explanation. If only the movie
> mentioned it..
> (i haven't watched the movies but i assume it's not mentioned
> considering fan perception)

Not specifically, if you extrapolate from

"The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created
by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the
galaxy together."

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'