45 replies to this topic

[Capt Danger Awesome]

I like the idea of testing out the mechs in some sort of simulator mode, or a PVE co-op clan invasion, that would be cool. However, I would play the game regardless of whether or not it has PVE...

I'd be eternally grateful for an offline mode though... as I'm soon to be spending around six months in a country where I won't have access to the internet... for games at least

[Syro]

About the only place I really want to see PvE would be Clans. Otherwise, pring on the PVP. That being said, the emphasis on PVP is going to require that the community warfare portion of the game continue to evolve into something phenominal, if the Devs want more than a transient gaming community.

Although, my last statement might not be all that accurate, given how tribes is doing right now. Still, i'd love to see us actually able to /take and hold/ planets from DCMS.

[Herzog]

Introducing the Clans as PvE makes a lot of sense, especially from a game balance perspective. I like the idea.

The big thing to keep my interest in PvP is going to be the ability to affect the strategic game, ie: win planets, turn the tide of the war, that sort of thing.

[IceSerpent]

Bluten, on 28 June 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

I am hoping for some kind of campaign or or at least PvE scenario missions that is entirely Co Op vs A.I. I mean all you would have to do is copy missions from previous games... like that final neutral ending mission in MW4 Mercs. That was really fun and would be so again in a Co Op. It doesn't have to be a "Campaign" so much as Co Op scenarios.

Question is why would you want to play against bots when you can play against other people?

Capt Danger Awesome, on 28 June 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

I always wonder about games that don't have any PVE... I know nothing about programming computer games, is it hard to add bots? Is that a complex feat of programming? ...

Yep, creating good AI is complex and time consuming.

[Donovan Jenks]

Capt Danger Awesome, on 28 June 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

I always wonder about games that don't have any PVE... I know nothing about programming computer games, is it hard to add bots? Is that a complex feat of programming? ...

bots do not change the gaming code they use programming to simulate the actions of a human through the UI of the client. It is like scripting a client so that the code performs all of the same actions that human would only it never has to take bio or sleep breaks. It also works best for repetitive tasks like:

move to x, loot y, move to z, drop of y, loop.

I would not think you would ever see bots in a game this or WoT do to the fact that every game is different and outside of terrain no component of each match is static. You could have a bot that just automatically selects a unit, click start battle, check next unit, click start battle, check next unit,... you get the point. This would be useful if you want to always have a unit in battle to get what ever the minimum xp - currency amount of a match regardless of performance.

I am not a computer programmer either but I work with technology daily and I can imagine that creating bots is a very tedious and time consuming process, not to mention a violation of the spirit of the EULA as because it does not change the code it is not a strict violation but rather an abuse. Companies are now appending the EULA to include bots and make sure there are severe penalties for botting players.

DON'T BOT!

I realized after writing this that you did not me "bots" as I explained it but you meant adding AI (Artificial Intelligence) for PvE :-(

[Silversteel]

Donovan Jenks, on 28 June 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

bots do not change the gaming code they use programming to simulate the actions of a human through the UI of the client. It is like scripting a client so that the code performs all of the same actions that human would only it never has to take bio or sleep breaks. It also works best for repetitive tasks like:

move to x, loot y, move to z, drop of y, loop.

I would not think you would ever see bots in a game this or WoT do to the fact that every game is different and outside of terrain no component of each match is static. You could have a bot that just automatically selects a unit, click start battle, check next unit, click start battle, check next unit,... you get the point. This would be useful if you want to always have a unit in battle to get what ever the minimum xp - currency amount of a match regardless of performance.

I am not a computer programmer either but I work with technology daily and I can imagine that creating bots is a very tedious and time consuming process, not to mention a violation of the spirit of the EULA as because it does not change the code it is not a strict violation but rather an abuse. Companies are now appending the EULA to include bots and make sure there are severe penalties for botting players.

DON'T BOT!

I realized after writing this that you did not me "bots" as I explained it but you meant adding AI (Artificial Intelligence) for PvE :-(

Well you got the wrong impression of what the guy meant with bots. He didnt mean somehting that plays for you but an AI that plays against him, and the AI has to be included in the code else it wont react fast enough.

Edited by Silversteel, 28 June 2012 - 12:57 PM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

IceSerpent, on 28 June 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Question is why would you want to play against bots when you can play against other people?

Well in League it is for less stressful matches and a less stressful way of farming that IP. Here it would be for unique experiences, comparable to missions in previous games. This is all assuming they don't give us such modes in the PvP.

[Capt Danger Awesome]

Donovan Jenks, on 28 June 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

bots do not change the gaming code they use programming to simulate the actions of a human through the UI of the client. It is like scripting a client so that the code performs all of the same actions that human would only it never has to take bio or sleep breaks. It also works best for repetitive tasks like:

move to x, loot y, move to z, drop of y, loop.

I would not think you would ever see bots in a game this or WoT do to the fact that every game is different and outside of terrain no component of each match is static. You could have a bot that just automatically selects a unit, click start battle, check next unit, click start battle, check next unit,... you get the point. This would be useful if you want to always have a unit in battle to get what ever the minimum xp - currency amount of a match regardless of performance.

I am not a computer programmer either but I work with technology daily and I can imagine that creating bots is a very tedious and time consuming process, not to mention a violation of the spirit of the EULA as because it does not change the code it is not a strict violation but rather an abuse. Companies are now appending the EULA to include bots and make sure there are severe penalties for botting players.

DON'T BOT!

I realized after writing this that you did not me "bots" as I explained it but you meant adding AI (Artificial Intelligence) for PvE :-(

lol... that is correct, I meant bot as in ' a type of weak AI expert system software which for each instance of the program controls a player in deathmatch, team deathmatch and/or cooperative human player, most prominently in the first-person shooters (FPSs). Computer-controlled bots may play against other bots and/or human players in unison, either over the Internet, on a LAN or in a local session'...

That's ok though, I'll forgive you as you kindly put a lot of effort into trying to answer my question. Many thanks.

Edited by Capt Danger Awesome, 28 June 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[Sumner]

MPBT on Gamestorm was a pvp game and that was very enjoyable. This game so far in what I have seen and read on the boards looks to be just as enjoyable if not more so.

[MrMasakari]

I see them doing some kind of base defense thing in the future against clans maybe, but I wouldn't get your hopes up just yet. PGI have got a lot of other things to do before considering this. Sorry to mention WoT but, thats doing just fine without any PvE tbh.

[mr Zonke]

Bluten, on 28 June 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

Yes Co Op vs Clans would be awesome.

It's not that I don't want the PvP to be as good as it can be... I just want both. I'm the kind of guy that enjoys both PvP content and PvE content in my MMO. There's no rules stating that you can't.

+1
It would be hard to get players to fight within the clans honor codes, I can't imagine any good enough incentive anyway. So, it would make sense to make pve content out of the clan invasions.. pve content that might let you salvage your own omnimech

[Taryys]

I would also like to see a PVE mode too. Even if it was short.
Enough to intro us to each of the mech types/roles, as well as to introduce us to the MW Universe.

[IceSerpent]

Bluten, on 28 June 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Well in League it is for less stressful matches and a less stressful way of farming that IP.

This would allow people to bot like crazy in order to farm xp/c-bills - not a good idea imho.

Quote

Here it would be for unique experiences, comparable to missions in previous games. This is all assuming they don't give us such modes in the PvP.

I am not sure if those experiences would be very entertaining. I mean, one certainly can create good missions with lots of different objectives, voiceovers, etc., but it's a lot of work for no replay value at all. I think it would be better to use those man-hours for improving the PvP part of the game - community warfare, new maps, new mechs, etc.

[Vaktor]

mr Zonke, on 28 June 2012 - 03:04 PM, said:

+1
It would be hard to get players to fight within the clans honor codes, I can't imagine any good enough incentive anyway. So, it would make sense to make pve content out of the clan invasions.. pve content that might let you salvage your own omnimech

Plus if you open up the Clans to players... who is going to play IS? I think clans being AI would be awesome to really preserve the feel of the clans... Plus Clan Mechwarriors do fight like they are programmed so it will be a good fit for them.

[Syro]

Quote

Plus if you open up the Clans to players... who is going to play IS? I think clans being AI would be awesome to really preserve the feel of the clans... Plus Clan Mechwarriors do fight like they are programmed so it will be a good fit for them.

They just have to make sure the AI is at least good in some areas (overall combat/piloting capabilities), and bad in others ('Anticipation' of tactics). So a mix of say, the Hardest (Elite?) and Normal difficulties from MW 4 Mercs.

This does all assume that the devs are even planning on introducing the clans (I admit i've not searched to see if they have said they are). I know it's rather difficult to have a BattleTech universe without them, but then again, by this time in canon, LCAF and AFFS should be united, and I've not seen anything that indicates they will be. I guess we'll know for certain on Aug 13th, if the ISN feed is something along the lines of Kel Hounds announce the loss of Phela Kell on the periphery.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

As I have said somewhere the Clans will probably be in Co Op, where you will simply fight them. This would keep overpowered Clan Tech out of the hands of players while still having it in the game. It would also make Co Op challenging as Clan Tech is superior to IS Tech. If Clan Tech is ever usable by players then IS Tech will eventually become obsolete. It would also give an unfair advantage to anyone that took the time to farm(or simply bought) Clan Tech because it would be BETTER than your enemies' IS Tech.

[Cuddles]

Razor Back, on 28 June 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

I can't see how a game can survive without pve content, leveling and such.. typical grind levels.

There are plenty of PvP games around that don't have PvE. Counterstrike is still one of the most played games on Steam. Team Fortress 2 isn't exactly dead. Modern Warfare and Battlefield are essentially PvP only (PvE only in single player which doesn't contribute anything to multiplayer). And that's just a few of the more popular ones. Remember, this isn't an MMO where you need to endlessly repeat the same pointless PvE content just so you're able to do something else in the future, it's just a series of regular multiplayer games that happen to take place in a shared universe. You didn't have to spend hours grinding in Quake 2 just to play a deathmatch, so why should you expect to have to do it here? Multiplayer != MMO.

[Fahr]

As someone who has written AI code for a game before, let me tell you, it is very very complicated, and in ways that are difficult to forsee.

Some basic steps to creating a Decent AI,
1) Path selection, How do you get from here to where you want to be
2) How do you decide where you want to be?
3) who can you see? (this is much more complex than it seems, as you the human use your eyes, so a mech could hide next to a building with decent camo shutdown and a human player will not nessesarily notice it, but a computer Always will, so you have to compensate so the computer doesn't seem to be magical)
4) what do you shoot, and when?

and those are only dealing with the basic FPS style deathmatch, run around and kill everyone. Add in role warfare and you introduce a huge huge amount of smarts that the computer needs to understand and try to accomplish.

then there's the problem of communication, you don't want all the bots to act like they are psychic (one bot sees you so every bot instantly acts in concert against you) but you also don't want them to act like they're lone wolfs (it's a team game, so any lone wolf will get anihilated)

and lastly, it is very hard to write an AI until you've seen what people do. AI's model human behaviour, and until you have that behaviour to look at it is very hard to anticipate what the AI will need to do. IE even the designers don't know what the best tactics to use are, because the player base will come up with lots of stuff they never thought of, until you see that, you can't make a program that models that behaviour.

I think that this game can thrive as PvP, and PvE is almost another entire game on top of this one, so I can wait for them to do it correctly after they have seen what we the players do.

[CL_Kodiak]

SargeOsis, on 28 June 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

It was also a very recent addition to the game they've been toiling away on for a while. PGI could get there, but it won't be soon.

Agreed. It was also largely due to LoL's success and online sales. It is a wonderful business model for gaming IMO. Push the game out free, if it is good - people will play it and be happy to invest. If they continue to invest - the company can continue providing new content because of the continued funding.

If a day comes where that breaks down, then it is clear the community is done supporting the game and it is time to let it peter out.

With a game like MWO and all the detication from this community and love for this game - I see it lasting a VERY long time with tons of content coming down the road!

Just imagine other mech games of yesterday, None of us wanted them to die - but they didn't get many updates or support. there was no mechanism for the community to show their appreciation for the game they love so much. If any of those games had this model in place MW would still be going strong.

I have high hopes for this business model and for this franchise I think it is finally here to stay!

[Whiski]

Addition of a PvE content would be good for new players to practice and get used to the various mechanics of the game such as terrain vs mobility, type of weapons vs damage, mech weapons loadout, etc.

I for one, could definitely use some time with PvE (but love PvP) because I know I am gonna get my butt stomped for the first few weeks.....at least until I get my mojo going.

Plus, it adds another aspect of the game for people who don't enjoy PvP. The more people that support the game the better off we all are.