63 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

I could see bots being used as a temporary fill-in for AFKs (if the bots weren't complete derps at least), but having them take the place of an actual player probably wouldn't end well. Making a bot play effectively for a game like MWO is probably harder than most games...

[Mystere]

Great, let's add more PvE in what was supposed to be a pure PvP game.

I have a question. What experience does PGI have in writing excellent AI? Or is this again going to be one of those half-baked secondary features that will cause even more whine and a whole lot more of wasted time, effort, and other limited resources -- time, effort, and other limited resources that should be spent on currently half-baked or missing features?

Edited by Mystere, 27 October 2015 - 02:16 PM.

[Lilferret]

Instead of bots why not dynamic group sizes?
It would be easy to allow MM to set up 6 8 and 12 man groups based on availability.
Honestly I think a solution like this would provide a better player experience than mandated 12 man teams with bots that regardless of the quality will only cause discontent in the MWO player base.

This could also allow PGI to utilize smaller maps for small groups, possibly even coming up with some new game play types like scouting mission (lighter team vs heavier team with alternate win scenarios), Assaults (sort of like CW), King of the mountain (you get one or two respawns and one team wins by either out killing the other team or controlling a capture point).

Even without alternate game types dynamic group sizes could address the current MM issue without needing much coding or change to the game.

[Davegt27]

OP you must not play much because they already have bots

[Burktross]

Davegt27, on 27 October 2015 - 03:27 PM, said:

OP you must not play much because they already have bots

Oh yeah?

[Triordinant]

Mystere, on 27 October 2015 - 02:07 PM, said:

Great, let's add more PvE in what was supposed to be a pure PvP game.

Actually it was originally supposed to be a PvE game called Mechwarrior 5 with PvP as a sideshow. PGI was forced against their will to make it a free to play PvP shooter because it was either that or abandon the project completely.

[Mystere]

Triordinant, on 27 October 2015 - 03:48 PM, said:

Actually it was originally supposed to be a PvE game called Mechwarrior 5 with PvP as a sideshow. PGI was forced against their will to make it a free to play PvP shooter because it was either that or abandon the project completely.

No publisher/investor wanted to pay for Mechwarrior 5. It never existed except for a concept video.

[Triordinant]

Mystere, on 27 October 2015 - 04:06 PM, said:

No publisher/investor wanted to pay for Mechwarrior 5. It never existed except for a concept video.

That's why they were forced to make MWO instead. It's like a consolation prize and a poor substitute for the original vision.

[Troutmonkey]

Lilferret, on 27 October 2015 - 03:24 PM, said:

Instead of bots why not dynamic group sizes?
It would be easy to allow MM to set up 6 8 and 12 man groups based on availability.
Honestly I think a solution like this would provide a better player experience than mandated 12 man teams with bots that regardless of the quality will only cause discontent in the MWO player base.

This could also allow PGI to utilize smaller maps for small groups, possibly even coming up with some new game play types like scouting mission (lighter team vs heavier team with alternate win scenarios), Assaults (sort of like CW), King of the mountain (you get one or two respawns and one team wins by either out killing the other team or controlling a capture point).

Even without alternate game types dynamic group sizes could address the current MM issue without needing much coding or change to the game.

I think I remember that at some point during open beta that it could find full 8v8 games and occasionally made smaller games like 6v6, 6v7

[Ted Wayz]

If a bot goes afk what replaces it?

Rather PGI spent the resources on CW. Creating mechs and game play use different resources. Creating bots and improving CW would overlap resources.

And the wait times are based on many factors. Server choice, game mode choice, tier, etc. Weight is one small factor.

[Mystere]

I have two words for everyone: random matchmaking.

[WarZ]

FrontGuard, on 27 October 2015 - 12:11 PM, said:

let me try one more time please.
Since when you add up a percentage it must Always add up to 100 you can
safely and simply use that percentage to make the matches an equal representation of the on line player base.
So...
I there are 10% lite, 20% med, 30% heavy and 40% Assault... you can just use that available percentage to make Even Teams.
... and it would be fast as hell

No and match quality would suck arse even more. Then even less people choose lights and mediums, as it was before. A VERY BAD move.

[Simbacca]

Lilferret, on 27 October 2015 - 03:24 PM, said:

Instead of bots why not dynamic group sizes?
It would be easy to allow MM to set up 6 8 and 12 man groups based on availability.
Honestly I think a solution like this would provide a better player experience than mandated 12 man teams with bots that regardless of the quality will only cause discontent in the MWO player base.

This could also allow PGI to utilize smaller maps for small groups, possibly even coming up with some new game play types like scouting mission (lighter team vs heavier team with alternate win scenarios), Assaults (sort of like CW), King of the mountain (you get one or two respawns and one team wins by either out killing the other team or controlling a capture point).

Even without alternate game types dynamic group sizes could address the current MM issue without needing much coding or change to the game.

6 vs 6 would be too low. I can see 8 vs 8. Plus dynamic group sizes does have the advantage of mixing things up for players. And adding some only 8vs8 maps (say around 3) should be fairly fast to do as well.

[-Vompo-]

They have mentioned that they will start working on single player. That's the correct way in my book to allow players who like shooting bots to do so. I don't want them in multiplayer. I get no joy in winning against a bot or beating a bot. I'll rather stay in queue for extra 5 minutes than play against a bot or bots. I mean maybe they would be fine in cw where you could shoot them instead of a ghost drop but even rather than that just give the players who have to ghost drop larger rewards for their victory and don't force them to waste their time shooting at bots.

[Burktross]

Ted Wayz, on 27 October 2015 - 04:40 PM, said:

If a bot goes afk what replaces it?

"If a Doom Imp goes AFK, what replaces it?"
Seriously, how do bots go AFK?

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

Mystere, on 27 October 2015 - 02:07 PM, said:

Great, let's add more PvE in what was supposed to be a pure PvP game.

I have a question. What experience does PGI have in writing excellent AI? Or is this again going to be one of those half-baked secondary features that will cause even more whine and a whole lot more of wasted time, effort, and other limited resources -- time, effort, and other limited resources that should be spent on currently half-baked or missing features?

it never should have been a pure pvp game.

Keep in mind man... we only have MWO as is... because no publisher would pick up MW 3015. [the warhammer trailer one]

That was the game I was hyped for... didn't get it, got MWO instead. I'm glad they're shifting to PVE eventually... should have been there to start. AND could help flesh out CW.

[N0MAD]

Some of us think MW5 was what PGI bought, 4 mechs, 4 maps and the running game, they then ported it to Cry, (isnt that what PGI did before? port for other companies). Then they proceeded to add to the game leading us to what we have now, minimal viable product.

[August55]

Sure! Give us the Instant Action mode from MW4.

[0bsidion]

Well, I've said it before, CW needs it to fill in the gaps and bring it alive, because there just aren't enough players to run a galaxy. It wouldn't matter if there were 50 players or 500,000, it'd never be enough to flesh it out. So at least there it's needed.

[Ted Wayz]

Burktross, on 27 October 2015 - 05:17 PM, said:

"If a Doom Imp goes AFK, what replaces it?"
Seriously, how do bots go AFK?

You have never seen bots go afk due to code or server issues? Or when they glitch or the AI has them walking into a corner forever.

Bots and working bots are two different things.