Jump to content

Implementing Npcs, Improving Every Facet Of Play


7 replies to this topic

#1 Gryphorim

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 382 posts

Posted 14 June 2016 - 05:31 PM

Once the in game AI is improved to the point that it can lead with a projectile weapon, miss when firing some of the time, move following "rails" and even react in some basic way to the player, like retreating, ambushing, or just staying in it's own weapon sweetspot, hopefully they will be included in the live game.
I have some musings as to how PGI could do this.

Faction Play should become the go-to game mode, with NPCs on both sides reinforcing the players.
Current Quickplay gamemodes should find their way into FP.
Quick Play should be retooled into Solaris arena combat.

NPCs would comprise of all non-mech assets, from infantry bunkers, tanks, turrets to VTOLs.
They would be functionally equivalent to mobs in a MOBA type game, marching down fairly direct paths to the base, or patrolling base grounds.
The tonnage of NPC assets would be a direct function of the tonnage between the two sides, so if one side is significantly heavier, the tonnage of their support would be reduced accordingly.
Additionally, the AI "tier" is determined to best match the opposition players' tier.
This should mean all Faction games are as evenly balanced as possible, without forcing long matchmaking times.
It also means ghost drops would be guarded by a strong NPC presence, so are still fun.

Various NPC options could be:
Spoiler


Getting NPC assets working right in-game also means we would be that much closer to a dedicated PvE Campaign, a valuable step in new player experience, and a great place to go for some casual mech-stomping.

Edited by Gryphorim, 14 June 2016 - 05:33 PM.


#2 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 14 June 2016 - 05:36 PM

Wouldn't it be great if a faction capital is ever under attack the faction leader and personal guard showed up in some of the battles to assist the players in the last stand? The Faction leader could be a tiny bit OP but be a bit of an aid to a nearly defeated faction.

Anyway +1 for NPC's in game.

#3 Afuldan McKronik

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,331 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 14 June 2016 - 05:38 PM

View PostGryphorim, on 14 June 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:

Once the in game AI is improved to the point that it can lead with a projectile weapon, miss when firing some of the time, move following "rails" and even react in some basic way to the player, like retreating, ambushing, or just staying in it's own weapon sweetspot, hopefully they will be included in the live game.
I have some musings as to how PGI could do this.

Faction Play should become the go-to game mode, with NPCs on both sides reinforcing the players.
Current Quickplay gamemodes should find their way into FP.
Quick Play should be retooled into Solaris arena combat.

NPCs would comprise of all non-mech assets, from infantry bunkers, tanks, turrets to VTOLs.
They would be functionally equivalent to mobs in a MOBA type game, marching down fairly direct paths to the base, or patrolling base grounds.
The tonnage of NPC assets would be a direct function of the tonnage between the two sides, so if one side is significantly heavier, the tonnage of their support would be reduced accordingly.
Additionally, the AI "tier" is determined to best match the opposition players' tier.
This should mean all Faction games are as evenly balanced as possible, without forcing long matchmaking times.
It also means ghost drops would be guarded by a strong NPC presence, so are still fun.

Various NPC options could be:
Spoiler


Getting NPC assets working right in-game also means we would be that much closer to a dedicated PvE Campaign, a valuable step in new player experience, and a great place to go for some casual mech-stomping.


Good ideas here. Lorists like myself would refer you to sarna.net for the NPC vehicles, which go from 20 tons up to 100. Those weapons you proposed would be way overweight for each class.

#4 Moldur

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • Philanthropist
  • 2,234 posts

Posted 14 June 2016 - 05:39 PM

View PostGryphorim, on 14 June 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:

NPCs would comprise of all non-mech assets, from infantry bunkers, tanks, turrets to VTOLs.
They would be functionally equivalent to mobs in a MOBA type game, marching down fairly direct paths to the base, or patrolling base grounds.


I agree strongly with this point specifically. As with games like War Thunder and WoT, MWO draws from a source material, whether it be WWII or Battletech. Not everything in the game was made for 1:1 combat with the same type of vehicles. Making many assets besides other mechs would allow a lot of the "role warfare" that people find severely lacking in MWO. Maybe your killer Black Knight is severely limited in its anti-infantry or what-have-you capabilities, while something "inferior" by today's standards in 12v12 deathmatch would actually be very useful in filling those gaps.

#5 Afuldan McKronik

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,331 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 14 June 2016 - 05:46 PM

View PostMoldur, on 14 June 2016 - 05:39 PM, said:


I agree strongly with this point specifically. As with games like War Thunder and WoT, MWO draws from a source material, whether it be WWII or Battletech. Not everything in the game was made for 1:1 combat with the same type of vehicles. Making many assets besides other mechs would allow a lot of the "role warfare" that people find severely lacking in MWO. Maybe your killer Black Knight is severely limited in its anti-infantry or what-have-you capabilities, while something "inferior" by today's standards in 12v12 deathmatch would actually be very useful in filling those gaps.


MG'S OP vs Infantry. It is the single reason they are put on mechs.

#6 Gryphorim

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 382 posts

Posted 14 June 2016 - 05:55 PM

View PostAfuldan McKronik, on 14 June 2016 - 05:38 PM, said:

Good ideas here. Lorists like myself would refer you to sarna.net for the NPC vehicles, which go from 20 tons up to 100. Those weapons you proposed would be way overweight for each class.


I tried to base weapons on what would fit by vehicle construction rules, and be at each tonnage a nod to vehicles from the TROs. 60T tank was loosely based on the Po for example.
I just feel that a procedural armament system on some basic chassis would fill out the range of platforms quicker IMHO.
But, absolutely, if lore accurate vehicles are do-able and still balanced, I would support that.

#7 Afuldan McKronik

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,331 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 14 June 2016 - 05:58 PM

Would hate to be trying to push against mechs that are also supported by PPC Shrecks and SRM carriers.

And by hate I mean "Ohmygod its like being in a warzone WTF CHAOS YESSSSSSS"

Lots of different varieties of vehicles. Put em up on the PTS and see what ones are just right, OP or UP

Edited by Afuldan McKronik, 14 June 2016 - 06:01 PM.


#8 Gryphorim

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 382 posts

Posted 14 June 2016 - 06:54 PM

View PostAfuldan McKronik, on 14 June 2016 - 05:58 PM, said:

Would hate to be trying to push against mechs that are also supported by PPC Shrecks and SRM carriers.

And by hate I mean "Ohmygod its like being in a warzone WTF CHAOS YESSSSSSS"

Lots of different varieties of vehicles. Put em up on the PTS and see what ones are just right, OP or UP


I actually left the Schrek and Missile carriers off of the list, as I thought they'd be utter cheese, but I do agree with you.

Imagine how much hunterpacks of VTOLs patrolling the map would spice up trying to sneak a lance past the enemy.

Edited by Gryphorim, 14 June 2016 - 06:55 PM.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users