28 replies to this topic

[LoganMkv]

Seriously, why there are no primitive AI vehicles/infantry/aerofighters even in plans?

They don't care about lagshields
They punish ammo-inefficient mechs, specialized antimech boats and fearless assaults
They are likely to stop berserking noobs and give them target practice
They are just fun

[Chavette]

I agree, something like, one-two hit choppers flying over equipped with some light arms like in MW4 I would warmly welcome.

[Brotherchaplain]

I would like to see this down the road too. I would love the ability to buy them and put them in certain style matches when CW comes out. Maybe as base defenders. Hell I would even love to pilot some of them. An SRM carrier, or Schrek ppc carrier. Oooh Aerospace fighters! Its all in the BT universe, combined arms was always important. Mechs may be the lords of the battlefield, but every battlefield needs the clods too.

Probably wont happen, but a person can dream.

[R0AHN]

+1

Honey badger in a helicopter don't give a... wait a minute.

Just to bring this up: as much as I'd like to see little meatbags running around, planting C4 charges on legs, I have to say that we'd probably run into the same issues WoT had with having visible crews and trying to keep their ESRB rating at "T". I think MW:O is still "RP" so it's hard to say where they'll go for that.

[LoganMkv]

@roahn

well, everyone knows that mwo audience completely consists of hardcore 30-year old fans

[Frostiken]

Aerospace fighters ruined MWLL so yeah, none of that.

[Redmond Spiderhammer]

Chavette, on 21 January 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

I agree, something like, one-two hit choppers flying over equipped with some light arms like in MW4 I would warmly welcome.

Something like this?
http://www.sarna.net...i/Yellow_Jacket

[TruePoindexter]

LoganMkv, on 21 January 2013 - 02:32 PM, said:

Seriously, why there are no primitive AI vehicles/infantry/aerofighters even in plans?

They don't care about lagshields
They punish ammo-inefficient mechs, specialized antimech boats and fearless assaults
They are likely to stop berserking noobs and give them target practice
They are just fun

If it's anything like the dumb things that would walk around matches in Chromehounds no thanks - they just got in the way and gave away your position. If anything AI gets added to the game it should be the option to fight AI mechs for reduced rewards - not have AI ankle biters running around.

[Asmudius Heng]

Agree somewhat.

I believe that they could be a part of the command modules or something - to be able to send in air assets or something not just artillery.

I believe that capturing points in conquest or a similar gametype should give you access to light armour or turrets to defend that point perhaps - or some points might allow this while other give different small bonuses.

Having these things might give lighter mechs more to do if the netcode gets fixed and they become a little more squishy. The super speed spider might be needed to go kill those light artillery peices bombing your heavier and so forth.

I would support a careful implementation of this - though AI can be difficult to get right

[Zylo]

No to AI.

I just don't trust PGI to do it right.

[LoganMkv]

Zylo, on 21 January 2013 - 03:27 PM, said:

No to AI.

I just don't trust PGI to do it right.

There's no need for anything special, just dumb moba-like creeps moving across the path and engaging anything they see with priority system. So for example lrm striker locks on anything but has higher priority on heavier targets, while 1ML hovercraft engages anything and runs in cycles like our precious lights do, but has higher priority for lights and boats.

[Zylo]

LoganMkv, on 21 January 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

There's no need for anything special, just dumb moba-like creeps moving across the path and engaging anything they see with priority system. So for example lrm striker locks on anything but has higher priority on heavier targets, while 1ML hovercraft engages anything and runs in cycles like our precious lights do, but has higher priority for lights and boats.

I can just see players choosing to camp near their AI units to add firepower or running back to their AI units when they get in a bad situation and need help. It will just encourage players to stick near the AI for an advantage.

I would rather see far larger maps with more players per team and an increased match time limit.

[TruePoindexter]

LoganMkv, on 21 January 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

There's no need for anything special, just dumb moba-like creeps moving across the path and engaging anything they see with priority system. So for example lrm striker locks on anything but has higher priority on heavier targets, while 1ML hovercraft engages anything and runs in cycles like our precious lights do, but has higher priority for lights and boats.

Creeps make sense in those games because they help push for the towers (objectives) and help make th ask of attacking what is effectively a PvE objective a little more dynamic.

Using the same logic in MWO should not involve adding enemies that roam the map but turrets at the cap points to make it involve a little more effort.

Personally not worth the effort.

[miscreant]

We currently only have 4 maps to play on - I doubt they could integrate anything like this in the near future when we are so early in the beta. (wink)

I agree with the OP though, would be nice.

[ferranis]

The game can barely handle a 8vs8 fight and even then lags like crazy... you guys are dreaming. As if the netcode can support more entities which have to be syncronized between clients.

[Kanaric]

Another topic another bad suggestion.

[LoganMkv]

ferranis, on 21 January 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

The game can barely handle a 8vs8 fight and even then lags like crazy... you guys are dreaming. As if the netcode can support more entities which have to be syncronized between clients.

Being completely serverside they don't need to be synchronized, clients just receive few additional bytes per package

Zylo, on 21 January 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

I can just see players choosing to camp near their AI units to add firepower or running back to their AI units when they get in a bad situation and need help. It will just encourage players to stick near the AI for an advantage.

If someone manages to stick an atlas near dumb 150+ kph hovercraft or follow 45 kph lrm launcher with raven — well, good for them, and still better than berserker pugs.

[Klaxon]

i think dumb AI units moving along certain paths like in a dota game would definately add more tactics and force each side to spread out a bit more. i wonder if that is a good thing though? could lead to more 1v1's and 2v2's which i personally think suck. plus it would open things up to ganking and the one size fits all style strategies of dota games. meh, who knows.

[Vaneshi SnowCrash]

ferranis, on 21 January 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

The game can barely handle a 8vs8 fight and even then lags like crazy... you guys are dreaming. As if the netcode can support more entities which have to be syncronized between clients.

This assumes the client controls the AI, which would be silly. The server controls the AI and bundles the new locations/activities with the player movement/activity updates; all the client has to do is draw.

I think AI creeps would be nice (add to the flavour, even MW3 had the odd Elemental running around), I agree with the people pointing out the tiny little map sizes we have now being unsuitable for them (a massive city map would be awesome for it though and really give the JJ Mech's somewhere to jump to) and unfortunately I also agree with the person who didn't think PGI could pull it off.

It'd give us something to actually use MG's on rather than the daily threads about buffing them at the very least.

[NintenJoe]

I keep thinking of things like this and then things like 'pets' in other online games. you could earn/equip/have some 'ground' forces on your side just kinda crusin around doin little bits of damage here and there...