AI soldiers for basedefense/guarding

[Kwintus5]

This would be something very cool. A base is defended by 10-20 soldiers depending on the kind of base. They patrol inside and outside the base. There are a few ranks in them (grunts, veterans, commanders) who carry different weaponloadouts.

The playercommander can upgrade those guards and they have a respawntimer. They are smart, they help eachother and reinforcements arrive when patrolling soldiers don't report back.

This is an element that could make the world more realistic and living AND give some form of safety that bases are not totally left alone.

Maybe you could make it so that bases are not guarded untill a commander "buys" soldiers. It would be possible for commanders to give a few bases those defenders to prevent hacks from behind so they can focus more on the battle.

A small interface would be cool in wich the commander has an overview of the basedefense (how many soldiers from what rank are still available?)

Yes? I like?!

[exLupo]

I'd rather stick with automated defenses. Internal and external turrets, self deploying (read: respawning) mines, force fields, etc. Static, low intelligence (IFF, does't sit shooting at solid objects, etc.) defenses. Still purchased as upgrades by structure controllers.

PS just isn't a series that needs PvE.

[Talek Krell]

Maybe some internal anti-personnel turrets are in order? Something that wouldn't really slow down a squad, much less a full attack, but would present an obstacle to single cloakers. Essentially an automatic spitfire along the lines of those respawning mines. Making it so that an observant commander might notice them being knocked out but not disabled could spice up cov-ops style gameplay.

[Bags]

Maybe some internal anti-personnel turrets are in order? Something that wouldn't really slow down a squad, much less a full attack, but would present an obstacle to single cloakers. Essentially an automatic spitfire along the lines of those respawning mines. Making it so that an observant commander might notice them being knocked out but not disabled could spice up cov-ops style gameplay.

They said ghosting will take 30 minutes as opposed to capturing something on the front line taking 30 seconds.

And op you have a weird definition of "very cool".

[Logit]

There will be hundreds, probably thousands of people. AI will not be necessary.

[Lonehunter]

The devs have also said the game will be 100% PvP, it's different with placements or turrets. If you copy what an infantry soldier is, and make it an NPC, you've entered a whole other kind gameplay design.

It's also what just makes Planetside unique. Shooting NPCs has been done, but hundreds of other players at once, has only happened with this game's predecessor.

[Kwintus5]

True, well, i still find it a nice idea since players are unpredictable and AI can be programmed to do as intended. It's not meant to be replacing real player squads, but just as an extra option for commanders, an extra for the game-enviroment and such stuff. It shouldn't be a great threat, but rather an extra factor to keep in mind. :)

[Sentrosi]

1. It's already been suggested.
2. It's a bad idea. I don't want players to exploit this by farming NPCs to get Battle Ranks/experience. Even if it's a miniscule amount, you'll have 12yr old kids who do nothing all day but fake sick and stay home from school to farm for their next BR.

[DviddLeff]

I don't want soldiers, but I would like something more challenging than spitfires defending a base.

What I would prefer is automated hovering drones, that can patrol the exterior of a base or around a dedicated vehicle. They would have to be purchased using resources and would like spitfires grant no XP for killing them.

[Lonehunter]

What I would prefer is automated hovering drones
Now this I like. Deployables do seem to be too stationary.

and just because I can't help it, what if the NPCs didn't give xp Sentrosi? Would you be ok with them?

[Sirisian]

As I said before in another thread I'm completely against humanoid NPCs since players fill that roll, but I'm not against having hovering/small 4 legged spitfires though.

[CutterJohn]

The devs have also said the game will be 100% PvP, it's different with placements or turrets. If you copy what an infantry soldier is, and make it an NPC, you've entered a whole other kind gameplay design.

Just so I have this right..

NPCs are bad.

Turrets are good.

Now, what if the turret has an NPC in it? Is that good or bad?

What if its not an NPC, but a robot turret? Bad? Ok, what about a turret on a rail?

Does it only count as good if its completely immobile and thus so ineffective its existence is laughable?

Not that I want NPCs. I don't really care. But there are AI defenders.. the wall turrets, and any CE around the place. The only difference is its immobile. I assume the only reason PS didn't include that is because of the pathfinding issues, because empty bases are just weird. Defense bots would change nothing except make uncontested takeovers require more than 1 person. Its not like it would flip suddenly to WoWland and you get mad xp and phat lewt for a base commander raid.

It'd just be like a base defended by a few stupid, but persistent, zerglings. Hardly gamebreaking. Not very gamechanging either though.

[exLupo]

^^^ Opinion response: There is something immersion breaking when you have mobile, human shaped bots in a game that is 99% human controlled. Thinking about TF2, it's kinda jarring when bots show up. Immobile AI units, things you see and expect to act in a predictable manner, don't have the same effect.

Machine shaped bots aren't as jarring but, unless their AI is good (ironically, closer to human behavior is better), it's sort of depressing to see. I'm thinking specifically the PvE portion of Global Agenda. The AI is fine, if predicable, but the play feel is a underwhelming. It may be the state of AI (not how smart but how human [smart+dumb+random]) but satisfying action game play, to me at least, falls into two categories. Human opponent (small or large numbers) or AI (horde mode). I do botmatches in LoL when getting a feel for a new champ or weird build but then go straight back to PvP when I'm comfortable.

In order of preference Stationary turrets > Nothing > Mobile machines > Mobile sim-humans.

[NewSith]

I say - we should add greetobots there.
A bot should just stand at CC and say "HAIL!" to everyone who passes near him. Other than that he can do nothing. Well, maybe he can, walk around his base and say "HAIL" to everyone he finds.

[FastAndFree]

I say - we should add greetobots there.
A bot should just stand at CC and say "HAIL!" to everyone who passes near him. Other than that he can do nothing. Well, maybe he can, walk around his base and say "HAIL" to everyone he finds.

Harmless-looking protocol droids talk walk up to enemies and EXPLODE!


As others have said, NPC soldiers would just feel wrong somehow...
But anyway, do we need them? I'm not inclined to say yes

[p0intman]

this is a terrible idea.

[MasterChief096]

this is a terrible idea.

This. I'm starting to think 90% of the people on these forums have never played the game, or have only played it within like the past year and have no idea how the game worked in the past.

[akiadan]

I really prefer the player only approach and please keep turrents to outdoor only unless bases become 10X bigger then they were in the last one and have a maximum of the amount that are allowed in a base and really restrict where they can be placed. But I dont think they should be imho allowed inside. As a cloaker I have worked in the past that a base that is undefended is a target and an opportunity to relieve the frontlines from a few enemies therefore helping my empire or opening a new front. If a base is undefended by people then thats the empires problem I shouldnt have to walk into an empty base only to be lit up by 20 motion tracking turrets unless I have sensor shield on 24/7. If that were so then whatever I did to the base would happen slower therfore giving the enemy more time then they already have to respond. Keep the damn defenses outside!

[exLupo]

@MasterChief: What about not liking bots means you've, at best, played a year of PS1? How did it work in the past that makes a negative opinion of bots any different?

@akiadan: The fix to indoor turret spam would be to do it like tribes with specific spots inside bases where you could place turrets. For infils, you'd need the meta knowledge of base layouts and commander preferences. Hopefully, tho, infils won't be so screwd like they are in PS1. Stumble over a rogue polygon, take 1 damage, and every spit in range hoses you down.

[MasterChief096]

@MasterChief: What about not liking bots means you've, at best, played a year of PS1? How did it work in the past that makes a negative opinion of bots any different?

@akiadan: The fix to indoor turret spam would be to do it like tribes with specific spots inside bases where you could place turrets. For infils, you'd need the meta knowledge of base layouts and commander preferences. Hopefully, tho, infils won't be so screwd like they are in PS1. Stumble over a rogue polygon, take 1 damage, and every spit in range hoses you down.

I'm not sure what you're asking? I think spitfire turrets and wall turrets are completely fine. I dislike the new CE (TRAPs, cerberus turrets, etc) because when they decided to implement it the game's pace was already slowing to a crawl and this did nothing except add to the problem.

I don't mind deployables, as long as the amount of deployables allowed is similar to the amount that can be deployed in PS1.

As for actual AI bots that are soldiers running around, I just don't see why SOE should waste time making them. In order for them to actually be fun to fight, they'd have to spend money developing really good AI. If they spent money developing good AI, they wouldn't be spending money on other things that make the PvP experience. If they didn't spend money on good AI they would just look stupid walking around getting farmed not contributing to anything.

Also, one of SOE's main advertising gimmicks is that this game is 100% no strings attached PvP. Adding bots makes them liars no?

In a game with thousands of players, and entire OUTFITS that are going to be dedicated to fast response resecure type gameplay, we don't need bots to guard an empty base. Deployables and base defenses such as wall turrets work good enough. As soon as someone hacks a base there's going to instantly be a fast attack outfit working to get it resecured anyways.

[Sirisian]

This. I'm starting to think 90% of the people on these forums have never played the game, or have only played it within like the past year and have no idea how the game worked in the past.
I think they're just more open minded to change (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1346).

Also, one of SOE's main advertising gimmicks is that this game is 100% no strings attached PvP. Adding bots makes them liars no?
Wouldn't make it the first time. I mean they posted a picture of TR using NC weapons right after they had previously said no weapon sharing. I doubt they care if they make changes to what they previously said really.

[MasterChief096]

I think they're just more open minded to change (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=1346).


Wouldn't make it the first time. I mean they posted a picture of TR using NC weapons right after they had previously said no weapon sharing. I doubt they care if they make changes to what they previously said really.

I think you're confusing being open minded to change with being against changing things that have no need to be changed.

You do not need to change things "just to change them" even if their current implementation works perfectly fine.

What I'm upset about is all the downright ridiculous ideas that people want to see in PS2 without taking into account the scale of the game.

I'm open minded to change in the areas of PlanetSide that actually need it.

*Edit*: Also I'm not necessarily saying that I think you're one of the people advocating ridiculous changes. I agree with a lot of the stuff you post. I'm just saying there's a lot of nonsense ideas being thrown around here.

[Malorn]

No offense to the OP, but this is a terrible idea.

[bjorntju1]

Also don't really like it. The only part i want AI soldiers in is in the VR firing range (if that is actually in, did they talked about that? ) And even then they only move from side to side or something else, instead of how it now is in PS1.