Gameplay: AI soldiers for basedefense/guarding

Kwintus5 · 2011-08-24, 03:23 AM

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 · 2011-08-24, 03:35 AM

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 · 2011-08-24, 07:22 PM

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 · 2011-08-24, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2011-08-24, 07:51 PM

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

Lonehunter · 2011-08-25, 12:46 AM

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.

CutterJohn · 2011-08-26, 02:43 AM

Originally Posted by Lonehunter187

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.

Kwintus5 · 2011-08-25, 04:18 AM

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 · 2011-08-25, 08:01 AM

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 · 2011-08-25, 08:32 AM

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 · 2011-08-25, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

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 · 2011-08-25, 09:37 PM

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.

exLupo · 2011-08-26, 02:55 AM

^^^ 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 · 2011-08-26, 06:50 AM

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 · 2011-08-26, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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