Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Eagler on February 05, 2020, 06:14:16 AM
-
Apologize if already suggested.....
When attacking a base that is not being defended - AI defenders are generated by the app to oppose the attackers.
It would sense what is needed based off the attacking unit types and spawn a couple of each.
Particular unit types could be random so you would not know what defenders you would be facing.
Crank up the AI to ace in some and novice in others.
This would provide additional action when the numbers are low and or the map too large IMHO.
<S>
Eagler
-
...but...but...but then you couldn't sneak a base...
+1. Never heard this before, and don't know if it's even possible. But I like it.
- oldman
-
That's a cool idea.
Do you think that the Auto-AAA and flak should have it's accuracy ramped for these bases as well?
:salute
-
I'd guess that most players who attack undefended bases are trying to sneak or divert forces -- not just looking for something to shoot at.
Maybe have an uncapturable base in each country that would spawn AI against friendlies for players who can't find a fight.
-
Ok .... +1. :O
-
All fields should have AI designed for defense based on what is still operational. VH for both flak and tanks. FH for scramble fighters when radar is breached by enemy. BH for scramble bombers to target maproom and bomb to prevent capture.
Is this feasible? If it is, then the action would be intensified.
-
+1
I'd even go further and suggest (if coding allows it) that everytime a base changes hands, random outposts spawn around the base, capable of engaging enemy GV forces until the human cavalry arrives, or until they are overwhelmed/defeated. I suspect a lot of the GV oriented players have the base layouts practically memorized, so they know exactly where to go and where to stop when they get near or on a GV base.
Camouflage them, give them effective weaponry, make the attackers work for the base captures when they go after an undefended base.
-
+1
I'd even go further and suggest (if coding allows it) that everytime a base changes hands, random outposts spawn around the base, capable of engaging enemy GV forces until the human cavalry arrives, or until they are overwhelmed/defeated. I suspect a lot of the GV oriented players have the base layouts practically memorized, so they know exactly where to go and where to stop when they get near or on a GV base.
Camouflage them, give them effective weaponry, make the attackers work for the base captures when they go after an undefended base.
Best WL discussion ever. :aok :cheers:
-
I like this thread! +1
I like the idea from another of AI bomber formations as perk options.
-
Awesome! +1 Great thinking out of the same 'ole same 'ole box.
One technical issue that would need to be addressed as I mentioned in another thread, https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,398917.0.html (https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,398917.0.html)
Currently the AI missions system only has the concept of two sides. You are Bish or Knight/ Axis or Allied. Mainly because that is left over tech from the Combat Tour product that was going to be, of course, two-sided.
But I agree, I'd like to see more AI augmentation to add more activity and interest in the arena.
:salute
-
+1
I'd even go further and suggest (if coding allows it) that everytime a base changes hands, random outposts spawn around the base, capable of engaging enemy GV forces until the human cavalry arrives, or until they are overwhelmed/defeated. I suspect a lot of the GV oriented players have the base layouts practically memorized, so they know exactly where to go and where to stop when they get near or on a GV base.
Camouflage them, give them effective weaponry, make the attackers work for the base captures when they go after an undefended base.
Kind of like AT guns lying in wait? Maybe one large AT gun, with one or two smaller ones and a single 20-40mm cannon for softer targets?
-
Kind of like AT guns lying in wait? Maybe one large AT gun, with one or two smaller ones and a single 20-40mm cannon for softer targets?
Exactly. Spawned at random locations whenever a base changes hands, camouflaged, and hard to detect. Preferably in tree lines, hedgerows, etc. The primary purpose being to engage the attackers until human defenders get on the scene, and I guess a secondary one would be to funnel the GV movements in such a way to ensure engagement. No more sneaking around.
Probably a lot of coding for HiTech, but I think he might enjoy the challenge.
-
But I agree, I'd like to see more AI augmentation to add more activity and interest in the arena.
Not sure why anyone would pay $15 a month the fight AI.
-
Not sure why anyone would pay $15 a month the fight AI.
That would help when 25 players are logged onto the game.
-
Not sure why anyone would pay $15 a month the fight AI.
You have AI flak and AA now. You have bomber drones. Fleets are given paths just like in the Mission Editor and the AI takes it from there.
Are you going to quit now?
-
You have AI flak and AA now. You have bomber drones. Fleets are given paths just like in the Mission Editor and the AI takes it from there.
Yeah, bomber drones are a pain. If there was no human player flying bombers, I'd be happy to ignore them.
If AI fleets ran around destroying bases with no human involvement, I'd be happy to ignore them too.
AI flak seems to be a necessary evil to give (actual human) players a chance to get airborne and into a fight, and it garners its share of complaints here and online. I can only imagine the cries of anguish when a hidden AI defenders killed an attacker.
Also, what would happen when a player spawns at a base being defended by AI forces? Do the AI forces disappear? Wouldn't that be an incentive to ignore the base and let AI defend? How would that contribute to creating more action?
-
I'd say spawn a set number of them when the base is captured, if players show up then they're still there, just like ack guns.
My main concern with them would be if they're too good they'll stagnate the maps especially over night/morning. If they're not good enough they'll be ambience for the attacker just like puffy on a CV.
Wiley.
-
Yeah, bomber drones[...]
So, you've admitted there is already AI operating in the arena. Good.
What happens to the AI ack when a player launches to defend a field? Does it disappear?
If the AI ack doesn't disappear, isn't that an incentive to ignore the base and let the AI ack defend?
-
I'd say spawn a set number of them when the base is captured, if players show up then they're still there, just like ack guns.
My main concern with them would be if they're too good they'll stagnate the maps especially over night/morning. If they're not good enough they'll be ambience for the attacker just like puffy on a CV.
Wiley.
AI is very adjustable. If you flown in WW1WF and gone up and down the front, you can make them brain-dead targets all the way up to Skynet Terminators.
If you've tried my 4x4 offline dogfights, I have those set to what I feel is decent target practice for an "average" player, but they are certainly not scary.
Just dial in what you want.
-
AI is very adjustable. If you flown in WW1WF and gone up and down the front, you can make them brain-dead targets all the way up to Skynet Terminators.
If you've tried my 4x4 offline dogfights, I have those set to what I feel is decent target practice for an "average" player, but they are certainly not scary.
Just dial in what you want.
I don't look too hard at GVs, but am I correct that he has no AI at all for GVs? They just sit and shoot? They'd basically be more armored auto guns.
Wiley.
-
I don't look too hard at GVs, but am I correct that he has no AI at all for GVs? They just sit and shoot? They'd basically be more armored auto guns.
Currently, that is correct.
And the AI defenders should be coded to stay within a certain radius of base. They can chase you off, but at a certain distance return back to the base defensive area.
[edit] Let me clarify. Currently the mission editor doesn't let you spawn GV at all. But if you didn't even need them to move, it shouldn't be too hard to add.
In effect the AT guns would just be the ground version of the AI field ack.
-
Not sure why anyone would pay $15 a month the fight AI.
Because its better than fighting no one at all. For my time zone there are not enough players in the MA to make it worth me logging in except late at night when I am too tired to play, so I just don't bother any more. I am sure there are others in the same boat as me, but if we had something to do in the MA more engaging than bombing static targets it would encourage us to log in. With more players showing on the MA roster it encourages even more to log in and it becomes a benign circle.
I'd much rather have some AI planes protecting bases than the fun killing 88s we have now. This is something that would start dogfights rather than end them as they would make it a less of a suicide mission to up from a base with enemy fighters around.
To make things fairer a side with a higher than average numbers of human players could get fewer and/or worse replacement AI pilots and planes or longer respawn times until numbers evened out. I'd also like to see AI bomber raids heading to strats every now and then. Just seeds to get human players logging in to the MA during off peak times.
-
Code the AI so that as human players get on the scene, they basically retreat or disappear, unless the number of defenders is less than the number of attackers.
For example, let's say 3 GV's spawn in to attack an undefended GV base. The base flashes, no human defenders respond, so AI generates several random AI defenders in always random positions to hold the line until human defenders up to take up the defense.
Once one human ups, the AI decreases it's presence. Another human ups, the AI lessens itself further. The goal being a 1:1 human defenders vs attackers ratio.
Sounds possibly workable on paper........implementing/coding it might present a heckuva challenger for HT. Might even tailor the AI response to match the attackers' GV's in capability, i.e for an M3 a 20mm or 37mm weapon, for heavier armored GV's the AI would select 88mm or 17pdr AT weaponry. The goal being just enough defensive capability to deter or slow down the attack without overwhelming the attackers with vastly superior firepower.
An intriguing idea Eagler brought up, one that I myself had thought of, glad I'm not the only player thinking along those lines.
-
Setup AI fighter squadrons to blow through each country targeting only the Icon of planes in the air of that country. Something along the lines of what the AvA tested some years back. Then it was a Ju88 formation with 109 escorts. Back then they left you alone unless you attacked them. The 109 were pretty good and we ended up with some nasty furballs. I seem to remember one round of that Icons were off and the 109's did exactly like many players did during no icons and ended up flying in the bushes to popup under you out of nowhere.
I've always found Hitech's AI fighters to equal the player ability of average AH vets who have been in the game upwards of 10 years. If you dismissed them as just AI, they can hand you your ego as fast as player piloted fighters in the game. Now if Hitech coded his AI to send you nasty EGO crushing PM's each time you go down in flames, it won't be much different than business as usual.
-
As a slight alternative (might simplify the logic) maybe there are a number of AI defenders that are always at the base. Taking off, landing, flying patrol around the base. So they would just be there naturally to defend by default.
Another advantage is they would just provide a sense of activity and give players they feeling they are spawning into an existing world of activity and not an empty vacuum filled with swirling dust and tumbleweeds. :D
In WW1WF I had a large number of AI just doing that. Take-offs, patterns, landing, repeat. To give the arena a living, organic feel of activity and on-going operations.
That eliminates the logic of when to spawn them, when to de-spawn them. They just run their pattern forever unless an enemy come near.
$0.02.
-
Is the server capable of handling that much automated AI missions?
-
Is the server capable of handling that much automated AI missions?
I have something close to 450+ AI agent running at time on WW1WF and Hitech said it was taking very little resources. I can't remember the exact numbers, but like 10% of 1 CPU on a 12 CPU machine. I could be completely making that up. :D But 450+ was not even enough to peak his interest. :aok :aok
Remember, most of the time, most of the AI are tooling along not doing much and no one is around for them to have to send packets to.
It's an amazingly flyweight system.
:salute
[edit] At this particular moment there are 393 AI in air in WW1WF. It ebbs and flows depending on how the big missions overlap. 24/7 for almost a year now. No problemo.
-
I have something close to 450+ AI agent running at time on WW1WF and Hitech said it was taking very little resources. I can't remember the exact numbers, but like 10% of 1 CPU on a 12 CPU machine. I could be completely making that up. :D But 450+ was not even enough to peak his interest. :aok :aok
Remember, most of the time, most of the AI are tooling along not doing much and no one is around for them to have to send packets to.
It's an amazingly flyweight system.
:salute
[edit] At this particular moment there are 393 AI in air in WW1WF. It ebbs and flows depending on how the big missions overlap. 24/7 for almost a year now. No problemo.
Fortress Europe, my Snapshots and other events have the potential to be very immersive in activity.
-
Fortress Europe, my Snapshots and other events have the potential to be very immersive in activity.
Everyone seemed to have fun in Fortress Europe.
You're taking your Snapshot 1/2 step further. Looking forward to seeing how it goes!
We need to just keep pushing the envelope. :D
:salute
-
See if Hitech would put up the massive late war AI bomber mission over the continent he had us test during the alpha\beta. It had a huge number of escort and enemy fighter squadrons along with the giant bomber stream that flew across Europe. He also put in a massive cloud front across the continent. It was just like being in FSO with far more action for your flying time.
-
Everyone seemed to have fun in Fortress Europe.
You're taking your Snapshot 1/2 step further. Looking forward to seeing how it goes!
We need to just keep pushing the envelope. :D
:salute
That's the intent and glad you are in favor of it. :salute
-
2 minutes into an ai fight over a base.
20 threads about ai going for a ho shot.
semp
-
This would provide additional action when the numbers are low and or the map too large IMHO.
<S>
Eagler
Simple root cause analysis. What is the problem? You have defined 2 potential problems here. Your answer is more AI players. Not a bad suggestion however it then becomes more of an offline game and less of an MMOG, right?
If we take the root cause analysis approach we can see that you have already identified 2 causes.
- Numbers are low
- Map is too large
I wonder if we were to look at either or both of those we might address the problem and remain a human on human MMOG?
What do you think?
ps. if you want to see how poorly HTC implements AI hop on over to the Match Play and fight the AI there. Are you sure you want to do that to the main game?
-
The AI spits in the 4x4 offline mission have as good if not better moves than the average live player in MA.
To even it more code could spawn 2 or 3 AI defenders for every live attacker.
My suggestion was for A2A defense as I am not a gv'er
<S>
Eagler
-
AI bomber raids at random intervals from random countries with random targets. That could be a lot of fun!
-
This would better be made with auto generated missions. For instance in the Match play AI missions are generated on the fly for AI to simply do a race track inside a circle.
Having to make repetitive missions like this by hand would take forever with each terrain.
I'm still not sold on the idea because the AI would not help at all with ground attacks.
HiTech
-
I'm still not sold on the idea because the AI would not help at all with ground attacks.
Randomly position spawned, dug in and camouflaged static AI tank emplacements would. ;) Like an anti-ground version of field ack.
:salute
-
Randomly position spawned, dug in and camouflaged static AI tank emplacements would. ;) Like an anti-ground version of field ack.
:salute
Not quite so easy, nothing on the host has any idea about trees.
And the speed tree package is not exactly made to be cross platform .
HiTech
-
Not quite so easy, nothing on the host has any idea about trees.
HiTech
Could you just shoot a ray-cast at a possible target and see if anything would collide before the target? If clear, Fire!
[Edit]
Nevermind. You said the server doesn't see the trees.
Interesting... Could the player client determine if the emplacement could shoot at them?
Like the AI tank sends a request to the client "I'd like to shoot at you please. May I?"
The client checks a ray cast back to the requesting AI position and sends back, "You have a clear line of fire! Go ahead!"
Boom.
-
Hi HT
Even without a gv AI defense I think AI planes with A2A defense would add to the fun during the low login time periods.
<S>
Eagler
-
It seems once a terrain is textured and built, the location of clutter trees and building isn't dynamic and doesn't change. It seems at terrain build time you could generate and obstruction map that could be used my AI for navigational path finding and line of sight checks on the server. Like in some engines how you can auto-generate a nav-mesh after geometry has all been placed.
$0.02.
Two weeks? :noid
Or AI GV for offline at least. ;)
-
Like in some engines how you can auto-generate a nav-mesh after geometry has all been placed.
Do some size estimations on that mesh once.
HiTech
-
Do some size estimations on that mesh once.
HiTech
Couldn't it just be turned into a height map?
How about the AI asking the client if the line of sight is clear to him? Scaleable. Client knows about his clutter.
How does field ack handle it? If I'm in a tank behind a building does the field ack just try and shoot and if it hits the build then it does?
Just brainstorming, BTW. Not demanding.
-
Ack is all handled on the clients, but if you purpose is simply a fixed gun emplacement why not just use ack?
HiTech
-
Ack is all handled on the clients, but if you purpose is simply a fixed gun emplacement why not just use ack?
HiTech
The differences I think it would give would be ambience and also it would be harder to kill than an ack gun.
Wiley.
-
The differences I think it would give would be ambience and also it would be harder to kill than an ack gun.
Wiley.
Also they would, I assume, be randomly re-deployed and camouflaged on base capture so they can't be memorized or mapped like standard field ack.
Might be interesting and force players to work together. Bring in a Storch to search and mark the emplacements before the GV rush in, or take your chances to trade off speed of attack? All kinds of fun complexity. :D
But, yeah, you could do all the same with randomly deployed, camo'd 88 emplacements, they just would be as hardened. Can't we have both? :D
Also, I would just love to see the AI GV problem solved in general. SOOOOO many fun possibilities for missions. :D
-
Couldn't you make an ack object that acts like an AI where you give the mission editor a grid for placement popup and set the AI ack object to popup\spawn at ground level? Then it shoots at anything flying or driving by not part of it's country? Then allow it destroyable such that on destruction it disappears? In essence it would be an AI ground bound airplane that auto targets enemies within a certain distance. As for speed tree trees, on average are they not all inside a elevation range above terrain ground level and you limit the ground attack to x elevation above ground level.
-
Late to the party, but AI to attack jaboers is going to piss off a lot of people. The majority of Jaboers waste 10 minutes to fly to a base to bomb it, then die within 3 seconds of releasing their ord to AAA. Most will not want to drop their ord to fight an AI. That gets old after a while and is tiring.
What would work better is zoning of bases in which bases are more important than others. This would keep players fighting in a zone and allow more fights to happen. Zone fighting creates the action and will be more fun.
-
The majority of Jaboers waste 10 minutes to fly to a base to bomb it, then die within 3 seconds of releasing their ord to AAA.
And fighting the AI is tiring?
If they are dying from ack within 3 sec, then the AI fighters aren't even going to get to them in that time. But they might delay a bunch of vulchers from setting up shop.
-
How about AI resupply. Each team gets a number of AI resupply M3 drones equal to the difference between that team's number and the most populated team (averaged over some time). That would free up the low-number sides' human players to create more 'action' in the arena.
-
How about AI resupply.
Sure. That too!
-
Best WL discussion ever. :aok :cheers:
Beginning to wane just a little but I still have hope.
-
Sure. That too!
What is the goal here? To completely stagnate the arena in off-peak?
Wiley.
-
What is the goal here? To completely stagnate the arena in off-peak?
It's all off-peak nowadays. ;)
So if no human does anything there is still a natural resupply rate to heal damage. So AI could simply embody that like the convoys and trains.
Instead of M3, I'd like to see a network of supply C-47 flying between friendly fields and dropping supplies. A visible manifestation of the existing natural resupply system. Not in addition to.
But you can shoot them down to interfere with the process like destroying convoy and trains.
:salute
-
MAybe we should all just sit back and let AI run the game. This seems where this is headed.
-
MAybe we should all just sit back and let AI run the game. This seems where this is headed.
I dont expect to be playing once the weather starts to improve. Im retired and if things arent fun anymore then I dont do them anymore.
(https://pics.me.me/well-bye-28028501.png)
-
And fighting the AI is tiring?
If they are dying from ack within 3 sec, then the AI fighters aren't even going to get to them in that time. But they might delay a bunch of vulchers from setting up shop.
If 5 or 6 planes attack a base. Even the AI would start getting vouched eventually. Vulching and killing FHs and or VHs are crucial to taking a base. What do you expect the AI to do then? Roll at a back base? What your team should have been doing to begin with... AI is just not the answer you can tell by match play that AI gets tiring to fight when they all gang you and is one reason no one is in there.
-
If 5 or 6 planes attack a base. Even the AI would start getting vouched eventually. Vulching and killing FHs and or VHs are crucial to taking a base. What do you expect the AI to do then? Roll at a back base? What your team should have been doing to begin with... AI is just not the answer you can tell by match play that AI gets tiring to fight when they all gang you and is one reason no one is in there.
Nope, depending on the size and type of the field I can take them by myself without hitting FH, VH and most of the time radar. Smash the town guns, level the town with a lanc and deliver troops. Rinse and repeat. With three people we can usually roll three bases before anyone takes notice and ups to grief us. Mind you, these aren't NOE missions and they are not on bases out in the middle of nowhere. Often times they are a sector away from the front and are intended to make some of the people attacking us break off the attack and come chase us down.
-
If 5 or 6 planes attack a base. Even the AI would start getting vouched eventually. Vulching and killing FHs and or VHs are crucial to taking a base. What do you expect the AI to do then? Roll at a back base? What your team should have been doing to begin with... AI is just not the answer you can tell by match play that AI gets tiring to fight when they all gang you and is one reason no one is in there.
Random AI defender numbers, types and spawn locations where the first wave spawn on runway while 2nd wave air spawn from outer dar ring when base is capped.
Have a flight of 3 spit5s set to ace level came in at 8k as the last ack gun goes down....
The possibilities sound endless to me but I don't need AI ground defense and don't have a clue what it would take to implement.
<S>
Eagler
-
Over 150 on last night.
-
Over 150 on last night.
186 on last year.
-
186 on last year.
Yup, and last nights numbers the "big" fight was Bish vs Rooks for the longest time. Knights grabbed two bases quick and the Bish and Rook stopped fighting and it was 2,3 to 1 against Knights. Its either feast or famon. Nobody to fight, or too many to fight. Everyone always looking for the advantage instead of just fighting it out. Hide/run in ack, or come in numbers at altitude. Can you image the crying if there was an 8K cap over the entire map LOL!!!
Oh well, its the way of the game. It will continue until they close the doors because nobody wants to do anything to change it. Hopefully it limps along for a few more years, but Im doubting it.
-
AI resupply sounds brilliant. We already have the trucks, barges, trains etc. But a m3 or gon system that increases based on numerical advantage would free people up to defend. Calibrating it to the proper level where it prioritizes strats or towns hit the hardest might be the tricky part
-
Knits had a good fight going with the rooks for awhile. Do not remember the base but it was busy.
-
CptTrips,
Are you able to run more than one Scheduled Mission at a time? Going into the WW1WF arena, I saw so much activity. That makes me ask is that one mission or multiple missions?
:salute
-
CptTrips,
Are you able to run more than one Scheduled Mission at a time? Going into the WW1WF arena, I saw so much activity. That makes me ask is that one mission or multiple missions?
:salute
Yes. Scheduled missions can be overlapped. One of the magic tweaks Hitech added for me to accomplish WW1WF. In WW1WF, there are staggered, overlapping, missions and the entire set is on a 110 minute perpetual repeating cycle.
Those missions were in turn composed of 224 individual missions files that I worked on separately for easier editing and then wrote custom code to bundle them up into meta-mission file collections that were easier to schedule. Yeah, it was freakin insane. What was I thinking??? :rofl
[Edit] Note: that is scheduling missions. If you run them manually, there is only one at a time.
:salute
-
That is the trick. Build a bunch of simple missions and then group them into a bundle. Thanks. :D
-
careful what you wish for. The AI is better than 95% of the player base, performs textbook ACM to maximise every advantage, rarely misses a shot because it's a robot. Even when your beating it, it can defy some laws of physics that the human controlled aircraft can not. Plus they don't get tired after a long battle.
Bases just wont get captured unless you have enough fighters to instantly pounce and destroy the spawning AI.
-
careful what you wish for. The AI is better than 95% of the player base, performs textbook ACM to maximise every advantage, rarely misses a shot because it's a robot. Even when your beating it, it can defy some laws of physics that the human controlled aircraft can not. Plus they don't get tired after a long battle.
Bases just wont get captured unless you have enough fighters to instantly pounce and destroy the spawning AI.
That's not been my experience with the AI. After Hitech exposed the AI ability parameters you have a lot of control in dialing in how hard you want the AI to be. You can make them wallow around like a whale or defy gravity. You can make them as bad or as good a shot as you want. You just have to to dial in the params. That is a design issue.
The real issue isn't that they can't be dialed down. The real issues are things like them letting themselves get killed because they are ignoring you because the max limit of other AI have already been assigned to you. Or they don't seem to have any behavior to avoid heading straight for the HO and when both formations are AI you end up with mass murder/suicide in the first pass. :rofl Stuff like that.
-
That's not been my experience with the AI. After Hitech exposed the AI ability parameters you have a lot of control in dialing in how hard you want the AI to be. You can make them wallow around like a whale or defy gravity. You can make them as bad or as good a shot as you want. You just have to to dial in the params. That is a design issue.
The real issue isn't that they can't be dialed down. The real issues are things like them letting themselves get killed because they are ignoring you because the max limit of other AI have already been assigned to you. Or they don't seem to have any behavior to avoid heading straight for the HO and when both formations are AI you end up with mass murder/suicide in the first pass. :rofl Stuff like that.
How do they deal with drag and bag tactics?
Wiley.
-
careful what you wish for. The AI is better than 95% of the player base, performs textbook ACM to maximise every advantage, rarely misses a shot because it's a robot. Even when your beating it, it can defy some laws of physics that the human controlled aircraft can not. Plus they don't get tired after a long battle.
Bases just wont get captured unless you have enough fighters to instantly pounce and destroy the spawning AI.
I'd say that would completely depend how they're implemented. If it was constant spawning, yeah. If the capture triggered say, 3 or 5 of them and a few more respawn after they're killed, then no more come after that, it would slow people down but it wouldn't be impossible.
Regardless it will be wildly unpopular with the "resistance=griefing" crowd.
Wiley.
-
How do they deal with drag and bag tactics?
Wiley.
Yeah, inter-AI cooperation and tactic is another lacking feature but probably a LOT harder to implement than the other things I mentioned.
However, that argues even further away argument that the AI are just unstoppable Terminators. They can be, or they can be pretty easy depending on how you want to configure them.
Note: I believe Hitech developed the ability params in support WO:P and he exposed them in AH so I could use them in WW1WF. Before that, AI might not have been as finely tuned.
-
This would better be made with auto generated missions. For instance in the Match play AI missions are generated on the fly for AI to simply do a race track inside a circle.
Would it be possible for these auto-generated mishuns to simply perform CAP patrols over airspace on a regular basis? Or perhaps auto-generated bombing missions that take off and head straight for enemy HQ's that need to be intercepted or countries face having them damaged?
-
Or perhaps auto-generated bombing missions that take off and head straight for enemy HQ's that need to be intercepted or countries face having them damaged?
How about this?
https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,398917.0.html (https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,398917.0.html)
-
How about this?
https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,398917.0.html (https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,398917.0.html)
Can we have perk purchased AI escorts and interceptors too? Are you guys trying to incrementally backdoor AH into becoming an idle game? ;)
Wiley.
-
Can we have perk purchased AI escorts and interceptors too? Are you guys trying to incrementally backdoor AH into becoming an idle game? ;)
Wiley.
Is every field gun manned by a human?
Is every puffy burst fired by a human?
Did humans have to operate every train or convoy?
Is every drunk dropped controlled by a human?
Are empty arena filled with wind blown dust and tumbleweeds more impressive to someone trying the game?
Should a potential subscriber run out of fuel before running out of bullets?
-
Is every field gun manned by a human?
Is every puffy burst fired by a human?
Nope, but generally speaking they're not an offensive weapon.
Did humans have to operate every train or convoy?
Nope, but they're a barely noticeable aspect of resupply and there's not a ton of point to spend the time finding and intercepting them.
Is every drunk dropped controlled by a human?
Nope, but a human does need to position and drop them. There's a difference.
Are empty arena filled with wind blown dust and tumbleweeds more impressive to someone trying the game?
Should a potential subscriber run out of fuel before running out of bullets?
Does AI defense provide something meaningful to a potential subscriber? It's the illusion of activity, not activity. If it's even for a potential subscriber, a vet is going to obliterate it. If it's even for a vet, the potential subscriber is going to be obliterated.
Wiley.
-
Nope, but generally speaking they're not an offensive weapon.
They are as offensive as base defense AI planes would be.
Are bomber drones offensive?
Nope, but they're a barely noticeable aspect of resupply and there's not a ton of point to spend the time finding and intercepting them.
Irrelevant. They are AI and their presence did not cause the world to end.
Nope, but a human does need to position and drop them. There's a difference.
And a human would initiate the perk bomber strike in my post. In both cases, the results are autonomous.
Does AI defense provide something meaningful to a potential subscriber?
I, the OP, and others have stated the use of AI augmentation can add auxiliary amusements to arena without materially harming the core experience. It could help fill-in fun activities for people who have to play when the arenas are near empty. Did you bother to read Greebo's post?
Because its better than fighting no one at all. For my time zone there are not enough players in the MA to make it worth me logging in except late at night when I am too tired to play, so I just don't bother any more. I am sure there are others in the same boat as me, but if we had something to do in the MA more engaging than bombing static targets it would encourage us to log in. With more players showing on the MA roster it encourages even more to log in and it becomes a benign circle.
I'd much rather have some AI planes protecting bases than the fun killing 88s we have now. This is something that would start dogfights rather than end them as they would make it a less of a suicide mission to up from a base with enemy fighters around.
To make things fairer a side with a higher than average numbers of human players could get fewer and/or worse replacement AI pilots and planes or longer respawn times until numbers evened out. I'd also like to see AI bomber raids heading to strats every now and then. Just seeds to get human players logging in to the MA during off peak times.
-
I tend to agree with Trips. While the tradition behind AH centers around human on human interaction, the numbers online no longer provide a constant opportunity for such. If AI can be designed to effectively mimic the experience then I say give it a go. Maybe even supply the AI elements with randomly generated player names.
-
And a human would initiate the perk bomber strike in my post. In both cases, the results are autonomous.
But the human has to transport the troops to the area, it's not a matter of "click menu item to attack target".
Bomber drones are more or less under the control of the human flying the lead. It's not the same as independent vehicles.
Why does every single thing have to be shoehorned into the Melee? Why the desire to mash PvE into a PvP game?
Wiley.
-
Why does every single thing have to be shoehorned into the Melee?
Did you not bother reading Greebo's post?
Because its better than fighting no one at all. For my time zone there are not enough players in the MA to make it worth me logging in except late at night when I am too tired to play, so I just don't bother any more. I am sure there are others in the same boat as me, but if we had something to do in the MA more engaging than bombing static targets it would encourage us to log in. With more players showing on the MA roster it encourages even more to log in and it becomes a benign circle.
I'd much rather have some AI planes protecting bases than the fun killing 88s we have now. This is something that would start dogfights rather than end them as they would make it a less of a suicide mission to up from a base with enemy fighters around.
To make things fairer a side with a higher than average numbers of human players could get fewer and/or worse replacement AI pilots and planes or longer respawn times until numbers evened out. I'd also like to see AI bomber raids heading to strats every now and then. Just seeds to get human players logging in to the MA during off peak times.
You said before that we might as well shut the game down rather than change anything. The way things are going, you might get your wish someday.
-
+1 on time to try something, anything.
in my opinion some extra AI in the MA would be a good thing. and is definitely not the worst idea that has been floated.
there are just not enough players off peak to keep it interesting.
and besides, in real life airbases would have airplanes to defend them.
even if it slowed map progress in off times it would be a net win.
especially if a few more people stayed online because they could find things to do.
and I'm pretty sure people will adapt, and develop tactics to still take bases.
-
Apologize if already suggested.....
When attacking a base that is not being defended - AI defenders are generated by the app to oppose the attackers.
It would sense what is needed based off the attacking unit types and spawn a couple of each.
Particular unit types could be random so you would not know what defenders you would be facing.
Crank up the AI to ace in some and novice in others.
This would provide additional action when the numbers are low and or the map too large IMHO.
<S>
Eagler
this would probably a computer/server 10 times bigger and more powerful than HiTech has
-
this would probably a computer/server 10 times bigger and more powerful than HiTech has
Nope.
I have something close to 450+ AI agent running at time on WW1WF and Hitech said it was taking very little resources. I can't remember the exact numbers, but like 10% of 1 CPU on a 12 CPU machine. I could be completely making that up. :D But 450+ was not even enough to peak his interest. :aok :aok
Remember, most of the time, most of the AI are tooling along not doing much and no one is around for them to have to send packets to.
It's an amazingly flyweight system.
:salute
[edit] At this particular moment there are 393 AI in air in WW1WF. It ebbs and flows depending on how the big missions overlap. 24/7 for almost a year now. No problemo.
-
The dynamic missing from the MA today that is dominated by vets with up to 20 years constant experience is the unexpected. We know each other's strategies, tactics and in some cases whole bag of tricks. We fly to feilds knowing who to expect and what to expect. Then how to counter or just fade out on the edges and wait. The MA has become mind numbingly boring becasue of that.
A pack of AI fighters suddenly blowing through a stalled field scenario "race around through the ack sorta pick fest", "everyone pull back and wait and see". Would at least break the cycle, especially if they targeted only one Icon type. During that 5 years stretch when missions ruled the MA, the uncertainty of numbers along with not knowing who you were poaching most of the time kept things lively and interesting. Or who was poaching you.....
Old vets really are stuck in their position of what they want out of this game in the MA. 20 years on and being the top of the food chain, reminds me of that famous statement" better to rule in heck than serve in heaven.
I fought against AI during the alpha\beta that I thought MntMan had come back to help test AH3 in his Hog. Granted our special ACM at the nitty gritty are our flaps and even gear out while the AI perform perfectly under all energy states. And we kick all newbies to the curb and pick them on the runway and whatever other cruel indignities we are capable of as very long time old vets.
Very few of us are susceptible to the newbies and we don't care becasue we would rather rule in heck even for a moment. That Catch-22 is great and boring for us, sends them away to play PlanetSide that has 3 countries, constant action, even aircombat, and they can bag even the best of the best vets from time to time against countries with on average 400 players an average night.
We vets who want to rule in heck for even a moment are sending them there. And you can play that game for free if you want to grind. So a few AI blowing through to unsettle everyone's well honed timing giving a few kills to the next generation is not a bad thing. Combat game customers don't tell their friends about the arse whippings they get trying to get off a runway all night long. They talk about the accomplishments they had when they can get off that runway.
All of you know what I'm talking about.
-
this would probably a computer/server 10 times bigger and more powerful than HiTech has
If I recall correctly, HiTech has stated the server could easily handle something like this. The issue is coding the AI properly and what-not that is the issue. I could be mistaken. :headscratch:
-
AI ruined the match play. What makes you think it won't ruin the MA? If you want to fight AI. Go there...
AI is not the answer.
Zones of importance is.
People need to know where the important part of the map is to fight. (A path to action). Incentivize them with more perks or points. This will bring back better fights because more people will fight in those areas.
-
Zones of importance is.
People need to know where the important part of the map is to fight. (A path to action). Incentivize them with more perks or points. This will bring back better fights because more people will fight in those areas.
Didn't we used to have Zones and Base Capture Order already?
Do you remember why those were removed?
-
Didn't we used to have Zones and Base Capture Order already?
Do you remember why those were removed?
No we didnt have base capture order. And I'm not saying you would only have to capture bases in the zone. I'm saying it would show people where the important base is to create a bigger fight. People could still fight where ever else and take what ever base they wanted.
-
No we didnt have base capture order.
https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,193414.msg2251284.html#msg2251284 (https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,193414.msg2251284.html#msg2251284)
How does what you propose help guys like Greebo who have to play when there are 8 people online?
Couldn't what you suggest simply be someone getting on country channel and saying: "Hey guys, let's all attack A35!"
-
https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,193414.msg2251284.html#msg2251284 (https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,193414.msg2251284.html#msg2251284)
How does what you propose help guys like Greebo who have to play when there are 8 people online?
Couldn't what you suggest simply be someone getting on country channel and saying: "Hey guys, let's all attack A35!"
Okay, I'm sure that only lasted 10 minutes. I don't remember that. That being said, I'm not promoting only being able capture one base at a time. I'm promoting zones that are worth more points to fight in and point out to players where the best place to fight is to capture the strategic base. This would promote the fight on both sides.
If you said "let's all to attack a35" the other team doesnt know that. When your group shows up at the base, it's too late for the other side to defend. Thus creating the cap.
I play at 1am PST. 4am est. Theres about 15-20 players on. Typically they scattered around the map doing their own thing. Do you really think these people want to fight off AI ganging them every run? They are avoiding air combat for a reason. With zones at least they might be incentivized to fight in that area for more points rather than go attack undefended bases to avoid combat but get points. The bigger the map is, the more log off quicker as the night goes on because the fights slow down and people scatter around the map. They slow down because there is no incentive to fight in a certain area. Bigger maps don't concentrate action very well and fighter pilots log due to slower fights.
Concentrating the action is key.
-
Okay, I'm sure that only lasted 10 minutes.
LoL. Indeed. And what you are suggesting would be an even less effective version of that.
I play at 1am PST. 4am est. Theres about 15-20 players on. Typically they scattered around the map doing their own thing. Do you really think these people want to fight off AI ganging them every run?
Because its better than fighting no one at all. For my time zone there are not enough players in the MA to make it worth me logging in except late at night when I am too tired to play, so I just don't bother any more. I am sure there are others in the same boat as me, but if we had something to do in the MA more engaging than bombing static targets it would encourage us to log in. With more players showing on the MA roster it encourages even more to log in and it becomes a benign circle.
I'd much rather have some AI planes protecting bases than the fun killing 88s we have now. This is something that would start dogfights rather than end them as they would make it a less of a suicide mission to up from a base with enemy fighters around.
To make things fairer a side with a higher than average numbers of human players could get fewer and/or worse replacement AI pilots and planes or longer respawn times until numbers evened out. I'd also like to see AI bomber raids heading to strats every now and then. Just seeds to get human players logging in to the MA during off peak times.
Concentrating the action is key.
And yet the ultimate attempt at concentration, base capture order, didn't appear to be wildly successful.
-
BTW, I'm not against finding ways to increase player density as well. The approaches are not exclusive.
I've lobbied for slightly smaller maps, slightly closer base spacing, and 2-sides as possible levers to achieve that.
I'm not against assigning extra points to a high-value-target. I just don't think there is any reason that can't work in conjunction with something along the lines of the OP suggestion.
-
When attacking a base that is not being defended - AI defenders are generated by the app to oppose the attackers.
+1
Hitech have the tools already
-
A way to add AI to the MA to give people something to shoot at during low-number times, would be to use one of the backcountry uncapturable bases. Add AI drones at the base that will only attack friendlies. Ammo and ord at the base would only damage AI drones.
This would make a place where players could shoot AI stuff and be in the MA, so if MA action heats up they will know about it and can get involved. But those who don't want to fight AI can easily avoid it.
The AI drone base could also be open to non-subscribing players where they could fight the AI for free. They could read and post on the 'help' channel and vox on the 'range' channel, but could only read the other channels. Their 'name in lights messages' would only be visible to others within the AI base area. They could get kills, learn from veteran players who wanted to spend time at the AI base (without being cannon fodder for those vets), and see the action in the MA available to paying subscribers.
-
AI will simply remove the last 10 people in the arena who aren't interested in fighting off computers ganging them every time they roll to a base. We have AI in the match play and no one goes there. Why is that?
-
AI will simply remove the last 10 people in the arena who aren't interested in fighting off computers ganging them every time they roll to a base. We have AI in the match play and no one goes there. Why is that?
And empty arenas with nothing to do will get it down to 10.
-
No we didnt have base capture order.
Yes we did, every one screamed about it.
HiTech
-
My thought was it would be a random AI response.
When numbers are determined to be low - number of active players vs bases - when an undefended base is attacked AI defenders are randomly generated.
Plane type, numbers, skill level, type of defense would then all go into the bingo ball spinner and the game would activate said defense response.
Again being random sometimes no AI defense is spawned.
I think lack of fights will kill the game more than some base sneaky group complaining about a mild AI defense would.
Glad to see the idea is still being discussed.
<S>
Eagler
-
"I think lack of fights will kill the game more than some base sneaky group complaining about a mild AI defense would."
this, we shouldn't be worried about players who want no interaction with other players.
the fights are the whole point, and what drives the gameplay.
players rolling undefended bases and bailing or running away at the first sign of trouble is a fairly useless game mechanic to encourage.
i'd also like to see some penalty for bailing out of un-injured planes.
that and 2 guys working together shouldn't be able to roll half the map bases in a couple hours.
-
Yes we did, every one screamed about it.
HiTech
I didnt realize that until Trips posted the link. However, the idea I am presenting wouldn't limit players to only take the specific base, but would encourage players to take that base or fight in that area. They could still fight wherever and take bases where ever. The zone would simply give people an idea of where they should fight to take the most strategic base. I realize that might be difficult to code. But it would incentivize players to fight in that area for more points and would also encourage players to take strategic bases to benefit the war strategy.
-
this, we shouldn't be worried about players who want no interaction with other players.
Exactly.
It's always been this way. It just wasn't noticed when you had 500 players in the arena. If someone tried to run, there was enough players that they were likely just to run into someone else. Now there is PLENTY of open space to just get away.
And if you were chasing someone who was running, more that likely you ran into someone else to fight pretty quickly. Which is why I have also argued for gently increasing player density through various mechanisms. Ideally, you'd just add 400 new players. If those are hard to come by, you use other levers to tighten things up.
The runners were always there, just not always the only game in town.
:salute
-
I didnt realize that until Trips posted the link. However, the idea I am presenting wouldn't limit players to only take the specific base, but would encourage players to take that base or fight in that area. They could still fight wherever and take bases where ever. The zone would simply give people an idea of where they should fight to take the most strategic base. I realize that might be difficult to code. But it would incentivize players to fight in that area for more points and would also encourage players to take strategic bases to benefit the war strategy.
So why don't you go post a wishlist topic on your idea?
-
So why don't you go post a wishlist topic on your idea?
Maybe I will but I'd like to hear Hitechs thoughts on it.
I just don't think AI would solve the issue seeing as it hasn't solved it for match play.
-
I just don't think AI would solve the issue seeing as it hasn't solved it for match play.
I believe that was done before the ability to hand-tweak the AI per aircraft. The default settings were not ideal in all cases. He even had bombers dogfighting.
The offline 4x4 missions have been getting a fair amount of play. People seem to find properly balanced AI an entertaining diversion when nothing better is available.
You are assuming no one would enjoy it, despite several people in this thread including the OP saying they would.
-
I believe that was done before the ability to hand-tweak the AI per aircraft. The default settings were not ideal in all cases. He even had bombers dogfighting.
The offline 4x4 missions have been getting a fair amount of play. People seem to find properly balanced AI an entertaining diversion when nothing better is available.
You are assuming no one would enjoy it, despite several people in this thread including the OP saying they would.
The forums and especially wishlist are very small representation of the players in the game so it has to be taken with a grain of salt, but honestly fighting AI gets very tiring and it's not going go create better gameplay. I believe it would piss more people off.
-
The forums and especially wishlist are very small representation of the players in the game so it has to be taken with a grain of salt, but honestly fighting AI gets very tiring and it's not going go create better gameplay. I believe it would piss more people off.
So you are saying that attacking a completely empty base with no defense is better game-play?
Maybe we should get rid of the ack too? Does that get in their way too much? Poor little things.
-
So you are saying that attacking a completely empty base with no defense is better game-play?
Maybe we should get rid of the ack too? Does that get in their way too much? Poor little things.
If the base was an important strategic base marked on the map than attacking it would be ideal and provide an objective or path to action. This would also provide incentive to defend it. The whole point of the war in the MA is to attack bases. I'm telling you that players who like to Jabo empty bases are going to hate having to deal with 2-3 AI trail them on their way to a base. Then you have to ask, what kind of planes would the AI be? Why hurt the attackers of the game spending the time to fly to the base in the first place? If the AI gets shot down by the group and they cap the field. It defeats its purpose anyway. I think players need to get better at base defense, but many are too impatient to roll from a back field.
I agree with you about short base distances and smaller maps, but a path to action that is optional is the best way to go about it.
-
I'm telling you that players who like to Jabo empty bases are going to hate having to deal with 2-3 AI trail them on their way to a base.
So they would probably prefer there be no ack either so they don't catch a lucky round in the face at the start of their kamikaze dive, right? On that logic, why shouldn't we get rid of all ack so it can't interfere with their long flight to attack undefended bases?
-
I find attacking undefended bases gaming the game.
I don't think expecting the attackers to actually have to defeat some kind of resistance before they roll the base is not too much to ask.
Personally it has never been about base capturing for me.
The "Aces High" part of the game is what drew me in before gvs and ships even existed and is what keeps me coming back.
As time is limited for many of us I was just looking for a way to implement more A2A with the current number of players that are logged in during off peak hours.
<S>
Eagler
-
I find attacking undefended bases gaming the game.
I don't think expecting the attackers to actually have to defeat some kind of resistance before they roll the base is not too much to ask.
Personally it has never been about base capturing for me.
The "Aces High" part of the game is what drew me in before gvs and ships even existed and is what keeps me coming back.
As time is limited for many of us I was just looking for a way to implement more A2A with the current number of players that are logged in during off peak hours.
<S>
Eagler
I see what you are saying but in some sense I believe it should be up to the other team to defend, and if they cannot defend than its their loss. I don't believe the people putting in the effort to attack the base should be penalized harshly for taking the time to fly to the base with ord and attacking it. That is afterall the whole concept of "winning the war". It use to be considered strategy to attack bases secretly and take them with no one looking. Not trying to put you down Eagler, we all want more fights. I just think AI in the MA won't go over well. Just my opinion. If ya want more fights. There is AI in the match play or offline missions to try. :cheers:
-
If ya want more fights. There is AI in the match play or offline missions to try. :cheers:
If you want to attack undefended bases, there is offline practice to try.
Something for everybody. :aok
-
It use to be considered strategy to attack bases secretly and take them with no one looking.
i think part of the problem is with the super low off peak numbers its not actually possible to defend all your bases.
if one side has 12 people and one has 6 the six person team just cannot defend everywhere they are attacked.
and thats ignoring the third group of 6-10 who are probably ganging you
-
I think proper implementation of AI with live players opens the door for a unique and challenging game.
<S>
Eagler