This is different from which MMO? Which single player game? Here is a clue it is not AI it is scripted and based on hard number thresholds. The NPC has no choice, X has more threat than Y, nevermind he is kiting me.
Let's all come back to this red herring topic once we see more AI in action.
Black pot... How do you play PVP. You determine which players have the highest amount of threat and ??? Oh, you're a real person so instead of eliminating them you randomly choose someone else to attack, right?
So your solution to improving artificial intelligence is to encourage the NPC's to make poor choices? I think we have differing view on what 'intelligence' means. The mobs have to decide what action to take, who to attack, whether to run, when to heal, when to use AOE attacks etc.... it's not that hard to simulate those decisions to what a player would do.
The problem is, when you do that, the game isn't any fun.
"Hey man, what did you do today?",
" I chased orcs around."
"Really, get any loot?"
"Uh, no, the orcs could see I was powerful, so I literally just chased them for three hours"
"Wow, that sounds like a lot of fun, see you tomorrow?"
You know what happens when you PVE players in a non-consensual PVP game? They'd quit. That's what Orcs would do it your ideal AI world, they'd all leave Norrath.
OP, don't bother. I made a similar thread, people here don't understand a single thing required when creating what they Storybricks are creating. I'm extremely skeptical, I will not say it can not be done anymore but I'm not going to be dragged into believing the PR at face value like a lot of people here are.
I've watched Storybricks's AI video, so far it's exteremly basic and consists of using "tags" to determine situational outcomes in the mobs behavior. In theory the "tags" could create the AI they are talking about but that is in theory, until I see footage of this in action I say it can't be done.
Who said they believe it? Where did they say it? Stop arguing with people who do not exist.
Just a bit of advice: Not believing you or the OP has nothing to do with believing SOE.
What are you talking about. Look at this thread. Look at the amount of people writing. "Complicated AI has been around for ages, therefore it shouldn't be a problem for SOE"
You said people believe the PR, no one said they believe the PR, no one... SOE has not pulled it off, most people understand that. Also the first part of that statement is true, the second an assumption based on what (faith)? They still do not show any evidence of believing the PR. They're saying there's better AI out there than your typical MMO offers. That is not who you're attempting to argue with.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The issue with AI isn't making it "smarter." Thats just a matter of having pre-programmed instructions for all the general scenarios. Theres really not that many variables, even if there are a hundreds.
The problem people are overlooking is that traditional RPGs have classes, and every class has a function When you make AI such that it circumvents a characters function or role, and only targets the physically weaker classes, the outcome will always be one of two things: a break down of the class functions where all classes are given the ability to become the de facto tank, whether its by evasion tanking (teleporting, jumping, dodging, rolling out of harms way) or changing the traditional class function to such that they are capable of physically tanking. Thats it. Those are the two options. Evasion tanking = zerg combat. Argue it all you want, but thats what guild wars 2 is. An example of the other system is Darkfail where all classes are capable of becoming a tank by training defense and wearing heavy armor.
Its ok though, I'm sure SOE has found a way around this.
The issue with AI isn't making it "smarter." Thats just a matter of having pre-programmed instructions for all the general scenarios. Theres really not that many variables, even if there are a hundreds.
The problem people are overlooking is that traditional RPGs have classes, and every class has a function When you make AI such that it circumvents a characters function or role, and only targets the physically weaker classes, the outcome will always be one of two things: a break down of the class functions where all classes are given the ability to become the de facto tank, whether its by evasion tanking (teleporting, jumping, dodging, rolling out of harms way) or changing the traditional class function to such that they are capable of physically tanking. Thats it. Those are the two options. Evasion tanking = zerg combat. Argue it all you want, but thats what guild wars 2 is. An example of the other system is Darkfail where all classes are capable of becoming a tank by training defense and wearing heavy armor.
Its ok though, I'm sure SOE has found a way around this.
And then there's option 3: games like Dragons Dogma...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
OP, don't bother. I made a similar thread, people here don't understand a single thing required when creating what they Storybricks are creating. I'm extremely skeptical, I will not say it can not be done anymore but I'm not going to be dragged into believing the PR at face value like a lot of people here are.
I've watched Storybricks's AI video, so far it's exteremly basic and consists of using "tags" to determine situational outcomes in the mobs behavior. In theory the "tags" could create the AI they are talking about but that is in theory, until I see footage of this in action I say it can't be done.
Who said they believe it? Where did they say it? Stop arguing with people who do not exist.
Just a bit of advice: Not believing you or the OP has nothing to do with believing SOE.
What are you talking about. Look at this thread. Look at the amount of people writing. "Complicated AI has been around for ages, therefore it shouldn't be a problem for SOE"
You said people believe the PR, no one said they believe the PR, no one... SOE has not pulled it off, most people understand that. Also the first part of that statement is true, the second an assumption based on what (faith)? They still do not show any evidence of believing the PR. They're saying there's better AI out there than your typical MMO offers. That is not who you're attempting to argue with.
No one huh. Just look at the thread i made. No one beileves it right?
"if u forcefully insert foriegn objects into my? body, i will die"
OP, don't bother. I made a similar thread, people here don't understand a single thing required when creating what they Storybricks are creating. I'm extremely skeptical, I will not say it can not be done anymore but I'm not going to be dragged into believing the PR at face value like a lot of people here are.
I've watched Storybricks's AI video, so far it's exteremly basic and consists of using "tags" to determine situational outcomes in the mobs behavior. In theory the "tags" could create the AI they are talking about but that is in theory, until I see footage of this in action I say it can't be done.
Who said they believe it? Where did they say it? Stop arguing with people who do not exist.
Just a bit of advice: Not believing you or the OP has nothing to do with believing SOE.
What are you talking about. Look at this thread. Look at the amount of people writing. "Complicated AI has been around for ages, therefore it shouldn't be a problem for SOE"
You said people believe the PR, no one said they believe the PR, no one... SOE has not pulled it off, most people understand that. Also the first part of that statement is true, the second an assumption based on what (faith)? They still do not show any evidence of believing the PR. They're saying there's better AI out there than your typical MMO offers. That is not who you're attempting to argue with.
No one huh. Just look at the thread i made. No one beileves it right?
have an example? Oh and yes I've seen your thread, and it was nothing but theory crafting. Again your correlation is off, arguing with your declaration with examples and ideas, is not saying "SOE are teh bombzorz, I believe everything they say"
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Coming from the software development world I know for a FACT that SOE is not employing people from MIT's AI department for their game. This would be the only way to produce AI even close to challenging enough to make the "Trinity" system obsolete. However, even MIT hasn't created AI advanced enough to make this claim.
Seriously, it really is getting frustrating reading about this "Advanced AI" when it doesn't exist. It's like the CEO of Spandex coming out to tell everyone we have conquered the effects of "Gravity" to a room that has at LEAST one Physicist/Engineer that knows for a fact we haven't yet.
/endRant
As a software dev, I also know that advanced AI has existed for years, without machines to run it. All in how you define what advanced is.
Weather it be continuous or discrete, AI requires heavy processing and decision making. Dynamic or static ... learning vs. pre-computed. The best AI is oriented toward its purpose. I do not see any reason why SOE can not build a system that is specifically oriented around their purpose, just as Left 4 Dead did in their 2nd game. They wrote a fantastic crowd solver for their zombies based on a dynamically branching AI.
This is no approach a software dev should take, as our job is oriented around problem solving. Some amazing programs and code have been written by individuals who aren't in the crowd you suggest. Even then, these prestigious colleges many times are forced to exclude smart people due to lack of funds, location, or culture. If you really are a software dev, I don't see why you are so critical of SoE.
As a not software developer but someone who has the ability to read a magazine or an internet article, I know that computer games don't use Artificial Intelligence. What is used in games is code that basically boils down to series of if-then statements, whereas true AI would be able to sit next to you and decide that it wants to play an MMO, then learn how to play it itself. True AI = Skynet, that develops it's own motivations and then acts on those motives. The orc in whatever game you're playing ain't Skynet.
But now that I've shaken my e-peen at you, to get back to the original topic, he's right. Making the mobs act more like players in PVP scenarios just boils down to removing the taunt mechanic. If you have a game where PVE uses taunt and PVP doesn't then no one is going to bother with killing tanks in PVP. If the game puts the taunt mechanic into PVP, and you basically have to kill at least some of the tank classes first, then you'll kill them, and all of the sudden the PVE AI is just as smart as the players.
It's all very simple and has nothing to do with "difficulty of AI". As a previous poster pointed out, EQ1 had really good PVE mob action simulation, and you all cried like little girls about trains and corpse runs and flocked to WoW when it came out because you could solo 3 monsters at once.
Are you saying that AI hasn't existed in computer games at all? AI is just automated decision making based on the data input to the system.
Alright, as for the orange text. So you're saying without taunt in EQ, the game combat would feel more like PVP'? Wouldn't you have to add other mechanics to have the monster decide what other characters to kill? Or did you mean remove threat all together?
The additional logic behind what, how, and who a monster attacks or pursues is considered AI. With PVP, you have a player, so you have the players intelligence. If you remove taunt from EQ, but not the threat system you only have damage and proximity threat. Then, the game becomes a ping pong battle. You'll need additional logic to control the monsters actions, so what do you propose we call that logic?
OP, don't bother. I made a similar thread, people here don't understand a single thing required when creating what they Storybricks are creating. I'm extremely skeptical, I will not say it can not be done anymore but I'm not going to be dragged into believing the PR at face value like a lot of people here are.
I've watched Storybricks's AI video, so far it's exteremly basic and consists of using "tags" to determine situational outcomes in the mobs behavior. In theory the "tags" could create the AI they are talking about but that is in theory, until I see footage of this in action I say it can't be done.
Who said they believe it? Where did they say it? Stop arguing with people who do not exist.
Just a bit of advice: Not believing you or the OP has nothing to do with believing SOE.
What are you talking about. Look at this thread. Look at the amount of people writing. "Complicated AI has been around for ages, therefore it shouldn't be a problem for SOE"
So you are saying that none of us have read articles where developers have indicated that creating AI to beat the player is easy?
Well, "in any case" here is a GDC video on AI. about 20:08 and you can hear how one such developer indicates that creating AI to beat the player is easy. You don't even need great AI to do it.
I don't see why advanced AI wouldn't be doable, it is >>only<< a matter of creating a system of rules. It is different to create AI based on a limited set of known rules and possible outcomes, than to create real world AI that has to take into account all kind of unknowns.
What I don't see is that AI can replace roles or trinity as they claim, and if they think it can it will just end up as a bland roleless game..gwcoughtwo.
Taking words out of context +1 No EQN mobs will not have human level intelligence. The fact that there is debate is just silly. AI is a loose term just like ever other buzz word. It's great having no faith or calling SOE liars, but what's the point? Just to do it? EQN could have something better then we've seen I MMOs before or it could be equal or worse. Any assumptions are just that. Either take their word for it until proven false or move along. Regardless if they have amazing AI or not, I'm assuming many haters would have 1000 other reasons EQN is going to fail, doesn't match up 100% to their definition of a word, or whatever reasoning for not liking it. No one is forcing anyone to follow or play anything. If you feel you're being lied to, why stick around?
I have to agree with the points made on existing AI. I think the reason companies don't use full-fledged AI for monster opponents is that it would be too much for the players to contend with.
Try playing Dragon Age, the Bioware RPG, on hard mode WITHOUT using the space-bar to pause the action. In many encounters the human is simply overwhelmed - people cannot hit the keys on a keyboard fast enough to match the AI.
Imagine a smart monster with appropriate AI in EQN:
- Let's say an ancient Liche who has survived ages. A party of adventurers shows up to claim his treasure. Usually this means fighting through predictable encounters of steadily increasing difficulty with the Liche's followers until you reach the inner sanctum, where said Liche obligingly makes his final stand.
Now imagine...
- the adventurers show up at the Liche lair to find - no one. Unbeknownst to them, the Liche knew they were coming and decided to prepare a surprise. As the adventurers head out, disappointed, he springs his trap as he and his followers emerge en masse from a hidden passage and steamroll the adventurers.
This would be way, way out of most MMO players comfort zones. People want to relax and bash keys while the bodies of the enemy (and the treasure loot) piles up. Not have to out-think Skynet...
Exactly. This would spell doom for the player base and a few might enjoy it. But your average and above average player would be like, yeah.. I play for fun not to get steam rolled all the time.
People keep wanting to say super AI doesn't exist, it has, it is just that players don't want to play against it. It is not fun. If given the option to allow it in a few instances might be the best route, so then people can be like..yeah ok lets not have that, except the elite few, toss in an achievement for it so they can feel special and waltz around with a nifty I smoked the shit out of the place title.
I think what the true issue here is is that when the OP thinks of AI he thinks of it in the truest form, that is in a non-technical description a computer that can fool a human into thinking that the computer is a human player.
That is what perfect AI is. Sony saying they are going to have improved AI compared to other MMOs is not even in the same ball park. What needs to be focused on is the word 'improved' or w/ever term they used to describe their AI. Unless they specifically said perfect/true/human like AI then they are simply saying improved AI.
I remember back when one of the selling points of FPS's was improved AI. I remember it was a trend up until Half-life 2 and Doom 3 came out. Around then it seemed gaming exploded. From what I remember it was no longer just about the nerd playing video games it changed to a larger audience. I remember at Fry's, Best Buy, Comp USA they all had signs posted with computer specs for Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 because even fewer people built their computers and knew what their specs were.
The PR isn't a lie yet. If they follow through with improved AI then its not a lie. The game dosn't have to fool players into thinking NPC's are players to be improved AI, an improvement is relative.
Blizzard did an interview, or wrote an article several years ago talking about the combat AI. I'm paraphrasing, but they basically said writing a good combat AI would be easy. The AI could have all the abilities that a player would have, it would be situationally aware and wouldn't get excited and make mistakes. It would use the ideal combination of abilities for any given situation. They need that kind of AI for testing.
They didn't use the more advanced AI because it wouldn't be fun for players. The AI was too good to be used against players. It would be good for testing though.
SOE is doing something completely different with the Story Bricks AI. That gnoll will attack because it is angry with you for killing his brothers. Or the gnoll will move to a less populated part of the world so it is easier to attack adventurers. The combat AI is going to be a version of that kind of behavior. It won't make perfect decisions, but if it's attacking someone, and another player heals that someone, it'll attack the healer instead of making the right decision at the beginning of the fight and attacking the healer right away. Something like that anyway. Or even better, mobs in groups will act like they are a group, repositioning themselves, healing each other and possibly running away.
The group AI has been done years ago in single player games. At least a single player game. Groups of mobs would have a leader and they would have the ability to do things as a group. If the leader was killed, the group would be disorganized unless another one of the mobs moved into the position of leader, and they would again act as an organized group.
"Intelligent" AI isn't smoke and mirrors, and it's not science fiction. It is well within the realm of what can be done. The only important part is that is has to be fun. Keep in mind that mobs don't exist to replace players, they are there to provide a challenge, and ultimately drop loot.
+1
I love how the OP thinks that only MIT has the capability to make good enough AI.
/lawl
But seriously, where is the PROOF that AI was not done right in EQN? That's right, we have none--- Because we haven't seen the AI in action!! That alone makes this entire thread (rant rather) INVALID by default.
Sorry, but like many others in this thread, I'm calling complete baloney on this one. You can't judge anything until you've seen it.
Blizzard has done it already in the Lich King expansion as well as a few other fights.
Honestly, one of the best fights I have played in any game, and it almost felt like pvp, I am referring to the Arena of Champions?? cant remember name, where it was just boss fight after boss fight, and the 3rd fight had random characters of each class, they had random specs as well. They could do anything that class could do at any time. It was fun, it was chaotic, yes we had a plan on kill order, CC, etc, but even when we had 25 man hard mode on farm, that fight could randomly screw you up on acheivements, it was great
a whole game built with this type of variable, is how I see EQN, and I LOVE IT!
I have to agree with the points made on existing AI. I think the reason companies don't use full-fledged AI for monster opponents is that it would be too much for the players to contend with.
Try playing Dragon Age, the Bioware RPG, on hard mode WITHOUT using the space-bar to pause the action. In many encounters the human is simply overwhelmed - people cannot hit the keys on a keyboard fast enough to match the AI.
Imagine a smart monster with appropriate AI in EQN:
- Let's say an ancient Liche who has survived ages. A party of adventurers shows up to claim his treasure. Usually this means fighting through predictable encounters of steadily increasing difficulty with the Liche's followers until you reach the inner sanctum, where said Liche obligingly makes his final stand.
Now imagine...
- the adventurers show up at the Liche lair to find - no one. Unbeknownst to them, the Liche knew they were coming and decided to prepare a surprise. As the adventurers head out, disappointed, he springs his trap as he and his followers emerge en masse from a hidden passage and steamroll the adventurers.
This would be way, way out of most MMO players comfort zones. People want to relax and bash keys while the bodies of the enemy (and the treasure loot) piles up. Not have to out-think Skynet...
I actually want you described, can you imagine the feeling of accomplishment and challenge if there simply wasn't easy bands of mobs to roll your face on the keyboard against? Obviously there are degree's of difficulty, but damn If I don't actually want a group of level appropriate mobs to give my group a run for it's money. I don't want to know every fight that I'm going to win, because the developers designed the mobs/groups to die when players appeared. If EQN can actually deliver on engaging PvE AI difficulty ... I'll never PvP again.
Coming from the software development world I know for a FACT that SOE is not employing people from MIT's AI department for their game. This would be the only way to produce AI even close to challenging enough to make the "Trinity" system obsolete. However, even MIT hasn't created AI advanced enough to make this claim.
Additionally, we had "difficult" AI back in 2004 during EQ2's closed beta. We started testing AI that would dynamically choose, on the fly, whom to attack based on class & actions they were taking. Mobs would randomly scream out "Kill the healer! It is keeping the weaklings alive!" (an undead skeleton within the instanced orc dungeon in Commonlands outside Freeport). I don't know what happened to it as mobs stopped doing that kind of stuff shortly before launch. Nothing was said about it, and launch went on without a further word on it.
The thing is, it made the game actually difficult and fun to play even with trinity. Tanks had to constantly watch their aggro or risk a healer or nuker being fried. It most certianly did NOT make Trinity obsolete.
ps: wtf with this whole "Trinity" name? CC (ie: control from enchanters, etc) has always been a critical role in Everquest. So why only pick Tank/Healer/DPS and call it Trinity???
Anyways, we've had basic-advanced AI since 2004, but no one has been using it. In the instances it was attempted it never made the game impossible, but from what I've been told by developers in the industry it made it that much harder to make new content for the game as they always had to consider how the AI would be used in that situation. This is the only reason I can guess as to why they stopped using it????
Either way, don't believe this nonsense about EQ:N. They're following the current "trend" of PR buzz phrases to catch people's eyes. They should just come out and say that they want to move away from selective roles like Tank/Healer/Dps/Control. After all, we all know dungeons in Everquest 1 cannot be done without that specific setup right guys? (In before I post about constantly doing DPS only dungeon runs etc in EQ1, or before someone else does)
Seriously, it really is getting frustrating reading about this "Advanced AI" when it doesn't exist. It's like the CEO of Spandex coming out to tell everyone we have conquered the effects of "Gravity" to a room that has at LEAST one Physicist/Engineer that knows for a fact we haven't yet.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Coming from the software development world I know for a FACT that SOE is not employing people from MIT's AI department for their game. This would be the only way to produce AI even close to challenging enough to make the "Trinity" system obsolete. However, even MIT hasn't created AI advanced enough to make this claim.
Additionally, we had "difficult" AI back in 2004 during EQ2's closed beta. We started testing AI that would dynamically choose, on the fly, whom to attack based on class & actions they were taking. Mobs would randomly scream out "Kill the healer! It is keeping the weaklings alive!" (an undead skeleton within the instanced orc dungeon in Commonlands outside Freeport). I don't know what happened to it as mobs stopped doing that kind of stuff shortly before launch. Nothing was said about it, and launch went on without a further word on it.
The thing is, it made the game actually difficult and fun to play even with trinity. Tanks had to constantly watch their aggro or risk a healer or nuker being fried. It most certianly did NOT make Trinity obsolete.
ps: wtf with this whole "Trinity" name? CC (ie: control from enchanters, etc) has always been a critical role in Everquest. So why only pick Tank/Healer/DPS and call it Trinity???
Anyways, we've had basic-advanced AI since 2004, but no one has been using it. In the instances it was attempted it never made the game impossible, but from what I've been told by developers in the industry it made it that much harder to make new content for the game as they always had to consider how the AI would be used in that situation. This is the only reason I can guess as to why they stopped using it????
Either way, don't believe this nonsense about EQ:N. They're following the current "trend" of PR buzz phrases to catch people's eyes. They should just come out and say that they want to move away from selective roles like Tank/Healer/Dps/Control. After all, we all know dungeons in Everquest 1 cannot be done without that specific setup right guys? (In before I post about constantly doing DPS only dungeon runs etc in EQ1, or before someone else does)
Seriously, it really is getting frustrating reading about this "Advanced AI" when it doesn't exist. It's like the CEO of Spandex coming out to tell everyone we have conquered the effects of "Gravity" to a room that has at LEAST one Physicist/Engineer that knows for a fact we haven't yet.
Coming from the software development world I know for a FACT that SOE is not employing people from MIT's AI department for their game. This would be the only way to produce AI even close to challenging enough to make the "Trinity" system obsolete. However, even MIT hasn't created AI advanced enough to make this claim.
Additionally, we had "difficult" AI back in 2004 during EQ2's closed beta. We started testing AI that would dynamically choose, on the fly, whom to attack based on class & actions they were taking. Mobs would randomly scream out "Kill the healer! It is keeping the weaklings alive!" (an undead skeleton within the instanced orc dungeon in Commonlands outside Freeport). I don't know what happened to it as mobs stopped doing that kind of stuff shortly before launch. Nothing was said about it, and launch went on without a further word on it.
The thing is, it made the game actually difficult and fun to play even with trinity. Tanks had to constantly watch their aggro or risk a healer or nuker being fried. It most certianly did NOT make Trinity obsolete.
ps: wtf with this whole "Trinity" name? CC (ie: control from enchanters, etc) has always been a critical role in Everquest. So why only pick Tank/Healer/DPS and call it Trinity???
Anyways, we've had basic-advanced AI since 2004, but no one has been using it. In the instances it was attempted it never made the game impossible, but from what I've been told by developers in the industry it made it that much harder to make new content for the game as they always had to consider how the AI would be used in that situation. This is the only reason I can guess as to why they stopped using it????
Either way, don't believe this nonsense about EQ:N. They're following the current "trend" of PR buzz phrases to catch people's eyes. They should just come out and say that they want to move away from selective roles like Tank/Healer/Dps/Control. After all, we all know dungeons in Everquest 1 cannot be done without that specific setup right guys? (In before I post about constantly doing DPS only dungeon runs etc in EQ1, or before someone else does)
Seriously, it really is getting frustrating reading about this "Advanced AI" when it doesn't exist. It's like the CEO of Spandex coming out to tell everyone we have conquered the effects of "Gravity" to a room that has at LEAST one Physicist/Engineer that knows for a fact we haven't yet.
DreamWorks Animation Member of Long Term Software Development staff, in the Feature Animation division of DreamWorks SKG. Developed behavioral animation tools.
1994 to 1996
SGI (Silicon Studio) [at archive.org] MTS in FireWalker team. Developed tools for authoring improvisational behavior in multimedia.
1992 to 1994
Electronic Arts MTS. Designed and implemented real-time reactive behavioral models for use in video games. Created behaviors used in John Madden Football for 3DO, and for an unreleased hockey game.
1982 to 1991
Symbolics Inc. (Symbolics Graphics Division) Principal MTS. Design, implement, and maintain a 2d paint system (S-Paint). Design, implement, and maintain an interactive 3d animation scripting system (S-Dynamics). Conduct program in advanced graphics research: produced a behavior model of bird flocking and a geometrical model of surfaces in nonlinear flow.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Originally posted by zymurgeist It isn't the mob difficulty. That can be adjusted easily. It's the fact that for every state you create and monitor you consume CPU cycles. It's pretty easy for a few players and a hundred or so mobs on a single computer. Ramp that up to thousands of players and tens of thousands of mobs spread across dozens of server clusters it gets expensive. That's why most mobs tend to treat all players the same both in and out of combat.
It has nothing to do with processing power. We've had the same AI for 15 years now. Computers have advanced and gotten cheaper over those 15 years. As someone pointed out with the Blizzard interview. The reason we haven't gotten better AI is because developers have been scared to challenge players even a little bit.
This is one of the cases just because you can - doesn't mean you should. You don't need MIT folks to write an AI will blow away every player. It really comes down to what is fun to play. In the past SOE did some play testing where mobs were smart enough to destroy 'Trinity' group structure and players found it to be not very enjoyable thus the idea was dropped.
If you build a game around Trinity and then put in mobs that are designed specifically against it obviously it will be annoying. GW2 tried another group structure model however they encountered another problem - which is swarming.
Aside from having smart mobs you also need a system that is robust and complex enough where such intelligence can be used in an interesting way. If you make a mob with 8 quick slot abilities there is natural limitation on what it can do with those abilities.
Given current systems that MMO's employ good AI is rather limited making it either a pushover, a choreography class or frustrating to play against.
This is one of the cases just because you can - doesn't mean you should. You don't need MIT folks to write an AI will blow away every player. It really comes down to what is fun to play. In the past SOE did some play testing where mobs were smart enough to destroy 'Trinity' group structure and players found it to be not very enjoyable thus the idea was dropped.
If you build a game around Trinity and then put in mobs that are designed specifically against it obviously it will be annoying. GW2 tried another group structure model however they encountered another problem - which is swarming.
Aside from having smart mobs you also need a system that is robust and complex enough where such intelligence can be used in an interesting way. If you make a mob with 8 quick slot abilities there is natural limitation on what it can do with those abilities.
Given current systems that MMO's employ good AI is rather limited making it either a pushover, a choreography class or frustrating to play against.
ArenaNet tried more advanced AI as well, and they thought it was just too difficult for players. So we got the watered down version of GW2 combat, not what was originally planned. Just like we got the event hearts so players knew where to go to find dynamic events. Developers have been coddling players for over a decade now and they have been too scared to stop.
ArenaNet tried more advanced AI as well, and they thought it was just too difficult for players. So we got the watered down version of GW2 combat, not what was originally planned. Just like we got the event hearts so players knew where to go to find dynamic events. Developers have been coddling players for over a decade now and they have been too scared to stop.
Quite possibly - that said it is developers job to cater to players. They are your customers and if they don't enjoy your product they will not play it. For game studio to invest time and money it takes a significant amount of people interested in the game, even if it is niche game. If by and large people are not able to figure out this new advanced combat or new and advanced system then companies are not going to make it.
Games have gotten simpler that is true - but games have also gotten a lot more mainstream. Think back to UO and EQ back when having 100k subs was like (OMFG, GET THE BOOZE WE ARE PARTYING!). Today unless we are talking 500k+ people are not impressed. The largest the crowd the more inclusive your in game systems have to be.
I doubt we will see a revolution but we will see a stead y stream of evolution.
The issue with AI isn't making it "smarter." Thats just a matter of having pre-programmed instructions for all the general scenarios. Theres really not that many variables, even if there are a hundreds.
The problem people are overlooking is that traditional RPGs have classes, and every class has a function When you make AI such that it circumvents a characters function or role, and only targets the physically weaker classes, the outcome will always be one of two things: a break down of the class functions where all classes are given the ability to become the de facto tank, whether its by evasion tanking (teleporting, jumping, dodging, rolling out of harms way) or changing the traditional class function to such that they are capable of physically tanking. Thats it. Those are the two options. Evasion tanking = zerg combat. Argue it all you want, but thats what guild wars 2 is. An example of the other system is Darkfail where all classes are capable of becoming a tank by training defense and wearing heavy armor.
Its ok though, I'm sure SOE has found a way around this.
And then there's option 3: games like Dragons Dogma...
First, it falls under option 1. Second, its not even a multiplayer game. Third, the kind of action combat in dragon's dogma, though cool, is created with solo gameplay in mind, and would never work in a massively multiplayer game.
Comments
Black pot... How do you play PVP. You determine which players have the highest amount of threat and ??? Oh, you're a real person so instead of eliminating them you randomly choose someone else to attack, right?
So your solution to improving artificial intelligence is to encourage the NPC's to make poor choices? I think we have differing view on what 'intelligence' means. The mobs have to decide what action to take, who to attack, whether to run, when to heal, when to use AOE attacks etc.... it's not that hard to simulate those decisions to what a player would do.
The problem is, when you do that, the game isn't any fun.
"Hey man, what did you do today?",
" I chased orcs around."
"Really, get any loot?"
"Uh, no, the orcs could see I was powerful, so I literally just chased them for three hours"
"Wow, that sounds like a lot of fun, see you tomorrow?"
You know what happens when you PVE players in a non-consensual PVP game? They'd quit. That's what Orcs would do it your ideal AI world, they'd all leave Norrath.
You said people believe the PR, no one said they believe the PR, no one... SOE has not pulled it off, most people understand that. Also the first part of that statement is true, the second an assumption based on what (faith)? They still do not show any evidence of believing the PR. They're saying there's better AI out there than your typical MMO offers. That is not who you're attempting to argue with.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
The issue with AI isn't making it "smarter." Thats just a matter of having pre-programmed instructions for all the general scenarios. Theres really not that many variables, even if there are a hundreds.
The problem people are overlooking is that traditional RPGs have classes, and every class has a function When you make AI such that it circumvents a characters function or role, and only targets the physically weaker classes, the outcome will always be one of two things: a break down of the class functions where all classes are given the ability to become the de facto tank, whether its by evasion tanking (teleporting, jumping, dodging, rolling out of harms way) or changing the traditional class function to such that they are capable of physically tanking. Thats it. Those are the two options. Evasion tanking = zerg combat. Argue it all you want, but thats what guild wars 2 is. An example of the other system is Darkfail where all classes are capable of becoming a tank by training defense and wearing heavy armor.
Its ok though, I'm sure SOE has found a way around this.
And then there's option 3: games like Dragons Dogma...
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
No one huh. Just look at the thread i made. No one beileves it right?
"if u forcefully insert foriegn objects into my? body, i will die"
have an example? Oh and yes I've seen your thread, and it was nothing but theory crafting. Again your correlation is off, arguing with your declaration with examples and ideas, is not saying "SOE are teh bombzorz, I believe everything they say"
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Are you saying that AI hasn't existed in computer games at all? AI is just automated decision making based on the data input to the system.
Alright, as for the orange text. So you're saying without taunt in EQ, the game combat would feel more like PVP'? Wouldn't you have to add other mechanics to have the monster decide what other characters to kill? Or did you mean remove threat all together?
The additional logic behind what, how, and who a monster attacks or pursues is considered AI. With PVP, you have a player, so you have the players intelligence. If you remove taunt from EQ, but not the threat system you only have damage and proximity threat. Then, the game becomes a ping pong battle. You'll need additional logic to control the monsters actions, so what do you propose we call that logic?
So you are saying that none of us have read articles where developers have indicated that creating AI to beat the player is easy?
Well, "in any case" here is a GDC video on AI. about 20:08 and you can hear how one such developer indicates that creating AI to beat the player is easy. You don't even need great AI to do it.
You can then write him and tell him he's wrong.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014586/
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I don't see why advanced AI wouldn't be doable, it is >>only<< a matter of creating a system of rules. It is different to create AI based on a limited set of known rules and possible outcomes, than to create real world AI that has to take into account all kind of unknowns.
What I don't see is that AI can replace roles or trinity as they claim, and if they think it can it will just end up as a bland roleless game..gwcoughtwo.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
No EQN mobs will not have human level intelligence. The fact that there is debate is just silly. AI is a loose term just like ever other buzz word. It's great having no faith or calling SOE liars, but what's the point? Just to do it? EQN could have something better then we've seen I MMOs before or it could be equal or worse. Any assumptions are just that. Either take their word for it until proven false or move along. Regardless if they have amazing AI or not, I'm assuming many haters would have 1000 other reasons EQN is going to fail, doesn't match up 100% to their definition of a word, or whatever reasoning for not liking it. No one is forcing anyone to follow or play anything. If you feel you're being lied to, why stick around?
Exactly. This would spell doom for the player base and a few might enjoy it. But your average and above average player would be like, yeah.. I play for fun not to get steam rolled all the time.
People keep wanting to say super AI doesn't exist, it has, it is just that players don't want to play against it. It is not fun. If given the option to allow it in a few instances might be the best route, so then people can be like..yeah ok lets not have that, except the elite few, toss in an achievement for it so they can feel special and waltz around with a nifty I smoked the shit out of the place title.
I think what the true issue here is is that when the OP thinks of AI he thinks of it in the truest form, that is in a non-technical description a computer that can fool a human into thinking that the computer is a human player.
That is what perfect AI is. Sony saying they are going to have improved AI compared to other MMOs is not even in the same ball park. What needs to be focused on is the word 'improved' or w/ever term they used to describe their AI. Unless they specifically said perfect/true/human like AI then they are simply saying improved AI.
I remember back when one of the selling points of FPS's was improved AI. I remember it was a trend up until Half-life 2 and Doom 3 came out. Around then it seemed gaming exploded. From what I remember it was no longer just about the nerd playing video games it changed to a larger audience. I remember at Fry's, Best Buy, Comp USA they all had signs posted with computer specs for Half-Life 2 and Doom 3 because even fewer people built their computers and knew what their specs were.
The PR isn't a lie yet. If they follow through with improved AI then its not a lie. The game dosn't have to fool players into thinking NPC's are players to be improved AI, an improvement is relative.
+1
I love how the OP thinks that only MIT has the capability to make good enough AI.
/lawl
But seriously, where is the PROOF that AI was not done right in EQN? That's right, we have none--- Because we haven't seen the AI in action!! That alone makes this entire thread (rant rather) INVALID by default.
Sorry, but like many others in this thread, I'm calling complete baloney on this one. You can't judge anything until you've seen it.
I dont see why the technology isnt there
Blizzard has done it already in the Lich King expansion as well as a few other fights.
Honestly, one of the best fights I have played in any game, and it almost felt like pvp, I am referring to the Arena of Champions?? cant remember name, where it was just boss fight after boss fight, and the 3rd fight had random characters of each class, they had random specs as well. They could do anything that class could do at any time. It was fun, it was chaotic, yes we had a plan on kill order, CC, etc, but even when we had 25 man hard mode on farm, that fight could randomly screw you up on acheivements, it was great
a whole game built with this type of variable, is how I see EQN, and I LOVE IT!
I actually want you described, can you imagine the feeling of accomplishment and challenge if there simply wasn't easy bands of mobs to roll your face on the keyboard against? Obviously there are degree's of difficulty, but damn If I don't actually want a group of level appropriate mobs to give my group a run for it's money. I don't want to know every fight that I'm going to win, because the developers designed the mobs/groups to die when players appeared. If EQN can actually deliver on engaging PvE AI difficulty ... I'll never PvP again.
Summary:
BearKnight doesn't like EQN.
I will counter with at the very least this: http://www.red3d.com/cwr/resume.html
See some of his work: http://www.red3d.com/cwr/
Here is a famous bit of his work BOIDS: http://www.red3d.com/cwr/boids/ Which he won an Oscar Scientific/Technical Oscar for.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Well they have MIT on their side, according to the Op that means they can do it:).
Education
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Phew that was close.
(Since Only MIT grads can make anything near acceptable AI of course)...
:P
Plus a ton of experience:
Senior Researcher at SCE US Research and Development. Investigating autonomous characters and other technology for games on PlayStation 2 and 3. Public projects include Pigeons in the Park, OpenSteer, PSCrowd, crowd stigmergy and goal-oriented texture synthesis (including a model of camouflage evolution).
Member of Long Term Software Development staff, in the Feature Animation division of DreamWorks SKG. Developed behavioral animation tools.
MTS in FireWalker team. Developed tools for authoring improvisational behavior in multimedia.
MTS. Designed and implemented real-time reactive behavioral models for use in video games. Created behaviors used in John Madden Football for 3DO, and for an unreleased hockey game.
Principal MTS. Design, implement, and maintain a 2d paint system (S-Paint). Design, implement, and maintain an interactive 3d animation scripting system (S-Dynamics). Conduct program in advanced graphics research: produced a behavior model of bird flocking and a geometrical model of surfaces in nonlinear flow.
Lead animator (technical director) on computer animated scenes for TV commercials and feature film special effects. Developed graphics and animation tools.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
It has nothing to do with processing power. We've had the same AI for 15 years now. Computers have advanced and gotten cheaper over those 15 years. As someone pointed out with the Blizzard interview. The reason we haven't gotten better AI is because developers have been scared to challenge players even a little bit.
This is one of the cases just because you can - doesn't mean you should. You don't need MIT folks to write an AI will blow away every player. It really comes down to what is fun to play. In the past SOE did some play testing where mobs were smart enough to destroy 'Trinity' group structure and players found it to be not very enjoyable thus the idea was dropped.
If you build a game around Trinity and then put in mobs that are designed specifically against it obviously it will be annoying. GW2 tried another group structure model however they encountered another problem - which is swarming.
Aside from having smart mobs you also need a system that is robust and complex enough where such intelligence can be used in an interesting way. If you make a mob with 8 quick slot abilities there is natural limitation on what it can do with those abilities.
Given current systems that MMO's employ good AI is rather limited making it either a pushover, a choreography class or frustrating to play against.
ArenaNet tried more advanced AI as well, and they thought it was just too difficult for players. So we got the watered down version of GW2 combat, not what was originally planned. Just like we got the event hearts so players knew where to go to find dynamic events. Developers have been coddling players for over a decade now and they have been too scared to stop.
Quite possibly - that said it is developers job to cater to players. They are your customers and if they don't enjoy your product they will not play it. For game studio to invest time and money it takes a significant amount of people interested in the game, even if it is niche game. If by and large people are not able to figure out this new advanced combat or new and advanced system then companies are not going to make it.
Games have gotten simpler that is true - but games have also gotten a lot more mainstream. Think back to UO and EQ back when having 100k subs was like (OMFG, GET THE BOOZE WE ARE PARTYING!). Today unless we are talking 500k+ people are not impressed. The largest the crowd the more inclusive your in game systems have to be.
I doubt we will see a revolution but we will see a stead y stream of evolution.
First, it falls under option 1. Second, its not even a multiplayer game. Third, the kind of action combat in dragon's dogma, though cool, is created with solo gameplay in mind, and would never work in a massively multiplayer game.