I'm interested in differing mob AI based on type and situation thus...
1979 AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide: Monsters and Organization for your reading pleasure.
(Warning - Incoming Wall of Text for no good reason)
SITUATION 1 (Sl) is where encounter occurs for the first time, and while the party inflicts casualties upon the monsters, victory is denied; the party then leaves with its wounded, regroups, and returns one full week later to finish the job. SITUATION 2 (S2) is where the party, rested, healed, and ready for action, has now re-encountered the monsters in question.
EXAMPLE I: The party has entered a crypt under an old temple and attacked skeletons and zombies encountered there.
S1: The monsters will respond only as the crypts are entered in turn. Being effectively mindless, they have no co-ordination in their attacks, and no pursuit will occur when the party breaks off.
S2. There will be no change in response on the part of the skeletons and zombies. Those destroyed will not have been replaced (assuming of course, that some evil cleric is not nearby) by reinforcements. Doors and furniture previously damaged or destroyed will not have been repaired.
EXAMPLE II: The party has located and attacked a colony of giant ants.
S1. Although giant ants have only animal intelligence, the colony is an organized society wherein individuals are part of a greater whole; thus, response will be ordered. Warrior ants will meet the attackers, and workers will remove bodies, items dropped, and any rubble caused by the combat. If the queen is threatened, the workers will attack also. When the party breaks off the action, there is but slight chance of pursuit.
S2. In the interim, pupae reaching maturity (perhaps 1-6 warriors and 3-12 workers) will have replaced casualties incurred during the first encounter. Destroyed tunnels will have been repaired, new tunnels possibly dug, and general activity of the colony carried on normally. Warriors will again meet the party (although they might be reduced in number). When the queen is killed, all organized activity will cease.
EXAMPLE III: The party has found a cave complex which is the lair of an orc band.
S1. The orcs might have a warning device (a drum, horn, gong, bell, etc.) available for use by the guards posted at the entrance to their lair. The larger the number of orcs, the greater the chance that such a device will be on hand. As soon as the attack occurs, one or two orcs will rush to inform the group that they are under attack, assuming that opportunity allows. Response to the attack will be disorganized, wave attacks being likely, with the nearest orcs coming first, and the leaders (most likely to be at the rear of the complex) coming up near the last. Some traps might be set along the complex entry. Resistance will stiffen as the leaders (and ogres, if any) come up. When the party retires, there is a fair chance for pursuit - a general harassment by the boldest fighters amongst the orcs.
S2. There is not much chance that the chaotic orcs will have sent for reinforcements, although some few losses might hove been replaced by returning group members. Any damage or destruction in the cave complex will have been repaired. There is a great likelihood that more guards will be on duty and some warning device ready to alert the group, as discipline will be attempted because of the attack. Response to the attack will be more immediate, and leaders and spell casters will be ready to fight. (If the party camped too near the orcs during the intervening week, there is a chance that the orcs might have located and raided the place!)
EXAMPLE IV: The party comes upon a small town and openly assaults the place.
S1.Town guards will give warning immediately, and while there will not be an alarm device at each post, there will be a central bell, gong, or whatever to alert the entire citizenry of attack. When this sounds, trained militia bands will arm, muster, and move to designated locations to repel the attack. The citizens, regardless of alignment (and this includes characters with adventurer classes), will be likely to join to fight attackers, for the general welfare of the community will come first. When the party breaks off their attack, pursuit is highly possible if the town has sufficient forces available to do so on the spot.
S2.The town will have sought whatever reinforcements they could by means of employment of mercenaries, requests to nearby fortresses and towns for men-at-arms, and all able-bodied persons will be formed into militia bodies. Any destruction wrought by the initial assault will have been repaired as time and ability allowed. Guards will be doubled or trebled, and local spell casters will have their most effective and powerful offensive and defensive magicks ready. Scouting parties will have been sent out and the approach of the attacking party will be likely to be known. Pursuit will be very likely if the second attack fails so as to allow it.
EXAMPLE V: The party encounters a bandit camp and engages in combat.
S1: The entire camp will be organized and ready for action on the spur of the moment. As soon as the guard pickets sound the alarm, reaction will be swift. Defensive traps, snares, and pits will make up a part of the defensive ring of the camp. Bandits will move to take up assigned posts. Counterattacks will be thrown against the party at appropriate times. When the action is broken off, thieves, assassins, or even monks who might be members of the bandit group will move to track and follow the party to discover what its subsequent actions are and if another attack will ensue.
S2: There is a great likelihood that the entire encampment will be GONE (without a trace of where it went) if the attacking party was obviously of sufficient power to cause serious trouble if it attacked again. If still there, the traps, pits, and snares will have been more carefully hidden and will be more numerous also. Ambushes might be set along the most probable route of approach to the camp for the party's second attack. A few more bandits might have been enlisted or called in from groups out raiding. All guards will have been doubled or trebled, all men more alert than ever, and all possible preparations made. During the interim an assassination attempt upon one or more of the members of the party might have been made (assuming that the bandits have an assassin character amongst their number), an attempt to insinuate a spy into the party might have been made, and/or a raid upon the party's camp may have been carried out by the bandits. If the party retires, pursuit will certainly take place if bandit strength still allows.
EXAMPLE VI: The party discovers a fortress and attacks.
S1. Guards will instantly sound a warning to alert the place. Alarms will be sounded from several places within the fortress. Leaders will move to hold the place, or expel invaders, with great vigor. Spell casters will be likely to have specific stations and assigned duties - such as casting fireballs, lighting bolts, flame strikes, cloudkills, dispel magics, and like spells. Defenders are out to KILL, not deal stupidly or gently with, attackers, and they will typically ask no quarter, nor give any. In like fashion, traps within the fortress will be lethal As action continues, commanders will assess the party's strengths, weaknesses, defense, and attack modes and counter appropriately. If the party is within the fortress, possible entry points and escape routes will be sealed off. When the attackers pull back, it is very likely that they will be counterattacked, or at least harassed. Additionally, members of the force of the stronghold will track the party continually as long as they are within striking distance of the fortress.
S2. The fortress will most likely have replaced all losses and have reinforcements in addition. An ambush might be laid for the attackers when they approach. A sally force will be ready to fall upon the attackers (preferably when engaged in front so as to strike the flank or rear). Siege machinery, oil, missiles, etc. will be ready and in good supply. Repairs to defenses will be made as thoroughly as time and materials permitted. Weak areas will have been blocked off, isolated, and trapped as well as possible under the circumstances. Leaders will be nearby to take immediate charge. Spell casters might be disguised as guards, or hidden near guard posts, in order to surprise attackers. Any retreat by the attackers will be followed up by a hot pursuit.
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.
It's about who they want to cater to. They could cater to gamers or the non-gamers that play MMOs. They are two distinct groups. The people who are simply non-gamers that play MMOs, aren't likely to switch games regardless. I think underestimating players and their ability to adapt and learn to play more difficult games is doing a disservice to the players and the gaming industry as a whole.
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.
/endRant
Apparently some people have a hard time with reading comprehension, as no where did they say they are creating a super advanced AI ala Skynet. What they have been saying is they are creating a more advanced AI, one that has a series of likes/dislikes and the ability to remember certain events. Software can easily be programmed to remember user habits and preferences (music choices, brower auto complete, etc). Basically the EQN AI will know its set programming but can also learn by trial and error in a specific instance that if A = Bad > A = Bad > A = Bad > Move to B.
AI has not changed from the simple AI we have had since EQ. AI Habits in EQ were the same in AO as they were in DAoC as they were in WoW and EQ2. NOTHING has really changed since 1999, and trust me, I have played them all. Mobs in EQ would aggro just the same as they did in AO, train just the same as AO and stand there and fight just like they did in AO. Mob AI in EQ2, throughout all phases of beta was exactly the same we have today in EQ2 - Generate enough hate and the mob will switch to you. And its the same way in WoW.
Now I, and many others here, understand your disdain for this game, but please stop with the wild rants and uninformed diatribes. Its getting kind of old and really sort of sad. It's a game. You don't like it, They are not going to suddenly change it just for you. You should just move on before you give yourself an ulcer. Contempt is not healthy.
How about we just wait to see what they do before passing judgement on the game?
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I'm confused first you say there was advanced ai in EQ2 then turn around and say its impossible to create advanced ai according to MIT.
As others posters pointed out you can find advanced ai in other games such as chess. It's really not that hard to make a more complex ai, current ai in mmos are just two variable matrices. You have damage and taunts. All SOE has to do is add more variables like faction, healing amount, types of spell used and so forth.
Adding more variables can increase encounter complexity exponentially. Checkers uses the same board as chess but the added complexity of chess is due to adding more options for movement.
Just because the ai can be programmed to beat players it doesn't mean it can't be handicapped by making them weaker. You can adjust their hps or damage.
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.
There are dozens of simple changes a game can make to make the trinity obsolete, because the entire thing hinges on one ridiculous mechanic - TAUNT. Removing or ignoring taunt completely breaks the trinity, shifting the aggro pulling tank from the core component to the most useless class ever created.
You're also making the mistake of assuming that since you "come from the software development world" that you're in any way an authority on game design. Maybe you are and maybe you aren't, but one has nothing to do with the other.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Here is something I picked up from other people's posts and want the devs to take note of:
People found mobs with the same skills they had challlenging. And it seems to be possible to program mobs to act more intelligently.
This is what made the encounters in Baldur's Gate so memorable. They would destroy you with well programmed crowd control and buff themselves just like players. They would fallon clothies and wounded characters first. I've never seen an MMO really do that.
That being said some form of threat will be needed or it will become a zergfest.
I think people here confuse the goal of AI studies to it's practical use.The ultimate goal of AI Research is to make an AI that can perceive it's environment,learn and make decisions and actions to best achieve it's goals.As far as I know we aren't close tot hat goal as of yet.
But the practical use of what what we have can be used to varying degrees and can have and should have limitations enforced on it for the purpose of fun.Even if we had reached the ultimate goal of AI research in practical use you could create a AI that was a genius or an AI with the intelligence and learning capability of a slug.It's not an all or nothing deal.
In a game everything should come down to fun and making challenges difficult but not impossible and the AI will be hampered or designed with that in mind.
I'm in no way saying SOE is using true AI at all or that it's not a marketing term ...because we've seen no evidence of what they are terming emergent AI means or is.The demo at SOE live had no AI at all so either stood still or were being controlled by humans.
We have nothing to base criticism or praise of this subject on and anyone doing either is pushing a personal agenda not fact.
Gotta give the haters credit for starting posts like these and not even coming back to respond. Just throw statements out there and walk away.
At least it gets conversation going (not always the most constructive though).
OP already has his plans set to multi-box in FFXIV ARR.
I wouldn't want "advanced AI" either if I was planning on playing with me, myself, and I.
Wish they included a disclaimer before going on rants "I do not like and have no plans to play this game, but here are all my unfounded opinions on why it is terrible anyway."
Advanced AI is having mobs choose random targets... sounds so advanced. Holy trinity is heals/tanks/dps not ENCHANTER some random enc probably made that up. Its the 3 things you need to kill stuff, everything else is fluff. EQN class system is so WACK it doesn't matter how advanced and AI is. Theres nothing else an AI can do besides attack a healer after a while and not focus on the tank. Which is completely annoying for a tank and makes them useless. You want to run around knocking things back that are on ppl, sounds not fun. I want to ENGAGE the enemy not run around knocking things back.
ANET said something similar in an old 2005 interview
ANET intentionally dumbed down the henchman in GW1 so players would seek out other players in the game, instead of relying on NPCs
I remember some of the AI in GW1 being rather frustrating. The damn mobs just wouldn't sit in the AE and die like good little lemmings, they had the audacity to move out of AE spells!
This is the type of thing that I hope we will see in EQ: N. I do not really care if some of you consider it PR hype, because ANY AI would be an improvement over what we see in most MMORPGs today.
I do not know how many here can relate to League of Legends, but I look at the bigger and most popular MMO (WoW, Rift) AI as being like the minions in LoL. GW1 had AI that were the equivalent to the enemy bots in LoL (the AI that compose the enemy team). No, the hero AI in LoL is not perfect but is a lot more damn challenging than the minions; that is what I want to see in EQ: N.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
EQ1 had more advanced AI than any other mmo by a mile.
Just a few examples of how things used to work back when games didn't cater to children and the mentally handicapped:
If you aggroed a mob, every mob within like a certain radius based on level would assist. There was no mobs chained to other mobs, so you could use tactics to actually split them. It was very common for someone to accidently pull dozens of mobs at a time because they would assist each other.
In EQ1, mobs would actually cast target based AE spells on you if you were standing near other party members (they'd never cast those spells otherwise). They would run up to you and point blank ae as well.
If you were high on aggro list and you sat down, mobs would run up to you and get a free max damage round off on you, often 1 shotting you.
If you had high aggro as say, a wizard, and went within melee range, a mob would often switch to attack you simply because of proximity.
If you were low health, regardless of anyone elses threat, the mob would go for you and attempt to finish you off and unless the mob was rooted or mezed, no amount of taunting would stop it. Going below 20% on a boss meant you were the next to die if you weren't healed immediately.
Mobs would flee at low life if they were alone. If they reached friendly mobs aggressive to you, they'd turn around. If the mob was a caster and you pulled him away from his spawn area, he would teleport (gate) back at low health.
Mobs would roam around buffing each other. They would heal each other as well.
In EQ1, there was no ability that forced aggro on a tank without substantial threat. The taunt ability only worked permitted you already established considerable threat, and if someone else only slightly out-aggro'd you. If, say, a caster nuked or debuffed a mob early, taunt was worthless.
The best threat tanks were hybrid tanks, but they were the weaker of the tanks. The warrior which was the superior tank class, had to rely on weapons that procced spells or magic items with expendable charges. There was no easy way of generating threat as a warrior in EQ.
Those are just a few things that come to mind regarding aggro in classic Everquest. Its no wonder people hate so hard on threat management systems when all modern MMOs provide their tank classes with surefire ways of keeping aggro with very little risk involved.
+1
Couldn't agree more. People forget or just don't know how complex the combat actually was in EQ. Sure, the bosses were usually some form of tank and spank without a lot of flashy circles or buttons/levers to push but the fights were a well-orchestrated dance of chaos trying to keep people alive, hold aggro, control adds and deal damage.
One of the previous posters mentioned the large EQ raids as being "zergy" which is laughable. Just because the raids were large didn't make the fights "zergs". 8 clerics chaining heals together to keep the tank alive with almost no margin for error is not a "zerg". Sure, you could bring way more people than the fight was designed for but that wasn't the norm and even then that didn't necessarily make the fight a lot easier..just a lot more laggy.
The reason people hate on the trinity so much has more to do with the dumbing down of MMOs in general than it does with the trinity system.
One thing I think is overlooked here is I think people tend to looked at scripted as the same as AI. Take wow for example. In most encounters via dungeon or raids everything is scripted. Engage the monster. The monster has these 3 abilities uses them at different intervals. Players learn the order or sequence, learn not to stand in the fire and make sure DBM is up to date and beat the boss. Don't confuse current mmo group and raid encounters as AI they are static scripts coded to do the same thing over and over without choice.
True AI would be create a monster give them X number of abilities and let them choose to use what and when against the group of adventures. But like previous posters have said AI is far more efficient then player characters pressing keys on the keyboard. They have to dumb down the AI enough to give the players a chance. And when that happens it becomes more static script then AI. I think it is possible to find a medium between the both. But at what cost will they go to find that. The amount of tuning and balance may require more effort then they want to put in. That is what is most concerning to me as a player is I would love a group centric game like EQ again but they think roles and trinity war/cleric/chanter is outdated. I beg to differ on that one. No came since EQ has been as complex and diverse for group dynamics and immersion imo.
One more quick note about AI I remember seeing an interview when they were making the Lord of the Rings films. They were using AI for the orcs on the battle of helms deep. The AI was to smart that the first couple runs of the program the orcs scattered and ran from the flying objects rather stand there and take boulders to the face. So they had to dumb the AI down so they would hold formation. I found that rather funny.
By advance AI I believe they didn't mean the best AI program in the world. It's just a better, more complex aggro system that won't allow tanks to just standing there spamming the same rotation while talking to their guildies about the weather in Chicago, you know, like in EVERY mmorpg.
The classic trinity is a system programmers used NOT TO make up for the AI's shortcomings, but actually creating a way to mimic really world battle. In my opinion, trinity can never die because that's just how military works: redirect enemy fire and hit their weak spots as hard as you can, while the support doing their thing to keep everything moving.
The problem with "dedicated" DPS/Tank/Healer is that they're just too simplified to a degree that they're just a bunch of math problems. Just because people like it doesn't mean the developers should try to mix it up in the right way to make to combat more dynamic.
How hard can it be creating a smarter AI then one that so easily attacks the worst possible target (from the mobs perspective)? I mean, the tank doesn't do much damage, and is really hard to kill. Get the healer or that old frail wizard instead.
But the thing is that the AI can't make the trinity obsolete, it can only make things harder/more interesting. To make the trinity obsolete you need another good group dynamics, one that award players working together and timing their skills.
The AI is not the problem at all, GW1 for example had smarter AI then most if not all other MMOs/CORPGs. The question is more if SOE can make a new group dynamics that is fun enough.
It is however good that they try something different, unless they just copy GW2 because GW2 is already doing GW2 good, just like copying Wow is a bad idea.
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.
Well it was originally planned as a co-op game, and the plan was scrapped. That's irrelevant though.
It's not really option one because there's really no tanking involved, instead each boss has a set of weaknesses and strengths that must be figured out to overcome. That aspect could most certainly be used.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
How the ai reacts is based on what info you feed it. If you give it all the correct response to problems it might face, then its going to win more times than not. If instead you give it a couple of possible reactions some of which are wrong, it will make for a 'smarter" AI without being to frustrating.
By advance AI I believe they didn't mean the best AI program in the world. It's just a better, more complex aggro system that won't allow tanks to just standing there spamming the same rotation while talking to their guildies about the weather in Chicago, you know, like in EVERY mmorpg.
The classic trinity is a system programmers used NOT TO make up for the AI's shortcomings, but actually creating a way to mimic really world battle. In my opinion, trinity can never die because that's just how military works: redirect enemy fire and hit their weak spots as hard as you can, while the support doing their thing to keep everything moving.
The problem with "dedicated" DPS/Tank/Healer is that they're just too simplified to a degree that they're just a bunch of math problems. Just because people like it doesn't mean the developers should try to mix it up in the right way to make to combat more dynamic.
Uhm, military strategy is far more advanced than skill rotations, there you have to outsmart your opponent (unless you severely outgun them but any moron can win a battle then). You also needs to aim better, time your attacks and coordinate a whole bunch of different units together.
And yes, I been in the military... Sunzus book on "art of trinity war" would be very short indeed.
Trinity combat do work, I give you that but there must be countless other possible group dynamics that demands co-operation as well. Trying out something new might work or not but if they don't try we have to recycle the same thing for another 16 years and there must be several more fun group dynamics then the first one anyone thought of.
The first thing to consider is that NPCs have classes just like players do, assuming they also have the skills of those classes. That's different than "before" unless those NPCs had 40+ skills just like player classes did.
When you even the field between available player skills and available NPC skills you make it easier to code "smarter" encounters. When does the SK class mob use Path of Shadows to get away? How long will he take damage chasing someone before he attacks the now highest threat? With the limited skill sets of tr classes it's a lot easier to code for specific situations.
Say they left the standard trinity in. How frustrated is the tank going to be that no matter how much he shouts at the mob it keeps running off to attack a real threat?
See, now why do you open like this and then proceed with a massive amount of text that just proves your opening statement is a lie?
You clearly do not know jack about software development.
As others have said, much better AI is very much a possibility in an MMO. The question is not whether it is possible or not, the question is how well it could be implemented and have the game still be fun.
BTW, for those who think too advanced of AI is too CPU intensive for an MMO, keep in mind that Server architecture allows them to do all kinds of creative things. AI could run on completely different CPUs than other parts of the game world, for example. Of course, that is not actually all that important, seeing as AI could be written that is not all that CPU intensive as compared to all of the other things an MMO has to do and keep track of.
Advanced AI (as compared to other MMOs) is not an issue of whether the technology is available, or the know-how is available. It is really just a matter of how it is implemented and whether or not the game is actually "fun" as it is implemented. In other words, this entire thread is pointless because we will not know either way until some of us have the game in our hands and see how they did.
It is easy to make an AI that makes trinity obsolete.
Make them target the squishy person. Ignore the tanks (Look at taunts and go 'so?').
Use control abilities on the players. Stun/disrupt AoE players.
In fact, because the compute rKNOWS what you're doing, you can save a lot of money on making an advanced AI and just have them 'cheat'. They can have superhuman reflexes. Player starts to do an ability that would be bad for monsters? Immediately interrupt it.
Even the best human player takes a moment to figure out what something is from visual cues. Compute rknows what you're doing the moment you press the button. Perfect interrupts, perfect blocks, they never have camera glitches or accidentally target the wrong enemy.
It's easy to make a computer AI do all SORTS of things. The hard part is making it do things in a way that feels fair and like it isn't cheating using its godlike computer powers. :P
Even if they can't make very advanced AI due to the limitations of the game server and other reasons,
they can make the ILLUSION of advanced AI - just by using more advanced scripts for more difficult bosses.
What I would like to see is the DIFFERENCE in behaving of very different bosses - for example, one boss would look and act very stupid, say giant Ogre, and he would react to taunts and he would go for one target, while say, giant Devil, would act devilish and go for weak and wounded targets, finishing them off.
That would make for memorable boss fights at least.
It's not that I think you are wrong, and I won't give SoE the benefit of the doubt, but I am willing to give them a chance to prove to me they can do it.
All they are doing is removing the ability to taunt lock a mob, that's it. Instead of the mob being controlled by taunt / dps, he will just occasionally mem wipe to another randomly selected person, or a person who is doing the most heals, or the most damage.
They are acting like a mem wiping mob is new and trying to cover it with this AI bs.
I have to agree with what others have said in that advanced AI has existed in games for years.
I remember back in 2001 when we used to have Perfect dark lan parties and we would dare go up against dark sims....
No body in their right mind could not tell me that wasn't 'advanced AI'...
------------------------------ You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith
Comments
I'm interested in differing mob AI based on type and situation thus...
1979 AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide: Monsters and Organization for your reading pleasure.
(Warning - Incoming Wall of Text for no good reason)
SITUATION 1 (Sl) is where encounter occurs for the
first time, and while the party inflicts casualties upon the monsters, victory
is denied; the party then leaves with its wounded, regroups, and returns
one full week later to finish the job. SITUATION 2 (S2) is where the party,
rested, healed, and ready for action, has now re-encountered the monsters
in question.
EXAMPLE I: The party has entered a crypt under an old temple and
attacked skeletons and zombies encountered there.
S1: The monsters will respond only as the crypts are entered in turn. Being
effectively mindless, they have no co-ordination in their attacks, and
no pursuit will occur when the party breaks off.
S2. There will be no change in response on the part of the skeletons and
zombies. Those destroyed will not have been replaced (assuming of
course, that some evil cleric is not nearby) by reinforcements. Doors
and furniture previously damaged or destroyed will not have been
repaired.
EXAMPLE II: The party has located and attacked a colony of giant ants.
S1. Although giant ants have only animal intelligence, the colony is an
organized society wherein individuals are part of a greater whole;
thus, response will be ordered. Warrior ants will meet the attackers,
and workers will remove bodies, items dropped, and any rubble
caused by the combat. If the queen is threatened, the workers will
attack also. When the party breaks off the action, there is but slight
chance of pursuit.
S2. In the interim, pupae reaching maturity (perhaps 1-6 warriors and 3-12
workers) will have replaced casualties incurred during the first encounter.
Destroyed tunnels will have been repaired, new tunnels possibly
dug, and general activity of the colony carried on normally. Warriors
will again meet the party (although they might be reduced in
number). When the queen is killed, all organized activity will cease.
EXAMPLE III: The party has found a cave complex which is the lair of an
orc band.
S1. The orcs might have a warning device (a drum, horn, gong, bell, etc.)
available for use by the guards posted at the entrance to their lair. The
larger the number of orcs, the greater the chance that such a device
will be on hand. As soon as the attack occurs, one or two orcs will rush
to inform the group that they are under attack, assuming that opportunity
allows. Response to the attack will be disorganized, wave
attacks being likely, with the nearest orcs coming first, and the leaders
(most likely to be at the rear of the complex) coming up near the last.
Some traps might be set along the complex entry. Resistance will
stiffen as the leaders (and ogres, if any) come up. When the party retires,
there is a fair chance for pursuit - a general harassment by the
boldest fighters amongst the orcs.
S2. There is not much chance that the chaotic orcs will have sent for reinforcements,
although some few losses might hove been replaced by
returning group members. Any damage or destruction in the cave
complex will have been repaired. There is a great likelihood that
more guards will be on duty and some warning device ready to alert
the group, as discipline will be attempted because of the attack. Response
to the attack will be more immediate, and leaders and spell
casters will be ready to fight. (If the party camped too near the orcs
during the intervening week, there is a chance that the orcs might
have located and raided the place!)
EXAMPLE IV: The party comes upon a small town and openly assaults the
place.
S1.Town guards will give warning immediately, and while there will not
be an alarm device at each post, there will be a central bell, gong, or
whatever to alert the entire citizenry of attack. When this sounds,
trained militia bands will arm, muster, and move to designated
locations to repel the attack. The citizens, regardless of alignment
(and this includes characters with adventurer classes), will be likely to
join to fight attackers, for the general welfare of the community will
come first. When the party breaks off their attack, pursuit is highly possible
if the town has sufficient forces available to do so on the spot.
S2.The town will have sought whatever reinforcements they could by
means of employment of mercenaries, requests to nearby fortresses
and towns for men-at-arms, and all able-bodied persons will be
formed into militia bodies. Any destruction wrought by the initial assault
will have been repaired as time and ability allowed. Guards will
be doubled or trebled, and local spell casters will have their most effective
and powerful offensive and defensive magicks ready. Scouting
parties will have been sent out and the approach of the attacking
party will be likely to be known. Pursuit will be very likely if the
second attack fails so as to allow it.
EXAMPLE V: The party encounters a bandit camp and engages in combat.
S1: The entire camp will be organized and ready for action on the spur of
the moment. As soon as the guard pickets sound the alarm, reaction
will be swift. Defensive traps, snares, and pits will make up a part of
the defensive ring of the camp. Bandits will move to take up assigned
posts. Counterattacks will be thrown against the party at appropriate
times. When the action is broken off, thieves, assassins, or even monks
who might be members of the bandit group will move to track and
follow the party to discover what its subsequent actions are and if
another attack will ensue.
S2: There is a great likelihood that the entire encampment will be GONE
(without a trace of where it went) if the attacking party was obviously
of sufficient power to cause serious trouble if it attacked again. If still
there, the traps, pits, and snares will have been more carefully hidden
and will be more numerous also. Ambushes might be set along the
most probable route of approach to the camp for the party's second
attack. A few more bandits might have been enlisted or called in from
groups out raiding. All guards will have been doubled or trebled, all
men more alert than ever, and all possible preparations made. During
the interim an assassination attempt upon one or more of the
members of the party might have been made (assuming that the
bandits have an assassin character amongst their number), an attempt
to insinuate a spy into the party might have been made, and/or a raid
upon the party's camp may have been carried out by the bandits. If
the party retires, pursuit will certainly take place if bandit strength still
allows.
EXAMPLE VI: The party discovers a fortress and attacks.
S1. Guards will instantly sound a warning to alert the place. Alarms will
be sounded from several places within the fortress. Leaders will move
to hold the place, or expel invaders, with great vigor. Spell casters will
be likely to have specific stations and assigned duties - such as
casting fireballs, lighting bolts, flame strikes, cloudkills, dispel magics,
and like spells. Defenders are out to KILL, not deal stupidly or gently
with, attackers, and they will typically ask no quarter, nor give any. In
like fashion, traps within the fortress will be lethal As action
continues, commanders will assess the party's strengths, weaknesses,
defense, and attack modes and counter appropriately. If the party is
within the fortress, possible entry points and escape routes will be
sealed off. When the attackers pull back, it is very likely that they will
be counterattacked, or at least harassed. Additionally, members of the
force of the stronghold will track the party continually as long as they
are within striking distance of the fortress.
S2. The fortress will most likely have replaced all losses and have reinforcements
in addition. An ambush might be laid for the attackers
when they approach. A sally force will be ready to fall upon the
attackers (preferably when engaged in front so as to strike the flank or
rear). Siege machinery, oil, missiles, etc. will be ready and in good
supply. Repairs to defenses will be made as thoroughly as time and
materials permitted. Weak areas will have been blocked off, isolated,
and trapped as well as possible under the circumstances. Leaders will
be nearby to take immediate charge. Spell casters might be disguised
as guards, or hidden near guard posts, in order to surprise attackers.
Any retreat by the attackers will be followed up by a hot pursuit.
It's about who they want to cater to. They could cater to gamers or the non-gamers that play MMOs. They are two distinct groups. The people who are simply non-gamers that play MMOs, aren't likely to switch games regardless. I think underestimating players and their ability to adapt and learn to play more difficult games is doing a disservice to the players and the gaming industry as a whole.
Apparently some people have a hard time with reading comprehension, as no where did they say they are creating a super advanced AI ala Skynet. What they have been saying is they are creating a more advanced AI, one that has a series of likes/dislikes and the ability to remember certain events. Software can easily be programmed to remember user habits and preferences (music choices, brower auto complete, etc). Basically the EQN AI will know its set programming but can also learn by trial and error in a specific instance that if A = Bad > A = Bad > A = Bad > Move to B.
AI has not changed from the simple AI we have had since EQ. AI Habits in EQ were the same in AO as they were in DAoC as they were in WoW and EQ2. NOTHING has really changed since 1999, and trust me, I have played them all. Mobs in EQ would aggro just the same as they did in AO, train just the same as AO and stand there and fight just like they did in AO. Mob AI in EQ2, throughout all phases of beta was exactly the same we have today in EQ2 - Generate enough hate and the mob will switch to you. And its the same way in WoW.
Now I, and many others here, understand your disdain for this game, but please stop with the wild rants and uninformed diatribes. Its getting kind of old and really sort of sad. It's a game. You don't like it, They are not going to suddenly change it just for you. You should just move on before you give yourself an ulcer. Contempt is not healthy.
How about we just wait to see what they do before passing judgement on the game?
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
As others posters pointed out you can find advanced ai in other games such as chess. It's really not that hard to make a more complex ai, current ai in mmos are just two variable matrices. You have damage and taunts. All SOE has to do is add more variables like faction, healing amount, types of spell used and so forth.
Adding more variables can increase encounter complexity exponentially. Checkers uses the same board as chess but the added complexity of chess is due to adding more options for movement.
Just because the ai can be programmed to beat players it doesn't mean it can't be handicapped by making them weaker. You can adjust their hps or damage.
There are dozens of simple changes a game can make to make the trinity obsolete, because the entire thing hinges on one ridiculous mechanic - TAUNT. Removing or ignoring taunt completely breaks the trinity, shifting the aggro pulling tank from the core component to the most useless class ever created.
You're also making the mistake of assuming that since you "come from the software development world" that you're in any way an authority on game design. Maybe you are and maybe you aren't, but one has nothing to do with the other.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
People found mobs with the same skills they had challlenging. And it seems to be possible to program mobs to act more intelligently.
This is what made the encounters in Baldur's Gate so memorable. They would destroy you with well programmed crowd control and buff themselves just like players. They would fallon clothies and wounded characters first. I've never seen an MMO really do that.
That being said some form of threat will be needed or it will become a zergfest.
I think people here confuse the goal of AI studies to it's practical use.The ultimate goal of AI Research is to make an AI that can perceive it's environment,learn and make decisions and actions to best achieve it's goals.As far as I know we aren't close tot hat goal as of yet.
But the practical use of what what we have can be used to varying degrees and can have and should have limitations enforced on it for the purpose of fun.Even if we had reached the ultimate goal of AI research in practical use you could create a AI that was a genius or an AI with the intelligence and learning capability of a slug.It's not an all or nothing deal.
In a game everything should come down to fun and making challenges difficult but not impossible and the AI will be hampered or designed with that in mind.
I'm in no way saying SOE is using true AI at all or that it's not a marketing term ...because we've seen no evidence of what they are terming emergent AI means or is.The demo at SOE live had no AI at all so either stood still or were being controlled by humans.
We have nothing to base criticism or praise of this subject on and anyone doing either is pushing a personal agenda not fact.
Gotta give the haters credit for starting posts like these and not even coming back to respond. Just throw statements out there and walk away.
At least it gets conversation going (not always the most constructive though).
OP already has his plans set to multi-box in FFXIV ARR.
I wouldn't want "advanced AI" either if I was planning on playing with me, myself, and I.
Wish they included a disclaimer before going on rants "I do not like and have no plans to play this game, but here are all my unfounded opinions on why it is terrible anyway."
This is the type of thing that I hope we will see in EQ: N. I do not really care if some of you consider it PR hype, because ANY AI would be an improvement over what we see in most MMORPGs today.
I do not know how many here can relate to League of Legends, but I look at the bigger and most popular MMO (WoW, Rift) AI as being like the minions in LoL. GW1 had AI that were the equivalent to the enemy bots in LoL (the AI that compose the enemy team). No, the hero AI in LoL is not perfect but is a lot more damn challenging than the minions; that is what I want to see in EQ: N.
Little forum boys with their polished cyber toys: whine whine, boo-hoo, talk talk.
+1
Couldn't agree more. People forget or just don't know how complex the combat actually was in EQ. Sure, the bosses were usually some form of tank and spank without a lot of flashy circles or buttons/levers to push but the fights were a well-orchestrated dance of chaos trying to keep people alive, hold aggro, control adds and deal damage.
One of the previous posters mentioned the large EQ raids as being "zergy" which is laughable. Just because the raids were large didn't make the fights "zergs". 8 clerics chaining heals together to keep the tank alive with almost no margin for error is not a "zerg". Sure, you could bring way more people than the fight was designed for but that wasn't the norm and even then that didn't necessarily make the fight a lot easier..just a lot more laggy.
The reason people hate on the trinity so much has more to do with the dumbing down of MMOs in general than it does with the trinity system.
One thing I think is overlooked here is I think people tend to looked at scripted as the same as AI. Take wow for example. In most encounters via dungeon or raids everything is scripted. Engage the monster. The monster has these 3 abilities uses them at different intervals. Players learn the order or sequence, learn not to stand in the fire and make sure DBM is up to date and beat the boss. Don't confuse current mmo group and raid encounters as AI they are static scripts coded to do the same thing over and over without choice.
True AI would be create a monster give them X number of abilities and let them choose to use what and when against the group of adventures. But like previous posters have said AI is far more efficient then player characters pressing keys on the keyboard. They have to dumb down the AI enough to give the players a chance. And when that happens it becomes more static script then AI. I think it is possible to find a medium between the both. But at what cost will they go to find that. The amount of tuning and balance may require more effort then they want to put in. That is what is most concerning to me as a player is I would love a group centric game like EQ again but they think roles and trinity war/cleric/chanter is outdated. I beg to differ on that one. No came since EQ has been as complex and diverse for group dynamics and immersion imo.
One more quick note about AI I remember seeing an interview when they were making the Lord of the Rings films. They were using AI for the orcs on the battle of helms deep. The AI was to smart that the first couple runs of the program the orcs scattered and ran from the flying objects rather stand there and take boulders to the face. So they had to dumb the AI down so they would hold formation. I found that rather funny.
Creating a video game is no rocket science...
By advance AI I believe they didn't mean the best AI program in the world. It's just a better, more complex aggro system that won't allow tanks to just standing there spamming the same rotation while talking to their guildies about the weather in Chicago, you know, like in EVERY mmorpg.
The classic trinity is a system programmers used NOT TO make up for the AI's shortcomings, but actually creating a way to mimic really world battle. In my opinion, trinity can never die because that's just how military works: redirect enemy fire and hit their weak spots as hard as you can, while the support doing their thing to keep everything moving.
The problem with "dedicated" DPS/Tank/Healer is that they're just too simplified to a degree that they're just a bunch of math problems. Just because people like it doesn't mean the developers should try to mix it up in the right way to make to combat more dynamic.
How hard can it be creating a smarter AI then one that so easily attacks the worst possible target (from the mobs perspective)? I mean, the tank doesn't do much damage, and is really hard to kill. Get the healer or that old frail wizard instead.
But the thing is that the AI can't make the trinity obsolete, it can only make things harder/more interesting. To make the trinity obsolete you need another good group dynamics, one that award players working together and timing their skills.
The AI is not the problem at all, GW1 for example had smarter AI then most if not all other MMOs/CORPGs. The question is more if SOE can make a new group dynamics that is fun enough.
It is however good that they try something different, unless they just copy GW2 because GW2 is already doing GW2 good, just like copying Wow is a bad idea.
Well it was originally planned as a co-op game, and the plan was scrapped. That's irrelevant though.
It's not really option one because there's really no tanking involved, instead each boss has a set of weaknesses and strengths that must be figured out to overcome. That aspect could most certainly be used.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Uhm, military strategy is far more advanced than skill rotations, there you have to outsmart your opponent (unless you severely outgun them but any moron can win a battle then). You also needs to aim better, time your attacks and coordinate a whole bunch of different units together.
And yes, I been in the military... Sunzus book on "art of trinity war" would be very short indeed.
Trinity combat do work, I give you that but there must be countless other possible group dynamics that demands co-operation as well. Trying out something new might work or not but if they don't try we have to recycle the same thing for another 16 years and there must be several more fun group dynamics then the first one anyone thought of.
When you even the field between available player skills and available NPC skills you make it easier to code "smarter" encounters. When does the SK class mob use Path of Shadows to get away? How long will he take damage chasing someone before he attacks the now highest threat? With the limited skill sets of tr classes it's a lot easier to code for specific situations.
Say they left the standard trinity in. How frustrated is the tank going to be that no matter how much he shouts at the mob it keeps running off to attack a real threat?
See, now why do you open like this and then proceed with a massive amount of text that just proves your opening statement is a lie?
You clearly do not know jack about software development.
As others have said, much better AI is very much a possibility in an MMO. The question is not whether it is possible or not, the question is how well it could be implemented and have the game still be fun.
BTW, for those who think too advanced of AI is too CPU intensive for an MMO, keep in mind that Server architecture allows them to do all kinds of creative things. AI could run on completely different CPUs than other parts of the game world, for example. Of course, that is not actually all that important, seeing as AI could be written that is not all that CPU intensive as compared to all of the other things an MMO has to do and keep track of.
Advanced AI (as compared to other MMOs) is not an issue of whether the technology is available, or the know-how is available. It is really just a matter of how it is implemented and whether or not the game is actually "fun" as it is implemented. In other words, this entire thread is pointless because we will not know either way until some of us have the game in our hands and see how they did.
/thread
It is easy to make an AI that makes trinity obsolete.
Make them target the squishy person. Ignore the tanks (Look at taunts and go 'so?').
Use control abilities on the players. Stun/disrupt AoE players.
In fact, because the compute rKNOWS what you're doing, you can save a lot of money on making an advanced AI and just have them 'cheat'. They can have superhuman reflexes. Player starts to do an ability that would be bad for monsters? Immediately interrupt it.
Even the best human player takes a moment to figure out what something is from visual cues. Compute rknows what you're doing the moment you press the button. Perfect interrupts, perfect blocks, they never have camera glitches or accidentally target the wrong enemy.
It's easy to make a computer AI do all SORTS of things. The hard part is making it do things in a way that feels fair and like it isn't cheating using its godlike computer powers. :P
Even if they can't make very advanced AI due to the limitations of the game server and other reasons,
they can make the ILLUSION of advanced AI - just by using more advanced scripts for more difficult bosses.
What I would like to see is the DIFFERENCE in behaving of very different bosses - for example, one boss would look and act very stupid, say giant Ogre, and he would react to taunts and he would go for one target, while say, giant Devil, would act devilish and go for weak and wounded targets, finishing them off.
That would make for memorable boss fights at least.
NEW IDEAS that can refresh the STALE state of MMORPGs
It is a god damn dirty communist lie!
ROFL!
It's not that I think you are wrong, and I won't give SoE the benefit of the doubt, but I am willing to give them a chance to prove to me they can do it.
All they are doing is removing the ability to taunt lock a mob, that's it. Instead of the mob being controlled by taunt / dps, he will just occasionally mem wipe to another randomly selected person, or a person who is doing the most heals, or the most damage.
They are acting like a mem wiping mob is new and trying to cover it with this AI bs.
Killing dragons is my shit
I have to agree with what others have said in that advanced AI has existed in games for years.
I remember back in 2001 when we used to have Perfect dark lan parties and we would dare go up against dark sims....
No body in their right mind could not tell me that wasn't 'advanced AI'...
------------------------------
You see, every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with their surrounding environment, but you humans do not. You spread to an area, and you multiply, and you multiply, until every natural resource is consumed. The only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.-Mr.Smith