How Would You Tweak Critter A.I.?
By
Anti_Proton,
Posted on: 2010-05-07 24:37 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Well, there's the whole "run away!" thing which has been hashed out.
I think it would be interesting to give a high level of taunt resistance to mobs with utility powers such as debuffs. Rather than rushing the tank, they could hold back more and just cycle through the team with holds, debuffs, etc. Just like PC controlled controllers and defenders (hopefully) don't just bum rush the biggest mob but hold back as the situation demands and selectively neutralize parts of the enemy group.
I'd like them to go get help, and also to make more use of their weapons - like Council soldiers shouldn't really fire off a couple of shots then race to get into melee action 
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
I'd like them to be more aware. If I'm having a super-powered firefight with a group, and another group is like 20 feet away, they shouldn't just stand there, they should come help their compatriots that are being ground up like the hero fodder they are.
--NT
They all laughed at me when I said I wanted to be a comedian.
But I showed them, and nobody's laughing at me now!
If I became a red name, I would be all "and what would you mere mortals like to entertain me with today, mu hu ha ha ha!" ~Arcanaville
Yeah - extend their sight range, and also make any fight within a certain range get their attention, even if their backs are turned to the action.
@Golden Girl
City of Heroes comics and artwork
Not so much an AI change, but flip the switch so that buff and heal powers that don't require enemy targets generate aggro.
Rock the aura now, punk. I'll cut ya!
Selectable AI difficulty in the sense of smarter individual AND group AI behavior. THen with more difficulty, you are given a smaller, more realistic map.
The higher the AI difficulty, the more "strategy" they would use. AI difficulty would be a different setting than normal difficulty in that you could be fighting -1 and -2, but they would fight smarter and attack you in groups.
Quote:
That's probably the worst thing that can happen to the game at this point, as it will raise difficulty SIGNIFICANTLY, and a number of people, myself among them, do not want a harder game. Speaking for myself, I'm perfectly willing to trade a bit of unbelievability if it means getting less frustrating enemies. Nothing worse than accidentally pulling three spawns on yourself when you can barely handle one.|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Yeah - extend their sight range, and also make any fight within a certain range get their attention, even if their backs are turned to the action.
|
As for what I WOULD do to AI, I'd diversify enemy reactions. The Vahzilok are a pretty good idea in this regard. Zombies have VERY short sight radiuses, lose aggro VERY fast and are generally only dangerous if you stand and fight. However, they are made dangerous by the Mortificators and Reapers, who have regular sight ranges and aggro retention.
I'd like to make Banished Pantheon masks live up to their description of not being able to be pulled away from their target. Make them untauntable and very unlikely to switch targets. That way, it'll seem that once they focus on you, they will NOT give up. Also make Pantheon zombies dumb like Vahzilok zombies.
I'd actually make factions like the Council and the Nemesis army prefer to stay together and fire shoulder-to-shoulder. Nemesis soldiers, especially, would look really cool firing shoulder-to-shoulder. Make a good phalanx, too. By contrast, I'd make groups like the Freakshow or the Luddites fight in a disorganised, "bull rush" fashion where they'd attempt to swamp the player in melee all the time. And I mean ALL of them, including the ones with shotguns and uzis. They're mad freaks. Why would they NOT want to run in and club you with their guns?
And I would DEFINITELY never make anything run away for whatever reason. This adds nothing to the experience and only serves to frustrate.
Generally, I want the different factions to "feel" different when you fight them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Sam:
The Spirit of Pain and Spirit of Death masks are immune to Taunt. Just an FYI.
Quote:
Not specifically that, but having a running mob get shot within their aggro radius to set them off -- eliminate the quirk of another spawn ignoring the fire beam spearing through the group to hit the running mob in their midst.
|
Originally Posted by Golden Girl
Yeah - extend their sight range, and also make any fight within a certain range get their attention, even if their backs are turned to the action.
|
"But in our enthusiasm, we could not resist a radical overhaul of the system, in which all of its major weaknesses have been exposed, analyzed, and replaced with new weaknesses."
-- Bruce Leverett, Register Allocation in Optimizing Compilers
Quote:
Totems aren't, and their description clearly states they should be. Additionally, most robots and AI enemies should be immune, or at least resistant to taunt, as well. How do you taunt a computer?|
Originally Posted by Godpants
Sam:
The Spirit of Pain and Spirit of Death masks are immune to Taunt. Just an FYI. |
-You suck!
-Does not compute.
-You're a bucket of bolts!
-Bad command or file name.
-Your mother was a toaster!
-This is illogical.
-I use Linux!
-Oh no you did not just go there!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
I would tweak AI in a couple of ways.
The first big change would be to provide an overarching group AI that loosely governs the specific actions of individuals enemies within the group. The presence of higher rank enemies (bosses, lts., EBs, AVs), as well as the ratio of enemies to allies, would increase the number of group AI options that there would be, such as encouraging enemies to disperse to minimize the effects of AI or to magnify the aggro effects of debuffs. Without higher rank enemies, group AI would largely govern the likelihood of a spawn to scatter and attempt to join other groups (i.e. transfer their ownership to other spawns).
The other change I'd make would be to make the AI of individual enemies a bit more random. Depending on how far you'd be willing to go with it, I'd either make it so that enemy actions are governed by a random action table (wherein previous actions, effects, and group AI reduce or increase the likelihood of certain actions), or give most enemy categories specific AIs that encourage or discourage specific actions (such as most robots refusing to run away or smarter enemies specifically aiming for allies that are buffing and/or debuffing).
I just want to note something as long as we're talking AI. Dumber AI is, in my opinion, at least, better AI. I want to see AI have enough intelligence to allow it to function and enough variety to make it interesting, but I do NOT want it to be smart. Fighting smart opponents tends to be annoying, frustrating and, above all, an exercise that robs you of most of your tools. For instance, I would scream bloody murder if enemies started scattering to minimise AoE potential, not so much because it makes things hard, but because it makes AoE much less useful.
I'm going to bring in the same old argument I always do in these cases - the demon women in the original Diablo. They were smart enough to know that they could shoot at me from range, and so would run away if I approached them. As soon as I stopped chasing them, they would stop and shoot at me. And since they ran as fast as I did, catching them was all but impossible unless I exploited a quirk in the AI which could force them to run into a corner and allow me to approach them. They were smart, AND IT SUCKED!
Seriously, be VERY careful about making enemy AI TOO smart, because that makes a game worse much more often than it makes it better.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Groups with contemporary military training, like the 5th Column, Council, Malta, Knives and maybe Crey and Nemesis should scatter for precisely the reason of thwarting AoE. Substitute "AoE" for "grenades and artillery" and that's how modern militaries are trained.
While I agree it would be more realistic to have the bad guys respond en masse when a fight starts, I also agree that is one area where reality has to be sacrificed for playability.
On the other hand, I could certainly see instanced maps having an overall "threat awareness" where the frontal assault gives the critters in the back an opportunity to bring other measures into play, such as setting traps or ambushes. I mean real ambushes where a group of baddies hide and wait for you to reach them. You could then give players the opportunity to detect and avoid or counter these traps. It would give additional value to stealth and stealth tactics for purposes other than simply short-circuiting the instance.
I would also propose that while smarter AI might make fighting mobs harder, that's not a bad thing in terms of presentation. If Malta were smarter, for instance, they wouldn't need Sappers. Smarter critters need less "edge" in terms of power and durability; the computer wouldn't have to cheat, in other words. And if you can make critters less powerful and durable without shortchanging them, then that would be one way to address the "more super" issue.
I'd keep the AI as is for lower level groups, with some of the higher ones having more specific AI quirks and advances like the ones raised in this thread already. In my opinion, as you level up it can get easier because 1: More powers and slots 2: Better enhancements and team synergy and 3: Enemies become predictable. The last point really becomes apparent the longer you play, so if enemies were to get harder both power-wise and with their AI through the levels, it'd keep the challenge.
Freakshow/DE charging in and trying to keep melee no matter what, no running away. I'd also give it to Fire Imps
Council/5th Column/Nemesis Minions+Lieuts/Longbow Minions+Lieuts/Crey human (not power suit) Minions trying to keep their range passively by not charging into melee, retreating with the current system (Boss/Lieutenant dead? Run. All the minions dead? Run. Only one or two left? Run). I'd also give this to the control set pets, all except for Fire Imps
BP/Malta bosses being resistant to Taunt and only attacking the initial aggroer.
BP Undead being really stupid without a lieutenant or boss by a short minimum and maximum aggro range and not being connected to the others as a group.
Council/5th Robots with a slightly bigger aggro range, resistance to taunt (Gonna pull a number out of my ar.. uh.. Arm and say -80% duration), plus switch them to the Freakshow/DE mindset if there're no Lieuts/Bosses in their spawn.
I am the Blaster, I have filled the role of Tank, Controller and Defender
Sometimes all at once.
Union EU player! Pip pip, tally ho, top hats and tea etc etc
I'm pretty much in agreement with Samuel_Tow here, there are rooms out there that would turn into hell if combat activated nearby groups of opponents. There's only a few ways to deal with that as is, so if you don't have someone with a mass control power, or one which doesn't recharge fast enough to defeat them in the time it takes for it to wear off, you are going to be in a lot of trouble, and it will simply not be fun in my opinion.
Now, item interaction with NPC's would sound good to me. For example, a Rulaaru assault on a Fire Base, some of your heroes have to hold the fort against waves of attack while you work on getting the base's defenses online. Completing repair task activates turrets, shield generators and so forth.
I would disable the "seeking missile" aspect of ambushes. Some ambushes work the way they should - the run to where they were triggered and look around once there. The real annoying ones are the ones that home in on you no matter where you are and regardless of stealth. It's another example of the game cheating and it's just annoying.
Quote:
In theory, perhaps, but we'd be deluding ourselves if we thought that better AI would see Sappers removed from the game. It won't. All it will do is leave them with Sappers, massive control, hideous damage AND better AI. There are far too many factions that are patently annoying even right now to consider making them smart enough to avoid the few weaknesses the AI has in overcoming their cheats.|
Originally Posted by Starjammer
I would also propose that while smarter AI might make fighting mobs harder, that's not a bad thing in terms of presentation. If Malta were smarter, for instance, they wouldn't need Sappers. Smarter critters need less "edge" in terms of power and durability; the computer wouldn't have to cheat, in other words. And if you can make critters less powerful and durable without shortchanging them, then that would be one way to address the "more super" issue.
|
Take a look at the concept of running enemies, for instance. I'm sure SOMEBODY likes the idea, but the vast majority of people just HATE enemies who run and scatter. Now imagine if all or even just most enemies ran away from you and tried to keep you at range, as well as scattering as soon as they saw you. Yes, they'd be smarter and yes, it would be more realistic, but does anyone REALLY want to see that? Just imagine all the various complaints of Energy Blaster and Peacebringer knockback scatter and apply that to every single spawn in every single mission.
Smart, yes. Fun... Not so much.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
I think it's pretty much a given that an increase in AI smarts (depending on how it would be implemented) would mandate certain NPC factions get nerfed in terms of power. They'd be unplayable otherwise. Not doing it would be a disaster on the scale of the AV Regen buff. But this is a "What would you like to see" thread, not a "How would the devs screw it up" thread.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
In theory, perhaps, but we'd be deluding ourselves if we thought that better AI would see Sappers removed from the game. It won't. All it will do is leave them with Sappers, massive control, hideous damage AND better AI. There are far too many factions that are patently annoying even right now to consider making them smart enough to avoid the few weaknesses the AI has in overcoming their cheats.
Take a look at the concept of running enemies, for instance. I'm sure SOMEBODY likes the idea, but the vast majority of people just HATE enemies who run and scatter. Now imagine if all or even just most enemies ran away from you and tried to keep you at range, as well as scattering as soon as they saw you. Yes, they'd be smarter and yes, it would be more realistic, but does anyone REALLY want to see that? Just imagine all the various complaints of Energy Blaster and Peacebringer knockback scatter and apply that to every single spawn in every single mission. Smart, yes. Fun... Not so much. |
As far as scattering enemies go, we already have that to some degree with Cabal and Warwolves. They take a shot, run or fly in circles for a few moments, then take another shot. Not exactly stellar tactics. It's annoying, yes, especially for melee types. But it's neither insurmountable nor unbeatable.
In any case, "fun" is in the eye of the beholder. You want to knock down bowling pins, okay for you. I'd like something a little more dynamic than memorizing the optimum attack chain for a purpled-out FOTM build. In an ideal world, there'd be a slider or setting so that you can get what you want while I get what I want.
Quote:
See, this is kind of what I mean. I find werewolves and witches running at high speed to be nothing short of cat-in-pants annoying. It's not about strategy, it's not about tactics, it's not about intelligence. It's just annoying. It's like having a midget next to my chair, kicking me in the shins every few minutes. Yes, I can avoid it by killing them quickly or abusing holds, but I can also avoid having my cat knock the glasses off my dining table by simply not leaving them there when I leave the room, but I'm certainly not going to teach my cat to knock over glasses just the same.|
Originally Posted by Starjammer
In any case, "fun" is in the eye of the beholder. You want to knock down bowling pins, okay for you. I'd like something a little more dynamic than memorizing the optimum attack chain for a purpled-out FOTM build. In an ideal world, there'd be a slider or setting so that you can get what you want while I get what I want.
|
As far as I'm concerned, the single overriding most important question one must address with a change to AI is "Will this become infuriatingly annoying in actual practice?" Running enemies very much is. No matter what it may add to the tactical side of the game, it is ANNOYING, and as such not a change I would want to see made. And since this is a "what would you like to see" and, by extension, a "what would you like to NOT see" thread, it is the right place to talk about this.
Improve AI to your heart's content, guys, but always make sure that this doesn't leave ME ripping my hair out and punching inanimate objects as a result.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
Annoying to some is "Ah Ha! Check! Gotcha lol!" to others. Runners are annoying...if you fail to use tactics to counter them like slows, KB or immobilizes (which are oh so common and stackable). Oh, but you don't have these on your Fire Melee/Shield scrapper? Too bad? Not everyone gets every advantage...that's what advantages are there for...because not everyone gets all of them. In your midget chair example, yeah, it'd be annoying...but if I was a paraplegic in a wheelchair and couldn't feel my legs "HA! Gotcha! I can't even feel that you annoying *****!"...it may not equal out the disadvantage of not being able to walk but it's an advantage.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
See, this is kind of what I mean. I find werewolves and witches running at high speed to be nothing short of cat-in-pants annoying. It's not about strategy, it's not about tactics, it's not about intelligence. It's just annoying. It's like having a midget next to my chair, kicking me in the shins every few minutes. Yes, I can avoid it by killing them quickly or abusing holds, but I can also avoid having my cat knock the glasses off my dining table by simply not leaving them there when I leave the room, but I'm certainly not going to teach my cat to knock over glasses just the same.
As far as I'm concerned, the single overriding most important question one must address with a change to AI is "Will this become infuriatingly annoying in actual practice?" Running enemies very much is. No matter what it may add to the tactical side of the game, it is ANNOYING, and as such not a change I would want to see made. And since this is a "what would you like to see" and, by extension, a "what would you like to NOT see" thread, it is the right place to talk about this. Improve AI to your heart's content, guys, but always make sure that this doesn't leave ME ripping my hair out and punching inanimate objects as a result. |
What's annoying to your scrapper is trivial for someone else's tanker and non-existent on my dominator. My dom is annoyed that he struggles so to mez elite bosses and AVs, but it would be ludicrous if I could mez them like the hoards of other enemies.
Likewise, how we can currently turn groups of enemies into fodder en mass thanks to basic AI and abusing +rech and AoE dmg is equally as ludicrous to me. But there's room there to change.
If I were suggesting changes to enemy AI, it would be to add variety to enemy groups. You'd have your "herd/farm with AoE" mobs like the Freakshow and Warriors, then the "scatter and blast" groups in the Malta, and the "volley fire, I'm not wasting time moving" tactics in Nemesis. Of course, even more variety is needed. It's hard to play a single character all the way to lvl 50 for me because it gets so repetitive tactics-wise.
Honestly, minions and pets can stay dumb as rocks, but I would like to see LT, Bosses, etc. become more aware of the battle field and have at least some idea of which powers to use in which circumstances.
"Samual_Tow - Be disappointed all you want, people. You just don't appreciate the miracles that are taking place here."
Quote:
Do you realise you're advocating "balance by annoyance?" That is to say, whatever perks something has, it's balanced by that one particular drawback that makes it infuriatingly annoying to play. In a video game context - which is a context where things are designed to be the most satisfying and pleasurable - instituting deliberately annoying aspects is a terrible idea. You can't look at a piece of game design, discover it infuriates the players of certain characters, then just shrug your shoulders and go "Well, serves 'em right." This is not good game design.|
Originally Posted by Leo_G
Annoying to some is "Ah Ha! Check! Gotcha lol!" to others. Runners are annoying...if you fail to use tactics to counter them like slows, KB or immobilizes (which are oh so common and stackable). Oh, but you don't have these on your Fire Melee/Shield scrapper? Too bad? Not everyone gets every advantage...that's what advantages are there for...because not everyone gets all of them.
|
I realise this is probably going to sound incredibly silly, but the point of a game is to have fun. For some reason, I it feels like so many people overlook this aspect when they get down to the nuts-and-bolts of design implementation, weighing options and looking for perfect balance. We keep cursing Jacks name like he kicked our puppy, but for all his faults, the guy at least always had an eye on what makes the game fun. Mind you, fun for HIM, which just didn't happen to be fun for many of the rest of us, but ideally, "fun" was the end goal. No matter how vague and unachievable this goal may be, I do not want to see it dropped completely. I do not see game mechanics that could have been designed with the sole intention of pissing people off being looked at as legitimate game design tradeoffs.
Simply put, accepting an annoying aspect of gameplay as a justified part of the game because the players who experience it face other advantages is no better than causing the game to crash on people who play Masterminds because Masterminds are otherwise too overpowered. This is NOT the way to solve problems.
--
Let me give what I feel is a good example of better AI. Currently, enemies afflicted with "Avoid" effects will use what is basically a copy of the "Afraid" system, in that they'll be hit with an Afraid effect with a certain duration. Hitting enemies with, say, Burn, will cause them to run for, like, five seconds, irrespective of whether they're still taking fire damage or not. Instead of this, I'd like to see enemies hit with Avoid effects just back out of whatever it is they are avoiding and STOPPING there. If I ignite the ground beneath a War Wolf's feet, don't have it run five miles down the street and into the neighbouring zone. Have it run five FEET to the side, step out of the Burn patch, then turn around and hurl rocks. It has the benefit of both looking smarter AND being less annoying. It also retains the balancing factor of things like Burn, Ignite, Caltrops and such, in that things will step out of them, but it removes the annoyance of enemies running way, way away.
On that note, could we make more enemies immune to "avoid" effects? Certain unthinking enemies just look awkward when they start trying to run out of burning fuel fires when they don't really have much intelligence to speak of. I realise that would probably make them FAR more susceptible to these kinds of powers and take more damage, but at least they'd have distinctly different behaviour.
Again, if we do see AI tweaks, I want them to target diversity, NOT difficulty.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Quote:
That is if you're equating lack of convenience with irritation. Some players despise KB because they have to run a few feet to keep smacking on the enemy. If I could, I'd smack a foe away and will keep smacking it where ever it goes. I slot my Golden Dragonfly with KB...|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
Do you realise you're advocating "balance by annoyance?"
|
On the runner thing, I actually like it on my Elec/Regen. Because a runner isn't attacking me. More chance to regen and recharge my powers while still being engaged in combat.
Quote:
| In a video game context - which is a context where things are designed to be the most satisfying and pleasurable - instituting deliberately annoying aspects is a terrible idea. You can't look at a piece of game design, discover it infuriates the players of certain characters, then just shrug your shoulders and go "Well, serves 'em right." This is not good game design. |
You need to distinguish this. Running after a guy that moved from your AoE isn't bad design. That's just logic. Nor does it constitute a drastic change in strategy.
Quote:
| I realise this is probably going to sound incredibly silly, but the point of a game is to have fun. For some reason, I it feels like so many people overlook this aspect when they get down to the nuts-and-bolts of design implementation, weighing options and looking for perfect balance. |
All these "no runners" "AoE or go home" "I hate KB" zealots can be ignored because they're usually balanced by the opposing zealots. Thankfully, I'm in the middle and don't care one way or the other. But that isn't to say one side isn't represented enough. There's a reason AoE is so prominent...it's very effective. Don't you feel there should be something to counter this particular tactic just like there are counters for other advantages?
Quote:
| Simply put, accepting an annoying aspect of gameplay as a justified part of the game because the players who experience it face other advantages is no better than causing the game to crash on people who play Masterminds because Masterminds are otherwise too overpowered. This is NOT the way to solve problems. |
But runners or non-AoE tactics aren't dibilitating to the point that you cannot play or cannot progress in this game. Are you so steeped in convenience that you see no other alternatives? Do you ever go camping? Camping can be fun for a lot. If that's not your cup of tea, go for a hike or long bike ride without technology there for your convenience. Having everything spread out infront of you is great but it's not the default...
The only change I'd like to see is runners actually heading for an exit. Rather than just taking a light jog then coming back to die, I want them to make a beeline for the door, if we don't beat them before then, we don't get the XP, but they still count as defeated.
"the reason there are so many sarcastic pvpers is we already had a better version of pvp taken away from us to appease bad players. Back then we chuckled at how bad players came here and whined. If we knew that was the actual voice devs would listen to instead of informed, educated players we probably would have been bigger dicks back then." -ConFlict
Pursuant to a conversation struck up in another thread, what changes would you like to see happen if critter AI were revamped?
Smarter? Dumber? Selectable difficulty? Special tactics? What?
How would you suggest going about making it happen?