Gonna be a lot of fun when mobs start to kite players.
If they could make the AI bait players into impending doom, I would throw my wallet at the screen. I know many would probably throw their keyboard at the screen instead, but I would love it.
That's easy to do, don't need any superior AI to do that. But it all comes down to how hard or dangerous you want the world to be. If the pve content start to mimic players behavior in pvp I don't think it will interest that many people.
- Group of mobs wandering around invisible and attacking only when they have a clear advantage.
- Mobs that take out key players of a group first.
- Mobs scout that sound the horn when they detect a treat heading to their camp, send 15 mounted warrior your way when you get too close.
It's all stuff that is easy to code, but not really likely to be. Simply because most player don't really want challenging content.
What do you think SOE intend to do with their emergent AI about combat ?
I'm assuming they intend to do what you are describing.
With the Tiers and procedurally generated content, they could easily (I assume) have each Tier have various degrees of difficulty ("smarter/harder" AI) yet keep it changing and fresh so that if someone can only handle Tiers 1-2, they can do it forever or at least until they want more of a challenge. Those that want Tier 5+ can do that, but going back to the lower stuff would still provide new challenges and rewards.
Instead of Tier 5 gear/rewards > everything else by default. Maybe it is simply a matter of certain things are easier to obtain the harder the content, but still available on all levels. So hard work pays off in both, either a lot of easier content or less harder content. Variety is key.
It sucked getting one shotted by hard mobs in low level zones in EQ. But it was also thrilling when you saw one coming or someone yelled one was on the loose. Do I think people want to be going about their day and get ambushed and destroyed and camped by a group of Orcs? Probably not. But I think many would enjoy have a bit more sense of danger and excitement as well. Instead of, "Well I'm lvl 100, I can one-shot this zone."
Flaw of most games is the AI is practically the same from start to finish. Rat = Dragon. Add in a few million HPs and a ton of damage and maybe a few timed specials, but it is basically the same. With what they are doing, I'm hoping a rat is still a rat, but a warband of Orcs actually has a goal and trys to win. Doesn't have to be over the top difficult, but still doesn't have to be a group waiting to be picked off one by one as their friends get killed 10 ft away.
Gonna be a lot of fun when mobs start to kite players.
If they could make the AI bait players into impending doom, I would throw my wallet at the screen. I know many would probably throw their keyboard at the screen instead, but I would love it.
That's easy to do, don't need any superior AI to do that. But it all comes down to how hard or dangerous you want the world to be. If the pve content start to mimic players behavior in pvp I don't think it will interest that many people.
- Group of mobs wandering around invisible and attacking only when they have a clear advantage.
- Mobs that take out key players of a group first.
- Mobs scout that sound the horn when they detect a treat heading to their camp, send 15 mounted warrior your way when you get too close.
It's all stuff that is easy to code, but not really likely to be. Simply because most player don't really want challenging content.
What do you think SOE intend to do with their emergent AI about combat ?
I'm assuming they intend to do what you are describing.
With the Tiers and procedurally generated content, they could easily (I assume) have each Tier have various degrees of difficulty ("smarter/harder" AI) yet keep it changing and fresh so that if someone can only handle Tiers 1-2, they can do it forever or at least until they want more of a challenge. Those that want Tier 5+ can do that, but going back to the lower stuff would still provide new challenges and rewards.
Instead of Tier 5 gear/rewards > everything else by default. Maybe it is simply a matter of certain things are easier to obtain the harder the content, but still available on all levels. So hard work pays off in both, either a lot of easier content or less harder content. Variety is key.
It sucked getting one shotted by hard mobs in low level zones in EQ. But it was also thrilling when you saw one coming or someone yelled one was on the loose. Do I think people want to be going about their day and get ambushed and destroyed and camped by a group of Orcs? Probably not. But I think many would enjoy have a bit more sense of danger and excitement as well. Instead of, "Well I'm lvl 100, I can one-shot this zone."
Flaw of most games is the AI is practically the same from start to finish. Rat = Dragon. Add in a few million HPs and a ton of damage and maybe a few timed specials, but it is basically the same. With what they are doing, I'm hoping a rat is still a rat, but a warband of Orcs actually has a goal and trys to win. Doesn't have to be over the top difficult, but still doesn't have to be a group waiting to be picked off one by one as their friends get killed 10 ft away.
Hopefully they give some more insight next month.
But all this could be done 15 years ago. Just because you and me want harder content doesn't mean that is what the mass wants. And knowing SOE they certainly are going for the big chunk of the pie. We will see what they have to say next month, but don't get your expectation too high.
I think you have to look a little deeper (assuming Storybricks can do what I think it can)..
Lets take Orcs.
It isn't that the Orcs might hide in ambush.
It is that Orcs might be hiding in ambush for food because they are hungry.
But they spot you first.
Then the leader of the group of Orcs decides that catching food is more important then getting into a fight so they stay in cover waiting for a deer to go past.
Another Orc leader might be thinking the same thing but spot that there is a Dark Elf in the group. That leader has a hatred for Dark Elves and so chooses to attack you there and then.
Another Orc leader might be slightly more intelligent and so come to the conclusion that, you are likely to have food and so attacking might be risky but also worthwhile. Weighing the risks he might choose to send the scout to the local tribe huts to gather more and then attack with more numbers.
If each mob can have it's own set of wants and needs like I hope they can have, perhaps with some form of procedurally generated personalities for each mob (or at least the leader when it comes to mobs) then that is what I hope to see.
I hope that each mob/NPC uses something like Maslow hierarchy of needs to structure it's personality, actions and thought processes.
How about an Orc that is a coward but just loves cheese and will run from a fight unless it can smell cheese!!!
I think you have to look a little deeper (assuming Storybricks can do what I think it can)..
Lets take Orcs.
It isn't that the Orcs might hide in ambush.
It is that Orcs might be hiding in ambush for food because they are hungry.
But they spot you first.
Then the leader of the group of Orcs decides that catching food is more important then getting into a fight so they stay in cover waiting for a deer to go past.
Another Orc leader might be thinking the same thing but spot that there is a Dark Elf in the group. That leader has a hatred for Dark Elves and so chooses to attack you there and then.
Another Orc leader might be slightly more intelligent and so come to the conclusion that, you are likely to have food and so attacking might be risky but also worthwhile. Weighing the risks he might choose to send the scout to the local tribe huts to gather more and then attack with more numbers.
If each mob can have it's own set of wants and needs like I hope they can have, perhaps with some form of procedurally generated personalities for each mob (or at least the leader when it comes to mobs) then that is what I hope to see.
I hope that each mob/NPC uses something like Maslow hierarchy of needs to structure it's personality, actions and thought processes.
How about an Orc that is a coward but just loves cheese and will run from a fight unless it can smell cheese!!!
But all of this comes down to 2 scenarios, they attack or they don't attack. You will never know their reason to attack, so in the end does it really matter what triggered it ?
I think you have to look a little deeper (assuming Storybricks can do what I think it can)..
Lets take Orcs.
It isn't that the Orcs might hide in ambush.
It is that Orcs might be hiding in ambush for food because they are hungry.
But they spot you first.
Then the leader of the group of Orcs decides that catching food is more important then getting into a fight so they stay in cover waiting for a deer to go past.
Another Orc leader might be thinking the same thing but spot that there is a Dark Elf in the group. That leader has a hatred for Dark Elves and so chooses to attack you there and then.
Another Orc leader might be slightly more intelligent and so come to the conclusion that, you are likely to have food and so attacking might be risky but also worthwhile. Weighing the risks he might choose to send the scout to the local tribe huts to gather more and then attack with more numbers.
If each mob can have it's own set of wants and needs like I hope they can have, perhaps with some form of procedurally generated personalities for each mob (or at least the leader when it comes to mobs) then that is what I hope to see.
I hope that each mob/NPC uses something like Maslow hierarchy of needs to structure it's personality, actions and thought processes.
How about an Orc that is a coward but just loves cheese and will run from a fight unless it can smell cheese!!!
But all of this comes down to 2 scenarios, they attack or they don't attack. You will never know their reason to attack, so in the end does it really matter what triggered it ?
Yeah guess you are right. No point making the game when you reduce it to such a basic level. Might as well go die in a corner somewhere, life has lost all meaning
But seriously. those are the options for engaging or not engaging in a fight.
What if the next step is the leader who hates Dark Elves shouts at you to leave the Dark Elf and the rest of you can leave.
Or the Orc that didn't choose to fight got worried that more adventures were coming and chooses to move home.
Or the Orc that calls for reinforcements asks you to hand over the food and you can go on your way as he still doesn't want to get into a fight even with more numbers, he just wants to feed his tribe.
I think you have to look a little deeper (assuming Storybricks can do what I think it can)..
Lets take Orcs.
It isn't that the Orcs might hide in ambush.
It is that Orcs might be hiding in ambush for food because they are hungry.
But they spot you first.
Then the leader of the group of Orcs decides that catching food is more important then getting into a fight so they stay in cover waiting for a deer to go past.
Another Orc leader might be thinking the same thing but spot that there is a Dark Elf in the group. That leader has a hatred for Dark Elves and so chooses to attack you there and then.
Another Orc leader might be slightly more intelligent and so come to the conclusion that, you are likely to have food and so attacking might be risky but also worthwhile. Weighing the risks he might choose to send the scout to the local tribe huts to gather more and then attack with more numbers.
If each mob can have it's own set of wants and needs like I hope they can have, perhaps with some form of procedurally generated personalities for each mob (or at least the leader when it comes to mobs) then that is what I hope to see.
I hope that each mob/NPC uses something like Maslow hierarchy of needs to structure it's personality, actions and thought processes.
How about an Orc that is a coward but just loves cheese and will run from a fight unless it can smell cheese!!!
But all of this comes down to 2 scenarios, they attack or they don't attack. You will never know their reason to attack, so in the end does it really matter what triggered it ?
Yeah guess you are right. No point making the game when you reduce it to such a basic level. Might as well go die in a corner somewhere, life has lost all meaning
But seriously. those are the options for engaging or not engaging in a fight.
What if the next step is the leader who hates Dark Elves shouts at you to leave the Dark Elf and the rest of you can leave.
Or the Orc that didn't choose to fight got worried that more adventures were coming and chooses to move home.
Or the Orc that calls for reinforcements asks you to hand over the food and you can go on your way as he still doesn't want to get into a fight even with more numbers, he just wants to feed his tribe.
I am not saying you cannot make some special events. But it all boils down to, does it add something to the game.
Blood feud between race is nothing new, EQ had that. The enemy guard NPC would curse at you before destroying you.
What I am saying is that any of those scenario could be made a long time ago. Nothing require overly complex AI. Do you really want to see NPC go grab reinforcement to zerg you while you are picking berries ? What I think is that in the end, it will be just more of the same at least on the player level.
Simply because we don't want NPC to act like PC. We just think that we do.
But all this could be done 15 years ago. Just because you and me want harder content doesn't mean that is what the mass wants. And knowing SOE they certainly are going for the big chunk of the pie. We will see what they have to say next month, but don't get your expectation too high.
What games could do this 15 years ago? While yes mobs in EQ and older games could have the trigger to run for help if within a certain distance or harmed or whatever, they also weren't moving around the world and "remembering" where their friends were either or having multiple options. Was a much simpler version of what SOE appears to be attempting. Obviously I'm basing this on assumptions, but I'm highly doubting they are just using the exact same tech from 15 years ago. While on the surface there surely are similarities, but I'd assume it is much more.
If they were going for "what the mass wants" they wouldn't of rebooted EQN multiple times. The mass (WoW and kin) appear to "want" a themepark snoozeride. Sometimes people have to be shown another path to realize it is what they want. I loved MUDs, didn't even jump on the EQ bandwagon that soon after release. Once I did though, I never looked back (besides getting all my MUD buddies to come over).
Nor does it support. That link to the interview shows its more then just spawn and interaction. It also covers NPC combat and tactics. Whats the point of having a new AI that covers how a NPC interacts with you and the land it lives in if it does nothing with combat? Its not only needed but expected. The quote you replied to shows very clearly that not only does it cover what you are saying, but its even more then that.
The distinction is that the emergent AI system is setting up how and when NPCs and mobs will spawn and what they do after they spawn to act more alive and realistic The main feature that ties in directly with the horizontal progression and free roaming design of the game to bring us a world that is constantly fresh and ever-changing without having to rely on dev created content patches or expansions.
Just because they're carrying some variables over and using them in their combat AI systems doesn't mean that they're the same thing. EQ's faction system tied in to combat (IE bad faction == KOS, good faction == friendly). Both are parts of the game's AI. That doesn't mean that EQ's combat AI and faction system are the same thing.
Maybe this is just semantics for some people. However, I am bothered by people being so fixated on combat and not understanding what the emergent AI means for the overall game and how it has the potential to be a true next-gen game changer.
Simply because we don't want NPC to act like PC. We just think that we do.
Originally posted by DMKano
Exactly -imagine any scenario where NPCa would be controlled by a group of competent PvP players - how fun would those game be?
and that is what good AI would do - players would HATE it as they wouldn't stand a chance.
Scenario of why players don't want smarter AI:
You need to go AFK for 5 minutes - so you run and stand next to 2 guards so that you are safe from attack (common tactic back in EQ1) - here is what smart AI NPC could do.
1 NPC could aggro the guards - and start kiting them away - while the 2 other NPCs see that you're AFK and MURDER you.
Think about that for a minute.
I doubt that any players would find that fun - or being kited around and killed by NPCs - lol how about that?
Translations: You do not want better AI, but some how speak for all other gamers.
Why would you not want better AI? You enjoy steam rolling all content and having it simplified down to learning a pattern and repeating it until victory?
Honestly don't get why you are against it. Either you want more challenge or you don't. While I say that some people might not know what they want, based on them maybe not knowing anything else beyond what has been redone over and over during the last 15 years, but that's a bit different then you knowing there are other options and going for the less challenging one because you know it would be too hard.
Do the majority want to get owned while AFK? Of course not. Nor do I foresee AI smart enough to pick off players or other NPCs one by one as if they are "thinking" about it. Doesn't have to be one extreme or another where is terrible AI or hyper realistic human like.
I'm not hoping to be kited until death with zero chance at victory (Hello current AI system in reverse), but I'd hope the AI could possibly use tactics like healing one another, throwing up icewalls or using defensive measure, silencing casters when they are doing a "heroic" super move, etc. Yes more playerish, but still dumb AI that hopefully most of us can overcome. I want to win just like everyone else, doesn't mean I don't want to have to actually put in 2 brain cells worth of effort to do so.
I'm sorry but I'm gonna have to call you out on a terrible example - because you are using "level difference" to negate smarter AI.
Same example - you are level 15, you are fighting a level 15 ogre who just stands there and dies.
Smarter AI (which was used by EQ1 back in 1999 btw) - you are level 15 you are fighting a lvl 15 ogre who sprints away and calls for help when he is at %20 health - you get creamed by 8 more level 15 Ogres who respond to call for help.
Again - smarter AI - it's a harder fight, which is what I've been saying all along.
Saying that since you are level 15 and fighting level 5 ogres who are using better (smarter) tactics doesn't make it any harder is a flawed argument in this case.
Like I said earlier, maybe "smarter" is a bad choice. Maybe "more variables" is a better option.
Option 1: Mob just stands there and swings until dead.
Option 2: Mob runs to friends within LOS if attacked or low HP.
Option 3: Mob heals self or uses defense skills to try to escape or stay alive while yelling for help.
Option 4: Mob has a full class worth of skills to attempt to counter whatever skills your class provides, both knowing what the other can do because of the "heroic" elements that identify what class is which and what they can do.
Option 5: This isn't a 1 vs 1 fight and it is a group of players that run into packs of mobs taking all of this to another level. Where each side is working together to win.
All of these could be options, where usually 1-3 are probably the best we'll see. The "emergent AI" is supposed to have goals and whatever "intelligence" which I'm assuming means a group of 5 Orcs aren't going to try and storm Freeport. Maybe 50 will, but at that point, doesn't really matter if you are 1 player AFK by the guards or not. Which has been done before WoW/GW2. Events with large fights that players either trigger or happen to walk into. Usually aren't so hard that winning is impossible, but victory is usually more satisfying, even if the guards did most of the work.
I'm not that creative. I'm assuming SOE along with Storybricks and both their full teams have a bit more real intelligence then myself when it comes to this matter. They've said on a couple occasions that the AI is the secret sauce and basically what makes EQN, EQN.
It's hard to see this with just hype, but to basically say, "meh, EQ did it 15 years ago" is being a bit narrow minded. What if there is more to it that we might have not even thought of or since we've never experienced it, might actually enjoy it despite it possibly being "harder". Again, no reason the entire game has to be run by the same level of "smarter/harder" AI. But instead of making it a vertical HP/DMG increase, the variables simply increase and the challenge along with it.
Maybe you don't want that, but I do and I'm betting many others do or will.
Edit:
To me, this is basically a possible answer to players wanting an endless supply of challenging content (high end game). If the challenge can keep going, players can keep going. Maybe 99% of players can't handle Tier 27 Goblin Cities, but maybe that 1% can and since it is procedurally generated, there is still plenty for the 99% to keep on doing. The idea that 100% of the game has to be accessible to 100% of players is terrible idea and why games like WoW, EQ, GW2, etc are disliked from what I've gathered.
Players think they want to be able to win everything and be the hero, but when they actually do, it becomes boring and they move on or complain there isn't enough to do or it's too easy, or.....it's fun talking for all gamers.
I'm not hoping to be kited until death with zero chance at victory (Hello current AI system in reverse), but I'd hope the AI could possibly use tactics like healing one another, throwing up icewalls or using defensive measure, silencing casters when they are doing a "heroic" super move, etc. Yes more playerish, but still dumb AI that hopefully most of us can overcome. I want to win just like everyone else, doesn't mean I don't want to have to actually put in 2 brain cells worth of effort to do so.
All of that was done in EQ1 back in 1999 - so to me none of that is better AI, its just that most recent games reverted to idiot-NPCs. Why?
in EQ1, NPCs healed eachother, called for help, ran on low health, cast root/mez/stun/blindness (turn your screen black) on players. None of this is much better AI, just more abilities more scripts to be run.
Why was this abandoned in more recent games?
Because masses hate it, this would frustrate the modern average gamer too much - and MMO games are made to sell to masses.
I loved EQ1 - I'd love to play a game that has the same NPC behavior like EQ1, and you will never see it in a major MMO, indie games are a lot more likely to have it.
Would I like it and some small minority - sure.
Would masses want better AI - nope - too frustrating.
My 2c
Forgot one awesome thing NPCs did in EQ1 - if a player got down to below 25% health, all NPCs would ignore aggro and attack the low HP player to kill him/her.
Can you hear the rage of masses today if this mechanic was in WoW or any popular game? Heheh - yeah.
The masses never played EQ, nor experienced any of that. These are also the more simple variables that were possible 15 years ago and that I can think up right now. To think that SOE/SB with 15 years of experience and whatever the heck Storybricks is capable of is the same exact thing as EQ 99 is crazy.
Like I said, maybe we can't think too outside the box because we've never known "better". It hasn't happened yet. They've flat out said that they are doing things no other game has done. We can simplify it down to attack or not attack, run or not run, heal or not heal, but I'm betting there will be more to it.
While it is all based on hype and assumption, I guess I just don't get why all the doom and gloom, "meh it's been done" attitude. Besides enjoying popping all our poor little hype balloons.
I said above, they rebooted EQN a few times because they didn't want to do the same old thing.
The "masses" want themeparks, trinity, 1 class per character, subs, vertical progression, gear grind, xp grind, dumb AI, the list goes on. Guess EQN is a failure before it hits the gate. It could be, no doubt, but I'm sending my faith their way in the hopes it is enjoyable and that it has enough options to bring in the masses that have grown tired of playing the same game for the last 15 years in some form or another.
Maybe some like to be the jaded, cynical, pessimistic folks that can go "I told you so" but I've been there done that. Either EQN will be the game to change things or it won't. Until it has a chance, I'm not going to be Mr. Rain Cloud about it.
Nor does it support. That link to the interview shows its more then just spawn and interaction. It also covers NPC combat and tactics. Whats the point of having a new AI that covers how a NPC interacts with you and the land it lives in if it does nothing with combat? Its not only needed but expected. The quote you replied to shows very clearly that not only does it cover what you are saying, but its even more then that.
The distinction is that the emergent AI system is setting up how and when NPCs and mobs will spawn and what they do after they spawn to act more alive and realistic The main feature that ties in directly with the horizontal progression and free roaming design of the game to bring us a world that is constantly fresh and ever-changing without having to rely on dev created content patches or expansions.
Just because they're carrying some variables over and using them in their combat AI systems doesn't mean that they're the same thing. EQ's faction system tied in to combat (IE bad faction == KOS, good faction == friendly). Both are parts of the game's AI. That doesn't mean that EQ's combat AI and faction system are the same thing.
Maybe this is just semantics for some people. However, I am bothered by people being so fixated on combat and not understanding what the emergent AI means for the overall game and how it has the potential to be a true next-gen game changer.
"we are creating a unified AI architecture for combat and non-combat behaviors, which means that NPCs inside combat could potentially have a much greater range of reactions to PCs"
You might want to tell SOE/SB about that since they are basically saying the opposite.
Still don't know who these people are you are talking about. You seem to be the only one fixated on what "emergent AI" is and means and does. Seems a few of us see the AI as the AI, not multiple systems with "some variables" or whatever.
We were talking about wanting better combat and some how turned into "emergent AI" is more important then "combat AI". Don't see anyone really disagreeing with you as they are one and the same.
You don't seem to have any more insight or clearer idea of what "emergent AI" is or does then me or anyone else here. We all seem to want it and have our hype shoes on.
Mobs will spawn magically, go about their business, kill things, be killed, yay for us. What they kill, how they avoid being killed, and how they fight hopefully all plays into the entire dynamic of "emergent AI." In the actual fight it may boil down to Orcs swinging clubs, but maybe they've learned to attack Clerics first because a Cleric killed their old Warchief and they've been searching for a Cleric to kill to repay the debt. Which ties it all together. In and out of combat AI.
Honestly, we don't really know what any of it will be like, hopefully next month changes that.
Nor does it support. That link to the interview shows its more then just spawn and interaction. It also covers NPC combat and tactics. Whats the point of having a new AI that covers how a NPC interacts with you and the land it lives in if it does nothing with combat? Its not only needed but expected. The quote you replied to shows very clearly that not only does it cover what you are saying, but its even more then that.
The distinction is that the emergent AI system is setting up how and when NPCs and mobs will spawn and what they do after they spawn to act more alive and realistic The main feature that ties in directly with the horizontal progression and free roaming design of the game to bring us a world that is constantly fresh and ever-changing without having to rely on dev created content patches or expansions.
Just because they're carrying some variables over and using them in their combat AI systems doesn't mean that they're the same thing. EQ's faction system tied in to combat (IE bad faction == KOS, good faction == friendly). Both are parts of the game's AI. That doesn't mean that EQ's combat AI and faction system are the same thing.
Maybe this is just semantics for some people. However, I am bothered by people being so fixated on combat and not understanding what the emergent AI means for the overall game and how it has the potential to be a true next-gen game changer.
"we are creating a unified AI architecture for combat and non-combat behaviors, which means that NPCs inside combat could potentially have a much greater range of reactions to PCs"
You might want to tell SOE/SB about that since they are basically saying the opposite.
Still don't know who these people are you are talking about. You seem to be the only one fixated on what "emergent AI" is and means and does. Seems a few of us see the AI as the AI, not multiple systems with "some variables" or whatever.
We were talking about wanting better combat and some how turned into "emergent AI" is more important then "combat AI". Don't see anyone really disagreeing with you as they are one and the same.
You don't seem to have any more insight or clearer idea of what "emergent AI" is or does then me or anyone else here. We all seem to want it and have our hype shoes on.
Mobs will spawn magically, go about their business, kill things, be killed, yay for us. What they kill, how they avoid being killed, and how they fight hopefully all plays into the entire dynamic of "emergent AI." In the actual fight it may boil down to Orcs swinging clubs, but maybe they've learned to attack Clerics first because a Cleric killed their old Warchief and they've been searching for a Cleric to kill to repay the debt. Which ties it all together. In and out of combat AI.
Honestly, we don't really know what any of it will be like, hopefully next month changes that.
They're not saying the opposite. They're saying the same thing as I am, as shown by all your links and that quote even. All the quotes you referred to simply suggests that they can and will probably tie into each other, but they're not the same thing.
Nor does it support. That link to the interview shows its more then just spawn and interaction. It also covers NPC combat and tactics. Whats the point of having a new AI that covers how a NPC interacts with you and the land it lives in if it does nothing with combat? Its not only needed but expected. The quote you replied to shows very clearly that not only does it cover what you are saying, but its even more then that.
The distinction is that the emergent AI system is setting up how and when NPCs and mobs will spawn and what they do after they spawn to act more alive and realistic The main feature that ties in directly with the horizontal progression and free roaming design of the game to bring us a world that is constantly fresh and ever-changing without having to rely on dev created content patches or expansions.
Just because they're carrying some variables over and using them in their combat AI systems doesn't mean that they're the same thing. EQ's faction system tied in to combat (IE bad faction == KOS, good faction == friendly). Both are parts of the game's AI. That doesn't mean that EQ's combat AI and faction system are the same thing.
Maybe this is just semantics for some people. However, I am bothered by people being so fixated on combat and not understanding what the emergent AI means for the overall game and how it has the potential to be a true next-gen game changer.
"we are creating a unified AI architecture for combat and non-combat behaviors, which means that NPCs inside combat could potentially have a much greater range of reactions to PCs"
You might want to tell SOE/SB about that since they are basically saying the opposite.
Still don't know who these people are you are talking about. You seem to be the only one fixated on what "emergent AI" is and means and does. Seems a few of us see the AI as the AI, not multiple systems with "some variables" or whatever.
We were talking about wanting better combat and some how turned into "emergent AI" is more important then "combat AI". Don't see anyone really disagreeing with you as they are one and the same.
You don't seem to have any more insight or clearer idea of what "emergent AI" is or does then me or anyone else here. We all seem to want it and have our hype shoes on.
Mobs will spawn magically, go about their business, kill things, be killed, yay for us. What they kill, how they avoid being killed, and how they fight hopefully all plays into the entire dynamic of "emergent AI." In the actual fight it may boil down to Orcs swinging clubs, but maybe they've learned to attack Clerics first because a Cleric killed their old Warchief and they've been searching for a Cleric to kill to repay the debt. Which ties it all together. In and out of combat AI.
Honestly, we don't really know what any of it will be like, hopefully next month changes that.
They're not saying the opposite. They're saying the same thing as I am, as shown by all your links and that quote even. All the quotes you referred to simply suggests that they can and will probably tie into each other, but they're not the same thing.
Guess it is just semantics then. "Doesn't mean that they're the same thing" and "a unified architecture" don't sound the same to my brain. "A" as in one, "Unified" as in joined as one, and "Architecture" not multiple architecture(S) sounds pretty much as being the same thing.
They aren't suggesting that they can/will tie together, they are saying they are the same thing. Unless you can tie yourself to yourself. Non-Combat and Combat are two different systems by default, but the AI can wrap the two systems together making it one full system.
People are sort of like that. In a fight, some might go total primal and just start swinging randomly, others might retain focus and look for weaknesses and plan a move ahead. All still the same system, just with varied degrees of control and use of what our brains can do. To me, I'm hoping the "emergent AI" allows for more sophisticated actions in and out of combat instead of NPCs roaming around performing complex tasks based on past interactions and then in combat going swing swing swing.
Really doesn't matter that much, guess I just felt like having to have my 8000 cents out there like everyone else
It is what it is and hopefully we know what it is sooner then later.
An Orc is Hungry (non combat) and decides to attack a player who has food but chooses not to use fire to prevent damaging the food (combat).
2 Orcs attack a player. The player readies a fireball spell. First Orc runs away and cowers because his personality shows he is scared of fire (non combat AI) but the 2nd Orc stays and fights and tries to disrupt the casting rather then simply hit the player (combat).
Think I will wait till SOE live rather then speculate more as I could get annoyed with such discussions.
i very much doubt you'll get any solid information on even an alpha for EQN before Landmark is released... Why you ask? a few reasons.
Mainly because it's very clear at this point that the custom engine they have written for Landmark has been specifically developed with the intention to create EQN on it, this was pure genious in my eyes... they have an Landmark running, completely testing out the capabilities, strengths and weaknesses for building EQN on, incoming revenue from people who have bought and support landmark with their wallets, free labor because if they see amazing work in landmark they can attain the rights from the creator and have it put into EQN and again and this is the most important thing "Thoroughly testing the full capabilities of their custom engine before building a feature full MMO on it".
That being said, it's going to put a big timeline on the release of EQN for obvious reasons. Also i am very sceptical about what they want to do with AI.
Quests in MMO's now are static and bug out for the dumbest reasons, you mix in an unlimited set of variables based on other NPC harassment, player harassment, migrating for food, weather, joining armies etc... all of these things and it creates an almost impossible situation to debug and get right with so many problematic areas arising from unlimited variables... but thats my 2 cents.
Smarter enemies doesn't exactly mean they have to be god like, it really doesn't mean they have to be harder at all really, at least where story bricks comes into play.
If smarter enemies are not harder - then they are not smarter.
In combat higher intelligence means a harder fight for player, it does not mean that your enemies will offer to solve math problems for you, or engage you in a philosphical debate.
It means they'll use better tactics to kill you.
That's your opinion. Smarter =/= harder to me. A mob simply deciding to run away and find back up would be "smarter" yet isn't posing a harder challenge, at least not until they find back up. Having more variables to work with instead of limited to a very small pool could add to both the smarter/harder potential. The AI isn't going to be hyper realistic, but doesn't mean it can't be some what original and entertaining. A Orc seeing me down the road and deciding if I'm worth attacking or not instead of walking in a circle is "smarter" yet doesn't provide a harder challenge by default.
They are big on "emergent" not "smarter/harder". I'm assuming this means mobs will have weaknesses obvious/not so obvious to the player, just as we will. Instead of players having an unlimited tool set against a sack of HP that just mindlessly swings. Like I said above, I'm doubting a rat will be able to outsmart me (I hope), yet I'm hoping a pack of Orcs don't let me pick them off one by one as I stand 20 ft away in their LOS.
In combat, if mobs are intelligent enough to go after the healer, what stops the mobs from essentially gimping your group by bee-lining for the healer all the time?
Terry Michaels: The AI we are working with Storybricks on has the potential to make many interesting and engaging decisions both in and out of combat. Our goals are to create these syststrongs to promote interesting encounters and interactions and not to “gimp” any particular type of playstyle. You’ll find out more as we continue to announce information about the AI and combat in general. Please stay tuned!
Note that he didn't say mobs will destroy everyone they see because of their super smart AI. Fun factor is key.
That makes no logical sense - this is not a matter of opinion it's a matter of logic.
In combat a smarter enemy uses better tactics - it will fight better, it will be harder.
Smarter *in combat* means a harder fight for the player.
What Terry (and you) are talking about is not *smarter* it's more varied - yes more fun, but it's not smarter.
Chess programs are a great example of increasingly better AI - you set it to beginner level and you can have a fun chess game as the computer will make a lot of DUMB chess moves, you set it on hardest level and even expert chess players get absolutely destroyed.
Which circles back to the same original point -
Players don't really want smarter NPCs - they want fun dumb NPCs that will do more varied things instead of just standing there, but still be easy to kill because they aren't really using any smart tactics.
i agree with your post, smarter equals more challenging to the point of rivaling and besting it's opponent and many MMO developers have said they'd like to do it but players are against it because it gets too hard... i also highlighted a point in the original post you replied too.
A mob simply deciding to run away and find back up would be "smarter" yet isn't posing a harder challenge, at least not until they find back up.
Now, there are already MMO's on the market that have AI that does this... it's not smarter at all, what does that mean for a player if an enemy is going to go find backup... stun and kill alternatively pick him off while he's running away... you basically just voided your own argument, A Smart Mob would not only run away, but it would throw up defensives, CC you and do whatever it had to do to kite you while surviving long enough to find help. You wouldnt find that fun, you wouldnt find chasing a mob, thats healing itself, throwing up defensives, CCing you etc... fun especially if you didnt have the skill to counter it.
I'm not hoping to be kited until death with zero chance at victory (Hello current AI system in reverse), but I'd hope the AI could possibly use tactics like healing one another, throwing up icewalls or using defensive measure, silencing casters when they are doing a "heroic" super move, etc. Yes more playerish, but still dumb AI that hopefully most of us can overcome. I want to win just like everyone else, doesn't mean I don't want to have to actually put in 2 brain cells worth of effort to do so.
All of that was done in EQ1 back in 1999 - so to me none of that is better AI, its just that most recent games reverted to idiot-NPCs. Why?
in EQ1, NPCs healed eachother, called for help, ran on low health, cast root/mez/stun/blindness (turn your screen black) on players. None of this is much better AI, just more abilities more scripts to be run.
Why was this abandoned in more recent games?
Because masses hate it, this would frustrate the modern average gamer too much - and MMO games are made to sell to masses.
I loved EQ1 - I'd love to play a game that has the same NPC behavior like EQ1, and you will never see it in a major MMO, indie games are a lot more likely to have it.
Would I like it and some small minority - sure.
Would masses want better AI - nope - too frustrating.
My 2c
Forgot one awesome thing NPCs did in EQ1 - if a player got down to below 25% health, all NPCs would ignore aggro and attack the low HP player to kill him/her.
Can you hear the rage of masses today if this mechanic was in WoW or any popular game? Heheh - yeah.
The masses never played EQ, nor experienced any of that. These are also the more simple variables that were possible 15 years ago and that I can think up right now. To think that SOE/SB with 15 years of experience and whatever the heck Storybricks is capable of is the same exact thing as EQ 99 is crazy.
Like I said, maybe we can't think too outside the box because we've never known "better". It hasn't happened yet. They've flat out said that they are doing things no other game has done. We can simplify it down to attack or not attack, run or not run, heal or not heal, but I'm betting there will be more to it.
While it is all based on hype and assumption, I guess I just don't get why all the doom and gloom, "meh it's been done" attitude. Besides enjoying popping all our poor little hype balloons.
I said above, they rebooted EQN a few times because they didn't want to do the same old thing.
The "masses" want themeparks, trinity, 1 class per character, subs, vertical progression, gear grind, xp grind, dumb AI, the list goes on. Guess EQN is a failure before it hits the gate. It could be, no doubt, but I'm sending my faith their way in the hopes it is enjoyable and that it has enough options to bring in the masses that have grown tired of playing the same game for the last 15 years in some form or another.
Maybe some like to be the jaded, cynical, pessimistic folks that can go "I told you so" but I've been there done that. Either EQN will be the game to change things or it won't. Until it has a chance, I'm not going to be Mr. Rain Cloud about it.
I am just using real life anecdote to base my view on things on. I would love a more challenging world, even if it would simply go back to the way it was in EQ1. But in my experience even that is way to hard for most people.
Look at recent released games. People complain that ESO and Wildstar are too hard... I didn't play wildstar so I don't know about it but as for ESO it is so solo friendly it hurts my head, yet people still think it's too hard. I soloed to VR11.5
I had a blast playing vanilla EQ for many years, a lots of fight were close ones, a missed runner in a dungeon would often result in your death or at least an evac. Cleric NPC had access to the same spells PC had, when they were casting a full health spell you had to interrupt it because mobs didn't die in 5 seconds.
I miss it, but I also know that the new players would most likely never settle for it. And while I would be really happy with a niche game, for some reason I doubt that SOE would. That is why I prefer to be MR. Rain cloud today and leave room to be impressed later. I had my balloon poped so often I don't get excited anymore on promises.
Guess it is just semantics then. "Doesn't mean that they're the same thing" and "a unified architecture" don't sound the same to my brain. "A" as in one, "Unified" as in joined as one, and "Architecture" not multiple architecture(S) sounds pretty much as being the same thing.
They aren't suggesting that they can/will tie together, they are saying they are the same thing. Unless you can tie yourself to yourself. Non-Combat and Combat are two different systems by default, but the AI can wrap the two systems together making it one full system.
People are sort of like that. In a fight, some might go total primal and just start swinging randomly, others might retain focus and look for weaknesses and plan a move ahead. All still the same system, just with varied degrees of control and use of what our brains can do. To me, I'm hoping the "emergent AI" allows for more sophisticated actions in and out of combat instead of NPCs roaming around performing complex tasks based on past interactions and then in combat going swing swing swing.
Really doesn't matter that much, guess I just felt like having to have my 8000 cents out there like everyone else
It is what it is and hopefully we know what it is sooner then later.
It just sounds like semantics to you probably because you don't have any game programming experience. Also, Story Bricks AI system is the overall general term you're thinking about. Emergent AI system is a part of the Story Bricks system, that controls the spawning and behavior of mobs and NPCs. Their Combat AI could also be included in the story bricks system, and combat AI methods may use variables and methods from the emergent AI system, but they're not talking about the same thing.
Combat AI is a set of instructions in combat. It's not the same thing as how they spawn into the world, roam around and interact with the environment.
Nor does it support. That link to the interview shows its more then just spawn and interaction. It also covers NPC combat and tactics. Whats the point of having a new AI that covers how a NPC interacts with you and the land it lives in if it does nothing with combat? Its not only needed but expected. The quote you replied to shows very clearly that not only does it cover what you are saying, but its even more then that.
The distinction is that the emergent AI system is setting up how and when NPCs and mobs will spawn and what they do after they spawn to act more alive and realistic The main feature that ties in directly with the horizontal progression and free roaming design of the game to bring us a world that is constantly fresh and ever-changing without having to rely on dev created content patches or expansions.
Just because they're carrying some variables over and using them in their combat AI systems doesn't mean that they're the same thing. EQ's faction system tied in to combat (IE bad faction == KOS, good faction == friendly). Both are parts of the game's AI. That doesn't mean that EQ's combat AI and faction system are the same thing.
Maybe this is just semantics for some people. However, I am bothered by people being so fixated on combat and not understanding what the emergent AI means for the overall game and how it has the potential to be a true next-gen game changer.
"we are creating a unified AI architecture for combat and non-combat behaviors, which means that NPCs inside combat could potentially have a much greater range of reactions to PCs"
You might want to tell SOE/SB about that since they are basically saying the opposite.
Still don't know who these people are you are talking about. You seem to be the only one fixated on what "emergent AI" is and means and does. Seems a few of us see the AI as the AI, not multiple systems with "some variables" or whatever.
We were talking about wanting better combat and some how turned into "emergent AI" is more important then "combat AI". Don't see anyone really disagreeing with you as they are one and the same.
You don't seem to have any more insight or clearer idea of what "emergent AI" is or does then me or anyone else here. We all seem to want it and have our hype shoes on.
Mobs will spawn magically, go about their business, kill things, be killed, yay for us. What they kill, how they avoid being killed, and how they fight hopefully all plays into the entire dynamic of "emergent AI." In the actual fight it may boil down to Orcs swinging clubs, but maybe they've learned to attack Clerics first because a Cleric killed their old Warchief and they've been searching for a Cleric to kill to repay the debt. Which ties it all together. In and out of combat AI.
Honestly, we don't really know what any of it will be like, hopefully next month changes that.
They're not saying the opposite. They're saying the same thing as I am, as shown by all your links and that quote even. All the quotes you referred to simply suggests that they can and will probably tie into each other, but they're not the same thing.
Its using the same system for all parts, combat, conversation and spawning and interaction with the world. Its the same thing that covers many parts of the game. You have just put it in a box and going on how combat is a different system. When the interviews say otherwise. Have you even taken time to read the interviews with storybricks? Because after you said it wasnt I went and read a bunch and it does cover combat AI all with the same system and tools.
Don't build yourself up for a big let down... assume the worse and and everything else is gravy... expect the moon and you end up with a pile of dirt.
This game has no where to go but down because you've already inflated it to the size of Manhattan. Keep blowing hot air into it and it will only explode on you.
I hate to say it but the more times I see Smedly on stage at LIVE, hes starting to sound like "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf". They really need to save their announcments on games until the "YEAR" they are going to release, I know its asking alot of SOE to do, but please dont make a spectacle of something that wont release for years to come. When the year finally does come.... people will treat the game like the little boy who got ate by the wolf!
Guess it is just semantics then. "Doesn't mean that they're the same thing" and "a unified architecture" don't sound the same to my brain. "A" as in one, "Unified" as in joined as one, and "Architecture" not multiple architecture(S) sounds pretty much as being the same thing.
They aren't suggesting that they can/will tie together, they are saying they are the same thing. Unless you can tie yourself to yourself. Non-Combat and Combat are two different systems by default, but the AI can wrap the two systems together making it one full system.
People are sort of like that. In a fight, some might go total primal and just start swinging randomly, others might retain focus and look for weaknesses and plan a move ahead. All still the same system, just with varied degrees of control and use of what our brains can do. To me, I'm hoping the "emergent AI" allows for more sophisticated actions in and out of combat instead of NPCs roaming around performing complex tasks based on past interactions and then in combat going swing swing swing.
Really doesn't matter that much, guess I just felt like having to have my 8000 cents out there like everyone else
It is what it is and hopefully we know what it is sooner then later.
It just sounds like semantics to you probably because you don't have any game programming experience. Also, Story Bricks AI system is the overall general term you're thinking about. Emergent AI system is a part of the Story Bricks system, that controls the spawning and behavior of mobs and NPCs. Their Combat AI could also be included in the story bricks system, and combat AI methods may use variables and methods from the emergent AI system, but they're not talking about the same thing.
Combat AI is a set of instructions in combat. It's not the same thing as how they spawn into the world, roam around and interact with the environment.
While yes I do not have an extensive programming history, I also know how to read. Could you point me in the direction that states Storybricks has multiple AI systems (overall, emergent, combat, etc) and how different they all are?
Seems like one overall system, using different variables/instructions depending on the situation (combat/non-combat). AI is just variables/instructions from what I understand, with varying degrees of these and the freedom or options the "AI" has at using them.
Combat: Access the situation, pick appropriate response, repeat.
Out of Combat: Access the situation, pick appropriate response, repeat.
Again, don't believe anyone has said "boo who cares about how mobs spawn and walk around" "Yay for combat". You seem to be the only one really making a huge distinction about the two. Even if they are totally 100% different systems that happen to work together, does it matter? Should have a good experience in or out of combat either way. That's all I want. Both seem fairly vital to a good overall game, one slacking will be bad.
Unless you have some insider knowledge though, I'm assuming you really don't have much to go on beyond the rest of us. The article I linked pretty much contains the majority of what they've alluded to, beyond a few other interviews and some old SB videos showing off an early version of the system.
Comments
I'm assuming they intend to do what you are describing.
With the Tiers and procedurally generated content, they could easily (I assume) have each Tier have various degrees of difficulty ("smarter/harder" AI) yet keep it changing and fresh so that if someone can only handle Tiers 1-2, they can do it forever or at least until they want more of a challenge. Those that want Tier 5+ can do that, but going back to the lower stuff would still provide new challenges and rewards.
Instead of Tier 5 gear/rewards > everything else by default. Maybe it is simply a matter of certain things are easier to obtain the harder the content, but still available on all levels. So hard work pays off in both, either a lot of easier content or less harder content. Variety is key.
It sucked getting one shotted by hard mobs in low level zones in EQ. But it was also thrilling when you saw one coming or someone yelled one was on the loose. Do I think people want to be going about their day and get ambushed and destroyed and camped by a group of Orcs? Probably not. But I think many would enjoy have a bit more sense of danger and excitement as well. Instead of, "Well I'm lvl 100, I can one-shot this zone."
Flaw of most games is the AI is practically the same from start to finish. Rat = Dragon. Add in a few million HPs and a ton of damage and maybe a few timed specials, but it is basically the same. With what they are doing, I'm hoping a rat is still a rat, but a warband of Orcs actually has a goal and trys to win. Doesn't have to be over the top difficult, but still doesn't have to be a group waiting to be picked off one by one as their friends get killed 10 ft away.
Hopefully they give some more insight next month.
But all this could be done 15 years ago. Just because you and me want harder content doesn't mean that is what the mass wants. And knowing SOE they certainly are going for the big chunk of the pie. We will see what they have to say next month, but don't get your expectation too high.
I think you have to look a little deeper (assuming Storybricks can do what I think it can)..
Lets take Orcs.
It isn't that the Orcs might hide in ambush.
It is that Orcs might be hiding in ambush for food because they are hungry.
But they spot you first.
Then the leader of the group of Orcs decides that catching food is more important then getting into a fight so they stay in cover waiting for a deer to go past.
Another Orc leader might be thinking the same thing but spot that there is a Dark Elf in the group. That leader has a hatred for Dark Elves and so chooses to attack you there and then.
Another Orc leader might be slightly more intelligent and so come to the conclusion that, you are likely to have food and so attacking might be risky but also worthwhile. Weighing the risks he might choose to send the scout to the local tribe huts to gather more and then attack with more numbers.
If each mob can have it's own set of wants and needs like I hope they can have, perhaps with some form of procedurally generated personalities for each mob (or at least the leader when it comes to mobs) then that is what I hope to see.
I hope that each mob/NPC uses something like Maslow hierarchy of needs to structure it's personality, actions and thought processes.
How about an Orc that is a coward but just loves cheese and will run from a fight unless it can smell cheese!!!
But all of this comes down to 2 scenarios, they attack or they don't attack. You will never know their reason to attack, so in the end does it really matter what triggered it ?
Yeah guess you are right. No point making the game when you reduce it to such a basic level. Might as well go die in a corner somewhere, life has lost all meaning
But seriously. those are the options for engaging or not engaging in a fight.
What if the next step is the leader who hates Dark Elves shouts at you to leave the Dark Elf and the rest of you can leave.
Or the Orc that didn't choose to fight got worried that more adventures were coming and chooses to move home.
Or the Orc that calls for reinforcements asks you to hand over the food and you can go on your way as he still doesn't want to get into a fight even with more numbers, he just wants to feed his tribe.
I am not saying you cannot make some special events. But it all boils down to, does it add something to the game.
Blood feud between race is nothing new, EQ had that. The enemy guard NPC would curse at you before destroying you.
What I am saying is that any of those scenario could be made a long time ago. Nothing require overly complex AI. Do you really want to see NPC go grab reinforcement to zerg you while you are picking berries ? What I think is that in the end, it will be just more of the same at least on the player level.
Simply because we don't want NPC to act like PC. We just think that we do.
What games could do this 15 years ago? While yes mobs in EQ and older games could have the trigger to run for help if within a certain distance or harmed or whatever, they also weren't moving around the world and "remembering" where their friends were either or having multiple options. Was a much simpler version of what SOE appears to be attempting. Obviously I'm basing this on assumptions, but I'm highly doubting they are just using the exact same tech from 15 years ago. While on the surface there surely are similarities, but I'd assume it is much more.
If they were going for "what the mass wants" they wouldn't of rebooted EQN multiple times. The mass (WoW and kin) appear to "want" a themepark snoozeride. Sometimes people have to be shown another path to realize it is what they want. I loved MUDs, didn't even jump on the EQ bandwagon that soon after release. Once I did though, I never looked back (besides getting all my MUD buddies to come over).
The distinction is that the emergent AI system is setting up how and when NPCs and mobs will spawn and what they do after they spawn to act more alive and realistic The main feature that ties in directly with the horizontal progression and free roaming design of the game to bring us a world that is constantly fresh and ever-changing without having to rely on dev created content patches or expansions.
Just because they're carrying some variables over and using them in their combat AI systems doesn't mean that they're the same thing. EQ's faction system tied in to combat (IE bad faction == KOS, good faction == friendly). Both are parts of the game's AI. That doesn't mean that EQ's combat AI and faction system are the same thing.
Maybe this is just semantics for some people. However, I am bothered by people being so fixated on combat and not understanding what the emergent AI means for the overall game and how it has the potential to be a true next-gen game changer.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Translations: You do not want better AI, but some how speak for all other gamers.
Why would you not want better AI? You enjoy steam rolling all content and having it simplified down to learning a pattern and repeating it until victory?
Honestly don't get why you are against it. Either you want more challenge or you don't. While I say that some people might not know what they want, based on them maybe not knowing anything else beyond what has been redone over and over during the last 15 years, but that's a bit different then you knowing there are other options and going for the less challenging one because you know it would be too hard.
Do the majority want to get owned while AFK? Of course not. Nor do I foresee AI smart enough to pick off players or other NPCs one by one as if they are "thinking" about it. Doesn't have to be one extreme or another where is terrible AI or hyper realistic human like.
I'm not hoping to be kited until death with zero chance at victory (Hello current AI system in reverse), but I'd hope the AI could possibly use tactics like healing one another, throwing up icewalls or using defensive measure, silencing casters when they are doing a "heroic" super move, etc. Yes more playerish, but still dumb AI that hopefully most of us can overcome. I want to win just like everyone else, doesn't mean I don't want to have to actually put in 2 brain cells worth of effort to do so.
Like I said earlier, maybe "smarter" is a bad choice. Maybe "more variables" is a better option.
Option 1: Mob just stands there and swings until dead.
Option 2: Mob runs to friends within LOS if attacked or low HP.
Option 3: Mob heals self or uses defense skills to try to escape or stay alive while yelling for help.
Option 4: Mob has a full class worth of skills to attempt to counter whatever skills your class provides, both knowing what the other can do because of the "heroic" elements that identify what class is which and what they can do.
Option 5: This isn't a 1 vs 1 fight and it is a group of players that run into packs of mobs taking all of this to another level. Where each side is working together to win.
All of these could be options, where usually 1-3 are probably the best we'll see. The "emergent AI" is supposed to have goals and whatever "intelligence" which I'm assuming means a group of 5 Orcs aren't going to try and storm Freeport. Maybe 50 will, but at that point, doesn't really matter if you are 1 player AFK by the guards or not. Which has been done before WoW/GW2. Events with large fights that players either trigger or happen to walk into. Usually aren't so hard that winning is impossible, but victory is usually more satisfying, even if the guards did most of the work.
I'm not that creative. I'm assuming SOE along with Storybricks and both their full teams have a bit more real intelligence then myself when it comes to this matter. They've said on a couple occasions that the AI is the secret sauce and basically what makes EQN, EQN.
It's hard to see this with just hype, but to basically say, "meh, EQ did it 15 years ago" is being a bit narrow minded. What if there is more to it that we might have not even thought of or since we've never experienced it, might actually enjoy it despite it possibly being "harder". Again, no reason the entire game has to be run by the same level of "smarter/harder" AI. But instead of making it a vertical HP/DMG increase, the variables simply increase and the challenge along with it.
Maybe you don't want that, but I do and I'm betting many others do or will.
Edit:
To me, this is basically a possible answer to players wanting an endless supply of challenging content (high end game). If the challenge can keep going, players can keep going. Maybe 99% of players can't handle Tier 27 Goblin Cities, but maybe that 1% can and since it is procedurally generated, there is still plenty for the 99% to keep on doing. The idea that 100% of the game has to be accessible to 100% of players is terrible idea and why games like WoW, EQ, GW2, etc are disliked from what I've gathered.
Players think they want to be able to win everything and be the hero, but when they actually do, it becomes boring and they move on or complain there isn't enough to do or it's too easy, or.....it's fun talking for all gamers.
The masses never played EQ, nor experienced any of that. These are also the more simple variables that were possible 15 years ago and that I can think up right now. To think that SOE/SB with 15 years of experience and whatever the heck Storybricks is capable of is the same exact thing as EQ 99 is crazy.
Like I said, maybe we can't think too outside the box because we've never known "better". It hasn't happened yet. They've flat out said that they are doing things no other game has done. We can simplify it down to attack or not attack, run or not run, heal or not heal, but I'm betting there will be more to it.
While it is all based on hype and assumption, I guess I just don't get why all the doom and gloom, "meh it's been done" attitude. Besides enjoying popping all our poor little hype balloons.
I said above, they rebooted EQN a few times because they didn't want to do the same old thing.
The "masses" want themeparks, trinity, 1 class per character, subs, vertical progression, gear grind, xp grind, dumb AI, the list goes on. Guess EQN is a failure before it hits the gate. It could be, no doubt, but I'm sending my faith their way in the hopes it is enjoyable and that it has enough options to bring in the masses that have grown tired of playing the same game for the last 15 years in some form or another.
Maybe some like to be the jaded, cynical, pessimistic folks that can go "I told you so" but I've been there done that. Either EQN will be the game to change things or it won't. Until it has a chance, I'm not going to be Mr. Rain Cloud about it.
"we are creating a unified AI architecture for combat and non-combat behaviors, which means that NPCs inside combat could potentially have a much greater range of reactions to PCs"
You might want to tell SOE/SB about that since they are basically saying the opposite.
Still don't know who these people are you are talking about. You seem to be the only one fixated on what "emergent AI" is and means and does. Seems a few of us see the AI as the AI, not multiple systems with "some variables" or whatever.
We were talking about wanting better combat and some how turned into "emergent AI" is more important then "combat AI". Don't see anyone really disagreeing with you as they are one and the same.
You don't seem to have any more insight or clearer idea of what "emergent AI" is or does then me or anyone else here. We all seem to want it and have our hype shoes on.
Mobs will spawn magically, go about their business, kill things, be killed, yay for us. What they kill, how they avoid being killed, and how they fight hopefully all plays into the entire dynamic of "emergent AI." In the actual fight it may boil down to Orcs swinging clubs, but maybe they've learned to attack Clerics first because a Cleric killed their old Warchief and they've been searching for a Cleric to kill to repay the debt. Which ties it all together. In and out of combat AI.
Honestly, we don't really know what any of it will be like, hopefully next month changes that.
They're not saying the opposite. They're saying the same thing as I am, as shown by all your links and that quote even. All the quotes you referred to simply suggests that they can and will probably tie into each other, but they're not the same thing.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Guess it is just semantics then. "Doesn't mean that they're the same thing" and "a unified architecture" don't sound the same to my brain. "A" as in one, "Unified" as in joined as one, and "Architecture" not multiple architecture(S) sounds pretty much as being the same thing.
They aren't suggesting that they can/will tie together, they are saying they are the same thing. Unless you can tie yourself to yourself. Non-Combat and Combat are two different systems by default, but the AI can wrap the two systems together making it one full system.
People are sort of like that. In a fight, some might go total primal and just start swinging randomly, others might retain focus and look for weaknesses and plan a move ahead. All still the same system, just with varied degrees of control and use of what our brains can do. To me, I'm hoping the "emergent AI" allows for more sophisticated actions in and out of combat instead of NPCs roaming around performing complex tasks based on past interactions and then in combat going swing swing swing.
Really doesn't matter that much, guess I just felt like having to have my 8000 cents out there like everyone else
It is what it is and hopefully we know what it is sooner then later.
Mixing combat AI and non combat AI...
An Orc is Hungry (non combat) and decides to attack a player who has food but chooses not to use fire to prevent damaging the food (combat).
2 Orcs attack a player. The player readies a fireball spell. First Orc runs away and cowers because his personality shows he is scared of fire (non combat AI) but the 2nd Orc stays and fights and tries to disrupt the casting rather then simply hit the player (combat).
Think I will wait till SOE live rather then speculate more as I could get annoyed with such discussions.
i very much doubt you'll get any solid information on even an alpha for EQN before Landmark is released... Why you ask? a few reasons.
Mainly because it's very clear at this point that the custom engine they have written for Landmark has been specifically developed with the intention to create EQN on it, this was pure genious in my eyes... they have an Landmark running, completely testing out the capabilities, strengths and weaknesses for building EQN on, incoming revenue from people who have bought and support landmark with their wallets, free labor because if they see amazing work in landmark they can attain the rights from the creator and have it put into EQN and again and this is the most important thing "Thoroughly testing the full capabilities of their custom engine before building a feature full MMO on it".
That being said, it's going to put a big timeline on the release of EQN for obvious reasons. Also i am very sceptical about what they want to do with AI.
Quests in MMO's now are static and bug out for the dumbest reasons, you mix in an unlimited set of variables based on other NPC harassment, player harassment, migrating for food, weather, joining armies etc... all of these things and it creates an almost impossible situation to debug and get right with so many problematic areas arising from unlimited variables... but thats my 2 cents.
i agree with your post, smarter equals more challenging to the point of rivaling and besting it's opponent and many MMO developers have said they'd like to do it but players are against it because it gets too hard... i also highlighted a point in the original post you replied too.
A mob simply deciding to run away and find back up would be "smarter" yet isn't posing a harder challenge, at least not until they find back up.
Now, there are already MMO's on the market that have AI that does this... it's not smarter at all, what does that mean for a player if an enemy is going to go find backup... stun and kill alternatively pick him off while he's running away... you basically just voided your own argument, A Smart Mob would not only run away, but it would throw up defensives, CC you and do whatever it had to do to kite you while surviving long enough to find help. You wouldnt find that fun, you wouldnt find chasing a mob, thats healing itself, throwing up defensives, CCing you etc... fun especially if you didnt have the skill to counter it.
I am just using real life anecdote to base my view on things on. I would love a more challenging world, even if it would simply go back to the way it was in EQ1. But in my experience even that is way to hard for most people.
Look at recent released games. People complain that ESO and Wildstar are too hard... I didn't play wildstar so I don't know about it but as for ESO it is so solo friendly it hurts my head, yet people still think it's too hard. I soloed to VR11.5
I had a blast playing vanilla EQ for many years, a lots of fight were close ones, a missed runner in a dungeon would often result in your death or at least an evac. Cleric NPC had access to the same spells PC had, when they were casting a full health spell you had to interrupt it because mobs didn't die in 5 seconds.
I miss it, but I also know that the new players would most likely never settle for it. And while I would be really happy with a niche game, for some reason I doubt that SOE would. That is why I prefer to be MR. Rain cloud today and leave room to be impressed later. I had my balloon poped so often I don't get excited anymore on promises.
It just sounds like semantics to you probably because you don't have any game programming experience. Also, Story Bricks AI system is the overall general term you're thinking about. Emergent AI system is a part of the Story Bricks system, that controls the spawning and behavior of mobs and NPCs. Their Combat AI could also be included in the story bricks system, and combat AI methods may use variables and methods from the emergent AI system, but they're not talking about the same thing.
Combat AI is a set of instructions in combat. It's not the same thing as how they spawn into the world, roam around and interact with the environment.
Legends of Kesmai, UO, EQ, AO, DAoC, AC, SB, RO, SWG, EVE, EQ2, CoH, GW, VG:SOH, WAR, Aion, DF, CO, MO, DN, Tera, SWTOR, RO2, DP, GW2, PS2, BnS, NW, FF:XIV, ESO, EQ:NL
Its using the same system for all parts, combat, conversation and spawning and interaction with the world. Its the same thing that covers many parts of the game. You have just put it in a box and going on how combat is a different system. When the interviews say otherwise. Have you even taken time to read the interviews with storybricks? Because after you said it wasnt I went and read a bunch and it does cover combat AI all with the same system and tools.
Don't build yourself up for a big let down... assume the worse and and everything else is gravy... expect the moon and you end up with a pile of dirt.
This game has no where to go but down because you've already inflated it to the size of Manhattan. Keep blowing hot air into it and it will only explode on you.
While yes I do not have an extensive programming history, I also know how to read. Could you point me in the direction that states Storybricks has multiple AI systems (overall, emergent, combat, etc) and how different they all are?
Seems like one overall system, using different variables/instructions depending on the situation (combat/non-combat). AI is just variables/instructions from what I understand, with varying degrees of these and the freedom or options the "AI" has at using them.
Combat: Access the situation, pick appropriate response, repeat.
Out of Combat: Access the situation, pick appropriate response, repeat.
Again, don't believe anyone has said "boo who cares about how mobs spawn and walk around" "Yay for combat". You seem to be the only one really making a huge distinction about the two. Even if they are totally 100% different systems that happen to work together, does it matter? Should have a good experience in or out of combat either way. That's all I want. Both seem fairly vital to a good overall game, one slacking will be bad.
Unless you have some insider knowledge though, I'm assuming you really don't have much to go on beyond the rest of us. The article I linked pretty much contains the majority of what they've alluded to, beyond a few other interviews and some old SB videos showing off an early version of the system.