Any love for some bots?

[tangoliber]

Then again there’s enough F2P games that function marvellously without bots. There actually aren’t that many F2P games that include bots.

Except I’ve never suggested that bots are necessary… I just don’t think they are unwelcome. They are a cool feature in games that have them.

[SinDonor]

Then again there’s enough F2P games that function marvellously without bots. There actually aren’t that many F2P games that include bots.

So is that a good reason to include them or not? I think if you have a kickass F2P shooter and you can advertise that “Oh by the way, we ALSO have these cool programmable bots to play with as well if you’re stuck offline or want to practice with friends”, that can’t be a bad thing. Right?

[zenstar]

Then again there’s enough F2P games that function marvellously without bots. There actually aren’t that many F2P games that include bots.

One of the most popular F2P FPSs has just added bots (Mann vs Machine: tf2).
Horde modes are popular and allows players to get to grips with large sections of the game without going up against a human team. This provides relaxed co-op with friends and a steady, predictable learning curve that you cannot guarantee with pvp only.
Latecomers will always be at a disadvantage in pvp only games as the community is already more practiced than them.

I completely agree that online servers shouldn’t have bots. But training modes & horde modes would be nice. If SD is willing to open the game up to more modes than just OBJ mode then bots may be useful in certain circumstances.

F2P normally don’t include bots because they’re another expense to produce, but I think SD have proven that they have some good experience in bot design and probably have 1/2 the code already available, or at least have the people with the knowledge and a good idea of the framework / codebase already mapped out.

Not having bots won’t break the game, and maybe they should be introduced at a later stage with a new game mode if appropriate, but I wouldn’t dismiss them outright at this stage. They could still be useful.

[SockDog]

Then again there’s enough F2P games that function marvellously without bots. There actually aren’t that many F2P games that include bots.

Cha Cha Cha, to the left.

[SinDonor]

[QUOTE=zenstar;413210]
Not having bots won’t break the game, and maybe they should be introduced at a later stage with a new game mode if appropriate, but I wouldn’t dismiss them outright at this stage. They could still be useful.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, and they would open up a portion of the game to people who might not want to go all in with a high-skill competitive online multiplayer shooter. They could have these other bot modes and market them as such. Or go the horde route like TF2 MvM and GoW horde.

[Donnovan]

I did bot work for the custom maps Retake of the Andes, Consite and Glory of the Weak. I have uncountable hours of AAS tweaking&compiling, bot entities placing, bot scripting and bot testing and I’m a big fan of then.

Not sure if the enemies in coop zombie games can be called bots, for sure they are some kind of “bots” but not the ones we see in ETQW or Brink, otherwise all Mario Bross 1 enenies can be called bots also.

[H0RSE]

Just a quick butt in on this one. A good matchmaking system should be stopping this from happening. Sure it can’t be guaranteed, but players should be playing with others that around their own skill level if all goes well, so that shouldn’t be used as an excuse for bots IMO.

Even the “best” matchmaking systems, can’t really match players accurately. I mean, what is using to determine a players skill level? K/D ratio? W/L ratio? time played? XP earned? Accuracy? does any of this ‘truly’ determine the skill of a player? From my experience, Matchmaking systems are meh at best. Until there is a system that can somehow analyze a players strategic and tactical thinking along with his playstyle, I think matchmaking systems have a long way to go.

Yeah, and they would open up a portion of the game to people who might not want to go all in with a high-skill competitive online multiplayer shooter. They could have these other bot modes and market them as such. Or go the horde route like TF2 MvM and GoW horde.

Exactly. Even highly competitive games feature bots, like Starcraft 2, QUake 3, UT and LoL.

90% of every match I played for Quake 3 and UT, were bot matches.

[zenstar]

[QUOTE=Donnovan;413237]I did bot work for the custom maps Retake of the Andes, Consite and Glory of the Weak. I have uncountable hours of AAS tweaking&compiling, bot entities placing, bot scripting and bot testing and I’m a big fan of then.

Not sure if the enemies in coop zombie games can be called bots, for sure they are some kind of “bots” but not the ones we see in ETQW or Brink, otherwise all Mario Bross 1 enenies can be called bots also.[/QUOTE]

As an aside: L4D was born out of bots. The guys were playing around with bots for CS (iirc) and discovered that it was really fun to play against loads of simple bots wielding nothing but knives… next thing you know: L4D. They mention it in the developer commentary somewhere I think.

[tokamak]

One of the most popular F2P FPSs has just added bots (Mann vs Machine: tf2).

TF2 had bots before that and again, it has a really good training mode. Still in many aspects it would be wise not to regard TF2 as a full on F2P game, there are many factors that make this game an exception.

And I don’t doubt that if SD makes bot they will be excellent. I just don’t think that being able to play offline should even be an option in the first place if an F2P game wants a healthy community.

[DarkangelUK]

Even the “best” matchmaking systems, can’t really match players accurately. I mean, what is using to determine a players skill level? K/D ratio? W/L ratio? time played? XP earned? Accuracy? does any of this ‘truly’ determine the skill of a player? From my experience, Matchmaking systems are meh at best. Until there is a system that can somehow analyze a players strategic and tactical thinking along with his playstyle, I think matchmaking systems have a long way to go

Any system is better than no system at all. It can and does do a good job of making sure the opposite ends of the scales never collide and does a good enough job of protecting the new players from complete annihilation… which was SinDonor’s excuse for having bots.

Again, to clarify, I’m all for bots for offline play, I just don’t think the weak and noobly is a good enough excuse for it.

[ailmanki]

When I play a game online, and then the same game with bots, those bots behave mostly dumb and stupid. So its like a game breaker. While I know what I can expect from bots and what not, visually I see a player model - which should behave like a human. But it doesn’t.
Doom 3 has made that excellent, they don’t give me a human Soldier which helps, but a bot - and its obviously a bot cause its a turret and has 4 metal legs. And I expect it to move like a bot, and it does - and wow - its just great!

I just imagined, playing one of your maps, and there come turrets with legs attacking me, reminds me a little of the concept of L4D (which I didn’t play).
Well now instead of copying l4d and doom3, maybe add somekind of Borg for that purpose - the single player, or co-op, or maybe even to fill up an otherwise empty server.

I wished I could summarize this a bit better, in any case here is a wiki article of what I mean by using a robot instead of the same human model:

Uncanny valley

[H0RSE]

[QUOTE=tokamak;413260]TF2 had bots before that and again, it has a really good training mode. Still in many aspects it would be wise not to regard TF2 as a full on F2P game, there are many factors that make this game an exception.

And I don’t doubt that if SD makes bot they will be excellent. I just don’t think that being able to play offline should even be an option in the first place if an F2P game wants a healthy community.[/QUOTE]

SMNC has bots - it is a f2p game.
I’m still not buying how people playing bot matches is going to harm the community.

As was mentioned, Sin talked about co-op modes vs bots. This would need to played online…with people…people from the community. Did anyone even say anything about a full-on offline, single player bot match mode? I mean, the game would likely require you to login every time you wanted to play it, so even single player games would require you to be online. The maps would be dedicated like they are now, so you would need a connection regardless.

[QUOTE=DarkangelUK;413270]Any system is better than no system at all. It can and does do a good job of making sure the opposite ends of the scales never collide and does a good enough job of protecting the new players from complete annihilation… which was SinDonor’s excuse for having bots.

Again, to clarify, I’m all for bots for offline play, I just don’t think the weak and noobly is a good enough excuse for it.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think he was giving an “excuse” for it, other than people like to play co-op/bot matches. Seems as though those opposed to the idea, are the comp-minded players. Players who themselves, would derive no pleasure/satisfaction playing against bots. If that’s the case, don’t play vs bots - leave it those who enjoy it.

Personally, the reason I enjoy bot matches, is because I known it isn’t a real person. I know I’m not going to be judged, or personal vendetta’s being formed. I know that no matter how many time I die, those bots aren’t thinking, “wow, that dude sucks,” and bots don’t talk **** or partake in juvenile behavior, like teabagging, and even when they do, it’s because it’s in their programming, not because they are being a prick, like with people. And even though they may not match up to a person’s skill, they tend to at least know the basics, like where the objectives are and how to do them, something I can’t count on all players knowing.

Botmatches are just a lot less stressful and a lot easier on my anxiety, and I’m sure I’m not alone on this. I don’t care if I’m not being “pushed” or “challenged” in a game - I’m playing for fun, and in many cases, bot matches are simply more fun than playing vs people. If others don’t like playing vs bots, then don’t play vs them - leave it for the ones that do enjoy it.

[SinDonor]

Well said H0RSE. I have mentioned an “offline” bot mode, but that’s just to drive the point home that I do not want to see bots online in competitive match servers like Brink had.

If the bot modes still require a login, that’s fine with me, although I would consider it a benefit if people could still play DB when their Internet connection is out or they’re LANing it up, etc.

[tokamak]

I don’t think he was giving an “excuse” for it, other than people like to play co-op/bot matches. Seems as though those opposed to the idea, are the comp-minded players. Players who themselves, would derive no pleasure/satisfaction playing against bots. If that’s the case, don’t play vs bots - leave it those who enjoy it.

From a business perspective it’s simply not always the best direction to give the customer everything they want. DB is simply going to be a poor singleplayer experience, people are bound to complain about the lack of a campaign so SD would be wise to just not even pretend that the game is supposed to be played like that.

It’s just very reasonable market segmentation. Offline players are not going to be part of the online playerbase so it shouldn’t even be facilitated in the first place. When that happens everyone will have to be playing online adding value to the people who pay. This is the model of a F2P game. You accept the people who’re never going to pay simply because they improve the game for your playing clients.

An offline mode will be dead weight to the game. Nobody should be playing there if you want to keep the online community vital for as long as possible.

You give people offline action against bots and they will be A: complaining about the lack of a proper story and B: Not be spending their time online, which is where you want them.

Even from a skill honing perspective. You DON’T want people to improve themselves outside the online gameplay. You want everyone caught up in same rat race and nobody having their private work-out room isolated from the rest.

[BioSnark]

I don’t care much if there are AI but here are my rules of fun AI:

[ol]
[li]Don’t replicate human players!
[/li][/ol]
Yeah, just one rule. Don’t make pseudo-players. These will always be unfavorably compared to human players. It will always be a “less than” experience. Outwitting AI is exploiting programming lapses. Outgunning AI is exploiting designed imperfections that are harder to program than a perfectly accurate AI.

Instead, create either weaker AI opponents (like l4d zombies or every non-boss singleplayer opponent; weak, player-empowering gameplay fuel) that are threatening in numbers or create stronger AI opponents that players need to work together to defeat.

[H0RSE]

From a business perspective it’s simply not always the best direction to give the customer everything they want. DB is simply going to be a poor singleplayer experience, people are bound to complain about the lack of a campaign so SD would be wise to just not even pretend that the game is supposed to be played like that.

First off, let’s get our definitions straight…

What do you mean by “single player game,” because to me, it is more than simply playing by yourself. Single player games are designed as such. They either have a campaign or story to progress through, or are simply optimized to be played with one player, like Solitaire. Playing a multiplayer focused game by yourself vs bots, does not constitute a single player game - it is simply playing a MP game solo. That being said, I never implied or expected DB to have a single player component. To assume that people are going to complain about the lack of a campaign is either reaching for straws to strengthen your argument, being naive, or both. DB is a “red vs blue” game - there doesn’t need to be a campaign other than “beat the other team.” SD can create a story around it if need be, but at the end of the day, it’s all just fluff to tie things together, like with Brink.

It’s all about marketing. If SD promotes DB as a “red vs blue” type game, players are going to understand and not mind the lack of a campaign. If SD hypes up the inclusion of a single player campaign and then it’s just MP with bots, that’s when complaints start to appear, like with Brink. I don’t see how simply having a team vs team game with bots in the mix, is going to ruffle anyone’s panties, but I’m sure you being you, will find an argument against this.

DB is going to be a MP only game, and I have seen no convincing argument as to why the other players should have to be real people opposed to bots.

It’s just very reasonable market segmentation. Offline players are not going to be part of the online playerbase so it shouldn’t even be facilitated in the first place.

This was already covered. It is highly likely that you will ALWAYS have to be online to play the game, since you would have to login, and the maps are likely going to be server-side. You seem to have this fear that players who play botmatches, will only ever play botmatches 24/7, and will contribute nothing to the playerbase. I’m sure there are players who prefer pvp, that would still enjoy a botmatch now and then… Even if there were players who played nothing but botmatches, how does it detract from the pvp playerbase? The players that participate pvp, are still going to be there for you play with.

Furthermore, it isn’t all about your “precious” playerbase. If DB offers botmodes for players, it gives them another demographic they can lure into playing their game, who can potentially spend money on items or whatnot, creating revenue for SD.

When that happens everyone will have to be playing online adding value to the people who pay. This is the model of a F2P game. You accept the people who’re never going to pay simply because they improve the game for your playing clients.

I don’t even know what you’re trying to say here…What I got from it was, “you tolerate the freeloaders, because their presence improves the game for others.” The discussion is about whether or not to implement bot modes for players. As was suggested, You could charge people for a bot mode.

Even if it was included free, are you assuming that only “casual,” players would be freeloaders? There aren’t going to be any highly competitive players keeping their wallets closed and never spending a dime? That’s quite the speculation.

An offline mode will be dead weight to the game.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting an offline mode, nor is it likely to exist.

Nobody should be playing there if you want to keep the online community vital for as long as possible.

How is playing with bots having a negative effect on pvp matches? If players enjoy botmatches over pvp, then how is this effecting the online community? If they don’t enjoy pvp at all, then they would never participate in the first place. Where exactly does it detract or damage the online community? At least with the option to play with bots, you have a player that is at least participating in some way, rather than not at all.

You give people offline action against bots and they will be A: complaining about the lack of a proper story and B: Not be spending their time online, which is where you want them.

90% of all my Quake 3 and UT matches were bot batches. My complaints for a lack of a campaign or story were zero…

Even from a skill honing perspective. You DON’T want people to improve themselves outside the online gameplay. You want everyone caught up in same rat race and nobody having their private work-out room isolated from the rest.

First off, not everyone players to improve their skills - some people simply don’t enjoy competitive matches vs real people. Second, addressing your fear of players abusing the system, how much improvement would you really expect from a botmatch? They can learn the maps, improve accuracy, but tactics and strategy? This needs to come from playing real people to truly develop ones skill. You can only improve so much within a botmatch. Besides, botmatches have pretty much been accepted by many players, to be a great place to show new players the ropes before jumping online vs people - it helps to alleviate the “sink or swim” mechanic I hope DB avoids.

[SinDonor]

Just a simple request: Let’s discuss without personal attacks. Don’t want this good conversation to devolve into a flame thread.

[tokamak]

I don’t see anyone making personal attacks. Things get heated sometimes but that’s fine.

How is playing with bots having a negative effect on pvp matches?

You want them mix them through the matches? That’s even worse! Even if there’s just one bot walking around on the server then it spoils the game because every encounter could be that bot. You want 100% pure player on player action.

[SinDonor]

[QUOTE=tokamak;413367]I don’t see anyone making personal attacks. Things get heated sometimes but that’s fine.
[/QUOTE]

Well then you suck and can’t read good.

All kidding aside, Horse isn’t saying to ADD bots to PvP matches, his statement was that separate bot-match modes shouldn’t affect the PvP servers.

Nobody wants to see bots in the competitive multiplayer modes. I think that’s understood by everyone here.

[tokamak]

Well then sell me on it. What’s the value of playing against bots while you could be playing against players? What can DB offer to such a singleplayer / coop experience that a proper singleplayer game can’t do a million times better? It really feels like Brink all over again.