Any love for some bots?

(SinDonor) #61

The points have been made multiple times before already in this thread. H0RSE did a good job laying them out specifically.

  • No bots in competitive matches as a standard. If someone wants to start their own Easy-AI bot-match TDM server because they’re not having fun getting destroyed every match online vs humans, then fine. You don’t have to join it.

  • Some people, myself included, aren’t that great at these fast, competitive FPS games. I’m almost 40. My brain is too slow for this stuff. Good luck getting ALL of my money if your game only offers fast, competitive multiplayer gameplay. I know many gamers like me who are 30+ years old and enjoy playing co-op stuff vs bots. We also generally have a lot more money to spend then your average caffeinated teenager or minimum-wage-earning 20 year old.

So as a company, the more opportunities your product provides to cover a larger customer base, the better it can be for your revenue stream if delivered correctly. Brink tried to squeeze it all together and it was unsuccessful, unfortunately. I don’t want that, nobody does. But offer private servers with bots, or a co-op horde mode, as well as the uber-competitive high level multiplayer stuff separately and then you’ll have many more bases covered. If your pay-model stuff is good, then players on both ends of the spectrum are going to want to spend money to buy things.

I’ve only started play-testing. I played in 3-4 matches today and by the time I was done, my brain was fried. This game moves too fast for me I think. Sure, with a little practice I’ll get better, but for now, I’ll have to game in short spurts and spend the rest of my play-test time maybe solo in a server looking for map issues or messing around with the weapons solo. If this Alpha Test had a few servers with some bots running around, I’d probably enjoy that a lot and be able to play-test other things like player animations, revives, ammo drops, objective stuff, etc, WITHOUT the stress of getting pwned by a bunch of high level players every 20 seconds.

I think that SD currently may have enough on their hands to worry about with just getting the game up to snuff and solid for the multiplayer competitive modes. But, based on their work with the great AI Bots in Brink, I believe it would be in their benefit financially to offer bots for private server matches, etc. Even if only 5% of your customers enjoy playing vs bots, there’s 5% more revenue if your pay-model is done right. Looking at games like Gears of War and L4D, a large portion of their customer base enjoys playing vs bots. I purchased all of the Gears’ map packs, just to play them co-op vs bots with my friends.

Anyways, I think it’s most important that the game plays great for competitive online multiplayer matches first and foremost, but if they have the time and money to invest a bit in adding bots to OTHER modes, I think it’d be worth the effort.

(INF3RN0) #62

Just remember that on official release there will be plenty of people less capable than yourself ;o. Take that into consideration and you might end up enjoying it a lot more when your the one stompping pubs.

(H0RSE) #63

[QUOTE=tokamak;413367]
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.[/quote]
No. It was already stated that the proposed bot matches would be a separate options - BOT MATCHES WOULD NEVER INTERFERE NOR CROSS OVER INTO PVP PLAY. This is why I asked, how would such a feature have a negative impact on pvp matches, when the 2 are separate options?

The way I see it, there would be options similar to below, to select from the main menu:

PVP Match

  • Ranked (all human players, stats recorded/saved, locked settings)
  • Unranked (all human players, stats not saved, custom settings)

Bot Matches

  • Co-op vs bots (all human vs all AI)
  • Standard botmatch (human and AI mixed on either team)

You could also have bot specific game modes, like survival or horde.

You want 100% pure player on player action.

Yes, if a player chooses that option.

In addition to pvp matches, SMNC (a f2p game) currently offers a co-op vs bot mode, where you must hold off bots as long as you can from destroying your base.

Really? You’re really going to go with that subjective point of view? Some people would rather play against AI than people, for whatever reasons. For me, I enjoy not having to deal with the ‘nuisances’ that can come from playing against real people. Bots don’t rage quit, bots don’t let emotion take control, bots don’t talk ****, bots don’t grief or judge players, etc. etc.

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.

Because those asking for bots, aren’t necessarily asking for a “proper” single player experience - they’re asking to shoot badguys in the face that happen to be AI controlled.

Brink ran into problems because they marketed the single player portion as more than it was, so when it launched and people found out the single player campaign was essentially just MP with bots, people became upset. It wasn’t the mode itself that was hurt Brink, it was how it was hyped up.

Perhaps if stroking your epeen is a concern, but constantly losing isn’t the only reason some people enjoy/prefer bot matches.

(tangoliber) #64

I don’t prefer bot matches over real matches by any means… but I still like them to be available. They are more of a tool than an entertainment within themselves. I like them simply because they are cool, fun to occasionally experiment with, and they do preserve some sort of imitation of how a game played once the community has died.

(INF3RN0) #65

[QUOTE=H0RSE;413381]
Perhaps if stroking your epeen is a concern, but constantly losing isn’t the only reason some people enjoy/prefer bot matches.[/QUOTE]

I was responding to the fact that he found the game too competitive to enjoy… maybe one of us misread his post. That said I’m not against bot games anyway, just trying to be encouraging towards someone who wants to opt out of MP when it can be helped.

(Donnovan) #66

Just figuring people are talking of bots as game enemies and not fake players.

Would be really nice to have a coop game mode like in L4D, Killing Floor, Dead Island…

But this inplies the creation of a chart of enemies what can be a lot time expensive.

(zenstar) #67

[QUOTE=Donnovan;413547]Just figuring people are talking of bots as game enemies and not fake players.

Would be really nice to have a coop game mode like in L4D, Killing Floor, Dead Island…

But this inplies the creation of a chart of enemies what can be a lot time expensive.[/QUOTE]
Yep. This is why I want bots.
I don’t want “fake players”. I want co-op game modes where we mow down waves of enemies that could have different abilities that players can’t have… maybe have a big bad boss at the end. Not as a single player, offline game either. As a fully fledged, online co-op experience.

Why? Because it’s fun and when people feel like a break from obj gameplay then why not offer them a reason to keep playing DB without needing to play the pvp game mode? Same reason why I’d like CTF. Sometimes I like to play CTF.

If you’re expecting people to make an investment in the game (money) then you should give them plenty of reasons to remain in the game and get rewarded for their investment (enjoyment and gametime).

(tokamak) #68

What the hell are waves of enemies supposed to be doing in the centre of London? Zombies again? Yawn.

(SinDonor) #69

Could be done like Gears or CoD. Just defend an area and every wave spawns a group of new baddies. First waves has easy bots with handguns etc, then they go up in skill and equipment. Finally, you have Expert AI bots, coming from multiple angles, with dedicated medics and engies reviving downed peeps and dropping turrets, etc.

But, I don’t care really THAT much about a horde mode. I’d just want semi-programmable bots to play with on my own private server in every mode available, like OBJ, TDM, CTF, etc. Like the good ol’ days playing TimeSplitters 2 until 3am with my buddies vs the bots.

(tokamak) #70

Yeah see there’s the problem. Then you’re actively not being an asset to SD’s business model. You want the game to be as populated as possible, the bigger the mass the more people are willing to pay to show off to this mass by investing money into it.

(SinDonor) #71

If SD can’t figure out a way to make money off people who want to play with bots, I’d be surprised.

They could SELL the bots as a package. They could sell bots skins. The could sell whatever things they’re going to sell to the competitive players to the other casual players. They could sell new levels/maps. Etc etc etc.

You’re mistaken to believe that the population will be bigger if you pigeon-hole DB for ONLY the competitive player scene. If you offer up modes or gameplay to people who are NOT looking to be competitive all the time while getting pwned by uber-nerds, then you’re adding to your population. There are WAY more casual gamers than there are competitive high-level gamers. That is a fact. The more people that are playing your game equals more opportunity to sell them SOMETHING they WANT. You don’t have to force the casuals to play with the ubers. But offer them different ways to enjoy your game and you’ll get all of their money.

If bots are added to the game, SD will not put bots as a standard into competitive play servers. Then they’d lose out of the competitive player population. Why would they do that? But IF they add bots as a different mode, call it the “Training center” or the “Holodek Bot Murderin’ Zone” or just “SinDonor’s Private TDM server with Bots! OH NOES!” and let people choose how they want to play DB. Then figure out a way to get their money.

(tokamak) #72

Sure you can make money of it. But making money and maximising profit are not the same thing. Not every option the customer gets is one that benefits the company. In this case this option is a detriment to the active playerbase online, and that’s the company’s prime resource. That way bots just threaten the viability of an F2P game and is why I suspect similarly modelled F2P games like Tribes, HAWKEN and WoT don’t include bots. They simply want everyone to be online that bad.

The best way to spoil a rat race is to offer each rat its own threadmill.

(SinDonor) #73

But SD has proven that they know how to make good bots. The folks at those other companies maybe do not.

Can you give me any specifics on how exactly NOT having bots (or some sort of co-op vs AI mode), would be better financially overall? Sure, there are upfront costs, but those are mitigated by the fact that SD has already created some great bot AI for Brink. I’m sure with whatever tweaks they’ve made since Brink, the bots are even better now.

If the game is good, the competitive community is gonna be there no matter what (unless you stick bots in pub competitive matches), but the MUCH LARGER casual community will NOT stick around long enough to spend any money if their only option is to go online vs the ubers and get smoked. Yeah, maybe some will believe that they’ll get better with more practice, and some of them will get better. But your average-skilled casual gamer is not going to enjoy DB if it is only competitive multiplayer matches. And since Locki has already stated they’re not going to do Pay-to-win schemes, then what reason do the casual gamers have to stick around and get stomped repeatedly by great players if they can’t even drop $50 to get the best guns, body armor, equipment, and etc etc. At least with the Pay-to-win scenario (like in Planetside 2), you give the casual newbs an option to BUY all those cool weapons they’re getting pwned with.

Once again, a small percentage might say “Hmmm, maybe if I just keep trying harder, I’ll get better” and some of them will. But for the majority who don’t, they will likely get frustrated and leave if that’s their only option. And, they leave without dropping a dime on some fancy player skin or map pack.

What I would do is run a script that tracks a new player. If after 3-5 games, they are still at the bottom of the XP and/or K/D ratio list, then send them a message (email, in-game, etc) and point them to the Training Zone filled with bots for them to shoot at. Or show a tutorial about how to start their own server, fill it with bots, and invite some friends to play via the convenient Facebook plug-in.

The message could state: “Hey buddy! If you’re having a tough time playing online, why not try our training mode? Or start your own private server and fill it with Easy-AI bots? That way you can learn how to play DB at your own pace and not be forced into being gang-raped by a bunch of elitist nerds who think tea-bagging is the proper way of saying “Good day to you, sir!””

I gotta sleep. 322am, Dammmmmmit.

(tokamak) #74

I don’t care about the initial cost or the quality of the bots. Free, uber realistic bosts would still be a detriment in this context.

The ‘competitive community’ is a problematic definition because it commonly refers to a few elite hardcore players that have specific needs for a game. That’s not what I’m talking about. In an F2P game, EVERYONE is part of the ‘competitive community’ everyone is playing to climb the ladder and everyone wants to stand out. EVEN the casual players.

In WoT I long found out that there’s no way I would ever be able to put enough time into the game to get the biggest and baddest tank available. Still I wanted to have my own unique thing in the game so I picked one medium tank and one fast tank and I completely kitted that out to the max (with the help of financial revenue). This way I still had a unique thing to play with and I could still matter. I got nice responses from other players in the game who liked or where surprised with what I was doing and getting such feedback fulfils me and made it worth all the money I spended on it.

That’s how F2P works. It’s not pay to win, it’s pay to be unique and have an identity to care about. Not just cosmetic but also gameplay wise. It’s not just about how you look, it’s also about what role you have and how you function. People want to be identified as the ‘sneaky player’ or the ‘raging bull’ player or whatever personality they can express in a game like this.

The value of being unique and having an in-game personality increases with the playerbase. People don’t want to be the biggest fish in the small pond, they want to be the biggest fish in the entire ocean. Success relies on the amount of people playing. The bigger it is, the more people are playing and the easier it is to justify buying stuff.

Nobody in their right minds would pay 10 dollars for a mount in some obscure online RPG that nobody knows about. However, when you’re finding yourself in an 11 million players MMORPG like WoW, that 10 dollars for the mount suddenly makes a lot more sense because there’s more people that can gawp at it.

So when dealing with an F2P game, WHO in their right mind would want players that would otherwise be online be fooling around offline? They’re dead players business wise. Even the ones that would never spent a penny on any game, those are still players that can indirectly earn you revenue but the condition for that is that they’re online and being the audience for the players who are paying.

In an ordinary retail game it would make sense to give the customer everything he ones. Everything to justify making that singular purchase. But for F2P you need a different mentality.

(zenstar) #75

Lets call them mutants. And you can make up whatever reason you want. How about “for fun”? I mean that’s ultimately the aim isn’t it? Make the game fun?

You might think “yawn” but people buy Blops based on the zombie mode alone. It is a popular game mode and has become a cult subgenre of the shooter.
Should it be in DB? Maybe / maybe not. I personally think that more DB has to offer the more people it will attract. The more people it attracts the more money is spent on the game.
Also: the more game modes it offers the more people will stay in the game and the more “worth it” it is for someone to buy items for their characters.
You could even sell map unlocks for horde modes or some sort of boss unlock or something. It depends on the implementations but there’s always a way to monetise.

I’m in agreement with your view of “No bots in pvp. Make the game as populated as possible” but you’d get even more people playing with a horde mode (at least I think so) which means more populated. And some of those people would try the objective mode and find they like it and keep playing.

Bringing someone into objective games isn’t that easy. Bringing someone into a TDM / CTF / Horde game is a lot easier. Then once they’re used to DB, getting them into objective games is easier. They’re already used to the movement, shooting and classes, and maybe some brief objective mechanics.

Just because you don’t like the game mode doesn’t mean it’s not potentially a good one to have.
Likewise: just because I like it doesn’t mean it should go in. That’s for the number crunchers and accountants to decide on ultimately.

(tokamak) #76

Bringing someone into objective games isn’t that easy.

Utter nonsense, W:ET was right below Counter Strike as the most played multiplayer shooter for years.

“But that game was free!”

Yes indeed, it indeed was free.

Just because you don’t like the game mode doesn’t mean it’s not potentially a good one to have.
Likewise: just because I like it doesn’t mean it should go in. That’s for the number crunchers and accountants to decide on ultimately.

I love the game mode. I love playing Invasion in UT2K4 but it wouldn’t be playing on the strengths of SD to include it in this one.

(SockDog) #77

Again, a Tok is not interested therefore it can’t be worthwhile string of posts. As Zenstar points out, there is zero reason why a co-op mode couldn’t be as or even more popular that obj mode. DB being a successful platform should be SD’s concern, even if a co-op mode or even DM proved to bring in the bread and butter they would still allow development to progress on OBJ mode, mods and maps would still have active audiences.

While W:ET clearly had a big audience and was also free entry it shouldn’t be forgotten there was zero competition at that time also. Expecting a game to success now simply because it is free is underestimating the market to a terrible degree. Cast a wide net.

(tokamak) #78

This is all reasoning that applies perfectly to a retail game but just fails miserably to get the essence of an F2P game. Co-op and offline content will all undermine the integrity and cohesion of the player-base.

(SockDog) #79

You said the same thing when we thought Brink or SD’s next project was going to be a retail game, in short it’s an excuse.

What you’re basically saying is ignore every popular FPS and perhaps MP game and instead stick your head in the sand and think of how popular W:ET is. Whether this is F2P or retail it still needs players, it needs activity. Coop players still have the ability to purchase items, hell if they did an obj survival mode there would be a need for classes in such a mode too. Even offline to a smaller degree is better than nothing and sometimes people’s only option.

Seems your business model is that if you offer people no choice then they’ll do what you want. By that reckoning SD should just have a big marketplace and no game at all.

(DarkangelUK) #80

Do you have proof of this Tok? There are plenty games out there that offer bots for offline play yet their online component is thriving. Bots still need killed with weapons, players still want to look good while killing bots, so transactions can still work regardless if the players is on or offline, so other than ‘this is how I think it will be’, do you have evidence that bots for coop or offline play has crippled a game?