ET:QW - SP & Bots ???

(Joe999) #61

so considering you never ever gave SD money nor anything else except your critics, and of course you played their previous game for free, and you’ve never ever seen nor played ET:QW, neither do you know the final retail price, the conclusion of what you’re saying is that what you want is: more? :smiley:

(BR1GAND) #62

Again there is no reason SD cant hang with the big dogs and put a FULL game out… to do less would be a shame.

Huh? let me see, because the ET was free I have no right to expect more from a game that will cost money… You act like you paid for it! lol

I luv ET, I wish it had been released in its originally planned design, the fact that is was free was a bonus but understandable after you realize it was incomplete.

The author of this thread wondered about offline playablility with ET:QW as do I. It is not wrong to hypothesize about a game before it is released… I mean get real.

(Ifurita) #63

I personally would love to see very high quality bots that could support SP MP-play. However, based on what I have seen from existing games, 1) team and class-based bots perform poorly, and/or 2) take up a lot of processing power. So, while I’d like to see bots (for whatever reasons), I’m not sure that I’d be willing to pay more or wait longer for them to be coded and integrated into the game where I feel like I’m playing on a mid-skill server with real players.

(Joe999) #64

:eek:

i’ve been playing an incomplete game for more than 2 years? :eek2:

shame on me as well. :moo:

honestly, do you realize what you write or do your fingers just jump on your keyboard?

(BR1GAND) #65

Hmm while we are at it lets save a little time and money and not have high quality sound… 8 bit sound will suffice…

Of course having high end graphics is a waste of dev time too seeing how any real competitive player is just going to opt for performance over eye candy anyway.

Oh and lets make the mp server browser as spartan as possible too… thats not really needed if you know your server ip address anyway…

Dont be afraid of excellence, and expect more ppl! :banghead:

Troll harder please…

(DarkangelUK) #66

We’re expecting plenty from SD, maybe you’re expecting too much.

(Ifurita) #67

I don’t know, it seems like a pretty simple discussion to me. I’m pretty sure SD has a project budget, which is pretty tightly controlled by Id and Activision. Based on that budget, SD can hire a portfolio of X people (management, admin, graphic artists, coders, mappers, etc). Based on this portfolio of people, you get Y hours per year of graphics development, map development, coding, etc. Y could be 2000 hours per year for an 8-5 company, but SD is probably flogging their people pretty hard so it’s probably something like 3000 hours per year. Everyone with me so far? I’m trying to keep the discussion as objective as possible.

Now, I never said I didn’t want bots. I’d be thrilled to have them. However, given resource and time constraints, I’d rather that SD prioritize their X*Y hours in more maps, better graphics, optimized gameplay, lower CPU load, sound, ahead of bot development. Certainly, if they have SP-play, then I would believe they have a threshold performance level for the SP bots, but this doesn’t necessarily translate into good bots for simlulating on-line MP play.

It’s similar to buying a house or a car. You generally set a budget for yourself, then maximize the features based on what is important to you. If you decide that you absolutely must have something extra (more square ft, water view), you pay for it or negotiate harder.

Again, just so that it’s clear. I’d be more than happy to have great bots that can simulate online MP-play. However, it’s way down the list on my priorities of what I think is important. If they can get to it, great. If they can’t, oh well.

(BR1GAND) #68

I think it boils down to wether you want the ET:QW community to the size of ET or RTCW… Do you want it to be inclusive or reclusive? Sure many here could give or take bot play or a SP campaign. Most prob just want their new and sightly improved ET and they want it now. Many others will expect more. I’d like to see ET:QW be as successful and inclusive as ET even with retail price tag. If they put out a MP/online only game I doubt that will happen.

(Ifurita) #69

I’d like to see ET:QW be as successful and inclusive as ET even with retail price tag.

I don’t think anyone here disagrees with you on that point. However, at a certain point, economics forces trade offs.

I think it boils down to wether you want the ET:QW community to the size of ET or RTCW…

Actually, I think it comes down to how much SD can deliver on whatever timelines and funds have been handed them by id and Activision to develop the game.

  1. As you rightly pointed out, SD isn’t making any money from retail sales
  2. I think it’s a good assumption that the folks at SD are not independantly wealthy and just doing this for kicks. In fact, I’ve met a good number of them and based on how they dress, you could count this as a fact
  3. I think it’s a good assumption that their cash flow from any sort of sales or side projects is pretty small
  4. I’d expect that the bulk of their funding comes from Id and Activision
  5. This funding is based on a solid project plan, well defined milestones (Christmas release, E3 demo, etc) faith in the team to execute
  6. The current team page lists 27 profiles. Remove the 2 interns, and that leaves you with 25 people. I’ll use a fully loaded cost per person of $100,000 (salary + benefits + taxes + overhead, etc). This gives us a monthly burn rate of nearly $210,000 a month.

So, we can all agree that bots would be great. However, if the cost to develop bots, or the resources shifted to bot development, is another month of development/testing/etc time, we’re talking about $200K from a fixed pool of investment funds. They may also not have the flexibility to push release back a month, just because they’re trying to squeeze the last x% out of bots/vehicles/graphics/sound etc.

(Joe999) #70

[quote=“BR1GAND”]

Troll harder please…[/quote]

i’m trying to, but currently i’m having a hard time to do so as i’m busy at work. either way, i don’t have the time to play with you anymore, but it was fun :smiley: so i take the time to give you a hint: did you ever hear about constructive argumentation? Ifurita showed a pretty good example of what that is. it’s about numbers, facts, presentation of collected information. if you read the quakecon interviews, you would have noticed that locki did quite a long time of research and preparation for the game. don’t you think they already considered the pros and cons of having bots? be it in favor of gameplay or money. whatever.

if you want to convince people that what you’re saying is the right way to do, you have to come up with more than:

btw: this one was funny:

in the life outside your school there are people who know what they do. if you really know it better … well … you already said it yourself in this thread:

cya
:drink:

(BR1GAND) #71

Hello pot this is kettle youre black.

Please… all you do is cut and paste things out of context then make personal attacks… I finished school years ago, and have been an avid gamer since Doom first came to my mail box in 1994. You asked for documentation I gave it and you still troll… please grow up.
cya! you wont be missed… :banana:

Joe999 is right however about Ifurita, who has addressed my points with out personal attacks or the idiocy of a adolescent troll. Hard to find these days.

I do however think that if Activision, and ID are going to put their names on ET:QW there will be more to it then just stand alone mp. SDs budget and resources aside Im sure SD is not bankrolling it by themselves here.

Again I am aurguing based on my opinion… I dont suppose that I know more than SD or that somehow failing to put offline play in ET:QW will ruin the game. I just think that if youre going to take ET to the next level that is to be ET:QW you dont leave out content that might have made ET a retail release and turn around and make a similar mistake again on ET:QW.

(Sebultura) #72

Dudes, I didn’t expected such a talk in this topic !

Anyway, it’s nice to see that I didn’t posted the stuff for nothing :wink:

Speaking about bots taking more time in game development, I agree BUT itsn’t the game supposed to contain base Doom 3 code (& Quake 3 for what I’ve understood) for Aera Awarness System, for instance ? (At least D3 engine’s got it…)

So if I’m not wrong (please feel free to correct this if it’s the case), it’s just on what Q3 bots were based on ?? So why shoudn’t expect such a thing in ET:QW ?

As I explained, I didn’t post the topic just because I feel that the game would be better with bots, but mainly because in my case (& I’m sure I’m not the only one) I can’t play with a decent connection on the net.

So if ET:QW is supposed to be multiplayer only with only real players, I hope that everyone here should understand that I get not benefits (in terms of gameplay) buying & playing it !

(Ifurita) #73

Deathmatch bots are a completely different animal from team-based/class-based bots. The logic trees are very different. I was looking for an article on bot AI that I read just the other week. It explained how the bot navigates a mesh of waypoints, constantly evaluating where cover is an where fire is coming from, so that it can pick the most appropriate action. From the Q3 bots, you can also customize weapon preferences, aggressiveness, and propensity to go after certain objects (e.g., the Quad). However, when you introduce objective based, class-based, team-based games, the logic paths become very complex.

Imagine what the logic path (and the CPU requirements) for a bot confronted with the following situation:

Goldrush analog, Medic-bot, 2 friendly players (including you) need revives away from the truck, one friendly player needs revive near the truck, doc carrier is coming out the door. What does the bot do? What would a real player do? If the bots preferences are to maximize revives, it heads away from the doc carrier, revives 2 down players, and gives up the game.

What does a field ops do? In BF2, I can’t even get ammo. What is the logic path for a bot to call arty, toss an airstrike, or move through a crossfire to give you ammo?

BF2 is a team based, barely class based game, and I find the bots to be incredibly frustrating. They’re basically DM bots who happen to perform a class-function if you happen to be in the right spot at the right time.

(BR1GAND) #74

Ifurita, all your points are valid and well taken. BF2 and BF 1942 bots are very limited as class based team members…

As far as being CPU intensive, I believe we are talking about server-side and not client side. Seeing how an FPS game as opposed to a RTS is is more GPU rather than CPU instensive, how is it that Blizzard for instance can create a very demanding CPU opponents in their games like Starcraft and Warcraft. Even a MMORPG like World of Warcraft has very intricate in-depth AI coding that has computer controlled opponents conducting specific tasks while literally thousands of players are logged on to one server. I know this might be comparing apples to oranges here, but is a well written AI for 5 to 7 class types playing on multiple objective based maps really all that CPU intensive?

I have in the past brought up the idea of a Commander postition. In theory bots would have very simple AI, similar to Q3, they could follow, roam, defend, or attack a specific obj… Squad ldr players or Commanders would have the option to give orders to these bots based on their classes/abilities. This might lighten cpu load a bit and give a slightly more strategic side to the game. Having something like this availible would make it possible for only 2 players to fire up a game offline and be able to play a game over a lan. This is something to-date you couldnt really do with ET.

Oh yeah and in your gold rush scenario the bots squad ldr or the commander could stop the bot from reviving and order him to engage the carrier thus saving the game. :clap:

(DarkangelUK) #75

I have in the past brought up the idea of a Commander postition. In theory bots would have very simple AI, similar to Q3, they could follow, roam, defend, or attack a specific obj… Squad ldr players or Commanders would have the option to give orders to these bots based on their classes/abilities. This might lighten cpu load a bit and give a slightly more strategic side to the game.

UT2k4 has this… and the added (rather sweet) ability to give the orders to the bots via a mircrophone. But then these bots don’t have classes, they have individual names you call and give orders, like “Grunt, defend the base”. On a game that could possibly have 16 players on your team, i can see this being a problem.

(BR1GAND) #76

Ah I always wondered how that was implemented… I never liked in-game audio (via a mic) chat features… interferes with my vent too much. CS:S and BF2 have integrated online voice-chat… also a mistake imo. Best to make the game as 3rd party voice-chat friendly as possible… UT2k4 has alot going for it, I just could never get into it without class-based/obj-based team play.

(DarkangelUK) #77

Tbh i felt like an idiot sitting there playing a game and barking orders at it. Got some funny looks from my girlfriend

(Ifurita) #78

I wish i could find that article. It was a good one and the stat that stuck in my head was that the bots were accounting for 35% of the CPU load.

(SniperSteve) #79

You dont need bots. If you got them it would be like BF2’s bots which is just so bad its not funny…

There will be so many server running that you can always get on one. In 5 years when like 400 people play the game activly there will STILL be servers up. Mostly private ones. 7 Years later you can host your own server with your now super out of date PC for the 50 active players.

So yeah, if there is still PC’s to play it, there will be peopl to play against. Bots are not needed, and I’d rather them spend time on Netcode, Gameplay, Team and Class Balence, The Quality and Quanity of the levels. I’d also like to see them start the semi-open beta testing process, and get some real HC Gamer’s feedback about how the game is, and do some QA so they can spend even more time on the more important things that I stated above. Leave the QA to the guys that are willing to do it just for the pleasure of testing.

(And BTW testing a game isn’t the same as playing it and /bugging the bugs and glitches you find while playing the game.)

(BR1GAND) #80

You dont need bots… fine dont use them. Many ppl like to use them for lots of different reason as ive posted earlier in this thread. Maybe there will be tons of ET:QW servers maybe there wont. Time will tell. But not everyone games entirely on their cable internet connection. I like to lan a lot, I like to tinker with maps, I like to tweak my configs offline, I might want to play when my connection is down or Im away from it. Not everyone likes their gaming served up the same way, thousands will expect more and wont pay for less.