Has The Time Come For Adaptive AI?

[Darth Ender]

NPC behavior should be tied to system security and state (with the galaxy map actually being accurate to reflect that). Spawns can factor wings into the equation. Nothing else should matter. As others have said, there would be places where criminals are elite due to low security and/or states cause temporary low security and there would be places where criminals are mostly harmless where security is high and the economy is good. That's not a difficult concept to implement. Players choose and can know ahead of time what they're getting into and rewards can reflect the risk taken for missions and trade.

No need to randomly spawn npc's magically based on players rank. No need to care about npc's that are too hard attacking new players. The players choose what risk they want to take. And bonus, trade is finally balanced!

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

The game is a mockery with cheating NPCs now ...unless you think cheating is cool.

Well, what you consider "cheating" is more about making a game that is a work in progress more about things to be challenging. It gets refined.

Problem is, you leak fluids on a regular basis because game does not feed you candy and anything that stands in your way you cry about.

You want the game to to be easy, I want the game to be challenging. This is where we differ.

Sure, there could be solutions like making USS be a part of interdictions where if you get too close then they come for you, from the USS. That might work but you'll still cry because you have to avoid them when they might have candy.
Choices...or would you be cool with that?

 

[who?]

The solution I think is simple.

If you take missions that require a higher combat skill level than you have then you take the risk. If you enter into known warring systems, systems with a pirate problem, etc, etc then you take the risk. Would mean people would actually need to think about plotting the route to their destinations both intra system as well as inter system and choose the missions more carefully.

Of course this would only work if the mission system provided much more information about the mission risks than it does and the galaxy map allowed you to plot your own course between systems (instead of you having to take 1 system at a time as you would now).

It should be all about informed choice I think.

I very much agree.

Rather than adaptive AI (which I hate. I feel like it rewards incompetence and punishes skill) set the difficulty per mission, and per system, and let us all make a choice. Not only would it allow us to play to suit our own difficulty level, but it'd add a sense of landscape to the galaxy. "There's a mission to System X which is offering the materials I need, but it's way too dangerous... will I chance it....".

But it has to be an informed choice. That's why I think we need a "Route view" in the left hand screen. Show us a list of the upcoming systems, and our status in each (Hostile / Wanted / etc.), the system's security/crime level. (It could also include other info, such as whether you have enough fuel to reach each system in the list, whether each system has a scoopable star..)

 

[Riverside]

There's some logic to that I guess, but it still doesn't feel like sufficient justification for the design decision.

I suspect we are much of the same mind, but there are various different scenarios that would play out differently. In a low security, medium to high population system I agree I'd expect the 'harmless t-9' to be overwhelmed, but probably still not by a lone Elite Anaconda (unless they happened to be there because of the BGS/Ambient NPCs) and certainly not a lone Elite FDL (more a bounty hunters ship I'd have thought).

The 'magic' of NPCs seeming to know whether you have cargo on board when you are not on a mission should go away completely I think. You may still be interdicted by the ambient NPCs (generated by system security/population etc exactly as many describe on this thread) and as you say, scanned in an opportunistic way.

However the Ambient NPCs' decision to interdict can be based on combat rank & ship, because that's the only info they have access to for decision making. My local standing would be an influence too of course.

The tailored NPCs (the ones that are there because I am) should be based solely on missions that either the player takes, or that the NPC takes off the same board. If I've killed loads of pirates in a RES & reach hostile with the faction, an assassin is sent after me. First a low level NPC looking to improve their own standing with their faction, then if I survive, stronger & stronger opposition until I am forced to flee the system (or improve my standing with them), or their faction is disbanded by the BGS. System security would play a big part in this too of course, in a High security system the Elite FDL Assassin may decide it's not worth the risk.

I suppose in essence I'd be looking for NPCs to behave in much the same way a player would. To my mind that's what makes AI 'Better', not just making everything harder as was introduced in 2.1.

BTW Airwolf was my favourite show as a kid, your quote brought back a lot of memories

 

[Riverside]

A couple more thoughts to flesh out the Elite FDL thing.

I think many of the complaints about interdictions use the phrase 'for no reason'. Now plenty of these may actually be justified & it's just that the player doesn't understand (I'm thinking about PvP blocking of CGs here), but I don't think there is any place in the game for Psycho gankers.
No NPC psychos at all please, it's a big galaxy & yes there's always someone, but enough players fill that role already. If an NPC interdicts you it's because you meet some target criteria:

You look like a trader so an ambient pirate targets you
You took a mission so a Pirate/assassin/whatever has set a trap you can plan for.
Your local standing is hostile as described above
You have a decent bounty on your head so ambient Bounty Hunters & Rozzers target you.
You have a massive (say 20kCr+) bounty elsewhere so an Assassin NPC takes a mission to hunt you down.

I'm sure there are more examples? So mostly it's Ambient NPCs behaving predictably, with tailored NPCs only in the extremes & for missions.

 

[Jack Schitt]

But it has to be an informed choice. That's why I think we need a "Route view" in the left hand screen. Show us a list of the upcoming systems, and our status in each (Hostile / Wanted / etc.), the system's security/crime level. (It could also include other info, such as whether you have enough fuel to reach each system in the list, whether each system has a scoopable star..)

Don't we just! It's so annoying that things like this are still missing from the game; little quality of life additions that would require relatively little* in the way of resources and provide much needed nuance to the way people play the game. I mean, the data is already right there on the server, and in some cases already in the players' UIs albeit spread around in inconvenient places. It should be just a simple* matter of bringing it all together in one contextually appropriate place, and would add so much more strategy to the PvE game.

^[SUP]*before someone jumps in and tells me, "You're not a developer, nothing is a SMOP!" I know. It's just
that when the rest of the game is such a visually stunning technical achievement, something like
a simple security heatmap for plotted routes should be a relative piece of cake.[/SUP]​

 

[Cosmos]

The issue is we are all unique individuals. Some players are teenagers, hepped up on Red Bull and sugar snacks; while some like myself are quite a bit older with our twitch combat days well behind us. Some gamers have physical and cognitive disabilities or various combinations of other challenges. How do you satisfy all those camps and maintain a seamless game experience?

Ugh.. Strikes me as seeking to dumb the game down. Firstly ED doesn't really require some l33t skills to be decent in combat. By far the more accessible and chilled out control method is via a controller, which is what I've been using since day one. I'd suggest giving up the HOTAS for a bit and trying one.

Of course if ED was a single player game then it wouldn't matter what difficulty setting folks chose but in an mmo where we are all affecting the game and directly or indirectly competing against ont another this just doesn't work fairly.

The game should reward skill not punish it. The better solution would have the game designed so players make a choice about the risk they generally put themselves in via where they go. You accept more dangerous missions or go to more dangerous places taking on more risk then you should be getting greater reward.. You play it safe you get less. Thats a more realistic and believable setup rather than more 'gamey' nonesense.

I'm not a spring chicken either but there isn't anything or anyone in the game I can't cope with. When it comes to combat the key to gettng better is to practice with folks who are better than you.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

Ugh.. Strikes me as seeking to dumb the game down. Firstly ED doesn't really require some l33t skills to be decent in combat. By far the more accessible and chilled out control method is via a controller, which is what I've been using since day one. I'd suggest giving up the HOTAS for a bit and trying one.

Of course if ED was a single player game then it wouldn't matter what difficulty setting folks chose but in an mmo where we are all affecting the game and directly or indirectly competing against ont another this just doesn't work fairly.

The game should reward skill not punish it. The better solution would have the game designed so players make a choice about the risk they generally put themselves in via where they go. You accept more dangerous missions or go to more dangerous places taking on more risk then you should be getting greater reward.. You play it safe you get less. Thats a more realistic and believable setup rather than more 'gamey' nonesense.

I'm not a spring chicken either but there isn't anything or anyone in the game I can't cope with. When it comes to combat the key to gettng better is to practice with folks who are better than you.

Yet, I don't think this game came with "skill based only"...
Skillz in this game reside in fast tracking stuff.
Not so much about skill, to be fair.

Skill based players will use any advantage they can though, which makes me question skillful, or just wants the best advantage.

Those who will use such things won't care about the game though.
Purely selfish agenda.

 

[Robin of Spiritwood]

I'm in favor of adaptive AI.

Let's say we look at just 3 variables that could be adjusted on an NPC ship: turn rate, shield strength, and gun damage.
Let's say we can tweak these by just +\- 10% It's not a gigantic shift in range. Just a tweak.

If you face an enemy that is perfect for you, you get the appropriate challenge. A Harmless enemy is a fairly easy kill. A Competent enemy makes you work a bit. A Dangerous enemy is a serious challenge. Deadly and Elite are best not faced.

Edit: these NPC descriptions should have meaning for the Player. They ought to be relative to the Player for that is the first person understanding of language and description. "Dangerous" should mean " Dangerous FOR ME"

The only way to achieve this for thousands of different players, with different gear, training and aptitudes is by adjustments to the NPCs. This is an improvement for the whole player base, not a section of it.

There's no reason to not then zone the adjusted AI. The game can have both features. Want to push it? Go HAZREZ, and face the baddies there. Want a break? Go where it's safe- for you.

Instead of giving us combat rank by simple number of kills, the game engine now has a much more meaningful way of calculating it. If you are a high end player, the numbers on your enemy AI will reflect that, and you should get ranked accordingly. Some people can and should lose their Elite status. Others should get a promotion - one they deserve!

 

[knowles2]

This a complex area that aren't going to be solved using a single system, some sort of hybrid system is probably called for. But I think keeping in a random element is also important because I love those whole      what have I done to attract the attention of 10 Sidewinders!. So I would hate having those moments taken away.

I think AI needs work in war zones, the NPCs should help the player out if they got another NPCs on their trail or they needs someone to cover there retreat.

 

[Zelos1983]

When the end result is predetermined (be that never lose, or always lose), why play? If I can't influence it anyhow?

Because combat doesn't matter? Why play other games where you can't "die"?
Still, in Elite you can die through stupidity. Shouldn't be through random OP AI encounter though. Otherwise, you might as well roll a dice and self destruct..has the same fun effect.

In other Elite games, people would just load their last save. Here, everything is suddenly a big deal and must be discussed to death..even a difficulty slider where people who enjoy hard combat can crank up their enemies' skills is seen as something bad.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

This a complex area that aren't going to be solved using a single system, some sort of hybrid system is probably called for. But I think keeping in a random element is also important because I love those whole what have I done to attract the attention of 10 Sidewinders!. So I would hate having those moments taken away.

I think AI needs work in war zones, the NPCs should help the player out if they got another NPCs on their trail or they needs someone to cover there retreat.

Pretty sure adaptive was pushed on the grounds of not killing players. Was mentioned at the height of the new AI builds.
Nothing else, and that would suck.Once players work out the tolerances, the YT would be full of vids which would make the game look really bad.
Just saying.

 

[Vasious]

Because combat doesn't matter? Why play other games where you can't "die"?
Still, in Elite you can die through stupidity. Shouldn't be through random OP AI encounter though. Otherwise, you might as well roll a dice and self destruct..has the same fun effect.

In other Elite games, people would just load their last save. Here, everything is suddenly a big deal and must be discussed to death..even a difficulty slider where people who enjoy hard combat can crank up their enemies' skills is seen as something bad.

Why not remove death entirely?

Or have a mode that spawns no NPCs at all?

Or both

If you don't like the mere chance that you might lose any progress what so ever, there is no other way to mitigate the potential for loss, as even adaptive AI skills, might still result in pilot error and them losing to the AI.

That is still a roll of the die that ANY NPC encounter will result in loss, even ones the player actively choses by taking a mission or by going to a Res or Cz or Signal source.

The Only solution is to remove any chance of loss, either by removing player death, or removing any NPCs

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

In other Elite games, people would just load their last save. Here, everything is suddenly a big deal and must be discussed to death..even a difficulty slider where people who enjoy hard combat can crank up their enemies' skills is seen as something bad.

It's seen as bad because it would also be used to reduce a player's risk, therefore making the game easier.
It's not all about making the game harder.
It's a human thing which proves that you, as a species, are weak.
A slider works both ways, don't be surprised if players choose the easy option, because they will.

 

[Riverside]

Why not remove death entirely?

I used to play in solo. I was perfectly happy with the challenges put before me, and in essence was a little scared of being ganked, but more of being embarrassed to spoil someone elses day by accidentally shooting them in a RES for example.

I visited Open occasionally, mostly because I was curious to see who, if anyone, was out there. I was quite comfortable by then with the core gameplay, and apart from the occasional forgetting to request docking permission (which I still do ) mostly I was looking for other Cmdrs. The Hollow squares.

If I saw one, I'd be nervous. Are they a ganker? Do they think I'm a baddie? Handshaking, like a pair of fax machines. The thrill & relief on finding just another regular guy like myself was fantastic. I'd never been ganked (at that point), never even met a player pirate but I knew they were out there, and my job was to not be killed, not frustrate another player by any lack of etiquette on my part, to live out my life in the backwaters eking a living & staying out of trouble.

The thrill was fantastic (and still was up to 2.1) because although I knew the danger was out there, it might find me & I'd have to deal with that. I absolutely don't want to be killed, I have stuff to do, promises to keep, contracts to honour. I stay squeaky clean despite doing plenty of (PvE) questionable activity, I'm very careful.

And I pretty well always play in open, because of that thrill. On occasions I feel a little more confident (or cocky) and venture out to more popular systems. I'm careful, I assess the situation & if there is a risk I'll formulate a plan on how to work around it. Love it, it's how I play the game.

Then 2.1 hit & I died about 7 times. There is no hiding, being sneaky or problem solving, just Elite Anacondas interdicting me anywhere & everywhere, no place to hide.

So the risk is in the mind, the thrill is in the potential, not necessarily in the reality or the day-to-day.

So there must be risk, and there must be a way to plan to minimise it at whatever level a player is comfortable with, and that plan has to be more than just carrying no cargo & leaving the bubble in a ship that I would previously have prepared for a trip to Lave.

The rules 2.1 AI plays by are way too simplistic and to my mind in no way an improvement, and the extra aggression (which does seem to have been toned back a little from my few recent encounters with the NPCs post 2.1) is just a step change on top.

So I'd like risk, I think we all would, but I'd like everyone to be able to mitigate that risk at whatever level they feel comfortable with.

 

[dementia]

I very much agree.

Rather than adaptive AI (which I hate. I feel like it rewards incompetence and punishes skill) set the difficulty per mission, and per system, and let us all make a choice. Not only would it allow us to play to suit our own difficulty level, but it'd add a sense of landscape to the galaxy. "There's a mission to System X which is offering the materials I need, but it's way too dangerous... will I chance it....".

But it has to be an informed choice. That's why I think we need a "Route view" in the left hand screen. Show us a list of the upcoming systems, and our status in each (Hostile / Wanted / etc.), the system's security/crime level. (It could also include other info, such as whether you have enough fuel to reach each system in the list, whether each system has a scoopable star..)

Excellent ideas! It would also go towards addressing the lack of 'depth' that I keep reading.

 

[Bambi]

The thing about adaptive difficult is that it's, effectively, from a game design standpoint, exactly equivalent to the easiest difficulty

if the game is going to drop to the easiest difficulty to let you progress then it is effectively played on the easiest difficulty

 

[Lobstris]

NPC behavior should be tied to system security and state (with the galaxy map actually being accurate to reflect that). Spawns can factor wings into the equation. Nothing else should matter. As others have said, there would be places where criminals are elite due to low security and/or states cause temporary low security and there would be places where criminals are mostly harmless where security is high and the economy is good. That's not a difficult concept to implement. Players choose and can know ahead of time what they're getting into and rewards can reflect the risk taken for missions and trade.

No need to randomly spawn npc's magically based on players rank. No need to care about npc's that are too hard attacking new players. The players choose what risk they want to take. And bonus, trade is finally balanced!

This, to me is the only thing that makes sense. Simulate the universe without a care for the player, but give the player the information necessary to make an informed choice. "CAUTION HERE BE DRAGONS. ENTER AT OWN RISK!"

 

[Han_Zen]

This, to me is the only thing that makes sense. Simulate the universe without a care for the player, but give the player the information necessary to make an informed choice. "CAUTION HERE BE DRAGONS. ENTER AT OWN RISK!"

It's the only way to do it, if the gameverse is supposed to make any sense.

AI should have the option not to attack, if they don't fancy their chances.
Powerful AI may ignore low value targets.

Other than that, the system should set the danger level.

 

[Bambi]

It's the only way to do it, if the gameverse is supposed to make any sense.

AI should have the option not to attack, if they don't fancy their chances.
Powerful AI may ignore low value targets.

Other than that, the system should set the danger level.

It's not like elite isn't known for it. anarchy systems were infamous for the danger. Now you don't even have to care.