AI: We Can Have It Both Ways And All Be Happy

[Bacalao]

Okay, great.

But outfitting your ship to be better, translates to making the game easier.

A game that demands you have A-rate top-notch equipment and the most expensive ships, just to have a basic fair fighting chance against the average mob, is completely bonkers.

In a single-player checkpoint(?) campaign mode game like Doom or Dark Souls, that's fine.

In a multiplayer single-universe make-your-own-game progressive world like Elite, that's not fair to most players.

If you really want the game to be harder, you have the means to make it harder.

You are of two minds, really, and you need to make them up and decide what it is you really want, I think.

That is not how 2.1 was, ships below master were...easy. I sat in front of a competent FAS for 5 seconds mid way through combat to try to get him to shoot me....he just wouldn't, I stopped using FAoff to try to make the dogfight interesting....it just wasn't. The high end AI was fun, I'm talking Deadly and Elite, the low end felt dumber than ever, master and expert were okay, nothing special. Now what have we done....we've tuned them down so there is no challenge in any of them. You could have just waked away from an elite NPC before, I could have engaged him. Now...no one will need to wake and there will be no engaging, just....4 pips to weapons and fire away....ugh.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

And already you're down to questioning my ability and assuming I'm worse than you.

I can guarantee, using fixed & gimballed weapons against Elite opponents, you were most definitely not "keeping weapons on" most of the time, between the constant chaff and the ultra-tight maneuvering they've been doing. That's a gross exaggeration at best.

Now, were you able to beat these opponents with fixed & gimballed weapons? Yes.
That's not the same thing as being able to keep weapons on them the majority of the fight.

I just want to have fun. An AI that kicks me in the teeth 100% of the time is not fun.

And like the whole point of this thread, we *both* can and ought to have our fun in our respective ways.

You, however, are insisting that I and the way I want to play the game be cut off entirely for your own personal gain, instead of taking things into your own hands to play the game the way you want it to be, largely because you're confused about whether you want things to be harder or easier.

Like I've mentioned, more challenges are coming. More challenges are available to you. It is your choice.

Nope, really genuinely, it's not that hard. A little throttle control, a good chunk of FAoff and you're golden.

Please, go reread our discussion, reading is so easy...well, for me.

 

[V'larr]

The combat used to be embarrassingly easy, the new upped AI removed so much of the "grind" feeling of the game for me. The "grind" being that the combat you did while performing any task was so simple, that all you did was go through the motions without much of any thought..
.. I was literally embarrassed to show people combat, and did needless manuvering in order to make it seem more exciting, it was so obvious that a blind monkey could beat the baddies that I was actually embarrassed for the game in that regard.
The new AI took what would be a grind for this and that, and gave it substance... I haven't had a chance to combat with the AI after this latest patch, so I hope my frustration is premature.

I must admit, the bug that made the NPCs spin and rotate in place without doing anything - nobody argues, I think, that that needed fixing. And any other symptoms of NPCs just forgetting to fire weapons probably needs attention to, if that still exists in some form.

That & RES farming are the two biggest issues clouding the subject of AI difficulty in the past and present. And to an extent, a third, in the form of how much customization and upgrading we can potentially do with our ships - it's quite a lot, yet people seem to expect that it should be the norm for being fully upgraded to be the bare minimum to have a chance in combat. I think that's being very silly, to put it nicely.

 

[Koard]

Surely we need areas of space that are no go zones for trader and explorers. Only pure combat ready ships need apply.
If i take a mission in these areas i know the risks but the rewards will be significantly higher.
On the other hand if i'm returning from an exploration trip i'm able to avoid such madness.

This I agree with. I've only played for a few months but from the beginning i avoided Hazardous areas because i assumed the NPC's were harder and i know my limits.

 

[Kayweg]

Sorry, OP, but surely that can't be the solution.
And i'm neither in the "make it harder" nor "make it easier" camp.
Your suggestion is simply too artificial imo.
It's like looking for a more challenging game of golf by putting hedges on the fairways and bricks on the greens, instead of achieving challenge through intelligent course design.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

We can "all have it both ways" if FD would do the last bit of work required to bring System Security Level to the fore.

Make it what it should be; A visible, consistent and effective way for players to manage their own risk and difficulty levels.

 

[V'larr]

That is not how 2.1 was, ships below master were...easy. I sat in front of a competent FAS for 5 seconds mid way through combat to try to get him to shoot me....he just wouldn't, I stopped using FAoff to try to make the dogfight interesting....it just wasn't. The high end AI was fun, I'm talking Deadly and Elite, the low end felt dumber than ever, master and expert were okay, nothing special. Now what have we done....we've tuned them down so there is no challenge in any of them. You could have just waked away from an elite NPC before, I could have engaged him. Now...no one will need to wake and there will be no engaging, just....4 pips to weapons and fire away....ugh.

Elite AI in 2.0 were plenty challenging to me. I never got away with 4 pips to weapons throughout a fight without taking some hard hits myself. Mind you I wasn't yet in Anaconda-tier ships when it came to combat, largest ship I'd flown for combat was the FDS.

In 2.1 they became Bruce Lee with mini-nukes.
Shortly after they got the mini-nukes taken away, but were still Bruce Lee.
Now, they're more like sparring with Jackie Chan. Which is a lot more fun, but he can still kick your behind if you're not up to snuff.

Given the number of opponents one must defeat to advance their rank, affect the BGS, or whatnot, surely making each opponent deadly enough to require a repair after every fight is excessive?

Nope, really genuinely, it's not that hard. A little throttle control, a good chunk of FAoff and you're golden.
Please, go reread our discussion, reading is so easy...well, for me.

You're being disparaging again.

I know my throttle control. I know how useful FA/off can (and can't) be. (Really, FA-on with proper thruster control is just as good and sometimes superior, but that's subject to point of view.)

I'm not "bad at the game". I have flying experience. I've played competitive games successfully before. If I must wave my e-peen for you to believe me, I will, but that's rather besides the point of discussion here.

Yet I had to struggle just to barely survive, in some of the more expensive and difficult ships to obtain, that historically have been favoured for combat in Elite Dangerous. That's just too much.

 

[cheesenbiscuits]

But I'm a trader/explorer who likes being able to defend myself. (I do almost have Master combat rank, now, for instance.)

I don't feel like I should be cut off from entire areas of space, just for daring to be in a trading ship - I ought to, by taking proper protection and weapons, be able to defend myself in those areas of space without needing to sacrifice my sanity to the lords of Dark Souls.

I think compromises need to be made from the perspective of all play styles.
A level of difficultly cannot be met to keep all players happy. This thread is testament to that fact.

The fact that Elite has no difficulty settings requires a solution to allow the player to choose the AI difficulty by their own actions. And it is down to the game design to translate that to the players in a clear manner. If a novice player is about to encounter high level AI they should be able to avoid it. Conversely if a player wishes to seek out a greater challenge they should be able to seek out the higher level AI's.

Simply basing an argument that the game should be designed specifically to your skill level/game play requirements is avoiding the issue.
Your happiness or dislike of this issue is merely a nerf or buff away.

 

[V'larr]

Sorry, OP, but surely that can't be the solution.
And i'm neither in the "make it harder" nor "make it easier" camp.
Your suggestion is simply too artificial imo.
It's like looking for a more challenging game of golf by putting hedges on the fairways and bricks on the greens, instead of having intelligent course design.

Okay, let's talk golf for a moment.

Any guy who regularly golfs will tell you, no two courses are the same difficulty.

Any golfer can go and play on any public course at their own leisure (generally speaking), obeying the basic rules of etiquette of course.

Nobody goes to these golfers and says, "You're not good enough. Git gud or get out.", not until you start talking about professionally scheduled tournaments and such, which starts going well outside the scope of comparison to a public video game that ought to be shared by everyone.

On the other hand, any golfer seeking a higher challenge can challenge themselves at any point - using a particular club, going to a harder course, walking the course entirely on foot, retreiving their own balls, intentionally aiming for the sandpit so they can practice their sand swing; the options could go on and on.

No golfer goes around saying, "Okay, remove the fairway, fill it full of trees, and park a fire-breathing dragon next to the hole. And tell anybody who doesn't like it to just get gud."

I'm being slightly facetious, of course, but I think you get what I'm getting at!

We can "all have it both ways" if FD would do the last bit of work required to bring System Security Level to the fore.

Make it what it should be; A visible, consistent and effective way for players to manage their own risk and difficulty levels.

Spoiler tags are your friend for picture sharing

I would like to see System Security levels more easily.

I just want to make clear, I want to - with the right equipment, and proper effort - to be able to take my trade ship into risky areas of space and have a good chance to defend myself, rather than feeling like "if I so much as dip my toe in the water, I'll be incinerated alive".

 

[PotatoOverdose]

- Set your own rules about what happens if you die, see this thread: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...le-For-those-who-want-some-risk-in-their-game!
- Stick to ships that aren't Anaconda-tier
- Intentially limit yourself to sub-par equipment
- Fly FA-off *all* the time (and if you do already, great!)
- Don't RES farm; instead, go wander into a combat zone
- Stick a cargo rack in and stuff it full of gold, then head to a compromised nav beacon
- Join Powerplay (whether it's flawed or not, it WILL give you more & challenging attackers)
- Exclusively look for & attack NPC wings

In other words: get bad.

Like, you can agree or disagree with the "git gud" response some people had to the 2.1 AI, but I think we can all agree that gimping yourself, whether by adopting sub-par tactics or downgrading equipment is a terrible answer to 2.1.03.

If "get bad" is the answer the community chooses when the NPCs get toned down, then there is obviously something very, very wrong with the current NPCs. A game developer should never ask a player to perform below their absolute best.

 

[V'larr]

I think compromises need to be made from the perspective of all play styles.
A level of difficultly cannot be met to keep all players happy. This thread is testament to that fact.

The fact that Elite has no difficulty settings requires a solution to allow the player to choose the AI difficulty by their own actions. And it is down to the game design to translate that to the players in a clear manner. If a novice player is about to encounter high level AI they should be able to avoid it. Conversely if a player wishes to seek out a greater challenge they should be able to seek out the higher level AI's.

Simply basing an argument that the game should be designed specifically to your skill level/game play requirements is avoiding the issue.
Your happiness or dislike of this issue is merely a nerf or buff away.

Yes and no.

Compromise, yes. Unable to keep everyone happy, no.

The tools exist in our hands already, we just need more of them.

War zones, for instance - I'd be fine with the AI in combat zones jumping back to full "Bruce Lee" mode, such that unless you're in a wing or seriously know what you're putting at stake, you're in for a bad time. Ain't no pirates forcibly pulling me into combat zones, y'know?

Or Powerplay - I figure that Powerplay ought to be a real challenge, and seems like it sort-of is with the higher rate of NPCs coming to attack you (though that did just get lowered by a fair amount).

What I don't want is seeing Bruce Lee chasing me for 4 tons of Telemetry Suites, or making me feel stupid for trying to have a multirole ship.

Basically, if we can get more options from Frontier, and actively take the options that already exist into our own hands, then we can all be happy.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

In other words: get bad.

Like, you can agree or disagree with the "git gud" response some people had to the 2.1 AI, but I think we can all agree that gimping yourself, whether by adopting sub-par tactics or downgrading equipment is a terrible answer to 2.1.03.

If "get bad" is the answer the community chooses when the NPCs get toned down, then there is obviously something very, very wrong with the current NPCs. A game developer should never ask a player to perform below their absolute best.

If all you're about is having a challenge, then how is "gimping yourself" bad?

Self-described masters of various games often play with an intentional handicap for this exact reason, and they enjoy it!

Using the most min/maxed equipment and biggest scariest ships =/= challenging yourself to perform your absolute best, quite the contrary really.

A guy who can fight in Combat Zones unaided in an Eagle without ever being blown up, I would say, is far better & having a far higher challenge than a guy who is RES farming in an Anaconda.

Now, that said, should there be more challenging gameplay that requires that you have the greatest and bestest and latest to survive? Maybe. But it should be opt-in, and not exclude other players from entire portions of the game itself.

Feels sort of like I'm describing Arena, but I will acknowledge that Arena is not anything close to being the same as the main game.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

We can "all have it both ways" if FD would do the last bit of work required to bring System Security Level to the fore.

Make it what it should be; A visible, consistent and effective way for players to manage their own risk and difficulty levels.

One other thing that might help, is an option for the route plotter to try to avoid Anarchy systems.

 

[cheesenbiscuits]

Yes and no.

Compromise, yes. Unable to keep everyone happy, no.

The tools exist in our hands already, we just need more of them.

War zones, for instance - I'd be fine with the AI in combat zones jumping back to full "Bruce Lee" mode, such that unless you're in a wing or seriously know what you're putting at stake, you're in for a bad time. Ain't no pirates forcibly pulling me into combat zones, y'know?

Or Powerplay - I figure that Powerplay ought to be a real challenge, and seems like it sort-of is with the higher rate of NPCs coming to attack you (though that did just get lowered by a fair amount).

What I don't want is seeing Bruce Lee chasing me for 4 tons of Telemetry Suites, or making me feel stupid for trying to have a multirole ship.

Basically, if we can get more options from Frontier, and actively take the options that already exist into our own hands, then we can all be happy.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



If all you're about is having a challenge, then how is "gimping yourself" bad?

Using the most min/maxed equipment and biggest scariest ships =/= challenging yourself to perform your absolute best, quite the contrary really.

A guy who can fight in Combat Zones unaided in an Eagle without ever being blown up, I would say, is far better & having a far higher challenge than a guy who is RES farming in an Anaconda.

Now, that said, should there be more challenging gameplay that requires that you have the greatest and bestest and latest to survive? Maybe. But it should be opt-in, and not exclude other players from entire portions of the game itself.

Feels sort of like I'm describing Arena, but I will acknowledge that Arena is not anything close to being the same as the main game.

I'm afraid war zones ain't gonna cut it.
There's a need for vast swathes of space to be lawless death zones.
Also areas where you can tootle around in a sidewinder looking at the stars without a care in the world.
And everything else in between,why not let everyone get the game they want to play?
This could be linked into powerplay as that cuts the bubble into areas.

 

[PotatoOverdose]

If all you're about is having a challenge, then how is "gimping yourself" bad?

So just to be clear - this is your position: Rather than having challenging combat gameplay, as in 2.1, players should gimp themselves or "get bad" until they feel adequately challenged by the 2.1.03 AI.

That's your solution to bad AI in a video game - asking for players to "get bad". Okayyyyyy....that's a bold plan, let's see if it pays off. Don't think any game developer went down that route before, in any game ever. Will be extremely amusing to see if FDev legitimately goes down this route.

 

[Bacalao]

I know my throttle control. I know how useful FA/off can (and can't) be. (Really, FA-on with proper thruster control is just as good and sometimes superior, but that's subject to point of view.)

I'm not "bad at the game". I have flying experience. I've played competitive games successfully before. If I must wave my e-peen for you to believe me, I will, but that's rather besides the point of discussion here.

Yet I had to struggle just to barely survive, in some of the more expensive and difficult ships to obtain, that historically have been favoured for combat in Elite Dangerous. That's just too much.

The first part of this and the last part are not compatible unless you were outfitting very, very poorly.

 

[CaptainKremmen]

Spoiler tags are your friend for picture sharing

I would like to see System Security levels more easily.

My System Security mockup pictures are ELITE rated, and can interdict you anywhere. You never know when they will attack. Resistance is futile!

 

[Bacalao]

So just to be clear - this is your position: Rather than having challenging combat gameplay, as in 2.1, players should gimp themselves or "get bad" until they feel adequately challenged by the 2.1.03 AI.

That's your solution to bad AI in a video game - asking for players to "get bad". Okayyyyyy....that's a bold plan, let's see if it pays off. Don't think any game developer went down that route before, in any game ever. Will be extremely amusing to see if FDev legitimately goes down this route.

Haven't you heard? One armed swimming, three-legged soccer and wiffle bat baseball are all the rage, looking for a skillful challenge? Gimp yourself. I heard it's actually Nike's new motto.

 

[V'larr]

One other thing that might help, is an option for the route plotter to try to avoid Anarchy systems.

Maybe. The vast majority of systems in the galaxy fall under that umbrella, though...maybe inhabited Anarchy systems?

But even then I dislike the idea of essentially not being allowed to tread wherever I please - I like having freedom of the skies, so to speak.

I'm afraid war zones ain't gonna cut it.
There's a need for vast swathes of space to be lawless death zones.
Also areas where you can tootle around in a sidewinder looking at the stars without a care in the world.
And everything else in between,why not let everyone get the game they want to play?

I don't see that need.

Should space be more dangerous in those areas? Sure. But not "death zones". More like Mos Eisley.

"You just watch yourself. We're wanted men. I have the death sentence on twelve systems."
rather than
"You're already dead."

So just to be clear - this is your position: Rather than having challenging combat gameplay, as in 2.1, players should gimp themselves or "get bad" until they feel adequately challenged by the 2.1.03 AI.
That's your solution to bad AI in a video game - asking for players to "get bad". Okayyyyyy....that's a bold plan, let's see if it pays off. Don't think any game developer went down that route before, in any game ever. Will be extremely amusing to see if FDev legitimately goes down this route.

You really don't seem to understand why playing with a handicap became a thing in games in the first place.

You cannot have things both ways, where you actively make the game as easy as possible for yourself, and then expect the game to be harder than ever.

There will be challenges down the road, and we already know they are coming. It will take more time. And in the meantime, you have the means and the power to challenge yourself if you so choose.

If you are unwilling to challenge yourself, then you shouldn't demand that Fdev challenge me just to throw some challenge in your uncooperative lap.

 

[Riverside]

Even my 9yo son knows that Jedi don't use blasters, they use a really awkward, short range weapon & will kill you with your own laser bolts

"Pah, I could take him with one hand tied behind my back".

"Well hey, if you don't think you're good enough...".

 

[Kayweg]

Okay, let's talk golf for a moment.

Any guy who regularly golfs will tell you, no two courses are the same difficulty.

Any golfer can go and play on any public course at their own leisure (generally speaking), obeying the basic rules of etiquette of course.

Nobody goes to these golfers and says, "You're not good enough. Git gud or get out.", not until you start talking about professionally scheduled tournaments and such, which starts going well outside the scope of comparison to a public video game that ought to be shared by everyone.

On the other hand, any golfer seeking a higher challenge can challenge themselves at any point - using a particular club, going to a harder course, walking the course entirely on foot, retreiving their own balls, intentionally aiming for the sandpit so they can practice their sand swing; the options could go on and on.

No golfer goes around saying, "Okay, remove the fairway, fill it full of trees, and park a fire-breathing dragon next to the hole. And tell anybody who doesn't like it to just get gud."

I'm being slightly facetious, of course, but I think you get what I'm getting at!

That's quite ok, and yes i know what you're getting at.

No two courses are the same, correct. But every one course is the same to every player, the difference in the challenge being individual skill.

What you have in golf to balance that skill difference is the handicap system, but you don't ask the more skilled player to play one-handed or blindfolded if he wants a more challenging round.

That's what i meant by "artificial".

I just don't think that having to voluntarily hamper yourself to up the ante is a sign of good game design, and will feel unsatisfactory to the player.

Quite naturally, a player wants to play to the best of his abilities and with the best available ship and loadout and still have a challenging experience.

I accept that this is very tough to achieve, but i think it at least should be the aim.

 

[V'larr]

The first part of this and the last part are not compatible unless you were outfitting very, very poorly.

You're forgetting the argument that the AI was simply pushed too hard. It makes more sense if you consider my perspective.

I mean, let's be real - you're talking about being in the best combat ship in the game, bar none. Multirole loadout or no, it has enough utility slots and internals to fit plenty to be "combat-ready" unless you're intentionally going all cargo racks with no shields or weapons, which clearly would rule out being multirole (or sensible).

If you weren't able to clean the clock of any potential opponent with such a ship, I would start to question the sanity of the game designers.

You have achieved the best and the greatest currently available to us. Enjoy it as such, rather than expecting fights to feel like you're still struggling to make ends meet in a Cobra III - or just hop into said Cobra III and get the thrill again.

Haven't you heard? One armed swimming, three-legged soccer and wiffle bat baseball are all the rage, looking for a skillful challenge? Gimp yourself. I heard it's actually Nike's new motto.

Have some real-life evidence of these exact things:
One-armed swimming used for professional training: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80-7b9Io95w
Three-legged soccer, clearly doing it for "fun" (isn't that the whole point of all this?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKnjIr2_dOM
Wiffle-bat hitting a baseball...okay, you'd have to artificially cork the bat, but I mean...it's possible. People do enjoy wiffleball, at least.