No adaptive NPC logic please!

[Bigglesof206]

So what happens when a player with it set on "easy" meets another player that has it set on "hard" and they are both in the same RES/NAV?

Well, at a guess, the instancing gods would actually ensure that the two people involved were in different instances and didn't meet... and considering the HUGE number of people who don't meet even when they want to, I wouldn't imagine that'd be too hard to arrange, would it?

 

[ShimEnki]

I agree, and this ties in to what I was saying about the game needing more excitement earlier on. There should be some systems that players enter at their own risk. That result in more interdictions and encounters. War zones, anarchy and civil unrest systems for example. it's risky to go in, but the missions and other factors in there should offer the player a greater reward for the risk.

I agree, that players that want to engage higher combat intensity play have a zone or sector etc that they can enter and those that dont want it..can choose not to.

That many very capable combat players find their form of intensity in many other role playing aspects of the game should not escape FDs consideration when choosing how to give combat /pirate oriented intensity to those that need it so that both styles of intensity can exist without impingement.

 

[DjordjeDtW]

Give us free insurance. I loose credit for insurance constantly. Few times in row.

 

[JosiahD]

So what happens when a player with it set on "easy" meets another player that has it set on "hard" and they are both in the same RES/NAV?

Easy actually - the matchmaker simply wouldn't instance them together.
.
Personally, I'm not sure difficulty levels are the answer though. AI difficulty simply needs to make sense contextually - an intense combat zone or HAZ RES should be hard (perhaps even need a wing), while routine trade runs should adjust depending on whether the space being transited is policed, an anarchy, in a state of war or unrest etc.
.
The AI doesn't need to simply be harder.....dangerous.....for ED to succeed. It needs to be playable by a wide range of playstyles and player ability to succeed......to appeal to a wide audience that is. ED desn't need to be.....shouldn't be.....simply Dark Souls in space to suit the hardcore crowd. Unforgiving maybe, but not so difficult that some simply can't cope. Nor should it be a simple turkey shoot either. But at least the latter us playable by all, while the former.......well, not so much.
.
The 13 year old I read of recently, upset that he now can't cope with the difficulty and he feels like he's wasted his limited money. The grandfather I read of last night who doesn't now have the reflexes etc, but loves playing this game with his grandson. All those casuals who simply want to immerse themselves in the galaxy without having to fight for survival at every turn. At least the pre-2.1 AI was playable for all - even if the hardcore crowd found it too easy, it was still playable and only needed tweaking. Now we'll have to see how the new AI performs with reduced chance of Engineer modules of course, but some players need to get over themselves - ED will be a far better place if it caters to a wide playerbase and playstyles.....and player ability. Adaptive AI might be a part of that for all I know, I'll wait and see what Frontier come up with.

 

[Bokugo]

Pretty sure the adaptive logic goes up on a scale based on NPC rank. So a harmless will only ever do 1 thing, but an Elite will try 10 different tactics.

 

[Wotthe Dickens]

I would rather adaptive commander combat rank or a mechanism to lower it.
FD have already implemented a method of combat rank defining your likely enemies(?), so I guess I'd rather lower my rank than have easy elite AI.

Edit: thought of an analogy most regular people would only come across small time villains (pick pocket, pub brawl etc) whereas big fry (James bonds lol) would be dealing against mafia or spectre class baddies

 

[MadDogMurdock]

I still don't know why this seems to be so hard when original Elite had it about right.

Low security means high risk - higher reward
High security means low risk - lower reward

For legal pilots that should be enough, nothing linked to your rank, no adaptive logic. Just danger zones!
For illegal pilots, the risk should increase based on their bounty or the security level providing more effective police responses.

 

[soma]

I agree, and this ties in to what I was saying about the game needing more excitement earlier on. There should be some systems that players enter at their own risk. That result in more interdictions and encounters. War zones, anarchy and civil unrest systems for example. it's risky to go in, but the missions and other factors in there should offer the player a greater reward for the risk.

I still don't know why this seems to be so hard when original Elite had it about right.

Low security means high risk - higher reward
High security means low risk - lower reward

For legal pilots that should be enough, nothing linked to your rank, no adaptive logic. Just danger zones!
For illegal pilots, the risk should increase based on their bounty or the security level providing more effective police responses.

That's exactly what I was talking about. Why not use the fact that the galaxy has safer systems and more dangerous ones and incorporate that better into the gaming experience? Much easier to get right than an elusive adaptive difficulty mechanism PLUS it provides more opportunities for evolving gameplay and player cooperation (finally a REASON to look for wingmen before taking a T9 full of Palladium on a trade run).

Of course the game should make dangerous regions of space more obvious ... but I think that could rather easily be achived with UI tweaks: somehow prominently mark danger zones so they can easily be avoided by players who don't like combat or just want to do a bit of peaceful space trucking...

 

[DukeIronHand]

Pretty sure the adaptive logic goes up on a scale based on NPC rank. So a harmless will only ever do 1 thing, but an Elite will try 10 different tactics.

Eek.
I hate the "scaling opponent to your level" concept. Especially in this game.
Does Elite level in combat really mean you are good? Or that you devoted hundreds of hours at a keyboard?
I like the more competent AI but if I was Elite does it really have to mean every enemy spawn is Elite? Then what's the point of advancing up. Not everyone is in this game for combat. Like everything else it gets old and I, for one, like to mix it up with other things.
I would rather see the AI be within the context of the game. Anarchy system and at assorted RES points a higher level of opponent whereas in a high security system a good mix of all skill levels. High payout missions are against high level opponents and low payout for easier opposition, etc, etc.
Knowing the bulk of any opposition if I am Elite is going to be Elite, or Harmless if I am Harmless, comes across, IMHO, as gamey and phoney.