Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

"Advanced AI, smart enough to make Trinity obsolete" is an outright PR lie.

178101213

Comments

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Dracock  
    The whole point of my post was that the AI exists RIGHT NOW in LoL to make a non trinity system; that produces challenging game that requires different roles.

    More MMO gamers should try out LoL, and play as part of an organized team, because it is a great example of other ways to manage combat in a modern group combat game.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by jesusjuice69
    Originally posted by Dullahan

    I think what worries many of us is the negative impact removing distinct roles has had on other games, and that SOE announced this decision without providing any proof of concept.  Their ideas are lofty and their remarks on how the previous systems worked were straight up fallacy, and as the OP suggested, deceitful.

    I'm starting to get over it, just disappointed to see a game with so many great ideas moving in the wrong direction where it matters most.  I have enough knowledge of both video games and computer programming to know I'm not a fan of what is being proposed, but all any of us can do now is just wait and see and hope its not as bad as we think. 

    Sandbox games can't have a trinity.  This is what everyone on MMORPG wanted for so long, and now they get it and do nothing but complain.  All you ever hear on MMORPG forums is that the new games aren't sandboxy enough.   Well now you are going to get experience a 100% sandbox that SoE made just for you.

         Sandbox / Theme park have NOTHING to do with class roles.. That is apples and oranges..  The military is all about ROLES soldiers play, and it doesn't get more sandbox then that..  /boggled

    Roles aren't trinity specific. Taunt is what defines the trinity. Don't worry, you'll catch on eventually.

    Threat management is what enables diverse class roles in an rpg.  Thats not just referring to the difference between a tank and a squishy, or a melee and a caster, that includes the diversity in play styles found within a traditional mmorpg.  Many players prefer non-melee roles where minimal aiming, dodging, jumping or running around are required.  To quote Darrin McPherson, "[In EQ next], everyone is involved in the action."  With all their intentions to make EQ Next as inclusive as possible, they really missed the mark when concluding that everyone should be thrust into an action-adventure style of gameplay.  This isn't an FPS, not everyone excels in twitch combat.

    As someone thats been involved in major mmo communities, I've played fps and action games with hardcore mmo players and in general, have found most of them to be pretty horrible.  Not surprisingly, those that enjoy both are usually the ones like myself that play tanks and melee in mmos where more twitch gameplay and on the spot decision making is involved.

    That diversity is part of the reason MMOs have worked traditionally.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QVqv78MfJus&t=1156

    Don't worry, you'll catch on eventually.

    Just reposting in case Lok missed it the first time around.. 

    I definitely saw it, but he hasn't presented anything remotely relevant.

    "Threat management is what enables diverse class roles in an rpg."

    That's nice. It's irrelevant and common knowledge, but it's good he typed it, I guess. He seems to be making the assumption EQN will be all DPS... or something. None of what he's typing has anything to do with what I responded to or how utterly confused you are about the difference between moving away from taunt (the trinity) and moving away from roles. No one is suggesting the latter.

    When a dev talks about the trinity, they are talking about the taunt-based system with that ridiculous contrived tank character. They are not talking about having roles, because there can be 2, 3 4 or even a half a dozen roles in a combat, especially in games with commander aspects and warfare beyond the individual battle scenario.

    It really is that simple. No one is saying get rid of roles in combat, but you and Dull keep firing back with how you can't or shouldn't get rid of roles.

    You do see how that makes discussion both difficult and a bit tedious, right?

     

     

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by Dullahan
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Rydeson
    Originally posted by jesusjuice69
    Originally posted by Dullahan

    I think what worries many of us is the negative impact removing distinct roles has had on other games, and that SOE announced this decision without providing any proof of concept.  Their ideas are lofty and their remarks on how the previous systems worked were straight up fallacy, and as the OP suggested, deceitful.

    I'm starting to get over it, just disappointed to see a game with so many great ideas moving in the wrong direction where it matters most.  I have enough knowledge of both video games and computer programming to know I'm not a fan of what is being proposed, but all any of us can do now is just wait and see and hope its not as bad as we think. 

    Sandbox games can't have a trinity.  This is what everyone on MMORPG wanted for so long, and now they get it and do nothing but complain.  All you ever hear on MMORPG forums is that the new games aren't sandboxy enough.   Well now you are going to get experience a 100% sandbox that SoE made just for you.

         Sandbox / Theme park have NOTHING to do with class roles.. That is apples and oranges..  The military is all about ROLES soldiers play, and it doesn't get more sandbox then that..  /boggled

    Roles aren't trinity specific. Taunt is what defines the trinity. Don't worry, you'll catch on eventually.

    Threat management is what enables diverse class roles in an rpg.  Thats not just referring to the difference between a tank and a squishy, or a melee and a caster, that includes the diversity in play styles found within a traditional mmorpg.  Many players prefer non-melee roles where minimal aiming, dodging, jumping or running around are required.  To quote Darrin McPherson, "[In EQ next], everyone is involved in the action."  With all their intentions to make EQ Next as inclusive as possible, they really missed the mark when concluding that everyone should be thrust into an action-adventure style of gameplay.  This isn't an FPS, not everyone excels in twitch combat.

    As someone thats been involved in major mmo communities, I've played fps and action games with hardcore mmo players and in general, have found most of them to be pretty horrible.  Not surprisingly, those that enjoy both are usually the ones like myself that play tanks and melee in mmos where more twitch gameplay and on the spot decision making is involved.

    That diversity is part of the reason MMOs have worked traditionally.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QVqv78MfJus&t=1156

    Don't worry, you'll catch on eventually.

    Just reposting in case Lok missed it the first time around.. 

    I definitely saw it, but he hasn't presented anything remotely relevant.

    "Threat management is what enables diverse class roles in an rpg."

    That's nice. It's irrelevant and common knowledge, but it's good he typed it, I guess. He seems to be making the assumption EQN will be all DPS... or something. None of what he's typing has anything to do with what I responded to or how utterly confused you are about the difference between moving away from taunt (the trinity) and moving away from roles. No one is suggesting the latter.

    When a dev talks about the trinity, they are talking about the taunt-based system with that ridiculous contrived tank character. They are not talking about having roles, because there can be 2, 3 4 or even a half a dozen roles in a combat, especially in games with commander aspects and warfare beyond the individual battle scenario.

    It really is that simple. No one is saying get rid of roles in combat, but you and Dull keep firing back with how you can't or shouldn't get rid of roles.

    You do see how that makes discussion both difficult and a bit tedious, right? 

    Did you even watch the EQ Next Q & As?

    When they were asked to clarify how being a healer or support works, they said you will be engaged in the combat, no hanging back watching health bars.  In EQ Next "everyone will be a part of the action."

    It was made very plain that traditional MMO combat is out, twitchy arcade combat is in, regardless of the class you play.  That is the difference.  Thats the drawback of not having classes that perform the tank duties, even as they appear in LoL.  They made it extremely apparent to those who were paying attention that you can not in any way perform the duty of the tank as we presently know it.  That includes the way it works in LoL, a game where you do have some taunt abilities, shielding abilities and other traditional mechanics that allow you to soak up the damage.


  • nennafirnennafir Member UncommonPosts: 313

    As many others in this thread have said:  Players don't want complicated enemy AI.  They want exp punching bags so they can get their exp-drug on a steady drip.

    Games having smart enemies would basically mean games having pvp-like enemies, and most players don't want to have to spend 30+ minutes hunting down some elusive AI foe.  They want to smash the AI and get the exp-MJ-brownie and feel happy with themselves.

  • centkincentkin Member RarePosts: 1,527
    Essentially anything even approaching advanced AI would make soloing pretty much impossible.  Unless you can both lock down a monster without others seeing it, and prevent it from running when it sees you are not as hurt as it is half-way through the battle, you will get multiples.  In an intelligent orc camp, it would be very hard to hunt in less than sufficient numbers to take on the significant part of it all at once.
  • LichmorgeLichmorge Member Posts: 8
    People used to say that the internet wasn't important, and that computers wouldn't be in every household.  I'd say we are just about there.
  • EQBallzzEQBallzz Member UncommonPosts: 229
    Originally posted by Dracock
    Originally posted by Dullahan

    It has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with the ability to protect other players and absorb damage.  Whether its by generating threat or just preventing them from getting to their would-be victims with abilities and collision, that is what defines a tank.

    Tanks protect other players in LoL. They do just about everything you guys say they should. Yet you seem intent on arguing anyway.

    This leads me to believe you guys do not consider the champions in LoL, Tanks. Despite that their job is to Tank. The quoted poster has gone against the definition used by millions of other players, to more narrowly define a Tank so that the word only fits in a trinity system. It's a semantic argument about the meaning of the word Tank.

    I don't see how you can claim debating the definition of a Tank is not arguing semantics. I guess that is all that is left to dispute, considering LoL is live proof that you do not need a trinity for different group roles to take place. One of those roles of requires you to be capable of tanking lots of damage.

     

    I don't play LoL so I don't comment on LoL. That being said is LoL an MMO? No. I don't care about the comparison of an MMO class scheme to an arena pvp game or whatever the fuck it is. It's also a structured pvp game so again...not comparing an MMO that is primarily PVE with an arena pvp game. Dark Souls doesn't need a trinity system, either and that's also irrelevant.

  • cowboyonicowboyoni Member Posts: 36
    Originally posted by EQBallzz
    Originally posted by Dracock
    Originally posted by Dullahan

    It has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with the ability to protect other players and absorb damage.  Whether its by generating threat or just preventing them from getting to their would-be victims with abilities and collision, that is what defines a tank.

    Tanks protect other players in LoL. They do just about everything you guys say they should. Yet you seem intent on arguing anyway.

    This leads me to believe you guys do not consider the champions in LoL, Tanks. Despite that their job is to Tank. The quoted poster has gone against the definition used by millions of other players, to more narrowly define a Tank so that the word only fits in a trinity system. It's a semantic argument about the meaning of the word Tank.

    I don't see how you can claim debating the definition of a Tank is not arguing semantics. I guess that is all that is left to dispute, considering LoL is live proof that you do not need a trinity for different group roles to take place. One of those roles of requires you to be capable of tanking lots of damage.

     

    I don't play LoL so I don't comment on LoL. That being said is LoL an MMO? No. I don't care about the comparison of an MMO class scheme to an arena pvp game or whatever the fuck it is. It's also a structured pvp game so again...not comparing an MMO that is primarily PVE with an arena pvp game. Dark Souls doesn't need a trinity system, either and that's also irrelevant.

    They already said their class system would be something similar to a MOBA, that is what makes discussing team combat against A.I in LoL relevant to the conversation.

    Besides whats the big deal if 1 MMO out of thousands try's something different from the traditional trinity tank taunt/aggro system. Don't worry there will still be plenty of mmos with the traditional system you prefer, go play that.

     

  • NagelRitterNagelRitter Member Posts: 607
    Originally posted by EQBallzz

    I don't play LoL so I don't comment on LoL. That being said is LoL an MMO?

    So go play LoL or Dota 2 so you are acquainted with more than one battle system. Then you can come back and join the discussion.

    Also, EVE is an MMO. It doesn't have hotbars or Trinity. Questions?

    No. I don't care about the comparison of an MMO class scheme to an arena pvp game or whatever the fuck it is.

    Why, having problems extrapolating a concept to a different area? It still applies just fine, even if you are incapable of doing so. The whole argument with the Trinity seems to hinge on you lot lacking an imagination. It's not our problem. It's not EQN's problem. It's your problem.

     

    Favorite MMO: Vanilla WoW
    Currently playing: GW2, EVE
    Excited for: Wildstar, maybe?

  • EQBallzzEQBallzz Member UncommonPosts: 229
    Originally posted by cowboyoni
    Originally posted by EQBallzz
    Originally posted by Dracock
    Originally posted by Dullahan

    It has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with the ability to protect other players and absorb damage.  Whether its by generating threat or just preventing them from getting to their would-be victims with abilities and collision, that is what defines a tank.

    Tanks protect other players in LoL. They do just about everything you guys say they should. Yet you seem intent on arguing anyway.

    This leads me to believe you guys do not consider the champions in LoL, Tanks. Despite that their job is to Tank. The quoted poster has gone against the definition used by millions of other players, to more narrowly define a Tank so that the word only fits in a trinity system. It's a semantic argument about the meaning of the word Tank.

    I don't see how you can claim debating the definition of a Tank is not arguing semantics. I guess that is all that is left to dispute, considering LoL is live proof that you do not need a trinity for different group roles to take place. One of those roles of requires you to be capable of tanking lots of damage.

     

    I don't play LoL so I don't comment on LoL. That being said is LoL an MMO? No. I don't care about the comparison of an MMO class scheme to an arena pvp game or whatever the fuck it is. It's also a structured pvp game so again...not comparing an MMO that is primarily PVE with an arena pvp game. Dark Souls doesn't need a trinity system, either and that's also irrelevant.

    They already said their class system would be something similar to a MOBA, that is what makes discussing team combat against A.I in LoL relevant to the conversation.

    Besides whats the big deal if 1 MMO out of thousands try's something different from the traditional trinity tank taunt/aggro system. Don't worry there will still be plenty of mmos with the traditional system you prefer, go play that.

     

    Fair enough on the LoL point but it remains to be seen how well a confined arena pvp combat system converts to an open PVE MMO system. If the group dynamic ends up like GW2 (which is what it sounds like) I will play something else and so will most other people because that group dynamic sucks balls. I'll be happy to be wrong if they have come up with an actual role system that has some interdependence and is not trinity and not GW2 but they haven't revealed anything other than some vague statements indicating there won't be aggro management or dedicated healing. Their statements inevitably lead to images of the chaotic mess that the GW2 group combat is which is where the concern lies I think.

  • EeksEeks Member Posts: 72
    Originally posted by EQBallzz
    Originally posted by cowboyoni
    Originally posted by EQBallzz
    Originally posted by Dracock
    Originally posted by Dullahan

    It has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with the ability to protect other players and absorb damage.  Whether its by generating threat or just preventing them from getting to their would-be victims with abilities and collision, that is what defines a tank.

    Tanks protect other players in LoL. They do just about everything you guys say they should. Yet you seem intent on arguing anyway.

    This leads me to believe you guys do not consider the champions in LoL, Tanks. Despite that their job is to Tank. The quoted poster has gone against the definition used by millions of other players, to more narrowly define a Tank so that the word only fits in a trinity system. It's a semantic argument about the meaning of the word Tank.

    I don't see how you can claim debating the definition of a Tank is not arguing semantics. I guess that is all that is left to dispute, considering LoL is live proof that you do not need a trinity for different group roles to take place. One of those roles of requires you to be capable of tanking lots of damage.

     

    I don't play LoL so I don't comment on LoL. That being said is LoL an MMO? No. I don't care about the comparison of an MMO class scheme to an arena pvp game or whatever the fuck it is. It's also a structured pvp game so again...not comparing an MMO that is primarily PVE with an arena pvp game. Dark Souls doesn't need a trinity system, either and that's also irrelevant.

    They already said their class system would be something similar to a MOBA, that is what makes discussing team combat against A.I in LoL relevant to the conversation.

    Besides whats the big deal if 1 MMO out of thousands try's something different from the traditional trinity tank taunt/aggro system. Don't worry there will still be plenty of mmos with the traditional system you prefer, go play that.

     

    Fair enough on the LoL point but it remains to be seen how well a confined arena pvp combat system converts to an open PVE MMO system. If the group dynamic ends up like GW2 (which is what it sounds like) I will play something else and so will most other people because that group dynamic sucks balls. I'll be happy to be wrong if they have come up with an actual role system that has some interdependence and is not trinity and not GW2 but they haven't revealed anything other than some vague statements indicating there won't be aggro management or dedicated healing. Their statements inevitably lead to images of the chaotic mess that the GW2 group combat is which is where the concern lies I think.

    Well based on what Georgeson said today... it's not what you're thinking.  He didn't say the combat system was going to be like LoL, he said class roles would be similar to what you see in MOBA's.  As such, he said you'd need varied roles to succeed, which from what I've read (I haven't played it) GW2 seems to just push everyone to be dps.  They seem pretty confident about it not being like GW2 so we'll see if it ends up like that.

  • DullahanDullahan Member EpicPosts: 4,536
    Originally posted by Eeks
    Originally posted by EQBallzz
    Originally posted by cowboyoni
    Originally posted by EQBallzz
    Originally posted by Dracock
    Originally posted by Dullahan

    It has nothing to do with semantics and everything to do with the ability to protect other players and absorb damage.  Whether its by generating threat or just preventing them from getting to their would-be victims with abilities and collision, that is what defines a tank.

    Tanks protect other players in LoL. They do just about everything you guys say they should. Yet you seem intent on arguing anyway.

    This leads me to believe you guys do not consider the champions in LoL, Tanks. Despite that their job is to Tank. The quoted poster has gone against the definition used by millions of other players, to more narrowly define a Tank so that the word only fits in a trinity system. It's a semantic argument about the meaning of the word Tank.

    I don't see how you can claim debating the definition of a Tank is not arguing semantics. I guess that is all that is left to dispute, considering LoL is live proof that you do not need a trinity for different group roles to take place. One of those roles of requires you to be capable of tanking lots of damage.

     

    I don't play LoL so I don't comment on LoL. That being said is LoL an MMO? No. I don't care about the comparison of an MMO class scheme to an arena pvp game or whatever the fuck it is. It's also a structured pvp game so again...not comparing an MMO that is primarily PVE with an arena pvp game. Dark Souls doesn't need a trinity system, either and that's also irrelevant.

    They already said their class system would be something similar to a MOBA, that is what makes discussing team combat against A.I in LoL relevant to the conversation.

    Besides whats the big deal if 1 MMO out of thousands try's something different from the traditional trinity tank taunt/aggro system. Don't worry there will still be plenty of mmos with the traditional system you prefer, go play that.

     

    Fair enough on the LoL point but it remains to be seen how well a confined arena pvp combat system converts to an open PVE MMO system. If the group dynamic ends up like GW2 (which is what it sounds like) I will play something else and so will most other people because that group dynamic sucks balls. I'll be happy to be wrong if they have come up with an actual role system that has some interdependence and is not trinity and not GW2 but they haven't revealed anything other than some vague statements indicating there won't be aggro management or dedicated healing. Their statements inevitably lead to images of the chaotic mess that the GW2 group combat is which is where the concern lies I think.

    Well based on what Georgeson said today... it's not what you're thinking.  He didn't say the combat system was going to be like LoL, he said class roles would be similar to what you see in MOBA's.  As such, he said you'd need varied roles to succeed, which from what I've read (I haven't played it) GW2 seems to just push everyone to be dps.  They seem pretty confident about it not being like GW2 so we'll see if it ends up like that.

    What people don't understand, is its not that classes in gw2 aren't diverse, its just without devoted roles like healers or tanks and a system of threat management, classes inevitably become some form of dps and combat degenerates into fleeing and chasing, aka, the zerg.


  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910


    Originally posted by Dullahan
    What people don't understand, is its not that classes in gw2 aren't diverse, its just without devoted roles like healers or tanks and a system of threat management, classes inevitably become some form of dps and combat degenerates into fleeing and chasing, aka, the zerg.

    People understand threat based mechanics just fine.

    They also understand there isn't just one way to do things. It is possible, as people have explained in this thread, to have players fulfill different roles in combat, without having dedicated class roles. It doesn't have to involve direct threat management. It may be more difficult because players will have to switch from healing to dps and possibly to some form of crowd control in the same fight, but it is certainly possible.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • RydesonRydeson Member UncommonPosts: 3,852
    Originally posted by lizardbones

     


    Originally posted by Dullahan
    What people don't understand, is its not that classes in gw2 aren't diverse, its just without devoted roles like healers or tanks and a system of threat management, classes inevitably become some form of dps and combat degenerates into fleeing and chasing, aka, the zerg.


    People understand threat based mechanics just fine.

    They also understand there isn't just one way to do things. It is possible, as people have explained in this thread, to have players fulfill different roles in combat, without having dedicated class roles. It doesn't have to involve direct threat management. It may be more difficult because players will have to switch from healing to dps and possibly to some form of crowd control in the same fight, but it is certainly possible.

     

         That all sounds good, but unlikely.. Either combat will be structured roles, or chaotic zerg..  It can't be both or somewhere in the middle..  The things you bring up such as people switching from heals to CC to support, only exist in fights that last longer then 10 seconds.. GW2 tried to do that, and it's a joke.. CC in gw2 is a 2 second delay in combat.. Why even bother then..  That is where people just say , the hell with it, and just ZERG..  If you are going to have roles, combat has to last longer then a burp.. 

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 10,904
    No game has done it, been promised but never delivered. Every game that does not have the trinity ends in zerg game play. My guess it will be the same here. Can it be done? Maybe one day. I do hope they have something.
  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Member RarePosts: 9,686

    The problem with the trinity is the fact that it wasnt created by game developers but by players..    Its only logical that if you want to create a team thats stronger then  the sum of he individualls that you want...

    - the mobs must hit the player with the most defense..

    - players buffing your team mates

    - players debuffing the monsters

    - players try to cut off ennemies from the fight, or temporarely disabling them from a fight trying to prevent them from doing damage

    - players trying to heal their friends 

    - players trying to actually damage the mobs..

     

    i cant think of any other roles in a fight...  The trinnity has been born by people trying to specialise in a single or just a few of those tions...  And in my book its only natural to give people skills along hose lines, because that adds to the natural flow of the fight.

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • LanessarLanessar Member Posts: 87
    Originally posted by BearKnight

    Coming from the software development world I know for a FACT that SOE is not employing people from MIT's AI department for their game. This would be the only way to produce AI even close to challenging enough to make the "Trinity" system obsolete. However, even MIT hasn't created AI advanced enough to make this claim.

     Seriously, it really is getting frustrating reading about this "Advanced AI" when it doesn't exist. It's like the CEO of Spandex coming out to tell everyone we have conquered the effects of "Gravity" to a room that has at LEAST one Physicist/Engineer that knows for a fact we haven't yet.

     

    /endRant

    Seeing as I wrote extremely intelligent AI which pretty much slaughtered the players in Neverwinter Nights in 2002, I must say you don't need an MIT engineer to make challenging, intelligent AI.

     

    The AI we have right now in most MMOS is so stupid-simple, you have NO idea. I've coded that, too, and really... it is STUPID simple to code it. That's why when I see aggro snafus like NWO had at launch with the healers tanking, I just facepalm.

     

    All they would have to do to make it 10X as intelligent as any existing MMO is take the existing "aggro" mechanic and just add a second dimension of "target value". I'm pretty sure Blizzard actually did this and removed it save for internal tests because players died left right and center.

     

    Fast forward, and we're up to the challenge, I think. The code has existed for years and years, no one used it because they were babying players.

  • IADaveMarkIADaveMark AI Design on EQNMember UncommonPosts: 15
    Originally posted by Lanessar

    Seeing as I wrote extremely intelligent AI which pretty much slaughtered the players in Neverwinter Nights in 2002, I must say you don't need an MIT engineer to make challenging, intelligent AI.

    The AI we have right now in most MMOS is so stupid-simple, you have NO idea. I've coded that, too, and really... it is STUPID simple to code it. That's why when I see aggro snafus like NWO had at launch with the healers tanking, I just facepalm.

    All they would have to do to make it 10X as intelligent as any existing MMO is take the existing "aggro" mechanic and just add a second dimension of "target value". I'm pretty sure Blizzard actually did this and removed it save for internal tests because players died left right and center.

    Fast forward, and we're up to the challenge, I think. The code has existed for years and years, no one used it because they were babying players.

    *raises hands*

    Preach, brother!

    President & Lead Designer of Intrinsic Algorithm,
    Author of Behavioral Mathematics for Game AI,
    Game AI consultant, GDC AI Summit advisor, co-founder of AIGPG | IntrinsicAlgorithm.com

  • Lord.BachusLord.Bachus Member RarePosts: 9,686
    Originally posted by Lanessar
    Originally posted by BearKnight

    Coming from the software development world I know for a FACT that SOE is not employing people from MIT's AI department for their game. This would be the only way to produce AI even close to challenging enough to make the "Trinity" system obsolete. However, even MIT hasn't created AI advanced enough to make this claim.

     Seriously, it really is getting frustrating reading about this "Advanced AI" when it doesn't exist. It's like the CEO of Spandex coming out to tell everyone we have conquered the effects of "Gravity" to a room that has at LEAST one Physicist/Engineer that knows for a fact we haven't yet.

     

    /endRant

    Seeing as I wrote extremely intelligent AI which pretty much slaughtered the players in Neverwinter Nights in 2002, I must say you don't need an MIT engineer to make challenging, intelligent AI.

     

    The AI we have right now in most MMOS is so stupid-simple, you have NO idea. I've coded that, too, and really... it is STUPID simple to code it. That's why when I see aggro snafus like NWO had at launch with the healers tanking, I just facepalm.

     

    All they would have to do to make it 10X as intelligent as any existing MMO is take the existing "aggro" mechanic and just add a second dimension of "target value". I'm pretty sure Blizzard actually did this and removed it save for internal tests because players died left right and center.

     

    Fast forward, and we're up to the challenge, I think. The code has existed for years and years, no one used it because they were babying players.

     

    So you add a target vallue mechanic to the fights to make them less predictable and more random... 

     

    Sounds great, but wouldnt that mean that you simply make the agro mechanics less reliable?  And that lowering the power of the agro abillity would net in the same result of other classes getting more agro?

     

    Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) LOTRO (worldfeel) GW2 (Artstyle and animations and worlddesign) SWTOR (Story immersion) TSW (story) ESO (character advancement)

  • RocknissRockniss Member Posts: 1,034
    Next gen ai is monitoring your habits. Pve is essentially going to be just like pvp. The worlds will be reacting and making decisions based on what you do. They will be spontaneously programable as well. Perhaps one day they are content and the next they are angry and the next the are fighting each other and the next they are behaving as they would based on what happens around them.
  • jesusjuice69jesusjuice69 Member Posts: 276
    Originally posted by IADaveMark
    Originally posted by Lanessar

    Seeing as I wrote extremely intelligent AI which pretty much slaughtered the players in Neverwinter Nights in 2002, I must say you don't need an MIT engineer to make challenging, intelligent AI.

    The AI we have right now in most MMOS is so stupid-simple, you have NO idea. I've coded that, too, and really... it is STUPID simple to code it. That's why when I see aggro snafus like NWO had at launch with the healers tanking, I just facepalm.

    All they would have to do to make it 10X as intelligent as any existing MMO is take the existing "aggro" mechanic and just add a second dimension of "target value". I'm pretty sure Blizzard actually did this and removed it save for internal tests because players died left right and center.

    Fast forward, and we're up to the challenge, I think. The code has existed for years and years, no one used it because they were babying players.

    *raises hands*

    Preach, brother!

    [mod edit]

     

    A smart AI would always win over players, especially if their numbers were substantially larger.  Which is why it is impossible to have a smart AI, as it can only end in 2 ways. 

    #1  impossible

    It isn't hard to tell the AI to go kill the cloth priest in the back, and to do so with burst damage greater than their health or the rate of healing possible by the group.  Thus, they can't be healed, and eventually they are guaranteed to die.

    #2  Zerg

    The only way something like this can work is if there is no weak cloth healer in the back/  In which case the person the AI attacks is almost random, and everyone becomes a tank.  Sort of like what we saw at Quakecon for ESO.  That is a zerg,  which yields strategy as pointless.

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 18,719
    Originally posted by jesusjuice69
    Originally posted by IADaveMark
    Originally posted by Lanessar

    Seeing as I wrote extremely intelligent AI which pretty much slaughtered the players in Neverwinter Nights in 2002, I must say you don't need an MIT engineer to make challenging, intelligent AI.

    The AI we have right now in most MMOS is so stupid-simple, you have NO idea. I've coded that, too, and really... it is STUPID simple to code it. That's why when I see aggro snafus like NWO had at launch with the healers tanking, I just facepalm.

    All they would have to do to make it 10X as intelligent as any existing MMO is take the existing "aggro" mechanic and just add a second dimension of "target value". I'm pretty sure Blizzard actually did this and removed it save for internal tests because players died left right and center.

    Fast forward, and we're up to the challenge, I think. The code has existed for years and years, no one used it because they were babying players.

    *raises hands*

    Preach, brother!

    [mod edit]

     

    Rofl... you can lead a horse to water... 

     

    Anyone else... if you're truly interested in how they are doing it in EQN, you can get an education on utility-based AI with two 1-hour lectures, one form the 2010 Game Developers Conference and the other one from 2012: 

    http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1012410/Improving-AI-Decision-Modeling-Through

    http://gdcvault.com/play/1015683/Embracing-the-Dark-Art-of

     

    PS. Despite this JJ guy's repeated posts to the contrary, that actually is the guy responsible for the AI you keep discussing in this thread. 

    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

  • cowboyonicowboyoni Member Posts: 36
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jesusjuice69
    Originally posted by IADaveMark
    Originally posted by Lanessar

    Seeing as I wrote extremely intelligent AI which pretty much slaughtered the players in Neverwinter Nights in 2002, I must say you don't need an MIT engineer to make challenging, intelligent AI.

    The AI we have right now in most MMOS is so stupid-simple, you have NO idea. I've coded that, too, and really... it is STUPID simple to code it. That's why when I see aggro snafus like NWO had at launch with the healers tanking, I just facepalm.

    All they would have to do to make it 10X as intelligent as any existing MMO is take the existing "aggro" mechanic and just add a second dimension of "target value". I'm pretty sure Blizzard actually did this and removed it save for internal tests because players died left right and center.

    Fast forward, and we're up to the challenge, I think. The code has existed for years and years, no one used it because they were babying players.

    *raises hands*

    Preach, brother!

    [mod edit]

     

    Rofl... you can lead a horse to water... 

     

    Anyone else... if you're truly interested in how they are doing it in EQN, you can get an education on utility-based AI with two 1-hour lectures, one form the 2010 Game Developers Conference and the other one from 2012: 

    http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1012410/Improving-AI-Decision-Modeling-Through

    http://gdcvault.com/play/1015683/Embracing-the-Dark-Art-of

     

    PS. Despite this JJ guy's repeated posts to the contrary, that actually is the guy responsible for the AI you keep discussing in this thread. 

    Thx for both links they were interesting to watch. I think a basic misunderstanding in much of this thread is that AI in video games really doesn't have to do with the AI's ability to win against the player. In video games it has much more to do with getting to AI to behave in more engaging/realistic way. The trinity system with taunt is by it's nature simplistic and unrealistic. Taunt boils down to telling the AI what to do. To use a boxing analogy, this is like boxer A telling Boxer B to guard low so I can hit high and then boxer B doing as he/she was told. It is stupid.

    As for the assertion by the OP that it would take people from MIT to accomplish this sort of engaging AI in an mmo. Well sry but that is just dumb. I don't know what sort of mythical status the OP puts on MIT. If I said "I need a new operating system for PCs" I would have much more faith that Microsoft could do that than a group of people from MIT. I trust game devs in the video game industry much more to come up with engaging pve content in video games that eliminates the need for taunt holly trinity much more that I do MIT. Who as far as I know have never created a successful video game AI.

  • TorcipTorcip Member UncommonPosts: 669
    I think the majority of you people are confusing advanced AI with Intelligent AI.  An AI who can be program to wipe the floor with a group, can also be programmed to be stupid. Not every Mob that shares the same AI has to be a genius.
  • aesperusaesperus Member UncommonPosts: 5,135
    Originally posted by cowboyoni
    Originally posted by Iselin
    Originally posted by jesusjuice69
    ***snip for length***

    Rofl... you can lead a horse to water... 

    Anyone else... if you're truly interested in how they are doing it in EQN, you can get an education on utility-based AI with two 1-hour lectures, one form the 2010 Game Developers Conference and the other one from 2012: 

    http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1012410/Improving-AI-Decision-Modeling-Through

    http://gdcvault.com/play/1015683/Embracing-the-Dark-Art-of

    PS. Despite this JJ guy's repeated posts to the contrary, that actually is the guy responsible for the AI you keep discussing in this thread. 

    Thx for both links they were interesting to watch. I think a basic misunderstanding in much of this thread is that AI in video games really doesn't have to do with the AI's ability to win against the player. In video games it has much more to do with getting to AI to behave in more engaging/realistic way. The trinity system with taunt is by it's nature simplistic and unrealistic. Taunt boils down to telling the AI what to do. To use a boxing analogy, this is like boxer A telling Boxer B to guard low so I can hit high and then boxer B doing as he/she was told. It is stupid.

    As for the assertion by the OP that it would take people from MIT to accomplish this sort of engaging AI in an mmo. Well sry but that is just dumb. I don't know what sort of mythical status the OP puts on MIT. If I said "I need a new operating system for PCs" I would have much more faith that Microsoft could do that than a group of people from MIT. I trust game devs in the video game industry much more to come up with engaging pve content in video games that eliminates the need for taunt holly trinity much more that I do MIT. Who as far as I know have never created a successful video game AI.

    This is indeed part of the problem.

    I remember in one of the other threads someone was linking a talk given by the AI programmer for Civilization. This is a really good example of what you're talking about, and he partially goes into the difference between AI programmed for 'fun' and AI programmed to 'win'. However, he doesn't ever really talk about AI based on anything else, because in a strategy game it's not necessary.

    And you're absolutely right. Different mobs can have different motivations for their AI. Humans may be motivated by expansion and conquest. Goblins may be motivated by looting & finding good places to hide. Ogres may favor certain environments (i.e. large cave-like structures), but want to avoid others, or have more simplistic AI. Etc. In a persistant world 'winning' isn't really a good criteria outside of specific battles, because there is no real 'win' state. It's all about territory & resource management.

    - Furthermore, when it does come to combat (as you've pointed out), MMOs have had overly simplistic AI via the taunt mechanic for over 2 generations now. There are a lot more refined ways to condition a mob to behave. I.E. GW2 (as much as some people hate on the game) begins to show us that. By gauging things like player proximity, health, damage / healing output, whether they are trying to revive someone, etc. However, mobs can even go further in EQN to involve things like the environment. Trying to position players into bad spots (cornering) or smashing down pillars to try and trigger a cave in. There's a lot of possibilities there beyond the standard, scripted mechanics + aggro bar.

    ** and I agree with you about the OP. I have no idea why him being a software developer has anything to do with AI programming, knowing the payroll of this specific game, or requiring MIT graduates to program this sort of AI. They're laughable notions to the point where I have to question whether that guy is what he claims. Because if he is a software developer, he doesn't seem to be thinking a whole lot through in his statements.

Sign In or Register to comment.