criterion-sm dice-lg ea-starwars-lg instagram lucasfilm-lg motive-lg twitch you-tube
November Community Calendar

Instant Action & PvE Feedback

12467143

Replies

  • ThePoolshark
    2961 posts Member
    edited July 2017
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Jesbro wrote: »
    @Greyjedi_152 I'm not going to quote for the sake of space.

    That was one of the best Walls of Text I have seen about the AI in Battlefront!

    I think you made some pretty good points about how the AI doesn't need to be exactly like human players in order to actually play the objectives in the MP modes if they do add Galactic Assault to Skirmish.

    However I do agree with Dennis that they don't need to mirror multiplayer exactly either. In fact I believe trying to copy the MP modes may actually hold the AI back.

    Imagine playing in a huge battle with more than 20 bots on each side of it! They may only be able to do 20 vs 20 matches for multiplayer but since putting the bots in the matches is different from connecting people to those matches it would allow us to have much larger battles with the AI than would ever be possible in multiplayer matches!

    My thoughts exactly. Only other thing I think needs be said regarding the AI is that they need to be able to control Heroes... the AI in the original games could do it, I'd find it hard to believe that after all this time they can't also get the AI in EA's Battlefront to control Hero characters.

    I really hope they got hero AI in Battlefront 2.

    Same. They had Hero AI in the original games. If Pandemic could do it back then with inferior technology, I don't see what would stop EA Motive from incorporating Hero AI with what they have now.

    Laziness. There is no excuse otherwise

    Maybe it might be too technically demanding

    but you know I just like to see multiple perspectives

    Considering Pandemic was able to make AI heroes without difficulty 12 years ago, I very much doubt that...

    Yea, on an old engine that was easy to use... of course it could be done. Not sure if you know tgis, but things have gotten a lot more difficult in the last decade when it comes to game development

    Also, nobody ever said Galactic Conquest was coming, so the video saying it is "probably delayed" is *****.
    The greatest moderator that EA has ever had.
  • bfloo
    15931 posts Member
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Jesbro wrote: »
    @Greyjedi_152 I'm not going to quote for the sake of space.

    That was one of the best Walls of Text I have seen about the AI in Battlefront!

    I think you made some pretty good points about how the AI doesn't need to be exactly like human players in order to actually play the objectives in the MP modes if they do add Galactic Assault to Skirmish.

    However I do agree with Dennis that they don't need to mirror multiplayer exactly either. In fact I believe trying to copy the MP modes may actually hold the AI back.

    Imagine playing in a huge battle with more than 20 bots on each side of it! They may only be able to do 20 vs 20 matches for multiplayer but since putting the bots in the matches is different from connecting people to those matches it would allow us to have much larger battles with the AI than would ever be possible in multiplayer matches!

    My thoughts exactly. Only other thing I think needs be said regarding the AI is that they need to be able to control Heroes... the AI in the original games could do it, I'd find it hard to believe that after all this time they can't also get the AI in EA's Battlefront to control Hero characters.

    I really hope they got hero AI in Battlefront 2.

    Same. They had Hero AI in the original games. If Pandemic could do it back then with inferior technology, I don't see what would stop EA Motive from incorporating Hero AI with what they have now.

    Laziness. There is no excuse otherwise

    Maybe it might be too technically demanding

    but you know I just like to see multiple perspectives

    Considering Pandemic was able to make AI heroes without difficulty 12 years ago, I very much doubt that...

    Yea, on an old engine that was easy to use... of course it could be done. Not sure if you know tgis, but things have gotten a lot more difficult in the last decade when it comes to game development

    You are making it sound like they are moving backwards as far as possible features go.
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • ThePoolshark
    2961 posts Member
    edited July 2017
    bfloo wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Jesbro wrote: »
    @Greyjedi_152 I'm not going to quote for the sake of space.

    That was one of the best Walls of Text I have seen about the AI in Battlefront!

    I think you made some pretty good points about how the AI doesn't need to be exactly like human players in order to actually play the objectives in the MP modes if they do add Galactic Assault to Skirmish.

    However I do agree with Dennis that they don't need to mirror multiplayer exactly either. In fact I believe trying to copy the MP modes may actually hold the AI back.

    Imagine playing in a huge battle with more than 20 bots on each side of it! They may only be able to do 20 vs 20 matches for multiplayer but since putting the bots in the matches is different from connecting people to those matches it would allow us to have much larger battles with the AI than would ever be possible in multiplayer matches!

    My thoughts exactly. Only other thing I think needs be said regarding the AI is that they need to be able to control Heroes... the AI in the original games could do it, I'd find it hard to believe that after all this time they can't also get the AI in EA's Battlefront to control Hero characters.

    I really hope they got hero AI in Battlefront 2.

    Same. They had Hero AI in the original games. If Pandemic could do it back then with inferior technology, I don't see what would stop EA Motive from incorporating Hero AI with what they have now.

    Laziness. There is no excuse otherwise

    Maybe it might be too technically demanding

    but you know I just like to see multiple perspectives

    Considering Pandemic was able to make AI heroes without difficulty 12 years ago, I very much doubt that...

    Yea, on an old engine that was easy to use... of course it could be done. Not sure if you know tgis, but things have gotten a lot more difficult in the last decade when it comes to game development

    You are making it sound like they are moving backwards as far as possible features go.

    No, I am saying that things get harder as tech gets more in depth. Things that could done in a few months with 20 people now takes 6+ with 50 people.

    This is why aaa games have a much larger dev team than they used to and have seemingly less stuff. It takes a lot of time/effort/money now since people seem.to care more about looks than gameplay anymore
    The greatest moderator that EA has ever had.
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Jesbro wrote: »
    @Greyjedi_152 I'm not going to quote for the sake of space.

    That was one of the best Walls of Text I have seen about the AI in Battlefront!

    I think you made some pretty good points about how the AI doesn't need to be exactly like human players in order to actually play the objectives in the MP modes if they do add Galactic Assault to Skirmish.

    However I do agree with Dennis that they don't need to mirror multiplayer exactly either. In fact I believe trying to copy the MP modes may actually hold the AI back.

    Imagine playing in a huge battle with more than 20 bots on each side of it! They may only be able to do 20 vs 20 matches for multiplayer but since putting the bots in the matches is different from connecting people to those matches it would allow us to have much larger battles with the AI than would ever be possible in multiplayer matches!

    My thoughts exactly. Only other thing I think needs be said regarding the AI is that they need to be able to control Heroes... the AI in the original games could do it, I'd find it hard to believe that after all this time they can't also get the AI in EA's Battlefront to control Hero characters.

    I really hope they got hero AI in Battlefront 2.

    Same. They had Hero AI in the original games. If Pandemic could do it back then with inferior technology, I don't see what would stop EA Motive from incorporating Hero AI with what they have now.

    Laziness. There is no excuse otherwise

    Maybe it might be too technically demanding

    but you know I just like to see multiple perspectives

    Considering Pandemic was able to make AI heroes without difficulty 12 years ago, I very much doubt that...



    Also, nobody ever said Galactic Conquest was coming, so the video saying it is "probably delayed" is ****.

    Did you actually watch the video? He never said it was coming either. However his reasoning was solid on motivations for a developer adding a popular feature after release. If DICE wanted to score some extra brownie points and sales with fans after the game has been out a while, adding something like Galactic Conquest would be a great way to do that.
    #JustSayNoToReyLo
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    @ThePoolshark
    Fighting game AI has gotten better. AI in other campaigns can do some crazy stuff too. Sorry its ***** to say programming an AI to move and swing and use special powers is hard and then you have games like Halo, Dragon Ball, or Tekken doing just that.

    And if you end up fighting hero AI in the campaign, which Im pretty sure there is a high chance, considering most star wars stories have lightsaber battles/duels and they said we will see heroes and villains in the campaign, thats really going to make DICE look lazy.
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    edited July 2017
    Oh and we even see the same engine dice has with AI using abilities the player can in a game like ME Andromeda.
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Oh and we even see the same engine dice has with AI using abilities the player can in a game like ME Andromeda.

    Completely different to have AI running around shooting people than to have AI go to an objective... not sure why I have to explain this to people...
    The greatest moderator that EA has ever had.
  • Blazur
    4468 posts Member
    edited July 2017
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Fighting game AI has gotten better. AI in other campaigns can do some crazy stuff too. Sorry its **** to say programming an AI to move and swing and use special powers is hard and then you have games like Halo, Dragon Ball, or Tekken doing just that.

    Did...did you just compare AI in a one-on-one fighting game to that of a 40-player, objective based shooter with heroes, vehicles, ships, and a comprehensive battlepoint reinforcement system? On a different game engine no less? That's a new low even for this thread.

    "The original Super Mario Bros had goomba AI...why can't this game?!?"
    The greatest teacher, failure is.
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Oh and we even see the same engine dice has with AI using abilities the player can in a game like ME Andromeda.

    Completely different to have AI running around shooting people than to have AI go to an objective... not sure why I have to explain this to people...

    Your kidding, right? They did it with ease for skirmish last game, programmed them to go to a point and activate it.....it took 3 people to do that, not even, probly one dude, on their free time. Don't defend laziness
  • ThePoolshark
    2961 posts Member
    edited July 2017
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Oh and we even see the same engine dice has with AI using abilities the player can in a game like ME Andromeda.

    Completely different to have AI running around shooting people than to have AI go to an objective... not sure why I have to explain this to people...

    Your kidding, right? They did it with ease for skirmish last game, programmed them to go to a point and activate it.....it took 3 people to do that, not even, probly one dude, on their free time. Don't defend laziness

    I guess I should defer to your expertise in the Frostbite engine. Next time I talk about something I know a lot about, I will ask you... the person who doesn't know what they are talking about.

    and please, when you try to make it seem like i don't know what i am talking about, use the correct form of you're, it really undercuts your attempt at making me seem im not knowledgeable on the subject...
    The greatest moderator that EA has ever had.
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    Blazur wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Fighting game AI has gotten better. AI in other campaigns can do some crazy stuff too. Sorry its **** to say programming an AI to move and swing and use special powers is hard and then you have games like Halo, Dragon Ball, or Tekken doing just that.

    Did...did you just compare AI in a one-on-one fighting game to that of a 40-player, objective based shooter with heroes, vehicles, ships, and a comprehensive battlepoint reinforcement system? On a different game engine no less? That's a new low even for this thread.

    "The original Super Mario Bros had goomba AI...why can't this game?!?"
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Oh and we even see the same engine dice has with AI using abilities the player can in a game like ME Andromeda.

    Completely different to have AI running around shooting people than to have AI go to an objective... not sure why I have to explain this to people...

    Your kidding, right? They did it with ease for skirmish last game, programmed them to go to a point and activate it.....it took 3 people to do that, not even, probly one dude, on their free time. Don't defend laziness

    I guess I should defer to your expertise in the Frostbite engine. Next time I talk about something I know a lot about, I will ask you... the person who doesn't know what they are talking about.

    and please, when you try to make it seem like i don't know what i am talking about, use the correct form of you're, it really undercuts your attempt at making me seem im not knowledgeable on the subject...
    You said its hard to "have AI go to an objective" yet that was something they had in Skirmish...last game....done by 3 people in off hours. Heck, Missions let the AI pick up tokens even.
    I just showed you it can be done,with ease by DICE themselves! Are you that much of a sycophant to them to not admit they may have been wrong and just didnt feel like doing it?

    AI in total War games do the same thing and those games now have thousands upon thousands of troops and machines and even monsters flying around, well detailed too,on well detailed maps. And this was done years and years before the XB1 or PS4 came out so please, dont use "PC only" as an excuse

    This is not something thats super hard to do.


  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    This is not something thats super hard to do.


    As I said, I will gladly defer to your vast knowledge of the frostbite engine from here on out. Please... tell me how it is
    The greatest moderator that EA has ever had.
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    This is not something thats super hard to do.


    As I said, I will gladly defer to your vast knowledge of the frostbite engine from here on out. Please... tell me how it is

    Well hell, i guess the Frostbite Engine must be the most highly complicated piece of tech on the planet and has a built in resistence to AI, more so than any other engine in the world, nay, the Galaxy!
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    This is not something thats super hard to do.


    As I said, I will gladly defer to your vast knowledge of the frostbite engine from here on out. Please... tell me how it is

    Well ****, i guess the Frostbite Engine must be the most highly complicated piece of tech on the planet and has a built in resistence to AI, more so than any other engine in the world, nay, the Galaxy!

    Oh man... it is? I thought it was difficult, but the MOST complicated tech on earth? How do devs work on such complicated tech?
    The greatest moderator that EA has ever had.
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    This is not something thats super hard to do.


    As I said, I will gladly defer to your vast knowledge of the frostbite engine from here on out. Please... tell me how it is

    Well ****, i guess the Frostbite Engine must be the most highly complicated piece of tech on the planet and has a built in resistence to AI, more so than any other engine in the world, nay, the Galaxy!

    Oh man... it is? I thought it was difficult, but the MOST complicated tech on earth? How do devs work on such complicated tech?

    Idk, i mean we might know, except EA will keep it underwraps via NDAs and not say much about it like its a Rosewell project....or the highly Secret Black Project Battlefront 2 :open_mouth:
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    This is not something thats super hard to do.


    As I said, I will gladly defer to your vast knowledge of the frostbite engine from here on out. Please... tell me how it is

    Well ****, i guess the Frostbite Engine must be the most highly complicated piece of tech on the planet and has a built in resistence to AI, more so than any other engine in the world, nay, the Galaxy!

    Oh man... it is? I thought it was difficult, but the MOST complicated tech on earth? How do devs work on such complicated tech?

    Idk, i mean we might know, except EA will keep it underwraps via NDAs and not say much about it like its a Rosewell project....or the highly Secret Black Project Battlefront 2 :open_mouth:

    Well, you seem to know... why not give us some insight?
    The greatest moderator that EA has ever had.
  • Didn't battlefield 4 have bots for the multiplayer in that game? Because I remember watching video of a guy named Jackfraps and he mentioned something about bots in the multiplayer.
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    Alex64 wrote: »
    I want to believe

    The truth is out there...out there in Sweden
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Oh and we even see the same engine dice has with AI using abilities the player can in a game like ME Andromeda.

    Completely different to have AI running around shooting people than to have AI go to an objective... not sure why I have to explain this to people...

    I think the biggest problem is DICE are a multiplayer centric studio, so AI probably isn't their specialty. As for getting AI to play the objective though, while I'm sure it's harder than simply programming them to run around the map and shoot, I'm still sure that it's possible. Just look at Plants vs Zombies GW2. Every single mode in that game is playable in single player or co-op with bots. Also, the bots do a good job of playing the objective and fighting.

    Additionally, we're getting a single player campaign which will no doubt have sophisticated AI. The big difference is it is being handled by a studio who is more familiar with how to implement AI into games.

    While it may be more difficult, I just don't buy that the Frostbite Engine is a huge obstacle to programming AI. I think the real obstacle is that AI isn't really DICE's area of expertise in the first place. That's why I have modest expectations for their portion of the offline experience this go around. I do absolutely think they can do better than they did in the last game though.
    #JustSayNoToReyLo
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Oh and we even see the same engine dice has with AI using abilities the player can in a game like ME Andromeda.

    Completely different to have AI running around shooting people than to have AI go to an objective... not sure why I have to explain this to people...

    I think the biggest problem is DICE are a multiplayer centric studio, so AI probably isn't their specialty. As for getting AI to play the objective though, while I'm sure it's harder than simply programming them to run around the map and shoot, I'm still sure that it's possible. Just look at Plants vs Zombies GW2. Every single mode in that game is playable in single player or co-op with bots. Also, the bots do a good job of playing the objective and fighting.

    Additionally, we're getting a single player campaign which will no doubt have sophisticated AI. The big difference is it is being handled by a studio who is more familiar with how to implement AI into games.

    While it may be more difficult, I just don't buy that the Frostbite Engine is a huge obstacle to programming AI. I think the real obstacle is that AI isn't really DICE's area of expertise in the first place. That's why I have modest expectations for their portion of the offline experience this go around. I do absolutely think they can do better than they did in the last game though.

    Yup
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    This is not something thats super hard to do.


    As I said, I will gladly defer to your vast knowledge of the frostbite engine from here on out. Please... tell me how it is

    Well ****, i guess the Frostbite Engine must be the most highly complicated piece of tech on the planet and has a built in resistence to AI, more so than any other engine in the world, nay, the Galaxy!

    Oh man... it is? I thought it was difficult, but the MOST complicated tech on earth? How do devs work on such complicated tech?

    Idk, i mean we might know, except EA will keep it underwraps via NDAs and not say much about it like its a Rosewell project....or the highly Secret Black Project Battlefront 2 :open_mouth:

    Well, you seem to know... why not give us some insight?

    Never claimed I knew everything about Frostbite and DICE but my point was that Dice can and did make AI that plays an objective, you said its hard, i proved you wrong with examples from DICE themselves making AI that do just that with less than half an effort on their part. End of story.
  • Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Oh and we even see the same engine dice has with AI using abilities the player can in a game like ME Andromeda.

    Completely different to have AI running around shooting people than to have AI go to an objective... not sure why I have to explain this to people...

    I think the biggest problem is DICE are a multiplayer centric studio, so AI probably isn't their specialty. As for getting AI to play the objective though, while I'm sure it's harder than simply programming them to run around the map and shoot, I'm still sure that it's possible. Just look at Plants vs Zombies GW2. Every single mode in that game is playable in single player or co-op with bots. Also, the bots do a good job of playing the objective and fighting.

    Additionally, we're getting a single player campaign which will no doubt have sophisticated AI. The big difference is it is being handled by a studio who is more familiar with how to implement AI into games.

    While it may be more difficult, I just don't buy that the Frostbite Engine is a huge obstacle to programming AI. I think the real obstacle is that AI isn't really DICE's area of expertise in the first place. That's why I have modest expectations for their portion of the offline experience this go around. I do absolutely think they can do better than they did in the last game though.

    Yup

    I think it's just as well that DICE most likely isn't working on the AI. EA Motive is the studio working on single-player, so I'd imagine that extends to Skirmish as well.
    * * *

    Original Trilogy & Sequel Trilogy for Instant Action in Battlefront II!


    #soloplayersmatter #singleplayersmatter #offlinegamersmatter
  • Xerxes52
    599 posts Member
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Oh and we even see the same engine dice has with AI using abilities the player can in a game like ME Andromeda.

    Completely different to have AI running around shooting people than to have AI go to an objective... not sure why I have to explain this to people...

    I think the biggest problem is DICE are a multiplayer centric studio, so AI probably isn't their specialty. As for getting AI to play the objective though, while I'm sure it's harder than simply programming them to run around the map and shoot, I'm still sure that it's possible. Just look at Plants vs Zombies GW2. Every single mode in that game is playable in single player or co-op with bots. Also, the bots do a good job of playing the objective and fighting.

    Additionally, we're getting a single player campaign which will no doubt have sophisticated AI. The big difference is it is being handled by a studio who is more familiar with how to implement AI into games.

    While it may be more difficult, I just don't buy that the Frostbite Engine is a huge obstacle to programming AI. I think the real obstacle is that AI isn't really DICE's area of expertise in the first place. That's why I have modest expectations for their portion of the offline experience this go around. I do absolutely think they can do better than they did in the last game though.

    Yup

    I think it's just as well that DICE most likely isn't working on the AI. EA Motive is the studio working on single-player, so I'd imagine that extends to Skirmish as well.

    Agreed. DICE is a multiplayer only studio, so having another company with Frostbite AI experience (such as Motive, or even Popcap) develop Skirmish would be a reasonable idea.
    To think that once I could not see beyond the veil of our reality, to see those who dwell behind.
  • Alex64 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    This is not something thats super hard to do.


    As I said, I will gladly defer to your vast knowledge of the frostbite engine from here on out. Please... tell me how it is

    Well ****, i guess the Frostbite Engine must be the most highly complicated piece of tech on the planet and has a built in resistence to AI, more so than any other engine in the world, nay, the Galaxy!

    Oh man... it is? I thought it was difficult, but the MOST complicated tech on earth? How do devs work on such complicated tech?

    Idk, i mean we might know, except EA will keep it underwraps via NDAs and not say much about it like its a Rosewell project....or the highly Secret Black Project Battlefront 2 :open_mouth:

    Well, you seem to know... why not give us some insight?

    Never claimed I knew everything about Frostbite and DICE but my point was that Dice can and did make AI that plays an objective, you said its hard, i proved you wrong with examples from DICE themselves making AI that do just that with less than half an effort on their part. End of story.

    It costs time and money to develop an AI.

    It's Time and money they won't use to create an AI bc they focus all that time and money to deliver MP modes/maps and design heroes.

    I just dont understand why people ask for skimish, isn't enough Single player campaign?

    No, it isn't.

    I want to play this game with my friends when they come over. I don't want to tell them to go home just so we can play online. Couch co-op with people you know in real life stomps online multiplayer every day of the week. Real life friendship > online multiplayer.

    I say this as someone who also likes online multiplayer, it will never have anything on spending time with friends in the real world.
    #JustSayNoToReyLo
  • Alex64 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    This is not something thats super hard to do.


    As I said, I will gladly defer to your vast knowledge of the frostbite engine from here on out. Please... tell me how it is

    Well ****, i guess the Frostbite Engine must be the most highly complicated piece of tech on the planet and has a built in resistence to AI, more so than any other engine in the world, nay, the Galaxy!

    Oh man... it is? I thought it was difficult, but the MOST complicated tech on earth? How do devs work on such complicated tech?

    Idk, i mean we might know, except EA will keep it underwraps via NDAs and not say much about it like its a Rosewell project....or the highly Secret Black Project Battlefront 2 :open_mouth:

    Well, you seem to know... why not give us some insight?

    Never claimed I knew everything about Frostbite and DICE but my point was that Dice can and did make AI that plays an objective, you said its hard, i proved you wrong with examples from DICE themselves making AI that do just that with less than half an effort on their part. End of story.

    It costs time and money to develop an AI.

    It's Time and money they won't use to create an AI bc they focus all that time and money to deliver MP modes/maps and design heroes.

    I just dont understand why people ask for skimish, isn't enough Single player campaign?

    No, it isn't.

    I want to play this game with my friends when they come over. I don't want to tell them to go home just so we can play online. Couch co-op with people you know in real life stomps online multiplayer every day of the week. Real life friendship > online multiplayer.

    I say this as someone who also likes online multiplayer, it will never have anything on spending time with friends in the real world.

    Not to mention Skirmish mode will be more flexible than a scripted campaign, and the campaign only allows you to play as the Empire and the First Order with no Clone Wars content whatsoever.

    For people to truly be able to live out their Star Wars battle fantasies, they need an open sandbox where they can choose the era, their faction, game mode, map, and planet, and set the rules of the game mode without having to be online or otherwise have the online matchmaker choose all those things for them.
    * * *

    Original Trilogy & Sequel Trilogy for Instant Action in Battlefront II!


    #soloplayersmatter #singleplayersmatter #offlinegamersmatter
  • @Admiral_Petty

    yeah and a campaign is only playable once before it becomes simply repetitive, especially since it is looking to be more linear and corridor shooting than games like the original BF2. the story is greatly focused upon, and playing it multiple times is like trying to watch the phantom menace's political debates without falling asleep. the campaign looks like it will be playable at least twice before becoming boring, so a skirmish is totally necessary to increase the longevity of the game even after the servers go down. I still play the original BF2 almost all the time today, and that is the xbox version without any cool mods. its just fun to be able to have large star wars battles like you have always dreamed of without having to play with a bunch of random people. now that Motive, a studio actually experienced in AI is working on singleplayer, I have high hopes that the AI will be good and that the skirmish will be expansive, rather than a lazy attempt by two to three people post launch. so the real problem here is not the complicated AI programming in the frostbite engine in my opinion, but how hard Motive is willing to work and how much they are dedicated to giving us by launch.
  • Alex64 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    This is not something thats super hard to do.


    As I said, I will gladly defer to your vast knowledge of the frostbite engine from here on out. Please... tell me how it is

    Well ****, i guess the Frostbite Engine must be the most highly complicated piece of tech on the planet and has a built in resistence to AI, more so than any other engine in the world, nay, the Galaxy!

    Oh man... it is? I thought it was difficult, but the MOST complicated tech on earth? How do devs work on such complicated tech?

    Idk, i mean we might know, except EA will keep it underwraps via NDAs and not say much about it like its a Rosewell project....or the highly Secret Black Project Battlefront 2 :open_mouth:

    Well, you seem to know... why not give us some insight?

    Never claimed I knew everything about Frostbite and DICE but my point was that Dice can and did make AI that plays an objective, you said its hard, i proved you wrong with examples from DICE themselves making AI that do just that with less than half an effort on their part. End of story.

    It costs time and money to develop an AI.

    It's Time and money they won't use to create an AI bc they focus all that time and money to deliver MP modes/maps and design heroes.

    I just dont understand why people ask for skimish, isn't enough Single player campaign?

    No. Might as well ask "why do Elder Scrolls fans want an open ended world, arent the main towns and quests enough?"

    I mean a campaign is a linear experience. Skirmish is more open ended, play the objective how you want feel. Also,playing with friends in the same room is a huge thing. Ill take playing with people I know offline and occasionally with people I know online over dealing with most modern day console gamers.

    If your An MP only/mostly gamer,or never played the old games,you wouldnt understand
  • I totally agree @Strogg1980 video games didn't become popular by implementing online multiplayer, its offline games that were made by Nintendo and such that turned the attitude of video games less as a complicated weird thing for nerdy people and more about a simple, crazy fun, and conventional way to spend your free time that anyone can take part in. splitscreen games of the past is what fueled the fire for online multiplayer, but as always there is nothing compared to playing a video game with your friend or family member on the same couch, especially something with the visual fidelity we know in EA's reboot of battlefront. you can only last so long being withheld from another good splitscreen experience, and I have waited many long years to get an splitscreen battlefront like the true battlefront 2. plus, if DICE and or EA is aiming to mainstream the battlefront title to appeal to almost anybody, what about all the people who want this offline splitscreen feature? why do you think DICE put skirmish mode in the last game in the first place? it was because many people requested it, and they still request it for this game, especially considering how much of a disappointment the last skirmish mode came as(in my opinion). if EA wants all of our cash, then I will gladly pay every penny I have to get something worthy of my time for years to come, far after the online portion of the game is obsolete. I still play the original BF2 and I still have tons of fun with it, and this is something that DICE needs to recreate to make this game worthy of the title of battlefront 2. a campaign is not enough, it might be so linear that its basically like watching any star wars movie, and what we want is to recreate the epic battles we see in star wars, not follow a small path that might end rather quickly. a campaign will not be played over and over and over again until the rest of time, it just wont cut it. if money is what EA wants, then an offline splitscreen skirmish that is legendary is necessary. I might buy the game if the skirmish is merely acceptable, but not everyone thinks that way. basically, skirmish 2.0 that seems like skirmish 10.0 is one way EA is going to make tons of money, and will appeal to everyone. the last game failed because of how much EA and or DICE underestimated how many people want a good offline experience, and I guarantee you that offline skirmish is what the absolute casual player is going to play and pay money for, because if they are smart they will know that playing online will not be easy, and they will die quickly and not have any fun. offline is basically built for the casual gamer, if that is what EA is targeting with this and the last game. Even us hardcore players love an offline experience, or else skyrim wouldn't have been as successful as it is today, and the entire elder scrolls franchise. while multiplayer can be incredibly fun, it isn't everything, and no, offline players are not just looking for some easy linear story to follow, these gamers want something at a scale and visual fidelity that hasn't been done before in a star wars video game. again, sitting next to your friend, family member, or even spouse on a couch playing a super fun video game with tons of offline content cannot be compared to multiplayer, where players tend to find many things to get angry or frustrated about, such as hackers, people not playing objectives, no communication, and basically everything a real casual gamer wont be able to handle. don't get me wrong, that doesn't mean offline should be made purely for casual gamers, but maybe a simple difficulty modifier because offline is the only way a casual gamer can fully experience the good things about the game and keep them playing. a casual gamer will not buy a game that they are unsure they can play. also, the original battlefront 2 was great at changing the AI difficulty to normal when you are playing with those more casual or new players, and elite if you are playing with a true gamer friend or alone if you are absolutely the best in all of star wars gaming. anyway, yeah, a linear campaign is not enough. not at all.
  • Times have changed. Gaming is more social then it was back a few decades, especially when social media is integrated into consoles and software. Internet is definitely bigger and more accessible. The demographic for the kinds of people that use it has also changed and grown. That's why many games today have so much emphasis in multiplayer.
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    Alex64 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Alex64 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    This is not something thats super hard to do.


    As I said, I will gladly defer to your vast knowledge of the frostbite engine from here on out. Please... tell me how it is

    Well ****, i guess the Frostbite Engine must be the most highly complicated piece of tech on the planet and has a built in resistence to AI, more so than any other engine in the world, nay, the Galaxy!

    Oh man... it is? I thought it was difficult, but the MOST complicated tech on earth? How do devs work on such complicated tech?

    Idk, i mean we might know, except EA will keep it underwraps via NDAs and not say much about it like its a Rosewell project....or the highly Secret Black Project Battlefront 2 :open_mouth:

    Well, you seem to know... why not give us some insight?

    Never claimed I knew everything about Frostbite and DICE but my point was that Dice can and did make AI that plays an objective, you said its hard, i proved you wrong with examples from DICE themselves making AI that do just that with less than half an effort on their part. End of story.

    It costs time and money to develop an AI.

    It's Time and money they won't use to create an AI bc they focus all that time and money to deliver MP modes/maps and design heroes.

    I just dont understand why people ask for skimish, isn't enough Single player campaign?

    No. Might as well ask "why do Elder Scrolls fans want an open ended world, arent the main towns and quests enough?"

    I mean a campaign is a linear experience. Skirmish is more open ended, play the objective how you want feel. Also,playing with friends in the same room is a huge thing. Ill take playing with people I know offline and occasionally with people I know online over dealing with most modern day console gamers.

    If your An MP only/mostly gamer,or never played the old games,you wouldnt understand

    I'm not living in the past.

    Soooo im living in the past for enjoying a game mode thats different than the one you like??? What,are you 12? Or are you just an immature adult that cant understand people like things differently than you?

    Sorry but i like to go back and play games if they are good and not just have a useless coaster that I payed 65-100$ for years down the road
  • Skirmish supporter, Star Wars Fan!
    Mods, cms, and members should be celebrating SWBF 2. We should not be fighting. The climate is just bad. We need info on Skirmish. I have three questions I would love related to the devs.
    Will all the maps be available? Skirmish was great, but having the dlc would have made it more viable and robust. Dice already made a great skirmish mode last game, but all the locations would have added a lot of replay value.

    Will there be options such as customizable no of bots? Titanfall 2 has great options in this area in private match mode.

    Will co op and single player be avalible? They did a great job with this in the first game.

    I don't want to have the attitude it can't be done. Many games such as COD, Destiny, Gears of War, PVZ 2, Titanfall 2, Halo have PVP, PVE modes, co op, and single player and that only attracts more people. If we love the same game, but love different modes were on the same side. DICE already made a great skirmish mode, but the maps and locations were very limiting. If they add those in; they could have the best PVP, PVE, Co op, and single player game of the era.

    This isn't old school vs new school, single player vs multiplayer (I like both). This is about having many options that are worthy of a triple A, Star Wars game.
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    Alex64 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Alex64 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Alex64 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    Strogg1980 wrote: »
    This is not something thats super hard to do.


    As I said, I will gladly defer to your vast knowledge of the frostbite engine from here on out. Please... tell me how it is

    Well ****, i guess the Frostbite Engine must be the most highly complicated piece of tech on the planet and has a built in resistence to AI, more so than any other engine in the world, nay, the Galaxy!

    Oh man... it is? I thought it was difficult, but the MOST complicated tech on earth? How do devs work on such complicated tech?

    Idk, i mean we might know, except EA will keep it underwraps via NDAs and not say much about it like its a Rosewell project....or the highly Secret Black Project Battlefront 2 :open_mouth:

    Well, you seem to know... why not give us some insight?

    Never claimed I knew everything about Frostbite and DICE but my point was that Dice can and did make AI that plays an objective, you said its hard, i proved you wrong with examples from DICE themselves making AI that do just that with less than half an effort on their part. End of story.

    It costs time and money to develop an AI.

    It's Time and money they won't use to create an AI bc they focus all that time and money to deliver MP modes/maps and design heroes.

    I just dont understand why people ask for skimish, isn't enough Single player campaign?

    No. Might as well ask "why do Elder Scrolls fans want an open ended world, arent the main towns and quests enough?"

    I mean a campaign is a linear experience. Skirmish is more open ended, play the objective how you want feel. Also,playing with friends in the same room is a huge thing. Ill take playing with people I know offline and occasionally with people I know online over dealing with most modern day console gamers.

    If your An MP only/mostly gamer,or never played the old games,you wouldnt understand

    I'm not living in the past.

    Soooo im living in the past for enjoying a game mode thats different than the one you like??? What,are you 12? Or are you just an immature adult that cant understand people like things differently than you?

    Sorry but i like to go back and play games if they are good and not just have a useless coaster that I payed 65-100$ for years down the road

    I guess this new Battlefront won't be for you.

    Considering there is going to be Skirmish and leaks found more offline content too as well as a campaign...tough luck buddy boy. Its very much for us. 2015s online only (90% online at least) release was the black sheep, 3/4 of the series has been geared towards everyone and its going back to that again finally.
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    Skirmish supporter, Star Wars Fan!
    Mods, cms, and members should be celebrating SWBF 2. We should not be fighting. The climate is just bad. We need info on Skirmish. I have three questions I would love related to the devs.
    Will all the maps be available? Skirmish was great, but having the dlc would have made it more viable and robust. Dice already made a great skirmish mode last game, but all the locations would have added a lot of replay value.

    Will there be options such as customizable no of bots? Titanfall 2 has great options in this area in private match mode.

    Will co op and single player be avalible? They did a great job with this in the first game.

    I don't want to have the attitude it can't be done. Many games such as COD, Destiny, Gears of War, PVZ 2, Titanfall 2, Halo have PVP, PVE modes, co op, and single player and that only attracts more people. If we love the same game, but love different modes were on the same side. DICE already made a great skirmish mode, but the maps and locations were very limiting. If they add those in; they could have the best PVP, PVE, Co op, and single player game of the era.

    This isn't old school vs new school, single player vs multiplayer (I like both). This is about having many options that are worthy of a triple A, Star Wars game.

    Im fine with that way of thinking but when you have ***** hats like the guy above commenting in a child like manner, im going to be rude and a bi-otch to them lol. If they dont like it, dont make stupid comments
  • Times have changed. Gaming is more social then it was back a few decades, especially when social media is integrated into consoles and software. Internet is definitely bigger and more accessible. The demographic for the kinds of people that use it has also changed and grown. That's why many games today have so much emphasis in multiplayer.

    Indeed. I certainly understand that. I just wish they wouldn't neglect the co-op portion of games. People do actually still like having friends over and playing with them in the same room. My fondest memories of playing the old Battlefront games is playing them with my friends. Heck, even though it's barebones, I have had a great time playing Skirmish with my friends on a few different occasions.
    #JustSayNoToReyLo
  • Alex64 wrote: »
    The last thing i want to do it's to play versus bots

    Then don't play it.

    The rest of us want an offline alternative to multiplayer. Some want it so they can enjoy a more relaxed game with their friends.

    Others want it for the flexibility that comes with Instant Action; being able to choose the era, your faction, the map, the planet, the game mode, and the rules for the game mode... that sort of customization is never available in online multiplayer, as the matchmaking system chooses all those things for you.

    A lot of just want Skirmish so we can continue to enjoy the game's multiplayer modes long after everyone else has stopped playing after a year or two.

    Most of us want Skirmish for all of the above.
    * * *

    Original Trilogy & Sequel Trilogy for Instant Action in Battlefront II!


    #soloplayersmatter #singleplayersmatter #offlinegamersmatter
  • Jesbro
    631 posts Member
    edited July 2017
    No, I am saying that things get harder as tech gets more in depth. Things that could done in a few months with 20 people now takes 6+ with 50 people.

    This is why aaa games have a much larger dev team than they used to and have seemingly less stuff. It takes a lot of time/effort/money now since people seem to care more about looks than gameplay anymore

    Well Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare 2 uses the EXACT SAME FROSTBITE ENGINE as Battlefront and they managed to get AI bots avaliable in ALL MAPS AND MODES if you click on Solo Play!

    I also know that they are a much smaller development team than DICE alone!

    So you are saying that a team of 3 Development Studios working on Battlefront II cannot do the same things that a much smaller team could do with their game using the same engine?

    If that is true than PopCap should be the ones developing Battlefront II instead of DICE because at least they know what they are doing!
  • Alex64 wrote: »
    The last thing i want to do it's to play versus bots

    Thats fine, but many do
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    edited July 2017
    Alex64 wrote: »
    The last thing i want to do it's to play versus bots

    Then don't play it.

    The rest of us want an offline alternative to multiplayer. Some want it so they can enjoy a more relaxed game with their friends.

    Others want it for the flexibility that comes with Instant Action; being able to choose the era, your faction, the map, the planet, the game mode, and the rules for the game mode... that sort of customization is never available in online multiplayer, as the matchmaking system chooses all those things for you.

    A lot of just want Skirmish so we can continue to enjoy the game's multiplayer modes long after everyone else has stopped playing after a year or two.

    Most of us want Skirmish for all of the above.

    Agreed, all those reasons are exactly.on point. I just dont understand why people cannot accept people enjoy things they do not.
  • Since Motive is obviously working on the AI and has some experience in that area, the AI shoudlnt be a problem. the last games AI in both skirmish and missions was very lacking, but we can all agree that DICE's specialty is multiplayer. If DICE could make acceptable skirmish AI on the frostbite engine with two or three people working on it, an entire studio trained in this area is going to make it all the more better. What we should really be focusing on is what we might be getting with skirmish modes, such as custom games, instant action, all maps, all modes, dlc support and more. while we probably wont be getting galactic conquest ever, maybe we might get something similar to instant action to play the game long after the multiplayer is dead. a multiplayer game with no multiplayer is basically no game at all, and a linear campaign doesn't make up for everything. Hopefully DICE and EA recognize that we don't just want to watch another star wars movie offline, we want to play the game in all its glory and content without other players to limit the possibilities. I just hope they don't turn the new skirmish into a short little training mode with only 1-3 maps and less modes. the offline community doesn't want merely a training mission like the first game, they want to play a standalone mode that is just as good as multiplayer, that way all people are considered, the longevity of the game increases dramatically, and ultimately EA can obtain even more cash from gamers. If money is what ultimately decides the features and content in a game, then implementing an offline skirmish mode that has just as much if not more content than the multiplayer mode excluding the campaign is what is going to make money. This way the game appeals to star wars fans, multiplayer gamers, casual gamers, gamers looking for a good story, and gamers hungering for a good offline experience. While DICE is busy making the multiplayer as good as it can be, I can only hope that Motive is working harder to make offline modes that will reach the same level of gameplay value as online ones. in the end, a training mission, or anything that merely prepares you for multiplayer is almost a waste of time to create. I don't want to play a skirmish mode that has poor AI and shouts every five seconds "you should be playing multiplayer because you're wasting your time here!". The poor skirmish mode in the last game only provided me with enough fun to last me a week at the most, and only that long because they added the jakku and new hoth and endor maps. wouldn't have minded playing the same map over and over again, but the AI is what ruined it all, making the game so boring that it could be described as merely shooting a bunch of manequins in the head, one at a time as they enter the corridor. this can be fun for like ten minutes, but then it just becomes repetitive, and it never feels like you are in a team because you are doing everything and the AI is capable of nothing but surrounding you and failing to shoot you. you never even get to witness the full 40 player/AI count because only half of the AI are active at one time, and many of them active sit in a corner unseen without even shooting you if you go near them. hopefully the AI in this new game can be smart enough to provide a real tactical challenge, and not just a challenge because you made the difficulty higher so they can aim way better and do way more damage. Turning up the AI difficulty in the original SWBF2 actually made them smarter, because they avoid grenades by rolling, try to shoot at your head, use a back and forth motion like players do to avoid being shot by you, snipe people extremely well, take cover, and everything, not just rushing forwards to you while barely shooting at all, and once they reach you they just stay still and don't shoot, doing what the AI do in missions occasionally by doing a poor job of dodging blaster fire. they never take cover, never move while they shoot you, only following a few set paths and occasionally activating/deactivating an uplink or in some cases standing in front of the uplink as if they are trying to do so but in reality they are doing nothing. it neither felt like star wars or a battle. What we all want to see is capable AI, especially now that classes are returning, paving the way for AI that do different things like in the original game, such as the specialist staying back, taking cover and sniping, the assault rushing forwards, dodging enemy fire and throwing thermal detonators, the heavy laying down suppressive fire and protecting the rear guard, and the officer buffing as many people as possible and placing turrets in open areas and choke points. it would be a shame if skirmish doesn't include classes for the AI, because then once again, no matter how you do it, the player will feel like the only person on the battlefield. that was a thing I hated with the last game's attempt at skirmish, where when I played against my brother, the AI were just a distraction and we were actually just fighting each other 1v1.
  • Since Motive is obviously working on the AI and has some experience in that area, the AI shoudlnt be a problem. the last games AI in both skirmish and missions was very lacking, but we can all agree that DICE's specialty is multiplayer. If DICE could make acceptable skirmish AI on the frostbite engine with two or three people working on it, an entire studio trained in this area is going to make it all the more better.

    Agreed, but dude... you need to learn to use paragraphs. Those giant walls-of-text you keep posting can be a bit of a pain to read.
    * * *

    Original Trilogy & Sequel Trilogy for Instant Action in Battlefront II!


    #soloplayersmatter #singleplayersmatter #offlinegamersmatter
  • Greyjedi_152
    62 posts Member
    edited July 2017
    @Aryck-The-One sorry about that didn't realize it it was so long i'll do it next time I cant edit it
  • ThePoolshark
    2961 posts Member
    edited July 2017
    Jesbro wrote: »
    No, I am saying that things get harder as tech gets more in depth. Things that could done in a few months with 20 people now takes 6+ with 50 people.

    This is why aaa games have a much larger dev team than they used to and have seemingly less stuff. It takes a lot of time/effort/money now since people seem to care more about looks than gameplay anymore

    Well Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare 2 uses the EXACT SAME FROSTBITE ENGINE as Battlefront and they managed to get AI bots avaliable in ALL MAPS AND MODES if you click on Solo Play!

    I also know that they are a much smaller development team than DICE alone!

    So you are saying that a team of 3 Development Studios working on Battlefront II cannot do the same things that a much smaller team could do with their game using the same engine?

    If that is true than PopCap should be the ones developing Battlefront II instead of DICE because at least they know what they are doing!

    do i have to explain the difference in objective ai and just random fighting ai... ANDDDD it is an older version of frostbite.

    so here, i will explain some more stuff since you guys are pretty dense. as different studios work on frostbite, the engine gets pulled in by the frostbite team. advances are made, and more work by other teams are pulled in. the frostbite from pvz is basically non-existent now because of this... should i explain any more basic common sense things to you, or can you take it from here?

    assumptions are bad, mmkay

    i guess the mistake is mine here, i assumed with as much information as you are spewing out as truth, i thought you would have at least looked into the engine a bit more... I won't make this mistake going forward
    The greatest moderator that EA has ever had.
  • @ThePoolshark I get it dude I know what you're saying but in that case maybe that old frostbite engine was new for those developers as well, which would mean if they can do it so can DICE or Motive or whoever will be working on the AI.

    Since Motive is probably the Ai programmer in this case, I'm sure the same things can be done since Motive has experience in that area. unless the older version of frostbite was easier for those developers than the newer version for these, I'm sure the AI will be no problem.

    I'd also like to say that the random fighting AI was good for the original BF2 on that engine, which was probably a new version for those developers, but I don't know much about the engine in that case or how new it was. it may have just been the same engine on the first BF, but then you could say the same thing is happening now, with the first EABF being on the frostbite engine and the EABF2 being on the same, albeit maybe slight advances, same as the engine in the original battlefront games. tell me if I'm making any sense please
  • @ThePoolshark I get it dude I know what you're saying but in that case maybe that old frostbite engine was new for those developers as well, which would mean if they can do it so can DICE or Motive or whoever will be working on the AI.

    Since Motive is probably the Ai programmer in this case, I'm sure the same things can be done since Motive has experience in that area. unless the older version of frostbite was easier for those developers than the newer version for these, I'm sure the AI will be no problem.

    I'd also like to say that the random fighting AI was good for the original BF2 on that engine, which was probably a new version for those developers, but I don't know much about the engine in that case or how new it was. it may have just been the same engine on the first BF, but then you could say the same thing is happening now, with the first EABF being on the frostbite engine and the EABF2 being on the same, albeit maybe slight advances, same as the engine in the original battlefront games. tell me if I'm making any sense please

    The old engines were by far easier and quicker to work on. This is why games like Titanfall can have good AI... it is an old engine with a new coat of paint.
    The greatest moderator that EA has ever had.
  • Strogg1980
    2574 posts Member
    Jesbro wrote: »
    No, I am saying that things get harder as tech gets more in depth. Things that could done in a few months with 20 people now takes 6+ with 50 people.

    This is why aaa games have a much larger dev team than they used to and have seemingly less stuff. It takes a lot of time/effort/money now since people seem to care more about looks than gameplay anymore

    Well Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare 2 uses the EXACT SAME FROSTBITE ENGINE as Battlefront and they managed to get AI bots avaliable in ALL MAPS AND MODES if you click on Solo Play!

    I also know that they are a much smaller development team than DICE alone!

    So you are saying that a team of 3 Development Studios working on Battlefront II cannot do the same things that a much smaller team could do with their game using the same engine?

    If that is true than PopCap should be the ones developing Battlefront II instead of DICE because at least they know what they are doing!

    do i have to explain the difference in objective ai and just random fighting ai... ANDDDD it is an older version of frostbite.

    so here, i will explain some more stuff since you guys are pretty dense. as different studios work on frostbite, the engine gets pulled in by the frostbite team. advances are made, and more work by other teams are pulled in. the frostbite from pvz is basically non-existent now because of this... should i explain any more basic common sense things to you, or can you take it from here?

    assumptions are bad, mmkay

    i guess the mistake is mine here, i assumed with as much information as you are spewing out as truth, i thought you would have at least looked into the engine a bit more... I won't make this mistake going forward

    Your totally missing the point...back when it was new, before it was changed up for other games and upgraded, they gave AI objectives! 2 times even- 1st. On the Vanilla release- To collect tokens, and second time,with only 3 people on off hours working on it mind you, to go to a point and activate it for Walker Assault. But now, after some upgrades to the engine, same engine that they are familiar with, they would have a hard time...after doing....it before with not much trouble....on the same-??? That has got to be the biggest ***** Ive ever heard, EVER.
Sign In or Register to comment.