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

Another reason to add AI to multiplayer

Prev1
Jump packs will be limited to one class, and even then, the people in that class might not use it over classes (speculating this will be the case based off of my research on the game) but either way the devs said that the jump pack will be limited to a small amount of players. So, no longer will players be able to jump right into battle, they'll be running, slowly, back up to the battlefield, so some extra AI could fill up the empty spaces by the slower time it takes to get back to the battlefield. (Also: add 5 AI pilots to each team in large game modes, it will fill up the air and make it more immersive)
giphy.gif

Replies

  • SG-17
    111 posts Member
    No AI in multiplayer.
    Visit The Star Wars: Battlefront Community for clans and tournaments on the PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC. Established 2007.
  • thiago2103 wrote: »
    No AI in multiplayer .

    But... but... we need it! hahaha I actually would love AI in multiplayer, as would a large percentage of the player base, The AI pilots wouldn't even have any negative, but then having 10 or so AI per team, especially including third party factions as the AI like Wookies on Kashyyk while the CIS gets extra droids
    giphy.gif
  • Blazur
    4461 posts Member
    No AI in multiplayer.
    The greatest teacher, failure is.
  • AI in multiplayer would actually be kinda cool.
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    thiago2103 wrote: »
    No AI in multiplayer .
    SG-17 wrote: »
    No AI in multiplayer.
    Blazur wrote: »
    No AI in multiplayer.

  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI
  • Agherosh
    1092 posts Member
    Yes AI.
    #TipleeTiplarForBF2
  • Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?
    giphy.gif
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes
  • Agherosh
    1092 posts Member
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.
    #TipleeTiplarForBF2
  • Definitely need AI or player count increase to 64. Or both...
  • Blazur
    4461 posts Member
    Somebody ask them on Twitter what their stance is on the topic? Maybe we'll get a response and we can end the debate.
    The greatest teacher, failure is.
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.

    I know. And I'd rather stick with what we got instead of adding bots
  • Agherosh
    1092 posts Member
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.

    I know. And I'd rather stick with what we got instead of adding bots

    So you rather have a half empty map than actually have it feel like an actual battle with both players and well implemented AI?

    Just lol.
    #TipleeTiplarForBF2
  • Yes (improved) AI on multiplayer
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.

    I know. And I'd rather stick with what we got instead of adding bots

    So you rather have a half empty map than actually have it feel like an actual battle with both players and well implemented AI?

    Just lol.

    So you'd rather ignorant bots running around on the battlefield just for filler? Lol. People will complain that KD is bloated because of bots, too. I doubt they make maps as large as Battlefield, anyway. They'll work the maps to be fine for 40 players. Again, skirmish is a great mode if you're interested in playing bots. Keep bots out of multiplayer
  • We need AI for maps to be filled.
  • YES AI. Because if we don't we have to have relatively small battles!
  • Agherosh
    1092 posts Member
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.

    I know. And I'd rather stick with what we got instead of adding bots

    So you rather have a half empty map than actually have it feel like an actual battle with both players and well implemented AI?

    Just lol.

    So you'd rather ignorant bots running around on the battlefield just for filler? Lol. People will complain that KD is bloated because of bots, too. I doubt they make maps as large as Battlefield, anyway. They'll work the maps to be fine for 40 players. Again, skirmish is a great mode if you're interested in playing bots. Keep bots out of multiplayer

    If you actually read what I said, I clearly said "well implemented AI". I've seen games with AI that were better than players.
    I'm interested in playing a game that feels like actual battles, not 6v6 firefights in an excluded part of the map, having the rest of the map empty.
    To play that I'd play CoD, at least the people respawn closer.
    If you are fine with how "battles" are right now, that's your problem, not mine. I rather have bots and players at the same time, I can care less if I'm killing a bot or a player, I play for the immersion and the fun of the match itself. Hell, sometimes while playing against players they are so bad they seem bots anyway. Wouldn't be much different then.
    #TipleeTiplarForBF2
  • tjtarr
    44 posts Member
    Only if Dice work out their AI
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.

    I know. And I'd rather stick with what we got instead of adding bots

    So you rather have a half empty map than actually have it feel like an actual battle with both players and well implemented AI?

    Just lol.

    So you'd rather ignorant bots running around on the battlefield just for filler? Lol. People will complain that KD is bloated because of bots, too. I doubt they make maps as large as Battlefield, anyway. They'll work the maps to be fine for 40 players. Again, skirmish is a great mode if you're interested in playing bots. Keep bots out of multiplayer

    If you actually read what I said, I clearly said "well implemented AI". I've seen games with AI that were better than players.
    I'm interested in playing a game that feels like actual battles, not 6v6 firefights in an excluded part of the map, having the rest of the map empty.
    To play that I'd play CoD, at least the people respawn closer.
    If you are fine with how "battles" are right now, that's your problem, not mine. I rather have bots and players at the same time, I can care less if I'm killing a bot or a player, I play for the immersion and the fun of the match itself. ****, sometimes while playing against players they are so bad they seem bots anyway. Wouldn't be much different then.

    You mustn't have read my previous comments. I stated that I rather 50 or 64 players but they aren't going to change the player count. Bots are not an interesting part of multiplayer. They're meant for offline gameplay. There is no satisfaction in taking AI down
  • Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.

    I know. And I'd rather stick with what we got instead of adding bots

    So you rather have a half empty map than actually have it feel like an actual battle with both players and well implemented AI?

    Just lol.

    So you'd rather ignorant bots running around on the battlefield just for filler? Lol. People will complain that KD is bloated because of bots, too. I doubt they make maps as large as Battlefield, anyway. They'll work the maps to be fine for 40 players. Again, skirmish is a great mode if you're interested in playing bots. Keep bots out of multiplayer

    If you actually read what I said, I clearly said "well implemented AI". I've seen games with AI that were better than players.
    I'm interested in playing a game that feels like actual battles, not 6v6 firefights in an excluded part of the map, having the rest of the map empty.
    To play that I'd play CoD, at least the people respawn closer.
    If you are fine with how "battles" are right now, that's your problem, not mine. I rather have bots and players at the same time, I can care less if I'm killing a bot or a player, I play for the immersion and the fun of the match itself. ****, sometimes while playing against players they are so bad they seem bots anyway. Wouldn't be much different then.

    You mustn't have read my previous comments. I stated that I rather 50 or 64 players but they aren't going to change the player count. Bots are not an interesting part of multiplayer. They're meant for offline gameplay. There is no satisfaction in taking AI down

    To me it makes you feel like you matter a little and feel like a warrior, instead of re-spawning for 5 seconds to be mowed down over and over.
  • Agherosh
    1092 posts Member
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.

    I know. And I'd rather stick with what we got instead of adding bots

    So you rather have a half empty map than actually have it feel like an actual battle with both players and well implemented AI?

    Just lol.

    So you'd rather ignorant bots running around on the battlefield just for filler? Lol. People will complain that KD is bloated because of bots, too. I doubt they make maps as large as Battlefield, anyway. They'll work the maps to be fine for 40 players. Again, skirmish is a great mode if you're interested in playing bots. Keep bots out of multiplayer

    If you actually read what I said, I clearly said "well implemented AI". I've seen games with AI that were better than players.
    I'm interested in playing a game that feels like actual battles, not 6v6 firefights in an excluded part of the map, having the rest of the map empty.
    To play that I'd play CoD, at least the people respawn closer.
    If you are fine with how "battles" are right now, that's your problem, not mine. I rather have bots and players at the same time, I can care less if I'm killing a bot or a player, I play for the immersion and the fun of the match itself. ****, sometimes while playing against players they are so bad they seem bots anyway. Wouldn't be much different then.

    You mustn't have read my previous comments. I stated that I rather 50 or 64 players but they aren't going to change the player count. Bots are not an interesting part of multiplayer. They're meant for offline gameplay. There is no satisfaction in taking AI down

    Bots aren't exclusively meant for offline. They are meant to complement gameplay, offline, or online. Many games have them. They save the empty lobbies from being as empty, they help immersion, they give worse players a chance. They help teams to be more or less balanced.

    We all played the old battlefront games with a friend against bots, or at least we most did, and we had a blast.

    Bots sure help immersion in space battles, you can say otherwise but it's a fact.
    If they are well done and implemented, having them is only a good thing for gameplay.
    #TipleeTiplarForBF2
  • LastOneToKnow
    600 posts Member
    edited April 2017
    If only Dice would give us a server browser and the ability to host and "configure" our own servers. That's the real answer. Seriously. Who wants to be limited to playing in EA's one size fits all "matchmaking" sandbox? I sure don't.
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.

    I know. And I'd rather stick with what we got instead of adding bots

    So you rather have a half empty map than actually have it feel like an actual battle with both players and well implemented AI?

    Just lol.

    So you'd rather ignorant bots running around on the battlefield just for filler? Lol. People will complain that KD is bloated because of bots, too. I doubt they make maps as large as Battlefield, anyway. They'll work the maps to be fine for 40 players. Again, skirmish is a great mode if you're interested in playing bots. Keep bots out of multiplayer

    If you actually read what I said, I clearly said "well implemented AI". I've seen games with AI that were better than players.
    I'm interested in playing a game that feels like actual battles, not 6v6 firefights in an excluded part of the map, having the rest of the map empty.
    To play that I'd play CoD, at least the people respawn closer.
    If you are fine with how "battles" are right now, that's your problem, not mine. I rather have bots and players at the same time, I can care less if I'm killing a bot or a player, I play for the immersion and the fun of the match itself. ****, sometimes while playing against players they are so bad they seem bots anyway. Wouldn't be much different then.

    You mustn't have read my previous comments. I stated that I rather 50 or 64 players but they aren't going to change the player count. Bots are not an interesting part of multiplayer. They're meant for offline gameplay. There is no satisfaction in taking AI down

    Bots aren't exclusively meant for offline. They are meant to complement gameplay, offline, or online. Many games have them. They save the empty lobbies from being as empty, they help immersion, they give worse players a chance. They help teams to be more or less balanced.

    We all played the old battlefront games with a friend against bots, or at least we most did, and we had a blast.

    Bots sure help immersion in space battles, you can say otherwise but it's a fact.
    If they are well done and implemented, having them is only a good thing for gameplay.

    Well Titanfall didn't hit the mark with bots because they were literally garbage and an easy kill. I don't play against bots. I rather PvP combat, not PvE
  • Agherosh
    1092 posts Member
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.

    I know. And I'd rather stick with what we got instead of adding bots

    So you rather have a half empty map than actually have it feel like an actual battle with both players and well implemented AI?

    Just lol.

    So you'd rather ignorant bots running around on the battlefield just for filler? Lol. People will complain that KD is bloated because of bots, too. I doubt they make maps as large as Battlefield, anyway. They'll work the maps to be fine for 40 players. Again, skirmish is a great mode if you're interested in playing bots. Keep bots out of multiplayer

    If you actually read what I said, I clearly said "well implemented AI". I've seen games with AI that were better than players.
    I'm interested in playing a game that feels like actual battles, not 6v6 firefights in an excluded part of the map, having the rest of the map empty.
    To play that I'd play CoD, at least the people respawn closer.
    If you are fine with how "battles" are right now, that's your problem, not mine. I rather have bots and players at the same time, I can care less if I'm killing a bot or a player, I play for the immersion and the fun of the match itself. ****, sometimes while playing against players they are so bad they seem bots anyway. Wouldn't be much different then.

    You mustn't have read my previous comments. I stated that I rather 50 or 64 players but they aren't going to change the player count. Bots are not an interesting part of multiplayer. They're meant for offline gameplay. There is no satisfaction in taking AI down

    Bots aren't exclusively meant for offline. They are meant to complement gameplay, offline, or online. Many games have them. They save the empty lobbies from being as empty, they help immersion, they give worse players a chance. They help teams to be more or less balanced.

    We all played the old battlefront games with a friend against bots, or at least we most did, and we had a blast.

    Bots sure help immersion in space battles, you can say otherwise but it's a fact.
    If they are well done and implemented, having them is only a good thing for gameplay.

    Well Titanfall didn't hit the mark with bots because they were literally garbage and an easy kill. I don't play against bots. I rather PvP combat, not PvE

    I don't want garbage bots either, as I said multiple times: "Good AI, well implemented"
    #TipleeTiplarForBF2
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.

    I know. And I'd rather stick with what we got instead of adding bots

    So you rather have a half empty map than actually have it feel like an actual battle with both players and well implemented AI?

    Just lol.

    So you'd rather ignorant bots running around on the battlefield just for filler? Lol. People will complain that KD is bloated because of bots, too. I doubt they make maps as large as Battlefield, anyway. They'll work the maps to be fine for 40 players. Again, skirmish is a great mode if you're interested in playing bots. Keep bots out of multiplayer

    If you actually read what I said, I clearly said "well implemented AI". I've seen games with AI that were better than players.
    I'm interested in playing a game that feels like actual battles, not 6v6 firefights in an excluded part of the map, having the rest of the map empty.
    To play that I'd play CoD, at least the people respawn closer.
    If you are fine with how "battles" are right now, that's your problem, not mine. I rather have bots and players at the same time, I can care less if I'm killing a bot or a player, I play for the immersion and the fun of the match itself. ****, sometimes while playing against players they are so bad they seem bots anyway. Wouldn't be much different then.

    You mustn't have read my previous comments. I stated that I rather 50 or 64 players but they aren't going to change the player count. Bots are not an interesting part of multiplayer. They're meant for offline gameplay. There is no satisfaction in taking AI down

    Bots aren't exclusively meant for offline. They are meant to complement gameplay, offline, or online. Many games have them. They save the empty lobbies from being as empty, they help immersion, they give worse players a chance. They help teams to be more or less balanced.

    We all played the old battlefront games with a friend against bots, or at least we most did, and we had a blast.

    Bots sure help immersion in space battles, you can say otherwise but it's a fact.
    If they are well done and implemented, having them is only a good thing for gameplay.

    Well Titanfall didn't hit the mark with bots because they were literally garbage and an easy kill. I don't play against bots. I rather PvP combat, not PvE

    I don't want garbage bots either, as I said multiple times: "Good AI, well implemented"

    Well they're overrunning space battles with AI. It should've been the opposite way around, with 40 players and 24 AI but I don't play space battles so whatever. I doubt they'll do that to large on-the-ground gamemodes anyway. Maybe they designate a special gamemode for AI that tries to reenact a scene
  • Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.

    I know. And I'd rather stick with what we got instead of adding bots

    Well I disagree with that heavily...
    Blazur wrote: »
    Somebody ask them on Twitter what their stance is on the topic? Maybe we'll get a response and we can end the debate.

    Well I tried to reach out to StarWarsHQ to see what they think , but someone should ask the devs
    giphy.gif
  • Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.

    I know. And I'd rather stick with what we got instead of adding bots

    So you rather have a half empty map than actually have it feel like an actual battle with both players and well implemented AI?

    Just lol.

    So you'd rather ignorant bots running around on the battlefield just for filler? Lol. People will complain that KD is bloated because of bots, too. I doubt they make maps as large as Battlefield, anyway. They'll work the maps to be fine for 40 players. Again, skirmish is a great mode if you're interested in playing bots. Keep bots out of multiplayer

    If you actually read what I said, I clearly said "well implemented AI". I've seen games with AI that were better than players.
    I'm interested in playing a game that feels like actual battles, not 6v6 firefights in an excluded part of the map, having the rest of the map empty.
    To play that I'd play CoD, at least the people respawn closer.
    If you are fine with how "battles" are right now, that's your problem, not mine. I rather have bots and players at the same time, I can care less if I'm killing a bot or a player, I play for the immersion and the fun of the match itself. ****, sometimes while playing against players they are so bad they seem bots anyway. Wouldn't be much different then.

    You mustn't have read my previous comments. I stated that I rather 50 or 64 players but they aren't going to change the player count. Bots are not an interesting part of multiplayer. They're meant for offline gameplay. There is no satisfaction in taking AI down

    Bots aren't exclusively meant for offline. They are meant to complement gameplay, offline, or online. Many games have them. They save the empty lobbies from being as empty, they help immersion, they give worse players a chance. They help teams to be more or less balanced.

    We all played the old battlefront games with a friend against bots, or at least we most did, and we had a blast.

    Bots sure help immersion in space battles, you can say otherwise but it's a fact.
    If they are well done and implemented, having them is only a good thing for gameplay.

    Very solid argument all around, adding the
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Agherosh wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    Landeaux wrote: »
    Don't encourage constant jump pack spam by people and AI

    Not encouraging jump pack spam, but you think 20v20 is enough in large game modes?

    No, that's why I support 50 or 64. I don't, however, support those spots being filled out by AI. It should've been the standard for all large gamemodes

    But as we've already been told they won't increase player size. So that's out of the question.

    I know. And I'd rather stick with what we got instead of adding bots

    So you rather have a half empty map than actually have it feel like an actual battle with both players and well implemented AI?

    Just lol.

    So you'd rather ignorant bots running around on the battlefield just for filler? Lol. People will complain that KD is bloated because of bots, too. I doubt they make maps as large as Battlefield, anyway. They'll work the maps to be fine for 40 players. Again, skirmish is a great mode if you're interested in playing bots. Keep bots out of multiplayer

    If you actually read what I said, I clearly said "well implemented AI". I've seen games with AI that were better than players.
    I'm interested in playing a game that feels like actual battles, not 6v6 firefights in an excluded part of the map, having the rest of the map empty.
    To play that I'd play CoD, at least the people respawn closer.
    If you are fine with how "battles" are right now, that's your problem, not mine. I rather have bots and players at the same time, I can care less if I'm killing a bot or a player, I play for the immersion and the fun of the match itself. ****, sometimes while playing against players they are so bad they seem bots anyway. Wouldn't be much different then.

    You mustn't have read my previous comments. I stated that I rather 50 or 64 players but they aren't going to change the player count. Bots are not an interesting part of multiplayer. They're meant for offline gameplay. There is no satisfaction in taking AI down

    Bots aren't exclusively meant for offline. They are meant to complement gameplay, offline, or online. Many games have them. They save the empty lobbies from being as empty, they help immersion, they give worse players a chance. They help teams to be more or less balanced.

    We all played the old battlefront games with a friend against bots, or at least we most did, and we had a blast.

    Bots sure help immersion in space battles, you can say otherwise but it's a fact.
    If they are well done and implemented, having them is only a good thing for gameplay.

    Well Titanfall didn't hit the mark with bots because they were literally garbage and an easy kill. I don't play against bots. I rather PvP combat, not PvE

    Well this isn't titanfall, they already have AI in offline modes in the first and coming battlefront who weren't as bad as titanfall, I fully believe they could add the AI they already have to multiplayer effectively
    giphy.gif
  • LastOneToKnow
    600 posts Member
    edited April 2017
    And again, if players had the ability to host and configure their own servers everyone would have the freedom to play the game the way they want. Personally I don't get why so many only chime in on these threads to pick a side rather than pick a side, but also support the idea of players having a choice. We should all be shouting at EA from the rooftops advocating for a server browser and the ability to host and configure our own servers. Just the addition of a server browser would be huge and perhaps they could even expand on the "Private Match" feature adding a "Public Match" feature. Would be something. Just saying.
  • Roger Roger bots
  • And again, if players had the ability to host and configure their own servers everyone would have the freedom to play the game the way they want. Personally I don't get why so many only chime in on these threads to pick a side rather than pick a side, but also support the idea of players having a choice. We should all be shouting at EA from the rooftops advocating for a server browser and the ability to host and configure our own servers. Just the addition of a server browser would be huge and perhaps they could even expand on the "Private Match" feature adding a "Public Match" feature. Would be something. Just saying.

    Yeah I hear you, I just unfortunately don't know if this is happening, We would all WANT it to happen, but dealing with the cards were dealt, you gotta pick the better of the two options
    giphy.gif
  • Massman98
    299 posts Member
    edited April 2017
    ^^^^^^^^

    Honestly tahnks for pointing that out, Skirmish on Master can get difficult, especially compared to the average player, It could be a challenge still, while providing a more consistent lobby size

    giphy.gif
  • bfloo
    14083 posts Member
    Massman98 wrote: »
    ^^^^^^^^

    Honestly tahnks for pointing that out, Skirmish on Master can get difficult, especially compared to the average player, It could be a challenge still, while providing a more consistent lobby size

    The problem with the ai on skirmish is they are too focused on the player.

    The ai bots in FS were bad enough, all I need is the Storm Trooper version of a Tie Bomber chasing me all over the map :(
    The Knights of Gareth are Eternal

    Pirate of the Knights of Gareth

    h846398gb27k.png


  • bfloo wrote: »
    Massman98 wrote: »
    ^^^^^^^^

    Honestly tahnks for pointing that out, Skirmish on Master can get difficult, especially compared to the average player, It could be a challenge still, while providing a more consistent lobby size

    The problem with the ai on skirmish is they are too focused on the player.

    The ai bots in FS were bad enough, all I need is the Storm Trooper version of a Tie Bomber chasing me all over the map :(

    Oh yeah I get that, that was one of my gripes with skirmish that they didn't activate/deactivate the uplink staions, but I think (already in the offline modes in the new game) they engineered some kind of ingenuity to play the objective as well
    giphy.gif
  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    I'm pretty sure my last comment wasn't recorded and saved. I don't mind them making a special gamemode that has AI to help reenact a scene. They can make a "WarZone" or "Operations" gamemode. As long as I am not forced to play multiplayer with bots I'm alright with that
  • I really didn't like that all the time x-wings/tie fighters were shooting at me the whole time. I didn't die it just got really annoying. And the tie fighters/x-wings would shoot at them not to kill but what looked like for show.
  • Landeaux wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure my last comment wasn't recorded and saved. I don't mind them making a special gamemode that has AI to help reenact a scene. They can make a "WarZone" or "Operations" gamemode. As long as I am not forced to play multiplayer with bots I'm alright with that

    I mean if they have one large game mode that includes bots, I'd be down for that, ill probably play that one only.
    I really didn't like that all the time x-wings/tie fighters were shooting at me the whole time. I didn't die it just got really annoying. And the tie fighters/x-wings would shoot at them not to kill but what looked like for show.

    There needed to be some improvement sure, but it's better than them not affecting play, it would be nice if they targetted other ground AI too
    giphy.gif
  • If only Dice would give us a server browser and the ability to host and "configure" our own servers. That's the real answer. Seriously. Who wants to be limited to playing in EA's one size fits all "matchmaking" sandbox? I sure don't.

    I agree with you on that. If we could run our own servers to host and customize and get progress etc that would be great. I can't stand it when people say bots are boring and not fun to fight when in reality on their hardest difficulty they play better than a good majority of players. From try hard to scrub, ai bots in skirmish on hardest difficulty play somewhere above above the average player. I like how with bots there is less of a skill gap vs player only matches seem to have way too big of a skill gap where there are the try hards and then there are the complete scrubs. try hards take the game way too serious and think this is suppose to be more competitive than casual, which SWBF never has been, and scrub who just die way too much and hinder the time. With AIs you are facing enemies just as good as your allies. not to mention that they do a lot of good like how i wanted to play an old game because i was having a nostalgia mood and games like Halo 2 the servers were dead and SWBF2 luckily had bots so I could play it still. They also fill in the gap when a large amount of people on one team quit. that's not fun when that happens and it also leads to dead servers.

    So with bots they do a lot. They play better on par to the top 50-70% range on the hardest difficulty, they know how to pilot a vehicle, they keep your servers balanced and alive and still playable after a decade when everyone has moved on. So I don't see the fight against that, especially if we could host our own servers.
  • LastOneToKnow
    600 posts Member
    edited April 2017
    Speaking of playing with bots, I still play Unreal Tournament 2004 from time to time. Just me and a server full of bots. Always a good time. Sad to see the games of today offering less and less in the way of options when compared to the games of old. Will try not to be too annoying, but when the occasion presents itself I'll continue to beat the drum advocating for the addition of a server browser and ability to host and configure our own servers.
  • Speaking of playing with bots, I still play Unreal Tournament 2004 from time to time. Just me and a server full of bots. Always a good time. Sad to see the games of today offering less and less in the way of options when compared to the games of old. Will try not to be too annoying, but when the occasion presents itself I'll continue to beat the drum advocating for the addition of a server browser and ability to host and configure our own servers.

    I respect that, Ill keep pushing for bigger size game modes, we all need to make sure we push for what we want, it's important that we give feedback
    giphy.gif
  • There is already AI on battlefront multiplayer. They disguise as actual players. Rest assured a.i. is in your multiplayer game.
  • If only Dice would give us a server browser and the ability to host and "configure" our own servers. That's the real answer. Seriously. Who wants to be limited to playing in EA's one size fits all "matchmaking" sandbox? I sure don't.

    Because you are a **** with a Trump avatar. Go **** your sister.
  • Lonnisity
    1941 posts Member
    OWVXVWO wrote: »
    If only Dice would give us a server browser and the ability to host and "configure" our own servers. That's the real answer. Seriously. Who wants to be limited to playing in EA's one size fits all "matchmaking" sandbox? I sure don't.

    Because you are a **** with a Trump avatar. Go **** your sister.

    @ThePoolshark can't flag on mobile so here you go.
    "Yeah, I'm responsible these days. It's the price you pay for being successful."
  • OWVXVWO wrote: »
    If only Dice would give us a server browser and the ability to host and "configure" our own servers. That's the real answer. Seriously. Who wants to be limited to playing in EA's one size fits all "matchmaking" sandbox? I sure don't.

    Because you are a **** with a Trump avatar. Go **** your sister.

    Triggered much?

    extreme_face.gif
    #JustSayNoToReyLo
  • F03hammer
    5012 posts SWBF Senior Moderator

    I hope missions work out better with BFII AI, just got back on to warm up playing yesterday in hero battles got killed and happened to respawn with in close range of my corpse point coins.

    No enemy ai were near the coins At ALL and they got 20 points for free.
    Voluntary Star Wars Battlefront Moderator

    28zvwf.jpg
    GT XBOX:
    buyakashak


  • Landeaux
    3467 posts Member
    OWVXVWO wrote: »
    If only Dice would give us a server browser and the ability to host and "configure" our own servers. That's the real answer. Seriously. Who wants to be limited to playing in EA's one size fits all "matchmaking" sandbox? I sure don't.

    Because you are a **** with a Trump avatar. Go **** your sister.

    giphy.gif
  • F03hammer wrote: »
    I hope missions work out better with BFII AI, just got back on to warm up playing yesterday in hero battles got killed and happened to respawn with in close range of my corpse point coins.

    No enemy ai were near the coins At ALL and they got 20 points for free.
    Ooooh flashy colors and with the player count being 20v20 some ai would spice it up a bit
  • Blazur
    4461 posts Member
    LOL, TIL we can change our font colors on this forum. You've just opened up a complete can of worms.
    The greatest teacher, failure is.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

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