Enemies need way better ai's

[Joezone619]

Like title says, i think enemies need better AI's, they're boring to fight.

[Aadi880]

yup. I second this.

[(XBOX)EternalDrk Mako]

Ive made numerous posts about this so i am in agreement 

the last major ai changeup was on earth new tilesets

I still state we need a FEAR derived system 

(whats fear ai?(read below)

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/04/03/why-fears-ai-is-still-the-best-in-first-person-shooters/

(how does it work?)

https://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/gdc2006_orkin_jeff_fear.pdf

[HornedRat]

I've said this time and again but here goes: It won't matter if your NPCs have a quantum A.I. controlling them, Warframe's gameplay does not fundamentally allow for the A.I. to flourish even as it is currently.

The numbers themselves are in dire need of a complete rework, because as it stands it won't matter how good the A.I. is if they get dissolved before they even move away from their spawn points.

There are a ton of things to consider beforehand: Warframe's gameplay speed, its pacing across missions, the ridiculous advantage of players over A.I. in the form of raw damage and mobility. We keep asking for better A.I. when the core gameplay is suffering from some jarring leaks that no one seems to be interested in fixing: enemy armor scaling, ability damage, player speed, even mission rewards, and so on.

Any rework is bound to frustrate some players and incite disagreement, but without that I don't even think we should consider improving the A.I., simply because of the aforementioned points.

[Loza03]

2 minutes ago, HornedRat said:

I've said this time and again but here goes: It won't matter if your NPCs have a quantum A.I. controlling them, Warframe's gameplay does not fundamentally allow for the A.I. to flourish even as it is currently.

The numbers themselves are in dire need of a complete rework, because as it stands it won't matter how good the A.I. is if they get dissolved before they even move away from their spawn points.

There are a ton of things to consider beforehand: Warframe's gameplay speed, its pacing across missions, the ridiculous advantage of players over A.I. in the form of raw damage and mobility. We keep asking for better A.I. when the core gameplay is suffering from some jarring leaks that no one seems to be interested in fixing: enemy armor scaling, ability damage, player speed, even mission rewards, and so on.

Any rework is bound to frustrate some players and incite disagreement, but without that I don't even think we should consider improving the A.I., simply because of the aforementioned points.

This is true, and I don't think they need anywhere near great AI. The level they have is fine, it just needs more variation. More possible behaviours that can be added to the roster of possible actions (which can be enabled and disabled, similar to how MOA's don't take cover).

The big one I want is a maximum and minimum distance - enemies will try snipe you far outside their range, as well as completely dogpile you instead of scattering if you get close. This makes controlling the damage you take through skill - as opposed to nukes, mass CC and whatnot- a lot more difficult, which is probably a part of why those nukes and mass CC exist in the first place.

[Tunderke]

The AI is basically fit to this genre and only just a little bit needs and a little bit more variation on what they can do. Super intelligent enemies not need because then the devs need to rebuild the game from the core and that means the game become less fun for the majority. 

 

If the AI is better than this (actually better) then the game is enjoyable and have some variation.

[Shalath]

Improving the AI is pontless because while we say we want better AI we actually don't.

As HornedRat says enemies basically die the microsecond we see them so they get no chance to do anything. To combat that DE would have to find a way to make enemies live longer and we have proven time and again that we don't want that. Make enemies bullet sponges and we complain. Make enemies immune to status and we complain. Make enemied have invulnerability phases and we complain.

All the talk of adjusting enemy armour scaling being the magic fix is pretty wrong as all you are talking about is making them bullet sponges really. We will then change our builds for amorur stripping in an attempt to kill as quickly as we did before.

Enemies kiting us? Not really possible with the close quarters most maps give us. The backlash to the Catchmoon damage falloff change gives you a glimpse of what would happen if DE tried doing that over all weapons.

Dogpiling us? We'll nuke them at short range just like we currently do.

Even weak point behaviour like you see on Nox is hated by some because you have to actually aim which apparently slows gameplay down. What we want is fast gameplay with intelligen AI that dies instantly but the last two simply aren't compatible with each other.

[Uthael]

@Joezone619 @Aadi880 Could you provide some examples of which exact behaviour changes you want to see?

@(XB1)EternalDrk Mako Each single enemy in F.E.A.R. had much more pressure over the player. The player's firepower and survivability in comparison to mobs is much too great for that kind of AI to be noticable.

21 hours ago, Loza03 said:

The big one I want is a maximum and minimum distance - enemies will try snipe you far outside their range, as well as completely dogpile you instead of scattering if you get close. This makes controlling the damage you take through skill - as opposed to nukes, mass CC and whatnot- a lot more difficult, which is probably a part of why those nukes and mass CC exist in the first place.

Enemies in Orb Vallis and Plains of Eidolon already do this. Their problem is that they don't have hitscan weapons, which is actually good (yay for bullet dodging!). Other maps are just too small for that.

Ever noticed how a Grineer Butcher tends to appear behind you? That was him trying to avoid your line of sight all the time. All of the enemies try to get out of each other's line of fire, too. MOAs are dispensable mechanical units, which is why they're trying to dish out as much damage as possible before inevitably dying (which is often more dangerous for us than some complex AI).
If you face watch the enemies on the minimap, they rush towards you. Once you turn towards them and they realize they've been spotted, they spread out. Some to find cover, some to find a clear line to shoot you.

Having said that, all is fine except for some bugs. Here are some examples that need fixing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JJyZBX4ekw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HpLAckGq2Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtjqVjzR5mw

That last example is actually fixed in some missions. The enemies can notice that you're camping and they just don't enter the stationary danger zone anymore. They may send a few to check, but the majority is setting up a camp just like the players do.

[Loza03]

23 minutes ago, Uthael said:

Enemies in Orb Vallis and Plains of Eidolon already do this. Their problem is that they don't have hitscan weapons, which is actually good (yay for bullet dodging!). Other maps are just too small for that.

Um...

Plasmor guys try to shoot you from a hundred plus metres away at times, beyond the range that their plasmor can even travel. They don't have a maximum distance of engagement - they will engage the player from any range regardless of if they even can damage the player. And I'm pretty sure I've been dogpiled in the exact same way as tilesets more than once, indicating enemies don't have a minimum distance they'll try to engage you in.

So, no, they don't do this..

32 minutes ago, Uthael said:

Ever noticed how a Grineer Butcher tends to appear behind you? That was him trying to avoid your line of sight all the time. All of the enemies try to get out of each other's line of fire, too. MOAs are dispensable mechanical units, which is why they're trying to dish out as much damage as possible before inevitably dying (which is often more dangerous for us than some complex AI).
If you face watch the enemies on the minimap, they rush towards you. Once you turn towards them and they realize they've been spotted, they spread out. Some to find cover, some to find a clear line to shoot you.

That's not what I mean. I know they do that.

What I mean is that if you approach enemies, including snipers, none of them try to get away or make space between them and the murder ninja wizard. Whilst this makes sense for melee enemies, Moa's and Noxes - enemies that either need to be in melee range or are designed to be close-ranged for other reason, but for others it leads to situations where approaching groups of enemies is a terrible option - you'll wind up getting dogpiled by tons of unavoidable damage from every enemy in the squad, instead of an aggressive push letting you scatter certain enemies to pick off others. Consider how Grunts in Halo will run away if you get too close.

It also leads to snipers not making even a cursory effort to be a sniper, where if you get close instead of, y'know running away and finding a sniper nest they'll just wander around you and try to shoot you from shotgun range. Moreover, just like the OV plasmor users trying to snipe you, Ballista can't even deal damage to you at close range. They will literally just stand there doing absolutely nothing, apparently by design.

Positioning should be an informed decision, with consequences. That means different enemies should have different ranges of engagement, which they will aim to try and stick to. Right now, enemies won't give a damn about what range they're at, making your position a somewhat arbitrary decision.

[Uthael]

@Loza03 - That's a great piece of feedback.
@Joezone619 - Would you mind reading the replies in the topic and editing the OP?