Add Bots

[BliTzKriTz]

I would enjoy it if Conclave was even playable at the least... can't the specters from the Index be programmed for Conclave game modes and made to fill the match when you start one in solo matchmaking? It can't possibly be that hard, can it?

[Xaero]

Most likely there would be complaints coming from dedicated Conclave players.

[SpicyDinosaur]

They can't be programmed to do Index properly, how are they going to be programmed to compete in something significantly more complex?

[YUNoJump]

I think that would result in people deliberately making matches where they're the only player, then farming bots for easy kills until they've finished the Conclave standing off, then they'd never play again. Bots are helpful when there's a few players missing from a match, in a hypothetically more popular PvP game, but a PvP game where everyone else is bots is just a PvE game with no variation between matches.

[Stormdragon]

As long as the restriction of being able to get affinity only on public matches and bots provide less affinity on kill than players, i see no reason for it to not be added other than perhaps the bots' AI, but i'm sure DE could find alternatives to keep bots "challenging" despite these being dumb; i mean, since pvp damage can't go as high as the PvE one (same for our EHP), they could always tweak stuff like EHP, damage output and bot accuracy depending of a player's syndicate rank and perhaps give them increased energy regen to make them use powers more often, all of this in exchange for their reduced mobility compared to other players.

[Tyreaus]

17 minutes ago, Stormdragon said:

i'm sure DE could find alternatives to keep bots "challenging" despite these being dumb

Agreed with pretty much all of it*. Besides what you suggest about tweaking bot energy generation and the like, there isn't really anything saying they have to be challenging by themselves. Even relegating them to the level of environmental hazard would have benefits, from breaking up the monotony of low-skilled players getting dunked on to making matches feel more populated.

*Maybe except blocking standing gain in non-public matches. I mean, would you rather someone get their standing under the radar, or ruin swaths of matches relying on broken weapons like Telos Boltace or Saryn + Castanas (or whatever other broken tactic crops up after those are fixed sometimes next decade)? Personally, I would prefer the former - I don't view standing as a measure of skill or success or of any importance when it can be earned, albeit very slowly, with hyper-minimal participation - but I also understand the PoV of those who don't.

[Kontrollo]

2 hours ago, Xaero said:

Most likely there would be complaints coming from dedicated Conclave players.

Might want to let them talk for themselves, no?

 

31 minutes ago, Tyreaus said:

Agreed with pretty much all of it*. Besides what you suggest about tweaking bot energy generation and the like, there isn't really anything saying they have to be challenging by themselves. Even relegating them to the level of environmental hazard would have benefits, from breaking up the monotony of low-skilled players getting dunked on to making matches feel more populated.

*Maybe except blocking standing gain in non-public matches. I mean, would you rather someone get their standing under the radar, or ruin swaths of matches relying on broken weapons like Telos Boltace or Saryn + Castanas (or whatever other broken tactic crops up after those are fixed sometimes next decade)? Personally, I would prefer the former - I don't view standing as a measure of skill or success or of any importance when it can be earned, albeit very slowly, with hyper-minimal participation - but I also understand the PoV of those who don't.

With how little time they're willing to spare, I'd rather they start fixing the obvious issues and improving the situation, and then if it's still a problem we could start talking about bots. Because let's face it, if they did that it would be broken on release and for a few iteration afterwards. And some time later after more PvE changes bleed into it after they stop caring to maintain that particular feature.

They don't even care enough to have bots in PvE (aka Specters) work all the time (and they're not all that smart, either). I wonder what makes anyone think these would fare better.

 

I remember a time when you could hop into any of the Conclave game modes - maybe with the exception of Lunaro, haven't done that very often - pretty much whenever you wanted. Bots are a solution for a problem caused by neglect. If they have time to spare to spend on anything, why would it be bots?

[Xaero]

1 hour ago, Kontrollo said:

Might want to let them talk for themselves, no?

I base my assumption on universal medallion issue.

[Kontrollo]

Just now, Xaero said:

I base my assumption on universal medallion issue.

That's funny, because from what I saw, there was a lot of witch hunting in that controversy and - like you do now - making unfounded assumptions about others.

[Xaero]

13 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

That's funny, because from what I saw, there was a lot of witch hunting in that controversy and - like you do now - making unfounded assumptions about others.

Then what if I told you that I'm a former dedicated conclave player and I've known quite a lot of players who would be strongly against OP's suggestion?

[Kontrollo]

25 minutes ago, Xaero said:

Then what if I told you that I'm a former dedicated conclave player and I've known quite a lot of players who would be strongly against OP's suggestion?

Look, I'm still on the discord, and I was there at the time, too. I've seen quite a few different opinions on the matter, and even the guy who was made the scapegoat in the end - I'm not sure he can be called one of the regulars, either, I don't even know his ingame name - had actually made some reasonable statements, too.

Let me ask you this:

• Of the two twitter posts and the reddit thread of his, how much have you even seen?
• Could you even name more than a few people who had the same opinion as expressed in that twitter post that was what got him all this hate?

 

But to answer your question, it doesn't matter if you're a former dedicated conclave player or not, you still don't get to make S#&$ up. Let people talk for themselves.

[Xaero]

48 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Look, I'm still on the discord, and I was there at the time, too. I've seen quite a few different opinions on the matter, and even the guy who was made the scapegoat in the end - I'm not sure he can be called one of the regulars, either, I don't even know his ingame name - had actually made some reasonable statements, too.

Wait, you think I'm blaming someone or trying to express some negative reaction? While I'm personally ok with bypassing pvp aspect, demanding to keep the rewards exclusive to pvp is totally understandable and I'm perfectly fine with DE's final decision.

53 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Could you even name more than a few people who had the same opinion as expressed in that twitter post that was what got him all this hate?

I could, but that would likely fall into naming/shaming area. Also, those people might not even play anymore, I've abandoned conclave in 2017 iirc.

52 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

you still don't get to make S#&$ up. Let people talk for themselves.

And what exactly doesn't allow me to make assumptions about potential opinions of different player groups? Would you attack a non-founder saying that founders will most likely complain if their exclusive items are re-released?

[Stormdragon]

4 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

Agreed with pretty much all of it*. Besides what you suggest about tweaking bot energy generation and the like, there isn't really anything saying they have to be challenging by themselves. Even relegating them to the level of environmental hazard would have benefits, from breaking up the monotony of low-skilled players getting dunked on to making matches feel more populated.

Decided to point that as an alternative way to "balance" bots since i've seen a similar approach in some other games, most of them strategy focused, where enemy units are made easier or harder mainly by adding a multiplier to their progress speed (resource acquisition, experience gains, etc) aside from minor tweaks to their damage output and/or EHP. The multiplier could be based on the player's syndicate rank to provide some feel of "progression".

Some other games go as far as reading a % of the player's inputs to react accordingly (mostly fighting games) but i see no way or need to do that here, specially since it can make matches very unfair for the player.

4 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

Maybe except blocking standing gain in non-public matches.

IF bots were ever added these should be mainly to make starting lobbies easier so more players join while it's going, otherwise people could (and would) just go solo or into private lobbies and farm PvP standing from what's basically a tenno version of rathuum.

4 hours ago, Tyreaus said:

mean, would you rather someone get their standing under the radar, or ruin swaths of matches relying on broken weapons like Telos Boltace or Saryn + Castanas (or whatever other broken tactic crops up after those are fixed sometimes next decade)?

I'd rather to see DE fixing those bugs first, tbh. Also, i guess that finding already reported bugs and fixing them is much easier to do than coding, enabling and balancing new bots for pvp and everything this implies.

4 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

With how little time they're willing to spare, I'd rather they start fixing the obvious issues and improving the situation, and then if it's still a problem we could start talking about bots.

Forgot to mention this but i agree, if DE keeps refusing to fix exploitable bugs that have been reported since november then is unlikely to catch interest from newer players, instead it will only achieve to send the current ones away.

1 hour ago, Xaero said:

And what exactly doesn't allow me to make assumptions about potential opinions of different player groups? Would you attack a non-founder saying that founders will most likely complain if their exclusive items are re-released?

Feel free to make all the assumptions you want as long as you keep them for yourself. Speaking for others normally serves no purpose other than putting them under a bad light, specially when it's for a community where you either don't belong or used to but lost contact with.

About your founder example, i wouldn't be surprised if the amount of non founders telling new players stuff like "founders will complain if their exclusives are released" are part of the reason why some new players make themselves a bad image of every single founder (and sometimes even behave awfully towards them) regardless of if they actually fit that prejudice or not.

Not sure about what communities you belong to (not only in the game could be anything else anyways), but would you accept someone who isn't part of it speaking for the entire group with claims that don't even represent your community's opinions?

[Kontrollo]

2 hours ago, Xaero said:

I could, but that would likely fall into naming/shaming area. Also, those people might not even play anymore, I've abandoned conclave in 2017 iirc.

Sure you could, after all those years. Reminder: the UM controversy happened in 2019. It's extremely likely that all you can offer is hearsay. But well, the community discord is open to anyone and has a search function, feel free to use that. Also PMs exist, you're not required to post them here in a forum thread.

 

Quote

And what exactly doesn't allow me to make assumptions about potential opinions of different player groups? Would you attack a non-founder saying that founders will most likely complain if their exclusive items are re-released?

If I cared to post in those threads in the first place (I don't because nothing constructive will come out of that): Probably, because I've seen some founders express the opinion that they don't care about their exclusives.

You don't speak for these people, so don't. It's that simple, really.

[Xaero]

21 minutes ago, Stormdragon said:

Feel free to make all the assumptions you want as long as you keep them for yourself. Speaking for others normally serves no purpose other than putting them under a bad light, specially when it's for a community where you either don't belong or used to but lost contact with.

About your founder example, i wouldn't be surprised if the amount of non founders telling new players stuff like "founders will complain if their exclusives are released" are part of the reason why some new players make themselves a bad image of every single founder (and sometimes even behave awfully towards them) regardless of if they actually fit that prejudice or not.

Not sure about what communities you belong to (not only in the game could be anything else anyways), but would you accept someone who isn't part of it speaking for the entire group with claims that don't even represent your community's opinions?

Speaking for an entire group? With claims? Aren't you the one putting words in my mouth? "Most likely" and "definitely" are different things, you know.

Not to mention you're overly sensitive for nothing. There is nothing wrong about "do specific work to get specific reward" mindset.

[Xaero]

8 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Sure you could, after all those years. Reminder: the UM controversy happened in 2019.

So? It gives me a hint that the mindset I've seen a lot still remains.

10 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

It's extremely likely that all you can offer is hearsay. But well, the discord is open to anyone and has a search function, feel free to use that.

So every dedicated conclave player has joined discord and speaks the same language?

12 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Also PMs exist, you're not required to post them here in a forum thread.

What would you even do with those names anyways? They're not even speaking English.

13 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

If I cared to post in those threads in the first place (I don't because nothing constructive will come out of that): Probably, because I've seen some founders express the opinion that they don't care about their exclusives.

And you're 100% sure they mean "every single one" instead of "some"?

[Kontrollo]

2 minutes ago, Xaero said:

So? It gives me a hint that the mindset I've seen a lot still remains.

So every dedicated conclave player has joined discord and speaks the same language?

What would you even do with those names anyways? They're not even speaking English.

And you're 100% sure they mean "every single one" instead of "some"?

You'll find enough on there to see that your "most likely" doesn't apply either. But you didn't even bother to answer my other question, so here's a screenshot + a link:

Funny how no one talked about this follow-up, eh?

And here's the Reddit thread. Read at your own risk, the responses he got were not that great. I'm not going to read it again, but iirc he stayed cool throughout despite that.

 

 

So good job hopping on that bandwagon. Can we stop derailing the thread now?

[Xaero]

5 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

But you didn't even bother to answer my other question

Forgot to address that one while editing. Yeah, I've seen both twitter comments and reddit post.

Your point though? The fact that this mindset will surely be hated by some players? Yeah, it's kinda obvious. Doesn't make the mindset objectively wrong though. It's just opposite points of view, and some people tend to express theirs aggressively.

What does it have to do with my original comment though? You see that as some pointer for haters or something?

13 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

You'll find enough on there to see that your "most likely" doesn't apply either.

So your discord server speaks for all the dedicated conclave players?

15 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Can we stop derailing the thread now?

Sure, I'm not the one who started this anyways.

[Kontrollo]

1 minute ago, Xaero said:

So your discord server speaks for all the dedicated conclave players?

Unlike you, I'm only speaking for myself. And I've already stated you'd find enough other opinions that your "most likely" doesn't apply, either.

1 minute ago, Xaero said:

Sure, I'm not the one who started this anyways.

Now I'm sure you're just trolling.

Yours it the second post and you haven't even given your own personal opinion on the thread topic so far.

 

We're done here. If you're bored, how about you go find something worthwhile to do, will you.

[Xaero]

3 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

And I've already stated you'd find enough other opinions that your "most likely" doesn't apply, either.

Why doesn't it apply though? Because there are no dedicated players outside discord? Or because you're still sure I mean *all* players instead of *some*?

5 minutes ago, Kontrollo said:

Now I'm sure you're just trolling.

Yours it the second post and you haven't even given your own personal opinion on the thread topic so far.

 

3 hours ago, Xaero said:

I'm personally ok with bypassing pvp aspect

Does it not count?

[Sevek7]

I'm a dedicated conclave player. I'm 100% on board with bots filling up the rest of a match so that people have something to do when waiting for other players to join. 

Please ignore the guy who tried to claim that dedicated conclave players would be against this issue, the echo chamber of toxicity against conclave players is very strong. 99% of us were fine with the universal medallions too.

[Kontrollo]

1 hour ago, Sevek7 said:

99% of us were fine with the universal medallions too.

Well, I wouldn't go and say that, either. I've seen people for and against it, and some who didn't care. All of it for various reasons.

I'm just tired of hearing about that particular witch hunt.

[Tyreaus]

9 hours ago, Kontrollo said:

With how little time they're willing to spare, I'd rather they start fixing the obvious issues and improving the situation, and then if it's still a problem we could start talking about bots. Because let's face it, if they did that it would be broken on release and for a few iteration afterwards. And some time later after more PvE changes bleed into it after they stop caring to maintain that particular feature.

They don't even care enough to have bots in PvE (aka Specters) work all the time (and they're not all that smart, either). I wonder what makes anyone think these would fare better.

 

I remember a time when you could hop into any of the Conclave game modes - maybe with the exception of Lunaro, haven't done that very often - pretty much whenever you wanted. Bots are a solution for a problem caused by neglect. If they have time to spare to spend on anything, why would it be bots?

I'd rather them fix the obvious issues too, but much of the technology for bots in Conclave exists in the form of spectres for Index. That would leave them really rudimentary, doing little more than waddling around with the occasional gunfire and power use, but as far as I see the benefits of bots, that's about all that's really needed.

Plus quite literally lifting from the Index means they're less likely to break for very long: if they do, they affect a PvE feature, which means they'll likely get patched much faster than if it affected only PvP. Same goes for if they ever choose to improve the AI of Index Tenno Spectres.

5 hours ago, Stormdragon said:

Decided to point that as an alternative way to "balance" bots since i've seen a similar approach in some other games, most of them strategy focused, where enemy units are made easier or harder mainly by adding a multiplier to their progress speed (resource acquisition, experience gains, etc) aside from minor tweaks to their damage output and/or EHP. The multiplier could be based on the player's syndicate rank to provide some feel of "progression".

Some other games go as far as reading a % of the player's inputs to react accordingly (mostly fighting games) but i see no way or need to do that here, specially since it can make matches very unfair for the player.

Fair enough. And as far as input reading goes, considering they can aimbot, it's probably not necessary lol

5 hours ago, Stormdragon said:

I'd rather to see DE fixing those bugs first, tbh. Also, i guess that finding already reported bugs and fixing them is much easier to do than coding, enabling and balancing new bots for pvp and everything this implies.

As I mentioned above, I think it's easier than it seems. The weapon and ability balancing is, as far as I can tell, innate to the weapons and Warframes in Conclave. A bot swinging around a bo staff should do no more damage than a player with one. Likewise, much of the AI can be lifted from Index.

And as far as fixing bugs goes, I mean...yeah I'd like that too. Kind of misses the point of my question but, c'est la vie.

[Kontrollo]

9 minutes ago, Tyreaus said:

I'd rather them fix the obvious issues too, but much of the technology for bots in Conclave exists in the form of spectres for Index. That would leave them really rudimentary, doing little more than waddling around with the occasional gunfire and power use, but as far as I see the benefits of bots, that's about all that's really needed.

And removing Telos Boltace would literally be the flip of a switch.

Adding bots would definitely be much more work than that, and it's also a question of making sure they keep working afterwards. With how things stand now, I have no trust in DE of pulling that off.

[Loxyen]

14 hours ago, Stormdragon said:

As long as the restriction of being able to get affinity only on public matches and bots provide less affinity on kill than players, i see no reason for it to not be added other than perhaps the bots' AI, but i'm sure DE could find alternatives to keep bots "challenging" despite these being dumb; i mean, since pvp damage can't go as high as the PvE one (same for our EHP), they could always tweak stuff like EHP, damage output and bot accuracy depending of a player's syndicate rank and perhaps give them increased energy regen to make them use powers more often, all of this in exchange for their reduced mobility compared to other players.

defo AI improvement needed

I'd gladly provide input about movement pattern 🙂