AI Wingman feature

Suggestions Balance
1

Suggestion: ‘AI Wingman’ feature

 

The ‘AI Wingman’ feature would allow you to have a wingman ship on autopilot which is controlled in its state by you : attack target, defend me, auto mode, etc.pp. Other games also have it and the SC AI is already very good.

 

It could be implemented in the already existing matchMaking (MM) system for all battle modes in easy (r1-5) and medium (r6-19) tiers. The higher ranks 11 until 15 do not need this feature at this time.
It would provide that a rank 10 ship, that is the highest rank in medium tier, could join a hard tier battle with its wingman-ship (in this case, all [bonuses](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/32069-changes-in-the-bonus-system-and-matchmaking/) would apply to both ships, player controlled and AI-wingman).

 

The ‘AI Wingman’ feature could be implemented through the introduction of a special standard wingman-class ship.
Or through the use of standard and premium ships.

 

It would be especially appealing for beginners. This will help fill up the queue slots in battle search and MM. It’s unclear, if this system should include any Ellydium’ ships at this time.

 

The ‘AI Wingman’ feature could become an integral part of the current trading system. For specs and prices, see the [Rent A Ship feature](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/34576-rent-a-ship-feature/) poll by [@Koromac](< base_url >/index.php?/profile/243485-koromac/).

New active module — ‘Neurocybernetic-AI’

In lack of pilots in the outer rim sectors of the galaxy, due to losses by hard hits from the alien attacks and pirate raids, gifted private technicians started experimenting with AI controlled wingman ships. Quickly this technology proved to be useful for pilot rookies and as fleet support.

 

Today, all factions experiment with their own technology of artificial intelligence in space ships that came to be known as the ‘Neurocybernetic-AI’ module. Put into both ships, the plilot controlled one and its associated AI-controlled wingman-ship, this technology proofed to be useful and is now hard thought for on the market. Pirate versions exist that tweak the ‘Neurocybernetic-AI’ in some rather - to put it politically correct - ‘maverick’ ways effecting reaction speed, range and damage/defense output.

 

UMC decided to make a new standardized module to introduce more variety into battles at lower and medium tech levels, and tried to rally pilots into more focused attack squads with AI-wingmen as support.

For this a new module was created that synergises with allied ships, allowing them to survive in exchange for an active module slot to be occupied by the ‘Neurocybernetic-AI’ active module. Using this module only makes sense in lower and medium tech level of ranks 1 to 10, which means that pilots of the upper tech levels of ranks 11 to 15 (‘hard’) do not receive this module.

Basic mechanic: (active module)

A special active module put into both ships, into the player controlled vessel and into his AI-wingman ship, would make it possible to cycle through the basic modes:

  • attack my target,
  • cover/defend me
  • auto mode
  • (50 energy pts per activation)

 

New Crew implants — Neurocybernetic-AI

Each faction delivers different AI software cybernetic-modules which can be implanted in the ‘Neurocybernetic-AI’ mainframe of each ship. Therefor UMC has decided to make the new  Ξ (Xi), Δ (Delta, Ω (Omega) implant system available to all pilots from ranks 1-10 besides the Crew implant system.

5991c9776b08b_AICrewimplant.jpg.7c8b12ff7ed7addc3a487011f4015bcd.jpg

 

Optional:

(Introduction of a new standardized AI-wingman ship class - not decided by UMC, yet.)

 

 

If you bear with me, please discuss!

 

P.S.:

See also [UI ‘Additional devices’ (‘Booster module’) rework](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/34616-ui-additional-devices-booster-module-rework/)

 

2

  • I’d love to have a merc team to do a PvE solo - just go in, wipe Fire support with bots on my side - no waiting time.

  • It would be cool if we had something like this is OS, but OS in itself is very “meh” so hardly a reason for the current version of it.

  • Don’t really care about Co-op

  • Definitely against this feature for PvP

3

14 minutes ago, xKostyan said:

…

  • Definitely against this feature for PvP

Why?

4

Because how scoring works in PvP, bots are in general a bad idea.

5

33 minutes ago, xKostyan said:

Because how scoring works in PvP, bots are in general a bad idea.

Could be done in Co-op.

6

58 minutes ago, xKostyan said:

Because how scoring works in PvP, bots are in general a bad idea.

I imagined it especially for PvP!

We already have ai-bots in one’s team, Frigate:Engineer drones, Sentry drones (act. fighter module), Heavy Guard Drone (act. fighter module), guided missiles, guided torpedos, Taikin guided missiles shoot and forget main gun, auto damaging spheres like Pulsar (act. guard module), Worm holes, Repelling beams, G’Th’ar’Du  etc.pp. - now pleade for ascesis? Imho makes no sense.

 

Last but not least the coolness of such an AI.wingman ship with audio npc voice acknowledging the commands would be worth its light complications in PvP.

7

15 minutes ago, avarshina said:

We already have ai-bots in one’s team, Frigate:Engineer drones, Sentry drones (act. fighter module), Heavy Guard Drone (act. fighter module), guided missiles, guided torpedos, Taikin guided missiles shoot and forget main gun, auto damaging spheres like Pulsar (act. guard module), Worm holes, Repelling beams, G’Th’ar’Du  etc.pp. - now pleade for ascesis? Imho makes no sense.

These are AI controlled combat objects just mines, torps or auras, w/e, while bots in public understanding are AI controlled ships, that generate synergy and efficiency scores upon destruction, they worth game progress points. 

This:

Quote

The ‘AI Wingman’ feature would allow you to have a wingman ship on autopilot which is controlled in its state by you : attack target, defend me, auto mode, etc.pp

1

is exactly what people understand by bots. And AI behavior, in general, is a subject to be abused.

  • You make it worth no points, just like Engi drones and you gonna see beacons swarmed with these so called wingman with players sitting behind nearby obstacles - because why would you go there if you just send a meat bag that does not lose a game for you?

  • You make them cost score point and you gonna see a farm of those, just like we had in days when we had bots mixed with players

8

On 14.8.2017 at 6:27 PM, xKostyan said:

These are AI controlled combat objects just mines, torps or auras, w/e, while bots in public understanding are AI controlled ships, that generate synergy and efficiency scores upon destruction, they worth game progress points. 

This:

is exactly what people understand by bots. And AI behavior, in general, is a subject to be abused.

  • You make it worth no points, just like Engi drones and you gonna see beacons swarmed with these so called wingman with players sitting behind nearby obstacles - because why would you go there if you just send a meat bag that does not lose a game for you?

  • You make them cost score point and you gonna see a farm of those, just like we had in days when we had bots mixed with players

I see your point - thats complicated and maybe not suitable for the benefit of the overall PvP situation.

Spoiler

But I designed the idea to benefit empty PvP slots and long wait queue times in PvP and as a help for beginners to get comfortable to act as a 2-ppl squad/team/group. I see this not as an exploit for grind and ranking stats. I see it from the perspective of fun gameplay experience - and I hold that it could be implemented in a fair and balanced way, for example same number of wingman-ships on each side of battle (PvP).

 

What if the AI-wingman ship is limited to the instruction states : ‘go off and attack my target’ or ‘fly in formation and defend my ship’ ? We could avoid the beacon denial situation. And remember the more in power through the wingman ship is compensated by the loss of 1 active moduule slot and can be matched by the other players having the same weapon - so it easily becomes rather balanced.

 

Think of the opportunities: player can experiment with teamplay: frigate:guard with fighter:gunship or fighter:command with interceptor:ecm etc.

Or what if only one standard type of wingman ship like a smaller interceptor, or only a  standardized variant of an interceptor-class ship would be allowed? Or player must be member of a easy tier flightshool academy corp to get access to a wingman ship? Lots of possibilities to get the problems you imagine under control, easily. It could be implemented in smaller steps and rather gently, because lots of the (software-)technology is already there from PvAI (COOP) or AI-drones (Engineer drones).

 

9

Sorry, but I see even more problems and potential exploits with these solutions.

So far what you are proposing is basically a Glorified Combat Drone. Basic commands of Attack/Defend can not possibly cover the arsenal of abilities ships have, and each role has its own perks, which leads to a huge disbalance based on AI behavior and available fitting choices.

Everything can be fixed and implemented and solved, but question is - but does it worth it? 

To be honest, most of this can be implemented via a variety of “utility” Combat Drones that can have 1-2 different special effects, fit it into missile slot and bam - similar end results - a fraction of a cost.

 

Especially with how Crystal satellite (Taikin’s module) works, it makes even more sense. At least these are easy to kill (unlike that damn satellite) and it partially solves the lack of active module slots. It probably would make everybody fly with those though, but then again 1x thilit and none left ![:)](<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/001j.png “:)”)

10

i just rather have the engine try to support more players per match instead.

 

i do support the idea, if the game would change its scale completely, and support lots of ai ships in each team, but that would be a different game.

of course for open-space this idea isnt so bad.

all in all however, seeing how much development in the horizontal has been done since the beta, i doubt the engine gets changed like this. and some of the modes (like openspace) would need more UI / usability anyway (waypoints and such) more.

 

the ai is adequate indeed and actually, if you have bots in your game (like in lower tiers), and one “follows you”, you can do funny stuff. e.g. if your bot is a sniper, and you have a sniper (LRF), he will target the same target as you and go into sniping mode at the same time. also never forget, contrary to belief, ai bots are not needed to be taught how to aim, but actually, how to miss, to be endurable, in any game. so fairness is a question.

11

2 hours ago, g4borg said:

i just rather have the engine try to support more players per match instead.

 

i do support the idea, if the game would change its scale completely, and support lots of ai ships in each team, but that would be a different game.

of course for open-space this idea isnt so bad.

all in all however, seeing how much development in the horizontal has been done since the beta, i doubt the engine gets changed like this. and some of the modes (like openspace) would need more UI / usability anyway (waypoints and such) more.

 

the ai is adequate indeed and actually, if you have bots in your game (like in lower tiers), and one “follows you”, you can do funny stuff. e.g. if your bot is a sniper, and you have a sniper (LRF), he will target the same target as you and go into sniping mode at the same time. also never forget, contrary to belief, ai bots are not needed to be taught how to aim, but actually, how to miss, to be endurable, in any game. so fairness is a question.

Game engine is so limited, that’s beyond belief.

Open Space areas, at least sectors, should be 10 times bigger, with more diverse missions and effects, similar to Freelancer.

Sure, graphics are fine, but when it comes to actual functionality, it’s absurd that your speed is limited to 700m/s, not to mention other issues, like issues with collision damage and limited modeling of ships, due to engine restrictions.

12

Very nice post, well thought out. I see some arguing about exploiting progression. I see no problem with making it easier for n00bs to rank up faster.

 

Back when I started the game 2 to 4 hours a day could get you nearly every standard ship maxed out in about 3 months. It seems every update makes progression a little harder. Today it would take the average n00b @ 2 to 4 hours a day a year to only get less than a quarter of the ships. That’s why I really dont care about progression exploits. Not that I see any here that would be game breaking. If anything maybe I would not have to wait an hour for one match  @ r15

 

I wish VS ai was allow for r15 ships to use the mode. 

 

6 hours ago, avarshina said:

Suggestion: ‘AI Wingman’ feature

Basic mechanic: (active module)

A special active module put into both ships, into the player controlled vessel and into his AI-wingman ship, would make it possible to cycle through the basic modes:

  • attack my target,
  • cover/defend me
  • auto mode
  • (50 energy pts per activation)

 

New Crew implants — Neurocybernetic-AI

Each faction delivers different AI modules which can be implanted in the ‘Neurocybernetic-AI’ mainframe of each ship. Therefor UMC has decided to make the new  Ξ (Xi), Δ (Delta, Ω (Omega) implant system available to all pilots from ranks 1-10 besides the Crew implant system.

5991c9776b08b_AICrewimplant.jpg.7c8b12ff7ed7addc3a487011f4015bcd.jpg

 

Optional:

(Introduction of a new standardized AI-wingman ship class - not decided by UMC, yet.)

 

 

If you bear with me, please discuss!

I wish Custom battle would give rewards, not because of exploits but because it would work like a normal online shooter makeing match maker no longer needed… 

13

It would be certainly nice to have some support drone/AI wingman at your side in PvE and OS, with the size of the drone increasing with the size of the player’s ship. Especially if there were more ship classes for the players to control, such as corvettes and light cruisers. Sadly, Star Conflict is not a game for it, or at least not at the current state of development. I would not support this in terms of PvP though.

14

Updated, see : [UI ‘Additional devices’ (‘Booster module’) rework](< base_url >/index.php?/topic/34616-ui-additional-devices-booster-module-rework/)

15

offtopic reply to koros pain :confused:

 

i actuallly came back to vote, as i didnt yet.

 

 

On 8/14/2017 at 9:27 PM, Koromac said:

at least sectors, should be 10 times bigger,

i doubt that’s easily possible - if they want to keep it 32 bit that is, which is good so people play. still, i think theoretically, their maps could still scale up by a bit, but the problem is always collision detection. and to be honest, that is not a limitation of their engine, that is a limitation of floats, and our 32 bit hardware (as your physics, video card rendering, etc. are all still 32 bit, even if the cpu is not)

 

they could of course switch open space to be more of a (solo) exploration game, and put in some floating origin code - but then again, you could just play elite, and realize, how fast such a thing gets boring - or buggy. depending on how many tricks they do, i don’t see the benefit of 10x maps. some maps are already big and have lots of unused space.

 

there is a reason, why citizen will have higher hardware demands from their clients to enable multiplayer play on larger scales. you are limited not only by engine or server power, but also the power of each client

 

On 8/14/2017 at 9:27 PM, Koromac said:

it’s absurd that your speed is limited to 700m/s

i don’t find that so absurd to create some kind of playable game. of course they could go higher. but in a way, you do not win much by having more realistic maximum speeds.

 

also, the faster you get in a float simulation, the less you should have the ability to turn, as that creates horrible network artefacts, and becomes unhidable at high ping. it’s always a question, of whether it should look good, or be exact. in the end, if you play pvp, you want some more exact, and some less “just looks good”, or at least some good compromise.

 

i would rather design the whole thing so the speed limit does not have to be capped.

it would be still nice if one could just disable intertial dampening, instead of simulating it with constant thrust

 

 

On 8/14/2017 at 9:27 PM, Koromac said:

limited modeling of ships

to be honest, i prefer simpler models, simpler hitboxes, and more scaling details by necessity. most of the time, SC is a game played completely on the UI level, and you only shoot shadows, and all you really see is your own ship. Most of the game takes place on the 2d ui level on top of the 3d rendering, if you think about it.

 

in a way, the new models are bloating up requirements without much gain. i would rather have better map hitboxes, than more complex polygons on spaceships.

 

i can only imagine what would be the game, if our guns would not automatically rangefind the enemy ship, and people would have to truly aim their shots. so not just “remove the ui” as with the alien module, which still uses the same mechanic, just invisibly, but truly require to aim from a 3rd person perspective at an almost invisible pixel shadow. people would not hit each other for hours.

 

…

 

I do understand what you crave, Koro, but in the end, playability and simulation have to meet, somewhere… :(((

and you can imagine how bitter this realization is for myself…

otherwise, you can decide also by playing more of the “more realistic” sims out there, like ed, or citizen

or avorion, which kinda mixes the “sector” idea with floating origin. you can fly out there as far as you want, if you do not expect anything there anymore.

 

just sayin’. anyway.

pls dont quote all of this ![:p](<fileStore.core_Emoticons>/emoticons/004.png “:p”) i want to feel less shame for walltexting in topics.