After discussing this thoroughly with a "normal" gamer who has been playing vendetta as a complete n00b, I'm starting to get the grip on why newbies find Vendetta bots to be so difficult.

Simple. They are too much like "bots" and too little like Anything they have previously played against.

Vendetta bots are direct. They see you, track your movements exactly, with the only alteration being their slow manouverspeeds and low rate of fire, they always know where you are, where you are going, and always strive to follow at their desired distance.

They don't drift, go off on a tangent to turn back in, break off an attack, boost away and try another angle, or otherwise leave you space, breathingroom or chance.

this is also what makes bots so utterly deceptively easily killed once you understand that they just do the same thing all the time. Backrolling, Strafe-angling, Barrel-roll.. All theese behaviours simply work because the bot you are targetting matches you (without the roll behaviour), facing you, following and running brainlessly into your shots, while shooting at a fixed interval.

So, in order to make the bots "easier", as in, less predictably "Botlike braindead" they have to become far more "advanced" taking this into account.

So why suggestions and not bugs, you wonder? ; ) Nah. won't comment on that. However, hopefully with the rumoured 2.0 we will see some changes to how bots can be created, and with that we can get more advanced bots, that act stupidly and more random, making flawed assumptions and trying to behave in a more interesting way.

The devs had said may 'a time that they wish to upgrade bot behaviors so that they have a distinct 'personality (ie Orun Collecters would be cowardly, but Atermis Collectors might fight you if enough of them are present). Unfortunately, there are only 4 devs and in addition to having upgraded the AI just last month somewhat, their skills and attention are currently devoted to server maintainace, and developing other parts of the game (the User Interface, for example). Once the devs have enough free time, and their more immediate concerns put to rest, I'm sure they'll get around to it.

I'm not sure if you just skimmed my post, got the illusion that I've never been part of the tester community and had no idea on what I was doing, however. Note that I've put just the things that you so repeatedly, obviously, state here in the last paragraph. Allow me to quote:

"However, hopefully with the rumoured 2.0 we will see some changes to how bots can be created, and with that we can get more advanced bots"

However, I would -love- to actually see a post from you, where you actually comment constructively on the observation of "why" the current ( and long-time ) bot implementation is "bad" and what could be done to change it.

Right now, the current behaviour has remained virtually unchanged since the level based bots were introduced. The semi-accidental tweak to the behaviour recently doesn't change the basic assumption of the bots, neither did the (major) pathfinding updates through time do. Their combat-behaviour is still the same.

I -know- that Andy has a lot of ideas and capacity when it comes to bot AI, and how to make good (as in. overpowering ) bots and states. However, that faith doesn't lead me to believe he is infallible and will do it instantly once the client changes, the mission code and the distributed computing environment is done.

So, to make the question more obvious in an effort to reduce the replies of mindless "trust the devs to bestow us upon this".

*What kind of behaviour does a beginner -expect- from bots.

yes, this is directly aimed at beginners, n00bs. people who lose the station entrance, who cannot figure out up from down, and who certainly won't grasp the way non-fa flight works.

There is no up in space.

Bots ought to act more like players... but how the hell do you get them to act as unpredictably as a player?

Dodge binds? But how do you get them to think "Where do I need to be for the greatest advantage?"

How does a n00b expect them to behave? I'm not exactly sure how one can have expectations about how bots should behave in a space game... Should they act like Tie fighters and chase you around? Should they work based on an FA-On bot thrust system?

Just one main question: What bot behavior do we compare Vendetta bots to?

Zoras

Well, The Tie-Fighter series had some rather good bot behaviour, they worked in groups, but did the "wide sweep" and never shot "too much". In fact, the AI shot a few times to "warn", then made a sweep, and moved in again, and only -ever- shot on "I'm 100% sure this will hit" ... They got better, more precise, faster, but overall, the tie AI never "upgraded" in those games.

comparing on the other hand to Decent, one of the few other "free-space" shooters. Those bots were blind, dumb and odd, and preferred to keep to their own restricted "area" .. whenever you moved off, they backed down and left you alone.

As for "up" in space. No, there isn't, but there is "up" in design, and the stations have a distinct "up" and "down" design ( at least some of them ) together with text and signs being used to orient them. Also, Everything is upside-down if you ask RelayeR. Personally, I say the enemy gate is down.

But yes, what -do- newbies expect? Thats the question. After discussion I came to the conclusion that they do -not- expect bots to exactly match their speed, distance and try to shoot them all the time ( like an aputech guardian will do ) and that this behaviour takes them completely with surprise. Its only when they (instinctively?) realise this behaviour of the bots, that they manage to kill them, mostly by exploiting it.

So... What gaming experiences do people compare vendetta to, instinctively, when they start out?

Personally, having played on many a trial account, I can say that the bot experience really does depend on preconceptions.

When I first started playing VO, I expected the bots to act much like the ones in X-Wing, and so I behaved accordingly. I made huge, lengthy attack runs, and payed for it.

I wasn't expecting the bots to stalk me all the way out to 3000m+. Instead I expected them to follow me until I got a certain distance away from them, then give up and go back to whatever they were doing.

These days I can bot my way to 3/3/3 within a few (roughly three) hours, then move on to the Advanced Combat Mission and get to Dev-knows-what. However, most newbies aren't going to know that TyCorps aren't dangerous until they get within 200m, or that only two Artemis Collectors will follow you at a time, or even that a simple strafing maneuver will confound any collector bot.

Personally... the only bot behavior that I could compare vendetta bots to was the behavior of enemy fighters in Chuck Yeager's Air Combat... and well... yeah...

My first botting experience had me running into the stupid things... and then when I learned about FA-off... it suddenly became much easier.

But making the switch from FA-on to FA-off for the first time is really... really hard.

And true, once you learn how to exploit the bot behavior... it's no problem killing them... hell, at least we don't have crack botting anymore.

Yes, Exactly. However, this is a usability issue for our "beginners" and something that should be looked over. Because the current bots are -hard- for a beginner. Not because they are accurate, or fast.

But because a beginner don't know their way around. They have FA on. They fly in straight lines, target an enemy , who will then spend the whole fight in their face or behind them, and whenever they turn, they will slow down, get shot, and have the bots in their face instantly. They try to run, get some space, dive back in and the same thing happens again, except that they cannot dodge properly, so get shot more than they shoot.

The default bots are hideous in the terms of beginner usability. Actually, the bots aren't much fun for anyone who's "cracked" them, before I quit I got so utterly bored from sitting in a vulture, centurion or other ship battling DenTek-Assault ships, because they were so predictable. Fast, but the same keys all the time, just run and pick them.

So yes, the current AI has its charm, for certain mid-level difficulty things, but overall, its not very challenging for the experienced players, and behaves too inconsiderate to allow newer players to learn.

For beginners, it's my intention to change the whole initial combat to a series of "target drones" with different-from-current behaviours. The idea being, the new user will start out with a mission tree related to "target drones", taking on drones that don't shoot, don't shoot in quantity, then shoot a little, shoot a little in quantity, and so on. I agree that the starting bots are too hard for a lot of people.

The "hive" bots will be relegated to more outlying sectors, and not the newbie systems. (well, everywhere other than the newbie systems, but increasing in difficulty as you head further towards their respective Strongholds).

That's been my intent for awhile. But, I'm open to ideas on different ways the bots should behave, especially for the Hive.. where, yes, I do want to make a wider variety of behaviours.

Actually, its not that the starting bots are too hard, the oruns are doable. its the gap from the "easy" bots to the "medium" ones, (where people get exposed to ApuTech-5 guardians for example) that is completely indiscriminatingly difficult.

As for the changes on how bots behave, I think a1k0n still has some draft documents I pieced together almost a year ago for that. If you dare to release a bit more on what level of programming can be used for the AI, I can probably get more interesting examples and suggestions (That might be a bit more to explore)

Overall, however. The main gripe I have about the current bots is that to beat them, you are -required- to adopt a certain style of flight and combat, which in turn makes them hideously easy, which to the end also -bores- people out of their minds.

But, Given some of the restraints and interfaces ( and data) available for a bot, I could probably come with more "real" ideas here : )

I think a quick remedy for this would just be to note in the tutorial that the bots don't act like "conventional" AI from X-Wing/TIE Fighter and give a brief hint on how to handle them.

Spider: Assuming you're talking about Descent I, II and III, then there was a reason that those bots did that: they were mine defense drones--they weren't going to leave their "post"--unless of course they were a specific type of bot, such as the "Bandit" (the trash collector or "Theifbot") and the Omega "Kamikaze" drones in II, or the theif in III.

Of course, one could change that behavior for any bot they chose if they were using the level builder.

Aye, they were, however the bots that people encounter here are pretty much the same. Either miners, or guards of the miners. ; )

And really, I don't think that doing a remedy is the correct approach. People will still have to learn, and they will realize it soon enough. Documenting "bad" behaviour isn't a solution for it.

I wasn't saying document the bad behavior. I was saying that the tutorial should inform the new player that Vendetta Online's AI is different from other flight/space combat games and that players should not expect tactics from those games to work all the time. They might work on larger targets, such as a capship or Behemoth, but they almost certainly won't work on smaller targets.

VO shouldn't mimic "standard" or "conventional" AI techniques for the bots. This isn't Descent. This isn't X-Wing.

Why have strafe commands if we're going to revert to the archaic standard of attacking targets in long head-on passes, zooming around and repeating ad nausam? A lot of people think that all space games should be played like the battles in Star Wars. One problem with that is that it keeps players from using all three dimensions in their play--sure, they'll use up/down and forward/back, but they're not likely to use left/right--because that's how they commonly see "space combat" played out, like an old World War II film.

Which, incidentally, isn't surprising, because George Lucas got the style of combat used in the space battles of Star Wars from watching those films.

Thankyou, Celkan, for proving my point.

I know full and well that the X-Wing methodology isn't a good one, mostly due to the poor manouverability of all the StarWars ships ( locked around an axis and so on) However, there is a big difference between "effective" combat and "fun".

IMO, vendetta bots should -Not- strive to be effective. That is too easy, and leads to mechanical bots that are boring to fight, only showing up as a grind. The case where the Star Wars style of "idiotic" combat modelled after WWII movies ( which don't really depict how combat was performed either ) is that its more enjoyable. FAR more enjoyable, compared to an "effective" opponent.

So, now that you are almost approaching my question, how -should- the bots behave?

Exactly as they do now with perhaps some enhancements to make them slightly smarter.

Making them act like bots from OTHER games where the "space" combat is in reality atmospheric combat just detracts from the point that VO isn't an X-Wing or Descent clone.

Trust me when I say that when the human species gets to the point where there will be battles in space with small fightercraft, it will not be fought in such a manner as depicted in Star Wars.

The physics in space are far too different from those found in a planet's atmosphere (not literally, but you get the point), and expecting battles to work in space as they do on Earth is a bit naïve.

I'd never pick up a new game if the way combat worked was always the same. It would be too easy. I want to LEARN how to fight AI for each game I play--it's one of those few things that sets VO apart from other space combat games--and learn effective ways of countering the AI.

Besides, if we cater to those people who can't stand to not fight in a flightsim manner for the newbie bots, we're going to have to extend the modifications to the bots encountered later on at higher skill levels or those players are going to be just as stuck as they are now at the beginning.

I say leave the bots as they are now instead of making it so that those players don't have to worry about the different combat style until later, when the problem will be sudden and could be very disasterous... I can imagine players saying over 100:

"WTF!? These bots don't act like the ones I was just fighting! They don't fly like real bots*!"

"What the hell was that!? I attacked that bot like the training missions have taught me to do** and I didn't even land a shot before I was killed!"

"That STUPID! I flew at that [Guardian/Assault/Collector/Overseer] like the game says you're supposed to attack bots and I died in two seconds!"

* "real bots" because assumedly, until this point, the player hasn't dealt with the other bots.
** If we change the bots, then the training missions would be teaching the player how to deal with those bots, not the ones they'd find later on.

when i first started playing VO i was suprised by the AI behavior. because FA is the default flight mode, but bots don't use it: so for new players who aren't used to how ships manuver without FA is esily confused by the bot AI. I'd sugest having some low level bots use Flight assist thristing peramiters.

about the hight level AI: i think they are alright. i mean, they aren't as good as players, but to some extent that's a requiernment. as any time people talk about the PC/NPC interchaingability idea, they say that a plyer shoul be hads down beter. Also, do you realy expect the hive bots to appear to think creatively?

Well, first of all, I think the bots should definitely behave differently based on their class. Collectors should not follow you with as much zeal as an Assault. Guardians should chase you off, then return to their patrol patterns.

What we really need are a few hive bots comparable to a Cent; light, fast, hard as hell to hit, but with low-powered weaponry. Think something with roughly the same size/capabilities of an Observer, only with a more agressive AI and weapons about equal to Plasma Mk IIs.

^ was edited to get the point I was trying to make across better

Aggressive Observers?

*cough* Aerna Seekers *cough*

... yes, their weapons are low powered.

At least, they're not powerful ENOUGH.

I believe Spider has a point when he says a new player does not know what he's doing when he's fighting his first bots. I think that's because the player is in an atmospheric flight model with FA on while the bot is programmed for physics flight.

One way to address the issue is the bot's behavior.

The other way relates to the UI: currently it's very hard (without a lot of practice) to understand where you're going with FA on; it took me quite a while to understand how lateral speed was partly displayed on screen with FA. This is space, there is no easy visual fixed point to evaluate speed and heading. With a highly visible display of forward/lateral speed/direction, new players could easily avoid headbutting collectors :D

PS why the forward speed is constant in FA anyway? it could work just like strafing sideways.

I think the observers seem to have the best bot behavior. 10 of them move around like a school of fish, you can fly through them and disperse them.

However, seeing as they have no weps, and the combat model, the Aerna seeker, blows itself up, this bot behavior isn't really useful, however cool it is.

..............................

Now, if all bot behavior was based on swarms and schools like that, I think the Hive moniker might be a bit more apt.

Combine this with a tutorial which forces the player to learn about FA toggle

(and put the default toggle in a more obvious place, ' is kind've an absurd place to put something that you expect them to use, put it on the CTRL key in the defaults, you don't use it otherwise, and it seems the natural place, it will be obvious to new players that its a vital key)

Finally, Have triggered bot reactions. So that, if the bot observes certain behavior in a human, there are a set of programmed reactions to choose from. Which it might do randomly.