Jump to content

Welcome to Dual Universe
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account
Photo

"Auto-Turrets" and Artificial Intelligence in games


  • Please log in to reply
72 replies to this topic

#61
Haunty

Haunty

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts
  • LocationMN, United States
  • Sapphire Founder

1) Those are two differnet turrets in Planetside 2 and they are anti-infantry turrets, not anti-vehicle. The auto-turrets here are on Construct V Construct Combat. Unless you seen a one man Galaxy bombing a base in Planetside 2 with all its 4 guns, or a solo Liberator bombing  base while its tail gun takes care of pesky ESF and the nose gun takes care of other liberators, the example is rendered irrelevant.

2) Anyone would agree that for ground combat, SOME automated features, like the Spiffire Turrets from Planetside 2, could be implemented, so an "engineer" or "mechromancer" role can exist, aka, an Area Denial role.. Automated turrets even on proximity triggers, like laser grids, for ANTI-PERSONEL purposes, sure, they COULD work.

But the thread is about CONSTRUCT VS CONSTRUCT TURRTS, guns on ships, not Avatar VS Avatar combat.

 

I was referring to the base turrets in Planetside 1 that shot at vehicles.


duaalogo.png


#62
elDunco

elDunco

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
  • LocationHouston, TX
  • Silver Founder

The point is, people want to be Captains, nobody wants to be an engineer. It's either EVE Online with Voxels, or it's a sandbox game. 

And let's be real here, nobody is gonna add randoms on their ship. If the concept of a role call is unheard of some people, then they'll never crew a ship efficiently.

And since it's not EVE, let's also be real here, ships in DU have fuel, and fuel COSTS. Nobody is gonna fly a ship unless in oeprational hours or in a strategic operataion (ala EVE) or in a Call to Arms situation in home defense. So no, you won't have to scrougne for members o na wednseday to crew a battleship.

You gotta see a battleship crew as an organisation or a corporation from EVE, only with a GOOD AND VITAL difference. You don't bulk recruit. A spy in EVE can rob you of billions of ISK, in DU a spy can blow your precious battleship with C4 charges on your fuel tank.

Your organisation starts small, like a 5 man org. Crew a moderate corvette or a frigate. You move in numbers by recruiting more people? Buy a new ship for your org's size. You may never be able to crew a whole battleship, so you'll stick to a Heavy Cruiser. You may join an alliance, who will buy your ship and field you one of their own, doctrine, Heavy Cruisers, becuase you got the nubmers to crew it and you proven yourself loyal for XYZ reasons.

That's called "Ergonomics", greek for "how things should work".

Average Joe MacNobody, who plays the games Solo (and not the Han kind of solo, that actually had crew i nthe past), will get the Burn Jita treatment. You play an MMO single-shard as a singleplayer? You'll die. A lot.


It's like saying "Freighters in EVE should have guns, they are carrier sized ships, so they should have figheers on them, 8000 DPS tank and at least 1 Billion GigaJoules of energy reservers on capacitor". No, that's not how this works. You put guns on a freighter in DU? Get crew to crew them. you put gusn on a battleship? Get crew to crew them.

You don't have the numbers to get into freightering in space? Good, be a courier on a planet. You know, them plnaets. You can't expect people to have factories right next to veins of mineral. Someone has to haul it. And planets will be far safer than space. You find other people who like the sandboxy element of Trucking on a planet? Good, form an org, go and start a Space Freighter enterprise on your own small number, again, starting small, going big.


The problem with the above, is that Ripper on his posts, wants AUTOMATED TARGETING AND FIRING. 

It's not a "have a super-jacked Starfighter with 4 nose guns that target at the same direction you look at and firing at them".

No, Ripper wants "turrets turn and fire autoamtically at a target, while pilot does a seizure inducing flying maneuver".

The superjacked-up starfighter, is something I approve. It's one pilot, controlling four guns at once, aiming at the same direction. Heck, it can also be tied to a missile launcher that the pilot can acces that way. But they are not automated.

It's neither "Turret faces a certain direction, if target's are detected at 10000 meters down the range, the turret fires" which is a dumb-firing mechanism.

No, Ripper asks for turrets that TURN and FIRE on their own will. That's the problem.

Decide, either you'll have a moron of an automation that's as simple as heat-switches for yardlights, or you'll crew a ship on your own. Anythign other than that kind of automation, is EVE 2.0 only 1000 times worse due to depleting resources and rampart alt-frenzy being what made GSF in EVE big. One guy, 10 accounts , then battleships fielded, firing on theiro wn. 

Move battleships to a location, go afk, you come back, everything's dead. That's what Ripper and everyone else who keeps asking for automation, single-man battleships, wants.

And yes, having automation in the game will just make it like the good old "Guy has 10 Dominix batteshlips on a stargate, camps said stargate solo with his frigate, wtih slaved drones to the frigate, locking a ship that enters a system in 2.1 seconds and blowing it up with 50 Sentry Drones striking at once". Mhmmmm, I bet Goonswarm people reading this had their jimmies rustled. They'll know they found their game if you were to allow it. I mean, depleting resources, blowing up a ship is just 1000 times more painful for a person in DU than in EVE. You may have striken a good vein and mined that Titanium you needed for you ship and you built it very cheap cause of that. But now? Johnny with 10 Accounts blew your ship up cause he has the money to field 10 accounts on his own.

I bet you don't really want that in DU, right good sir? Cause it will be there if automation is allowed. NQ knows it as well, it's why they ditched automation from the get-go. It's very not balanced to have automation. It can be exploited to a ridiculous extreme. But people are naive enough to tihnk "it will be great! We will all be captains of ships without crews", then they will just whine on the forums about how GSF, or Test, or Palnedmic Legion / Horde members blew up their ships on a gatecamp of 10 accounts being multiboxed by one guy.

Yeah, if you can't see the issues of automated turrets on ships and how they'd make an excellent multiboxing cancer, no matter how many facts I throw your way it will ever change that.

No matter how you spin it, progress in an MMO should not be rewarded for solo players. You shouldn't be able to do what a 100 people org can do by yourself. If people can't be teamplayers, they should find themselves flying single-seater crafts.

giphy.gif


SIG_02_V3B.png


#63
CaptainTwerkmotor

CaptainTwerkmotor

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3484 posts
  • LocationRaptor Squad HQ
  • Gold Founder

I was referring to the base turrets in Planetside 1 that shot at vehicles.

Awwwwwwww... that makes more sense now.

But still, Planetside 1 was not a Sandbox MMORPG, it was an MMOFPS, you couldn't play as a space station manager, cause the game was either "shoot people dead or be shot dead". Yeah, even if the BFRs were there, they were just another category of "ways to shoot people dead". It was a glorified King of the HIll (with Planetside 2 being a glorified TDM, but that's a whole bag of salt best left unopened). People played Planetside 1 to fire a Lasher, not to man a turret, as Planetside as a franchise, is a never ending session shooter.

That's the key difference in DU. Sure, you won't man a turret 24/7 but if you were to be informed of a hostile raid coming to your station, it's the up to the people who live and operate out of it it to defend it by manning those turrets. It's not any different than in EVE, having to form up a Home Defense fleet when people invade your territory. What? You guys want also automated drone ships so you don't have to defend your own territory? I bet some Borg enthusiasts had their jimmies rustled on the idea of Drone Battleships.

And I mean, let's be honest, anyone saying "but how will you know enemies are coming", are the kind of people who would not play as gate guardians like people do in EVE, the people who actually take it upon themselves to keep an eye and inform people of incoming hostiles. I mean, take al ook in this thread, or any other thread on automation? Archonious' kind of people will just say "Gute Guardian? LOl, what a noob playing as a [Insert Homosexual Slur] Gate Guardian". But then again, Archonious is probably gonna be prime target for GTA practise and shooting practise as well, so he's not the prime example.

So, my arguement still stands from my point to Ripper earlier on the thread. It's not a session shooter, you are meant to man those turrets. You are meant to fly the ship, you are meant to mine minerals.

But hey, despite NQ saying "No automation" people still ask for automated mining and pretty much "game on rails", like they are not understanding WTF a sandbox is - and given how antisocial many are, I bet they never played in an actual sandbox in a playground to begin with.

Having automation in a sandbox game like DU, and saying

"it won't be OP to have automation, it's just gonna be less effective, despite the fact I can have 1000 turrets runnig 24/7, making the need for other people pointless"

is like saying

"hey guys, let's go play in a sandbox, we'll be playing with this pristine, smooth sand, and you guys can play with that coarse and rough sand over there, no, we are not takiing the easy way, if you think about it, both are sand!".

Guess with what sand people will choose to play with if you were to allow them an alternative path of least resistance.



#64
Zamarus

Zamarus

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Gold Founder

Ok. It looks easier to argue with a wall =))) Words, many empty words only. Nothing about the facts. Just everyone MUST do that because I WANT! All I see egoistic/selfish position. Nothing to talk about! Bye!

 

P.S: Twerk is in ignore list for ages, don't care about this dirty troll

The irony is strong in this one. Are you not willing to argue further? Then stop replying or something. You are not going to get anywhere with personal attacks and accusations.


Who needs a signature anyways


#65
mrjacobean

mrjacobean

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • LocationAboard the Black Codex
  • Gold Founder

The irony is strong in this one. Are you not willing to argue further? Then stop replying or something. You are not going to get anywhere with personal attacks and accusations.

Yeah, the only way to win this argument is not being involved. It should not be an argument about how the games mechanics should be, but rather a debate showing the pros and cons of different designs where NQ can then draw a verdict. Name calling and personal insults should never be involved. I may be a hypocrite (in fact, many of us are from time to time) but that does not change the fact that we get nowhere when we do not keep this civilised.

 

Anyway, there are solutions to the multi-boxing turret spam (this isn't EVE, think outside the box). If they are short range, use space artillery. If they are using space artillery, use a bomber squadron. If there is no way around them, hit somewhere else (improving your defense somewhere means you will lack defense elsewhere), such as when the enemy is blockading a gate with static turrets, use a different jumpgate, hit somewhere else or send scrap for them to shoot at so they waste ammo (the tactic used depends on the person in charge). Please note that only static constructs (bases and space stations) would have the ability to have auto turrets, and being static means that they CANNOT MOVE (no jumping, no moving out of position, nothing). I believe that multi-boxing will still be possible in DU, but not feasible. DU is too involved in its interaction for that to be efficient (whereas EVE is just turn-based combat with auto-fire enabled).


  • CaptainTwerkmotor and Zamarus like this

#66
CyberCrunch

CyberCrunch

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 20 posts

(...)we get nowhere when we do not keep this civilised.

Totally agree with that. So many posts just go back and forth without adding any value to the actual discussion. We should all act like grown-ups and get over this.

 

Back to topic:

The real challenge is how to figure out a system that is fair for all combat situations. Even without automation players who invested the most resources in their ship will always be superior against other players...

Because of limited resources NQ will only be able to provide the most basic combat system anyways. But it will gradually get more interesting, flexible, and engaging through expansions over the years.

My previous suggestion would just add another option for that.

 

For now we already have a primitive mechanic of "over night" protection in the game:

After revisiting the http://dualuniverse....tarter_Comments it seems protection bubbles are exactly meant for that purpose:

 

(...)a temporary (24 or 48h) indestructible bubble immune to sabotage, meant to let the owner of the area react to the aggression or sabotage (because when this happens, it could be in the middle of the night, or when he/she is at work, not in front of the computer, and we don't want to worry people with attacks when they are offline).

Somehow I had the impression these bubbles would only last a few minutes to have time to get out of the bed and log into the game... but with this mechanic my mine is safe! :P

Waiting 2 days for the attack would create other problems, but this should be part of another topic...



#67
mrjacobean

mrjacobean

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 286 posts
  • LocationAboard the Black Codex
  • Gold Founder

Just to clarify the earlier quote:

 

 

About how bubbles being powered: If we keep the current design (but as it is under development, it might change a lot), there might be 2 kinds of bubbles: the one is a permanent energy shield that can protect an area or a space station. This one will most likely be powered by a power source. If this bubble is damaged at a critical level or shutdown, this might trigger the second type of bubble: a temporary (24 or 48h) indestructible bubble immune to sabotage, meant to let the owner of the area react to the aggression or sabotage (because when this happens, it could be in the middle of the night, or when he/she is at work, not in front of the computer, and we don't want to worry people with attacks when they are offline).

  • CaptainTwerkmotor likes this

#68
CaptainTwerkmotor

CaptainTwerkmotor

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 3484 posts
  • LocationRaptor Squad HQ
  • Gold Founder

Just to clarify the earlier quote:

Pretty standard EVE Online fortification timers.



#69
NQ-Nyzaltar

NQ-Nyzaltar

    Community Manager

  • Community Manager
  • PipPipPip
  • 538 posts

Hi everyone,

 

We can't give you details yet about how turrets will work as it refers to game mechanics still currently being designed.

 

However, what we can tell you is what the team is aiming for:

- Giving the ability to players to build some automated defense for their base.

- Avoiding to give the ability to players to have a huge multicrew ship entirely manageable by one player. This would defeat the purpose of multiplayer crew ships, and would end up destroying the team play we are aiming for. People wanting to play solo will be able to do many things, but not everything: piloting alone a multiplayer crew ship with maximum efficiency will be one of the things they won't be able to do. Team play must be rewarded by some exclusive activities and piloting a multiplayer crew ship is the biggest one. Without strong incentive, team play just won't happen.

- Regarding AI, it depends what players are expecting: if it's to help in some basic industrial tasks, or basic automated defense, yes, there will be some - limited - possibilities. However, no AI self-replicating robots, no AI able to replace completely a player in a multiplayer crew ship.

 

We know this isn't much or new info for now, and we will try to update the topic as soon as possible.

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.


  • Aetherios, CaptainTwerkmotor, Pang_Dread and 5 others like this

#70
wizardoftrash

wizardoftrash

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • LocationStuck in the Arkship still
  • Gold Founder

Totally agree with that. So many posts just go back and forth without adding any value to the actual discussion. We should all act like grown-ups and get over this.

 

Back to topic:

The real challenge is how to figure out a system that is fair for all combat situations. Even without automation players who invested the most resources in their ship will always be superior against other players...

Because of limited resources NQ will only be able to provide the most basic combat system anyways. But it will gradually get more interesting, flexible, and engaging through expansions over the years.

My previous suggestion would just add another option for that.

 

For now we already have a primitive mechanic of "over night" protection in the game:

After revisiting the http://dualuniverse....tarter_Comments it seems protection bubbles are exactly meant for that purpose:

Somehow I had the impression these bubbles would only last a few minutes to have time to get out of the bed and log into the game... but with this mechanic my mine is safe! :P

Waiting 2 days for the attack would create other problems, but this should be part of another topic...

I believe that the balance NQ will try to strike here is the balance between resources/time spent and manpower. We have no metrics to work with yet, so we don't really have any idea as to what the effectiveness "limit" is for a solo player ship, or what the baseline looks like for a mulit-crew ship.

 

An advanced fighter might be able to destroy a less-advanced 2-crew combat ship in a fair fight, but with what NQ has shared so far regarding their intent, solo ships will be severely limited in what they can accomplish at their most advanced level. This is not going to be a re-hash of how Space Engineers works (where you can STACK a huge ship with heavy armor and AI turrets, piloted by a solo player just fine), nor will this be anything like starmade (same deal, except you can add an AI fleet to fly with you).

 

We are likely to see limitations in how much forward-mounted weaponry can be on a ship, and we are likely to find that ONLY forward-mounted weapons can be used by the pilot. NQ has mentioned 1 crew per weapon system on a ship at some point, meaning a 2-crew ship will have potentially twice the firepower of a solo fighter (or more if swivel-mounted turrets are more effective/less limited than forward mounted) and it goes up from there. This means that the ONLY advantage that a solo player can have against multi-crew ships in terms of ship combat is maneuverability (less weapons means less components, and less mass. less mass means more thrust).

 

This is intended to be a cooperative game, a solo player should not be able to operate a titan-class warship.


tumblr_oozd3gLt491uqxh5so1_540.png

Join the Free Lancers , the Squires, the Wayward, or the Alchemists today!

Get a free Greetz Puppy in-game Cosmetic Sticker!

(My gaming blog) http://wizardoftrash.tumblr.com/


#71
Ripper

Ripper

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 501 posts
  • Gold Founder

 NQ has mentioned 1 crew per weapon system on a ship at some point, meaning a 2-crew ship will have potentially twice the firepower of a solo fighter (or more if swivel-mounted turrets are more effective/less limited than forward mounted) and it goes up from there.

 

This is a key take away.  It doesn't matter whether players can control 1 weapon or 100.

 

A single player ship will only be able to control that number of weapons.  A multiplayer ship can have multiples of that "Limit".

 

Here's an example:

 

Your game client may be able to support 10 weapons controlled by LUA.  A multiplayer ship with 10 users (10 clients) would be able to control 100 weapons (10 weapons batteries running on 10 clients).

 

Multiplayer will always beat out single player.  It doesn't matter whether the players are limited to a single weapon or multiples.



#72
wizardoftrash

wizardoftrash

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • LocationStuck in the Arkship still
  • Gold Founder

 

Multiplayer will always beat out single player.  It doesn't matter whether the players are limited to a single weapon or multiples.

errm well this is not quite the case, because we don't know how much variation there will be in weapon quality. One player in a very advanced/expensive fighter should be able to take on 2,3, even 4 or 5 people in a basic or poorly built frigate. Individual character skill (not just player skill) may also be a key factor here.

 

It might be that a solo player who has nearly maxed out all of their skills relevant to piloting a fighter, while flying an advanced fighter, will be a good match for a crew of 5 newbies. It might also be that the advanced weapons, armor, and thrusters on the fighter would be enough to close that gap.

 

We simply don't know how much of an impact raw metrics will have in these encounters.

 

However if you take a crew of even 3 players, and each is spending time on their own specialization (one on engineering/refining, one on piloting/scanning, one on gunnary) and each player is contributing play time to construct a solid ship, said team should have a colossal advantage over even a theoretically maxed out solo player.


tumblr_oozd3gLt491uqxh5so1_540.png

Join the Free Lancers , the Squires, the Wayward, or the Alchemists today!

Get a free Greetz Puppy in-game Cosmetic Sticker!

(My gaming blog) http://wizardoftrash.tumblr.com/


#73
Ripper

Ripper

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 501 posts
  • Gold Founder

errm well this is not quite the case, because we don't know how much variation there will be in weapon quality. One player in a very advanced/expensive fighter should be able to take on 2,3, even 4 or 5 people in a basic or poorly built frigate. Individual character skill (not just player skill) may also be a key factor here.

 

It might be that a solo player who has nearly maxed out all of their skills relevant to piloting a fighter, while flying an advanced fighter, will be a good match for a crew of 5 newbies. It might also be that the advanced weapons, armor, and thrusters on the fighter would be enough to close that gap.

 

We simply don't know how much of an impact raw metrics will have in these encounters.

 

However if you take a crew of even 3 players, and each is spending time on their own specialization (one on engineering/refining, one on piloting/scanning, one on gunnary) and each player is contributing play time to construct a solid ship, said team should have a colossal advantage over even a theoretically maxed out solo player.

 

The example of single vs multi player combat should be judged with all other things being equal.

 

Of course a player who has spent years in a game will be more skilled than a newbie.

Of course a player who has better equipment will be better than someone who has crap.

 

This is the same as saying  "Our three newly created level 1 characters can't kill his level 75 sorcerer.  Maybe we should nerf the sorcerer."

 

I agree with you though.  Multiplayer will always be better than single, all other things being equal.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users