Jump to content

PVE Warfare - NPC Pirates


EasternGamer

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, SirJohn85 said:

I'm not quite sure what you're alluding to now

 

34 minutes ago, SirJohn85 said:

So far, no one has answered my question: Why do we need this in this state?

 

21 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

Op an I already decided to continue this discussion as a academic debate instead of a current feature request. 

 

5 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

That does not mean "no one answered your question". 

 

 

No one is asking for this, right now, in this state. 

 

We are discussing about the challenges to implement PVE in DU. 

An academic discussion that NQ can read in 2028 when they decide to make DU 3.

 

So, yes, we did answer your question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EasternGamer said:

am not one of those people, for the record. Also, that kind of solo player will never happen here. Think about it, in the current state, the game has you with 6 guns solo. You could maybe deal with 2 pirate ships solo if you have your tactics worked out, but not the FOB because there would just be too many ships defending it, unless you get it really early somehow.

A solo player would be able to ambush a single patrol ship, basically or maybe come in when both sides are weakened and score a kill.

Exactly the point. Then ppl dont do it solo but with 5 ppl. Or 20. Or 200. Doesnt really matter. Despite the fact that needing 200 ppl for a pve base would mean excluding small orgs (fine for me, but you know the lads....), it would also not matter much. Even if they put in a number limit and everything. Ppl WILL figure out how to blitz it and ppl WILL Farm it. And then it Boils down to: is this worth it to implement it for another grind? 

Dont get me wrong, I loved wh pve in eve but it was boring too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

No one is asking for this, right now, in this state. 

 

We are discussing about the challenges to implement PVE in DU. 

An academic discussion that NQ can read in 2028 when they decide to make DU 3.

 

So, yes, we did answer your question. 

Well, you haven't really answered any question. OP just said he wants it in the roadmap, which will make it more concrete.

But well, I guess it's just another thread that will join the many other npc threads already created during 2016-2020 when it has no relevance today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SirJohn85 said:

Well, you haven't really answered any question. OP just said he wants it in the roadmap, which will make it more concrete.

But well, I guess it's just another thread that will join the many other npc threads already created during 2016-2020 when it has no relevance today.

Pretty grim, and accurate view. Yes, I want it implemented in the roadmap, whenever that may be. Maybe the next year or maybe the year after that. 

 

5 minutes ago, Lethys said:

Exactly the point. Then ppl dont do it solo but with 5 ppl. Or 20. Or 200. Doesnt really matter. Despite the fact that needing 200 ppl for a pve base would mean excluding small orgs (fine for me, but you know the lads....), it would also not matter much. Even if they put in a number limit and everything. Ppl WILL figure out how to blitz it and ppl WILL Farm it. And then it Boils down to: is this worth it to implement it for another grind? 

Dont get me wrong, I loved wh pve in eve but it was boring too

Another grind? Sure, better than mining to me, rather spend 100 hours doing this than mining 100 hours, even if the reward was half or even a quarter of what mining does. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

Has the NDA marker effectively void or does it still apply?
This was like 2 years ago, their priorities and thoughts probably changed a bit. Right now, my org mates agree, PVP fights and wars don't have a purpose, other than burning resources in voxel and broken advanced/rare elements. This would hopefully change in the future.

With PVE, the goal in mind is provide a good reason you're burning resources. If you happen to locate the HQ, for example, a massive raiding party would be required to combat the ships there, but at the same time you have a giant station you didn't blow to bits left with resources, so you get a netgain. Even with FOBs, you will gain. 

Now that I think about it, how would the ownership of the HQ or FOB go if it was not destroyed in the fight? Would it be to the first person to destroy the core and reclaim it? I think this might be the part where avatar vs avatar becomes a necessity. If raiding rules are made beforehand, you would need a way to enforce it. Like, if for example you say that X party will only have the wrecked ships, where party Y get's the resources stored in the containers on the station and party Z would get the voxel and elements of the station, you will need a way to enforce.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, EasternGamer said:

Has the NDA marker effectively void or does it still apply?

You can read it if you have access to it. 

 

But you can only talk about it if that info was made public in some other non NDA place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

look at it from a different angle: how will DU fill the (many) gaps in design left by a lack of NPCs? 

current answer: "no clue" 

 

"players do everything" is currently a vague aspiration, not a design -- it's an attractive, novel pitch...but one with no real plan behind it. 

 

IMO to fit with the civilization sandbox theme, AI would make the most sense as belonging to orgs. 

 

There's pirate NPCs, hauler NPCs, etc. 

 

Blowing up an AI wouldn't necessarily be mindless grinds -- you'd piss off the owners. Even PVE players would have to pick enemies. It wouldn't diminish groups like Boo, it would turn them into sprawling space 'rats feared like the plague. 

 

Builders would have a large role building AI constructs and NPCs would have a central role in civilization building. Industry would be needed to replace and repair destroyed constructs. Some areas might start to feel more secure thanks to patrols, without safe zone madness. 

 

considering JC has a PhD in AI, i don't understand why NPCs were never part of the design.

 

NPCs could be such an incredible asset for the concept of civilization building...but instead we have this vague plan for "players must do everything" -- which has no actual game design rationale or plan behind it. It's different for the sake of different but has become more of a liability than an asset in terms of design. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, just to address a slightly off topic point from the OP, as a hauler in the Empire, I'm just barely aware that the military can be hired as escorts - it's not well advertised. The one thing I do know about it it that it's more expensive than the most valuable cargo I've ever hauled (which was more gold the the ship I had at the time could safely carry.)

 

Back on point, NPCs and PVE combat have huge game-play advantages over PVP.

 

  1. It's not necessary for one player's game to be ruined for another to have fun. (PVP can be arranged so that everyone has fun, but in open PVP, it can't be guaranteed and usually fails on this point.)
  2. NPCs are always available.
  3. NPC's capabilities can easily scale to match the player's capability. This makes for a fun and challenging fight. (PVP doesn't scale, so having a fun and challenging fight - outside an arena - is a random, rare occurrence.
  4. NPC's are probably the most common money faucet in most games. If the economy needs more money, just dumbing down the pirates a bit so they lose more often (and allowing their wallets to be looted) will do it. On the other side, if you need to curb inflation, make the pirates a bit tougher (and let them partially loot the players they kill).

While giving the NPCs a base and having them actually flying around hunting players is the dream (specifically, it's Chris Roberts' dream and Star Citizen is actively working on do this), it's extraordinarily expensive in terms of game resources... and just having NPCs spawn where they're needed based on RNG, gives just as good game-play, maybe better, and is relatively cheap.

 

Why is the RNG better? Full NPC pirate simulation will just end up guarding the same pipes the PVP players are in (which I admit I would find amusing, since they will presumably attack the PVPers too). RNG spawn will spawn in position to attack the hauler whether or not in the pipe. As long as this is balanced (scaled) so the hauler wins or can avoid most of the time, it's good game play. Non-combat ship operators want an exciting risk, but don't want to be fighting a superior enemy on every run.

 

While we're putting NPC pirates in game, let's add NPC haulers and miners too. Those are also good money faucets when that is needed. They should be armed and/or have NPC escorts. (NPC miners probably should not actually mine - depletes game resources and expensive to implement - but should have some ore for looting.)

 

To be clear - this is brainstorming. I'm aware that DU's design is fundamentally unable to implement NPCs easily and this is all a long ways off even if it ever becomes possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, ShippyLongstalking said:

considering JC has a PhD in AI, i don't understand why NPCs were never part of the design.

Probably because he knows how difficult and resource expensive it is to implement. 

 

Regarding on "how to fix" the game. 

There is no choice. 

This is what we have. No budget to change DUs direction right now. 

The plan is to keep basic promises, clean the bugs and release. 

 

Is it a viable game? There are some viable parts. But can those compensate for a subscription? Maybe. 

 

Maybe we will see DU2.0 kickstart campaign. Asking for more funds to make DU viable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

Probably because he knows how difficult and resource expensive it is to implement. 

 

Regarding on "how to fix" the game. 

There is no choice. 

This is what we have. No budget to change DUs direction right now. 

The plan is to keep basic promises, clean the bugs and release. 

 

Is it a viable game? There are some viable parts. But can those compensate for a subscription? Maybe. 

 

Maybe we will see DU2.0 kickstart campaign. Asking for more funds to make DU viable. 

That Dual Universe 2.0 kickstarter campaign would be interesting. I might put some money to it.
I'm sure if it came down to it, they could lay-off half of the team, that probably isn't doing more than 10 lines of code a week, and the pace wouldn't change much.
But that's an assumption. I have no idea how the company works internally, how many programmers are doing anything on any particular day. I'm sure if they want to keep their jobs, they have to do something, but, if I was a developer there, I would be investigating and fixing this bugs the whole time if I could help it. The less bugs, the easier it is to add more complex features.

Particularly, I've been burned by those crash-type bugs. Man, I've had full bluescreens. I have no idea why Dual Universe ends up being the only game to every crash my PC like that. 
But that was only on planets when I decided to fly around at higher speeds, probably something about voxels being unloaded and loaded into memory too fast or something.

I don't know their budget, but I hope it's not as dire as people believe it to be. It would be great if they pulled in enough money to see this game through beta, to release and beyond even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, EasternGamer said:

if I was a developer there, I would be investigating and fixing this bugs the whole time if I could help it. The less bugs, the easier it is to add more complex features.

So, a good part of programmers only have a single criteria about how to fix a bug or if to fix. 

Some are perfectionists and fail to get anything done. 

Others are quick fixers, patching bugs with wrapping code. 

 

But in a game like DU there are several different layers of code. 

Examples:

Fixing a bug in the voxel cache and rendering engine should not be a wrapped around fix. 

Fixing the tread spawn engine should not be a wrapped around fix. 

This 2 examples will have consequences repeated millions of times in every gameplay. This requires a perfectionist programmer. 

 

Fixing a bug in the key pressed function can be a wrapped work-around. Because this only happens each time a player executes a action. Compared to the machine speed, performance is not a issue. 

This kind of bugs exist in the thousands and solving those fast is better then solving one of those in a perfect manner. 

 

Bugs like a single frame glitch or a wrong caption, stuff that does not impact gameplay, are rare, and the player has a work around are bugs that should be fixed as a "nice to have" 

 

 

Also it is important to understand that different programmers have different skills.

Example: the guy that fixes "pending operations" is not the same of the guy that made the industry UI. 

 

And so, it can be wrong for players to say: "how can feature A was implemented before bug B was fixed" 

Because the guys technically capable of implementing feature A are not necessary qualified to fix bug B. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Daphne Jones said:

First, just to address a slightly off topic point from the OP, as a hauler in the Empire, I'm just barely aware that the military can be hired as escorts - it's not well advertised. The one thing I do know about it it that it's more expensive than the most valuable cargo I've ever hauled (which was more gold the the ship I had at the time could safely carry.)

 

Back on point, NPCs and PVE combat have huge game-play advantages over PVP.

 

  1. It's not necessary for one player's game to be ruined for another to have fun. (PVP can be arranged so that everyone has fun, but in open PVP, it can't be guaranteed and usually fails on this point.)
  2. NPCs are always available.
  3. NPC's capabilities can easily scale to match the player's capability. This makes for a fun and challenging fight. (PVP doesn't scale, so having a fun and challenging fight - outside an arena - is a random, rare occurrence.
  4. NPC's are probably the most common money faucet in most games. If the economy needs more money, just dumbing down the pirates a bit so they lose more often (and allowing their wallets to be looted) will do it. On the other side, if you need to curb inflation, make the pirates a bit tougher (and let them partially loot the players they kill).

While giving the NPCs a base and having them actually flying around hunting players is the dream (specifically, it's Chris Roberts' dream and Star Citizen is actively working on do this), it's extraordinarily expensive in terms of game resources... and just having NPCs spawn where they're needed based on RNG, gives just as good game-play, maybe better, and is relatively cheap.

 

Why is the RNG better? Full NPC pirate simulation will just end up guarding the same pipes the PVP players are in (which I admit I would find amusing, since they will presumably attack the PVPers too). RNG spawn will spawn in position to attack the hauler whether or not in the pipe. As long as this is balanced (scaled) so the hauler wins or can avoid most of the time, it's good game play. Non-combat ship operators want an exciting risk, but don't want to be fighting a superior enemy on every run.

 

While we're putting NPC pirates in game, let's add NPC haulers and miners too. Those are also good money faucets when that is needed. They should be armed and/or have NPC escorts. (NPC miners probably should not actually mine - depletes game resources and expensive to implement - but should have some ore for looting.)

 

To be clear - this is brainstorming. I'm aware that DU's design is fundamentally unable to implement NPCs easily and this is all a long ways off even if it ever becomes possible.

In the early days of Space Engineers there were NPC ships spanning from simple probes to big haulers and military freighters (dunno if they're still a thing tho) they would just spawn, travel in a straight line for a few minutes and then despawn.

Clearly was not as good as pirates & co, but it was something and it helped break the monotony of mine-build-mine-build.

Later with planets they added pirates with drones etc.

We could start from there, it's not this hard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, joaocordeiro said:

Also it is important to understand that different programmers have different skills.

Example: the guy that fixes "pending operations" is not the same of the guy that made the industry UI. 

 

And so, it can be wrong for players to say: "how can feature A was implemented before bug B was fixed" 

Because the guys technically capable of implementing feature A are not necessary qualified to fix bug B. 

I'm an amateur programmer, I'd like to say I'm pretty good at it as well; I've developed multiple Discord bots, most of which were for custom purposes, and the one I did make public has a lot of servers using it. For the most part, my initial work was buggy and poorly done, then I rewrote it with one framework in mind. Even then, there are some bugs, but nothing a lot of experimentation couldn't find a way to solve. But, almost everything is bug-free. Almost all the "issues" people come onto the support Discord for are actually them not understanding the issue. The point is, from my amateur perspective, I commented without thinking about that. When you have multiple people coding the same project, their conventions and how they laid out the framework for what they did won't necessarily be the same as what you're familiar with working in.

I see where you're coming from, so NQ should get around to doing those fixes that are once off and common. And I hope the patch coming up addresses a few of those. They normally do a massive bug-fix thing every major patch, so I hope they do the same this time round as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fra119 said:

We could start from there, it's not this hard.

Depends. 

If this happens on a pvp zone. Then it becomes another advantage for big orgs. Instead of helping the lone players and small orgs. 

Because big orgs would attack anyone else from attacking those NPCs. 

 

And with this increasing the gap between small orgs and large orgs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Daphne Jones said:

The hard part in DU is that every actor needs a client because almost everything runs in the client.

Oh! I get what you mean now. You're saying every PVE ship would require a client to run it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, joaocordeiro said:

This topic looks like the resurrection of old threads. 

We are now arriving at the "headless clients" thread. 

?Mwahaha, this was the plan all along. 

Headless clients sound like a good idea, but who would run them? I think if they're lightweight enough you could run like 10 at the same time on a single computer, though I have no idea, honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, EasternGamer said:

Oh! I get what you mean now. You're saying every PVE ship would require a client to run it?

Yes. And as joao mentioned, this is the long discussed head-less client issue. NQ has run 10s of thousands of NPCs on headless clients for stress tests, so it can be done, but no one outside of NQ knows whether the cost to do this all the time is practical.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Daphne Jones said:

Yes. And as joao mentioned, this is the long discussed head-less client issue. NQ has run 10s of thousands of NPCs on headless clients for stress tests, so it can be done, but no one outside of NQ knows whether the cost to do this all the time is practical.

 

They could design a completely dynamic system for NPCs, so only about 10 or so headless clients would run at the same time. The main server would track all the virtualized objects of the ships, just points moving through space, until it it get's really close (2.15 SU away) and loads a headless client to take control of the ship and the guns, it will be like what an EVE Player has, simply orbit, lock, shoot, no need for anything complex like image recognition. They could run away when too much gets damaged, but if you took out their warp drive before then, they would just fight to the death. The cores could be placed further from the middle as well so that the ship isn't a complete wreck at the end. But, if it manages to get away and you're close to it, you might be able to tell the direction they warped in because they changed their velocity vector to that direction prior to warping. You then go searching in that direction for the FOB. This could be a reason to send scouting parties, btw.
The moment it warps, the ship gets unloaded and the headless client get's unassigned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, the whole idea of the game running on separate clients is a brilliant one, that means less investment into server tech to compute everything and thus reducing operation costs and increasing scalability. However, they need to find a way to supplement it for people who don't have high-end hardware to run the game then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Daphne Jones said:

but no one outside of NQ knows whether the cost to do this all the time is practical.

 

The entire voxel code would be needed.

All element calculations would be needed. (Switches, PBs, engines, etc)

The physics calculations would be needed

 

UI would not be needed ( market, friends, help window)

It is not clear if a good GPU would be needed for voxel related calculations

Player avatar interactions would not be needed.

 

But the main issue is that this would require 2 game clients instead of one.

Or 1 game client properly divided between UI and world calculation.

 

At the state that the code seams to be in (assumption from bug types) a major code refactoring and clean up would be needed.

Way outside of release targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, EasternGamer said:

Honestly, the whole idea of the game running on separate clients is a brilliant one

This happens in most games.
Some have AI in a different thread but still on the server.
But others, like Arma3, the AI registers itself as a "special" client. Making it possible to outsource AI processing to a different server.

 

Main server responsibility is simply to register data, verify data (prevent cheats) and broadcast data.

Serving more as a database.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...