New AI Scripts



  • Given that:

    1.

    2.

    3.

    meatshield wall

    4.

    The result is:

    1.

    2.

    As a result, I believe the options should be considered:

    1.

    2.

    3.

    I'm just guessing. I don't know what the DMs have in mind as an objective for using the new scripts. Perhaps it's their intention that archers continue to plink away at the panicking wizard and ignore the rogue happily removing the archer's entrails or the axe-maniac barbarian repeatedly slamming his great axe into the back of the archer's head. Perhaps it's intentional that dire bears rush past the steel clad warriors in front of it - and who are dealing a fair bit of pain and injury - to get the wizard cowering behind them. Curst rogues trying to pickpocket my axe-maniac offered numerous RP opportunities (What? What are you doing??? Get your damned hands out of my breeches, you sicko! Fight, don't grope!) - but sadly identified as unintended.

    Maybe all this is all as intended.



  • I just think it's stupid that even with a wall of meatshields between you and the enemy, if a range guy attacks enemies or a wizard casts a spell before any meatshields engage, the entire enemy horde runs past the meatshields to attack the ranged attacker/mage.



  • @Swifty:

    I just think it's stupid that even with a wall of meatshields between you and the enemy, if a range guy attacks enemies or a wizard casts a spell before any meatshields engage, the entire enemy horde runs past the meatshields to attack the ranged attacker/mage.

    Or even after the meatshields engage. Current targeting priority does not give any priority to current attackers. Indeed, the archer/wizard/whatever need do nothing, and -still- find enemy mobs charging past the "meatshield wall" (which is more of a "meatshield cheesecloth" given it's current effectiveness).

    Now, I understand that this is all to give a "richer gaming experience" - but the message of the current implementation is - "roll a cleric if you want to play support".



  • @Zanros:

    @Swifty:

    I just think it's stupid that even with a wall of meatshields between you and the enemy, if a range guy attacks enemies or a wizard casts a spell before any meatshields engage, the entire enemy horde runs past the meatshields to attack the ranged attacker/mage.

    Or even after the meatshields engage. Current targeting priority does not give any priority to current attackers.

    Now, I understand that this is all to give a "richer gaming experience" - but the message of the current implementation is - "roll a cleric if you want to play support".

    Man, I sure do wish WE could use super advanced computerized AI to know the weakest/strongest AC opponents we come up against. The best we can do is see who seems to be wearing the weakest clothing, but in the world of D&D mechanics, looks hardly matter. 😛

    Edit: On a different note, I'm not entirely sure how this new AI system works. Do the enemies always go after the lowest AC guy, even if they're surrounded? Or is that just the initial engage thing? It's silly if they provoke tons of AoO trying to chase down the archer or rogue in back. You can't really try to engage the "squishy" target of the group while someone's swinging a sword at you and trying to kill you.



  • I'm really not sure how many times and in how many forms I can say that this is a system being built progressively, and receiving dissertations by every player just shows me 1 - None of you read or you would have noticed that not only has someone else said what you're saying before you, but that 2 - we've addressed it.

    We've done what testing could be done outside of the server and ask everyone's patience regarding it while we adapt it more specifically to CoA. The AI is being tweaked to incorporate actual creature intelligence for more advanced tactics, and there will still be some enemies that will full out beeline for easier to kill, dangerous classes like Mages. There is a learning curve that will come with it, but we are well aware of the "aggro" issue and are making steps to balance it more specifically.



  • I'm merely pointing out that the unintended consequences of the current script changes will be a population explosion of clerics matched by a drastic reduction in squishy classes (wiz, sorc, rog(pure), bard (already rare)).



  • @Zanros:

    2. Removal of spell duration nerfs

    What duration nerf are we talking of?

    3. Implementation of some "aggro pull" mechanism

    Never. That has a place only on MMOs, and we are not a MMO.

    On a side note, a roleplaying server where players play a class based solely on its power is a sad server.



  • in all fairness many miss some of the posts in the forum, i had not really read this on the forum till this post, i had heard of this issue in the game though

    and some may not even come to the forum (so posts like this are really redundant to them as well) keeping up on things is good for the players, especially for those who may not come here, i am pretty sure the intent was not to aggravate the dms, but to helpfully point out something they mistakenly thought you were unaware of

    some of the npc's are now acting odd..and many spawns now camp the transitions..is this part of it?



  • Which has been pointed out ad nauseum. We appreciate everyone's concerns, but it's quite irritating when we say things and no one seems to bear attention to it. Especially the overly suggestive conjecture.

    Also, the percentages of these "haywire" behaviors is much lower than what people are reporting.

    The unintended consequences of posts like this is it perpetuates the belief that the AI will automatically target the squishy classes in all cases, and is backed by insufficient evidences. The AI does not target in this fashion, and I've seen more than plenty of the quests and AI in action where the mage's and squishy folks actually didn't get targeted much at all.

    On the flip side, I have seen instances of a random enemy beelining a mage and not stopping the chase until the mage was dead. They were very few, and they were evidently odd behaviors that we are attempting to weed out.

    So, I encourage everyone to, instead of wasting various energies attempting to tell us things we've already been told and give their interpretation and opinion of things, clouding the perception of other players and polluting our ability to effectively tailor the system, to simply provide the information we asked for; which is to say, the reports of odd and strange things or things that were "unfun" or "unbalanced" in the thread we provided.

    Perception is the reality in this case. We've been very clear in our intention with this system change, and we appreciate that everyone is trying to look out for the best interest of the community – but the best thing in this case is to try and remove as much opinion as possible, and report what happened. We're trying to make things better, we're not out to make things rough for players, or change the class composition and so forth, so these inferences do become a bit grinding. 🙂


Log in to reply