Survival co-op with... bots.

That would fix most of my problems with this game.

Comments

  • sashimiaksashimiak Member, Moderator, Robot Entertainment
    Thank you for the input, I've passed this along to the team :)
    German Community Manager
  • I think if you explain the reasons why you think it's a good idea? 

    Personally, (and many other players) find it easier to do survival solo, playing with others is just a good way to play with friends or if you are struggling on a level and need a much higher level to help, I don't see how bots would help either of those situations. (because obviously they couldn't make bots OP enough to get you through a level you're struggling with. 
  • GustavoMGustavoM Member
    sashimiak said:
    Thank you for the input, I've passed this along to the team :)
    Thanks. This will definitely make the game much more bearable for me, when it's implemented.
    Might as well add for a possibility to team up with bots on sabotage. Maybe a "training mode" of sorts? That'd be lovely.
  • Would the bots be allowed to place traps?
    How do you select what traps they take?
    What level would the traps be?
    Would the traps have parts?
    Would the bots just place traps wherever they feel like it?
    Would you be able to control where the bot places traps?
    How would you select which trap the bot places in that spot?

    "Training mode" should be the prologue. A bot working to a set script as a second player in the prologue could work. 
  • ^
    @yobbobear
    yes, a training mode with scripted bots would be more realistic. 

    I mean, the way @GustavoM wants the bots to run doesn't really make logical sense to me, (the complications of trying to get AI to setup traps, etc would be way too much effort)
    The only realistic way this would work is if bots were there to assist you with PVM damage, but all gold went to you and all traps were built by you.

    however, having these bots on your team would obviously have to increase the level of the enemy / make them tougher to balance it out. In essence you will be at no advantage from playing with bots(to make it fair)  

  • GustavoMGustavoM Member
    edited July 14
    yobbobear said:
    Would the bots be allowed to place traps?
    How do you select what traps they take?
    What level would the traps be?
    Would the traps have parts?
    Would the bots just place traps wherever they feel like it?
    Would you be able to control where the bot places traps?
    How would you select which trap the bot places in that spot?
    I don't think it would be a good idea to request support from bots that can't place traps, using traps that are not appropriate for the chosen difficulty or even with zero common map knowledge. With that said... those bots will simulate player behavior and they will be used when the player can't find any other available and willing players to play a few matches or to try new killboxes.
  • GustavoM said:
    I don't think it would be a good idea to request support from bots that can't place traps, using traps that are not appropriate for the chosen difficulty or even with zero common map knowledge. With that said... those bots will simulate player behavior and they will be used when the player can't find any other available and willing players to play a few matches or to try new killboxes.

    That is the issue, do you realize how much work it would be to make bots that can lay traps, specifically certain traps that work around the traps you have chosen in your setup and to lay them in specific places that match your killbox.
     
    don't get me wrong, if they ever did create that it would be great because that would lead to them being able to make a players VS bots scenario where they could use some of the stuff from the old siege mode and we would be able to play that again but against bots. (As something different) 

    This is a huge task for them, and if you wanted them to really consider it then you have to say why and give reasons why players would like the idea. you can't just say something like "it would fix most of my problems" 
    sashimiak already put the idea forward but when they come and look at your idea they will see no reasons why you want this idea, so look at the next persons idea. 

    you could edit your first post and include the reasons why you thought of this idea, why other players would like it, why it would fix your problems, what other possibilities the bots could have, (siege mode, (potentially sabotage mode if numbers die down) and come up with some other stuff too. Then they have a reason to consider taking up such a big task. 

  • I would also like to point out you're using the flag system incorrectly. Just because you don't agree with my posts it doesn't mean it warrants a flag. You have posted an idea on a community forums, the community will give feedback on your idea aswell as devs potentially looking into it. 

    I am trying to help you build a reason behind your idea to potentially make the devs interested. My first and second posts offered reasons why it was a bad idea, you was suppose to come back and give me a reason why it actually is a good idea. You didn't take the bait so I proceeded with my third message to explain in depth why you need to add those reasons. 

    See it from a devs point of view. 

    your title.. "survival with co op" 
    your first post "that would fix most my problems with this game" 
  • TimeMasterTimeMaster Member, Early Access
    Bots again? No thanks.

    It's most likely a lot of work for pretty much no reward. 
     
    I think you guys are dreaming and suggesting something that couldn't ever work properly. A bot that simulates player behaviour? are you serious?

    I guess you don't mean simulating a human being with interactions, anyhow, a lot of players of this game don't communicate much, a lot of players will have different ideas of killbox, a lot of players will disagree with your strategies, etc. How would you even expect a bot to do better than that? I think you aren't being realistic and understanding the complexity of what you are asking for.

    Try new killboxes how? you want 2 bots so the team brings 21 different traps? How are the bots even gonna help you trying anything? 
    If you are thinking about a bot that you control the trap placement, that would just make the game harder and more confusing. How would you expect a new player to use 3 loadouts, or even knowing/learning how to control the bot trap placement? 

    Bots with common map knowledge? What is even common in the knowledge of a map from player to player? Strategies, killboxes, ideas, can be so diverse.

    I don't even understand what's the point of having bots in your team on a survival match, It looks to me like it's very easy to find players to play pretty much anything. Guilds and Friendlist might not be your thing but global chat seems to work pretty good to find party all day long.

    It wouldn't make sense to be carried by 2 bots if you play solo either. Although most likely they would be worse than a player in every aspect (like they used to in Siege), so you would be better just playing alone if it's about difficulty. Also apart from the dashbaord chats, you got plenty of videos and streamings or even the community at forums, discord, reddit, etc if you have questions/need help with some strategy/map.

    So is it just to not feel lonely in your solo matches? Maybe we need pets or some summonings to not be bored in the matches :D

    I'm not gonna even go into Sabotage bots...

    A training mode of Sabotage where only the other team is bots could work/help new players. But I really doubt it's worth the work for it. Not so many people play the mode and if you want a Match against Bots, playing Chaos Trials would be effectively pretty much the same.

    @GustavoM

    You haven't even stated your problems that would be "all solved" by adding bots. That statement makes no sense at all to me though.

    @sashimiak

    I understand that all feedback is useful and should be forwarded, but wouldn't it be better to wait on a thread to develop and be a discussion before forwarding it? Even threads very elaborated and insightful would benefit more from having a discussion and comments to develop/change/transform/improve ideas. 

    This post was a one-liner of an idea (bots in survival) that no one even mentioned for a very long while in forums.


  • @TimeMaster

    I agree it would be better to have community discussions before forwarding any ideas. That way the devs have a vague idea how the community feels about something. And maybe even the the creator of an idea decides actually it's not a good idea, based on the reasons some of the other community members give. 

    I do agree with the reasons why you said this isn't a good idea too, I think you explained it better than me so maybe he takes your comments on board and at least explains his reasons for wanting this. 
  • sashimiaksashimiak Member, Moderator, Robot Entertainment
    @TimeMaster You are right of course. But don't think of me saying that I've passed along an idea of it going straight to the development team's to-do list. Basically, I check the suggestions, take a look at if something has been suggested before or not and if it hasn't I will pass along a summary of the player's idea combined with the link to their post and the relevant team will look at it (and monitor any feedback posted on that thread).
    German Community Manager
  • TimeMasterTimeMaster Member, Early Access
    sashimiak said:
    @TimeMaster You are right of course. But don't think of me saying that I've passed along an idea of it going straight to the development team's to-do list. Basically, I check the suggestions, take a look at if something has been suggested before or not and if it hasn't I will pass along a summary of the player's idea combined with the link to their post and the relevant team will look at it (and monitor any feedback posted on that thread).
    Sure, I'm no one to say what you should or have to do. I see that having a reply like yours to a suggestion is somewhat an improvement from the early total silence we had for most of the past 2-3 years of the game where most suggestions would be read but not replied at all.

    I know myself pretty well after posting many that a lot of them are just not plausible, not appropiate, not gonna happen any time soon, etc.

    But others might be interesting. However, neither the silence or the "passed along" message end up favoring the suggestion itself much. While some are very well elaborated and extense, others like this one don't even have a summary or an explained reason of why the suggestion was made. Many have just been there with a single or none reply at all.

    If an idea is interesting and/or isn't very developed or extense, it might have been great to try to incentivize it by asking questions like "why" or "how", even if all you care is about quantity instead of quality and obviously the team is the one deciding everything not players. Anyhow, atleast I would feel better if I were the one suggesting something. Rant over.
  • sashimiaksashimiak Member, Moderator, Robot Entertainment
    sashimiak said:
    @TimeMaster You are right of course. But don't think of me saying that I've passed along an idea of it going straight to the development team's to-do list. Basically, I check the suggestions, take a look at if something has been suggested before or not and if it hasn't I will pass along a summary of the player's idea combined with the link to their post and the relevant team will look at it (and monitor any feedback posted on that thread).
    Sure, I'm no one to say what you should or have to do. I see that having a reply like yours to a suggestion is somewhat an improvement from the early total silence we had for most of the past 2-3 years of the game where most suggestions would be read but not replied at all.

    I know myself pretty well after posting many that a lot of them are just not plausible, not appropiate, not gonna happen any time soon, etc.

    But others might be interesting. However, neither the silence or the "passed along" message end up favoring the suggestion itself much. While some are very well elaborated and extense, others like this one don't even have a summary or an explained reason of why the suggestion was made. Many have just been there with a single or none reply at all.

    If an idea is interesting and/or isn't very developed or extense, it might have been great to try to incentivize it by asking questions like "why" or "how", even if all you care is about quantity instead of quality and obviously the team is the one deciding everything not players. Anyhow, atleast I would feel better if I were the one suggesting something. Rant over.
    Thank you for the feedback, you make several good points there. I will try to encourage more feedback / discussion for future suggestions!
    German Community Manager
Sign In or Register to comment.