No AI bots so far, right?

[Papagenox]

Just wondering. I'm 58 and it's hard to schedule things with online acquaintances, and I'm not crazy about playing with internet random people. Any AI bot plans?

[nornware]

I totally feel you, playing with random people does indeed imply a lot of extraneous stuff.

Bots do exist as a development tool, I use them to test multiplayer. They are way too smart right now; that is indeed the main problem, as it's much easier to make a "perfect" bot than something that acts more human.

I would anticipate that adding them as an option would open up a whole new can of worms, as people will of course want them to act in any number of ways; should they only support human players, or should they optimally try to "solve" the mission? etc...

[Shiro]

you can try playing with semi-random people; when there are some in Discord, for example, you can join them. They won't be complete strangers, yet their presence is more fluid than that of specific set of friends

[YetiChow]

Originally posted by nornware:

I would anticipate that adding them as an option would open up a whole new can of worms, as people will of course want them to act in any number of ways; should they only support human players, or should they optimally try to "solve" the mission? etc...

in a game like SBTF, the biggest challenge isn't so much the "difficulty" as it is the fact that you can't be everywhere at once or do everything at once -- you have to prioritise objectives and adapt plans on the fly to prevent being overwhelmed. Even when you have "full kit" with aim assistance, maxed out ammo and motion tracker, getting surrounded or swarmed are still threats; and simply having amazing twitch-shooting reflexes isn't enough.

And that, by extension, means that the largest hurdle to beating the game in single-player isn't that it's "too hard" for a single human actor, but that it's often "too much" -- you can't be, say both off sealing/controlling a breach and also completing the objective. Most players find that, eventually, they either get stuck in an impossible T-junction with swarms coming from both sides, or they run out of ammo because they're so busy defending themselves they don't have a chance to go refill.

With those factors in mind, from a single-player perspective the main use of bots would be to simply give the player a break from having to keep the swarm off our backs while completing objectives. In fact, I've thought (possibly even commented) before that you could probably replace "bots" with simple place-able turrets in many instances -- if there's a particular junction you need to defend, or somewhere you need to keep clear while you're doing objectives, then a turret would do the job just as well as a "smart" bot that can follow you around.

And, to be frank, if the bots formed fire-teams and took objectives for you then you're effectively letting them play half the game for you. Any idiot* can point a gun down a corridor, mastery of SBTF is about reading the map and figuring out the strategy which lets you take back control and push on to the objectives.

* in fact, when I was playing with a semi-regular group of mates, we'd often tell rookies that their job was to be a turret we could move -- we'd split into 2 fireteams of 2, each with an experienced player and a rookie, and while the experienced player cleared rooms and locked down breaches we'd have the rookie hold breaches that we couldn't contain with turrets/fences. Then, once the room was relatively safe, we'd send the rookie to start collecting cores or to re-load and repair (whichever was more urgent), and give them a chance to see how we'd "triaged" the map to prevent overwhelming swarms. They'd quickly learn that the difference between holding one breach or trying in vain to hold back an endless horde was to control the swarm's access, and suddenly they'd understand why we had them stand guard over seemingly "worthless" corridors that proved to be valuable choke-points while the more experienced player grabbed those early key upgrades.

So, I reckon that if we were to get bots, they should be the "dumb grunt with amazing aim" kind -- following the player and covering their back, with the option that we can tell them to stand guard somewhere. To make it more intutive/lore-friendly, rather than being full marines the bots could be, like, robot turrets/cannons on a tracked movement unit -- they follow the player until told to park somewhere, and you can "recall" them to your position if you either no longer need to defend that area (say because you've worked your way closer to the breach and sealed it with a fence) or you simply need them more somewhere else. It also allows for reclaiming them at the end of the mission, meaning they could have upgrades similar to some of the players' options (better tracking, could translate to further LoS, for example.)

I also think that such turrets should have reduced fire rate and tracking range when not "deployed", so they're still somewhat useful when following you but aren't going to be "perfect guardian angels" -- and of course, if you walk into their line of fire then that's going to be a Bad Time. One idea I like is to give them weapon load-outs (using the 4 default weapons) -- they have one weapon in mobile mode, and in their deployed mode they use the other weapon. So that lets players customise their strategy a little bit -- e.g. use the rifle as a good all-rounder while moving, and have them deploy into the razor or hammer4x for horde-clearing... or have them use the razor as a mobile weapon (keeps the swarm back but less likely to 1-hit the player if they step into the fire line lol) and switch to the rifle while deployed for steady suppressing fire. Even with load-outs though, they'd be less quick to react and fire while on the move -- I like to imagine that when they deploy they lock the brakes to create a stable firing platform, so they can fire at full effect more easily.

Obviously I don't imagine everyone will like this idea for bots, but to me it seems like a good balance of keeping some features of a co-op party (weapon diversity, ability to lock down important areas, basic back-up against being overwhelmed) without having "perfect" bots that can go into a hostile area and complete all the objectives for you. It plays on the idea of the player as a squad-leader in single-player mode, meaning that you keep the tactical elements more alive and upfront in singleplayer and make it a great way to train "mastery" of the strategies and reading the map rather than just "grinding the game until you git gud."

For multiplayer with bots, I reckon that the simplest solution is to base bot allocation on the number of players: in 2-player games each player gets a bot/turret to "control", in 3-player games the host gets a bot to control and it can be replaced by a fourth player joining in. If someone joins into a game with 2 players, then the host keeps their bot since it's now a 3-player game... the host is usually the "default squad leader" anyway.

Oh, and I'm totally in favour of the beasts being able to nom nom a turret bot if they can reach it -- in which case, reinforcement works as normal. This means you can't just drop a bot/turret somewhere and expect it to hold the line until it runs out of ammo... you still have to position them so they have a reasonable chance of holding the line, and won't be flanked/surrounded too easily.

TL;DR: I reckon the majority of players will want bots that can support them in SP rather than try to "play the game with/for them", and honestly since half the game is about controlling the map/access points why not leave the grunt work to bots so that players can focus on the more cerebral parts of the game?

[nornware]

A lot of interesting ideas here for sure, but it's a very open-ended problem for several reasons:

• programming / A.I. effort
  
• any additional buttons / user interface features if the player is able to "control" the bots
  
• varying expectations / preferences from different players

Again, the original intent of making any kind of bot was simply to semi-automate multiplayer testing (when I went back to working on this project as a lone developer). Development purposes only.

Space Hulk : Vengeance of the Blood Angels
I have probably mentioned several times that SP:VOTBA (ca 1996) is a major inspiration for this game, but I really did not like the way that game felt "confused" about it being a strategy game vs being a first person shooter.

While initially you were a lowly grunt that played in first person and took orders from an A.I. commander, later you got to control a team of your own. It had a "freeze time" feature where you could switch from first person to a top-down map from which you could give orders to your team of marines before "starting time again" and returning to first person play for your own character.

The main issue for me with that system was that while the real-time first person was really immersive and cool, the original board game was a turn-based strategy where you personally weren't represented by any specific character. The video game version felt seriously torn between these somewhat conflicting ideas (and so were we back at Massive Entertainment when we did the original Ground Control...)

Space Hulk : Deathwing
It's been a while since I played this (it wasn't much fun overall but had some moments, and of course looks awesome), but I seem to recall a much "dumber" type of bot / teammate in this game. If I do decided to support bots (no promises) I'd probably look at this game again.

In general however I don't personally like having to give orders to A.I. teammates, I'd much rather just have them "be around and do reasonably smart stuff". Come to think of it my favorite example of any kind of A.I. sidekicks is probably the marines in the Halo-series, but certainly NOT team Osiris in Halo 5... :(

What to do?
With apologies to Papagenox for what is probably a digression from what was asked for / about, I think I'd rather make a game that is either or; control one character which is your personal avatar OR have it be a strategy game where you are not personally represented on the playfield, but rather a god / Gorman.

I realize that my "just add co-op" approach to SBTF has always been a bit naive (as it inherently adds the aspects of potential coordination and teamwork), but it is nonetheless in line with the game I'm trying to make here; chaos, luck, imperfect information, and arcade-style action.

I don't have any current plans to add bots to SBTF, but just maybe I'll look into it again when approaching release.

[Breakfast]

Mostly spit-balling here, so don't consider this a pushy wish list -- my son and I play SBTF pretty regularly in split-screen and have a blast with it as-is.

Back in the early Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six days, it was possible to switch to any player in your fire team at any time. Setting Rules of Engagement for a character, pointing them down a hallway, then switching to someone else accomplished the sort of guardian/turret function. I always liked that flexibility. I never did the pre-planning stuff in Rainbow Six -- it was more fun to be there in their shoes figuring it out as you went, clearing and locking down parts of the level much the way I do in SBTF until the enemies are contained or eliminated.

Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter added the PIP style used here so you can see what other players/characters see and then switch to them if they see something interesting. They could spot targets and relay info to other players.

At the other end of the spectrum was Unreal Tournament that just had a popup menu where you could select any character(s) and assign them orders -- take the flag, defend, freelance, cover me, etc. Worked in all modes -- TDM, CTF, Assault, Domination, and so on, so it worked well in arena combat as well as objective-based play.

I also played Space Hulk back in the 90s on PC and very much enjoyed it. That's a big part of what sold me on SBTF. That, and the fact that this is one of the best 'Aliens' games ever made, and doesn't even need the license.

I've seen some great co-op AI implementations over the years and wish the trend weren't so broadly to get away from that. I'm sure it wouldn't be easy, but it would definitely be cool.

[Queen Niijima]

Originally posted by YetiChow:

So, I reckon that if we were to get bots, they should be the "dumb grunt with amazing aim" kind -- following the player and covering their back, with the option that we can tell them to stand guard somewhere. To make it more intutive/lore-friendly, rather than being full marines the bots could be, like, robot turrets/cannons on a tracked movement unit -- they follow the player until told to park somewhere, and you can "recall" them to your position if you either no longer need to defend that area...

That's my thought too. Perhaps to save some time if pursued, you could borrow some code from the scientists since they already have that wait or follow behavior (I think, probably more like follow or flee). As for their combat effectiveness, it could have perfect aim and infinite ammo but it will still have to reload. After all, a momentary pause could be the end even with well equipped marines (Looking at the player bots for L4D2 and Payday). If all players have been killed, they would flee and hide just like the civilians or stand there if not already told to.

Of course, perhaps you could instead give the existing scientists/civilians a weapon? Maybe as an option (Armed Scientists: None, Some - one per room, or All). I think that would be best all things considered. And hey, it will give players even more of an incentive to find them. As for weapon variety, I'm thinking instead of giving them visually different weapons, any armed scientist will have a pistol but could emulate all of the existing weapons the players yield.

For example, Sci 1's pistol has a small shotgun-like attack, Sci 3 has a bust-fire MP, Sci 4 has a magnum/rail-gun effect that can shoot through multiple Xenos. etc. All randomized per mission.

[Shiro]

Originally posted by Queen Niijima:

That's my thought too. Perhaps to save some time if pursued, you could borrow some code from the scientists since they already have that wait or follow behavior (I think, probably more like follow or flee)

if bot has same AI as scientists, it is not enough to call it marine-simulating bot. But how about "armed android" variety, that normally follows the player but can be ordered to stand and guard the area (via Use key, like in Half-Life). No need to 'flee when player dies" - they just guard the area if they aren't following specific player. Above that, you can make them reload/repair by ordering them to stop when the are near ammo/repair depot.

Originally posted by Queen Niijima:

Of course, perhaps you could instead give the existing scientists/civilians a weapon? Maybe as an option (Armed Scientists: None, Some - one per room, or All). I think that would be best all things considered. And hey, it will give players even more of an incentive to find them. As for weapon variety, I'm thinking instead of giving them visually different weapons, any armed scientist will have a pistol but could emulate all of the existing weapons the players yield.

rather than giving civilian scientists weapons, I'd simply add another NPC, "security officers". Sure, most of them died trying to repel alien threat, but few may have survived. Armed with pistols (infinite ammo), they will mostly stick to the player, but can be ordered to guard the area. While guading they will patrol, retreat-while-shooting from any beast, and if no beasts they will also try to activate nearby sentry guns (it takes 12 seconds, and they won't do that while foolowing player). If guided to near airlock they will enter it (they won't run mindlessly to it like scientists), this won't give science but gives playes bonus points and maybe other bonuses (bonus reinforcements? ability to finish the mission before finding all datacores?)

[Rabble]

Can you play this game alone or you need a co op buddy?

[Shiro]

Originally posted by Rabble:

Can you play this game alone or you need a co op buddy?

you absolutely can play the game alone, and in fact I recommend playing first few games alone (so you know the drill)

[Vindred]

Would it be possible to add the bots in the form of a mod? That would seem to erase any concerns of expectations, since you'd have to go looking for it.

I think I might enjoy playing with the "too good" bots. xD

[nornware]

Originally posted by Vindred:

Would it be possible to add the bots in the form of a mod? That would seem to erase any concerns of expectations, since you'd have to go looking for it.

I think I might enjoy playing with the "too good" bots. xD

SBTF isn't (and probably will never be) possible to "mod" to any great extent. This is mainly due to the fact that it's mostly code driven and also written in statically linked C/C++.

Many games developed by larger studios have an inherent need (in the development team) to allow people who are non-programmers to work on the game, so it is typical that a lot of tools are developed to enable this. This is usually called "being data-driven", which in itself offers up opportunities for "modifications" that don't require source code changes / new executables.

SBTF, while data-driven in some areas, is mostly realized through programming; especially things like artificial intelligence. Bots would fall into this category, and I don't have any plans on supporting source-level mods.

[Vindred]

That's too bad.

Oh well.

[Edit] Thanks!

[David]

Bots would be a cool addition. Just saying. Sometimes in SP on the hardest settings I just can't keep up with the endless swarm of enemies from a direction I need to advance in.

I joined an online server and it was laggy. Creeps were flashing in front of my screen and I got killed out of nowhere one time. Respawns didn't even work even though they were enabled.

Anyway besides of any of that, it could be fun to play with bots.

[GrandRiser]

Originally posted by nornware:

I totally feel you, playing with random people does indeed imply a lot of extraneous stuff.

Bots do exist as a development tool, I use them to test multiplayer. They are way too smart right now; that is indeed the main problem, as it's much easier to make a "perfect" bot than something that acts more human.

I would anticipate that adding them as an option would open up a whole new can of worms, as people will of course want them to act in any number of ways; should they only support human players, or should they optimally try to "solve" the mission? etc...

In L4D2, Bots leave game-making decisions to the player (such as doing X to progress), as the player decides on their own pace. Or simply you can just leave players choose: AI to help/stick around, or do their own mission (but every player will just let BOT do the work, so maybe option 1: just supporting in fire fighting)

[Storwiz]

It's sad that bots are not planned. Anyway the game is great. Just want to increase player survival in singleplayer. I hope at least you will make working reinforcements in singleplayer.