This game is now available on Steam!

Thanks for your help in getting this game selected for distribution via Steam. More information including a link to the Steam store page can be found below.

Greenlight > Games > Sdols's Workshop > Cannons Lasers Rockets > Discussions
Greenlight is being retired. For more information on how to submit games to steam, refer to this blog post.
Cannons Lasers Rockets
Description Discussions2 Announcements6 Comments254
Sdols  [developer] Jan 18, 2013 @ 2:37am
To Bot Or Not To Bot? Your Input Needed.
For now we have following gameplay modes: Team vs Team PvP as the main course, Co-Op missions to open new space sectors as the dessert. We see that many people ask us to add AI opponents into the main gameplay. We will definitely keep focus on Team-vs-Team PvP, but we see several different possibilities for adding bots, and this is what we are going to discuss here:
As an addition to Team-vs-Team PvP you would prefer:
1. Co-Op « defend the base» missions
2. Co-Op exploration missions with (or without) a «boss» enemy in the end
3. Solo PvE missions for training and amusement purposes
4. …or something we didn’t think of before you told us.
We would appreciate any feedback on the matter. Please write us what kind of additional gameplay with AI bots you would like to see in the CLR game. Feel free to post your ideas in this discussion, we are very eager to hear them.
< >
Showing 1-15 of 41 comments
[BA] Kurzak Jan 18, 2013 @ 12:09pm 
Both 1 & 2 sound like great options. I would lean more towards option number 1 if there were interesting techs you could use to help bolster your defenses. Or, I would lean more towards option number 2 if defending was just defending a space station in open space. In that case, I would prefer exploration missions.
#1
LiterateGoat Jan 18, 2013 @ 5:36pm 
I'm a 2 and 3 kind of guy. As for 4, bot AI could possibly see use in the form of decoy drones. Picture a launched mini-bot that projects an image of its parent ship, attracting guided weapons like a valid target and confusing players. This decoy would need to move similarly to a player, even appearing to fire weapons (that deal no damage).
#2
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA Jan 19, 2013 @ 9:21pm 
1-3 sound amazing!
#3
Purxiz Jan 19, 2013 @ 10:56pm 
1+2 w/ boss sound the best
#4
Hairball Jan 20, 2013 @ 9:50am 
Originally posted by Purxiz:
1+2 w/ boss sound the best

This is what I was thinking.
#5
I am your worst nightmare. Jan 20, 2013 @ 3:02pm 
Both sp (training) and mp
#6
Carl94 Jan 21, 2013 @ 5:49am 
The need for bots will mainly come down to the player base when released. If the game has a large player base, there will be no need for bots in order to find a game quickly. The main problem with bots is they are dumb, this makes them less fun to kill, and harder to win if you have more bots on your team.

I would not like to see bots been used against players directly, however I like the idea of decoy bots barrak posted above. Another good use of bots would be escort missions, 1 team has to protect a convoy of large transport bots, while another team must try to destroy it. These bots would need high shields and the ability to repair over time, stopping the raiding team slowly weakening them with hit and run attacks, avoiding any PvP combat.
#7
Lurkily Jan 21, 2013 @ 1:55pm 
I would like #2 PvE. #3 would be nice for training and testing, and shouldn't be much harder - it's basically the same thing with a team of one.

I'm not a fan of defense objectives, but I'm sure many would appreciate that.
#8
LiterateGoat Jan 21, 2013 @ 4:15pm 
Aye, I was careful to specify that player-generated bots or drones shouldn't be a force-multiplier or another damage source.
#9
Powertater Jan 21, 2013 @ 6:09pm 
1-3 are nice.
#10
Sdols  [developer] Jan 22, 2013 @ 12:45am 
Thank you very much for your help and your support!
One more question - what about survival Co-Op missions? Like party have to reach some destination point, have to pass different locations and fight various NPCs. And if party looses member or, say, more than X% of members, quest fails. This scenario seems very interesting to us (devs). Should it be interesting to you?
#11
LiterateGoat Jan 22, 2013 @ 8:36am 
I can't sound off on survival co-op without understanding the respawn mechanic. If the group uses a shared pool of 'extra lives', then yeah, bring it on.
But if three or four ships go in, one careens into a wall, and the entire team immediately loses--count me out.
#12
Sdols  [developer] Jan 22, 2013 @ 8:48am 
@BarrakDraconis yes you got the point, why we are not sure. Make team to depend on one idiot means to ruin the game. And as for me personally, i am not quite sure even extra-lives pool could fix it.
#13
LiterateGoat Jan 22, 2013 @ 8:57am 
All I can think if is to make it an optional, unlockable gametype--at no point will you -have- to complete this mission, but you'll -have- to invest some time in the game to be able to. That way the only folks who'll run it are those who genuinely want to(or genuinely want to screw it up, but they'll run out of friends).
Come to think of it, just 'unlockable' would go a long way.
#14
Sdols  [developer] Jan 22, 2013 @ 10:28am 
Decision on survival: there would not be missions, that fail if someone dies.
#15
< >
Showing 1-15 of 41 comments
Per page: 15 30 50