Planned AI

[c.maksimus]

I have only one suggestion: Improve AI

 

[Crimson-Artist]

Can't argue with that proposition!

But seriously though its coming

 

[Megacrafter127]

I recommend being a little more specific next time as 'improve X' is not really helpful for development, it just states that X does not meet your expectations.

 

[Jake_Lancia]

I have only one suggestion: Improve AI

Yes, AI needs improving, but what areas of AI do you mean? Their moronic behaviour? Range? Use of tertiary systems? Interaction with logic? Please be more specific.

 

[Pacific_Jim]

I love that this was generalised enough to get a "planned" stamp.

 

[Reilly Reese]

I recommend being a little more specific next time as 'improve X' is not really helpful for development, it just states that X does not meet your expectations.

Does the AI meet your expectations though?

This particular field of Starmade is about as generic as this thread's OP. I think it's rather fitting don't you?

 

[Megacrafter127]

Does the AI meet your expectations though?

This particular field of Starmade is about as generic as this thread's OP. I think it's rather fitting don't you?

The only expectation that I have, that it doesn't meet, is that it still tries to lead the targets with beam-type weapons. Apart from that, my expectations are as low as it can get.

 

[Ithirahad]

Well, if I didn't have the (low amount of) technical knowledge I do, I'd expect a hell of a lot more out of AI. The ability to actually go around targets rather than smashing into them like an idiot, the ability to do cool things like strafing runs and dodging missiles rather than just sitting out in space shooting and flying away from you, the ability to dock on a drone carrier or follow it around and defend it, etc... Of course, with a bit of general knowledge about computing and whatnot I lose those expectations, but to someone without technical knowledge AI seems really stupid and generally lacking in every single area... So, I say, yeah, 'improve AI.' And that's a completely general statement. Do whatever to make it better, add expected features, add totally unexpected features, whatever, but... yeah.

 

[Effane]

You essentially need to Qualify or Quantify the behavior you want from the AI. This is a section of the gaming industry that is fairly vague and has more to do with feel than actual results. The AI can be taught to shoot VERY accurately and can even get help from the server and client engine to connect the dots. Essentially target seeking bullets in a way. But no one would enjoy that, and in the current Core based system they would eat your lunch with a ship half as powerful.

We really want AIs that feel like they are the 'average' player, maybe fauna AI being more like smart newbie players (IE they actually read the controls/targeting tutorials). So what is average? That is the hard part and I might get some of it, but not even close to all of it.

• Can fly a ship and generally not run into things.
• Shoots at a ship within a degree or two of the core/center of mass.
• Can identify and target turrets that hurt or prioritize targets
• Have objectives in actions and in combat (Kill Capital ship, steal resources, cause bulk damage)
• Have enough uniqueness in build/blueprints/faction to be believable
• Tend to fly a ship more appropriately to the dynamics of the game, curving flight paths, not thrust and float they do now.
• Able to identify the role (or be assigned a role) of the ship they are given (Fighter, Capital ship, trade ship, patrol craft)
• Can identify resources and will attempt to scoop them up as valuable.

I think that's a very generic summary. I am sure more could be added, but if they behaved like that most people would be happy. Now that being said about half that list is dependent on getting more major features in. Targeting is affected by the new HP system. Objective is based on the Events system. Path Finding needs to wait for the changes to thrust modeling.