AI is still extremly bad

Suggestions
1

  1. AI can’t shoot.
    https://youtu.be/J1vuFs11Ybw
    They should have obliterated enemies in the open, not waste 200 rounds on shooting at nothing. They all are 5 star AI with max upgraded weapons.

    Though I suppose it’s a bug but we can’t be sure. This may be an intended feature.

  2. AI can’t shoot (but different).

    Zrzut ekranu (512)
    Zrzut ekranu (512)1920×1080 497 KB

    The red marker shows where the enemy was. Even though enemies were in the open with almost no cover, my AI didn’t shoot even once (even though I used pings as it improved AIs’ aggro in the past).

    I don’t want terminator AI, that can one tap you through 10m of foliage from the other side of the map. But not shooting at the enemy in the middle of a literal desert is idiotic.

  3. AI can’t use cover.
    Tbh sometimes they do use cover, sometimes they don’t, sometimes they do but badly. I have no idea what’s going on.

    Zrzut ekranu (510)
    Zrzut ekranu (510)1920×1080 661 KB

    I gave an order to get inside the house. AI not only is outside, it also on the wrong side of cover and it turned it’s back to the enemy.

  4. AI can’t use cover (but different).

    Zrzut ekranu (508)
    Zrzut ekranu (508)1920×1080 346 KB

    Well, AI is behind the cover, huray! But it’s using it wrong.
    Soldier should stick to the cover, not go prone behind it.
    image
    Here is an example from the game Men of War: Assault Squad. Instead of being behind the cover, soldiers stick to the cover.

  5. AI can’t pick.
    image
    image
    Well, AI in enlisted kind of tries to do it.

    Zrzut ekranu (514)
    Zrzut ekranu (514)1920×1080 3.37 MB

    But it feels not like a deliberate action. More like it’s based on RNG.
    AI should hide behind cover, pick, wait a fractionof a second and shoot. Currently it either completelly hides behind the cover or (more often) constantly sitcks out of cover.

To be honest I’m a bit confused.
Enlisted AI kind of works but kind of doesn’t. Sometimes it doesn’t even shoot, sometimes it kills 8 enemies aith a BA rifle. Sometimes it does use cover, sometimes it walks into the enemy backwards.

I’d like to suggest something instead of only complaining, but I have no F-ing clue what AI is actually doing. It feels like there is no pattern in it’s behaviour, everything seems completelly random.

12 Likes
2

Lmao :rofl:

1 Like
3

I’ve stopped playing Battlefield since BF2042 because broken, modern and specialists, but they also have AI bots now.
Would be interestimg to study their behaviour in comparison.
From the few matches I’ve played they looked much better.

I don’t think we can suggest anything beyond “make AI better” but that must be related to bigger budget/higher skilled people working on the AI.

5 Likes
4

just last night got sniped out of cockpit at range of 1.5-2km
Yeah they cant shoot for shit and then theres those exceptional moments when they can shoot little too well.

If I recall someone said you can command them to places 1 by 1.
But really, even if it works aint going thru all that clicking.

3 Likes
5

That’s enlisted AI in a nutshell.
They won’t hit a dude that is 5m in front of them but they will onetap a fighter pilot.

6 Likes
6

I think the AI is where it should be in terms of lethality (Agreed with you on cover stuff, that shit is dumb). If the AI get too good, it’s just annoying and not really fun, so its much better for them to be worse.

However! I think there should be a way for the player to influence, ACTIVELY, the abilities of their AI. For example, if the player marks an area, then AI are more effective at shooting at targets in that area. Gives some skill and interaction for players rather than just letting their AI farm enemies by sitting in a corner.

1 Like
7

Weird, could have sworn you were against balancing certain campaign and instead suggested ppl should just L2P.

And now your afraid of bots, that cant hit broad side of barn while being in it.

1 Like
8

I dont think I’ve ever seen anyone completely and utterly misunderstand a point quite as much as you just did. Frankly, it’s impressive. I’d say well done but… its not

2 Likes
9

Ok cupcake.

10

Yes because increasing the lethality creates gameplay loops where a player can just use their AI to get kills while hiding in a corner, which isn’t good gameplay design. It’s not active, and it doesn’t require any skill. It’s why the Commander class was removed from the game. Not only that, but a big reason why Enlisted succeeds is because the AI is dumb. It allows lower skill players (like you) to still be able to feel like theyre doing well.

All that being said, it would potentially be a good idea to implement a system where the player has to actively raise their AI’s effectiveness, which is skillful, allows for different gameplay styles, and also feeds into a fun experience of being a battlefield leader.

Then again, you’ve proven time and again youre incapable of participating in a discussion, and are only able to resort to strawmans or insults. So please, since this is actually an interesting discussion about Enlisted and it’s core gameplay, do us all a favor and just DM your next reply to me instead because there is zero chance it contributes to the conversation in any way shape or form

1 Like
11

Wy dont simply raise the lethality of full ai squad

1 Like
12

Like full bot squads that go in when not enough players? I wouldnt be against that, but I’d say it’s way better to work towards fixing the low playerbase in the first place. Making full AI squads stronger to me sounds like putting a band-aid on a head wound. It might make you feel better, but its definitely not fixing the problem

1 Like
13

Fixing the low playerbase is hard if in meantine dev keep adding campaigns, so yes if is impossible have more player it can feel me better have at least full bot squad with better equipment and able to shoot better

1 Like
14

Definitely true, and theres always the AI that replace leavers too, buffing them wouldn’t be bad

1 Like
15

AI covering sucks. AI lethality is a different issue however.
To me it feels weirdly inconsistent meaning one match you get shot from 200m meters and wonder wtf just happened and another match you knife 9 AI idiots who just stand and look at you like you are GOD and they are afraid to touch you or even look at you.
Now, I am no expert on AI or anything related to it, but I would like to see some improvement on how AI behaves in close quarters.
AI will always be dumb and honestly should be, but I cant shake the feeling that AI right now is too dumb, retarded even and that’s no good.

1 Like
16

Now I really want to see you explaining what the flying (d)uck is the relationship between AI behaviour, which is the same for everyone, and balance between factions.

2 Likes
17

Ai Def needs more love.but I don’t loose sleep if they (my squad) die over and over. I m used to it so I couldn’t care less.
I m yet to see a multiplayer game where AI it’s actually on point.

Hard to balance.
Either comes too dumb or too overpowered. There is no midground. Atleast, I m yet to see it.

1 Like
18

probably one or the other has noticed that the aimbot is becoming more and more dangerous the higher the number of kills of the respective soldier. if a soldier still has 0 kills in the squad, it is possible to make 15-20 melee kills until the AI recognizes the danger posed by a player. This should be minimized to 5, making the AI more aggressive.

19

more aggressiv but not smarter!

1 Like
20

Funny as you quite much argued against balancing certain campaign, where the other faction has quite alot easier time due to better equipment.
Which means the other faction goes thru alot less effort to get theyr kills and tbh requires quite alot less “skill” but thats totally great gameplay design.

Which is the case with lets say t-34, but here instead you were offering the git gud l2p solution.

SO no bots that fires back because your afraid non skilled players like me would suffer.
( Even I actually im quite fine with it )
But at the same time keep the imbalance in certain campaigns and just git gud ?
Sounds slightly contradictory, I mean make up your mind mr. enlisted e-sport pro.
Are we going to make the game more noob friendly or are we supposed to just L2P with inferior equipment and become such enlisted e-sport pro’s like you ?

Now clearly your such a pro that you can actually decide for US what we want and whats good for US.

Quite impressive credentials, definitely puts you in the 0.01% category of enlisted e-sport pro’s.
And definitely makes your highly contradictory “arguments” more valid then rest of us.

Now lets see, a average utuber gets 18usd for each 1k view, and you had 46k views on your videos past 4weeks ( Dont worry I rounded numbers up )
Means you earned 828usd. Not bad, except google takes 45% share so lets say 450usd.
Quite impressive, wouldnt exactly call that amount suitable for living but what ever it takes to be enlisted e-sport star right ?
I mean I refuel my car with more than 400usd monthly, but still very impressive.

Yeah, I know BF3 wasnt exactly e-sport game like enlisted so technically my credentials are irrelevant.
Even some single cups had bigger price pools than your yearly income from your enlisted e-sport pro youtube career.
Hell, ive got probably Bf3 t-shirts from minor cups worth more than your yearly income as enlisted e-sport star.

Funny, that I used to ridicule my good friend assberger for being BF3-BF4 Pro player, regardless he made actually money from it.
As BF serie wasnt exactly competive oriented game which often is required in order to people wanting to improve theyr “skill” and become a better player.

Dont get me wrong, ofc this isnt the case with you. Enlisted definitely is highly competive oriented game and rumours says this will be the next game in all major tournaments with massive prize pools.
Thus your arguments “Git gud” are totally valid.

https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/video-game-designer/salary/

Quite impressive, even if lets say EU had just half the salary its still great salary.
I know people does all kind of stupid shit but really, switching minimum of 47k yearly salary to 400usd / month doesnt exactly sound so appealing.

BUT if you have chosen being enlisted e-sport superstar with 450usd monthly income as your life career I wish you all the best.

But you probably understand why, this game isnt exactly atracting people that prefer competive oriented games and would be willing to put time and effort to become more “skilled”

But dont get me wrong, your credentials of being paid by being such enlisted super star and 4years degree of developing my little pony saga phone version definitely gives you authority to tell us what we want.

Ah fk, sry. Id delete this reply but unfortunately such noob like me dont know how its done.