I’m sure we’re all aware that the bots aren’t much use and often die long before they’re useful as an extra life. Part of that is that they run into the open and get gunned down because of it. Thus my suggestion here to make bots follow the path the player took when not otherwise assigned to holding a specific point.
This would mean that the bots go through trenches if the player does and through windows into the zone instead of running through the front door where all the enemies are and dying immediately.
Should Bots follow player paths
4 Likes
That, and reducing the distance between player and AI. There is no world where we should have a 50m gap between the player and next nearest AI.
Even if they can’t do both, either one would help immensely with AI survivability.
1 Like
I have made an thread explaining how bots should be improved, this should be also part of it and also I suggest to make player be able customize how his bots behave, not just having one hardcoded logic. It mimics how squads was different in real life, where good commanders teach squads how to stay alive etc.
1 Like
Player controlled Enlisted bots = worst ai bots I’ve encountered in a video game. 
No one complains about them more then I, and with all the complaining I and many others have done, they never improve, in fact, I think they’ve got worse. With all the work the Dev’s put in to make this game “LOOK” great, you’d think they could spend a day or two on the player controlled bots. 
Another update gone off with no AI bot improvements…shits sad man
3 Likes
I never was a good speller, or good at math, or writing, or science. 
You can actualy do this in the command menu.
1 Like
I still find though there’s a massive delay between AI following me, regardless of what squad position is selected.
I think that’s because it uses pathfinder.
I actually DGAF about improving Enlisted anymore, I’m making my own game.
1 Like
They could actually start by fixing the issue that causes them to step out of perfectly safe cover only to get shot that, combined with the automatic bot-switching upon death… well, I assume all of this, along with the bots’ sheer stupidity, is intentional so other players can enjoy using their SFs or belt-fed MGs without worrying about return fire and is also the reason why BR4/5 is well… BS
Yea, but not grinding for releasing it, just having fun, no pressure.
1 Like
You should ask @Veekay45 for intuition and make the perfect historically accurate game that they desire so much… assuming its ww2 related considering you mention it here
2 Likes
I would be happy if they didn’t scatter after telling them where to go, stand in my way when shooting or building, or generally keep up when going somewhere and not waiting in a lake.
1 Like
I’m making technically a simulator from WW2 to latest modern weapons vehicles range.
The hardest thing is to have capable game engine with systems for networking, parallelism, ECS, and many other features implemented ready to go.
Only after that is done you start making the actual game (minimal working version)
Like GUI, world, server - client, game mechanics, graphics, … and to make it reliable long-term you must think into future and really understand how it’s gonna work and where the bottlenecks will be and how to address them. Testing, profiling metrics, optimizations. It’s easy to get lost in it.
But after it’s all done, it’s done.
Then we can just style the game properly, make tools make life easier, add more assets, maps, etc.
Invite some testers to test everything and report bugs and issues…
But what motivates me, is that I will have full control over it and I can make it how I like and how community wants.
Realism, freedom, dynamics, chaos? Yeah!
Artificial balancing, time gating, pay-to-win, … ? No!
1 Like
Hmm…looking forward to it
