I’m gonna chime in this thread again. The AI players (and you) shouldn’t be able to land perfect crack shots while moving, period. It would be much more realistic and less irritating if they just fired back while moving to suppress you, but have to stand still or take a knee in order to return accurate shots.
inaccurate shots can still hit. Their hit rate when moving isn’t perfect, but those moments where they do oneshot you, while rare, can be annoying. Doesn’t mean it’s not balanced
Inaccurate shots shouldn’t be lethal 95% of the time. Everyone here wants the AI to be better, but that will require their behavior and accuracy the be evened out for the long run.
well, i have mixed feelings about them.
in many occasion, they helped me a lot, covering, killing and used as body shield or decoy xd
but in others chases, they just lined up for the enemy sniper just to get shot and killed.
other chases, they stand in my way making my aim go somewhere else. they don’t reload when they are not fiighting. and other things.
in my opinion, they are more than just respawn points. they have a lot of potential. but surely the need work.
and i can say they improved very well from last alpha. they are more threat and make the battlefield alive and more dangerous.
i’ll make a suggestion on how could be improved.
I would enjoy the game significantly more without AI. Right now they’re mostly in the way. They move in front of me and block my shots. They bump into me and mess up my aim. They open fire at will, giving away my position. They react instantly to problems, which makes tactical surprise less effective.
Remove the AI and increase the number of players in a match, or at least add a game mode with no AI and more human players.
2 Likes
No AI would remove the most unique feature about this game compared to post scriptum, H&G, etc, though. Also, the battles would go from up to 140 (10v10 with each having 7-man squads) to up to 32 (16v16). This would make battles on these sized maps very bland and boring.
Who says that the battles would go from 140 to 32? It’s an FPS after all, not War Thunder. You can increase this number. Battlefield has a standard of 64 players for years, even smaller games like Squad or Post Scriptum managed to make 80 or even 100 player battles. I believe that devs are definitely able to support bigger battles.
Moreover, 64 player battles would feel much more alive than current battles in Enlisted. Bots aren’t independent, they follow the player all the time. Unless you give them an order, they won’t take any creative action like flanking, sneaking up on a tank/objective, etc. So you have only 10 people on each side who can make independent choices. I see that many people leave their bots in the safe space so you meet even less soldiers on the battlefield. That wouldn’t be the case in a battle with 64 players. Squad wiping wouldn’t be a thing because every soldier would have his own mind, make choices and react much quicker and AI. Invasion and assault modes most likely would work better. 10 people is sometimes not enough to defend an objective. Some of them are flanking, ,camping somewhere, running to the objective or just dead. And bots are often with them. That’s why attackers can easily capture zones.
We should at least test battles with 30 or 40 players.
1 Like
even with 100 players, that would still be less than what we have now, would require much more expensive servers and would be laggier as player data syncing is more intensive than AI.
If you only look at the number then yes, it would be less but I’m sure that battles with even 64 players would feel more alive than actual ones. As I said, it’s all about independence. Bot can’t make a choice, if he sees an enemy, he will sooner or later shoot it. If he’s given an order, he’ll move but that’s it. He won’t put tank traps in advance, put fortifications around the cap zone or sneak up on a camper. Bots aren’t such a threat as a real player is. They form a group and create the illussion of the bigger scale but they’re quite useless.
Since indie devs from Squad and Post Scriptum managed to maintain bigger servers, I’m sure Darkflow is able to do it as well. Moreover, they’re backed by Gaijin, money isn’t a problem then.
we’re not talking initial investment, we’re talking profit in the long run
These games and their devs are still doing well so I suspect that there is a profit.
TCat, I think this game would still have unique features - namely, it’s F2P, shorter and more relaxed than HLL and Post Scriptum, and with significantly better graphics than H&G.
Anyways, H&G has modes with bots, too, so having bots included isn’t exactly unique.
exactly a 64 match in enlisted is my dream. The illusion of 140 players with brainless bots is not my cup of tea ! We really need a pvp mode so that all those windows is occupied and bullets rain down from there. Right now bots are just fasteer respawn points lol.