Let's play Devil's Advocate for a bit...

HAHA completely agree!
Actually a bunch of stuff I never even thought of even though I have been playing for 3 years.

If NPC's don't affect the stats, they still will affect the stats.

If you don't get kills from them, people will hate them as they don't give stats and are just a hurdle in the game, a hurdle that might kill you. If players get negative points on their stats the NPCs will have an effect on their stats, a negative one and they will be universally hated. If they don't give you a death on your stats then people will use them as instant-redeploy: You get under fire and you are sure you'll die but there's no time for redeploy, people will actively seek out AI to kill them. And they would still have an effect on the stats: A negative one for the player who's kill was stolen, and there's nothing more annoying than an assist in this game as it doesn't do anything for you and often even cheats you out of XP for the kills inside vehicles for instance, and a positive one for the player who just managed to prevent a death on his stats, even though he actually just died.

What I would suggest to be more helpful than NPC's is both layered defenses and more objectives to complete:
There's several types of CTF you could play inside PS2. Some would be long-CTF where you have to bring a type of flag to a friendly-owned base possibly with restrictions to the vehicles you can use, some would be short-CTF where you have to bring it to the nearest deployed Sunderer.
You can also add controlpoints for ground vehicles. These points revert to neutral the moment you leave the point, so you need to stick with it. This is both useful for the defenders, who can station vehicles there to maintain better control or slow down capture, or the attackers who can accelerate their capture.
Then there's controlpoints for aircraft, where you need to stay inside a small bubble for a short time (0,5 to 2 seconds for instance). Then the controlpoint flips to you and you start capturing the base. This way aircraft have a point to fight around, have some vulnerability while capturing it but aren't stuck in one place during the entire capture.
These controlpoints would exist next to normal controlpoints and not exclude them, but give a large much larger influence of vehicles and aircraft on a capture. This way a group of vehicle defenders aren't required to leave those to defend a heavily defended point, but can capture a vehicle-based point to force them to try and push them off or retake those points as well.

Then there's a layered defense: Defenders should get a big advantage in defending so fewer defenders are required to defend the controlpoints than the attackers need to take and hold it. However, hitpointsinks will be scattered throughout the bases that can nullify and even give disadvantages to the defenders if they lose it. The one's for infantry have little health but good positioning so LA and infiltrators can easily take them out while Heavies need to fight through large groups of enemies to get to it. Others are for vehicles/aircraft to destroy and have huge amounts of hitpoints and big resistances to non-vehicle weapons. Their positioning allows either vehicles or aircraft to easily attack it from a select few positions, and their opposite to defend it. So an aircraft hitpoint sink can only really be attacked by aircraft, but requires a place to hover where the aircraft is vulnerable to vehicles, meaning they need support to keep those vehicles away from them.

This creates more goals in the game, and also prevents ghost-capping as a single defender has more chance to defend against a small group of attackers. Players will have less boredom as they have multiple ways to capture a base

I said they wont affect stats as in even if they kill you

Or theyd have their own listing for npc kills and not show up in the pvp aspect

Also to keep other factors out they could only appear if a base being attacked has no players defending it. I wanted to suggest this earlier thinking youd ring it up and shouldve just to prevent it.

Having entirely separate game modes could have an adverse effect on the gameplay. CTF in the middle of a giant King of the hill seems like a distraction. Im not against the idea itself as much as the setting itd be placed in

Held control points sounds good but air points seem like theyd be abuseable.. Unless there was way for players to recap the point from the ground

As for vehicles. They play a huge part in attack and suppression as is. I never understood why people wanted things like bases that were vehicle based to capture. Itd be interesting but a but the reason why seems off

Double post

I will start by saying I don't disagree that we need more variety in capture methods; I've said much the same in other threads. To some level we will be getting "hitpoint sinks" with the new base building system; assuming nothing has changed from the last video BBurnes posted to Twitter on the topic.

This said, I don't see any reason NPCs couldn't provide the same base experience as killing a regular player. Assuming they are treated like Spitfires (as in, they can't get nemesis bonuses or killstreak rewards, ect), a decently coded AI that is of the same baseline skill as a regular player has no reason it should not provide the same experience as a regular player when killed. 100 exp.

Quite frankly, to me, I would rather have those players who are so concerned with their score or farming certs be farming emotionless NPCs than actual players trying to get out of spawns in contested areas. I, personally, feel like the majority of Planetside 2 players want to play the game "the way its meant to be played" and have good fights.

To that end, I feel like NPCs would bolster that. If the farmers go farm them, all the better for the players actually contesting eachother for bases. It would also give an enemy that lower skilled, new, or unpracticed players can reliably contend against. You could also populate Koltyr with them - so that the new player experience isn't completely dominated by either having alot of new players or alot of alts (who, probably, are farming).

There don't need to be legions of them to have a large impact either. A small outpost with 3-4 NPCs makes a huge difference. 15-20 NPCs wandering around an AMP station would make it feel less a ghost town. And to your assertion it would ruin the play of the lone wolf... how? It shouldn't have any more affect on a lone wolf player than would an average skilled player responding to them.

To the topic of ghost cappers, it will only affect them if they are staying for the cap. If they are the type who just want the point flip experience, and fly off before resistance can occur, nothing changes for them. Otherwise, if they actually are trying to cap the base, it gives them something to shoot while the timer goes down.

My original idea had basically been based on the concept of adding life to the game world that otherwise isn't, or wouldn't, be added by human players. I hadn't considered sending the NPCs outside of the base, basically just having dudes in fatigues manning terminals and default-soliders (think VR troops) walking around or attempting to "re take" objectives. This said, the idea of having them go out and attack other bases got me thinking.

I don't believe NPCs should "push the front" and try to take bases. That should be entirely player driven. However, they could do something important that doesn't exist now - and that is establish a front. Lets say we have a base that is taken by a faction. X amount of time after this occurs, and the "defense" and "flavor" spots have been filled, a group of NPCs heads out of the base -composition and size could be determined by the type of base - and they just follow the lattice until a couple dozen to 100 meters short of the hex line between their base and the next base. The devs could even define several "logical" defensive positions that the NPCs would choose to occupy at random - reducing the complexity of the AIs code, while allowing for variety.

These "patrols" or groups would only leave from bases whose lattice connect to enemy territory, to prevent a bunch of wasted resources behind the lines, and they would from a front. In theory, this could provide the impetus for more field battles - as in many cases the only reason field battles don't occur in PS2 (compared to PS1) is because you don't run into anybody on the way to the next base [ignoring how close alot of bases are]. If nothing else, it would be a speedbump for the zerg moving from one location to another. At bare minimum, it creates some brief fireworks during the drive.

Youre concerned about score and that has nothing to do with the point im making though

Its to deter single player ghost capping. You just said NPCs were bad because farming and now say they should provide exp

The NPcs are there not to deter lone players capping so much as players flying from base to base ghost capping.

If they ghost cap and run the npcs will flip it back. So players will either stay and fight the small resistance they get or simply not multi ghost cap bases

The idea i had was simple

Any base with under 12 people capping it wpuld have npcs appear to defend the base. If even a single player fights for that base the npcs disappear and it becomes an actual battle with players. NPCs should have no impact on PvP this way and since they wouldnt affect stats they wont have any effect on score.

Lets try to get on the same page with something and roll with that for a while

How much experience do you have with PvE over the course of years and in many games?

All MOBA's have minion or creep spawns who only fight other AI when it is present. It's no problem. This is a tried and true mechanic in most games. You've got to realize this isn't a 5v5 small map match based shooter. This is a persistent-world shooter. And even those work with AI.

AI bots are the simplest opponents and negligible to any experienced player, especially if their main purpose is to engage other AI when available. You really have to remember that having AI is not the same as having an AI assisted player aimbotting. The AI can have reduced health, poor reaction, inaccurate fire, slower movement, and let's face it, everyone eventually learns to easily beat AI no matter how good it is. They can have value, but substantially reduced versus a player.

I mean seriously, you're worried about someone off farming AI. So what? What does he effect in the game besides nothing?

I've played a dozen PvE and PvP games with NPC AI elements in them and never had or experienced the issues you're describing.

There was also a post about not having AI attack bases, but instead form fronts. I disagree with not having them attack, but I also do like the idea of forming a front. I did mention that it would be a designed stalemate. Having AI CAP bases could theoretically be a problem, but look at it this way: The AI can be set by any number of rules.

Too much progress? Slow spawn rate.
Still too much? Send out a defenseive "AI sundy"-buster AI.
Still too much? Send out a defensive-only army with the above. They can despawn once mission is accomplished.

The point here is that the system, unlike with human zergs, can easily autocorrect itself to maintain balance.

PLUS I WOULD ******* LOVE TO SEE FRIENDLY AI OHK TAINTSTAIN TEAMKILLERS. This would be hilarious.

But really, if the game cannot support NPC's in some bases in a game world this size, what are we doing here?

Agreed.

SOE/DBG/Sigil is the Game Dev company I have the most insight on. I worked at Sigil and over the years have known tons of people at 989/Verant/SOE/Sigil/DBG. Though I don't (think I) know anyone on the current PS2 team.

I am a big fan of what PS2 was able to create by launch. With my biggest gripes being fairly secondary issues (high end graphic settings are not built for high end play, starting VS/TR Infils have wrong guns, etc.). I was also a big fan of their early public communicated structure for developing new Content (though I don't like how they actually handled it), and of their earlier contact with the Community.

Outside of that, it was mostly a succession of major disappointments in their competence (with a few solid Content releases/changes), and then a gradual erosion of their public communication, and a successive piling up of unaddressed bugs (laziness and mia management in my experience) and imbalances (I can only think this is incompetence and laziness or incompetence and analysis paralysis).

At Sigil, we had a number of models that weren't used. Some just weren't complete: missing animation (we have a Giant Kraken that was not used at least while I was there), etc. Others had been alt versions that had been rejected (Den Beauvais Orc face rocked, but sadly we didn't use it; Fox Race [Raki] was changed to look more cartoonish and we didn't use the original; etc.). I even tried to use some in my areas (like having Orcs ride Boars instead of Horses), but Art vetoed my use because they didn't like the quality of the model or animation (and wouldn't allocate me any art time to fix them). Our Producer was an artist and he consistently backed Art in areas where Art and Design disagreed. And low level Designers often had to work on areas with no Artist time being made available for any changes beyond straight up major Art Bugs.

I wouldn't think the art assets in PS2 would need much animation. My guess is that someone was vetoing their use because they wanted to micromanage the ecosystem of the game (and play it safe), or to grow (and nickel and dime) it slowly, or they didn't know how to grow out the game relative to Balance and Cert costs.

When I started there, there was no actual visible inventory of Creature assets. So I did screenshots in game and made a spreadsheet image catalog to show each, and handed it out to whoever wanted it. Did the same for Interacably Objects and for Shaders. Eventually our AP ended up making a much slicker version of my Bestiary. But I only joined less than a year before launch, so they went most that time with Designers not actually able to see the full set of assets they had to work with. I already commented on the Designer who hoarded items and so weren't used or even known about. You'd think that everyone on the Dev team wold know the art assets available, but things often don't play out that way.

I also know that some art was nixed because it was too intensive for the engine and player's system, so it had to be discarded. I've heard this given as one reason for not using that massive Air Carrier.

Even on Vanguard, the tools Design had were incredible in terms of what crazy cool gameplay you could jury rig into the game. Some of the more creative Designers harnessed that and figured neat things out, but unfortunately it was not something made readily handy to the average Content maker. I can only imagine the stuff they cold setup in PS2 engine, and by my estimation they have only scratched the surface on what they can do. Even on a skeleton Dev crew, they could setup an Experimental area (on Live, not on Test) that could explore neat variations that players could dabble in: a wonderland playground of exploratory content, but limited to a smaller area. Really boggles my mind they don't have the Vision, drive, guts to do it. I'd do it for sure, even if I was just a grunt Designer.

I absolutely loved Vanguard. The bloodmage class was so refreshing and challenging, for me especially as a historic support player. Fantastic idea.

It was a shame that the game fizzled, so much fun and so much potential.

Thanks! I really loved working on Vanguard and really feel it was an extremely talented Dev group (some politics/agendas notwithstanding). The game's development faced a lot of adversity (like funder MS backing out), but Brad fought hard to get the funding to keep it afloat.

Darrin McPherson was in charge of building out Blood Mage and the rest of the Classes. He was pretty much a 1 man Lead/Team machine unto himself in that area, I don't think he had anyone else working with him. I agree he did an AMAZING job. In the Classes I was able to test out or played, he made them each very fun and interactive.

The game had to launch early because it couldn't get the funding to stay in Dev. At launch the coding was still struggling and the game was unstable for a lot of people. Also, the higher quality of art they'd gone with from the start also made it harder to run on many people's system. Content was a little behind in finishing populating the higher end areas, but this wasn't a major problem for most since not many players trailblazed to the level cap right away, and there were areas even they could do that (a group of our own Designers themselves raced to the level cap). SOE acquired it and most the staff was laid off around that time. I always felt the biggest asset at Sigil was their employees and setup, and both those were scattered to the wind.

I had a few disagreements with leadership decisions on the game. I felt the game was not solo friendly enough, which is a big factor in MMOs (either solo players or people waiting for a group or people who need to grind in non-group time to catch up to their playgroups level). And I also figured out (even made a spreadsheet to illustrate) and tried (unsuccessfully) to communicate to Design Leadership that the Crafting system made cheap items available to players that were better than the ones they could get in Dungeons at their level, so this would motivate players to skip Dungeons (which they did). Still, overall a great bunch with some great ideas and drive and talents.

Once it was at SOE, I didn't keep track of its development. It dropped to a skeleton Dev crew, though I still had some friends on it.

I personally LOVE the game. Hate how slow the content is being worked on, But I can't get enough of the thought that at any point in time, I can go somewhere on that huge continent and just utterly ruin someones day. How you ask? I simply go to a TR/NC fight and snipe enemies, tankmine landing pads, Reverse hack turrets and turn them against their allies.. It brings such fun to this game.. However, Because I do what I do I tend to make alot of enemies. Hell, Iridar51 hates my way of playing so much the crybaby actually put me on ignore on the forums. His loss though, He can't reply to anything I say in his threads because he can't see them, Which means I don't have to worry about him putting up an argument when I say something ;3

First: Tell this guy he was right on point. The class play had enough nostalgia (read: EQ) to be familiar and enough new ideas to create great new comp ideas for those of us who liked to go non-standard. I think one of my favorite things about vanguard was the classes.

Second: I heard a whole lot about this, but never experienced it myself. I think I got a few random crashes while zoning, but never enough bugs that it was detrimental to playing. I mean - there was no raid death from touching the walls in Plane of Hate.

Third: I did some silly things soloing with kite classes, like taking on three dot mobs several levels above, or the rare named ones. It was situational and maybe not all of the classes could just solo anything, but let's face it, that was a different era - and once upon a time, even duoing locations was bragging rights, and I know because we used to do it.

The fact that my buddy and I (in EQ for those confused) cleared LGuk, the whole CoM courtyard plus the stairs, farmed LDB or The Hole entrance with just a cleric and warrior was lul. But we still talk about those days and a lot of that stuff even made it into my book.

Vanguard was a really beautiful game as well, visually. Perhaps in time we will see it again in some iteration. And it sucks once the bottom line is the main determining factor, because it tends to harm games far more than it helps them, though that may seem counterintuitive to investors who want their returns.

I don't really communicate with Darrin anymore, but if I see him (or his cousin who was also at Sigil) I'll pass it along.

I played a high level Bard in EQ, and Darrin did discuss the Class with me during his work. But Darrin was an EQ Bard himself, and I felt he already knew the EQ Bard Class well enough without my input. Vanguard's EQ leaned more in the "Battle Bard" gameplay, but it pulled well from the great EQ Bard flavor and it was a blast to play.

Yeah, it was a huge issue for a lot of players. As was trying to run it on low end machines. And the Death Penalty was a little too steep for a lotta people.

LoL! Still, can't help but love early era EQ. I played EQ up just past Planes of Power, at which point my playstyle (mostly soloing) became obsolete and I joined BoTS but never enjoyed Raiding so retired.

In Vanguard or EQ?

I tried to scan all the Overland Pop (general mobs walking the surface of general areas) tables in Vanguard to make sure that someone could at least solo those. That they could follow a progression of areas and hunt that Overland Pop solo.

But that was only there because I made sure it was tuned to be. And really, that was only the tip of what I wanted to create for the solo player or duo players. I did some things in the areas I worked on, but I couldn't get the green light to make a more comprehensive experience for soloers/duoers in the game.

As a Bard in EQ, I loved the soloing options they had (charm kiting, chant kiting, faction kiting, etc.). And I did solo my Vangaurd Bard up to around level 30 I think.

LOVED Guk. Heck, loved all of early EQ. And yes, learning the tricks to solo those areas was amazing. Some Classes definitely had advantages in it, but each had their own neat way of doing it. So fun!

And yes, I did duo, small group, large group, and (at the end) Raid. And I enjoyed all but the Raiding. Though I typically enjoyed it more when we took on challenges rather than just grinding easy stuff. And more than one my group would just AFK while I charm kited whole massive areas.

I'm not really clear on what these MMO companies are factoring in terms of their projects. I haven't had an ear on the higher ups on the inside in a while now. I know that F2P/P2W really helped the longevity on a lot of games. And player made assets have been big too. But I wonder what their cost breakdowns are, and why they don't just open something like Vanguard up to a mod community. Where players could setup their own areas that could run their own mods in them, or build out from available mods to build out dungeons, and then others could come play in them.

I remember in Vampire: The Masquerade they allowed users to play gm and setup their own instances, filling it with objects and monsters for other to spawn in and play together. And lots of FPSs featured playable player made levels. And various RTS games have player made Quests, Scenarios, etc. Maybe they just don't know how to Monetize it. I worked in Finance and the Game Industry: Finance is less creative but knows how to Monetize and manage/balance ecosystems, Games is more creative but struggles to comprehend Monetizing or manage/balance ecosystems.