Why we need AI in online wars.

[von_Tom]

 

 I fail to understand why the rhetoric against the AI is so intense..

 

Because people equate "AI" with "AI fighters" and "AI fighters" with "dumb".

 

Any server would be great with AI aircraft randomly spawning in eg a bunch of IL2s shooting up a column, or a gaggle of Yaks patrolling the front line, or ....  That might be the problem though - the current limitations in programmability for random events plus suitable I in AI.  Even in older games an AI element has worked wonders if it's been done right but really loses effectiveness if the same mission is run over and over again.

 

if it could be done it'd probably force closer co-operation between pilots and not so much lone wolf behaviour.  You might very well also lose the low down turn and burn mentality if there's a good chance that someone, be it human or AI, will see you.  Human pilots would then throw in that random nastiness of thinking you have a relatively easy kill then they cut you to death.

 

AI isn't bad, it just might not quite be good enough.  Plus the processing power it'll need might be prohibitive.

 

Who knows though, if there are only a few servers maybe they'll all be populated by dedicated jabo/Stuka/IL2 or bomber squads (which is where games are usually lacking) rather than individuals flying and being easy prey for umpteen fighters.

 

For me it's all about teamwork as flying alone is rather tedious in any game these days.  Anything that'll force that is good in my book.

 

Hood

Edited May 6, 2014 by Hood

[AndyJWest]

Bearcat, I think the reason that the "rhetoric against the AI is so intense" is because of what Siggi said in his first post: 

 

"There is no such thing as an online war where there are only humans vs humans; they are, by functional definition, nothing but dog-fight servers". 

 

No room for compromise. No suggestion that anyone can disagree. And I know for a fact that this simply isn't true. The RoF Sunday missions on the Syndicate server illustrated that it was entirely possible to get people flying bombers for instance in sensible numbers. It is a function of mission design, proper motivation for the participants, and having a decent number of players to start with. Sure, AI can sometimes play a part, but to simply dismiss any missions without AI as "dog-fight servers" is ridiculous. Servers that degenerate into 'furballs' do so because of poor mission design, not because of the lack of AI. Provide rewarding options for bomber pilots, and for teamwork in general, and you'll get the desired results. 

[BraveSirRobin]

 

Bearcat, I think the reason that the "rhetoric against the AI is so intense" is because of what Siggi said in his first post: 

 

"There is no such thing as an online war where there are only humans vs humans; they are, by functional definition, nothing but dog-fight servers". 

 

No room for compromise. No suggestion that anyone can disagree. And I know for a fact that this simply isn't true. The RoF Sunday missions on the Syndicate server illustrated that it was entirely possible to get people flying bombers for instance in sensible numbers. It is a function of mission design, proper motivation for the participants, and having a decent number of players to start with. Sure, AI can sometimes play a part, but to simply dismiss any missions without AI as "dog-fight servers" is ridiculous. Servers that degenerate into 'furballs' do so because of poor mission design, not because of the lack of AI. Provide rewarding options for bomber pilots, and for teamwork in general, and you'll get the desired results. 

 

 

Exactly.  The idea that missions with no AI is nothing but dog fighting is pretty condescending.

[SCG_Neun]

Last time I tried it, it was about as engaging as a game of Mario Carts.

Dead is Dead was the best.....But then again....there was some super aggressive AI in that one.....

[DickDong]

There is a huge reason ATAG has seen a sharp drop in participation in NA Timezones and Aussie Timezones.  The servers without AI leave those time periods literally void of aircraft.  I agree AI should be limited to some extend when hundreds are on.  Maybe AI bombers in those situations.  But when there are lulls durring Central US thru Sydney Timezones ,participation will drop I promise you.  Has nothing to do with skill, it's about populating a map to realisitc numbers to keep EVERYONE fairly content, that is unless you like transiting 60 miles to find one other player, sounds like lots of fun to me..not.

Edited May 6, 2014 by jarhead2b

[J2_Trupobaw]

Actually, there are AIs on RoF MP servers (Wargrounds for sure, possibly Syndicate too); they are mostly two-seaters and bombers, present as additional objectives for scout pilots, just like bridges and trains and photo areas are placed as objectives for larger planes.

They are killed as afterthought by whomever catches them, before returning to real business of looking for human pilots. They are nice to have, but I don't believe they bring new players.

[sturmkraehe]

@Trupobaw: That's my feeling too from the times I've played RoF. It's not some AI on mp servers that will drastically increase numbers of buyers of this sim. 

 

Imho, and this has been claimed on many occasions, what we really really, I mean REALLY need is a coop mode like that of original IL2. I think that's what the OP actually had in mind when he posted it. I hope the devs will understand how crucial coop mode is for the sim. I understand that it is not something that is top on their to do list and I also accept that they may even release such a coop mode after release of the game as long as they will bring it to the community.

[AndyJWest]

Sturmkraehe, a 'coop mode' isn't on the top of the developers list because it simply isn't necessary - the full mission editor will already permit 'coop-style' missions. The separation of multiplayer into two different modes, as done in the original IL-2, is a limitation rather than a sensible design feature, and not one that needs to be reproduced, when a single mission editor can do both.

[sturmkraehe]

I think coop mode is not included in mp because with coop style you start a mission with certain players that join the coop session before mission is initiated. Once dead they are out. In MP you just spawn somewhere in the middle of a mission and you can respawn as much as you want. There is no control over when a mission starts (you know when ground vehicles or AI planes start to follow their instructions). For me coop is completely different and much much more mission oriented than a MP mission ever can be. 

Edited May 6, 2014 by sturmkraehe

[AndyJWest]

Sturmkraehe, you can already do all that with the RoF mission editor. 

Edited May 6, 2014 by AndyJWest

[FuriousMeow]

 

This sim needs to appeal to a wide range of simmers.. not just the online guys.

 

 

 

This thread is entirely about online. There is no offline component when the title says "online wars."

 

I will also reiterate my statement, we don't need AI. It can serve a purpose, but again - an entirely human controlled battle is better than AI filler. There is no need, but it can be utilized and this entire thread was started based on ignorance assuming AI wasn't utilized online in the DN engine.

Edited May 6, 2014 by FuriousMeow

[BraveSirRobin]

They should allow for Dogfight and Coop mission options in the editor, then just give people access to the same functions.

[KodiakJac]

 

AI in online wars are for those who cant get "regular" kill...

 

I didn't buy BoS to get a kill. I bought BoS to fly a historic recreation of the airwar in the Battle of Stalingrad. What does chasing a bunch of human pilots around in a dogfight have to do with the missions and tactics of a historic airwar?

 

If the missions and tactics of the airwar in the Battle of Stalingrad aren't recreated by either human or AI pilots this Sim won't succeed. My money is on AI pilots more reliably adding this historic structure to the game.

[FS_Fenice_1965]

I have builded missions from years for one of the still populated IL2 servers.

In my opinion AI is not bad or good in itself. It is an instrument and can be used in a good or in a bad way.

In my experience I found AI a lot useful to recreat the correct "atmosphere" of historical events, not only because it is a lot useful to convey people towards particular tactics, but also because can be used as a part of the scenario even if it is not involved directly on the core of the mission.

As an example I am thinking of an Operation Avalanche scenario, where the goal for germans is to attack the landing troops on the beach and the goal for allies is to defend the beach.

While this fight is going on on the beachs - mainly at low level - you see huge random formations of b17s going to bomb military positions from high altitude on the rear of the beach at a certain distance.

Blues do not have the opportunity to attack bombers, beacause they are mainly fightin at low alt, but those heavies without being targets, give players the illusion that they are part of a large scale operation, of a living scenario, where they have a part but that is not ended with them.

Without AI would be a lot difficult to catch that illusion.

There are other missions where the goal is a to create a pure dogfight arena. There are situations were people are conveyed to playing by roles from the organization of the events. These are other forms of fun from a different perspective, but i think that eliminating one or the other form may be a bad thing.

As Bearcat sayd having options is  probably the key. Players are players and like every player (think mainly of kids that are good example because they are spontaneous) need an environment where they may express their freedom of creativity.

Edited May 6, 2014 by FS_Fenice_1965

[Panzerlang]

Well, me and two of my guys just had a long session on the ATAG and 401 servers. If there hadn't been AI on the ATAG we would not have had a minute of play. Instead we got a solid five sorties over four and a half hours.

 

So there you have it.

[FS_Fenice_1965]

My biggest fear for IL2 BOS is the population. Most flight simulator ends up with very low population after a while because of 2 reasons in my opinion :

 

- All the players ends up frequenting the same server, especially outside of prime time

- Veterans on those servers stomps all the newcomers and the newbies quits and don't come back

 

Basically there's no room for the newbies to grow because their multiplayer learning curve is incredibly steep. Hopefully something can be done about it so that the game is not a deserted wasteland right at launch. Right now, as a north american player I can say for sure there's definately not enough players to sustain an healthy population.

 

The important thing is to have a simulation able to gather players under one roof. When IL2 was at its best there were a lot of servers full of players, with different gameplay offers (again options...). Also there were communities with different servers offering different difficulty options within the same community. People started on the "noob" server to pass at the intermediate server and then to the full real server, always staying within the same group of people.

This was possible because there were a lot of players with no valid alternative to IL2. Servers were full, supported by donators and able to handle more than one server with ease.

Even if it is a common opinion that having many sims is a good thing because there's competition between the producers, I believe that this is not radically true for multiplayer. Many sims means also fragmentation and fragmentation is not good in an environment where people need to meet together by definition (it is multiplayer ..isn't it ?).

[Sparrer]

S!


Nice to see an gameplay discussion

I'm entirely agree with SIGGI...have my +1

For those who said human it completely viable in missions with many bombers  / escort relating to Warbirds and AH2...well....i flew this many years and it was a mess.

Most of time the MMO "sims" (WB and AH2) were the very like BOS now....an crappy furball...everyone killing each other until get bored. (and even with a longer map, some stats, and ground objectives...it will be the same, an absolute air quake)

 Organized flights with objectives existed (RAID's), but they were a mess, hard to organize and most time your enemy just don't care to protect anything.....so those raid's just hadn't sense


This happen when you mix "Air Quakers" with Mission Objective Pilots" in the same server. If you want do a raid with your mates seeking an objetive....the Air Quakers just don't mind....so the raid have no sense and the servers objectives have no sense too

---

With AI you can make huge formation's of bombers / air suply / recon / parachuters/ etc +plus+ replace human pilots equalizing the quantities +plus+ directing those for an objective.

This system worked great for Falcon 4 mission generator and worked great for many il2 air wars: The war einvoirement is occuring and the humans just take they place

BUT we need to remember, those AI advantages were taken with the COOP idea. So it's very different AIs: in DOG servers design than COOP servers design...and it must be separated

Changing a little the subject....i have a big concern in those "DOG based" online wars like ADWs and Warbirds: The time zone. There's a significative diference between Americas time and Russian time...in ADW the server had a little pilots flying on an empty server at their respective dawn.....so they just can't have fun because they have no enemy but the objective still's. With AI....you don't have this problem

[Bearcat]

This thread is entirely about online. There is no offline component when the title says "online wars."

 

I will also reiterate my statement, we don't need AI. It can serve a purpose, but again - an entirely human controlled battle is better than AI filler. There is no need, but it can be utilized and this entire thread was started based on ignorance assuming AI wasn't utilized online in the DN engine.

 

Yes it is better but it is not always possible.. decent AI can fill that gap.

 

 

 

Well, me and two of my guys just had a long session on the ATAG and 401 servers. If there hadn't been AI on the ATAG we would not have had a minute of play. Instead we got a solid five sorties over four and a half hours.

 

So there you have it.

 

That is the point..

 

 

 

Bearcat, I think the reason that the "rhetoric against the AI is so intense" is because of what Siggi said in his first post: 

 

"There is no such thing as an online war where there are only humans vs humans; they are, by functional definition, nothing but dog-fight servers". 

 

No room for compromise. No suggestion that anyone can disagree. And I know for a fact that this simply isn't true. The RoF Sunday missions on the Syndicate server illustrated that it was entirely possible to get people flying bombers for instance in sensible numbers. It is a function of mission design, proper motivation for the participants, and having a decent number of players to start with. Sure, AI can sometimes play a part, but to simply dismiss any missions without AI as "dog-fight servers" is ridiculous. Servers that degenerate into 'furballs' do so because of poor mission design, not because of the lack of AI. Provide rewarding options for bomber pilots, and for teamwork in general, and you'll get the desired results. 

 

 

OK .. I will give you that .. and even the title could have been worded differently.. byut the essence opf the sentiment is sound IMO and i agree with it.. Obviously you can have a better online war.. or big online mission .. whatever you want to call it .. when all the players are human.. but having AI does not detract from that or make the "simming" any less challenging.. unless all the AI is set to one setting..

[kongxinga]

Skill being approximately equal it's the guy with the Spitfire who'll beat the guy with the 109 every single time. 

Wait, what? Can you please elaborate on this point? How does a spit (mark what?) reliably beat a 109 (again which model) all the time? I would like to know because 109s eat my lunch when I  spitfire, and I eat spitfire lunches when 109ing, but I will like to do better with the plane. What sims are we talking about?

 

How did we get to page 3 with no one challenging the statement? Usually x is always better than b statements start a religious war in simmer forums.

Edited May 7, 2014 by kongxinga

[Felix58]

There is a huge reason ATAG has seen a sharp drop in participation in NA Timezones and Aussie Timezones.  The servers without AI leave those time periods literally void of aircraft.  I agree AI should be limited to some extend when hundreds are on.  Maybe AI bombers in those situations.  But when there are lulls durring Central US thru Sydney Timezones ,participation will drop I promise you.  Has nothing to do with skill, it's about populating a map to realisitc numbers to keep EVERYONE fairly content, that is unless you like transiting 60 miles to find one other player, sounds like lots of fun to me..not.

 

+1 - Certainly there is a different experience depending on your timezone.  A "No AI" server is impractical in many timezones. 

[=CFC=Conky]

Hello all,

 

Personally, I like the AI kites in ROF, they add to immersion in an otherwise empty-ish map (Newwings). I have fond memories of the dynamic battlefield in the old EF2000 sim and try to add flights of AI 'doing their own thing' when I build online missions. 

 

It is true that online flying can be very frustrating, but only for the first few hundred times ;-). It gets easier/better with time and one's experience will largely depend on the behaviour of a server's participants. There are some very good, mature,  IL2 servers on Hyperlobby and there is no reason to believe things will be different this time around. I hope the offline component of the game will be as good as the one in the 'original' IL2 series (up to IL2 1946), and with a good mission builder, we can look forward to years of excellent user-made campaigns and missions.

 

Good hunting

CFC_Conky

[LizLemon]

I disagree, in my experience it's far easier to tell a bot/AI in an fps game.

 

And I disagree.

 

Quake and unreal had excellent bots. In fact I remember one article about a demonstration where pro quake 3 players were pitted against bot and human players in a blind test and they were asked to rank the opponents they faced on a scale of human vs bot. They ranked the bots as more human then the human players by a considerable margin.

 

I think the standards of bots/ai have dropped off considerably since the widespread adoption broadband internet. There isn't as much work put into good ai routines nowadays since its easy to find MP games in just about any part of the world. You can also see the same thing happening in SP FPS. I replayed fear and hl1 about a year ago and was impressed at how much better the AI was then what you see in the current versions of CoD and the like. This may also be because of the wider market for games, and the desire of many to be spoon fed and constantly rewarded, even if they perform poorly. 

[Panzerlang]

Wait, what? Can you please elaborate on this point? How does a spit (mark what?) reliably beat a 109 (again which model) all the time? I would like to know because 109s eat my lunch when I  spitfire, and I eat spitfire lunches when 109ing, but I will like to do better with the plane. What sims are we talking about?

 

How did we get to page 3 with no one challenging the statement? Usually x is always better than b statements start a religious war in simmer forums.

 

If 109E4s are available so are the best Spits, and the best Spits can out-run, out-climb, out-accelerate and out-turn the 109. Both pilots being vets/aces the 109 pilot gets one chance to kill the Spit and then it's either run or go down.

 

At first I thought the CloD Spit was over modelled (big time) but after doing a lot more reading than I'd ever done before, and finding a site that has dozens of combat reports, I discovered just how superior the constant-speed Spitfire was. And the reason for Galland's comment to Goering: "Give me Spitfires".

 

No doubt we'll now get a bunch of claims from the clever-clogs about how "this tactic" and "that skillfull maneouver" can save the day. I say tosh and balderdash. One on one, you suprise the Spitfire and shoot well or you run, because in a dogfight you are not going to win unless the Spit is flown by a rookie or very average pilot. And even a rookie can yank and bank, lose all his energy and then accelerate like a little missile.

 

A different attempt to quantify it, in a broad brush-stroke generalisationary way...a poorly flown Spitfire can survive against an adequately flown 109. An adequately flown Spitfire can survive against a well flown 109. A well flown Spitfire will beat a well flown 109.

 

But all the above is just my personal opinion. And one that is shared by a very large number of RL 109 pilots from the BoB.

[LizLemon]

We were ALL impressed by the AI in 1999, but as time went on we became more sophisticated and more atuned to the methods employed by game developers.

 

I'd be very surprised if you played Quake or Unreal Tournament today and was impressed by the AI.

 

I'm not an expert FPS player but I can always spot the bots if the server admin has enabled them, even when they use fake-chat plugins to try and fool us.

 

In my opinion, in recent times, only two games had AI that felt somehow more intelligent than that we'd seen before.

RAGE had quite good AI (2011 iirc) and FEAR before that (2005 iirc)

But even these impressive bots become predictable quite quickly.

 

Don't reflect on HL1 through the prism of HL2. The first game had much better AI then its sequel. 

 

I'm fully aware of the power of nostalgia and rose tinted glasses, but I've seen firsthand how little regard is given to AI in games today, and I have heard many horror stories about great features being cut because focus group testing shows that most players dont want a challenge. Although the 360 and PS3 both had in-order CPUs, something that makes branch prediction a PIA and thus good AI very difficult, I think the main motivation behind dumbed down AI was the changing of the market place. Rage is kinda a outlier, carmack didn't care and went for a tech tour de force as usual, overstretched, and failed. Even bungie, which had great AI in the first halo has gotten much worse over the years. I guess some of this may be due to great programmers getting sick of the crunch time and poor benefits and (relatively) low pay and moving on to higher paying jobs with military sims and "real" challenges with the pay to match. The constant stream of ITT tech idiots doesn't help.

 

I'll just say that one of my first industry jobs was working on a high profile AAA title (as much as I hate that bs acronym). I literally played builds that got dumber and dumber in terms of AI because upper management demanded it thanks to focus groups. People want pop-a-mole instant gratification. This is what has to happen to justify tens of millions of dollars on development (and an equal if not greater amount in advertising). Mainstream gaming is turning into summer pop corn flicks, and the incredibly low standards of games journalism only help this. You can still find brilliantly innovative games today, but its happening on the periphery. Unfortunately. 

[SCG_Neun]

AI on the server in the past always presented that ever present possibility, that just maybe you were going to be pounced while you were limping back to base, low on fuel, some of us shot up, low on ammo, or worse yet, none at all.  Aggressive AI in such a situation helps to create a better "fog of war" atmosphere and keeps the palms sweaty on the flight stick.....In the past....and I apologize, satellite connection here and no online simming available...but in the past by the time you met the enemy...you had a fairly good idea where he was and what condition he was in fuel and vulnerability wise.  Of course, we had limited numbers in such scenarios,and maybe the servers you are referring to these days have many more players.  But aggressive AI in such conditions can be a handful at times, even stalling an offensive while the human pilots come into play....The possibilities are limitless.....

[LBR=H-Ostermann]

 We don't need no stinking AI's say some. Just because a person doesn't choose to fly against AI really isn't a viable response. Whoever heard of a product attracting more consumers by it's lack of features. So what's the harm in asking If the developers can put AI into the game so we can have a server which generates an unending stream of Ai? If the answer is no we move on, but because some here don't like it the question ought not be asked? And don't give me that tired answer that other things need to be done first. For some Ai its part and parcel of the sim experience. We all have our selfish wishes, no one's is any better than anyone else's.

    I suppose we should run our questions through the forum censors first to determine who's ideas are worthy of consideration.

 

 I just love how I must conform with the "we" and enjoy my game in the prescribed manner of the "we". They put the SIM into assimilated.

 

 

 

 All furballs all the time are a bore. Near the end of my time in IL2 I flew Coops exclusively. Which, BTW, requires Ai, and the more Ai available the better the coop was.

[AbortedMan]

I can't believe this is turning into a 4 page debate...

 

If you want AI during your MP games, make missions with AI and add them to your server rotation...if you don't want AI in your MP games, make missions without AI and add them to your server rotation.

 

What is the issue here?

[Feathered_IV]

I can't believe this is turning into a 4 page debate...

 

If you want AI during your MP games, make missions with AI and add them to your server rotation...if you don't want AI in your MP games, make missions without AI and add them to your server rotation.

 

What is the issue here?

For me, main issue is for the development of an AI light enough that more than a handful won't crash the server.

For others, a computer game for ages eight and over is a true test of manly vigor. The inclusion of AI will make their phallic jousts ring hollow.

[II./JG27_Rich]

I always hated getting shot down by AIs and bashing my hand into the desk. One time I bruised it....But it makes you more aware for the next sortie doesn't it 

Edited May 7, 2014 by II./JG27_Rich

[LBR=H-Ostermann]

"Playing online against AI, the whole point of multiplayer is the multi-player part. Not the players against AI, those are last resorts when no one wants to play with you - and you should just stick to single player in that case."

 

Just the example I was speaking of. The whole point of multiplayer according to you is all that matters, eh? Multi-player can also mean flying with another online in cooperation with each other, regardless of whether there are humans or AI as opponents. The point being, playing the game the way we want to. You speak as if you bought me my copy of this game and I play it at your benevolent permission.  

Me thinks you take the title Founder too seriously. Get over yourself. 

[Gustang]

Hmm, too many personal attacks in here.   They don't seem to add anything to the discussion, so let's turn up the effort to avoid them, please.  

 

I think it's safe to say there's room for both preferences, with or without AI.   Personally,  I enjoy a mix of human and AI on both sides.   It keeps the environment target-rich, the AI serves as a ready mission objective, confuses human pilots, draws the them low and get's them into bad situations.  The AI pilots add ambience with a frequency that's hard to achieve in human-only events.  

 

There were many times in RoF that I thought for sure I was shooting at AI and it turned out to be a human pilot.   There were many times, just the opposite.  It's all fun.

Edited May 8, 2014 by Gustang

[J2_Trupobaw]

I can't believe this is turning into a 4 page debate...

 

If you want AI during your MP games, make missions with AI and add them to your server rotation...if you don't want AI in your MP games, make missions without AI and add them to your server rotation.

 

What is the issue here?

Tastes comparison, arguing superiority of Christmas over Easter, personal attacks with good dose of passive-trollaggressive? Notice how your perfectly reasonable post disappeared under it all. 

 

@ Feathered : don't forget the potential shame of being shot down by AI on public server , too.

[Rjel]

Hmm, too many personal attacks in here.   They don't seem to add anything to the discussion, so let's turn up the effort to avoid them, please.  

 

I do find it interesting that when multi player started in BoS, the good feelings this forum had went south in a hurry. Coincidence or just some members true colors coming out? Either way, it's a shame as the first several months here were most enjoyable.

[Cybermat47]

I do find it interesting that when multi player started in BoS, the good feelings this forum had went south in a hurry. Coincidence or just some members true colors coming out? Either way, it's a shame as the first several months here were most enjoyable.

You'd think that the fact that we could play with each other would bring us closer, not divide us

[HeavyCavalrySgt]

I personally would be more likely to play in co-op multiplayer.

 

I am surprised to learn it is considered the wrong way to play the game by some.

[Recon]

You should try RoF MP.  There are incompetent human pilots all over the place.  

 

You mean the 'Flying Circus' server... all the good servers of past days were all empty when I came by to play some ROF lately.  Everyone was in Flying Circus  - which is a big joke really... Most people that enjoy ROF play offline anyway

You mean the 'Flying Circus' server... all the good servers of past days were all empty when I came by to play some ROF lately.  Everyone was in Flying Circus  - which is a big joke really... Most people that enjoy ROF play offline anyway

 

Oh, and furthermore , when I flew and actually 'climbed' in my Gotha while all the point whores were flying on the deck - the game play was whack in ROF online.

 

I'm with Siggi - a well done scenario will have a combination of both.  ie. one thing I really enjoy in Cliffs of Dover ATAG server is when they would have a nice bomber formation coming across - adds to the immersion.  Supply planes, etc... also add to it.

 

At this point though, I'd be more concern that BOS can't handle very many players online - I can't imagine how poorly it will play with a map lined up with ground units etc...

 

I do miss the days of completing missions bombing ROF in Gotha, but as I said, actually - the only place to play when I came back was again AI - as all the humans were no where to be seen

I personally would be more likely to play in co-op multiplayer.

 

I am surprised to learn it is considered the wrong way to play the game by some.

 

+1   I miss the days of a well done COOP.  COOPS that allow people to join while in progress would be nice as well.

 

Most people flying online today are just looking to see how many kills they can bag without much teamwork - I value the pilot that can escort a bomber sortie and play to accomplish mission objectives much more than I do a 'leaderboard'

[Panzerlang]

I think it boils down to one of two particular online mind-sets: those who prefer virtual air-combat as a kind of competitive sport (dogfight servers) and those who prefer a 'living breathing world' in which the combat (or lack of it, per reality) is as historically accurate as possible. There is no place for AI in the former, very much a place for it in the latter.

 

That's my summation, for what it's worth.

[Matt]

In an organized online war or campaign or whatever, in which every player fulfills a a specific role (some people tasked with flying bombers, some with fighters or recons or transport or whatever) i don't think AI is necessary.

 

In other cases on sandbox servers, AI can sometimes help. I only flew CloD a few times online, but the AI bomber formations added quite a bit (though i don't know if in the meantime, human players are also flying that organized) and i prefer that to lone flying kamikaze bombers or 100 furballing fighters.

[Panzerlang]

In an organized online war or campaign or whatever, in which every player fulfills a a specific role (some people tasked with flying bombers, some with fighters or recons or transport or whatever) i don't think AI is necessary.

 

In other cases on sandbox servers, AI can sometimes help. I only flew CloD a few times online, but the AI bomber formations added quite a bit (though i don't know if in the meantime, human players are also flying that organized) and i prefer that to lone flying kamikaze bombers or 100 furballing fighters.

 

How about if you were playing under a DiD Persona system in which you were trying to emulate the careers of the aces? Would you not want a good number of your fights to be against rookie and average pilots (AI), per how it was for the real aces?

[Matt]

DiD or not DiD makes no difference in this situation to me.

 

So same as before:

 

Organized online war with dedicated fighter, bomber, transport, recon roles = no AI

Otherwise = AI might be helpful or even necessary

 

I disagree with the "AI=average" and "human=ace" equation you're making though, if i understand you correctly. I don't think the majority of the players interested in a long term "realistic" online campaign are those people who dogfight 24/7 on a circus server. Quite the contrary. I wouldn't even say that the average "skill" of those players is above the average skill of the AI in BoS (which might have trouble maneuvering correctly, but atleast is pretty accurate).