Possible ? If so what do you think of it ?

[Anlushac11]

Originally Posted by [SYN] Ace

They do that in Ace's High -- when you man a machine gun all the other machine guns will track the same target and if they have a line of sight, they will fire (Ace's High also has two drone bombers mimicking your moves, so their guns track the same target and the ones' that have line of sight will fire -- is way cool -- forms quite the cone of death.)

I'm not too psyched about AI machine gunners for vechicles.

This might work!

You dont have the problems people are associating with the AI gunners since you still need a gunner to operate the guns but you still get the increased firepower to help protect the plane.

[redstriker]

there is plenty of ramboism NOW so i dont know what this talk of it would happen is...the big difference is of course that you would have more trouble to kill a vehicle of whatever type..so what? easy kills are for for talkers not walkers. i think tying the guns together is an excellent idea, but ai manned guns is even better cos the overall personal involvment of people in that situation would be increased. this is due to ai taking possies of what might normally be taken by people if they dont get in. that means more people in the fight in a new capacity and that is never a bad thing.

[[SYN] hydraSlav]

Originally Posted by Beast of War

AT infantry weapon = short range weapon to kill tanks that attack your position

Tank MG = offensive weapon to kill infantry that is not in bunkers, trenches and manholes where they are supposed to be. ( when enemy tanks attack )

Teamwork = having teammates (humans) to man those MGs to act as offensive weapon to kill infantry that is not in bunkers.

but a realistic challenge to sink, like in a real war.

"Like in real war", that battleship would not be crewless. It would have a full crew, and it's that crew manning all positions that will make it a challenge to sink. And it's that crew's human error that will make it not unsinkable. Why should a lone rambo-admiral have a full power of the Battleship? He will only get it when working together with his team. A Battleship without crew would have been a peice of cake to sink in RL. Only difference is that in RL a Battleship would not be without a crew. So lets make that in FH a Battleship will not be moved untill fully manned. That will give it a full crew. Good idea, no?

That is cheap, dishonerable, skilless, no challenge at all

Nice argument.... Tank killing infantry at a distance is "cheap, dishonerable, skilless, no challenge at all". PoW blasting destoyers in 1 hit is "cheap, dishonerable, skilless, no challenge at all". Tiger laughing at Sherman's shells bouncing off is "cheap, dishonerable, skilless, no challenge at all". Sniper killing MGs is "cheap, dishonerable, skilless, no challenge at all". Everything here is "cheap, dishonerable, skilless, no challenge at all".

Yes, i agree humans should be in them.....that is why i suggested, they are automated when no human is in them, but are human when a human does occupy them. That is why i suggested they should be set to a level an average human would do better

And that's where my argument comes. I fully agree that they should be manned by players, yet i completely appose any AI, for the reasons i mentioned before in the long post, if you read it. A human's accuracy will range anywhere from 0% (completely distracted) to 100% (lucky fluke). That's what makes them human. No AI will compare to that, no matter whether you set AI at 20%, 50% or 80%. AI will be constant.

In some cases you have to rely on human error in order to get an opportunity to strike. That will never happen with AI. I can distract a player by throwing a granade at one side, and then sneaking around the other side. That will not happen with AI, it simply won't pay attention. I can confuse the player by blowing a shell into dirt in front of him, and then hidding while he can't see me behind the dust. That will not happen to AI, since he will see me through the dirt and will know exactly where i am.

[/quote]By the way.....why do you get so pissed off about a subject, that is purely hypothetical ??[/QUOTE] Because so far, all your recent "suggestions" are targetted towards making tankers (your) life easier so you can be more effective without working with you teammate human players, so you don't need to worry about looking behind your back, etc, etc

Originally Posted by Anlushac11

You dont have the problems people are associating with the AI gunners since you still need a gunner to operate the guns but you still get the increased firepower to help protect the plane.

That would be great. The easiest way to prevent the guns from shooting at the plane itself when aiming multiple guns is to make their movement limited in such a way that they can't hit the plane itself. And then we would just need to link them like it's done with AA-battery, Howitzers-battery and Wespe-battery....

But with Hartman gone, who will code this

[[SYN] hydraSlav]

Originally Posted by redstriker

the big difference is of course that you would have more trouble to kill a vehicle of whatever type..so what?

No... that goes the other way round. The big difference is that now tanks will have less trouble to defend themselves, while being used by a lone-rambo.

Currently, BF/FH rewards teamwork, cause with a teammate in your tank, you are more effective.

The proposed AI will oppose teamwork, since people in tanks will be just as effective without a teammate, and since the AI's effectiveness will be at a set level, they would rather have that set level, then unpredictable human player, who won't be effective while the tank is moving (unlike AI that will be just as effective while moving as while stationery)

that means more people in the fight in a new capacity and that is never a bad thing.

No, that means that everyone will get his little rambo-1-man-army tank, eliminating the support roles that are currently present

[Cap.Miller]

Originally Posted by Coopa

Would it be possible to have every member of a tank have a kill when any of the guns on the tank took a kill. Then people would be more inclined to get in a supporting position of a tank

:lol: :lol: :lol:
That's the best idea i heard for years LOL

All these score sick people will run for a position in a B-17. Because all the bombs the bomber drops will get kills for them too

The idea with the bots will probably make lag to some people that are already fighting with lag...

[Gauntlet]

I agree with the bombers and battleships and such, but not the tanks.

I realy loved the Aces High system. Maybe they could try to make it like that, except for the parallel clone-bombers.

[zero_zero]

the bot will waits all the ammo

[Admiral Donutz]

IF you would make de top gunnercomputer controlled it would have to be an actual bot since ypu should be able to take it outif it decides to fire at you (or more likly somebody else so you can shoot him in the back). This bot would have to be destroyed however if somebody would enter this position. Better would be to just have SOME vehicles, boats and airplanes have SOME computercontrolled bots. These bots would be somewhat worse then your avarahe player.

[[SYN] Ace]

The problem with a bot gunner on a tank is that you'd have no control over it. For example, I have enough trouble setting up an ambush spot with my tank without some trigger happy noob jumping in and randomly spraying machine gun fire around and alerting the whole enemy force as to my location--at least I can tell him to knock it off. If a bot is firing at everything that's visible within line of sight, that would be very annoying.

Ships, I could live with AI controlled flak and maybe even bombers (though I'd prefere the linked mg turrets)

[Count Nosferatu]

Originally Posted by Beast of War

When playing the game one thing that always strikes me as a waste is that some vehicles are much more vulnerable then they should be.

Not because they were coded the wrong way, or even because of player behaviour, but to the limit of how many players can be on one side in a server.

Take for example a B17......how much gunner positions does that bomber have ? Are they ever occupied in a normal game ?

Wherever divebombers fly, they have usually no rear gunner. Not surprising, because that gunner can do very little due to the limited traverse of his gun(s) and the aircraft can't take that much fire neither.....a dead mans seat, with very prospect of obtaining a score.

Somewhat better is the mg gunners seat in tanks.....although those seats are almost always empty too. Wich makes that vehicle a lot more vulnerable then it could/should be.

Now what if AI could control these vehicle gunner seats, if there isn't a human player in them ? I am not talking about a COOP game here, but a normal conquest game.

All Bombers would fire out of all ports, as they would do in real life, and pose a much more challenging threat for attacking fighters, then the hapless defenseless targets bombers are now, while the server can just be 32 human players or 24 players, and be much more alive.

Same for tanks....have all mgs seat controlled by AI, if there is nu human in them. Then it will be much more challenging to take out a tank for infantry, while being more realistic at the same time. There wil be a greater need for longer ranged weapons to take out tanks, just as in real life, because it is very hard to get close to tanks without being killed.

That bombers and tanks have MG seats is a great feature of FH, but the fact is in 24/32/40 player servers they won't and can't be occupied, making such a vehicle much weaker then in real life. Would it be possible to code AI to control those when not occupied by human players in normal conquest games ? Or is that something DICE programmers would have to do ? And if it would be possible, would it run into massive protest of players who see themselves confronted with a drop in killrate, since these cheap/easy targets now have teeth ? ( wich they should have )

Save me the SDK dances.....rather discuss about what the effect would be in it could be done...

Ever played against a bot in a stuka? You can barely take off. :lol:

I like your idea though