A.I. Improvements

[Llewen]

Just a few suggestions for the a.i.

- Mobs need to move faster. I've said this before, but I'll say it again, mobs need to move faster across the board. The movement speeds for mobs were initially set a long time ago when everyone had much slower connections, much less reliable connections, and much slower computers. This small change alone would make pvm much more interesting. The fastest mobs, like paragons, should move faster than a character on foot.

- Invisibility and hiding shouldn't break aggro. What should happen is what happens when you get on a mount that has a mob aggro'd on it. The mob should stay aggro'd on the invisible or hidden player until something else attacks it. And when a player casts invis, or uses a smoke bomb, mobs should actively "hunt" for the now hidden player. They should stay in the area, and use the detect hidden skill as some do, but they should do it more often, and more than once, and more mobs should do it, and use the reveal spell, as they do, but they should stay aggro'd so that when they reveal you they are on you like marmalade on toast...

- Do something fun with the a.i. Have mobs using the reveal skill use a *sniffing* emote, or something similar. And in fact mobs should use more emotes than they currently do, why? Just for the fun of it. Have an ogre lord using the reveal skill taunt the character he is looking for, "Come out! Come out! Wherever you are!"

The few emotes there are in mob a.i. are fun, there should be more of them.

 

[chuckoatl]

Just a few suggestions for the a.i.

- Mobs need to move faster. I've said this before, but I'll say it again, mobs need to move faster across the board. The movement speeds for mobs were initially set a long time ago when everyone had much slower connections, much less reliable connections, and much slower computers. This small change alone would make pvm much more interesting. The fastest mobs, like paragons, should move faster than a character on foot.

- Invisibility and hiding shouldn't break aggro. What should happen is what happens when you get on a mount that has a mob aggro'd on it. The mob should stay aggro'd on the invisible or hidden player until something else attacks it. And when a player casts invis, or uses a smoke bomb, mobs should actively "hunt" for the now hidden player. They should stay in the area, and use the detect hidden skill as some do, but they should do it more often, and more than once, and more mobs should do it, and use the reveal spell, as they do, but they should stay aggro'd so that when they reveal you they are on you like marmalade on toast...

- Do something fun with the a.i. Have mobs using the reveal skill use a *sniffing* emote, or something similar. And in fact mobs should use more emotes than they currently do, why? Just for the fun of it. Have an ogre lord using the reveal skill taunt the character he is looking for, "Come out! Come out! Wherever you are!"

The few emotes there are in mob a.i. are fun, there should be more of them.

You're nuts. I take it you don't do spawns in fel. It is bad enough with 2 OJ's on me, then add in fast moving spawn....... ya thats fair.

 

[Lord Chaos]

Just a few suggestions for the a.i.

- Mobs need to move faster. I've said this before, but I'll say it again, mobs need to move faster across the board. The movement speeds for mobs were initially set a long time ago when everyone had much slower connections, much less reliable connections, and much slower computers. This small change alone would make pvm much more interesting. The fastest mobs, like paragons, should move faster than a character on foot.

No, just no. Many mobs already move fast enough or way too fast.

- Invisibility and hiding shouldn't break aggro. What should happen is what happens when you get on a mount that has a mob aggro'd on it. The mob should stay aggro'd on the invisible or hidden player until something else attacks it. And when a player casts invis, or uses a smoke bomb, mobs should actively "hunt" for the now hidden player. They should stay in the area, and use the detect hidden skill as some do, but they should do it more often, and more than once, and more mobs should do it, and use the reveal spell, as they do, but they should stay aggro'd so that when they reveal you they are on you like marmalade on toast...

No, not really.

- Do something fun with the a.i. Have mobs using the reveal skill use a *sniffing* emote, or something similar. And in fact mobs should use more emotes than they currently do, why? Just for the fun of it. Have an ogre lord using the reveal skill taunt the character he is looking for, "Come out! Come out! Wherever you are!"

The few emotes there are in mob a.i. are fun, there should be more of them.

The only somewhat useful out of the suggestion. Would be an ok change.

 

[Llewen]

You're nuts. I take it you don't do spawns in fel. It is bad enough with 2 OJ's on me, then add in fast moving spawn....... ya thats fair.

It doesn't need to be twice as fast, and I'm not talking about mobs in general being able to move as fast as players. I'm thinking somewhere between a 10% and 50% increase in movement speed.

And like it or not the mobs are part of the spawn experience, and those "2 OJ's" have to deal with the spawn just as much as you do. Right now, in my opinion, most spawns are too easy, and in fact most, if not all of the pvm contexts in UO could use a bump in the challenge that is presented.

 

[Lord Chaos]

Or maybe just log off your one-button sampire wonder.

 

[Llewen]

- Mobs need to move faster.

No, just no. Many mobs already move fast enough or way too fast.

You have this amazing ability to post the most ridiculous statements without twitching a comma...

- Invisibility and hiding shouldn't break aggro.

No, not really.

You've already made it clear throughout your posting history that you don't like games that are challenging in any way shape or form. And as I've posted elsewhere, when you remove the challenge from a game, you remove the fun. Using invisibility and smoke bombs to break aggro is, in my opinion, an exploitation of poorly coded, weak a.i. It's a perfectly legal exploit, but it is an exploit nonetheless.

But then, as is clear from your posting history as well, you tend to be all in favour of exploits - the more the merrier...

- Do something fun with the a.i. Have mobs using the reveal skill use a *sniffing* emote, or something similar. And in fact mobs should use more emotes than they currently do, why? Just for the fun of it. Have an ogre lord using the reveal skill taunt the character he is looking for, "Come out! Come out! Wherever you are!"

The few emotes there are in mob a.i. are fun, there should be more of them.

The only somewhat useful out of the suggestion. Would be an ok change.

Without changes to the way the a.i. handles the use of invisibility spells, and smoke bombs, this change is pointless.

 

[Llewen]

Or maybe just log off your one-button sampire wonder.

Guess what Sunshine? I've never created or played a sampire in my over seven years of playing UO. But you are right, sampires are in serious need of a hard smack with the nerf bat, but that is ot for this thread.

 

[Lord Chaos]

You have this amazing ability to post the most ridiculous statements without twitching a comma...

No, I could never even remotely come close to you in that regard.

You've already made it clear throughout your posting history that you don't like games that are challenging in any way shape or form. And as I've posted elsewhere, when you remove the challenge from a game, you remove the fun. Using invisibility and smoke bombs to break aggro is, in my opinion, an exploitation of poorly coded, weak a.i. It's a perfectly legal exploit, but it is an exploit nonetheless.

Which has clearly been proven throughout history to be blatantly false...as is your crap made up **** about my posting history. You're full of it.

Either way, breaking agro through invisibility makes perfect sense. Just about all animals in RL will cease aggression towards a target if the target isn't there and will not have the long term memory to directly continue aggression once the target re-appears. They will go aggressive like its a new enemy.

But then, as is clear from your posting history as well, you tend to be all in favour of exploits - the more the merrier...

ROFLMAO!!! You complain that I call the EC an exploit...yet you call a valid sensible game mechanic that has existed since UOs birth for an exploit???

Do you have any idea how stupid and redicilous you're sounding?

Without changes to the way the a.i. handles the use of invisibility spells, and smoke bombs, this change is pointless.

Not for cosmetic and atmosphere purposes.

 

[MalagAste]

No just no.

What I'd prefer is if mobs spawned faster.

I mean some mobs spawn right away after you kill them but some can take FOREVER to respawn, especially in some of the older dungeons...

You know why most people won't hunt there anymore? Because it's too slow. Because you kill something and have to wander around for 5 min to find another something to kill..... kinda sad when most those monsters are 1 hit kills anyway.

 

[Llewen]

You have this amazing ability to post the most ridiculous statements without twitching a comma...

No, I could never even remotely come close to you in that regard.

Here we go again, let me save you some trouble.

DID NOT!
DID TOO!
DID NOT!
DID TOO!!!
MOOOMMMMYYYY!!!

Because that was where that was headed...

Either way, breaking agro through invisibility makes perfect sense. Just about all animals in RL will cease aggression towards a target if the target isn't there and will not have the long term memory to directly continue aggression once the target re-appears. They will go aggressive like its a new enemy.

Good grief, if you are going to try and use "realism" arguments, please try and make some sense. You could never in a million years, just *poof* and disappear on front of just about any animal. Almost all of them have better hearing, and better senses of smell than we do. Even if you did manage to find a way of disappearing in a puff of smoke, they would still hear you and smell you until you were at least several hundred metres off.

Not to mention that animals are a good deal smarter than you give them credit for. Most of them, if not all of them, have some form of memory, and they would certainly remember that you were there the instant before you disappeared, and if you happened to pop out again, they would most certainly remember that they had wanted you dead for some reason, and continue about their appointed task of making it happen.

I have a cat that I accidentally pulled his tail one time. Nothing horrible, but enough to make him give a bit of a squawk. He remembered that incident for months, if not years. I could tell by the way he acted. He has forgiven, and probably forgotten it now, but he remembered for a very long time after that it was bad news if I my hand came near his tail...

 

[chuckoatl]

Here we go again, let me save you some trouble.

DID NOT!
DID TOO!
DID NOT!
DID TOO!!!
MOOOMMMMYYYY!!!

Because that was where that was headed...



Good grief, if you are going to try and use "realism" arguments, please try and make some sense. You could never in a million years, just *poof* and disappear on front of just about any animal. Almost all of them have better hearing, and better senses of smell than we do. Even if you did manage to find a way of disappearing in a puff of smoke, they would still hear you and smell you until you were at least several hundred metres off.

Not to mention that animals are a good deal smarter than you give them credit for. Most of them, if not all of them, have some form of memory, and they would certainly remember that you were there the instant before you disappeared, and if you happened to pop out again, they would most certainly remember that they had wanted you dead for some reason, and continue about their appointed task of making it happen.

I have a cat that I accidentally pulled his tail one time. Nothing horrible, but enough to make him give a bit of a squawk. He remembered that incident for months, if not years. I could tell by the way he acted. He has forgiven, and probably forgotten it now, but he remembered for a very long time after that it was bad news if I my hand came near his tail...

the other day I magic arrowed a slime in my backyard....... It was pissed, so I invised and walked away. Got a stealth gain and a magery gain.


Give me a break kids, you're arguing an un-winable fight. Give it up.

 

[Splup]

No just no.

What I'd prefer is if mobs spawned faster.

I mean some mobs spawn right away after you kill them but some can take FOREVER to respawn, especially in some of the older dungeons...

You know why most people won't hunt there anymore? Because it's too slow. Because you kill something and have to wander around for 5 min to find another something to kill..... kinda sad when most those monsters are 1 hit kills anyway.

Other reason would prolly be that hunting there is useless and looting the mobs even more useless

 

[Babble]

Just a few suggestions for the a.i.

- Mobs need to move faster. I've said this before, but I'll say it again, mobs need to move faster across the board. The movement speeds for mobs were initially set a long time ago when everyone had much slower connections, much less reliable connections, and much slower computers. This small change alone would make pvm much more interesting. The fastest mobs, like paragons, should move faster than a character on foot.

- Invisibility and hiding shouldn't break aggro. What should happen is what happens when you get on a mount that has a mob aggro'd on it. The mob should stay aggro'd on the invisible or hidden player until something else attacks it. And when a player casts invis, or uses a smoke bomb, mobs should actively "hunt" for the now hidden player. They should stay in the area, and use the detect hidden skill as some do, but they should do it more often, and more than once, and more mobs should do it, and use the reveal spell, as they do, but they should stay aggro'd so that when they reveal you they are on you like marmalade on toast...

- Do something fun with the a.i. Have mobs using the reveal skill use a *sniffing* emote, or something similar. And in fact mobs should use more emotes than they currently do, why? Just for the fun of it. Have an ogre lord using the reveal skill taunt the character he is looking for, "Come out! Come out! Wherever you are!"

The few emotes there are in mob a.i. are fun, there should be more of them.

Bah, I remember it like yesterday when the developers gave the monsters proper pathfinding!

 

[Dol'Gorath]

I'd rather see an improvement in boss AI across the board. When you compare PVE in UO to WoW it's night and day. In UO, no matter what the mob is, it literally is the same thing from a shade all the way up to the top peerless. There are no scripted boss fights, no lore. No stages to fight...no interesting boss abilities to dodge.
As much as I love UO, WoW has ruined it for me in terms of PVE challenge. An average raid has more storyline in it than all of the SA expansion so far.

Yes these changes would make it so bosses could not be soloable anymore. The horrors of having to group in an online game! =O

 

[Lord Chaos]

Here we go again, let me save you some trouble.

You're gonna stop posting forever? SWEET!

Good grief, if you are going to try and use "realism" arguments, please try and make some sense. You could never in a million years, just *poof* and disappear on front of just about any animal. Almost all of them have better hearing, and better senses of smell than we do. Even if you did manage to find a way of disappearing in a puff of smoke, they would still hear you and smell you until you were at least several hundred metres off.

ROFL...you don't know much do you? This has been tested in experiments, using targets that would be masked so the animal could no longer detect it at all, then reintroduced, with exactly the results as I mentioned.

Not to mention that animals are a good deal smarter than you give them credit for. Most of them, if not all of them, have some form of memory, and they would certainly remember that you were there the instant before you disappeared, and if you happened to pop out again, they would most certainly remember that they had wanted you dead for some reason, and continue about their appointed task of making it happen.

The first one is pure instinct to continue what they're doing, hence many animals will search, though give up after some time.

They will not "remember" you in anything other than episodic memory, aka. if you kick a bull in the nuts while it can register you, it will "remember" it if it registers you again.

And even that is somewhat rare and underdeveloped in most animals, Animals will not "continue their appointed tasks" or have a "want to make you dead". They act on instincts or training. They do not have reasoning powers of that magnitude.

I have a cat that I accidentally pulled his tail one time. Nothing horrible, but enough to make him give a bit of a squawk. He remembered that incident for months, if not years.

Its called episodic memory. Even we have it...if you hit a child, it will instinctively cover itself if you raise your hand again. Even adults will do so, though they will have enough reasoning to be able to override their instincts.

This however is not the same as it somehow remembering you instantly as a target after you weren't there anymore. They do not have the advanced thought process needed for that...only a few species of mammals and birds of the highest order has the capability to do this.

I could tell by the way he acted. He has forgiven, and probably forgotten it now, but he remembered for a very long time after that it was bad news if I my hand came near his tail...

Uhm yes? Its called reacting on instinct, which again has nothing to do with disappearing.

 

[Taylor]

I disagree with the OP, but only for personal reasons. ^^

 

[Llewen]

Either way, breaking agro through invisibility makes perfect sense. Just about all animals in RL will cease aggression towards a target if the target isn't there and will not have the long term memory to directly continue aggression once the target re-appears. They will go aggressive like its a new enemy.

the other day I magic arrowed a slime in my backyard....... It was pissed, so I invised and walked away. Got a stealth gain and a magery gain.


Give me a break kids, you're arguing an un-winable fight. Give it up.

Just a bit of a reminder that I wasn't the one that introduced the "realism" card.... kid...

Even if you did manage to find a way of disappearing in a puff of smoke, they would still hear you and smell you until you were at least several hundred metres off.

ROFL...you don't know much do you? This has been tested in experiments, using targets that would be masked so the animal could no longer detect it at all, then reintroduced, with exactly the results as I mentioned.

And you are blowing smoke out your arse. Please post a link to these studies so I can go read it for myself and see how you've misinterpreted and twisted their findings, if indeed those studies even exist.

Have you ever seen what happens when pack of hounds loses the scent? They most certainly do not instantly stop worrying about their prey and start scratching their ears or humping the nearest leg. The might do that eventually, but before they do they'll spend some quality time running around trying to find the scent that they lost.

Not to mention that animals are a good deal smarter than you give them credit for. Most of them, if not all of them, have some form of memory, and they would certainly remember that you were there the instant before you disappeared, and if you happened to pop out again, they would most certainly remember that they had wanted you dead for some reason, and continue about their appointed task of making it happen.

The first one is pure instinct to continue what they're doing, hence many animals will search, though give up after some time.

They will not "remember" you in anything other than episodic memory, aka. if you kick a bull in the nuts while it can register you, it will "remember" it if it registers you again.

etc.

Beyond the fact that you completely contradicted yourself in the same post. Almost all of these Victorian assumptions about the intelligence of animals are in some way religiously based, and are being disproved in much of the more recent research into animal behaviour. And I can provide links at the very least to information on documentaries that deal with this kind of thing, and probably more than that if I spend some quality time with Google...

And back to something that is more relevant. We are in theory talking about demons, angels, dragons, wizards, etc. etc., all of whom are supposed to be geniuses in their own right. Maybe a slime would instantly forget you if happened to disappear, but one would hardly think that would be the case with a dragon that is supposedly two or three times smarter than the most brilliant human...

 

[Llewen]

I disagree with the OP, but only for personal reasons. ^^

Thank you! Honesty is so refreshing, isn't it?

 

[Tanivar]

Oh Great! Faster Monsters.

I already have to back off about 4 screens from a paragon to have time to prep a spell before it catches up and fizzles the spell. I'd say slow the damn things down.

Too fast monsters are fun-killers, not more fun.

 

[Stupid Miner]

Alright, I have too much spare time so... lets analyze the arguments! ... or rather the fallacies.
It's educational

Just a few suggestions for the a.i.

- Mobs need to move faster. I've said this before, but I'll say it again, mobs need to move faster across the board. The movement speeds for mobs were initially set a long time ago when everyone had much slower connections, much less reliable connections, and much slower computers. This small change alone would make pvm much more interesting. The fastest mobs, like paragons, should move faster than a character on foot.

No, just no. Many mobs already move fast enough or way too fast.

Just because some mobs move too fast doesn't mean that there aren't other mobs that move too slow.
(fallacy of composition: attributing the characteristics of distinct parts of a group to the entire group)

- Invisibility and hiding shouldn't break aggro. What should happen is what happens when you get on a mount that has a mob aggro'd on it. The mob should stay aggro'd on the invisible or hidden player until something else attacks it. And when a player casts invis, or uses a smoke bomb, mobs should actively "hunt" for the now hidden player. They should stay in the area, and use the detect hidden skill as some do, but they should do it more often, and more than once, and more mobs should do it, and use the reveal spell, as they do, but they should stay aggro'd so that when they reveal you they are on you like marmalade on toast...

No, not really.

Not an argument, just an opinion. Can't analyze whether it's good or bad because he doesn't make his reasoning known.

- Do something fun with the a.i. Have mobs using the reveal skill use a *sniffing* emote, or something similar. And in fact mobs should use more emotes than they currently do, why? Just for the fun of it. Have an ogre lord using the reveal skill taunt the character he is looking for, "Come out! Come out! Wherever you are!"

The few emotes there are in mob a.i. are fun, there should be more of them.

The only somewhat useful out of the suggestion. Would be an ok change.

Like the last one, this isn't an actual argument. However, if you agree with someone else's argument you don't actually need to state your reasons (though it can be useful), but can just go along with their argument.

Or maybe just log off your one-button sampire wonder.

Speculation based on an assumption... turned out to be false.

- Mobs need to move faster.

No, just no. Many mobs already move fast enough or way too fast.

You have this amazing ability to post the most ridiculous statements without twitching a comma...

He's pointing out LC's bad reasoning, but he's not explaining why it's bad reasoning. He's right, but isn't showing why he's right. He's also tossing in an irrelevant Ad Hominem (insulting the person).

- Invisibility and hiding shouldn't break aggro.

No, not really.

You've already made it clear throughout your posting history that you don't like games that are challenging in any way shape or form. And as I've posted elsewhere, when you remove the challenge from a game, you remove the fun. Using invisibility and smoke bombs to break aggro is, in my opinion, an exploitation of poorly coded, weak a.i. It's a perfectly legal exploit, but it is an exploit nonetheless.

But then, as is clear from your posting history as well, you tend to be all in favour of exploits - the more the merrier...

Not a lot of reasonable argumentation here. Arguing at the person (again, an Ad Hominem), not the argument (not like there is much of an argument).
Tossed in some needless insults which are meaningless to the argument, but makes him look bad to the audience.

You have this amazing ability to post the most ridiculous statements without twitching a comma...

No, I could never even remotely come close to you in that regard.

Another Ad Hominem.

You've already made it clear throughout your posting history that you don't like games that are challenging in any way shape or form. And as I've posted elsewhere, when you remove the challenge from a game, you remove the fun. Using invisibility and smoke bombs to break aggro is, in my opinion, an exploitation of poorly coded, weak a.i. It's a perfectly legal exploit, but it is an exploit nonetheless.

Which has clearly been proven throughout history to be blatantly false...as is your crap made up **** about my posting history. You're full of it.


Either way, breaking agro through invisibility makes perfect sense. Just about all animals in RL will cease aggression towards a target if the target isn't there and will not have the long term memory to directly continue aggression once the target re-appears. They will go aggressive like its a new enemy.

Pointing out Llewen's speculation, but adds unnecessary insults.

Second part is an actual, reasonable argument. Whether it's false or true is another discussion.

But then, as is clear from your posting history as well, you tend to be all in favour of exploits - the more the merrier...

ROFLMAO!!! You complain that I call the EC an exploit...yet you call a valid sensible game mechanic that has existed since UOs birth for an exploit???

Do you have any idea how stupid and redicilous you're sounding?

Both sides have gotten off topic and are arguing about past threads.

Without changes to the way the a.i. handles the use of invisibility spells, and smoke bombs, this change is pointless.

Not for cosmetic and atmosphere purposes.

Another reasonable argument. Not concerned with whether it's true or false though in this post.


I didn't deal with every argument.
I doubt either poster will like me much after I post this, but that's not the point.
Just because I said something doesn't mean it's right. I'm fallible too.
Also, "composition" and "ad hominem" are references to informal logical fallacies in case you're interested.
Hope you (general "you" refers to anyone reading this) learned something useful from this.

 

[Llewen]

Just because I said something doesn't mean it's right. I'm fallible too.

I don't know, admitting you're fallible is an unfair debating technique that I've used once or twice myself. And for the "ad hominem", he started it, I swear...

Oh, and I try very hard never to post anything I can't back up, so if you'd like me to post links supporting everything I said, including the "ad hominen" "fallacies", give me a couple of days, but I can do it...

 

[Lord Chaos]

He's pointing out LC's bad reasoning, but he's not explaining why it's bad reasoning. He's right, but isn't showing why he's right.

And you're pointing out he's right, without showing why he's right or making any logical argument why he should/would be right.

 

[Llewen]

He's pointing out LC's bad reasoning, but he's not explaining why it's bad reasoning. He's right, but isn't showing why he's right.

To quote Van Morrison, "Why must I always explain?"

 

[Taylor]

I disagree with the OP, but only for personal reasons. ^^

Thank you! Honesty is so refreshing, isn't it?

My biggest complaint is that you keep quoting LC. The Stratics "ignore" feature doesn't extend to quoted text. >.<

 

[Lord Chaos]

Just a bit of a reminder that I wasn't the one that introduced the "realism" card.... kid...

It was the context of your post. But your arguments makes no sense in NEITHER realistic or gamewise context.

And you are blowing smoke out your arse. Please post a link to these studies so I can go read it for myself and see how you've misinterpreted and twisted their findings, if indeed those studies even exist.

Seriously? Are you this delusional?

Amazing....simply amazing. Next you'll ask for a link to prove the letter a is a letter...jeez.

Do your own research, instead of talking about your cat.

Have you ever seen what happens when pack of hounds loses the scent? They most certainly do not instantly stop worrying about their prey and start scratching their ears or humping the nearest leg. The might do that eventually, but before they do they'll spend some quality time running around trying to find the scent that they lost.

As I ALREADY said...I said *exactly* that. This is what animals do, especially if they're trained to do so. I clearly stated that they spend some time searching the area for the prey. They are however unable to make any logical, reasoning or spatial thinking.

Beyond the fact that you completely contradicted yourself in the same post. Almost all of these Victorian assumptions about the intelligence of animals are in some way religiously based, and are being disproved in much of the more recent research into animal behaviour. And I can provide links at the very least to information on documentaries that deal with this kind of thing, and probably more than that if I spend some quality time with Google...

Uhm...lol? Religion now?

I think the only religion here is "HOLY you're grasping".

And back to something that is more relevant. We are in theory talking about demons, angels, dragons, wizards, etc. etc., all of whom are supposed to be geniuses in their own right.

Yeah...and those genius dragons and wizards spend their entire lifetime just meandering about in small rooms and doing random zig-zags in caves...real genius! Amazing.

*rollseyes*

Maybe a slime would instantly forget you if happened to disappear, but one would hardly think that would be the case with a dragon that is supposedly two or three times smarter than the most brilliant human...

A dragon in UO can hardly figure out how to move in a straight line, much less figure out how to reason.

Dragons in UO are like asperger syndrome babies.

 

[Lord Chaos]

My biggest complaint is that you keep quoting LC. The Stratics "ignore" feature doesn't extend to quoted text. >.<

Sucks to be you, huh?

Ignore feature is for wimps, lol.

 

[Kiminality]

You two should just get a room...

 

[Llewen]

My biggest complaint is that you keep quoting LC. The Stratics "ignore" feature doesn't extend to quoted text. >.<

Sorry about that, I can only imagine how hard it must be...

Amazing....simply amazing. Next you'll ask for a link to prove the letter a is a letter...jeez.

Do your own research, instead of talking about your cat.

Contradictions, twists, turns, this doesn't work so let's try something else, maybe if I say this they'll believe it, just because it's so outrageous, no, I've convinced myself it's true, did not! did too! ooo, I like the way he did that, I'll try it to, I bet he won't know what to say if I throw it back in his face, lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Yes, do my own research, or better yet, make some up, or draw on the out dated assumptions and presumptions of the 19th century British Empire. Or I could actually try to make a point by drawing on my real world experience, which is, co-incidentally, as I already said, supported by much of the more recent research into animal behaviour.

Here's just one example of the kind of thing I am talking about. This has to do with crows, not cats, but the point is that animal behaviour is much more complex than we have imagined until recently, and we are not quite as unique as we have assumed we are in the past...

 

[Beer_Cayse]

in other words, another Llewen/LC p*ssing contest? And I've also noted that one party seems to disagree with the other more than the reverse.

 

[Stupid Miner]

And you're pointing out he's right, without showing why he's right or making any logical argument why he should/would be right.

I actually did, it was my first response:

Just because some mobs move too fast doesn't mean that there aren't other mobs that move too slow.
(fallacy of composition: attributing the characteristics of distinct parts of a group to the entire group)

Had I said "he's right" and gave no reasoning for that claim, then you'd be correct.

 

[Stupid Miner]

in other words, another Llewen/LC p*ssing contest? And I've also noted that one party seems to disagree with the other more than the reverse.

There are legitimate claims on both sides, but there's also a bunch of garbage too.
Shouldn't chuck the entire issue, but it's useful to be able to identify and mentally cut out the irrelevancies.

 

[Lord Chaos]

And you're pointing out he's right, without showing why he's right or making any logical argument why he should/would be right.

I actually did, it was my first response:

Just because some mobs move too fast doesn't mean that there aren't other mobs that move too slow.
(fallacy of composition: attributing the characteristics of distinct parts of a group to the entire group)

Had I said "he's right" and gave no reasoning for that claim, then you'd be correct.

Except you are still incorrect. Llewen said "across the board", meaning all mobs. So that can be logically countered by even a small group that shouldn't be. I did not attribute the characteristics on the entire group, llewen did.

 

[Lord Chaos]

Yes, do my own research, or better yet, make some up, or draw on the out dated assumptions and presumptions of the 19th century British Empire.

LOL?

First you bring in religion, then 19th century british empire?

This is all modern day science.

Or I could actually try to make a point by drawing on my real world experience, which is, co-incidentally, as I already said, supported by much of the more recent research into animal behaviour.

Again, LOL?

You haven't said anything thats supported by any recent proper research or what you're saying is SUPPORTING what I am saying. Heck your own example with the dogs supports *my* post and argument, not yours. Nice going.

Here's just one example of the kind of thing I am talking about. This has to do with crows, not cats, but the point is that animal behaviour is much more complex than we have imagined until recently, and we are not quite as unique as we have assumed we are in the past...

Oh hey...look here...a crow is...tada!!! A BIRD

As I clearly said earlier:

only a few species of mammals and birds of the highest order has the capability to do this.

The article is in complete agreement with me.

Thanks for playing, kiddo. Checkmate.

 

[Stupid Miner]

Except you are still incorrect. Llewen said "across the board", meaning all mobs. So that can be logically countered by even a small group that shouldn't be. I did not attribute the characteristics on the entire group, llewen did.

Precisely! A very good example of what I meant when I said:
"Just because I said something doesn't mean it's right. I'm fallible too."

I didn't read both posts through thoroughly as you've shown.

But now you're making good, reasonable arguments for your position.
(well at least against me, not so much against Llewen... still)

 

[Lord Chaos]

Well, nice to see you're only a stupid miner in name, not in intelligence and reasoning.

 

[Llewen]

As I clearly said earlier:

only a few species of mammals and birds of the highest order has the capability to do this.

The article is in complete agreement with me.

Thanks for playing, kiddo. Checkmate.

Hardly checkmate, you made one point. Nicely done, "kiddo". Something that has little to do with the original topic at any rate. I did miss you saying that, however, I also think that is a 19th century fallacy. Check back with me in 50 years, if I'm still alive and the planet doesn't get fried by a gigantic alien death ray in December 2012.

A lot more will be known about animal behaviour by then hopefully, and I'm thinking we are on the verge of discovering that a lot of the emotions, and basic reasoning abilities that we attribute only to humans and "mammals and birds of the highest order" (whatever the hell that means), are present in many more species than we ever dreamt of.

But really this is a complete rabbit trail. The point is that many of the mobs in game are supposed to be intelligent, and many of them more intelligent than humans. That they would instantly forget someone attacking them who has disappeared, is patently ridiculous.

The a.i. coding when it comes to that specifically is horribly weak and flawed, and has been exploited from day one in UO, and it should be changed. That's my opinion, and one of the three main points of this thread. Whether or not crows or marmots have the ability to remember anything or not is completely beside the point.

 

[Evlar]

Hey, this is a lively debate going nowhere fast!

So...

CLASSIC SHARD NOW!

There we go, said it, you may continue with the "debate" now.

Thanks

 

[Babble]

Would that be a classic shard with classic AI?
I loved the non pathfinding earth elementals in shame. Easier targets to train archery

 

[Beer_Cayse]

I should not have to think in here ... I want thoughts handed to me fully realized and justified. After all is that not what we expect from the Dev Team?

Okay - end of sarcasm and your point is taken.

 

[Jhym]

I disagree. Faster doesn't mean better in ANY sense of the word. It just means they can chase you down and beat you with a stick, instead of waving at you from a distance.

I would be on board for ACTUAL a.i. changes. i.e. more spell and skill combinations; cost analysis (is it worth it for captain Mongbat to fight a 5xLegendary Mage? Even an idiot knows when to shut up and when to run) ; ganging/grouping -- why can't monsters party up and go after hummies?

I also think most monsters that have more than 50 int should be able to converse using NPC speak. I also think they should react according to your karma/fame levels as well. And they should crave battles that improve their standing.

Something I'd find FUN:

I go into a dungeon with my friend, Legendary Cook, Dread Lady Teniqua. I am a fair to middling fighter, no titles yet. We get in and start wandering around Destard, running into a dragon fairly quickly. He *glares at us*, then "You are not worthy of being crapped upon, let alone fighting." and turns and wanders off.

Now, Teniqua is quite annoyed, and stamps her dainty foot while screeching at the dragon "Get your fool ass back here and fight me, you brown lizard-wannabe." I try to calm her down, but she isn't having it. The dragon continues to ignore us.

She finally is pissed enough and can't stand it. Pissing off a Legendary cook doesn't mean much, but a Legendary cook/sorceress? Hmmm...

Suddenly mister huffy dragon is surrounded by 2 vortexes, is shaking under an earthquake, and has lightning flying around his eyes. He gets frightened, since he's not exactly a top drawer dragon, and calls for help.

Nearby two drakes return the call, flying over to join in fighting. Another dragon swings by, but obviously doesn't see it worth her time and leaves.

After the carnage is done, one drake has flown off, being far more realistic than its friend; the dragon and drake are dead, and Teniqua is more relaxed.

Two more dragons wander by, but turn tail and run as soon as they see her.

Another older dragon appears, but nods at her. "Lady Teniqua, the Ancient has taken note of you; you should be cautious." With that, the dragon flies off, unwilling to fight her.

-------------------

You may scoff, but all that is possible with some artful coding. The dragon and drakes all analyze what they can see of those to fight: they have eval int, they also may have animal lore. They can do a check, determine if you're smarter/stronger than a certain amount, and then decide whether to attack, talk, run, alarm, or run and warn. Depending on the creature's int and hp, perhaps some of those capabilities are less able to be used (slimes are not at all likely to talk, but potentially could alarm.)
Then as the encounter continues, the creatures attempt to deal with the situation as best they can, until they decide they can't handle it -- in which case their int, skill level and perhaps fame decide their course of action.

A famed dragon is not likely to run off just because you are more than you seemed -- however, it is not stupid and if you take it down by half or more will likely prefer to get away or call for help. An orc is far more likely to run off when hurt, but if he knows he is in orcish territory he will be very likely to do a help call if you or your party look dangerous.


To me, THAT is good AI change. Not making them faster.

 

[Llewen]

To me, THAT is good AI change. Not making them faster.

Well it's hard to disagree with any of that. That kind of thing would be spectacular, and so UO. However, I was thinking in baby steps about a simple change that would make the a.i. more challenging, and a small boost in mob speed would I think be a good thing. Now if they start rejigging the speed of each mob individually, that would be the best thing, but that would be a lot of work, and I was trying to keep things simple.

An orc is far more likely to run off when hurt...

Which was one of the reasons why I was suggesting this change. Mobs do "run" when they are seriously hurt, but only when they are almost dead and can only move at a crawl, and all they do is wander around aimlessly while you finish them off. With movement speeds as they are, any kind of true mob conflict avoidance behaviour is worthless. A deer can't outrun a player character in full plate weighted down with 300 stones of gold and crap, on foot. It's ridiculous.

Deer should run away, and they should run away fast. Rabbits, should take off like, well, rabbits.

 

[Lord Chaos]

More mob speed would simply make the mobs easier for melee/tamer classes, while harder for casting/ranged classes.

A sampire for instance has to be standing right next to the mob, so what does it help that the mob can move faster? It makes it move faster in one place or what?

Give it up, your suggestion there is silly.

 

[Llewen]

Give it up, your suggestion there is silly.

Thank you for your typical stunning use of logic, and your typical positive input to this thread. If you can't see how faster mobs makes them more challenging for every class, I can't help you.

 

[Dol'Gorath]

Thank you for your typical stunning use of logic, and your typical positive input to this thread. If you can't see how faster mobs makes them more challenging for every class, I can't help you.

It's not more challenging as much as annoying for certain classes that can be interrupted like mages. Faster isn't an AI improvement, scripted casting and intelligent casting AI's [like faction guards] are a better thing.
It's like being railroaded by a paragon and being dead before you can react, it's not fun.

 

[puni666]

Guess what Sunshine? I've never created or played a sampire in my over seven years of playing UO. But you are right, sampires are in serious need of a hard smack with the nerf bat, but that is ot for this thread.

Yep! They need a major nerfing! That's part of the reason I was purposing a double mana cost for bushi/ninja combat spells just like a normal special move that's being spammed.

Only thing I don't like about mob is the insane speed they cast at, and you can't see the power words while they're casting. It's terrible for timing!

Oh and barracoon just sits there and takes everything with out a struggle if you're on a mage or archer. It's kind of silly that he's not an archer. At least he'd be able to fight back... some champ he is!

 

[GarthGrey]

Or maybe just log off your one-button sampire wonder.

THIS

 

[CatLord]

It would be fun to see the monsters do weapon specials... even if random ones...

 

[GarthGrey]

Tweak the Monster AI as it pertains to communication.This alone would make PvM so much more enjoyable. Liches can spam that ridiculous laugh over and over but you can't code in a few insults? The best you guys could ever do was, "Oh, me die !! " ????..but the speeds are just fine.

 

[Sevin0oo0]

- Invisibility and hiding shouldn't break aggro. Least ways w/ hiding, it also takes you out of war mode. which is irritating as heck, adding an extra click.
most mobs move about the same speed as a pack animal, exc when they get near death & suddenly gain close to paragon speed, that'
s crap.I've seen many that retained aggro,even after hiding several times, wth?
Better path finding for all would be appreciated

 

[Llewen]

Thank you for your typical stunning use of logic, and your typical positive input to this thread. If you can't see how faster mobs makes them more challenging for every class, I can't help you.

It's not more challenging as much as annoying for certain classes that can be interrupted like mages. Faster isn't an AI improvement, scripted casting and intelligent casting AI's [like faction guards] are a better thing.
It's like being railroaded by a paragon and being dead before you can react, it's not fun.

Well, if you made them faster, then you could do things like have them follow casting rules including being interrupted and all the range rules without making their magery useless in combat. And then you could also add intelligent casting, so that fighting them would be more like fighting a player, and less completely random.

Power words for npc mages would be a good thing, but I'm not sure about other magical mobs. It might be fun to see an entirely new spell system for mobs that don't use language and movements to cast spells. Some kind of channelling system with different spells and spell effects. But now I'm getting way out there.

But you do raise a valid point, you couldn't increase speed without reworking just about everything to do with the a.i. So it wouldn't be as simple as I hoped it would be.