Yes, I believe they got a lot right with that AI in that type of game, some of the devs on metro are the same that worked on Stalker series, even one of the devs working on Escape from Tarkov now. Too bad the company was closed and the X-ray engine not updated anymore (the program the stalker games were built on, Metro used 4a engine and the new Metro will use a version of 4a from what I've heard) The AI there were also very nice in my opinion, but they had to make a trade off at least in Stalker. The A.I. had different states, like alerted or just patrolling, and I think the trade off was made in that when the bots were alerted they kind of knew where you was at all times, making it more fun to fight them if you wanted a challenge, but less different ways to approach after they got alerted, as they would all shot your direction with aggression at max.
The comparison can be difficult to make between games like Metro and Insurgency Sandstorm because of how different the size and type of games they are (single- vs multiplayer), and the scripting I mentioned earlier. Have a look at the A.I in Escape from Tarkov (a more similar game in comparison with Ins sandstorm), it does not seem more impressive? Though I don't own the game, only seen footage, the bots seem to be quite easy to take out and not being routed to play smarter moves. I guess that in multiplayer focused games there is not any other A.I. that actually plays a lot better than in Sandstom, not from what I have seen anyway.
Reaction time on bots is just one of the numbers they can adjust to change difficulty, and I have yet to see an example from a similar game with better routing for the bots - They could probably make the bots stay closer to cover and hide more in bushes, don't walk in groups, make them lean and such, but I don't know what the cost would be on the performance. All this kind of stuff costs more strain on the system when the operations get more complex, and they might have decided on current solution to have a balance between quality of bots and quality of gameplay. I have not seen any articles on the subject.
They could probably make the bots stay closer to cover and hide more in bushes, don't walk in groups, make them lean and such
Honestly just this would already be loads better. The point is, which a bunch of people have already made, is that the AI behavior is the same as ins2, so in 4 years, the only thing NWI has seemingly done is place some bots in the corners of objectives to wait for you. At least a little bit of individual bot behavior. I mean come on! It's been 4 years!
I think the bots already do this. It is stated also in the patch change-log also. They may do this more seldom because many people distract the AI into different stances. I haven't tried the bushes, but if it's anything like Arma3 it would work really well. I don't know whether or not bots can see through bushes I haven't tried sneaking like that. Worth noting! I want to see them hide in bushes too.
I think the bots already do this.
Even if it was in a change log, I'm not seeing it in game at all. Implementing levels of arousal in bots as well as giving them basic cover-seeking behavior when fired upon can't be that difficult and would add loads to the coop gameplay.
Not too difficult in singleplayer games, was done in the F.E.A.R game back in 2005, you can read about how they did it in this link named Three States and a Plan: The A.I. of F.E.A.R.
In multiplayer it is apparently a lot more difficult to make it work well, as @Zafer states, it should already be implemented if it is present in the change log, but it will be difficult to notice when a lot of players attract the attention of the bots.
Also this article: (D)evolution Of AI In Video Games was interesting in regards to why bots in video games don't evolve that much.
I'm saying you'll want that 3rd panel next (even if you don't know it yet) because if you get what you want and the 2nd panel gets implemented you'll STILL be bitching and moaning that "I shot the guy first but somehow I died" and then try to foster support for ANY hit to down someone. That's basically your argument now...
You're welcome to quote any post on this forum that wants the rightmost panel (you will not find any).
Don't mind if I do!
Found one of your posts where you're basically ALREADY arguing for 3rd panel hitboxes. In this quote you're idealizing the ability to hit someone ONCE (no location specified...which means it could have been an arm or leg) and they would die. You talk about it like it was "The good 'ol days".
Reminder that in Insurgency2014 a rifle with no AP ammo could 1 shot an unarmored enemy
Reminder that in Sandstorm a rifle (with no AP ammo) can not 1 shot an unarmored enemy
Disregarding both AP and armor their core gameplay has changed for the worse.
Tell me again how you'll never make arguments for the 3rd panel? You already have! ROFL. Should I continue my search? That one only took me 30 seconds to find...
Found another one. Here you're arguing that ALL guns should be 1-hit kill, because (in your mind) that would somehow make the game better.
Colour me surprised! Who would have thought that people would naturally choose the guns that kill in 1 shot over the over the guns that don't?
When all the guns can kill in 1 shot, damage doesn't even become a factor in weapon balance and this increases weapon variety because people will choose a gun that suits their playstyle rather than the highest damaging gun such as the G3 and FAL. I already knew the FAL was being used much more commonly over the other Insurgent Advisor weapons because of this.
So...to recap. Your idea of "good" game balance is to make ALL guns 1-hit-kill, regardless of distance, or hit location? If anything really shows just how flawed your logic and motivation is, I'd say it's this quote. I'm curious what sort of mental-gymnastics you had to go through to convince yourself THAT would make the game more fun, or better...
See, multiple times these CS:GOons on this forum automatically think when people say they want "1 hit kill" they mean for the whole body - this is wrong. If they actually played Insurgency2014 they would know when we say "we want 1 hit kill" we refer to the head and the chest+stomach (like Insurgency2014 (and Day of Infamy)). We don't specify because we assume people who actually want to play the sequel actually are already familiar with the prequel game and know what we mean.
While HP ammo could kill in 1 shot to the limbs it was rarely used and hardly effective - the gameplay was centered around AP and it's 1 shot kill gunplay. I only ever saw HP being used on the sidearm Makarov and being shot at the legs of enemies.
I guess I should be even more specific from now on.
HP ammo on a rifle can 1 shot everywhere on an unarmored enemy. If the enemy has light or heavy armor then it become quite bad, taking up to 5(?) shots to kill on an enemy with heavy armor. Probably lower than 5 shots with a 7.62 weapon with HP.
AP ammo on a rifle can 1 shot on the head, chest, and stomach for an unarmored enemy, a light armored enemy and a heavy armored enemy. AP ammo on a rifle cannot 1 shot the limbs of an enemy.
no ammo on a rifle can 1 shot an unarmored enemy to the head, chest and stomach. If the enemy has light or heavy armor it cannot 1 shot the chest and stomach. No ammo does more damage to limbs than AP ammo does but I don't think it is enough to kill an enemy in 1 shot by hitting them in the limbs
You will find that in Insurgency2014 the majority of the gameplay was centered around the second point: AP ammo. This type of gunplay is what Sandstorm should be and it can be even without AP ammo in the game. They just need to change the weapon damage to make them more lethal.
Then we have armor, which is no longer countered and is currently a "pick because no downsides" (apart from supply cost). Armor should also be changed alongside the weapon damage.
@Slazenger So your response to me finding actual quotes from you basically asking for 3rd panel already is to say "Oh no no no. When I say "I want 1 hit kills all around and every gun should kill in one shot" I ACTUALLY meant "only in the head+chest+stomach"?
That's some delusional-level bullshit rationale/back-tracking right there.
"I didn't mean what I said, officer! I meant what I expected you to know what I meant I said!" "Stop getting mad at me for what I ACTUALLY said, and start believing that what I said actually meant something completely different!"
We don't specify because we assume people who actually want to play the sequel actually are already familiar with the prequel game and know what we mean.
Tell me again what kind of people should "just know" that? https://gyazo.com/efcde41aef601c272d2fe503704954b9
When I say "I want 1 hit kills all around and every gun should kill in one shot" I ACTUALLY meant "only in the head+chest+stomach"?
Yes. The latter quote being for rifles and above calibers. Submachine guns and pistols don't need to kill in 1 shot but can be balanced by other weapon properties to make them competitive to the rifles and good for certain situations and playstyles (like Insurgency2014).
Yea... and when I say "I'm only into THICC chicks" you're just supposed to KNOW that I mean 170lbs tops... "
Get real dude. Stop trying to pretend what you literally said isn't what you literally meant. You threw down a challenge that "I would not find any" posts where you called for panel 3, and I immediately found multiple quotes in which you're basically calling for panel 3.
Stop trying to re-write history.