I would be interested in an NPC AI buff in WvW. How about you?

[Justine.6351]

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Justine.6351 said:They function fine as a hazard to players.Anet could give them a damage buff to siege though.

They DONT function fine as a hazard to players. I can solo most of them with Healing power gear on my Revenant. Thats not fine. A buff to damage to siege wont do anything since they already easily fall and wont even make it to the siege to attack it. They need better AI.

They literally spam cc...

And they are not meant to replace players. Wish you could understand that and stop suggesting stuff like this and PvE bosses like giant hydras and stuff.

[Knighthonor.4061]

@Justine.6351 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Justine.6351 said:They function fine as a hazard to players.Anet could give them a damage buff to siege though.

They DONT function fine as a hazard to players. I can solo most of them with Healing power gear on my Revenant. Thats not fine. A buff to damage to siege wont do anything since they already easily fall and wont even make it to the siege to attack it. They need better AI.

They literally spam cc...

And they are not meant to replace players. Wish you could understand that and stop suggesting stuff like this and PvE bosses like giant hydras and stuff.

WvW was never meant to have mounts either but things change. Would be nice if you could realize that new design changes can happen.

[sephiroth.4217]

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:I can't even get casuals in WvW to do that stuff, and you want NPCs to? LOL.

I dont get whats so funny...A script written that runs on autopilot or essentially NPCs with a directive to run said seige should be more reliable than casuals I imagine? Id say it would be good to add to the outnumbered buff.

Im on the fence about it but would prefer Devs to finish Swiss and Alliances before doing stuff like this.Not only do they already have a big workload but Alliances will change everything and making changes before that is redundant.

[Kylden Ar.3724]

@Straegen.2938 said:The npc buff I would respond mostly to is the targeting AI. I can be around 20 friendlies and all the NPCs single me out. I am the one getting blinded, immobilized, knocked down, etc and nobody else is sharing in that misery. Run past a tower, all the archers are pounding me. I am on siege off to the side and some player picks on the guards, they all run over to me instead of responding to the player starting the attack.

Whatever flag I have flipped in the AI to pick me over everyone else, I would love to see unflipped.

Less toughness in your stats. AI aggros based on toughness.

[TinkTinkPOOF.9201]

@sephiroth.4217 said:

@TinkTinkPOOF.9201 said:I can't even get casuals in WvW to do that stuff, and you want NPCs to? LOL.

I dont get whats so funny...A script written that runs on autopilot or essentially NPCs with a directive to run said seige should be more reliable than casuals I imagine? Id say it would be good to add to the outnumbered buff.

Im on the fence about it but would prefer Devs to finish Swiss and Alliances before doing stuff like this.Not only do they already have a big workload but Alliances will change everything and making changes before that is redundant.

Its funny in that if people can't be bothered to respond, or learn the game mode and how to use siege etc etc, they do not deserve to keep the structure. This adds even MORE passive protection to what has been an ever creeping passive buff to WvW that kills roaming and havoc teams.

Guards, siege, tactics, watchtower, swords on capture points, warclaw for ungodly fast response times. As someone who solo caps often because most people can't be bothered to leave the zerg to respond to one person, when capping a south tower, I will often have to kill the same people 3-5 times depending on if they show up before the wall goes down. I mean props to that one dude for trying over and over again, but if you can't kill me with the help of guards, Lord and buffs and no one else wants to come help, thats not my fault. Adding things like this only reinforces the mindset of balling up.

[Doug.4930]

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Justine.6351 said:They function fine as a hazard to players.Anet could give them a damage buff to siege though.

They DONT function fine as a hazard to players. I can solo most of them with Healing power gear on my Revenant. Thats not fine. A buff to damage to siege wont do anything since they already easily fall and wont even make it to the siege to attack it. They need better AI.

Actually it is fine. I'm not in WvW to fight "challenging" PvE. PvE should be nothing but an obstacle to delay the enemy and give defenders time to respond. I play WvW because I detest PvE. Please don't make me PvE in WvW any more than I absolutely have too.

Having them use siege however could be a good idea. On the fence about that one though.

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Justine.6351 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Justine.6351 said:They function fine as a hazard to players.Anet could give them a damage buff to siege though.

They DONT function fine as a hazard to players. I can solo most of them with Healing power gear on my Revenant. Thats not fine. A buff to damage to siege wont do anything since they already easily fall and wont even make it to the siege to attack it. They need better AI.

They literally spam cc...

And they are not meant to replace players. Wish you could understand that and stop suggesting stuff like this and PvE bosses like giant hydras and stuff.

WvW was never meant to have mounts either but things change. Would be nice if you could realize that new design changes can happen.

You might have trouble winning people over by including mounts, which in many peoples opinion including my own were one of the worst possible things ever added to WvW in the history of the game. Hand on my heart I would delete my quip if the side product of doing so deleted mounts from WvW.

[Knighthonor.4061]

@Doug.4930 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Justine.6351 said:They function fine as a hazard to players.Anet could give them a damage buff to siege though.

They DONT function fine as a hazard to players. I can solo most of them with Healing power gear on my Revenant. Thats not fine. A buff to damage to siege wont do anything since they already easily fall and wont even make it to the siege to attack it. They need better AI.

Actually it is fine. I'm not in WvW to fight "challenging" PvE. PvE should be nothing but an obstacle to delay the enemy and give defenders time to respond. I play WvW because I detest PvE. Please don't make me PvE in WvW any more than I absolutely have too.

Having them use siege however could be a good idea. On the fence about that one though.

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Justine.6351 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Justine.6351 said:They function fine as a hazard to players.Anet could give them a damage buff to siege though.

They DONT function fine as a hazard to players. I can solo most of them with Healing power gear on my Revenant. Thats not fine. A buff to damage to siege wont do anything since they already easily fall and wont even make it to the siege to attack it. They need better AI.

They literally spam cc...

And they are not meant to replace players. Wish you could understand that and stop suggesting stuff like this and PvE bosses like giant hydras and stuff.

WvW was never meant to have mounts either but things change. Would be nice if you could realize that new design changes can happen.

You might have trouble winning people over by including mounts, which in many peoples opinion including my own were one of the worst possible things ever added to WvW in the history of the game. Hand on my heart I would delete my quip if the side product of doing so deleted mounts from WvW.

Well you have SPvP for that. I am here in WvW for the PvPvE element which it was always marketed as. SPvP is there if you want pure Pvp with little to no NPCs.

[acdspydar.8920]

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@"acdspydar.8920" said:There's alot that can go wrong with that, but I do think it's ridiculous that a solo player can walk into any objective and capture it assuming no skilled players show up to contest.

People keep saying a lot can go wrong. But like what? Anything can have bugs, raids can have bugs, that dont stop them from being added to the game. Bugs can be fixed. We talking about design of gameplay here. What can go wrong in that aspect?

Better AI NPCs can play better defense of structures adding another level of gameplay to the game. Few people stick around for defense now days. Having NPC allies that can use sieges to attack enemies make them anothet threat that enemy factions have to deal with.

So it's more than just bugs. We're talking straight up mechanics. Can the NPC take siege? What if the NPC decides to stay on siege instead of contesting the objective? What if they contest too soon and die? What if NPC makes the wrong choice? Then it becomes "ANet!! Why are my NPCs kitten?!?" Not to mention, can they kick you off of siege/can you kick them off? There's plenty of variables I could spend all night listing, but in conclusion, where will the limits be set? They're already susceptible to player damage to point of being solo'd. So if they operate siege, maybe they'll be a bit stronger against a player that can't reach them on that arrow cart. So, player builds counter siege. The problem goes back to either "with no player to defend it's lost" or "NPCs can build siege spontaneously". Option 2 can lead to madness... Siege capped bc the NPC notices there's room for Arrow Carts on the wall -siege capped- and then "ANet, your bots!!!!" Meanwhile, they've spent how much time on NPC buffs when they could add defense event chests that give out things like memories of battle/badges of honor/heroics/currency/reward track potions/literally kitten anything useful to persuade more defensive initiative. Sure buffing the NPCs stats (levels, attributes, and reflex) would be nice, but I think that's as far as it goes.

[Doug.4930]

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Doug.4930 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Justine.6351 said:They function fine as a hazard to players.Anet could give them a damage buff to siege though.

They DONT function fine as a hazard to players. I can solo most of them with Healing power gear on my Revenant. Thats not fine. A buff to damage to siege wont do anything since they already easily fall and wont even make it to the siege to attack it. They need better AI.

Actually it is fine. I'm not in WvW to fight "challenging" PvE. PvE should be nothing but an obstacle to delay the enemy and give defenders time to respond. I play WvW because I detest PvE. Please don't make me PvE in WvW any more than I absolutely have too.

Having them use siege however could be a good idea. On the fence about that one though.

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Justine.6351 said:

@Knighthonor.4061 said:

@Justine.6351 said:They function fine as a hazard to players.Anet could give them a damage buff to siege though.

They DONT function fine as a hazard to players. I can solo most of them with Healing power gear on my Revenant. Thats not fine. A buff to damage to siege wont do anything since they already easily fall and wont even make it to the siege to attack it. They need better AI.

They literally spam cc...

And they are not meant to replace players. Wish you could understand that and stop suggesting stuff like this and PvE bosses like giant hydras and stuff.

WvW was never meant to have mounts either but things change. Would be nice if you could realize that new design changes can happen.

You might have trouble winning people over by including mounts, which in many peoples opinion including my own were one of the worst possible things ever added to WvW in the history of the game. Hand on my heart I would delete my quip if the side product of doing so deleted mounts from WvW.

Well you have SPvP for that. I am here in WvW for the PvPvE element which it was always marketed as. SPvP is there if you want pure Pvp with little to no NPCs.

Thats fair enough different people like different things. However I still disagree that WvW should ever be focused on PvE content. I see WvW as an open world PvP mode with some PvE aspect sprinked over. Which is why I could be convinced with NPC's using built siege, but am certainly against any sort of PvE buff. WvW should be about open world PvP where PvE should play an extremely minor role.

[Optimator.3589]

No. Not because I'm against the idea per se, but because it'd be a waste of developer time better spent on more pressing issues. Like alliances, or more likely, gem store junk.

[joneirikb.7506]

I would like to see guards focused more around objectives, less elsewhere. And then make them work better as defenders of that objective. The idea is to have them work well as a defensive force for an objective, but not really interact with the map otherwise.

Including having more archer npc's on the walls, a own tanky group with aoe CC behind the door, using siege, heck even slowly repair or rebuild the cannons/mortar/oil and use them.

I'd also like to see the guards themselves have better builds that support each others, and have more scaling attacks so they can actually make a slight dent in a huge zerg. And yes properly scaling lords for all objectives with more appropriate abilities to deal with numbers.

I'd like to see less guards wandering around outside off objectives though, perhaps even removing the scouts, caravan guards, and probably reduce the wandering patrol guards outside of walls (and rather let archers on the walls shoot down siege, hint fix targeting so they can aim straight down).

Still want more of the PVP lobby dummy AI scripts used, though they would likely need to be adopted to own WvW builds to work properly there.

---

That being said, as much as I'd like to see this done, I think there are other things that needs the limited WvW-Resources first.