DICE confirms AI bots are returning in Battlefield 6 to fill empty servers | Won't switch to Unreal Engine 5

IbizaPocholo

IbizaPocholo

NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
insider-gaming.com

Battlefield 6 Servers Will Use Bots If Not Enough Players

In order to keep matches going and fill up servers, DICE and EA will use AI bots in Battlefield 6 multiplayer games.
insider-gaming.com insider-gaming.com

DICE has confirmed that AI soldiers (bots) will return in Battlefield 6. If servers aren't full, bots will automatically fill the gaps to keep matches populated. This is part of their core design philosophy — to make sure as many players as possible can be in-game and playing at the same time.
Click to expand...



Thanks, mods, for the title change.
 
Last edited:
I'd prefer a proper server browser so I can just pick a server myself instead of needing their match making non-sense with these bots as stand-ins. I didn't play 2042, but the bots were supposed to be not terrible. Still, hopefully it's something server hosts can disable.
 
ZehDon said:
I'd prefer a proper server browser so I can just pick a server myself instead of needing their match making non-sense with these bots as stand-ins. I didn't play 2042, but the bots were supposed to be not terrible. Still, hopefully it's something server hosts can disable.
Click to expand...
I understand MM, I play games with both, and with a server browser, people will generally connect to mostly full servers. If they can't find a full enough server, they just won't play. I'm one of those people. Not going to play 2v2 conquest on a huge map waiting for people to join. Or servers that have a min player limit for a match to start, so you just sit there unable to do anything, rather than just waiting in a queue. MM can probably load balance to only have mostly full matches. When you're on a good server though, man it's great.
 
source.gif
 
Kenpachii said:
Give us a browser with players in it, fuck off with bots. I wanna play against real people not maps 80% filled with bots.
Click to expand...

? I don't think you're getting 80% bots. They are there if spots are needed which I highly doubt will be an issue given the current popularity of the game prior to release.
 
Last edited:
The scary part is that in the future, they might have bots that can actually even text chat or who knows, voice chat, and act like actual players, to make it seem like the game really is alive :messenger_dizzy:
I think there should be an option to not play with bots, and if you play with bots, make that the bots are at least easily identifiable.
 
Larxia said:
The scary part is that in the future, they might have bots that can actually even text chat or who knows, voice chat, and act like actual players, to make it seem like the game really is alive
Click to expand...
I have literally wanted this exact thing since the original Perfect Dark on the N64.

So many, many older games out there could be revived with a system like that instead of bots being what they currently are now, which are rigid and obvious.

The powers that be are wasting A.I. on stupid crap like flooding twitter, reddit, and youtube comments. Not a single one is out there is saying "hey, what if we used it on multiplayer games to make them act as player-like as possible, in order to emulate a lost experience (like an old MMO community) or provide a realistic experience of difficulty for PvP"
 
Totally fine with that, hopefully they're better/smarter than their BF2042 counterparts.

Although in recent games, me and the buddies were really suspicious of some "non-AI" named players, behaving like bots... But almost, better bots. Still, showing really weird behavior.
 
Good , long wait times suck. Bots are a natural solution to this. Obviously playing with humans would be better, but if there aren't enough or it takes too long to find a match then this solution is OK imo.
 
No way. This goes against the whole point of multiplayer games. I'd rather get wrecked by sweaty opponents in empty 10-player servers than kill a dumb computer.
 
Perfect solution to every online game, especially in later stages of its lifetime. Reduced waiting times are already nice when it still has many humans, but getting even one round going within minutes of waiting in pratically abandoned games needs bots. Bots and a p2p fallback could easily preserve all online games forever, make server shutdowns unnecessary. Bascially turn it into an offline mode if you are the only player.
 
"This is part of their core design philosophy — to make sure as many players as possible can be in-game and playing at the same time."

Um, but bots are not players though, are they?
 
ChoosableOne said:
No way. This goes against the whole point of multiplayer games. I'd rather get wrecked by sweaty opponents in empty 10-player servers than kill a dumb computer.
Click to expand...

The match just wont start until the server has 16 players.
So those 10 players will sit there doing nothing till 16 players are in the server to make an 8 v 8.........its very possible to sit in the empty server effectively forever as players keep leaving and rejoining so the match never starts.\

Bots filling in the blanks can atleast let the match actually start so anyone who joins stays instead of re-searching for the exact same match delaying the countdown.

When gamemodes die out dem bots will be a godsend, especially if there are mode specific challenges.
 
So can I just play with bots, like I could in Battlefield 1942, Vietnam and Battlefield 2?

Edit: Yes, I had a lot of fun just playing with bots in Battlefield. And I believe that I would have more fun just playing with bots (and maybe a couple of friends) than just playing with random people because everyone is fucking tryharding nowadays in FPS games like these, and it's fucking annoying.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind bots per se, had tons of fun with them in 1942 and Vietnam and I wish we had them for Bad Company 2 and the likes so that we could still play those games offline today.
With this said I don't appreciate them being forced in online matchmaking, every day I'm more convinced the portal server browser will be my way to play this game, I just hope the community engages with it.
 
The engine question was a dumb one.

DICE is not going to abandon Frostbite for Battlefield. I would say I hope EA stops their "Frostbite for everything" mandate, but seeing as all their sports games are using it, I don't think that's happening. At least in the Sports realm.

Forcing Bioware to use it for Andromeda, Anthem, and Veilguard probably didn't help with the other issues the studio though lol.

I wish I could see how the question was asked because the answer references "generic engine", but the article spells out Unreal Engine 5.

Lots of reasons not to switch to UE5. But you can't use destruction as a reason when The Finals exist and you can level pretty much any building in that.

Having said that, Frostbite probably does the exact kind of destruction DICE wants just fine.
 
Loomy said:
The engine question was a dumb one.

DICE is not going to abandon Frostbite for Battlefield. I would say I hope EA stops their "Frostbite for everything" mandate, but seeing as all their sports games are using it, I don't think that's happening. At least in the Sports realm.

Forcing Bioware to use it for Andromeda, Anthem, and Veilguard probably didn't help with the other issues the studio though lol.

I wish I could see how the question was asked because the answer references "generic engine", but the article spells out Unreal Engine 5.

Lots of reasons not to switch to UE5. But you can't use destruction as a reason when The Finals exist and you can level pretty much any building in that.

Having said that, Frostbite probably does the exact kind of destruction DICE wants just fine.
Click to expand...
I never played it but as an outsider to me it looked like Frostbite was the least of Veilguard's problems. By all accounts tech wise the game was pretty good, it was everything else that was problematic.

Frostbite will never be discontinued or deprioritized by EA as long as FIFA keeps using it.
 
Larxia said:
The scary part is that in the future, they might have bots that can actually even text chat or who knows, voice chat, and act like actual players, to make it seem like the game really is alive :messenger_dizzy:
I think there should be an option to not play with bots, and if you play with bots, make that the bots are at least easily identifiable.
Click to expand...

- Hey can u send feet pic plz, thx. 🤖
 
Isn't the game crossplay and max 64 players on the biggest map?

If it was something like MAG it would make more sense.
 
I never liked this, it defeats the purpose of playing online. Playing with a reduced player count is always better than having bots on the server.
 
Dumb idea, who the hell wants to play with bots in a MP game? Hopefully you can at least opt out of such servers in matchmaking settings. Anyway, they should have just made a server browser even for official servers.

To be honest, I don't get why everyone seems so hyped for BF6. Admittedly, it looks better than BF2042, but the bar is pretty low. I can't say I've been blown away with what I've seen so far - looks like a fairly standard BF. Also, the weapons seem to have almost no recoil and the movement reminds me more of CoD than older BF games. Still, looking forward to trying out the beta.
 
Last edited:
I really don't like that idea, they're just so dumb and useless. Hopefully the game is popular enough that we rarely see them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Is Unreal Engine 5 truly dogshit, or just used improperly?
2 3
145
1K
Karim replied
Battlefield 6 is not coming to the Switch 2 any time soon
Opinion Platform  2 3
101
343
S0ULZB0URNE replied
The Witcher 4 Unreal Engine 5 Tech Demo: Digital Foundry Reaction!
42
1K
IbizaPocholo replied
  • Poll
Super Mario World in 3D - Fan Concept Using Unreal Engine 5
38
3K
Diddy X replied
Unreal Engine 5 games - horrible IQ
2 3
100
7K
mrMUR_96 replied
Top Bottom