AI quirks we'd like to see.

[*LK1* 10]

A thread for the discussion of small AI tweaks that would make a tactical, realistic, or immersive difference.

"Follow my footsteps" formation. In this formation, the AI in your squad literally follow your exact line, so that as you thread through buildings they're following you exactly,

could be a great idea even for a scenario full of ap mines.

---------- Post added at 07:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:17 PM ----------

Stop shooting Stingers at jeeps.

:D :D :D

seriusly you gave me another reason to argue about the AI improvements made from BIS.

10 years and they didn't fix this ****.

Edited September 1, 2011 by ***LeGeNDK1LLER***

[froggyluv 2136]

.

10 years and they didn't fix this ****.

To be fair - I think alot of AI fixes that have been around for a long while persist for a reason. Meaning it's not just a matter of a few weeks of a Dev really really concentrating on fixing it, it's that the foundation code would need deep overhaul which of course could lead to new AI bugs exponentially.

There really is no game I can think of that pulls off thousands of autonomous AI over such scale flawlessly. Quite the contrary I think more and more games are just opting out of AI and going with MP just for this reason.

[bradp191 10]

Well, I'm just raising discussion points, not trying to annoy :) and yes I've done my service too, and we never used compass points for arcs. Although my own experience is more static defence than mobile offence.

Ah, I see. For our static defense, i.e. posts at our patrol bases, we used the basic range card stuff. We had our primary direction of fire laid out in mils as well as a couple known points. I think by the book its supposed to be in degrees, but like I said we were a mortar platoon so we used mils for everything. Maybe if you trained to use a clock system on the move, you could use it more effectively. We always used compass directions because it made it much easier to coordinate with other units. We'd often break down into fireteams and conduct satellite patrols, so compass directions were necessary as each team was acting semi-independently of the others.

[*LK1* 10]

To be fair - I think alot of AI fixes that have been around for a long while persist for a reason. Meaning it's not just a matter of a few weeks of a Dev really really concentrating on fixing it, it's that the foundation code would need deep overhaul which of course could lead to new AI bugs exponentially.

There really is no game I can think of that pulls off thousands of autonomous AI over such scale flawlessly. Quite the contrary I think more and more games are just opting out of AI and going with MP just for this reason.

i totally agree :) . but the problem is that when 10 years passed and the AI it's still not able to understand they shouldn't use a stinger on jeeps/tanks your balls start to falling down :icon_ohmygod:. we are consumers; we dont have to understand and to justify but to criticize.

question is it possible to fix that problem with a script?

[xxbbcc 6]

Hmm, I'm speaking from experience here. I'm not just pulling this out of my ass. Keeping track of which way is north is not that hard. Its a lot harder to get everyone on the same page as far as clock positions is much more complicated. I've done this in combat. It works. I'm just saying its something to think about. I get kind of annoyed when people try to tell me what's "real" or "tactical", though.

Clock system works really well to communicate inside a vehicle since the front of the vehicle can be 12 o'clock, but even that breaks down when communicating between vehicles if everyone isn't facing the same way.

I agree, the game should remove the clock system (it's near impossible to know what it means, especially in battle). Using compass directions is absolute (no questions about a given marker's direction) and very easy to use. When I was a new player to the game some years ago, it took me a short time to get used to the compass directions and after that it just became second nature.

[5LEvEN 11]

There needs to also be a way to reset AI scanning. You can set the AI to watch a direction, but you cannot tell the AI to go back to normal. That is what is needed as well.

[msy 22]

Like this, make x-7-9 a literal following order for AIs. AI will literally do what you do.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=119825

Look at 6#

[metalcraze 290]

You don't understand what "copy my stance"/"keep low" means. It isn't supposed to make AI copy your stance or keep low. It's just BIS calling it in a wrong way.

That command basically orders AI to change stance back to "AUTO" or 'choose your own stance'

[dmarkwick 261]

When it rains, any AI not under immediate threat or with any current waypoint to reach, could group under trees, inside buildings or within vehicles for the rain duration.

Dismissed waypoints should have an optional radius parameter.

AI should have a "discipline" property, that controls how precisely they maintain formation, remain calm under fire, remain at their position when under fire & returning fire, how organised and coordinated they are as a group, and whether they flee or not. That way, we can give trained soldiers high discipline, and untrained militia/others low discipline for a more loose behaviour.

Edited September 2, 2011 by DMarkwick

[nzdfcrash 33]

this may be general laziness coming to show here but if somebody hasn't already suggested it some ground options for aircraft would be nice such as taxi to the runway, taxi to parking etc and more combat options for flying like lower altitude or gain altitude (low as in 20m, medium and high) and also bombing options for unguided weapons if at all possible.

[metalcraze 290]

AI should have a "discipline" property, that controls how precisely they maintain formation, remain calm under fire, remain at their position when under fire & returning fire, how organised and coordinated they are as a group, and whether they flee or not. That way, we can give trained soldiers high discipline, and untrained militia/others low discipline for a more loose behaviour.

It's there. It's called "a skill slider in the editor"

more combat options for flying like lower altitude or gain altitude (low as in 20m, medium and high)

this flyInHeight xxx

[msy 22]

You don't understand what "copy my stance"/"keep low" means. It isn't supposed to make AI copy your stance or keep low. It's just BIS calling it in a wrong way.

That command basically orders AI to change stance back to "AUTO" or 'choose your own stance'

So you are deliberately avoiding this issue caused by BIS's misinterpretation?

[metalcraze 290]

So you are deliberately avoiding this issue caused by BIS's misinterpretation?

No - I'm just saying they need to properly translate/call it next time to avoid confusion.

[ProfTournesol 956]

It's there. It's called "a skill slider in the editor"

It isn't as sophisticated as what DMarkwick suggested.

this flyInHeight xxx

Well, he meant during gameplay, not with scripts in the editor.

No - I'm just saying they need to properly translate/call it next time to avoid confusion.

"Copy my stance" was doing exactly what it meant back in OFP. Not anymore since the great amount of AI twicks.

[froggyluv 2136]

Yep, that "Copy My Stance" has been mislabled has always bothered me. Should be "As you were" - as it's generally used to cancle a direct stance order. Makes the order system seem buggish.

That said, a real CMS, such as the mod does, is also needed in vanilla.

[metalcraze 290]

It isn't as sophisticated as what DMarkwick suggested.

It produces the same result he wants.

Well, he meant during gameplay, not with scripts in the editor.

Fair enough

"Copy my stance" was doing exactly what it meant back in OFP. Not anymore since the great amount of AI twicks.

No it wasn't. In OFP AI never knew what crouch-run meant even though you as a player could do it. So "copy my stance" was still exactly the same auto-stance.

Speaking of that even now human players may use the "crouch-run" cheat to distinguish themselves from AI to avoid possible friendly fire.

Unfortunately BIS and the community ignores the issue of AI fighting full height in the open for some reason - even though there are nothing but downsides to that and zero upsides

[jakerod 254]

It's there. It's called "a skill slider in the editor"

this flyInHeight xxx

When they go into combat mode though I think the flyinheight part gets knocked out for their pre-established routines. Ex. the helicopter will only flyinheight 20 until they are engaged or see an enemy and then they will go back to 40 or 50 or whatever their normal one is.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

No it wasn't. In OFP AI never knew what crouch-run meant even though you as a player could do it. So "copy my stance" was still exactly the same auto-stance...

You're wrong. OFP had no crouched movement, ArmA1 introduced crouch-walk and ArmA2 introduced crouched run.

And you're right, "Copy my stance" was labeled as "Keep low" in OFP, and it served the same purpose as it does now, returning AI back to auto stance from forced stances.

[ProfTournesol 956]

And you're right, "Copy my stance" was labeled as "Keep low" in OFP, and it served the same purpose as it does now, returning AI back to auto stance from forced stances.

No in OFP you've got "imitate", "keep low" and "stay up" (or something like this, i've got the French version). "Imitate" is copying player's stance, up or down.

Edited September 3, 2011 by ProfTournesol

[metalcraze 290]

You're wrong. OFP had no crouched movement, ArmA1 introduced crouch-walk and ArmA2 introduced crouched run.

Hmmm maybe I forgot something or confusing with one of the animation mods.

No in OFP you've got "imitate", "keep low" and "stay up" (or something like this, i've got the French version). "Imitate" is copying player's stance, up or down.

It still works the same as "AUTO" stance. Do note however that AI seems to take player's stance into account in "AUTO" as well. In aware if you'll lie down they will do it too, but that's one of AI's routines

[ProfTournesol 956]

It still works the same as "AUTO" stance. Do note however that AI seems to take player's stance into account in "AUTO" as well. In aware if you'll lie down they will do it too, but that's one of AI's routines

True.

[SigintArmA 10]

What I wanna see, is the AI, when in "Aware" state to actually -keep- their rifles at the ready, up and looking around with them instead of lowering them and walking like it's a day at the park. As from what I've seen is "Aware" is just "Safe" but them keeping their formations instead of going directly to 'Column'. I want the units to actually be "Aware" instead of the squad going 'We're gonna let Jimmy handle it'.

In my opinion, AI walking around in the battlefield, with most of the squad walking like it's a walk to the mailbox and two or three realizing they're in a war zone... kinda kills immersion to me.

[bradp191 10]

Aware is for normal walking around, though. You should always be aware every time you step outside the wire. Try doing a 6 hour patrol with your rifle at the ready the whole time. I agree that they should be looking around a lot more and have more situational awareness, but they shouldn't act like they're under fire the entire time. That's what would really kill the immersion. That's why they have the "danger" or "combat" behavior.

[rye1 21]

Agreed. Jeff Cooper's colour code ftw.

[SigintArmA 10]

When the AI is in "Danger", they move like they're under fire. They leapfrog each other and go prone and to the nearest cover each 'Jump'.

I understand when outside the wire, keeping the rifle up at all times is a pain, but so is having AI walk in 'Aware' mode to a village with possible hostiles, and all they are doing is walking with their guns lowered. "Danger" with stance set to "Up" might be good for complete AI teams, or having the team's stance (When as Player commander) set to standing and in danger might look good, but the constant stopping and stopping in an open field while standing... kinda kills immersion more then if they were walking with their rifles down. (I mean standing like an idiot in the open is out right suicide imo). But also, when in "Aware" the AI's reaction time (When rifle is lowered) is slower then when their rifle is raised, since they take an extra second or two to lift the rifle and decide what they will do. And that has killed off quite a few of my AI squads when moving around in a mission, they seem to be more careless with it down. Also makes keeping them in formation harder, since they walk at different speeds with their rifle up or down, making them either too fast or slow when 'Walking' with caution. At least to me.

But I guess it can be assumed it's more debatable then I could see. Since other may people have other points of views as to a proper way to define what 'Status' means to the AI.