Firefight Dynamics in ArmA 3

[Whirly 1]

I know when I play, sonic snaps don't effect my ai, so either I am suffering from a bad rig... or your last video was showing the ai reacting to the gunshot, not the sonic crack.

Yes you are right mate the AI was reacting to the gunshot. I always presumed that my AI were reacting to the bullets sonic signature but after thoroughly testing this again yesterday with silenced weapons I found that the AI would only react if rounds were impacting nearby them.

I have all these setting at 1. do you find that setting their skill to .9 instead of 1 makes them perform better? I may give this a try tonight.

In terms of consistancy I feel that .9 is slightly better than 1. but I wouldn't recommend going any lower than .9

[NoRailgunner 0]

Imo "0" and "1" (or ultraAI) are just good for testing AI. It doesn't make sense to set them all on the highest possible settings just to watch them killing the enemy with the first shot/burst over a certain distance. Only exception could be if the player plays A2OA with an old/slow cpu and tries to "counter" this with highest AI setup. Of course BIS could provide some good + useful presets but that would mean they have to play/tweak the game on their own, which also means less time to develop + make all the things.

[Whirly 1]

Imo "0" and "1" (or ultraAI) are just good for testing AI. It doesn't make sense to set them all on the highest possible settings just to watch them killing the enemy with the first shot/burst over a certain distance.

I think that only applies for the precision settings, as can be seen in some of the videos I posted 0.9 skill level still allows for lengthy firefights.

[froggyluv 2136]

I thought Precision was disabled :confused:

[-Coulum- 35]

I thought Precision was disabled

Thats what I heard as well but I haven't actually fool around with it. I just have it set to one and jool around with asr ai settings.

Imo "0" and "1" (or ultraAI) are just good for testing AI. It doesn't make sense to set them all on the highest possible settings just to watch them killing the enemy with the first shot/burst over a certain distance.

But I find that the ai with the highest possible accuracy still isn't as good a shooter as a player. I mean give an ai a sniper rifle and even with full precision accuracy whatever he still fails at shooting anything over 450 metres. One of the problems with arma is that the ai seem to be too accurate with shitty guns but not accurate enough with good guns/optics. I think it may be worth it to make ai skills become better or worse depending not only on their class but also on their weapons.

Ie.

give an ai an ak and his accuracy decreases and his rate of fire increases due to the crappy sights and the way the weapon was designed to be used.

give an ai a sniper rifle and his spot distance increases due to the optics, accuracy increases also due to optics, and spot time decreases due to the limited fov.

of course some of these skills could not be permanetly placed because if a sniper isn't looking through his scope his spot time distance accuracy etc wouldn't be effected. It would only apply when the ai look through its sights - which I don't believe happens... that would have to be fixed some how.

Anyways what do you guys think of weapons haveing an effect on ai skills? I think this could also help firefights become more realistic and longer without making the ai sharpshooters totally useless.

[Whirly 1]

I think it may be worth it to make ai skills become better or worse depending not only on their class but also on their weapons.

That is a good idea.

[hoak 0]

Good points. I totally agree. Right now it is to easy to quickly pop out of cover line up you sights and shoot off very accurate rounds. We need more sway. And not the crappy sway we have now where your sights suddenly jump from one random point on the screen to another but realistic smooth "figure 8" kind of sway kind of like in vbs2 or America's army. Adding this sway would slow us to decrease ai accuracy without having a huge advantage over them thus increasing firefight lengths even more.

I think sway is kind of a crude way to mitigate range weapons as I'm perfectly able to hold a rifle steady shit out of breath, sweating like a pig, and scared out of my wits; and I'm sure there are younger fellers then me that can do at least as well if not better.

A better approach might be to model some of the more realistic aspects of long range shooting: planting your self and getting your rifle in a good position should take a bit more time, as should moving (which should add more sway momentarily). IRL being smooth on the trigger is harder for some then lining up a good sight picture and steadying their weapon -- not sure how that could be implemented, but there could be a 'squeeze timer' similarly to America's Army breath hold timer, and synchronizing two variables like this would be even more like real long range shooting.

Lastly a server side 'wind var' could be added to maps where ranged shooting might be a problem, and depending on the kind of game you wanted to prevail on your server you could set it from 'doldrums', 'light', 'strong' or even 'strong and gusty' where this last would make ranged shooting a challenging test for even the most skilled virtual marksmen. Of course you'd need wind indicators on the map like foliage that bent and blew in scale to wind strength, and perhaps an hand-held Anemometer for your Designated Marksman or Sniper, just like the real deal...

:confused:

Edited March 13, 2012 by Hoak

[-Coulum- 35]

@hoak

So what your suggesting is it just takes more time to settle your sights but after enough time they will loose virtually all sway. Move again, scope out and then in again or fire and that sway will be temporarily regained for a bit until you have set up again. Think this would be pretty useful and realistic. Good idea.

I'm perfectly able to hold a rifle steady shit out of breath, sweating like a pig, and scared out of my wits; and I'm sure there are younger fellers then me that can do at least as well if not better. [/Quote]

Impressive... But I think you are among the minority on this account. Even though I am young and athletic I can't hold a rifle straight when breathing heavily unless bracing it against something. I don't think it would be unreasonable to add temporary weapon sway when fatigued suppressed or wounded.

. And like mentioned before sway should be smooth and natural rather than choppy and random like it is currently.

Edited March 14, 2012 by -Coulum-

[NoRailgunner 0]

Precision settings in user cfg aren't important anymore since patch 1.60, weapon cfg's determine the distance/use of weapon for AI and for further tweaking you may try changing AI skills via scripts http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/CfgAISkill or addon (ASR AI). Its a wrong assumption that scopes/optics make a weapon itself "better" or "great", this should be left to arcade/shooter games. Should AI with a long range sniper rifle be "better" in CQB than a AI with ironsight/reflex sights? Btw AI don't "look" and "see" all the things ingame like players do. ;)

[Tonci87 163]

Thats what I heard as well but I haven't actually fool around with it. I just have it set to one and jool around with asr ai settings.

But I find that the ai with the highest possible accuracy still isn't as good a shooter as a player. I mean give an ai a sniper rifle and even with full precision accuracy whatever he still fails at shooting anything over 450 metres. One of the problems with arma is that the ai seem to be too accurate with shitty guns but not accurate enough with good guns/optics. I think it may be worth it to make ai skills become better or worse depending not only on their class but also on their weapons.

Ie.

give an ai an ak and his accuracy decreases and his rate of fire increases due to the crappy sights and the way the weapon was designed to be used.

give an ai a sniper rifle and his spot distance increases due to the optics, accuracy increases also due to optics, and spot time decreases due to the limited fov.

of course some of these skills could not be permanetly placed because if a sniper isn't looking through his scope his spot time distance accuracy etc wouldn't be effected. It would only apply when the ai look through its sights - which I don't believe happens... that would have to be fixed some how.

Anyways what do you guys think of weapons haveing an effect on ai skills? I think this could also help firefights become more realistic and longer without making the ai sharpshooters totally useless.

I think it should be a combination between skill and Weapon.

[-Coulum- 35]

Its a wrong assumption that scopes/optics make a weapon itself "better" or "great", this should be left to arcade/shooter games.

Hmm.. Not sure why you say that. From personal experience it is much easier to hit targets with optics rather than iron sights. I also find that it is much easier to see things using optics. So why would it be arcadey to implement this for ai soldiers as well?

[antoineflemming 14]

Hmm.. Not sure why you say that. From personal experience it is much easier to hit targets with optics rather than iron sights. I also find that it is much easier to see things using optics. So why would it be arcadey to implement this for ai soldiers as well?

NoRailGunner is saying that it shouldn't be an absolute "ai is better, or more accurate, with sights than without". However, a weapon with sights (not talking scopes) should be better than a weapon with just ironsights. A weapon with an Eotech Holo Sight or an ACOG or an M68 Close Combat Optic sight should always be better than a weapon with just iron sights. Actually, correction, the weapon should be the same regardless. The ai should be better with close combat optics (even ACOG since it has CQB sights) than with just iron sights. At range, the ai with scopes (and crouched/prone) should be better than close combat optics or ironsights. They should be less accurate at close quarters though.

[-Coulum- 35]

Oh I see now. No the quality of a weapons itself would not be effected by a sight beside being a little more cumbersome due to extra weight. Sights would merely improve ai skills. And yes I agree that different sights could not carry absolute better or worse skill bonuses. I for example the decrease in spot time for Magnified optics would make units using them slower to react thereby hindering them in close combat where the first shooter usually survives. If the ai were smart enough to realIze this, in close quarters conditions they could actually stop using the sights, increasing spot time again but decreasing his accuracy back to normal again.

I think this could be really interesting because right now whether fighting soldiers with iron sights, cq sights or magnification, they all shoot in the same way.

[impress89rus 1]

I too thought to ask such question

[mistermdg 10]

i suggested in the arma 3 suggestions thread that improvements be made to the suppression orders ie so you can command people to suppress a certain building and point to it or if youre out of their line of sight you can command them to suppress the "blue" (or whatever color) smoke and then throw that smoke onto the building in their line of sight.

hopefully they implement this. i think it's also to do with ai accuracy. i feel the ai make nearly impossible shots on a semiregular basis from way too far away which does affect the engagement ranges.

[Tom1 10]

^ +1 great idea

[Tonci87 163]

i suggested in the arma 3 suggestions thread that improvements be made to the suppression orders ie so you can command people to suppress a certain building and point to it or if youre out of their line of sight you can command them to suppress the "blue" (or whatever color) smoke and then throw that smoke onto the building in their line of sight.

hopefully they implement this. i think it's also to do with ai accuracy. i feel the ai make nearly impossible shots on a semiregular basis from way too far away which does affect the engagement ranges.

+1

Would make me use the Smoke grenades for the underbarrel launcher much more

[twisted 128]

exactly. plus something i saw happening with arma series and hind was that AI only fire when they are sure of a shot. that gives them unnatural accuracy. be great if AI fired based on chance of hitting based on what they know about an area.

then we'd have more area fire, buildings and even clumps of bushes, fired upon. plus the AI wont be so accurate at extreme distances.

[-Coulum- 35]

exactly. plus something i saw happening with arma series and hind was that AI only fire when they are sure of a shot. that gives them unnatural accuracy. be great if AI fired based on chance of hitting based on what they know about an area.

then we'd have more area fire, buildings and even clumps of bushes, fired upon. plus the AI wont be so accurate at extreme distances.

yeah, it would be great if ai's firing behaviour was more dynamic based on their situation. Obviously the type of weapon they use would determine how they fire but also the postion they are in. If they are under heavy fire they should start shooting more inaccurate but quick shots in order to try and create enough firepower to take off the stress of incoming fire and eventually win fire superiority. If the ai alrready have fire superiority and are taking very little incoming fire they should take their time shooting but be more accurate so they can actually neutralize targets instead of just suppress them. I think this could actually have a great effect on firefights if implemented.

Of course the weapon the ai uses should be higher priority than the situation. A saw gunner should always be aiming to suppress and a sniper should always be aiming for slow and accurate shots.

[acoustic 82]

Firefights would be alot better if vegetation was fixed as talked about in this post from me awhile ago:

I have always enjoyed Arma II and all the greatness it has brought me but there is one thing that has always bothered me about it:

There isn't many realistic long range firefights.

It just seems like Arma II is always about shooting enemies in plain sight. Typically in real life, a Squad vs Squad engagement can take a awhile and be very intense. Each side is either covered by brush, in a building (which is possible in Arma II, to an extent), in a trench, ect ect. This makes it very difficult to know where, and what your enemy is. So the typicall response is to lay down a lot of lead in that general direction, thus creating a firefight. Islands like Cheranus have spectacular vegetation like this, but it seems whenever you start looking at a distance...all of that disappears (except for trees). It becomes more or less target practice if you have any kind of an advantage over the enemy in terms of weaponry (ie, ACOG). Then when you have maps like Takistan, where there is little vegetation, there seems to be no real sand dust effect at all. I am aware that there are scripts and other ways of producing this, but they do a very poor job at mimicking real life. I really hope I am not the only one that feels this way, please do chime in with your opinion.

[maturin 12]

There's nothing wrong with the vegetation. Grass doesn't camouflage as it might, and a slight transparency solution could help.

If your bushes are disappearing at range, your graphics settings are too low, and the enemy is probably out of range anyways. Don't give everyone a fucking newby Acog and it won't be a problem.

[Whirly 1]

If your bushes are disappearing at range, your graphics settings are too low

Agreed. Graphics settings can have a profound impact on gameplay in Arma.

aidL-r8Ik5w

[-Coulum- 35]

Damn you guys for making me aware of how good arma can be if I actually had a decent computer.

But even with graphics on full, there seems to be a lack of camoflauge and "blending into ones environment" in arma 3. This may of course be simply due to the fact that my setting are so low - no AA for this rig. But Acoustic does raise a valid point. Vegetation, and concealment make firefights much longer and promote a lot more area targeting. And in arma there is still much room for improvement ie.

denser forests

thicker bushes

more foliage

micro terrain etc.

Obviously this is limited by computer processing power however. And when it comes down to it I would prefer any extra processing power to be dedicated to the ai rather than vegetation.

There was a thread about this in the a3 section somewhere discussing this sort of thing. Ah here it is in case anyones interested.

Edited April 9, 2012 by -Coulum-

[maturin 12]

Agreed. Graphics settings can have a profound impact on gameplay in Arma.

I see very few differences in that video. In Takistan, the distant bushes are almost all alike, and they are drawn far beyond small arms effective range.

I play ArmA on quite low settings, and if you just put Object Detail at Normal, you really lose nothing important. This is a non issue, I think.

What really matters is resolution. On low resolutions, a distant hedgerow is a blur where enemies can fire invisibly. On high resolutions, their heads stick out crystal clear because real life camouflage tricks the eye in ways which cannot be reproduced with monitors.

Parts of Chernarus are replete with rocks and bushes, providing enough cover for very long firefights if there are intelligent human players who stick to concealment. Of course, then everyone complains about performance. So we have the Zargabad green zone, which is something of compromise.

[-Coulum- 35]

Limnos also has a lot of small human sized rock and bushes scattered throughout the landscape (based on screen shots) these will definitely make it harder to spot enemy soldiers.