AI Improvement

[gammadust 12]

There was something interesting near the end of the second footage Benson put up, though not exacly new:

Notice how for two times one of the ai tries to reach a better position to fire at the player. Twice he quits on the decision because it would cross his leader firing, better so than get killed at least...

but the thing is the decisions appear discrete, one by one, non integrated with the broader situation. Its has if the AI is deep on its search for best decision instead of being conservative, and making a decision awaiting the most information possible at hand before diving head first. I would expect a different approach for better results.

[-Coulum- 35]

Thanks Bad Benson for the vids. From playing myself, and those vids, I'd say the ai is basically the same as arma 2 ai in terms of "smarts". The only real difference I see is they are better at navigating quickly through terrain, even when is it pretty complicated which is nice. I don't really expect much improvement in terms of thinking ability for the ai until after the final release, but I do hope that BIS invests in making their detection abilities, shooting abilities etc. as realistic and polished as possible.

[chortles 263]

In fairness, "better at navigating quickly through terrain, even when it is pretty complicated" lines up with one of the items Jay Crowe/RiE mentioned at E3 2012 in relating the anecdote about the AI in PMC on the Zargabad map and about the change (AI should move quicker because they determine cover quicker).

[-Coulum- 35]

In fairness, "better at navigating quickly through terrain, even when it is pretty complicated" lines up with one of the items Jay Crowe/RiE mentioned at E3 2012 in relating the anecdote about the AI in PMC on the Zargabad map and about the change (AI should move quicker because they determine cover quicker).

Yep they delivered on that one. I think another reason for this is because they have actually formulated the map to better suit the ai pathfinding. I'm too lazy to look it up, but in some interview I read they were working on some sort of technology that showed mapmakers how to better build their maps to be AI friendly.

Edit

We’ve improved some of our tools so the terrain developers can see how their compositions are traversed by the AI. I mention it because this kind of work improves AI behavior through appropriate design. It’s something our programmers often shout at us about. I like to think we’ve started to listen.

Ah here it is. from this interview.

[froggyluv 2136]

I have to say the way AI are cruising thru Aegis Marina clutter is a pretty substantial push foward for our beloved AIs. As far as pure pathfinding (minus interiors), this is about as good or better than I would have expected from an Xaitment plug-in. One thing thats maybe helping is the ability for soldiers to just step up/walk over small walls and such -maybe it was like this in Arma 2 but I don't think to this degree.

Too bad about no improvement to the houses, I like to give all of my enemy AI waypoints that cuts thru houses so that when I'm sneaking down an alley, I'm nervous of not just the corners and cross streets, but windows and doorways as well. It's an amazing experience to be startled (re:shot) by shattering glass and the bullet behind it coming right out you unexpectantly :)

[chortles 263]

Doesn't the bit that -Coulum- quoted basically suggest "instead of getting AI better at 'finding' we simply made the island based on what the AI could pathfind"?

[froggyluv 2136]

Doesn't the bit that -Coulum- quoted basically suggest "instead of getting AI better at 'finding' we simply made the island based on what the AI could pathfind"?

Why can't it be both? That is, streamlined pathfinding coupled with more AI-friendly environment. However they weigh on the scales -it's a far better end result than before.

[-Coulum- 35]

"instead of getting AI better at 'finding' we simply made the island based on what the AI could pathfind"?

Yes unfortunately you are pretty much right. Although I like the immediate results we are seeing, it also means that BIS is stepping away from making "the ai you can drop into any environment and have a decent battle with" and more towards the "ai that only works correctly under the certain circumstances/situations". No doubt it is still better than anything else has got but these kind of "improvements" are more for the short term than the longer term if you ask me. The same goes for the way the ai recognize cover (as far as I know). Instead of the ai actually determining what positions offer cover, all objects have predetermined sticky points that the ai automatically recognize as cover.

Why can't it be both? That is, streamlined pathfinding coupled with more AI-friendly environment. However they weigh on the scales -it's a far better end result than before.

Yes well it does make better results but than again having totally scripted ai also gets better results too. I know I am grossly stretching/overexagerating but BIS does seem to be sacrificing ai flexibility for these "improvements". Basically they are covering up the ai issues rather than fixing them IMO. I am not complaining, I am pretty happy with the ai behavior so far, but rather observing.

[chortles 263]

Would you rather that they just come out and say "sorry, we've already peaked as far as our own understanding of the AI and how to affect changes at a more fundamental level than what AI modders can already do"? Because that seems to be the implicit view in your evaluation of why there would be a 'cover up'.

[charliemilk 10]

Pretty sure vehicle and people in vehicle AI is not finished yet.

[Hunter123 10]

Does anyone know if they will make AI units able to use all the new stances?

[dmarkwick 261]

Does anyone know if they will make AI units able to use all the new stances?

I don't know if they will, but I don't believe I've seen AI use all the stances so far. However, I have seen them use the three main ones, plus leaning.

[-Coulum- 35]

Would you rather that they just come out and say "sorry, we've already peaked as far as our own understanding of the AI and how to affect changes at a more fundamental level than what AI modders can already do"? Because that seems to be the implicit view in your evaluation of why there would be a 'cover up'.

Sometimes actually yeah. But like I said I am pretty content with "covering up" for now. I think that if you read between the lines BIS has basically stated they are in the situation you described (although I hope they have a bit more understanding than AI modders). What I am most interested in is how/if they will work around this. It sounds like they pretty much need to do an overhaul in order to really improve on the ai without simultaneously breaking it. Obviously they won't even be thinking about that kind of thing now, but I wonder what things will be like a year or so after the game is released. Will there be a push to really improve the ai at this point?

Pretty sure vehicle and people in vehicle AI is not finished yet.

Oh yeah, definitely. There are some things that even arma 2 ai seemed to be more capable at than arma 3, so no doubt there are going to be changes and improvements before the final release.

Does anyone know if they will make AI units able to use all the new stances?

Like DMarkwick, i've never seen them use the stances. But I wonder if it would even be worth it to teach them. I mean stances are only really necessary to use when you are shooting from, or hiding in cover. Unfortunately the ai rarely is shooting from cover and never purposely hides in cover so I don't really see it being that much use. Now if the ai were capable of calming down and staying in a position of cover for more than 10 seconds than it could really be useful - but the ai seems all too willing to leave cover to advance, stay in formation, or engage an enemy.

[Guest]

Arma AI are annoying at best, completely retarded at worst.

As has always been the case, the AI tend to be quite good if you are fighting in a field or desert with no cover, they go prone and shoot you. Sweet.

As soon as you are not in a desert they are really quite silly.

Maybe people will rage at me, but I think an AI cover system would revolutionize Arma. Imagine if the AI actually took cover behind walls and obstacles. Realistically, I mean. Not arcadey, blind firing AI's who slide into cover like rambo.

I mean proper engagements. If there was a group of 8 US AI soldiers walking through a town, and 2 insurgents opened up from a window, I would like to see the AI analyse where the fire is coming from, and choose the most suitable cover to protect them from that line of fire. It would be cool to see the soldiers line up along a wall realistically.

And from there you can add more, throwing smoke grenades to move from one wall to another, bounding, cover fire, etc.

Maybe I dream too much. The Arma engine is complicated, and the dev's have a whole lot on their plate.

But I see almost every console game implement more advanced AI than in Arma, so I think it should be possible.

For me, AI using cover, as in, animated cover system, would make online co-op and single player infinitely more enjoyable.

And I'm not bashing, fighting the AI is HUGE fun. But not because they are realistic, it's because of the other 99% of the Arma engine that makes it so good.

[metalcraze 290]

But I see almost every console game implement more advanced AI than in Arma, so I think it should be possible.

What are those games?

[Guest]

Battlefield, Call of Duty, Killzone, GTA...

I would probably name every fps on the market so I will stop right there.

I understand that behind the scenes, console shooters utilize much simpler, often scripted, more adept to "corridor" style logic systems, and that Arma's AI no doubt is handling much more complex tasks.

But to be honest, what does behind the scenes processing count for, when the output is generally pretty poor?

Arma AI has plenty of good things going for it that console shooters simply can not do, but put Arma AI in CQB, and they become headless chickens. In CQB, almost every arcade shootemup out does Arma. At long range, I am yet to find a console shooter that even comes close to Arma.

Adding some "basic" systems stolen from "kiddy" console games, to improve the CQB, and you have an all round winner.

[-Coulum- 35]

What are those games?

Battlefield, Call of Duty, Killzone, GTA...

I would probably name every fps on the market so I will stop right there.

Argh you fell into his trap. All those games are either heavily scripted or don't have nearly as much for the ai to analyze as arma 2 does. You can't just drop down a battlefield bot in the editor into a user made map and have him do anything (assuming there was modding and editor for battlefield).

But I do agree there are features from other games that could be utilized. For example Red orchestra ai uses a cover system. Although the ai themselves are dumb as hell compared to arma ai, they are actually more enjoyable to fight against at any range because they don't just go prone and wait to be shot. They duck in and out of cover based on the danger they are in, making for much more interesting firefights.

Basically I agree that other games do certain aspects of ai better but I disagree that "almost every console game implement more advanced ai than in Arma, so it should be possible."

Maybe people will rage at me, but I think an AI cover system would revolutionize Arma. Imagine if the AI actually took cover behind walls and obstacles. Realistically, I mean. Not arcadey, blind firing AI's who slide into cover like rambo.

I mean proper engagements. If there was a group of 8 US AI soldiers walking through a town, and 2 insurgents opened up from a window, I would like to see the AI analyse where the fire is coming from, and choose the most suitable cover to protect them from that line of fire. It would be cool to see the soldiers line up along a wall realistically.

There is a very simplistic cover system in arma 2 ever since one of the patches (1.59 I believe). the problem is it is very rudimentary and many objects don't have enough/any cover spots attached to them. In addition the ai is more worried about formation, engaging enemies etc. than about using the cover. Lastly the ai doesn't know how to use the cover to hide themselves (Ie DUCK!) and don't know when it would be appropriate to do so(ie. when they are under fire).

But having something more like red orchestra cover system for ai (minus the animations) would alone make the ai many many time more interesting to play against.

Edited March 18, 2013 by -Coulum-

[Guest]

Argh yo fell into his trap. All those games are either heavily scripted or don't have nearly as much for the ai to analyze as arma 2 does. You can't just drop down a battlefield bot in the editor into a user made map and have him do anything (assuming there was modding and editor for battlefield).

But I do agree there are features from other games that could be utilized. For example Red orchestra ai uses a cover system. Although the ai themselves are dumb as hell compared to arma ai, they are actually more enjoyable to fight against at any range because they don't just go prone and wait to be shot. They duck in and out of cover making for much more interesting firefights.

Basically I agree that other games do certain aspects of ai better but I disagree that "almost every console game implement more advanced ai than in Arma, so it should be possible."

No I understand this, I'm not sure if you read all of my post.

A good example would be GTA. Open world, AI use cover effectively.

That is literally all it would take to transform CQB.

Yes, Arma 2 AI are advanced, but they are also equally hopeless.

In CQB I see AI going prone and crawling across a street, running backwards and forwards behind walls, standing in the open using the air as cover, constantly getting totally bamboozled by any form of interior, having no idea whatsoever how to work with team mates in CQB, having no real "procedure" for CQB, they just shoot and hope for the best, and more.

For this reason alone I don't see a huge amount of co-op missions in built up areas, and personally when mission making, I try and avoid any kind of town, because I know that either:

A) My AI team mates will all need baby sitting 24/7, and will die if we enter a town.

B) My AI enemies will get slaughtered as soon as we enter urban areas.

And just to add, have you ever tried running at an AI squad of enemies during a firefight? They will happily let you run past them and mingle with their buddies, taking about 3 minutes before they decide, "Oh wait, let's kill him!".

You all know me around here and I am as much of an Arma fanboy as any one, I love this game, and it has a lot, lot, lot going for it. But certain aspects let it down. AI are my #1 annoyance, wheeled vehicle physics are #2.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Guest

[metalcraze 290]

None of those games have AI apart from GTA.

And even then - if GTA's AI uses cover so efficiently why their lifetime expectancy is 5 seconds on average?

Same goes for every single game you've named. They use cover efficiently and yet they die almost instantly. In whole packs.

I think you are confusing truly advanced AI of ArmA with heavy corridor scripts that make their scripted bots look like they do something human-like due to animations. But every time you will go down that corridor they will do exactly the same things, taking the same cover, playing same animations. And dying in under 5 seconds. While their buddies that are in the neighbouring room will never come to help. And they always hide behind specially pre-placed chest-high walls which always face the incoming player.

In fact GTA mission design suffers exactly from this too. In its missions GTA4 takes CallofDuty-like scripting into overdrive.

You can be killing whole packs of bots in this room, but in next room it's like clean slate. Their scripting is so bad that you can just run up to them and knife them to death. They can operate only within 3m of where the designer put them at best. That's why it's either corridors or "0:05 GET BACK INTO THE FIGHT!" whenever you try to flank them. In CoDMW I often saw friendlies and enemies running past each other before their script told them to actually engage.

Yet in ArmA all that AI that takes cover so badly can survive for much longer even vs. the player. Taking path through bushes and trees instead of the open, never going to a close distance when they can engage from a longer one after 1.63 beta fix (present in ArmA3 too) which makes AI less noticeable and forces the player to have eagle eyes.

CQB is the issue due to slow reactions however, not improper cover usage. You can help by upvoting a ticket in my sig.

Edited March 18, 2013 by metalcraze

[-Coulum- 35]

No I understand this, I'm not sure if you read all of my post.

A good example would be GTA. Open world, AI use cover effectively.

That is literally all it would take to transform CQB.

Yes, Arma 2 AI are advanced, but they are also equally hopeless.

In CQB I see AI going prone and crawling across a street, running backwards and forwards behind walls, standing in the open using the air as cover, constantly getting totally bamboozled by any form of interior, having no idea whatsoever how to work with team mates in CQB, having no real "procedure" for CQB, they just shoot and hope for the best, and more.

For this reason alone I don't see a huge amount of co-op missions in built up areas, and personally when mission making, I try and avoid any kind of town, because I know that either:

A) My AI team mates will all need baby sitting 24/7, and will die if we enter a town.

B) My AI enemies will get slaughtered as soon as we enter urban areas.

Yeah I am agreeing with you just how you worded "almost every console game implement more advanced ai than in Arma, so it should be possible." is misleading. It seems the ai could be a whole lot simpler and still be fun to play against. I think the problem is the way BIS programmed them is unflexible so "adding a cover system" isn't as easy as it sounds (this is just a guess) and the fact that they don't seem to know the ins and outs of the ai all that well (apparently due to loss of programmers and lack of documentation). Basically I think this adds up BIS wanting to move towards an ai that is simple yet effective like GTA but being unable to without having to totally rewrite the suckers, which they really don't want to do before release because inevitably it would raise many many many issues and bugs which they specifically want to stay away from for arma 3.

[froggyluv 2136]

Battlefield...

Stopped reading here. Battlefield...? Gimmie a f*cking break -thats NOT AI! Its utter foul, barnyard odor smell yes but not AI. I still remember when playing BF3 'Campaign' how if you stepped literally 10 -20 feet away from your squad -whom are engaged in a hallways fight with enemy squad -no one takes damage. No one gets hit. Nothing happens. I walked away for 2 hours and my squad stayed at one end of the hallway, the enemy maybe 30ft away -point blank in military perspective.

How is that AI? Its just scripted nonesense that is designed to trick naive players into thinking an actual firefight is taking place. Its not. It's your movie -they're all extras...

Metalcraze is correct as well about GTA4. They are excellent at car chases -on foot so-so at best. I've gone into garages and what not and the cops didnt know what to do. They are really nothing special and as Metalcraze said -if they were good? Why can you beat 30 guys by yourself...?

Edit: And for Battlefield 2, that at least had somewhat autonomous bots (bf3 has none) but even they were scripted to an extent. Meaning if you created a new map or expanded a vanilla one -they couldn't move.Period. They would freeze as they had no instruction on how to move.

You also have to remember what a game was originally built for and what its AI was designed to do. GTA4 is primarily car chase with limited on foot and really no indoor -they try their best to expand and make their AI better on foot but they'll never be as capable at room to room as a Swat 4. Similarly, OFP AI was built for long to medium engagements. They're also getting better at CQB, but again will never be Swat.

Edited March 18, 2013 by froggyluv

[Smurf 12]

None of those games have AI apart from GTA.

Nope. He has a point, with GTA at least.

Just like Arma, in GTA you are fighting enemies in a 360 degrees world and the AI can hadle it quite well, getting into proper cover, shooting in and out of cover and pushing forward; But thats it. The duration of a firefight have little to do with the AI, more with aiming system, 3rd person view and not the same health system for the player and NPCs.

Arma AI makes much more complex things (flaking, supression, some guess work...; that is specially evident when you are outnumbered, I got my ass served in the Inf showcase mission, often getting killed from positions that I tought were secure) but they fail at the simplests thing that is getting into cover when necessary. What is the point of knowing much complex stuff when you can kill them before they use those routines?

For open fields and such I think there is room for a lot of *possible* improvements. That cover thing that was intruduces in A2 betas probably wass just the beginning of a deeper change, that can only be made with a game starting from scratch (setting objects and stuff, even map design). I can see the AI using, at least, the up\down stances to shot from or hide in cover.

CQB and indoors seems to be the real problem, as the AI seems to HAVE TO always work in somekind of hive mind instead of individuals. They see, they report, they ask for higher levels what to do, then they do instead of just react for immediate treats. which is often the case in CQB scenarios.

[froggyluv 2136]

Funny that you guys say your AI isn't getting into cover. In every AI test I do whether it be town fighting or attack the base style -my enemy AI are always going behind a wall, leaning out etc... The problem I see is that they then leave it for no (apparent) reason :o

[-Coulum- 35]

Funny that you guys say your AI isn't getting into cover. In every AI test I do whether it be town fighting or attack the base style -my enemy AI are always going behind a wall, leaning out etc... The problem I see is that they then leave it for no (apparent) reason

Yeah this to me constitute "not using cover". I too see the ai often move to cover but it is often for such a short time that it doesn't really make an effect on gameplay. It looks cool but often in combat the ai are not sticking to cover but rather moving to cover - and this gets them killed. Rarely do I see an ai engaging me while he is partially obstructed by cover. Even rarer still is seeing the ai fully hide themselves from me in cover. And both these events are not to due to ai genius but rather fluke. The ai chose the right cover spot at the right time, with the right stance. The ai need to "camp" more, or at least, there should be an easy way for mission-makers and modders to make them camp.

Arma AI makes much more complex things (flaking, supression, some guess work...; that is specially evident when you are outnumbered, I got my ass served in the Inf showcase mission, often getting killed from positions that I tought were secure) but they fail at the simplests thing that is getting into cover when necessary. What is the point of knowing much complex stuff when you can kill them before they use those routines?

Yeah pretty much. On a group level they are pretty good, but on an individual level they are quite dumb.

[metalcraze 290]

Just like Arma, in GTA you are fighting enemies in a 360 degrees world and the AI can hadle it quite well, getting into proper cover, shooting in and out of cover and pushing forward; But thats it. The duration of a firefight have little to do with the AI, more with aiming system, 3rd person view and not the same health system for the player and NPCs.

In GTA AI taking cover also uses pre-scripted positions around objects but unlike ArmA they do not try to adjust their position vs. the enemy properly. True it doesn't matter as much in a game where they spawn out of nowhere but I often had GTA bots take cover in my direction, instead of placing it between itself and me (which ArmA AI does often well). Plus GTA AI spawns out of thin air just 100m away so they don't have to navigate and will just rush at you until they are within 10-20m taking cover only then. Plus environments in GTA are never nearly as complex.

Health system/aiming system/3rd person have little to do with AI mostly following the same preset path - spawn 100m away, rush at a player until within 10-20m, then look for cover.

Arma AI makes much more complex things (flaking, supression, some guess work...; that is specially evident when you are outnumbered, I got my ass served in the Inf showcase mission, often getting killed from positions that I tought were secure) but they fail at the simplests thing that is getting into cover when necessary. What is the point of knowing much complex stuff when you can kill them before they use those routines?

1.63 beta for ArmA2 with ASR AI and TPWCAS (which forces AI into nearby cover as soon as it starts taking fire) prove that it's possible to make ArmA AI behave if not always properly - but nonetheless much more adequately.

This however should be a question directed towards BIS why they wouldn't use fixes that already exist in mods and don't seem to break anything in the game but improve AI behaviour immensely. TPWCAS tends to even fix CQB reactions quite a bit with line intersect command.

CQB and indoors seems to be the real problem, as the AI seems to HAVE TO always work in somekind of hive mind instead of individuals. They see, they report, they ask for higher levels what to do, then they do instead of just react for immediate treats. which is often the case in CQB scenarios.

I agree and disagree - the real problem is that they turn too slow towards the enemy or enemy's predicted position (which lets you easily avoid getting shot at longer distances by just sprinting at a 90 degree angle from AI shooter).

If AI was made to have the same turning speed as a player ranging from an almost instant 180 degree turn at 1.0 skill (Dslyecxi can do it, so why shouldn't AI?) to lower speeds at lower AI difficulty - lack of CQB teamwork would be much less of an issue.

In fact this will fix a lot of issues with longer distance engagements too.

It's not that they take cover wrong. It's that they react too slowly to threats without mods and some much needed turn speed improvements. So I agree with you on 'slow reaction' issue.

Again - shameless ticket promotion - please upvote the one in my sig (AI reflexes)

Edited March 18, 2013 by metalcraze