AI Discussion (dev branch)

[.kju 3244]

Good points maturin. These underlying issues are very key yet hardly understood by most.

Scratching the surface with some tweaks, or limiting the options won't help with the overall problems.

Good suggestions there Tonci87.

Windies you approach does not work. Think of this situation:

1) A mission designer made your groups units skill 1 to give you a better chance and the enemies 0.25 however present in greater numbers.

2) You decide to play easy/normal and it reduces your units to 0.25/0.5 skill, while the low skill enemies remain unaffected.

3) With your design you actually make the mission harder with lower difficulty.

You might argue, it could be split to friendly vs enemy again, yet it will still crew the mission design in certain cases.

You have to understand that currently the skill settings act as a modifier, and there is value clamping (upper and lower borders) in place.

I am pretty sure from what Suma's explanations in the CIT that the skill setting and values are not part of the real problems.

The current skill setting in difficulty combo with unit skill in the editor is a pretty good design overall.

cfgAISkill only determines the borders of the settings (which probably should be made configurable in the difficulty options) and scripting just adjust the overall skill per unit or subskills otherwise set in the editor.

I'd argue that curation can be improved

...

I'd argue that it should be within reasonable limits

..

they should be predictable from the mission designer's point of view

From my impression you need to take back a step first and describe (more) clearly what the actual problems you see.

RiE please explain what the specific problems of your mission maker are having?

Right now basically difficulty settings should only account for:

# AI hits too precise too often vs too little / not at all

# AI spots targets/the player too easily or over too large distances vs can hardly identify an enemy or does not notice the enemy at all

# AI reacts too quickly (turning, aiming, firing) or too slowly

Edited October 10, 2013 by .kju [PvPscene]

[andersson 285]

;2530943']Windies you approach does not work. Think of this situation:

1) A mission designer made your groups units skill 1 to give you a better chance and the enemies 0.25 however present in greater numbers.

2) You decide to play easy/normal and it reduces your units to 0.25/0.5 skill' date=' while the low skill enemies remain unaffected.

3) With your design you actually make the mission harder with lower difficulty.

You might argue, it could be split to friendly vs enemy again, yet it will still crew the mission design in certain cases.[/quote']

I think what Windies mean is this:

If the mission designer put the players AI to 1 and enemy AI to 0.25 and the user has a difficulty setting to have the AI 0.5, then the players AI should be 0.5 and enemy AI 0.125.

If we could do that with accuracy it shouldn't screw up too many missions, only make the fire fights last longer. I agree that lowering the skill will screw up some mission designs.

[.kju 3244]

What you are saying andersson is the current system essentially (from what I know).

[chrisb 196]

If memory serves, I think they have, intentionally. I can't find the changelog that describe it right now.

Accuracy should increase as an AI fires, not drop. Shooters correct their shots according to visible hits.

That's right, find the range via first shots landing, then shorter bursts after that, they should not decrease aiming value. Not tested this so not sure what they're doing at the moment.

[fabrizio_t 58]

;2530961']What you are saying andersson is the current system essentially (from what I know).

I agree.

[Bouben 3]

+1. When a subordinate medic gets injured, he should go prone if under fire and treat himself immediately. Then he should go and heal injured squad mates. If a squad AT or AA soldier gets killed, another squad mate not having such heavy weapons should go and pick up the dropped weapons, at least when a vehicle is attacking the squad. A leader can always order the AI to regroup if he deems it unsafe or otherwise unwise to perform these automatic actions. I mention these items as I very often have to order my AI subordinates to do these things, and it would be nice if they did them automatically. It would also be great if there was a setting or function which a mission maker could use to disable/enable such automatic actions.

Yes, this are really important game-breaking stuff to solve. But it would have to be made in a way that is not leading AI to certain death. For example running for AT weapon when enemy APC is tracking you with thermal vision is not a good idea. They should use prone instead and use terrain and objects to hide from it etc. But sometimes there are situations where running is the only option because of lack of time. I can imagine this will be challenging for BIS to design properly.

[Tonci87 163]

I updated my suggestions with the bold parts

Suggestions to improve the situation:

-Make AI precision depend on Optics used (Snipers deadly accurate, Iron Sights almost useless at longer distances)

-AI Units that are farther away from the player should shoot at a slower rate to simulate aiming. Unless he has a LMG or MG, then he should shoot in short controled bursts. (Longer, less controled bursts if the AI is close to the enemy)

-AI Units should be less precise with the first shots they fire. Their precision should increase with the second or third shot.

-The instant information sharing on the players exact position within an AI group has to go. I think this might be very high on the list of reasons when people speak about unfair AI.

-Make AI less (maybe even much less) precise when it is wounded (Could be tied to the damage the AI received. If AI health 0.4 then decrease aiming by 60%)

-Make AI Ragdoll when it gets hit, it can get back on it´s feet afterwards. This would give players a better and more immersive feedback that they just hit someone. At the same time the player couldn´t be sure that the AI is dead if he doesn´t see the body wich makes for more cautious and interesting gameplay.

And of course you should try to make the AI smarter so that it gets closer to human behaviour

[Bouben 3]

-Make AI Ragdoll when it gets hit, it can get back on it´s feet afterwards. This would give players a better and more immersive feedback that they just hit someone. At the same time the player couldn´t be sure that the AI is dead if he doesn´t see the body wich makes for more cautious and interesting gameplay.

Yes, TPW Fall does this. It is also very useful for taking cover when hit, because AI is forced to get down - increases their life time.

[.kju 3244]

> -Make AI less (maybe even much less) precise when it is wounded

Is already the case.

Well in the sense that they have enhanced aiming shake/trouble to aim on target.

It doesn't add random dispersion ontop of fire bullets - wouldn't make sense either imo.

[Tonci87 163]

;2531092']> -Make AI less (maybe even much less) precise when it is wounded

Is already the case.

Well in the sense that they have enhanced aiming shake/trouble to aim on target.

It doesn't add random dispersion ontop of fire bullets - wouldn't make sense either imo.

So this is implemented already? Then I think they should make it a little bit stronger since wounded AI still seems to be quite precise. I agree that there shouldn´t be any additional bullet dispersion.

[windies 11]

;2530961']What you are saying andersson is the current system essentially (from what I know).

It may be, but if it could be clarified and individual settings would be separated individually or into groups it would be great. I'm not saying I think skill settings are the problem either, I rather think that it's how the AI is programmed to function that is more the problem. I agree pretty much with what everyone has said so far in the the thread about the key issue's and problems with the AI and why they either feel like supermen or complete idiots.

[hbk 0]

;2530943']The current skill setting in difficulty combo with unit skill in the editor is a pretty good design overall.

No, it's not. It's a workaround that is in place for so long that we got used to it.

A more clever design would be that mission themselves store the difficulty settings intended by the mission designer in terms of how accurate is the elite AI units supposed to be for example. And it should be up to the mission designers to set how difficulty settings should affect the mission (making the enemy less wary for infiltration missions for example, or making the enemy less accurate for squad to squad firefights).

Right now there are a number of issues due to the skill slider allowing to tweak too much (yet too little) stuff, and of course due to the fact that AI improvements (which is always welcome) can easily break any mission (see recent example of better leading aim).

I completely understand where they're coming from and this is one hell of a complex issue.

Up to this day most games tweak the difficulty settings by changing health points/damage parameters. This is not applicable in an Arma game (yeah I know there's an extended armor setting and this should tell us something).

So to tweak the difficulty your main option is to tweak AI. And this is one hell of a job.

I for one tend to agree with some of the opinions already posted. If we need to take the simple route, it would be best to keep "tactical behavior setting" at maximum possible and mostly tweak precision and reaction time. All of this within reasonable limits of course. Which means it works both ways, an AI which is too slow or too inaccurate breaks as much the immersion as an AI which is too fast and too accurate.

And of course all of this should be easily testable by mission makers. So that the "easy settings" still give a somewhat reasonable challenge and the "hard setting" is punishing but not impossible (without exploiting some other flaw).

And on top of that you have the question of whether or not we should keep separate settings for ally/enemy when this setting has a variable relevance depending on the actual setup of the mission. Changing friendly AI skill setting hardly change anything when playing a solo infiltration mission for example.

Edited October 10, 2013 by HBK

[.kju 3244]

Sorry to say but it seems you don't get the concept of difficulty options.

The mission designer already has the power to adjust the AI skill on an unit basis (plus numbers of AI and their equipment).

For a the player the difficulty options are the way to adjust the difficulty to his preference/skill level.

The tweaking must happen at the config level and in the mission. Certainly not by removing difficulty settings.

[Shagulon 1]

Anyone tested the AI change from today?

•Decreased AI time spent on tracking of friendly and known units

Could potentially make a large difference?

[dr. hladik 231]

Anyone tested the AI change from today?

•Decreased AI time spent on tracking of friendly and known units

Could potentially make a large difference?

You will probably not see any difference, because in scenarios where this helps, saved time will be used for another AI tasks :).

Edited October 10, 2013 by Dr. Hladik

[hbk 0]

;2531157']For a the player the difficulty options are the way to adjust the difficulty to his preference/skill level.

Yes, and doing this by adding a global skill multiplier is not satisfactory at all.

A good mission design would have to take into account "difficulty options" such as "easy = less enemy patrol units" on infiltration mission for example. Which unless I missed some really big feature is impossible right now (without some specific mission scripting that is).

Right now if you play an infiltration mission which you deem too hard, you can lower the enemy AI to brain dead status ... and that's all. It would be much more satisfactory to keep wary enemy units, but just have like half the patrols. You still have to be on your toes (won't survive long if caught) but have a bit more leeway in your approach. On the other hand for squad to squad urban warfare you may prefer to lower enemy and friendly reaction time and aim to be more in line with player skill but keep the number of enemies and friendlies to give the scale of a big battle. Just two examples from the top of my head.

[windies 11]

;2531157']Sorry to say but it seems you don't get the concept of difficulty options.

The mission designer already has the power to adjust the AI skill on an unit basis (plus numbers of AI and their equipment).

For a the player the difficulty options are the way to adjust the difficulty to his preference/skill level.

The tweaking must happen at the config level and in the mission. Certainly not by removing difficulty settings.

If you're responding to me, I agree with you. If that's how the current skill sliders work. I agree as well that the tweaking needs to happen to the AI and their behaviors rather than trying to rely on the skill level to improve the AI.

[hbk 0]

Actually if we also are to talk about UI issues (which was more or less also asked in the captain's log), I think it would be great to split the actual difficulty menu into different menus which would be "quality of life settings" (all the HUD options basically, could also be named "realism settings") and "difficulty settings" (which would cover stuff like extended armor and AI settings). Just a thought.

Right now it feels weird to change UI settings in AI settings under the same menu, even if indeed those UI settings have an impact on "difficulty".

[KeyCat 131]

As a mission designer I want to have the final say at the balance of the AI in my particular scenario. The user meddling with it might break the balance which results in an unplayable mission.

???

Why would forcing the mission makers ideas of balance on everyone be a good thing? A simple text line in readme/briefing with the following text would be enough IMO....

"This mission was designed and tested on A3 version 1.xx with skill = 0.xx and accuracy=0.xx."

If someone want's to test/play with other settings and potentionally "break" the mission balance it should be up to them.

/KC

[xendance 3]

???

Why would forcing the mission makers ideas of balance on everyone be a good thing? A simple text line in readme/briefing with the following text would be enough IMO....

"This mission was designed and tested on A3 version 1.xx with skill = 0.xx and accuracy=0.xx."

If someone want's to test/play with other settings and potentionally "break" the mission balance it should be up to them.

/KC

Because I like to make scenarios instead of dynamic whole map thingies. You might want weak enemies conducting an ambush on your troops in one part of the missions and then highly skilled spetsnaz in another part. Or anything really.

[KeyCat 131]

Sure, but a simple recommendation of settings from you as mission designer would IMHO be enough.

/KC

[gammadust 12]

@Xendance

that is fair enough. And an independent enemy side difficulty setting should, at most, scale that relative difference. Trouble arises when you want for example to specifficaly launch the player within a platoon of AI rookies against some veteran skilled enemies. Here some room of adjustment should be still given to the player. It is a matter of limiting the difficulty range available to the player within mission maker bounds. How to achieve this might become too complex while we don't know actual AI difficulty settings impact.

Leading me to important question(s) i leave to DEVs:

- In current state or intended state -

Are there discrete AI features/behaviours/abilities which trigger only above certain AI skill values*? (*specific skills as available to mission makers, not the general skill setting)

1) All of them

2) Some of them

3) None of them

4) Random / Impossible to say / It's not how it works

In case of 1) and 2), can we assume where applicable, that such AI features respond to probabilistic curve** of being used by AI?

(**skillType A = 0.5 > AI ability X use probability = 33% | skillType A = 0.75 > AI ability X use probability = 90% | etc.)

In case of 3) and 4), how does it work then and what kind of general conditions dependant on AI skill lead to such and such general behaviours? (this one would be a mouthful, but is it possible to address it in general terms?)

These are the type of questions that could help greatly in mission design in order to obtain mostly predictable results. These are mostly rethorical questions at this point, but if any answers can be advanced would be nice.

Edited October 10, 2013 by gammadust

[.kju 3244]

I think its 3) - skill has no affect on AI "features". It should be solely about their abilities (aiming, precision, reaction time, etc).

[gammadust 12]

Those are relatively low level, read "mechanical". In any case a comprehesive list of those could be useful. I was thinking more tactical stuff of the sort:

As tentatively extracted from Waypoint types

- AI looking for cover

- AI boarding/disembarking vehicles

- AI destroying objects

- AI searching for enemies

- AI engaging/attacking enemies

- AI providing/requesting support

- more?

Are these in any way affected by AI difficulty. I can see some that could...

[jasonb 10]

Dear Bohemia Interactive Dev Branch AI

AI feedback from a player new to the Arma series - Should be simple fixes, these are most common occurrences (all of these can be reproduced on any mission - Editor is the easiest way):

Friendly AI Gunners not attacking while player is inside vehicle:

When driving around in a vehicle, such as in a HMG Hunter or Slammer Tank, sometimes the AI won't fire unless you eject/get out. As soon as I leave the vehicle the AI gunner starts firing again. I definitely have a gunner while inside the vehicle as the gun turret is clearly moving around and targeting enemy troops, however they will not fire until I hit that "V" (Eject button). This can be reproduced on any mission and I've noticed on several custom missions. When this happens I have to often eject in the middle of a fire fight exposing myself just so the gunner starts firing. I'm surprised this hasn't been fixed yet or mentioned more often because it's extremely annoying. At the beginning of the mission the AI gunner will target and shoot some forces, but then shortly afterwards it proceeds to bug out until I leave the vehicle. (Working as intended? Still annoying as hell, being a commander or passenger of vehicle means the AI won't shoot unless you tell them to open up on the enemy - "3","5")

AI reaction "turn speed" in CQB- Simple fix idea?

Reading a few posts here, I was curious so I did some tests in the editor. I stood behind 3 AI riflemen (about 10 metres and shot point directly at them). All 3 AI turned slowly using "search mode", taking a few seconds to fire back (I was able to take all three out with a pistol). This is unnatural behaviour for even a cat, I don't understand why this isn't an easy fix? Why doesn't the AI search function just be eliminated in CQB situations? For example, if an AI soldier hears shots fired within 50 metres why can't it immediately turn to face the direction of the shots like a normal person would? Have the AI go into "search mode" if it cannot immediately find a target when it turns to face the direction of the shots fired or enter "search and destroy mode" and look around for the enemy. Not just stand there.

AI not entering "Search and destroy mode" in CQB situations when hiding

Another test with the same map. This time I fired shots near the AI. After the AI spot me I ran back inside building I started next to. The AI did not seek me out even if they knew where I was. Why did they not attempt to rush the building I was in? They should do this especially if they know I'm outnumbered. I think two of the them stood their ground outside the building and wait for me to come out and one of them ran off somewhere.

AI can fire through walls when taking cover

I know this one has been mentioned but wow, this keeps happening to me whenever I dive for cover. They only seem to fire one volley of shots though after I've gone behind cover, but it seems to penetrate the walls/cover I'm standing behind. (Dev replied- Working as intended in regards to thin objects)

AI difficulty slider does squat & player control

AI difficulty controls in game: It's been a hot topic here so I want to mention a few things- First off the current system does nothing to make the AI easier/less accurate. More often than not I die more when I've set their difficulty down to the minimum novice settings (Repro Drone Showcase - Try to take the town without the use of Drones). I think this is getting fixed so not going to say much more about this. BI AI Devs say players shouldn't have control over difficulty on user made missions. Why not simply allow the developer of the user made mission to allow enabling/disabling of AI difficulty parameters within their missions? I've changed my difficulty settings to unlimited saves which works for any single player mission which is the only thing right now that helps difficulty, however for some reason I hear many players complain that there isn't enough save points in a mission. What for?

Less micro management for AI medics when you are leading a squad please

Currently the AI works very well when there is an AI squad leader barking orders for AI troops, it works very well. Kudos to whoever developed that part of the AI (Yay, nice AI feedback :)). But does a squad leader have to really tell a medic to patch up an injured friendly? AI needs to prioritise things even overriding your orders to do simple things like heal friendlies. For example, after a fire fight and the 'area clear had been given', have the medics in the squad immediately patch themselves up and others who are injured. They can then return to whatever it was that they were doing. Have squad members patch themselves up only if no medic is present in the squad. You should only need to command a squad member to use his only medkit on an injured friendly when there is no medic in the squad. This is the main thing here, the rest is ok (This could be medic specific AI).

AI Tank gunners not firing shells at AI soldiers

Currently they prefer to use machine guns which is fine, however when facing groups of infantry, especially when they are behind cover, perhaps it would be nice for the Tanks to throw in a shell or two. That more powerful HE-T (I think) shell that is quite useful against infantry groups. I understand why AT soldiers don't waste their rockets on troops, which is fine.

Machine Gunners and suppressive fire - Auto cast?

Machine gunners shouldn't fire in single shot mode ever really. They should fire in bursts over long range or in sustained fire mode to suppressive infantry targets when they are behind cover. That is their role after all (Machine gunner AI specific). Again, like the medic, the player shouldn't need to micro mange them to do so. In StarCraft 2 you can set the AI to "Auto Cast" these types of abilities so perhaps the medics healing and machine gunners suppressive fire could be set to some kind of "Auto Cast" if you know what I mean so when the right situation presents itself then they will use their abilities without the need for being told to do it.

AI soldier Simulation issues

Please make the AI more human. For example someone posted the AI fires in single shot mode every 0.7 seconds. Why not randomise this between every 0.5-0.9 seconds each time he pulls the trigger?

AI super accurate... (Just kidding, not going to go into this as this has been mentioned to death) :)

More soon if I can think of any. Thanks for reading!

----updated----

A few more things:

Non AI AT soldiers vs. vehicles.

AI doesn't seem to know what to do, sometimes they will try to grenade the vehicle which is nice. I created a mission - 3X rifle men squads against a Tank. As the tank, The AI just stands there doesn't even try to get cover and lets me gun them down. The AI will hit the dirt sometimes (prone). Some times the AI will throw grenades but I mostly see this used against cars.

Suggestion: AI should take cover and throw grenades and smoke at Tank. Rinse & repeat (Can grenades defeat tanks?). If all is lost, or the AI are too far away to throw grenades or have none should know when to spread out and retreat. If a tank started firing at me and I only had a rifle I would either get to cover. If that tank was planning on stating I would.. GTFO.

AI Retrieving AT weapons from dead bodies. Squad equity

Closest AI squad member to dead squad member (AT/AA soldier) should grab their AT/AA weapon from them including from enemy AT/AA soldier if no friendly AT is present in squad. (I always have to do this myself and play the role as the AT soldier when I should be squad leader). The same goes for AI restoring lost med packs and grenades.

AI Suppressed

Suggestion: AI will not attempt to engage targets while pinned or taking cover from close by sustained suppressive fire. They will wait until the "music" stops before returning fire. Related to earlier suggestion: AI machine gunners should always use suppressive fire to their advantages.

Edited October 11, 2013 by JasonB
Added additional stuff