AI Discussion (dev branch)

[Maxzy 12]

I can imagine the current state of AI threat evaluation is impossible to visualize due to too many parameters and complexity.

Exactly my thoughts when I use a word "clusterfucked". AI now can do so much things that it just became overwhelming to it, I guess. Having too much choise is often worse than not having any choise at all. AI became too, I don't know - selfaware? - you order him to go from one point to another and he says "What, are you crazy? Can't you see that those guys are shooting at me? The hell with and your orders!" =))

[alky_lee 279]

That's all we need ... conscientious objectors. I think they're taking this simulation thing a bit far.

[-Coulum- 35]

I don't think ai is "too complex" or has too many choices and too many variables to take into consideration. I think its more that its priorities are out of whack. Right now the ai is very much so caught up in shooting the enemy. And then staying in formation. and then finding cover. And then following orders. And then doing things like healing buddies. Add some seemingly unavoidable wonky pathfinding and you got the current "clusterfuck" you guys describe. But I disagree that the ai is trying to do too much at once. Because they don't. They tackle one thing at a time. Its just it is trying to do things in the wrong order. And bad path finding. My opinion.

It would be nice to have player created orders take more priority in ai decisions. Ie. more so than ai's individual need to shoot at the enemy.

[Bouben 3]

I don't think ai is "too complex" or has too many choices and too many variables to take into consideration. I think its more that its priorities are out of whack. Right now the ai is very much so caught up in shooting the enemy. And then staying in formation. and then finding cover. And then following orders. And then doing things like healing buddies. Add some seemingly unavoidable wonky pathfinding and you got the current "clusterfuck" you guys describe. But I disagree that the ai is trying to do too much at once. Because they don't. They tackle one thing at a time. Its just it is trying to do things in the wrong order. And bad path finding. My opinion.

It would be nice to have player created orders take more priority in ai decisions. Ie. more so than ai's individual need to shoot at the enemy.

Interesting opinion.

[DancZer 65]

They mentioned in this(

) that the user orders are not really orders. Its more like advice for the AI.

[novemberist 2]

I just don't get why non-AT Infantry doesn't engage against vehicles at all anymore. It just seems so wrong watching them get killed while not even trying to shoot an MRAP with rifles...

[Bouben 3]

I just don't get why non-AT Infantry doesn't engage against vehicles at all anymore. It just seems so wrong watching them get killed while not even trying to shoot an MRAP with rifles...

Maybe because they got killed all the time they tried it? Seriously, there is no reason to shoot on a vehicle if you cant really damage it in order to safe your life. I prefer this behaviour instead of AI getting killed while they could just hide and be quiet. Maybe they should even run away from enemy vehicles and try to hide.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Bouben

[novemberist 2]

Maybe because they got killed all the time they tried it? Seriously, there is no reason to shoot on a vehicle if you cant really damage it in order to safe your life. I prefer this behaviour instead of AI getting killed while they could just hide and be quiet. Maybe they should even run away from enemy vehicles and try to hide.

I agree for tanks, but MRAPS or any other lightly armored vehicles (Armed offroad etc)? They could easily take these out with rifles or grenades or at least disable the vehicles by shooting their tires or the driver. The AI doesn't hide or run away...they just stand there and do nothing. This does not seem realistic and immersive at all...

And why would they run away from an unarmed enemy vehicle when they could just take it out with a couple of gunshots?

edit.

I also think this is a bug and not intended behavior. So stop defending it ;)

Edited February 24, 2014 by novemberist

[instagoat 133]

What may be happening is that the AI is "thinking" in too concrete categories. It tries to really BE clever, rather than trying to APPEAR clever. There is a difference, because the former requires very concise and situation specific, abstract considerations and thinking while the latter just gives an outline for a basic threat and then the AI reacts in one direction or the other.

I can't quite describe how I see this, since I am not a programmer and have no familiarity how the Ai really works at heart, but in general it seems to me that some basic things it needs to be doing are all that is necessary. A massive reduction of input variables, and resulting reduction of output variables.

Unfortunately, it is exactly that reduction that seems to be so insurmountably impossible to fix. Just trying to think of a way to make an AI deal with obstacles in their line of fire is a nightmare, as the friendly fire and friendly running-over accidents prove, which are way too common.

[Sniperwolf572 758]

What may be happening is that the AI is "thinking" in too concrete categories. It tries to really BE clever, rather than trying to APPEAR clever. There is a difference, because the former requires very concise and situation specific, abstract considerations and thinking while the latter just gives an outline for a basic threat and then the AI reacts in one direction or the other.

I can't quite describe how I see this, since I am not a programmer and have no familiarity how the Ai really works at heart, but in general it seems to me that some basic things it needs to be doing are all that is necessary. A massive reduction of input variables, and resulting reduction of output variables.

Unfortunately, it is exactly that reduction that seems to be so insurmountably impossible to fix. Just trying to think of a way to make an AI deal with obstacles in their line of fire is a nightmare, as the friendly fire and friendly running-over accidents prove, which are way too common.

Inability to strafe when necessary (they turn like vehicles, only raraly strafe when adjusting to the edge of cover) and they almost never fire while moving when appropriate. I believe those two things could improve the way AI "appears" incredibly.

[Bouben 3]

I agree for tanks, but MRAPS or any other lightly armored vehicles (Armed offroad etc)? They could easily take these out with rifles or grenades or at least disable the vehicles by shooting their tires or the driver. The AI doesn't hide or run away...they just stand there and do nothing. This does not seem realistic and immersive at all...

And why would they run away from an unarmed enemy vehicle when they could just take it out with a couple of gunshots?

edit.

I also think this is a bug and not intended behavior. So stop defending it ;)

The point is, those vehicles (MRAPS) should not be taken out with just a couple of gunshots and their drivers neither (machinegunners could maybe take them out, dunno). Do your AI shoot at guerilla pick-ups? If not then THAT is a bug.

I also think a bug is that AI stops using a vehicle when its tires pop. A driver and others could jump out but a gunner should stay and use the weapons the vehicle has. Too many times I have "disabled" a dangerous HMG or GMG vehicles by just shooting their tires. That is what I call a bug (or at least an unfortunate compromise).

EDIT:

OK I tested it and BLUFOR Hunter can be taken out with just one 6.5 mm magazine. That is a bug and should be fixed very fast. OPFOR Ifrit does not have such problems.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Bouben

[maturin 12]

The Hunters have external gas tanks that can be hit by bullets, burning all the passengers alive in an explosion.

This is deliberate, because Michael Bay performed a dark ritual with Bobby Kotick to possess several ArmA designers who are now too scared to come clean about this idiocy.

[Bouben 3]

The Hunters have external gas tanks that can be hit by bullets, burning all the passengers alive in an explosion.

This is deliberate, because Michael Bay performed a dark ritual with Bobby Kotick to possess several ArmA designers who are now too scared to come clean about this idiocy.

WTF?

Well, I was shooting doors of the Hunter and it exploded...

...so there is a bug in the idiocy.

EDIT:

Ifrit was able to take over 25 6.5 mm magazines and 7 grenades before it exploded. So there goes your need to fire bullets at armored vehicles, novemberist.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Bouben

[maturin 12]

If you shoot in the space behind the rear door you will also hit a fuel tank there.

[CaptainObvious 95]

If you shoot in the space behind the rear door you will also hit a fuel tank there.

One could argue if bullets penetrating the gas tank have any effect, other than causing a leak of course, especially when the hunter has a diesel engine.

[Bouben 3]

If you shoot in the space behind the rear door you will also hit a fuel tank there.

That is a complete bullshit then. Definitely a Michael Bay's job.

---------- Post added at 19:02 ---------- Previous post was at 19:00 ----------

One could argue if bullets penetrating the gas tank have any effect, other than causing a leak of course, especially when the hunter has a diesel engine.

Of course. That is what maturing was pointing at with Michael Bay. It should be fixed by BIS very promptly.

[CaptainObvious 95]

Of course. That is what maturing was pointing at with Michael Bay. It should be fixed by BIS very promptly.

I'm bad at seeing irony in other than my own language :o

[Bouben 3]

I'm bad at seeing irony in other than my own language :o

Me too. English is not my native one but Michael Bay was very obvious to me :D

[novemberist 2]

The point is, those vehicles (MRAPS) should not be taken out with just a couple of gunshots and their drivers neither (machinegunners could maybe take them out, dunno). Do your AI shoot at guerilla pick-ups? If not then THAT is a bug.

Which essentially makes any car in the game the ultimate Anti-infantry weapon (taken there is no AT soldier among them and/or they are out of rockets) by simply "running over" all of them, because the AI won't even attempt to defend themselves or run away (even if it's useless) . You think this is realistic? Why don't they do that in real life to save bullets, if those MRAPS are so powerfull and indestructable by anything but rockets ?

I don't think if you are faced with such a vehicle in the battlefield, you would think "I can't destroy it anyways, so I better do nothing and let them kill us or report our position or just stand in out vicinity forever". It just looks odd if infanty doesn't do anything to get rid of the last remaining MRAp in a battle...

I'm not a military expert, but such rational calculations are actually made when in the middle of a battle?

Edited February 24, 2014 by novemberist

[CaptainObvious 95]

Well it's pointless to spray MRAPs with handheld weapons due to their strong armors, they can survive land mines and IEDs weighing hundreds of pounds, last thing* I would do is shoot it with my rifle, I'd stay the hell away from it.

* = Besides standing still that is

[Bouben 3]

Which essentially makes any car in the game the ultimate Anti-infantry weapon (taken there is no AT soldier among them and/or they are out of rockets) by simply "running over" all of them, because the AI won't even attempt to defend themselves or run away (even if it's useless) . You think this is realistic? Why don't they do that in real life to save bullets, if those MRAPS are so powerfull and indestructable by anything but rockets ?

I don't think if you are faced with such a vehicle in the battlefield, you would think "I can't destroy it anyways, so I better do nothing and let them kill us or report our position or just stand in out vicinity forever". It just looks odd if infanty doesn't do anything to get rid of the last remaining MRAp in a battle...

I'm not a military expert, but such rational calculations are actually made when in the middle of a battle?

I would run for my life and try to hide from it. No point in shooting at it if you have no machinegun or AT. It would just bring attention to your whereabouts.

And no, it does not make any car in the game the ultimate anti-infantry weapon. Your AI mates will be happy to shoot on any armored pick-up or ATV as well as other civilian vehicles occupied by enemy AI which is penetrable by bullets. Just try it (I tried it today).

[maturin 12]

If the stupid fucking RWS could be disabled with bullets...

They copy paste the same turrets all over the game but only 1/3 of them aren't utterly bulletproof.

[Bouben 3]

If the stupid fucking RWS could be disabled with bullets...

They copy paste the same turrets all over the game but only 1/3 of them aren't utterly bulletproof.

So how long would it take IRL to disable it? How much firepower it can survive?

[nimrod_z 8]

Changed: Coefficient for walking / idling goats and sheep

I know that animals seem to be a priority lately but any chance an AI person will run at full speed when unarmed sometime this year? it's only been like this since early alpha. tickets have been made in tracker and forgotten about and still nothing. currently the AI people only run when they are holding a weapon. simply place a ARMED unit in the editor with a waypoint and speed set to full for waypoint and he sprints at full speed. do the same thing again only removeAllWeapons from the AI and he now slowly jogs. I know its not a complete game breaker and im not on a rant, just wanted to bring this issue up again. civs jogging for cover with no sence of urgency in missions just looks really stupid. especially when the ARMED AI runs circles around them.

anyway, thanks for all the hard work and constant updates BI. keep up the good work.

[maturin 12]

So how long would it take IRL to disable it? How much firepower it can survive?

Well, half of it is a giant unarmored optical system.

I don't know how much it is supposed to take IRL, but remember how the Panther and BTR turrets can be disabled with bullets?