AI Discussion (dev branch)

[CraftyBadger 10]

I really enjoyed the campaign and the scouting / free roaming (as expected)even more so. One of the few areas that was frustrating in the campaign is not being able to manage squad members easily when they are running out of ammo.

Like Bouben suggested an indication of distance of rearming would be great.

For example distance values (similar to targets menu) in action menu (rearm, inventory etc.) would be a good start...

Or when you hover cursor over dead body you can say rearm or take primary weapon and ammo. Would this be possible?

Only other thing is making some options more visual based like in Zeus. Currently to command AI your fingers must perform some sort of riverdance to get them just the way you want.

Imagine how epic it would be if I could select my team mates select an option and a similar screen to this.

https://twitter.com/KarelMoricky/status/457120561978560512

You could select all these on one screen as selectable icons. with a decent description of what the ai does because it's not always obvious.

Modes Tab

• Fire mode / Engagement
  
• Combat Mode & Speed
  
• Formation
  
• Stance
  

Movement Tab

• Advance
  
• Stay back
  
• Flank Left
  
• Flank Right
  
• Stop
  
• Wait for me
  
• Find Cover
  

You either bind it to a key or have it bound to a number key command. what do people think this system hasn't improved since OF

[rübe 127]

Only other thing is making some options more visual based like in Zeus. Currently to command AI your fingers must perform some sort of riverdance to get them just the way you want.

IMHO there is no use in trying to fix the complexity of commanding with nicer visuals/improved GUI. There are still so many options/details. Yet - more often than not, all that is needed are two or three composed settings/behaviours. Switching just between them instead of having to compose behaviour/combat/speed/andwhatnot-settings as you go, and having to issue all the individual commands, could be an actual improvement, without having to sacrifice any of the complexity/detail.

Thus what I propose: let there be a given number (really just a few) of command-macros the user may name (or maybe let's have a pool of identifiers/callsign-thingies, s.t. voices aren't a problem; maybe customizable like insignias/logos, could be nice too...) and then let the user compose/program those commands out from all the options.

For example: I'd like a stealth-macro, that makes sure unit-speed is slow, unit-position is down or middle/kneeling (but never up), sets all units to not shoot (on hold, or combatMode GREEN I suppose), behaviour STEALTH, and hey, maybe even a "search cover" translating to waiting/stopped units.

And similarly, let's have a combat-macro, an aware-macro.

Something along those lines would speed basic things in commanding up while not sacrifising anything, fine-tuning (i.e. the riverdance) would be still possible.

And such an approach (with scriptable? macros, maybe hidden behind a lovely GUI) is certainly way more fun, than trying to streamline all these options down to a fixed set of such composed commands for ease of use. Or what if you even could write a little script (from a limited pool of commands only) which is given the player's group as a parameter?

[Bouben 3]

IMHO there is no use in trying to fix the complexity of commanding with nicer visuals/improved GUI. There are still so many options/details. Yet - more often than not, all that is needed are two or three composed settings/behaviours. Switching just between them instead of having to compose behaviour/combat/speed/andwhatnot-settings as you go, and having to issue all the individual commands, could be an actual improvement, without having to sacrifice any of the complexity/detail.

Thus what I propose: let there be a given number (really just a few) of command-macros the user may name (or maybe let's have a pool of identifiers/callsign-thingies, s.t. voices aren't a problem; maybe customizable like insignias/logos, could be nice too...) and then let the user compose/program those commands out from all the options.

For example: I'd like a stealth-macro, that makes sure unit-speed is slow, unit-position is down or middle/kneeling (but never up), sets all units to not shoot (on hold, or combatMode GREEN I suppose), behaviour STEALTH, and hey, maybe even a "search cover" translating to waiting/stopped units.

And similarly, let's have a combat-macro, an aware-macro.

Something along those lines would speed basic things in commanding up while not sacrifising anything, fine-tuning (i.e. the riverdance) would be still possible.

And such an approach (with scriptable? macros, maybe hidden behind a lovely GUI) is certainly way more fun, than trying to streamline all these options down to a fixed set of such composed commands for ease of use. Or what if you even could write a little script (from a limited pool of commands only) which is given the player's group as a parameter?

Guys, I believe this is more about interface than about AI so I would not discuss it here.

[the_demongod 31]

Here is a feedback ticket I wrote addressing the AI's annoying habit of going prone all the time. Give it a read here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19872

[Bouben 3]

Here is a feedback ticket I wrote addressing the AI's annoying habit of going prone all the time. Give it a read here: http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19872

I down-voted the ticket. I absolutely don't agree with the #1 and #2 points. I believe you have managed to put a very poor arguments in there.

#1 Is not true on Arma 3 islands and if true in some scenarios (therefore bug) it should be fixed by fixing the LOS system and not by nerfing the AI behaviour.

#2 Absolutely ridiculous and unacceptable reason you put there (sorry). We should fix the AI shooting skills itself so that they are less super-human and not making them more stupid in their position selection in order to make them easier to hit.

#3 and #4 are relevant points and could be fixed by timeouts before going prone or making cities CQB zones for which AI would have special behaviour. This would be very difficult to do properly IMO because there will be inevitable situations when you would love to have AI going prone even in CQB.

[CraftyBadger 10]

Guys, I believe this is more about interface than about AI so I would not discuss it here.

What myself and ruebe were saying is all related to AI? possibly I covered to much in one post for you to take in but it is just some ideas that would help with areas of the AI behavior.

where is the interface discussion so I can post some bits there?

Something along those lines would speed basic things in commanding up while not sacrifising anything, fine-tuning (i.e. the riverdance) would be still possible.

And such an approach (with scriptable? macros, maybe hidden behind a lovely GUI) is certainly way more fun, than trying to streamline all these options down to a fixed set of such composed commands for ease of use. Or what if you even could write a little script (from a limited pool of commands only) which is given the player's group as a parameter?

Also continuing on what ruebe said the interface could have ability of saving these macros / presets just like the new virtual arsenal.

Edited July 24, 2014 by CraftyBadger

[Bouben 3]

What myself and ruebe were saying is all related to AI? possibly I covered to much in one post for you to take in but it is just some ideas that would help with areas of the AI behavior.

where is the interface discussion so I can post some bits there?

I don't know about a dedicated interface discussion so if it does not exist yet, you can start one.

[rübe 127]

Also continuing on what ruebe said the interface could have ability of saving these macros / presets just like the new virtual arsenal.

Well, those would have to be handled like game-controls or rather your player profile (where you define the squad-xml, your face and what not...). Thus they'd be available for anything you play. No matter what. Script commands exectued would be local only anyways.

I don't know about a dedicated interface discussion so if it does not exist yet, you can start one.

Yeah, this is now definitely a discussion about interface, not about AI. An apropriate thread would be nice. Certainly there are more things in need of improvement (or discussion at least). And then I wonder what BIS plans with respect to this as well.

--

To come back to topic; I wonder what happens -- or rather should happen -- when an AI group consists of very different individual unit-speeds/movemant capabilities due to different loadout (or skill)... say given a MOVE-waypoint with FAST speed. Clearly there are several options, from every man on his own to continous waiting of faster units/catching up of slower units (and then... all wait a little longer, s.t. the slow units can rest a bit too?). And then the other question is, if the player can have a say in this behaviour, given he's in charge of that group. And given such a new behaviour would be introduced, it could be used - in its every man on his own mode - for retreatment attempts too, maybe?

Btw. it already happened in A2 that units would be much slower than most of the group - yet nothing in particular was done about this. I even wrote a script to detect this and make the group wait (and scan horizon) for some fsm, which worked rather fine. Maybe something along those lines would be much needed now.

[Variable 322]

Well since BIS had decided that no developer will be issued to fix the AI behaviour, discussing interface workarounds that could ease the pain when managing the AI has more value than discussing core AI behaviour.

[pettka 694]

Well since BIS had decided that no developer will be issued to fix the AI behaviour, discussing interface workarounds that could ease the pain when managing the AI has more value than discussing core AI behaviour.

There is actually a group of developers working solely on AI, even the newly added functionality needs some AI support. And there are several new stuff required for Helicopter DLC :icon_twisted:

[Variable 322]

That's gear news! Thanks Petkka. But will some long awaited AI problems be addressed?

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

I'd be glad if AI units that are unarmed will be able to sprint in the near future.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19587

[kremator 1065]

Pettka, is there any specific testing of AI that you want reported on to help the AI team? If they don't have a focus at the moment (yeah right!) then please direct them at AI driving (or crashing more like)

[Tonci87 163]

There is actually a group of developers working solely on AI, even the newly added functionality needs some AI support. And there are several new stuff required for Helicopter DLC :icon_twisted:

Can you tell us more about the nature of the AI rework for the DLC? Are they teaching the AI to shoot out of vehicels?

[msy 22]

Can you finish the showcase "combined arms" now? the AI now is cheating alot because health wont affect their accurcy.

I set an AI rifleman of about 10% HP, and 200m between him and me.

Then start the game, once start he begins to shoot me without any lag, and within 5 bullets he can kill me.

If I am about 10% HP, I can hardly see him 200m away by eye sight, even by aimpoint.

I make a super simple demo mission to show the issue.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19961

[sberla101 50]

Can you finish the showcase "combined arms" now? the AI now is cheating alot because health wont affect their accurcy.

I set an AI rifleman of about 10% HP, and 200m between him and me.

Then start the game, once start he begins to shoot me without any lag, and within 5 bullets he can kill me.

If I am about 10% HP, I can hardly see him 200m away by eye sight, even by aimpoint.

I make a super simple demo mission to show the issue.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=19961

vote up, but there's no file to download

someone can tell me if the AI accuracy is affected by new fatigue?

[blackpixxel 53]

There is another thing that could be improved to massivly improve the whole Arma experience:

In a typical Arma mission like Domination, you often first take a look at the AO. You can clearly see the AI, but why can't they see you? It would be so much better if they would, and if they would begin to regroup and try to get you by flanking and so on. When the player is able to see them, why can't they do the same?

[-Coulum- 35]

someone can tell me if the AI accuracy is affected by new fatigue?

Not as far as I know. And BI is aware of it. Its just a matter of getting around to it.

[MavericK96 0]

Not as far as I know. And BI is aware of it. Its just a matter of getting around to it.

Hopefully sooner rather than later, because it's a pretty huge issue if you play primarily co-op.

[novemberist 2]

There is another thing that could be improved to massivly improve the whole Arma experience:

In a typical Arma mission like Domination, you often first take a look at the AO. You can clearly see the AI, but why can't they see you? It would be so much better if they would, and if they would begin to regroup and try to get you by flanking and so on. When the player is able to see them, why can't they do the same?

tbf, it's entirely possible in real life that one side sees the other from their (superior) position or catches them by surprise but not the other way around. at the latest when you start to engage the enemy, they will know exactly where you are and shoot you with the precision of an industrial laser. I agree though that regrouping, flanking, taking cover etc. would be a much more immersive and realistic enemy behavior than simpy going prone and patiently shooting at you. but that likely remains the ultimate pipe dream of the Arma community...

[blackpixxel 53]

tbf, it's entirely possible in real life that one side sees the other from their (superior) position or catches them by surprise but not the other way around. at the latest when you start to engage the enemy, they will know exactly where you are and shoot you with the precision of an industrial laser. I agree though that regrouping, flanking, taking cover etc. would be a much more immersive and realistic enemy behavior than simpy going prone and patiently shooting at you. but that likely remains the ultimate pipe dream of the Arma community...

But in Domination Missions you can run arround 1km from the enemy at the horizon and they wont notice it - but you are clearly visible for them. In such a case they should plan to atack you or to get in a defensive position.

[mr_centipede 31]

I would like to bring your attention to this ticket http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=18623

oukej seems want to ask for your feedback on this matter (Command "Watch direction" hasn't a right effect)

[rübe 127]

But in Domination Missions you can run arround 1km from the enemy at the horizon and they wont notice it - but you are clearly visible for them. In such a case they should plan to atack you or to get in a defensive position.

I'm pretty sure AI notices you too in most of these cases. But AI doesn't know whether you're friendly or not (i.e. SideUnknown or something)... and thus there wont be any (re-)action (yet). That could be scripted though, then again, many things could be scripted...

The question then is rather: shouldn't there be a behaviour-setting exactly for that case? What should AI do upon seeing SideUnknown? Should the AI - depending on the current waypoint - go investigate, until it's clear whether to shoot at it or not? Should it hide/take cover? Or do nothing special? How would you name such a setting and its options? Aggressive/curious, defensive and passive? Would such a thing make sense and could be valuable in influencing other behaviour (depending on waypoint types)?

Maybe such things are best left to scripted solutions, exactly because what's a reasonable reaction highly depends on the scenario.

[oukej 2911]

Not as far as I know.

It is (even though it may not visually seem so when looking thru AI's eyes). It is affected by injuries and fatigue in (almost) the same way as the player. Issue might be that AI is rather good at compensating the sway. There are adjustments in progress. Ideally it should be more dependable on the AI skill.

[-Coulum- 35]

It is (even though it may not visually seem so when looking thru AI's eyes). It is affected by injuries and fatigue in (almost) the same way as the player. Issue might be that AI is rather good at compensating the sway. There are adjustments in progress. Ideally it should be more dependable on the AI skill.

Sweet. I didn't know that fatigue effected the ai. Unfortunately it doesn't really come through in the game play, for either... though I haven't done any specific testing. Maybe I am just being ignorant of how much they actually are handicapped.

Edited July 29, 2014 by -Coulum-