AI Discussion (dev branch)

[bad benson 1733]

Now what if there is an enemy vehicle with infantry? What if there is an enemy vehicle with infantry and another enemy infantry coming from behind?

shoot them in the head since they aren't armored vehicles? works just fine in arma, what's your point?

What if the enemy vehicle is out of LOS for 15 seconds and the enemy infantry is still chasing you? Should they now engage the infantry or not?

again. AI engages infantry just fine..

There is so many things to consider and it is very difficult to do basic priorities with AI if there is too many variables going on.

you are jsut making general statements without any value. are you saying it's impossible to evaluate a vehicle as superior?

tell me. which set of variables causes AI to circle around the vehicle? are you telling me that the situation where you face a superior enemy is an unusual one in the scope of arma? you can't just say "but it's so complicated hence it has to fail". it's kind of ridiculous. AI don't have to cope with actual reality, you know? they have to cope with exactly what the devs create for them to cope with.

it's one thing to say that BI's resources may be limited and thus the AI is pretty flawed but it's entirely another to say that simple bugs like that are just caused by outstanding complexity...

but how do you want the unit to comply with your orders?

i agree that jsut doing it might be weird.

but i don't see why normal AI routines would not apply here. target is armored against small arms? a "negative"/"can't do that" over the radio should do. and why not shoot a plane with small arms? no one said they'd have to chase it down.

are we really saying now that a simple evaluation like that is too much to ask?

Edited September 14, 2014 by Bad Benson

[killzone_kid 1332]

I understand where you are coming from with this statement, but how do you want the unit to comply with your orders? If you tell a rifleman AI to engage an MRAP, should it just start shooting the vehicle's center of mass? Should it be smart enough to try to engage weak points like tires? Should it try to use grenades if it has them? What if you tell it to engage a tank? There is nothing the AI can do to damage a tank, should it still try to engage weak points? Waste grenades on it? What if you tell the rifleman to engage a jet? Should he chase it down trying to shoot it with his rifle?

I'm just saying that it's not quite as simple as, "Do what you're told. Always."

It is simple is you read what I said. Engage means it has to use its brain, so it is ok if it fails without proper weapons. Fire at means it has to open fire at it. If it just fires at MRAP with rifle because I told it so, it is already satisfactory, if it shoots tyres because it can judge what max damage it can do with what it has, wow I take my hat to AI programmers.

[roshnak 41]

i agree that jsut doing it might be weird.

but i don't see why normal AI routines would not apply here. target is armored against small arms? a "negative"/"can't do that" over the radio should do. and why not shoot a plane with small arms? no one said they'd have to chase it down.

are we really saying now that a simple evaluation like that is too much to ask?

I am not saying that any of this is too much to ask, just that it isn't as simple as Killzone_Kid is making it out to be.

A "negative" response doesn't sound like a bad solution, to be honest.

As for the plane, I was never really saying that AI shouldn't engage, but more asking what they should do when it moves outside their engagement range, which it is much more likely to do and will happen much quicker than with ground based units. Currently AI will move into engagement range and chase enemy units that move out of it when they are told to shoot at something. You might have to create a special exception for planes, or just make it so that they will only chase a unit for a certain distance before giving up.

[Variable 322]

Okay, but those things didn't happen, and complaining about them now doesn't do any good. The Arma 3 dev team isn't going to get a huge influx of developers at this point.

How do you know? Maybe there are voices in BIS that call for fixing the AI and all they need is a little bit of push from the community? How about you start helping instead of giving up in the name of BIS?

I mean, if you really want to complain about the allocation of development resources, you should probably recognize that DayZ is pretty clearly the focus of development at this point, with a much larger team than Arma 3.

You are just proving my point. I call for re-prioritizing BIS focus. Because I'm an Arma 3 user, not DayZ. Each to his own. Instead of sitting at the fence and providing cheap commentary help us or at least don't try to tackle the effort to make BIS listen.

That mod only addresses the "to be suppressed" portion of your request to allow the AI to "suppress and be suppressed." It's much more difficult to teach the AI when and how to suppress other groups. There are a lot of potential factors involved.

Just have suppression induced by player command and have MG gunners shoot long bursts by default. Perfect? No. A hundred times better than what we have for years now? Yes. Problem solved.

Not thinking BIS should put everything else on hold until they solve my pet issues doesn't make me an apologist.

Calling such a major broken aspect of the game "pet issue" just destroyed any argument you might have had there.

[froggyluv 2136]

it's literally what you are. taking other people's statements out of context to serve your personal faction battle they have no part in. some people just embody that term. it's not even meant as an insult. it's a mere observation.

.

see? sad...people were actually describing things from that game that are well inside the scope of arma, which arma doesn't do and could use very well. but it's invalid info because it's OFP:DR, right? (i'm talking about the static gun example again)

Think you forgot when I said:

When DR came out I bought first day and came on these forums to compliment the use of their's AI's ability to use indoors and windows. I've posted multiple AI troubleshooting/feature bugs that I feel are flawed or missing on the Dev tracker as well as have criticized the lack of AI indoor advancement so many times I've lost count

Pot kettle? As for the rest of your vinegar vag diatribe it's probably best we just ignore each other at this point as you've got your hands full (yet again) with heated discussion. Welcome to my first ignorelist!

Back on topic yes OPFDR has a few moments of AI achievements but also much, much fail. funny people like to tell other people what constitutes fun or satisfying AI gaming but in the end it's all personal taste.

[chortles 263]

You are just proving my point. I call for re-prioritizing BIS focus. Because I'm an Arma 3 user, not DayZ. Each to his own. Instead of sitting at the fence and providing cheap commentary help us or at least don't try to tackle the effort to make BIS listen.

I may not be able to get BI to focus on Arma 3 over DayZ (and bluntly speaking, if the latter is the actual bigger cash cow then I actually don't begrudge BI such a title), but I'd sure like BI to reshuffle its priorities within Arma 3. Does that make sense?

(Admittedly from a perspective of "benefiting newcomers" I'd also prefer that the AI be less beholden to "stances"/"awareness states" and prioritize immediate player orders higher, if only because this would be less confusing to newcomers who aren't jaded by a decade of AI woes and expect the group command system to actually work.)

[bad benson 1733]

Pot kettle?

ah ok. so your mockery of DR was relevant to the discussion? it's not my fault that you have mockery and having to admit DR's strengths in one post. it only shows that you can't help it and try to fuel game vs game sentiments whenever you can.

oh wait! that was my whole point. you should maybe try to understand your own bullshit before accusing me of being on your low level of contribution.

Welcome to my first ignorelist!

thank god! i hope it means that i don't have to deal with your hollow posts again...

Back on topic yes OPFDR has a few moments of AI achievements but also much, much fail.

ok so fail vs fail. who wins? and so you do it again. comparing whole games when people just use specific features as examples for desired behavior. so how is that "much, much fail" relevant again? is the title of the thread "arma vs DR"?

i honestly think you are either too stupid or too far up your own ass to realise how useless your posts are.

[Bouben 3]

shoot them in the head since they aren't armored vehicles? works just fine in arma, what's your point?

again. AI engages infantry just fine..

you are jsut making general statements without any value. are you saying it's impossible to evaluate a vehicle as superior?

tell me. which set of variables causes AI to circle around the vehicle? are you telling me that the situation where you face a superior enemy is an unusual one in the scope of arma? you can't just say "but it's so complicated hence it has to fail". it's kind of ridiculous. AI don't have to cope with actual reality, you know? they have to cope with exactly what the devs create for them to cope with.

it's one thing to say that BI's resources may be limited and thus the AI is pretty flawed but it's entirely another to say that simple bugs like that are just caused by outstanding complexity...

i agree that jsut doing it might be weird.

but i don't see why normal AI routines would not apply here. target is armored against small arms? a "negative"/"can't do that" over the radio should do. and why not shoot a plane with small arms? no one said they'd have to chase it down.

are we really saying now that a simple evaluation like that is too much to ask?

Do you realize that if AI break the stealth mode the vehicle will engage it? That is where the dilemma is. And you are right, I make general statements, because right now I cannot be bothered to spend time explaining this. I just genuinely feel and sort of know that it is not as easy as you might think. That is all.

That does not mean that AI cannot be drastically improved in Arma. It was proven many times by mods that it can be. And I believe it can be improved even more. But it is not an easy task.

[DancZer 65]

now our programming dept. is about 3 times smaller than the one from OFP-DR

oukej if the time is too short, you should make a DLC which focus on the AI and the AI control. I would totally support you guys and i think i am not alone with this! The content could be fractions or real spec. ops units.

We need good AI, it is like fresh water! If you need support, we are here!

[killzone_kid 1332]

Just saw a butterfly landed on the water, sat there for few seconds and took off. I'd say someone must teach those bugs manners!

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

Is it AI CPU usage, or AI bandwidth usage which results in the infamous performance bottleneck?

---------- Post added at 01:28 ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 ----------

Do you realize that if AI break the stealth mode the vehicle will engage it? That is where the dilemma is. And you are right, I make general statements, because right now I cannot be bothered to spend time explaining this. I just genuinely feel and sort of know that it is not as easy as you might think. That is all.

That does not mean that AI cannot be drastically improved in Arma. It was proven many times by mods that it can be. And I believe it can be improved even more. But it is not an easy task.

IMO all BI needs to do with AI is provide mission designers and post-engine coders the knobs, dials and commands to allow us to do what we want with the AI. The list of useful AI commands is very short and the level to which we can qualitatively configure them is very minimal.

[old_painless 183]

oukej if the time is too short, you should make a DLC which focus on the AI and the AI control. I would totally support you guys and i think i am not alone with this! The content could be fractions or real spec. ops units.

We need good AI, it is like fresh water! If you need support, we are here!

Exactly! I am in, too. If things get done by issuing DLCs, then I will be first in line to buy the "Smarter AI" DLC.

-OP

[Bouben 3]

Is it AI CPU usage, or AI bandwidth usage which results in the infamous performance bottleneck?

---------- Post added at 01:28 ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 ----------

IMO all BI needs to do with AI is provide mission designers and post-engine coders the knobs, dials and commands to allow us to do what we want with the AI. The list of useful AI commands is very short and the level to which we can qualitatively configure them is very minimal.

No, thank you. That is not the solution for the AI problems we experience.

[froggyluv 2136]

Exactly! I am in, too. If things get done by issuing DLCs, then I will be first in line to buy the "Smarter AI" DLC.

-OP

LOL, me as well. Though somehow I see this as a bigger challenge then firing from vehicles or wind or 3d scopes. 'Smarter AI' covers an extreme amount of potential areas such as infantry pathfinding, better target and weapon selection, more realistic response to fear, pain, suppression, morale etc... Than we go to armor AI, planes, helos etc...

I would love if they focused on just CQB and indoor AI the most at this point and please support this old ticket http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8671

[Bouben 3]

No, thank you. That is not the solution for the AI problems we experience.

EDIT:

Or do you mean that BIS should let community to go even more deep into the AI code? I don't know if it is currently possible. Otherwise there would be no reason to not let the community participate more.

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:25 ----------

I would love if they focused on just CQB and indoor AI the most at this point and please support this old ticket http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8671

Ha ha, I would hate if they focused on that :D (controversy).

[fabrizio_t 58]

"Smarter AI DLC"? If so count me in, 15 bucks sitting and waiting.

I don't think it will happen though.

Seriously, fixing pathfinding itself would be a massive improvement, as it's cause of many AI issues. This can't be scripted by modders.

Then please give modders some way to override "Combat" behaviour at will, by script. You'll see all sort of fancy things then.

[Variable 322]

I may not be able to get BI to focus on Arma 3 over DayZ (and bluntly speaking, if the latter is the actual bigger cash cow then I actually don't begrudge BI such a title), but I'd sure like BI to reshuffle its priorities within Arma 3. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. Because the fact BIS is a commercial company, doesn't mean that it can neglect it's responsibility to make every effort to support it's released games, even if it means diverting resources from more successful titles. DayZ cannot serve as an excuse for having such a core feature broken if its existence prevents BIS from living up to its obligations.

Really guys, enough of the apologetic approach of "we accept every BIS failure because we love BIS and BIS have DayZ, fixing broken AI behavior is hard and there are other bugs". I love BIS, but this approach doesn't help BIS nor the community.

[roshnak 41]

No, it doesn't make sense. Because the fact BIS is a commercial company, doesn't mean that it can neglect it's responsibility to make every effort to support it's released games, even if it means diverting resources from more successful titles. DayZ cannot serve as an excuse for having such a core feature broken if its existence prevents BIS from living up to its obligations.

Really guys, enough of the apologetic approach of "we accept every BIS failure because we love BIS and BIS have DayZ, fixing broken AI behavior is hard and there are other bugs". I love BIS, but this approach doesn't help BIS nor the community.

Quick question: Do you believe that BIS has a continuing obligation to go back and fix all of the AI problems in OFP? Many of the AI problems in Arma 3 still exist in OFP as well, after all. I'm just trying to figure out how far you're going to extend this line of logic.

I am not apologizing for Arma 3's shortcomings, and I doubt Chortles is either. I have at times been highly critical of decisisons that have been made regarding Arma 3's development. I posted relatively recently that I would not have been happy if I had paid full price for this game. I'm sure we all want AI to be fixed and improved upon, I'm sure many of us think that AI should be a (but not necessarily the only) priority, and I'm sure that almost everyone on these forums would rather that Arma 3's development took priority over DayZ's.

Edited September 16, 2014 by roshnak

[Variable 322]

Quick question: Do you believe that BIS has a continuing obligation to go back and fix all of the AI problems in OFP? Many of the AI problems in Arma 3 still exist in OFP as well, after all. I'm just trying to figure out how far you're going to extend this line of logic.

No. But for the current title which is still worked on, yes. And not all the AI problems, I would settle for the glaring ones. Is it not a reasonable expectation in your eyes?

[roshnak 41]

No. But for the current title which is still worked on, yes. And not all the AI problems, I would settle for the glaring ones. Is it not a reasonable expectation in your eyes?

No, it's not unreasonable.

I do think it's a little unreasonable to call for a halt on the development of other features and DLC until those problems are fixed, though. For one thing, there are probably people who never even touch AI that are very excited about sling loading and the ability to fire from cargo positions.

[Variable 322]

No, it's not unreasonable.

I do think it's a little unreasonable to call for a halt on the development of other features and DLC until those problems are fixed, though. For one thing, there are probably people who never even touch AI that are very excited about sling loading and the ability to fire from cargo positions.

Of course the impact of the problematic feature should be measured against the amount of players affected by it. And I would estimate that the people that are playing with AI vastly outnumber those who never touch one. And even if I'm exaggerating, there are enough players that need a reasonably functioning AI to justify a significant resource allocation to fixing AI issues. Yes, even at the expense of a new DLC, it's that important.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Variable

[maddogx 13]

Can we please return to the actual subject at hand?

What BIS should or should not be doing, whether or not they are "obligated" to fix certain bugs, where their priorities should lie etc. really isn't what this thread (or indeed this sub-forum) is about.

[chortles 263]

even if it means diverting resources from more successful titles.

You are literally beyond help if you think that a dev team whose leadership has behaved the way that it did last year would even lean in this direction enough for you to even believe that they "should".

I am not apologizing for Arma 3's shortcomings, and I doubt Chortles is either.

Agreed, what I've talked about is not what should be but what (seemingly) is... and based on past behavior, whatwill be in the foreseeable future.

@ ribi: Would you please elaborate here on the technical changes insofar as AI movement in/through buildings that you alluded to about a week and a half ago? What are some consistently reproducible ways that we can see this for ourselves on dev branch? (Yes, I'm asking a dev for a repro. ;) )

[alky_lee 279]

Is there anything that can be done to get AI to go through animated gates such as bar gates.? I have tried to force a convoy of AI to drive through an open bar gate and they refuse, even if there is no other way round.

Someone has raised an issue on the feedback tracker which I have added to. http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14688

[killzone_kid 1332]

Lets try to get attention to this one more time:

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16717