AI Discussion (dev branch)

[OMAC 254]

Friendly AI Gunners not attacking while player is inside vehicle:

I do not find this to be true. AI gunner of Hunter HMG will waste squad after squad of opfor AI with me as driver never exiting vehicle. AI gunner of Slammer will automatically fire at targets with me as driver (start mission as driver). If you are commander of tank, AI gunner will not fire cannon unless you order him to, whether you are in the commander or driver seat. However, if the AI gunner is under fire at will orders, he will automatically engage infantry using coaxial MG with player as commander.

Make sure you give gunner "free to engage - fire at will" orders if that's what you want him to do: unit #-3-5 or ~-3-5.

Edited October 11, 2013 by OMAC

[pettka 694]

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.

Thanks for all the valuable feedback, I'm sure we will try to address at least some of the issues. I would just add to this one that AI don't have any special kind of penetration for their shots, some thin objects are simply easy to shoot through and AI gives it a try as well as player would :icon_twisted:

[relain 1]

Dear Bohemia Interactive Dev Branch AI

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.

Hi JasonB,

I did intensive tests (with my limited resources) on this issue. Which, after the testing, isn't an issue - it's really a neat feature. Please read the whole thread - and check out the videos from Gama dust. :)

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?166487-ARMA3-Coop-Tactics-how-to-fight-the-AI&p=2530218#post2530218

Also, we should use a classification system for the type of cover - I tried one:

Concealment - no protection

Bushes

Grass

Fences

Wooden Doors (!)

"blind" Windows (!)

Corrugated Sheet Metal (!)

....

Cover (acceptable protection against Rifle, Calliber 6.5, 5.6, etc.)

Walls

House Corners

Brick Walls

Cars (Engine)

Trees

....

"Hard" Cover - no Sniper Rifle, no MG can penetrate, good protection against HE

Concrete Wall (my fav)

Tanks

Stones (most popular)

small hills

....

---------- Post added at 08:39 ---------- Previous post was at 08:30 ----------

@petka

I have an idea for you, which would save you a lot of time and a lot of nerves in customer support - and would help your customer to understand the AI better.

You should provide something like this little neat script from gama dust to the pulic. I personally would love to have something like this for my AI tests. Everytime a customer thinks the AI is cheating, he could clarify the issue before he spams the feedback tracker.

[hbk 0]

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

This. Oh very much this. Also somewhat in the same vein tank gunner should be able to automatically choose main gun/coax gun when engaging enemies. If tank commander targets a soldier, tank gunner should switch to MG, and switch back to sabot/heat when tank commander targets an armored vehicle.

But given the current state of things I don't know if such things are feasible without a complete AI overhaul (not saying current AI program state is awful, just that stuff quickly get very complicated and what seems basic stuff oftentimes is not basic at all to implement).

[Shagulon 1]

;2531423']I think its 3) - skill has no affect on AI "features". It should be solely about their abilities (aiming' date=' precision, reaction time, etc).[/quote']

please excuse my ignorance, but we have skills applied to various soldier types too? Like special forces vs local militia? Don't we want better communication, coordination and positioning/manoeuvring from higher skill levels, not just accuracy and reaction times.

Or the holy grail, better reaction to being under fire, less suppression etc?

[.kju 3240]

Many good points JasonB.

Friendly AI Gunners not attacking while player is inside vehicle

This is mainly due to design and some bugs

1. player has to command AI gunner currently when in a vehicle - even when not in commander position (technically its due to being "effective commander")

2. AI does not use non autoFire type weapons automatically

# AI gunner is unable to use secondary/multiple magazines of a weapon (like SABOT/HEAT) (not sure if still true in A3)

# The AI tank gunner should automatically switch to and use sabot/heat, even when a player is inside the vehicle

# AI gunner of a TOW jeep under a player SL does not engage armored targets - only light targets

# AI gunner of a jeep with the player inside will not engage hostile targets.

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

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

AI has troubles with hearing shots (see tickets linked above) and reaction to being under fire is too basic (seek cover/sprint/evade/fire back/engage quickly). That also depends a lot on their current behavior type and the default one is basicly "stay around dump".

AI Tank gunners not firing (HE) shells at AI soldiers

See the tickt above and probably faulty configuration for HE type ammo (cost mainly)

"AI control"

So far the design philosophy was that you can and have to micro manage everything when you are group leader.

There are four behavior modes, and engagement type orders, yet the units still have very limited freedom/do stuff on their own.

Obviously this should be improved / group leader radio commands added to let AI act more on their own.

---------- Post added at 11:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:16 AM ----------

Skill means:

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/CfgAISkill

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setSkill_array

Unfortunately its unclear how they exact affect AI. Hence the request for more docu.

---------- Post added at 11:31 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ----------

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).

However this can be scripted very easily. Make condition of presence or multiplier for number of units based on selected difficulty settings (Recruit/Regular/Veteran/Mercenary).

Also I recommend everyone, including BI, to check a good DAC mission with ASR AI as a baseline for great AI behavior and gameplay.

The randomness, the dynamic patrols, the AI behavior, their info share and simulated group assistance, as well as their base combat skills - this is the baseline to start with. Anything below doesn't do this engine justice to strive for.

[jamsus 11]

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14905

They have taken this on W.I.P.

Good news, i think ;-)

[ru55lee 2]

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14905

They have taken this on W.I.P.

Good news, i think ;-)

YES!!...this is the main reason that puts me off playing this. Really hope it gets sorted soon.

[gammadust 12]

;2531866']However this can be scripted very easily. Make condition of presence or multiplier for number of units based on selected difficulty settings (Recruit/Regular/Veteran/Mercenary).

"based on selected difficulty settings"' date=' but is there a way to read those values? The closest i've seen being done via scripting is very indirect (via difficultyEnabled and crossreferencing with default install values). This can already help a mission maker, no doubt, in any case it tells nothing about actual difficulty and there's nothing assuring him the player has not changed defaults. Or am i missing something?

;2531866']

Also I recommend everyone' date=' [b']including BI[/b], to check a good DAC mission with ASR AI as a baseline for great AI behavior and gameplay.

The randomness, the dynamic patrols, the AI behavior, their info share and simulated group assistance, as well as their base combat skills - this is the baseline to start with. Anything below doesn't do this engine justice to strive for.

While ASR_AI definitely improves AI and is a very good baseline for gameplay purposes, i am reticent of how you expect BI to use it in face of AI settings "overhaul" (if i may call it that).

Edit:

ROFL at the "[terminator] cannot be reasoned with" bellow...

[OMAC 254]

;2531866']# AI gunner is unable to use secondary/multiple magazines of a weapon (like SABOT/HEAT) (not sure if still true in A3)

# The AI tank gunner should automatically switch to and use sabot/heat' date=' even when a player is inside the vehicle[/url']

In A3, if player starts mission as driver of Slammer, AI gunner will automatically switch back and forth from coaxial MG to cannon (SABOT) according to target, and waste everything in sight. The gunner is a killing machine. A terminator. He can't be reasoned with. He shows no remorse. Very cool. ;)

[maturin 12]

YES!!...this is the main reason that puts me off playing this. Really hope it gets sorted soon.

It's actually not the main reason, you know. That ticket was blown way out of proportion. Such a bug can only occur when a highly specific set of conditions are met. It should also be an easy fix.

Most of the time people think the AI is cheating to kill them, they are just using their usual unfairly balanced (but honest) capabilities to do so.

Accuracy that does not change to reflect adverse conditions, and eyes that are not confused by clutter and see through grass (and only grass). None of this will be easy to fix.

[metalcraze 290]

They don't see through grass either. Not normally at least.

Somebody said the specific condition for when they do is when there's a grass in between you and AI vision but you are laying on the road f.e.

Since AI seems to take into account only how much you are concealed by grass not if there's one in between.

I did tests for when I was in the grass and AI indeed did not see me in there but never tested the case above thoroughly.

[NeuroFunker 11]

They don't see through grass either. Not normally at least.

Somebody said the specific condition for when they do is when there's a grass in between you and AI vision but you are laying on the road f.e.

Since AI seems to take into account only how much you are concealed by grass not if there's one in between.

I did tests for when I was in the grass and AI indeed did not see me in there but never tested the case above thoroughly.

and where is a complaint in your post?

[jasonb 10]

Thanks for all the valuable feedback, I'm sure we will try to address at least some of the issues. I would just add to this one that AI don't have any special kind of penetration for their shots, some thin objects are simply easy to shoot through and AI gives it a try as well as player would :icon_twisted:

Ah ok thanks, yeah I've been gunned down several times when thinking "phew" I'm safe. Please give those issues a real go! They are just the basics the things people will notice most.

---------- Post added at 21:35 ---------- Previous post was at 21:28 ----------

A few more things (added to yesterdays post):

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, AI should "GTFO" split and retreat.

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 realism

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. (In my real world example, suppressive fire is used to great extent In my bi-weekly games with airsoft)- suppressive fire is a huge factor. Removing the enemies abilities to engage allows friendly squad members to either reload/patch themselves up and the rifle men/assault team can move up, taking more "attractive" cover close to the enemy for better shots, without fear of getting gunned down. Related to earlier suggestion: AI machine gunners should always use suppressive fire to their advantages. Wasting ammo is the trade off.

Edited October 11, 2013 by JasonB

[maturin 12]

AI run away from armor in my game, but only if all the AT in the squad is dead. Throwing smoke is good, but frags are useless against heavy armor.

[turin turambar 0]

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14905

They have taken this on W.I.P.

Good news, i think ;-)

Basically, I think it can be fixed with two steps.

1 AI should engage only when the current knowledge of the target is over a certain value. So he just lose a target behind a bush, he can still shoot a few shots, but he lost the target for more time, his priority should be reacquire LoS with him. Like real people do.

2 AI should lose more "target knowledge" and faster when he lose LoS over it. This, combined with 1, should avoid the behavior with the video.

[maturin 12]

Ideally, when the AI loses LOS with a target because of an intervening object, he should hose down that object with bullets.

[NoPOW 59]

Ideally, when the AI loses LOS with a target because of an intervening object, he should hose down that object with bullets.

That should be dependent of the AI's role: an MG would, a sniper wouldn't...

EDIT: Once an enemy disappears behind an object, LoS should be devided into sub-LoS'es that mark a margin in which the enemy is 'captured'.

[oldy41 61]

Once an enemy disappears behind an object, LoS should be devided into sub-LoS'es that mark a margin in which the enemy is 'captured'.

In theory quite clever, but calculating that information and then making use of it might require quite a bit of processing resources.

[OMAC 254]

Ideally, when the AI loses LOS with a target because of an intervening object, he should hose down that object with bullets.

AI seem to do that in this video which shows a short-range search and destroy skirmish from CSAT AI marksman point of view:

The AI definitely have better ability than humans to track and shoot effectively through concealment. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. They have very good awareness of target location even after LOS has been lost. Humans depend too much on clear LOS. We need to start to think and track like an AI. ;) :rolleyes:

Note that the marksman doesn't react when shots are first fired at him, and I don't see how he spots NATO opponent at the very end when he fires for the first time.

It is very cool how the AI uses cover and concealment. He seems to get seriously out of breath rather easily...

I'll add this vid to the ticket in question.

Edited October 12, 2013 by OMAC

[Bouben 3]

AI run away from armor in my game, but only if all the AT in the squad is dead. Throwing smoke is good, but frags are useless against heavy armor.

What happens if you give them HOLD or GUARD or SENTRY waypoint? Do they still run away then?

And when they run, do they really run for their lives or stopping every ten or so meters to check their surroundings?

[-Coulum- 35]

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=14905

They have taken this on W.I.P.

Not really sure what "assigned means" but that's a good one to fix. But like maturin says:

Most of the time people think the AI is cheating to kill them, they are just using their usual unfairly balanced (but honest) capabilities to do so.

Accuracy that does not change to reflect adverse conditions, and eyes that are not confused by clutter and see through grass (and only grass). None of this will be easy to fix.

Most of the time the ai is not actually using exploits or cheats to kill/spot and kill you. More often its simply because they are not confused by camouflage and have uber consistent aiming (they don't get panicked or sacrifice accuracy for speed or vice versa like a human does.) Regarding spotting, especially you can see that in OMAC's video. I couldn't see the enemy ai not because he was not visible but because of the massive amount of camouflage and clutter making it hard for me to distinguish him. The ai doesn't have this problem. Whether a scene is complex or simple the ai can pick out enemies. This is not cheating, but it is in un-human. Same goes for shooting - they are not cheating, but they are un-human because the situation around them doesn't alter their speed and accuracy like a human does to adapt to a situation.

The combination of these two are brutal. In the initial moments of a clash of patrols humans are spraying fire at a rapid rate (thus inaccurate) at everything that may be an enemy because they haven't yet distinguished them all from the scene. Mean while ai that have a los on the humans are standing up taking carefully aimed shots even though bullets are ripping everything around them to shreds.

The sharing of info between group members just multiplies the problem because now everyone in the group of ai is doing that to anyone anyone in the group has spotted.

1 AI should engage only when the current knowledge of the target is over a certain value. So he just lose a target behind a bush, he can still shoot a few shots, but he lost the target for more time, his priority should be reacquire LoS with him. Like real people do.

2 AI should lose more "target knowledge" and faster when he lose LoS over it. This, combined with 1, should avoid the behavior with the video.

My suggestions would be:

1. If an ai line of sight is obstructed he fires shots at the predicted location with high dispersion - ie he does not fire at one point on the bush but tries to hit several different points.
   
2. If the obstruction is close to the ai (closer than !/2 the distance from ai to target) they should simply not fire.
   alas it is always easier said than done.
   

[lukrop 10]

@petka

I have an idea for you, which would save you a lot of time and a lot of nerves in customer support - and would help your customer to understand the AI better.

You should provide something like this little neat script from gama dust to the pulic. I personally would love to have something like this for my AI tests. Everytime a customer thinks the AI is cheating, he could clarify the issue before he spams the feedback tracker.

Is there a ticket for this issue? Why does the AI get 360° "FOV" after the initial contact? I know that the actual FOV isn't 360° but why does the patroling AI still get spotted by the standing AI which is looking in a different direction now?

[OMAC 254]

In my video, at 1:52 the CSAT marksman has a clear LOS to the NATO target, but forgoes a shot at that point, preferring to get to cover behind the rock. Most humans would have taken a shot then (at least I would have), especially as the NATO guy was running away from, and wasn't looking at, the CSAT marksman, giving the CSAT soldier a few seconds to take aim, and possibly even go prone, before fire could be returned.

In about 8 tries of that test mission, the CSAT soldier always ended up killing the NATO soldier. Hmmm. Just lucky?

The video also shows that the AI can hit a target running perpendicular to the LOS, following him with his rifle as he fires. Very cool. Looks quite human in doing so.

I am very impressed with the AI, and hope that BIS doesn't nerf them too much more than they already have. It's better to err slightly on the side of challenging terminator AI. But the various community suggestions regarding decreases in AI accuracy relative to suppressive fire, health, range, and sight optics are excellent. I also like Coulum's suggestions at the end of his last post. A human would almost never fire except in complete desperation if a visual obstruction is < 1/2 distance to target, even less so as shooter-obstruction distance decreases. If AI fires in such situations, his accuracy should be quite low, as gammadust noted in ticket. But it is difficult to gauge the gameplay impact of subtle AI changes without a series of static test missions at set difficulties.

Edited October 13, 2013 by OMAC

[maturin 12]

The AI has only gotten deadlier. No one is nerfing it.

Most of the time the ai is not actually using exploits or cheats to kill/spot and kill you. More often its simply because they are not confused by camouflage and have uber consistent aiming (they don't get panicked or sacrifice accuracy for speed or vice versa like a human does.) Regarding spotting, especially you can see that in OMAC's video. I couldn't see the enemy ai not because he was not visible but because of the massive amount of camouflage and clutter making it hard for me to distinguish him. The ai doesn't have this problem. Whether a scene is complex or simple the ai can pick out enemies. This is not cheating, but it is in un-human. Same goes for shooting - they are not cheating, but they are un-human because the situation around them doesn't alter their speed and accuracy like a human does to adapt to a situation.

The combination of these two are brutal. In the initial moments of a clash of patrols humans are spraying fire at a rapid rate (thus inaccurate) at everything that may be an enemy because they haven't yet distinguished them all from the scene. Mean while ai that have a los on the humans are standing up taking carefully aimed shots even though bullets are ripping everything around them to shreds.

The sharing of info between group members just multiplies the problem because now everyone in the group of ai is doing that to anyone anyone in the group has spotted.

I agree.

As for 360 degrees of vision, I believe Gammadust has walked back from that statement, although my internet is too slow to watch the video. In my experience, they sometimes have a FOV that is too big, but never more than 180 degrees. The one exception I have found has already been ticketed.