AI Discussion (dev branch)

[Alwarren 2765]

Today i want ask for something that could be revolution for AI infantry.

Its dynamic cover system (i dont know exac name) - used in GTA IV, GTA V, now in Mafia 3, Max Payne 3, and many other games.

 

Geez, please no. These cover systems are there because most of these games are third person, and the absolute last thing I would want to see is turning Arma into Gears of War.

[mad_cheese 592]

That's a bit close-minded no? There's so many 'in between' usercases that would make total sense. Of course we do not need that exact system with power sprints etc, but there is some features of it that make the lack of it seem outdated near cover. Hugging a wall makes perfect sense not only for 3rd person (which btw the AI does not have if we think of making them take cover better) but also in terms of minimizing yourself as a target and creating more believable movements. Creating better ways for units to position themselves is not what makes a game feel like the Arcade. SMK was great for 1st person, I guess I can agree that the game "auto snapping" you to cover positions would be over the top. But a button to do it as in SMK - that was really nice for immersion and some creative appliances.

 

But hey, pointless of me to try and make a case since this is most likely not going to happen anyways and it's not even primarily an AI issue.  I guess the most realistic chance we have is that Bad Benson could include something like this in Enhanced Movement. Then there's this cheesy guy who could try and make it AI-accessible :)

[Vasily.B 529]

I'm just tired of (when action start) ordering whole squad, one by one where to stand, Ai should choose automaticly - off course they do it - but i wouldnt ask for such cover system if current ai cover searching method would be good.

If new cover system would work automaticly - you walk to cover (close to it) and pushing right key - your stance and proper moves are done automaticly - that woul be best for AI aspect - right now they hide behind road signs (jeez) and leaning left and right. With new cover system that would be impossible, beacuse it would not detect sign as cover (minimal area needed to threat place as cover as next condition).

I know VBS i wanted to buy it, but Bohemia Sim. wont let me, its only for army (they say).

About Enhanced Movement - Bad benson already tried to apply this to AI with success, but way of Ai using this was more than bad.....

[Alwarren 2765]

That's a bit close-minded no?

What do we learn from that? It's close minded if someone has a different opinion.

I just happen to dislike automatic cover. It's useful for console games that typically are third person. It doesn't fit Arma. My opinion, yours may vary.

Send from my tablet, so pardon any autocorrect bollocks

[Alwarren 2765]

If new cover system would work automaticly - you walk to cover (close to it) and pushing right key - your stance and proper moves are done automaticly - that woul be best for AI aspect - right now they hide behind road signs (jeez) and leaning left and right. With new cover system that would be impossible, beacuse it would not detect sign as cover (minimal area needed to threat place as cover as next condition).

What makes you think the AI would use that civer system if it existed? They don't automatically equip silencers or NVGs in their inventory when circumstances demand it either.

If you would like AI covering improved - and I am the first to say there are a lot if issues with the AI - then say that, but proposing a sticky cover is not the solution. Remember how the problem of AI not keeping up with you pre-Nexus because of the fatigue system was solved? By removing fatigue and replacing it with a dreadful stamina system.

I conpletely agree with you that AI control is a PITA and I mostly play Coop. But inventing new player controls will not mean the AI will use them.

Send from my tablet, so pardon any autocorrect bollocks

[mad_cheese 592]

What do we learn from that? It's close minded if someone has a different opinion. I just happen to dislike automatic cover. 

 

We are talking about the same thing :)

 

I thought you meant that any aspect of these covering systems would be terrible.  Automatic cover detection  for players would be terrible in fact, the ability to use good moves and animations would be great. Hug a wall, but only if you want hugs.

 

 

Then again, speaking of AI:

 

What makes you think the AI would use that civer system if it existed? 

 

Exactly. They won't. AI usage would have to be automatic. Too big a project, I believe. But hey that's what the community is for.

[Vasily.B 529]

We are talking about the same thing :)

 

I thought you meant that any aspect of these covering systems would be terrible.  Automatic cover detection  for players would be terrible in fact, the ability to use good moves and animations would be great. Hug a wall, but only if you want hugs.

 

 

Then again, speaking of AI:

 

 

Exactly. They won't. AI usage would have to be automatic. Too big a project, I believe. But hey that's what the community is for.

So in the end i say - this would be mostly for Ai if not the only, beacuse player have much more stance options (positions), hell, he can even sit :P  Only missing position is "Slav squat" :D

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

This is an interesting conversation. I've just surpassed the 1500 hour mark with this game and here is what most nights are becoming for me.

I have maybe an hour and half before bed time. This is my gaming time. Occasionally the time it takes to get a server up does deter me (a couple minutes, I know I know. I can be lazy), but more often than not, seeing as I play alone with AI 99% of the time, is just the exhaustive grind of babysitting the AI so they put ANY kind of value on preserving and protecting their own life. I mean, it's simply not fun.

From the constant necessity of having to tell them to "find cover" (which usually results in them just laying down exactly where they are), from having to tell them which direction to look in (apparently they aren't aware of sound direction?), having to command them to heal themselves so they can actually be mobile and not let themselves get executed (as discussed earlier in the thread), from them not being able to clear or take cover in buildings, and all of these other small things which makes playing this game a total chore. I command way more than I actually "play." And if I mess up on any of these things, all my AI teammates die and it's just me again the enemy. It's just not fun. I really just wish any of this was automated even just a little bit.

Don't get me wrong, this is my favorite game ever. I keep trying to improve my ability to command my team but some nights it's just exhausting to even think about. I'm not going anywhere. This game is too great for that, it's just sometimes dealing with AI stresses me out too much.

I keep WISHING they'd at least get revive working with AI so I could just use that instead. It would solve at least one of my major problems. I love the idea of an auto-medic of sorts and letting AI use revive could accomplish that. I refresh the page every day and read the dev Changelog everyday hoping...crossing my fingers...that this will get implemented.

Anyway, good read guys. I love all the discussion here.

[Alwarren 2765]

We are talking about the same thing :)

 

Not really. By "automatic cover" I mean covering behind a wall like The Division or Gears of War, where pushing or holding a button makes you stick to that cover. I do not think that this is a mechanic that fits the Arma series.

 

When it comes to AI, such a system isn't required. All the AI has to do is find cover and stay behind it unless they want to shoot out of that cover. In that case using stance adjustment (which the AI doesn't seem to use from what I have observed) would be enough to shoot out of cover. The stance adjustment system is a much better system for a primarily first person game than the sticking to cover. You only ever see that in third person games (and the newer Deus Ex, but once you ARE in cover there the game automatically switches to CheatCam ).

 

I think the major issue is that a lot of things that the AI are doing is controlled not by their own AI but rather by the team leader. Take the healing issue, the team leader has to issue the order, not the subordinate himself.  The AI and the effectiveness of the AI largely depends on team leader orders, and if the team leader is human this might cause issues.

 

Another example is driving, at least in the old driving AI the AI drivers could never keep up with a human driver so they usually got lost to the "Where are you?" point.

 

Personally, I think that AI should generally be more autonomous, unless their (human) team leader overrides that. For example, prior to the danger mode toggle and Varanon's addon that allows you to toggle danger mode, it was next to impossible to get AI into a transport fast. Or, in the campaign mission where you were supposed to kill a mortar crew and then quickly get back to the base you were raiding, it was next to impossible to not loose all your guys because they were always doing their little dance. The commands of the human team leader should have absolute priority. Right now, saying "At ease" is ignored if the AI perceives itself to be in danger, but you still need to order them to heal themselves. It should be the other way around.

[HeroesandvillainsOS 1504]

I think the major issue is that a lot of things that the AI are doing is controlled not by their own AI but rather by the team leader.

Yes! Exactly what I was trying to say. Very very good post!

[Alwarren 2765]

Don't get me wrong, this is my favorite game ever.

 

Same here, almost at 4200 hours now. I am aware that AI is a terribly difficult topic, especially in an open game world. A few years ago I was working on a port of a game that was one of the early games to feature AI taking cover, and there the cover was done by markings on the map. The AI assumed a certain direction of incoming fire from the player, so a toppled table would have a marker volume behind it that say "cover". Doing this in an open world game with millions of objects (literally) is much, much harder.

[Vasily.B 529]

Not really. By "automatic cover" I mean covering behind a wall like The Division or Gears of War, where pushing or holding a button makes you stick to that cover. I do not think that this is a mechanic that fits the Arma series.

 

When it comes to AI, such a system isn't required. All the AI has to do is find cover and stay behind it unless they want to shoot out of that cover. In that case using stance adjustment (which the AI doesn't seem to use from what I have observed) would be enough to shoot out of cover. The stance adjustment system is a much better system for a primarily first person game than the sticking to cover. You only ever see that in third person games (and the newer Deus Ex, but once you ARE in cover there the game automatically switches to CheatCam ).

 

I think the major issue is that a lot of things that the AI are doing is controlled not by their own AI but rather by the team leader. Take the healing issue, the team leader has to issue the order, not the subordinate himself.  The AI and the effectiveness of the AI largely depends on team leader orders, and if the team leader is human this might cause issues.

 

Another example is driving, at least in the old driving AI the AI drivers could never keep up with a human driver so they usually got lost to the "Where are you?" point.

 

Personally, I think that AI should generally be more autonomous, unless their (human) team leader overrides that. For example, prior to the danger mode toggle and Varanon's addon that allows you to toggle danger mode, it was next to impossible to get AI into a transport fast. Or, in the campaign mission where you were supposed to kill a mortar crew and then quickly get back to the base you were raiding, it was next to impossible to not loose all your guys because they were always doing their little dance. The commands of the human team leader should have absolute priority. Right now, saying "At ease" is ignored if the AI perceives itself to be in danger, but you still need to order them to heal themselves. It should be the other way around.

Covers are second priority off course but problem with actuall AI covering - they don know how to get to some covers, while on new system they could walk close to it, and rest would be done automaticly.

Healing is something i personally never understand in this game.....

Rearming (AI case) is something what someone wanted to put in this game, and even he started to doing it, but for unknown reason he stopped, and we have unfinished "feature".

"Where are you" should be name of next arma part :P

Back to cover topic - imagine situation - walking with team, hear fireshots, Ai start to scan area for cover, move in the direction of closest one, he is moving as close cover as he can, and when he is 3 or 4M from it, animation of getting behind cover is played, and Ai is behind cover. Main factor of cover selection should be Direction of Enemy, and distance to cover, thats all. Now they just phrone and waiting to die.

Off course stance change for AI is good too, but first they need to get behind cover (to 100%, now they do this in ~70%). Usually it ends they stand uncovered - they are behind the fence, but uncovered to enemy they was hiding from :)

[mad_cheese 592]

Not really. By "automatic cover" I mean covering behind a wall like The Division or Gears of War, where pushing or holding a button makes you stick to that cover. I do not think that this is a mechanic that fits the Arma series.

 

I see - that's interesting. To me the idea of AI using walls a bit better, or like a human would, is amazing and the over-automation is the part that annoys me. I stand corrected. And I also like it for the player. 

 

Anyways, it was a bit of a drift in topic anyways and AI taking better cover is what's on the table :)

[ceeeb 147]

Added: A new P3D parameter that will disable a model for cover search by the AI ("aicovers=0")

Source: https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/140837-development-branch-changelog/?p=3113256

Finally AI get told not to seek cover behind street signs and fence posts! :)

[mad_cheese 592]

Not really. By "automatic cover" I mean covering behind a wall like The Division or Gears of War, where pushing or holding a button makes you stick to that cover. I do not think that this is a mechanic that fits the Arma series.

 

I see - that's interesting. To me the idea of AI using walls a bit better, or like a human would, is amazing and the over-automation is the part that annoys me. I stand corrected.

 

 Edit:

 

He is moving as close cover as he can, and when he is 3 or 4M from it, animation of getting behind cover is played, and Ai is behind cover. Main factor of cover selection should be Direction of Enemy, and distance to cover, thats all. Now they just phrone and waiting to die.

Off course stance change for AI is good too, but first they need to get behind cover (to 100%, now they do this in ~70%). Usually it ends they stand uncovered - they are behind the fence, but uncovered to enemy they was hiding from :)

It's not that simple to the best of my knowledge. I have a primitive version of what you describe in C2, it can be very heavy on performance when there's just too much stuff to check against. I did a lot and it's still not very satisfying. Just selecting a position and moving the units there is not gonna cut it I think.

 

There is also a few other things that do not exactly help taking cover..  precision config for example, I had issues with it and needed to make adjustments...

 

But most importantly, I got really surprised when I finally managed to have indicators that snap to the environment and the units would just totally not go there in many cases - they do not realize that you really want them to move there - instead, they see the object as an obstacle and will stay the hell away from it in many cases. Weirdly enough, I found this to be the case only with some objects and this could mean it's another one of these 'you would actually have to go and change everything' things. Then again, I'm not a dev really, I'm just a guy who plays circus with AI. So all I say may be potential BS. Anyways, what I'm saying is: Cover is only useful if the AI can move there.

[cosmic10r 2325]

^^^ lol... as if u don't have some credibility over there :p

But yeah... finding the algorithm where the ai know shot direction, proper cover direction, move to cover and then proper side of cover in relation to fire could get heavy...

And really the problem is that they will do a sparkling job in some scenarios and terrible in others and trying to make it perfect everytime over 40 sq km may be a little unrealistic

[mad_cheese 592]

I just realized that there is actually some stuff under the hood of the engine that could solve the problem. I asked about it a while ago but there's no access.. Anyways, the AI can move to these positions like a charm so you can scratch what I said if BI were to make something themselves. :)

But yeah, still having to compare a theoretically high about of gunshot directions vs the intersect-commands... Things could have changed but I'm still deeply scared of excessive lineIntesects - commands.

[Alwarren 2765]

Covers are second priority off course but problem with actuall AI covering - they don know how to get to some covers, while on new system they could walk close to it, and rest would be done automaticly.

 

That demonstrates the fundamental issue. Nothing is "automatic". The major issue is to identify suitable cover. Once you have done that, the rest is easy. But you don't just "automatically" snap into cover, you have to find it and then determine what to use.

 

You look for hard cover first. Could be a house corner. Or a wall. The object you use MUST be between you and the shooter. If it isn't then it's not useful. You must be able to get behind it. Failing to find cover, concealment or flimsy cover like wooden fences would be next. Then ditches or terrain obstruction. 

 

Your "they could walk close to it" covers everything that is actually difficult about it. Once you have identified the cover position, the rest is easy. If you use cover in, say, The Division, you chose it yourself. The AI has to consider its surrounding.

 

Bottom line, you imagine this to be much simpler than it is.

[Vasily.B 529]

Beacuse i saw how it working and its possible, sam as mad cheese writed

 

I just realized that there is actually some stuff under the hood of the engine that could solve the problem. I asked about it a while ago but there's no access.. Anyways, the AI can move to these positions like a charm so you can scratch what I said if BI were to make something themselves. :)

But yeah, still having to compare a theoretically high about of gunshot directions vs the intersect-commands... Things could have changed but I'm still deeply scared of excessive lineIntesects - commands.

Everything is possible, but people need to want.

Right now correcting the cover behavior for Ai just to go behind solid cover and use 1 of 3 stances may be problematic, enabling rest of stances (same as player can use) will produce next issue - Ai propably will get into loop and switch between 3 stances.

Automatic cover adjust their stance and animation (same as in SMK). System may be available only for ai as i writed.

I have great schematis from A to Z how to get it working a'la fsm, but don know hot to make my thing into the code, i'm not modder.

https://goo.gl/photos/GnmDzuH5GphfbFyw6
 

For performance it could get limit for cover seek for Ai - 1 cover for each enemy direction for example.

[Alwarren 2765]

I have great schematis from A to Z how to get it working a'la fsm, but don know hot to make my thing into the code, i'm not modder.

https://goo.gl/photos/GnmDzuH5GphfbFyw6

 

Arrows on a piece of paper do not give you an implementation. But never mind.

[Vasily.B 529]

Arrows on a piece of paper do not give you an implementation. But never mind.

It was quick draw, i can explain everything to someone who want to do it.

[Ivanoff.N 61]

Hi all.

Maybe is already implemented, but if not, maybe someone can do this module for SP it should not be difficult if the engine permits it.

For example this module can be called "Supersquad".

All AI squads synced to would behave as usual following their waypoints etc, however all the targets spotted by one of the squads synced to the "Supersquad" module would be shared with all the other squads synced via the "reveal" command.

 

Examples of use:

 

Tank on the hill standing, infantry 2 km away came in contact with enemy infantry. Enemies gets revealed to the tank, tank engages.

 

Sniper on  the hill with 50 cal. rifle, infantry comes into contact, shares location of target with the sniper, sniper engages from afar.

 

Same with static mg, choppers on patrol etc.

 

I can do this with a script for  preset units for instance

?squad1 konwsabout enysquad1 > 0.7

tank1 reveal enysquad1;

 

It would be very nice to have this as a module so that it would apply to all synced squads.

[Vasily.B 529]

Hi all.

Maybe is already implemented, but if not, maybe someone can do this module for SP it should not be difficult if the engine permits it.

For example this module can be called "Supersquad".

All AI squads synced to would behave as usual following their waypoints etc, however all the targets spotted by one of the squads synced to the "Supersquad" module would be shared with all the other squads synced via the "reveal" command.

 

Examples of use:

 

Tank on the hill standing, infantry 2 km away came in contact with enemy infantry. Enemies gets revealed to the tank, tank engages.

 

Sniper on  the hill with 50 cal. rifle, infantry comes into contact, shares location of target with the sniper, sniper engages from afar.

 

Same with static mg, choppers on patrol etc.

 

I can do this with a script for  preset units for instance

?squad1 konwsabout enysquad1 > 0.7

tank1 reveal enysquad1;

 

It would be very nice to have this as a module so that it would apply to all synced squads.

Actually i was thinking about targets sharing between friendly units long time ago, even started to making addon... But its dead, i'm in dead end. Target sharing on 5 or 2 KM range between ALL friendly units (tanks, apc's, infatry (all kind), choppers) would be best i can imagine, and its present on modern battlefield by radio.

[domokun 515]

Actually i was thinking about targets sharing between friendly units long time ago, even started to making addon... But its dead, i'm in dead end. Target sharing on 5 or 2 KM range between ALL friendly units (tanks, apc's, infatry (all kind), choppers) would be best i can imagine, and its present on modern battlefield by radio.

What would be even better, would be the ability to not only enable this inter-AI communication but also disable it, e.g. for missions where every enemy has no radio at all. If it sounds crazy, don't forget that situations where every combattant have a radio is a relatively recent development. Just a few decades ago, many units had only 1 radio per squad, e.g. 1980s (Falklands, Afghanistan), 1970s Vietnam, 1960s (Indochina), 1950s (Korea) and 1940s (WW2). If it sounds like a trivial detail, think of the impact it had on tactical operations that only 1 member of a squad had a radio, i.e. the radio man would be the one to protect/kill at all costs, the radio was the one piece of kit that must survive, etc.

[Ivanoff.N 61]

What would be even better, would be the ability to not only enable this inter-AI communication but also disable it, e.g. for missions where every enemy has no radio at all. If it sounds crazy, don't forget that situations where every combattant have a radio is a relatively recent development. Just a few decades ago, many units had only 1 radio per squad, e.g. 1980s (Falklands, Afghanistan), 1970s Vietnam, 1960s (Indochina), 1950s (Korea) and 1940s (WW2). If it sounds like a trivial detail, think of the impact it had on tactical operations that only 1 member of a squad had a radio, i.e. the radio man would be the one to protect/kill at all costs, the radio was the one piece of kit that must survive, etc.

Yes that is why I suggested I synced module. All units synced - share enemy location, others no. It is only relevant if it is in the line of sight anyway. If a target is revealed for AI and it is behind the hill it will not do any difference.