AI Configuration - feedback

[blackjacktom 10]

Please stop making tickets for every single thing. I'm sure BIS can add more scripting commands if they think they are needed.

[progamer 14]

Please stop making tickets for every single thing. I'm sure BIS can add more scripting commands if they think they are needed.

The point is we have limited control like the developers said. They want to give us more control.

With making the AI better, any new additions or behaviours need to be controllable by the mission maker.

PROVIDE the player more meaningful control over the difficulty of the AI (global configuration)

ENABLE mission designers more useful control over AI configuration (per-unit configuration)

More so with the profile that affects the AI skill, a mission maker needs to be able to disable that in a mission. The mission maker should be able to override any "flags" the player has set as well.

Edited November 27, 2013 by ProGamer

[windies 11]

That kind of contradicts the point of providing the player with meaningful control over AI difficulty.

[progamer 14]

That kind of contradicts the point of providing the player with meaningful control over AI difficulty.

Yes and no. It provides the mission maker "player" with control with the option to allow control from the mission player "player".

[windies 11]

The idea is to allow the player to scale the mission to his abilities while still allowing mission makers the ability to configure the individual units of their mission as they see fit.

Why do you feel the mission maker needs to be able to limit the players ability to control AI difficulty?

[progamer 14]

The idea is to allow the player to scale the mission to his abilities while still allowing mission makers the ability to configure the individual units of their mission as they see fit.

Why do you feel the mission maker needs to be able to limit the players ability to control AI difficulty?

What I am saying is the player scaling a mission can go against what the mission maker wants. Nothing would stop the mission maker from allowing the player to scale things, but it's crazy not to give the mission maker the ability to have full control.

Not giving the mission maker control over all "flags" and user AI setting is crazy, might as well have the player make his own mission.

[dnk 13]

1) editor should have 2 skill sliders: "skill" and "accuracy". These need to be decoupled since most skills need to be high for AI to be effective yet accuracy at those heights becomes "terminator"-esque.

My biggest issue regarding AI skills (other than most missions/servers having them way too high for accuracy) is that it's in no way clear how an accuracy skill relates to actual %age hits at range. After much testing at 250m, anything above 0.35 is over 50% hits on a crouching target. That's a bizarrely high hit rate for a "1/3rd skilled" soldier. I'd like to see any combat statistics or experience that mirrors this. I think a lot of mission makers never bother to gauge skill settings to performance, and they think "1/3rd is really low, must be too easy" and set it to half or something. In reality, 0.50 is basically superhuman already, nevermind 0.75 or 1.00.

Why is the AI skill set so high in general anyway? Anything above 0.50 is one-shot-one-hit almost always under 500m. This seems unbalanced in the sense that half the subskill range is basically redundant.

[.kju 3244]

It seems to me that there is a lot of lack of understanding how AI (difficulty/skill) works currently for most people,

and even with the information referenced here people have misunderstanding or come to wrong conclusions.

The standard scenario:

1. A mission designer gives units skill from 0-1 depending if the given unit should be a dump grunt, a trained soldier or a nearly inhuman special force guy.

2. The player selects the desired difficulty settings / "skill level" for enemy or friendly units (separate!).

By this he says I want to play on easy mode or on hard mode.

Technically his decision is mostly a modifier/multiplier to the mission designer's unit's skill distribution. This is a very good design.

You also have to be aware that some AI abilities have exponential curves rather than linear,

and that some values are clamped at lower and/or upper borders.

In more simple terms this means some changes have more extreme effects,

and that some changes are limited to a certain region and can't have too extreme effects.

1) Separated skill and accuracy setting in the difficulty options are very much needed (see CIT ticket).

NOT in the editor per unit setting (if really necessary can be scripted with setSkill array).

2) Separate setting per enemy and friendly in the difficulty options are very much needed to be able to fine tune the desired difficulty/challenge.

it's crazy not to give the mission maker the ability to have full control

No - quite the contrary. It is crazy not to give the player the ability to adjust the difficulty.

a) This game is not about and not made for a CoD movie experience.

b) You leave players frustrated if the scenario is too easy, or too hard to beat. That's the whole point of difficulty settings.

Edited November 27, 2013 by .kju [PvPscene]

[Tonci87 163]

I agree that there has to be a clear destinction between Skills and accuracy. Let's say that I want to place aheavy MG. What I want is a high skill so that the gunner has a great spotting distance and an accuracy and rate of fire that is to be expected of such a weapon.

Currently there seems to be something wrong with CSAT Zaphir gunners. They like to shoottheir MG in single shoot mode and I wonder if this is because of how the AI settings are set up.

[byrkoet 1]

Some good points have already been noted, like:

- More specific AI configuration;

- More specific skills that can be adjusted;

- Better usability of adjusting skills;

- A more exponential curve for a skill like aiming.

But most importantly, the AI themselves should have a new feature, namely:

A coneOfVision sort of config command, where there is an actual line of sight between a target and AI.

Arma 3 makes use of the sun shaft technique and that illustrates a very good line of sight characteristic.

That is the exact way an AI should 'look' at his surroundigs - instead of shooting you in the face through bushes (mind you there are no other teammates, who could have told him the coordinates of your face).

[Tonci87 163]

Some good points have already been noted, like:

- More specific AI configuration;

- More specific skills that can be adjusted;

- Better usability of adjusting skills;

- A more exponential curve for a skill like aiming.

But most importantly, the AI themselves should have a new feature, namely:

A coneOfVision sort of config command, where there is an actual line of sight between a target and AI.

Arma 3 makes use of the sun shaft technique and that illustrates a very good line of sight characteristic.

That is the exact way an AI should 'look' at his surroundigs - instead of shooting you in the face through bushes (mind you there are no other teammates, who could have told him the coordinates of your face).

In fact there are. The AI is instantly sharing information inside of groups. This can be improved and I suggested a way to do so in the other thread.

[byrkoet 1]

In fact there are. The AI is instantly sharing information inside of groups. This can be improved and I suggested a way to do so in the other thread.

I am aware that there is a spotting mechanic in place and that sharing of a target's coordinates is also functioning, read the last (totally not sarcastic) line:

(mind you there are no other teammates, who could have told him the coordinates of your face).

I am just pointing out that AI should have a cone of vision instead of a certain distance from where they will spot you, with a delay.

To illustrate the technique I propose:

This illustrates how the AI should 'see' their surroundings. And not just spot enemies if they get within a certain distance or some workaround to simulate the cone of vision technique poorly.

Even if the AI receive information (heading), they shouldn't know for sure that you are there. Example: there may be tall grass or a bush between you two. So the AI should try to walk around the bush or stand up to see over the tall grass.

Edited November 27, 2013 by byrkoet

[Tonci87 163]

I would guess that this might require way too much CPU power.

[Bouben 3]

I am aware that there is a spotting mechanic in place and that sharing of a target's coordinates is also functioning, read the last (totally not sarcastic) line:

I am just pointing out that AI should have a cone of vision instead of a certain distance from where they will spot you, with a delay.

To illustrate the technique I propose:

http://hsc.csu.edu.au/ind_tech/design/3767/images/cone_vis.png

This illustrates how the AI should 'see' their surroundings. And not just spot enemies if they get within a certain distance or some workaround to simulate the cone of vision technique poorly.

Even if the AI receive information (heading), they shouldn't know for sure that you are there. Example: there may be tall grass or a bush between you two. So the AI should try to walk around the bush or stand up to see over the tall grass.

How is this different in gameplay-practice from what we have now? Please elaborate. Thanks.

[royaltyinexile 175]

Just a quick note, Oukej's work specifically relates to the way the AI are configured (documentation, and user-end - player/designer - configuration options).

While there are a lot of good ideas for different features and new behaviours, such work is outside of the scope of this task (and thread)! :)

Best,

RiE

[windies 11]

One thing that needs to be looked at is the skill range we currently have. For instance aiming accuracy after .3 or so and the AI become "terminators" which honestly is really really low and nullifies the point of even having anything higher than .3 . I don't think it's just the fact that the AI accuracy subskill controls a large portion of the AI's aiming skill, but it's because those value's are not scaled well or well configured.

Like for instance the AI at .3 accuracy behaves like what I would expect AI set to .75 Accuracy or even higher to behave like. When you go below .3 AI accuracy there's a large dropoff and they become complete idiots. There's very little room to configure, you either settle for dumb as bricks AI or "terminator" AI.

[maturin 12]

Sub-skills definitely need to be split up somehow.

SpotDistance, for example, is WAY too low in vanilla ArmA 3. All mods enhance it considerably.

On the other hand, there's a general consensus that the AI can pull of long-distance shots without needing to aim hardly at all.

I and a lot of people would want to have the former value very high, but the latter very low. Same goes for endurance and courage, I should wager.

It's also incorrect to make high-skill soldiers only shoot when very sure. A skilled machinegunner should do the opposite.

ASR AI does this perfectly with class-dependent subskill settings.

[instagoat 133]

Sub-skills definitely need to be split up somehow.

SpotDistance, for example, is WAY too low in vanilla ArmA 3. All mods enhance it considerably.

On the other hand, there's a general consensus that the AI can pull of long-distance shots without needing to aim hardly at all.

I and a lot of people would want to have the former value very high, but the latter very low. Same goes for endurance and courage, I should wager.

It's also incorrect to make high-skill soldiers only shoot when very sure. A skilled machinegunner should do the opposite.

ASR AI does this perfectly with class-dependent subskill settings.

Problem is that very large spotting distances do not scale very well. With some AI mods, moving in cluttered terrain at large distances will get you spotted, where it really shouldn't. The problem right now is the opposite: spotting distances for very cluttered terrain are good, but AI out in the open or even skylining is not identified and engaged quickly enough. AI also is poor at scanning their surroundings, so they sometimes resort to "eyes in the back of the head" cheats it seems. This is especially obvious with vehicles. (Stand behind a tank and fire at it with a rifle. There will be no reaction apart from very slow, rythmic spinning of turret and commanders sight, where the commander should really be quickly checking all around the vehicle if he notices impacts (Depending on the threats nearby, obviously. Riflefire should not draw as much attention as RPG fire.)

[.kju 3244]

Spotting and engaging are two different aspects InstaGoat. The low engagement ranges for weapons are config issues.

If both spotting and engaging are adjusted accordingly, it works very well (WGL, ACE, etc).

[Vegatry 10]

My suggestion for more flexible AI setting:

Using user interface instead of skill slider that cause confusion easily.

UI that characterized AI's behavior while under fire.[/b]

Combat - Will seek for cover/concealment within 75 meter. (Current AI didn't seek cover frequently in open area, and AI was too lazy to move his butt more than 10 meters)

Combat(Assault) - Will approach to player last known position while seeking cover/concealment.

Guard - Will react in finding cover, will maneuver and attempts to flank enemy in certain range.

Sentry - Will react in finding cover, but not leaving the current position.

Assault - less prone and move from cover to cover / concealment to concealment (Very alike the behavior when a group of AI is encounter enemies while in formation 'wedge' and 'seek & destroy')

Patrol - randomly assign way points within x meters.(very alike ‘dismissed’ waypoint option, but without dismissing the group)

Garrison - Occupies closest building right after initiated.

Careless -will not even consider to move himself.

UI characterized rate of fire of the AI.

very slow pace - shot one round only, and shoot another after precise adjustment

Slow pace - shot slowly

Normal pace- shot normally

Fast pace - shot frequently with very little halt

UI characterize the precision of the AI (Chances of Calculate range correctly/trajectory adjustment)

untrained/civvies - very low precision, very hard to identify the range of target, poor adjustment

low/rebels - low precision, still poor skill on determined target’s range, better adjustment

medium/regulars - medium skill on determined target’s range, high adjustment of trajectory

high/marksman - high skill on determined target’s range, high adjustment of trajectory

precise/sniper - maximum skill on determined target’s range, very precise adjustment of trajectory. Force fire rate to very slow.

And perhaps some scripts for managing AI better..

[fabrizio_t 58]

Problem is that very large spotting distances do not scale very well. With some AI mods, moving in cluttered terrain at large distances will get you spotted, where it really shouldn't. The problem right now is the opposite: spotting distances for very cluttered terrain are good, but AI out in the open or even skylining is not identified and engaged quickly enough. AI also is poor at scanning their surroundings, so they sometimes resort to "eyes in the back of the head" cheats it seems. This is especially obvious with vehicles. (Stand behind a tank and fire at it with a rifle. There will be no reaction apart from very slow, rythmic spinning of turret and commanders sight, where the commander should really be quickly checking all around the vehicle if he notices impacts (Depending on the threats nearby, obviously. Riflefire should not draw as much attention as RPG fire.)

I agree that AI spotting performance in the open is still bad.

Larger spotting distances also cause AI units being locked to far targets and that's an issue hard to overcome.

I recall this problem being present since Armed Assault.

Like .kju said, spotting and engaging are different things, or at least they should be.

Looks to me they're closely tied in the engine: it's like spot > stop > fire.

[Tonci87 163]

I have a qeusetion. Does AI accuracy take into account what kind of Weapon the soldier has? (Weapon type, optics, etc.)

[ghostone 13]

I have a qeusetion. Does AI accuracy take into account what kind of Weapon the soldier has? (Weapon type, optics, etc.)

Hi, not quite.

Accuracy is set and defined by skill of the unit. It's not a config

The weapon itself only influences this accuracy by AiDispesionCoefX and Y which is an added disperision to the accuracy value. Other values set in weapon can influence rate of fire, engagement range, probability of hit for example.

[Tonci87 163]

Hi, not quite.

Accuracy is set and defined by skill of the unit. It's not a config

The weapon itself only influences this accuracy by AiDispesionCoefX and Y which is an added disperision to the accuracy value. Other values set in weapon can influence rate of fire, engagement range, probability of hit for example.

So AiDispesionCoefX and Y are not modified by giving the AI Optics instead of Iron sights? I see a lot of room for improvement right there.

[ghostone 13]

So AiDispesionCoefX and Y are not modified by giving the AI Optics instead of Iron sights? I see a lot of room for improvement right there.

Me too :D

However it may not be as easy as it sounds.

I think, hypothetically it would make more sense if accuracy would be influenced by used ammo or custom compensator but not scopes. But this would require to rethink the whole system.