AI Configuration - feedback

[Smurf 12]

custom compensator

So these still exists...

[Tonci87 163]

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.

You have to explain that, why should different ammo lead to different accuracy? Or do you mean that a high caliber gun should be more accurate than a low caliber one?

What I desire would be a system where the AI with Optics would be more accurate than the one without if they have the same rifle (Wich seems pretty logical to me).

[spanishsurfer 58]

Did I read that right? AI accuracy is not effected on whether they are using scopes or not? So an AI unit with iron sights and same difficulty settings will shoot as accurately as the guy who has an SOS scope?

Hmm, that seems silly.

[oukej 2910]

There is one rather minor change (with possible major in-game consequences) to AI Skill Configuration that's going to appear on today's dev branch build.

Skill of an unit of a group inserted in the editor gets it's initial skill (which you can change via the Skill slider in Edit Unit dialogue) set according to this unit's rank as defined in cfgGroups.

Previously the range was 0.2 (Pvt.) to 1.0 (Col.) which caused - if the mission designer used groups and didn't readjust the individual units' skill - majority of the AI soldiers on the battlefield to get low skill values. However the default skill of a single unit you place in the editor is 0.6. We also aim towards providing a symmetrical range for AI adjustments. (Tweaking the median is a constant process based also on your feedback in AI Discussion)

We have narrowed the range to 0.4 (Pvt.) to 0.7 (Col.), which should help the average soldier to have an average skill and also it reflects the uneven distribution of ranks (majority of units used in groups are Privates and NCOs, very loosely mirroring the reality)

---

This is a single separated change that relates to per-unit skill configuration.

For now we still focus on global settings and we'll return to per-unit skill configuration for some bigger work later. (to how an unit's (sub)skill is adjusted, how you can set it in the editor, standardization/description of values etc.) ;)

[l etranger 5]

What is the main parameter affecting AI weapon range usage into the config ?

There is a lot of maxrange params spreaded in subclass like mode_singlefire optic etc...

[.kju 3240]

First AI needs to see/be aware of a target and be sure its hostile.

After that weapon ranges come into play - however the xxxRange and XXXRangeProba are just indicators for AI decision making.

The actual decision is based on AI skill, ability to aim on target, weapon characteristics etc.

[-Coulum- 35]

There is one rather minor change (with possible major in-game consequences) to AI Skill Configuration that's going to appear on today's dev branch build.

Skill of an unit of a group inserted in the editor gets it's initial skill (which you can change via the Skill slider in Edit Unit dialogue) set according to this unit's rank as defined in cfgGroups.

Previously the range was 0.2 (Pvt.) to 1.0 (Col.) which caused - if the mission designer used groups and didn't readjust the individual units' skill - majority of the AI soldiers on the battlefield to get low skill values. However the default skill of a single unit you place in the editor is 0.6. We also aim towards providing a symmetrical range for AI adjustments. (Tweaking the median is a constant process based also on your feedback in AI Discussion)

We have narrowed the range to 0.4 (Pvt.) to 0.7 (Col.), which should help the average soldier to have an average skill and also it reflects the uneven distribution of ranks (majority of units used in groups are Privates and NCOs, very loosely mirroring the reality)

This is a single separated change that relates to per-unit skill configuration.

For now we still focus on global settings and we'll return to per-unit skill configuration for some bigger work later. (to how an unit's (sub)skill is adjusted, how you can set it in the editor, standardization/description of values etc.) ;)

Interesting. So if I place group each units skill slider is automatically set depending on his rank? I think this isn't really an ideal solution, though in the right direction. It'd be better to make the individual sub skills actually based on the type of unit, not rank - essentially what ASR_AI does.

Here's what I think would be ideal:

_________________________________________________________________________

1. Every unit type has subskills attached to it. These skills are attached by you through feed back from us. Whenever you place a unit he will have these subskills by default. It is the type of unit, not the rank that determines these skills.

2. In the editor, when you place a unit, beside the skill slider there would be a skills button. When pressed it brings up a new window that has a list of all the subskills and a fields beside each. In this field is that units subskill (which will already contain the defaults described in step 1). The mission maker can modify these numbers to his liking - the changes made will override the default skills.

In addition to this button you would have the same slider as we have now which acts as a multiplier of all the subskills. This will allow mission makers to easily scale up or down unit skills without having to edit each subskill if they want.

3. The precision friendly / enemy would be done away with. Instead in game you would have 4 options for friendly and enemy skill:

1. Easy, - 50% of all skills
   
2. Normal - 100% of all skills
   
3. Hard - 150% of all skills
   
4. Max - Every skill set to 1 regardless of mission design.
   

This would work similar to the slider in the editor. It will simply multiply the units existing subskills.

4. The same setskillarray scripting commands would be available - if used these would totally overwrite any default or editor assigned skills.

5. The final sub skill of a unit would be defined as (where x > y means that x ovewrites y):

(scripted sub skill > Editor setting > default skills) * difficulty (50%,100%,150%).

_________________________________________________________________

Of course when it comes down to it the key is to get the ratio between subskills correct - and possibly add more subskills as previously mentioned.

I think the best way to go about this is to, in dev branch, give people the ability to dynamically set the skill of every unit on the map instantly. Have people play around and find out what they/their group likes best. At the end of the month have people submit what they feel the best distribution of subskills is on a survey on the feedback tracker. Leave this open for a month or so. After, find the average people like for each subskill and use that as the deafault for each unit. If people are generally okay with it spice it up for each unit - ie snipers better at spotting and shooting accurately, machinegunners better at shooting quickly, etc.

I think that would please the majority of people and allow the mission maker to have total control over what kind of units you will be up against. For those who prefer an even more personalized skill distribution, ideally it would be easy to reset the default subskills of each unit via modding.

Edited December 6, 2013 by -Coulum-

[Tonci87 163]

^ I like that

ASR_AI really had a wonderfull approach to this by assigning skills based on the unit type. A sniper or Special forces soldier has a much higher skill and accuracy than a farmer with a weapon. It makes perfect sense and has a really good feel to it while playing (You get really afraid of russian speznas....).

[xendance 3]

Isn't editor skill the same as scripted sub skills? Other than the editor slider only gives a slider for the whole array.

[.kju 3240]

Special units already have higher skills via config parameters. Although additional tweaks via subskills could add to that.

[Bouben 3]

^ I like that

ASR_AI really had a wonderfull approach to this by assigning skills based on the unit type. A sniper or Special forces soldier has a much higher skill and accuracy than a farmer with a weapon. It makes perfect sense and has a really good feel to it while playing (You get really afraid of russian speznas....).

What if you want to use normal looking (or civil looking) but highly trained soldiers?

[Tonci87 163]

What if you want to use normal looking (or civil looking) but highly trained soldiers?

Skill slider

[Bouben 3]

Skill slider

I thought it would be some extra skill value with already existing ones. Like if you have highly trained civilian his skill would be nevertheless reduced by some value to distinguish him from Special forces.

I mean...if the only thing that this skill feature introduces would be default skill for unit placed in the editor, then it is useless, isn't it?

Edited December 6, 2013 by Bouben

[-Coulum- 35]

Ideally there would be this

2. In the editor, when you place a unit, beside the skill slider there would be a skills button. When pressed it brings up a new window that has a list of all the subskills and a fields beside each. In this field is that units subskill (which will already contain the defaults described in step 1). The mission maker can modify these numbers to his liking - the changes made will override the default skills.

In addition to this button you would have the same slider as we have now which acts as a multiplier of all the subskills. This will allow mission makers to easily scale up or down unit skills without having to edit each subskill if they want.

This way everyunit is set to a reasonable default but if the mission maker wants he can edit the subskills of a specific unit in editor with out the need for scripts. The skill slider would still be present but more of a general tool - it would just multiply all subskills of a certain unit that are set by default or set by the missionmmaker.

I mean...if the only thing that this skill feature introduces would be default skill for unit placed in the editor, then it is useless, isn't it?

I don't follow you. If the default skills for units are well balanced it will help greatly for missionmakers who don't go through each unit and set its subskills. And for a missionmaker that do, hopefully a new interface that allows him edit those skills in the editor would be very helpful.

Edited December 6, 2013 by -Coulum-

[Bouben 3]

I don't follow you. If the default skills for units are well balanced it will help greatly for missionmakers who don't go through each unit and set its subskills. And for a missionmaker that do, hopefully a new interface that allows him edit those skills in the editor would be very helpful.

OK, that is cool. I understand that.

[oukej 2910]

It'd be better to make the individual sub skills actually based on the type of unit, not rank....

(+ other good ideas & notes)

I - personally - enjoy this sort of notion (unlike the one who'd configure it and test it;)). Let's put those good ideas aside for now. I'd definitely like to return to them and the possible adjustments and UI of individual AI unit (sub)skills, possible defaults, presets, etc... rather soon.

On the individual AI unit level, the more control of specific aspects of the unit's behavior, the (seemingly;)) better.

But on the global level - as an option that affects every single AI unit in the game always by the same ratio - what do you think should be affected?

What makes the game easier or more challenging (in an enjoyable way)?

E.g.: If every single AI is less able to hit you, if it doesn't spot it's target so fast...?

Conversely, what aspects shouldn't be affected?

E.g.: How fast the AI can turn around,...?

Please, let your imagination go free (don't think about how it could be done, just what behavioral aspects you'd like to adjust globally) and let us know. (I will later throw a poll)

[Smurf 12]

If these are the skills you are talking about, should be affected:

• 
  
• aimingShake (I take this as the sway for the AIs, right? If a lower value doesn't mean fewer shots, as in they only shoot when the aim is in the target, lower it. Related to a missing supressive fire FSM?)
  
• aimingSpeed (not so low on lower dificulties to make them look retarded)
  
• spotDistance (not a large difference between dificulties)
  
• aimingAccuracy (here is the main problem: too many factors grouped inside a single parameter and any of them are major game changers)
  

The other skills related to decision making and world reaction should be escalate aswell throught the dificulty levels, but just enough to give them player some room to react and not make the AI look retarded. Matter of tweaking\testing to find a sweetspot but the main focus must be on the AI ability to aim and shoot precisely, as these are the "raging" factors associated with Arma AI.

To put it simple, on a lower dificulty you should have more lead flying towards the player but with less chance to get hit.

Unrelated question: The KnowsAbout work as binary (despite the value going up to 4) or a state of "not knowing precisely thus taking extra care" could be implemented?

With humans when a contact is first spotted the imediate reaction is to hide\take cover to find out more about the target before doing anything else.

[fabrizio_t 58]

Unrelated question: The KnowsAbout work as binary (despite the value going up to 4) or a state of "not knowing precisely thus taking extra care" could be implemented?

With humans when a contact is first spotted the imediate reaction is to hide\take cover to find out more about the target before doing anything else.

Definitely not binary.

If i recall correctly a value of about 1.5 means target spotted, but not identified as friend or foe.

Higher value will convey more information on unit type, perhaps for better target prioritization.

A supplementary metric for evaluating the degree of knowledge a unit has on some target is checking target's perceived position (see http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/nearTargets)

---------- Post added at 15:48 ---------- Previous post was at 15:25 ----------

(+ other good ideas & notes)

I - personally - enjoy this sort of notion (unlike the one who'd configure it and test it;)). Let's put those good ideas aside for now. I'd definitely like to return to them and the possible adjustments and UI of individual AI unit (sub)skills, possible defaults, presets, etc... rather soon.

On the individual AI unit level, the more control of specific aspects of the unit's behavior, the (seemingly;)) better.

But on the global level - as an option that affects every single AI unit in the game always by the same ratio - what do you think should be affected?

What makes the game easier or more challenging (in an enjoyable way)?

E.g.: If every single AI is less able to hit you, if it doesn't spot it's target so fast...?

Conversely, what aspects shouldn't be affected?

E.g.: How fast the AI can turn around,...?

Please, let your imagination go free (don't think about how it could be done, just what behavioral aspects you'd like to adjust globally) and let us know. (I will later throw a poll)

In my opinion lowering shooting accuracy alone would lead to sensible improvements to gameplay, since accuracy has always been too high and hindering mobility.

I would not lower spotting abilities at all, on the contrary i think they should be improved, especially for open terrain.

It's a bit OT, but let me add this:

a rather big improvement would come from reworking the way AI handles its target.

From what i've experienced, AI usually follows this pattern:

1. spot enemy

2. identify as foe

...

3. stop when it's in line of sight

5. fire on it, eventually

6. move on

Point 3. is very weak though.

A unit should be stopped only depending on the outcome of many criteria, for instance:

* Being in cover or not;

* Presence of nearby cover;

* Being moving fast or slow;

* Distance from enemy;

* Distance from destination;

* Angle between direction of enemy and direction of destination;

Some practical examples:

* stop if in cover and enemy is relatively near (attack form advantageous position)

* don't stop if far from enemy and moving fast to some destination on its side (e.g. good for flanking)

* don't stop if moving fast and some cover is nearby (better to keep moving fast, but towards cover)

Edited December 10, 2013 by fabrizio_T

[oukej 2910]

It's a bit OT, but let me add...

Please use AI Discussion for any notes about the AI behavior itself. (I know it isn't easily separable)

[fabrizio_t 58]

Please use AI Discussion for any notes about the AI behavior itself. (I know it isn't easily separable)

Ok, i'll do.

[Tonci87 163]

When it comes to general behaviour and skills then I would suggest to make the AI less precise with the first two or three shots over distances greater than 200m. You could even link it to the Ammo used. AI with Tracer ammo can correct their shots faster, but get´s spoted easier by enemy´s.

Generally I would like to see more suppressive and Area fire coming from the AI if they don´t know your precise position. The AI group information sharing should get tweaked too so that they don´t share informations instantly.

It should be harder for the AI to know where exactly you are.

You know how Google maps on your smartphone uses a blue circle to mark your approximate position if it doesn´t have GPS on? And you are somewhere inside that circle? Something like that would be nice for the AI. The AI wouldn´t target you, but a general area where they think you are. The size of the area is affected by your sourroundings (open field vs. forest) and your actions. Shooting (especially with tracers) makes the area smaller. The player doesn´t have to be the center point or the circle.

That approach would allow us to keep precise AI but still have fair, balanced and more believable firefights.

Wow, I got carried away again. Sorry, it´s just that all these topics are so tightly connected to each other.

[.kju 3240]

Agreed with Smurf on the important skills.

Although I would say accuracy is most important, followed by engagement distances (missing sub-skill modifier), spotting distances, speed of aiming on target, speed of decision making.

aimingAccuracy might be worth to split to multiple settings/sub-skills.

commanding would need some way to debug and thorough testing, as well as more details to make really a good judgement.

Right now it feels like instant for the most part.. same goes for spotTime.

courage currently seems meaningless. What are the effects besides fleeing?

Tactical behavior (flanking, use of cover or concealment, movement, advanced tactics(if even available) might be another aspect.

Would need some details on whats available currently.

Default precision default needs to be toned down a good deal. Most say only 0.2-0.4 is playable without other tweaks.

---

For the record the current default skill settings:

//default
class recruit
skillFriendly=0.65;
skillEnemy=0.4;
precisionFriendly=0.4;
precisionEnemy=0.1;
class regular
skillFriendly=0.75;
skillEnemy=0.6;
precisionFriendly=0.57;
precisionEnemy=0.29;
class veteran
skillFriendly=0.85;
skillEnemy=0.85;
precisionFriendly=0.73;
precisionEnemy=0.73;
class mercenary
skillFriendly=1;
skillEnemy=0.85;
precisionFriendly=1;
precisionEnemy=0.73;

//config
class Recruit
skillFriendly = 0.65;
skillEnemy = 0.4;
//	precisionFriendly = 0.65;
//	precisionEnemy = 0.4;
class Regular
skillFriendly = 0.75;
skillEnemy = 0.6;
//	precisionFriendly = 1;
//	precisionEnemy = 0.5;
class Veteran
skillFriendly = 0.85;
skillEnemy = 0.85;
//	precisionFriendly = 1;
//	precisionEnemy = 0.75;
class Mercenary
skillFriendly = 1;
skillEnemy = 0.85;
//	precisionFriendly = 1;
//	precisionEnemy = 0.85;


//novice
skillFriendly=0.55;
precisionFriendly=0.19;
//normal
skillFriendly=0.7;
precisionFriendly=0.45;
//expert
skillFriendly=0.9;
precisionFriendly=0.81;

[fabrizio_t 58]

;2575135']

Default precision default needs to be toned down a good deal. Most say only 0.2-0.4 is playable without other tweaks.

I agree, even if i think 0.2 is a bit extreme.

I'm seeing a lot of friendly fire accidents with low accuracy.

It would be viable as long as units are better able to account for increased dispersion cone.

[Smurf 12]

Another thing, that issue of units firing while rotating to target (often resulting in friendly fire) still happens even on vehicles! Is it linked to any of those parameters or they just do that? :803:

[Tyl3r99 41]

the only problem i have with AI is that after a firefight they stay in danger mode for bloody ages and ages

we need an option to tell the ai its clear like they tell us its clear.. :) boom theres my little 5 pence worth