Is Arma 3's AI so unusually accurate? I don't think so

[Frankdatank1218 39]

A lot of people complain about how much more laser accurate Arma 3's AI is to other games, and while they can definitely be unrealistically accurate, I don't think it is true that it is worse than average.

However, here is what gives the illusion it is worse:

Play any FPS, well, for relevance, any military themed/modern-setting FPS, AI actually does seem to snap to you and aim and hit you abnormally often, specific examples: BF3, BF:BC2, Far Cry 3, the STALKER series (modern guns and gear for the most part), Medal of Honor, CoD 4, New Ghost Recon, New Rainbow Six, all of their AI has a tendency to occasionally hit you with ridiculous reaction and accuracy, the reason why Arma 3 seems so much worse? You take far more damage from a bullet than most of those games. So the AI laser accuracy occurs approximately just as often, but just has a more severe damage value dealt by those shots.

The AI could certainly use improvement to make their shots have more human fallibility, but it is not way worse than other game's AI.

[sbua16 19]

I don't think the argument has ever been to compare ArmA with other games' accuracy. It kind of goes without saying that because of the way ArmA handles damage (the more realistic nature I guess), different ways of handling accuracy are required, that's a given. I think it's safe to say that everyone's pretty much already on the same page about that.

[Sindrio2 11]

I don't think the argument has ever been to compare ArmA with other games' accuracy. It kind of goes without saying that because of the way ArmA handles damage (the more realistic nature I guess), different ways of handling accuracy are required, that's a given. I think it's safe to say that everyone's pretty much already on the same page about that.

This. When you are some hundred metres away from the enemy AI, and they insta-kill you from that distance it doesn't feel right. Im not saying they never should be able to have a lucky shot like that, but when it happens all the time it gets annoying.

[WhiskeySixx 10]

I would love to invite most people to a gun range and shoot at a 300 meter silhouette of a man. In a calm rested postion WITH a bipod, I would guarantee most people could make 10 shots out of 30... Thats at 300 meters with no Artillery in the distance or bullets snapping over head or your team leader telling you to move to another position. In reality, you would not be able to effectively engage an enemy while you are being properly suppressed until you gain fire superiority, have a team to flank and then neutralize the target.

IMO this game should focus more on longer engagements with less units. Not necessarily more survivability, but increased effects of being suppressed and the reward of properly supressing an enemy and manuvering.

Edited February 27, 2014 by WhiskeySixx

[-Coulum- 35]

I actually don't think the ai's accuracy is too high compared to what a player with a scope, ingame, can achieve.

That being said, I do think that players are too accurate in the first place, and agree with WhisketSixx as to why they are too accurate. The effects of the battlefield don't effect a player realistically. And these effects should ideally also effect ai. Their accuracy needs to vary depending on their equipment and situation more. Ironsights = less accurate. Underfire = less accurate. Shooting at a target they have only just acquired = less accurate. Shooting at a target they have had LOS for a while = more accurate. And so on. This is what will make the ai seem less botish, and more human, as they will appear to be reacting to the environment around them more. And of course if it is done for the ai IMO it is only fair to do it for the player as well. But thats another topic I suppose.

But as is, the ai is definitely playable against with their current accuracy. Use cover and don't stick your head up for more than a few seconds at a time. When a bullet snaps by its time to duck down.

Sitting behind cover is not good enough. You have to use it as well. Doing that and the ai will rarely, rarely, rarely hit.

IMO this game should focus more on longer engagements with less units. Not necessarily more survivability, but increased effects of being suppressed and the reward of properly supressing an enemy and manuvering.

Yes I agree. If a platoon sized firefight actually took a realistic amount of time - or even half that - I would have no need to have ridiculous amounts of ai and wonder why my performance is bad. If only. Things have improved over arma 2 though. And I am sure it will only get better.

[Tonci87 163]

The AI isn´t too accurate but it has problems that make us think so:

Their accuracy is very high with the first shot after reloading

They are still very accurate even they are wounded or when they´ve just been shot.

[mamasan8 11]

Another factor that I haven't seen mentioned.

When I get shot by AI, I first have to figure out what direction it is coming from and then trying to spot the AI. AI don't (always) do this. They usually spot me instantly and shoot back instantly. Of course they are aimbots. All AI are.

[Bouben 3]

Their accuracy is very high with the first shot after reloading

This should have been fixed already if I am not mistaken.

[tortuosit 486]

My biggest problem with the AI is, if they look into your direction, they will always spot you, no matter if it is difficult terrain lots of stuff, rocks, bushes and trees.

[John Kozak 14]

A lot of people complain about how much more laser accurate Arma 3's AI is to other games, and while they can definitely be unrealistically accurate, I don't think it is true that it is worse than average.

However, here is what gives the illusion it is worse:

Play any FPS, well, for relevance, any military themed/modern-setting FPS, AI actually does seem to snap to you and aim and hit you abnormally often, specific examples: BF3, BF:BC2, Far Cry 3, the STALKER series (modern guns and gear for the most part), Medal of Honor, CoD 4, New Ghost Recon, New Rainbow Six, all of their AI has a tendency to occasionally hit you with ridiculous reaction and accuracy, the reason why Arma 3 seems so much worse? You take far more damage from a bullet than most of those games. So the AI laser accuracy occurs approximately just as often, but just has a more severe damage value dealt by those shots.

The AI could certainly use improvement to make their shots have more human fallibility, but it is not way worse than other game's AI.

The AI's accuracy has been fixed since, previously it was very exaggerated. Now it is indeed within reasonable boundaries, as you say.

[kridian 33]

My biggest problem with the AI is, if they look into your direction, they will always spot you, no matter if it is difficult terrain lots of stuff, rocks, bushes and trees.

First hand experience with this last night on an Invade & Annex server.

I call this, "Terminator Mode". I ran through a series of buildings to get behind a squad, only to be fired upon through the f*cking walls when I was about to spring from cover.

You can't get the jump on them. Just toss a grenade and be done with it.

[Sneakson 1]

A lot of people complain about how much more laser accurate Arma 3's AI is to other games, and while they can definitely be unrealistically accurate, I don't think it is true that it is worse than average.

However, here is what gives the illusion it is worse:

Play any FPS, well, for relevance, any military themed/modern-setting FPS, AI actually does seem to snap to you and aim and hit you abnormally often, specific examples: BF3, BF:BC2, Far Cry 3, the STALKER series (modern guns and gear for the most part), Medal of Honor, CoD 4, New Ghost Recon, New Rainbow Six, all of their AI has a tendency to occasionally hit you with ridiculous reaction and accuracy, the reason why Arma 3 seems so much worse? You take far more damage from a bullet than most of those games. So the AI laser accuracy occurs approximately just as often, but just has a more severe damage value dealt by those shots.

The AI could certainly use improvement to make their shots have more human fallibility, but it is not way worse than other game's AI.

Wrong.

The ARMA3 AI can shoot you from a kilometre away. Crysis was criticized for super-sniping enemies that could hit you at 100 meters... in most games AI will mostly miss you at 10 meters.

At least this is how it was last time I tried fighting some enemies with the highest AI settings at distance.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Sneakson

[Belbo 462]

Bummer for those playing on public servers of course, but just to be sure: AI accuracy is not written in stone, it's separately editable to your likings, even without additional mods.

[Nexerius 10]

Its kinda always been a problem, as earlier i fooled around in the editor, and still noticed how incredibly accurate the AI really are.

If i moved around, they could barely hit me, but as soon as i stood still they got in a few shots.

Maybe a bit unrelated, but wouldnt it be better if the devs rolled back the armor update? Most of the time it seems to be really bad and not really working, so it would probably be best to roll it back until the update comes out to fix it.

[WhiskeySixx 10]

Wrong.

The ARMA3 AI can shoot you from a kilometre away. Crysis was criticized for super-sniping enemies that could hit you at 100 meters... in most games AI will mostly miss you at 10 meters.

Most games you can only see 100 meters haha.

[Sneakson 1]

Most games you can only see 100 meters haha.

Exactly. That's why AI is programmed only to be able to shoot you at 10.

[Sturmkrahe 10]

I would love to invite most people to a gun range and shoot at a 300 meter silhouette of a man. In a calm rested postion WITH a bipod, I would guarantee most people could make 10 shots out of 30... Thats at 300 meters with no Artillery in the distance or bullets snapping over head or your team leader telling you to move to another position. In reality, you would not be able to effectively engage an enemy while you are being properly suppressed until you gain fire superiority, have a team to flank and then neutralize the target.

IMO this game should focus more on longer engagements with less units. Not necessarily more survivability, but increased effects of being suppressed and the reward of properly supressing an enemy and manuvering.

If a platoon sized firefight actually took a realistic amount of time - or even half that - I would have no need to have ridiculous amounts of ai and wonder why my performance is bad.

Both totally spot on. I was hoping Arma 3 would be more of an authentic and realistic (to a reasonable and fun extent) experience, but instead we have firefights that are over within seconds of starting, randomly exploding cars (Why, game developers? Why with the exploding cars?!), and omniscient helicopters. I feel like it's very close to reaching it's full potential, just not quite there. :(

[ScharfSepp 10]

I would much rather have an inaccurate but useful and fun AI that actually lays down a heavy volume of fire in your direction, than the AI that runs around looking stupid until they 360 no scope you at 300m.

Of course, the best solution is PvP. :p

[roshnak 41]

I'm going to suggest that the percieved accuracy of the AI isn't actually because they are unreasonably accurate, or because of lack of simultion of "battlefield effects," but rather that the AI (and most players for that matter) only ever engage with point fire. Basically, no matter how far the AI is from a target, no matter what kind of target it is (groups vs individuals), or what size of force is doing the engaging (groups vs individuals, again) they always pick a specific individual unit and try to kill it. This leads to (fairly) reasonable behavior in close quarters engagements that breaks down at longer ranges.

In my opinion, the AI should alter its behavior based on range and unit size. Large groups should use area fire against large groups at long range. Groups should use point fire in close range and against single units or small groups at long range. Single units and small groups should use point fire pretty much all the time, unless the unit is an AR or machine gunner, which should transition to area fire at long range. This system isn't perfect, but I think it would allow the AI to behave more realistically while still allowing for a reasonable amount of versatility. Of course, it would also probably require a near complete rewrite of the AI, so it will probably never happen.

And while I'm on the subject, varying the length of bursts and time between shots would go a really long way to making the AI seem less robotic.

[brightcandle 114]

Wars would be a lot more dangerous if everyone was as accurate as the AI in A3. They can shoot an unscoped weapon, standing up to 600-700m and hit the head of the target on the first shot. Those are skills well beyond a human, shots at 100m standing are difficult enough, headshots at 700m standing is impossible but completely common in A3. The AI when turned down via mods is a lot more fun, and you can at least make it match the players capabilities which is lower range and less accurate.

[oukej 2911]

Their accuracy is very high with the first shot after reloading

They are still very accurate even they are wounded or when they´ve just been shot.

Btw, those two cases should be improved ;)

[instagoat 133]

Stalkers AI was very unforgiving at high levels of difficulty, so much so that it was caged for the vanilla game. Mods make you dread getting into combat, especially because of grenades. The AI's handling of grenades in Arma meanwhile is neither here nor there, I think: for the most part, they don't even seem to be using them anymore, at least for me.

[hades198 10]

Surprisingly enough for me in singleplayer the enemy AI seems to spam grenades as long as I am advancing, but the minute I stop... so do the grenades. I thought it should be the other way around?

[Tonci87 163]

Btw, those two cases should be improved ;)

Yeah I thnk they really are. Good job on that.

[KlassenT 10]

My personal experience is not an issue accuracy in and of itself; after all, Murphy's Laws of Combat include "If the enemy is in range... so are you." Rather, it doesn't feel like the AI is subject to visual cover like players are. Hard cover, sure. Terrain, junk piles, rocks, and large tree trunks can all seemingly block LoS from AI units, but I haven't found foliage (Bushes, leafy cover, etc) to do squat against them. I often find that I'm taking fire from the OPPOSITE side of a forest where I can't even remotely hope to spot the enemy. The big issue is that that stuff ain't hardcoded, and to my knowledge, the density of which can even be affected by graphical settings, though it's an entirely different gripe when it comes to PvP balancing. I would hazard to say that it's somewhat accounted for, since they seemed to have reduced accuracy in a lot of these instances where there is heavy cover between the two points, but it still seems a touch unforgiving that they can spot me through THAT much visual obstruction in the first place.