The AI and AI's UI needs major improvement

[I give up 152]

If you "tell" AI to hold fire and engage, they will track enemy units, but will not open fire.

Then if you "tell" open fire, they will fire at enemy units.

[chrisb 196]

If you "tell" AI to hold fire and engage, they will track enemy units, but will not open fire.

Then if you "tell" open fire, they will fire at enemy units.

That's right, but can lead to problems, mainly because vanilla ai, in particular, don't seem to care how/where they move, or if they're seen (that's from memory, not played with vanilla ai much in the last decade).

Having got an ai unit in a good position, best to let him trace from that position. But you are correct in what you say. If you want a unit to track an enemy unit, then have them drop back a little, go stealth.

[I give up 152]

Wrong section.

My bad :)

Edited April 11, 2015 by Bratwurste
Posted in wrong place.

[rübe 127]

Yeah, I still have a hard time seeing a difference between being allowed to fire (just not being on hold fire) and "engage". I both cases your guys will shot at an enemy completely on their own, with no need for a leader to tell them to do so. And in both cases they keep formation.

What does "tracking" an enemy unit even mean? Will they focus on a single target - as opposed to switching to different targets (maybe the most dangerous one from a unit's pov)? But if they lose their target (which probably will happen, since they're not allowed to move out of formation), they gotta look for another target to "stare" at? Oh well, this part always confused me, so never mind. :cool:

[chortles 263]

Yeah, I still have a hard time seeing a difference between being allowed to fire (just not being on hold fire) and "engage". I both cases your guys will shot at an enemy completely on their own, with no need for a leader to tell them to do so. And in both cases they keep formation.

What does "tracking" an enemy unit even mean?

That these could apply to any of the command UI is reason enough for why the command UI should be revamped.

I agree that it's doable. I just can't think of an interface that would be suitable for that level of micromanagement. Real soldiers don't need to be ordered exactly where to go when they need to defend an outpost. Only for very specific roles you may want to plan like for the AT position. For now you need to post everyone in your squad AND tell them where to look. Even with a more sympathetic interface, that's unreasonable.

Food for thought: Does anyone else view the Zeus group editing GUI as a viable model for how to handle "more detailed commands"?

For those who can't read the text in the center dialog and can't follow the URL to the full-size version, that's from top to bottom: "EDIT ALPHA 1-1", "Callsign", "Formation", "Combat Mode", "Speed", and "Stance"; I used an Editor module to omit Skill and Respawn from the dialog. Resize the dialog and position it wherever one would place the command menu lists, continue to offer tooltips for each specific option, or at least go "pictographic" for each command option, drop Formation from the individual unit's command options... and it seems like the beginning of something good.

As for would-be "command group with sub-group AI leaders giving commands to their own subordinates", High Command's main limitation is the system's only supporting two command levels without wonky arranging of the High Command modules (and the player's command only extending two levels anyway to either their groups or units under their direct command), and if I recall correctly it was quite tricky to get "sub-group" unit formations (i.e. squad line+fire team wedge) going.... but that Zeus "entity tree" panel on the left gives a model for what a 'group/unit selection' HUD element could look like (VBS3's Object Tree is another example).

[NeMeSiS 11]

Let's take a look at the "engage" and "engage at will" commands.

What are they even (supposed to be) doing *exactly*?

And shouldn't there be some sort of user-/leader-"configuration" or customization to them?

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint:_Commander_Guide#ENGAGE_.283.29

Edited April 11, 2015 by NeMeSiS

[chortles 263]

If it has to be looked up in the BIKI then it's not clear enough.

[chrisb 196]

https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Operation_Flashpoint:_Commander_Guide#ENGAGE_.283.29

Shows how long I've been away from vanilla ai..;)

[NeMeSiS 11]

If it has to be looked up in the BIKI then it's not clear enough.

I never said it was clear, and i have no idea why BI doesn't explain this. I bet that most people who have been playing since OFP still dont know the difference between 'target' and 'engage' because of a combination of bad/lacking tutorials and shitty menu's with even shittier descriptions. It really is a failure on BI's part.

That being said, it was easy to google. :p

EDIT: I am pretty sure that even most people within BI dont know any of this. Correct me if i am wrong, but i am pretty sure that in older games (before that useless 'quick command menu' was a thing) you could tell a unit to engage another unit by selecting him and left clicking on an enemy, and target an enemy by right clicking. Because of that new menu that is no longer possible, and both options arent even represented in the new menu.

EDIT2: Just checked in OFP, left click was called 'attack', which seems to be the same as 'engage' + 'fire', right click was just 'target'. The new quick command menu only gives us 'target'. Which explains a lot of 'AI not properly attacking targets' complaints. Ever wondered why your AT gunner didn't shoot that tank? Because he was told to target, instead of engage it.

Just to clarify:

Target = Aim at that enemy over there but stay here.

Engage = Kill that enemy, take a hike if you need to (Because of LOS issues)

Why BI decided to make target the only option in the quick menu is beyond me, as it is pretty useless unless you are defining targets for a surprise ambush or something.

Edited April 12, 2015 by NeMeSiS

[rübe 127]

that being said, it was easy to google. :p

RTFM!! :581:

EDIT: I am pretty sure that even most people within BI dont know any of this. Correct me if i am wrong, but i am pretty sure that in older games (before that useless 'quick command menu' was a thing) you could tell a unit to engage another unit by selecting him and left clicking on an enemy, and target an enemy by right clicking. Because of that new menu that is no longer possible, and both options arent even represented in the new menu.

EDIT2: Just checked in OFP, left click was called 'attack', which seems to be the same as 'engage' + 'fire', right click was just 'target'. The new quick command menu only gives us 'target'. Which explains a lot of 'AI not properly attacking targets' complaints. Ever wondered why your AT gunner didn't shoot that tank? Because he was told to target, instead of engage it.

ooohhhhhh, so that's how this went down the drain, like tears in the rain...

I always remembered how awesome this worked in good old OFP, assigning targets, sending units to attack them, it kind of felt like chess or maybe a Jagged Alliance/Commandos/Syndicate something.

Good times in command view.

...and ever since, I've always wondered why that *magic* didn't really happen any longer. That's why!

Curse you, you stupid "quick command menu"!

Why BI decided to make target the only option in the quick menu is beyond me, as it is pretty useless unless you are defining targets for a surprise ambush or something.

Yeah, something went totally wrong here (and nobody noticed or really cared all this time... :rolleyes:).

Anyways, thanks for dropping by and clarifying a few things. Good thread so far! ;)

[orcinus 121]

Thanks, Nemesis. I have OFP (ArmaX boxed set) but haven't actually played it - I must give it a go & see how it worked.

[Greenfist 1863]

EDIT: I am pretty sure that even most people within BI dont know any of this. Correct me if i am wrong, but i am pretty sure that in older games (before that useless 'quick command menu' was a thing) you could tell a unit to engage another unit by selecting him and left clicking on an enemy, and target an enemy by right clicking. Because of that new menu that is no longer possible, and both options arent even represented in the new menu.

EDIT2: Just checked in OFP, left click was called 'attack', which seems to be the same as 'engage' + 'fire', right click was just 'target'. The new quick command menu only gives us 'target'. Which explains a lot of 'AI not properly attacking targets' complaints. Ever wondered why your AT gunner didn't shoot that tank? Because he was told to target, instead of engage it.

There's no Target option in the quick menu. Instead, there's an Attack command. Now that's confusing. :D This is the same as the target command. So after you've assigned a target with it, the 'Engage' command appears.

You'd think 'Attack' would mean to actively engage, but it doesn't.

[NeMeSiS 11]

So after you've assigned a target with it, the 'Engage' command appears.

Oh dear you are right and i had no idea it worked liked that, thats just a horrible implementation. How you ever managed to figure that out is beyond me. I just checked the VR courses but even they dont seem to cover any of this.

I usually put my units on 'engage at will' anyway, at least when i am on offense. Managing the AI on defense is just horrible.

[rawalanche 13]

The AI being terrible and AI UI being terrible are problems closely tied together. Large part of the reason AI is so terrible is because command UI is so terrible and vice versa.

The reason why things like stand up, crouch and kneel (not exactly named this way) are in UI is that AI doesn't know when it's appropriate to stand up, lay down and kneel. And the reason AI does not know how to properly use these stances is because it is present in the UI, expecting player to tell AI when they should wipe their butts after they've pooped. It's circular problem.

As long as UI is not simplified, AI can not be improved, and as long as AI is not improved, UI can not be simplified.

You should never be telling your soldier what stance should they take. They should decide that on their own based on three factors:

1, If they are under fire

2, How is the terrain around them (are there any covers nearby)?

3, What are ROEs set by player (keep stealthy, move fast, etc...)

I've already described how it should work in some older thread, but basically the entire formation based parody on the commanding system should be replaced with set of order that you could imagine saying to real soldiers on a real battlefield. If you tell them to stand up they won't keep standing up if they are fired upon. 99% of time, they should not hold some geometric formation, but move according to the terrain surrounding them, from cover to cover.

If you have a mission to ambush a convoy, and you find out the easiest and most efficient way to finish the mission is by sending all of the AI soldiers somewhere far away from the point of conflict, and finish entire mission on your own, you definitely know something is terribly wrong with the AI.

Unfortunately most of the posts in this thread are thoughts inside of a box. They refer to slight improvements of the current system, while only real solution to the bad AI problem of ArmA 3 is thinking completely outside of the box, and creating completely new system, instead of iterative improvement of current one. Polished, gold painted excrement will remain to be an excrement. You can see the same with ArmA engine. Believe or not, but ArmA 3 still runs on the very same engine original OFP (ArmA CWA) did. And you can see it being stretched to it limits and not being able to catch up by observing all of the performance problems everyone complains about still not being resolved.

Edited April 13, 2015 by rawalanche

[I give up 152]

Large part of the reason AI is so terrible is because command UI

This is true, unfortunately.

Being myself a guy that only play with AI, the UI configuration and the extensive steps for the most basic commands is something that simply do not work, no way to have time for all those steps when we are in combat situation.

That's why I've learned to forget it, the only commands that I use are, get in or get out vehicles, return to formation (useful only in vehicles situation), hold fire, open fire and treat yourself.

All the rest I dont care about it, even more when most of them seems to have little effect on AI actions.

With me, AI "guys" are free to do whatever is needed and seems to work most of times.

[NeMeSiS 11]

I think the default stance positions are fine and it is currently based on the behaviour that is set (stealth, combat mode (which happens automatically under fire), the stance of the group leader(if they are in formation) and the need to move somewhere else. The option to override it is just there in case you want to do something special. I pretty much never feel the need to override the default behaviour. If you want to ambush something and have them keep low you just put them in stealth mode, which will keep them mostly low, as long as they dont need to move far.

[chortles 263]

creating completely new system

You answered yourself ("ArmA 3 still runs on the very same engine") why this isn't happening even in a hypothetical Arma 4 and the ideas you've seen recognized that inevitability.

[rawalanche 13]

You answered yourself ("ArmA 3 still runs on the very same engine") why this isn't happening even in a hypothetical Arma 4 and the ideas you've seen recognized that inevitability.

I did not mean that current engine somehow prevents AI improvement though. Current engine mainly cripples game performance wise. But it's very modular. Of course AI system would probably have to be somehow modularized to be replaced with a better one. But even something as basic as replacing numbered menus with something simplified similar to OFP2 Dragon Rising command menu would be a huge step forward. Sure Codemasters got most of the OFP2 wrong, but commanding UI was one of the few things they got quite right, or at very least significantly better than what we have in ArmA series.

[chortles 263]

I did not mean that current engine somehow prevents AI improvement though.

Certain sorts of AI improvement then; apparently the suppression implementation has made a positive difference for players both on vanilla and with ASR AI.

Of course AI system would probably have to be somehow modularized to be replaced with a better one. But even something as basic as replacing numbered menus with something simplified similar to OFP2 Dragon Rising command menu would be a huge step forward.

At this point though is it supposed to be a complaint about the AI behavior (independent of the UI) or about the UI through which players direct the AI? I ask this because the basic idea of "replacing numbered menus with something simplified" is well within range of what's been discussed here, especially with the number row having been "dehardcoded", and my suggestion of a modified Zeus "group editing" dialog was one such idea.

Sure Codemasters got most of the OFP2 wrong

The funny/sad thing is, this is probably part of why BI didn't face competitive pressure (as opposed to other kinds of external or internal pressures) to improve Arma 3 as much as vocal community members hoped -- hell, BI's reaction to Red River's reveal was "LOL we wouldn't even buy the OFP name back now".

but commanding UI was one of the few things they got quite right, or at very least significantly better than what we have in ArmA series.

Took a look at the command wheels in both Dragon Rising and Red River, and while I get the principles...

What struck me about DR's command wheel was how most of the actual commands are on the third layer-wheel presumably due to the four-options-per-layer-wheel limitation inherent in its use via D-pad on a controller, and how reliant said DR command wheel is on having so much context-sensitivity in the first-layer Move and Follow commands. Ironically like Red River I find many pertinent-to-me Arma group commands within the second layer -- the first layer being the previously-hardcoded number row -- though that's because the current, number row-based system puts up front at least some of what would have been DR second-layer-wheels ("submenus"?) up front, and I recognize that both systems maintain a depth of possible order complexity that Red River slashed all to hell (and with it any pretense of competing with Arma)...

Are we in agreement though that DR's command wheel isn't adaptable 1:1 but rather would at least need more "slices" on the wheel, in order to allow for at least the depth of possible order complexity that the current system allows for? (i.e. in DR "Move" is replaced with "Enter Vehicle" by aiming at a vehicle, whereas in Arma a soldier can be ordered into a specific seat of a specific vehicle that the player does not necessarily have line of sight to, and as you've seen in this thread some players actually consider the capability to give so specific an order a higher priority than simplicity.)

[Greenfist 1863]

I personally love the current interface. It takes less than a second to issue any basic second level command. And I can keep my finger on the trigger, sights on the target, and without a huge menu wheel blocking my view.

Sure, it's not very intuitive and easy to learn for a newbie, but then again; what is in Arma?

I agree with most of the suggestions in the first post though.

[chortles 263]

It takes less than a second to issue any basic second level command.

This is the main upside to the existing system if you've already practiced the muscle memory for each specific command, but at the very least it seems to me that that at least some of the categories could be safely pruned. For example, I'm not seeing what particular need is fulfilled by having separate Target and Engage categories (the latter being effectively the ROE category) as opposed to simply rolling the Target command(s) into the Engage category as a submenu.

As a separate point, though this may be a bit of repetition, I am also a fan of more "explicitly" labeled commands, i.e. replacing "Engage" in the Engage submenu with "Engage and pursue".

Sure, it's not very intuitive and easy to learn for a newbie, but then again; what is in Arma?

That's really not an excuse in a day and age when "more readily usable" was a stated goal of Arma 3 development.

(No one else bother citing VBS3, it's using mostly the same command UI.)

[rawalanche 13]

Are we in agreement though that DR's command wheel isn't adaptable 1:1 but rather would at least need more "slices" on the wheel, in order to allow for at least the depth of possible order complexity that the current system allows for? (i.e. in DR "Move" is replaced with "Enter Vehicle" by aiming at a vehicle, whereas in Arma a soldier can be ordered into a specific seat of a specific vehicle that the player does not necessarily have line of sight to, and as you've seen in this thread some players actually consider the capability to give so specific an order a higher priority than simplicity.)

I don't think wheel should/could have more slices. It's reliable 2 axis control for both consoles and especially for PC. It would be quite a pain if it had to be navigated using mouse cursor. The beauty of OFP2 one was that you could very easily memorize sequences for certain commands, such as right-right-up, and you could execute them very rapidly. If there were more than 4 slices, then imagine fragility of having to press say top and right (W and D) at the same time to hit top right slice of the circle. It would mean there has to be some timeout in which it decides if one or two keys are pressed at the time. The timeout would mean slower responses and therefore slow down order issuing.

For objects out of line of sight, it could be as simple as performing orders on some map. You would put your cursor over an object on a map related to your order, and context menu would change appropriately. And all the objects you know of would be listed on the map. Of course it's nice to be able to do that while looking around on battlefield without map in your face, but at the same time, sometimes it's a bit problematic as there may be for example two vehicles of the same type, and you do not know which one of the two is the one you are ordering to. IMHO there is way too much flexibility right now. Sure it makes it feel like simulator, but it ruins big part of immersion factor.

What you say about circular command menu accommodating for ArmA3 complexity, there are numerous design solutions for this, for example:

Let's assume on Root circle, down is command for Move. The comand is cursor sensitive, so if you point at a car, then it changes to board. If you hit just down, they will get issued order that says "board anywhere", as in current number menu. Now, we have already one modifier key - Ctrl, used for stance adjusting. In circular menu, this key would be modifier too, and the bottom slice of the circle would be color coded, by for example yellow color, indicating it has modifier options under it.

So in practice, if you aim at car, open command menu and quickly hit down, soldiers will board the car randomly, using board anywhere command. If you open menu, but hit Ctrl+Down, it would go to sub-menu, with options like driver, gunner, commander, rear, etc... It could be refined further by allowing for color coded modifier indicator to be present only when one soldier is selected, as you can't order two or more guys to take commander or gunner seat at once. This adaptive menu I think would be very intuitive, instead of constant keyboard orchestra we experience now when using numbered menus.

I had even more complex and interesting idea the other day. You know how you can assign unit groups in RTS games by designating them using Ctrl+1-10 and then recalling selection by hitting 1-10 keys. I thought of something similar for ArmA, where you could customize sets of commands, which then could be recalled using single key press. So for example instead of often ordering your soldiers to go stealth, find cover, and hold fire, you could just create sort of macro of these commands, name the macro yourself and assign it to a key.

Edited April 15, 2015 by rawalanche

[Greenfist 1863]

You know how you can assign unit groups in RTS games by designating them using Ctrl+1-10 and then recalling selection by hitting 1-10 keys.

For those who don't already know; you can do this in Arma too. Ctrl+F?? to assign, Shift+F?? to select.

Pretty handy feature sometimes.

[R0adki11 3949]

For those who don't already know; you can do this in Arma too. Ctrl+F?? to assign, Shift+F?? to select.

Pretty handy feature sometimes.

Indeed you can, you can assign AI to particular colour groups. Its been there since OFP.

[Smurf 12]

For those who don't already know; you can do this in Arma too. Ctrl+F?? to assign, Shift+F?? to select.

Pretty handy feature sometimes.

Indeed you can, you can assign AI to particular colour groups. Its been there since OFP.

This functionality should be "default-ed" and expanded to better couple with the game\environment. Think of fireteams, vehicles and so on.

______

On other news, the direct selection of weapons + apparence of proxies for pistol holsters + emphasis on the whole gunplay == COULD mean new animations for transitions? Rifle\Back Sling, PDK\chest sling, pistol\holster ..... Or I am too optimistic?