The AI and AI's UI needs major improvement

[chortles 263]

what i'd love to see is friendly AI being handled totally different so you can have them react instantly. and maybe a quick menu that can be used instead of that hidious list menu. same flaw as the scroll menu. making people scroll through all entries to the entry they are looking for instead of just giving you mouse control or proper context sensitivity.

The idea was evidently supposed to be that people could use the number keys to choose an entry immediately instead of having to scroll -- something that the scroll menu doesn't have, by the way -- the problem being that it's just as unintuitive for someone who hasn't been playing since OFP or gone out of their way to practice it.

also. i'm not sure how far this is already possible but it would be amazing if you could have huge groups separated into fire teams (optional) and then you'd just command each fire team leader with commands specially made for that. almost turning it into a little RTS.

This sounds like making High Command integral to the group command system, except I'm not sure how to "better" rework that so that it can suit everything from aircraft groups to armor groups to 'soft' car groups to even boat groups... you get where I'm going, I imagine.

but they need to be tools that can perform basic tasks without error (for the most part). otherwise they turn from tools to a liability. so why use them at all...

Sounds ironically like something that console shooters with group command got right, a fundamental conceptual difference... and here people were making fun of me years ago for wanting a more player-centric experience as if I gave a damn about "the background stuff is actually happening". :lol: Sorry, just wanted to get that old grudge against certain community members out of the way.

the rts im working on may just well do this... it an RTS from ofp ... KaRRiLLioNs .. ive been working on it for a while.Zenophon is helping me add his Zenophon's Framework (or im helping him) but the frame work is very intelligent .... So hope to be testing the RTS soon

Just remember that how well it works under-the-hood isn't as important as how well it matches up with what players expect it to do... :p

[dr death jm 117]

Just remember that how well it works under-the-hood isn't as important as how well it matches up with what players expect it to do...

well im hoping for the best, im keeping most things as simple as possible but going to try and keep it as close to ofp rts as I can, not a lot of fancy menus just what you need ..

ai count is based on player count , beside's the resistance. I already have a custom troop's were at level 4 you pick troop groop color , pic the vehicles you want and if you have enuf resources and player $$$$ spawn a full troop 1 button.

4 color's and up to I think 6 vehicles per troop's group so 1 player can command 24 maned vehicles belonging to 4 different groops ... :butbut:

We ALL Know How This May Not Work As Intended (AI love to Look Like there Following the other guy but Don't)

Edited March 25, 2015 by Dr Death JM

[Imperator[TFD] 444]

Having played hundreds of hours of Warfare in Arma 2 with the AI at my finger tips I've learnt all the tiny nuances of how to operat them efficiently so when I see threads like this one I can't help but immediately think "it's not that hard!"

Then I realise how long it ultimately took me to get to the level I am at now.

[dr death jm 117]

lol ... the biggest problem is the ai not seeing buiding's bridges and road's .. but to be fare don't trust your ai to play the game for you .. and why pvp is the best gaming , if like in cti warfare typ game you can make ai (awesome) but my hole thing on it is , the ai will do there job "if you can get them to were you need them".

some things I found that work, is dont set the ai location far away... set smaller way points. and also don't send them all together at once , send them 1 by 1 .. I think there used to be a thingy were you send f1 to some location and the say f2,f3,f4 follow f1 ... but I don't even know if that in arma3 anymore... (havnt had tome to look).... never the less this all will help you ai not to be so ai stupifyed and maybe make it to were there going.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Dr Death JM

[bonchie 39]

Things need to be simpler.

95% of needed commands in a battle situation come down to simply wanting the AI to go to where you tell them, get in cover, get in a vehicle, shoot/don't shoot, rearm, and stay by your side when you tell them to. And just as importantly, do these things without massive delays or ignoring you.

I'm not even saying to get rid of all the other commands/UI, but there needs to be a simplified point/click version like other games for quick use in battle.

Honestly though, the biggest hurdle to me with the AI is they simply don't listen in a timely fashion or at all. I want AI that if I tell them to go behind that wall, they do so immediately and directly. If I tell them to get in cover, they do so immediately. If I tell them to shoot at a target, they open up immediately. All the different awareness modes complicate this massively because in some modes they are responsive. In others they move at a snails pace to what you've commanded them to do. In some they stare at you.

Edited March 25, 2015 by bonchie

[Smurf 12]

@the AI and AI's UI needs major improvement:

Yes it does. IMO:

less buttons but maintain an OPTION for the full thing;

Grouping\collapsing, greater use of colors;

Support: share of ammo, med care, some auto management inside AI groups;

Brothers in Arms like control scheme;

Smart use of icons and actions (garrison, raid, supress....);

EDIT:

Role specific actions: engineers plant\defuse explosives, MG\Granadiers saturate areas, helo pilot lands, jet pilots strafe, snipers scout\report\take THAT shot, officers do the paperwork and so on.

Try something with a 3D cursor, you had a start in A2 with the cover thing but that barely worked, kept sticking to any object but the one you wanted to and you couldn't even select the right side of the cover most times. But it was a start.

Edited March 25, 2015 by Smurf

[bonchie 39]

@the AI and AI's UI needs major improvement:

Yes it does. IMO:

less buttons but maintain an OPTION for the full thing;

Grouping\collapsing, greater use of colors;

Support: share of ammo, med care, some auto management inside AI groups;

Brothers in Arms like control scheme;

Smart use of icons and actions (garrison, raid, supress....);

Yep. BIA is a good example.

Have a single menu that comes up, is browsed by the mouse wheel, and is activated by a click depending on what you highlight. Have all the major commands in there (let's say 10 total of the most used/needed).

Or even simply have the "1" menu be condensed with all the major commands. Have it be a "shortcut" menu while the other menu's 2-whatever still retain the in-depth commands.

[dr death jm 117]

Things need to be simpler.

95% of needed commands in a battle situation come down to simply wanting the AI to go to where you tell them, get in cover, get in a vehicle, shoot/don't shoot, rearm, and stay by your side when you tell them to. And just as importantly, do these things without massive delays or ignoring you.

I'm not even saying to get rid of all the other commands/UI, but there needs to be a simplified point/click version like other games for quick use in battle.

Honestly though, the biggest hurdle to me with the AI is they simply don't listen in a timely fashion or at all. I want AI that if I tell them to go behind that wall, they do so immediately and directly. If I tell them to get in cover, they do so immediately. If I tell them to shoot at a target, they open up immediately. All the different awareness modes complicate this massively because in some modes they are responsive. In others they move at a snails pace to what you've commanded them to do. In some they stare at you.

yeah this is so true ... depending on mission ive seen this... or you get an ai that say cant get there ... and for the love of god Ive never seen why they cant get there... wtf is their shoes untied or something? is there some typ of black hole ai see that we don't ...lol

[Smurf 12]

And to add once more the my last post for AI commanding, SWAT 4.

Smart, groups, many options, fast and easy to use.

Edited March 27, 2015 by Smurf

[kothen 57]

And to add once more the my last post for AI commanding, SWAT 4.

Smart, groups, many options, fast and easy to use.

http://www.sierrachest.com/gfx/games/SWAT4/command.JPG

yes, All my yes, Swat 4 had a great and easy menu to use.

[chortles 263]

Having played hundreds of hours of Warfare in Arma 2 with the AI at my finger tips I've learnt all the tiny nuances of how to operat them efficiently so when I see threads like this one I can't help but immediately think "it's not that hard!"

Then I realise how long it ultimately took me to get to the level I am at now.

A late reply from me, but this is pretty pertinent -- I'm pretty much in agreement with bonchie's remarks about why a simplified AI command UI ought to be, and Smurf's suggestions about what that UI could be like... but however oddly enough I believe that even "less tactical" shooters with AI command also offer a viable model for what the "simplest form" UI could be for infantry at least; Arma's particular challenges with the UI (not AI obedience) being the possibility of combined arms groups and the lack of scripted-to-be-specifically-tailored command/control mechanics for bigger stuff (i.e. if you're a ground commander with two group members in an attack helicopter).

[hbk 0]

Although there are a number of issues with the OFP-era UI, and of course there are quite a number of issues with AI behavior (getting stuck, action delay, driving, etc), one can't deny this is one of the most advanced game AI there is. And this needs to be stated.

That being said, I wonder how operating a squad would perform if we could be able to "borrow" an AI commander module, like having an AI commander attached to the player that would give your squadmates orders for you (there could also be a number of macros in order to reproduce the set behaviors of commander's AI like "move" or "clear the area"). Obviously such "borrowing" would be optional and could be disengaged at any time granted the player wants to deal with all the options available.

I think this would solve a lot of issues for a lot of players and should not be too hard to implement.

It always amazed me (well not always, but for quite some time now) that there is no macro command like "everyone heal with the medic/ambulance" or "everyone resupply".

I mean AI commanders are definitely able to manage squads adequately, so this kind of workaround would work wonders, I think, granted you'll always find people that wouldn't like it, hence the optionality.

[rübe 127]

It always amazed me (well not always, but for quite some time now) that there is no macro command like "everyone heal with the medic/ambulance" or "everyone resupply".

I always thought there should be custom-commands (code + name, maybe even a sound too) users could write/script by themselves with some reasonable subset of scripting commands. That script should have a pointer to the group, maybe also to knownEnemies, and you should also be able to getNearestObjects in a limited distance (to scan for stuff). Users could exchange their custom-command scripts. You get the idea.

At least I do a lot of the same command-sequences all the time, all over again (e.g. prone, stealth, hold fire or what not). And with some scripting power, things could be streamlined really nicely. While there are lot's of commands, I actually do not need too many, most of the time - yet other users might. So customization by means of some sort of meta-command seems to be ideal.

But the worst is the indirection of getting units under your command to do actions/interact with other objects by means of actions. For some stuff, this works rather nicely (e.g. assign targets to individual units) and you can select the unit (or multiple), then point to the thing they're supposed to interact with (shot in this example), no matter if you're in pov- or command-screen. That's nice. That's how things should be. Unfortunately that's pretty much where it stops (ok, maybe there's also the get in/out thingy, but really not much more).

Why are we stuck with that super shitty radio-action-command menu to issue such orders?

Why can't I just select a unit, point to some thing and do that thing?!

• Select a unit, point with your mouse to some dead guy or ammo crate, make the unit got rearm/open its inventory right there (and not that thing right next it; wrong rearm targets happen all the time with "open inventory" radio blah).
  
• Select a unit, point to a door, make that unit go open/close that door.
  
• ...and so on, same for any action, also for customly attached/created ones. If the condition allows for it, make it happen. You got some action (e.g. on a machine/some object, maybe a laptop) to do some stuff? Select a unit, point to that stuff, make it happen.
  

Of course, there might be multiple actions attached to some object. But that list is in general very short. So a simple menu something should do, otherwise - if only one option is given/possible - just offer that immediately upon mouse-over (the object) and some unit(s) being selected.

This finally needs to happen.

Then get rid of that horrible action-radio-menu, aka the infinit list of unknown shit and stuff you didn't know even existed. That's IMHO easily the most appalling thing with respect to UI and AI commands.

[hbk 0]

They tried to do it with the current "quick orders" menu. But it's pretty bare-bones. And admittedly, if they start to add a lot of options to this menu, well, it won't be that "quick" anymore.

That's the risk. But yea, lots of contextual actions are missing.

Still, I think it would be great if there was some way to "macro" stuff, and not just simple scripts. Whole behaviors like "go stealth unless detected", "assume defensive positions", "search and engage", "engage and pursuit", "move hastily", behaviors your character would automagically manage by issuing commands to your squad mates. I shouldn't have to tell my gunner to suppress or my AT solider to shoot at the tank and forget that puny medic he's wasting bullets into. I also shouldn't have to tell a rifleman to man a static MG if we're not moving.

Well, you get the point I think.

Edit : Commander AIs already know how to handle many of that. It shouldn't be that hard to attach a commander AI "brain" into into the player and make him bark orders.

Edited April 9, 2015 by HBK

[rübe 127]

Well, you get the point I think.

Yeah, you're thinking of some sort of rules-of-engagements/tactical behaviour kind of thing on a higher level. But I think the current approach to things is far superior: namely having access to finer grained parameters that make up those "higher level behaviours". It just doesn't add up/combines all too well, and things are missing (speed; you just can't tell em to run) or just not respected all to well by your AI mates. Also only this allows a good leader to actually shine, by cleverly combining these lower level behaviours into the desired result (or not). Just hitting some abstract meta-command... well, let's have a look at it:

• "go stealth unless detected": That's perfectly doable already. Set them to stealth and hold weapons. They only will fire if they've been detected. No problemo.
  
• "assume defensive positions": That's your job as a leader to set them up nicely. You there, you move over nah. You can set their stance and tell them witch direction to watch. Granted, that's a lot of work to do. But how else would you automate this? People probably would bitch even more how stupid AI is, because they have no proper sense of "defensive position". Btw. would this be a directional defense? Sector defense? Full circle? Trutle formation? ;)
  
• "search and engage": what would that mean? Let them wander around? In what direction? At what speed? Engaging what? IMHO same applies as above: that's your job as a leader to tell them where to go, when to split up, form teams, etc.
  
• "engage and pursuit": you just assign a target to the desired unit(s), and the unit(s) should already do exactly that. They move first if they don't have a clear shot (dangerous to let them wander around looking for their target...).
  
• "move hastily": Yes! We finally need full control over the speed. But that's a *low* level behaviour.
  
• "I also shouldn't have to tell a rifleman to man a static MG if we're not moving.": Yes you do! That's exactly the job of a team leader!
  

I can't see much "high-level" commands so far. But please elaborate if you think I did you/your statements not justice.

Low-level commands are absolutely fine. And (scriptable) command-macros are the solution (besides missing some more low-level commands).

In order to make some of your whishes work, we might also want to have a custom, periodically executed "scanner"-script, which would automatically issue commands for you. IMHO the fun thing here would be, that not everyone would use the same macros, and instead we would see much more leader-styles (as opposed to having just 4 hardcoded high-level macros or what not).

...I mean.. what you're asking for is basically an auto-pilot/cruise-control :p

[hbk 0]

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.

So yea, while I agree that it would be miles better with a more adapted interface, there still should be "auto-behaviors" that go well beyond "engage at will".

As for my "pursuing", I was thinking in terms of vehicular combat, it obviously hardly makes sense for infantry (even if it's still applicable, it's basically the difference between careful behavior and aggressive behavior).

[tmp95 16]

5. give the AI the explicit command to stay close instead of acting smart and walking all over the map. This problem is especially obvious in urban environments. By close, I mean right next to/behind the player. The second AI should be a bit to the left/right of the player so that he can fire at wherever the player is shooting as well.

6. give up to 2 AI the explicit command to stick to the player so that room clearing can be done correctly instead of 1 competent player plus 2 AI running around with no idea what to do.

7. give the AI the explicit command to attack a group of targets instead of them acting smart and engaging targets not in the group and alerting them.

.

This. This. This. This alone makes A3 1000x fold more enjoyable / playable

[chortles 263]

Although there are a number of issues with the OFP-era UI, and of course there are quite a number of issues with AI behavior (getting stuck, action delay, driving, etc), one can't deny this is one of the most advanced game AI there is. And this needs to be stated.

Unfortunately A3 AI being "one of the most advanced game AI there is" is no help when the whole issue is the disconnect between player intent and AI behavior due to UI problems (to say nothing of AI "failures to perform as expected")...

That being said, I wonder how operating a squad would perform if we could be able to "borrow" an AI commander module, like having an AI commander attached to the player that would give your squadmates orders for you (there could also be a number of macros in order to reproduce the set behaviors of commander's AI like "move" or "clear the area"). Obviously such "borrowing" would be optional and could be disengaged at any time granted the player wants to deal with all the options available.

Have you given a shot at the High Command modules?

But yeah, what I'd be looking for out of an improved UI would be optimizing the "path to the commands" according to what co-op players most often use, hence my agreement with Smurf's ideas re: SWAT 4-style quick commands/command groups.

[Sub-Human 10]

There isn't a lot of feedback from the AI, which is why (partially) it is so frustrating. An AI should report that it spotted a target, is providing covering fire, is suppressed by enemy... and that will at least explain why it isn't following your orders.

The other, of course, is the reaction to being fired upon. An AI should get to cover immediately upon being fired at; rather than their slow turning to spot the target and return fire.

[dayglow 2]

I think a lot of confusion is that the AI doesn't distinguish between hearing, guessing, and seeing. It may hear something and call out a contact, or guess a location. I suggested a long time ago to have the AI say I hear something to the left, I think there's someone ahead.

also remember that the AI can't see like us. It determines if there is a line of sight to a target, even if only a few pixels are visible and then it determines if it can see you. Foliage and obstacles mean nothing if pixels are visible. It's a fine balance to make AI sight believable vs blind.

i feel that the AI is actually amazing when you think about it. No scripts, cover points, etc in the map design. You don't tell the AI what is cover, it decides for itself. Create a new map, drop AI in and they will navigate and use obstacles to its advantage. That is no small feat. Most shooters you have to give AI pathing, tell it where cover is, etc.

[I give up 152]

AI is not bad, in fact is the best when compared with some other games.

With most of games (if not all) AI is just like a zombie following predefined paths. With Arma 3 AI is dynamic and it can actually decide the actions to perform.

To me the only negative point is when they simply ignore the given commands.

Sometimes is a pain just to make them get in vehicles. Recognize the command, agree with it and simply do not move.

[rübe 127]

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?

[chrisb 196]

'Engage' and the unit will engage but stay in formation. 'Engage at will' and the unit may/will move to a better spot and/or other locations to engage the enemy.

[rübe 127]

Okay, and what's the difference between "open fire" (or not holding it) and "engage" then? Is it that your units will pick their own targets? But they're shoting stuff without "engage" or having explicit targets assigned, so what's the point?

[chrisb 196]

Okay, and what's the difference between "open fire" (or not holding it) and "engage" then? Is it that your units will pick their own targets? But they're shoting stuff without "engage" or having explicit targets assigned, so what's the point?

I'm not sure I get what you mean, however; if you spot a target for an ai teammate, but have ordered him to hold fire, he'll trace that enemy unit if its in eyesight and when you order him to open fire he'll shoot it (if he can). Engage they'll choose their own targets same as engage at will. The idea is sometimes you spot the target you want them to fire at, but hold them back (hold fire), until you have your team in a position of advantage, with perhaps many targets spotted for ai to open up on. That way you'll get better results (well sometimes). I don't play A3 much so not sure if the vanilla ai is up to that job, but that's how it was designed (I think).;)

Edit: just a note, I use hold fire a lot in modded A2CO, having your teammates hit the targets you want can be far more efficient than having them blast away at enemy they like. A team of say 5-7 can do a great deal of damage to the enemy if they are ordered to engage correctly.