AIs behaviour/improvement

[Zorbtek 0]

Like Cervo pointed out, I was a bit sad to see the AI just running and running, flopping on their bellies than getting up and running some more.  Chances are, if there is a sniper trying to shoot at you from a fairly decent distance like in the video, the AI should spray some bullets in your direction while a few others move up to get a closer shot.

There are also some good AI mods that I have seen for OFP, perhaps BIS should get in contact with these individuals and ask if they could implement them towards Armed Assault.  I'm almost positive they would jump around all giddy knowing their created content will be in a commercial game.

A BIS game at that.

[Friedchiken 0]

Like Cervo pointed out, I was a bit sad to see the AI just running and running, flopping on their bellies than getting up and running some more.  Chances are, if there is a sniper trying to shoot at you from a fairly decent distance like in the video, the AI should spray some bullets in your direction while a few others move up to get a closer shot.

There are also some good AI mods that I have seen for OFP, perhaps BIS should get in contact with these individuals and ask if they could implement them towards Armed Assault.  I'm almost positive they would jump around all giddy knowing their created content will be in a commercial game.

A BIS game at that.

I read in the newish second ign interview that placebo respects the work mods like the Chinese PLA enthusiasts (sorry, forgot the name guys ) do towards scripting AI responses.

This makes me wonder if AA will have better, more efficient execution of complex AI scripts. If so, that's great! I think that it would be a great design decision to have a set few of user-made missions where we sacrifice a little cpu resources for more advanced AI behaviors.

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Damn straight, KFC. I'd love to see some built in suppressing and/or random fire scripts - eg, plugging a bush if the AI sees you jump in, machinegunners firing away while the rest of the squad advances... the more I go on, the more unlikely it seems, but hey, it'd be nice!

[Friedchiken 0]

It would be hella cool if BIS could release a document file listing all the relevent AI script commands to facilitate AI enhancements within more complex missions.

For example, later user missions could have squads of regular AI soldiers supported by script driven machine gunner squads that lay on area fire.

While the "regular AI" would be good for providing a fairly independent adversary/friend, it would be cool to have more support in creating scripts for AI to perform very complex actions.

We could have scripted sniper-spotter teams that are able to report using BIS's dynamic language system.  We could radio in tanks to perform a single shell barrage on a selected area of fire.  For atmosphere purposes, we could have a group of AI enter a house and clear it while the player watches the streets.  Maybe reinforcements rappelling from a chopper could come and lie in positions to secure the area you just cleared (like behind junk and near corners). Or when preparing for a counter attack, non-player controlled AI squads would arrange their own soldiers in pre-chosen places, just to reduce the amount of player work in arranging a defense.

So while the player is free the play a mission, there's nothing wrong with adding a few script that let the AI do few cool looking tasks that they would not usually perform.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]While the "regular AI" would be good for providing a fairly independent adversary/friend, it would be cool to have more support in creating scripts for AI to perform very complex actions.

As AI coding is much embedded with the engine and can only be additionally altered, means that standard AI only can be extended but not basically changed, and th eload on CPU for additionally programmed AI features is somewhat high (depending on what you plan to do),one of BIS´s priorities should be to make the AI as versatile and realistic as possible.

Scripters can´t do a total AI revision as basic AI schemes are embedded with the engine and hard to overcome. If you have to script certain AI patterns you just put additional load to the CPU only to achieve an effect that could already be implemented with the original engine. We were talking about this just yesterday evening when having a little talk about ArAs ingame impressions. AI behaviour should be directly connected to the skillbar somehow. If an unexperienced soldier or militia comes under fire he should just wildly shoot into the direction where the shots come from (Spray and pray), an unexperienced soldier would either freeze or run off the scene or run for cover without primary thinking of engaging the enemy or just lying down at the spot as it is today.

Things like that are hard to script after the AI system has already been defined in the engine. You basically have to override basic engine procedures and put a surplus of load on the CPU.

[Rhodite 3]

Well Said Balschoiw

I too would love to see improovements to the AI in ARMA but I cant help thinking about something.

How many other games in this genre' support fully COOP missions.. (AI included) now if my memory serves me correctly back in the day novalogics Delta Force (#1) had coop support but quickly binned it.

I think perhaps the reason AI is the way it is in OFP and potentially ARMA is Sync, never mind all the other issues such as pointed out by Balschoiw.

On top of that, I recently viewed a demo video of Flashpoint Elite which showed an AI whom had been shot at run around a building and hide prone behind a tree.. now granted, it was hard to tell wether the AI intentially choose to hide behind the said tree, but I will be optimistic and say it certainly "looked" like it was.

Given that ARMA is getting all the fixes and lessons learned from VBS and Elite, I can hope and assume this is something that BIS have looked at also.

[Friedchiken 0]

As AI coding is much embedded with the engine and can only be additionally altered, means that standard AI only can be extended but not basically changed, and th eload on CPU for additionally programmed AI features is somewhat high

Well said. However I meant that "better scripting support" would be something like turning off the default ai for certain scripted units, let them perform the complex action, and when they need new orders they revert back to regular AI mode.

Basically I'm for anything that would help anyone script the AI with minimal performance hit.

[chipper 0]

It seems to me that the AI in FFUR2006 is smarter than what has been show in ArmA.

[Friedchiken 0]

It seems to me that the AI in FFUR2006 is smarter than what has been show in ArmA.

Well good for us, at least the AI in AA is more optimized compared to Elite.

With a lot of work at scripting, maybe we can improvethings over FFUR2006.

Plus we haven't actually seen a real infantry battle in terms of an updated version.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ] However I meant that "better scripting support" would be something like turning off the default ai for certain scripted units, let them perform the complex action, and when they need new orders they revert back to regular AI mode.

I would take a different approach. I have no idea if that could work but for me it sounds like a plan:

AI units should have different modes. If playable units are far away they should be in some kind of rudimentary mode. Basically just following their WP´s and not performing funky actions.

If playable units get into "technical" range, means that AI itself has not discovered playable units already but is visible for playable units the mode 2 should be activated.

Means: More sophistacted movements, formations, using binocs, scanning terrain, moving from cover to cover, evolving movement, etc.

For sure it will make no difference for the player if all that just starts when he gets near as he doesn´t see it before. But by this method CPU power could be saved.

Mode 3, the engagement mode would kick in if playable units are in direct contact with AI units.

That means: Sophisticated attack and flank maneuvers, surpressive actions, house searching, calling in support, aware AI that is focussed on playable units and uses the surrounding to their benefit. Even estimations of the situation for AI would be thinkable. AI could analyse the rating, strength and movement pattern of playable units to develope a "plan" on how to counter the attack or if not already noticed by playable units attack them in a very efficient way.

By this mode model you could save CPU power and put the CPU power where it belongs: The direct confrontation between playable units and AI units.

I know, I have no idea how such things are programmed, but maybe this could be something to think about, if not for ArAs, maybe for Game 2.

Edit: Late night typos

[CsonkaPityu 0]

I thought by now we would have enough CPU power for the AI not to behave like some monkey with a gun... i saw good AI in games and i can't go back to aiming for headless chicken behaving goons.

I don't care what incredibly complex retreating and flanking the AI is trying to pull off when all i see is a guy running straight into me without even thinking to shoot. BIS should concentrate on making the AI look more real with leaning and going to cover instead of adding stuff like "the AI sees its outnumbered so it tries to hide"... the AI can try to hide all it wants as long as it runs around like a moron when infront of me it's going to be dead. The features already in the AI are more annoying then useful, this allowfleeing 0 is probably one of the most common init lines in OFP.

Just make the AI take care of itself first, then add complex manouvers to it's arsenal so it can pull them off. Currently if an AI squad tries to flank all i see is that a few guys run off into a completely random direction getting themselves shot in the back. Sorry for the ranting.

[Balschoiw 0]

That´s why I tried to put some thoughts on CPU load, AI and different patterns of operations that would get more sophisticted the closer you get. I know from what we have seen from ArAs the AI seems to be a weak point that´s why I did some thinking on how to possibly improve that. If not for ArAs, maybe for Game 2. Keep in mind that other games with relatively good AI do not operate AI´s in such amounts. That´s the factor that makes OFP different and that´s the major problem at the same time.

[dreday 1]

CsonkaPityu,

We might have differed on T-80s, but here I am with you 100%. You've delivered a very good summery of what's wrong with OFP (and probably ArmA) AI.

Balschoiw,

I like your idea, the more I think about. Couple of questions though:

1. What would be the distance that triggers improved AI response? 1km would be resonable for infantry, but what about tanks and helicopters? They can be deadly from out to 5km...

2. What would happen when 2 groups of opposing ai come into contact outside of players outside of player's visual? Would their confrontation be resolved statistically?

Just something to think about...

Peace,

DreDay

[NeMeSiS 11]

I thought by now we would have enough CPU power for the AI not to behave like some monkey with a gun... i saw good AI in games and i can't go back to aiming for headless chicken behaving goons.

On the scale of OFP? No way!

There are not many FPS games out there with 100+ guys running around at the same time, in alot of games they just get spawned when the player comes near.

[martinovic 0]

There are not many FPS games out there with 100+ guys running around at the same time, in alot of games they just get spawned when the player comes near.

Me personally, i would rather have 10 guys use real tactics, well executed, against me, giving me a headache instead of massacreing 100 obviously computer operated soldiers.

It would be possible to give the illusion of large scale battles, like you said - with spawning, but maybe then one of the main points of OFP would be gone and thats that everything you hear and see is happening in the game world.

But i would gladly trade quantity for quality in terms of AI. :/

[Friedchiken 0]

But i would gladly trade quantity for quality in terms of AI. :/

You sure you said that correctly? That statement doesn't seem to gel with the prior statements.

But the way I would like to phrase it as; I would rather engage a couple companies of professional AI, rather than to blow away an entire battalion of brain-dead script conscripts.

A good balance between AI cpu load and a large number of enemies sounds good to me. And hopefully enhanced scripting support can assist the AI in performing sensitive operations.

[Rhodite 3]

Just a passing thought.

If the Ai doesnt live up to what we all hope.

I wonder if eventhandlers could be used to exec group manouvers depending on certain conditions?

I know on OFPEC there were various scripts that would instruct a group of Ai to perform certain moves, tasks etc..

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]1. What would be the distance that triggers improved AI response? 1km would be resonable for infantry, but what about tanks and helicopters? They can be deadly from out to 5km...

It shouldn´t be static. I think of some kind of management or observer module within the game engine that can determine used units and has an interface to the AI. It should be dynamic with certain presets for sensor range. If you fly into sensor range of AI for example (that doesn´t mean that the AI has actually detected you, just that the engine sensors could detect you) the observer module would switch to a more complex mode of AI behaviour.

Quote[/b] ]2. What would happen when 2 groups of opposing ai come into contact outside of players outside of player's visual? Would their confrontation be resolved statistically?

The same as if player would get near. Observer module would switch modes, maybe not to the last mode with full sophisticated AI, but at least to mode 2. You can´t resolve something like that statistically if you want to have a living environment with fights and battles in the background, but I guess it would make sense to not throttle full AI power here. If player(s) is/are nowhere near it should be enough to have AI fight each other without highly sophisticated AI patterns.

Mode 3 patterns should only kick in when player(s) are on the scene.

Edit:

Do I get another T-Shirt or coffemug now ?

[bravo 6 0]

don't forget artillery..

AIs (behaviour) and artillery involvement

AIs can use artillery without players aprovement, so AI's need to know how far enemys are and how far they can use it

[Balschoiw 0]

Artillery only makes sense in connection with AI units who have spotted the players, e.g Recon units, forward observers or planes and helos. So unless you use scripted arty to flatten a certain region just for the fun of it AI has to know where to lay Arty on.

So basically this does not interfere with the observer module. It´s just another long range weapon system which is bound to AI experience unless you give Arty a specific firing mission on blind coordinates.

Another thing that came zo my mind is information sharing between AI units. Right now in OFP info is not passed on to all units in a region. Everyone knows that when you fire at a group the group will react but the soldiers standing 20 m left of them will remain unaffected first.

This is somewhat unrealistic. Info and Intel on actual threats should be shared among units that are in a certain region.

Another factor would be available coms. If a unit has a radio it can call other units with radios to alert them or transmit enemies position, ask for backup (depending on threat situation), call in Arty or coordinate approach towards the enemy outside the group-frame.

This means that groups should be able to do maneuvers with other groups. So basically when you have a 3 groups of 6 soldiers in the same place facing the same enemy they should be coordinated by a module that treats the 3 groups as 3 units within another group. It´s sort of a micromanagement that would allow the module to have the 3 groups go for the enemy at the same time without making them just run up to the enemy.

For example one group could lay surpressive fire on the enemy from the front while the other 2 groups try to attack the flanks.

To make this work there has to be info-sharing between those groups and a module that controls the group actions to form another battlegroup consisting of 3 different groups. This module would be directing the groups with the knowledge AI units have collected on the enemy.

So basically the module will give orders to group leaders and group leaders will micromanage their group units according to the guidelines the module has given to them.

[maxqubit 1]

I thought by now we would have enough CPU power for the AI not to behave like some monkey with a gun... i saw good AI in games and i can't go back to aiming for headless chicken behaving goons.

With permission but this is bullsh*t. The AI you want has nothing to do with CPU power. And the supposed good AI you saw in games. Well that is just more or less scripted.

What YOU want is AI that mimics real life intelligence. Hahahahaha, why do you have a brain you think? where does inspiration, etc. come from?

And you want THAT performed by a lousy P4 3GHz machine ... hahaha, you think you are equal to those specs??????

So stop talking nonsense and try to enjoy the AI as ppl (like BIS) are making today as good as they can. It is a GAME, it is no supposed to be a copy of real life (and if it was, there would be no use for us hanging around this planet anyway).

[Zendjir 0]

@ Balschoiw: You are basically describing a higher 'command' AI here. I agree that this would be a great addition to OFP's AI but this is already possible in OFP. Grouplink and mapfact's DAC have already done something along the lines that you describe. Hell, even I have created a script that sets up and coordinates an attack by 3 AI groups on an enemy position. I could have expanded the idea further but real life issues got in the way.

What I, and alot of other people, want is a significant improvement of the SINGLE soldier AI. So that it does not do stupid things, takes cover etc.. The group AI in ofp is already pretty good and can easily be improved by scripting.

@maxqubit: please calm down abit.

[maxqubit 1]

What I, and alot of other people, want is a significant improvement of the SINGLE soldier AI. So that it does not do stupid things, takes cover etc.. The group AI in ofp is already pretty good and can easily be improved by scripting.

@maxqubit: please calm down abit.

Sure, but you yourself are saying you want 'significant improvements in SINGLE soldier AI' ... and my answer to that is that you will never see it. Not in ArmA not in Game2 not in your whole life.

You are simple asking for the impossible.

If you choose to play alongside AI you have to accept it is different. You call it stupid, i call it, well i just don't put a number on it.

The only equal match is AI vs AI or Human vs Human ... in the mix you will always have this friction. And i say, just enjoy it as it is. A bit hard, but with a purpose.

Edit: It is a perspective thing. If you are looking for faults in the AI you will always find them, but if you accept AI as being AI you will admire that indeed it 'improves' like an evolutionary thing. But all start with accepting that AI is AI and thus different from RL.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]@ Balschoiw: You are basically describing a higher 'command' AI here. I agree that this would be a great addition to OFP's AI but this is already possible in OFP. Grouplink and mapfact's DAC have already done something along the lines that you describe. Hell, even I have created a script that sets up and coordinates an attack by 3 AI groups on an enemy position. I could have expanded the idea further but real life issues got in the way.

Yes I know. I am currently reworking Grouplink 2 to do some optimations for FDF mod, but don´t tell Keycat

The problem with both, Grouplink and DAC is that they don´t really siimulate AI decisions. They direct AI´s in a pattern way that is, even if somewhat groundbreaking, limited. In Grouplink units will be alerted either by gunfire from different distances or by groups that are under attack. It then transmits coordinates around the spotted location to the reinforcement team and they go there, disembark and search the area.

This is of course nice in OFP but it lacks coordination among the groups as they still act individually and do not perform combined attacks. They are still acting on their own following the scripted pattern and randomized formations and combat mode levels. It´s not really free AI direction or coordination, it is scripted within boundaries. Finally the scripts just extend the core engines patterns but I guess it would be more efficient to embedd an extended observer module in the engine already that is able to coordinate groups under attack and manages communications automatically without heavy scripting and overriding the embedded AI patterns.

Quote[/b] ]What I, and alot of other people, want is a significant improvement of the SINGLE soldier AI. So that it does not do stupid things, takes cover etc.. The group AI in ofp is already pretty good and can easily be improved by scripting.

Check previous page

Quote[/b] ]You are simple asking for the impossible.

Not really. Noone would have guessed that a little czech developer team would be able to create a (at the time) good looking game with a vast number of fully useable vehicles that can freely drive around on islands bigger that anything else on the market.

In fact I guess more lifelike AI is not that much magic as you might think. BIS is already half-way there and I´m sure they will be walking this way as close to the end as they can go.

[CsonkaPityu 0]

Sure, but you yourself are saying you want 'significant improvements in SINGLE soldier AI' ... and my answer to that is that you will never see it. Not in ArmA not in Game2 not in your whole life.

You are simple asking for the impossible.

Quote[/b] ]Sure, but you yourself are saying you want 'significant improvements in SINGLE soldier AI' ... and my answer to that is that you will never see it. Not in ArmA not in Game2 not in your whole life.

Noone asks for a humanlike AI, i don't want to shoot anyone IRL, the AI should simply try to keep itself alive.

It's not that hard to make the soldier move behind the nearest rock in a certain angle so that the rock is in the line of sight of the attacker and then lean out behind of cover to see where the attacker is going - you could say that there are too many rocks in OFP for the ai to not destroy your pc with all the calculations, well, limit the range at which the AI conciders cover, lets say 50-100 meters, if anything is further then that they try to surpress you or surrender.

If there are multiple angles from where the AI gets attacked the AI could simply optimise angles (retreat a bit - or if there is no point in the near where the AI could retreat then it surrenders like in real life), i don't know how to explain but the AI should always try to keep attack angles below 45degrees. Like in CoD2, if you surprise a german from the side he tries to find a more defendable position, add a surrendering script to this and it's perfectly lifelike. The AI could use leaning, sidestepping, etc. to keep a lower profile.

I turn on super AI in flashpoint and evenso the AI simply shoots at you faster, it does help a lot but the ai still does a few dumb things. But they do pin you down a lot in super AI mode you got to grant the AI that.