AIs behaviour/improvement

[NeMeSiS 11]

Right. I'm tired of good ol' OFP animation system that forces soldiers to put a RPG on their back before dieing if they are hit when they've already started the animation. Transitions of animations really should be done better. And there should be animations for looking around, taking cover, panicking etc. As it was stated this wouldn't make AI smarter but it would make it pretend they're smarter

BIS already stated that they changed the animation system, but noone knows how it exactly works

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Didn't they say you could define unique animations for weapons now much easier than you could in OFP? Meaning that each weapon could have its own unique animations?

For example, in that "15 minutes of AA" video, isn't the soldier holding the M4 in a different way to how he's holding the PK?...

[NeMeSiS 11]

Didn't they say you could define unique animations for weapons now much easier than you could in OFP? Meaning that each weapon could have its own unique animations?

For example, in that "15 minutes of AA" video, isn't the soldier holding the M4 in a different way to how he's holding the PK?...

Im not sure, but i cant remember it seeing it in any screens (soldiers hand was trough some heavy machine gun), but it may be because its still WIP, or maybe not, dunno

[Heathen13 0]

I would like the AI to use proper FIBUA and FISH tatics when fighting in towns. Backs to walls, one rear guard, one front guard. Instead of running down some street to get mowed down by someone in an alley way.

[bravo 6 0]

look like AIs also Lean.

just hope its not random movement hihi

http://armedassault.sk/download/videa/invex_vokr.rar (4,72 MB, sun in your eyes + ai lean)

[Heathen13 0]

Yeah, but I dont want them dancing in circles in the center of a town.

[NeMeSiS 11]

Yeah, but I dont want them dancing in circles in the center of a town.

It didnt look like 'dancing in circles' at all, he was checking out his surroundings for enemies, which is quite smart IMO, in OFP they prefer to stare in front of them when they reached their WP

[Blanco 0]

look like AIs also Lean.

just hope its not random movement hihi

http://armedassault.sk/download/videa/invex_vokr.rar (4,72 MB, sun in your eyes + ai lean)

I still can't see the AI-leaning, imo he crouches & turns around.

But he's quite responsive, much more then in OFP. (could be luck)

[CameronMcDonald 146]

Yeah, I don't know what the hype about that little film is. I studied it frame for frame, the AI isn't leaning at all. And I hope by AI improvements BIS haven't just made the AI turn faster. That'd be an epic let down.   From what I've read though, the improvements they have decided on sound impressive.

- EDIT: Actually, I must admit, the AI is leaning... well, as far as I can see.

[buddhiraja73 0]

OFP was a wonderful game in most aspects but the bad AI, and to some extent squad commands, made the game less enjoyable for me. Most realistic shooters released in the last 2 years have much improved AI and I would expect Armed Assault to have AI that is atleast as good. The qualities that I have observed in other games are --

SELF PRESERVATION -

- Whenever a firefight breaks out or they think that there is any danger, the AI will always take up positions behind cover, if there is any cover nearby. This is the first thing I want to see in Armed Assault.

- If there is no cover nearby, then and only then should they use the prone position. ( In OFP, the AI used the prone position even if there was cover nearby and this resulted in soldiers crawling very near buildings and dieing as a result. )

- They will lean and shoot OR shoot and duck down etc. , depending on the type of cover.

- The AI can be suppressed i.e. , when fired upon, even if they cannot see their opponent, they wil seek cover. This point is very important for a true tactical shooter and Graw has it.

- They will move from cover to cover when they sense danger and will move with their guns ready when the situation demands.

- They will be looking for their enemies stealthily and carefully but, when under fire, they will run for cover fast. ( In OFP the opposite happened -- they ran around, carelessly and without purpose, even when a firefight broke out and there were opponents nearby ready to shoot them ).

TACTICS AND STRATEGIES -

- Whenever in a group, different individuals will take separate roles as suppressors or flankers.

- They will try to flank in a wider arc.

- Even individual AI soldiers, when not in a group, will try to get fire advantage by suppressing the enemy.

- Whatever the size of the group, soldiers should have their fire sectors defined, even a group of two should cover each other.

- Tactical movement. ( I read in an interview that this feature will be there ).

- They will use frag grenades or smoke grenades when appropriate.

FOOLING THEIR OPPONENTS -

This is one trait that all humans try to use, whether it is a street fight or the world war. GRAW has included a few of them in their AI, so it is possible to do in a pc game.

- They do not come out of cover from the same place or similar time intervals. Say the AI is hiding behind a tree -- the first time it leans in a standing position from the right, the second time it may lean in a sitting position and the third time it will come out from the left by strafing. Also, the intervals of shooting and going back to cover are not same but the time gaps vary.

- After appearing from a certain place, they may try to move to a different place stealthily, when possible.

Other things that are possible though I have not sen in any game are like -- a small squad attacking from one direction and acting as a decoy and a larger squad then attacking from a different direction after a short time.

ANIMATIONS -

- Good and detailed animations are absolutely essential for a good AI. As someone had written previously, it does not make the AI good but it feels and looks that they are good.

- Detailed and varied movements, which includes partial movements are necessary. They include leaning at different degrees, ducking, looking around, stooping, strafing, crouched movement, etc. AI s should not look like robots but have detailed and different movements as humans do.

DYNAMIC BEHAVIOR AND REPLAYABILITY -

- Most of the tactical shooters and pseudo realistic shooters nowadays have dynamic AI instead of ones which have set routines. They react to their opponents' reactions and the type of terrain they are facing. This results in a different gameplay everytime we replay.

- Random enemy placements, i.e enemies placed at different starting positions everytime we replay, results in a lot of replayability. Swat 4 has it.

- Enemies, having large patrolling areas, also result in a lot of replayability as we don't know where we will face an enemy when we replay. GR1 had it.

SQUAD COMMAND -

As this is a tool for controlling friendly AI, this can come under the AI discussion

- A cover command to an individual soldier is very essential for a true tactical shooter. This command would result in the soldier covering the direction instructed. It is very essential for urban combat.

- A suppress command.

- A stop command which would make the friendlies stop following me and wait.

- Rules of engagement, like engage, recon, suppress etc. The recon command, by which the friendlies cannot shoot at the enemies, would allow me to position my troops at a certain place without the enemies knowing.

- A move command telling my troops to move to a certain place.

REALISTIC TRAITS

- I want the AI to have realistic aim, movement speed, detection capability, damage taking capability etc. This means that they would not shoot like supermen, move too fast, detect us no matter where we are or can take too many bullets before they fall.

[NeMeSiS 11]

too much to quote

Right click and save target as..

Its VBS2 but ArmA has the same AI

[dmitri 0]

too much to quote

Right click and save target as..

Its VBS2 but ArmA has the same AI

Looks promising.

[Garcia 0]

OFP was a wonderful game in most aspects but the bad AI, and to some extent squad commands, made the game less enjoyable for me. Most realistic shooters released in the last 2 years have much improved AI and I would expect Armed Assault to have AI that is atleast as good. The qualities that I have observed in other games are --

And the difference between OFP/ArmA and other FPS games is that in most FPS games you are channeled through a pre-defined path...the developers have decided where you should go. This makes it a lot easier to make AI that behaves realisticly...

[dmitri 0]

Most realistic shooters released in the last 2 years have much improved AI

Name these shooters.

Most of the attributes you're seeing are scripted events.

The best actual AI I've seen recently are in the corridor FPS F.E.A.R. Most shooters are a world away from ArmA's open terrain.

[buddhiraja73 0]

Most realistic shooters released in the last 2 years have much improved AI

Name these shooters.

Most of the attributes you're seeing are scripted events.

The best actual AI I've seen recently are in the corridor FPS F.E.A.R. Most shooters are a world away from ArmA's open terrain.

GRAW pc is the best example where the AI behavior is not scripted at all and most ( though not all ) of the features that I mentioned are present. The terrain, though not as open as Armed Assault, is much more non-linear and larger than most other games. In mission 4, the map is quite wide open and large -- and there also the AI is as good, proving thereby that open terrain would not lead to a bad AI in 2006. As you said, Fear is another game where the AI is truely dynamic.

First to Fight and Vietcong are other examples where the AI is very good on an individual level and not scripted, though there is very little group behavior. Their starting point is scripted but then they behave, take cover and shoot quite dynamically, based on our reactions and the type of terrain.

[Kirq 0]

Most realistic shooters released in the last 2 years have much improved AI

Name these shooters.

Most of the attributes you're seeing are scripted events.

The best actual AI I've seen recently are in the corridor FPS F.E.A.R. Most shooters are a world away from ArmA's open terrain.

GRAW pc is the best example where the AI behavior is not scripted at all and most ( though not all ) of the features that I mentioned are present. The terrain, though not as open as Armed Assault, is much more non-linear and larger than most other games. In mission 4, the map is quite wide open and large -- and there also the AI is as good, proving thereby that open terrain would not lead to a bad AI in 2006. As you said, Fear is another game where the AI is truely dynamic.

First to Fight and Vietcong are other examples where the AI is very good on an individual level and not scripted, though there is very little group behavior. Their starting point is scripted but then they behave, take cover and shoot quite dynamically, based on our reactions and the type of terrain.

I woudnt pick GRAW as a example of good AI with all crapy problem this game has.

- ultra accurate HMG on long distances.

- friendly AI runing on open area while under fire.

- AI cant use nades at all.

- No supression effect in game.

Best proof that GRAW AI is not quite there yet is fact that frindly AI is set to sustein about 6-7 hits before being killed, without this virual armor you woudnt be able to complete any mision withou casulties.

PS. VBS2 looks exactly like ArmA  

[dm 9]

PS. VBS2 looks exactly like ArmA

Thats because its built on the same engine...

Back on topic: While the FSM method isnt the most ideal AI solution (doing AI in uni atm) it does provide us with the flexibility and simplicity to do pretty much what we want with the AI.

Dont like the way the AI engage? Write a new FSM to change it.

Want to have the AI do specific tasks, like fastrope from a chopper? Write an FSM to do it, rather than "brute forcing" it with scripts.

Should allow us to do pretty much anything with the AI, assuming we get an FSM editor

[Kirq 0]

PS. VBS2 looks exactly like ArmA  

Thats because its built on the same engine...

I thought that ArmA is based on upgraded OFP engine.

[dm 9]

Once.. According to the info, ArmA, VBS2 and Game2 are all now based on Real Virtuality 2 (which in its self is an extension of the Real virtuality engine which powers OFP/Res/Elite)

[dmitri 0]

Should allow us to do pretty much anything with the AI, assuming we get an FSM editor

From the VBS2 website - one of the differences listed between it and ArmA is the included "Modifiable agent AI". I assume they mean that the AI editor shown will be exclusive to VBS2 users.. Hopefully the community can find a way to unlock this ability..

I think if the AI's reaction time was sped up to the point of being slightly unrealistic, this might improve its chances against human players.

Enemies in a standard FPS game immediately open fire - they don't turn slowly, or first go prone as they do in OFP. Going prone might be more realistic, but the player knows getting a shot off first means a kill, the AI doesn't.

Also, standard FPS do not have formations. This probably also affects the AI's reaction time. These are factors that standard FPS AI simply don't have to deal with.

The promise that ArmA's AI will be using bounding overwatch and advancing cohesively will hopefully mean less AI being ordered by officers to engage units far from the group - running off on their own little suicide mission.

[buddhiraja73 0]

GRAW pc is the best example where the AI behavior is not scripted at all and most ( though not all ) of the features that I mentioned are present. The terrain, though not as open as Armed Assault, is much more non-linear and larger than most other games. In mission 4, the map is quite wide open and large -- and there also the AI is as good, proving thereby that open terrain would not lead to a bad AI in 2006. As you said, Fear is another game where the AI is truely dynamic.

First to Fight and Vietcong are other examples where the AI is very good on an individual level and not scripted, though there is very little group behavior. Their starting point is scripted but then they behave, take cover and shoot quite dynamically, based on our reactions and the type of terrain.

I woudnt pick GRAW as a example of good AI with all crapy problem this game has.

- ultra accurate HMG on long distances.

- friendly AI runing on open area while under fire.

- AI cant use nades at all.

- No supression effect in game.

Best proof that GRAW AI is not quite there yet is fact that frindly AI is set to sustein about 6-7 hits before being killed, without this virual armor you woudnt be able to complete any mision withou casulties.

HMGs are more accurate and AIs do not use nades are design decisions by the Graw devs that you and I don't agree with. This does not make the AI less dynamic or good.

There is a very strong suppression effect in the game and all AI can be forced into cover by firing in their general direction.

The friendly AI can take a few hits before they fall because they are wearing a futuristic suit which can take more hits. I agree that without that they would have fallen but is it not what would really happen when you have only 4 men pitted against 50. It is again a flaw in the Graw design and not AI programming. Armed Assault is far superior in this aspect where you have more evenly matched numbers. This makes ArmA more realistic in design.

I am not saying that the Graw AI is perfect but it is much more dynamic and logical than most others and can act as a benchmark for tactical shooters until something better comes up. Hopefully ArmA AI will be the new benchmark which will leave others far behind.

[NeMeSiS 11]

GRAW pc is the best example where the AI behavior is not scripted at all and most ( though not all ) of the features that I mentioned are present. The terrain, though not as open as Armed Assault, is much more non-linear and larger than most other games. In mission 4, the map is quite wide open and large -- and there also the AI is as good, proving thereby that open terrain would not lead to a bad AI in 2006. As you said, Fear is another game where the AI is truely dynamic.

First to Fight and Vietcong are other examples where the AI is very good on an individual level and not scripted, though there is very little group behavior. Their starting point is scripted but then they behave, take cover and shoot quite dynamically, based on our reactions and the type of terrain.

I woudnt pick GRAW as a example of good AI with all crapy problem this game has.

- ultra accurate HMG on long distances.

- friendly AI runing on open area while under fire.

- AI cant use nades at all.

- No supression effect in game.

Best proof that GRAW AI is not quite there yet is fact that frindly AI is set to sustein about 6-7 hits before being killed, without this virual armor you woudnt be able to complete any mision withou casulties.

HMGs are more accurate and AIs do not use nades are design decisions by the Graw devs that you and I don't agree with. This does not make the AI less dynamic or good.

There is a very strong suppression effect in the game and all AI can be forced into cover by firing in their general direction.

The friendly AI can take a few hits before they fall because they are wearing a futuristic suit which can take more hits. I agree that without that they would have fallen but is it not what would really happen when you have only 4 men pitted against 50. It is again a flaw in the Graw design and not AI programming. Armed Assault is far superior in this aspect where you have more evenly matched numbers. This makes ArmA more realistic in design.

I am not saying that the Graw AI is perfect but it is much more dynamic and logical than most others and can act as a benchmark for tactical shooters until something better comes up. Hopefully ArmA AI will be the new benchmark which will leave others far behind.

Dynamic? GRAW? You could attack from 2, maybe 3 different positions, which where usually from the same side anyway...

The only things that the GRAW AI could do better then the OFP AI was taking cover and giving suppressive fire..

But they made NO tactical decisions, the only thing they could do was go and sit behind a car, shoot at me and wait until i finally got them...

And the ArmA AI's take cover and know what suppressive fire is (IIRC, not sure about the depressive fire), so im not worried at all )

[buddhiraja73 0]

Dynamic? GRAW? You could attack from 2, maybe 3 different positions, which where usually from the same side anyway...

The only things that the GRAW AI could do better then the OFP AI was taking cover and giving suppressive fire..

But they made NO tactical decisions, the only thing they could do was go and sit behind a car, shoot at me and wait until i finally got them...

And the ArmA AI's take cover and know what suppressive fire is (IIRC, not sure about the depressive fire), so im not worried at all )

By dynamic AI, I mean AI which reacts according to my reactions and the terrain, as opposed to a scripted manner everytime we play.

ArmA has a much better and more realistic setting than Graw and a much deeper tactical combat is possible, as you rightly pointed out. Both you and I and all others want it to have as good and tactical AI as possible, so that the full potential of this wonderful game is realized. If the ArmA AI is better than any other game, I will be really happy.

[chipper 0]

GRAW has the stupidest AI I've seen, they just fuckin stand there in my way and get me killed. It's better if they are all dead than in my squad.

[buddhiraja73 0]

too much to quote

Right click and save target as..

Its VBS2 but ArmA has the same AI

Thanks for the link.

The video shows the potential ArmA AI has, when they engaged as a group.