Enemy AI too good, team AI too bad

[Big Dawg KS 6]

Quote[/b] ]unfortunately, no matter how hard you try, you're not going to be able to beat AI at micromanagement.

So, ultimately, the problem is not with the AI, you (the player) are the only one to blame.

A good AI means it acts Humanlike. Thats very hard to achieve, but it's simulatable to a certain point. But its certainly not the players fault. In the end the only one who can effectively change it is the developer. And BIS developed a AI which simply doesn't live up to the standards one could expect 5 years after ofp. We have the right to complain, we're paying customers.

how many times i need to say that the AI we have now is not that bad at all, for christ sakes what we need is a better interface so that we have better control on them and crack down fixed formation problem which doesnt work in street fight

As 4 IN 1 says, the AI in ArmA isn't bad. It's actually quite impressive; if you know what to look for. Superficially (which is what too many people judge by) they're obviously identifiable from humans, but under the correct conditions (including good mission design and good commanding on behalf of the player) their potential really shows. Something I often see in OFP and ArmA that I've never really whitnessed (at least not on the same level as OFP or ArmA) in any other game is that the AI are always doing something. By that I mean it's often hard to predict any of their actions, they're not just there for the player's sake, they'll do things independently off screen, they'll have their own agenda, they won't be forced to go looking for a fight, but they won't just ignore things either, they'll behave like they have realistic motives. But like I said if the mission designer and you the player don't make any effort at all the AI suffer. Good mission design is key; mission makers need to make the effort to give the AI units the correct support - waypoints, triggers, strategic vehicles and objects, etc..., so they where they're expected to be and what they're expected to do (otherwise they have nothing to go by, bad situational awareness, and only very basic motives). The AI have by default their basic behavour and instincts (ex: what the enemy side is, shooting at units of that side, etc...) but they can't possibly automatically know their duty for that specific mission scenario. Most people simply throw down a bunch of enemy groups in the editor around a town or something and give them only a few basic move waypoints - yea it functions but it doesn't do them justice. Same thing with players, when they have AI under their command they usually just don't bother with anything other than a few commands (if any at all) here and there and generally leave the AI to act on their own. But you really have to be quite active, sure the command interface can be a little complex, but it reflects the complexity of the AI, it gives you a lot of options, I like that about it, and would anyone prefer if they just dumbed it down some more? I know someone's going to make the obvious statement about newbs trying to figure it out and stuff, but such powerful commanding potential deserves training and practice.

[marcusm_uk 0]

I think good mission design can counter any flaws the AI has. I think it's important to consider what works for AI, and what doesn't. What paths to take when assaulting a town etc.

A good combo of intelligent waypoint paths and scripting makes a huge difference.

The Urban patrol scrips shows what the AI is capable of in my book.

I would be interested to see what happens with those FSM files though. They were supposed to allow for far more advanced behaviour.

marcus