Ai needs fixin!

[benreeper 0]

Dude you have a nasty mouth and attitude. Is that how your family taught to speak to people? Your comments here sure are a reflection on them.

Back on-topic:

I do believe the AI will get better ONLY if BI is supported by us financially. The size of the developer has nothing to do with the state of AI. The largest developers have created the WORST AI (COD, Doom, EA, Id). They have no desire to make their AI any better when graphics are all people want.

This topic has proven that it is easer for a developer to put their money and efforts into the "pretty picture" because NO ONE appreciates AI.

--Ben

[bangtail 0]

Dude you have a nasty mouth and attitude.  Is that how your family taught to speak to people?  Your comments here sure are a reflection on them.

Back on-topic:

I do believe the AI will get better ONLY if BI is supported by us financially.  The size of the developer has nothing to do with the state of AI.  The largest developers have created the WORST AI (COD, Doom, EA, Id).  They have no desire to make their AI any better when graphics are all people want.

This topic has proven that it is easer for a developer to put their money and efforts into the "pretty picture" because NO ONE appreciates AI.

--Ben

Whatever dude. Walker started the rudeness ... I merely finished it. I dont expect you to be objective as you have shown no signs of it as of yet.

Lets just leave it at that shall we

Regards

E

[Second 0]

Fine to hear that ArmA has best AI... Now where are all the all those best features of AI? I can't think only one: Scale of things it can do and flexibility (which means nothing to most, they don't have skill or will to learn scripting, which is endless swamp to most)... i would give AI a degree from bad to average in actual performace in various areas, in terms of how well it does things like fighting.

Here quickly made list of mine, these are MY standarts, mixed with things i've picked up from other games and what i think standarts should be:

Infantry

-Defence basics: bad-average.

Cover seeking is there... As long as mission editor finds out that he has to use stealth behaviour. Firepositon seeking methods itself are bad, many times it just harms squad's consentrated firepower. They have no dedicated killzone(s). Big part of problem in this is due bad leadership they receive. No better or worse than any other game, i think.

-Attack basics: bad.

They do use bounding overwatch, which is engouraging. How ever, they don't have sligthest clue of when it's is healthy to advance and when not (heavy incoming fire and/or no cover).

-Skills to use terrain as cover in combat: very bad.

They don't understand when cover is bulletproof and when it's not. They also don't know how to use several things such as building corners (or buildings at all) as their cover. They don't know how to take advantage of cover (firing and keeping head down and safe when fired at). Other games knows how to take good advantage of it.

-skills to use terrain as cover from enemy fire and spotting: below average

They don't select routes which are providing cover like valley or woods. In OFP they did this! In ArmA they follow almost direct line to waypoint, in OFP they could chance movement route alot (atleast i think they did). Very bad for recon and infaltration tasks: They will not evade hostile forces in their path. however they usually are capable to move from bush to bush and keep their head down (in stealth behaviour).

-Leader's performace: Average-Good.

They are capable to command widerange of men and vehicles. But sadly they aren't very dynamic on what they do. They have limited set of things which they commit on limited fashion: "you can't target, so you must engage". They have no idea of how spezialists and vehicles etc under their sommand should be used. Overall they just give targets or call for supply, medic etc... and are usually best shooters in their squad. Average because this is best AI leader behaviour still i've seen. Altough i would welcome more dynamicity and adaptation to situation from leader, but i quess this is one of the most hardest part of AI to develop, other wise i would give very bad-bad.

-Use of fire + effects of fire: bad

No suppression, no effect of suppression. These guys only knows how to make accurate shots at target and it's best thing to do as they can't be demoralized but by killing them + several other factors. However use of suppressive fire is basic militarything, many games already takes advantage of it at least in some amounts.

-Obstacle course (flexibility of their animations etc): bad-average.

Sadly they are relatively clumsy because of anmations system, i would guess. Some FPS-games AI seems to be in some superstimulants or something, but they sure are fast when they needs to be. ArmA's AI is fast when it runs, sadly forexample movement under fire is slow and not effective. There's no "whip-spalsh" in their moves.

Vehicles:

Hard to say... This ain't Steel Beasts or anything. Lots of things missing.

Everyone can read it how they want, this is my personal viewpoint mirrored to other games i've played and to idea i'm having of making tough + realistic AI opponent.

Walker as well as others has had solid points conserning AI's wide-scale abilities to control various vehicles as well as flexibilty of AI-programming in ArmA. Hmm... Gotta go to sleep.

[max power 21]

Hi all

In direct reply to ethne

(main body of post removed)

Kind Regards walker

Best post ever.

I think it's a little too strong though. For instance, I think you need to have some basic knowledge of Cognitive Science but I don't think you need a doctorate or anything. I do have a degree in Psychology and the stuff that you would be encorporating into a combat AI is pretty much covered in the first few years, a long with a lot of extraneous stuff that would never be useful to programmers in this field. Having or hiring a doctorate would help you sift through all of the information so you have the most advanced and relevent Psychology at your disposal, but 99% of the stuff that a doctor would know would not be useful.

Cognitive Psychology actually draws heavily on computing science for its basis and ideas. It makes sense to have it then feed back into Computing Science, but then you're dirtying the science two times by using an analogy of an analogy. I suppose this isn't a problem given you're designing systems for entertainment software, not conducting a simulation of the human nervous system.

At any rate, great post. It is quite obvious that Ethne is not interested in programming for ArmA, or even knowing what he is talking about. I think that some of his posts are valid in saying that he as a consumer finds some AI behavious illogical and frustrating, and I think that attempting to smack him into learning more on the subject is likely to be fruitless. I believe that the factual content of your post is something that a lot of people should take into account, and was something that I found to be quite interesting, despite that some of your arguments were a little over the top. Great post.

[bangtail 0]

Yes, why dont you make some more assumptions about me Pretty much all your posts are fanatically pro BIS. Please do me the courtesy of NOT telling me how I think. I'm very interested in seeing ArmA improve as I enjoy it. Maybe the thread title was a little generalistic but I was very clear about the particular problem I have and I stand behind my original statement.

Regards,

E

[BraTTy 0]

Interesting topic, very good posts by all

If people were able to "walk up to soldiers with silenced weapon and shoot them and get away with it"

Then users would be in these forums complaining the AI is too easy ! Its a lose-lose situation.

Someone could script better AI reactions

-If bullets comming from so and so direction and have a few variables for decisions

- Shots fired , hide behind this or that building (someone would have to go through the whole map objects locations and size)

- knowsabout 10 tanks in range and have no AT weapons to run or hide

- being attacked, hide for a bit then search and destroy when enemy less suspicous

But then a commander may have problems commanding his squad members in a military way (March across that field , NOW!...Negative

[max power 21]

Yes, why dont you make some more assumptions about me Pretty much all your posts are fanatically pro BIS. Please do me the courtesy of NOT telling me how I think. I'm very interested in seeing ArmA improve as I enjoy it. Maybe the thread title was a little generalistic but I was very clear about the particular problem I have and I stand behind my original statement.

Regards,

E

I said that

a) I don't think you're interested in programming for BIS

b) You're not interested in reading the links that Walker sent you

c) You find some AI behaviour illogical and frustrating

and d) Walker coming in with a fist in your face is not going to make you want to explore the science of programming more

Kindly, which one of these am I mistaken about, and which ones aren't obvious from what else you have written in this topic?

I write posts usually only if I disagree with something someone has said, or I think the content of the quality of the post is unusually high.  I also post to try to help either someone do something or someone understand something, like how the fixed wing throttle simulation works, or how the mod folder priority order is.  Usually, I disagree with people demanding things out of ignorance.  You must admit there is a lot of that in game forums.  In anything I'm usually sympathetic to people doing hard jobs in earnest, and having yahoos who know nothing about it walk up and down them.  This may be why you think I'm 'fanatically pro BIS'.  Notice I didn't write to disagree with the meat of your post, Ethne.  I also don't post to disagree with many of the obvious problems with ArmA.  I posted here to support the content of Walker's post.  And, after all that, how or what I usually post is irrelevent to the discussion and is logically very weak.

[bangtail 0]

I demanded nothing. I merely called attention to an area of the game that I feel could use some attention. I am not oblivious to the fact that ArmA is a "one of a kind" game that presents many programming challenges. I DON'T expect miracles. There are many things in ArmA that annoy me and equally there are many things that keep me hooked on it because they are unique to ArmA/OFP.

There are many people in these forums who live to bash Arma and I think that is why many of the protractors are so quick to attack when anything negative is said about it. I don't hate the game and I am not here to bash it unnecessarily. There are many things I would like to see improved but I am well aware of the technical constraints involved.

I hope to see ArmA improved upon in the next few years as was the case with OFP. I wouldn't be on these forums if I didnt genuinely have concerns for the future of ArmA and I only ever want it to succeed.

Thanks for replying in an intelligent manner

Regards,

E

[W0lle 1050]

@Walker : OMFG, please remove yourself from your own A$$.

I wont even entertain anything else you have to say as to avoid flaming, same goes for you Ben.

That flaming comment was totally unnecessary.

I suggest you all go back on topic now and solve the personal issues by PM. Otherwise I'm closing this.

[mr_centipede 31]

indeed the AI need fixing. especially in close quarters. there was a video in the video thread showing the enemy took a lot of time just to ID you and finally shoots you.

then the pathfinding with armored units. they always stuck to trees. cars class have no problems. because they usually avoid trees. but armored class because they think they can knock down trees, they gladly ram them over. but some trees failed to fall down, and the armor got stuck. eventually it will got out of it, but i takes too long. other than that... i think it all good.

please note that i've only been playing with ground troops. air units, never tried them yet

[benreeper 0]

I understand and it's all good, I just don't t like when the bad words and name calling (profanity) is used in a discussion. It brings the whole discussion down.

I am pro-BIS because they have given me a gaming experience that no other developer has. Without them I could not play a game of this type and if you agree that there is no other game like this (other than OFP) then you would agree that comparing this game to other games is apples-to-oranges and patently unfair.

You can always bring up things you do not like and hopeful improvements but complaints in which a comparison is given is just unfair to this game and BIS. There are just too many things different.

There are things I don't like (bridges, for one) but they are NOT a detriment to my enjoyment of the game

--Ben

[max power 21]

I demanded nothing.

Thanks for replying in an intelligent manner

Regards,

E

The first post I made was intelligent also. I think it's best to wait a couple of minutes if you feel insulted by a post to think about it for a few minutes before you reply. You don't seem to be denying what I said in the first post anymore, and your tone has changed dramatically. Yet, I have introduced no new information regarding the present argument.

And for the sake of clarity because I'm not certain what you mean by your opening sentence: I also didn't insinuate that you made any demands. I was merely talking about what inspires me to post.

[wamingo 1]

Everyone agree's that arma's AI needs improvements... We all agreed on this years ago.

I always had a problem with the stealth missions in ofp and arma so I'm not going to say much about it. I just hate them. I'd rather lie on a hill shooting 10000 bullets at nothing for 2h than crawl around praying nothing spots me for 5 minutes. But it's pretty clear that the awareness system's are not tweaked brilliantly with the missions they released. That's one of the penalties for changing games after release. Fixing one thing breaks another. Fact of life I think.

Arma2's ai should be a kick in the right direction judging by this (youtube) and part of this (text file)

[Second 0]

I think Ethne's problem with stealthness is mainly because of mission design.

Overall, tweaking or add stuff to stock AI ain't piece of cake. Hardly anyone dares to do but minor stuff. I don't see major combat-behaviour overhauls, added combat drills, better leading for AI-leaders , why is that? Because they are almost impossible to do so that tweaks and extras would function in harmony with rest of the stock-AI areas... Sure talks are big about all-mighty FSMs and such... I can't much see things, just minor tweaks and additions. Which i've been working myself, while i had big dreams of script-structure which guides atleast AI-leader's job in more realitic and dynamic manner... Well then i got fed up (i can admit that i'm n00b, when comparing to someones)

ArmA's AI even if i'm not saticfied with it, is complex one you just wont write simple piece of code to AI and make wonders with it, i even doupt that most areas can't be fixed, expacely in individual soldier's performace. Walker has been saying something about their project, which atleast sounds intresting... time will tell. And i would be intrested to hear what Walker thinks can be done to AI.

My personal feeling is that no major overhauls to ArmA AI will come but after release of ArmA2.

[funnyguy1 0]

If you still don't know how to deal with ArmA's AI....?

some old movies for you

1

2

AI sure needs fixin', I'd rather they focused on ArmA2 though...

---------------------------

edit: I pasted the wrong link by mistake...the first vid was supposed to be the old, well known AI flaws video...Sorry for the confusion I've caused.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to ethne

Prove you have the intelectual knowledge to support your statement by either showing a comparable AI in a game or by showing you can do better.

1) Explain to us spotting an enemy who is sneeking up on you and with a silenced weapon. A simple exercise in systems analysis.

2) Show you can do better. The FSM editor is there.

In reply to funnyguy1

Your first video has little in it about AI other than the following stuff with the helos. ArmA helos rarely crash now when flying together a big improvement over OFP. In fact I think they are a little too good they fly like a display team.

I susspect you have set up your 2nd video with a waypoint that makes the AI advance into your BLUEFOR position. Other than that I believe it is not your building cover that is making the difference but the fact that the OPFOR is cresting a rise and not seeing you untill too late; you are using a reverse slope defence a standard military tactic, it works on humans as well as AI; armies round the world use it for the same reason.

Try your 2nd video with the same number soldiers but break them into 2 or 3 groups they do not have to be big groups, leave the first group with your original waypoint but with the others set the waypoint to Guard mode and place a Guard waypoint over the area.

Alternativley place the mission you used to do your video on a download location and I will edit it to do the above. No scripts included.

If you use lines of waypoints to asses AI you are forcing them to do what you want, you are not testing the AI you are just putting them on rails to prove your point.

Human generals did the same to real human beings in the WWI, millions of them. Stalin did the same to his soldiers in Finland and even into the first few months of the Eastern Front of WWII

Give them the freedom of choice of action; then and only then are you testing the AI. The guard waypoint is one of the few ways you get emergent behaviour out of the AI, search and destroy is another.

I quote from your own text in the video:

Quote[/b] ]Second, when you pick the target, you'd better to choose a target before you shoot - Sniper, MG, Grenadier and Teamleader. If you want to stop the enemy advance, try shoot the higher ranked soldiers like Sqd Leader. If their "fleeing" state was enabled, they will simply retreat with the SAME way they came. So all you need to do is hunt 'em down one by one.

Same goes for when you're up against enemy armor. The AI never shoot back at you unless they have the "exact" position of their target.

You railroded them with a reverse slope so they cannot see you till it is too late, then you priortise targets according to standard military doctrine, take out the leaders and the most dangerous threats.

A sergeant teaching you in basic would be proud!

Kind Regards walker

[bangtail 0]

@Walker :

I dont have anything to prove to you. You have your opinions and I have mine, let's leave it there for the sake of the thread shall we?

Saying "show you can do better" is probably the most infantile, facile response and once again underlines your childishness. I'm not in the business of making games. I am in the business of commenting on the things I do and don't like about the games I play. It seems you have some problem understanding this concept. Just because I dont like a certain aspect of the game which IS flawed as much as you try to explain it away with your paragraphs of "insight", doesn't make my opinion any less valid than yours.

Regards

E

@Walker again : Now you are trying to imply that a player telling the AI what to do makes them behave in a stupid manner. Give me a break - You are talking a lot of nonsense mate, and I seriously question your military knowledge if you think ArmA is an ultra realistic simulation.

Nuff said!

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to ethne

Quote[/b] ]IS flawed

I never once said otherwise:

My First post

Quote[/b] ]Can the ArmA be a better? Damn right it can but the AI is still the best of any simulation or game bar none.

My second post refering to ArmA AI

Quote[/b] ]Is it perfect? No! Nothing in programming is.

The actual mission you mentioned in you first post the Sabotage mission is I agree hard to beat but not impossible, yes the weapon is wrong but I seem to remember you have silenced pistol too. It is possible to do it sneeky. If you want I will send you the method (started to put up the method but remembered there are people buying ArmA again and it would be a spoiler)

The purpose of debate is to come to a better understanding of a subject. If you find the debate too tough you are of course free to retreat and withdraw.

You seem to have mistaken a public forum for a wall on which you have some right to put up an advert that will remain there untested by those with a differing opinion. This is not the case. What invalidates an opinion in public forum is evidence placed for others to see in open debate.

funnyguy1 placed such evidense; a video before his peers on this forum. I proceeded to place evidence to refute his thesis. I further asked him to provide his experiment so that I and others could could duplicate it and show how it was flawed or be proved wrong our selves. This is what a public forum is for.

This is very basis of natural science, on which physics, chemistry, biology, engineering etc. is based.

Kind Regards walker

[Misfit Leader 1]

All i have to say about AI is that they must become more human and less robot.

Following your movement through wall/building, always good at aiming (even injured guys), not affected by fog/smoke/light & dark/night/nvg or not it's the same.

And they can be so stupid at the same time, looking to you without shooting, shooting a guy through a bushes but not shooting the M1A1 on a top of a hill on clear sight !

I don't think they can manage all these fix in ArmA, maybe some in ArmA 2.

[bangtail 0]

Hi all

In reply to ethne

Quote[/b] ]IS flawed

I never once said otherwise:

My First post

Quote[/b] ]Can the ArmA be a better? Damn right it can but the AI is still the best of any simulation or game bar none.

My second post refering to ArmA AI

Quote[/b] ]Is it perfect? No! Nothing in programming is.

The actual mission you mentioned in you first post the Sabotage mission is I agree hard to beat but not impossible, yes the weapon is wrong but I seem to remember you have silenced pistol too. It is possible to do it sneeky. If you want I will send you the method (started to put up the method but remembered there are people buying ArmA again and it would be a spoiler)

The purpose of debate is to come to a better understanding of a subject. If you find the debate too tough you are of course free to retreat and withdraw.

You seem to have mistaken a public forum for a wall on which you have some right to put up an advert that will remain there untested by those with a differing opinion. This is not the case. What invalidates an opinion in public forum is evidence placed for others to see in open debate.

funnyguy1 placed such evidense; a video before his peers on this forum. I proceeded to place evidence to refute his thesis. I further asked him to provide his experiment so that I and others could could duplicate it and show how it was flawed or be proved wrong our selves. This is what a public forum is for.

This is very basis of natural science, on which physics, chemistry, biology, engineering etc. is based.

Kind Regards walker

Ok, I can agree with that I suppose.

I dont find the debate too tough, don't flatter yourself. I will, however, not debate with someone who tells me to "make a better game" because they just aren't worth debating with.

You have not disproved my point in any way, shape or form. Sometimes, the AI reacts to situations in a very unrealistic and sometimes even psychic manner.

I have tested it OVER and OVER again using just the M9 (SD) and from angles where there are no other guards around and no LOS to my position and the result is the same. I shoot the guard in the back of the head and my position is immediately revealed to all of the enemy AI who proceed to find me in a matter of seconds and snapshot me.

Do me a favor and stop talking about the natural world and reading textbooks etc as if this is somehow going to change the fact that the AI is flawed.

Take the blinders off, and just admit it could be better. I know you've already said it could be better, but you always follow it with "Its the best thing going". I can agree with that, but that doesnt mean it can't be improved upon.

Regards

E

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to ethne I just retested the mission you mean in both 1.08 and 1.09 I can still do the stealth taking out of the guard in the watchtower and those on patrol who can interfere with the mission without the Alarm going off no problems.

Here is a link to how to take out that pesky tower guard beware SPOILERS IN LINK!

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....1;top

By the way you are talking about the ability of the AI to hear not its inteligence.

Kind Regards walker

[bangtail 0]

Dont get me wrong, I respect your research etc, but I am talking about my personal experience with the game. Doubtless we all have different mods loaded and whatever else, but even when I tried it vanilla, I was getting the same results.

I'm back to working on my own mission now which presents its own special set of problems

You have conceded that the AI can be very hit and miss and that was originally my point. Its not consistent and it can be very unrealistic. I know BIS will improve on it although Im still not convinced these problems/limitations should not have been addressed in ArmA 1 (or an addon), rather than having to buy a whole new game to experience them.

That's a whole other argument that I'll leave for another day

Regards

E

[walker 0]

Hi all

No Mods loaded

Just straight vanila ArmA 1.08 and 1.09

Tested 4 times now.Same every time. So no lack of consistency.

Have you tried the method I suggested in the official missions forum?

Kind Regards walker

[bangtail 0]

Yes, that specific approach does work. But tbh, it doesnt solve my original complaint. In other situations, that type of approach does not work and a silenced M9 is not going to be heard much over 3 - 5 metres and even at that range, it would be a very low and hard to make out sound.

I'm still going to stand behind my original statement but I will concede that your specific method does work consistently.

Regards

E

[max power 21]

Just for your information, the l34a1 mk. 5, an integrally silenced submachine gun, was designed under the specifications that its mechanical noise be unheard at 30 meters, and it was to be indistinguishable as a firearm at 50 meters. It is one of the quietest open bolt designs in firearms history. On the scale of loudness, the sound of a silenced firearm is supposedly akin to a car door slamming. If BIS has programmed silenced weapons as pretty noisy, this may be what you are experiencing. If that is true also, then you shouldn't treat the silenced firearms in ArmA as being a quiet way to kill somebody.