Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
thierry007

all AI = snipers?

Recommended Posts

I don't know what other games you're talking about with awesome AI.

I don't see any replies insinuating there are any :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see any replies insinuating there are any :confused:
No, the AI are brainless idiots that just run at you like imbeciles, its some of the worst AI ever seen in a game in recent years.

That implies that there are games with better AI because to be the worst there has to be something better. I think he mean't awesome in the term that there are ones with better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently, L4D zombies are the epitome of AIs....

/facepalm

Well, it does seem like zombie lovers can't make Arma 2 even have working zombies, at least not yet ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, it does seem like zombie lovers can't make Arma 2 even have working zombies, at least not yet ;)

But that is purely because of ArmA2's massively improved AI behaviour. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: I havn't noticed this anymore in 1.3

---------- Post added at 12:34 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:10 AM ----------

Hi thedudesam

Smoke Sound and flash all revealed you position. Your parent or guardian probably taught you the peekaboo blankie game when you were a child; did you ever stop gigling?

If I hide behind a blanket and then go peekaboo will you still be surprised?

Other games may have taught you to expect the AI to be idiots; I am sorry but this is not the case with ArmA AI.

If you play against humans and shoot at us from windows, with a big smokey reveal your position now sign, expect a hail of lead into said smokey window and its surrounding walls ditto ArmA AI. Oh and if it is 7.62 or above bullets do not expect the walls to stop them.

Kind Regards walker

Nope but i certainly would be suprised if someone was in a city area when a shot is fired from around 200m away, when it is then accurately detected in an instant using just peripheral vison and muzzle flash in the daytime.

Your praise of ArmA 2's AI and making all other game AI sound inferior is just amusing, explain why the AI pilot failed to notice a tree right infront of him? or how the AI pilot landed on a building rather than the helipad mere metres away?

Or this one?

Big smokey sign, haha i wasn't using a flintlock.

ArmA2 is a good, fun, game and just that.

EDIT: I havn't noticed this "Instant shot detection" anymore in 1.3 THANKS BIS!

Edited by thedudesam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Name games that have better AI then ARMA2? There are not many of them imo.

To say a game has better AI is hard to say. What exactly = better? Better as in fits the game enviornment and design as well as possible? In that case AI such as in L4D of CoD would be near flawless, because they work as intended in the environments they are placed in extremely well, as such they don't feel out of place.

I think a better question would be to ask what large-scale open ended games similar to ArmA2 have better AI than ArmA2? Then things start to make more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That implies that there are games with better AI because to be the worst there has to be something better. I think he mean't awesome in the term that there are ones with better.

no it doesn't, I didnt say it was the worst, I said it some of the worst implying that its as bad as everything else, this was then reinforced when I wrote;

(I wouldn't know where to point you though as most are pretty shoddy)

With regards the L4D AI it was tongue in cheek in that they are zombies for goodness sake.

the whole point was that I think that AI is poor, not (it'll bold that in case some of the more sensitive amongst you missed it) the whole game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thedudesam

Your videos prove my point

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7csaLjZt8pU

Loads of smoke.

What else is wrong in that video

The person is using numpty cross hairs instead of sights and aimed shots.

The person is using numpty 3rd person

The person is revealing his position with smoke and sound

The person is firing multiple bursts from a single position

The person uses a whole magazine and gets killed while reloading

The person has not made use of available cover.

The person is engaging in open ground superior numbers of at least 3 to 1 at 50m.

The person expects a simulation such as ArmA to stroke their ego like games such as COD do.

Please try the following in reality:

With a friend.

Go into a field of long grass.

Have you friend stay at the edge of the field.

Lay down.

The long grass will stop you seeing your friend.

Your friend will report they can see you especially if you move.

If your friend moves toward you; you will hear him and be able to locate your friend.

If your friend moves toward you; your friend will see you before you see your friend.

If the grass is sparse you may spot your friend before your friend spots you.

Reverse the positions you will be able to confirm what your friend has seen.

On the M203

The pop of grenade launcher contains a lot of high frequency sound and is locatable at 200m.

In ArmA as in reality the biggest concealment buster is smoke and while modern weapons use so called smokeless rounds they still do produce a quantity of smoke it is just not the giant cloud of smoke the old black powder flint locks did that covered the battlefield like a fog.

In fact ArmA in multiplayer the sound and smoke a shot produces is my commonest way of spotting an enemy position. In ArmA as in reality a round produces a light 1m cloud of smoke that is perfectly visible at 200m and depending on wind persists in that position for the second or two it takes to turn to face the position and spot the firer.

As an aside I love how dust and smoke persist and move with the wind in ArmA II the easiest way to spot vehicles at a distance is the dust they raise.

Kind regards walker

Edited by walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi thedudesam

Your videos prove my point

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7csaLjZt8pU

Loads of smoke.

What else is wrong in that video

The person is using numpty cross hairs instead of sights and aimed shots.

The person is using numpty 3rd person

The person is revealing his position with smoke and sound

The person is firing multiple bursts from a single position

The person uses a whole magazine and gets killed while reloading

The person has not made use of available cover.

The person is engaging in open ground superior numbers of at least 3 to 1 at 50m.

The person expects a simulation such as ArmA to stroke their ego like games such as COD do.

Please try the following in reality:

With a friend.

Go into a field of long grass.

Have you friend stay at the edge of the field.

Lay down.

The long grass will stop you seeing your friend.

Your friend will report they can see you especially if you move.

If your friend moves toward you; you will hear him and be able to locate your friend.

If your friend moves toward you; your friend will see you before you see your friend.

If the grass is sparse you may spot your friend before your friend spots you.

Reverse the positions you will be able to confirm what your friend has seen.

On the M203

The pop of grenade launcher contains a lot of high frequency sound and is locatable at 200m.

In ArmA as in reality the biggest concealment buster is smoke and while modern weapons use so called smokeless rounds they still do produce a quantity of smoke it is just not the giant cloud of smoke the old black powder flint locks did that covered the battlefield like a fog.

In fact ArmA in multiplayer the sound and smoke a shot produces is my commonest way of spotting an enemy position. In ArmA as in reality a round produces a light 1m cloud of smoke that is perfectly visible at 200m and depending on wind persists in that position for the second or two it takes to turn to face the position and spot the firer.

As an aside I love how dust and smoke persist and move with the wind in ArmA II the easiest way to spot vehicles at a distance is the dust they raise.

Kind regards walker

You DO relise BOTH of those videos where from an AI's point of view not a players, that kinda backfired didn't it mate.

All this praise of ArmA2's AI then you just prove MY point by stating some of what's wrong with the AI, and i quote.

The person is revealing his position with smoke and sound

The person is firing multiple bursts from a single position

The person uses a whole magazine and gets killed while reloading

The person has not made use of available cover.

The person is engaging in open ground superior numbers of at least 3 to 1 at 50m.

And as for the smoke, a single shot from an M40 produces FAR less smoke than sustained fire from an assault rifle, BUT agreed it can give away a position IF, IF there is a noticeable ammount which in the case of a single shot, there usually isn't.

Would snipers or marksmen in real life use sniper rifle's or DMR's if they produced a "cloud of smoke", no, becuase in most cases it isn't noticeable.

Also a question, has it even been proven the AI notice smoke, or is it just a simple "I knew where the player was all along and am waiting for a sound activated in my detection radius so i can engage" like most game's AI?

Also

As an aside I love how dust and smoke persist and move with the wind in ArmA II the easiest way to spot vehicles at a distance is the dust they raise.

I agree, i find this VERY impressive if im honest, not to mention how detailed and realisticly accurate the vehicles are in this game :D

It seems as if you think im here purely to say what i don't like about ArmA 2, not true, i like EVERYTHING about the game EXCEPT the AI, which i find is WAY off for a so called "realistic game". 1.3 addressed many of the issues but not all.

Edited by thedudesam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Name games that have better AI then ARMA2? There are not many of them imo.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl / S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky

Freedom Fighters

Sniper Elite

Soldiers: Heroes of World War II / Faces of War / Men of War (not FPS games though)

F.E.A.R.

Brothers in Arms series

Fallout 3 (I actually found the AI for human enemies to be pretty good in this game. Taking cover often, navigating the environment well, etc.)

System Shock 2 / Bioshock

Farcry / Crysis / Crysis Warhead

Killzone 2

Gears of War / Gears of War 2

Counter Strike / Counter Strike Source Official BOT (very dependent on nodes and waypoints though)

Grand Theft Auto 4 (AI takes cover behind ANYTHING)

No One Lives Forever 1 and 2

Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow (Only splinter cell game I played. The AI was excellent when in combat ; Using cover, suppressing, flanking, etc.)

Clive Barker's Undying

Heavy Gear 2

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas

Swat 3 and 4

Vietcong / Vietcong Fist Alpha

Mech Warrior 4

Metal Gear solid 3

Soldier of Fortune 2

Red Faction 2

Just to name a few from the top of my head. These games had the feeling of a more solid AI. Don't get me wrong, I love the Operation Flashpoint/ARMA series and I really like ARMA2 but the AI is the weakest part...and the bugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must be kiddin if you compare those dumb shooter bots with AI. Do you really know the difference between AI and those scripted NPC/Bots in mainstream games/shooters? Go & lurk more before you compare apples and oranges. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its nice to put up a big list of games and then slap a label of better AI on it versus Arma but it really says nothing in the end except "this is better just because I say so".

The Arma Ai has a job to work dynamically in all different parts of the map, in different terrains. The AI that is better than Arma2's needs to be tasked with the same job and deal with the same complex issues. It needs to make paths of travel on the fly, it needs to share target info and take enemy fire from every direction and respond to a wide range of possible "problems" like being wounded or out of ammo or need reinforcements. You cant point to the linear corridor shooters (Like FEAR) as simply better because they are more precise and solid in a static environment where they are programmed with granularity. They are tweaked out to work in the maps where they are placed which is something the ARMA AI could do too with extra scripting/config work. So a fair comparison would be a game that is sandbox and shows us better pathing, not getting stuck, better use of cover in various locations in the big map, better at healing rearming and using vehicles and then the list would grow shorter because theres not that much multi tasking AI out there to compare by then.

You could take three games out of that list and then give specific comparison as to why its better instead of clobbering the discussion with extraneous/irrelevant titles as if quantity is better than quality in the debate.

Such as: Vietcong, the AI hides behind cover more efficiently and can do this anywhere on the sandbox map, they never get stuck like in ARMA and they dont see through the clutter. I dont really know if this is true but its just an example of a better way to make your case.

And if you do find a better system out there you can bet someone will steal the capabilites of that AI and attempt to program it into the Arma AI as an enhancement like Grouplink or UPS from OFP/ARMA 1. Those attempts have different levels of success but they are successful in enhancing the earlier games and they will be for this game. Its not hard to load these scripts and any complaint about having to add these things to improve the game are easily dismissed as laziness on the complainers part. Any good mod and improvement for Arma will be easy to set up like the modules are, or easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...you forgot that Chessmaster trumps all in tactical thinking and the pathfinding of Ms. Pacman rules supreme!

Of course NoRailgunner is correct, they are Apples and Oranges. The only game worth comparing to Arma2's Ai at this point will be DR as it is wide-scale, consisting of many units (methinks).

And please, GTA4, I just bought that recently, yeah shoot and kill 20 cops then step into the magical objective marker, an voila, cops are like " Hi, so whats up with you?" -garbage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Must be kiddin if you compare those dumb shooter bots with AI. Do you really know the difference between AI and those scripted NPC/Bots in mainstream games/shooters? Go & lurk more before you compare apples and oranges. :rolleyes:

Have you played any of these games? I consider AI (along with gameplay. Graphics and Sound not that important to me) to be the most important factor in a single player game. The AI in the games I listed offered a much better experience than the AI offered in ARMA2 at its current state. Not saying the AI is bad, just listing games that I thought had a more solid AI.

It doesn't matter how advance the AI is, if it performs stupid in-game then it is not good AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The muzzle smoke in Arma 2 is way overdone. IRL it's barely noticeable, and I fired a lot both with M4A1 and M24. Even the muzzle flashes at night aren't nearly as big IRL as they are in the game, but at least those are clearly visible IRL as well.

On sniper school we had an exercise where a sniper was laying in a good spot (with no special camouflage) on a hill shooting into the left side of the shooting range while we were at the right (~30m away from where he was shooting, we could hear the supersonic cracks loud and clear). He was about 450m away. He fired for ~30 minutes and not a single person out of the ~50 that were there with us could spot him, using binoculars, M24 scopes and some even used spotting scopes with 40X magnification. ~1/2 the people were marines that came to train in that base, rest were IDF sniper school guys, plus a few experienced sniper instructors. If that guy would've done the same in Arma 2, after the 3rd/4th round the AI would've found his position (not to mention the foliage he was hiding behind would not have been rendered and would not bother the AI).

You keep claiming that noise and muzzle smoke give out your position, but the fact is that it only gives your position to the AI, and rarely, if you're close enough, will give your position to human players due to the extremely overdone muzzle smoke.

Also you keep saying that crosshairs and 3rd person are for "nubs". While I agree enabling it in the firstplace is very nub, if it's already enabled it's very nub to NOT use them. Crosshairs give you pretty much the same accuracy (if not exactly the same or more) as ironsights/aimpoints while not clogging your view. 3rd person lets you see things you simply can't see in 1st (though I find it uncomfortable to use 100% of the time and it's hard to see distant enemies with it so I toggle it when needed). Not using those advantages when you're given them is very nub. But again I prefer playing on servers where those things are outright disabled, so I can play realistically and not be a nub at the same time.

Edited by galzohar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you played any of these games? I consider AI (along with gameplay. Graphics and Sound not that important to me) to be the most important factor in a single player game. The AI in the games I listed offered a much better experience than the AI offered in ARMA2 at its current state. Not saying the AI is bad, just listing games that I thought had a more solid AI.

It doesn't matter how advance the AI is, if it performs stupid in-game then it is not good AI.

There are different types of AI, each more suitable for different kinds of games. ArmA has unique AI... best IMO of its kind. Far from perfect, but still the best. Most of the games you listed have a different kind of AI that if you put in ArmA 2 would be totally crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are different types of AI, each more suitable for different kinds of games. ArmA has unique AI... best IMO of its kind. Far from perfect, but still the best. Most of the games you listed have a different kind of AI that if you put in ArmA 2 would be totally crap.

What you said is true.

I guess I'm just really frustrated about the untapped potential of ARMA2. Ever since Operation Flashpoint I've always thought to myself "this would be the best game (IMO) if it just had better AI". Was really looking forward to ARMA when it was announced but was disappointed when the only major improvements was cosmetic. I was really hyped about ARMA2 with all the talk about Micro AI and found the AI to have noticeable improvements but is still severely lacking. So now my thoughts are still the same - "if only it had better AI (and less bugs)". Really hope to see improvements with patches and mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can only hope that BIS will continue to develop the technology to it's full potential. All we can do til then is buy and support their games. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

In reply to galzohar

There is difference between 200m and 450m

There is a difference between an urban evironment with limited numbers of windows in the LOS of the M203 and its pop sound and a sniper in a field.

There is difference between an M205 and sniper firing from a rifle with a smoke and flash supressor and I would presume high quality 'smokeless' rounds.

If you went to sniper school you were taught this.

And as you can see in this video the M203 produces smoke just the same as any other explosive fired projectile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=921to4z8RAE&feature=related

In fact smoke is often caused by residues left in the barrel from previous firing or indeed from inexpert cleaning.

As to whether the AI sees the smoke; the AI sees nothing. It is a simulation algorithm that aproximates what a human would be able to see in the same situation, not real sight.

In reply to thedudesam

You DO relise BOTH of those videos where from an AI's point of view not a players, that kinda backfired didn't it mate.

Yes it did a little bit just so used to seeing COD players play ArmA like that I assumed it was a COD Player :D

All this praise of ArmA2's AI then you just prove MY point by stating some of what's wrong with the AI, and i quote.

The person is revealing his position with smoke and sound

The person is firing multiple bursts from a single position

The person uses a whole magazine and gets killed while reloading

The person has not made use of available cover.

The person is engaging in open ground superior numbers of at least 3 to 1 at 50m.

Sorry thedudesam but I have to dispute it. Any one can make the AI seem stupid by placing it in a stupid position. So no turning my statment back on me does not work in this case sorry. :(

To test the AI in ArmA one needs a repeatable experiment everything else is just gas.

Neither of the videos are any good as they do not include the previous circumstances and in both cases they third person, so do not actualy show the AIs viewpoint or indeed their aural experience. Infact the AI could have seen the target aproaching before the video starts, may have heard the enemy, could have been in a long battle with them, there could be a script running to create the circumstance, the person could have tried to do this hundreds of times to create the suposed behaviour or caught the behaviour once by chance, we just do not know because we have repeatable experiment.

I am not saying that the person who posted this did any of these things just pointing out the experiment and its methods of collecting data are flawed. To test properly you need the mission the person is testing. That is the Repaetable experiment. And there is no excuse in this world not to produce one if you can go to the trouble of frapsing a mission you can go to the trouble of zipping it up and putting it on a file share site.

On your points about the snipers. One shot, one kill. I think that covers it.

Kind Regards walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl / S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky

Freedom Fighters

Sniper Elite

Soldiers: Heroes of World War II / Faces of War / Men of War (not FPS games though)

F.E.A.R.

Brothers in Arms series

Fallout 3 (I actually found the AI for human enemies to be pretty good in this game. Taking cover often, navigating the environment well, etc.)

System Shock 2 / Bioshock

Farcry / Crysis / Crysis Warhead

Killzone 2

Gears of War / Gears of War 2

Counter Strike / Counter Strike Source Official BOT (very dependent on nodes and waypoints though)

Grand Theft Auto 4 (AI takes cover behind ANYTHING)

No One Lives Forever 1 and 2

Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow (Only splinter cell game I played. The AI was excellent when in combat ; Using cover, suppressing, flanking, etc.)

Clive Barker's Undying

Heavy Gear 2

Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Vegas

Swat 3 and 4

Vietcong / Vietcong Fist Alpha

Mech Warrior 4

Metal Gear solid 3

Soldier of Fortune 2

Red Faction 2

Just to name a few from the top of my head. These games had the feeling of a more solid AI. Don't get me wrong, I love the Operation Flashpoint/ARMA series and I really like ARMA2 but the AI is the weakest part...and the bugs.

Epic fail, none of those games have a good AI... Completed most of those games on hardest difficulty with Rambo tactics, which never work in ArmA 2... I don't get why people whine about the AI? If AI killed you in this game it means that AI is good and smarter than you. is good AI for you is the one who you can easily kill? Just like in the games you had listed.

Edited by USSRsniper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farcry crysis crysis warhead most if not all scripted With a bit of freedom ranbow six vegas Scipted alot (360 eh! ) But this has gone worse From Arma 2 AI to random game AI Heh But still the AI is too good (they ahve super ears and Super heat vision/thermal eyes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Epic fail, none of those games have a good AI... Completed most of those games on hardest difficulty with Rambo tactics, which never work in ArmA 2... I don't get why people whine about the AI? If AI killed you in this game it means that AI is good and smarter than you. is good AI for you is the one who you can easily kill? Just like in the games you had listed.

A lot of the difficulty in ARMA2 comes from the more realistic wounding and damage system where 1 shot can put the player down. That and the fact that the AI can be extremely accurate at very far distances. Never did I feel that the AI had killed me because of something clever that they did. I can sit in one spot and mow down tons of enemy infantry that will run around randomly or lay prone in the open and then have a burst from a enemy rifleman kill me from 500 meters away as I sprint.

The other games you may consider to be "Rambo" due to a more forgiving health and damage system and probably lower accuracy but if the first scoring shot from the enemy could critically wound or kill the player then a more tactical approach would be needed to succeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×