AI Configuration - feedback

Isn't it called Death Valley for a reason? ;) Please post your feedback in http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?167827-Death-Valley-WTF-BI/page6

Other than that, I've posted a post in the Captain's AI changelog with a sum of sum recent fixes/tweaks. Let the questions and feedback roll in http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?159710-AI-Discussion-(dev-branch) pls (or straight to FT if "AI is headshoting me thru - that - bush - 5 o'clock" w/ repro)

And we'll be back ASAP regarding the AI Levels

Hi oukej is there a feedback ticket you are watching in particular regarding super accurate AI then please share a link so we don't spread the feedback thin. Cheers

OP

My opinion as to what needs to be done to balance the ai a bit:

1. Ai accuracy generally needs to be brought down maybe 10% to keep up to speed with 1.24 weaponsway.
   
2. Ai aiming error needs to be increased when they are using ironsight/non magnified optics. Right now its as if they are all using optics.
   
3. Ai needs to be a bit less accurate based on fatigue.
   
4. Ai needs to be far less accurate when injured.
   
5. Ai precision slider needs to have more weight on their actual accuracy.
   

And of course my all time favourite, and probably the hardest to do, Ai aiming error needs to change based on incoming fire (Sonic cracks as well as impacts - very important) explosions and casualties.

I would say 1 and 5 are the best place to start. If all these can be nailed I think that the ai shooting skills will be acceptably humanlike. i am sure that the devs already know all this and its just a matter of getting the time to do it, but It makes me feel better to itemize it.:)

Edited July 21, 2014 by -Coulum-

^this

Please Oukej

Also, the recent welcomed fatigue changes re-emphasize the need to have a much more responsive AI. The fatigue make them more cumbersome, but they are still very reluctant to haul a** when the need arise. Many times you see them moving like idiots with their weapons raised which is extremely slow and frustrating.

Was something done with AI GP usage? They seem to use them a lot more now which is both awesome and horrible when you hide behind a rock only to explode a few seconds later.

I agree with Coulum's suggestions.

@Cyruz: What's a GP?

My opinion as to what needs to be done to balance the ai a bit:

1. Ai accuracy generally needs to be brought down maybe 10% to keep up to speed with 1.24 weaponsway.
   
2. Ai aiming error needs to be increased when they are using ironsight/non magnified optics. Right now its as if they are all using optics.
   
3. Ai needs to be a bit less accurate based on fatigue.
   
4. Ai needs to be far less accurate when injured.
   
5. Ai precision slider needs to have more weight on their actual accuracy.
   

And of course my all time favourite, and probably the hardest to do, Ai aiming error needs to change based on incoming fire (Sonic cracks as well as impacts - very important) explosions and casualties.

I would say 1 and 5 are the best place to start. If all these can be nailed I think that the ai shooting skills will be acceptably humanlike. i am sure that the devs already know all this and its just a matter of getting the time to do it, but It makes me feel better to itemize it.:)

I think that's a great summary (and, as a side benefit, I'm glad it makes you feel better, too :p). Obviously, things are 'easier said than done', but it's certainly the approach the guys want to take.

Please Oukej

Yeah, Oukej, what's taking you so long!? :cool:

@Cyruz: What's a GP?

Sorry that's not accurate really, just a habit left from A2. GP2x/3x is the under barrel grenade launcher mainly used on the AK platform (wiki).

I meant general UGL use.

I think that's a great summary (and, as a side benefit, I'm glad it makes you feel better, too ). Obviously, things are 'easier said than done', but it's certainly the approach the guys want to take.

Thanks for acknowledging it, makes me feel even more better.:D

Thx RIE, now we all feel better. No promises of course ;)

Fixed: AI soldiers: dynamic error influenced by fatigue and damage

Definitely not good enough. I did some tests at 100m, and after a shot to the ai's arm it has no where near the effect it has on a player. I used bullet tracing, and although shots made within around half a second of the hit will go way off target, after that they are still too accurate (in around a metre off target, some even hit). And eventually they seem to recover and shoot with the same accuracy as an uninjured soldier. That is not how it works for the player. When I am injured my shots are spraying from left to right as far as 5-8 metres off target at 100m. I am not even sure aiming error is the correct way to tackle this. Straight up random dispersion would recreate the accuracy of the player much better in these scenerios.

Didn't test fatigue but I assume it is much of the same.

Why doesn't BI just put out a tool such as Enhanced Skills Slider by Jedra - That he created for A2?? This gives all of us so much more ability to tweak specific skill sets (without having to learn how to write code or other issues). It was an easy to use add-on.

This whole AI Configuration - feedback thread started with the idea that BIS was going to allow the community greater control (with more ease) of our AI. As its been implemented it has actually provided us less. In now we can't even put forth different precision between Opfor and Blufor (and in the real world there most certainly is a difference. Via training and budgets ect)

Is there any movement by BIS to allow us more control? Again, by a mechanism much like Jedra enhanced Skill slider?

This whole AI Configuration - feedback thread started with the idea that BIS was going to allow the community greater control (with more ease) of our AI. As its been implemented it has actually provided us less. In now we can't even put forth different precision between Opfor and Blufor (and in the real world there most certainly is a difference. Via training and budgets ect)

Is there any movement by BIS to allow us more control? Again, by a mechanism much like Jedra enhanced Skill slider?

It was wrong to have skill and precision separated between factions in the first place. These must be controlled by the mission maker - and that's how it is now.

It was wrong to have skill and precision separated between factions in the first place. These must be controlled by the mission maker - and that's how it is now.

But since they introduced a way to force/lock difficulty setting for missions afterward (like they do with their campaign) I don't see the point... Why not give more choice to the player for missions where mission makers didn't took time to balance ennemy/friendly AI when there's a way to lock difficulty for missions where mission makers took the time to properly balance their missions.

Also if you played Arma2, you should know, a lot of missions will not be updated until the "end of life" of this game, which means AI will evolve (I hope so) but missions won't (at least a huge part of them) and then it's a whole lot of missions unplayable with no way to fix this (you can't even modify it in the mission pbo, thanks to the workshop).

This has no replayability value and it's a shame to give players less choices in a sandbox game when it was perfectly fine in OFP, Arma, Arma 2

Edited September 10, 2014 by Neodammerung

But since they introduced a way to force/lock difficulty setting for missions afterward (like they do with their campaign) I don't see the point... Why not give more choice to the player for missions where mission makers didn't took time to balance ennemy/friendly AI when there's a way to lock difficulty for missions where mission makers took the time to properly balance their missions.

Also if you played Arma2, you should know, a lot of missions will not be updated until the "end of life" of this game, which means AI will evolve (I hope so) but missions won't (at least a huge part of them) and then it's a whole lot of missions unplayable with no way to fix this (you can't even modify it in the mission pbo, thanks to the workshop).

This has no replayability value and it's a shame to give players less choices in a sandbox game when it was perfectly fine in OFP, Arma, Arma 2

Because the responsibility of the mission is on the mission maker. It doesn't make sense to have the burden of responsibility of balancing to be on the shoulders of the player, that would be silly.

It did perfectly make sense until A3 change that a little bit less than a year after release...

And there's no responsiblity involved for the player at all, I don't remember having tuned my AI in OFP, Arma, Arma 2 and early Arma 3 for each mission.

It was done one time (like you'd do on a server) and then it was forgotten, check for a topic complaining how A2 or A3 (before change) difficulty setting is too complicated, you'll find none because people wanting to tune these settings did and those who don't want to didn't, no more complicated than that.

Now that they introduced a way to lock difficulty there's even a way for mission makers to stop those who want to tweak to do it.

Also I really worry about replayability but I guess right now it's nobody's business and everone will cry in 2 years on user's (long gone) missions topics like it's happening right now on Arma 2 after BIS decide to change the way missions work in their last update, broking hundreds of missions.

It did perfectly make sense until A3 change that a little bit less than a year after release...

And there's no responsiblity involved for the player at all, I don't remember having tuned my AI in OFP, Arma, Arma 2 and early Arma 3 for each mission.

It was done one time (like you'd do on a server) and then it was forgotten, check for a topic complaining how A2 or A3 (before change) difficulty setting is too complicated, you'll find none because people wanting to tune these settings did and those who don't want to didn't, no more complicated than that.

Now that they introduced a way to lock difficulty there's even a way for mission makers to stop those who want to tweak to do it.

.

Exactly! This is exactly right. As is now is silly. It's backwards.

Also, if one chooses it was perfectly correct to have different factions having different precision ratings and skill ratings (this is part of the differences in actual training and budgets reflected by different factions).

---------- Post added at 04:23 ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 ----------

It was wrong to have skill and precision separated between factions in the first place. These must be controlled by the mission maker - and that's how it is now.

I see this as completely wrong. It should be left the the individual user of their own game what precision levels they want (for any given faction). Someone releasing a mission can give their recommendations. But they shouldn't be able to mandate what your game precision levels are.

BIS has now implemented a system whereby as customers we LOST more control over our A3 sim/game. When again, this very discussion started / this thread based on the notion of giving us the community more ease of control and options over units (and specifics within those units). BIS has gone exactly the opposite way.

It is a bad design now indeed. I have argued against this change from the start..

As a player or server admin you want to adjust the difficulty of your side vs the enemy side.

It is as simple as that.

However we were told: "No no no - the mission maker is to customize this and define your experience".

Sorry this is the completely wrong approach for this open world, dynamic gameplay.

Unfortunately it is just showing the shift the A3 team has taken - away from this to a more carefully crated cinematic design approach.

PS: You guys should not talk about factions - thats not correct. It is (just) sides.

It was "sides". What if e.g. the sides changed during the course of a scenario? What about PvP - who's side should be enemy and who's friendly?

While it's nice to retain configurability, in my opinion the goal is the actual utility. Not just having all sorts of chaotic controls with questionable effect on the gameplay all over the UI ;)

I think Jedra's ESS is a good mod, but its place remains in the mod's sphere. I could possibly imagine something a bit like it in the editor as an enhancement of current Set Skill module. (it's a good practice for scenario makers anyway to create a centralized control over the AI skills (to maintain and tune whole elements of the AI)).

I remember spending days of just tweaking the AI skills and looking for recommended values (and values for this and that AI mod) in the Arma 2 days. I could have been playing the game instead, right? I would rather not have a game of experimental research and a game of messing up with unknown values. I'd rather focus on the actual gameplay and simulation instead - there's a lot, lot to be done.

As for the whole difficulty - it is still planned, also with server control in mind.

Just a cheeky note - there's never been anything like a "cinematic press-x-to-win" shift in our team, never ever ;)

Side change during a scenario is a very rare case. But I agree - the way would to add scripting commands

to dynamically change or refresh the side related AI factor.

For pure PvP scenarios this has no relevance. For mix with AI - see additional SQF cmds above.

Tweaking the AI is a process itself to allow better gameplay for future sessions. It is not like you want to dynamically

adjust it while playing all the time (except for ZEUS scenarios maybe - here you also mostly need just broad changes,

not fine tuning per unit or similar).

In any case the whole point is that many people do want to adjust the AI skill - you/BI will never achieve a perfect setting,

nor is there one setting for all the different type of players.

BI should focus on the basic functionality and provide meaningful presets (which weren't adjusted despite the feedback given),

and allow or better encourage the community to tweak it by providing the tools for it.

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=18061

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=18365

What-Difficulty-settings-do-you-use

Is-Arma-3-s-AI-so-unusually-accurate

AI-Configuration-feedback

AI-Discussion-(dev-branch)

or search for posts with precisionAI.

class CfgAILevelPresets
class AILevelLow
	displayName = "Novice";
	skillAI = 0.5;
	precisionAI = 0.2;
class AILevelMedium
	displayName = "Normal";
	skillAI = 0.7;
	precisionAI = 0.5;
class AILevelHigh
	displayName = "Expert";
	skillAI = 0.8;
	precisionAI = 0.7;

class CfgDifficulties
default = "Regular";
class Recruit
	levelAI = "AILevelLow";
class Regular
	levelAI = "AILevelMedium";
class Veteran
	levelAI = "AILevelHigh";
class Mercenary
	levelAI = "AILevelHigh";

The reason there are not more complaints are most likely largely due to people resorting

to community mods like Asr ai 3, bCombat, Zeus ServerSkill, Zeus CfgAIskill,

Group Link 5 Core (AI Enhancement), TPW MODS, Fire-Fight Improvement System,

AI Overhaul - Reactive Squads, HETMAN - Artificial Leader, WW AI.

Or game modes that handle AI adjustments themselves like DAC, ALIVE, MCC, Whole Lotta, etc.

More: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?175400-AI-Compilation-List-of-Addons-Mods-Scripts-amp-Misc

related

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=5496

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=8799

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=16301

;2773464']

(which weren't adjusted despite the feedback given)' date='

[/quote']

That's true and that's only my fault that it takes so long. It's a simple change, just needs to be "processed".

We won't achieve the perfect setting on our own, but there's no point in having some defaults when majority of players has to tweak them. Should be the other way around. The goal is to reasonably integrate and cover the most common cases (without removing the possibility to go beyond them.)

I don't think BI understands the term "giving player greater control" because this is the opposite.In campaign I want the guerrillas weaker while CSAT are a more professional army.With the global AI setting if I raise the diff everyone is Tier 1,if I lower it everyone is dumber than a rock(except the AI gunners,they're Terminators,but heck I'm used to it since 2001).

Opposite is also true,with the global setting it doesn't matter I'm leading a pro army or a spec ops team because a bunch of insurgents or guerrillas apparently trained with Chuck Norris&Steven Seagal.So no,no matter how you look at this it simply isn't more versatility,what you actually did is to cut off more options from players while adding 3 universal difficulty settings.

If I want to break the AI by making one side firing laser guns while the other couldn't hit a mountain with an rpg by all means let me do it,don't force on me this equality crap.Irl different sides have different skills.