AI Discussion (dev branch)

[kromka 40]

@oukej

I agree with you with communication. Hovewer nowadays leader knows about the death of his ward immediately.

To be sure i've done yesterday some tests and result is always the same: no matter how subordinate will die and how far he is from the squad, the rest is alarmed.

No exclusions.

Is there communication between AI units like "return to formation" and so on? Maybe reason is i kill AI too fast and he can't respond for initial call "return to formation" which should be usually send by commander?

[KeyCat 131]

AI doesn't care about radio items. They always have a radio and the mission designers shouldn't remove it from them ;) Sorry about that. Handling no-radio comms would be a huge task (+ solving backwards compatibility). If you need it in your mission you can simply ungroup units that don't have a radio and are far away from the leader.

 

Would it be possible to add a way to set the delay before the rest of the squad knows when a squad member RIP instead of as now instantly?

 

/KC

[das attorney 858]

Would it be possible to add a way to set the delay before the rest of the squad knows when a squad member RIP instead of as now instantly?

 

/KC

 

Hi,

 

This was fixed in 2014 so it's most likely a regression if the AI know who killed their group matey instantly.

 

https://forums.bistudio.com/topic/150500-development-branch-captains-ai-log/page-2#entry2719739

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=10143 (see post from Oukej on 8 nov 14)

[KeyCat 131]

Thanks for the pointers! Having a script command to change the default delay for sharing info would make it possible to kinda "fake" that AI are using radios.

 

/KC

[das attorney 858]

Hi Oukej,

 

Couple of things regarding disableAI "cover"/"autocombat":

 

Firstly, The new commands doesn't seem to free up AI groups as much as expected.  It seems some of the team will run off to go to their waypoint/destination etc but the rest of them wil drop to the floor and refuse to move.  Most of the time it's the leader that won't budge but sometimes other units refuse to as well.

 

Secondly, and more importantly, there is a bug with "cover" that stops groups from completing scripted waypoints.

 

I've put a test mission together on this ticket:

 

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=27630

 

You can open the test mission in the editor and play it.

 

There is an AI squad that have their WPs assigned by script (they are in a square around the groups position).

 

As they see the player, they start firing etc.

 

Player is then teleported outside of LOS

 

The camera focuses on the AI leader.  He should do AI "combat" stuff for a while and then resume the waypoints when they drop out of "combat" (they probably try to complete the waypoints in combat but that's a moot point as they hardly move while in combat).

 

With disableAI "cover", when they drop out of combatmode and resume the waypoints, when they get to the first scripted waypoint (at markerPos "m1") they will stand at it twiching ad infinitum,

 

Here's the test mission:

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/101800212/waypoint_error_disableAIcover.Stratis.7z

 

Here's the video.

 

https://youtu.be/kMUr-az0h_I

 

Thanks.

[mad_cheese 593]

Couple of things regarding disableAI "cover"/"autocombat":

 

The new commands doesn't seem to free up AI groups as much as expected.

 

With all enthusiasm, I also observe some new issues from time to time where units still behave very "combatty" when they are in particularly stressful situations. The good thing is that now those issues can be helped by both the player or by scripts, but ideally there may be a few changes that could be made to "Aware"-behaviour to make it keep the same cool regardless if under fire or not.

 

On a totally unrelated note..  I think that Virtual Arsenal would heavily benefit from adding a dropdown/listBox to select AI units. It would not require all that many conditions either. Off course the control would only apply to group leaders, could only access AI-infantry, and maybe be restricted to units that are close to a virtual weaponHolder, etc.

[froggyluv 2136]

They should usually have quite a high suppression when jumping out right after taking hits. (suppression should be calculated also for crew even though it doesn't have any effect inside the vehicle (except of FFV positions))

 

 

 You've said before that you do not alter the subSkills but what mechanism do you use to penalize AI and do you believe it has enough impact on their precision?

 

 I know I sound like a broken record but I really believe the AI all need to be toned down precision-wise quite a bit. Spending most of my time just altering their skills and the game plays out much more interesting when not every AI is a master marksman. Lowering all to the 0.04 aimingAccuracy  exempting guys like Recon and Snipers makes them far more formidable and the entire scenario much more strategy oriented. For instance even "low scores" such as 0.2 aiming Accuracy a standard riflemen was able to outgun a Marksman repeatedly despite the latter having a very high skillset.

 

tl/dr- please calibrate the AI subSkillset better to make thebattles more interesting

[fn_Quiksilver 1636]

 You've said before that you do not alter the subSkills but what mechanism do you use to penalize AI and do you believe it has enough impact on their precision?

 

 I know I sound like a broken record but I really believe the AI all need to be toned down precision-wise quite a bit. Spending most of my time just altering their skills and the game plays out much more interesting when not every AI is a master marksman. Lowering all to the 0.04 aimingAccuracy  exempting guys like Recon and Snipers makes them far more formidable and the entire scenario much more strategy oriented. For instance even "low scores" such as 0.2 aiming Accuracy a standard riflemen was able to outgun a Marksman repeatedly despite the latter having a very high skillset.

 

tl/dr- please calibrate the AI subSkillset better to make thebattles more interesting

 

I used around ~0.16 aiming accuracy for most units in I&A. The issue with aiming accuracy is that usually there were more than 1 enemy shooting at a player, so a fireteam (4) of AI all with 0.16 is still quite deadly, even at 500m with ACO :)

 

Of course server FPS plays a big part in AI skill, so the better server performance, the lower the default aiming accuracy and spottime should be. For a high performing server (>30 FPS) I think anything over 0.12-0.16 aiming accuracy is too high if the goal is to produce a fun firefight.

[R3vo 2654]

 You've said before that you do not alter the subSkills but what mechanism do you use to penalize AI and do you believe it has enough impact on their precision?

 

 I know I sound like a broken record but I really believe the AI all need to be toned down precision-wise quite a bit. Spending most of my time just altering their skills and the game plays out much more interesting when not every AI is a master marksman. Lowering all to the 0.04 aimingAccuracy  exempting guys like Recon and Snipers makes them far more formidable and the entire scenario much more strategy oriented. For instance even "low scores" such as 0.2 aiming Accuracy a standard riflemen was able to outgun a Marksman repeatedly despite the latter having a very high skillset.

 

tl/dr- please calibrate the AI subSkillset better to make thebattles more interesting

I have to agree, I personally use a difficulty of 0.1 because it creates a much more interesting scenario.

[froggyluv 2136]

[Roach_ 52]

You can also try lowering other subSkills, like _unit setSkill ["aimingShake", 0.2]; _unit setSkill ["aimingSpeed", 0.2];

[Hate 232]

 

How did you get the audio of the dude yelling "goddamn sniper!"? is that from a mod?

[R3vo 2654]

How did you get the audio of the dude yelling "goddamn sniper!"? is that from a mod?

 

Was wondering the same, sounds badass :D

[das attorney 858]

Could you please send me a scenario where this happens?

 

 

I've just had some more of this around Stratis Airbase.  It looks like some additional info is logged now.

 

 0:15:49 Out of path-planning region for O Alpha 4-1:2 at 2207.0,5798.0, node type Road
 0:15:49 Error O Alpha 4-1:2: Invalid path from [2208.53, 5.57, 5799.26] to [2213.53, 5.63, 5794.26].
 0:15:49 Out of path-planning region for O Alpha 4-1:1 at 2207.0,5798.0, node type Road
 0:15:49 Error O Alpha 4-1:1: Invalid path from [2208.53, 5.57, 5799.26] to [2211.50, 5.62, 5802.50].
 0:15:49 Out of path-planning region for O Alpha 4-1:6 at 2207.0,5798.0, node type Road
 0:15:49 Error O Alpha 4-1:6: Invalid path from [2208.53, 5.57, 5799.26] to [2219.72, 5.81, 5777.68].
 0:15:51 Empty word in sentence 'XMIT' '' 'xmit' 
 0:15:54 Out of path-planning region for O Alpha 4-1:2 at 2207.0,5798.0, node type Road
 0:15:54 Error O Alpha 4-1:2: Invalid path from [2208.53, 5.57, 5799.26] to [2208.84, 5.52, 5792.20].
 0:15:54 Out of path-planning region for O Alpha 4-1:1 at 2207.0,5798.0, node type Road
 0:15:54 Error O Alpha 4-1:1: Invalid path from [2208.53, 5.57, 5799.26] to [2211.50, 5.62, 5802.50].
 0:15:54 Out of path-planning region for O Alpha 4-1:1 at 2207.0,5798.0, node type Road
 0:15:54 Error O Alpha 4-1:1: Invalid path from [2208.53, 5.57, 5799.26] to [2211.50, 5.62, 5802.50].
 0:15:54 Out of path-planning region for O Alpha 4-1:6 at 2207.0,5798.0, node type Road
 0:15:54 Error O Alpha 4-1:6: Invalid path from [2208.53, 5.57, 5799.26] to [2210.37, 5.70, 5785.14].
 0:15:55 Out of path-planning region for O Alpha 4-1:1 at 2207.0,5798.0, node type Road
 0:15:55 Error O Alpha 4-1:1: Invalid path from [2208.53, 5.57, 5799.26] to [2288.00, 5.13, 5776.00].
 0:15:59 Out of path-planning region for O Alpha 4-1:2 at 2207.0,5798.0, node type Road
 0:15:59 Error O Alpha 4-1:2: Invalid path from [2208.53, 5.57, 5799.26] to [2209.50, 5.52, 5792.50].
 0:16:00 Out of path-planning region for O Alpha 4-1:1 at 2207.0,5798.0, node type Road
 0:16:00 Error O Alpha 4-1:1: Invalid path from [2208.53, 5.57, 5799.26] to [2288.00, 5.13, 5776.00].

btw, was just wondering about the output above.  Is it in x,z,y format or is it saying I'm trying to send the units over 5km in the air? (I checked running scripts and there's nothing that should do that).

[froggyluv 2136]

 Wondering if speed of observer is factored into LOS reveal? Reason I ask is was just flying past a town at high speed in Pawnee and briefly glimpsed left/right when my guy started calling out all sorts of specific targets aka Ammo Bearer 100/Sniper Front and so on when in reality i spotted maybe a dot move. Now if the Ai is spotting along the same rules that would come across as silly as at the very best they should have "Unknowns" and maybe come back to check it out. When  I choose to reveal a target I have to zero over the pixel and press a button -that makes sense at its actively focusing to try and recognize what im lookin at. Obviously AI has no RMB,  but why not take speed into consideration and perhaps a timed account of direct LOS before a 100% declaration of what they looking at? Worried how this type of spotting is going to carry over to the jungles of Tanoa even more.

 

How did you get the audio of the dude yelling "goddamn sniper!"? is that from a mod?

 

 Wait for it.. ;)

[Roach_ 52]

Is it just me or is the AI back to terminator mode in the RC? Even when setting the aiming subskills to zero.

[cosmic10r 2331]

Is it just me or is the AI back to terminator mode in the RC? Even when setting the aiming subskills to zero.

This seems to be the case... even when I set them to custom 0.1. They seem to revert back to 0.75.

At least in the eden editor... froggyluv and I have been testing this a fair bit and we r using external scripts to lower it

 

edit..

this vid should show what we are experiencing... all vanilla

 

 

 

The skill slider and the presets in Main menu seem to not affect skill at all.

the skill slider in the editor set at minimum 20% yields an average ai skill of 0.6

set to 100% it gives a skill of 1 for most attributes

 

so at this point from what i can tell... the only way to adjust is in editor and max amount of adjustment is between 0.6 and 1 skill

[oukej 2911]

Thanks a lot for the heads up!

At least in the eden editor...

Confirmed Eden-only and only after the first initialization (so as you mentioned using scripts - that should already update the skill correctly).
 

[klamacz 448]

Good Afternoon community, extensive AI skill was fixed today. Gonna hit dev-branch soon. Thanks for reporting

[R3vo 2654]

Good Afternoon community, extensive AI skill was fixed today. Gonna hit dev-branch soon. Thanks for reporting

Where all skill categories affected ?

[klamacz 448]

Where all skill categories affected ?

Yes

[R3vo 2654]

Okay, guess I have to tweak all subskills then. Thanks for the info;)

[oukej 2911]

You shouldn't have to change anything, mission.sqm's were unaffected.

[cyruz 103]

Not sure if this belongs in the AI thread, either way, this is a huge problem right now in stable and in 1.56 RC as any way points used in multiplayer for AI cause long stoppages of a few minutes.

 

http://feedback.arma3.com/view.php?id=27846

[Grumpy Old Man 3546]

Small question/suggestion to the grand wizard oukej:

 

Would it be possible to introduce a group behaviour that allows AI to have weapons lowered but still keep formation (especially in "LIMITED" speed mode)?

As of now you can set them to "SAFE" or "CARELESS" which results in weapons lowered but formation being changed into a very loose trail formation.

 

Would be nice to have an option to have AI groups keep formation with weapons lowered.

 

Cheers