AI

[ZJJ]

Let's discuss the AI.... keep in mind this is your game you are developing and you have full input on what goes into this game.

What is ideal AI? What determines this? How do you want to be able to interact with the AI? How do you want the AI to react to the situation around them? Should you be able to switch your character to one of your friendly AI? etc.

One thing that makes me go *hmmm* is that I keep hearing about co-op only players want smarter AI; where they react accordingly to what goes on around them, like a real person. Why then don't the co-op people play TvT?

[Raw Kryptonite]

As far as AI & difficulty, I like GRAW. In the DLC co-op missions, they really seemed smarter and harder to defeat. Sometimes to the point of frustration LOL. In Vegas and some other games, difficulty is handled by making damage to you hurt more and your inflicted damage less effective. That's bad. What I want is AI that gets smarter on each difficulty setting, not just more of them. Leave damage the way it's supposed to be but make the AI a tougher opponent. The option for higher enemy density is very nice too, but I want to turn up or down the AI intelligence and weapon/gadget use too.

For friendly AI: I don't want to swap bodies, I just want them to get the heck outta my way when I'm shooting. I've yet to see a game that the AI doesn't off itself walking in front of me while shooting and scoped in. LOL

Oh, and let me move them around INDIVIDUALLY or in pairs, not just all 3-4 other teammembers at once. It worked well in Close Combat: First to Fight.

BIG WANT: other AI. Not the main enemy, not friendlies. I want innocent bystanders that react. Plenty of them (like the family on Freemont St in Vegas, but a lot more of that). I want panic in the streets as the streets clear forcing the good guys to be VERY careful with their fire.

BIGGER WANT: Hate to mention another game, but best way for me to describe it. Picture the neroimus war in chrome hounds. I want random AI events. One day you're fighting a battle, either against another human team, or AI, and a 3rd AI team comes in with some sort of assault on both of you, or helping you or hurting you. Call them insurgents, terrorists, last minute reinforcements (for you or for the enemy)...whatever. The key is making it RANDOM. The next 10 times you fight that battlefield nothing random might happen, but then the next time something off the wall and unplanned for occurs making you think on your feet. Like the super weapons in Chrome Hounds, but more often than those showed up, and at the same time as a regular battle is going on.

I'm not sure if I'm describing that well. In short "throw in random AI events to alter the battle". The good thing about this is that it could always be added to in game updates. New AI influences like this could be a small thing to add a LOT of long life to a game by keeping it fresh. Like really big easter eggs.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Raw Kryptonite

[Ick]

I was thinking about this the other day. Yes, I know it is hard to belive, but sometimes as I drive (or whatever) I think about things like this.

First the foundation:

Most games make AI harder one of three (OK, FIVE) ways:

1. more hits to kill

2. more accurate shots

3. quicker reaction time (they see you, boom they shoot..no delay)

4. More aware that YOU are there (example within 10 meters and you make a sound, as opposed to within 5 meters)

5. groups of AI are scripted for one of these reactions.....probability of each action changes with difficulty setting.

-----one will shoot imediately (prone, crouched, whatever)

-----one will run for cover

-----one will run at you

-----one will run perpendicular and then round objects to come at you

-----one will run away and wait for your approach

-----one will chuck smoke

-----one will throw a frag.

Problems with current AI:

---AI can magically see you on the other side of a building because the distance calculator says you are close enough

---AI can see you through grass, trees, bushes, in the dark, in fog, with your cloaking device on....magically

---Some AI can magically snipe through smoke grenades and other barriers that they should not be able to see through...sure. let them blind fire through it...but no accurate shots please.

What if YOU were an AI...how would YOU beat a small team of humans....I mean other than EASILY....

1. Camp, using OTS, then pop out and kill them....just like I would do in siege. I assume this would NOT be fun for co-op players. They would get sick of being killed by "AI Ick" repeatedly.

2. Once the humans engage some of my AI buddies....I know where they are at..and which of 3 ways they are going to HAVE to come through next. I would set up my forces to hold the choke points and push to their spawn....JUST like I would in an unlimited respawn match. How you "teach" AI this by location on an infinite volume of possibilities is beyond me.

3. Once I figured out that the humans were tring to climb the ropes on the alley side of the church...I would continue to maintain my perimeter but tell my AI team members to set up for them coming over the ropes.

4. Once the humans engage some of my AI buddies...I would send a fast guy all the way around to get behind them....and pistol their azes.

5. In Ghost Recon there are some spots where I could get inside a bush and NOT shoot the enemy....let them all pass unsuspecting...and BAM! Victory for Ick. I would imagine that HUMANS would get sick of AI kicking their aszes like this.

Other AI ideas.....

-----Let the AI shut down human comms

-----Let the AI raise the drawbridge once they figure out that the human team is half across...splitting the human team in two making them easier to beat (would work IF human players actually STUCK TOGETHER as a cohesive unit for a change.

-----Give me AI fire teams.....gunner supresses...sniper tries to pick me off....grenadier M203's or thows a grenade, rifleman flanks or calls in reinforcements.

-----Have the AI shout orders that I can hear......"Team 3, we have engaged tangos at the bridge...team 3, move from the house to flank them". Then throw a ######load of guys for me to deal with from that position. Forces me to make sure my human team is ready before we engage unsuspecting tangos.

-----Random enemy locations is KEY. Eenemies always in the same spot is sooooooooo boring...even if it is one of 3 possible locations, blah. Give me true random.

-----Give HUMANS the option for a ghille suit and a way for me to craw right up next to them without being detected on a dark map.....IF I do it right.

Other Co-op fundamentals:

Force Human players to have fire roles. I am so sick of being the only human sniper in a room full of human grenadiers. It is like playing Halo2 rockets against AI idiots that get pistols. What is the point? People LOVE to do this because they CAN...but where is the challenge? It becomes a race for "who can get the most grenadier kills".

What kills Co-op rooms? Being able to say things like "There is usually a guy here" or "there is always a lot of guys in this next room" or "one of the AI spawns is over by that house". These are things to be avoided...but how? Not sure.

[Sup]

I want to second the statement the GRAW360's AI was awesome. They'll lay down supression fire, advance on sound, flank and grenade areas they've taken fire from (whether you're there or not, assuming they don't see you slip away) and generally work very well as individuals. They tend to bunch up on their movement paths, though, probably due to a lack of firm squad ai.

[Ick]

I guess I want AI to act EXACTLY like humans EXCEPT:

1. they don't cheat like humans may

2. they don't talk trash in the lobby like humans would

3. they don't stack teams like human players would

However, make them easier to beat than a team of Ick and his friends. Let's face it, a team of 30 humans...even if they are idiots...are more than likely going to beat an opp-for of 4 quality human players...just like they would in an online team match.

So people want an experience like when they play humans...but without all the crap that goes with it.

That is a good idea Raw.....how about...

Every once in a while when you are playing an AI co-op mission....BAD INTEL....and the AI bombards your insertion zone with incoming artilarry. You have to figure this out quickly and get the heck out of there...then mop of the forces they send at you to sweep the area post-artillery strike.

Here you are expecting to reconider forces and engage targets of opportuntiy...only to find it is a trap.....

But this only happens once in a while...which is KEY.

Edited January 10, 2007 by Ick

[Raw Kryptonite]

Right, just every now and then. Enough to make you want to play to see these variables and to keep you wary every time you go into a battlefield. That would be about as close to real life as I think a mere game could do. Make you worry some about things going BADLY.

In general, AI needs to offer so much that it's as much fun to play against it as possible. The "role playing" part of these games is half the fun. Playing vs. random humans takes that out role playing and often turns a game into just "kill them quickly" and not trying to act the ROLE of a soldier on a mission. Playing vs. AI...the AI is imersed in the role it's given, which is good. Just need to make it more than icons you run through and shoot.

The Neroimus War in Chrome Hounds, a persistent war with 3 factions that usually lasts a week or two is a GREAT idea. I'd love to see a war like that for a modern day shooter (as in not WWII, not futuristic, not alternate reality--think GR or Rainbow style here). Battle in objective based *MISSIONS* (not just kill them all) vs. a solid AI, or humans, but with the constant threat of an AI "event" changing everything.

[Sup]

On some levels I think it's unfair to ask for those emergent features. I think we can all agree it would be nice, but why devote hours and hours of manpower to script things most players will only ever see once or twice?

Except, obviously, as fully scripted 'story' elements; OFP's amazing Motignac Must Fall mission was stunning.

However, it GR.net seems more interested in a 'sim' style campaign progression than a linear storyline.

[NoQuarter]

One thing that makes me go *hmmm* is that I keep hearing about co-op only players want smarter AI; where they react accordingly to what goes on around them, like a real person. Why then don't the co-op people play TvT?

Possibly because for the most part MP game types degenerate into an RnG ring around the supply line 'nade fest (despite everyones better intentions)?

And then there is always SP. Can't forget about that.

[Sup]

Real players of videogames don't act like real people in combat.

Plus, whether people will step back and admit it or not, the fun of coop comes from succeeding as a team. Human players are too even of a match.

[Ick]

Real players of videogames don't act like real people in combat.

Plus, whether people will step back and admit it or not, the fun of coop comes from succeeding as a team. Human players are too even of a match.

Excellent assessment.

[Dai-San]

Yeah, SUP has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

When it comes down to it, we are hunters. What we really want is an enemy we can hunt, that will make the hunt as difficult as possible, but eventually succumb to our superior skill.

How many times do you hear, or have said yourself, "This AI is crazy, it headshots me from across the map and I don't even see it".

But we will happily sneak along, lay in a bush, and headshot 5 AI from across the map as they patrol around a camp.

So if we can do it, why can't they? Because that would be too difficult and in the end, WE WANT TO WIN.

[Ick]

Yeah, SUP has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

When it comes down to it, we are hunters. What we really want is an enemy we can hunt, that will make the hunt as difficult as possible, but eventually succumb to our superior skill.

How many times do you hear, or have said yourself, "This AI is crazy, it headshots me from across the map and I don't even see it".

But we will happily sneak along, lay in a bush, and headshot 5 AI from across the map as they patrol around a camp.

So if we can do it, why can't they? Because that would be too difficult and in the end, WE WANT TO WIN.

That made me think..........

My BEST co-op experience to date was when it MATTERED THE MOST TO ME.

We did this co-op tournament:

http://www.ick.bz/GRAW_co-op.htm

We had 7 teams...each with 4 players completing a mission (as listed).

Each team had a start time...they had NO respawns and ONE CHANCE to complete the mission as best as they could. The team results were compared to each other very carefully.

---Teams that lost members early in a mission were demoralized..but gave the mission 110% effort to keep their team in the game

---Teams that did exceptionally well were biting their nails to find out how the other teams did...did they do the best job...or did one of the other quality teams take the prize?

---Teams that made the playoff cut were extremely elated...which simply added to the playoff experience...it meant even more.

---Teams that were eliminated were really disappointed....but you know NONE of those guys plays co-op the same any more. All co-op games have taken on a new "seriousness" for them.

---Individuals made significant contributions to their teams...and this was an important element...but it was ALSO about contributing to the "Team" effort. A player that could win a map himself but got his whole team killed...did not win the tournament. It was not about # of kills...it was about completing objectives and keeping team casualties low....in much the same way an actual mission is. People that have military experience....when you get back to the base your CO wants to know if the mission was a success and who did we lose or who was wounded...NOT how many kills did you have and "how long did it take you to kill everyone...8 or 9 minutes."

---Everyone agreed, we didn't want to have that high level of competition and anxiety all the time..but it sure was refreshing.

So I guess my point is....when it really matters to ME is when my "fun" factor increases in a co-op game.

Therefore this makes the "immersion" factor important. But how do you improve the "competition" factor...without a comparison to other humans?

[Dai-San]

Yeah, SUP has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

When it comes down to it, we are hunters. What we really want is an enemy we can hunt, that will make the hunt as difficult as possible, but eventually succumb to our superior skill.

How many times do you hear, or have said yourself, "This AI is crazy, it headshots me from across the map and I don't even see it".

But we will happily sneak along, lay in a bush, and headshot 5 AI from across the map as they patrol around a camp.

So if we can do it, why can't they? Because that would be too difficult and in the end, WE WANT TO WIN.

That made me think..........

My BEST co-op experience to date was when it MATTERED THE MOST TO ME.

We did this co-op tournament:

http://www.ick.bz/GRAW_co-op.htm

We had 7 teams...each with 4 players completing a mission (as listed).

Each team had a start time...they had NO respawns and ONE CHANCE to complete the mission as best as they could. The team results were compared to each other very carefully.

---Teams that lost members early in a mission were demoralized..but gave the mission 110% effort to keep their team in the game

---Teams that did exceptionally well were biting their nails to find out how the other teams did...did they do the best job...or did one of the other quality teams take the prize?

---Teams that made the playoff cut were extremely elated...which simply added to the playoff experience...it meant even more.

---Teams that were eliminated were really disappointed....but you know NONE of those guys plays co-op the same any more. All co-op games have taken on a new "seriousness" for them.

---Individuals made significant contributions to their teams...and this was an important element...but it was ALSO about contributing to the "Team" effort. A player that could win a map himself but got his whole team killed...did not win the tournament. It was not about # of kills...it was about completing objectives and keeping team casualties low....in much the same way an actual mission is. People that have military experience....when you get back to the base your CO wants to know if the mission was a success and who did we lose or who was wounded...NOT how many kills did you have and "how long did it take you to kill everyone...8 or 9 minutes."

---Everyone agreed, we didn't want to have that high level of competition and anxiety all the time..but it sure was refreshing.

So I guess my point is....when it really matters to ME is when my "fun" factor increases in a co-op game.

Therefore this makes the "immersion" factor important. But how do you improve the "competition" factor...without a comparison to other humans?

This is another factor when it comes to AI.

Co-op competitions will become increasingly difficult to judge as AI increases.

Take an indoor shooting competition, there is no wind factor, the humidity is pretty constant, the distance is the same, all guns tend to be equal as is the ammo. The major factor is the contestants skill (at that particular moment).

Move the competition outdoors with moving targets and the variables go through the roof and a lot more factors play their part in the final outcome.

The same applies to Co-op gaming. With scripted enemy and objectives then the outcome of 5 teams playing the same mission is relatively easy to judge. Team 1 made this mistake/trod on this mine/triggered this response etc causing this outcome.

As AI develops, the key objectives may remain the same, Blow this up/Rescue this hostage etc but the actual outcome is harder to predict as roving AI who will react differently given different situations makes the outcome for those 5 teams totally different. We suddenly throw in the X factor. One of those teams may be blessed with a lucky break and all the AI decide that the southwest corner of the map is THE place to be, and make the objective (in the northeast) a cakewalk.

Edited January 12, 2007 by Dai-San

[Ick]

We suddenly throw in the X factor. One of those teams may be blessed with a lucky break and all the AI decide that the southwest corner of the map is THE place to be, and make the objective (in the northeast) a cakewalk.

Yeah, that was a pretty tough aspect to the competition we ran. Some teams got hozed by a lucky AI grenade that took 3 of 4 members. Fortunately there were enough rounds that a good team could have stellar performance in the next rounds to compensate for a bad failure...but it SURE did add an aspect of the game...

We have got to do well in the next two missions to catch team ddORK...and keep the AI from getting "lucky" again to stay in this compettiion.

Or

We need to continue to do well...we could get hozed at any time by a lucky grenade Like team SCAR did.

[Sup]

Therefore this makes the "immersion" factor important. But how do you improve the "competition" factor...without a comparison to other humans?

In a perfect world (and my 'ideal' game, I guess,) I'd ask for some kind of inherent scoring/ranking system. Not so much a leaderboard, which would push unnecessary competition onto everyone, but something along the lines of the end of match tallys that some GR mods have implemented, and what you are shown at the end of an Operation Flashpoint mission.

Maybe even some kind of a viewable achievements system, in the vein of what the xbox 360 has, but ideally more details oriented information. (Perhaps something as simple as gta style 'shots fired/objectives completed/missions completed' scores?)

[Ick]

Therefore this makes the "immersion" factor important. But how do you improve the "competition" factor...without a comparison to other humans?

In a perfect world (and my 'ideal' game, I guess,) I'd ask for some kind of inherent scoring/ranking system. Not so much a leaderboard, which would push unnecessary competition onto everyone, but something along the lines of the end of match tallys that some GR mods have implemented, and what you are shown at the end of an Operation Flashpoint mission.

Maybe even some kind of a viewable achievements system, in the vein of what the xbox 360 has, but ideally more details oriented information. (Perhaps something as simple as gta style 'shots fired/objectives completed/missions completed' scores?)

I was thinking Pre-GRAW the series had that...you got points for time shortness, number of kills, number of vehicle kills, number of friendly casualties, etc.

They didn't include it in GRAW....but I think Rainbow Six had some kind of co-op scoring in it.

[=warcloud=]

Let's discuss the AI.... keep in mind this is your game you are developing and you have full input on what goes into this game.

What is ideal AI? What determines this? How do you want to be able to interact with the AI? How do you want the AI to react to the situation around them? Should you be able to switch your character to one of your friendly AI? etc.

One thing that makes me go *hmmm* is that I keep hearing about co-op only players want smarter AI; where they react accordingly to what goes on around them, like a real person. Why then don't the co-op people play TvT?

"Why then don't the co-op people play TvT?" because maybe they don't want the competition, they maybe don't want to compete aginst another human player. For example, in my experience competing against some human players on public servers i often find them too competetive or arrogant, some times they will taunt you with text saying stupid things like pwned owned etc, you know garbage trash talk like that.

So in actual fact the AI is a lot smarter anyway.

[Kingkat]

IMHO, I have "way more fun" playing with my team, as in Co-Op, because we succeed (or fail) as a TEAM.

Even as I play alone in SP, I need the AI to act as close to this "TEAM" as they can.

That is where I accept not being able to "switch-and-control" my AI team, but need them to be as helpful as they can.

I just need to be able to "micro-manage" them a little better. More options in the command interfaces. Make them use ROE, their secondary weps, etc.

I have found that in my experiences, whenever I have played TvT, (humans against humans) this is where (I have experienced, your mileage may vary) trouble.

The taunting, accusing of cheatings, spawn killing, using wall cheats,etc. I just really stopped playing in this environment. I have personally seen two CLANS fall apart because they just couldnot compete at what they perceived as a "top" level. Or perhaps I am just not good enough to compete like many do.............doesn't really matter. Its my game and I enjoy it however I can.

I would develope a game designed for serious SP and Co-Op play.

Like a game developers recently said, (sorry can't remember his name) that "we" don't make money on how long you play the game, (time spent), but on the number of games sold.

Kingkat..............

[FA sear]

There are some really good points being made in this thread.

I would like to add a few in regard to SP. Squad commands are one of the elements that can make or break a game to me.

I don't game as regularly as most people here, so joining a squad and playing competitively would probably frustrate a lot of my team members as I sometimes leave my Xbox in its box (no, I don't leave it out set up all the time) for a week or two, sometimes three. I usually game when plans for something else are cancelled etc..., so most of my gaming is not planned or scheduled in any way. I had Xbox Live once but I literally logged on about two or three times a month, so I cancelled it. On account of this the SP portion, and split-screen coop have the most value to me.

The lack of squad commands are what killed the GR2 experience for me. This along with linear maps (but I won't get into that as this is the AI thread). To me the best squad commands I have seen on a console is OFP by a WIDE margin. I liked the ability to structure a squad any way you want to, the ability to give all sorts of specific commands, the ability to communicate with them, the ability to designate a point on the map for them to go to, and the ability to give a "point and move" command a la Rainbow Six style.

I just want the ability to properly direct and control the how and what my AI do on a mission.

Of course I also want to see much of what has been discussed here about enemy AI. In regard to that, I would like to see the enemy use some strategies that live people use. I hated how in GRIT on Polling Center the enemy would just keep walking into the Polling Center and you would just sit there with a SAW and mow them down. In a situation like that, after seeing a couple of their fellow men mowed down, I would like to see the AI first toss in a grenade, and then move in.

Anyway, again, there are a lot of good points being made in this thread.

[Trident-za]

One thing that makes me go *hmmm* is that I keep hearing about co-op only players want smarter AI; where they react accordingly to what goes on around them, like a real person. Why then don't the co-op people play TvT?

I can't speak for all the COOP players, but for me TvT has 2 major drawbacks:

(1) First, public TvT servers suck (in terms of what I want from gaming) - the "mentality" is different, lots of trashtalking - the focus is on BEATING the other player(s), rather than on the gameplay experience etc etc

(2) For the most part, COOP players prefer a slower paced game. I like playing maps that last for up to an hour, with no respawns. Hard to find TvT games which last that long.

Finally, for me, the appeal of COOP is the chance to play in a "military sim" type of environment with a bunch of people who are more into completeing the mission than aquiring personal kills. Its the whole process of the gameplay, rather than anything else.

Note: there is nothing wrong with TvT type games... they just don't "do it" for me.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Trident-za

[spm1138]

(1) First, public TvT servers suck (in terms of what I want from gaming) - the "mentality" is different, lots of trashtalking - the focus is on BEATING the other player(s), rather than on the gameplay experience etc etc

Yeah. And then there's that whole "Sirlin" mentality. The entire game becomes about finding that last 2% of performance and hammering away at it and you end up with everyone crouch-proned in corners or bunnyhopping or exploiting map bugs and trying to break the netcode.

You end up with this weird gaming experience totally unlike the SP game and it can be quite an unpleasant atmosphere.

Co-op is much more laid-back and easy-going.

There's also the complexity of the map and of the objectives you can expect the player to do. Stuff like uneven teams, MGS type stealth missions and other similar things that don't really work in a TVT context.

I do like adversarial MP, just not all the time.

I'd probably like TVT a lot more of the time if game-modes including slightly more complex objectives and maps were more popular. Titan in 2142 is a sort of step in the right direction, but still.

As to AI. My ideal AI would probably include a lot of features from other games. I get quite frustrated when I see bad AI in games because it seems like several games have done one thing or another right already.

1) Enemy working as a unit. I liked in SOCOM on PS2 how they'd chat on walkie talkie to each other. I liked in Vegas how they had NCOs who made them advance and you could stymie that by shooting them. I liked reading about the fantastic chain of command stuff the AI in GRAW would do. ArmA seemed pretty good at making them flank you and that allegedly has an enemy CoC. Some incentive to not just sit in the middle of a hail of fire calmly picking off the enemy because their back-up is on the way would be nice.

2) Squad working as a unit. I liked in First to Fight how they didn't need telling to cover a 360 degree arc. I really liked how they talked to each other and tried to not be reloading at the same time. If you told a bunch of them to move and there were enemy they'd fire and manouvre. Why didn't GRAW do any of this? I also appreciate games where the squad splits up into pairs naturally so you don't have to do this manually. SWAT3, for example.

3) MOUT AI vs open terrain AI. First to Fight had different formations for different terrain so in tight terrain your squad would close up. In SWAT3 they knew about doors and windows. Make them switch to a different set of commands when you're around buildings. Trying to handle both things with the one set is just frikking stupid.

4) Supression, psychology etc. SWAT3 had a ROE that basically meant you were supposed to get the enemy to surrender. Consequently the AI had stuff in there to keep track of how likely they were to shoot back or to surrender. Sneak up them and be in their face with a shotgun and they pish themselves and give up. Vegas as I say had NCOs (remove them and the squad hunkers down). I don't find the enemy fighting to the last man every time hugely convincing. Brothers In Arms had a reasonable line in supression.

5) Accuracy. AI either conefire like crazy or they headshot you from 150m away with pistols. A happy medium would be nice. Perhaps some differentiation between panic fire and aimed shots too depending on how threatened the AI felt?

[=warcloud=]

Dynamic unpredictable AI would be awesome.

[petsfed]

5) Accuracy. AI either conefire like crazy or they headshot you from 150m away with pistols. A happy medium would be nice. Perhaps some differentiation between panic fire and aimed shots too depending on how threatened the AI felt?

Does anybody know how GRAW's AI handled detection of other characters? I'm curious if the AI knew at all times where you were, and it was just a series of rules to determine if it had "seen" you, or if it was something more complex like actual image processing. I'm really bored with camoflague that has no real impact on how visible you are to the AI. I'd like to see AI that sees you, recognizes the human shape and abnormal colors, makes an IFF decision, then opens fire on you. This has been done with homemade automated sentries, quickly enough to be effective as such. Why don't we see it in game? I'd rather the actual appearance of the character have an impact on how visible they are. I differentiate this from some camo-index applied to a texture set, such that if you swapped the pallet and made the outfit blaze orange, the AI wouldn't know the difference. I'd like to see AI running enemy detection the same way our brains do. This would make for much more realistic AI, and neccessitate much more realistic stealth techniques.