X-Ray Vision AI

[maturin]

Qazdar is an ignorant troll. Why did you start all this, Coulum?

The ai does have more than human spotting ability in certain terrains, in my opinion of course.

Their spotting ability is always the same--terrible.

Notice how the soldier in your screenshots didn't notice you, even though you were standing in the open? Sure, they can pick out targets in the woods, but will still ignore standing men at 200m. Their abilities simply don't degrade as the human eye does. But half of the problem is the reverse of what we're complaining about here, and I worry more about that, because it is stupidity on the part of the AI. I would rather have an AI that is challenging in one situation than useless in all, and the AI in the woods are a worthy opponent for a good player. But not because they cheat or are unfair. Their eyes in the woods are too good, it is a hard balance, but my eyes are still better. Less reliable, but still capable of matching them.

The ignorant troll did say one thing that is true: the AI switches from blindness to eagle vision from the sound of a single gunshot. Surely BI can blunt the extremes and find the realistic middle ground.

[Qazdar]

Maybe,but all what i said is real !

[maturin]

Maybe,but all what i said is real !

Is it logic that AI shoot through trees and smoke easily ?

Is it logic that AI infantry kills at 500 m with one bullet of M16 ?

Is it logic that AI soldiers detects ennemy like a radar ?

Is it logic that AI needs to report all ennemies before it starts shooting ?

All obviously, demonstrably false.

[Qazdar]

Quit editor a bit,and stop watching AI fighting each other like Dr Cortex... and go play a bit to discover how awful is AI.

[-Coulum-]

Quit editor a bit,and stop watching AI fighting each other like Dr Cortex... and go play a bit to discover how awful is AI.

That's not how to prove your point at all. Especially not with maturin, who does know a shit load about the ai.

Qazdar is an ignorant troll. Why did you start all this, Coulum?

Mmm... sorry I'll ramble on to anyone about the ai. He doesn't seem to bad so far although a bit uninformed on some matters. And there are some fundamental problems with the ai. Maybe not exactly what he is saying they are... maybe he can be converted?

[Qazdar]

Same here !

Maybe he can enlighten us a bit instead of throwing wrong judgements

I can also bring you my warfare mates,to tell you how much i know ,not only about the AI,but the whole game !

[maturin]

Quit editor a bit,and stop watching AI fighting each other like Dr Cortex... and go play a bit to discover how awful is AI.

I've been playing since release, 90% of it against AI exclusively, with no humans present.

Is it logic that AI shoot through trees and smoke easily ?

They can't see through trees and smoke, barring small imperfections on the edges of leaves and smoke grenades. But bullets go through these things. I shoot through them all the time.

Is it logic that AI infantry kills at 500 m with one bullet of M16 ?

This is laughable for so many reasons. It takes incredible circumstances for default AI to even shoot at that distance, and 5.56 isn't fatal at that range. It's your blatant hyperbole and imprecision that brings my disrespect. Turn down the damned accuracy settings. Then they shoot like old women. You can make snipers unable to land a single shot in ten at 300m if you want to feel hardcore.

Is it logic that AI soldiers detects enemy like a radar ?

The AI has vision and hearing. That is all. If you fire through a bush at one of them, he will never ever find you, even when a human would logically know that there was an enemy behind the bush.

Is it logic that AI needs to report all ennemies before it starts shooting ?

I see AI open fire instantly all the time. Reporting happens instantly (it's the sound file that takes time), so this is a non-issue that I have never seen any evidence of. And your evidence appears to be your warfare mates.

[-Coulum-]

Their spotting ability is always the same--terrible.

Notice how the soldier in your screenshots didn't notice you, even though you were standing in the open? Sure, they can pick out targets in the woods, but will still ignore standing men at 200m. Their abilities simply don't degrade as the human eye does. But half of the problem is the reverse of what we're complaining about here, and I worry more about that, because it is stupidity on the part of the AI. I would rather have an AI that is challenging in one situation than useless in all, and the AI in the woods are a worthy opponent for a good player. But not because they cheat or are unfair. Their eyes in the woods are too good, it is a hard balance, but my eyes are still better. Less reliable, but still capable of matching them.

The ignorant troll did say one thing that is true: the AI switches from blindness to eagle vision from the sound of a single gunshot. Surely BI can blunt the extremes and find the realistic middle ground.

Okay back on semi-topic. Yes the ai absolutely suck at spotting compared to a human... in the open. No doubt about it. Beyond a certain range, the ai just refuse to see you no matter what you do or how long you do it. I don't know the exact range for vanilla (haven't played in a while) but it is ridiculously short. And the ai in my photos was friendly but you are right, he wouldn't have seen me if i was an enemy. Perhaps if I was moving. But probably instantly if I shot at him.

I understand that you would rather have too good rather than too bad, but I believe a "just right" can be reached. I personally like ai having better spotting shooting abilites than I because it forces me to actually use tactics rather than run and gun.
But I still maintain that ai should not be able to see quite as well in certain terrain and this is why

-It makes fire-fights far shorter than they would be in reality in these terrain types
-It makes that "area fire" the ai perform occur even more rarely at these ranges
-It makes terrain not nearly as advantageous as in reality limiting real life tactics against/with the ai
-It makes many real life techniques for stealth/concealment, such as hiding one's silhouette, hiding in areas that maximize camoflauge etc. absolutely useless

and when I say the "ai spotting should be decreased" I don't mean that ai should just have an even lower limited range of sight in forests, but rather that it simpy takes them longer to get as much info on an unit in those particular areas. I hate how there seems to be a "maximium" spotting range in arma. ai should be able to spot units kilos away if you give em enough time or move around enough.

OT

Same here !

Maybe he can enlighten us a bit instead of throwing wrong judgements

I can also bring you my warfare mates,to tell you how much i know ,not only about the AI,but the whole game !

What do you want to know? What maturin just said is all correct as well.

[Qazdar]

Man,now i am sure that the last time you played was during A2 days

Ok listen ,when i say that they shoot through,i'm not waiting for you to tell me that smoke is not a wall :S,but go to editor and try to lock a T72 (to avoid the thermal case) using another tank,it will automatically throw smokes (that's another story) ,then try to get closer without shooting ... you will get killed through smoke.

To verify the Tree-case,just approach an AI from the back prone and at very low speed and make sure you have a tree/or bush between you and it.

if you still have some doubts about it i am ready to make some videos from a live MP game running on vanilla.

That AI detection issue,requires just a small test with high range rifle (as50 for example) and some AI 1500m away,try to hit them at that distance (i'm sure you will miss ) and notice how they will start staring at you !

My warfare mates are what i consider real arma players (they're over 1000 players andmost of them don't have account here,otherwise there would be a lot of ignorant trolls here),and i noticed that most of guys posting here on forums are a bit clueless and play most of the time SP or lately dayz because when it comes to multiplayer AI's behaviour changes a lot.

[maturin]

Ok listen ,when i say that they shoot through,i'm not waiting for you to tell me that smoke is not a wall :S,but go to editor and try to lock a T72 (to avoid the thermal case) using another tank,it will automatically throw smokes (that's another story) ,then try to get closer without shooting ... you will get killed through smoke.

...which would mean that the tank's launcher smoke is glitched. Not an AI problem.

I hide from AI behind smoke grenades EVERY DAY.

To verify the Tree-case,just approach an AI from the back prone and at very low speed and make sure you have a tree/or bush between you and it.

And what? If you think that the AI can see with eyes in the back of their head, or through a bush, you are a bigger fool than I can fathom. I already told you, however, that Chernarus tree trunks are glitched.

if you still have some doubts about it i am ready to make some videos from a live MP game running on vanilla.

Why MP? Too many possible variables of bad servers and lag.

That AI detection issue,requires just a small test with high range rifle (as50 for example) and some AI 1500m away,try to hit them at that distance (i'm sure you will miss ) and notice how they will start staring at you !

Derp. They heard a gun and they look in the direction of the sound.
AI don't hear normal gunshots from that range. Humans hear gunshots farther than the AI do.

My warfare mates are what i consider real arma players (they're over 1000 players andmost of them don't have account here,otherwise there would be a lot of ignorant trolls here),and i noticed that most of guys posting here on forums are a bit clueless

I think you're making things up.

and play most of the time SP or lately dayz because when it comes to multiplayer AI's behaviour changes a lot.

Err, no. MP runs AI on the same code as SP. Maybe when your thousand-strong superleet warfare (a newby mission type if I ever saw one) friends play on an overworked server with bad mission scripting that gives you more glitches, but there's no real difference.

Everything I talk about I have tested personally, in a controlled environment that would be good enough for a lab report. And I've never found a reasonable person on the forums who got results that aren't familiar. No one who talks in terms of experience and evidence has given me cause to doubt my findings. So it's just your and references to your warfare buddies, and your wild, exquisitely vague claims.