Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As a follow-up of the AI Configuration Analysis (also, REF: this)

I'll enjoy ambushing Oukej with this feedback when he returns from holiday! :cool: He's got the makings of a Task Force AI Config commander in him (he just doesn't realise it yet). :icon_twisted:

I'll try to be just a little bit more specific than i my mysterious last post.

As soon as some technical issues are sorted out, I'll

  • Add a page to the wiki with a sentence or so of description of each of the "sub skills"
  • Try to clarify more the setSkill_array & CfgAISkil.
  • Perhaps make a dedicated forums thread about it

Please let me know what particular information you would find helpful.

I've noticed something was already unveiled on CIT and other forum threads, so the information may not be anything new for some of you. Anyway, kudos go to Klamacz.

As one of the first tasks, we'd like to focus on the global AI difficulty settings. I bet you'd still like to adjust the AI on a global scale (especially on MP servers without having to go into the mission itself and adjust the units there), so removing the AI UNIT SKILL sliders completely isn't an option, right?

I'd though still consider such approach quite feasible - it would give us the possibility to fine-tune one preset and take a full responsibility for it. The amount of challenge in such case would be only altered by what "helpers" you use, what difficulty "flags" you have enabled. And the only control about AI skill would belong to mission makers.

An option for us is to provide limited amount of, let's say 3, hard-set global AI skill presets, that would give a consistent experience and would also let you know what you can expect from an MP session that uses one of such presets. For your convenience there could be one more option - a custom preset and we wouldn't take responsibility for that ;). In that, you'd have the precision and skill slider (without friendly/enemy distinction).

That would also come with separating the AI skill settings completely from the other "difficulty" settings, that serve mainly the purpose of "helpers" (HUD elements...).

This is a basic proposal. But what is a proposal without documentation that you can base your opinion on? Coming asap!

But you can just try to think about it freely. Please try to focus now purely on those settings - how would you like to adjust the AI globally? (Given the ideal situation, where all the missions around the world are purrfectly done and balanced ;) Those settings are not intended for fixing stuff - that's not player's job. Just adjusting challenge.) I know it's interconnected with per-unit skill settings, but let's say we can - just for a moment - forget about that ;)

Edited by RoyaltyinExile
Additional Oukej Trolling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The "Covering, Go" shouts should be reduced anyway. It sounds stupid when whole squad is constantly doing such a loud mess.

They should be done away with entirely. For one, they don't seem like they mean what they say -I've never seen the corresponding bound and overwatch which I'm guessing their alluding to, in synch with this scream. And that's the other problem - lets face it this type of top of your lungs "You Go!!! I Go!!!!!!!!" is more appropriate for a WW2 game, storming Normandy than the modern day military encounter. Guys screaming this loud would most likely get fragged by their own unit for sheer stupidity.

Bi should have dropped this entirely or maybe moved it to less trained troops like Militia, and gone the Ghost Recon, calm cool collected, sippin in the mike, understated professional soldier route a long time ago.

Oh, hey, Johnson just fell down, hey we're being shot at. Hey, like, let's lay down. Oh, wait, no I'm going to stand up now and slowly walk to the left 5m. Now I'm going to crouch. Oh, hey, I can't figure out where the shots are coming from, they're too far (400m). Is it to the west? The north? Let me look at those ways. OW! I was shot! Oh, there you are! Let me now crouch and start shooting at you in the open. Oh, I am dying now. Life is unfair. We should've called one of the 5 other squads to help us, but they're all slowly walking around in a blind confusion too. What is "flank"? What is "double time"? bleaaahhhhhhhh (dead)

LOL at your storyline DNK which sadly rings true. The problem is deliberate behavior or lackthereof. What is interrupting a soldier under fire from running to that wall 10ft behind him and then take position? Why and where does the impulse to do the "stand up/sit down/look diametrically opposed to your threat/salute dance -come into effect? Is it that hard to create bee-line behavior?

Personally this is where I find Arma's greatest weakness in creating the illusion of a self-protecting, AI that wants to live. If when under fire they do the up/down betty dance AND THEN turn and shoot you dead in one shot...? It leaves the player shaking his head going wtf just happened here? Was that AI being suppressed, becoming indecisive of what to do so barring further computation just decided to one shot me?

There is little in the way of visual cues to let us know "how the AI are feeling". Are they stressed, are they enraged and emboldened, are they fleeing? All of these things may be coded in but they aren't being presented to the player in any meaningful way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They should be done away with entirely. For one, they don't seem like they mean what they say -I've never seen the corresponding bound and overwatch which I'm guessing their alluding to, in synch with this scream. And that's the other problem - lets face it this type of top of your lungs "You Go!!! I Go!!!!!!!!" is more appropriate for a WW2 game, storming Normandy than the modern day military encounter. Guys screaming this loud would most likely get fragged by their own unit for sheer stupidity.

Bi should have dropped this entirely or maybe moved it to less trained troops like Militia, and gone the Ghost Recon, calm cool collected, sippin in the mike, understated professional soldier route a long time ago.

LOL at your storyline DNK which sadly rings true. The problem is deliberate behavior or lackthereof. What is interrupting a soldier under fire from running to that wall 10ft behind him and then take position? Why and where does the impulse to do the "stand up/sit down/look diametrically opposed to your threat/salute dance -come into effect? Is it that hard to create bee-line behavior?

Personally this is where I find Arma's greatest weakness in creating the illusion of a self-protecting, AI that wants to live. If when under fire they do the up/down betty dance AND THEN turn and shoot you dead in one shot...? It leaves the player shaking his head going wtf just happened here? Was that AI being suppressed, becoming indecisive of what to do so barring further computation just decided to one shot me?

There is little in the way of visual cues to let us know "how the AI are feeling". Are they stressed, are they enraged and emboldened, are they fleeing? All of these things may be coded in but they aren't being presented to the player in any meaningful way.

The shouting is exactly what a real soldier would do while in battle. It just shouldn't happend when there is no contact with the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically what you are saying Oukej is that you want to do away with end user difficulty customization for a more structured and sterile "easy/medium/hard" approach to configuring difficulty in regards to the AI? I get why you want do it, to preserve the experience based on the mission makers choices and so the end user can't screw up mission design by low balling the AI settings. I still think though that overall difficulty should be the choice of the end user or the server admin.

As for what I would like to see adjusted globally about the AI is pretty much everything. Balance is in the eye of the beholder, it's not a factual "thing" but more of a biased per person view. What I think is balanced, you might think is completely unbalanced or vice versa and while we may eventually agree on something, I guarantee that someone else out there will take fault with whatever we agree upon. In regards to someone adjusting settings so they can walk through missions with ease, that's their prerogative and I don't think you can force them to "play by the rules" without sacrificing legitimate uses of global AI difficulty settings. I don't want to see customization go out the window because we want to force players to "play by the rules".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So basically what you are saying Oukej is that you want to do away with end user difficulty customization for a more structured and sterile "easy/medium/hard" approach to configuring difficulty in regards to the AI? I get why you want do it, to preserve the experience based on the mission makers choices and so the end user can't screw up mission design by low balling the AI settings. I still think though that overall difficulty should be the choice of the end user or the server admin.

Yeah, gotta admit even after reading all of oukej's and RiE's posts on the subject, I'm not 100% sure where exactly BIS are planning to go with this, but I agree with your general assessment, Windies. Overall, this sounds like a potential clusterfuck and for what gain? I'd be OK with having a small number of AI presets, but mostly for conducting standardized AI experiments for the purposes of testing and feedback. As for applying this to the broader, "average Joe" player context, I guess that would be alright as well, provided that full control over global and individual AI variables and parameters is still accessible for all players, modders and mission makers. To take away access to AI functionality that already exists is an abhorrent idea.

I dunno, some of this talk sounds like it has less to do with AI and more to do with some BIS mission makers getting their panties all in a bunch regarding players being able to "break" their meticulously scripted missions. One of the wonderful things about ARMA is that it can be played in such a multitude of ways and styles. Never change that flexibility, BIS. Also, I'll be honest, the whole preset thing makes me nervous for another reason. Notice that currently the only way to play the game in an enjoyable and realistic manner is to make some pretty extreme changes away from the AI default values. This fact tells us that BIS have very little understanding of good AI balance, and so chances are that their idea of "reasonable" presets is probably going to be pretty unreasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They really need to stop standing up when under fire. And stop staying in one place when under fire. Two things so far, now on to the rest.

Yeah, gotta admit even after reading all of oukej's and RiE's posts on the subject, I'm not 100% sure where exactly BIS are planning to go with this, but I agree with your general assessment, Windies. Overall, this sounds like a potential clusterfuck and for what gain? I'd be OK with having a small number of AI presets, but mostly for conducting standardized AI experiments for the purposes of testing and feedback. As for applying this to the broader, "average Joe" player context, I guess that would be alright as well, provided that full control over global and individual AI variables and parameters is still accessible for all players, modders and mission makers. To take away access to AI functionality that already exists is an abhorrent idea.

I dunno, some of this talk sounds like it has less to do with AI and more to do with some BIS mission makers getting their panties all in a bunch regarding players being able to "break" their meticulously scripted missions. One of the wonderful things about ARMA is that it can be played in such a multitude of ways and styles. Never change that flexibility, BIS. Also, I'll be honest, the whole preset thing makes me nervous for another reason. Notice that currently the only way to play the game in an enjoyable and realistic manner is to make some pretty extreme changes away from the AI default values. This fact tells us that BIS have very little understanding of good AI balance, and so chances are that their idea of "reasonable" presets is probably going to be pretty unreasonable.

Alright, uh, no. First, the AI was a clusterfuck four years ago. By now it is becoming clear that this wasn't (just) because it was a mess, but also because it is an untransparent, difficult to balance, and especially to people who cannot actually look at the code a complete black box. In 2010 not even the devs themselves apart from a scant few had an Idea how the thing even worked, because it had gotten so extensive and complex that oversight seemed to have been lost at that point.

Secondly, game AI is humongously difficult to construct. There are -no- games out there that I am aware of with competetive AI that does not resort to straight up cheating, or is operating in a very simple environment without many variables. Chess computers, for example. Especially in the shooter domain, AI has been notorious for its dependence on level design and tailor-made instructions for specific set pieces. The closest information to the latter that Arma is giving to the AI is type and location of terrain pieces (also, terrain elevation and wether or not an object is cover or concealment.), but the environment is specifically NOT tailor made to work with the AI. Altis is better than previous iterations of the game: remember those large platforms on Sahrani that the AI couldn`t even walk onto?

Consider the amount of information the AI has to take in, and process, on an individual soldier to soldier basis. And it not only has to take that information in, it has to sort it, prioritize it, create some sort of plan from that information and then execute that plan (even if it is as simple as moving from A to B while under fire.). Then you get into all the other things that affect the AI, weapons ballistics, ammunition handling, fatigue, many of which are actually simplified for the benefit of the AI (not even Arma gets along without cheating.).

What do you expect? A person, with an entire brain to work out solutions to problems faced in the game, is up against entities that have an individual brain processing power that is lower than that of the average housefly. We are running up against the limitations of linear computing technology at this point, I think.

RE: Presets. What is the problem? Nobody even understands how the sliders in the menu or the numbers in the .cfg relate to each other. I doubt the devs do (otherwise we likely would've seen information about this on the biki, but in 13 years of the RV engine, zilch.) either, apart from the dedicated people working on the AI specifically. Presets in fact are the way to go from a game design point of view because they set a standard for what mission designers AND players can expect from the AI. On all levels, the difference between AI of a low skill and of a high skill should be broader, but what IS still important is transparency.

People always talk about how setting X is better for them than setting Y (Say, AI 0.52 vs AI 0.78). But nobody produced any data, because Arma is offering such a dynamic playing field that you can't even -generate- data. You could write doctoral thesis on the effects these variables have on the performance of AI fighting each other on grid XXX YYY at 04:45 on 12. May 2018. Even changing the weapons will change the AI behaviour enough to have an impact. People are just wildly -guessing- at numbers until the placebo effect kicks in and they've convinced themselves that the AI "now is playing fair". There is no yardstick by which to measure that. And building missions in an environment where every player has different AI settings, possibly even with tack-on mods changing things through scripts is a nightmare. In OFP you could break the "Ambush" mission, for example, because some mods would make the Units in the town spot the US troops way back across the bay. They engaged even beyond Viewdistance!

tl;dr: The AI is a beast, things are difficult, and we need some organization and possibly evaluation as to how things can best be developed AFTER we know what we as players want and what BI based on their knowledge of the engine can deliver.

Edited by InstaGoat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they're right, less IS more in this case.

Normalize the configs, figure what\why each one is doing, enhance them = better game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
People always talk about how setting X is better for them than setting Y (Say, AI 0.52 vs AI 0.78). But nobody produced any data, because Arma is offering such a dynamic playing field that you can't even -generate- data. You could write doctoral thesis on the effects these variables have on the performance of AI fighting each other on grid XXX YYY at 04:45 on 12. May 2018. Even changing the weapons will change the AI behaviour enough to have an impact. People are just wildly -guessing- at numbers until the placebo effect kicks in and they've convinced themselves that the AI "now is playing fair". There is no yardstick by which to measure that. And building missions in an environment where every player has different AI settings, possibly even with tack-on mods changing things through scripts is a nightmare. In OFP you could break the "Ambush" mission, for example, because some mods would make the Units in the town spot the US troops way back across the bay. They engaged even beyond Viewdistance!

tl;dr: The AI is a beast, things are difficult, and we need some organization and possibly evaluation as to how things can best be developed AFTER we know what we as players want and what BI based on their knowledge of the engine can deliver.

Probably the most pragmatic piece ever to have been written on these forums. I wish a BI dev had stated this so I could finally sleep peacefully at night with the knowledge that they are frontiersman like divers swimming in the murkiest of waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After InstaGoat's post I will definitely get a peacefull sleep. #motivationalSpeech

I'll only have to say nay to

Nobody even understands how the sliders in the menu or the numbers in the .cfg relate to each other. I doubt the devs do

We do. And we'll try to make something more out of it.

If you are into customization of AI, by no means we are going to stop you, on the contrary!

The goal is not to force the player into it unless he or she really wants :devil: (use of this smiley has not been permitted by the-one-whose-name-I-won't-say, but the smiley fits in here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New DEV patch has broken placement of Steam content for MP. It's gone completely from Multiplayer. It does however appear in Scenarios, but when launched I get mission complete!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you guys please leave out the unrelated talk. Ty.

@ oukej

As long as you keep the custom setting/customization, go ahead. Presets and better docu are a no-brainer.

However as the other commentators note it seems at BI you guys have a rather shallow understanding of the issues of AI and sadly so far at least show little willingness to dive deeper. Why not make use of all the excellent research and tweaks done by the community? Why just wave those achievements and advancements away each time so easily probably without even having taken a good look at them?

Spotting distance and aiming accuracy are two of the key aspects - not overall skill level.

Also flaws in the way AI determines when to take a shoot (which is at perfect aim currently).

You need to make AI infantry fire more rounds yet hit way less often. Especially rid those first bullet or after reload perfect shots.

As for MP - do you realize that 99% are played on regular difficulty? Did you ever ask yourself why?

There are tons of tickets since ages in the CIT, yet ignored so far.

Some hints:

* Server admins cannot change default difficulty (only via addon or setting a mission cycle)

* Clients can vote during mission voting, if there is any, however its completely non transparent, thus default (aka regular) is used in 99% cases

* As server admin you don't see the default difficulty (UI bug)

* Completely non transparent what each difficulty setting means (as for helpers or AI settings)

* Lack of filters for difficulty settings or levels, no disable in the server list, etc

Just check the internal analysis in the wiki done 1.5 years ago. Its all there already..

Sorry for the tone but the situation is just too frustrating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering if suppressing of AI is something there's being looked at by BI?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You need to make AI infantry fire more rounds yet hit way less often. Especially rid those first bullet or after reload perfect shots.

Exactly. And the spotting system needs to ditch this line of sight dynamic in favor on one where the AI interprets a half-concealed player's position as an area target and zeroes in gradually.

Giving us a nice suite of accuracy-tweaking tools doesn't solve the problem, if it all boils down to a single numerical value of accuracy.

AI accuracy is too good, except when it's perfectly balanced. That's because accuracy is CONDITIONAL. The AI shoots the same in almost all situations, while human ability varies dramatically given a variety of factors.

Edited by maturin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ +1

Well, if it's still in the begining, i'm glad the AI difficulty issue is catching some steam (recently i've even been forwarded questions which striked me back in october, namely the correlation of different AI skills, i can hear it's background humming :)). If it is hard to pinpoint quantitatively what such correlations imply, since it is easy to get out of hand, my suggestion is to at least expose it qualitatively. (ie. see Questions on CfgAISkill and setSkill array)

In other news, i would like to call your votes to:

0016299: [Request] Ability to terminate group leader issued orders execution (currentCommand)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;2564449']Can you guys please leave out the unrelated talk. Ty.

@ oukej

As long as you keep the custom setting/customization' date=' go ahead. Presets and better docu are a no-brainer.

However as the other commentators note it seems at BI you guys have a rather shallow understanding of the issues of AI and sadly so far at least show little willingness to dive deeper. Why not make use of all the excellent research and tweaks done by the community? Why just wave those achievements and advancements away each time so easily probably without even having taken a good look at them?

Spotting distance and aiming accuracy are two of the key aspects - not overall skill level.

Also flaws in the way AI determines when to take a shoot (which is at perfect aim currently).

You need to make AI infantry fire more rounds yet hit way less often. Especially rid those first bullet or after reload perfect shots.

As for MP - do you realize that 99% are played on regular difficulty? Did you ever ask yourself why?

There are tons of tickets since ages in the CIT, yet ignored so far.

Some hints:

* Server admins cannot change default difficulty (only via addon or setting a mission cycle)

* Clients can vote during mission voting, if there is any, however its completely non transparent, thus default (aka regular) is used in 99% cases

* As server admin you don't see the default difficulty (UI bug)

* Completely non transparent what each difficulty setting means (as for helpers or AI settings)

* Lack of filters for difficulty settings or levels, no disable in the server list, etc

Just check the internal analysis in the wiki done 1.5 years ago. Its all there already..

Sorry for the tone but the situation is just too frustrating.[/quote']

This with a few additions.

Stick to one or two presets to make it easier for you to develop and for us to test.

Allow us to modify this stuff on our own responsibility. The feedback you will get back through that will give you the chance to improve the presets.

How to make the AI better?

1.

Currently the AI Group shares information about contacts. I one soldier spots an enemy, the whole group will instantly know the location of said enemy even if they don´t have LoS to him. This leads to the famous "The AI is cheating/shooting me through foliage/etc." complaints

I would be very glad if you could introduce a information sharing delay within groups, maybe even some small deviation. That way an AI group would still share the information but it would take them a few seconds to do so, and the enemy position they share might not be that precise. If everybody in a group, who doesn´t have LoS, thinks that the enemy is in a sligltly different position then this will introduce a nice Area fire effect if they start shooting.

2.

Take a look at mods that introduce AI supression. Try to get this into the core game.

3.

Introduce a proper fleeing mechanic.

AI that is seriously outnumbered and in a hopeless situation should flee. Example: AI without AT against a Tank group.

You guys are awesome. I know that AI gurus have some of the hardest jobs in a dev studio but you seem to be doing a good job. The short range AI improvements have been great.

Keep up the good work and we will gladly help testing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;2564449']

it seems at BI you guys have a rather shallow understanding of the issues of AI and sadly so far at least show little willingness to dive deeper.

I'm not quite sure where you're getting this point of view from' date=' but the entire point of this work is the exact opposite. :) Klamacz, Dr. Hladik and Oukej are doing some great work digging into the AI - the first concerted effort for some time - and I reject your presentation of the current situation/effort.

It's not their only work, they're Taking On the challenge alongside their other responsibilities (MP performance, crash opportunities, QA). The point is that we're also in the process of providing a validated base of knowledge from the code, sharing this with the community, and meanwhile fixing up the ways to configuration of the AI.

;2564449']

Sorry for the tone but the situation is just too frustrating.

This forum/thread isn't exactly the ideal place for venting your personal frustrations. There are constructive points to be made, and it's more than fine to make them; I fail to see the benefit of throwing personal grievances around.

Anyway, back on topic:

;2564449']

Spotting distance and aiming accuracy are two of the key aspects - not overall skill level.

Agreed' date=' that's kind of the point - what we're looking at is offering more useful customisation over these controls in the front end (for advanced players) and a set of defaults that make more use of these for the average player.

Offering specific control over these two elements seems more comprehensible/meaningful for players than some abstract idea of skill; however, I think the majority of such customisation of these settings is best left to advanced users and mission makers.

I would be very glad if you could introduce a information sharing delay within groups, maybe even some small deviation.

The commanding sub skill should directly affect this ability. Oukej has meanwhile updated some community pages with the latest descriptions of such sub skills (WIP):

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/AI_Sub-skills

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/setSkill_array

Anyway, we've decided to split this branch off this AI discussion thread into one directly related to the scope of AI configuration. Discussion about it can be continued here: http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?169122-AI-Configuration-feedback

Best,

RiE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the AI that massivly stupid that they just cant walk up the stairs? Since i have Arma3 only just 1 AI had managed to step walk up the stairs and shoot on me hiding in the corner (and i talk from short camping there for 1-2 cigarets till listenig to Technoset over 1 hour while Arma runs in Window, nothing happened in this time, i think there were ~70-75 AI´s and knowing where i am, but too low to step these stairs)

It´s kinda funny for a such "realistic FPS Game" like BIA says, when the AI is too dumb to go there where the shots killed them comerads.

Second thing is this "AI is beeing shot" (mostly long range) and decide to hide this artifical body in the ground, simply becomes one with mother earth and glitches into the ground , but still shooting at you^^ like a sir now

Cmon, it´s a bit over 1 month and we have 2014, but whole bodys glitching through the textures and walls (i love it when i glitch through the CargoTowers and die of course) but such things sounds do-able, arent they?

I hope they will fix this nasty errors, otherwise it was for sure my last Game bought from BIA, sounds hard maybe, but i think its fair :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is the AI that massivly stupid that they just cant walk up the stairs? Since i have Arma3 only just 1 AI had managed to step walk up the stairs and shoot on me hiding in the corner (and i talk from short camping there for 1-2 cigarets till listenig to Technoset over 1 hour while Arma runs in Window, nothing happened in this time, i think there were ~70-75 AI´s and knowing where i am, but too low to step these stairs)

You got that all wrong. AI won't deliberately enter building's in order to pursue enemies.

It´s kinda funny for a such "realistic FPS Game" like BIA says, when the AI is too dumb to go there where the shots killed them comerads.

BIA? Really!?

Second thing is this "AI is beeing shot" (mostly long range) and decide to hide this artifical body in the ground, simply becomes one with mother earth and glitches into the ground , but still shooting at you^^ like a sir now

It's compensation for grass not being rendered at distance.

Cmon, it´s a bit over 1 month and we have 2014, but whole bodys glitching through the textures and walls (i love it when i glitch through the CargoTowers and die of course) but such things sounds do-able, arent they?

You're not being careful...

I hope they will fix this nasty errors, otherwise it was for sure my last Game bought from BIA, sounds hard maybe, but i think its fair :)

BIA is making games? I did not know that...

Also for your health I recommend quitting ArmA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently the AI Group shares information about contacts. I one soldier spots an enemy, the whole group will instantly know the location of said enemy even if they don´t have LoS to him. This leads to the famous "The AI is cheating/shooting me through foliage/etc." complaints

I would be very glad if you could introduce a information sharing delay within groups, maybe even some small deviation. That way an AI group would still share the information but it would take them a few seconds to do so, and the enemy position they share might not be that precise. If everybody in a group, who doesn´t have LoS, thinks that the enemy is in a sligltly different position then this will introduce a nice Area fire effect if they start shooting.

Not only a delay is necessary, but also information relaying should stop when there are no means to do so. By this I mean that an isolated unit without a radio should not be able to tell anyone what he sees, simply because he's lacking the communication assets. If he is within earshot he can shout out the information, or if he has a radio, he can transmit to whoever has a radio as well, but not beyond that. I think this is an important point as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What bothers me the most is that BI made the AI accuracy DECREASE as the AI shoots a target instead of exactly the other way around. The current implementation contributes greatly to the feeling of being one-shot-one kill by the AI and is completely opposite to realism. Shooters should compensate according to impact while shooting and by that improve their accuracy. I bet that no player will complain if he is being shot at and gets hit only on the fifth bullet instead of first.

I think this should be a top priority fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^ not as clear cut as you put it. While what you say is intuitive and true (due to progressive adjustment of aiming) you must not forget the competing factor which varies counter to that due to recoil. The main point stands, which is very consensual by now: first shot being too accurate, agree on this earning priority focus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AI renegade suicidal behavior avoided better

This is about very rare issue which we encountered internally. Renegade AI soldiers tried to aim and shot at themselves.

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

×