the AI

[Makrond]

I wasn't hurt.

Since you seem to be unable to make a point without insulting everyone, I can tell it's pointless arguing with you. So, for the sake of everyone else:

And I don't mean challenging as in "Get-Shot-Once-And-You-Die" because that's just the fucking stupid kind of challenging.

This is what I was commenting on. You know what, in reality, you can get shot once or twice - as long as you don't get hit anywhere critical - and with prompt attention survive with little no no averse affects. With modern body armour, this number can go up significantly. So a "Get-Shot-Once-And-You-Die" game is also unrealistic.

I mean challenging as in making you think about what you're going to do in certain situations, therefore making the game a more enjoyable experience.

You'd have to think more against realistic AI, and it would be far more enjoyable. Do you enjoy multiplayer more than singleplayer? That's because people react completely different, and you can tell the difference between a skilled player and someone who's only just started. AI is still predictable, even the most advanced. Players are unpredictable, but they have more weaknesses than AI. That's what I'm trying to get at.

At the same time, though, I think it'd be even funner if there were actually more things you could do to throw the enemy AI off. More weak and confusable AI makes for a more varied experience, as there's suddenly much more possibility in how to get through that next maze.

That would be time allocated to something which would be rather unfulfilling in relation to the time which has been spent on it, in my opinion. It'd be a kind of nice feature, but I'd rather that I was just playing against AI which challenges you to think about ways to beat it.

Wait, wait, wait. So, you want AI that challenges you to think about how to beat it, yet you don't want AI that you can confuse? That doesn't make a lot of sense. If you 'beat' AI, without killing it, you usually either confuse or avoid it. Given the option, I'd rather throw the AI off the scent. It can still be made challenging.

[Miyamoto Usagi]

Oh that shit. That's for pretentious assholes.

At the same time, though, I think it'd be even funner if there were actually more things you could do to throw the enemy AI off. More weak and confusable AI makes for a more varied experience, as there's suddenly much more possibility in how to get through that next maze.

That would be time allocated to something which would be rather unfulfilling in relation to the time which has been spent on it, in my opinion. It'd be a kind of nice feature, but I'd rather that I was just playing against AI which challenges you to think about ways to beat it.

Eh? Well, if the AI can't be thrown off, then there's really only one way to beat it - to kill it.

If you REALLY want to open up the book of ways to kill something, they have to be confuseable. They can't lock right onto your scent and be unshakeable if you really want to encourage people to think about ways to beat it.

Me, personally, I like to take a mixture of Makrond's and the "guns blazing" technique. I let the enemy hitch my scent, lure them away, lose them, and come back at them from another angle while they're just beginning to lower their guard again.

[Renegade_Turner]

Not my fault that you're too narrow-minded to see this.

Since you seem to be unable to make a point without insulting everyone, I can tell it's pointless arguing with you.

Well SHIT someone is a blatant fucking hypocrite. Come down out of your tower please.

Your points were well-made though. It is a lot funner playing against real people...but do you know how hard that wuld be to program properly? They can try but they're never going to capture it properly. That's what I'm trying to say.

Eh? Well, if the AI can't be thrown off, then there's really only one way to beat it - to kill it.

If you REALLY want to open up the book of ways to kill something, they have to be confuseable. They can't lock right onto your scent and be unshakeable if you really want to encourage people to think about ways to beat it.

Me, personally, I like to take a mixture of Makrond's and the "guns blazing" technique. I let the enemy hitch my scent, lure them away, lose them, and come back at them from another angle while they're just beginning to lower their guard again.

Ehh...I never said you shouldn't be able to throw them off. Look at Hitman : Blood Money with things like the coin toss trick so guards get out of your way. That's good AI. But we were talking about more than just being able to throw them off and avoid killing them. We were talking about giving them all seperate human emotions...how is that supposed to happen?

[Makrond]

I don't see it as an insult. Everyone is narrow-minded to some degree - some are just more than others. I never said you were ignorant - just that you can't see it from my point of view.

I can see why you said the things you said, but for me, current AI is challenging, but not fun. For me, fun would be if you could scare the living shit out of enemies by pulling out a rocket launcher; some would run for cover, others would stand there like deer in headlights. It doesn't have to be perfect, just believable, unlike most, if not all, current AI. Or wearing the best armor in an RPG like Oblivion would make weaker enemies hesitate if not run like little girls.

Another example would be preventing other cars from crashing into you in (less agressive) racing games like GT4 or Enthusia. Leave it in NFS games, because that's part of the challenge, but it doesn't happen that often on the circuit. Especially not if you're going to get penalised for it.

Alright, maybe I used some hyperbole in trying to explain what I wanted AI to be like. I certainly like the AI in Hitman - that's all the Hitman games, by the way. But the coin-toss trick is only useful in certain situations, and you generally know when you need to throw one. I just want the AI to react to more than just the player - if I pulled out a 12-gauge combat shotgun in real life, and you had a SIG 228, are you going to have enough presence of mind to shoot me? Accurately? That's what my gripe with AI boils down to.

[Ultimatum479]

Are you trying to describe AI personality types that can be placed onto different units? I think that works better than the randomness method described earlier by Grayswandir (I think it was him): with that system, a given NPC might randomly act in complete terror in one situation and overboard recklessness in another. If multiple personality types were programmed for the AI and attached to given NPCs (perhaps randomly distributed at the beginning of a level or something), that could work for your idea.

For example, a "Coward"-type personality would run and duck behind cover whenever faced with an opponent that looks threatening, probably just sticking a pistol out around whatever obstacle behind which he's hiding and firing blindly. In general, when lacking cover, his accuracy might be lower due to fear; he might glance back over his shoulder more often than necessary when sniping a distant foe to make sure he's not about to be ambushed...He'd generally be worse at combat, but he'd make a decent scout, always listening for any sound and ready to call for backup. A "Hero"-type NPC would be the one leading the suicidal charge into the room full of armed opponents, Rambo-style. People in between would squeeze off a few shots before running for backup against major threats, retreat and set up an ambush further in, take calculated risks like a carefully timed dive out of cover to grab a better gun dropped by a fallen comrade, etc. Part of the personalities could also involve their willingness to take risks for the sake of teammates or their lack thereof. In the end, these are all still just scripted events (an actual "AI" is obviously way beyond the time most game developers are willing to spend, so curb your excessive optimism), but much more detailed, context- and character-specific ones.

I haven't played any of the more recent Rainbow Six games, but I remember playing the ol' 1998 one and wishing your AI-controlled teammates each had distinct personalities like that; it'd be an important factor in addition to their stats, affecting which ones you'd trust with important mission objectives, which ones you'd rather send up ahead to take the full brunt of enemy attacks for the rest, which ones are likely to cover their allies best rather than just looking out for themselves, etc.

[invertin]

A different set of random personalities should be set for leaders. Like, if a group has a "My kill" leader, he'll tell them to stay back so he can take you on himself. If the group has a "Do it for me" leader, he'll stand back while they take the punishment, and if things start going for the worse, he'll run for it.

Just suggestions.

[Renegade_Turner]

If multiple personality types were programmed for the AI and attached to given NPCs (perhaps randomly distributed at the beginning of a level or something), that could work for your idea.

There's a catch to that, in my opinion, because if the AI groups were randomly distributed between all the NPC's on the level, there would be clearly unrealistic situations.

For example, a Navy SEAL running away whilst a civilian picks up the nearest firearm and tries to take on your enemies?

There would have to be classes for the AI groups. Like one set of AI groups for civilians, one set of AI groups for armed forces etc. etc. etc.

an actual "AI" is obviously way beyond the time most game developers are willing to spend, so curb your excessive optimism

That's kinda what I was getting at. Games would take too long to make if you tried to make perfectly realistic AI. This isn't the year 4058.

[Ultimatum479]

...because if the AI groups were randomly distributed between all the NPC's on the level, there would be clearly unrealistic situations.

For example, a Navy SEAL running away whilst a civilian picks up the nearest firearm and tries to take on your enemies?

Well, of course. Basically, the NPCs would be choosing scripted actions as mentioned before. They'd have a whole list of options, and the most difficult part of the programming would probably be having the AI decide which are valid in the given situation (I'm probably pulling this idea out of my ass right now cuz I've never programmed an AI). Given that smaller list, they'd be able to choose the actions based on their personality type because each action is essentially signed a number on several 1-100 (or 1-10, or whatever) scales: a bravery/cowardice scale, an altruism/egoism scale, a stealth/combat scale, etc, and the personality type dictates to which side of each scale the character tends. Trained combatants would lean towards the bravery and teamwork sides in a combat situation, in contrast to a civilian, and thus would be more likely to take scripted actions which are ranked higher on the bravery and teamwork scales. So a "class", like "civilian" or "bodyguard" or "sniper", would have bonuses or penalties to each scale, affecting which actions would most likely be taken in a conflict. The randomness suggestion was just for a randomly generated map or something to give random bonuses and penalties to each scale for the AIs, but the effects would be far smaller than those of the general classes. That way, only a few random civilians would be likely to do suicidal things and only a few well-paid mercs would end up fleeing for their lives at the sight of Makrond's rocket launcher.

That's kinda what I was getting at. Games would take too long to make if you tried to make perfectly realistic AI. This isn't the year 4058.

Yup. Perfectly realistic AI hasn't ever been created, _period_. It's definitely not going to show up in videogames before we see it elsewhere.

[Renegade_Turner]

This is good in theory, but I think it'll be a while before anyone has the time/power to do it properly...kinda like communism.

[Jendraz]

This is good in theory, but I think it'll be a while before anyone has the time/power to do it properly...kinda like communism.

Haha Communism will never work.

[Count Roland]

If multiple personality types were programmed for the AI and attached to given NPCs (perhaps randomly distributed at the beginning of a level or something), that could work for your idea.

There's a catch to that, in my opinion, because if the AI groups were randomly distributed between all the NPC's on the level, there would be clearly unrealistic situations.

For example, a Navy SEAL running away whilst a civilian picks up the nearest firearm and tries to take on your enemies?

There would have to be classes for the AI groups. Like one set of AI groups for civilians, one set of AI groups for armed forces etc. etc. etc.

an actual "AI" is obviously way beyond the time most game developers are willing to spend, so curb your excessive optimism

That's kinda what I was getting at. Games would take too long to make if you tried to make perfectly realistic AI. This isn't the year 4058.

only problem with that idea is a navy seal would never run away like that

[Renegade_Turner]

...that was my point...

...there would be clearly unrealistic situations...

Read over everything that was said.

[Zantalos]

I don't think that kind of stuff would be that hard to do. For instance in Lugaru discerning from a brave rabbit to a cowardly rabbit would relate to when they run away. A brave or proud rabbit will fight till he's almost dead, a coward or sensible rabbit will run as soon as he's hurt or if you pull out a bigger weapon.

And then you can also discern them apart by making them fight together or by themselves, whether it's one at a time like Assassin's Creed or Lugaru style where they all attack together would be based if they are team players or soloists.

It wouldn't be true AI but that's all you really need.

The other thing is the way people spot you. I don't like how in games like Hitman you'll just walk around all fine and dandy, you're pretty far from everyone else so you start running a bit and then all of the sudden every single person is shooting at you without hesitation. I like what they did in Farcry, when you are spotted briefly they won't know if they really saw you or just a monkey. Instead of everyone getting perfect vision and spotting you as soon as you're seen and then having a perfect fix on you the entire fight, you can do things like shoot them once and they'll turn and take cover in that direction, then they'll send out search parties that simply walk in the direction they heard sound, and if you shoot again and then book it out of there they'll shoot at where the gunfire came from but they won't know exactly where you are so you can sneak around them while they're trying to suppress and out flank you. Farcry wasn't perfect, but it had really good AI.


Up until they started adding mutants, trigens, or whatever, then it became retarded.

[Renegade_Turner]

Up until they started adding mutants, trigens, or whatever, then it became retarded.

Rofl yeah. Me and my brother were extremely pissed of by that. It was really fun up until they added in the mutant monkeys and ruined the storyline. Hahaha

[Makrond]

I don't think that kind of stuff would be that hard to do. For instance in Lugaru discerning from a brave rabbit to a cowardly rabbit would relate to when they run away. A brave or proud rabbit will fight till he's almost dead, a coward or sensible rabbit will run as soon as he's hurt or if you pull out a bigger weapon.

And then you can also discern them apart by making them fight together or by themselves, whether it's one at a time like Assassin's Creed or Lugaru style where they all attack together would be based if they are team players or soloists.

It wouldn't be true AI but that's all you really need.

I agree. AI, at least at the moment, doesn't have to be perfect, just reasonably varied.

The other thing is the way people spot you. I don't like how in games like Hitman you'll just walk around all fine and dandy, you're pretty far from everyone else so you start running a bit and then all of the sudden every single person is shooting at you without hesitation. I like what they did in Farcry, when you are spotted briefly they won't know if they really saw you or just a monkey. Instead of everyone getting perfect vision and spotting you as soon as you're seen and then having a perfect fix on you the entire fight, you can do things like shoot them once and they'll turn and take cover in that direction, then they'll send out search parties that simply walk in the direction they heard sound, and if you shoot again and then book it out of there they'll shoot at where the gunfire came from but they won't know exactly where you are so you can sneak around them while they're trying to suppress and out flank you. Farcry wasn't perfect, but it had really good AI.

The Wii version doesn't have AI like that. It's dumber than a rock.

I'd be happy with AI like that, especially combined with the above idea of U479. Not forever, but's it's a reasonable stop-gap for the underlying flaws of AI. I admit that realistic AI - at least the way I want it - is a long way off, but it's not a pipe-dream.