AI revisited

[Phytotron]

So, I was playing the original coin-op TRON arcade game a little while ago. That game was made in 1982 and the enemy lightcycle(s), at least in one respect, puts the Armagetron AI to shame. It actually attacks. I think it's fine, good even, that Armagetron AI are more passive at lower IQs, but who the hell changed them up (sometime at or after 0.2.8.0) so that at the higher IQ levels they basically just masturbate on their own walls like half the players these days? Sure, they might get more aggressive if you get near them, but left alone they just grind themselves and make little designs. How's that make for a good single player game, both locally and online? I know it's not flashy, but could something be done about this?

Maybe they could also recognise things like brakes/boost (GLTron's AI do) and any other relevant physics settings?

(Also, hopefully, it might also get figured and fixed what's going on with local games getting so badly choppy/freezy. As it is, it's basically unplayable.)

[sinewav]

I don't know how many have played "Lightcycles: Game Grid Champions" (Windows only ), but the AI in that game scare the crap out of me. They chase you relentlessly. I usually try to box myself in just to get away from them (like in the `82 coin-op).

Also, the new Arma "Fortress bots" scare the crap out of me too.

Maybe they could also recognise things like brakes/boost (GLTron's AI do)...

Yeah, that pisses me off when glTron bot's start boosting, haha.

[Lucifer]

at the higher IQ levels they basically just masturbate on their own walls like half the players these days?

We wanted to make some AIs that the HR crowd would believe were real people for an April Fool's prank.

It worked, too.

[Phytotron]

Har. But it's not just the back-and-forth 180 stuff, it's the making little designs and going in and out of them (maybe you meant that as well). Then they just crash themselves. Go into that Mud Puddle server sometime when it's empty; half the time two of the AI's will crashup themselves before you could even reach them. What's the point?


Yeah, I've seen that Lightcycles... game. Too bad it's only available for Windows and Linux.

[sinewav]

Ok, I really want to know more about the AI in Arma. Like, as much as possible. I want more brutal bots in my local games. Right now, the only way I can challenge myself it to increase the number of bots. However, my system starts to flake-out after about 7 on the grid.

The only thing I've seen here is this:

A bot's IQ is roughly the sum of its first ten attributes. Reordering the list won't change that. And, as should be obvious by now, auto IQ increases or decreases the AI IQ setting (for which the game will try to find a matching AI) depending on how well you do.

I think if I knew more about aiplayers.cfg I could maybe tweak them a little bit better. But the information inside the document doesn't answer all my questions. Here are some:

• How high can the values be in the property fields?
• What is the difference the states (e.g. how similar are "trace" and "pathfind")?

Is there some recommended reading about AI's like this? Even though I don't know a programming language, I know enough to get a good idea.

Thanks!

[Z-Man]

I have forgotten what all those values do, and the AI is one of the things up for total replacement. Don't expect any documentation, sorry. The 'smartest' bots usually have the values at their sensible maximum, you can increase them further without causing crashes, but it won't change their behavior.

Hmm, 'trace' is the direct tracing of a tail, just following it, taking occasional shortcuts. 'pathfind' is the full pathfinding from the AIs current position to the enemy position, going around all obstacles, other trails or map walls. It's kinda expensive and what's causing the hickups in local play for some people, and doesn't work too well.

[sinewav]

That helps quite a bit actually. Thanks Z-Man.

[Phytotron]

I wanted to add another thing to this, with respect to Auto IQ. Methinks that should be somehow configurable to pay off in terms of scoring. I won't specify an exact method, but just as an example: Every increase in x IQ point(s), the score for core dumping that bot rises by y point(s).

[As an aside on scoring methods: How about an additional bonus score(s) and such. Example typical of other old video games: a score that counts (up or down) from the beginning of the round that gets applied (at one's death or to last man standing, respectively).]

Again, my longheld view, much to the contrary of this request to bury or even remove the local single-player game, is to improve and expand it. Mind you all, single-player doesn't only apply to local games; there's also the single-player game when only one person is in a server. That should be fun and challenging too, both for a player who is waiting around for others to join, as well as one who simply likes a particular server's settings and wants to play there regardless of other actual people being there. Single-player should be fun and have motivation to succeed (if one wants to), as well.

[Z-Man]

Yeah, there's definitely some *simple* things that can be done to make the single player a little more exciting. Scoring can be one thing (bonus for killing stuff faster), but to make it truly competition capable, you also need a better defined enemy progression.

[kyle]

I always found the higher the AI_IQ is the dumber the bots seam to be

[sinewav]

I always found the higher the AI_IQ is the dumber the bots seam to be

I agree. My experience with them tells me the IQ should be relative to the playing space the bot has. A lower IQ setting might, in some cases, use space more effectively. If I guess this is because different AI "states" are more pronounced at different IQ's, would I be half right?

[Phytotron]

I always found the higher the AI_IQ is the dumber the bots seam to be

Yeah, and that's part of what I was referencing in my first post. They do more "moves," but they seem to off themselves just as quickly, if not more so, than the lower IQ.

None of them seem to really understand rubber or something like _rubber_delay. And yadda yadda, brakes/boost, etc.

[Paladin]

Also, the new Arma "Fortress bots" scare the crap out of me too.

I know there was a topic created about the Fortress AI here, and even a server was running at one point, but the search engine here is telling me that "Fortress AI" is too common to search for. Were those AI ever made available for a local game? Is it possible to use them in a local game? It would definitely make it much more interesting to play local games of fort then with the current AI that only happen to touch the zone by, what appears to be, sheer luck.

[Z-Man]

The fortress AI still slumbers in a separate branch. It's not ready for general use yet, mainly because it lacks any form of configurability.

[Lackadaisical]

It would definitely make it much more interesting to play local games of fort then with the current AI that only happen to touch the zone by, what appears to be, sheer luck.

Either that or unfathomable amounts of skill.