You ever see a Formula One pit crew do their job?

Yes but there is a huge difference.

The formula 1 driver drives into the box where everyone and everything is ready.

Here the box have to move through the terrain to the overheated mech.

It would be fairly simple (meaning two or three months) to create an A.I. for a turn-based tactical that would be impossible to win against if the load outs were matched well against your load outs. The restrictions of Turn-based tactical make this a strong possibility.

The problem is wondering whether you would actually enjoy a game like that... where you end up losing more and get frustrated because you need to have just the right die roll to get the upper hand, let alone keep it. You rolled a natural 20, critical success, win game!

Is that what you really want, or just what you think you want. It is impossible to actually lose Tic-Tac-Toe but no Tic-Tac-Toe game doesn't include a dice roll so that the player has the option to actually win. Chess games? Heck, pong pretty much is impossible to lose... except for the A.I. being designed to allow the player to win.

And who cares about this anyways Yeah, there is AI... and there is immersion. You're describing immersion. In reality,, you should never split up and hunt down an enemy that you lost line of sight on. It is "Artificial Unintelligence" . Now you SHOULD secure your area and coordinate with other units to flush the enemy out of hiding... but fanning out to find a single enemy. when you do not have enough men to secure a single room, that's just insane.

The same way that stealth games have their "Artificial Unintelligence" set to check out the LOCATION of a sound or the last enemy sighting instead of securing the room by clearing areas of cover.. Let alone that going on the comms to say "I saw something at X location, if I am not heard from again then we have an enemy... you do not need to find my body just to know this".

In general, A.I. is always absurdly simplistic... and games like F.E.A.R. have gimmicks which encourage the player to abuse the A.I. rather than just having the A.I. aim poorly or do stupid things... A.I. is designed to be fun... not repeatedly kill the player over and over and make the player rage quit.

Not true. If they could make an `AI` (programmed routines as it is right now) that`s as competent as a Human, they would have it for Single Players to have a go against providing several levels of optional difficulty from `dunce` to `Human online` for the Player to choose. They would probably also put it on online servers to give onliners something to go at too.

They would even make an AI level that`s better than Humans just for Elite Players to have a try at- something like `Super AI` mode, if it was possible, and eventually, it will be.

AI in Fear was actually a bit of a hit and miss and the Devs found that leaving mistakes in actually made the `AI` better, ie giving it an unpredictable quality that came across as more `Human`.

When I posted that, I was on GOG purely for F.E.A.R. and well, the sale and this interesting gem... was aiming to spend only a few dollars for one game... spent $100 for several games instead.

F.E.A.R.'s A.I. is extremely fun.

1) If player is within the boundary of the AI (The AI will not follow you all across the map, only in certain bounds) do one of the following
1-a) Take a direct path to the player
1-b) Take an indirect path the the player
1-c) Pretend to have no clue where the player is (even if the player had just shot your buddy right in front of you)

2) If there is a funnel of death (military term) and you know the player is on the other side
2-a) Throw a grenade before entering the funnel
2-b) Enter the funnel while shooting
2-c) Or just enter and pretend you did not notice the pile of bodies you walked through
2-d) Under no circumstances tuse breach tactics (look it up)) to swarm the area that the player is camping

3) Always go to the player...
3-a) Except if there are already quite a few enemies going anyways, then pretend that you do not know where the player is and go after the player executes the group that just came over there.

4) Never retreat! You're not human anyways
4-a) Cannot say how stupid it is to stand firing in the open while I pistol snipe people from behind solid cover.

Merranvo: In general, A.I. is always absurdly simplistic... and games like F.E.A.R. have gimmicks which encourage the player to abuse the A.I. rather than just having the A.I. aim poorly or do stupid things... A.I. is designed to be fun... not repeatedly kill the player over and over and make the player rage quit.

Socratatus: Not true. If they could make an `AI` (programmed routines as it is right now) that`s as competent as a Human, they would have it for Single Players to have a go against providing several levels of optional difficulty from `dunce` to `Human online` for the Player to choose. They would probably also put it on online servers to give onliners something to go at too.

Uhh, that blatantly ignores logic and science... F.E.A.R. does not even use basic military tactics.... and gamer egos are absurdly easy to bruise.

Remember, Game A.I. cheats like hell. The only reason the programmed routines miss hitting the player is because they were PROGRAMMED to occasionally miss. they were PROGRAMMED to not notice the player standing behind them. They were PROGRAMMED..

I know gamer's have sensitive egos, but come on... do you honestly think that you can run up behind someone without said person even bothering to look to see what is going on? Or if the A.I. is camping a door (because it is at the boundary) that it not noticing the player looking through a window next to the door makes sense? It is PROGRAMMED to be beatable. Like Duhh.

It is painfully obvious to people who know how to program games... that the AI is designed to ignore the player. in situations, to make stupid mistakes, to intentionally miss and even help the player win. by crowding together without concentrating fire on the player (for big grenade kills) or otherwide just doing stupid things.




Honestly, I do not understand how to explain to someone like you... how to make and program Game A.I. If you choose to be ignorant I cannot help you, but it is all about making it easier on the player, not harder. If you wanted a game that is impossible to win a shooter is the easiest genera to do that.

The only reason the enemy ever misses is because instant head shotting the player over and over was considered lame. The only reason the enemy goes out in the open is so that it is easier for the player to kill said enemy... what is hard to understand about this?

That's what happens when you hire based on diversity and virtue signalling instead of merit.

That is a post that is made when you base it off of ignorance and talking out of your rear end. /facepalm

Look up Dave LeCompte of Hairbrained, and try to say that again...

Hey, it's possible that this is a sublime meta-humor post that you've missed.

Consider the question of whether scrubwave is provably a bad AI programmer so we should ignore her opinions in an AI-thread, or whether she is not and we should thoughtfully consider the posted opinion. If you take her statement seriously, then by of trying to bring in social justice-related controversy in an gameplay/technology thread, she must be a poor AI programmer. If we decide that scrubwave is a poor AI programmer, we should not take the link between poor AI-programming and virtue signaling seriously, but in that case, scrubwave might not be a bad AI programmer, so possibly has a point.

Of course, you could also just assume that scrubwave is too stupid to even know what the phrase "virtue signaling" actually means, but I like to think the best of people. So I've taken it as self-trolling meta-humor until later disproved.

Difficulty has nothing to do with immersion. Enemy behavior IS AI. It's the act of programming intelligence into the archetype.

Look at Overwatch Bot AI. 100% accurate + God Knowledge. The accuracy thing, that scales based on difficulty. But God Knowledge, ie, "I know where you are at all times", that can be replaced with more realistic AI that only would have hints that any human in their same position would be given.

If they see an enemy, they have an idea of location, and based on scaling, could know where that player may move to for an intercept. They could take in audible cues to make decisions based on that point. None of this has to do with immersion. Immersion is like when you're in a swamp and the programmer animates beads of water sliding down your mask. It's not necessary, but it adds to the belief you're in the game world.

Battletech AI is flat out simple. The more realistic you make AI, the less omnipotent and all-knowing it is, and more humanistically it behaves. This AI acts like it ate glue when it was a kid. The dev should be ashamed as much as those responsible for its HORRENDOUS load times and performance.

I agree with scrubwave.

I have seen how this sjw/feminist crap is becoming so obsessed by some of these Devs that it`s affecting the smooth functioning of a game.

It was in Andromeda - some of the non SJW Devs left after that because a bunch of diversity sjws were hired who didn`t really know what they were doing and the actual technical guys had to fill in the slack and fix most of the broken parts of the game (remember the horrible facial feature for example? The awful script? the terrible story? )- And it was still bad.

One of the Devs was a know white-racist (it was even hard to have a default white guy in the game initially), and another an extreme feminist (the men looked fine the women purposely made unattractive).

They ruined the game for their ideology and Bioware is full of that today and it`s only getting worse. .

Also, look at the recent Star Wars movies, another SJW\feminist infested trope that`s destroyed the last jedi and why Solo is bombing. I predict IX will also bomb if they don`t pull it back. People do NOT want that in the things they enjoy. But most of all this ideology is affecting the games and movies as the story is taking 2nd place to their personal ideology.

I predict in future these companies using sjws\feminist will crash I kid you not, since people will simply stop buying them.

Hairbrained is clearly infested as well, and I knew when I saw that one of the Devs was a man dressed as a woman, that something was wrong... But i prayed it wouldn`t affect the game being a long time BattleTech fan, and bingo, we get a `they` pronoun as well as other subtle SJW influences. A waste of time that would`ve been better used to actually coding the game to work efficiently.

Even now I wonder just how good a job they`ll do on the patches. Hopefully, the Publisher or Boss will get onto them and say, "Tone down the sjw stuff and just make sure the game works, ok?"



*mod Edit - You are free to express your views within moderation, but don't overstep the line. Your comments became an angry rant towards with no room for discussion.

So apparently SJW/feminist programmers screwed up the AI programming too?! By golly! Even mechs can't escape their evil clutches! Egad!!!

It literally took all of a minute or less for them to put in the word "they". All it takes is adding it in the correct .json file. You can literally add all kinds of pronouns yourself by editing the correct .json in a matter of a minute, or you can completely delete the "they" pronoun as well. So they didn't waste time coding that in, and wouldn't have effected the coding of the game to make it work more efficiently.

Making fun of F.E.A.R. is fun though
Still, F.E.A.R. plays quite horribly when done with tactical combat.... the A.I. was clearly not programmed to respond to people who follow basic military tactics.

Tactic 1, do not rush in and attack in close quarters, advancement requires repeated withdraws and encouraging the enemy to do the opposite.

I found there were only a few occasions where the enemy was intelligent enough to actually stay back... but would blatantly ignore me standing still in front of them until I started firing my weapon. (Had to wait for the A.I. to "forget" the player had ever came through the door (or rather, the only location the player could come through) and turn its back but still.

Also found it interesting that sometimes retreating further back, then firing my weapon to draw the enemy in had greater success (the A.I. would still go through the funnel of death, but before it held back while moving back a little got the A.I. to still stupidly advance).

Tactic 2, if your enemy is stupid enough run to sounds, set traps and then make plenty of sound.

Me? I fall back to more secure positions... and set traps if there is more than one path to my position.... but doing really silly stuff like hitting the walls to get automated turrets to shoot at the wrong location.... or getting enemies to "check" the sound of me throwing a proximity mine. For some reason throwing remote mines don't count as grenades for the omnipotent A.I.

That was pretty funny though... because the big flashing proximity mine is what attracted the enemy in to examine what the noise was... add a few remote mines to the mix and the whole squad got wiped out because of their curiosity.

Tactic 3, Use cover to your advantage, not disadvantage.

The A.I. is clearly designed to use cover to its disadvantage, tactically speaking. I've stood still and had heads pop up from behind cover, look directly at me (not even in slow mo) and do nothing. This is obviously because the intent is for me to enter slowmo, aim, shoot, and kill... if I keep standing still the enemy does eventually notice me but it is leaving cover ONLY so I get the chance to kill it.

When I leave cover, I am doing so to attack... and again will withdraw if I get shot at.

Even worse, though my limbs do stick out... only gun turrets actually seem to shoot at my limbs. Enemy limbs stick out and I can shoot at those limbs... sometimes the enemy doesn't react... but I've had many times where the reaction was to walk into the direction of gun fire! WOW, that's brilliant.

Tactic 4, Don't blow yourself up with your own grenades.

For whatever reason, the A.I. does not actually check if grenades can reach the player's location in the first place. I've seen A.I. throw grenades at elevated windows, miss the window and have the grenade bounce back in the A.I.'s direction. It even throws grenades at gates (player is visible, but no way to actually attack the player).

And on a few occasions, I've even had enemies setting off the explosive barrels on their own... which is really funny...

Sigh... aegiskleais... you do understand that god knowledge is required for AI to work... right?

There are no "EARS" to A.I. if a sound is made in an environment the A.I. knows the exact location of the sound. In many games, it often even knows what the sound is so, should it be the player reloading, the A.I. would then ambush the player. All of that requires God Knowledge.

Seeing an enemy... raycasting over a large area just to see if the player is possibly visible again is not how it is done (and would be enormously demanding on the system). What is done is the enemy raycasts to the player from its position, does a check based on the orientation of the enemy, then does a state check to see if the enemy is "competent" enough to see the player.

The game A.I. does really stupid things, intentionally, because the interaction of A.I. and player is "FUN". That is why I call it immersion. Believing that you're fighting a clone army that has insecure comms and are suicidal... vs playing a computer game where the clones respond to your position and actively ambush you over and over.

The way the enemy acts is part of AI, and the methodology is often to make the game more fun, rather than make the player die sooner... most of the game difficulty comes from how the A.I. acts and reacts to situations, not just accuracy and weapon damage... though the player often has an unfair advantage in that regard.

You are obviously oversimplifying the A.I. for your gripes, that you are pointing at F.E.A.R.'s immersion aspects rather than tactical awareness (because we ARE talking about Turn based tactical) makes your argument sound rather silly.

and? you are assuming they don't care about merit. Their AI guy is a straight white male, according to you they should have hired someone who is incomptenent that isn't a straight white male.

Having a diverse business does not automatilly mean they are putting actual qualifications for a job, merit, in the back seat.

So yes, you spoke out of ignorance.