Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
It is being worked on. Part of the next big update will involve incorporating Kythera middleware (https://trello.com/c/H92Vewz0) and working on the ai itself (https://trello.com/c/iabYP3lI).
Friendly ai is planned (https://trello.com/c/M1Xjv2hY). A work in progress shot was shown in a dev blog a little while ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ent6ekcCf9k) but it will probably be in a later update not the next update.
There is a mission editor and game modes are run through lua coding so it is possible to make customized scenarios to add some variety.
I think i`ve seen AI move from tree to tree in a forest area when advancing towards gunshot sounds. They can lean out from cover while shooting but often times they dont seem to value their life much in firefights.
idk if they use some sort of tactics as a team.
All in all the AI can be quite good to play against. Although something is probably not right, seeing how people often crank up the # of enemy AIs.
They could use a better pair of eyes and ears and need something done to better their long range spotting-, alert- and engagement behaviors.
Everyone is eager to see the big AI rework that`s planned.
AI Settings:
https://files.catbox.moe/b0bpsv.jpg
It does show 'some' competence in long range engagements, but in CQB it's unacceptably bad. We hear it's being worked on, but the Devs announced their 'partnership' with Kythera more than a year ago, and still, it seems, nothing was implemented ingame with that plugin.
I've made AI mods for both games and i can say that RoN's AI systems are light-years ahead.
Still, though, none of both AIs can work as a team yet.
Thanks for taking an interest.
The AI goes from brain dead to pretty decent.
How so?
Seen examples of brain dead AI in RoN as well :|
I suggest both you guys play with my mod and see. RoN's vanilla AI is indeed full of problems, but most of them were manageable and fixed with a comprehensive rebalance on all the parameters, using the systems that are already included in the game. I'm not an AI programmer but i can say my experience modding this kind of game, since RvS, for which i also made an AI rebalance, has come in handy.
Some RoN AI systems that are implemented and are tweakable to achieve a natural behavior - i'll cite the ones that, from memory, i don't recall having seen in GB:
1. Min-Max Ranges: Most of their parameters are not governed by one value only, but by a min-max range, which will give each AI individual a random number within that range. This already adds some variety. Also, all of their values can be set globally and on a per-map basis, so you can define different difficulty levels, and different variety on their general profficiency based on the map you'll play.
2. Morale: This parameter not only controls if they'll surrender or not, but also if they'll charge you or take cover, if they'll do a fast, a medium or a long reload, if they'll call for backup or if they'll shout at you, if they'll take cover to your front or if they'll wait for you in a room's blind spot, the size or their bursts, etc. It's also not only one max-min range, being integrated with a lot of morale modifiers that will increase it or decrease it. If they see a friend die, for instance, they'll be more likely to surrender in my mod. If they get tased, if you kick a door on them, if you melee them, etc, all of it will affect their morale. If they shoot, the adrenaline will make their morale increase. With the right tweaks, you can get very good results.
3. Perception: Also defined by max-min ranges, you can set their visual perception when they're unalert vs alerted (angle and range), their hearing perception, which will make them be prepared for you from farther away or not, their relation to gun shots, grenade explosions, etc, and how fast they'll forget about it (and get back to the old behavior) or keep looking for you, taking cover, etc.
4. Hesitation system: The name says it, if they get surprised by your presence, they'll have a chance to hesistate. You can control how big the chance is and for how long it will effect. Also a parameter that came very unbalanced vanilla, but my mod addresses it.
5. Stress: It governs how 'on edge' they'll be, based on scenario. If they're a warehouse security, you may find them relaxed, walking casually, smoking and talking. If they'd just barricaded themselves in a gas station, you'll surely find them very much on edge. This will affect their morale, their reaction times, etc.
6. Accuracy. You have a base accuracy and you can define what bones they'll target. But you alse have accuracy modifiers, by distance (the farther the less accurate) and by movement (the more they move, the worse they'll shoot). Also you can define it globally or per map. The vanilla parameters are too accurate, which is why ppl complain about aimbotting, but my mod addresses it completely.
7. Wallhacking. Another parameter that came very unbalanced vanilla, probably because the devs didn't realize they can track you through walls. The idea of that parameter is to give them the chance to keep firing after seeing you and breaking visual contact. Vanilla, it's an absurd number, like 15 or 30 seconds (i believe it's that big because the devs think it will control how long they'll secure the direction where they last saw you, but in effect it makes them track you behind cover). My mod changes that to 1 sec only, narrowing the window in which they can get you behind cover. The result is realistic. It makes sense they'll keep firing at the wall after you retreat back to cover.
8. Flanking and Cover System: The maps have a set of flags on their architecture, telling the AI they can use those structures as cover. You can define how far they'll look for it and how far from you the cover must be for them to consider using it.
Their in-cover animations are very well made, and they can position themselves correctly in reference to your position, making for the best firefights i have ever had in all games i ever played. In vanilla, though, the first parameter is too small, the second too large.
Also, the maps added some narrow passages that the AI can use to go around and flank you, or they can just flank you normally, using corridors and adjacent rooms. They also won't track you through walls, they'll use your last known position as reference.
There are a lot of other minor things, but these are some examples i could get from memory.
Of course, this does'nt mean you won't, occasionally, see 'examples of brain-dead behavior', but those are rare glitches that happen in every game. In terms of general experience and given the differences between both games, RoN's AI is really light-years ahead in fulfilling its purpose.
I don't even have to mention the fact that each map has a complete set of skins and voices for them, providing also a much richer experience. And I didn't even touch the civilians, which are also there, have very good general reaction to the situations and add a lot of tension to them.
My AI mod is part of my mod-suite, found here:
https://www.nexusmods.com/readyornot/mods/727
Peace.
P.S.: I'd like to close with an important comment. It has been an apparent contemporary fact - Devs don't play their games anymore.
Not like they used to in the past and unfortunately much less than they should.
A good gameplay balancing CANNOT be achieved in ANY OTHER WAY.
Only playing time, hours upon hours, can give you the necessary feedback about how the systems relate to each other in the various possible situations.
The idea that "i'm making a realistic game, so 'reality will balance it'" is an ILLUSION.
I'd like to strongly suggest, to all Devs: Please. PLAY YOUR GAME. Spend some months playing only it in your spare time. Play it. Like no tomorrow.
I promise you'll see how naturally it will improve if you do it.
A lot of the values AI use are driven by curves rather then min-max ranges.
These curves drive aim error based on target distance, speed etc, as well as sight, hearing and so on.
The main difference between each games AI is more likely to be the polish and presentation.
i.e. RoN has more barks, AI specific animations and scripted events/interactions.
It's just small little details differentiating the most competent and realistic CQB AI in the market to your basically "brain-dead" one.
If the difference is just a matter of 'polish and presentation', what's holding you back from getting there? (Chuckle)
You guys need a reality check.
The 'main difference' is probably the exact thing you dismissively admitted you don't have: A morale system. It's basically what will prevent the AI from funnelling up into the players' LOF (like they ALWAYS DO) and instead, make them take cover or try to flank you. But it's a complex ltl system that one, isn't it?
Then, there are the other issues on those other regards, because they are also very incompetent in taking cover, flanking and navigating. So, "let's just give them super accuracy and reaction times to make the game difficult."
Yawn.
important p.s.:
RoN's AI is also very far from great. It's the best we have because we simply don't have anything better yet. That's all.
It's the least bad.
A lot of what people say about AI is solely down to how they perceive the AI and little to do with actual complex systems.
A great example of this is F.E.A.R.
AI seem to coordinate their attacks, communicate with each other and so on.
It is all purely presentation, via certain barks and animations.
There is no actual squad coordination etc going on at all.
Its not bad thing.
Decent set of barks and animations goes a long way.
But its nothing to do with the underlying logic.
And i agree, there will always be some smoke and mirrors going. They don't replace logic systems though. And those are needed for being tweaked after a natural result.
But this makes you wonder.
Why isn't GB there yet? You sound like you figured it out, but what i can see ingame, even though having had some late improvements, is still... u know.
Worse than 20 y.o. Raven Shield.
BTW, i don't think those systems need to be complex, quite the contrary! IMO they must be as simple as possible, provided the result is authentic.
The smoke and mirrors are not only a 'shortcut'.
They're an absolute necessity.
You don't want the AI eating up all your resources with philosophical questions, lolz
Simply a lack of staff / time.
Companies usually have a team of people dedicated to one area or task.
For a good portion of the development of GB, I was only programmer and was working in more ares then just AI :(
We did have a dedicated AI developer for a while, but parted ways due to real life etc.
Just one of those things.
On the bright side, we now have more staff.
This includes a programmer mainly focused on AI.
Hopefully we can show off some actual in-game stuff once we start doing intel drops again.