Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文（簡体字中国語）
繁體中文（繁体字中国語）
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština（チェコ語）
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia（インドネシア語）
Magyar（ハンガリー語）
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português（ポルトガル語－ポルトガル）
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română（ルーマニア語）
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
ルールとガイドライン
この投稿を報告する
Soldiers getting somehow stuck halfway up ladders. Soldiers running or just standing directly front of other friendly soldiers shooting. Fun times.
I like this game, very much, having spent more than 1,000 hours in it on Steam, most of it in Single-player. That being said, the NPC's in this game fight in ways that are often unrealistic or uninteresting- and which at any rate don't use the strategy and abilities available to them anywhere near optimally.
NPC's in Warband don't jump; they don't kick; they often step away and swing/stab when they're well out of range of your weapon (I've found that NPC heroes, however long of a weapon you give them, will *somehow* find a way to start swinging pointlessly while their enemy is well out of range); they don't use much circling, nor nuanced stepping; their feinting is relatively predictable and easy to catch. Very often an NPC will be on a killstreak and then just step away, standing there, giving the other guy time to switch to a bow or receive reinforcements. On the note of bows, they don't lead their targets when firing.
They don't use cover, at least deliberately. Also, the only criteria they have for which weapon to use (if they have a choice) comes down to a boolean of ranged vs. hand-to-hand. If they're using a hand-to-hand weapon/combination, they don't use it any differently against a guy with a longsword than they do against a guy with a shield and dagger. Also if they have a shield and a technically-one-hand-compatible weapon, they will always have that shield out with it, instead of putting the shield away to fight better with the other weapon. For which reason it is advised strongly not to give NPC heroes a polearm-and-shield combination.
Additionally, they only very rarely chamber-block(parry); the guard they mainly use is the waiting guard. To be fair they can get pretty good at this. It still is less effective than chamber-blocking.
Also, NPC's don't really seem to regard their allies much. They don't behave much differently if they've got buddies; no shield wall; no coordinated attack.
--
To be fair, if the NPC is strong enough, fast enough, well-equipped enough, and/or has enough allies, it can still be challenging to fight. I still would like it if they were smarter. If you want to see plenty of missed opportunities in AI, at least as far as combat goes, I strongly recommend this one.
As in: build 4 of those, then 5 of those, and then build 6 that, after you build 5 of those, and then attack with them. It could not anticipate all that well on unforseen situations. Like, it had to have these 5 things, before it could continue doing anything else. Or at least, that's how far I got with it.
How does writing AI work in a big open arena? I'm vaguely familiar with how they did it for Pac Man, but that was relatively easy as it was in a pre-conceived maze. But programming an entire army seems like a nightmare.
Any significantly challenging boss fight, that actually makes you work for it & not just grind before coming to battle, in just about any game, has a well-crafted adversarial AI for the purpose of that battle. (Especially if they're fighting with the same skill-set & equipment as you.)
Any "easy mode" AI, whether friend or foe, will typically be pretty bad at achieving its goals, in any game.
( Party comes to mind, hence the "Luigi wins by doing nothing" memes.)
Consistently finding high quality AIs in CPU team-mates is indeed a challenge, though.
A sleight of hand that developers might pull to compensate for this is by giving the team-mate AIs extra health & slighly higher stats. Players probably won't notice this adjustment & it will allow the AI to hit harder, faster, & more times before dying, thus making them SEEM like a competent ally...
There's a good read on FEAR's AI if you're interested in:
https://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/gdc2006_orkin_jeff_fear.pdf
While that is true, the FEAR AI reacted differently each time. They would lure you into an ambush and then the next time you reloaded they would flush you out with nades.
Based purely on my experience, 90% of AI in games (even some modern ones) are not physically capable of flanking you. They are programmed to take the shortest or most direct route. Hence the conga lines of enemies you see in shooters. FEAR constantly made me look behind my back.
Compare FEAR to San Andreas which came out around the same time. In SA the AI would run into walls, cops would drive their patrol cars in circles because their scripting broke or would drive into water and kill themselves because they couldn't brake properly. By 2005 standards, FEAR was frighteningly good. Still better than some modern games.
Yup. I went back and played it a couple months ago. A lot of that game didn't age well. AI might be the most shoddy. But it was made the same guys who made Thief II, so what do you expect?
Yeah that's how the AI tends to work for Real Time Strategy games, an example for the Company of Heroes franchise, the AI doesn't do anything differently in different difficulty modes, it just gets massive resource bonuses and build time modifiers rather than actually using different or more effective tactics. I noticed this in the Age of Empires series too.
The best way to prove these kinds of things is either looking at scorecards at the end of the round if the game supports it, looking at game files or if the game supports Replays, you can also see build times or resource flows.
In Company of Heroes, your resource income is a flow measured in resources (Of each type) per minute, which can be increased by capturing and fortifying resource sectors, but in the replay when you switch to spectating the Enemy AI, you can see their income is roughly double what you get and can go as high as quadruple on the highest difficulty, so even if you cut off all of their resource sectors, on the hardest difficulty, the modifier on their income even with only their starting sector is still enough for them to be churning out tanks, artillery and calling off-map supports despite these costing hundreds of limited resources and the initial sector only providing +5 of those per minute.