Jump to content
lordhedgwich

Graphics suck?!!?!?!

Recommended Posts

AI from any title Ron. Not just a top tier chess title, any title. Red Alert, in 1995, had a thinking opponent that probed then attacked your weak points. That was twenty years ago.

 

no game has a "thinking" AI simply because a "thinking AI" does not exist.

 

A computer has the "intelligence" of a toaster, it only does what it is pre-programmed to do. What you see in a game which looks like "thinking" is the program following its programming, i.e. if player does A, do plan A, if player does B, do plan B. Sometimes, you will get a random variation, such as if player does A, do plan A or B. etc.

 

Obviously the smaller the amount of variables, for example a small number of pre-made maps, a limited number of options for the player, the easier it is to program the responses so the program looks more "intelligent". That is what first person shooters and flight sims do.

 

In the end though, it is all smoke and mirrors.

 

Now, players always like to bring up the example of Chess programs, but Chess is actually a very simple game: 64 squares and 32 units. Even then, programmers have spent $ millions to program every possible response to what a player might do.

 

Now compare that to CM where even a 800x800 meter map will have 10,000 "squares", each with a hundred variation of elevation or terrain; and that does not even count the different number and types of units.

 

The CM scenario editor allows the scenario author to program the AI response in a manner which is a complex and variable as the AI in any comparable game. Is there room for improvement? Of course!, but CM has always been a work in progress.

 

Now you want to play against a "thinking" opponent?, easy, play PBEM. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in chess it sees one move and responds to one move with no LOS concerns building an AI to do what you want would be far beyond BFs capabilities and if they could do it, they would likely be working on something far more lucrative. Is it bad to want better overall AI, no but it is also not bad to want world peace. It is simply a question of likelihoods.

 

I don't think anyone is asking for anything more than the type of AI opponent that is standard in games like the Total War series.  At the end of the day it is just using numbers and rules to create the artifice of a reactive opponent.  I'd even settle for one that could modify its pathing in response to casualties.  And before we go down the "it can't be done" line, I've got years of scripting in IT behind me, business logic and game logic are not so very different.  Line of sight doesn't matter, the AI doesn't take it into account when it plots waypoints now.  I don't think anyone is asking for an AI that plots moves with perfect LOS like a human, just one that can seem a bit more reactive to what is happening on the battlefield.

Edited by Jock Tamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no game has a "thinking" AI simply because a "thinking AI" does not exist.

 

A computer has the "intelligence" of a toaster, it only does what it is pre-programmed to do. What you see in a game which looks like "thinking" is the program following its programming, i.e. if player does A, do plan A, if player does B, do plan B. Sometimes, you will get a random variation, such as if player does A, do plan A or B. etc.

 

Obviously the smaller the amount of variables, for example a small number of pre-made maps, a limited number of options for the player, the easier it is to program the responses so the program looks more "intelligent". That is what first person shooters and flight sims do.

 

In the end though, it is all smoke and mirrors.

 

Now, players always like to bring up the example of Chess programs, but Chess is actually a very simple game: 64 squares and 32 units. Even then, programmers have spent $ millions to program every possible response to what a player might do

 

Now compare that to CM where even a 800x800 meter map will have 10,000 "squares", each with a hundred variation of elevation or terrain; and that does not even count the different number and types of units.

 

The CM scenario editor allows the scenario author to program the AI response in a manner which is a complex and variable as the AI in any comparable game. Is there room for improvement? Of course!, but CM has always been a work in progress.

 

Now you want to play against a "thinking" opponent?, easy, play PBEM. ;)

 

Stop with the semantics Joch it is clear that you know what I mean.

 

Map size and squares and elevation are irrelevant. All AI is is algorithms that enact different things. Move foward with recon type of unit towards objectives. Spot enemy unit. Send forward attacking units to that point to engage.

 

Those three actions there alone are the basis of most strategy game AIs and have proved more than sufficient to serve as an opponent, even to this day. If AI in red alert can do this twenty years ago on unlimited sized maps also within an engine based on OpenGL, then it can be developed for CM. It cant be done is not a valid argument anymore.

 

Not having the capability/staff to do it is another matter entirely, a matter which my strong advocation of better advertising and steam compatability to generate sales and revenue relates to but that is a different topic.

 

@sburke, world peace and something that players have taken for granted since command and conquer 95 are different things. 

Edited by Stagler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But in chess it sees one move and responds to one move with no LOS concerns building an AI to do what you want would be far beyond BFs capabilities and if they could do it, they would likely be working on something far more lucrative. Is it bad to want better overall AI, no but it is also not bad to want world peace. It is simply a question of likelihoods.

 

Most importantly in chess there is 1) a much more limited number of possible moves and 2) all possible moves are certain to work exactely in a pre-defined and known manner. You cant move your bishop to A 4 and half and neither can are there any dices rolled when pieces are taken. That makes AI programming A LOT easier. But as soon as things become uncertain, AIs are going to start behaving weird. An AI is not actually intelligent, it is just the sum of all the IF-THEN relations the programmer put into it.

Edited by agusto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now you want to play against a "thinking" opponent?, easy, play PBEM. ;)

 

Also! I dont want to play PBEM! I want to play real time. But you cant because there is no lobby system or common player base to just log in and get a game straight away. In my scant time off during the day I want to just go and play a game. Not check the drop box between me and doug williams for one turn a day at best.

When I do get a chance to arrange a real time game, I can only connect over IP - something that is a secondary way of connecting now in every game but CM. Where I then have to use a tunneling client to get around CMs evasive verification methods which means my router and my anti virus software wont let me play connect to IP games by default.

 

This is why I staunchy refuse to let ignorance about progress "and its okay now why should we change" go unanwsered on these forums. Its like butting heads with people who are arguing for the use of horses as cavalry in 1939 on these forums sometimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no game has a "thinking" AI simply because a "thinking AI" does not exist.

 

 

It seems odd that players involved in wargamming don't understand that simple fact. There are numerous articles on the internet specific to our hobby explaining how proper AI is a trick and how we are probably still decades away from any true AI where a computer actually thinks its way though a problem or situation like a human. All any game has now is pre-programmed routines. Players wishing BF would have a proper functioning 'real' AI want something that others have poured untold millions into and are still no closer to success.

 

I can understand the call for much better graphics - I'd love that myself in an ideal world and it is possible if there are no monetary or time constraints. But to call for a thinking AI is absurd to anyone who has spent five minutes reading about AI in games - it's history, where it's at now and where it is going in the future. 'Good' AI now in certain games is a mirage - a trick played by programmers who have found a semi-plausible way to use set-routines to mimic 'real' AI.

Edited by niall78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems odd that players involved in wargamming don't understand that simple fact. There are numerous articles on the internet specific to our hobby explaining how proper AI is a trick and how we are probably still decades away from any true AI where a computer actually thinks its way though a problem or situation like a human. All any game has now is pre-programmed routines. Players wishing BF would have a proper functioning 'real' AI want something that others have poured untold millions into and are still no closer to success.

 

I can understand the call for much better graphics - I'd love that myself in an ideal world and it is possible if their are no monetary or time constraints. But to call for a thinking AI is absurd to anyone who has spent five minutes reading about AI in games - it's history, where it's at now and where it is going in the future. 'Good' AI now in certain games is a mirage - a trick played by programmers who have found a semi-plausible way to use set-routines to mimic 'real' AI.

Nobody is asking for a thinking AI in that sense, just one that can react to the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is asking for a thinking AI in that sense, just one that can react to the player.

 

Like a human would react? You are asking for something no AI can do in any game at the moment. And probably wont be able to do for decades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real time or WEGO over TCP/IP? Not my cup of tea but a valid complaint.

Better AI? The addition of triggers has helped a lot. If branching triggers ever make it in people will be begging for mercy. But even now the AI is a far stronger opponent than in the CMX1 games. I've actually LOST games to the AI. That never used to happen.

Better graphics? Fine, but keep in mind that the better the graphics the more expensive/time consuming they are to produce. I question if BFC has the resources to produce artwork and animations on par with AAA titles. They would definitely have to hire more artists or scale back their release schedule. Sales might increase enough to compensate. Or they might not and then it's THE END.

Personally I'd rather see efforts put into things like TacAI, UI, more detailed vehicle systems modeling, a revamped spotting model, mostly under the hood stuff.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stop with the semantics Joch it is clear that you know what I mean.

 

Map size and squares and elevation are irrelevant. All AI is is algorithms that enact different things. Move foward with recon type of unit towards objectives. Spot enemy unit. Send forward attacking units to that point to engage.

 

Those three actions there alone are the basis of most strategy game AIs and have proved more than sufficient to serve as an opponent, even to this day. If AI in red alert can do this twenty years ago on unlimited sized maps also within an engine based on OpenGL, then it can be developed for CM. It cant be done is not a valid argument anymore.

 

Not having the capability/staff to do it is another matter entirely, a matter which my strong advocation of better advertising and steam compatability to generate sales and revenue relates to but that is a different topic.

 

@sburke, world peace and something that players have taken for granted since command and conquer 95 are different things.

Really C&C? I'd suggest you google for Steve's previous comments on AI of which there have been quite a few. He seems to think it is a lot harder than you do as I assume does Charles as well.

Your opinion < Charles's opinion. That is pretty much the crux of the matter. You keep comparing apples to oranges. C&C AI was not the same type game nor was it particularly smart. In fact I think current AI in CM is quite a bit better. As it should be given the time differential, but no where near on the order folks seem to think it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is asking for a thinking AI in that sense, just one that can react to the player.

If you mean more triggers, yes that is something we'd all like, but I am not sure that qualifies for the AI being discussed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like a human would react? You are asking for something no AI can do in any game at the moment. And probably wont be able to do for decades

I'll answer this once you've bothered to read any of my preceding posts eg the one where I describe creating the artifice of a reactive opponent.  Note the word artifice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C&C AI was and is very poor.  Can anyone say "tank rushes"?

Yes it is amazing how these old games had AI all sorted out :D

Also you should see the complaints about the totalwar AI on its forum before you hold it up as being better that CM!!

 

As commented above "smoke and mirrors" sums up PC game AI perfectly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is getting that the AI that we refer to is not artificial intelligence as in a sense. It is artifice that it is like playing a human opponent. People are taking things specific to my examples and using them to their best ability to disprove my arguement. Tank rushing was a C&C thing. The algorithm that I explained, find, fix, move to fight is present in all titles from then until now. In some form or another. In C&C it just so happened to be "tank rushes", in wargame the AI sends out recon troops, locates you then masses its forces and attacks you whilst simultaneously occupying objective areas, in Total Annihilation it did the same thing. This is the base line I speak of. The "AI", or whatever other semantic word you want to call it, sends out its recon units. Finds where you are or what it is looking for (objective) then uses what it has at its disposal to obtain that.

 

Like woods said about the CM1 AI without plans.

 

That is what is the base level these days. No wargame/simulation/rts whatever you want to say ships without this, besides combat mission. "Oh play people" is no excuse. I dont have time to play people that much, and I dont like WEGO. I want to play people but there is no alternative at the moment - it is simply not offered as I have explained. The MP framework is not there.

 

BF should look for under the hood stuff first, like this MP playability. Graphics are secondary to gameplay, and i would like to at least be able to play the game as often as I can and to its fullest capacity first...

Edited by Stagler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Modding Arma and adding complex AI to combat mission are completely different things.

 

I want better AI added to combat mission as much as the next guy, but it takes a lot of time and money, time and money BFC doesn't have. Stagler says they should have started a while ago? same problem back than I am sure.

Edited by Raptorx7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as mentioned, if we get branching triggers, the AI in scenarios will become very tough.

Many scenario designers are quite fiendish :)

 

QB AI will necessarily lag behind. That one's not going to happen anytime soon for all the reasons stated.

Edited by Baneman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arma is a bad example at this time.

 

Games that have tooth to tail of a year like Planetary Annihilation which was funded entirely through kickstarter are a better example. And the AI on that can and will thrash you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well to sum up,

1. BF has said repeatedly that more work for the AI that is being suggested here is not going to happen, they'd simply don't feel the investment it would take is within their reach

2. Triggers are an example of the direction they are going and no it is not a full AI that reads your moves and counters in anything other than a simplistic sense

3. If option 1 & 2 do not make you happy unfortunately you are destined to be unhappy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

QB AI will necessarily lag behind. That one's not going to happen anytime soon for all the reasons stated.

 

Aye, I dont care particularly if it lags behind. Or comes out in Combat mission 4. As long as it gets looked at and is a long term development goal.

Edited by Stagler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...