sburke Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 IIRC there is a smartphone RPG game that plays itself. One just sets the alarm clock and checks it periodically. For CM, while there is little point for that kind of battle, "Wargamers are unwilling to pay for good AI." Steve's words. -->runs and hides from CM mafia Leave the AI, take the cannoli 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I wouldn't mind having a smarter high-level TacAI (opAI?) that could perform basic terrain analysis ("I need to hit that building with my supporting weapons to suppress, I will move a team here to do so"), intelligently coordinate elements if given a decent starting point and react to sudden reversals by attempting to flee the field and limit casualties when playing gametypes that penalize large force losses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaburke61 Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) If that comment "Wargamers are unwilling to pay for good AI" is true, that's really sad (and wrong). Typical blanket statements. I myself would pay much more than the current price for a smarter AI opponent. Heck, I'd settle for just more ability for randomization. I paid $80 for CMANO, and I consider it a complete bargain. I know not every body can/will afford a more expensive game, but there is definitely a group of us who would definitely pony up more mula for smarter AI, as I for one do not want to play PBEM. Edited March 11, 2015 by kaburke61 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I find the BFC position here to be somewhat self-contradictory. On the one hand, they state that "vs AI" is the default play mode, with the vast majority of their constituency only ever playing against the computer. And on the other, they dismiss any desire for an improved AI opponent. I do understand that it's not totally internally contradictory, but surely AI is a priority for the vsAI players; we already know that people bitch and moan about paying $10 for feature-based engine upgrades, so hearing the same complaints about an AI-based engine upgrade shouldn't stop that leg of development, especially now the game is largely "feature-complete". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I would much much rather see a proper lobby system and real time MP options than an AI development change. Infintely so. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Tamson Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I find the BFC position here to be somewhat self-contradictory. On the one hand, they state that "vs AI" is the default play mode, with the vast majority of their constituency only ever playing against the computer. And on the other, they dismiss any desire for an improved AI opponent. I do understand that it's not totally internally contradictory, but surely AI is a priority for the vsAI players; we already know that people bitch and moan about paying $10 for feature-based engine upgrades, so hearing the same complaints about an AI-based engine upgrade shouldn't stop that leg of development, especially now the game is largely "feature-complete". I wonder how much Real Time - which I would see dropped in a heartbeat - hinders what BFC feel they can achieve with the AI. For example, is the 7 second spotting cycle to help support a certain minimum frame rate in Real Time? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I wonder how much Real Time - which I would see dropped in a heartbeat - hinders what BFC feel they can achieve with the AI. For example, is the 7 second spotting cycle to help support a certain minimum frame rate in Real Time? That doesn't even make sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Tamson Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) That doesn't even make sense. Perhaps not to you. It does to anyone who knows anything about computers. What would the impact on frame rates be if the CPU was dealing with a 2 second spotting cycle for every unit? It matters in Real Time. It doesn't particularly matter in WEGO. So, by the same token, any developments of the AI which demand more cycles from the CPU will negatively affect frame rates. Again, matters in Real Time, doesn't particularly matter in WEGO. Edited March 11, 2015 by Jock Tamson 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Tamson Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 The number of non-AI compatible -- but still popular! -- addons found on fan sites like Armaholic; e.g. the multiplayer focused ACE mod vs. this one to add in functioning AI calls for fire. A comparison of AI-only videos, AARs, etc. posted compared to those featuring player intervention on one or both sides. More generally, around 1200 hours in ArmA2 and a lot of contact with the rest of the community. What's your source for AI-only spectating being even, oh, I dunno, let's say five percent of the total of any wargame of the past ten years? Why would I cite a source when I haven't made any sweeping generalisations about how popular a feature is? There are many, many more Arma players who have never touched multiplayer, myself included. You have no idea what features they may use. BTW, most of ACE works perfectly well with the AI, as does nearly every other mod on Armaholic. From memory, the most active threads on the BI Forums were usually the AI related ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Perhaps not to you. It does to anyone who knows anything about computers. What would the impact on frame rates be if the CPU was dealing with a 2 second spotting cycle for every unit? It matters in Real Time. It doesn't particularly matter in WEGO. So, by the same token, any developments of the AI which demand more cycles from the CPU will negatively affect frame rates. Again, matters in Real Time, doesn't particularly matter in WEGO. Its easy enough to test, just drop units close to each other: As a note, ~7 second spotting time is shortened when units are in close proximity. I think it can go down to ~1 second IIRC. Put two opposing infantry battalions in close (like 30-50m) on a QB map. Play for a few seconds and note the FPS. Reset, pan camera away from the action and start again; the actual drop in FPS is minimal, hitting primarily when it comes to render trees, units, smoke from HE being delivered, etc. There might be other under-the-hood stuff that is being broken, but it is definitely not frame rate. As a sidenote, I have trouble believing you know very much about computers yourself if you describe your rig as "very high end" yet claim to get only 15 FPS in forests. Why would I cite a source when I haven't made any sweeping generalisations about how popular a feature is? There are many, many more Arma players who have never touched multiplayer, myself included. You have no idea what features they may use. BTW, most of ACE works perfectly well with the AI, as does nearly every other mod on Armaholic. From memory, the most active threads on the BI Forums were usually the AI related ones. I assumed you had an actual point you were attempting to support with your anecdote. If you agree that AI vs. AI play isn't particularly popular, why would you ask me for a source? And no, most ACE features do absolutely nothing for AI vs. AI play, which is what I was referring to. Edited March 11, 2015 by Apocal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) I wonder how much Real Time - which I would see dropped in a heartbeat - hinders what BFC feel they can achieve with the AI. For example, is the 7 second spotting cycle to help support a certain minimum frame rate in Real Time? Haha. The 90s called, they asked if they could get any tips on game design from the future. I told them not to call here again it was a waste of time. Edited March 12, 2015 by Stagler 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Haha. The 90s called, they asked if they could get any tips on game design from the future. I told them not to call here again it was a waste of time. What's that, sorry I missed it while googling "games that Stagler has designed". Try as I might I couldn't get any matches. Damn search engines are screwed up cause it is obvious you are cranking them out all the time. Edited March 12, 2015 by sburke 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Haha. The 90s called, they asked if they could get any tips on game design from the future. I told them not to call here again it was a waste of time. I'm just curious as to whether you actually like the game ? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) What's that, sorry I missed it while googling "games that Stagler has designed". Try as I might I couldn't get any matches. Damn search engines are screwed up cause it is obvious you are cranking them out all the time. Has anyone here designed a game from the ground up single handedly? I don't think anyone has. BF is a team at the end of the day. But what published work I have done in my spare time mind is there, your not looking hard enough.http://store.steampowered.com/news/8440/ Didn't ever get paid by AWAR sadly. I'm just curious as to whether you actually like the game ? Its a good concept - same as all CM games. I rotate between ARMA, CMSF/CMA/CMBN/CMBS, SB, and DCS. The game is good. But nowhere near as good as I would like to see it. Nowhere near as good as it could be with proper funding and a decent community. This will only come from better advertisement and proliferation of the game, which in turn requires a good base to build from - i.e with the features that most people expect nowadays. As Jim Morrison said, book them and they will come. Dilemma - yes. Despite common belief, I didn't pitch up with the last bunch of people to come just before CMBS was released. I have been here since CMA came out, ergo, I see the same things, the same stagnation. Edited March 12, 2015 by Stagler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Thanks for the lead, I googled it and found this. The game has received mostly negative reviews from critics.[citation needed] The game has a score of 2.0 from GameSpot[6] and a Metacritic score of 55.[7] I have to admit to being less than overly impressed as a qualification to critique CM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Meh, VR2 engine. Take it or leave it. Iron Front was a sadly poor attempt at making a WW2 ARMA. The I44 mod for the base game was better imho. The subsequent open source access granted and porting of Iron Front into A3 however is even better than both. Shows you what happens when you let people play around with your source. CMBN on metacritic has 81 based on 4 critics, and user of 6.6 from 38 ratings. Iron Front has 55 based on 20 Critics , and user of 6.5 based on 91 ratings. CMBN hasn't even been reviewed by Gamespot. I guess in a "wargame" or "combat sim" niche its the users that make the best reviewers right? Edited March 12, 2015 by Stagler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 Whatever. Slamming the game as being "90s" tech is going to get you the response it got. Hyperbole from someone who's livelihood is not dependent on the income generated by the product always goes over flat. The point of all the above is you are not making a living off any game you produced. That kind of puts the hyperbole in perspective. We all want combat mission to be the best game it can be. The difference is most of us don't start with some smug unwarranted exclamation from some holier than thou supposedly knowledgable place. You want to pretend to know more than Charles, have at it. I won't stand in the way of that train wreck. If you knew as much as you imply one thinks you would not be on this forum but rather on your own responding to users of your product. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Its already been explained many times that BFC doesn't have the budget/time for these major changes like to the AI, Stagler you said you might be making 200,000$ soon, why not send that BFC's way? Edited March 12, 2015 by Raptorx7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 I played Iron Front a lot for a while. I really tried to like it, but it played like a modern combat sim just using WW2 weapons. Seeing soldiers using tactical movement seemed very weird in a WW2 combat sim. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jock Tamson Posted March 12, 2015 Share Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) As a sidenote, I have trouble believing you know very much about computers yourself if you describe your rig as "very high end" yet claim to get only 15 FPS in forests. Wow, my first internet stalker. Which forum did you dig that out of, CMRT? I don't find the trees as bad in CMBS but there is undoubtedly something about the rendering that is very inefficient. Maybe it's an issue with the API. As far as CMBS is concerned: I have a i5-2500k @4.7Ghz, 16GB of RAM, and a 4GB GTX980 I set the GPU to 1/2 refresh rate (30FPS) vsync as most of the time the frame rate (best/best) is in the 20s - Combat Mission is CPU bound. Setting the cap at 30 irons out the peaks and troughs and makes the camera movement smoother. I have multi sampling / AA set to On in the CM menu (if you turn it off and then try to force it in the Nvidia control panel, it will stay off). In the NVidia Control Panel, I have anti aliasing set to "Enhance", and I use 8x I also downsample the display from 2560*1440 to 1080p, scaling the display on the GPU Edited March 12, 2015 by Jock Tamson 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) Whatever. Slamming the game as being "90s" tech is going to get you the response it got. Hyperbole from someone who's livelihood is not dependent on the income generated by the product always goes over flat. The point of all the above is you are not making a living off any game you produced. That kind of puts the hyperbole in perspective. We all want combat mission to be the best game it can be. The difference is most of us don't start with some smug unwarranted exclamation from some holier than thou supposedly knowledgable place. You want to pretend to know more than Charles, have at it. I won't stand in the way of that train wreck. If you knew as much as you imply one thinks you would not be on this forum but rather on your own responding to users of your product. My spare time hobby is someone's real income dependent job? Does it mean they am better at it than I? Maybe, maybe not. There is no independent AI in this game. All games in similar genres/categories/semantics have one. These are facts. My unwarranted opinion may be I want to see proper AI soon, yes, but it seems that many others think the same. Otherwise this thread and the poll thread would not have been created. Maybe not as unwarranted as you think then. Its already been explained many times that BFC doesn't have the budget/time for these major changes like to the AI, Stagler you said you might be making 200,000$ soon, why not send that BFC's way? If they offered me a job to code their AI in my spare time, I would take it. As for the 200,000 euros for the MANW prize, it is split between the dev team of 30 odd people. Provided that we win, which is highly likely, I could give my 6000 euroes to battlefront. But what good would that do? They must have taken in sales of CMBN, its modules, CMFI, its modules, CMRT, and CMBS something much greater in the magnitude of 6000 euroes and it has not changed the AI in the past five years I have been on this forum and buying their products. I am dedicated to tipping up to any thread where another poster, in this case a new member of the forums, highlights an issue that is precious to me. As I am sure many of you do also. I will back that poster up and remind him that he is not alone as he is drowned out by the same old rubbish that kills every thread on game improvement. Edited March 13, 2015 by Stagler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 As for the 200,000 euros for the MANW prize, it is split between the dev team of 30 odd people. Provided that we win, which is highly likely, I could give my 6000 euroes to battlefront. But what good would that do? They must have taken in sales of CMBN, its modules, CMFI, its modules, CMRT, and CMBS something much greater in the magnitude of 6000 euroes and it has not changed the AI in the past five years I have been on this forum and buying their products. Thats there explanation and I really don't think they are lying, I would love to see all of the things you ask/argue about on the forum but its obviously not going to happen soon, Steve has a better understanding of what is possible and what isn't than any of us, being antagonistic against the company in your comments is just silly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) I cant see where I am being antagonistic in that above post, I am sorry. I don't think they are lying, they maybe making a decision I think is the wrong one but it is my right to voice it even though people may think I am incorrect also. The truth is that I have been suggesting these improvements for the past five years. One of my first threads was on AI in CMA. Nothing has happened. Okay, there are some new AI plan options - but what happened to the generic one from CM1 titles. That is a retrograde as far as I am concerned. As I said in the poll thread, I would pay for an AI upgrade. 20 dollars per game. Then pay an addition 10 per new game title to have it packaged with it. As stated above, I will come and defend anyone who wants to see the same thing as I - whether that be AI or a proper multiplayer framework. To be frank, the attitudes of some of the CM community to strangers and newcomers that ask questions like "why cant we do x y z", or "why isn't there x" is downright toxic. Edited March 13, 2015 by Stagler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 Go Stagler go However being a pessimist I can't help it. Am of the opinion that product quality of the entire game industry has been imploding for a few years. AI etc is like cream on top which is the first to go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted March 13, 2015 Share Posted March 13, 2015 If they offered me a job to code their AI in my spare time, I would take it. Anybody else getting flashbacks of Joe Isuzu? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.