More in sorrow than in anger: I'm done until pathfinding is sorted

[Battlefront.com]

Istari,

Glad to be of assistance!

laribe,

I think a lot of people brought the game to play Iraq,afghan and somali scenarios and campaigns and not a future event?.

I'm not sure what relevance this has. First, CM:SF is clearly NOT about those wars. At least we've said that very clearly. Second, how is Syria different from Iraq in terms of pathfinding? Do the Syrians drive on the other side of the road?

So pathfinding needs to be good and the testers never took this into account for built up areas.

For that to be true that would mean our testers never played urban battles. And that's not true, so your statement is also nto true

Steve

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For that to be true that would mean our testers never played urban battles. And that's not true, so your statement is also not true

In this case, what did the testers report with regards to pathfinding? Did they get 'used' to it? Did they come up with a way of plotting waypoints that is working better than what we use?

Best regards,

Thomm

[Hev]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Istari,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So pathfinding needs to be good and the testers never took this into account for built up areas.

For that to be true that would mean our testers never played urban battles. And that's not true, so your statement is also nto true

Steve </font>

[InvaderCanuck]

What i've noticed that the pathing AI seems to take liberty with what it does AT each waypoint.

For example, I have ordered a squad to quickly move through a series of alleys and back streets to a building via many waypoints. Occasionally they will reach a waypoint and divert completely off the path to assemble in the middle of a more open area before setting off again.

I too have noticed that individual soldiers will often ignore a waypoint placed directly in front of a door, to circle the house and enter the building from the other door. Usually it seems like it is about half the squad.

[KAding]

Originally posted by InvaderCanuck:

What i've noticed that the pathing AI seems to take liberty with what it does AT each waypoint.

For example, I have ordered a squad to quickly move through a series of alleys and back streets to a building via many waypoints. Occasionally they will reach a waypoint and divert completely off the path to assemble in the middle of a more open area before setting off again.

I too have noticed that individual soldiers will often ignore a waypoint placed directly in front of a door, to circle the house and enter the building from the other door. Usually it seems like it is about half the squad.

Do the soldiers block each others path perhaps? You see that in many games and I'm not sure but I think I keep seeing it at doors in CM:SF as well. They move towards the door, but then suddenly seem to run off in a different direction, around the building. It's as if they think that the door you want them to use is no longer available? Perhaps because another soldier is currently going through it and thus blocking it, causing the path algorithm to plot a new route around the building through another other door?

[aka_tom_w]

When plotting waypoints for foot units think of this:

Way point for soldiers on foot should also be thought of as "Rally Points" the TAC AI likes to understand a waypoint as a place to gather and "rally" before moving on. You could try get them where you want with fewer "rally points" if you don't want them to stop and "gather" at each way point you plot.

"I too have noticed that individual soldiers will often ignore a waypoint placed directly in front of a door, to circle the house and enter the building from the other door. Usually it seems like it is about half the squad."

This might just be the TAC AI trying to "help" you.

[Other Means]

I still think a lot of the issues could be dealt with by showing the path the unit will take when you set a waypoint, allowing you to change as you see fit.

[Blackmuzzle]

@Steve: Thanks for your response and the effort you guys are no doubt spending on finding and fixing bugs. Yes we pay money for the games, but I still want you to know that your efforts are appreciated.

Now on to your major statement: Pathfinding bugs and the difficulty to find and fix them. I find myself in the position of being the customer here (contrary to work, where I do software for a living), so at some point I have to say that yes, this is a problem, but it is definitely one for you to solve.

Oh yes, pathfinding is easy to implement (A* or Dijkstra and you're done) but hard to do right (you have to resolve situations like conflicting moves of two different units and so forth, which I feel is CMSF's big problem right now)

It would help to know under which circumstances units are allowed and supposed to break formation.

As for finding out *why* a unit shows a convoluted path in debug mode, well that shouldn't be too difficult really. And given that such problems can be hard to replicate by manual means, I really hope you guys are doing unit tests on the pathfinding to see which parts are improved or worsened by a code change.

Finally, let me state that I don't mind a unit not reading my mind when I plot a 2-waypoint-path that goes straight through a dense settlement. However, even when doing that, I expect the unit to take a working path and execute that move. And when I have 5 units selected, I expect them to either select different paths, or going one-by-one on a single path. Difficult to code? You bet. But not at all impossible.

[Drusus]

There are some things you have to learn about the game to get the wanted behavior. First, when ordering units through gaps, if there is another unit close to the gap the path finding algorithm will see it as closed even though it seems to be open.

Another thing is that you have to move your troops in a way that it is clear to the AI which is the best way to move. When unloading a Stryker to a building you need to be in a position where the only way to the building is the protected way. If there is a possible bad route and good route, you are not guaranteed to get the "obvious" good route.

For me the most annoying bug is infantry ordered to hunt. When they make contact, they cancel the hunt order and then the TAC AI sets a new command to regroup the unit. This is not the behavior expected. I would like them to hit the dirt and fight from the position they are in. In the worst cases the troops will run for 20 meters under fire to regroup. And you can't cancel that. Well, usually not that much, because they get killed before that.

[cow_cookie]

@Battlefront: Thanks for the response and your promises to look into it. That's really all I wanted to hear. I realize coding is incredibly complicated (certainly beyond me), and I know problems come up. I'm more than willing to hang around while y'all try to fix them because the core concept is awesome.

I'm still curious if there are any complete newbies who tested the product. Employees at the company where I work, for example, can roughly be divided into the specialists who produce the actual product that the customer sees and the support staff who enable us to get that product to the customer. Us specialists may appreciate a particularly elegant solution to a technical problem. However, our customers are more like our support staff - they don't care about solutions to complex problems, they just want an enjoyable end product. Consequently, we often ask our support staff to give us a rundown on what works and what doesn't. They can be brutal, but it helps us take a step back from work that we can be extremely invested in personally. Something I may appreciate may actually drive away the customer I'm working for.

When unloading a Stryker to a building you need to be in a position where the only way to the building is the protected way. If there is a possible bad route and good route, you are not guaranteed to get the "obvious" good route.

Kind of off topic, but is there a way to tell your guys which way to disembark. The game always seems to just pick a spot. It's never been a big problem for me, but a little more control could be nice.

[KAding]

Kind of off topic, but is there a way to tell your guys which way to disembark. The game always seems to just pick a spot. It's never been a big problem for me, but a little more control could be nice.

I always just select the embarked infantry and give them movements orders, rather than using the 'disembark' order. This way you can immediately set the waypoints and don't get the random disembarkation point. They just run out of the vehicle, immediately to the first way point.

[carlR]

This thread alone has made me decide not to buy the game yet. Going to wait for problems to be fixed. Same as with TOW funnily enough......

[Blackmuzzle]

Originally posted by cow_cookie:

Something I may appreciate may actually drive away the customer I'm working for.

I had exactly this A-HA!-type of moment a few weeks ago when a customer explained to me why he won't accept the way an electronic flight-strip was being displayed and moved on the screen. As a computer user I saw no problem. But when a controller showed me how they use it, I saw that they could misinterpret the way the strips were laid out as the runway being free, when in fact there was a plane already lined up! And the sound of one plane humping another isn't too pleasant...

It's similar here: It might be just a "convoluted path" to the programmer, but when two Strykers turn into each other instead of just proceeding ahead to the waypoint, it may mean the difference between victory and defeat. If you have this happen 2 times out of 10, the game is essentially unplayable because while nobody enjoys loosing, suffering defeat for no reason is so much more infuriating.

EDIT: I support the call for a display of the actual planned path after setting a waypoint. That way, at least the turn-based games are playable because you can see when the path is not to your liking (whether that be a bug or not)

I think SupremeCommander has done an excellent job on that (as well as on the entire interface for that matter) for it displays paths as straight lines on open terrain, but detailed path-segments when navigating through a densely-built base.

[ July 31, 2007, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Blackmuzzle ]

[Bahger]

As Steve says, the issue here is abstraction, but I'm going to deploy the term in a slightly different way: I can accept vehicles getting snarled up with each other and fired upon as an abstraction of fog-of-war, even when I've plotted good paths for them to contact. That's an abstraction I can just about live with. But it's when perhaps 20% of my vehicles are displaying absolutely no battlefield SA and driving around in circles or driving uncommanded into the midst of the enemy that I can no longer use abtraction as a necessary means of renmaining immersed in a game.

I value precision. I know very well the old saying quoted in the manual about the best plans not surviving first contact with the enemy but in 80% of the first turn of missions I've attempted to play, a movement order has produced anomalous results, exposing a vehicle needlessly, turning its rear end to the enemy or otherwise sabotaging the initiative I started out with as the offensive force. No offensive plan can be fun to play out if the initiative is squandered via coding glithces rather than player error; a tactical game loses its integrity that way. If my orderly plan is to fall apart, I want this to be the result of a tactical mistake on my part (I've made plenty) or smart enemy AI rather than persistently crazy pathfinding AI.

Last night I fired up GRAW 2. It's not tactically "deep" like CMSF, but the biggest (and necessary) improvement the devs made between GRAW 1 and GRAW 2 is that your AI squadmates go where you send them and face the right way, every time, assuming intelligent cover positions. And you can do this from either the tac-map or using HUD placement symbols. CMSF is potentially a much brainier, more tactically challenging and rewarding sim than GRAW but only if you can rely on your vehicles to go where you send them and face the right way, every time, assuming intelligent cover positions. Sadly, you cannot right now and the result breaks the tactical credibility of gameplay, a hugely destructive thing.

[bitchen frizzy]

Somebody tell me what's wrong with my interpretation of what's been said on this thread:

To keep units from moving unpredictably they have to be given lots of waypoints. However, at each waypoint infantry units get together for a group hug instead of simply continuing on and/or seeking cover. Thus you have to chose between unpredictable and potentially suicidal pathing by the AI, or potentially suicidal regrouping several times during a move.

I'm trying to separate fact from whinging in deciding when or if to put money down on this game.

[Becket]

Originally posted by bitchen frizzy:

Somebody tell me what's wrong with my interpretation of what's been said on this thread:

To keep units from moving unpredictably they have to be given lots of waypoints. However, at each waypoint infantry units get together for a group hug instead of simply continuing on and/or seeking cover. Thus you have to chose between unpredictable and potentially suicidal pathing by the AI, or potentially suicidal regrouping several times during a move.

I'm trying to separate fact from whinging in deciding when or if to put money down on this game.

Mabye download the demo and see if you like it? The pathfinding isn't going to change between full and demo.

[Bahger]

Steve has said there are severe limitations in what they can do to improve pathfinding but as I've said in the thread responding to the Eurogamer review, the problem is very grave because the nature of the type of warfare being modelled in CMSF (requiring speed and precision to compensate for numerical inferiority) has the unfortunate effect of showcasing the games biggest deficiencies (tac-AI and pathfinding). So...It's time for some lateral thinking. Something needs to be done in terms of map design, force size or calculation resources in order to simulate greater battlefield SA on the part of the U.S. forces if pathfinding improvements cannot actually implement it. The devs are facing a conceptual problem here, which is that in its current state, the game cannot meet the standard set by its own concept of warfare.

[Redwolf]

I don't think the pathfinding is any better or worse than in CMBB/CMAK.

But apart from the other factors mentioned, the smaller scale also causes the same deficiencies to have larger impact. Namely, since buildings are not abstracted with just "wall blobs" anymore, but you have doors and can breech, bad pathfinding has more opportunity to get your guys killed.

It also doesn't help, and that's really not necessary, IMHO, that CMx2 removed the feature to show all paths/waypoints, because that made you able to spot crazy auto-generated paths.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

I don't think the pathfinding is any better or worse than in CMBB/CMAK.

I seem to remember that in those programs the vehicles followed straight lines between waypoints. In CM:SF, they seem to stick to 0/45/90 degree angles. Just my impression after playing some more.

Best regards,

Thomm

Edit: Na. Can't be. I think I am wrong here.

[Dirtweasle]

Yea, the inf. units seem to me to do a little dance at each waypoint. Vehicles kind of bolt off and then come around... plus as mentioned turn ass end first at times.

Steve (or other BFc reps), any chance for a list of the low hanging fruit to be addressed ASAP in a patch, what you'd like to get in and what is longer term, that kind of thing?

[Pvt. Ryan]

I had an Abrams drive through narrow city streets at full speed making many turns (admittedly suicidal, but he survived!) and the tank had no problems whatseover. I haven't really noticed any pathfinding problems with vehicles, but infantry does seem to pause too long at waypoints.

[Blackmuzzle]

One thing I noticed is that when you have waypoints set close to each other, and the unit's movement is set to anything but slow, the unit's turn radius will be too wide for it to reach the waypoint, causing it to "overshoot", stop, then turn towards the waypoint. While I can compensate for that by using a slow advance, it would be far more intuitive for the unit to simply not drive too fast to finish the turn to hit the waypoint.

Similarly, when driving straight a unit should not overshoot the waypoint and then back off. It should start braking early and then just stop on the right spot.

A similar thing goes for the infantry. Clearing the order queue should NOT make them stand up and reverse a few meters. Especially when under fire, they should stay prone. Every single one of my soldiers who stood up without explicit orders, and subsequently got shot, deserved what he got.

[Zarquon]

Originally posted by Drusus:

There are some things you have to learn about the game to get the wanted behavior. First, when ordering units through gaps, if there is another unit close to the gap the path finding algorithm will see it as closed even though it seems to be open.

Another thing is that you have to move your troops in a way that it is clear to the AI which is the best way to move. When unloading a Stryker to a building you need to be in a position where the only way to the building is the protected way. If there is a possible bad route and good route, you are not guaranteed to get the "obvious" good route.

For me the most annoying bug is infantry ordered to hunt. When they make contact, they cancel the hunt order and then the TAC AI sets a new command to regroup the unit.

Maybe I'm the umpteenth poster to suggest this, but there are some great tips in there about what is, hmmm, currently an issue with the game. There are more such valuable tips buried in other threads. Now if somebody started putting together a FAQ thread with problems and workarounds instead of just bitching about how retardad da game iz, it might scare some potential buyers away, but it would also be a great help for any open-minded newbies who just had their first frustrating experiences with the demo. Put in a quote or two saying that "we know, we're sorry, and our entire coding department (a.k.a Charles) is working night and day on fixing these" and you might not only score some points for honesty, but make a number of people give the demo a second or third try. Give them a chance to discover what goodies are actually hidden in the package.

[cow_cookie]

it might scare some potential buyers away

Despite my complaints, I should note that I've never regretted my decision to purchase. I'm having a blast even with the pathfinding complaints I've detailed here. The core concept is awesome. Plus, I enjoy simulations of modern warfare much more than World War II (blasphemy, Iknow). I just know more about modern warfare and equipment, so I find it easier to get into. easily spent six hours playing the game on my day off. If any of you out there are sitting on the fence, let me give you a push: The game is worth it - quirks and all.

[Thomm]

Attention: pathfinding advice inbound:

When moving from house to house, plot waypoint BOTH in front of desired exit door and in front of desired entry door!!!!!

Best regards,

Thomm