Hard Light Productions Forums

General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Fabian on August 12, 2008, 10:52:50 am

Title: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Fabian on August 12, 2008, 10:52:50 am
Hello,

as some of you know, I have been working on a modularization of the AI code.

Now this is finished and I actually want to do something with it and play around with AI changes.

However I am not the best at the game and such I am searching for good game tactics:

- either:

* tricks how you outperform the AI by bad AI behavior
* tricks how you react different then the AI against the AI (like in a bomber with a target to destroy)

One thing I already noted is: AI dodges missiles much too late if you are far away.

The benefit you get once I am finished:

An AI that withstands all your hard-learned tricks ;) and is actually able to help in a bombing run for example and is much more "intelligent".

Now people have not played much in capships, but of course there also it is possible to do some new tactics.

So go ahead and give me all of your tricks, ideas, techniques and tactics that you use (against the AI) :-).

Best Wishes,

Fabian
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: IPAndrews on August 12, 2008, 10:54:45 am
I don't crash into things.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Snail on August 12, 2008, 11:04:45 am
DIVE DIVE DIVE HIT YOUR BURNERS, AI!

Why so serious? Ok.

Uhh...

Using afterburners to escape Trebuchets, and moving around more unpredictably? Turning earlier, too, for dodging missiles?

Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Solatar on August 12, 2008, 11:22:23 am
Rolling left and right while turning. Not sure if this actually helps me avoid a missile, or just makes me feel like I'm more badass.

Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Mobius on August 12, 2008, 11:42:46 am
In close combat, when turning, I oftentimes shut my engines down in order to turn better and fire lasers or tempests. When I do this the enemy easily sustains damage.

A more intelligent AI should either:

1) Stop the fighter like I do and fire on me;

2) Flee on the opposite side, possibly not in a straight line, and attack me again;

I like avoiding missiles in a particular way when I face my opponents. I get them in head to head combat and when they launch missiles right in front of me I perform the Mobius Spiral to avoid missiles without using countermeasures. I think the AI is pretty weak when using/evading secondaries head to head combat. An intelligent AI should:

1) Try to attack and evade at the same time by performing a M. Spiral or something similar in head to head combat;

2) Combine maneuvers and countermeasures to evade incoming secondaries, especially at long range. The player wins because he has the possibility to weaken or annihilate his opponents with Trebuchets and Tornadoes.

Bombers are sitting ducks. We all know what they do when attacking and we all know what we do when flying bombers. An intelligent AI should:

1) Never fly in a straight line. Fly in an unpredictable way and get close to the target at the same time.

2) Open the formation. Bombers are damn easy to kill when they're all together. The distance should be increased.

3) Make use of countermeasures and poor meneuvers to evade the opponents and continue to get close to their target.

4) If possible, rotate so that bomber turrets can shoot at bandits coming from all directions.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Topgun on August 12, 2008, 11:46:51 am
avoid collisions. both debris and otherwise.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Snail on August 12, 2008, 11:53:08 am
Flee capital ship explosions.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Topgun on August 12, 2008, 12:00:01 pm
I make a vote we delay 3.610 just for the new ai. :nod:
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Narwhal on August 12, 2008, 12:55:45 pm
Quote
2) Open the formation. Bombers are damn easy to kill when they're all together. The distance should be increased.

Actually, if the bomber has some turrets, it is better if they fly in formation. If they don't have any, they should spread out.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: nvsblmnc on August 12, 2008, 01:19:18 pm
I'd like to see fighters able to perform a 'global' escort, protecting the entire escort list, rather than one specific ship.

It just doesn't make sense that the AI can sometimes completely ignore a friendly ship that command is telling them is a top priority.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Droid803 on August 12, 2008, 01:35:25 pm
Well, you could also make it so that the AI doesn't waste its missiles on Asteroids...
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on August 12, 2008, 01:38:01 pm
Bombers with multiple banks of bombs should fire, lock next bank, and fire again if possible. 

Ignore disabled ships unless specifically ordered to do otherwise. 

Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: IPAndrews on August 12, 2008, 02:00:29 pm
Ignore disabled ships unless specifically ordered to do otherwise. 

I'd like to veto this :P. I see no reason for AI to ignore sitting ducks. You can SEXP script ignore disabled ships anyway.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: FUBAR-BDHR on August 12, 2008, 02:40:04 pm
Not in multi you can't.  AI will repeatedly attack disabled ships and you can't order player AI ships not to with sexps or initial orders.  Try Codename RobinHood.  You have to tell them to ignore every 30 seconds or so or they will kill the ships you need to capture.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: karajorma on August 12, 2008, 03:16:27 pm
That's a bug then. Not a behaviour that needs to be altered.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: WMCoolmon on August 12, 2008, 06:32:23 pm
Fighters:

Sit on the tail of an enemy fighter, match speed, and use burners when he does while firing guns and turning with him. Works extremely well for Basilisks, where you can fall in behind an entire formation and take them out in a matter of seconds after you've matched speed with the first one.

Problem with this is that you're basically dead if the AI tries it against you and your fighter is less maneuverable than theirs is. So one thing I'd like to see is AI that keeps a kind of ESP out for enemy fighters, and will disengage from combat in order to scare off fighters attached to the ships they're supposed to be defending. (Of course you're still dead if you've got no wingmen...)

Another thing that would be nice would be more burners usage when not in combat. For example, traveling long distances.

Another nice thing would be friendly fighters that auto-equalize their shields after combat, and set shield charge to full when not engaged to replenish their shields (same for guns, engines, etc.)

AI that uses Trebuchets, Stilletos properly, esp if they're attacking a ship that has one or two cannons on a side that are doing the most damage. As well as directing fire towards targets of opportunity on the hull when attacking (eg turrets or subsystems).

AI that reorients itself so that its gun banks are most in line with the widest area of the ship.

Bombers that wait to launch their bombs until very close to the target ship, as well as juking and using burners to try and throw off defender fire. Right now the first wave of bombs that bombers launched is virtually always shot down if the ship has any decent fighter defenses whatsoever.

Calling for a support ship whenever critical systems are disabled. Of course, this is a bit unfair since I think the AI can't call for support when its comm system is damaged or destroyed, whereas the player can. However, the support ship AI should be improved to head for ships with dead comm systems, and the AI should be smart enough to sit there and wait for it (Provided their are no hostiles in the mission. If there are, and the fighter's weapons are dead, and no enemy ships are attacking it, it should go in for resupply anyway).

Running like the dickens when a big ship blows up (including burners). Although it is kind of fun to vaporize your wingmen in a Demon's explosion. :D

Retreating towards friendly capital ships with anti-fighter guns when faced with overwhelming odds.

Coming to a stop in front of oncoming wings and firing off missiles at different ships until the oncoming wing begins firing missiles, then turn tail and launch countermeasures before they can hit. Presumably retreating towards your wingmates or capital ships. Only really a good tactic if you've got long-range missiles and they've got short-range missiles, and your fighter is faster than theirs or you're close enough to friendly ships that the speed difference won't be enough to get you killed.

Use the afterburner and turn way more when getting shot at from behind. I can't count the number of times I've watched a friendly fighter speed along in a straight line, while two or more enemy fighters sit behind it and pummel it with lasers.

Have AI that learns the "sweet spot" in head-on confrontations - that point where the enemy fighter can't really turn and launch countermeasures for it to be effective because it's so close, but not so close that the missiles won't be able to turn rapidly enough to hit it.

When an AI fighter finds itself outside the battle with homing missiles, it sits back and takes aim at enemy fighters and fires away until one of them takes notice or they're all dead.

For capital ships:

Hoo boy, where to begin here? Probably a FREDder would be better equipped to handle this section, but I digress...

Better tactical strategy, depending on gun placement and enemies faced. Should avoid enemy beams while trying to bring its own big guns to bear. Should understand whether the enemy can blow it away in one blast (Sathanas vs Fenris) and it needs to prioritize getting out of a danger spot to even survive at all, or if the enemy can't hit it with anything significant while it brings its big guns to bear (Aten vs Deimos).

Better bomb defense strategy. Sometimes, blowing up bombers is better than blowing up bombs because they keep launching bombs as they go, and once they get to 100m or so the bombs can't be intercepted as easily and fewer turrets can reach them.

When faced with a fighter taking out turrets and with no other orders, the AI moves to bring itself within the protective sphere of other ship turrets or towards the attacking ship.

Like fighters, capital ships should go for targets of opportunity on an enemy capital ship's hull, especially when it can take pot shots at bigass beam cannons that would rip it to shreds.

On that note, capital ships should be smart enough to try and maneuver around so ships like the Lilith can't bring their big gun(s) into play as easily (more or less part of "Better tactical strategy", but it deserves to be explicitly stated).

Capital ships should maneuver to bring themselves closer to their fighter cover's sphere of influence, both to assist them and to gain greater protection, as long as they have no conflicting orders.

In the event of one side's turrets getting destroyed by enemy forces, the ship should roll to bring its other side to bear - unless friendly forces are still in the process of killing the ships with Stilletos/disruptors that caused it, in which case the capital ship should rotate away in order to prevent those ships from taking any more subsystems down before they're destroyed.

When encountering a blockade with turrets, capital ships should prioritize turrets with big beam weapons for "conversation" with their large beams, and fire slow-moving blob turrets at stationary fighter turrets. More or less makes a blockade obsolete, but what the hell, it's more realistic, right?

In an asteroid field, capital ships should go to town on the asteroids except in the case of limited ammo or if fighters are on that side.

When two capital ships are assigned to guard another capital ship, they should hang out where that capital ship does not possess weapons comparable to theirs. For example, an Aeolus might hang out underneath a Demon, while an Orion would want to stay on Hecate's side to boost its broadside firepower.

When a ship has a fighterbay and is flying adjacent to another friendly ship, it should rotate its fighterbay to put it under protection from the other ship as well.

When another capital ship is exploding, other capital ships should vector away from it (Even though it probably won't do any good unless they're really fast for a capship).

If a capship notices a stationary fighter (disabled, rearming, sniping) in the range of its big ship guns, and it doesn't have any capital ships to shoot at, it fires on the stationary fighter. (However, if the fighter moves enough while it's powering up, it misses.)

If a fighter starts taking out its guns and hugging the surface, the capship should start turning in a direction which makes this difficult or uncomfortable. Possibly apply the Pancake effect?

In the event of a heavy bomber attack, capital ships should move closer to anti-fighter capital ships to bring more guns to bear. In the event that a ship is basically dead, it should make a good-faith attempt at getting itself far enough away from other capital ships to reduce the effects of its death, and to give them more time to get in a more appropriate formation.

Antifighter capital ships should move to the appropriate side of a capital ship to defend from bomber attacks, but remain wary of suprise attacks from the other side.

Pathfinding

All AI should have the ability to find itself a way around any object in its path, as well as a rudimentary pathfinding ability for if it gets stuck in a maze of some kind. (eg flying through a ship's corridors)

AI should have the ability to follow strict paths - so FREDder can give ships precise maneuvers - and loose paths, where ships are free to react to changing conditions before proceding towards the waypoint(s).
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: NGTM-1R on August 12, 2008, 06:42:20 pm
Teach it how to not slam into things, like the capital ship it was happily shooting at until I dropped its rear shield, at which point it hits afterburners and rockets directly into its target, usually ricocheting off, but sometimes self-killing.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: S-99 on August 12, 2008, 06:54:43 pm
Have the ai switch to the most appropriate weapon in it's loadout depending on what it's attacking. There's been many times where to make my wing quicker at disabling cruisers and stuff, that i'd equip a load out of subsystem disruptors and prometheuse's. Disruptor as first weapon, prometheus as second. And after the cruisers are taken out, i switch to my prometheus and start blasting fighters, only to notice that i'm doing all of the killing because the ai is trying to kill fighters with nothing but subsystem disruptors. :mad:
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Solatar on August 12, 2008, 07:03:09 pm
More effective use of primaries. I know the refire rate can be set in the tables (ai, etc.) but AI fighters could do with taking more pot shots. If they can't line up a shot directly with my fighter, shoot near it. Basically, shoot more but not with 100% accuracy all the time.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Goober5000 on August 12, 2008, 09:51:55 pm
Shoot at one fighter while acquiring target lock on another.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: -Joshua- on August 13, 2008, 03:48:03 am
Ai that actually focusses on the fighter that is behind them (Alright, many human players don't do that either (And don't use the serapis for that reason), but AI does not have an 1.5 armor multiplier).

The worst case of when they don't is when the AI is assigned to protect a cruiser that is rather far away. They speed towards the cruiser, completely ignoring the dragons who calmly fly behind them and blow thier shields and armor away.

Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on August 13, 2008, 04:49:47 am
The AI should learn how to fire different torpedoes. The Cyclops can be launched about 1000m away from a target subsystem to score a hit, but a Helios needs to be shot at 500m WHILE the ship is on afterburn.

On lower difficulty levels, it seems that the AI only uses one primary gun bank, even when it is loaded with two different gun configurations.

The AI isn't fully experienced with effective shield management either, nor do they seem to fear getting hit by an AAA.

The worst case of when they don't is when the AI is assigned to protect a cruiser that is rather far away. They speed towards the cruiser, completely ignoring the dragons who calmly fly behind them and blow thier shields and armor away.

You can get that from Alpha 2 in A Game of TAG.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 13, 2008, 06:48:43 am
No jousting, i.e charging straight at you guns blazing.

Also, bombers should utilize their afterburners while on their bombing runs rather than just to evade.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Snail on August 13, 2008, 06:50:43 am
No jousting, i.e charging straight at you guns blazing.
If you do the same thing on insane to a charging AI, you die. And even if you do survive, one of their friends comes by and kills you.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Retsof on August 13, 2008, 12:17:55 pm
Instead if trying to program in common sense, make it so that it can learn.  :P (Impossible I know, but it would be so awesome)
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Excalibur on August 13, 2008, 06:39:47 pm
-When head on charging, you can dodge just before the AI's stuff hits you, and it keeps flying straight.
-AI that doesn't return to base in front of a wing of Erinyes armed with Kaysers.
-Also, could we leave the old AI options available as well when these new ones are implemented? Because it is fun to sometimes use not-so-smart AI, even if it is in easy.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Retsof on August 13, 2008, 07:15:36 pm
AI that departs when at critical hull damage.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: S-99 on August 13, 2008, 08:18:51 pm
Have the ai switch to the most appropriate weapon in it's loadout depending on what it's attacking.

You mean this androgeous exeunt?
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on August 14, 2008, 12:42:05 am
If you do the same thing on insane to a charging AI, you die. And even if you do survive, one of their friends comes by and kills you.

I did just that in INFA! Charged and died on the highest difficulty level. :D
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Topgun on August 14, 2008, 08:48:29 am
Capships that have shields should increase energy to the side that they are getting hit on the most so that they don't get pounded on from one side.
the same could be applied to fighters, but it's not as bad with them.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on August 14, 2008, 09:12:47 am
Have the ai switch to the most appropriate weapon in it's loadout depending on what it's attacking.

You mean this androgeous exeunt?

Something like that, but my point is that, on lower difficulty levels, the AI uses only one bank to shoot, even if firing both banks may give them a huge advantage.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Topgun on August 14, 2008, 09:16:17 am
make the ai like it is on insane but keep the penalties that it gets so that it's a bit easier on easy.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on August 14, 2008, 09:20:17 am
make the ai like it is on insane but keep the penalties that it gets so that it's a bit easier on easy.

Penalties like the reduced fire rate, perhaps. :nod:

The only problem with this is that it may raise the learning curve a little. :nervous:
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Topgun on August 14, 2008, 09:56:18 am
so? it's fine as long as it doesn't effect the retail campaign.
EDIT: just not the thing that makes the ai on insane never miss the lead indicator. that's ridiculous!
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: PL_Harpoon on August 14, 2008, 03:04:46 pm
After testing the AI for a little bit on Insane lvl.  I can only say one thing:
Make them more aggressive!
I mean, when you start to hit its hull AI starts to panic. They just stop attacking you and start doing poor evasive maneuvers until you stop shooting at it. No real human does that. From my experience I can say, that unless we`re in a real trouble, we turn as fast as we can to kill the enemy before it kills us and a few hits on hull doesn't change that.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Stormkeeper on August 14, 2008, 06:59:59 pm
I have a suggestion. If the AI is travelling waypoints, please for the love of God make it NOT go into evasive manuveurs just because a shot went close by to him. I'm not saying I shoot my team mates here. Cause I don't! But sometimes a stray projectile accidentally flies past them and they start going all evasive and loosing their waypoints.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Fabian on August 14, 2008, 08:50:24 pm
AI that departs when at critical hull damage.

I tried to implement that as an easy way of trying out my modular apporach.

It works, however:

- There are hits that get not reported to the ai_ship_hit function (this might be a bug)
- I made it so, that if its a friendly fighter or bomber, that it departs when its on 15-30% full strength left.

This might to seem much, however already with that value, most ships still do get destroyed and only seldom one is able to escape.

Ideas how to improve that or is it just "realistic"?

I also found out about the AI:

* The behavior that the AI should not go after followers when heading to a far-away to-be-protected target is actually _wanted_ by [V]. (and commented in code)

* The same behavior pretty much applies, when heading to destroy a target.

* The AI cannot hit other AI ships. Friendly fire is only enabled for the player.

What would be a good tactic to destroy / guard a long-way-to-go remote target and not get destroyed by followers while heading to it?

( I know that glide is ideal for that ...)

I tried it out in bearbaiting stopping, using first C-3-9 letting them fly out far away and then C-3-8 and I saw my wing-man get pummeled by the followers with ease and no resistance ...

So thats a good test-case ...

However while not being pummeled you do not need to get distracted too much as well, else the to guarded object is toast before you arrive ...

How do we humans judge that? How should a AI judge that?

Also: How do you think could the paths when flying in formation be improved?

I already thought about applying wing-man tactics. (i.e. A3 guards A4 and A4 guards A3).

Kind of: Break-and-Attack, but keep an eye on each other.

Best Wishes,

Fabian
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Bob-san on August 14, 2008, 09:13:26 pm
How about this: spraying primary fire from a distance? If they always follow the lead indicator exactly, all a player needs to do is keep distance and keep moving and they will rarely be hit. If the AI starts to spray primary fire more, they make your job a bit more difficult and make it follow a human's inability to always aim exactly.

Other than that, I'd like to see the AI bring their maneuverable ships to 1/3 speed and basically be a slow-turret. If a missile comes towards them, they use countermeasures. When they're low (say 5 left) or out, they will hit the afterburner to avoid an incoming missile and head inside its turning radius. It works incredibly well in just about everything, as entering inside the radius makes the missile break lock.

Also, I'd like to see better use of "mini-missile" weapons, in that they won't use them when other allies are close. I've seen fighters use these weapons behind a friendly wing under attack, and unfortunately it ended up making the enemy's job easier.

I'd like to see the AI using larger ships for cover more effectively.

I'd like to see the AI attack bombers more effectively--as a player, I've had great success keeping any fighter directly above me in my Ursa. The turret will fire and keep any maneuverable fighter (coughUlyssescough) damaged and moving, and they never can do damage.

I'd also like to see the AI focus more on turrets, and have the destruction of the Weapons subsystem on capships more effective--making it so all weapons are much less accurate or much less damaging.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Mobius on August 15, 2008, 08:07:34 am
Quote
2) Open the formation. Bombers are damn easy to kill when they're all together. The distance should be increased.

Actually, if the bomber has some turrets, it is better if they fly in formation. If they don't have any, they should spread out.

Bomber turrets are almost useless, they don't make the difference in an interception mission. Bomber wings need to open the formation in order to make sure that a threat for a single bomber doesn't turn into a threat for the entire wing.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Snail on August 15, 2008, 08:22:58 am
Bomber turrets are almost useless, they don't make the difference in an interception mission. Bomber wings need to open the formation in order to make sure that a threat for a single bomber doesn't turn into a threat for the entire wing.
They WOULD be useful if they fired faster and shot at whoever was trying to kill you, not who you have targetted.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Mobius on August 15, 2008, 08:49:39 am
Well that would need major changes in weapons.tbl, not in the AI.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Snail on August 15, 2008, 08:54:17 am
There's no way to make turrets defend your bomber (instead of shooting at your target) by editing the weapons.tbl.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Topgun on August 15, 2008, 12:13:47 pm
ai should use glide.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Solatar on August 15, 2008, 06:29:54 pm
Agreed. I've enabled glide on fighters in FS2, and the ability to "kill your engines" is a very nice feature. I just feel like I'm cheating when I'm the only one doing it.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Dilmah G on August 18, 2008, 05:23:43 am
Well the AI could use some better evasive maneuvers...  srsly when was the last time flying in odd shaped circles (ovals?) ever threw off a Trebuchet, and shield management needs some work. Maybe some better self-preservation skills... even though V thinks its better that Alpha 2 gets his/her ass kicked when they're doing a runner to a capship you've ordered them to protect, I, and a lot of people don't think it's cool at all. Would YOU let your ass get kicked like that, at least tell them to use their afterburners. When the AI attack capships (bombers in particular), tell them to attack the turret attacking them before engaging the subsystem you've told them to take down, what's better, losing your wingmen or waiting a few more seconds until the turret goes down. In fact attacking turrets is quite a big thing. If you've C-3-9'd and you've got a whole lot Perseus fighters with you (cough, ENIF STATION! cough) and there's a Deimos present, rather than trying to Rambo the bloody paperweight, have the AI rambo it as their default response, but as soon as a turret begins to attack them, take out the turret, then proceed to rambo-ing what's left of the Deimos (exception being bombers and transports). Also try and make the AI better at attacking moving subsystems/turrets, I have no idea how to go about this one, but maybe a Sath forwards beam specific thing (I have no idea wether this is possible either), but tell the AI to attack from the front when attacking the Sath forward beams, if it's something that IS possible, but other than that, the AI get the job done
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Snail on August 18, 2008, 06:12:41 am
I'd like AI that equalizes shields when not in combat and (possibly) diverts shields to where it is taking the most damage.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: TrashMan on August 18, 2008, 06:59:23 am

* The AI cannot hit other AI ships. Friendly fire is only enabled for the player.

I'm at odds here...Don't know if I should call this a good thing or a bad thing..lol


Quote
What would be a good tactic to destroy / guard a long-way-to-go remote target and not get destroyed by followers while heading to it?

All energy to engines/shields, constant use of afterburnes + limited evasive manouvres ( keep heading in the same general direction)



Quote
They WOULD be useful if they fired faster and shot at whoever was trying to kill you, not who you have targeted.

Whle better weapons in bomber turrets is a great idea, it doesn't fall under AI category. But yes, the abiltiy to set turrets to defensive mode and let them shoot at whoever is attacking you would make AI bombers better (your your own too).
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Snail on August 18, 2008, 07:16:08 am
Whle better weapons in bomber turrets is a great idea, it doesn't fall under AI category. But yes, the abiltiy to set turrets to defensive mode and let them shoot at whoever is attacking you would make AI bombers better (your your own too).
No, I didn't mean better weapons. I meant that they SHOOT AT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SHOOTING AT YOU not the capital ship you have targetted. How does that count as weapons? :wtf:
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on August 18, 2008, 07:45:55 am
No, I didn't mean better weapons. I meant that they SHOOT AT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SHOOTING AT YOU not the capital ship you have targetted. How does that count as weapons? :wtf:

Isn't that what turrets are supposed to do: shoot attackers, not warships? :confused:
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Snail on August 18, 2008, 07:54:14 am
That's what they're supposed to do. But in reality, bomber turrets only fire at whoever you have targetted, not who's attacking you.

So, in a situation when an enemy fighter is behind you ripping you to pieces while you're desperately trying to get aspect lock on that enemy Sathanas, your turret will shoot at the Sathanas (your target), not the fighter that's attacking you.

Thus, to actually make your turret do something useful, you have to target the enemy fighter (loosing the chance to get aspect lock on the Sathanas), which is pointless because if you're going to do that you may as well engage him yourself.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on August 18, 2008, 08:15:19 am
That's what they're supposed to do. But in reality, bomber turrets only fire at whoever you have targetted, not who's attacking you.

So, in a situation when an enemy fighter is behind you ripping you to pieces while you're desperately trying to get aspect lock on that enemy Sathanas, your turret will shoot at the Sathanas (your target), not the fighter that's attacking you.

Thus, to actually make your turret do something useful, you have to target the enemy fighter (loosing the chance to get aspect lock on the Sathanas), which is pointless because if you're going to do that you may as well engage him yourself.

:yes:
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Wanderer on August 18, 2008, 09:09:26 am
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,54465.0.html

Quote
Objecttypes.tbl option:
 ---- after $Warp Pushable: ----
   $Turrets prioritize ship target:
      - forces ship turrets to prioritize ships targets (boolean)
      - set to 'true' on fighters and bombers by default - setting it to 'false' for them allows their turrets to target more freely

And no that is not in trunk builds.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: TrashMan on August 18, 2008, 12:18:03 pm
SWEET! Why isn't anyone testing this? Heresy! Heresy!
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Retsof on August 18, 2008, 02:10:46 pm
Is that in 3.6.9?
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Topgun on August 18, 2008, 02:15:07 pm
it would seem so.
EDIT: no never mind, it's not.
EDIT2: why isn't it in trunk? I WANT THIS IN MY #>^!)!!!!!!
note: I use the #>^!) builds
EDIT THE THIRD: apparently this is based on 3.69 AKA #>^(
EDIT GOES FOURTH: made "based" italicized to show emphases.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: karajorma on August 18, 2008, 02:38:37 pm
EDIT2: why isn't it in trunk? I WANT THIS IN MY #>^!)!!!!!!

Cause no bugger was willing to test it properly when Wanderer first came up with it and thus it sat around on his HD until the code freeze started and now it can't be included.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Topgun on August 18, 2008, 02:42:56 pm
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a147/_SoApBoX_/nooooooo.png)
EDIT: Why didn't he put in trunk in the first place?
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Retsof on August 18, 2008, 02:51:07 pm
What is a code freze anyway?
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Topgun on August 18, 2008, 02:53:29 pm
they can't add new features during a code freeze.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Solatar on August 18, 2008, 03:12:57 pm
It's designed as a phase of the coding where they focus solely on bugs. It's hard to bugfix when new features are introducing new bugs at the same time.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: TrashMan on August 18, 2008, 03:37:57 pm
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Some of the best features - ever - excluded! Curses! Curses! If only I was here I could have tested this!
Blast you lazy bums. Curse you. CURSE YOU! :hopping:
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Droid803 on August 18, 2008, 03:42:40 pm
So, we're stuck with retarded turrets.
Wonderful.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Narwhal on August 18, 2008, 03:46:08 pm
That will be for 3.6.11

Speaking of curse, when will we be able, like in Wing Commander, to insult of the radio the Vasudians and the NTF guys "You've going to suck vacuum, ... er.... sucker !". Not the Shivans of course, they wouldn't understand anyway and I always imagined them as being anaerobic :)
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Snail on August 19, 2008, 12:18:49 am
To be honest I'd rather have a bug-free build than a build with hundreds of features with hundreds of bugs for each.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on August 19, 2008, 12:37:44 am
To be honest I'd rather have a bug-free build than a build with hundreds of features with hundreds of bugs for each.

I would too. Go for stability first, then add new stuff once all the dust has settled. It's a bit like running a theme park if you ask me. :nervous:
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: TrashMan on August 19, 2008, 05:54:02 am
To be honest I'd rather have a bug-free build than a build with hundreds of features with hundreds of bugs for each.

Except it wasn't a either-or scenario. We could have had both.
But ya lazy bums messed it up.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Snail on August 19, 2008, 07:01:43 am
Except it wasn't a either-or scenario. We could have had both.
:rolleyes:
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Topgun on August 19, 2008, 09:06:43 am
I think they should add all the features they can, and then bugfix them all.
that way you don't have to worry about certain features messing up  other ones.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Goober5000 on August 19, 2008, 08:01:07 pm
I think they should add all the features they can, and then bugfix them all.
I think I should get a million dollars.

See, I can make unrealistic demands too!
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Droid803 on August 19, 2008, 08:18:49 pm
I think they should add all the features they can, and then bugfix them all.
I think I should get a million dollars.

See, I can make unrealistic demands too!

So, you'd do it if I gave you a million?
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on August 19, 2008, 09:59:01 pm
I think I should get a million dollars.

See, I can make unrealistic demands too!

There you go. Do it slowly; don't throw everything in at one go, otherwise it'll just be a huge mess that will take forever to sort out. :)
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: WMCoolmon on August 20, 2008, 02:24:49 am
I think we should add all the features that we can't, and then bugfix them all.

I'm done with my share already. :D
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Goober5000 on August 21, 2008, 05:57:10 pm
So, you'd do it if I gave you a million?
That doesn't follow from what I said; it's an independent question.

But yes, I would.  Cash up front.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: chief1983 on August 23, 2008, 01:43:45 pm
you know, with all the new features just barely missing 3.6.10, if you guys go out and test them all, you could warrant a 3.6.11 within 6 months, instead of 2 years, depending on what else Taylor and the other big timers have planned for it.  No reason we can't have a 3.6.12 after that for any other longer term stuff though.  Just keep releasing builds until 3.7 is done is what I think.  We should have a month or two of committing features, and then bugfix, release.  Commit more features, bugfix, release.  The cycle really needs to be shortened, then no one would care so much when a feature doesn't make the cut for the next release.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Topgun on August 23, 2008, 03:55:05 pm
that's a good idea.
I second! not that my vote means anything.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: S-99 on September 03, 2008, 09:39:27 pm
Necro

I was just thinking. The AI shifting the shield power to whichever quadrant that was getting attacked doesn't need to be AI dependent (sort of like how automatic targeting isn't AI dependent). It could just be an automatic feature in the game for how all craft handle. If quadrant x gets struck then boost power to quadrant x with power from quadrant y. Maybe A1 would find this handy as well?

This brings to mind automatic power adjusting. Something like if the AI is doing an all out assault and runs low on weapons energy, it'll divert power from another system automatically. If weapons energy gets below a certain percentage divert power from a system that's in the least use automatically. A1 would find this less handy, but noobs might like it.

AI would take longer to kill with both of these features.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: azile0 on September 04, 2008, 12:16:39 am
I feel that their maneuvering skills need more work then combat skills, IMHO. Combat needs some tuning, but yeah. It shouldn't be so easy to stalk ships.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: chief1983 on September 04, 2008, 02:44:23 am
Just to verify, anyone commenting has played on insance, correct?
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on September 04, 2008, 03:20:33 am
Just to verify, anyone commenting has played on insance, correct?

Played Insane with cheating, yes.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: eliex on September 05, 2008, 02:35:30 am
On FS1 you can play on Insane with the easy/moderate missions. In FS2, anything with beams is instant death on Insane.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: TrashMan on September 05, 2008, 10:31:09 am
When shooting down bombs AI should prefer fast-fire weapons and non-linked banks.

It should always check if the weapons is intended or good at the job.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Mobius on September 05, 2008, 11:48:24 am
On FS1 you can play on Insane with the easy/moderate missions. In FS2, anything with beams is instant death on Insane.

IMO you don't need to play FS on Insane to comment the behavior of friendly spacecraft and warships. The AI should come out with better meneuvers and game tactics to turn every dogfight into a challenge/fun experience without forcing the player to switch to Insane.

I'd like more meneuvers used against me rather than deadlier weapons.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Kosh on September 06, 2008, 08:26:00 pm
Quote
AI that uses Trebuchets, Stilletos properly, esp if they're attacking a ship that has one or two cannons on a side that are doing the most damage. As well as directing fire towards targets of opportunity on the hull when attacking (eg turrets or subsystems).

As I recall earlier versions of the FS Port actually did something like this with Pheonix 5's, the problem was this made certain missions (protecting the Beta Aquilae communications terminal comes to mind) impossible because they would smash the lightly armored ship you're supposed to protect before you even had a chance to intercept.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on September 06, 2008, 10:13:12 pm
I don't even know how to use the Phoenix V... :nervous:
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Snail on September 07, 2008, 07:22:51 am
I don't even know how to use the Phoenix V... :nervous:
It's good against freighters and slow moving bombers. Can also act like a poor-man's bomb against Fenris or Aten cruisers.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Droid803 on September 07, 2008, 02:32:46 pm
Its pretty much a trebuchet with a shorter range. I think its slightly more maneuverable too.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: eliex on September 08, 2008, 12:59:19 am
Its pretty much a trebuchet with a shorter range. I think its slightly more maneuverable too.

The trebuchet hits more often though. It homes for the front of the target, not the tail, like the hornet.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Kosh on September 08, 2008, 07:35:16 pm
Its pretty much a trebuchet with a shorter range. I think its slightly more maneuverable too.

The trebuchet was manueverable enough to shoot down fighters, the Pheonix V had problems hitting Nephilims.

That reminds me, something else I noticed a while back:

Bomber X and bomber Y are in close formation, with bomber X behind (and kind of offset) bomber y. They both release their bombers, but because they are too close bomber y gets hit in the ass with bomber x's bombs. I recall seeing this a few times in Clash of the Titans 2, but that was a while ago.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: eliex on September 09, 2008, 03:07:46 am
If bombers have afterburners then they should actually use them.

*Pointing at the GTB Zeus
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Androgeos Exeunt on September 09, 2008, 03:36:53 am
The Zeus pilots do use their afterburners.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: BengalTiger on September 09, 2008, 01:06:25 pm
I didn't read most of this thread, so my ideas were probably already discussed but:

1. Speed is life. The AI doesn't seem to use burners when it's being hit in it's shields or when it's chased by missiles. That has to leave if we want better AI.

2. Speed is life. The AI uses Aburners in short bursts when it's hit in the hull, it should use at least 1/4-1/3 of it's Aburn fuel changing direction randomly (but keeping a general course to move away from it's attacker in the process, rather than orbiting him).

3. A script checking what type of damage a weapon does best (shields, hull, subsys) would really help the AI out if it has multiple weapons, and uses a Maxim against shields or a Helios against subsystems if it has a Circe and Trebs or Stilletos in it's other banks.

4. Again, speed is life. I can't count the times I was in a slow turn fight ended by a charging wingman, or ending one myself in a quick charge on an enemy that doesn't have the speed to move out of the way of my cannonade.

5. Does AI issue wingman orders to each other? The enemy ships seem to attack random targets as soon as the formation breaks, and when I call everyone to form on my wing between waves of enemies, my wingmen both get more hits and get hit less thanks to a concentrated stream of 'lasers' and missiles hitting the whole enemy formation.

An automatic script where AI ships hit full throttle without burners and head towards the wingleader (C-3-7) between dogfights would solve the problem of friendly or enemy ships left without cover when the next wave arrives.

Another script where AI controlled wings try to attack a single target before getting in a turning fight with everyone (C-3-1) would generate kills. Once the formation reaches what's left of the enemy (let's say 500 meters), the AI ships randomly choose a target (C-3-9) to keep most enemies busy.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: chief1983 on September 10, 2008, 12:06:09 am
You sound like an XvT veteran, the improvements you describe sound more like the way the veterans played on the Zone back in the day.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: eliex on September 10, 2008, 12:47:01 am
The Zeus pilots do use their afterburners.

Only when they have completed their bombing run on the target and trying to escape interceptors bearing down on it. The Zeus bombers should max all energy to their engines and afterburn them until they are 700m from the target then release them. Also, if the bombers release the bombs on afterburner, the bomb will have a momentary speed bonus.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: BengalTiger on September 10, 2008, 06:12:07 am
You sound like an XvT veteran, the improvements you describe sound more like the way the veterans played on the Zone back in the day.

X-Wing vs TIE Fighter? I didn't play that game too much, Fighters Anthology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighters_Anthology) had a really developed combat simulation system. And a few hundred page book about flight, airplanes, weapons and combat to go with it.

And I guess that my ideas work if veterans use them... :p
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: chief1983 on September 10, 2008, 09:16:52 am
Yeah, number 4 definitely stood out, reminds me of all the 2v2 matches where that would happen a lot.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: Flaser on September 10, 2008, 03:06:07 pm
Actual intercept mechanics and team work procedures should be introduced into the AI:

Intercept: lag and lead pursuit to set up intercept geometry.

If turnrate(ship)>turnrate(target) then:

Out of weapon range --> lead pursuit and try to maximize speed.
Just in weapon range --> just stay on target and advance to optimal range.
Optimal range --> weapon range * factor - or weapon range - factor. Factor - depends on tracking/turning speed vs. target evasion speed. While ttspeed>targspeed function should spit out a range from the enemy where the ship should ideally be.
Inside optimal range --> alternate lag pursuit to achieve shoot geometry and lead pursuit to maintain range.
Beyond optimal range, ergo too close --> lag pursuit, and decrease speed.

If turnrate(ship)<turnrate(target) then:

  If topspeed(ship)>topspeed(target) then:

Energy fighting. This ins't the same in space as it is in air, since in the air it is virtually impossible to reach the high energy plane while the later can attack.

In other words, the ship has to use the fact that it can outrun the other one. Tactic should reflect this:
-Advance to weapon range.
-Max shields for the frontal pass.
-Fire away. Power to weapons.
-Pick a random vector, preferably opposite or at least perpendicular to the target's and disengage and full burn.
-Power down weapons and power goes first to engines than to shields.

 If topspeed(ship)<topspeed(target) then:

Disengage unless ordered to or at least 3-1 numerical superiority is available.

Team work:
-Extended wingman system that during dogfights works in pairs. One ship always tags behind the other. If the lead is attacked, the wingman engages the attacker. Works vice-versa. Lead should be a disctinct role in the code and wingman too. These ships stay together no matter what. This would dramatically increase the effectiveness of a numerically superior force.

This would also mean you'd have to actually fly wingman for your mates and you'd need to take all your wingman to pick out someone from a numerically superior force. In this case (form on my wing), you wingman will attack the primary target, but they should peel off (in pairs if possible) to attack anyone who disengaged and turned to attack you. This leaves you free to take your kill.

The code should be revamped with visual cues to allow you to fufill the same function for someone else. A box should be around your "protected" at all times, and his attackers should be auto-targeted the same way asteroids are but with a different color.

The attacker meanwhile should check whether you're in escort position. If you're not and/or not enough guys are flying wingmen for him, he should disengage his run, and help out until he gets proper escort and once again can resume his run.

This only applies for fighters. Bombers should stick to bombing as they have no business chasing down fighters. Instead the lead bomber should check whether the whole wing has enough cover as a whole and disengage (in formation) if they don't and request further cover.

-Redefinition of Attack my Target Order: This isn't strictly a comm's order, it should be possible to put this on a key/button binding. Similar to the fire missiles on my target script of BTRL. This is an attack run. The same as Engage my target (see below), except, once the strafing run is complete (dist--(ship)-(target)<factor), the ships automatically rejoin your formation. You take your wing out, and through the maneuvers you deem appropriate, set up the next run, then once again give the order/push the button.
--Difference from "OLD" Attack my target: Ships auto-bracket (see below) the target (see below) if in a loose formation (see below) and return to formation once the run is complete.

-Bracketing: when engaging a single target, instead mindlessly going after if, your wingman should set up a bracket: he moves away from your vector to the target until his vector and your own form a considerable angle...in the least he should put a 50-100 meter separation between the two of you.

-New selection submenu: Ships in my wing, should be before "All Ships" and after "Alpha", "Beta", "Gamma" etc. in the list.

-New order submenu: Formations
--Tight formation: ships on your wing stay in formation no matter what, default for bombers.
--Rigid formation: ships on your wing stay in formation during the pass (engage target), and only disengage to save themselves or protect the ship they cover.
--Flexible formation: ships on your wing automatically bracket during attacks, disengage to fly cover or evade fire, return to formation if engage order was given.
--Leave formation: selected ships leave your wing. They autoform pairs and wings, with bias toward reforming their original wing.

-New order: Engage my target: Ships act according to the formation given during the initial attack, but they do NOT rejoin formation; instead they remain in the furball. Wingmen still cover their Lead.

-Bracket positions: Alpha 2 - on your left slightly behind you. He should be your default wingman and shoud fly cover for you even while bracketing. Alpha 3 - above you (this is because this way you make your bracket 3 dimensional and harder to escape from), Alpha 4 should be by default Alpha 3's wingman. When bracketing he flys next to Alpha 3. Alpha 4/5- on your right. (We don't want to put ships below you, as you can't quickly check them as most fighters typically can't see in that direction). Alpha 6 - flying wingman for Alpha 5, or below you if separately ordered to attack.

A modification of Protect my target:  This makes the ship a wingman of the target if it's a fighter or bomber.

Fighter/Bomber cooperation:
-New order: Protect Wing. The order can only be given to a whole wing. The fighters will spread around the bombers (in pairs) if in flexible formation, or fly in formation slightly behind them if in rigid/tight formation. A "mini strat routine" should determine how many ships to send to each attaker. If only 1-group attacks the protected 3/4-4/5 of the force should be sent keeping at least a pair next to the protected in reserve. If more groups are attacking the 3/4-4/5 "taskforce" is divided between them with at least a pair to each group. A pair should still be kept in reserve.

When in protect wing mode, instead fighting individual targets, the pair should engage each and every ship in the attacking wing. Reason: they break the enemy's formation and force them to go evasive, gaining time for the protected to escape and the other guards to aid in the fight.
--Addition: Strafing run. Should be used if the target wing is in formation. The pair in protect wing mode should fire along a preset line. These lines (and turn rates) should be calculated from the enemy ships's position. Simplest solution: the line between two attackers. The only demand is that the pair should choose a different pair of attackers compared to each other.

-Staggered attack: This should be both used in Engage/Attack and Protect functions. Should be a similar key/button-binding to "Attack my Target" except, this is a "mode selector". When is staggered mode, ships ordered to attack or attacking on their own, will stagger their formation. This should only be used against numerically lesser targets.

The staggering allows the ships delayed behind the front attacker to take advantage of the blunders/changed facing of the engaged enemy and it also makes them better suited to still pursue the target if he somehow escaped the pursuit geometry of the initial attackers.
Title: Re: A new AI: Need (human) game tactics.
Post by: chief1983 on September 10, 2008, 06:24:06 pm
Flippin brilliant Flaser, I love it (what I've read so far).  I'm gonna read the rest at home later.