AI in the future?

[luzarius]

 

Better enemy AI is definitely more important at the moment, the weak AI undermines a lot of the combat for more experienced players.

Enemy AI is impossible in a game with such bad combat mechanics as PoE. All the AI has to do is aim straight for the squishies and they are dead with no tanks in the game there is no way to prevent this to happen other than abuse the AI and make one squishie play the lure, running around in circles. I thought this "tactic" was a thing of the past, apparently not.

Plus companions dont autoattack. which i guess is the lesser evil compared to them making suicide charges, but still annoying when Aloth casts a spell and then does nothing for the remainder of the encounter if forgotten.

 

 

If your squishy is being attacked by ranged, then have the priest cast withdraw on him.

 

If priest is being attacked by ranged aggressively, have the priest cast consecrated ground followed by withdraw on himself, the consecrated ground will keep pulsing.

 

If you play the lure and run around in circles, that is called a strategy. In real life, during chaotic fights, I've seen people do both the dumbest and sometimes brilliant basic tactics in the heat of combat.

 

I do agree with you partially, each companion should have their own:

 

1. auto-attack ON/OFF logic.

2. ability to hold position.

 

Perhaps these can be a feature for POE 2.

 

I think POE is one of the greatest combat systems I've seen, it serves as a perfect foundation to go further and further.

Edited May 16, 2015 by luzarius

[Nakia]

I agree with  luzarius.  

[CybAnt1]

BTW, I can certainly count myself as one of the people who didn't know there was an action queue in PoE. Maybe it was mentioned in some tutorial tooltip I missed. 

 

But ... as was just explained - that action queue isn't visible, is it? IOW, I can't visualize the queue and see what are the next 3 actions in it, correct? KOTOR had such a visualized combat/action queue. 

 

I also think it would be excellent if the actions in the queue could be seen - maybe even changed/edited as they're being viewed (and battle fortunes/events change). 

[mystang89]

 

 

I like that immediately when someone points out factual evidence of a bad combat design in this game fanboys always jump to the conclution that is because the person in question plays CoD or likes Action RPG'S, even if that were truth that dosent serve as an argument or anything.

Or, you know, they disagree with you, and your 'truths' are actually not gospel. Shocking, I know. Let's take an example in this very thread, albeit from a different poster:

 

 

 

Enemy AI is impossible in a game with such bad combat mechanics as PoE. All the AI has to do is aim straight for the squishies and they are dead with no tanks in the game there is no way to prevent this to happen other than abuse the AI and make one squishie play the lure, running around in circles.

Given that one of the most common complaints about POE combat is that "tanks" are too prominent and it is too easy to "tank and spank", one can clearly see that roller12's working off a pretty wildly different experience.

 

Of course, that doesn't make him wrong. But if he were to then call everybody else fanboys, it would be pretty silly.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh, logic, please people don't like a logical argument here. That's just beIng crazy.

 

And as far as the "definition" of tank, even in mmorpg's, I always just considered a tank a character who was supposed to take most, if not ask, of the damage.

[Grinch]

 

I like that immediately when someone points out factual evidence of a bad combat design in this game fanboys always jump to the conclution that is because the person in question plays CoD or likes Action RPG'S, even if that were truth that dosent serve as an argument or anything.

Hmm nice ad hominem there dude.  Maybe they are not fanboys but are just pointing out that it's not bad design just because you suck at the game?

 

Or maybe Zherot has a point. I think it's bad design too. Even BG gave you the opportunity to write and use scripts. This is supposed to be the 'spiritual successor' to the IE games and it doesn't even have all the features the IE games had. Seems like a step backwards to me.

[Shevek]

The scripts were crap, though.

[Tigranes]

Oh, I'm sure scripts, action queues, etc. would please some people. Their inclusion, as an option, wouldn't harm anybody. It's a matter of how many features you can fit in a single game (as opposed to IE's longer, iterated development), and which features should be prioritised. 

 

It's simply my personal opinion that if you play a game like this, then actually controlling everybody should be prioritised - and then, when they have resources, add options where you let the game do stuff for you. Obsidian has already said they wanted to add scripts but couldn't this time round, so we will likely see it next time. 

 

Of course, for some people, they are so amazingly right that anybody who disagrees must be brainwashed. I wonder if there is any universe where that strategy helps you persuade other people or get your point across. 

[Shevek]

Development of party ai scripts would take development time away from a better stronghold, stronger enemy ai, more item/ability effects, etc.

 

Frankly, party ai is a bad feature that few people use effectively whose sole purpose is to turn the game into something that plays itself. Why waste time on that?

[abaris]

 

 

Frankly, party ai is a bad feature that few people use effectively whose sole purpose is to turn the game into something that plays itself. Why waste time on that?

 

I see enemy AI as the only issue. Not only with this game, but across the board.

 

And if we're talking AI in an ideal world, I'd rather have companions develop their own opinions about the player character outside of combat and to react accordingly. Combat management in itself is totally fine. I wouldn't want them to make their own decisions. This would lead to a terrible mess with friendly fire fests and empty spell arsenals after every trash encounter.

 

That's also why I don't use command chains, since the situation can look entirely different a couple of seconds later.

[MunoValente]

 All the AI has to do is aim straight for the squishies and they are dead with no tanks in the game there is no way to prevent this to happen 

 

You could always give them armor or cast defensive spells on them or raise their constitution, maybe even use a potion.  The bad AI is what allows you to make your backrow people super squishy, min-maxing them as much as possible, if the back row characters were more vulnerable there would need to be more thought put into how you build, equip and play them to keep them safe.  In the current system, I've pretty much given everyone in my group spirit slaying weapons, because they are the one enemy type that is kind of dangerous due to their ability to teleport.

 

As for another topic here, I would like a better and more visible queuing system, but don't really care about scripting my companions. 

[FlintlockJazz]

 

 

I like that immediately when someone points out factual evidence of a bad combat design in this game fanboys always jump to the conclution that is because the person in question plays CoD or likes Action RPG'S, even if that were truth that dosent serve as an argument or anything.

Hmm nice ad hominem there dude.  Maybe they are not fanboys but are just pointing out that it's not bad design just because you suck at the game?

 

Or maybe Zherot has a point. I think it's bad design too. Even BG gave you the opportunity to write and use scripts. This is supposed to be the 'spiritual successor' to the IE games and it doesn't even have all the features the IE games had. Seems like a step backwards to me.

 

Then why does he resort to ad hominem attacks hmm?  If he has a point he should make it, not make personal attacks on users for disagreeing with him.  Since he has made ad hominem it proves he has no point to make and that he is irrelevant and so his posts from now on will be disregarded and/or ridiculed.

Edited May 18, 2015 by FlintlockJazz

[Nakia]

If we are discussing scripting for our party members I would not use it.  I like controlling my party.  Enemy AI I think could be improved.  I just watched a Leaden Key assassin run around trying to get to my melee fighters and ignoring the ranged party members.    It is so nice when the enemy is stupid.

[Zwiebelchen]

I agree with  luzarius.  

 

Wow ... that must ... really feel awkward. :D

 

 

Oh, I'm sure scripts, action queues, etc. would please some people.

 

Action queues are already in the game. Just hold shift.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[roller12]

A script editor would be nice, and everyone would decide and do for himself.

 

 

Scripting isnt there to make the game play itself its for reducing redundant micro, For example putting everyone on "Hold", you will have to manually click everything you want to be attacked. And if everyone is on autoattack, you will have to press Hold everytime you do not want melee to charge. Both is annoying and more importantly is mutually exclusive without some confusing toggles. In BG2 i scripted ranged characters to autoattack, and melee characters to only attack people within their striking distance. Was good enough.

 

 

Or take chanter, he starts to sing at combat start, a script does that, he didnt do that in BG2, you had to manually make him sing, and actions broke that too, so you had to reenable singing after each attack. Can you imagine how annoying it is? (i scripted the bg2 chanter to autosing too) So please dont tell me you dont need scrips as you are using them already (I also scripted casters to keep 4 feet distance from enemies, was pretty fun too)

 

spells can tank

Yes spells can fix everything, but it would be better if it would be done through proper class mechanics. I mean it was fun in 1998, but now its just confusing. At the very least they could improve IntoTheFray. Edited May 18, 2015 by roller12

[mystang89]

If we are discussing scripting for our party members I would not use it. I like controlling my party. Enemy AI I think could be improved. I just watched a Leaden Key assassin run around trying to get to my melee fighters and ignoring the ranged party members. It is so nice when the enemy is stupid.

I agree with the event AI. I've watched now than a few mobs literally run around one of my characters in a circle chasing after another character all the while getting shot at from my 4 ranged. Good times had by..... Not him I'll tell ya that.

[MunoValente]

 

 

Action queues are already in the game. Just hold shift.

 

 

Sure, but they are badly implemented and badly documented. It would really help if the queue was visible, so you know where you're at in the queue, can edit the queue as need, and to simply make sure the right commands are entered in the right order.

[Crucis]

When I played the BG games I always turned the party AI off.  In IWD I found the scripts didn't always work the way described.  My Halfling rogue did her own thing if I didn't watch her.  

 

Same here, Nakia.  I always turned off party AI.

 

One thing that I do miss is the "Hold Position and Defend" button from the IE games.  This was invaluable when it came to holding chokepoints, since you could then count on your front liners to hold their positions rather than run off after the next enemy to attack.  It's really annoying when you have party members who just won't hold a position unless you tell them to not auto-attack, but then won't even bother defending themselves.

[Aea]

As much as I've made use of AI in games that do have it, I don't think I'd be using it for anything but the most rudimentary 'If somebody hits you in the face and you're doing nothing, hit them back' type directions in PoE simply because precise positioning of attacks and characters has such a big impact on combat performance, not least because of Engagement. I'd never feel comfortable instructing my party members to auto-apply buffs, heals, abilites etc. or even auto-attack because I'd be concerned about them tripping over a trap, provoking mass disengagement attacks, running into mass flankings or leaving my more vulnerable party members open to attack in the process. Besides, I make such frequent use of auto-pausing that I'd probably end up overriding the AI decisions anyway.

 

What I'd really like to see is significant improvement to character pathing. As it stands, characters choose their paths completely oblivious to zones of engagement, hostile area effects, and even environmental objects from time to time. At its mildest, this leads to taking unnecessary hazard damage or debuffs or one character getting awkwardly engaged in the middle of a tight corridor and preventing other melee fighters from getting in; at its worst the character will awkwardly attempt to vibrate through/around an environmental fixture and either get stuck indefinitely or provoke half a dozen disengagement attacks for the repeated back and forth movement. As it stands, your characters stop moving on engagement so there's a slight safeguard against the disengagement spam for party members, but the AI has no such safeguard and often ends up completely savaged by repeatedly disengaging and getting re-engaged when trying to navigate tighter spaces. If any real party AI is going to be feasible, that's definitely something that needs to be addressed first and I'd say the same goes for improving enemy AI.

 

A smarter, more varied enemy AI would definitely be good as well, but priorities and all that.

Edited May 18, 2015 by Aea

[player1]

I would really like to be able to automate per encounter abilities, for less challenging encounters.

 

Less micro for easy fights.

 

Way too often it happens I completely forget about wounding shots or knockdowns options that my characters have.

 

Dragon Age Origins was great in that regard. In that game I used automation for exactly that purpose. To automate renewable abilities, based on some triggers.

[darqleo]

Party AI is a waste of time. Better enemy ai is what we want.

 

Definitely. I mean this is tactical combat, why would you want the computer to just do the thinking for you?

[redneckdevil]

I agree enemy AI is more important than party AI atm. With it being RTwP combat, I feel it falls on the player to take full control of all their party actions. We just need better enemy AI for more challenge.

I do agree a hold and defend options would be nice though.

[abaris]

I wouldn't even know how a party AI should look like.

 

The probable outcome would be lots of friendly fire, unnecessary use of spellpower and generally putting themselves in harms way more than need be. Otherwise the parameters would be virtually unlimited, given that there are eight companions with an abundance of different levelling options. And then there's those peeps, who like to run a custom party, which again adds unlimited variables. The work going into something like that would be tremendeous.

 

Enemy AI is the more important and more feasable option for sure. As has been said, I also had the running in circles oppnents, desperately looking for their one and only target to land a hit instead of going with the one standing in their way. And I guess their targetting has more to do with some of the attributes or defenses than the character targetted being a spell caster. I think, they're looking for easy to damage rather than what class their target actually is.

Edited May 18, 2015 by abaris

[Zwiebelchen]

Dragon Age Origins was great in that regard. In that game I used automation for exactly that purpose. To automate renewable abilities, based on some triggers.

 

I agree. Ability queue scripting in DA:O was the single best feature of the game.

 

If anything, Obsidian should think about implementing this. It fixes a lot of the tedious micro-managing and nobody could ever complain about PCs not responding in a fashion they don't want. Because it's up to the player to define the conditions and responses.

Edited May 20, 2015 by Zwiebelchen

[CybAnt1]

BTW, if the game gives you multiple AI behavioral options, there's still a "tactical" element in choosing which ones to use - and perhaps even altering the behavioral setting for different types of encounters. Secondly, although few rarely bother, you also can edit what's in the tactics set (at least you could in DAO), which still gives the player some decision-making options. I think this is different than having the player "let the game play itself". 

 

I will say this - DAO party AI was lacking, it really took a mod to work optimally. Alas, that Improved Tactics Mod did something really weird, it put invisible constructs into the area, which could even, rarely, block doors - I ran into that bug once. I had to call tech support once where in Awakening I couldn't go through a door ... turns out this mod was the problem.

 

The AI scripts in BG2, in order to edit them, you needed to actually understand programming and scripting ... at least DAO allowed you to do this without scripting/programming experience. "[select from dropdown] If hit points < 25%, [select from dropdown] drink healing potion." 

 

One of the most senseless aspects of the third DA game is the highly functional AI system of the second is gone! What, just because of jumping ?!?

 

There were few areas in which I could say DA2 improved on DAO... but that would be one of the few, DA2 had good AI tactics, and it's a good thing, as it was far less mod-friendly. They also unborked the crafting system. 

Edited May 20, 2015 by CybAnt1

[abaris]

BTW, if the game gives you multiple AI behavioral options, there's still a "tactical" element in choosing which ones to use - and perhaps even altering the behavioral setting for different types of encounters. Secondly, although few rarely bother, you also can edit what's in the tactics set (at least you could in DAO), which still gives the player some decision-making options. I think this is different than having the player "let the game play itself". 

 

 

I used the strategy window in DA:O, but it still needed constant management, since if you ordered any character to down a healing potion when falling under a certain percentage of health, they often froze in that animation, since constant hits and the cooldown period prevented them from carrying out the order. Also the switch weapon command often resulted in an equip/unequip loop, since conditions were changing that rapidly. But it rendered the character useless, since it never really attacked or defended.

 

Where it really did shine where orders like protect PC Y if surrounded by enemies and stuff like that. But DA:O was far more forgiving concerning disengagement than POE is.