Artifical Soldiers smarter then they're supose to be.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-12-15 10:14pm

http://www.canada.com/montreal/montreal ... EFCC111ACC

Trytostaydead · Post by **Trytostaydead** » 2003-12-15 10:16pm

Yes, they learned the greatest lesson.. the best way to win is not to play at all.. or something like that from Wargames.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-12-15 10:24pm

BWAHAHAHA virtual warriors running away

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-12-15 10:28pm

They had that problem with TTT too. I remember reading about it in Time or something...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-12-15 10:36pm

I heard that Massive made soldiers do some hilarious things in TTT so this is to be expected. Obviously they try and edit out those that go AWOL onscreen, else it'd be one heck of a dodgy army of doom.

Utsanomiko · Post by **Utsanomiko** » 2003-12-15 10:38pm

Exonerate wrote:They had that problem with TTT too. I remember reading about it in Time or something...

In the case with the early Massive tests for Lord of the Rings (which was being developed early in production, as it was used for the Last Alliance battle in the beginning of the 1st film), the AI was actually a bit too stupid and myopic to know which direction the battle was taking place, so that if they got turned around and couldn't see any enemies in front of them (naturally, since they were facing the wrong way), they'd simply start running, with the assumption that they'd run into an enemy eventually. I think this was solved with a bit of modifications to intelligence and behavior (and also adding simulated sound and hearing, I beleive, unless that had already been implemented).

It seems like this article is just reprinting that old story for the RotK release. Notice how it talks about the 3rd film's battles for most of the article, and then suddenly switches to Taylor's quote about the first two years of developing Massive.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-12-15 11:26pm

Darth Utsanomiko wrote: In the case with the early Massive tests for Lord of the Rings (which was being developed early in production, as it was used for the Last Alliance battle in the beginning of the 1st film), the AI was actually a bit too stupid and myopic to know which direction the battle was taking place, so that if they got turned around and couldn't see any enemies in front of them (naturally, since they were facing the wrong way), they'd simply start running, with the assumption that they'd run into an enemy eventually.

YOU BASTARD! I just got done watching that bit on the TTT DVD!

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-12-15 11:54pm

My only question is, when is a version of Massive going to hit the gaming industry?

I mean, holy gods! Friendly and enemy AI can interacts with the environment on the same level human players do, instead of following dumb-as-toast pathfinding maps! Hoo-YAH!

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2003-12-16 01:05am

That would make for some ingenious cutscenes.

Post by **Gandalf** » 2003-12-16 01:51am

It'd be a neat touch of realism if only a few ran off. I know I would.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-12-16 09:26am

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:My only question is, when is a version of Massive going to hit the gaming industry?

I mean, holy gods! Friendly and enemy AI can interacts with the environment on the same level human players do, instead of following dumb-as-toast pathfinding maps! Hoo-YAH!

I doubt its real user, or system requirements friendly.

ArmorPierce · Post by **ArmorPierce** » 2003-12-16 10:56am

I'm thinking that that would be very laggy. Besides, that makes it so that the player army would pretty much fight by themselves with little input by the player.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-12-16 10:58am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote:My only question is, when is a version of Massive going to hit the gaming industry?

I mean, holy gods! Friendly and enemy AI can interacts with the environment on the same level human players do, instead of following dumb-as-toast pathfinding maps! Hoo-YAH!
I doubt its real user, or system requirements friendly.

Well, wait a few decades and you'll be able to play it on a laptop...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-12-16 11:04am

It'd make watching the computer fight itself in C&C for instance much more fun.

Companion Cube · Post by **Companion Cube** » 2003-12-16 11:33am

Admiral Valdemar wrote:It'd make watching the computer fight itself in C&C for instance much more fun.

True, unless they rush each other in the first few minutes, and then both retreat off the map.

Kazuaki Shimazaki · Post by **Kazuaki Shimazaki** » 2003-12-16 11:56am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:http://www.canada.com/montreal/montreal ... EFCC111ACC

AI refusing to fight is nothing new. Even the AI on a Super Nintendo cartridge can see when your numbers look too good compared to his and refuse to engage. Sometimes, they even make pretty good retreat decisions. Sometimes they just huddle together - which doesn't stop you from killing them, but by not suffering the counterattack turn for minimal gain, they last just that bit longer.

A more elegant process is no doubt going on, but in the end it is (AFAIK) the "evaluative function" at work, and a list of options. They'd just have to fiddle with that function. Or maybe they can "take away" retreat maneuvers as a viable option to most of the troops, and reintroduce it at random to a few troops at a time.

Still pretty funny, wherever that happens.

Raoul Duke, Jr. · Post by **Raoul Duke, Jr.** » 2003-12-16 06:56pm

ArmorPierce wrote:I'm thinking that that would be very laggy. Besides, that makes it so that the player army would pretty much fight by themselves with little input by the player.

I'm thinking squad-based FPS like the Rainbow Six series and EA's Battlefield: 1942 and Battlefield: Vietnam.

Can you imagine how much more fun it would be to issue an order to your AI squad and have them carry it out, instead of stumbling around, clotted up in a doorway? Or face off against a squadron of Zeroes over Midway, knowing that the Corsair pilot next to you is at least as competent as you are?

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-12-16 06:59pm

I assume that we don't actually have anything to fear from any sort of artificial soldiery, then, despite what Hollywood wants us to think.

Darth-Garfield · Post by **Darth-Garfield** » 2003-12-16 07:51pm

For me it brought back memories of this article I once read.

But there it's the opposite, the AI attacks when it should run away

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-12-16 08:04pm

Darth-Garfield wrote:For me it brought back memories of this article I once read.

But there it's the opposite, the AI attacks when it should run away

I never get tired of that article.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-12-16 08:07pm

Raoul Duke, Jr. wrote: Can you imagine how much more fun it would be to issue an order to your AI squad and have them carry it out, instead of stumbling around, clotted up in a doorway?

Gee, sounds like Full Spectrum Warrior.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Artifical Soldiers smarter then they're supose to be.

Artifical Soldiers smarter then they're supose to be.

Re: Artifical Soldiers smarter then they're supose to be.