HItR original AI

[Gous 0]

Right. Most of us have installed HItR and are quite impressed with the changes made. (wind buffeting and personal skin are my favs)

The only strange thing in the game is the AI which seems more passive/defensive. Especially in QCs. Now I saw a post made by Pol the other day stating that even if some people like the new AI, it won't matter, as the AI is just...broken. But I see more posts every day saying that they won't patch their game as they actually like the bad AI. Hmm....

 

From my point of view, the only difference in AI is the aggressiveness. In HItR, I made a QC with me against 4 DrIs and I was just flying around, watching the EAs circling around all the time. Then suddenly, one would approach me, and shoot. Then round and round again... This of course is not normal behavior. Therefore, when the patch comes out, I will happily apply it. But the reactions of many members here have made me think over about the AI mentality.

 

Sometimes the AI (before HItR) could become truly psychotic. I mean, I have seen 5 vs 5 dogfights ending in 2 minutes because both sides were behaving like bloodthirsty maniacs and emptied their MGs in seconds. Sometimes, this can be fun, as it is really hard to shake these psychos off your six. On the other hand though, now that many of us have seen the false AI, we are starting to think over its general behavior. I mean, your own survival was the number one goal, but the AI sometimes behaves like The Terminator. (thinking "KIll, Kill, Kill") Maybe it should be less aggressive?

 

I am not saying that we must keep the current AI, which sometimes behaves just too defensively. My idea is that maybe the AI mentality should be scalable in the workshop. For instance: "AI behavior: Aggressive, Normal, Defensive, Random (any of the other 3)" That should be interesting as a feature. Also, I have the feeling that dogfights back then would last very long (even 20-30 minutes) which is caused from the lack of aggressiveness of real pilots. (own survival first!) I personally haven't been in a dogfight for more than 7'-10' in OFF. If the AI is less aggressive, it won't mean that you can shoot it more easily, on the contrary, it would be more careful and would not approach you that often making it even more difficult for you to get close. Now that kind of AI would be nice. And maybe it would result in long lasting-marathon dogfights, were both sides would be more careful.

[themightysrc 5]

I think I broadly agree with Gous here.

 

I actually do prefer the 'new' (AKA, broken) AI, and spent some of yesterday evening in a slowly evolving and growing dogfight - it started out with me and the chaps from RNAS 8 in our Tripes against about half a dozen or so DIIIs being flown in a rather cagey manner - perhaps understandable given what they were facing. Certainly in the past, said Albatroses would have been on us in a flash and fought to the death: in other words, the 1.32g default. Now however, they remained high and only when we made determined efforts to bring them to account by climbing to meet them did they start to come down on us (booming and zooming). Quite intelligent tactics really.

 

Things hotted up (we could only despatch them very s-l-o-w-l-y) when about another 8 of the buggers turned up soon afterwards. I didn't detect much in the way of reticence from them! I lost count of the number of aircraft in the fight, and I'm certain that it grew further, and the fight spread over a wide area, dropping in height as it went from about 12000 feet down to tree top level by the coast (those rows of deckchairs on the beach near Neiuport are a very nice touch, BTW).

 

End result: a long and satisfying - and to my mind, extremely historically accurate - encounter. Not the total annihilation of one side or the other; not about 20 burning wrecks dotted all over the landscape: a few shot down Huns, and one or two of my fellow flyers put down or wounded.

 

And that's what WWI aerial fights were like, if the accounts I've read are up to snuff.

 

My 2d.

Edited December 16, 2009 by themightysrc

[zoomzoom 2]

Interesting points Gous. I hope the Dev's arent simply tossing the new AI in favor of the old....as I do see some improvements, and, if it is tweakable, could be worked into a truly superior version. Once the negatives are corrected that is.

 

ZZ.

 

PS.

 

End result: a long and satisfying - and to my mind, extremely historically accurate - encounter. Not the total annihilation of one side or the other; not about 20 burning wrecks dotted all over the landscape: a few shot down Huns, and one or two of my fellow flyers put down or wounded.

 

And that's what WWI aerial fights were like, if the accounts I've read are up to snuff.

 

Excellent points MSRC. I think the range of different types of encounters have been broadly, (and realistically) expanded.

Edited December 16, 2009 by zoomzoom

[Olham 164]

The Devs said it several times now - they are aware the AI isn't as it should be.

No further criticism and analysing please - it will be changed; give them time.

[themightysrc 5]

"No further criticism and analysing please - it will be changed; give them time."

 

But surely the point is that there are probably quite a few players who like the way that the 'faulty' AI works, and we all know that OBD people read these threads: witness changes made in the past to the game.

 

I like the 'faulty' AI, and find it much more realistic in terms of outcomes in fights. How often have people posted here about knocking down multiple enemy aircraft in missions? Rather a lot. How many players have a massive pile of dead pilots under their desks, dead with less than half a dozen missions, down to psychotically crazed AI pilots who apparently don't give a monkey's about their own survival? Again, rather a lot, I would think.

 

I'm not asking the devs for patsies as foes: I'm asking the devs not to return the AI pilots to their previous state - mindlessly aggressive and with no sense of self-preservation. If the real air war had experienced the sort of casualty rates you get in OFF (pre HitR), then there wouldn't have been enough pilots left by 1918 to hold a reunion in a Portakabin.

[Siggi 10]

 

 

I'm not asking the devs for patsies as foes: I'm asking the devs not to return the AI pilots to their previous state - mindlessly aggressive and with no sense of self-preservation. If the real air war had experienced the sort of casualty rates you get in OFF (pre HitR), then there wouldn't have been enough pilots left by 1918 to hold a reunion in a Portakabin.

 

[Fortiesboy 3]

"No further criticism and analysing please - it will be changed; give them time."

 

But surely the point is that there are probably quite a few players who like the way that the 'faulty' AI works, and we all know that OBD people read these threads: witness changes made in the past to the game.

 

I like the 'faulty' AI, and find it much more realistic in terms of outcomes in fights. How often have people posted here about knocking down multiple enemy aircraft in missions? Rather a lot. How many players have a massive pile of dead pilots under their desks, dead with less than half a dozen missions, down to psychotically crazed AI pilots who apparently don't give a monkey's about their own survival? Again, rather a lot, I would think.

 

I'm not asking the devs for patsies as foes: I'm asking the devs not to return the AI pilots to their previous state - mindlessly aggressive and with no sense of self-preservation. If the real air war had experienced the sort of casualty rates you get in OFF (pre HitR), then there wouldn't have been enough pilots left by 1918 to hold a reunion in a Portakabin.

 

I agree with this post. Olham - That's a bit out of order,old boy, asking folks who have paid good money not to comment on the AI aspect of the add on.

There are some good points coming out here, and I'm sure the Devs don't mind the folks giving their preferences and suggestions.

The comments are coming because Pol's post indicated that the present AI will be dumped and the old 1.32g AI will be put back. No?

I'm sure the Devs are interested in what seems to be a growing number of guys who are finding quite a few positive aspects on this new AI. It may be that the better parts of the two Ais cannot be welded into a new AI, and that we must have one or the other, - I don't know the limitations of the programming _ But it is interesting to see what the chaps would like, and indeed whether such comments as are being made would prompt the Devs to make the new intended patch "reversible" ( Now that would be nice , if technically possible )

 

In any event, there's no point in confusing comment with "destructive criticism" - I haven't seen any of the latter.

[Olham 164]

Yer right there, Fortiesboy - what I meant to say, was only about the analysing an AI

behaviour, that they already know, and that has been posted already in numerous threads.

 

But you're right - everyone should make up their mind about if they like something about the

new AI. I did so already, and also found, this AI has lots of good sides.

So, sorry when I didn't express myself clearly - I was in a hurry and shouldn't have.

[DukeIronHand 8]

I am not saying that we must keep the current AI, which sometimes behaves just too defensively. My idea is that maybe the AI mentality should be scalable in the workshop. For instance: "AI behavior: Aggressive, Normal, Defensive, Random (any of the other 3)" That should be interesting as a feature. Also, I have the feeling that dogfights back then would last very long (even 20-30 minutes) which is caused from the lack of aggressiveness of real pilots. (own survival first!) I personally haven't been in a dogfight for more than 7'-10' in OFF. If the AI is less aggressive, it won't mean that you can shoot it more easily, on the contrary, it would be more careful and would not approach you that often making it even more difficult for you to get close. Now that kind of AI would be nice. And maybe it would result in long lasting-marathon dogfights, were both sides would be more careful.

 

I agree 100%. Of course where the happy medium is going to end up is unknown.

 

The current AI (Note: I have not flown a whole lot since HitR - stupid real life stuff) strikes me, in alot of cases as (here it comes) "realistic". As if the AI is thinking of their artificial lives that are on the line. There are plenty of historical accounts of the various formations circling each other, taking nibbles, then one side breaking off, or trying to, after some loses or a perceived bad situation, especially when a comrade becomes a fireball.

 

Of course there are plenty of accounts also of mindlessly attacking with no concern to the odds or apparent survival also.

 

Programing AI changes can be tricky with sometimes unknown, and unintended, consequences - guess we'll have to see how the OFF Team decides to go.

But "always attacking" AI, IMHO, is quite phony.

Edited December 16, 2009 by DukeIronHand

[JimAttrill 24]

Maybe we should get the choice in the workshop, though how to describe this would be difficult - maybe 'aggressive and stupid AI - on/off' As a computer programmer I have been presented with these 'semantic' problems for years.

 

OTOH maybe the two types are not separable so we will have to have one or the other. The Devs will tell us.

 

I didn't even know that the HatR extension would affect the AI. As the older version shot me down all the time I am perfectly amiable to a less aggressive AI.

[shredward 12]

Keep the comments coming guys - there are far more of you than us, and all of you will spot things we missed.

Cheers,

shredward

[Hasse Wind 46]

I don't think any of us are complaining about the lack of casualties with the current AI. The problem is the awfully passive behaviour many of us are seeing, the inability of even ace pilots to respond to attacks in a beliavable way.

 

The biggest problems of the earlier AI were its lack of decent low-altitude behaviour and the suicidal attitude of the pilots in combat. When the AI decides it's willing to fight, the fighting should be fierce and not some parade ground formation flying - but there should also be a mechanism in place that makes it possible for AI planes to decide they've had enough and try to flee the battle.

[DukeIronHand 8]

When the AI decides it's willing to fight, the fighting should be fierce and not some parade ground formation flying - but there should also be a mechanism in place that makes it possible for AI planes to decide they've had enough and try to flee the battle.

 

Well said!

[Bullethead 12]

Keep the comments coming guys - there are far more of you than us, and all of you will spot things we missed.

 

I, too, like some of the stuff I've seen with the new AI, such as:

• The AI not diving vertically from 15,000' feet to engage something much lower, regardless of its mission (such as escorting high-altitude bombers), the threat of groundfire, the presence of other enemies about at higher altitude, or the weak wings of its airplane.
• The AI staying high and dancing on your head.
• The AI seemingly having more of a survival instinct than before.

However, there are things I don't like. Most of this is those times when even good AI pilots seem oblivious, or at least largely unconcerned, with your attacks. I assume this is the "broken" part you all are working on.

 

 

[ConradB 0]

The only thing I would change with the tamed AI, is that they weave or take defensive actions when attacked. Some of the planes flying straight while you pummel them is true to how many novices behaved (feezing up under fire). At least according to combat reports from WWI, and WWII, and the testimony of aces who survived the wars(s). That's why the first 5 flights into combat were the most important. If you survived those, your chances of living increased. But it doesn't guarantee you'll see it through to the end. Which makes you even more caustious before engaging the enemy. Especially if you have a long lived pilot. You get better with tactics through experience like a real pilot, as you will sometimes live long enough to work out the intricacies of combat, and the different planes you fly.

 

But I must agree that the mindless terminator AI is rather frustrating, which ruins the fun of it as there is no way to tone it down, or at least have a mix of AI quality in a fight. As an example, while flying with Jasta 11, in spring and early summer 1917, there are 9 of you against 10 E/A, and in a few minutes you are outnumbered 10 to 1 as your whole squad is knocked down. That doesn't mean to make it arcadish, or kiddie game in nature, but a better balance of offense and defense is needed along with better mix of AI "quality". As the enemy always seems to have better quality than my squadmates.

 

But with the AI being toned down, there is at least a chance of surviving and fighting on. I still lose pilots, but not to the extent that it makes playing the game a bummer.

 

This is just an observation on my part. I know there is a learnig curve to flying and fighting just like any simulator. Last flight I had to dive for the deck as I neglected my six, and took a packet which ruined my engine, and forced me to land, but I at least had 7 squadmates to keep them off me while I made my escape to the deck. It's kinda nice to have that. I didn't lose my pilot as I was able to land on my side of the lines, but at least it didn't end like it used to 99 times out of 100, with fire and the loss of another pilot, and starting all over again.

 

This may also help expand the customer base. If people know that there is a learning curve, but it isn't impossible to master, or requires a very long time to get the hang of, they may be more atracted to the product. I like OFF as it is the the best WWI simulator out, but I used to step away from it more as it was frustratingly consistant. I have flown it more in the last week than I have in the last 2 months, as I'm actually starting to get a grip on things without setting everything to novice which in itself is kinda' bogus. I like having a challenge, but it's nice to make it to the top of the mountain every once in a while.

[Gous 0]

@ FB, Olham.

This is by no way destructive criticism. The AI is one of the most important parts of the game and it should always be subject to user comments. Yes the AI of HItR is just wrong but this..."wrong" have made many of us rethink the overall aggressiveness of the original AI.

[zoomzoom 2]

One interestng encounter (another aspect of the new AI that I do like) was on a flight, minding my own business, and flying with the sun at my back, I spotted a squad of german machines below me...(sorry Olham but I was playing the traitor that day ) . they seemed not to see me even though I was closing on thier rear.....very realistic, as in the oldAI it seemed they ALWAYS spotted you as long as you were close by. I got to a safe range....being alone and decided to take a chance at a diving pass on the tail end charlie, and then skedaddle, knowing I couldn't, and wouldn't want to face them all....again, very realistic.

I nose in, wind howling now, tail end charlie and rest seem unaware....I'm coming out of the sun like an eagle on fire. He is within range now as I drop from 45 deg above....he still hasn't flinched. I open up as he looms in the N-28 windscreen, my tracers rake the fuselage and cockpit and then I'm past him, turning and diving away for home. I look back,...the first four machines have now turned to evade and are now regathering to pursue me. My victim lookslike he's struggling with the machine, as it smokes and bobbles, then falls over on one wing and tumbles to earth. I speed towards home.....well ahead of my pursuers who break off the chase after a few minutes.

 

Ok, so what I'm saying is, is even though I hope it can be tweaked in areas and not simply discarded in favor of the old, the new AI produces some very realistic results that simply wouldn't have ocurred in the former. what i just described, and some others I've had, are very similar to real accounts, and so I believe there is merit there.

 

ZZ.

 

I hope its tweakable....again though, thanks for such a great product Dev's, whose complexity inspires such ardent desire for refinement.

Edited December 16, 2009 by zoomzoom

[Von Paulus 8]

I am not saying that we must keep the current AI, which sometimes behaves just too defensively. My idea is that maybe the AI mentality should be scalable in the workshop. For instance: "AI behavior: Aggressive, Normal, Defensive, Random (any of the other 3)" That should be interesting as a feature.

 

Yes I think that the AI is less aggressive. This suggestion of incorporating AI behavior in WS would be marvelous.

But isn't the AI behavior also related with the AI level? We should expect a more aggressive behavior from a veteran than a rookie.

I too wouldn't like to go to a pre HiTR AI.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Von Paulus

[zoomzoom 2]

"We should expect a more aggressive behavior from a veteran than a rookie."

 

I'd say yes, but dependant upon situation of course.......IF that can even be factored in.

 

ZZ.

[Creaghorn 10]

With pre HITR AI you were able to surprise them, to make quick and easy kills, and also to get surprised. you could run into tough aces, and also into sitting ducks. you had them all. you were able to survive quite a time if beeing careful.

only two things former AI were lacking were sense to retreat and yoyo behaviour on the deck.

the manouvers they made were realistic. in real they even had more tricky manouvers (flying on back, spinning down etc.). they were aggressive and gave you competition. i'm sure that 90% of the kills with former AI were made while they were yoyoing. in midair to get one was really tough, as it should be. that's what i loved and what was the biggest plus of BHAH. a competitive AI. i'm sure if yoyoing would be sorted, it would be perfect

 

the current AI is boring. two boring AI can fight each other and you have the impression you have paid money for watching an exhibition dogfight in old rhinebeck. everybody can shoot them down with closed eyes. i don't have fun with it and would quit flying BHAH if this crappy AI stays.

 

former AI combined with keepeing height like it is now would be the perfect solution.

 

my two eurocents. if there is a poll wich AI one prefers, maybe the voter should also note how many hours in average he has in a campaign.

wouldn't surprise me if the "i die after 2 hours" simmers prefer the new one, and the "i have every now and then a decent career" guys prefer the old one. know what i mean?

there are always people who want to have it easier than it was.

the old AI had good and bad pilots, as it should be. but a unique characteristique of a fighterpilot is to press with aggression. and this is gone now.

wether the old AI combined with trying to keep height, or only the old one i would accept. maybe with a setting in WS if necessary.

i'm sure the devs also agree that this AI right now simply sucks.

there are some good things with this new AI, but there are simply many more bad things.

[Olham 164]

Your attack described above sounds very realistic, Zoomzoom.

Great, that this is possible now.

Before - as you say - they always "saw" you within a certain range, sun or not.

[zoomzoom 2]

my two eurocents. if there is a poll wich AI one prefers, maybe the voter should also note how many hours in average he has in a campaign.

wouldn't surprise me if the "i die after 2 hours" simmers prefer the new one, and the "i have every now and then a decent career" guys prefer the old one. know what i mean?

 

Well, I will play it some more and see if your assessment stacks up. As for me though, i'm one of those who would actually like it harder, and am not advocating for an easy AI. But i would like to see a realistic one. And I must attest to the fact that I NEVER snuck up on an enemy like this with the previous AI, it was simply impossible, or perhaps I was just unlucky. Nobody wants sitting or lame ducks so they can live longer in a campaign. A more realistic variation of pilots and responses however, would be wonderfull. I do agree with you though Creaghorn, they do need a bit more agile aggression.

 

ZZ.

Edited December 16, 2009 by zoomzoom

[Herr Prop-Wasche 7]

Let me throw out some ideas off the top of my head, given that we are hampered by not knowing the CFS3 code and therefore not knowing what parameters and variables can be tweaked by OBD. Obviously, the more variables, the more tweakable, but also the more complicated and possibly buggy is the implementation of the AI behavior.

 

In BHaH, we all know that AI pilots are classified as rookie, veteran, or ace. So, experience is obviously one variable influencing AI behavior. What are the other variables which influence the AI? For example, does CFS3 code for personal pilot characteristics such as "aggressiveness" or "will to survive" or even "flying skill" etc? Are those variables also influenced by pilot experience, or not?

 

Furthermore, does AI experience have an affect on other variables, such as "mistake-proneness" or "impatience" or "ability to take advantage of an opportunity?" Without knowing what variables can be manipulated in the code, we are basically "flying blind," so to speak.

[themightysrc 5]

"wouldn't surprise me if the "i die after 2 hours" simmers prefer the new one, and the "i have every now and then a decent career" guys prefer the old one. know what i mean?"

 

Well, if you're saying that the rest of us are crap pilots, I suppose I'd have to put my hand up and admit I'm a crap pilot. That is the point you're making, isn't it?

 

"there are always people who want to have it easier than it was."

 

I suggest that you read a few accounts from pilots who served between 1914 to 1918. Surprisingly enough, they don't report sniper AI, fights where one side fought to the death and racking up multiple claims in a matter of hours at the front, as is possible in OFF. If OFF is to be a historical representation of the lives of airmen on the Western Front for this period, then it should reflect the reality of the combats that occurred. That doesn't involve 2-3 claims for victories every other flight, and that is (or perhaps, was) only too common in OFF prior to this add-on. If people genuinely want the WWI air war experience, then perhaps the Rambo AI of previous releases needs toning down, since I can't find many - or any - examples of squadrons fighting to the absolute death, ie, 100% casualties in the historical archive. I can, however, find multiple examples of this being reported in OFF combats by posters here. See the difference?

[zoomzoom 2]

Excellent point HPW.

 

ZZ.