No, it's because the tracking computer is so fast and efficient at what it is designed to do, track targets. So much faster, more efficient and more accurate than a human that we don't trust the human to target anymore and let the computer do it.
It doesn't have consciousness, but that's not what it's designed for. It couldn't even if we wanted it to right now, but that's beside the point.
Let's take a diffirent angle.
We've got the human brain with hardware and software so advanced that nobody understands it.
Then we've got computers with hardware and software so basic that a lot of people understand it.
Now the reason why that tracking computer is so "fast" and "efficient" is because it really is so very slow and inefficient.
If it was as fast and efficient as the human brain we wouldn't be able to program it and it'd be useless. But because computers are horribly slow and inefficient we can understand them and program them.
If we were able to program neurons do you honestly think we'd still be using CPUs at all?
Computers aren't better at anything at all then brains. The only reason they appear to be is because we understand them and thus are able to view and change their inner workings.
Brain hardware is better then computer hardware. Brain software is better then computer software. Brain hardware and brain software combined is a LOT better then computer hardware and software combined. It's just that developing brain hardware and brain software takes a few million years of evolution ( or alternatively the hand of god if that's what you believe ).
So we settle for the practical solution. Computers. Not becaue they're better, faster or more efficient. But because they're worse, slower and far less efficient. Because they're easy.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Just because the computer can't do all the things a human brain can do does not make it slow and inefficient. In fact computers are much much much much much much faster at doing a lot of things than even the best human brain is capable of. It may not have the overall processing power of the brain, or even close to as good overall intelligence, but in specific areas the computer can and does dominate the human brain.
Just because the computer can't do all the things a human brain can do does not make it slow and inefficient. In fact computers are much much much much much much faster at doing a lot of things than even the best human brain is capable of. It may not have the overall processing power of the brain, or even close to as good overall intelligence, but in specific areas the computer can and does dominate the human brain.
A human brain takes a few square centimeters in size. It's capable of more calculations, processes and activity then a classroom full of computers.
Where exactly are computers faster and more efficient?
The only area in which computers are better is that they're easier. Easy to understand and easy to program.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
The problem with better AI might be this. Once an npc is smart enough to know when to interrupt you, and heal itself, and so and so and so, it's really just a numbers game isn't it? Can you heal and dps faster than it can?
Faction champions was one ofthe most difficult encounters in Wrath-WoW because you were faced an arena team of like 6 npc enemies with a combination of almost anything, never using the same more than once (you wouldn't face a team with two healing druids, but you could face a resto and moonkin--dps) and almost any role of any class (there weren't tanks).
There were a few minor exploits but it was really about laying good dps on a set order of targets, they cc'd you, interrupted, and would focus your clothies at random. They also had 15x (10 man normal) - 140x (25 man heroic) more health, and healed much harder.
The only substantial exploit was that npc pets could take priority over npc team members occupying some of their healer's cast times, often making the difference between the target dying, or regaining a chunk of health. Some groups used this, some did not. Sick several pets on one or two enemy pets, rolling things like autogrowl as well.
In regular mode they were tauntable but they changed targets as they saw fit, and often and in heroic mode, nothing but the pets were tauntable.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug. 12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
The argument should be null about whether it can or can't be done. It's all subjective based on the players preference. This thread is for the players who want to get away from the linear AI into something more adaptive, strategic and dynamic. Can a Ai be implemented as such? Don't know yet, because it hasn't been done before. Why? Because of the server descrepencies, lack of budget and time and possibly technology.
Here is the simple answer, I've worked with professors who research AI, and does consulting for EA and other Canadian companies.
He's done a lot of work with Bioware and here is the main, glaring reason.
Nobody wants it. AI isn't a selling feature worth investing in. Current AI is handled by 1 developer generally, maybe 2 and it might just be a side job of 1 developer.
Assuming you pay a developer 80k thats 40-120k development cost per year on AI
To get better more interesting AI you would need more people, specialized people. AI developers in other industries pull very large salaries, and if you wanted a team of 3-4 guys working on it, you'd be looking at 300-400k+ a year in development costs.
Is a better AI going to sell the extra 100,000 copies needed to make it profitable? Proably not, players would much rather see better graphics, physics or longer stories.
Currently, AI is not a finacially viable area to push in game development, this may change. For example you've all no doubt seen F.E.A.R which moved videogame AI from the 1940's all the way into the 1970's. Thats now the standard, but has anybody really pushed AI to see if there is a market? No. There may or may not not be a market for it, but nobody wants to take the financial risk.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
I simply can't believe the AI to be moderately challenging is difficult. As I said above, faction champions demonstrated enough to be a challenge. It would just end in long grueling duels and would be a punishing experience. It basically comes down to if/else statements for mobs.
if health > Low_Health% then
-- loop from 1 to 50 as loop_int
-- -- if mobClassAttacks[loop_int] cd = 0 then
-- -- -- do mobClassAttacks[loop_int]
-- -- -- break from the loop
-- -- end if
-- end loop
else
-- If Heal_CD = 0 then
-- -- do Heal
-- else
-- -- interrupt / stun / defensive cd while waiting for Heal to come off cd
-- end if
end if
(I hate to break it down into a simple and terrible representation of programming but it really is not difficult to expect, it just wouldn't be any fun to grind on. Add in the ability for the mobs to check their health and all others engaged in combat nearby and soloing two or three becomes well...predictable.
It's also true that many mobs wouldn't be able to heal and have defensive cool downs and interrupts, but I can name a few games where classes a few classes have all 3, or did when I played.
And then of course, there's the whole issue of threat. Why is the the boss attacking the tank when giving the dude over there a quick swipe, the one with the white magic hands, would end the fight.
PS, kinda wanted to write this in lolcode
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug. 12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
Until I see a Starcraft AI that is remotely as skilled as a halfway decent human player, then I'll believe that computer opponents can actually compete at a game that requires creative strategy or tactics. The fact is that computer scripts by definition are entirely predictable, so no matter how "adaptable" you make an AI eventually players will learn that adaptation and how to break it. Computers will never have that spark of inspiration or genius that humans can have. One a computer's strategy is learnt, it's nothing more than a virtual punching bag.
Perhaps a computer could at least be an effective source of entertainment for moderately skilled players by attempting to emulate the actions used by human players which have defeated it. Eventually it may develop a network of strategies designed to counteract almost every conceivable character build players may attack them with. This would certainly at least make it a new experience for each character, keeping the game interesting as players try new tactics.
The argument should be null about whether it can or can't be done. It's all subjective based on the players preference. This thread is for the players who want to get away from the linear AI into something more adaptive, strategic and dynamic. Can a Ai be implemented as such? Don't know yet, because it hasn't been done before. Why? Because of the server descrepencies, lack of budget and time and possibly technology.
Here is the simple answer, I've worked with professors who research AI, and does consulting for EA and other Canadian companies.
He's done a lot of work with Bioware and here is the main, glaring reason.
Nobody wants it. AI isn't a selling feature worth investing in. Current AI is handled by 1 developer generally, maybe 2 and it might just be a side job of 1 developer.
Assuming you pay a developer 80k thats 40-120k development cost per year on AI
To get better more interesting AI you would need more people, specialized people. AI developers in other industries pull very large salaries, and if you wanted a team of 3-4 guys working on it, you'd be looking at 300-400k+ a year in development costs.
Is a better AI going to sell the extra 100,000 copies needed to make it profitable? Proably not, players would much rather see better graphics, physics or longer stories.
Currently, AI is not a finacially viable area to push in game development, this may change. For example you've all no doubt seen F.E.A.R which moved videogame AI from the 1940's all the way into the 1970's. Thats now the standard, but has anybody really pushed AI to see if there is a market? No. There may or may not not be a market for it, but nobody wants to take the financial risk.
Very intresting post. I thought as much. My idea is this. You have class design in one spectrum and combat mechanics in one spectrum. Combat mechanics are a separate entity than class mechanics but compliment each other. Say the combat mechanics give the player a dozen options to win a fight instead of spamming your 1 2 and 3 hot keys for your abilities. The way I envision a more intelligent AI is, simply it would adapt within the realm of the combat mechanics and detect what type of archetype that class is based on their abililties used within a fight. Lets take this for an example.
Say for melee combat mechanics you have 3 stances, High for an offensive strike, Low for defending such as parrying and Middle for striking and defending, but is not efficient with either defending or striking. For simplicity, let's say that PC is approaching a hut with 1 guard. The NPC is in Middle stance posture. This means, the guard is not looking to defend nor strike. The PC may not know the strategy of this particular guard. The PC decides to strike in High Stance position to have a higher chance to perform an offensive strike.
Strike is successful because NPC did not have a successfull Parry. PC decides to go again in High stance and strike again with another successful strike. NPC AI says (dependent on their hierarchy of intelligence) detects the patter than this PC is going to be using offensive strikes. So the NPC will now become conserveritve and engange in Low stance postition for defense until they have an attack of opportunity.
If the PC would of went with Low stance after the offesnive strike, it might of thrown the NPC's AI off to not detect a particular strategy. The AI would detect strategy based on angel of weapon and the collision of weapons hitting, NPC body, or weapon or sheild.
That is what I am envisioning in a very basic form.
First, just so we're on the same line, human behaviour is based on nothing more then if-then statements. If one of my neurons gets enough signals through it's dendrites then it will fire a signal through it's axon. That's the basis of all human behaviour. One big system of electrochemical triggers.
Wow, talk about wrong. That is how the mechanics of the body works, any body. From human to dog to computer. What you do with those signals is what makes intelligence, artificial or otherwise.
I hit my thumb with a hammer. All the right nerves fire and I feel pain. There are several responses I could have though. 1) Scream and throw the hammer. 2) Drop the hammer and cuss. 3) Put the hammer down and treat the injury. Our thoughts (cognition or intelligence) is what determines how we react.
Wow, talk about wrong. That is how the mechanics of the body works, any body. From human to dog to computer. What you do with those signals is what makes intelligence, artificial or otherwise.
I hit my thumb with a hammer. All the right nerves fire and I feel pain. There are several responses I could have though. 1) Scream and throw the hammer. 2) Drop the hammer and cuss. 3) Put the hammer down and treat the injury. Our thoughts (cognition or intelligence) is what determines how we react.
And what do you think causes those responses? What do you think that cognition is? What do you think intelligence is? If not the unbelievably complex and advanced combination of a 100 billion neurons working in tandem then what then?
I believe in causality. Meaning that everything has a cause and an effect. All my thoughts have a cause and an effect. All my actions have a cause and an effect. I don't believe that I'm somehow magically excluded from the laws of physics.
The moment I drop that belief in causality and start believing that my thoughts have no cause and are somehow magically "free" then, logically, I also have to accept that all things could possibly be without cause. And all rational thought goes out the window as all logic is based on cause and effect. All science is based on cause and effect.
If you want to believe that we're more then this amazing combination of trillions of cells working in perfect unison then that's fine. But be consistent and also throw science and rationality out.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
First, just so we're on the same line, human behaviour is based on nothing more then if-then statements. If one of my neurons gets enough signals through it's dendrites then it will fire a signal through it's axon. That's the basis of all human behaviour. One big system of electrochemical triggers.
Wow, talk about wrong. That is how the mechanics of the body works, any body. From human to dog to computer. What you do with those signals is what makes intelligence, artificial or otherwise.
I hit my thumb with a hammer. All the right nerves fire and I feel pain. There are several responses I could have though. 1) Scream and throw the hammer. 2) Drop the hammer and cuss. 3) Put the hammer down and treat the injury. Our thoughts (cognition or intelligence) is what determines how we react.
And every single one of those responses is the result of an action potential, a bio-electrical stimulas travelling down an axon of a nerve that received enough stimulus to generate said potential.
That's an if-then statement, if the nerve receives said stimulus, an actional potential generates that triggers said action. The only question is which series of nerves will fire, that determines the response.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
If you want to believe that we're more then this amazing combination of trillions of cells working in perfect unison then that's fine. But be consistent and also throw science and rationality out.
I think you both may be missing my point. If-then is a one state - one response style of logic.
If A then 1
If B then 2
If C then 3
My example was more complex.
If A then 1, or maybe 2, or maybe 3
As a person that has done all three, in no specific order, my respons is much harder to predict. Sure, all three responses are simple bioelectric responses. But what, exactly, triggered one response over another? That is where intelegence comes in. (Though I admit the hole in the far wall from the hammer being thrown was plenty of evidence little intelegence.)
This is what is missing in AI. Knowing exactly how a computer will respond to a given situation, every time, makes it easy to predict/out smart the AI. Thus combat becomes dull. If there were some way to incorporate this semi-random nature into AI then two things would happen. First is that combat against AI would become much more interesting. Second is that the person who worked it out would be rich. (My friend also says that Skyynet would wipe us all out.)
And in response to the quote above: I am being consistant. I know that we do not have all the information on how our bodies work. We may eventually find some minor piece of data that changes everything. Just like we no longer know the Earth is flat and that it is not the center of the universe.
"Fun" isn't really a big factor in this thread, is it?
All the people asking for skilled AI need to go play 20 games of Chess against the best Chess AI in the world, then play 20 more games against an AI matched with their own skill, and tell me which AI was more fun: the "smart" or the "stupid"?
It's important for things to be dynamic/unpredictable enough to keep players learning, but it's cheaper (and therefore more efficient) to implement this unpredictability mostly through mob abilities. It's also far clearer exactly how the mob is different (this one casts a snaring frostbolt vs. the one who cast a DoT fireball.)
Especially when it comes to this talk of mobs running away or healing (and let's hopefully not even mention CC), all these things have long track records of pissing off players and generally not being fun to fight against unless it's a clear combat puzzle to unravel (Oh I can interrupt the heal!)
If we're suggesting giving players completely new toolsets from existing MMORPGs to deal with specific (and very visual) actions that mobs do, then that's great. As long as we're not suggesting mobs are completely random or completely smart (because neither of those things makes mobs more fun.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
"Fun" isn't really a big factor in this thread, is it?
All the people asking for skilled AI need to go play 20 games of Chess against the best Chess AI in the world, then play 20 more games against an AI matched with their own skill, and tell me which AI was more fun: the "smart" or the "stupid"?
It's important for things to be dynamic/unpredictable enough to keep players learning, but it's cheaper (and therefore more efficient) to implement this unpredictability mostly through mob abilities. It's also far clearer exactly how the mob is different (this one casts a snaring frostbolt vs. the one who cast a DoT fireball.)
Especially when it comes to this talk of mobs running away or healing (and let's hopefully not even mention CC), all these things have long track records of pissing off players and generally not being fun to fight against unless it's a clear combat puzzle to unravel (Oh I can interrupt the heal!)
If we're suggesting giving players completely new toolsets from existing MMORPGs to deal with specific (and very visual) actions that mobs do, then that's great. As long as we're not suggesting mobs are completely random or completely smart (because neither of those things makes mobs more fun.)
I was speaking along the lines based on a combat mechanic design I have. Go back and read my posts in this thread and you should convay an overall intention.
Fun is very subjective. WoW is not fun at all to me, but on the other hand, WoW is fun to you. Smart AI can happen. I wasn't taking about a Winston or whatever they call that robot that can guess jeopordy answers or whatever. I think one has to comprehend what linear combat mechanics mean in order to see what I am talking about.
I was speaking along the lines based on a combat mechanic design I have. Go back and read my posts in this thread and you should convay an overall intention.
Fun is very subjective. WoW is not fun at all to me, but on the other hand, WoW is fun to you. Smart AI can happen. I wasn't taking about a Winston or whatever they call that robot that can guess jeopordy answers or whatever. I think one has to comprehend what linear combat mechanics mean in order to see what I am talking about.
So long as your AI is a game-like puzzle, designed to deliver interesting, visible patterns of delight to players, it will do well.
If it becomes intelligence for intelligence's sake, it will not be popular and will struggle to entertain. Nobody actually wants intelligent AI for intelligent AI's sake.
You didn't really reveal enough about your AI to distinguish whether it was the former or the latter. In fact my concern from an earlier thread where you spoke of AI or combat was that there might not be enough overtly visible elements to combat (thereby making the puzzle unnecessarily cryptic to unravel, being a worse puzzle as a result, and making the game less fun.) Basically I have enough information to guess at a strong possible presentation of that type of combat system, surrounded by a million pitfalls -- little ways that such a system could easily become less puzzle-like, more realistic, and less fun as a result.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
If you want to believe that we're more then this amazing combination of trillions of cells working in perfect unison then that's fine. But be consistent and also throw science and rationality out.
I think you both may be missing my point. If-then is a one state - one response style of logic.
If A then 1
If B then 2
If C then 3
My example was more complex.
If A then 1, or maybe 2, or maybe 3
As a person that has done all three, in no specific order, my respons is much harder to predict. Sure, all three responses are simple bioelectric responses. But what, exactly, triggered one response over another? That is where intelegence comes in. (Though I admit the hole in the far wall from the hammer being thrown was plenty of evidence little intelegence.)
This is what is missing in AI. Knowing exactly how a computer will respond to a given situation, every time, makes it easy to predict/out smart the AI. Thus combat becomes dull. If there were some way to incorporate this semi-random nature into AI then two things would happen. First is that combat against AI would become much more interesting. Second is that the person who worked it out would be rich. (My friend also says that Skyynet would wipe us all out.)
And in response to the quote above: I am being consistant. I know that we do not have all the information on how our bodies work. We may eventually find some minor piece of data that changes everything. Just like we no longer know the Earth is flat and that it is not the center of the universe.
You think the brain does if A then 1, or maybe 2, or maybe 3 because you ( and the rest of humanity ) don't know enough about the brain.
In reality it's if A and B and C and D and E and F.... ( for about a few million more ) then 1. If ( another few million which are mostly the same but some minor diffirences ) then 2 etc.
In your hammer example:
If that day had a lot of dissapointments I'd throw the hammer. If that day went perfectly or as near as can be then I'll laugh about it etc.
We are the bunny. Resistance is futile. ''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\ ( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o) (")("),,(")("),(")(")
Comments
Let's take a diffirent angle.
We've got the human brain with hardware and software so advanced that nobody understands it.
Then we've got computers with hardware and software so basic that a lot of people understand it.
Now the reason why that tracking computer is so "fast" and "efficient" is because it really is so very slow and inefficient.
If it was as fast and efficient as the human brain we wouldn't be able to program it and it'd be useless. But because computers are horribly slow and inefficient we can understand them and program them.
If we were able to program neurons do you honestly think we'd still be using CPUs at all?
Computers aren't better at anything at all then brains. The only reason they appear to be is because we understand them and thus are able to view and change their inner workings.
Brain hardware is better then computer hardware. Brain software is better then computer software. Brain hardware and brain software combined is a LOT better then computer hardware and software combined. It's just that developing brain hardware and brain software takes a few million years of evolution ( or alternatively the hand of god if that's what you believe ).
So we settle for the practical solution. Computers. Not becaue they're better, faster or more efficient. But because they're worse, slower and far less efficient. Because they're easy.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
Just because the computer can't do all the things a human brain can do does not make it slow and inefficient. In fact computers are much much much much much much faster at doing a lot of things than even the best human brain is capable of. It may not have the overall processing power of the brain, or even close to as good overall intelligence, but in specific areas the computer can and does dominate the human brain.
A human brain takes a few square centimeters in size. It's capable of more calculations, processes and activity then a classroom full of computers.
Where exactly are computers faster and more efficient?
The only area in which computers are better is that they're easier. Easy to understand and easy to program.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
The problem with better AI might be this. Once an npc is smart enough to know when to interrupt you, and heal itself, and so and so and so, it's really just a numbers game isn't it? Can you heal and dps faster than it can?
Faction champions was one ofthe most difficult encounters in Wrath-WoW because you were faced an arena team of like 6 npc enemies with a combination of almost anything, never using the same more than once (you wouldn't face a team with two healing druids, but you could face a resto and moonkin--dps) and almost any role of any class (there weren't tanks).
There were a few minor exploits but it was really about laying good dps on a set order of targets, they cc'd you, interrupted, and would focus your clothies at random. They also had 15x (10 man normal) - 140x (25 man heroic) more health, and healed much harder.
The only substantial exploit was that npc pets could take priority over npc team members occupying some of their healer's cast times, often making the difference between the target dying, or regaining a chunk of health. Some groups used this, some did not. Sick several pets on one or two enemy pets, rolling things like autogrowl as well.
In regular mode they were tauntable but they changed targets as they saw fit, and often and in heroic mode, nothing but the pets were tauntable.
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
Here is the simple answer, I've worked with professors who research AI, and does consulting for EA and other Canadian companies.
He's done a lot of work with Bioware and here is the main, glaring reason.
Nobody wants it. AI isn't a selling feature worth investing in. Current AI is handled by 1 developer generally, maybe 2 and it might just be a side job of 1 developer.
Assuming you pay a developer 80k thats 40-120k development cost per year on AI
To get better more interesting AI you would need more people, specialized people. AI developers in other industries pull very large salaries, and if you wanted a team of 3-4 guys working on it, you'd be looking at 300-400k+ a year in development costs.
Is a better AI going to sell the extra 100,000 copies needed to make it profitable? Proably not, players would much rather see better graphics, physics or longer stories.
Currently, AI is not a finacially viable area to push in game development, this may change. For example you've all no doubt seen F.E.A.R which moved videogame AI from the 1940's all the way into the 1970's. Thats now the standard, but has anybody really pushed AI to see if there is a market? No. There may or may not not be a market for it, but nobody wants to take the financial risk.
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
I simply can't believe the AI to be moderately challenging is difficult. As I said above, faction champions demonstrated enough to be a challenge. It would just end in long grueling duels and would be a punishing experience. It basically comes down to if/else statements for mobs.
if health > Low_Health% then
-- loop from 1 to 50 as loop_int
-- -- if mobClassAttacks[loop_int] cd = 0 then
-- -- -- do mobClassAttacks[loop_int]
-- -- -- break from the loop
-- -- end if
-- end loop
else
-- If Heal_CD = 0 then
-- -- do Heal
-- else
-- -- interrupt / stun / defensive cd while waiting for Heal to come off cd
-- end if
end if
(I hate to break it down into a simple and terrible representation of programming but it really is not difficult to expect, it just wouldn't be any fun to grind on. Add in the ability for the mobs to check their health and all others engaged in combat nearby and soloing two or three becomes well...predictable.
It's also true that many mobs wouldn't be able to heal and have defensive cool downs and interrupts, but I can name a few games where classes a few classes have all 3, or did when I played.
And then of course, there's the whole issue of threat. Why is the the boss attacking the tank when giving the dude over there a quick swipe, the one with the white magic hands, would end the fight.
PS, kinda wanted to write this in lolcode
Spec'ing properly is a gateway drug.
12 Million People have been meter spammed in heroics.
Until I see a Starcraft AI that is remotely as skilled as a halfway decent human player, then I'll believe that computer opponents can actually compete at a game that requires creative strategy or tactics. The fact is that computer scripts by definition are entirely predictable, so no matter how "adaptable" you make an AI eventually players will learn that adaptation and how to break it. Computers will never have that spark of inspiration or genius that humans can have. One a computer's strategy is learnt, it's nothing more than a virtual punching bag.
Perhaps a computer could at least be an effective source of entertainment for moderately skilled players by attempting to emulate the actions used by human players which have defeated it. Eventually it may develop a network of strategies designed to counteract almost every conceivable character build players may attack them with. This would certainly at least make it a new experience for each character, keeping the game interesting as players try new tactics.
Very intresting post. I thought as much. My idea is this. You have class design in one spectrum and combat mechanics in one spectrum. Combat mechanics are a separate entity than class mechanics but compliment each other. Say the combat mechanics give the player a dozen options to win a fight instead of spamming your 1 2 and 3 hot keys for your abilities. The way I envision a more intelligent AI is, simply it would adapt within the realm of the combat mechanics and detect what type of archetype that class is based on their abililties used within a fight. Lets take this for an example.
Say for melee combat mechanics you have 3 stances, High for an offensive strike, Low for defending such as parrying and Middle for striking and defending, but is not efficient with either defending or striking. For simplicity, let's say that PC is approaching a hut with 1 guard. The NPC is in Middle stance posture. This means, the guard is not looking to defend nor strike. The PC may not know the strategy of this particular guard. The PC decides to strike in High Stance position to have a higher chance to perform an offensive strike.
Strike is successful because NPC did not have a successfull Parry. PC decides to go again in High stance and strike again with another successful strike. NPC AI says (dependent on their hierarchy of intelligence) detects the patter than this PC is going to be using offensive strikes. So the NPC will now become conserveritve and engange in Low stance postition for defense until they have an attack of opportunity.
If the PC would of went with Low stance after the offesnive strike, it might of thrown the NPC's AI off to not detect a particular strategy. The AI would detect strategy based on angel of weapon and the collision of weapons hitting, NPC body, or weapon or sheild.
That is what I am envisioning in a very basic form.
Wow, talk about wrong. That is how the mechanics of the body works, any body. From human to dog to computer. What you do with those signals is what makes intelligence, artificial or otherwise.
I hit my thumb with a hammer. All the right nerves fire and I feel pain. There are several responses I could have though. 1) Scream and throw the hammer. 2) Drop the hammer and cuss. 3) Put the hammer down and treat the injury. Our thoughts (cognition or intelligence) is what determines how we react.
And what do you think causes those responses? What do you think that cognition is? What do you think intelligence is? If not the unbelievably complex and advanced combination of a 100 billion neurons working in tandem then what then?
I believe in causality. Meaning that everything has a cause and an effect. All my thoughts have a cause and an effect. All my actions have a cause and an effect. I don't believe that I'm somehow magically excluded from the laws of physics.
The moment I drop that belief in causality and start believing that my thoughts have no cause and are somehow magically "free" then, logically, I also have to accept that all things could possibly be without cause. And all rational thought goes out the window as all logic is based on cause and effect. All science is based on cause and effect.
If you want to believe that we're more then this amazing combination of trillions of cells working in perfect unison then that's fine. But be consistent and also throw science and rationality out.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")
And every single one of those responses is the result of an action potential, a bio-electrical stimulas travelling down an axon of a nerve that received enough stimulus to generate said potential.
That's an if-then statement, if the nerve receives said stimulus, an actional potential generates that triggers said action. The only question is which series of nerves will fire, that determines the response.
Venge
I think you both may be missing my point. If-then is a one state - one response style of logic.
If A then 1
If B then 2
If C then 3
My example was more complex.
If A then 1, or maybe 2, or maybe 3
As a person that has done all three, in no specific order, my respons is much harder to predict. Sure, all three responses are simple bioelectric responses. But what, exactly, triggered one response over another? That is where intelegence comes in. (Though I admit the hole in the far wall from the hammer being thrown was plenty of evidence little intelegence.)
This is what is missing in AI. Knowing exactly how a computer will respond to a given situation, every time, makes it easy to predict/out smart the AI. Thus combat becomes dull. If there were some way to incorporate this semi-random nature into AI then two things would happen. First is that combat against AI would become much more interesting. Second is that the person who worked it out would be rich. (My friend also says that Skyynet would wipe us all out.)
And in response to the quote above: I am being consistant. I know that we do not have all the information on how our bodies work. We may eventually find some minor piece of data that changes everything. Just like we no longer know the Earth is flat and that it is not the center of the universe.
"Fun" isn't really a big factor in this thread, is it?
All the people asking for skilled AI need to go play 20 games of Chess against the best Chess AI in the world, then play 20 more games against an AI matched with their own skill, and tell me which AI was more fun: the "smart" or the "stupid"?
It's important for things to be dynamic/unpredictable enough to keep players learning, but it's cheaper (and therefore more efficient) to implement this unpredictability mostly through mob abilities. It's also far clearer exactly how the mob is different (this one casts a snaring frostbolt vs. the one who cast a DoT fireball.)
Especially when it comes to this talk of mobs running away or healing (and let's hopefully not even mention CC), all these things have long track records of pissing off players and generally not being fun to fight against unless it's a clear combat puzzle to unravel (Oh I can interrupt the heal!)
If we're suggesting giving players completely new toolsets from existing MMORPGs to deal with specific (and very visual) actions that mobs do, then that's great. As long as we're not suggesting mobs are completely random or completely smart (because neither of those things makes mobs more fun.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I was speaking along the lines based on a combat mechanic design I have. Go back and read my posts in this thread and you should convay an overall intention.
Fun is very subjective. WoW is not fun at all to me, but on the other hand, WoW is fun to you. Smart AI can happen. I wasn't taking about a Winston or whatever they call that robot that can guess jeopordy answers or whatever. I think one has to comprehend what linear combat mechanics mean in order to see what I am talking about.
So long as your AI is a game-like puzzle, designed to deliver interesting, visible patterns of delight to players, it will do well.
If it becomes intelligence for intelligence's sake, it will not be popular and will struggle to entertain. Nobody actually wants intelligent AI for intelligent AI's sake.
You didn't really reveal enough about your AI to distinguish whether it was the former or the latter. In fact my concern from an earlier thread where you spoke of AI or combat was that there might not be enough overtly visible elements to combat (thereby making the puzzle unnecessarily cryptic to unravel, being a worse puzzle as a result, and making the game less fun.) Basically I have enough information to guess at a strong possible presentation of that type of combat system, surrounded by a million pitfalls -- little ways that such a system could easily become less puzzle-like, more realistic, and less fun as a result.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
You think the brain does if A then 1, or maybe 2, or maybe 3 because you ( and the rest of humanity ) don't know enough about the brain.
In reality it's if A and B and C and D and E and F.... ( for about a few million more ) then 1. If ( another few million which are mostly the same but some minor diffirences ) then 2 etc.
In your hammer example:
If that day had a lot of dissapointments I'd throw the hammer. If that day went perfectly or as near as can be then I'll laugh about it etc.
We are the bunny.
Resistance is futile.
''/\/\'''''/\/\''''''/\/\
( o.o) ( o.o) ( o.o)
(")("),,(")("),(")(")