Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem









I feel like I’ve contributed a good deal to the Arma 2 community as well as help revitalize it with my channel for a few years.
If you wish to leave this discussion, i shall not blame you for it. But please. Let us part on good terms, if we have to.
Chris released around 700 smart ai videos showing every type of Arma 2 gameplay you could imagine from the best cqb to full on warfare, nothing came close, and we mean nothing. The only thing we have that surpassed his brand of mixing for 'smart ai' is kai.
We consider this the end of our input with you.
Shame really.
'Peace out' TG and that does mean ...out...
That unless WGE/Chris B can provide an example to the contrary, or a fix.
I am sure Chris B didn't simply gloss over these issues.
But your mix is based on ASR. Now ASR is awesome, don't get me wrong, but compared to Chris b's mix, I do not like its approach. There's something much more predictable, much more mechanical in the AI. Maybe it's just personal preference.
But i cannot simply ignore its qualities. This is why i believe there is a way, a middle ground, a compromise that can be made.
What are PBOs in the end, if not scripts, code? If such code has been written that impairs the AI, surely it can be reversed, revised, fixed.
I fully understand what you mean, this is slaving away at a 15 year old game with no benefit. But i love Arma 2. I must succeed.
cont.
While it can be fun to do these little tests sometimes, in the grand scheme of things, it’s a massive waste of time.
It’s like, I spent most of the time just “fixing” the damn game just to get my dumb scenario working right.
Play the game if you like my mod mix or Chris’s. These are the best options you realistically have. Me personally, I’m playing Ghost Recon 1 with Wolfpack Mix since I literally don’t have to do anything and the AI work amazingly well.
Something to think about.
The issue with Smart AI (as someone who did a LOT of trial and error with it) is that it suffers with close quarters engagements. Hell, even mid-long range firefights tend to be weaker compared to Advanced AI since mine aren’t running around a lot. They pause, take cover, engage, flank, etc.
When I was creating my mix, I wanted it to be the de facto infantry AI mod for Arma 2 (and imho, it succeeded greatly at it). I used to have a channel where I would do comparisons with Smart AI as well as Arma 3 AI mods (it wins in all categories).
If you want a strategic layer, use Smart AI. If you want solid tactics, use Advanced AI.
There must be something wrong with CQB. When i used vanilla AI, they reacted to me quick enough not to get killed as easily.
I suspect therefore, that Zeus has a component somewhere that messes up this part of the AI.
TPW_AI_LOS made things worse.
I must ask you therefore, if you can find a good example of a CQB test in your archives, or anything really, that can mitigate this situation. If you do, then it means that CQB is actually possible with the Smart Ai mix. And if it is, please tell how it is done, as of now, all attempts on my part to rectify this did not bear fruit.