PDA

View Full Version : Freindly party AI?



F50
04-20-2008, 06:08 AM
Suppose that you are not so much of a hero in JADE as you are in ADOM. Suppose you are a normal adventurer.

If you are beset by jackals in the wilderness and are surrounded you will die (see: Does JADE need more complex combat? page 2).

Naturally, you are going to want some help.


So how would the player lead a band of adventurers through JADE? The ADOM interface isn't really enough. If leading a party becomes worthwhile, then there are tons of quests that open up in regard to leading expeditions, escorting, and conventional warfare.



Some brainstorming:

Suggestion 1. The easiest way to do this is to have the player give all the orders and have the AI be able to respond to them. CTRL+O gives you a set of options as to what you want your entire party to do. O

a. follow me (easy enough)

b. engage target (easy enough)

c. engage all hostiles. (easy enough)

d. Defend position. Make a tight circle around position (targeted like arrows). Useful to make a stand in a disadvantageous position and prevents any one member of the group from being surrounded.

e. Attack position. Wait within a few squares of target position

f. Make line. Give direction (n, e, w, s, ne, nw, se, sw) to make line face.

g. engage group. Pick a member of a group to attack and then attack that member of the group. One problem: what defines a group?



Which ones are useless, which ones are useful, any others that would be nice? Can the interface be made simpler?

Other solutions than letting the player/AI commander do most of the thinking?

What orders should an AI commander give?

theotherhiveking
04-20-2008, 01:03 PM
The AI commander should give the ones you tagged as 'easy enough'

reich
04-20-2008, 01:27 PM
To have some sort of squad mechanics, it's IMO necessary to introduce the concept of FORMATION - a group of beings always staying in the same relative position to each other.

The PC could order his subordinates to form up into a square, line or column and then have them to move around in formation. That could be enough for some basic tactics.

If the PC could control 2 or 3 such formation, even more sophisticated tactics could be used, like surrounding the enemy.

Grey
04-20-2008, 02:57 PM
Well, we don't want this being too much like CnC... Defending an area sounds nice, since it'll force the group (or individual) to stay around a particular location and fight things that come within a certain range (but without following if they flee). If you choose the defending location to be yourself then they'd form a shield around you. Should also be a general "attack all hostile" command. There would need to be an option to give orders to an individual or to all nearby allies. Otherwise I don't think there should be anything more complex than the current ADOM commands. Any advanced tactics should be part of general monster AI, and not controlled by the player.

Not something I would bother using much though. The fact is that AI is never wholly dependable, so I could never rely on pets or allies to be useful.

Elone
04-20-2008, 03:52 PM
My adamant answer is no.

JADE will be focused on one hero, otherwise it will not be a roguelike. AI thingy sounds good, but it does not automatically justify the addition of armies (of any size) into player control. At best, you will get a pet or two to help you thruout the game like in the old ADOM. If you are attacked by a pack of jackals, your hero will rather be able to defeat them, than hire a meatshield army to protect him.

You seem to be hellbent on weakening our heros at any cost. Cripple their DV when surrounded, make them so weak that thry cant defeat a jackal pack anymore, make them sweat in deserts and make them freeze in snow. Such masochists you are. Snap out of it!

To say that you want a realism is a poor excuse for weakening heroes into nothingness.

Nezur
04-20-2008, 05:21 PM
JADE will be focused on one hero, otherwise it will not be a roguelike.

Thomas has already planned to take in many not-very-roguelike elements. In my opinion it's not important to stay within the lines of a traditional roguelike.

The command interface could as well be improved. I do, however, agree that the game should center on the player character.

F50
04-20-2008, 05:56 PM
You seem to be hellbent on weakening our heroes at any cost. Cripple their DV when surrounded, make them so weak that they cant defeat a jackal pack anymore, make them sweat in deserts and make them freeze in snow. Such masochists you are. Snap out of it!I didn't contribute significantly to the weather thread.

Heroes should not be weak, but they should not be gods. A adventurer just starting out should not be so buff as to take on a large group of formidable wilderness creatures by himself in the open. After some battle experience, sure, but not such a group of equal-level monsters by himself.

I am not saying that the PC should hire an army, that should be ridiculously expensive, but the player should always have a few companions following him/her around in case of a tension room, vault, or wilderness encounter to prevent encircling problems and allow sacrificial tactical retreat (ie. cowardly running away leaving your companions to die) in order to survive.


Not something I would bother using much though. The fact is that AI is never wholly dependable, so I could never rely on pets or allies to be useful.That, I think, is the problem. Allies don't really listen to you in ADOM and can't hold their own in a fight. By the time you can get a formidable ally, its already obsolete (Except perhaps in the SMC at level ~25, but even then it hampers more than it helps).

I am trying to suggest useful allies. That said, thinking of the player commanding an all out war was a little overambitious. Here a somewhat simpler revision.


Suggestion 1 (revised). CTRL+O gives you a set of options as to what you want your entire party to do. ALT+O gives you the same set of options for a single NPC. If you are a commander by contract (with trained hired soldiers or professional adventures and such), allies will always listen to you.

a. Form up.
(i. line. Give Depth, the line will form in the direction you last moved.
(ii. circle. Give size. Forms a circle useful for defending open positions.
(iii. Defend. Positions units so as to give the most attacking sides should a hostile come to position. Useful for holding choke points such as doorways. An AI unit should not take up position next to a doorway (so that a single attacker can't take on a large group.

b. engage target.

c. engage all hostiles.

d. Wait here

This is a much smaller and more manageable for a player or AI commander to use.


If area is open (not dungeon/town) use circle formation, otherwise use line.

If the enemy is in a hallway, and your men are not significantly stronger than the enemy, defend at the doorway.

Engage all hostiles when close to enemies and not significantly outnumbered. If significantly outnumbered use circle formation.


This should make groups of AI much more dangerous to the PC.

Grey
04-20-2008, 06:39 PM
I am not saying that the PC should hire an army, that should be ridiculously expensive, but the player should always have a few companions following him/her around in case of a tension room, vault, or wilderness encounter to prevent encircling problems and allow sacrificial tactical retreat (ie. cowardly running away leaving your companions to die) in order to survive.

Always? A strong word, and I disagree on it. The game should mostly be about single character combat. Pets and allies should be an available option like in ADOM, but not necessary in any way. They're just one way of handling a situation. I really can't stand a game that makes me reliant on AI - there are very few where NPCs have been controlled well by the AI. Making allies necessary would ruin JADE entirely I think.



If you are a commander by contract (with trained hired soldiers or professional adventures and such), allies will always listen to you.Always? Such strong words again :P There should be morale factors. Ordering allies to defend you to the death against greater molochs won't work too well, especially if they don't like you. Of course if you're more poerful than the enemy they might rather attack it out of fear of your rebuttal. Charisma and Intimidation would all come into this, as well as alignment and so forth.

I don't like the formation ideas personally. They're too static and would have very limited application in the game, not to mention being inherently difficult to code. I don't think enough people would make use of the features to any great effect.

F50
04-20-2008, 08:25 PM
If the AI aren't that smart, it doesn't make sense for them to not always listen to you. So yes, always.

However, you are somewhat right that the player may not *always* have people following you around. I would recommended *usually* in the early game though (but only 1 or 2).

The formations may not sound useful, but a mindless mass is always (ok, now I'm just saying that to annoy you) worse than a not-so-good formation. Furthermore, it wouldn't be hard to code, simply tell the character to go to the location described by a formula. The formula should remain simple for circle (basically a rounded square formation) line (obviously) and even defend (maximize the area covered). It could also be hard coded without too many ill effects I think.

Mostly you wouldn't *need* companions except in situations where you've got a lot to chew (jackal pack, tension room etc.). Ideally they would be well equipped and would level automatically (or at least share XP with) with the PC so they don't become obsolete very quickly like in ADOM.

AI in most games are not stupid and there are some (Mount&blade [its a 3d game], just an example, I would not like JADE to take this route) which have AI such that though the PC is as good as 5-10 men, it is really the NPCs that do most of the work and the player just has fun and orders them around.

Most of my absolutes (always statements) really mean "mostly always" and are just there to make a point. However, some people (like myself) like to pick those statements apart and then I have to go back and clarify. :P

Elone
04-20-2008, 08:32 PM
Like Grey, I also strongly disagree. The last I want in JADE is my dependency on companions. And even if I supported this idea, formations could somewhat arrange your companions around you without you having to do it manually; but how many creative and different formations can you arrange on such a tight square grid in a dungeon room or in a corridor? To cover your flanks? Which flanks? To create a circle around you? One or two, or even three companions cannot create a circle around you. So you indeed do seem to be talking about armies here.

I'll say it again:

No.

Grey
04-20-2008, 09:25 PM
However, you are somewhat right that the player may not *always* have people following you around. I would recommended *usually* in the early game though (but only 1 or 2).

Well, perhaps companions would help you explore areas you can't take on your own, but the other option would be to stick to weaker areas till you can take it on yourself. And sharing xp? Ugh! I don't want it to feel like I'm playing some bloody online RPG...

The formations I don't like because it sounds so simplistic - I don't think they have much tactical use. Unless all your companions are meat shields of course, but I was considering that you wanted companions to bring more skills to a party. So you may be a ranger, but your companions might include a thief to detect traps, a barbarian to tank, a healer to smack things over the head (did I mention it's a troll healer?) and a wizard to blow things to smithereens. Having them in a simple line or circle formation would be useless. Trying to arrange more useful formations would be, well, hellish. Trying to command any sort of party dynamics would be hellish. The only thing you can hope for is that the general monster AI works well in groups (there was another thread about this somewhere, about enemy mages and leaders sticking to the back etc).

Also you know all the troubles there are with companions in ADOM. Sorting these out could be a nightmare. Crossing rivers, stepping on traps, doing *anything* in corridors. So much of the core of roguelikes and ADOM is centred around single person exploration. Obviously a more complex companion interface will be nice in JADE (especially equipping them and such) but it'll never be a perfect system, and so should never be something you feel the need to rely on. Mind you, would be nice to see what sort of party AIs TB could come up with.

Qui
04-20-2008, 11:05 PM
Companions in ADoM usually aren't very helpful , that's a fact, and even if they are (killer bug, quickling lich, GEE), they steal PC's experience. There are 2 options to handle this in JADE: either improve companion interactions, or scrap them altogether. The problem is that if companions actually are helpful, it'll chance whole game balance, and adjusting difficulty to keep the game challenging will make it next to impossible to play without companions, which would be bad. Also we should keep in mind, that with the new model other creatures have the same possibilities as the PC, so almost anything (maybe apart a 1 level rat) can alter the balance.

Possible solutions:
1) Scrap companions. Quite radical, simple, quick to implement ;). But playing a bard loses sense, not to mention a necromancer.
2) Limit the amount of companions at a given moment. Not quite realistic, but prevents bringing an army to a dungeon. Still doesn't fix balance issues - fighter by himself and fighter followed by 3 healers - a huge difference.
3) Allow only much weaker companions. But with the new system, how does one define "much weaker"? With HP rising much slower, even a low-level char may be quite strong if you arm him well. Also, if by any chance this would work, having weak companions sort of makes it not worthwhile.
4) Make companions hard to get. Some sort of quest, or a lot of gold, or level/skill prerequisites... or a combination of these. Work to get this healer to follow you around. I like that option most I think, yet it still doesn't solve the problem of a necromancer resurrecting/bard taming a lot of creatures. Maybe make that harder too, like making self-made undead weak and chance for taming low, maybe with requirement to get close to a creature. That would make sense - maybe you'll tame that bear, or maybe it'll maul you to death ;).

F50
04-21-2008, 03:42 AM
And sharing xp? Ugh! I don't want it to feel like I'm playing some bloody online RPG... What is particularly online-ish about sharing XP? The reason that it is so often seen is because it is one of the few ways to have distinct characters and not have any of them (healer) become obsolete.


The formations I don't like because it sounds so simplistic - I don't think they have much tactical use. Unless all your companions are meat shields of course, but I was considering that you wanted companions to bring more skills to a party. I was originally thinking meat shields and perhaps an archer/mage or two (for a circle around the archer/mage, form a line so that the archer/mage is in the back etc.), having a utility unit like a healer or a thief would be more difficult and would have to come after the meatshields work properly. Should everything be created at once?


Also you know all the troubles there are with companions in ADOM. Sorting these out could be a nightmare. Crossing rivers, stepping on traps, doing *anything* in corridors. Not really, as long as all party members can swim and all party members follow orders (and don't turn on you when you blow a trap by accident). corridors could be neat as the NPC's could switch out as they are wounded (something I would like/hate to see my foes doing).

The point of this thread is to address those problems.


but how many creative and different formations can you arrange on such a tight square grid in a dungeon room or in a corridor? A good reason for not having many formations. The important thing is to preserve some modicum of order and usefulness to your companions. Do you prefer your men stacking behind you or extending to your left and right?
To cover your flanks? Which flanks? Complete flank covering is not necessary, all one needs is enough to keep from being surrounded and some help holding the end of a corridor. Once that can be accomplished one can start talking about covering flanks.
To create a circle around you? One or two, or even three companions cannot create a circle around you. As said, one doesn't need a circle, it is just convenient you have your men positioned in such a way that it is conducive to flank-covering (even if it only helps in dire situations). Line and Circle formations are only different in groups of 3 or more people, as with circle you have one behind one left one right, while in line you have two right one left.
So you indeed do seem to be talking about armies here. Only if you consider a group of five to be an army.

Possible solutions:
1) Scrap companions. Quite radical, simple, quick to implement ;). But playing a bard loses sense, not to mention a necromancer.
In what manner of speaking is that a solution? Companions in ADOM are useless, so why would they need to be removed?


2) Limit the amount of companions at a given moment. Not quite realistic, but prevents bringing an army to a dungeon. Still doesn't fix balance issues - fighter by himself and fighter followed by 3 healers - a huge difference.
Quite realistic (how many men can you control?) and necessary. You should not be leading more than 10 men.


3) Allow only much weaker companions.
Only necessary when you have a mid-higher level PC. The solution is in one word, availability. I don't think you can get better than a professional castle guard (for meatshield) and once you get good enough you have neither the need or the patience to get one and keep it alive. Healers/mages and such can be dealt with later, and at least at first, the solution is to not have them available.


4) Make companions hard to get. Some sort of quest, or a lot of gold, or level/skill prerequisites... or a combination of these. Work to get this healer to follow you around. I like that option most I think, yet it still doesn't solve the problem of a necromancer resurrecting/bard taming a lot of creatures. How was that a problem in ADOM? Bard-tamed creatures are based upon availability of a small subset of monsters. Necromancers can only deal with humanoids, and the undead are relative to the PC's level. Actually, undead slaves have a form of XP sharing with the PC, unfortunately that doesn't work in the reverse.

Ars
04-21-2008, 05:57 PM
A more important thing than companion AI is the enemy AI. If companions can work intelligently without the player shepherding them all the time, then enemies can probably do the same and vice versa. So I say that making an intricate command system is not nearly as useful as making AI work smarter in general.

These commands are enough:

Follow me.
Attack hostiles.
Attack target creature.
Hold position.
(and maybe, setting combat tactics like prefer ranged/melee and set tactics etc.)

A command like "form a circle around me" is essentially follow me, isn't it?

And I would like it to be useful to have NPC companions (and especially more streamlined and less frustrating than in ADOM), but not a requirement for survival.

F50
04-21-2008, 07:32 PM
form a circle around me is essentially follow me except that it should actually be (mildly) useful if you end up in a fight. not really sure how much more useful, and it depends on what you are trying to do.

breeding moloch
06-05-2008, 05:37 AM
hey how about a fetch command for companions but only if the companion is capable of doing it so you dont go tell a tame cute dog to go fetch a giant corpse & if you tried to make a pet fetch from a shop the first time the shopkeeper will block the entrance from the companion & say KEEP AWAY FROM HERE! if you did it a 2nd time the shopkeeper will become hostile you can make any companion fetch.