Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Back in the day there used to be games like 'freedom fighters' and even half life 2 had some instances of squad control where you could order A.I. around and get them to do stuff. I don't play too many games these days but I don't seem to see that much anymore. Does anybody know of any in recent years worth playing or are there just none being made any more?
I kinda meant more like 3rd person or 1st person shooters where you control a squad of guys that help you complete the game. It's like having a warband but you're a soldier too. Pikmin and Overlord could even be described as a squad based game to an extent.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/28 22:16:12
What about the Rainbow Six series? You controlled your team in those, up until Vegas 2 (though that did come out in 2008 so maybe doesn't really count as current). Siege, as far as I can tell, is just a multiplayer game with an emphasis on actually acting as a team.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/29 02:39:14
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Companies realized that it's much easier to just make muliplayer titles and have players figure out stuff themselves rather than having bots with a very complicated (read: expensive) AI. It's much less work, you force players to get others to play with them (read: "Yo man, buy this game so we can play together!") and with everyone having internet access nowadays, there are no technological difficulties either.
I would agree that it does pose some challenges to create a good "companion" A.I. so it is easier just to have other players.
I find real-time play can be a bit fussy trying to push some bots around to do the right thing in a timely and intelligent way.
Turn based games can do that so much better where the player has time for full control.
I think KOTOR was OK with that mix of real time "pause and play", dragon age added a bit of AI programming for the user.
This guy put out a pretty comprehensive list kept up to 2014 here.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
AI never has caught up to humans. Its faster, able to do many tasks at once.
Still not have the ability to adapt on fly like human. It depends on algorithms and parameters
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
The human mind does far more "tasks" than the average computer does, actually. What we consider one task-- say, tying one's shoes-- a computer would consider billions of tasks.
Computers are, however, very specialized and excel at doing specific things very quickly.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/29 18:47:32
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
JSF wrote:... this is really quite an audacious move by GW, throwing out any pretext that this is a game and that its customers exist to do anything other than buy their overpriced products for the sake of it. The naked arrogance, greed and contempt for their audience is shocking.
SickSix wrote: The problem with multi-player is you have to play with other people. I tend to dislike people in general.
Bring back Rogue Spear, Lost Vikings, and Full Spectrum Warrior!
They do tend to have their own motivations and may stab you in the back for giggles.
This is sounding more like a Fawlty Towers skit: "This MMO would run so much better without all the players.".
It is best to be an army of one: Always depend on yourself, he never lets you down.
I am just trying to figure out how you can run your "guys" like in Satellite Reign / Syndicate but from a first person perspective.
Tom Clancy is great stuff but it is a mini game just setting up all the waypoints for the mission.
The only way I could see a spontaneous game happening is by setting configurable modes like:
"stealth", "run and gun", "heavy firefight", "normal walk: blend in", "fast walk": setting your behavior preferences and activating them on the fly.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
The one issue with AI is its locked into certain thinking paths, once you learn them you can exploit them and they become alot easier to beat.
A human can adjust, counter or break habits, a machine not.
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Melissia wrote: The human mind does far more "tasks" than the average computer does, actually. What we consider one task-- say, tying one's shoes-- a computer would consider billions of tasks.
Computers are, however, very specialized and excel at doing specific things very quickly.
For those who say a machine cannot break a means of thought or habit have not looked into learning algorithms, you can weigh a prior circumstance vs a present one and "decide" to modify a preferred pattern based on new data. Heck, I made some basic game programs and added some minor randomizer inputs to ensure a not completely predictable behavior. There are many ways to create a logical means for a computer to "change it's mind".
Something as simple as losing too often makes us want to rewrite how we do things.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/29 20:21:37
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
True, though often the targeting and priority, it can be less smart as it decides for some reason to fire on the unit that can barely harm it when further back is a Battleship grade artillery unit rotating to fire. Some targeting, attack or such AI is to be desired.
Human players just think smarter, well good ones ;-)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/29 21:35:03
Sgt. Vanden - OOC Hey, that was your doing. I didn't choose to fly in the "Dongerprise'.
"May the odds be ever in your favour"
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
I have no clue how Dakka's moderation work. I expect it involves throwing a lot of d100 and looking at many random tables.
FudgeDumper - It could be that you are just so uncomfortable with the idea of your chapters primarch having his way with a docile tyranid spore cyst, that you must deny they have any feelings at all.
Sigvatr wrote: Long story short from a friend in the business:
Companies realized that it's much easier to just make muliplayer titles and have players figure out stuff themselves rather than having bots with a very complicated (read: expensive) AI. It's much less work, you force players to get others to play with them (read: "Yo man, buy this game so we can play together!") and with everyone having internet access nowadays, there are no technological difficulties either.
Pfft, as if human team mates are any better. I know, I've played multiplayer. People be dumb.
Like me. Seriously though, I have seen a lot of stupid plays, en par with terrible AI
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/12/29 21:37:46
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
I've got to say, I really don't understand why the AI in games like Left 4 Dead or Vermintide are completely incapable of taking part in the "complete objectives" portion of the gameplay.
My point is more you get them to do simple mundane tasks that you command them to do. Kane & lynch was supposed to do this and failed being a crappy successor to 'freedom fighters' far as I heard.
I just don't get why people can't be the awesome characters and A.I. gets stuck doing mundane tasks like protecting a base, manning turrets and staying there, fixing things for you and running out in the line of fire to get an objective done without you risking your own skin. It puts you in a leadership position while your grunts do a decent amount of the fighting.
Look carefully back at the 'freedom fighters' game. One soldier or even 3 at a time are no match for the main character but if somebody tells 12 guys to go wreck his **** then chances are they will do just that. Point being you're a commander and not a one man or even two man wrecking team. You are the leader and while potent on your own your command and knowledge of the situation helps win the day (even simple things like throwing grenades at machine gun nests or sniping their crew). Considering the stupidity of A.I. and their often willingness to run into machine gun fire often times I can't see why this type of game wouldn't increase in popularity. The A.I. makes up the stupid henchmen while the players have brains and are harder. However lots of A.I. henchmen/goons/followers help the fight.
All that said we do get the all too brilliant follower A.I. of skyrim to think about (running into the same trapdoor (5-8 times in a row while you floor yourself with laughter and sorta start to get embarrassed the A.I. can never learn).
My thing is I don't expect highly intelligent A.I. design. I expect average intelligence A.I. design. I don't expect my henchmen to do much thinking on their own but they do add firepower or should be able, heal others when called upon, be commanded to activate an objective or do guard duty.
------------
I heard 'Republic Commando' (the star wars game) was a good squad based A.I. game. Perhaps I should look into this a little more.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/29 23:26:30
Republic Commando had pretty good controls for certain tasks. The computer would let you stack the team for tasks like door breaches. On the other hand, you also spent a considerable amount of time in single-player isolated from your team for one reason or another.
2015/12/30 01:25:48
Subject: Re:What ever happened to squad based games?
Eumerin wrote: Republic Commando had pretty good controls for certain tasks. The computer would let you stack the team for tasks like door breaches. On the other hand, you also spent a considerable amount of time in single-player isolated from your team for one reason or another.
Now see this is why I think 'Freedom Fighters' got it right. It shouldn't be overly complicated to command your team and better yet less of a squad leader and more of a commander or officer or similar. You tell them to defend somewhere or attack somewhere with crap weapons (assault rifles, smgs and shotguns) or tell them to do guard duty (mount guns and defend walls) and you do the exciting things (snipe enemies from machine gun nests and mortar teams) and you wield some of the more potent weapons like rockets, snipers and machine guns. They can also storm gun-lines so you don't look like an idiot running on a lone hero suicide spree.
All it really needs is being able to tell your squad to do an objective (plant explosives for sabotage, lower a gate/shield or hack a terminal or something). For instance in the multiplayer matches of 'Freedom Fighters' being able to tell your troops to assault enemy bunkers would be good (not sure if you could get them to take over a bunker) but telling them to raise a flag on their own would be nice so you didn't have to put yourself out in the open for it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/30 01:26:38
What about Arma 3? Or the Mount and Blade series? You can control a squad (or an entire army) in 1st/3rd person there. Mass Effect also has you commanding a few guys.
Melissia wrote: The human mind does far more "tasks" than the average computer does, actually. What we consider one task-- say, tying one's shoes-- a computer would consider billions of tasks.
Computers are, however, very specialized and excel at doing specific things very quickly.
For those who say a machine cannot break a means of thought or habit have not looked into learning algorithms, you can weigh a prior circumstance vs a present one and "decide" to modify a preferred pattern based on new data. Heck, I made some basic game programs and added some minor randomizer inputs to ensure a not completely predictable behavior. There are many ways to create a logical means for a computer to "change it's mind".
Something as simple as losing too often makes us want to rewrite how we do things.
I'm not saying it can't. I'm saying organic brains are literally wired differently than synthetic brains.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
I liked the first few Brothers in Arms titles and really enjoyed some of the Ghost Recon series up to Advanced War Fighter, but they kind of wore thin as time went on. Other than improving the allied AI and making new maps, it seems like a genre where all you can really do is remake the games that have already been made.
I don't think however, high level learning needs to be incorporated into "bots" within games but I can point to many a game ruined by bad A.I.
I thought the "path" networks originally set in Unreal was a smart way of setting up fast navigation on maps to make the bots competitive in a first person shooter.
http://wiki.beyondunreal.com/Legacy:Bot_Pathing Now, with behavior trees and use of "Nav Mesh" some squad based behaviors could be done quickly with a few "Simple Parallel Nodes" and "Services" to add complexity to behavior.
Something simple like "if you see player within <short> distance." = "decide close or long range engagement" then "ready knife, move closer and attack" OR " back away, ready handgun and shoot".
The trick I think is keeping the bots close and useful with a few event dependent quick commands to command the squad.
Nothing worse than bad A.I. where your companion cannot find his way out of a corner or getting stuck on a lamp post.
I see Diablo 3 regularly cheat and if they get stuck they just teleport next to you if they exceed a set distance.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Iron_Captain wrote: What about Arma 3? Or the Mount and Blade series? You can control a squad (or an entire army) in 1st/3rd person there. Mass Effect also has you commanding a few guys.
exactly the new arma is very realistic, i played operation flashpoint and that was squad based
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
~4100
~1660
