I'm tired of games having to cheat to beat me. Whether it's magically knowing where I am...

I've never had fun against AI in a game. It was always tedious, baiting the game into giving me headshot opportunities. Playing against NON-RETARDED people was always a thrill, because I had to try hard to trick them, doing shit like hiding in plain sight, moving like I was on their team, setting anti-personnel mines backwards, bouncing grenades off of walls in corridors that I was being chased through, and more insane and absurd shit that wouldn't work against an AI that is literally an aimbot.

Enemies aren't supposed to be the challenge, the placement of the enemies in the level geometry is supposed to be the challenge.

And you don't seem to understand

I understand what OP is talking about. Like when I play an RTS game and the enemy base some somewhere off in the black area off map.

it's called artificial difficulty. the developers to games like this are a bunch of cuck shit fucks who intentionally make games painfully-un-fun.

no challenge, no excitement, no fun, just punishing steam rolling artificial difficulty. and they delude themselves enough to think they are cool for doing so.

>inb4 git gud

Maybe in spess shooters and platformers, but not FPS games, RPG-style adventure games, and various games similar to those. I don't need advanced AI in Gradius or Super Mario Brothers 3, but I definitely want it in a game where I have groups of soldiers patrolling an area, or hunting for me.
I mean, how fucking hard is it to script your AI with some of the following BASIC SHIT that real players do?
FPS
■ If health is below 60%, move to a location where I cannot see the player, like behind a wall or in a building
■ If I have a medkit in my loadout, seek the hiding AI and restore its health
■ If my squad has been eliminated, flee the player and report his location to other AI
■ If my health is extremely low, play dead and drop my sidearm

RACING
This is more on the developers. How do you make racing AI? Make a test track for players to use constantly. Have the AI stick to the lines and throttle/brake/steering positions that give the strongest advantage. If the AI is bumped off of the optimal path, get back to it quickly. If the player is near, change to blocking/passing techniques rather than simply the best line on the track. All of this can be gleaned from the replay data from players.

I think it was Quake 3 that had an interesting take on developing A.I. They just copied player moves 1:1. The A.I. would look at what you would do and would chose a player movement pattern based on that. I think the only way that we're getting decent Ai someday soon is if Developers learn to properly copy player behavior. An A.I. that dynamically copies player strategies would be nice. Also Dubs?

Have you even fucking played any of the classics? Doom? Quake? Duke Nukem 3D?

bro. you don't seem to understand that OP understands that.

why did you feel the need to shitpost? do you think this is the best you can do for Holla Forums?

I remember Xaero being a pain in the ass in Q3 singleplayer mode, so I guess iD was doing something good there.

I probably played them before you were fucking born. I mentioned older games as not needing "advanced" AI to head off such dipshittery, but I guess autism truly is unstoppable.

checked!

If anything it should encourage you to get better; it's like playing a chess game against a computer that knows all the moves and can calculate all the possibilities in 10 seconds, you have to step up your game. Instead you come here to whine how unfair it is because you either can't improve, or won't improve because you don't make the effort to get better. Getting better, especially after a certain point, is not easy, just like anything else in life, it's tough when you start and gets easier as it goes on, then gets even harder than before when you reach the a peak. You, well most of you bitching about this shit, sound like some whiny millennials who had mommy and daddy spoon-feed you your whole life and then finally get out into the real world and cry "it's not fair", "it's cheating", "it's too hard" because you never put any effort into anything. Step up and be a man, or be a bitch and fall behind.

The placement of enemies can be a challenge even in an FPS. Let's imagine a game with an enemy that has low health, ode low damage and once every few shots can stun you, to balance things out, after you get out of the stun you are immune to it for a few seconds, so you don't get stun-locked at full hp and die. This enemy is easy to defeat, even a pack of 5-10 could be easy to defeat, but if there were two of these and one big dude with high hp, high damage, that can only use melee attacks, well now things are a bit more challenging, if the enemies stun you, then the big dude(let's call him bull) will fuck your shit up, so you will try to kill the ranged ones first, while avoiding the bull so you don't get stunned and raped. But let's add another layer of complexity and say that for every stun enemy you kill, it gives a permanent buff to the bull, so after killing 2-3 ranged stun enemies, the bull is 50% stronger and faster, so what do you do now? Deal with the ranged one first, so you don't get stunned, but then have to deal with a berserk bull, or do you deal with the bull first, avoiding the stuns and then effortlessly killing the stun enemies?
The difficulty didn't come from some advanced AI, but through enemies with different abilities that can synergies to provide a challenge. Of course it's up to the developer to balance out the enemy placements, like how many ranged stun enemies you put? Where do you put them? Can you reach them for a melee attack, or are they high up on a platform and you need the sniper riffle?

I find it kind of funny how trolls always use this type of thread as an excuse to pretend that they assume that the OP is an unskilled and inexperienced player, and justify that false assumption as an excuse to call them a bitch for pointing out very real flaws in videogames.

examples of very cheap troll attempts

I'm going to stand with OP and join them in calling out this bullshit. this artificial difficulty meme has to stop now. we don't want some piss easy boring game, we want games that are fun and challenging. making a game a gas powered rage generator doesn't give value to the game and doesn't contribute enjoyment.

remember that tedium doesn't always exactly = fun.

Nothing about his example was tedious.

A fun game is one where the computer isn't beating me because it's a bullet sponge, or has more resources, or knows where everything is already at the start but because it's smarter than me. A fun game has me losing because my tactics and strategies are suboptimal, not because I'm not interested in forcing AI units into the same suboptimal strategic positions ten thousand times. That's just tedious.

Explain how my example in which the player needs to decide what strategy to implement at that exact moment(testing both reactions and adaptability) is tedious, of course considering the level design, including monster placement, is above average.

Play CS 1.6

The problem here is that you're pitting the player against the programmer, and after the player has answered the question once there's no more challenge except to do it faster. Doing the same thing faster is, after a point, boring.

If you really want that you could simply add an element of RNG which would make things "unique" and "unpredictable", but would make the game unbalanced. Hell even the most advanced AI would have a predictable pattern and once you figure it out, then there is no more challenge as you say. Alternatively you could make one that perfectly learns your play style and unless you change it from time to time it will defeat you, but then people would complain that it's no fun/too hard or that you have to finish the game X amount of times before it becomes a challenge. You are better off playing a multiplayer game, if that's your biggest gripe.
Though I'd honestly play 10 different singleplayer FPSes with different atmosphere, weapons, abilities, maybe even story, but with the same basic AI, than one single multi-player FPS game with one map but different players every time, but that's just my opinion.

All an unintelligent RNG can do is make the computer's entities weaker.

That's where you're wrong. I want AI's that actually out-think me dynamically. If I can see a solvable pattern it's not smart enough. Think chess, but in an open world.

Again, I take you prefer multiplayer games, but I think they are too repetitive(fighting on the same maps with the same heroes/loadouts/planes/weaopn placements/whatever) and boring as opposed to ten short single-player FPS games but with the same AI.

Even so, you are not fighting against the AI, you are still fighting against the developer, since he was the one who programmed it, and even in a multiplayer game, if you are just starting out and are naturally gud at it, you are going to fight against some retards that don't know how to play the game and do the same mistakes, I'd even say they are dumber than the AI and even more repetitive. Only after you win a few dozen matches, do you get to play against an opponent that is equally matched to you.

I don't want multiplayer. I don't like multiplayer. i have no interest in teams, drama, having to be online at certain times, and having my every step watched by privacy-grabbing assholes. I want decent AI in a single player game.

UT2K4 had the best unscripted AI that could spontaeously react and adapt to changing battle conditions and player skill levels, and even develop individual habits for specific bots. Now that game development is focused on linear "cinematic experiences" for underpowered consoles and microtransaction skinner boxes for phones, development of game AI has all been downhill.

That was last gen. It's all about open world now.

An AI that predicts your movements isn't decent, it's advanced. As I already said, this can be done with deep-learning algorithms, but you would have to play the game a few hundred times, before it knows what you will do and kill you. The reason why it's easier to make a "smart" chess AI as opposed to an FPS AI, is that chess has a more limited amount of actions both the computer and the player can make, than even in the most generic FPS game.

Fine, then I want advanced AI. Considering there have been no advances in AI for the past 25 years of Moore's law it's about time isn't it?

OP hasn't played Descent, I take it?

Because when devs attempt it people misinterpret the game as cheating, so your better off not wasting the needless effort.

Nah advancements are still being made, only recently was a computer able to beat a human at GO(around 2015), but again it's much easier to make a GO AI than an FPS AI. Furthermore most of the AI research is done in pattern recognition, like self-driving cars or scanners that can tell if X is a cat or an airplane, or if Y is Jane and not Ana.

If you don't want to be monitored while playing multyplayer games then play LAN games or join a local paintball/airsoft group.
Well then make your own advanced AI, it's much faster. If you make a really good one you can write a paper on it and publish it.

pattern recognition should be adaptable to gaming. Reduce the total game space to a color matrix and use the AI to recognize winning-state (end game) patterns. Whatever doesn't fit the winning pattern is what needs to be changed to reach a winning state.

If it's so easy why don't you do it? The code for a simple deep-learning/pattern recognition AI is easy to find, there are even libraries that do most of the hard work for you, so what's your excuse?

I didn't say it's easy

You might want to check out AI War: Fleet Command.

The AI starts with control of the whole map except the player's home planet, but manages to react well to the player's moves and offer a good challenge. From what I gathered, there are two AIs at play: a commander AI that works on a global scale and a sub-commander AI that acts locally. The commander tells the sub-commander to capture a planet from the player and the latter carries on the order as best as it can. It's capable of trying different strategies (use different units, retreat and attack from another point, use bait attacks, hit-n-run, send a small force to attack your flanks etc) or ultimately call off the attack.

One time I sent a cloaked scout deep into enemy territory and had a glimpse of how the AI works - lots of ships moving everywhere. While you are securing your planets the AI is definitely on the move as well, it's not simply waiting for you to attack. Also, the game is meant to be unwinnable on difficulty 10. If you do manage to win, a log will be sent to the dev, he will see what you did and teach the AI how to defend itself from similar attacks in the future.

Thank you

pretty oxymoronish faggots

pretty oxymoronish, buddy.

The word is "hypocritical", morans

You idiots, an oxymoron are two opposing things, like little big planet. You both imply that Holla Forums is neither gay nor nerdy.

The fucking pro skaters in skate 3 can defy the laws of physics and spontaneously propel themselves into a full speed trick from half speed. It makes 1up challenges fucking hell

Symbolic AI is shit and neural net AI is in fetus stages and needs a warehouse of supercomputers to do shit.

Wait for a couple hundred years for good AI to be comparable to humans so devs don't need to do underhanded shit.

Because cost lots of money. Its better to build a game with LAST GENERATION GRAPHICS and 500 HOURS OF GAMEPLAY or with a HUGE SKILL SISTEM TO ADD 0,444% of dodge every lv til lv 1335lv.

And lots of skins and diferent but most the same wepons for microtransactions and shit.

Oh, and do not forget about the narrative about a niger/transex overcoming the obstacles of life to save gnarnia.

aoe2 has fantastic ai these days, even though it didnt originally.

store.steampowered.com/app/235380/Blitzkrieg_3/

This game has a neural net AI that gets data from multiplayer matches but apparently either the servers suck or the AI is taking up too much resources.

You mean tautology or redundancy, you tards.

cute lain
Don't know whether I'm making a decent contribution, but I'm not sure we'll ever get something like that. The problem clearly isn't really caused by hardware limitations or anything like that, but the developers' ability to program an opponent so like a human. I don't think anything short of making an independant robot, and making it play the game would give us anything like that.

Bad AI is very obvious in 4X games.

You notice they the AI often doesn't respect upkeep costs or build times (having way more units/ship than it should), and knows only 1 strategy - build a death blob.

Is it okay to bump this thread if I give it a new topic? I was reminded of this, and thought it might make for some interesting discussion. Well, not that I should be so arrogant as to be the one deciding that, but that's why I'm holding off
please respond ^(

hahaha
I don't have that much faith in the industry myself. There's hard limits to these things.