Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sinigr]

That paragon can easily smash that onslaught, but, just take a look what it is doing...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=85&v=171I9ZnMAbI

[TaLaR]

1) I think the most immediate issue is weapon mis-grouping. Group 4 contains 2 Gravs and 2 TLs. Paragon keeps 'manually' firing TLs while only Gravs are in range.
...I can't think of any cases where 'manual' fire helps AI. It sure hurts with range mismanagement or when turret arcs don't converge (so only 1 side can fire, if AI starts to use group manually).

2) Next one is trying to keep distance from opponent that is built to snipe. Obviously this Paragon would have had much better chances in close combat.

3) It does intermittent flicker in exactly wrong way. Best option is to raise shield right before Gauss shots arrive and mini-vent right after, okay option is to tank with intermittent fortress shield then vent while armor tanking and repeat (it would still lose, but not nearly as quickly).

...I'm not sure this Paragon can smash said Onslaught in AI vs AI though. Onslaught gets decent advantage from fleetwide skills (most notably 9% range) and is built to counter the default Paragon with Gauss. You should really do your AI tests from missions, to remove unfair advantages.
Paragon could, in theory, use it meager speed advantage to approach, but at 30 vs 26 it would need to be much more committed to it than AI is capable of (or use zero flux boosted armor tanking approach, which is once again a tactic the AI doesn't know).

[Sinigr]

1) I think the most immediate issue is weapon mis-grouping. Group 4 contains 2 Gravs and 2 TLs. Paragon keeps 'manually' firing TLs while only Gravs are in range.
...I can't think of any cases where 'manual' fire helps AI. It sure hurts with range mismanagement or when turret arcs don't converge (so only 1 side can fire, if AI starts to use group manually).

2) Next one is trying to keep distance from opponent that is built to snipe. Obviously this Paragon would have had much better chances in close combat.

3) It does intermittent flicker in exactly wrong way. Best option is to raise shield right before Gauss shots arrive and mini-vent right after, okay option is to tank with intermittent fortress shield then vent while armor tanking and repeat (it would still lose, but not nearly as quickly).

...I'm not sure this Paragon can smash said Onslaught in AI vs AI though. Onslaught gets decent advantage from fleetwide skills (most notably 9% range) and is built to counter the default Paragon with Gauss. You should really do your AI tests from missions, to remove unfair advantages.
Paragon could, in theory, use it meager speed advantage to approach, but at 30 vs 26 it would need to be much more committed to it than AI is capable of (or use zero flux boosted armor tanking approach, which is once again a tactic the AI doesn't know).

Also:

That clip is completely meaningless to AI behavior. What are you even trying to show?

Its a player piloting with an OP boosted Onslaught specifically built to apply hard flux at max range, against the default Paragon that has no hard flux at that range. Paragons have speed 30 while the Onslaught has speed 25 - the only way its going to meaningfully catch up is if it uses a zero flux boost with shields down to get into range. That is VERY specific behavior that is almost always suicidal, and the kind of judgement call that I don't really want AI ships to make, because when they get it wrong they will be suiciding a ship shields down into the enemy.

If that paragon will fly towards onslaugth it will easli smash it, but it do not uderstand that, so AI needs upgrade, and i show why, because it do not understand that it can win. Run such simulation without gausses, and show us how can you fight paragon with onslaught with 0 hull damage, while you did not do that, then be silence about AI behavior, i show and say, you just talk, it is difference.

[Alex]

Hmm - this is the sort of thing where trying to "fix" it would I think create more problems than it solves. You'll always be able to come up with some combination of ships/loadouts - especially in a 1-1 - where the AI will miss something that the player would be able to use if they were piloting the ship and a result either lose a fight it "shouldn't" or just do significantly worse in it. That's the just a given; it doesn't matter how much time I spend polishing the AI, this will always be the case.

For this in particular, I think the Paragon's behavior would be pretty decent in a fleet context - it'd be able to back off and vent, then re-engage. Conversely, trying to close range and basically committing to a close range fight with the Onslaught that guarantees one ship will be destroyed in fairly short order... that can be a *very* bad call when other ships are involved - even assuming it's able to correctly decide that this is a good idea, the situation could change drastically when any supporting ships on either side enter the equation.

IMO it's much better for the AI to slowly lose that sort of fight (giving the player time to intervene, if it's one of their ships) than to mistakenly over-commit to a close-range engagement (which would likely lead to many hard-to-avoid ship losses).


Edit:

Why you are so foolish? If that paragon will fly towards onslaugth it will easli smash it, but it do not uderstand that, so AI needs upgrade.

You've been warned about personal attacks/rudeness before; please consider this a second warning. Next time will result in a temporary ban.

[Sinigr]

Hmm - this is the sort of thing where trying to "fix" it would I think create more problems than it solves. You'll always be able to come up with some combination of ships/loadouts - especially in a 1-1 - where the AI will miss something that the player would be able to use if they were piloting the ship and a result either lose a fight it "shouldn't" or just do significantly worse in it. That's the just a given; it doesn't matter how much time I spend polishing the AI, this will always be the case.

For this in particular, I think the Paragon's behavior would be pretty decent in a fleet context - it'd be able to back off and vent, then re-engage. Conversely, trying to close range and basically committing to a close range fight with the Onslaught that guarantees one ship will be destroyed in fairly short order... that can be a *very* bad call when other ships are involved - even assuming it's able to correctly decide that this is a good idea, the situation could change drastically when any supporting ships on either side enter the equation.

IMO it's much better for the AI to slowly lose that sort of fight (giving the player time to intervene, if it's one of their ships) than to mistakenly over-commit to a close-range engagement (which would likely lead to many hard-to-avoid ship losses).


Edit:

Why you are so foolish? If that paragon will fly towards onslaugth it will easli smash it, but it do not uderstand that, so AI needs upgrade.

You've been warned about personal attacks/rudeness before; please consider this a second warning. Next time will result in a temporary ban.

In common battle player can make the same, pump up hardflux on some ship, so it is runnung, like that paragon, okey, you kill little ships and just frighten such large ships, it is some kind of abuse, i think, i am making fights frightening large ships, while they can easily smash my ship.