Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: AI slips thread part 2  (Read 968 times)

Histidine

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4682
    • View Profile
    • GitHub profile
AI slips thread part 2
« on: September 24, 2022, 08:34:46 PM »

(continuation of this thread)

First item:
One thing you quickly notice after running enough sims: in a 1v1 (Standard Onslaught vs. Standard Onslaught should do it) one ship will sometimes raise its shield against the other even when said enemy ship is venting or overloaded, instead of dropping shields and getting rid of some of that hard flux.
"What if it's not a 1v1 scenario?" then consider the other enemy ship(s) as you would normally, but the overloaded/venting ship is no threat at all for the duration.
Logged

cytokine

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
Re: AI slips thread part 2
« Reply #1 on: September 27, 2022, 05:47:19 AM »

Made a shield-shunted SO Dominator the other day. It would refuse to kill off opponents, instead nacking off and circling them forever. I guess it wants to avoid the explosion, without making some other checks, for missile ammo count and whatnot.
~
Adding pulse lasers or vulcans to the back slots of ships will tend to enable ramming mode. Shoving your flak cannons in the opponents face would make at least a tiny bit of sense, but that's not what I'm referring to. The back mounts don't have the firing arcs to create a close-range DPS hotspot, so there is no tradeoff between DPS and distance even to be made.
~
And then there's the opposite problem, that of engagement distance being too long. So there's this Conquest build I've been playing around with recently, now the Conquest has this reputation for being weak in the sim, but this dumb thing will just beat everything 1v1. It's basically Gauss cannons, Squalls, with heavy armor, some harpoons for anti-venting. It's not a bad build, but it should not perform as good as it does. Most other conquest builds will hit for their DP cost.

You'd think that a reckless officer in a Onslaught would wreck a gauss conquest in a minute. Which is exactly what a player can do, just burndrive up close and let autofire do the rest.  A player with a pirate eradicator could probably do it... But a reckless officer in an Onslaught will just sit and take it, barely within range, until it blows up. And I just can't see why. Reckless and aggressive officers should bring all their weapons into range. At least that's what officer personalities are supposed to effect.

Should be no surprise that it beats the sim Paragon. Against the sim assault Radiant (the one with autolasers and nukes), the Radiant has one go at attacking, then gets hard fluxed, and is just slowly bullied to death. And conversely, mostly any ship with Shield shunt will wreck the conquest like it's nothing. It's a very weird failure mode. The enemy will basically overestimate the danger the conquest poses, and pick a very cautious engagement distance. Something to do with the range and the armor. But why would reckless officers fall for it?
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24114
    • View Profile
Re: AI slips thread part 2
« Reply #2 on: September 27, 2022, 10:49:50 AM »

One thing you quickly notice after running enough sims: in a 1v1 (Standard Onslaught vs. Standard Onslaught should do it) one ship will sometimes raise its shield against the other even when said enemy ship is venting or overloaded, instead of dropping shields and getting rid of some of that hard flux.

Hmm, not seeing this myself at all. Aside from two cases:

1) There are still a few Annihilators incoming, so it waits until those are gone before dropping shields, or
2) The other ship has little-enough time left on its vent/overload that it wants to raise shields a little ahead of time so they have time to unfold

Any thoughts on what we might be doing or interpreting differently?
Logged

Histidine

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4682
    • View Profile
    • GitHub profile
Re: AI slips thread part 2
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2022, 06:33:13 PM »

Hmm, my procedure was just "enter sim with Standard Onslaught, deploy enemy Standard Onslaught, turn on autopilot" so if you're not reproducing it I can't say what the difference is. I also got it to happen by holding fire for a moment and then manually venting while the sim 'slaught has its shield up.

The cases I'm seeing don't meet either of the requirements that I can see; the enemy Annihilators are all gone (and if they weren't PD would deal with them), and there's plenty of time left before the shield needs to come up (especially since it only needs to be partially open to stop a threat from one direction). Screenshot

Couple of things I may have noticed:
- If the non-venter's shield is already down it won't raise shields
- Sometimes the non-venter does lower its shield, but only when the vent is almost over, only to raise it again when the fire starts coming in
Logged

Alex

  • Administrator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 24114
    • View Profile
Re: AI slips thread part 2
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2022, 06:42:19 PM »

Yeah, doing the same thing as you. Hmm. Just not seeing it over here.

In your screenshot, there's a couple of explosions between the two ships - looks like maybe a few annihilators that just got blown up? My guess would be that the shield is up because of those and was lowered within a half a second or so of that screenshot being taken. The reaction to this sort of thing isn't instant, btw, so you could definitely get a screenshot where the missiles aren't in it anymore but the shield is still up.
Logged

Vanshilar

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
Re: AI slips thread part 2
« Reply #5 on: October 31, 2022, 08:58:24 PM »

Just about every time I watch the AI fight, I see multiple mistakes that the AI makes. I'm not talking about optimizing tactical positioning necessarily which is very difficult to do (i.e. the player is much better at determining if it's worth diving into the enemy fleet to finish off a near-dead target, but that's very hard for the AI to figure out), I'm talking about very simple problems with the AI, in particular with its positioning:

1. Overall, orders need to be much more responsive. The game needs some sort of "and I really mean it this time" button or something. If the AI is ordered to grab an objective, it needs to go grab that objective, even if there are other ships near the objective. You can order a whole fleet of Furies over to grab an objective and they'll all back off if they see a single Lumen in the vicinity (particularly if that Lumen is also trying to grab the objective), before re-advancing some time later. Grabbing objectives is very time-sensitive, especially at the beginning of the battle when you're trying to deploy your whole fleet. For some reason the [REDACTED] ships have no trouble making a beeline for the objectives, maybe because they're fearless, but the player's ships will always back off first when they encounter an enemy ship nearby, even when the enemy ship is one that they can kill no problem.

2. If a ship is ordered to eliminate a target, it needs to go try to eliminate that target. This isn't directly reproducible or predicable but happens frequently, where when I order a ship to eliminate a target, it'll sometimes actually back off away from that target. I think it's to vent or something, I'm not sure. I've seen it retreat over 2000 su away, well beyond the weapon range of the target (which had short-range energy weapons), vent, and then try to re-engage, by which point the target is long gone. This is even when my ship was at low (i.e. ~1/3 or less) flux. There's no reason why it couldn't have just dropped its shields for flux and continued pursuing when it was out of the range of the target's weapons anyway. I've also even seen this happen causing the ship to run into the enemy fleet, when it was previously just sitting there duking it out, then when commanded to chase down an enemy ship that had gotten away, it'll actually move in toward the main enemy fleet rather than toward the target it was ordered to eliminate.

3. Broadside AI needs work. I get that it looks cool to see the ship moving forward while firing its broadsides into the enemy fleet. However, this is bad in terms of positioning. If a broadside ship is ordered to defend a point, if its weapons are on its right, it'll gradually move to the left of the enemy fleet. If its weapons are on its left, then it'll gradually move to the right. Taking the latter case, as time goes on, it'll gradually move so far to the right and so far up the map that it'll be letting all the enemy ships through the point it was ordered to defend. Worse still, it'll have gotten itself flanked by the incoming reinforcements and the ships at the defend point that it just let through. It also doesn't help to order the broadside ship to eliminate whatever ship is breaking through the defend point that it was ordered to defend, because what it'll do is try to broadside that point and thus run headfirst into the incoming enemy fleet.

Broadside captains need to learn that even though their weapons are on their sides, this is space, not water, and they don't need to be moving forward all the time. Their ship can move in any direction independent of where their nose is facing.

4. As a corollary to this, if a broadside ship is ordered to eliminate a target, it should head directly toward that target, not try to head in a direction that broadsides it. Heading in a direction that broadsides the target just means that the target will always be able to outrun the broadside ship since the broadside ship keeps moving to the side of the target. Again, as it approaches the target, it can just turn to expose its broadsides toward the target while still heading directly toward the target at full speed.

5. When encountering the enemy fleet, the ships tend to clump up. This means that the ships in the front block the ships in the back from firing, and the ships in the back block the ships in the front from backing off when they're at high flux. Sometimes this also means that the ships in the front will incorrectly move forward into the enemy fleet even more when they're already at high flux, in order to prevent collisions with the ships in the back. The ship positioning should have some sort of way to move around each other, i.e. naturally form a line instead of a clump. Intuitively my sense is that slower/bigger/less maneuverable ships should have priority, followed by ships at higher flux given priority over ships at lower flux, in terms of figuring out who moves around who. (I would actually say ships at higher flux have higher priority regardless of slower/bigger/less maneuverable, because I'll see big ships box in small ships that are in front of them even though the small ships are at high flux.)

6. Ships at low flux should head toward enemy fleet, ships at high flux should back off away from enemy fleet. This sounds like a simple principle, but I see this get violated in almost every fight, where one of the ships is at high flux and still running into the enemy fleet, while a nearby ship is at low flux yet hanging back and not engaging. This is even with identical ship configurations (so it's not a case of one ship deciding it's more "powerful" than another). So something in the AI subroutines will prevent this from happening. At first I thought it might have been inertia (i.e. the ship that ran in first is just too unmaneuverable to slow down in time) until I saw a Conquest actually jet in at high flux toward the middle of 3 Brilliants while a nearby Conquest at zero flux was busy backing away -- with the zero flux Conquest at the side so it was only facing one of the Brilliants. Not sure why the AI engages in this type of behavior, it might be confirmation bias but it always seems like it's the ships that are surrounded that are more likely to YOLO and dive into the enemy fleet.
Logged

TaLaR

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
    • View Profile
Re: AI slips thread part 2
« Reply #6 on: October 31, 2022, 09:24:13 PM »

You don't pilot a lot of broadside ships yourself, do you? Advancing towards target at about 45 degrees is pretty much optimal for Conquest, as long as target isn't few screens away. My issue would be that AI doesn't do it often or well enough (need to either accelerate forward then turn while drifting, or use system for acceleration). Optimal use of some builds of Odyssey goes into wonky territory - for example you time plasma cannon volley so that system accelerates your shots for extra range.
Logged

Vanshilar

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 602
    • View Profile
Re: AI slips thread part 2
« Reply #7 on: October 31, 2022, 10:44:42 PM »

You don't pilot a lot of broadside ships yourself, do you? Advancing towards target at about 45 degrees is pretty much optimal for Conquest, as long as target isn't few screens away. My issue would be that AI doesn't do it often or well enough (need to either accelerate forward then turn while drifting, or use system for acceleration). Optimal use of some builds of Odyssey goes into wonky territory - for example you time plasma cannon volley so that system accelerates your shots for extra range.

No I don't, this is about the AI's handling, not my piloting skills. Why should a broadside ship like the Conquest chase down a target at 45 degrees? Why should it continue moving forward at 45 degrees when it's in the middle of combat? I'm not talking about the direction its nose is facing; of course its nose won't be facing its target if it's a broadside ship. I'm talking about the direction that it's moving in. A broadside ship with its weapons to its right basically always strafes to the left, and it basically always strafes to the right if its weapons are on the left. This leads to the ship moving towards the sides of the map into enemy reinforcements and thus breaking formation, which is bad tactical positioning.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12157
    • View Profile
Re: AI slips thread part 2
« Reply #8 on: November 01, 2022, 08:02:18 AM »

Broadside ships with all PD weapons should behave as usual, pointing broadsides at the enemy.  Currently, if the player tries such a loadout, the ship points its nose at the enemy and drives straight ahead.  While good for aiming Hammer Barrage or Cyclone Reaper on Conquest, it is terrible for attacking things with PD-and-assault combo weapons because the enemy is outside of their arcs.

IPDAI weapons and Devastators work nicely... except the AI does not point a broadside at the enemy.  It is a flagship-only loadout because of the AI's failure to use all PD loadout properly.  (I tried such a loadout on a Shield Shunt/max armor Conquest.)
« Last Edit: November 01, 2022, 03:06:30 PM by Megas »
Logged

vladokapuh

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
  • Cabbage
    • View Profile
Re: AI slips thread part 2
« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2022, 03:21:33 AM »

Does reckless shunted SO enforcer avoiding taking some explosion damage hard enough to actually die count?

Logged
Cabbage