well i move onto programming on casio graphic scientist calculator (>graph 80< which pretty close or even worst to 64ko computer) i have begun to make game on this, and i was not pretending having skill, but i focus of what i wanted to do, i knew a lot of programmer which have better skill and better machine than me (these pretty powerful hp and ti-92) and better knowledge but i have never mind , i have a casio and focus on what i want the fact is i have ended with with an engine which use multi layered graphic, ennemy with environement aware ability, fast collision calculation witn only 5OOO step of memory of core engine and the rest is data, without any change to the core engine i was able to turn it in rpg or platform engine just a little sub program to describe change i have plan to made a simple side scrolling and build a 3d graphic engine (like earlier ultima game but in a better look) that drives me to the topic i have begin to learn about current computer programmation and i have learn about ai technique suppose to be advenced and i was quite disapointed, it''s much more simpler that i have think but game doesn''t seam to have improve, what''s the matter?? in my action rpg on casio i have flocking, stochastic finite state machine, communication between agent and environnement aware and it''s work very well (while i have use a lot of trick) the only things things which was very consuming was pathfinding which i keep simple (i have not learn yet how pro do) did current power of computer shrink our thought skill as well as my friend with better machine never improve so far in technique (resulting in "that''s not possible give up") maybe all programmer should begin with very restricted machine before having the big one? because pac man have a well design simple ai (it lacks stochastic behaviour and gameplay however) when i think warcraft 3 really sucks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be good be evil but do it WELL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

PreScript: You should fill in the "Country" field in your user profile to help avoid posts that correct your english.

Basic AI is indeed simple. When talking about a game like pacman or an RPG with simple combat, there are very few things for the ''Agents'' to take into acount when making ''decisions''. In pacman, the ghosts react only to the time, the player''s location, and the player''s status (can the player eat ghosts right now?).

When you get to games like warcraft 3, there are millions of things to take into account and there is not a simple cause-effect relationship as there is in other games. In simple games, you can do something like ''If Player is Above Me, I Move Upward''. In a game like warcraft 3, the computer would need to react to any number of any type of units at any location performing any activity. That results in a lot more things to react to. Also, the reaction of the computer must be more complex and can''t easily be reduced to a set of simple conditionals (or even a ''simple'' algorithm like pathfinding).

well
when i have mention pacman vs warcraft, it''s was also a design issue
i think ai in game is about giving the illusion and enhance gameplay

pac man have 3 ghost with three strategy of aproach to get the player

in warcraft i think the ai could be better because (that''s something told to me) the engine has to cacul all unit position for a unit know if something is near him, maybe it''s me but i can''t allow such a waste of ressource (maybe because i use to be restricted). whith this they will have more cpu to manage ai if the collision test have a better data discrimination

am i wrong??

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Unit<->Unit tests most probably use a very small amount of processing power. The problem in games like warcraft 3 (from my understanding anyways) is that any AI that figuring out how to code proper reactions is difficult.

Having the world segmented into small squares or somesuch to reduce the number of Unit<->Unit tests would not make the AI more intelligent. Having lots of CPU doesn't automatically make a better AI - a large part of the challenge is figuring out how to create and implement algorithms, forumals, conditions, and the like to actually make the AI do what the designers think it should do in each situation. Since there are more variables in a game like warcraft 3 and more possible reactions to the variables, it is much more difficult to make the computer act and react 'intelligently'.

[edited by - extrarius on August 30, 2003 11:51:22 AM]

i have told from my own experiment on my game the unit were able to protect unit in difficulty, retreat, call friend, avoid friendly fire and were also able to organize themselve in front of the player, since in warcraft there is a lot of unit it takes a lot of time with no room for another test. well i will search the document they give me to put more argument.

i use a kind of finite state machine and i use to divide area in zone and also delay task in time (i use also story background to give a kind of role for the unit in order to have an explanation of the limit of agent)

one another trick is that agent share test by a kind of communication (unit remember same unit in the same zone)

well this ai was more a design challenge than pure technique, that''s what i point, most people rely on cpu strength...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Well, one thing you have to remeber also is that the units in WarCraft 3 can be modified using the map program, so you can't just hardcode that unit A is good at certain things and program the AI like that because in a certain map the unit might be entirely different.
Also, they had to create a fully functioning game from the ground up. Most likely, they didn't really spend a lot of time on the AI. Most of the actualy AI in warcraft 3 is simple script files. Individual units have the same amount of intelligence that player units do - they attack if something comes close enough is pretty much the only AI. The scripting language has things like 'if you don't have a town hall, build one', 'always keep 10 footmen built', 'when you have 10 footmen, send 5 to attack'. Simple things like that.

Also, depending on the style of your RPG, the applicable techniques are much different from the AI style of RTS games. RPGs typically have a very limited number of actions compared to RTS games. They also usually lack the detailed resource management.

[edited by - extrarius on August 30, 2003 12:26:47 PM]

well i guess i have to try first (i have never do RTS and large scale unit managing, but in my casio 5 agent was a large scale ^^, but conflict zone as a ai that''s very efficient too in the same setting and it''s seems like mine ai but in a very evolved version...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
be good
be evil
but do it WELL
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>