Advanced Option: Checkboxes for Enemy AI Enhancements

Bhryaen

This one's a lot trickier, but it was fairly universally concluded on Beamdog as the most meaningful difficulty setting to meddle with. The two primary mods from which most BG AI modding derives are the Sword Coast Strategems mod pair and the mod aTweaks. (Actually aTweaks seems to approach the matter a lot less ambitiously than in SCS.)

SCSI: http://www.gibberlings3.net/scs/
SCSI Readme: http://www.gibberlings3.net/readmes/readme-scs.html

SCSII: http://www.gibberlings3.net/scsii/
SCSII Readme: http://www.gibberlings3.net/readmes/readme-scsII.html

aTweaks Readme: http://readme.spellholdstudios.net/readme_atweaks.html

Alas the AI affected generally deals with several different types of Enemy AI- divine and arcane spellcasters, tanks, archers, stealthy thieves, and monsters. The game aspects involved include targeting, spell selection, and use of special abilities like stealth and monster abilities.

This could look like:
[O] Arcane Spellcaster AI Enhancement
[O] Divine Spellcaster AI Enhancement
[O] Melee Warrior AI Enhancement
[O] Ranged Warrior AI Enhancement
[O] Stealthed Thief AI Enhancement
[O] ALL OF THE ABOVE AI Enhancements

This is one in a series of game features I'd like added in a separate settings section called Advanced Options that would be available in a new "Advanced Options" Tab on the regular Settings Screen. It would be entirely optional to even peruse it, clearly designated as "Advanced" (even throwing in "Intended for more experienced players only" if that's deemed necessary). It would mean an in-game tweaking mechanism that would no longer require a mod.

Given how much there is to factor in- plus how well it's been done and gone over through the years by especially DavidW of SCS- it seems hard for me to see how it could be implemented for BGEE satisfactorily. Thus, unlike with other mods, I'm more likely to let this stay a mod and just get the more basic tweaks incorporated in the AO rather than sacrifice so many smaller tweaks in order to get this one in. If both are possible, so much the very much better!

Anton

Do hope that AI enhancements will be made. I can`t picture playing BG1-2 without "Sword Coast Strategems" already.
It is so much better when your enemies are not dumb

Bhryaen

@Anton
Truly if there is a single mod that I would try to get into BGEE whole and available as a set of options it would be SCS. The legal issues might even be worth it in that case. Some of his innovations go beyond any AI scripting of contemporary games, the bugs are generally at a minimum, and it's the most profound combat improvement available from any mod... IMHO... heh

AndreaColombo

SCS is not always compatible with other mods that enhance the AI. For example, I always use aTWEAKS to that avail.

Cadros

Smarter AI is always a good thing

Bhryaen

@AndreaColombo
Are the two mods mutually exclusive on all content or just some? I'll check... Somehow I'm able to use both without issue. And DavidW made SCS compatible with a lot of mods, scripting in detections and provisions for them. Still, I'm no expert, just a fan of the mod and of AI enhancement made native to BG... knowing full well how unreasonable this request might be, but... hadda be said...

AndreaColombo

@Bhryaen

I've just checked. Here's a quote from the aTWEAKS forum that clarifies the matter:

For best results, it is highly advised to install aTweaks after mods which feature general AI improvements such as SCS, SCSII, Big Picture, Tactics, Quest Pack...etc. For reference, aTweaks has been coded with the aforementioned mods in mind and will adapt itself to them as long as it's installed last.

In particular, it is very important to install aTweaks after Sword Coast Stratagems II if both mods are to be used together. Otherwise, you'll risk serious compatibility issues with the Fiend components of both mods.

AlexT

@AndreaColombo
Are the two mods mutually exclusive on all content or just some? I'll check... Somehow I'm able to use both without issue.

They aren't mutually exclusive, but if you install both, aTweaks' will generally take priority over SCSII.

However, I've made several adjustments to the aTweaks code so that it can complement SCSII in certain aspects. For example, aTweaks' PnP Fiends component deliberately won't take over the AI of several high level Cambions (i.e. the Planar Prison Warden and Aesgareth in Watcher's Keep) in case SCSII is installed. At the same time, both of those creatures will get aTweaks' Extraplanar and Fiendish traits (meaning immunity to certain spells and effects) while retaining the AI and spell selection granted by SCSII.

Bhryaen

@aVENGER
Hey, great to see you here! :-) Am I correct in reading that the only conflict is with demon components? If so this becomes mostly irrelevant in BG1, doesn't it? Other than the Durlag endgame demons I suppose, but it looks like those don't factor in. Does this mean SCS1 is fully compatible? Obviously it becomes more an issue for BG2EE.

AlexT

@aVENGER
Hey, great to see you here! :-) Am I correct in reading that the only conflict is with demon components?

Nope, even the fiend components are designed to work together. As noted earlier, if you install SCSII Fiends + aTweaks Fiends (in that order) they won't clash, but aTweaks will take precedence in nearly all cases.

Does this mean SCS1 is fully compatible?

Yes.

technophobe

Given the CRE file format, something like this would almost have to be determined at install and not something changeable on the fly in-game.

Bhryaen

@technophobe
I could ostensibly see a condition of "AIToggle(True)" added to all the AI scripting functions, but... it's just a hell of a lot of work and troubleshooting- likely way too big and too profound a change to manage in the next few months with the large and diverse assortments of bugfixes, features, and mechanics work... It'd surely be one of the most excellent enhancements for BGEE, but... *shrugs* I canna believe it's gonna happen...

Lunever

Using SCS absolutely improved the game quality and gaming experience.
Since some less experienced players find a full SCS1+2 BG to hard, parts of an implementation of it or of similar features should be optional though.

ElectricMonk

Enemy AI enhancements in general would be great. I love aTweaks and the SCS mods, and always support AI improvements. I doubt this will happen, but it would be nice.

caruga

I was always operating under the misapprehension that SCS was more about buffing enemies (kinda dumb considering it's in the name). I would check it out, but I'm hoping AI can be improved 'officially' first.

Right now I'm replaying BG2 with a half-orc berserker solo, and due to dumb AI i'm finding it way too easy. I'm also running around with a rep of 1 killing everything and when law enforcement arrives I just slip on the ring of invisibility and slink away... (would SCS prevent this? or wait... is it just a mod for BG1?)

In fact after beating the game solo I almost can't face playing in a party anymore--it's easier but also with the mental overhead of managing more members. With solo the difficulty feels just right. I also don't want to turn on insane difficulty because I don't like damage upscaling; I'd rather it buffed the encounters directly and yes, made the enemies smarter! Beating encounters seems far more about being well-prepared (or re-loading a lot) than about having to think hard.

I guess there are other things to try--like not re-rolling my stats, for instance, and relying only on auto-saves and having to replay the whole map if I wish to restart...

DavidW

I have absolutely no objection to people using bits of SCS in a new BG/BG2, but I suspect it would be more sensible to leave it as a detachable mod - it's pretty demanding for new players.

Bhryaen

@DavidW
Hey! Great to see you. :-)

Do you think there's any genuinely feasible way that even parts of SCS could be implemented as in-game options in BGEE? I really have no idea how such action scripts are implemented to know if they could be circumnavigated by simple toggle in an Advanced Options section.

caruga

@DavidW Question for you: Does SCS 'cheat' in knowing things that a human controlling the opposing party couldn't know (peeking the player-parties spell-books for example), or does it try to be human and observe and emulate human limitations?

If SCS embodies the ultimate AI, it would be nice to see a difficulty-gradient between the stock AI the game has now, and your mod, imo.

Also 'leaving it as a detatchable mod' and 'shipping the mod with the game' are not mutually exclusive. If a mod has 'official' endorsement it makes a huge difference to me, i'm like that...

DavidW

Slow reply, sorry.

I don't really know much about how the BG2 engine works under the hood, but I'd be fairly surprised if you could incorporate SCS straightforwardly without a fairly radical overhaul. (Ultimately, the script language of IE is extremely basis; SCS is a very complicated workaround for its weaknesses.)

SCS tries not to cheat. It isn't perfect. For instance, it doesn't peek at your spellbook, but it sometimes knows what magic items you're using. (The reason in this case is that not knowing makes it do immersion-breakingly-stupid things, and coding the eventual discovery of a magic item is prohibitively expensive.)

Zeckul

I notice a lot of these feature requests are presented as "should be optional" and I don't have high hopes for any of these "advanced optional" features. I think the dev team should and does focus on features that will provide obvious benefits to everyone, not those hidden in an obscure options menu.

Salk

I believe that the BG:EE should just try and remedy those AI routines that are plainly incoherent. SCS has some components that - according to me - should not ever be missing: Smarter General AI and Better Call for Help.

Everything else should be left optional.

I myself don't like when the AI accounts for the items worn by the enemy. Luckily enough, SCS comes with a few power user options. By adding:

AI_Does_Not_Detect_Items 1

to scs.ini it is possible to avoid such behaviour. The in game test proved to be very successful in my case.

Zeckul

I believe that the BG:EE should just try and remedy those AI routines that are plainly incoherent. SCS has some components that - according to me - should not ever be missing: Smarter General AI and Better Call for Help.

Those have a significant effect on the level of difficulty throughout the game, so its integration in the core game would require very careful consideration. Also, SCS caters to experienced players looking for a challenge, and those are generally also ready to spend the time to install the mod. So, this requires careful consideration for beginner players, and hardly provides any benefit to experienced ones. While I personally would like its inclusion, I don't really see it happening.

Everything else should be left optional.

Certainly won't happen. There is a lot of work and very little value in integrating mods (especially those that significantly alter gameplay throughout the entire game like SCS) and then making then off-by-default and buried in options screens. Most players probably won't even know that the options exist; if they see them, they won't know what they do and might not even try them; and the dev team has to test the game thoroughly for balance and bugs for every possible configuration. The number of configurations scale exponentially with each of these optional components. Nevermind the challenge for modders who also have to account for all these options if they want to add new AI stuff.

Salk

Zeckul,

I didn't mean "optional" as in "still in the game but not on by default". I meant that all the other SCS components wouldn't need to be in BG:EE at all because those would really "have a significant effect on the level of difficulty throughout the game". The basic AI corrections I suggested have a much less drastic impact and I see them more like needed fixes to an otherwise inane AI. The diffculty slider would still be there, making it possible for a novice player to play on easier level and still retain some better AI behaviour in the game.

But I understand such decisions need "careful consideration", as you said.

Bhryaen

@Zeckul
As to your earlier "point" (perhaps "opining" is the better term), the Advanced Options aren't intended to be "obscure" at all but part of the regular Game Options, simply kept on its own to segregate Vanilla from Advanced, particularly since most of them necessarily increase game difficulty (though not all). All of the options would be beneficial- just as BG players have found them for a decade in their less accessible and more problematic mod form- but some may use them, some may prefer the default.

This particular potential option- SCS improvements- I have very little sense will be or can be reasonably adopted. The primary reason I suggest it anyway, however, is that it would be one of the best options that could be available to a player as they get better at the game and grow tired of the easily exploitable and "inane AI" (as @Salk puts it). It would certainly be an excellent enhancement to add to a vanilla BGEE. Would you be opposed to having the option? Or are you just thumbing your nose?

Zeckul

As to your earlier "point" (perhaps "opining" is the better term), the Advanced Options aren't intended to be "obscure" at all but part of the regular Game Options, simply kept on its own to segregate Vanilla from Advanced, particularly since most of them necessarily increase game difficulty (though not all). All of the options would be beneficial- just as BG players have found them for a decade in their less accessible and more problematic mod form- but some may use them, some may prefer the default.

What I'm saying is that off-by-default options that requires enabling in an "Advanced Options" screen are likely to be unknown and/or ignored by the majority of players, therefore creating little value for the game; and that multiplying the number of available configurations puts a large burden on both the dev team for testing and later on modders, who'll have to verify that anything they introduce works well with any combination of these options. So basically the value/effort tradeoff goes quite clearly against implementing this.

This particular potential option- SCS improvements- I have very little sense will be or can be reasonably adopted. The primary reason I suggest it anyway, however, is that it would be one of the best options that could be available to a player as they get better at the game and grow tired of the easily exploitable and "inane AI" (as @Salk puts it). It would certainly be an excellent enhancement to add to a vanilla BGEE. Would you be opposed to having the option? Or are you just thumbing your nose?

I agree that it would be a nice addition to have. In fact, ideally BGEE should integrate, clean up and debug all the greatest mods, make sure they play well together in whatever configurations, figure out agreements with all the mod makers, and make all of these optional and off-by-default in an "advanced options" screen that'd essentially have become a mod manager at that point. However, engine improvements and content additions will generally take precedence over that simply because they are a way better investment of the dev team's time and they provide much more obvious value to everyone.

Zeckul

Zeckul,

I didn't mean "optional" as in "still in the game but not on by default". I meant that all the other SCS components wouldn't need to be in BG:EE at all because those would really "have a significant effect on the level of difficulty throughout the game". The basic AI corrections I suggested have a much less drastic impact and I see them more like needed fixes to an otherwise inane AI. The diffculty slider would still be there, making it possible for a novice player to play on easier level and still retain some better AI behaviour in the game.

But I understand such decisions need "careful consideration", as you said.

Ok, I interpreted "optional" in the meaning put forward by the OP (off-by-default advanced options), but of course if the other components remain as a mod then that makes sense. The AI in BG could definitely use some loving.

Bhryaen

@Zeckul
I actually agree with you regarding the focus of the devs. I'd rather they get a fully-functional and reverberatingly solid core game before attempting too many of the Feature Requests. However, the devs also put out a call for Feature Requests, so the Advanced Options stand out for me. Most aren't as elaborate to implement as AI improvements after all, and just having them available is indeed an improvement. But, yes, all would need to be tested and hammered out properly- which takes time- so priorities weigh in.

If you have discussion to add to the concept of Advanced Options generally (rather than AI improvements specifically), however, I'd recommend taking it to this thread by @HeroicSpur who addressed it specifically:
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/135/request-advanced-options/p1