Interbot communication?

[V or 'Tex]

I think bots should be taught to read and communicate in a limited manner with chat.

E.g.: Bomb is planted, Bot1 goes to A site and says "A clear"... Bot2 and Bot5 reply with a radio affirmative.

E.g.: Bot says "enemy in sight" and sends nearest-node for where it is, and nearest-node for where enemy is. Bot can request reinforcements, and depending on a new personality trait (CommandAbility) their requests are accepted or denied.

Another example would be to allow humans to say "3 go B" and they will. Or "Camp here" and it will add a camping node (if they exist, or should they be implemented).

Even in the limited fashion that I can play with realbots right now, I have noticed that the bots will randomly go A or B when the bomb is planted, and they will thoroughly search even if they intercept another allied bot coming from that site. So CommandAbility and Radio-Message Create should be linked. Sometimes a bot would 'forget' to tell people to go to a bombsite.

And if a bot intercepts another bot coming from a site after the bomb planted message, then the message create should be rolled for asking the bot.

These are just some things I'd like to see happen, as it would definately add to their realism.

in AI they use the radio,

stefan hasnt stuck that code in yet, or figured out how todo it using voice ala CZ

[V or 'Tex]

I mean simple text parsing, not via radio. Maybe the affirmatives would be done via radio.

Like, a player says "3 go B" or "3 follow me" or "2 camp here" and synonyms...

In the AI release I couldnt even add bots so I dont know how that would help.

[stefanhendriks]

i think the CS CZ voice communication is like this:

messageid = MESSAGE_HELP ME
message sound = "help i am dying right over here, need some FREAKING BACKUP DUDE!"

the bot simply identifies the number, it does not really 'hear' it , but its cool anyways

[V or 'Tex]

I think your trying to make this into something its not.

I do not mean Condition Zero style "HEY" "OH MY GOD" "ROGER" etc BS.

I mean real stuff that happens in games. I think bots should figure out that if an ally is coming from a bomb site after the bomb is planted, then the bomb is probably not there!

And the bots should take orders from players, and disobey them.

I think theres a lot of dynamics that could be implemented in, what I believe, is a simple fashion. Text parsing is not the most difficult coding mechanism, so why cant the bots use some text chat and some random variables.

Go, go to, find, etc. I think the bots should be able to figure out that the bomb isnt at A, send a message to go B, and do so. Or to relay the status of hostages, and other objectives.

[stefanhendriks]

ow that kind of stuff is also easily done, but it requires time!

Like in my code i have a list of goals, this includes bombsites. I can hook on them 'flags'. So, when the bomb is planted, all bombsites have 'unchecked', when a bot is there and could not find the bomb, i could let him say "Sector Clear" and then flag the bombsite as 'clear' so other bots know this and go to the other remaining unchecked bombsites.

For other things its the same, it just needs a good thought so bots won't say stupid things!

[V or 'Tex]

I dont know, I think that as long as the appropriate nodes were in place, an INI file for them could be used to name the nodes...

Like in DE_DUST, obviously when I say "RUSH SITE" I mean the tunnel one.

So if there was an ini file, like such:

I'd use boolean logic with it too... going bridge and sniping at bridge are again, different things.

#node data
node_31_x = (coordinates)
node_31_y = (coordinates)
node_names = bridge,snipe AND bridge
node_options = camp,snipe

node_98_x = (coordinates)
node_98_y = (coordinates)
node_names = bombsite,site,rush
node_options = gowithknife,camp

etc...

That way you would only have to code the actual text parsing/reading that the bots would utilize. WE could define the variables, making it easier for non-english and yourself. That way you wouldnt have to release an update every time you make a typo in the node_names!