how would you do this w/ utility based AI + influence maps ?

the desired behavior:

for some reason, i must flee - i'm half dead and its time to retreat, i'm taking missile fire from an unknown origin, or maybe there's just a really tough badguy nearby i shouldn't mess with.

but the badguys have me cornered by terrain.

so instead i should turn and attack the badguys who have me cornered.

right now i'm using rule based systems, but it could all be done with a utility system and influence maps. but offhand, i'm not sure how this behavior would be handled.

influence maps would almost / never let you get cornered in the first place?

Getting cornered is not hard even with an influence map guiding movement. Consider the following scenario:

- Friendly agent A walks into a corner to dig up some treasure
- While A is digging, hostile agents B, C, D approach from outside the attention radius of A
- B, C, D encircle the escape routes from A and close in
- A is now trapped at the dig site


The general solution looks something like this:

- Use the influence map to search for a nearby spot of low threat value, i.e. someplace safe from the hostile agents
- If the lowest nearby threat value is > some threshold, disqualify the decision to flee, and revert to combat (This can be done trivially with a suitable response curve - no need to enshrine the rule in code!)
- Optionally, sample the path from A's current location to the safe spot, and test the influence map at each point. If the threat gets too high or whatnot, you can also disqualify the fleeing decision

For bonus points, integrate the influence map with the pathfinding search and increase the cost of pathing through high-threat areas. If the path cost becomes too high, assume that fleeing is impossible, and act cornered instead.

>>

- If the lowest nearby threat value is > some threshold, disqualify the decision to flee, and revert to combat (This can be done trivially with a suitable response curve - no need to enshrine the rule in code!)
- Optionally, sample the path from A's current location to the safe spot, and test the influence map at each point. If the threat gets too high or whatnot, you can also disqualify the fleeing decision
- For bonus points, integrate the influence map with the pathfinding search and increase the cost of pathing through high-threat areas. If the path cost becomes too high, assume that fleeing is impossible, and act cornered instead.

>>

ok, so the utility system would basically choose "fight" over "flight" in the first place - using a more in-depth and complex decision making process. i get it. thanks!

The Imap system is used most often for 2 different things:

• What is the value of the location I'm at (or a target is at)?
• Where is the highest/lowest place in the map?

In this case, the former suggests when you should flee (by being an input into the flee decision) and the latter suggest to where you should flee if you decide to.

Also, remember the golden rule of game AI: it is far less important how intelligent or stupid your AI is compared to how fun the player thinks it is.

A very dumb AI with great animations that choreographs emotion and human-like reactions to the player is going to result in a far better game experience than a perfect intelligence that feels like a computer game.

If your AI is making a decision, it should be obvious to the player _why_ it made that decision, and it should feel to the player that the decision is what the AI _should_ have done, that the player _believes_ the AI is a character in a world and not just a computer following its programming.

As a simple example that may be relevant to your game: if you have agents with different personality traits like "Coward" or "Aggressive" that affects the decision weighting between flight-or-fight, the character should telegraph that personality as hard as possible. The Coward should tremble more, spook when it hears an animal nearby, mumble fretfully, etc. The Aggressor should stand tall and look mean, glower at any noises it hears, growl even when a friendly moves near, etc. If the personality weighting is so light that those personality traits feel overdone... your weighting is too light to be worth adding to the game. Players won't be able to tell the difference between the characters and everything will feel wooden, fake, game-y, and lacking in immersion.

>> The Imap system is used most often for 2 different things:

• What is the value of the location I'm at (or a target is at)?
• Where is the highest/lowest place in the map?

In this case, the former suggests when you should flee

so that would be a threat level influence map, and the threat level is high at/near the player - thus triggering the flee (or a search for possible escape route) - right?

Threat or proximity. I use them for 2 different things. But yes...

>> Threat or proximity. I use them for 2 different things. But yes...