Talk:Artificial intelligence

Has sakurai been asked about the brawl 'learning system'? Those 2 videos don't exactly prove AI learn. I'm guessing those videos were luck.

It doesn't exist. Just an urban legend. The game's been hacked to death and no traces of the AI being able to learn are present. 124.171.99.201 12:42, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Some of this is written in a...strange manner (overuse of the word spam, in particular), and I do not think that it is necessary to list specific examples of poor AI play. Perhaps it would be better to generalize?

I much prefer to have in-depth analysis than a simple definition, although I agree this page could use some cleanup. - Gargomon251 06:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

1>9????

I still don't understand how you can improve yourself by playing against a laughably easy opponent, CPU or not. - Gargomon251 11:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

~I am not so sure about that either...but still, level 9's in Brawl do not provide good practice.

Level 5. enough said.Smorekingxg456 (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

It says why in the article... Are you gonna learn to be good from playing against opponents who's whole strategy revolves around spamming, not to mention their in-human Power Shielding skills, and the fact that they don't DI as well as LV1s which makes your combos work, when they wouldn't wor on a normal player.

Playing against a Level 1 lets you practice combos, without being interruoted every 5 seconds with a Power Shield.

I thought it was pretty obvious... Lord-Sunday (talk) 02:40, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Learning to "taunt-by-ducking"

Is it not just that while there are no opponents on the stage, a CPU would only employ defensive tactics, such as rolls and ducking? Miles (talk) 18:14, 31 May 2011 (EDT)

CPUs SUCK!!!!

CPUs are the worst opponents in Brawl. I can name several reasons:

1. They agitate the player by getting in the way. 2. They act like a team to defeat the player and after the player is defeated, taunt like they've won. 3. Their AI is drastically increased, making it easy to outmanouver the player. 4. I can name the two most awful CPUs: Zero Suit Samus and Snake. 5. Stages are CPU-friendly, but are human unfriendly. 6. Lv. 9 CPUs make things much, much worse. 7. Get beaten by CPUs and throw Brawl away. 8. They make you feel like the Angry Video Game Nerd.

Never be bothered by CPUs again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.210.87 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 6 June 2012‎

And nobody cared. --- ReiDemon, Author Extraordinaire, 12:34, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Some of the reasons are false. ..... The Scientist 14:26, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

Before you post something like that again, read this. Avengingbandit 16:39, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

I'd like to point out that AvengingBandit was the one here who handled this situation properly. RD and Dots: your comments were as unnecessary as the IP's, and in the future, link the IP to the appropriate policy or don't reply instead of adding more unnecessary discussion. DoctorPain99 {ROLLBACKER} 16:57, 6 June 2012 (EDT)

An Additional Flaw?

Several times in the Mushroom Kingdom level in the original Smash Bros I have seen two opponents (on the same team) seemingly become stuck running into each other when I am standing a little left of the left pipe on the second floor. They shortly "unstick" themselves after a few seconds and continue to come after me. Is this another flaw or a glitch? Here are the details: there were two level 9 CPUs (Jigglypuff and Captain Falcon) on the red team while I was Link on the green team. They became stuck (after I moved to the position previously mentioned) a little right of the left pipe on the first floor. This has occurred a few times although not necessarily with Captain Falcon every time. Oh and it was a 3-stock match with all items on. 173.58.244.214 02:39, 3 August 2013 (EDT)

CPUs in Smash 64 are prone to stay on the Brick Blocks when opponents are below them (more commonly than above them), as well as becoming stuck behind any stage feature as small as the pipes, as they do not recognise walls or floors properly. This can and will happen regardless of match rules or CPU level, and the number of CPUs does not affect its likelihood. If information you believe constitutes a genuine flaw (this does) is not present on the page, simply post it and others shall evaluate its worth. Oasidu (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

The latest claimed AI cheating proof

While a valiant attempt to prove whether the AI has 0-frame reaction time, the given .gifs leave enough room for ambiguity that I don't think we can claim it. My reasoning:

• Peach's air dodge makes her intangible on frame 4.
• ZSS's up air his on frame 4. However, frame 4 is missing from the .gif, and on that frame ZSS's extended leg points sideways slightly below horizontal; it doesn't look as if that hitbox would have connected. The .gif only has frame 5, where ZSS's leg hitbox is right inside Peach's intangible hurtbox.

From what I can tell, this is simply a reaction time of 1 frame, not an AI that reads your buttons. Toomai Glittershine The Glow 13:08, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

While I didn't understand correctly.. I will try to recapture it better. Please leave the 2 images for now.--egadardery (edits) 13:18, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

Recaptured, another check please?--egadardery (edits) 13:32, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

Alright I'll give this a thorough go-over. Toomai Glittershine The Honcho 14:08, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

Okay then. I used http://gif-explode.com/ to separate the image into pieces and compare each relevant frame with the two characters' frame data and animations (using BrawlBox). I came up with this. As far as I can tell, the 1 frame of leeway before the attack was to hit was enough for the CPU to recognize you had changed to an attacking state and input a dodge. This is simply frame-perfect, not button-reading. Toomai Glittershine The Orchestral 14:37, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

Thanks for explaining. I also tried to do the same, but instead with ZSamus's first hitbox, Peach couldn't defend it. I think it cleared that CPU uses frame-perfect but not button-reading.--egadardery (edits) 15:20, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

Linking my Youtube playlist

Would anyone object to me linking my Youtube playlist in the article that shows off the various ways the AI can be exploited? Omega Tyrant 03:17, 9 September 2013 (EDT)

I see no problem with doing this. We could easily link the videos separately in specific parts of the article. Scr7(talk · contribs) 11:00, 9 September 2013 (EDT)

I'm fine with it. Awesome Cardinal 2000 14:15, 9 September 2013 (EDT)

Per Scr7. FluffyDP 14:30, 9 September 2013 (EDT)

Level change section

Should we have a section about how much the AI changes from one level to another? It's not convincing to just say "1 is the weakest, 9 the strongest". Crazymasterhand98 20:18, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

I would support this partially, though I feel that the sheer amount of data (which would potentially be comprised of 9 individual AI patterns (or more including training CPU modes and individual characters) times the number of games) might be a bit cumbersome to read through... Oasidu (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

Nah it's a one- or two-liner. I'll add it. Toomai Glittershine The Altruistic 23:02, 20 October 2013 (EDT)

Pics

Is there anyway to show the AI flaws in a gif or picture to make this page a little easier to read/understand. If somebody could agent a gif of CPUs repeatedly walking into the building on Saffron City, repeatedly misgiving their up special or maybe even use this

With Snake's down throw, CPUs will simply roll over to the nearest edge, allowing for easy exploitation.

, it would make it much easier on readers. This is a featured article after all. Having video citations is fine but it is preferred to have some pictures on hand immediately. 96.229.195.197 20:08, 17 December 2013 (EST)

Organization

Maybe we can organize the AI flaws in this article by having a subsection for each character from each game. Does anyone else think it's a good idea? Green Mario 15:07, 10 January 2014 (EST)

I've done some examples in the sandbox. I think it might be a good idea to reorganize the section; I don't like its current state really, so it needs some sprucing up. Green Mario 15:27, 10 January 2014 (EST)

Terminology consistency: power shield/perfect shield

The terms are used interchangeably in the article. I changed everything to "power shield" in my edit since that seemed to be the least ambiguous; it seemed that "perfect shielding abilities" could refer to ability in the specific technique (that is, the precise timing) or shielding in general, which could include knowing which situations to shield in. "Perfect Shield" is the title of the SmashWiki page though, so a good argument for either term could be made.

The term used is not significant as long as it is consistent. Still, one of the changes has been reverted but the rest have been left unchanged. If no one objects I will continue to use the term "power shield" in all future edits. 80.192.205.153 16:47, 25 February 2014 (EST)

All uses should be perfect shielding. An exception might be a Melee exclusive article, which this is not. Omega Tyrant 19:46, 25 February 2014 (EST)