Warrior General Games

Allow us to nest inputs. It's frustrating setting up a large AI with tons of detailed input filters when every new one shares most of the same settings as the ones above and below it. Instead of repeating the same filters over and over again, I want to do something like this with my inputs. I think it will be a lot easier to read, a lot easier to understand, and a lot faster to set up.

Input: 1st & 10
--| Input: I Form
--|--| Input: HB Power
--|--|--| Output: I Power Package
--|--| Input: HB Receiving
--|--|--| Output: I Receiving Package
--|--| Output: General I Package
--| Input: Pro Form
--|--| Input: HB Power
--|--|--| Output: Pro Power Package
--|--| Input: HB Receiving
--|--|--| Output: Pro Receiving Package
--|--| Output: General Pro Package
--| Output: General 1st Down Package

+1 to common sense

<- mind BLOWN

+1!

+1

+1

Originally posted by TruthHammer
Allow us to nest inputs. It's frustrating setting up a large AI with tons of detailed input filters when every new one shares most of the same settings as the ones above and below it. Instead of repeating the same filters over and over again, I want to do something like this with my inputs. I think it will be a lot easier to read, a lot easier to understand, and a lot faster to set up.

Input: 1st & 10
--| Input: I Form
--|--| Input: HB Power
--|--|--| Output: I Power Package
--|--| Input: HB Receiving
--|--|--| Output: I Receiving Package
--|--| Output: General I Package
--| Input: Pro Form
--|--| Input: HB Power
--|--|--| Output: Pro Power Package
--|--| Input: HB Receiving
--|--|--| Output: Pro Receiving Package
--|--| Output: General Pro Package
--| Output: General 1st Down Package

I must be missing something because I don't see how this is any different than what currently exists.

Originally posted by Dr. E
Originally posted by TruthHammer

Allow us to nest inputs. It's frustrating setting up a large AI with tons of detailed input filters when every new one shares most of the same settings as the ones above and below it. Instead of repeating the same filters over and over again, I want to do something like this with my inputs. I think it will be a lot easier to read, a lot easier to understand, and a lot faster to set up.

Input: 1st & 10
--| Input: I Form
--|--| Input: HB Power
--|--|--| Output: I Power Package
--|--| Input: HB Receiving
--|--|--| Output: I Receiving Package
--|--| Output: General I Package
--| Input: Pro Form
--|--| Input: HB Power
--|--|--| Output: Pro Power Package
--|--| Input: HB Receiving
--|--|--| Output: Pro Receiving Package
--|--| Output: General Pro Package
--| Output: General 1st Down Package

I must be missing something because I don't see how this is any different than what currently exists.

I'm with ya. I understand the concept, but I thought Packages will do this for you.

+1

He's referring to nesting inputs within other inputs.

In otherwords, having your 'I Form 1st and 10' for the initial input, and then adding another set of Inputs within that (where the Output would normally go in the standard AI) to determine the output, rather than having to set up three different inputs for 'I Form 1st and 10' for tagging, etc.

Look at the way he has it set up if that's still confusing - He has it outlined with several other inputs that the AI would then choose from after that input would 'fire' before determining the output. So when the 'I Form' Input initially fires, it then checks the internal inputs for further specifications (in this case, he's using tagging inputs to determine) before selecting the output. So, if someone came out in the I Formation on 1st down with 10 yards to go and the Receiving HB on the field, it would fire that input. If it's the Power HB, then it'd choose that one instead. Basically, condensing the AI and making it much more organized.

But a very big +1 from myself. I'm not sure if there would be coding issues with the AI, as I don't have any experience with that myself, but if it's possible then I'd love to see it implemented.

whole AI could use an overhaul... would be nice to integrate OAI and package pages/DAI and DPC. Why not drop and drag? Make the "inputs" more graphical and then let someone drag the output to them, then be able to drag entire input/output components around the overall scheme, which could be much more like a flowchart than a ladder.

+1 to the OP....it's a pain to have to create the same situational inputs for every formation.

I would LOVE this!!!

But then again, I've done my share of simple programming with nested IF/THENs and what-not. (BASIC FTW!) Not everyone else on here has.

If you think people make a lot of stuid AI errors now, wait until they start trying to nest AI inputs, and watch the hilarity ensue.

----------------

I'm still +1'ing this, because I know I can handle this, and it would help me a lot. Just something to think about though.

Originally posted by EchoedSilence
He's referring to nesting inputs within other inputs.

In otherwords, having your 'I Form 1st and 10' for the initial input, and then adding another set of Inputs within that (where the Output would normally go in the standard AI) to determine the output, rather than having to set up three different inputs for 'I Form 1st and 10' for tagging, etc.

Look at the way he has it set up if that's still confusing - He has it outlined with several other inputs that the AI would then choose from after that input would 'fire' before determining the output. So when the 'I Form' Input initially fires, it then checks the internal inputs for further specifications (in this case, he's using tagging inputs to determine) before selecting the output. So, if someone came out in the I Formation on 1st down with 10 yards to go and the Receiving HB on the field, it would fire that input. If it's the Power HB, then it'd choose that one instead. Basically, condensing the AI and making it much more organized.

But a very big +1 from myself. I'm not sure if there would be coding issues with the AI, as I don't have any experience with that myself, but if it's possible then I'd love to see it implemented.

Ahh, I see. Instead of using several 1st & 10 inputs for every tag combo we have, we would nest the outputs. Would save a little time, but would also be less flexible.

I've nothing against adding this feature, but not at the cost of losing the current methods.