Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

comfy chair

Member Since 05 Jan 2011
Offline Last Active Dec 19 2014 02:37 PM

Posts I've Made

In Topic: GOAP vs. MCTS

12 October 2014 - 03:34 PM

One of those 'things usually left out' is how much the games complexity requires the situational information to be processed and boiled down into the symbolic form to have these methods applied - to be cached (and constantly patched in a dynamic situation) or regenerated on-demand(where early pruninig helps).


The more complex and interrelated the game state is (possibly with temporal issues where a trend pattern is an indicator) and with uncertainty ontop of that (imperfect info, as well as independantly acting entities)  the more work (processing resource) that evaluation becomes.   


Which of  GOAP/MCTS can do the most EARLY exclusion to narrow down the situational space being considered and evaluated would indicate its utility.   Boiling down all the factors to be easily compared (in prioritizing and picking candidate solutions) can be the very hard part.   Spatial  positionality on a map itself might seem an easy shortcutted data set, but consider evaluating the patterns in GO  - the analysis for even such a simple 'terrain' and entity mechanics explodes in the processing required to evaluate the actual situations.

Yes it would seem like the two methods have similar requirements here. Geometric space in a game has to be given a reasonable representation. World coordinates need to be abstracted to a minimum number of pixels, meters or kilometers in order for the planners to ever be able to finish. For real time games, time also needs to be abstracted to a minimum duration. Perhaps doing this abstraction work can be considered a form of pruning where actions and state changes that are very close to each other are considered the same.

In Topic: GOAP vs. MCTS

09 October 2014 - 11:48 AM

No, MCTS and GOAP wouldn't look similar at all. MCTS can simultaneously optimize your decisions and the decisions of other agents, so if some plan is easy to stop by an opponent, it will pick a different course of action. For instance, you can use MCTS to play a board game like tic-tac-toe (or go, it doesn't have to be a trivial game), but I don't think GOAP is a reasonable way to go about it. GOAP assumes the agent does things that change the state of the world, but it's not very good at modelling ways in which the world might react to the actions of the agent.


So GOAP is perhaps more suited for games without an antagonistic opponent. Like a simulated world where many agents are trying to make a living in the environment but not really interfering with each other. Then MCTS would be better for traditional RTS or war games...

In Topic: GOAP vs. MCTS

09 October 2014 - 09:06 AM

Ok. But perhaps we can get into a bit more detail about how the methods differ.

It seems to me that both methods demand a simplified representation of the game space, with actions and estimated state changes from actions.
In the orginal thread I describe how I would represent the game for GOAP. Perhaps this work would be the same for MCTS also?

Also, GOAP requires an end state to search towards, as well as a heuristic function to guide the search.
MCTS does not require an end state, but it does need an evaluator function... how similar would these functions be?

GOAP will only do a single search to formulate a plan. MCTS will do many simulated playthroughs.
If there are no random factors in the simplified representation (for instance if the result of a battle is represented as deterministic), then MCTS and GOAP would look very similar...

In Topic: Using machine learning to predict the collapse & stabilization of complex...

02 October 2014 - 05:18 PM

I am confused... why do you want to copy the graph? I thought it represented what your agents were doing in the simulation?

In Topic: The difference between Logic, Reasoning, and Thinking; Data, Information, and...

17 September 2014 - 04:01 PM

Why have you chosen these 6 terms? For the first group there are others like it, such as Deduction, Analysis, Inference. For the second group the synonyms are Wisdom, Understanding, Experience, Facts.
I doubt that someone can define clearly how they differ. So, what is it you need the definitions for?