diplomatic AI?

Hey Ferretman, does this sound like GDC 2002?!

Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

quote:

---

Original post by InnocuousFox
Hey Ferretman, does this sound like GDC 2002?!

Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

---

Hey Dave, I thought that guy that wanted to discuss Diplomacy AI was in my roundtable? Was he also in Steve''s?

Brandon: You are right, there is a dearth of discussion on diplomacy AI in the newsgroups and forums. It comes up here every once and a while, so you might try a search on the archieved forums here. When it does come up, I seem to recall there is little discussion of it.

Eric

Geta, he was in a number of them... also in Denis Papp''s roundtables as well. Right along with the Brits from Carnegie Melon.

Perhaps I am nieve... I''ve never bothered to look into diplomatic AI or read any material on the subject... but I think it wouldn''t be terribly hard to model. It seems that a multi-facetted fuzzy machine would work using the following scales:

Trustworthiness (from our observations, how much can we trust this player?)
Strategic Value (how useful is this player strategicly?)
Political Value (how well liked and connected is this player?)
Threatening (how powerful is this player militarily?)
Gulibility (from our observations, how much can we get away with?)

Using scales such as those, you can define algorithms to decide whether or not to tell the truth to a player or lie to a player, whether or not we can trust this player, how much we can include him in our schemes, and how much we need to fear retribution from him or his enemies/allies.

Remember, I just pulled this outta my AIss so it''s a little rough.

Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

I have a feeling it''s because you shouldn''t be reading programmer''s point of view on this sort of things.
Rather, you should try to find gamers who play those games.
I am quite sure there are sites dedicated to Diplomacy on the Net, possibly there could be a forum on the newsgroups ? This would sound like an ideal place to start digging.

For as long as I have been on those forums, I have rarely seen people actually discuss other types of games than computer games.
In this particular case, board games seem like the first thing you might want to investigate.

hope this helps ?

---

Sancte Isidore ora pro nobis !

Actually, a lot of people on here play board games or other such things. Personally, I played Diplomacy quite often - although that was about 18 years ago!

The bottom line is, however, no matter how much you learn about the ins and outs of the game, the hardest part is designing and representational and decision structure that mimics the way people play the game.

Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

Yes I was at GDC 2002 and did an AI roundtable, among many others. I remember discussing hierarchical AI and being disappointed that nobody really had any compelling answers. I was coming at it from a "real militaries break things up hierarchically and actually screw everything up at the boundaries" perspective. One might say all you can do is provide a hierarchical military organization, not a hierarchical "military intelligence." :-)

I''m not focused on board games. I''m focused on Civilization-style games. I just brought up Diplomacy because its diplomatic problems are fairly pure. I''ve actually posted on a Diplomacy programmer''s mailing list http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dipai/ . Actually got 1 reply back so far.

I''d hazard a guess that much like hierarchical AIs, the state of the art in diplomatic AI is: people don''t have a clue, they just wing it. Anyone beg to differ?

More on AI specifics after we see if anyone is goaded into elaborating "the right way to do diplomatic AI" by my unkind words.

Brandon Van Every www.3DProgrammer.com Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real. 80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

I''m trying to figure out why you would say that people don''t know how to do hierarchical AI. Perhaps you didn''t get a response in a particular roundtable a few years back, but that doesn''t mean that it isn''t done regularly and rather well. If I recall, Eric and I touched on it in a roundtable this past year... the one that I had the audio from (which may still be around here... search this forum for the link to it).

Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

Ok, people at the one AI roundtable I went to didn''t have a hierarchical clue, or didn''t care to vocalize it. Or I can''t remember the context of the discussion well enough over a year later to fairly brand it. But I distinictly remember being unimpressed with the level of discussion of the problem. Maybe that''s the luck of the draw. I recall my own interjections being deliberately "politic."

In general, I went to the GDC looking forwards to roundtables, but quickly found that from a technical content standpoint, they''re inferior to mailing lists. I think GDC is best regarded as a big party, not a serious undertaking. Or else I shouldn''t waste time on my strong suits like tech or game design stuff, and should instead go to biz/marketing/legal stuff that I know little about.

The question remains: who has a clue about diplomatic AI?


Brandon Van Every, http://www.3DProgrammer.com, Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real. 80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

quote:

---

Original post by vanevery0
The question remains: who has a clue about diplomatic AI?

---

Before one could answer this question, you need to define what a diplomatic AI would be able to do! Presumably, it''s most prevalent activity would be to negotiate with the other agents in the game to achieve its goals.

Automated negotiation systems are a hot topic in AI and the business world. Nick Jennings at Southampton is doing excellent work in this area and has produced products for British Telecom and other large organisations. You might like to take a look at his work.

Timkin

Good point Timkin. I want to negotiate about 4X TBS games. I don''t know how much "negotiation systems" in general impinge upon that, but it''s probably worth considering some of that material.

On the Diplomacy list, we''ve started to discuss how an abstract, simple game might be formulated that describes the general problem. I''m insistent that it must deal with spatial areas and logistics. It is not merely a political problem, it''s also about who''s tactically and strategically the biggest threat. I''ve proposed a square grid with certain amounts of military production per square. Also, the squares are initially unknown to the players. 4X TBS games are generally not games of perfect information.


Brandon Van Every, , Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real. 80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

I believe I gave a rough cut of the indicators that I would use above. There is obviously much left unsaid there, but much of that would be game design and game balance dependant. I am confused (and somewhat annoyed) that you keep throwing a blanket question out there that has a billion different answers to it - and then imply that no one "has a clue". The bottom line is, with such a high-level concept as "diplomatic AI", you can''t have a cookie cutter problem solver. No matter what the facet, you have to design AI for the specific game space you are working with - not some nebulous concept.

As for the GDC, there is only so much you can do in an hour with 30 people and hoards of different topics. It isn''t meant to be a deep discussion - although we have hit on some interesting stuff in the past few years.

Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

Dave, I just gave a game design, so what''s wrong with discussing that one? As for clues, here''s an acid test: can you name some games that have strong diplomatic AIs, and do you have any idea how they were implemented? As for the GDC, if the content is not exceedingly useful, then it is not profitable to spend one''s money to go to such an expensive event.


Brandon Van Every, 3DProgrammer, Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real. 80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

quote:

---

Original post by vanevery0
Dave, I just gave a game design, so what''s wrong with discussing that one?

---

Really? Where? You mean this?

quote:

---

On the Diplomacy list, we''ve started to discuss how an abstract, simple game might be formulated that describes the general problem. I''m insistent that it must deal with spatial areas and logistics. It is not merely a political problem, it''s also about who''s tactically and strategically the biggest threat. I''ve proposed a square grid with certain amounts of military production per square. Also, the squares are initially unknown to the players. 4X TBS games are generally not games of perfect information.

---

That''s not a game design, it''s a concept. And I noticed you haven''t TOUCHED the suggestion I gave initially. Did you have any thoughts about those indicators at all? They seem to take into account some of the things you mentioned in your "game design". If you want to discuss, do so... if you want to be pissy and insulting, run along.

quote:

---

As for the GDC, if the content is not exceedingly useful, then it is not profitable to spend one''s money to go to such an expensive event.

---

"Usefull", "profitable", and "expensive" are all relative terms. Of course, if you thought that spending $1200 was going to get you volumes of AI specific information, then perhaps your focus was a little narrow.

Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

Dave, frankly you are the one getting pissy.

You don''t like the facts I''ve stated about a particular GDC roundtable I attended and seem to be taking it personally. Which may be just as well: it may remind you that a certain level of performance is expected by a fair number of people at the conference. Most roundtables I went to were a waste of time, and that''s a feeling shared by a lot of my peers. Many of them go for lectures, not roundtables. I think a good roundtable probably has a strong central figure driving a preplanned agenda. More like a "lecture with extensive discussion and feedback."

The question still stands: what games can you point to that have strong diplomatic AI, and do you know what techniques they used? If you can''t point to them, and nobody else can, then I think my charge of "general cluelessness" is quite valid. I''m happy to be proven wrong, but I have not seen or heard of such a game.

As for your AI design ideas, sure we''ll get to them. But we haven''t even agreed on a game design yet. First things first. Also I wanted to give other people a chance to respond.


Brandon Van Every, 3DProgrammer, Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real. 80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

Ok everyone ... a deep breathe, now let it out slowly.

Let''s keep the discussion civil in all respects, or this thread will be closed by the moderator.

As for GDC being worth it. One does not go to GDC for detailed technical information. One goes to it for the networking opportunities it provides (with no other event in the industry coming close). If along the way, one sits in on a great lecture or a great roundtable, or meets the author of an article or paper you are interested in, and the opportunity to discuss it face-to-face occurs, then so much the better. Just try not to think of GDC as being this great technical learning opportunity and no one will ever be disappointed that it is not.

As for "cluelessness" about Diplomacy AI, I believe that may be a bit over-suggestive. Perhaps, it is simply not the problem it appears to be? And hence rarely discussed. Also, I know for myself, there are a number of AI techniques that I use daily in my projects that I never discuss here. Does that mean I am clueless about their usage? No, I don''t think so. So, any hasty labeling of the general readership and participants of this forum as "clueless" is probably inappropriate.

Now, if anyone needs help with a diplomacy AI design, then I suggest that the design requirements be framed in enough specific detail, that others know exactly what is required, and then let the discussion return to something a bit more productive.

Eric

Well said. I guess that''s why you moderate roundtables at the GDC.

Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

Thanks Geta... one of the problems of being 16 hours ahead of many of you is that I''m fast asleep when arguments arise! Well, at least I get something out of them!

Dave, while I generally accept that a Game AI solution (and for that matter, most AI solutions) need to be optimised for the particular domain, I do believe that Diplomacy and games of that ilk do require a very broad approach to the AI. For example, you do need a diplomatic agent that can negotiate not just troop movements on the board, but also aliances and support. In essence, you really want an agent that can negotiate on any topic, so long as it knows the relative value of the resources under its control and can estimate the relative value of other resources available to other agents. This sort of agent is more likely to be successful in this game because it will be broadly adaptive to any scenario. Now, whether this is an easy development task or not is another question (although I do know that it is possible... I spoke to Nick quite extensively about his work several years ago).

If one did not want to approach such games from the negotiation standpoint, then one would have to at least define all of the possible actions that an agent could take and choose the appropriate action(s) at each turn in accordance with its beliefs about maximising some value function over the next state of the game (or some future state). Interactions with other agents would have to be restricted to mere requests for support, or acceptance or rejection of calls for aid, with the latter being determined by the profitability of the proposed action(s).

Timkin

In any potential exchange, however, the profitability needs to be weighed against both a trust factor and a risk factor. One could even quantify the risk factor somewhat so that it can be expressed in the same terms as the profitability. Some of the items I proposed above are things that would likely need to be adressed for the trust and risk factors. In the end, however, what sets a diplmatic AI scheme apart from a simple commercial equality algorithm is those very concepts of trust and risk.

Dave Mark - President and Lead Designer
Intrinsic Algorithm - "Reducing the world to mathematical equations!"

Geta said
Just try not to think of GDC as being this great technical learning opportunity and no one will ever be disappointed that it is not.

Geta, I'm tempted to think you're either very well off or don't pay for your own GDC expenses. I think the technical conference should perform. If it doesn't, I think people are getting ripped off. I'm not the only one who feels the conference price is exhorbitant for what you get. If it were much less expensive, it would be much less of an issue.

I'll drop the "clueless" descriptor. The question still remains: what games have strong diplomatic AI? If there are none, then we need to acknowledge the current state of the industry as woeful on this point.

Dave, how do we establish trust? Previous track record? Initially nobody has a track record, so I suppose computer players would have to be very conservative about trusting humans at the beginning. Later on, how do you detect a human who's setting you up to backstab you? An analysis of Temptation would be prudent. Ask every turn, if the ally were to backstab you, how much would they profit from it and how much damage would it do to you?

Consider for the moment if the real world was suddenly mapped into a freeform alliance game. Imagine all the countries the USA could backstab! Why does S. Korea allow a pile of US troops inside it?

Computers, of course, cannot detect the subtle cues of trust like eye dilation, nervous speech, body posture, etc. A number of games have tried to put the humans and computers on a more equal footing, by forcing everyone to communicate through a set of standard orders. Of course, humans can always chat game externally, so this is not foolproof.




Brandon Van Every, 3DProgrammer, Seattle, WA
20% of the world is real. 80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.


[edited by - vanevery0 on July 29, 2003 2:21:35 AM]

[edited by - vanevery0 on July 29, 2003 2:22:35 AM]