I had a thought about the AI in my game. It occurred to me that I might be able to leverage the multiple (human) players to help the AI improve (and also create opponents of varying styles and ability). There are a number of parameters in a couple of routines that find the "best" positions for attacking (hand-to-hand), for defense and for missile position. Right now, these are set to somewhat arbitrary hand-tuned values, but I have no idea if the strategy could be improved through the GA method of cross-over and mutation. These could be used as the values in a gene that would be used in a genetic algorithm to find the best values. There would be about 20 values, so the gene wouldn't be too complex. I suppose that the parameter values and the "fitness" should be seeded by me in some way before I attempt to use the actual game to create and modify them to eliminate the less-fit genes, but I would like the game to learn from the multiple human players that would be playing. Does this sound practical, or even possible? Has anyone (here) attempted to use a GA to modify a live, running game? Do you have any advice for me?

This sounds like an interesting approach for auto-adjusting difficulty. Like Kirk said, it would take a while for the AI to evolve to a point where it would be challenging, but in theory, it could eventually reach a point where it perfectly matches the player in skill — though never in robust contextual decision-making, which is where AI really falters.

Quote:Original post by ID Merlin
I had a thought about the AI in my game. It occurred to me that I might be able to leverage the multiple (human) players to help the AI improve (and also create opponents of varying styles and ability).

A cautionary tale:

Space Empires V has a mechanism that uses the player to classify their own starships for targetting by the AI. A text box for labeling ship Type was converted into a drop-down list, to be selected by the player and then used for identifying ships by the AI.

Of course it isn't in the player's best interest to share this information with the enemy. So the result is that the player builds fleets of harmless interstellar mail couriers. But with big guns, fighter escourt, and battalions of ground invasion security personnel.

Moral of the story: Enemies are enemies.

A similar but unrelated thing happened with Master of Orion III. Ships were arbitrarily categorized as Core, Escourt, or Picket, and then how many of each type went into a fleet was enforced. So the player just made three copies of the same ship, with different categories.

[Edited by - AngleWyrm on May 27, 2008 1:56:04 AM]

Thanks for all the input. I don't think that having my computer play itself will give me what I want, exactly, because the GA would probably still be tuning itself in the year 2030 if I try to use human players as the "fitness" function.

I may try just creating a small subset of strategies, and logging the results for a while, perhaps using those results to hand-tune the parameters, before I try to actively tune the strategy with a GA. And I will probably look at building a system where my local computer plays two opponents locally, where I can probably get data 1,000s of times as fast as humans.

As an aside, one advantage of using performance measures on the strategy would allow me to use less effective strategies for players who are having a hard time beating the computer. (Many players are already losing, even with an enemy at 75% of the player strength.)