Jump to content
  • Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  
RnzCpp

AI approaches discussion (split from Interesting AI Examples thread)

This topic is 663 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

I like planning for a reason: non hierarchical planning is the most powerful and easiest to implement algorithm for a simple AI. Yes, it has some problems, I can't remember the specific context on which states should be added to that of the global state (so the global state isn't really a state). 

Edited by RenzoCoppola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement

non hierarchical planning is the most powerful and easiest to implement algorithm for a simple AI.


Highly debatable.

 

Yes, it has some problems, I can't remember the specific context on which states should be added to that of the global state (so the global state isn't really a state).


This gives me the impression you're not nearly familiar enough with the technique, nor are you really qualified to be recommending it above all other approaches.


[edit] You're also off-topic as this has nothing to do with the OP's question. Edited by ApochPiQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Above all other more difficult to implement techniques? You really have a hard case to make, APOCH, really. It takes not that many lines to write a basic planning algorithm, I can only see a hardcoded logic being easier but not as powerful.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like planning for a reason: non hierarchical planning is the most powerful and easiest to implement algorithm for a simple AI. Yes, it has some problems, I can't remember the specific context on which states should be added to that of the global state (so the global state isn't really a state). 

 

Wot?!?!


Above all other more difficult to implement techniques? You really have a hard case to make, APOCH, really. It takes not that many lines to write a basic planning algorithm, I can only see a hardcoded logic being easier but not as powerful.  

 

Writing the algorithm is not the same as teasing out good behavior. By that measure, picking random behaviors would be the best possible approach because it is easy to implement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Context of work? Yes, I agree with that.
 
Talking about interesting AI and lazy/easy (I really favor easy), it's possible to automatically adjust weights if you find a way to judge the AI, maybe like making a quadruped gait (
) in a more efficient way that a human could do... but that's just something useless and a proof of concept I made. The thing is that we've seen stuff like this in the field, this is tested stuff that works: there're cases in which you can just spend time extracting and formating important data from the game. 
Edited by RenzoCoppola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your first post speaks of planners, but now you're talking about machine learning. What are you actually advocating for, exactly?

I've worked on game AI for over 15 years. I've never seen a planner used in production. That's not to say that they are bad tools, or that nobody uses planning; quite the contrary. It's just that there are other tools which are superior in their respective areas.

Machine learning is even less appealing for games, for well-established reasons that I won't retread unless you for whatever reason can't/won't dig up any of those debates yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've a trait: When I talk I tend to go all over the place (I really mean it). That second part of my post wasn't really directed what I previously said, so I got a warning out of nothing :/ .

Yes, heuristics (which sounds less buzzwordy than ML) as an optimization technique. Simulated Annealing which did a a decent job at go (in the 2000s). I think they implemented over decition space (which in go overlaps a lot)... GAs could also be used, but i've not heard of that. There're statistical based methodologies too, but I've yet to dig into that. There're niches, thats all, I'm sure these things could take over (when a fitness/evaluation function could be available). 

Edited by RenzoCoppola

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not want to go through my "and this is why any sort of learning in game AI sucks all to hell" speech. I'm going to have to repeat it enough times at GDC in 2 weeks. *sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really do not want to go through my "and this is why any sort of learning in game AI sucks all to hell" speech. I'm going to have to repeat it enough times at GDC in 2 weeks. *sigh*


I'll state the big one: The behavior of NPCs in games should be optimized for things like how much fun the player has, or how engaged she is, or how convincing is the illusion that the agents are real. These are measures that are very hard to work with in machine learning.

For games where the measure of quality is somewhat objective (chess, go, etc.), machine learning is a reasonable approach; but that's not the kind of game we are usually concerned with in this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement
×

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

GameDev.net is your game development community. Create an account for your GameDev Portfolio and participate in the largest developer community in the games industry.

Sign me up!