• Advertisement

R&D Needed advice for an enjoyable AI in Buraco card game

Recommended Posts

Hi,

i’m trying to build an effective AI for the Buraco card game (2 and 4 players).

I want to avoid the heuristic approach : i’m not an expert of the game and for the last games i’ve developed this way i obtained mediocre results with that path.

I know the montecarlo tree search algorithm, i’ve used it for a checkers game with discrete result but I’m really confused by the recent success of other Machine Learning options.

For example i found this answer in stack overflow that really puzzles me, it says :
"So again: build a bot which can play against itself. One common basis is a function Q(S,a) which assigns to any game state and possible action of the player a value -- this is called Q-learning. And this function is often implemented as a neural network ... although I would think it does not need to be that sophisticated here.”

I’m very new to Machine Learning (this should be Reinforcement Learning, right?) and i only know a little of Q-learning but it sounds like a great idea: i take my bot, making play against itself and then it learns from its results… the problem is that i have no idea how to start! (and neither if this approach could be good or not).

Could you help me to get the right direction?
Is the Q-learning strategy a good one for my domain?
Is the Montecarlo still the best option for me?
Would it work well in a 4 players game like Buraco (2 opponents and 1 team mate)?
Is there any other method that i’m ignoring?

PS: My goal is to develop an enjoyable AI for a casual application, i can even consider the possibility to make the AI cheating for example by looking at the players hands or deck.  Even with this, ehm, permission i would not be able to build a good heuristic, i think :/

Thank you guys for your help!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
  1. Don't do machine learning.
  2. If your results with heuristic approaches has been mediocre, then your heuristics were mediocre. This is a viable option when done right.
  3. MCTS is not machine learning... it is brute force search. This will certainly be a viable option since it can handle hidden information.

As always, however, my initial question to you is... how do you play the game? What information do you take into account when playing? How do you use that information to make your decisions? Therein lies your AI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only read the vague initial description of the game, but I think I got enough details to tell you what I think.

I think using reinforcement learning is quite reasonable for games with randomness and hidden state. I don't have much experience here, but I think I know how I would do it. First you need a fast simulator for the game. You can start with a strategy that picks an action at random to make sure that the simulator is working. You then define a "policy" to be a mapping from the state known to the agent (including the history of previous actions by all players) to a probability distribution over actions. This policy can be implemented as some sort of neural network, with a final SoftMax operation to make sure what is produced is indeed a probability distribution. If you initialize the weights so the neural network produces small outputs before the SoftMax, the SoftMax will in turn produce close to a uniform distribution. Start playing games. After each game, you can tweak the weights of the neural network to increase the probability of the actions taken by the winners and decrease the probability of the actions taken by the losers. In order to do this, you would need to be able to compute the derivative of the probability of producing a move with respect to each of the weights in the neural network, which is what backpropagation does.

If you had a database of games played by experts, you could train a policy to simply imitate their playing. In that case you would be using supervised learning, which is easier. You could even use supervised learning first and then tweak the resulting network using reinforcement learning. At some stage AlphaGo used this (although it's not the primary mechanism of how AlphaGo works; they just used this to generate a database of labeled positions that could be used to train their value network).

Monte Carlo search would be difficult to get to work, but not impossible. I can give you more details if you want to go down this route, but I don't recommend it. I will just say that using Monte Carlo search would still require a "policy", as described above. So you have to start there anyway.

This sounds like a fun project. I should do something like this with some other card game.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, IADaveMark said:
  1. ...
  2. If your results with heuristic approaches has been mediocre, then your heuristics were mediocre. This is a viable option when done right.
  3. ...

As always, however, my initial question to you is... how do you play the game? What information do you take into account when playing? How do you use that information to make your decisions? Therein lies your AI.

Thanks for your reply.

I know that the problem in the heuristic approach is ... my heuristic :)

I developed 4-5 heuristic for other card games and i would discourage anyone taking that route : for any non trivial game this approach requires a LOT of tuning, a LOT of knowledge of the game (expert knowledge) and usually you end with a code that is very difficult to mantain or refactor. Let's add to this that the AI should play in a cooperative enviroment with another AI or a human...

When you ask me : "As always, however, my initial question to you is... how do you play the game? What information do you take into account when playing? How do you use that information to make your decisions? Therein lies your AI.", i suppose you are suggesting me to make some considerations to build a good heuristic, well, i think i already took in account those... but they fall in to the issues i underlined above.

I'm a beginner in this game, i know the rules perfectly and i played like 100 games, i will never be an expert and i do NOT want to become en expert, i want to be en expert developer, not gamer.
Having expert friends can help but not so much: they play as ... humans, most of their strategies come from their unconscious part of the brain and they, for sure, will forgot to cover some game scenarios when they try to teach you something. I've already done this for other games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, alvaro said:

I only read the vague initial description of the game, but I think I got enough details to tell you what I think.

[...]

 
Hi Alvaro,
 
thanks for your reply!
 
As i said before i’m very new to ML so i need to be addressed in the steps that are related to it.
I’m quite motivated for this project and i’m not afraid to learn something new, so please suggest me the resources you think i need to learn.
 
Quote

 

>I only read the vague initial description of the game, but I think I got enough details to tell you what I think.
 
>I think using reinforcement learning is quite reasonable for games with randomness and hidden state. I don't have much experience here, but I think I know how I would do it. First you need a fast simulator for the game. You can start with a strategy that picks an action at random to make sure that the simulator is working.

 

 
 
I’ve already built a library/engine (in javascript) that plays complete matches (a match is a set of rounds) for 2 or 4 players, it has all the rules, the scoring, etc etc.
 
Instead of picking an action at random (as you suggest) i’ve built a very basic heuristic to make the players play. 
If you want to know more about it i think you know to have a better knowledge of the game.
I take this opportunity to underline that in this game the player has to take different decisions : on his turn he has to decide if drawing a card on the top of the deck or taking all the cards that were discarded ‘till that point.
Then he can make multiple plays until he decides to discard a card and pass the turn.
As you can see even this adds a bit of complexity.
 
 
Quote

>You then define a "policy" to be a mapping from the state known to the agent (including the history of previous actions by all players) to a probability distribution over actions. This policy can be implemented as some sort of neural network, with a final SoftMax operation to make sure what is produced is indeed a probability distribution. If you initialize the weights so the neural network produces small outputs before the SoftMax, the SoftMax will in turn produce close to a uniform distribution.

 

Can you elaborate on this? Unfortunately i do not understand this (my ML gaps! :/)

The only thing that i understand it’s that i need to store the history of the game state. In this moment my library has a state object that stores all the information needed to carry the game on in the current step, it deletes what is not needed. I can easily adjust this.

 

Quote


>Start playing games. After each game, you can tweak the weights of the neural network to increase the probability of the actions taken by the winners and decrease the probability of the actions taken by the losers. In order to do this, you would need to be able to compute the derivative of the probability of producing a move with respect to each of the weights in the neural network, which is what backpropagation does.

 

 

I think/hope this will become clearer when i will understand the step above :)
 
Quote

>If you had a database of games played by experts, you could train a policy to simply imitate their playing. In that case you would be using supervised learning, which is easier. You could even use supervised learning first and then tweak the resulting network using reinforcement learning. At some stage AlphaGo used this (although it's not the primary mechanism of how AlphaGo works; they just used this to generate a database of labeled positions that could be used to train their value network).

 

No, i have not.
 
Quote

>Monte Carlo search would be difficult to get to work, but not impossible. I can give you more details if you want to go down this route, but I don't recommend it. I will just say that using Monte Carlo search would still require a "policy", as described above. So you have to start there anyway.

 

If you think that the reinforcement learning can be a viable option i’m very excited to try it. I’m eager to learn it. Let’s focus on it. However i have to say that more details in the monte carlo approach interest me as well :)
 
Quote

>This sounds like a fun project. I should do something like this with some other card game.

 

You are very welcome to help me on this 😃 😃 😃 😃

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an update.

I spent the last days trying to learn as much as possible about the ML world, i've watched a ton of videos, read lot of articles and got my hands dirty (just a little bit) with two practical courses (https://www.udemy.com/deeplearning/learn/v4/content) and (https://www.udemy.com/artificial-intelligence-az/learn/v4/content).
I have not finished them yet (of course!) and i have to say that i only scratched the surface of this very intriguing world, by the way i feel more comfortable with all the terms and the concepts that were used in this thread (they looked so obscure to me only some days ago).

Thanks to some replies in this thread and on a parallel thread i opened in Stack Overflow i see now that my project requires a very solid understanding of a big chunk of the ML stuff and it could also lead to unpleasant results.

As far as i understand the best strategy (intended as a mix of 'easy to implement' and 'acceptable results') would fall between heuristic and MCTS.

Please, feel free to comment my statement and any other kind of advice.
Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Advertisement
  • Advertisement
  • Popular Tags

  • Advertisement
  • Popular Now

  • Similar Content

    • By cesarpachon
      hello, I am trying to implement a realistic simulation of a roulette wheel. it is not clear for me what is the proper way to simulate the initial status of the ball, when it spins against the edge of the wheel until it loss energy and start falling towards the centre.
      I modelled the conic table as a height map, as I assume that would provide the smoother surface. but I see anyway there is rough squared corners everywhere, so really I don't have a smooth inner wall to slide against.
      I wonder if I should ignore the wall and simulate the sliding by code. i.e: apply force (or impulse?) each frame to keep the ball at a fixed radius and somehow force it to follow a desired angular speed..  later, when I want to execute the falling behaviour, just stop applying that forces and let the simulator and the gravity do their work.. makes sense?
      any advice is highly appreciated!
       
    • By getoutofmycar
      I'm having some difficulty understanding how data would flow or get inserted into a multi-threaded opengl renderer where there is a thread pool and a render thread and an update thread (possibly main). My understanding is that the threadpool will continually execute jobs, assemble these and when done send them off to be rendered where I can further sort these and achieve some cheap form of statelessness. I don't want anything overly complicated or too fine grained,  fibers,  job stealing etc. My end goal is to simply have my renderer isolated in its own thread and only concerned with drawing and swapping buffers. 
      My questions are:
      1. At what point in this pipeline are resources created?
      Say I have a
      class CCommandList { void SetVertexBuffer(...); void SetIndexBuffer(...); void SetVertexShader(...); void SetPixelShader(...); } borrowed from an existing post here. I would need to generate a VAO at some point and call glGenBuffers etc especially if I start with an empty scene. If my context lives on another thread, how do I call these commands if the command list is only supposed to be a collection of state and what command to use. I don't think that the render thread should do this and somehow add a task to the queue or am I wrong?
      Or could I do some variation where I do the loading in a thread with shared context and from there generate a command that has the handle to the resources needed.
       
      2. How do I know all my jobs are done.
      I'm working with C++, is this as simple as knowing how many objects there are in the scene, for every task that gets added increment a counter and when it matches aforementioned count I signal the renderer that the command list is ready? I was thinking a condition_variable or something would suffice to alert the renderthread that work is ready.
       
      3. Does all work come from a singular queue that the thread pool constantly cycles over?
      With the notion of jobs, we are basically sending the same work repeatedly right? Do all jobs need to be added to a single persistent queue to be submitted over and over again?
       
      4. Are resources destroyed with commands?
      Likewise with initializing and assuming #3 is correct, removing an item from the scene would mean removing it from the job queue, no? Would I need to send a onetime command to the renderer to cleanup?
    • By devbyskc
      Hi Everyone,
      Like most here, I'm a newbie but have been dabbling with game development for a few years. I am currently working full-time overseas and learning the craft in my spare time. It's been a long but highly rewarding adventure. Much of my time has been spent working through tutorials. In all of them, as well as my own attempts at development, I used the audio files supplied by the tutorial author, or obtained from one of the numerous sites online. I am working solo, and will be for a while, so I don't want to get too wrapped up with any one skill set. Regarding audio, the files I've found and used are good for what I was doing at the time. However I would now like to try my hand at customizing the audio more. My game engine of choice is Unity and it has an audio mixer built in that I have experimented with following their tutorials. I have obtained a great book called Game Audio Development with Unity 5.x that I am working through. Half way through the book it introduces using FMOD to supplement the Unity Audio Mixer. Later in the book, the author introduces Reaper (a very popular DAW) as an external program to compose and mix music to be integrated with Unity. I did some research on DAWs and quickly became overwhelmed. Much of what I found was geared toward professional sound engineers and sound designers. I am in no way trying or even thinking about getting to that level. All I want to be able to do is take a music file, and tweak it some to get the sound I want for my game. I've played with Audacity as well, but it didn't seem to fit the bill. So that is why I am looking at a better quality DAW. Since being solo, I am also under a budget contraint. So of all the DAW software out there, I am considering Reaper or Presonus Studio One due to their pricing. My question is, is investing the time to learn about using a DAW to tweak a sound file worth it? Are there any solo developers currently using a DAW as part of their overall workflow? If so, which one? I've also come across Fabric which is a Unity plug-in that enhances the built-in audio mixer. Would that be a better alternative?
      I know this is long, and maybe I haven't communicated well in trying to be brief. But any advice from the gurus/vets would be greatly appreciated. I've leaned so much and had a lot of fun in the process. BTW, I am also a senior citizen (I cut my programming teeth back using punch cards and Structured Basic when it first came out). If anyone needs more clarification of what I am trying to accomplish please let me know.  Thanks in advance for any assistance/advice.
    • By evanofsky
      The more you know about a given topic, the more you realize that no one knows anything.
      For some reason (why God, why?) my topic of choice is game development. Everyone in that field agrees: don't add networked multiplayer to an existing game, you drunken clown.
      Well, I did it anyway because I hate myself. Somehow it turned out great. None of us know anything.
      Problem #1: assets
      My first question was: how do I tell a client to use such-and-such mesh to render an object? Serialize the whole mesh? Nah, they already have it on disk. Send its filename? Nah, that's inefficient and insecure. Okay, just a string identifier then?
      Fortunately, before I had time to implement any of my own terrible ideas, I watched a talk from Mike Acton where he mentions the danger of "lazy decision-making". One of his points was: strings let you lazily ignore decisions until runtime, when it's too late to fix.
      If I rename a texture, I don't want to get a bug report from a player with a screenshot like this:

      I had never thought about how powerful and complex strings are. Half the field of computer science deals with strings and what they can do. They usually require a heap allocation, or something even more complex like ropes and interning. I usually don't bother to limit their length, so a single string expands the possibility space to infinity, destroying whatever limited ability I had to predict runtime behavior.
      And here I am using these complex beasts to identify objects. Heck, I've even used strings to access object properties. What madness!
      Long story short, I cultivated a firm conviction to avoid strings where possible. I wrote a pre-processor that outputs header files like this at build time:
      namespace Asset { namespace Mesh { const int count = 3; const AssetID player = 0; const AssetID enemy = 1; const AssetID projectile = 2; } } So I can reference meshes like this:
      renderer->mesh = Asset::Mesh::player; If I rename a mesh, the compiler makes it my problem instead of some poor player's problem. That's good!
      The bad news is, I still have to interact with the file system, which requires the use of strings. The good news is the pre-processor can save the day.
      const char* Asset::Mesh::filenames[] = { "assets/player.msh", "assets/enemy.msh", "assets/projectile.msh", 0, }; With all this in place, I can easily send assets across the network. They're just numbers! I can even verify them.
      if (mesh < 0 || mesh >= Asset::Mesh::count) net_error(); // just what are you trying to pull, buddy? Problem #2: object references
      My next question was: how do I tell a client to please move/delete/frobnicate "that one object from before, you know the one". Once again, I was lucky enough to hear from smart people before I could shoot myself in the foot.
      From the start, I knew I needed a bunch of lists of different kinds of objects, like this:
      Array<Turret> Turret::list; Array<Projectile> Projectile::list; Array<Avatar> Avatar::list; Let's say I want to reference the first object in the Avatar list, even without networking, just on our local machine. My first idea is to just use a pointer:
       
      Avatar* avatar; avatar = &Avatar::list[0]; This introduces a ton of non-obvious problems. First, I'm compiling for a 64 bit architecture, which means that pointer takes up 8 whole bytes of memory, even though most of it is probably zeroes. And memory is the number one performance bottleneck in games.
      Second, if I add enough objects to the array, it will get reallocated to a different place in memory, and the pointer will point to garbage.
      Okay, fine. I'll use an ID instead.
      template<typename Type> struct Ref { short id; inline Type* ref() { return &Type::list[id]; } // overloaded "=" operator omitted }; Ref<Avatar> avatar = &Avatar::list[0]; avatar.ref()->frobnicate(); Second problem: if I remove that Avatar from the list, some other Avatar will get moved into its place without me knowing. The program will continue, blissfully and silently screwing things up, until some player sends a bug report that the game is "acting weird". I much prefer the program to explode instantly so I at least get a crash dump with a line number.
      Okay, fine. Instead of actually removing the avatar, I'll put a revision number on it:
      struct Avatar { short revision; }; template<typename Type> struct Ref { short id; short revision; inline Type* ref() { Type* t = &Type::list[id]; return t->revision == revision ? t : nullptr; } }; Instead of actually deleting the avatar, I'll mark it dead and increment the revision number. Now anything trying to access it will give a null pointer exception. And serializing a reference across the network is just a matter of sending two easily verifiable numbers.
      Problem #3: delta compression
      If I had to cut this article down to one line, it would just be a link to Glenn Fiedler's blog.
      Which by the way is here: gafferongames.com
      As I set out to implement my own version of Glenn's netcode, I read this article, which details one of the biggest challenges of multiplayer games. Namely, if you just blast the entire world state across the network 60 times a second, you could gobble up 17 mbps of bandwidth. Per client.
      Delta compression is one of the best ways to cut down bandwidth usage. If a client already knows where an object is, and it hasn't moved, then I don't need to send its position again.
      This can be tricky to get right.

      The first part is the trickiest: does the client really know where the object is? Just because I sent the position doesn't mean the client actually received it. The client might send an acknowledgement back that says "hey I received packet #218, but that was 0.5 seconds ago and I haven't gotten anything since."
      So to send a new packet to that client, I have to remember what the world looked like when I sent out packet #218, and delta compress the new packet against that. Another client might have received everything up to packet #224, so I can delta compress the new packet differently for them. Point is, we need to store a whole bunch of separate copies of the entire world.
      Someone on Reddit asked "isn't that a huge memory hog"?
      No, it is not.
      Actually I store 255 world copies in memory. All in a single giant array. Not only that, but each copy has enough room for the maximum number of objects (2048) even if only 2 objects are active.
      If you store an object's state as a position and orientation, that's 7 floats. 3 for XYZ coordinates and 4 for a quaternion. Each float takes 4 bytes. My game supports up to 2048 objects. 7 floats * 4 bytes * 2048 objects * 255 copies = ...
      14 MB. That's like, half of one texture these days.
      I can see myself writing this system five years ago in C#. I would start off immediately worried about memory usage, just like that Redditor, without stopping to think about the actual data involved. I would write some unnecessary, crazy fancy, bug-ridden compression system.
      Taking a second to stop and think about actual data like this is called Data-Oriented Design. When I talk to people about DOD, many immediately say, "Woah, that's really low-level. I guess you want to wring out every last bit of performance. I don't have time for that. Anyway, my code runs fine." Let's break down the assumptions in this statement.
      Assumption 1: "That's really low-level".
      Look, I multiplied four numbers together. It's not rocket science.
      Assumption 2: "You sacrifice readability and simplicity for performance."
      Let's picture two different solutions to this netcode problem. For clarity, let's pretend we only need 3 world copies, each containing up to 2 objects.
      Here's the solution I just described. Everything is statically allocated in the .bss segment. It never moves around. Everything is the same size. No pointers at all.

      Here's the idiomatic C# solution. Everything is scattered randomly throughout the heap. Things can get reallocated or moved right in the middle of a frame. The array is jagged. 64-bit pointers all over the place.

      Which is simpler?
      The second diagram is actually far from exhaustive. C#-land is a lot more complex in reality. Check the comments and you'll probably find someone correcting me about how C# actually works.
      But that's my point. With my solution, I can easily construct a "good enough" mental model to understand what's actually happening on the machine. I've barely scratched the surface with the C# solution. I have no idea how it will behave at runtime.
      Assumption 3: "Performance is the only reason you would code like this."
      To me, performance is a nice side benefit of data-oriented design. The main benefit is clarity of thought. Five years ago, when I sat down to solve a problem, my first thought was not about the problem itself, but how to shoehorn it into classes and interfaces.
      I witnessed this analysis paralysis first-hand at a game jam recently. My friend got stuck designing a grid for a 2048-like game. He couldn't figure out if each number was an object, or if each grid cell was an object, or both. I said, "the grid is an array of numbers. Each operation is a function that mutates the grid." Suddenly everything became crystal clear to him.
      Assumption 4: "My code runs fine".
      Again, performance is not the main concern, but it's important. The whole world switched from Firefox to Chrome because of it.
      Try this experiment: open up calc.exe. Now copy a 100 MB file from one folder to another.

      I don't know what calc.exe is doing during that 300ms eternity, but you can draw your own conclusions from my two minutes of research: calc.exe actually launches a process called Calculator.exe, and one of the command line arguments is called "-ServerName".
      Does calc.exe "run fine"? Did throwing a server in simplify things at all, or is it just slower and more complex?
      I don't want to get side-tracked. The point is, I want to think about the actual problem and the data involved, not about classes and interfaces. Most of the arguments against this mindset amount to "it's different than what I know".
      Problem #4: lag
      I now hand-wave us through to the part of the story where the netcode is somewhat operational.
      Right off the bat I ran into problems dealing with network lag. Games need to respond to players immediately, even if it takes 150ms to get a packet from the server. Projectiles were particularly useless under laggy network conditions. They were impossible to aim.
      I decided to re-use those 14 MB of world copies. When the server receives a command to fire a projectile, it steps the world back 150ms to the way the world appeared to the player when they hit the fire button. Then it simulates the projectile and steps the world forward until it's up to date with the present. That's where it creates the projectile.
      I ended up having the client create a fake projectile immediately, then as soon as it hears back from the server that the projectile was created, it deletes the fake and replaces it with the real thing. If all goes well, they should be in the same place due to the server's timey-wimey magic.
      Here it is in action. The fake projectile appears immediately but goes right through the wall. The server receives the message and fast-forwards the projectile straight to the part where it hits the wall. 150ms later the client gets the packet and sees the impact particle effect.

      The problem with netcode is, each mechanic requires a different approach to lag compensation. For example, my game has an "active armor" ability. If players react quick enough, they can reflect damage back at enemies.

      This breaks down in high lag scenarios. By the time the player sees the projectile hitting their character, the server has already registered the hit 100ms ago. The packet just hasn't made it to the client yet. This means you have to anticipate incoming damage and react long before it hits. Notice in the gif above how early I had to hit the button.
      To correct this, the server implements something I call "damage buffering". Instead of applying damage instantly, the server puts the damage into a buffer for 100ms, or whatever the round-trip time is to the client. At the end of that time, it either applies the damage, or if the player reacted, reflects it back.
      Here it is in action. You can see the 200ms delay between the projectile hitting me and the damage actually being applied.

      Here's another example. In my game, players can launch themselves at enemies. Enemies die instantly to perfect shots, but they deflect glancing blows and send you flying like this:

      Which direction should the player bounce? The client has to simulate the bounce before the server knows about it. The server and client need to agree which direction to bounce or they'll get out of sync, and they have no time to communicate beforehand.
      At first I tried quantizing the collision vector so that there were only six possible directions. This made it more likely that the client and server would choose the same direction, but it didn't guarantee anything.
      Finally I implemented another buffer system. Both client and server, when they detect a hit, enter a "buffer" state where the player sits and waits for the remote host to confirm the hit. To minimize jankiness, the server always defers to the client as to which direction to bounce. If the client never acknowledges the hit, the server acts like nothing happened and continues the player on their original course, fast-forwarding them to make up for the time they sat still waiting for confirmation.
      Problem #5: jitter
      My server sends out packets 60 times per second. What about players whose computers run faster than that? They'll see jittery animation.
      Interpolation is the industry-standard solution. Instead of immediately applying position data received from the server, you buffer it a little bit, then you blend smoothly between whatever data that you have.
      In my previous attempt at networked multiplayer, I tried to have each object keep track of its position data and smooth itself out. I ended up getting confused and it never worked well.
      This time, since I could already easily store the entire world state in a struct, I was able to write just two functions to make it work. One function takes two world states and blends them together. Another function takes a world state and applies it to the game.
      How big should the buffer delay be? I originally used a constant until I watched a video from the Overwatch devs where they mention adaptive interpolation delay. The buffer delay should smooth out not only the framerate from the server, but also any variance in packet delivery time.
      This was an easy win. Clients start out with a short interpolation delay, and any time they're missing a packet to interpolate toward, they increase their "lag score". Once it crosses a certain threshold, they tell the server to switch them to a higher interpolation delay.
      Of course, automated systems like this often act against the user's wishes, so it's important to add switches and knobs to the algorithm!

      Problem #6: joining servers mid-match
      Wait, I already have a way to serialize the entire game state. What's the hold up?
      Turns out, it takes more than one packet to serialize a fresh game state from scratch. And each packet may take multiple attempts to make it to the client. It may take a few hundred milliseconds to get the full state, and as we've seen already, that's an eternity. If the game is already in progress, that's enough time to send 20 packets' worth of new messages, which the client is not ready to process because it hasn't loaded yet.
      The solution is—you guessed it—another buffer.
      I changed the messaging system to support two separate streams of messages in the same packet. The first stream contains the map data, which is processed as soon as it comes in.
      The second stream is just the usual fire-hose of game messages that come in while the client is loading. The client buffers these messages until it's done loading, then processes them all until it's caught up.
      Problem #7: cross-cutting concerns
      This next part may be the most controversial.
      Remember that bit of gamedev wisdom from the beginning? "don't add networked multiplayer to an existing game"?
      Well, most of the netcode in this game is literally tacked on. It lives in its own 5000-line source file. It reaches into the game, pokes stuff into memory, and the game renders it.
      Just listen a second before stoning me. Is it better to group all network code in one place, or spread it out inside each game object?
      I think both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. In fact, I use both approaches in different parts of the game, for various reasons human and technical.
      But some design paradigms (*cough* OOP) leave no room for you to make this decision. Of course you put the netcode inside the object! Its data is private, so you'll have to write an interface to access it anyway. Might as well put all the smarts in there too.
      Conclusion
      I'm not saying you should write netcode like I do; only that this approach has worked for me so far. Read the code and judge for yourself.
      There is an objectively optimal approach for each use case, although people may disagree on which one it is. You should be free to choose based on actual constraints rather than arbitrary ones set forth by some paradigm.
      Thanks for reading. DECEIVER is launching on Kickstarter soon. Sign up to play the demo here!
    • By Bokchee 88
      I am animator by hand, and i am doing game animation for at least 8 years so far. During the last 2 years, i came with a idea for game and maybe some day, i want to start indie game company. As i am thinking to start game company, i am also thinking what kind of value i can give to the company. For example, am experience in animation,sales(I was selling web development services, before i jumped to gaming), bit of rigging- just not for production, i am learning on the side as well. The rest of the gaming production, like modeling, concept art, texturing, i am total noob or to say better, i am no near interest to do modeling for example, don't have such a patience to do it. But before characters and things are made for animating, what the hell i am would do?
      Also, what is the ideal size of the founding team of a game company? Positions to be filled mostly are, Concept artist, Modeler/Texture artist, programmer, animator-rigger. And later would need more people to join, like more animators, programmers, sound, fx,etc.
       
      And lastly, do i need to have something,like a prototype, to show people and get them interest, or should i ask someone i know, for skill that i lack, for example, Modeling would be great, texturing and rigging, and to start all together from scratch?  
  • Advertisement