03-09-2005 06:58									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Adagio But RPG games are ment to be like that, that is one of the main points in RPG games, to discover the world. For a MP game you just want to beat the hell out of the other players...

You have addressed your own complaint quite adequately, I think.

Since you don't need any of that stuff to "beat the hell out of the other players," you don't get any. As versus SP games, where some sort of exploring is involved.

	03-09-2005 13:41									#32
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Because they don't have AI at all in any of the Blizzard games. Just scripts and stuff through and through in the SP games. Elementary, my dear Watson. It's a simple observation of the complexity of the rules vs the capability of the computer, plus the knowledge of what a competent AI could do.

I don't think you know what you are talking about. The rules aren't the issue - chess is playable at a high level by computers because of its deerministic nature. With present capabilities there isn't an AI (even on a supercomputer) that could beat me, let alone a pro. There are just too many strategies that interact in too subtle ways.

RTS games are closer to the Go end than the Chess end.

	03-09-2005 13:43									#33
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Well, I take ratings of computer chess programs with a grain of salt, unless it has been tested vigorously.

Well they are, with extensive suites of software that are consistently used to give a consistent evaluation, partly against humans. Do you know anything about this topic at all?

I really don't want to sound like Asher, but it just looks to me like you have jumped in without really knowing your ground.

	03-09-2005 14:26									#34
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger You have addressed your own complaint quite adequately, I think. Since you don't need any of that stuff to "beat the hell out of the other players," you don't get any. As versus SP games, where some sort of exploring is involved.

Maybe it's not needed, but it's defently funnier to "beat the hell out of the other players" on the maps you gain through SP than on the random generated maps

	04-09-2005 14:03									#35
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike I don't think you know what you are talking about. The rules aren't the issue - chess is playable at a high level by computers because of its deerministic nature.

The rules are definitely one of the issues, if not the issue. Rules determine the nature of the game. Nothing else comes close in importance.

Besides, you display a clear lack of understanding of artificial intelligence. There are all sorts of approaches to AI. Rules-based is the most primitive and least capable, but they are the easiest to design and program. There are interesting things such as heuristics and genetic algorithms.

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike With present capabilities there isn't an AI (even on a supercomputer) that could beat me, let alone a pro. There are just too many strategies that interact in too subtle ways.

This means nothing. It just says game developers don't have any competent AI programmers. More specificially, the companies that developed the games you have played didn't have any competent AI programmers.

I have never played Galatic Civilization, but I heard that they have killer computer players. If that is the case, it means at least one game companies has got it right.

There is also the Warlords series. These are more wargames than strategic games, but the computer players in them are quite good.

	04-09-2005 14:13									#36
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike Well they are, with extensive suites of software that are consistently used to give a consistent evaluation, partly against humans. Do you know anything about this topic at all? I really don't want to sound like Asher, but it just looks to me like you have jumped in without really knowing your ground.

I was unable to find such information on the World Chess Federation website and sites such as this one.

This site gives some generic information, however there does not appear to be any standard tests, and the ones used don't seem to be calibrated against some standard at all.

	04-09-2005 16:14									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger I was unable to find such information on the World Chess Federation website and sites such as this one. This site gives some generic information, however there does not appear to be any standard tests, and the ones used don't seem to be calibrated against some standard at all.

Because you were unable to find information when pressed is your defence?

	04-09-2005 16:17									#38
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger The rules are definitely one of the issues, if not the issue. Rules determine the nature of the game. Nothing else comes close in importance. Besides, you display a clear lack of understanding of artificial intelligence. There are all sorts of approaches to AI. Rules-based is the most primitive and least capable, but they are the easiest to design and program. There are interesting things such as heuristics and genetic algorithms. This means nothing. It just says game developers don't have any competent AI programmers. More specificially, the companies that developed the games you have played didn't have any competent AI programmers. I have never played Galatic Civilization, but I heard that they have killer computer players. If that is the case, it means at least one game companies has got it right. There is also the Warlords series. These are more wargames than strategic games, but the computer players in them are quite good.

Well when I see it, I will believe it. As of now I see no evidence of your original statement that (given current capabilities) AI should easily be able to beat players (even good ones) in RTS games. I find myself wondering if that is because there is none.

	09-09-2005 03:56									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

It would be relatively easy to built an AI that could beat any human in any RTS. Just take $$$.

So, why don't they do it? Because it takes $$$$ and time.

The main audience of RTS is what? If you are targetting primarily MP, then you don't need to waste any money on the SP AI other then as basic trainer (something to let players use to learn the basics of the controls and their units).

If you are targetting SP, then you need an adequate SP AI. But how much is adequate? You don't want it perfect, or people will give up and you'll get bad buzz. But you don't want it a push-over, as people will get bored quickly, and you'll get bad buzz. So, you want a sweet spot in the middle. See the problem? Most games are trying to hit that spot where their percieved average customer will stay busy having fun with the game for a weekend to a few weeks. So no need to make a really good AI.

	11-09-2005 18:41									#40
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Adagio I didn't hate it in fighting games because I mostly just played SP anyway. Games like Street Fighter is more a SP game than a MP game,

ROFL.

	11-09-2005 18:52									#41
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Darkstar It would be relatively easy to built an AI that could beat any human in any RTS. Just take $$$. So, why don't they do it? Because it takes $$$$ and time.

Actually developers dont make AIs really good because most of the time, they themselves dont fully understand the game mechanics. Just because u invent a game doesnt mean u know everything about it. Whoever came up with a game of football came up with rules for football but he didnt instantly possess all viable strategies for it. Even if they had infinite money and time, they still wouldnt know how to make a half decent AI. They would need to hire some pros who spends billions of hours playing the game and studying the system first. It won't be that easy.

quote: If you are targetting SP, then you need an adequate SP AI. But how much is adequate? You don't want it perfect, or people will give up and you'll get bad buzz. But you don't want it a push-over, as people will get bored quickly, and you'll get bad buzz. So, you want a sweet spot in the middle. See the problem? Most games are trying to hit that spot where their percieved average customer will stay busy having fun with the game for a weekend to a few weeks. So no need to make a really good AI.

There are games with difficulty levels... However theres serious problems with difficulty levels because most of the time developers use the same ol AI with handicaps, ala CIV3, not with varied AI levels....

	11-09-2005 19:00									#42
	Tired of ads?

UR and Dr S:

Could AI be built for RTS games that can beat the best human player?: Yes, maybe. i personally think its doable.

Is it simple?: Hell no. They simplify (aka cheat) all sorts of things that AIs have to deal with in RTS right now... surveillance, reacting to enemy actions.. etc. and yet they still cant make a half decent ai.....

and UR, programming a AI to play Chess VS RTS is a black n white difference. In chess you can have an AI calculate strategies based on opponents moves. In RTS, enemies actions by default are (supposed to be) hidden for AIs. a simple AI script will probably **** itself over and crash within first 2 min of gameplay. how would it know what action to take when it doesnt know how to react to an enemy that doesnt exist to him.

Last edited by Zero on 11-09-2005 at 19:06