Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
Question is how difficult it would be to code chess-winning bot and how difficult it would be to code GW-winning bot.
|
Game Theory, Discussion 1
Fril Estelin
tmakinen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
Question is how difficult it would be to code chess-winning bot and how difficult it would be to code GW-winning bot.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
The change between the 2 games is not exponential, they're of the same class of problems and thus require roughly speaking the same difficulty for programming bots
|
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tmakinen
Writing a bot capable of independently playing GW PvP on top level just isn't feasible. And to make it clear, this is not a question about aimbots (computer augmented human play) which are just cheating. Granted, AI can have superior reflexes but it completely lacks insight and is thus unable to anticipate future actions if they are not easily numerable like in chess.
|
So in practice your point stands, but not in theory
. (which means that you may be able to get close enough to human-like abilities, see the Turing Test for the Loebner Prize)
aapo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by [DE]
You are assuming that guild wars is a one-dimensional game. And the idea of anyone, even progamers from korea who play starcraft, microing 7 heroes + there own bar to do everything an 8 man team does it GvG is extremely ridiculous. It's hard enough to play one bar in GvG. But you're suggesting that you can micromanage EVERYTHING. You're gonna need more than 400+ APM and a much superior brain I'm afraid.
|
tmakinen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
You're theoretically wrong tmakinen, it's perfectly doable
|
Since GW runs on computers which are discrete, the game only simulates continuity and thus there are states which can be counted. Let's say that the discrete unit of time in GW is around 10 ms, i.e., the game updates 100 times per second. Let's also assume that the average degrees of freedom per player at each unit time is 20 (i.e., at any given point of time, you as a player can decide to initiate about 20 different types of action). There are 8+8 = 16 players in GvG, thus providing 20^16 = 6.5e20 degrees of freedom at every 'turn'. If every atom in the known universe was a supercomputer at your disposal, you might be able to search half a second forward from a given position before the very last proton decays and the universe as we know it ceases to exist. It so isn't doable.
Shasgaliel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
- Are you sure you know it can be adjusted? ANET had to limit hero numbers in HA and GvG because they were too good.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
- That's not even the case. What makes good team in your opinion? I know: communication, coordination, ... |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
The game works simply based on those errors. Take away source of errors (the human player) and you'll win.
|
Depends on the errors. Sometimes errors lead to win since they may open a possibilities not available before. How will you recognize that the error is not for example a simple trap? So far no AI can do that.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fril Estelin
You're theoretically wrong tmakinen, it's perfectly doable, just too costly (and not very useful...). Advanced AI like neural or evolutionary programming can already do some nice stuff, but expert knowledge can lead to extremely competent AI, which combined with superior speed and memory will outperform a human team. But we're talking supercomputer-like computing (which could be done with a Mac G5) running very, very costly software here. As I said above, the state space of the problem hasn't changed in nature between chess and GW, sure the CPU-memory cost is growing linearly which means that usual programming will require exponential growth in CPU or memory, unless you're doing very smart stuff.
So in practice your point stands, but not in theory . (which means that you may be able to get close enough to human-like abilities, see the Turing Test for the Loebner Prize) |
There is no CPU able to handle unlimited possibilities. So to make decision they will need to rely on estimations. Which are biased by default. You can optimize but the random factor still counts. Therefore there is no way Chess is similar to GW. In theory you can make perfect chess bot but for GW not. Self learning AI does not help. Just make a situation relatively new and you have great chance to win. Of course next time your trick will not work but you can do another one.... The main argument in my opinion is that humans will be always better at predicting other humans than any AI which does not matter much in top level chess but matters a lot in GW pvp.
aapo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tmakinen
And the answer is: writing a bot capable of playing chess on grandmaster level is easy since chess is a discrete state game with a very easily searchable tree. Getting better is just a matter of throwing in more computational power. Download some freely available chess bot like Fritz if you want to be soundly beaten. Writing a bot capable of independently playing GW PvP on top level just isn't feasible. And to make it clear, this is not a question about aimbots (computer augmented human play) which are just cheating. Granted, AI can have superior reflexes but it completely lacks insight and is thus unable to anticipate future actions if they are not easily numerable like in chess.
|
Movement (forward, backward, left&right -strafe)
Skills (1-8)
Selecting target (player-controllable)
Weapon slots (1-4)
The attack button
(total 17)
There's 20 possibilities for the first move in chess. It should be noted that movement is secondary to objective in Guild Wars, i.e. it makes little difference whether you kite this or that way, but formation is the key in chess. It's more difficult to calculate which piece should move in chess and in what direction, than it is to either approach or keep away from certain enemies in GW.
tmakinen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
- GW doesn't have many actions, most which have only one consequence (...) (total 17)
There's 20 possibilities for the first move in chess. |
Well, although this is certainly game theory, it is also as much out of topic as you seem to be out of depth here.
aapo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tmakinen
Since GW runs on computers which are discrete, the game only simulates continuity and thus there are states which can be counted. Let's say that the discrete unit of time in GW is around 10 ms, i.e., the game updates 100 times per second. Let's also assume that the average degrees of freedom per player at each unit time is 20 (i.e., at any given point of time, you as a player can decide to initiate about 20 different types of action). There are 8+8 = 16 players in GvG, thus providing 20^16 = 6.5e20 degrees of freedom at every 'turn'. If every atom in the known universe was a supercomputer at your disposal, you might be able to search half a second forward from a given position before the very last proton decays and the universe as we know it ceases to exist. It so isn't doable.
|
Example: How to defend
Calculate how many strikes of adrenaline enemy Warrior has by adding together connected hits and subtracting used adrenaline skills (which are shown). Calculate threat level estimation based on that. Calculate recharge times for every offensive spell enemy has used. Danger-level for own character depends on proximity to enemy. As enemies turn towards target they're about to spike, the program can anticipate it and use appropriate pre-prot method. If skillbars are correct, nothing dies (or dies less often than enemies).
Attack works like the best of Ritspike teams used to do: targets don't stay at full health, so it's easy to scan for low health targets and initiate necessary damage spells to kill them.
Remember: It doesn't have to strive for complete information. It only has to strive for necessary information. I'd probably start by coding spike capability and then start alpha-testing. But that's already available as macro for our current heroes.
tmakinen
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
Degrees of freedom are 17
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
which it much less than chess.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
Program doesn't have to anticipate like that
|
lemming
Talk about a major derail.
aapo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tmakinen
17 per character, I have now told it three times in a row and it still doesn't seem to register on planet aapo? There are 16 characters which can act simultaneously, thus the complete number of degrees of freedom in a situation is 17^16 = 5e19. You can't evaluate the merit of any single action in isolation from other actions.
|
Fril Estelin
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by tmakinen
Well, although this is certainly game theory, it is also as much out of topic as you seem to be out of depth here.
|
pumpkin pie
please move your personal non topic related argument, elsewhere lol. Thank you very much, and happy turkey day! except the turkeys
I was enjoying reading this thread and have actually given it a long thought, the conclusion is you cannot hypothesize a community of possibily 5 million players or even 1 million, supposing the other 4 are all mule account or xunlai prediction account.
that is why all the points brought forth are agreeable to me. lol
need more time to come to a conclusive "hypothesis" and Arena Net or any other online gamming company would kill to get a hand on that informations
I was enjoying reading this thread and have actually given it a long thought, the conclusion is you cannot hypothesize a community of possibily 5 million players or even 1 million, supposing the other 4 are all mule account or xunlai prediction account.
that is why all the points brought forth are agreeable to me. lol
need more time to come to a conclusive "hypothesis" and Arena Net or any other online gamming company would kill to get a hand on that informations
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
- I just thought that maybe we have a bit different definition for the word 'skill'. 400 button presses per minute requires nimbleness and endurance. However, the game of Starcraft is largely pre-defined, so such thing as button presses per minute directly correlates with your ability to play the game. I'm thinking skill as in how many different factors player has to consider.
|
aapo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
I refrained from entering this thread, but this was too much. You don't know what the hell you are talking about sir.
|
In Chess, capturing opponent pieces is not always a good idea. Capturing them might expose your more valuable pieces. In Poker, playing out every hand is not always a good idea. If you play every hand, you lose money if opponents have better hands.
Do you see the fundamental difference between these games? In latter two, what you do defines your success. In former two, there's clear objective and way of playing which players must strive to achieve. If you sit around with your energy full, you're not being effective player. If your skills are not recharging all the time, those skills are not being used effectively. Simple as that.
Avarre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
- In game of Starcraft, building units on your barracks and hatchery is always a good idea. The more you build, the better your odds of winning. In Guildwars, spamming Fireball (if you have that on your bar) on recharge is always a good idea. The more you spam the faster enemies die.
|
Pretty sure everyone knows apm is not related to skill.
In the case of Guild Wars, you don't spam attacks. DPS does not kill people, burst damage does - hence the spike-dependent meta. Thus it is not preferable to simply spam, especially in the case of any form of conditional/interrupt skill.
Abedeus
Quote:
| In the case of Guild Wars, you don't spam attacks. DPS does not kill people, burst damage does - hence the spike-dependent meta. Thus it is not preferable to simply spam, especially in the case of any form of conditional/interrupt skill. |
Sure, they have burst DPS, but it's not that big. Just enough to finish off targets one by one.
Avarre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Abedeus
What about pressure builds?
Sure, they have burst DPS, but it's not that big. Just enough to finish off targets one by one. |
maraxusofk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
- In game of Starcraft, building units on your barracks and hatchery is always a good idea. The more you build, the better your odds of winning. In Guildwars, spamming Fireball (if you have that on your bar) on recharge is always a good idea. The more you spam the faster enemies die.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Avarre
Even pressure builds generally rely on varying bursts of damage. Maybe some older builds (KGYU) are exceptions, but the bulk of pressure builds involve spikes of some sort. I can't think of any builds that involve outright spamming skills on recharge as was suggested - there's proper timing, targeting, and other factors to include.
|
Akolo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
spamming Fireball (if you have that on your bar) on recharge is always a good idea. The more you spam the faster enemies die.
|
weretoad
lol game theory is this really tight thing i'm reading about in a book about social problems and group logic. i was disappointed when i read lol. very intersting
aapo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Akolo
just had to chip in. this shows your true nature? :P
|
maraxusofk
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
- How would you use the skill Fireball?
|
Akolo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
- How would you use the skill Fireball?
|
![[DE]](/static/static/../Img/avatar38220_14.gif){kind=avatar}
[DE]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Akolo
Its very useful outside of my skillbar.
|
aapo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Akolo
Its very useful outside of my skillbar.
|
[DE]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
- So you don't know how to use a simple skill like Fireball. Points go to maraxusofk.
|
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
- In game of Starcraft, building units on your barracks and hatchery is always a good idea. The more you build, the better your odds of winning. In Guildwars, spamming Fireball (if you have that on your bar) on recharge is always a good idea. The more you spam the faster enemies die.
In Chess, capturing opponent pieces is not always a good idea. Capturing them might expose your more valuable pieces. In Poker, playing out every hand is not always a good idea. If you play every hand, you lose money if opponents have better hands. Do you see the fundamental difference between these games? In latter two, what you do defines your success. In former two, there's clear objective and way of playing which players must strive to achieve. If you sit around with your energy full, you're not being effective player. If your skills are not recharging all the time, those skills are not being used effectively. Simple as that. |
Your theory has so many problems. Spamming skills on recharge in Guild Wars is going to get you nowhere (unless the skill is inbalanced but thats another topic altogether). You can be super effective at Starcraft or Guild Wars and still lose horribly because a player is better at adapting on the fly than you are. In Poker or Chess you can make a stupid suboptimal plays and still come out winning the game (especially in poker). But even in those games what you do in the long term determines your success.
Faster APM in Starcraft means almost nothing. There are guys with 400+ apm losing to guys with 200+ all the time. And lastly, spamming fireball on recharge (like you suggested) is not always a good idea. What about saving it for spikes? Besides, good players are questioning why you have fireball on your bar to begin with.
moriz
skills in guild wars are limited by energy/adrenaline/recharge. troops in starcraft are limited by economy. for both, it's sometimes better to NOT use the skill, or NOT build troops. in a fast factory build in starcraft, building too many marines will cause you to lose. if you are doing a 3 hatch muta build, you don't produce anything on all three hatcheries/lair right before the spire goes up, to save larvae and minerals/gas so you can pump out 9 mutalisks at the same time.
all aapo has shown is that he has superficial knowledge of how these games are played. to him: kindly stfu before making yourself sound even more stupid than you already are.
all aapo has shown is that he has superficial knowledge of how these games are played. to him: kindly stfu before making yourself sound even more stupid than you already are.
aapo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
Dude you are so wrong here its not even funny. In any reputable game of skill, what you do determines your success. Anybody who claims "there is a clear objective which you must strive to achieve" at ANYTHING is probably bad at that specific thing.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
Your theory has so many problems. Spamming skills on recharge in Guild Wars is going to get you nowhere (unless the skill is inbalanced but thats another topic altogether).
|
I took Fireball as an example skill since your typical nm FoW PUG has 3-4 Elementalist "nukers" casting Meteor Shower on single Abyssal, which is about the most ineffective skill usage as can be. These players are bad because they don't understand the primary resources of this game - time and damage. Character classes are built around these. Ranger interrupts to prevent damage, or prevent damage-prevention. Monk prots/heals to prevent enemy damage. Blind on Warrior reduces damage, Shame on enemy Monk increases own team's damage on tertiary level. This might sound difficult since average IQ of posters on this forums seems to be around 80.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by moriz
skills in guild wars are limited by energy/adrenaline/recharge. troops in starcraft are limited by economy. for both, it's sometimes better to NOT use the skill, or NOT build troops. in a fast factory build in starcraft, building too many marines will cause you to lose. if you are doing a 3 hatch muta build, you don't produce anything on all three hatcheries/lair right before the spire goes up, to save larvae and minerals/gas so you can pump out 9 mutalisks at the same time.
|
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
no u
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
Get me nowhere? What is the fastest way to get 10 minions up for minion master? To tap the minion skill as soon as there are corpses and possibly beat corpse control competition that way. On other extreme, if you never actually use that Resurrection Signet, you might as well go in with 7 skills. Potential of this kind has little place in Guild Wars. It's a simple theory: use skills which give most benefit. No need for hex removal in PvE, since skills like Heal Party take care of whatever minor pressure there is.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
I took Fireball as an example skill since your typical nm FoW PUG has 3-4 Elementalist "nukers" casting Meteor Shower on single Abyssal, which is about the most ineffective skill usage as can be. These players are bad because they don't understand the primary resources of this game - time and damage. Character classes are built around these. Ranger interrupts to prevent damage, or prevent damage-prevention. Monk prots/heals to prevent enemy damage. Blind on Warrior reduces damage, Shame on enemy Monk increases own team's damage on tertiary level. This might sound difficult since average IQ of posters on this forums seems to be around 80.
|
If you are going to make claims such as "apm being everything in Starcraft" or "what you do in certain games not mattering since there is a clear objective you must achieve", you better back up your claims or prove to us you know what the hell you are talking about by actually performing, instead of saying everybody but you has an IQ of 80 and running away.
aapo
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
You keep trying to make a point and then supporting it was terrible examples that are never used in actual Guild Wars competitive play. If somebody with no credentials whatsoever (as far as I know) tries to make a point, they really need good examples.
|
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Go ahead and write me an essay how much I "lack credibility" or how my ladder position isn't quite up to your standards. You're not even participating in the discussion, just had to throw in some slurs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DreamWind
If you are going to make claims such as "apm being everything in Starcraft" or "what you do in certain games not mattering since there is a clear objective you must achieve", you better back up your claims or prove to us you know what the hell you are talking about by actually performing, instead of saying everybody but you has an IQ of 80 and running away.
|
2. We're talking about game theory here. Go compare your e-penis with someone else.
Shayne Hawke
I'd have to agree with your hypothesis, although I feel you're giving veterans a little bit too much credit in some fashions.
Though there may be a vast world in GW, it's not a very changing world in the sense that what's in one place one day will more than likely be there the next. A well-balanced or skilled player will be able to handle all of such areas with ease, but there are few reasons which would bring them to do so. Most would probably rather stick to doing elite areas or some series of actions over and over to achieve a reward, and the actions they do depend on their interests.
A recent example of that would be how people used the new Kurzick/Luxon faction update to find a more enjoyable way of getting faction, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will try to do a little bit of everything all the time.
Also, an idea of teamwork doesn't really show itself in a team of one human, three heroes, and four henchmen as it might in a team full of players. True, there is a degree of synergy to be mastered in being able to adjust builds to accomplish different tasks, and then applying that to make a team of builds work together, but that synergy is also found in human groups as well. Playing with humans would also force players to communicate their ideas with each other instead of just c-spacing or something.
Good idea overall, and I would agree with saying that being a veteran of GW has improved my ability to adapt to new kinds or styles of games.
Though there may be a vast world in GW, it's not a very changing world in the sense that what's in one place one day will more than likely be there the next. A well-balanced or skilled player will be able to handle all of such areas with ease, but there are few reasons which would bring them to do so. Most would probably rather stick to doing elite areas or some series of actions over and over to achieve a reward, and the actions they do depend on their interests.
A recent example of that would be how people used the new Kurzick/Luxon faction update to find a more enjoyable way of getting faction, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they will try to do a little bit of everything all the time.
Also, an idea of teamwork doesn't really show itself in a team of one human, three heroes, and four henchmen as it might in a team full of players. True, there is a degree of synergy to be mastered in being able to adjust builds to accomplish different tasks, and then applying that to make a team of builds work together, but that synergy is also found in human groups as well. Playing with humans would also force players to communicate their ideas with each other instead of just c-spacing or something.
Good idea overall, and I would agree with saying that being a veteran of GW has improved my ability to adapt to new kinds or styles of games.
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
Go ahead and write me an essay how much I "lack credibility" or how my ladder position isn't quite up to your standards. You're not even participating in the discussion, just had to throw in some slurs. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
1. I never made such claims.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
However, the game of Starcraft is largely pre-defined, so such thing as button presses per minute directly correlates with your ability to play the game.
Do you see the fundamental difference between these games? In latter two, what you do defines your success. In former two, there's clear objective and way of playing which players must strive to achieve. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
2. We're talking about game theory here. Go compare your e-penis with someone else.
|
[DE]
This trolling needs to stop. If aapo isn't a troll then I'm amazed of how much ignorance can radiate from one person.
aapo
I said:
"However, the game of Starcraft is largely pre-defined, so such thing as button presses per minute directly correlates with your ability to play the game."
You read that as:
"apm being everything in Starcraft"
I said:
"there's clear objective and way of playing which players must strive to achieve."
You read that as:
"what you do in certain games not mattering since there is a clear objective you must achieve"
- Here comes the troll card? Are you going to call me Hitler next? That would be the classic ending for debate where opponent doesn't even try to counter things said but rather tries to insult character making these claims. You're the one who is trolling here, mister.
"However, the game of Starcraft is largely pre-defined, so such thing as button presses per minute directly correlates with your ability to play the game."
You read that as:
"apm being everything in Starcraft"
I said:
"there's clear objective and way of playing which players must strive to achieve."
You read that as:
"what you do in certain games not mattering since there is a clear objective you must achieve"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by [DE]
This trolling needs to stop. If aapo isn't a troll then I'm amazed of how much ignorance can radiate from one person.
|
Avarre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
I said:
"However, the game of Starcraft is largely pre-defined, so such thing as button presses per minute directly correlates with your ability to play the game." You read that as: "apm being everything in Starcraft" |
DreamWind
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
I said: "However, the game of Starcraft is largely pre-defined, so such thing as button presses per minute directly correlates with your ability to play the game."
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
I said:"there's clear objective and way of playing which players must strive to achieve."
|
Again...if you are going to make wild claims, you are going to need a lot more evidence to back them up.
moriz
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aapo
- So you're supporting my point that "strategy" in these games is really nothing more than gambling on your opponent's expectations?
|
btw, if you really want to see how your "bot" will work in starcraft, it's already been made for you. their names are flash, jaedong, and beSt. they are all very mechanically sound and have dizzying high APMs... and none of them managed to win the last OSL championship. the winner of that tournament, stork, have less than 2/3 of the APMs of these three, and managed to beat everyone (including beSt in an epic semifinals). obviously, being able to execute build orders like a robot won't help you win.