first gen tacnet basis layed?, starcraft AI |
first gen tacnet basis layed?, starcraft AI |
Jan 21 2011, 04:12 PM
Post
#1
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/01...competition.ars
the more i read this the more i envisioned some kind of military assist system. Especially when they mentioned building a threat map and using that to route various units around. But the attract/repel system for handling threat evaluation is also interesting, especially when they added a self-adjusting component (run 300+ rounds of the same enemy inside a corral and by the end if it the threat level of a type of enemy has been adjusted accordingly). |
|
|
Jan 21 2011, 05:02 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,782 Joined: 28-August 09 Member No.: 17,566 |
How can this go to a Starcraft bot?
Has anyone played against a Supreme Commander 2 Ai? Those things are ridiculous, and they keep getting better. |
|
|
Jan 21 2011, 05:53 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/01...competition.ars the more i read this the more i envisioned some kind of military assist system. Especially when they mentioned building a threat map and using that to route various units around. But the attract/repel system for handling threat evaluation is also interesting, especially when they added a self-adjusting component (run 300+ rounds of the same enemy inside a corral and by the end if it the threat level of a type of enemy has been adjusted accordingly). Hard problems that this doesn't solve: threat evaluation when you don't have stat tables for all combatants, computer vision, unreliable units (weapons can jam, soldiers can get distracted, etc.), or for that matter even in-game pathfinding (their technique is vulnerable to local maxima, but it just so happens that because flying units don't need to route around anything they're immune to the issue). It's an awesome achievement, but looking at this as a "first gen tacnet basis" is like, I don't know, looking at hip replacements and pacemakers as "first gen cyberware basis"; in some sense it's correct, but not in any useful way. How can this go to a Starcraft bot? What? How can it not, given that it's a Starcraft AI competition? ~J |
|
|
Jan 21 2011, 05:54 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
I found the article interesting for other reasons.
|
|
|
Jan 21 2011, 08:30 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 186 Joined: 4-May 08 From: Brazil Member No.: 15,955 |
Hm... know we know how Mirage will be born. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
|
|
|
Jan 21 2011, 09:01 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,989 Joined: 28-July 09 From: Somewhere along the brazilian coast Member No.: 17,437 |
Hard problems that this doesn't solve: threat evaluation when you don't have stat tables for all combatants, computer vision, unreliable units (weapons can jam, soldiers can get distracted, etc.), or for that matter even in-game pathfinding (their technique is vulnerable to local maxima, but it just so happens that because flying units don't need to route around anything they're immune to the issue). Even if you don't have stat tables, you can infer some information given the past results. Basically, you will be adding some sort of fuzzy values to a table and work from it. Pathfinding is always a problem, but as I understood, they didn't delve too much in pathfinding because they had little time to improve the built-in pathfinding system. |
|
|
Jan 21 2011, 09:07 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
but as I understood, they didn't delve too much in pathfinding because they had little time to improve the built-in pathfinding system. Actually you'll find the opposite. The built in pathfinder is so terrible they never used it. QUOTE (Page 3) Our solution to the problem of overlord control and scouting had an uninspired beginning. StarCraft’s built-in path planning for ground units is terrible, an irritant that has hindered players for over a decade. As development progressed, Dan decided that we weren’t going to put up with the indignity of watching units getting stuck on walls and chasing their own tails, so we implemented our own path planning.
|
|
|
Jan 21 2011, 09:21 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 1,989 Joined: 28-July 09 From: Somewhere along the brazilian coast Member No.: 17,437 |
That's what I meant, they didn't have enough time to improve the pathfinding the game had (because it was a pile of crap and no one wanted to touch it).
I just didn't add the part inside parenthesis (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
Jan 21 2011, 09:38 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Even if you don't have stat tables, you can infer some information given the past results. Basically, you will be adding some sort of fuzzy values to a table and work from it. But that kind of learning is an entirely different problem which isn't even attempted (and didn't need to be) by this bot. That's what I meant, they didn't have enough time to improve the pathfinding the game had (because it was a pile of crap and no one wanted to touch it). I just didn't add the part inside parenthesis (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) What? They can't improve the game's pathfinding—they don't have the source code, they interface with the game through a hook someone was able to make using DLL injection. They wrote their own pathfinding, by which I mean that when the bot decides "this unit over here should go over there" it doesn't issue a direction to the game for the unit to do that (and thus let the in-game pathfinding figure out how to accomplish that), it issues a direction to the game for the unit to move a small distance along a route it makes itself and keeps doing that until the destination is reached. ~J |
|
|
Jan 21 2011, 09:47 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
|
|
|
Jan 21 2011, 10:01 PM
Post
#11
|
|
panda! Group: Members Posts: 10,331 Joined: 8-March 02 From: north of central europe Member No.: 2,242 |
Hard problems that this doesn't solve: threat evaluation when you don't have stat tables for all combatants, computer vision, unreliable units (weapons can jam, soldiers can get distracted, etc.), or for that matter even in-game pathfinding (their technique is vulnerable to local maxima, but it just so happens that because flying units don't need to route around anything they're immune to the issue). All issues that would be worked on would it really be used as a tacnet system. Threat evaluation can be done on the fly based on reported observations, lidar (better then some kind of camera system at this time, imo), maybe one can even fingerprint weapons based on noises made. Sure, one can not have stat tables for combatants, but their weapons can be statted (tho concealed explosives could be a issue). The first gen or two may be more strategic then tactical, as they could (or perhaps even already exist) help evaluate a rapidly shifting combat environment with data feed in from spotter drones, sats and various other sensor systems. |
|
|
Jan 21 2011, 11:01 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,006 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
All issues that would be worked on would it really be used as a tacnet system. Threat evaluation can be done on the fly based on reported observations, lidar (better then some kind of camera system at this time, imo), maybe one can even fingerprint weapons based on noises made. Sure, one can not have stat tables for combatants, but their weapons can be statted (tho concealed explosives could be a issue). The first gen or two may be more strategic then tactical, as they could (or perhaps even already exist) help evaluate a rapidly shifting combat environment with data feed in from spotter drones, sats and various other sensor systems. But my point is that while this is legitimate research, what they've done is still much easier than all of those problems "that would be worked on". To give another shot at the illustrative analogy approach, it's like pointing to a successful rubber tire and declaring it a "first-gen car basis"—it's a step forward, but such a tiny step compared to the overall set of problems that it's really not a reasonable description. ~J |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 09:54 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.