Are there any strategy games that train their AI with actual, real AI training systems, instead of using hand-coded AI decisionmaking?
It feels like a company like Creative Assembly could use always-online functionality to track all their players' moves, then use that data to train a new AI. Then, send the newly trained AI as a free update to players.
The more players play, the harder the AI would get.
 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
|
Blitzkrieg 3
Command Modern Operations also has an AI like this, but it's for militaries only. https://www.nsin.us/news/2021-09-20-ai-challenge/
>But it's for militaries only
When will the oppression end?
>they made an AI for the autism sim
It's over, this is how Skynet gets its start
Terminator RTS when?
adaptive AIs turn the game into abusing the adaptation mechanism
When people want to ruin their experience they will do it any way they can, people that want to actually enjoy the experience of the game wont be some tryhard loser whose entire self worth is predicated on beating a fricking script ai.
The bigger problem with training the AI is being able to build a scalable easy,normal and hard mode.
oh stfu pajeet
Checking digits and I am not a streetshitter, just tired of people saying that people will abuse mechanics when that thing will always happen and at the end of the by abusing mechanics you are just spoiling your own fun, videogames are just that games and if you abuse their limits dont be suprised when the experience is ruined.
If the AI is trained on the data of the playerbase at large, the mechanical abuse of some players will affect the experience of other players, even if they're all playing singleplayer.
This is why you enable a system for players to flag matches where they saw their opponents abuse mechanics for their own gain,so these matches arent what you train the ai.
>spend a shitload of money on competent AI programmers
>spend a shitload of money on compute for training
>produce content that will be enjoyed by maybe 0.4% of the playerbase
The cost-benefit just isn't there: even the bonus opportunity to force always-online on the cattle isn't worth it since most of it just accepts it anyways, no excuse needed.
>normally you adapt to how the AI plays
>this new AI can adapt to how you play
>suddenly you should stop adapting else you're a moron ruining your own experience
Analyzing a challenge and adapting to overcome it IS the strategy game experience, you moron.
Let's make it clear, most "adaptive" AIs fail not because they adapt, but because they cheat like motherfrickers to make the adaptation mechanics obvious and thus leave the player no "fair" option to overcome them.
>The bigger problem with training the AI is being able to build a scalable easy,normal and hard mode.
Honestly, just train different AI for each one and if you want it switchable just switch them up mid-game forcing AI to adapt to shitty scenario worse AI created
>just do 3x the work with datasets 3x smaller
Incredibly stupid idea.
>Copy-pasting is now accounted work
The only real difference would be keeping three separate servers doing to host it, not creating it in the first place.
You can't copy-paste training across different data sets, and you can't reduce training proportionally to dataset size (on the contrary, you might have to increase it to compensate).
So yes, training one model per skill bracket would require a lot more work than just training a single model.
and with a scripted ai you can just abuse the script
same shit
>DeepMind
Does it cheat by having access to information that a normal player wouldn't have?Or does it play by the same rules?
For Starcraft 2 they made a semi-cheating one (could micro units without panning the camera to them) and a regular one. Even the semi-cheating one still used the default game UI to interact with units.
of course the bot wins a game where its all about clicking fast
AI only needs 3k apm to keep up, please understand.
no, they fixed that and capped its apm to human levels
>morons still think that apm matters
Is this graph meant to demonstrate that APM is somehow unimportant
That graph implies that you are either baiting or a complete moron.
Games that require high APM to be good aren't strategy games, they're spamming games.
Strategy requires critical thinking and decisive actions, and you cannot think critically when you're performing 200 APM, or make decisive actions when they are drowned in a sea of minutiae of hundreds of other actions per second.
Any true strategy game should have a pipeline for the principle of simplification, whereby given enough time, the processes involved in achieving victory require fewer APM's rather than more.
Imo games that require high APM can be strategy games, as long as there is a reasonable ceiling on what APM gives you.
Something like how in fighting games there comes a point where precise execution won't help you unless you learn matchups.
Although I do prefer strategy games where APM doesn't matter during buildup at least. (For example I'm fine with there being advantages during Civ simultaneous rounds when moving units)
It's true you can brute force the game with good mechanics and get up to a fairly high league with simple builds every game that largely ignore what the opponent is doing. But the opposite is also true, where you can get up to masters with intentionally low apm (like 50-60 but zerg a little higher). It's actually harder to play that way and still do well, kind of like the microtransactions mutator in co-op. And for every human, 200+ apm is mostly spam with less than half of that actually doing anything seriously productive.
This. Everyone knows the greatest generals to have ever lived were known for asking their opponents for a 15 minute no rush pact and hated other generals who were better and faster at issuing orders.
Yes that's why we have so many documentaries of Churchill personally destroying Hitler with his massive APM. Man was like Michael J. Fox on near fatal amounts of meth, all you could see in the blackouts was the white hot tip of his cigar jiggling into a blur as he consumed liquid pervitin from his gamer hat.
and the best post of the year 2023 award goes to:
no but it "cheats" by having 2000 apm and microeing multiple pronged attacks of blink stalkers at the same time
>hmm, I havent seen more than one demonstration and am at least 3 years out of data on my information
>better comment
3 years out of date is still pretty fresh when it comes to AI
>3 years out of date on AI
>fresh
On more classical stuff maybe but OpenAI is a vastly different company after chat-GPT went viral and that is still not yet a year old. Their SC2 bot is extremely rudimentary compared to that.
Yeah with the recent developments I expect their next video game project to be generalistic AI, able to shit on you in literally every game.
>Does it cheat by having access to information that a normal player wouldn't have?
Yes. The biggest difference is that it's not constrained by the player's field of view. It can see the entire map at once (not just the minimap, the actual map) and can select units and give orders anywhere at any time. This combined with computer "relflexes" gives is a massive advantage.
>AI will focus fire your units, wiping out squads at a time
>AI will corner camp with pikes and artillery
>AI will scatter their forces and give you too many moving threats to track
>AI will have a thorough mix of units with different names just to confuse you
>AI will make Hammer & Anvil non viable
But shills told me good strategy ai was impossible, how do they cope knowing that it is?
>asiaticlick
>strategy
because it is, AI is still absolute dogshit outside this one particular unit one race has which is perfect to abuse unlimited apm and multi-pronged attack no human with physical limitations of mouse of keyboard normally can make.
>AI can also send messages to taunt and demoralize while it's doing it's 3000apm strategy
Instead of having their own AI, why don't game developers just make like an API for other AIs to interface?
I can beat it
>Anon has advance to the imperial age
>>It feels like a company like Creative Assembly could use always-online functionality to track all their players' moves, then use that data to train a new AI. Then, send the newly trained AI as a free update to players.
That's actually a good idea. CA is a bad example though given it's a bunch of blue haired zoomers trying to keep up with mysterious technology created by the ancients who have long since retired/been sacked.
Doesn't that starcraft AI just abuse unlimited APM and the ability to micro multiple units simultaneously so it can perfectly blink units out of combat as their shields get low?
It was already tested in MOBA and didnt work, a human cant keep up with the ability to scan the entire map in less than 1ms while ordering all the units
yes
The Starcraft 2 AI actually has an APM limit. But of course an AI which is able to shit out 300 APM is going to absolutely slaughter any person with a 500 APM (of randomly clicking between buildings and selecting different unit groups like a spastic).
>Spend enormous amount of money and hardware to create a feature that's going to decrease your playerbase
Why should anyone do something so stupid?
Especially since writing a competent AI without any gimmicks is perfectly doable, but, again, decreases your customer base, so why fricking bother? Civ 5 and nuPDX showed that you WANT to appeal to casuals, because that's where the big buck is. Not some great discovery per se, but those games showed that you can find success in doing so, and alienating your former playerbase is meaningless anyway
>with actual, real AI training systems
We literally didn't develop those yet, you dumb shit
>b-but AI text processors and picture ge...
... aren't even remotely close to an actual AI. It's like calling the AI txt file from AoE1 to be a singularity.
10k APM superbot loses to a human pro pretty handily, he has to delay the game just to show it off.
>better than 99.8 percent of all human players
given that there's like 5 of them left and they play each other in GSL all the time, who the frick cares?
Not yet. Games take 5-6 years to produce and the AI meme is only 1-2 years old. Creative Assembly is creatively bankrupt and Paradox is an emergent roleplaying rather than a strategy studio now, so don't expect them to do it.
the match where the AI built a bunker between vespene gas and CC to micro SCVs into faster mining was pretty crazy. ideally these should be AI that trains on past matches from pros, and then we can have AI ladder gambling with progressively crazier micro techniques.
?t=50
Why is this meme still not dead? You cannot do this as any changes/patches in your game would require you to retrain your AI. And during development stage you're gonna change things a lot. You also have no control over what the hell it does, let's say a player finds a weird behavior of your AI - how are you going to fix it?
Finally, what the frick do you train it to do exactly? To win? Then you're just creating a hyper optimal inhumanely precise AI that is completely unfun to play against (which is ironically far more easily accomplished with a traditional AI anyway).
The whole point is to use smoke and mirrors to create a fun scenario for players to engage with, while also being able to adjust its behavior to suit your needs, which are rarely to stomp. Machine learning does basically the opposite.
>Why is this meme still not dead?
Because SP babbies will never not be scared of playing multiplayer.
Here we see an anon not understanding the difference between scenario gameplay, and emergent gameplay
The best evolving AI that I have experienced, and by 'evolving' I mean AI that learns and adapts according to experience is the AI in Attila Total War.
I swear to God there are times when I feel that it actually became sentient, I have an IQ of 137 and even if I say so myself I'm very good at figuring out and defeating systems, especially those in the most advanced strategy games.
No matter what I do, isolate the enemy diplomatically, starve it of access to resources including human and financial resources, it doesn't matter, somehow it always figures out how to transform zero population, zero wealth, zero food and zero alliances into multiple full strength doom stacks.
I can beat Kasparov chess computer on level 20 but i cannot beat Attila even on easy mode. That is some next level sentient AI, I actually think it uses military grade tech not yet available that was accidentally released into the wild.
the AI just cheats you moron
Someone should make an rts where you play as a boots on ground leader,llike sacrifice but your troops have more autonomy
The best AI is other players of similar or slightly superior intellectual prowess and in game experience.