3 ms·

I think one major difference between pvp games and games like mario/pokemon campaign is that in the former case, the machine is competing with a meat learning a

by setr 8y ago

I think one major difference between pvp games and games like mario/pokemon campaign is that in the former case, the machine is competing with a meat learning algorithm. That is, it doesn’t have to find a good enough solution to a static map, but best an alternative optimization strategy (powered by wetware) before it can reasonably claim success. That, and ofc, games with a competitive scene come about because of their complexity: a pvp game is not expected to be “won” in the fashion that a single player game can be. In fact, ideally there would be no perfect/optimal play; merely optimal play given a particular meta, which should shift as the meta does (a near-optimal strategy is found, but as it becomes common, a normally weak but counter-strategy becomes more useful, in a perfect world this would be acyclic)

WorkLifeBalance 8y ago
Meta doesn't imply cycling, just that the best strategy may be a mixed strategy which involves randomly picking between different pure strategies. Instead of cycling, the meta ought to converge to a Nash equilibrium. With the right mixed strategy, an opponent choosing a pure strategy would be at a disadvantage. Randomising over a huge choice of pure strategies may be infeasible of course and in the real world players have to train for particular strategies which is why we see meta shifts. (Plus of course in the real world the conditions (assumptions) change due to gameplay patches.
- Filligree 8y ago
  However, the meta does in fact exist. The optimal, mixed strategy is only optimal when your opponent uses the same mixed strategy. We don't, so if the AI can predict us then it can do better. An optimal AI should therefore include theory of mind, and human-prediction in particular, such that it can stay ahead of the meta.
- setr 8y ago
  I wasn’t suggesting that meta’s naturally cycle, but that the ideal meta (for human play, based on my experience on what people enjoy about pvp games that aren’t purely emphasizing skill) is one that lacks an optimal strategy, because the usage of an optimal strategy implies its own downfall, and that this meta-countering operation is acyclic. (A cyclic meta is likely created by accident, and kills the pvp community if left as-is) And notably, a random strategy selection being optimal is non-ideal for human consumption. And as you note this doesn’t naturally occur in human pvp, because there are heavy natural biases (information spread, natural leaders in the subject, limited skillsets, time for the community to learn between dev balance shifts, etc). But even if we could have it, I don’t think we’d want it. I think what competitive pvp wants are somewhat obvious optimal solutions, with natural counter-play. But these near-optimal solutions are tied to the current popular strategy. That is, half the fun is figuring out what the community at large is up to, and tracking it. Which, finally, implies that the kind of games that grow a significant pvp community are naturally selected because they offer no clear, and static, optimal strategy. If an ML program did find such a strategy (outside of requiring superhuman capabilities, like zerglings dodging siege tanks), it would either kill the community, or get patched out. You could consider the ML algorithm as competing with an adverserial meat learning algorithm, in both strategy and spirit

by setr 8y ago

WorkLifeBalance 8y ago

Meta doesn't imply cycling, just that the best strategy may be a mixed strategy which involves randomly picking between different pure strategies. Instead of cycling, the meta ought to converge to a Nash equilibrium. With the right mixed strategy, an opponent choosing a pure strategy would be at a disadvantage. Randomising over a huge choice of pure strategies may be infeasible of course and in the real world players have to train for particular strategies which is why we see meta shifts. (Plus of course in the real world the conditions (assumptions) change due to gameplay patches.

Filligree 8y ago
However, the meta does in fact exist. The optimal, mixed strategy is only optimal when your opponent uses the same mixed strategy. We don't, so if the AI can predict us then it can do better. An optimal AI should therefore include theory of mind, and human-prediction in particular, such that it can stay ahead of the meta.
setr 8y ago
I wasn’t suggesting that meta’s naturally cycle, but that the ideal meta (for human play, based on my experience on what people enjoy about pvp games that aren’t purely emphasizing skill) is one that lacks an optimal strategy, because the usage of an optimal strategy implies its own downfall, and that this meta-countering operation is acyclic. (A cyclic meta is likely created by accident, and kills the pvp community if left as-is) And notably, a random strategy selection being optimal is non-ideal for human consumption. And as you note this doesn’t naturally occur in human pvp, because there are heavy natural biases (information spread, natural leaders in the subject, limited skillsets, time for the community to learn between dev balance shifts, etc). But even if we could have it, I don’t think we’d want it. I think what competitive pvp wants are somewhat obvious optimal solutions, with natural counter-play. But these near-optimal solutions are tied to the current popular strategy. That is, half the fun is figuring out what the community at large is up to, and tracking it. Which, finally, implies that the kind of games that grow a significant pvp community are naturally selected because they offer no clear, and static, optimal strategy. If an ML program did find such a strategy (outside of requiring superhuman capabilities, like zerglings dodging siege tanks), it would either kill the community, or get patched out. You could consider the ML algorithm as competing with an adverserial meat learning algorithm, in both strategy and spirit