5 ms·
Well, you know, it would probably be an enormous investment to get a general-purpose bot that could win the tournament, but you could write a simple bot with si
by mquander 17y ago
Well, you know, it would probably be an enormous investment to get a general-purpose bot that could win the tournament, but you could write a simple bot with simple strategies pretty quickly (assuming that the API is sane.) For example, you could write a bot that always executes the same kind of rush right away, or one that just tries to expand absolutely everywhere on the map as fast as it can until it has X supply of workers. That's both fun and a great addition to the competition since it diversifies the ecosystem that the serious bots have to deal with.
- eslifka 17y agoI agree. I doubt I'll be able to invest the time to truly compete. But I definitely plan on creating something on the simpler end for fun. And if I can get a bot going that doesn't crash, why not submit it? And given a year until the deadline I see no drawbacks in playing with this casually.
- Tichy 17y agoJust for laughs I guess I could try genetic programming. Something that evolves would interest me the most, anyway.
- roundsquare 17y agoI'm fully with you on that one. I think the most interesting part is going to be creating a usable state space and reactions.
- Tichy 17y agoSeeing as there already seem to be a lot of people involved in Starcraft AI, writing a WeeWar bot seems more rewarding to me for the time being. I don't think there are any good WeeWar bots yet. Besides, it might be used by a lot of people, for example newbies who want to train.
- Erf 17y agoIn programming AI players for various games, I've found that stupid algorithms with excellently-tuned parameters beat smart algorithms with decently-tuned parameters.
- roundsquare 17y agoAny examples or intuition about why?
- Tichy 17y agoI don't know, but I could imagine overfitting could have something to do with it. Also simpler models are probably more robust.