A.I. Learning In Games

>>378845740
If the AI was too smart the games would be just not fun to play. Even now the enemy AI has to be gimped so it wouldn't perfectly headshot you from across the map with hitscan weapons the nanosecond you show your face from behind a cover.

the more complex the behavior you're looking for, the harder it's going to be for an AI to learn it. also it will have no qualms about using any exploits it finds, because it's just looking for optimum results

basically you're looking at a lot more work for something that, if it works, will just piss players off

Usually not worth the effort

There are a lot easier ways to implement enemies adapting than making an AI for them to adapt organically with. For example your shotgun example, yes you can "teach" them to learn spacing, but you can also just automatically make them do it if the shotgun to other weapons usage ratio is too high, the end result to the player being identical and the work you do much lower

How about a chaingun guy spawned in a giant open space far off in the distance ?

>>378846545
instead of using machine learning to get the game to figure out on its own that it should put that guy there, you could just, you know, put him there when you design the level

>>378846545
what if the Hell Knight had a chaingun?

>>378846710
What if the AI just turned off the computer so the player can't win?

>>378846790
Not if I turn it off first

>>378845740
>What do you guys think of this?
It's a decades old pipe dream for people who don't know how much such a thing would make games unplayable.

An AI doesn't have a human's mechanical and physical handicaps of having a body and interacting mechanically with a game through not one, but two phisical proxies, both prone to comparatively rapid deterioration of performance over time, an AI is faster and infinitely more efficient at processing information and game logic than a player, especially because it has direct access to the code, it can read a player's inputs and so many more things, if you do want to develop a truly unbridled learning AI then games will become nearly unplayable for human beings outside of PVP, while scientifically interesting it has no application in videogames unless you neuter it, and at that point you might as well keep on writing general AI patterns and directives since they work well enough and cost much less in money and human effort and resources.

>>378845740
The marine AI in brutal doom is actually somewhat effective in combat, but their general navigation skills are fucking piss poor.

>>378846846
Recently they made an AI that learned to play Doom via pure visual feedback, like a human. It didn't have cyber arms to use the mouse and keyboard obviously though.

File: 1480302887476.jpg (48KB, 460x259px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 460x259px

the end of human is near

>>378847030
>AI learns to play DOOM
sounds interesting, source?

>>378846830
*AI teleports behind u*

>>378847304
http://vizdoom.cs.put.edu.pl/competition-cig-2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=947bSUtuSQ0

>>378847532

"Nothing personal, fleshbag" *Fires chaingun @ u*

I'd love advanced learning AI in an srpg, tbt, rts, GS, 4X, something like that.

Will Ai become good enough that it will become a rampant problem on online competitive games?

A sufficently advanced AI would learn not only how to dominate human players but also blend in and evade bans by trying to behave like a human player.

Imagine messing w/ it as part of gameplay; doing one thing to the A.I. to make it adapt to it and optimize itself to just that, only to do something else and forcing it un-learn it's optima:

> player uses long-ranged weaponry
> A.I. figures out to use snipers
> player then uses a shotgun to kill those snipers by sneaking up on them
> A.I.: wtf? Okay, use shotgunners w/ heightened senses... or something...
> player spams explosive weapons
> A.I.: Don't collect in groups... maybe?
> player picks off shotgun-wielding, lone gunner A.I. w/ long-ranged weaponry
> A.I.: Seriously!? WTF!?

Im more impressed by AI variables than seemingly random adaptations, like a certain enemy is braver or more cowardly, this enemy aggro is much stronger than this enemies, stuff like that.

>>378845740
Phoenix Point seems it will make heavy use of this.
Is a NU-XCOM style game though.

>>378845910
That's not artificial intelligence, that's processing speed.

>>378848225
>what is aimbot

>>378846846
That's dumb anon, there's no reason why an AI has to have the direct access to the code.

>>378847568
is this like that ai that "learned" how to play gta V and continually drives into the fucking ocean?

>>378848297
>Imagine messing w/ it as part of gameplay

All you'd be doing is teaching it more shit.

>>378848662
That's not a problem anymore since games have such a low skill ceiling that not even an aimbot will ensure victory anymore

It could be good for a lot of games especially 1v1 ones, but most games rely on consistency instead of hard to predict challenge for a lot of things including vital aspects like level design and difficulty curves.

>>378848225
That's sci-fi AI, Anon. AI in a video game context is a misnomer, even if it's adaptive. It's not actually learning new info, that would require it to be able to add new code to its own programming. It's functioning within set parameters and is no more sentient than a toaster. Like someone else already pointed out, you can't give AI unlimited freedom, because it would just insta-headshot everything. Even with advanced adaptive enemy AI, it'll still always be up to human devs to actually balance it so the game is playable.

>>378847752
don't hold your breath

>2017
>no terminator game in sight
>the one for genesis was like 20 years ago

>>378849110
Maybe give the AI only one objective, which is to give the human player the most enjoyable experience

>>378849068
I don't think you understand what a skill ceiling is anon.

>>378849110
All AI acts within set parameters anon. No AI randomly adds new code to its own programming without that function already added in to its own code.

>>378849315
I don't think you've ever had sex

>>378848920
>implying thats not how people actually play the game

>>378849247
How do you measure "fun"

One of our guys let a Quake server with 16 bots run for a couple years and they achieved world peace.

>>378849578
track the user's facial expression by camera, analyze for signs of enjoyment

>>378849648
Or they had one of their variables do something dumb and stop moving

>>378849716
I dunno about you anon but I barely smirk if a game does something amusing, are you gonna be pubishing the less expressive now?

File: lardy.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>378849574

>>378849648
That was a hoax.
A nice read but fake.

>>378849527
>I don't think
>think

Let's not get ahead of ourselves now.

>>378849790
>shoot a fat guy in the back of the head
>falls over and crushes a little old woman

Would you at least smile at that?

>>378849790
it tracks involuntary responses. pupil dilation, things like that

also you could have it adjust the difficulty dynamically by aiming for a certain level of anger

>>378845910
There's a massive difference between AI being able to smartly move/position itself and being able to lock onto your head and fire.

>>378850259
That's the thing. The AI doesn't need to "smartly move", when it can just shoot you dead. Because it can.

>>378848297
Or trick it into spawning weaker, dumber enemies.

>>378850593
And then you have this fag; >>378849068, who thinks that games where you need to do more than aim are simpler.

>>378850593
But that's not impressive AI, it's just shitty AI running 10 times too fast

How does this make for good gameplay?

>>378851236
Anon, you don't know what you're talking about.
Good AI is an effective AI. Killing you, the player, as fast and effective as possible is its target.
And that's exactly what I said in my earlier post. Good AI doesn't make a fun opponent to play against.

>>378851376
But good human opponents are doing the exact same, and they are fun to play against.

>>378851376
The quality of videogame AI is determined by its ability to behave human-like

Giving it the ability to track the player through walls and lock onto their hitboxes does not make good AI.

>>378845740
AI does not learn.
It only acts according to set parameters.

If player does X react with Y.

>>378851843
That's called a script.

AI can learn. A simple demonstration is writing a program that plays every possible combination of Tic Tac Toe, picks out the winning moves and plays perfectly from that point on (ie. always plays to a draw at least, and if the player makes a mistake it always wins).
You never tell the AI what moves to make. It comes up with the moves randomly and remembers if he won or not, then keeps doing what lead him to victory. This is learning.

>>378845740
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bbhJi0NBkk

>>378851727
You're only saying that because you must have never played against someone at a much higher skill level than you are. The bigger the difference is skill the less fun the game is for either party.
>>378851746
The AI controlled characters are a part of the game world after all. You cannot realistically make it work off the same visual data the game renders on the screen. Not to mention that the game engine would have to render every frame from every single AI controlled opponent's viewpoint, not just the player. That would seriously tank the game's performance, like downsampling from 10x times your screen's resolution.

Anyway, obviously the (good) devs don't let the AI just track you through the walls. But even when it doesn't, it still could just easily deal with the player the moment they enter its field of view. Making engaging the bot from behind the only viable tactic. So even then the AI actually has to be dumbed down even more not to oneshot the player.

I don't argue that more human-like behaviour would make AI opponents more fun to play against it. But that's a different direction from actually improving the AI's performance.

>>378851843
OP here. EXACTLY! Editing values like intSearchForPlayerDuration (for when the player is caught & tries 2 evade), intFrequencyOfSpammingGrenades (when the player is caught hiding in cover) or intChanceToDodgeRPG (when it realizes there's a rocket heading right for it) 2 make it the better hunter-killer.

>>378852145
Then you have to separate the term AI into "true AI" and "video game AI" because the latter work on scripts and flowcharts exclusively.

>>378852296
>The bigger the difference is skill the less fun the game is for either party.
AI without cheating is rarely better than an average skill level player. Of course FPS and action games are an exception. And yes, if the AI becomes too good it will be shitty to play against, but at this point an AI that can play like an average human (not super skilled, but not at least not predictable) would be a good advancement too.

Godhand does a pretty good example of a game adapting to a players skill level, but that's not exactly AI writing its own logic.

>>378852403
This whole thread is about having a "real AI" as opposed to a fully scripted AI implemented in video games, and how they could work, anon.

Right now these games we're talking about are using a combination of both. They try to adapt to the player and then pick a scripted event to run. So there is a macro learning part that tries to make things fun but challenging to the player, and there are micro events (scripted events) that run based on what the learning kind of AI decides to do to the player.