| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (19)

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 3:39PM Bentzero said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Add a nagging AI and it will win everytime.

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 3:42PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Did you just stick that aperture science thing we don't know what it does into the aperture science emergency intelligence incinerator?

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 3:42PM Courtney said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Okay, but what kind of smack did it talk during its winning streak?

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 3:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Well it does make sense seeing as it is going to be more unpredictable and more likely to take chances a logical mind would not normally take. It would I assume ignore potential consequences if the plan didn't work.

For example watching a skilled fighter vs a unskilled fighter I've noticed that the skilled fighter has difficulty initially because the unskilled is not likely to follow the normal or expected moves an experienced fighter would use.

In FPS the crazy kid will pull off crazy scores cause he will end of doing something that a normal sane person probably wouldn't do so the normal sane person may be caught off guard.

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 3:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've gotta agree, if you look at the slides, the big difference is that an irrational agent is going to make moves. I'm not exactly sure how the AI is done, but assuming some sort of a tree approach, the "default Age of Mythology AI script" won't evaluate these paths as deeply because it will assume the opposition is rational and will make rational moves.
Reply

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 6:28PM GenBanks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I agree, I always beat my friends at Company of Heroes because I'm always doing risky random stuff to get to weird parts of their lines and defenses. They always try to build up a big force and nurture their confidence so that they can inch towards me.
Neurotic FTW!

On a side note, I suppose this is sort of what generals like Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Stonewall Jackson (from US civil war) etc did ... they were unusual.
Reply

Posted: Feb 7th 2008 2:26PM ThatFuzzyBastard said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, but I would think the unpredictability would be an advantage against a human opponent, not an AI. After all, this is ultimately an AI versus AI battle, which makes it that much more surprising that ostensibly wrong behavior would prove so helpful. But maybe this just means that all those sci-fi movies were right---the robots will *never* win!
Reply

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 3:49PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
And since we're talking about AI, the non-neurotic AI's would be perpetually caught off guard.

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 4:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Way to repeat what everyone else already said.
Reply

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 4:45PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Thanks, Dick!

:)
Reply

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 3:51PM PoisonedAl said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Life? Don't talk to me about life!

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 5:16PM Vordus said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they have me playing endless games of Age of Mythology. Call that Job Satifaction? Cause I don't.
Reply

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 6:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
+1 for HHGTTG ref
Reply

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 4:11PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is reported terribly. 2 AI types recorded a 6-1 record, and 2 AI types recorded a 7-0 record. The neurotic AI type did win faster, but I would argue that all of these AIs were placed in "winnable" situations, and the neurotic AI probably took stupid risks that clearly were not taken advantage of by the (relatively inept) "hard" difficulty level opponent.

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 5:56PM mmoore14 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is a joke. Look at slide #10 on the powerpoint.

Of the four play styles they tested, the WORST one went 6-1 and the best went 7-0. Doesn't sound like a huge advantage to me. Moreover, is seven games really a decent sample size?

This is lame.

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 6:28PM Haddock Smack said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There's been a lot of Woody Allen on Joystiq recently. I like your new direction.

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 8:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think it is very sad that people actually get paid to set up computers that have different “personalities” to play other computers with different “personalities”. All joking aside, wouldn’t it be easier to just have two little kids play each other? You could even go as far as picking a whole bunch of little kids that all have different personalities. I mean come on no wonder this country is so messed up. People have time to figure out how to do a whole bunch of completely unimportant tasks, but there is no one out there to figure out how to feed starving families all over the world. I guess what I am trying to say is that we need to stop wasting time on completely meaningless tasks. Its ok to cool to have fun, but there is such thing as going to far.

Posted: Feb 6th 2008 8:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Do you realize that a videogame site is no the place to look for studies about "meaningful tasks"?

Besides, the study was done in Austria, and somehow I doubt you are from there to claim "no wonder this country is so messed up".

You can put children with "different personalities" to asses this kind of thing, as personality doesn't develop completely until adulthood. Doing so will give very erratic and unreliable data.

Nitpicking aside: Woody Allen FTW



Reply

Posted: Feb 7th 2008 1:24AM ThornedVenom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I dunno about being neurotic (I play like that all the time), but when you're against a dude who has been drinking... you don't stand a chance.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW