Re: [Josh] Monday, April 30, 2018
Posted: Tue May 01, 2018 5:46 am
*devours dev log*
*licks the plate*
Anyone asking that question isn't worth you time If you want to describe anything, ever, you need diffeq at the very least and linear algebra if you want to do anything besides very basic kinematics.
Hear, hear!JoshParnell wrote: ↑Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:55 pmThis is a very exciting step toward delivering on one of the promises that's near and dear to my heart: exploration as a real, profitable job. With AI players restricted and only able to use known information in their high-level planning, the ability to profit from discoveries becomes a natural (even essential) game mechanic.
Ummf! That's downright arousing. It makes the God-Emperor Test sound quite possibleJoshParnell wrote:The point, though, is that the AI has taken the specifics of the simulation and figured out how to craft optimal behavior with them. Nice.
How many AI are actually in these models? If everything belongs to the same AI, then this seems like a fairly effective form of Capitalism if you had multiple AI in competition with one another. Being rationally collectivist makes perfect sense for the internal decisions of a faction or company. As for units intentionally performing sub-optimally, that seems to be more a limitation of the model than anything else. Presumably these sub-optimal units don't have the opportunity to take on other jobs besides mine and trade, they cant go be security, pirates, scouts, etc. If those options were available, the units wouldn't be assigned to sub-optimal trading missions, but be assigned to security detail (assuming it's reasonably affordable to change out that ship's equipment).JoshParnell wrote:It's actually interesting to note that the AI is not applying 'rational capitalist' behavior here, but rather 'rational collectivist' behavior; some units are performing intentionally-suboptimal work in order that the whole can be optimal. Philosophical arguments aside, this works out well for our purposes of simulating a predominantly-AI-driven economy
So what you're saying is that a system's economy dynamically stabilizes as its population rises? Is the converse also true, that in perhaps a newly discovered and colonized system on the frontier we can expect significant economic volatility? So the frontiers really be the Wild West?! *Gets cowboy hat*JoshParnell wrote:Finally, in a 10,000-ship simulation, the economy is completely over-saturated: ... Economic volatility is gone, equilibrium is here, and the AI is generally much more capable of setting up well-structured economies that take into account all of the nuances of the star system and game constants.
With multiple AI competing, each with limited information, would it not make more sense for the AI to predict what the result will be for itself, and perhaps its friends and enemies? Does it really need to know the net effect on the whole economy?JoshParnell wrote:if I spend X, Y will happen, and I estimate that this will let me extract Z additional pressure from the total economy." Z is the difficult part: the hard problem of large, one-time expenditures is trying to work out what the net result will be in a complicated economy
This splitting of supply/demand intervals makes a lot of sense to me. If I were to place an order for 20 Battleships over the next year, the supply/demand rate-per-day would be much lower than if I wanted the same 20 battleships within 1 month. As the saying goes, "You can have it good, fast, or cheap, pick 2" Now suppose it's been 1 month, and not a single ship has been built. The Supply/Demand rate-per-day will naturally increase. If conversely 5 ships were built within the first month, then it would sharply decrease. So long as a production order is given a countdown timer, Should it not naturally draw more attention as the deadline draws closer in relation to the order's completion?Silverware wrote:Capital ship parts might not be used per day, but per year they would. So an AI could look at the average over a yearly period and dedicate a small amount of production off for it. But only look to keep a small stockpile since it'll likely last a year.
When a war starts and Capital production is pumped up, that same AI can now drop even more investment into the manufacture to cover it, and when the war ends, they can shift it away and still keep just a tiny trickle of production afterwards.
For some reason I get the feeling that scouting is less like patrolling and more like foraging. An explorer selects some semi-random positions in a system to head towards with it's long range scanners on, if it doesn't detect anything unknown, it picks another point; if it picks up an unknown signal on the scanner, it goes to investigate (at least if the signal is of the type the scout is looking for). In terms of fitting it into the flow system, why not give an explorer an expeditionary budget and make time an economic sink, every moment you're exploring, you're losing money from other things you could be doing. However if a system is relatively unexplored, it considers exploration a high risk, high reward investment. There is after all no guarantee that an explorer will discover anything that isn't already known and the expedition will have been for naught, perhaps even bankrupting the explorer, so after a certain point, an explorer who hasn't found anything of note will cut their losses and return to do something else or explore elsewhere.JoshParnell wrote:Yes. I am working out the theory for a scouting job type; it is a planned AI behavior. I have not worked out exactly how it fits into the flow system, but this is one of those "I've given a lot of thought to it this week" bits. Scouting is a lot like patrolling. I think most economic activities will contribute to a 'demand' for things like information discovery and security.
As a tangent, the price of weapon and ship parts in Freelancer and other space games are usually constant. A thruster costs the same everywhere. A level two pulse turret costs the same everywhere. Availability might differ but cost is usually the same.Hyperion wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 2:27 pmWith multiple AI competing, each with limited information, would it not make more sense for the AI to predict what the result will be for itself, and perhaps its friends and enemies? Does it really need to know the net effect on the whole economy?JoshParnell wrote:if I spend X, Y will happen, and I estimate that this will let me extract Z additional pressure from the total economy." Z is the difficult part: the hard problem of large, one-time expenditures is trying to work out what the net result will be in a complicated economy
This splitting of supply/demand intervals makes a lot of sense to me. If I were to place an order for 20 Battleships over the next year, the supply/demand rate-per-day would be much lower than if I wanted the same 20 battleships within 1 month. As the saying goes, "You can have it good, fast, or cheap, pick 2" Now suppose it's been 1 month, and not a single ship has been built. The Supply/Demand rate-per-day will naturally increase. If conversely 5 ships were built within the first month, then it would sharply decrease. So long as a production order is given a countdown timer, Should it not naturally draw more attention as the deadline draws closer in relation to the order's completion?Silverware wrote:Capital ship parts might not be used per day, but per year they would. So an AI could look at the average over a yearly period and dedicate a small amount of production off for it. But only look to keep a small stockpile since it'll likely last a year.
When a war starts and Capital production is pumped up, that same AI can now drop even more investment into the manufacture to cover it, and when the war ends, they can shift it away and still keep just a tiny trickle of production afterwards.
Considering that josh explicitly demonstrated the dynamic market with pieces of equipment a long while ago....Grumblesaur wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 4:29 pmAs a tangent, the price of weapon and ship parts in Freelancer and other space games are usually constant. A thruster costs the same everywhere. A level two pulse turret costs the same everywhere. Availability might differ but cost is usually the same.
In LT, are equipment purchases going to be a statically-priced game abstraction, or will parts be more expensive in the outer reaches of civilization and cheaper in regions with better infrastructure? Would traders be able to ship guns that are actual guns and not just a dummy commodity?
And since all equipment has already been said will be produced by either the player, the AI, or the colonies, using materials gathered from mining by the player, the AI, or the colonies, either via jobs or personal work.Cornflakes_91 wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 4:38 pmConsidering that josh explicitly demonstrated the dynamic market with pieces of equipment a long while ago....Grumblesaur wrote: ↑Wed May 02, 2018 4:29 pmAs a tangent, the price of weapon and ship parts in Freelancer and other space games are usually constant. A thruster costs the same everywhere. A level two pulse turret costs the same everywhere. Availability might differ but cost is usually the same.
In LT, are equipment purchases going to be a statically-priced game abstraction, or will parts be more expensive in the outer reaches of civilization and cheaper in regions with better infrastructure? Would traders be able to ship guns that are actual guns and not just a dummy commodity?
join the police force and remove the other pirates. then let the civvies turn down their armnaments.Catsu wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 8:47 amWould a potential problem for a player start (if they were wanting piracy) is if there was an over saturation of pirates in a system, and all cargo ships which have determined that the best course of action would be maximum armor and weapons, be a problem of sorts? the thing i foresee with AI can be possible limitations, though the game is to be limitless.
In other words, its a fantastic and interesting potential in true dynamic gameplay.
*suddenly feels awkward because of collegehumor*
Its a good sort of deception game in manipulating the competition, how many forces would you need to be able to change the algorithm to that significantly?Cornflakes_91 wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 1:39 pmjoin the police force and remove the other pirates. then let the civvies turn down their armnaments.Catsu wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 8:47 amWould a potential problem for a player start (if they were wanting piracy) is if there was an over saturation of pirates in a system, and all cargo ships which have determined that the best course of action would be maximum armor and weapons, be a problem of sorts? the thing i foresee with AI can be possible limitations, though the game is to be limitless.
In other words, its a fantastic and interesting potential in true dynamic gameplay.
then get to pirating