Triaxx2's AI (split from: Neutral Units)

[Triaxx2]

Well, until the map thingy arrives, no one is going to know what you're talking about. If I have to make my AI stop every few minutes and go:

Can I capture anything? Do I care enough to try? Why do I have to bother instead of just blowing the opponent off the map?

It's going to blow performance out the door. Why should I need to actually capture anything to win? If capturing that to win is the objective, then I should focus on destroying it so the enemy can't capture it.

On the other hand, if you include a map def, that has the value: Capture this=x, then I can tell the AI to capture any of those it finds. I am not capable of predicting what the other modders, or map makers come up with, so I have to have a way to let the AI adapt for them.

[AF]

Triaxx, I think you're in dire need of a good 3 or 4 days learning C++ from basic variables upto classes and design patterns infront of a proper C++ IDE. That or some other language such as java or C#.

Krogoth figured it all out in around 1-2 weeks and had a version of KAI up that worked. Granted he deleted it all and starte from scratch with a new design doc but I'm sure learning the required stuff could be done in under a week, 3-4 days maybe, sooner if you have prior programming experience.

Even a weekend, starting on the friday afternoon you could have something that builds and attacks by sunday. You already have all the plans and designs you need, you had them back in 2005 when I was in the same position as you, and I've had pretty much the same constraints if not worse, and look what I've done. Now imagine how much more I could have done, and more to the point how much more you can do in that space of time.

[Triaxx2]

I'm working very carefully, doing my best to avoid multiple, broken, fragmented releases. I'm not looking to make an AI that just builds and attacks. I'm building one that will win.

I'm building an AI that will run over the top of NTAI, RAI, AAI, and KAI, all working together. I'm approaching 1.0, which is release version. Certain pieces aren't fitting together the way I want, so it's not ready yet.

[DJ]

@triaxx2

A bold claim! Looking forward to seeing what you come up with. Is it config based or of the auto detect type? Some details please... you have my attention!

[AF]

So basically the AI by contract idea I tried to implement? Where NTai would become unwinnable by spawning slave instances of any superior AI it encountered and running it in a virtual sandbox? I dont remember ever committing that code or finishing it off however.

[Triaxx2]

DJ:At the moment it's largely a learning AI. I want a config that I can adjust to alter the AI, but it doesn't always detect it. It'll let you alter certain behaviour aspects of the AI. You can let it build normally, or make it go Air/Land/Sea exclusively. Expansion aggression will be selectable, with one being porcupine, and five being 'fight tooth and nail for mexxes in your base'.

AF: Not exactly. On full aggression, it'll start with a Flush, and be using artillery pieces a few minutes into the game. It'll pick up the highest threat values on the map, namely wherever the opposing commanders are, and start crawling towards them. At the same time, it'll start setting up defensive emplacements in range of the enemy COMs. So it might suddenly stop a crawl, because that com has exploded, and divert resources to another direction.

[AF]

Thats far easier sad than done triaxx even for a pro player.

[Triaxx2]

Which is why no release yet.

[AF]

Which is why we cant really help you with that.

[Triaxx2]

You just want to see my code. Well you can't, it's mine. Mine I tell you! My precious.

Do you know how you're going to handle the game? Or are you just going to say: Sorry, NTAI can't play that. Which is a perfectly understandable position.

[DJ]

OK how about some videos or screenshots of this AI in action?

[jcnossen]

Nice to see someone making bold claims again, this reminds me of the old days of spring AI;)

OK how about some videos or screenshots of this AI in action?

+1, you have been working for more than 2 years on this thing... surely you have some real evidence!

[AF]

If I had to take a guess he's following the old AF strategy of claim hype release claim hype release.

[Triaxx2]

Unfortunately not. As it is, my computer will just barely run Spring and the AI. Trying something as resource consuming as a screen shot causes the entire process to grind to a halt.

I have the x64 XP for my more powerful computer on it's way, so I should have something to show off soon.

And before you say it, no, my AI doesn't hog that much performance, it's just an elder computer.

[AF]

I would not use 64bit XP full stop regardless of the computer. Vista 64bit or XP 32bit, no Vista32 or XP64.

And there's nothing stopping you installing linux on the more powerful computer.

[jcnossen]

Unfortunately not. As it is, my computer will just barely run Spring and the AI. Trying something as resource consuming as a screen shot causes the entire process to grind to a halt.

This is bs. If your PC is that bad how are you even compiling spring and AI and running IDE's?
Making a screenshot and compressing it takes a few seconds max.

[DJ]

Making a screenshot and compressing it takes a few seconds max.

not if you have to create it in photoshop...
(which your computer can't run)

ah me smells the sweet scent of vapour ware again...

[Triaxx2]

I didn't have the cash to get Vista 64. Unfortunately, I'm locked out of my new copy of XP, because of Microsoft's Insecurity features. I can't run Spring and my complier until I activate XP. I can't activate XP because I have dial-up and no modem that has x64 drivers. I can't even use the built in LAN on the motherboard, because I can't activate XP.

So even from this end the AI is looking like vaporware. I guess I'll have to put it on the back burner until I come up with a new solution.

[DJ]

or phone the activation number which takes 2 minutes....

[Triaxx2]

Once you figure out that the help and support is wrong. Of course, the monitor going out shortly afterwards, and finding out that not only did the motherboard manufacturer (MSI) forget to make the disk with the Drivers on it not compatible with the 64-bit OS that the board requires, but also didn't even put the right drivers on it.

I couldn't make this up. On the other hand, I've discovered a bug in my transport code. It'll pick them up, but refuses to drop them for some reason. As soon as I get back, I'll put up a copy.