skip to main content
10.1145/1401843.1401865acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessiggraphConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A combined tactical and strategic hierarchical learning framework in multi-agent games

Published:09 August 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a novel approach to modeling a generic cognitive framework in game agents to provide tactical behavior generation as well as strategic decision making in modern multi-agent computer games. The core of our framework consists of two characterization concepts we term as the tactical and strategic personalities, embedded in each game agent. Tactical actions and strategic plans are generated according to the weights defined in their respective personalities. The personalities are constantly improved as the game proceeds by a learning process based on reinforcement learning. Also, the strategies selected at each level of the agents' command hierarchy affect the personalities and hence the decisions of other agents. The learning system improves performance of the game agents in combat and is decoupled from the action selection mechanism to ensure speed. The variability in tactical behavior and decentralized strategic decision making improves realism and increases entertainment value. Our framework is implemented in a real game scenario as an experiment and shown to outperform various scripted opponent team tactics and strategies, as well as one with a randomly varying strategy.

References

  1. Andrade, G., Ramalho, G., Santana, H., and Corruble, V. 2005. Automatic computer game balancing: A reinforcement learning approach. In Proceedings of the Autonomous Agents And Multi Agent Systems Conference (July), 1111, 1112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Blizzard Entertainment, 2006. Warcraft III. Accessed April 12, 2006. Available via http://www.blizzard.com/war3/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Blizzard, 2006. Diablo ii. Accessed April 12, 2006. Available via http://www.blizzard.com/diablo2/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Blizzard, 2006. World of warcraft. Accessed April 12, 2006. Available via http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Buro, M., 2007. ORTS - A Free Software RTS Game Engine. Accessed March 20, 2007. Available via http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/mburo/orts/index.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Charles, D., Kerr, A., McNeill, M., McAlister, M., Black, M., Kcklich, J., Moore, A., and Stringer, K. 2005. Player-centred game design: Player modeling and adaptive digital games. In Proceedings of the Digital Games Research Conference, 285,298.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Christian J. Darken, G. H. P. 2006. Findin Cover in Dynamic Environments, first ed. Charles River Media, Hingham, Massachusetts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Co-op, S., 2006. Sven co-op. Accessed September 15, 2006. Available via http://www.svencoop.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Electronic Arts, 2006. Battlefield 2142. Accessed December 20, 2006. Available via http://battlefield.ea.com/battlefield/bf2142/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Exluna, Inc. 2002. Entropy 3.1 Technical Reference, January.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Fedkiw, R., Stam, J., and Jensen, H. W. 2001. Visual simulation of smoke. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 2001, ACM Press / ACM SIGGRAPH, E. Fiume, Ed., Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, ACM, 15--22. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Foka, A., and Trahanias, P. 2007. Real-time hierarchical POMDPs for autonomous robot navigation. In Proceedings of Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 561,571. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Geramifard, A., Chubak, P., and Bulitko, V. 2006. Biased cost pathfinding. In Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment conference, 112,114.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Horswill, I., and Zubek, R. 1999. Robot architectures for believable game agents. In Proceedings of the 1999 AAAI Spring Symposium on Artificial Intelligence and Computer Games, AAAI Technical Report SS-99-02.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Hunicke, R., and Chapman, V. 2004. AI for Dynamic Difficult Adjustment in Games. In Proceedings of the Challenges in Game AI Workshop, Nineteenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Hussain, T. S., and Vidaver, G. 2006. Flexible and purposeful npc behaviors using real-time genetic control. In Proceedings of The IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (July), 785,792.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Jobson, D. J., Rahman, Z., and Woodell, G. A. 1995. Retinex image processing: Improved fidelity to direct visual observation. In Proceedings of the IS&T Fourth Color Imaging Conference: Color Science, Systems, and Applications, vol. 4, 124--125.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Kartch, D. 2000. Efficient Rendering and Compression for Full-Parallax Computer-Generated Holographic Stereograms. PhD thesis, Cornell University. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Khoo, A., and Dunham, G. 2002. Efficient, realistic npc control systems using behavior-based techniques. In AAAI Technical Report, 02--01.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Landis, H., 2002. Global illumination in production. ACM SIGGRAPH 2002 Course #16 Notes, July.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Levoy, M., Pulli, K., Curless, B., Rusinkiewicz, S., Koller, D., Pereira, L., Ginzton, M., Anderson, S., Davis, J., Ginsberg, J., Shade, J., and Fulk, D. 2000. The digital michelangelo project. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 2000, ACM Press / ACM SIGGRAPH, New York, K. Akeley, Ed., Computer Graphics Proceedings, Annual Conference Series, ACM, 131--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. McDonald, D., Leung, A., Ferguson, W., and Hussain, T. 2006. An abstraction framework for cooperation among agents and people in a virtual world. In Proceedings of the Second Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (June).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Michael E. Tipping, C. M. B. 1999. Probabilistic principal component analysis. Technical Report NCRG/97/010, Neural Computing Research Grou (September).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. NCsoft, 2006. Guild wars. Accessed April 12, 2006. Available via http://www.guildwars.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Oliehoek, F. 2005. Game Theory and AI: A unified Approach to Poker Games. Masters Thesis, 561,571.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Orkin, J. 2004. Applying Goal-Oriented Action Planning to Games, first ed. Charles River Media, Hingham, Massachusetts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Orkin, J. 2004. Finite State Machines, first ed. Charles River Media, Hingham, Massachusetts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Orr, G., Schraudolph, N., and Cummins, F., 1999. Cs-449: Neural networks lecture notes. Accessed December 20, 2005. Available via http://www.willamette.edu/gorr/classes/cs449/intro.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Park, S. W., Linsen, L., Kreylos, O., Owens, J. D., and Hamann, B. 2006. Discrete sibson interpolation. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 12, 2 (Mar./Apr.), 243--253. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Parke, F. I., and Waters, K. 1996. Computer Facial Animation. A. K. Peters. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Pellacini, F., Vidimče, K., Lefohn, A., Mohr, A., Leone, M., and Warren, J. 2005. Lpics: a hybrid hardware-accelerated relighting engine for computer cinematography. ACM Transactions on Graphics 24, 3 (Aug.), 464--470. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Remco Straatman, A. B., and van der Sterren, W. 2006. Dynamic Tactical Postion Evaluation, first ed. Charles River Media, Hingham, Massachusetts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Sailera, F., Buro, M., and Lanctot, M. 2007. Adversarial planning through strategy simulation. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games (April).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Sako, Y., and Fujimura, K. 2000. Shape similarity by homotropic deformation. The Visual Computer 16, 1, 47--61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Sierra, 2006. No one lives forever 2. Accessed April 12, 2006. Available via http://nolf.sierra.com/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Sierra, 2007. First encounter assault recon. Accessed December 23, 2007. Available via http://www.whatisfear.com/fear.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Silver, D. 2005. Cooperative pathfinding. In Proceedings of the First Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment conference, 117,122.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Spronck, P., Sprinkhuizen-Kuyper, I., and Postma, E. 2004. Difficulty Scaling of Game AI. In Proceedings of GAMEON 2004: 5th International Conference on Intelligent Games and Simulation, 33,37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Spronck, P., Ponsen, M., Sprinkhuizen-Kuyper, I., and Postma, E. 2006. Adaptive Game AI with Dynamic Scripting. Springer Netherlands, Netherlands.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Spronck, P. 2005. A model for reliable adaptive game intelligence. In IJCAI-05 Workshop on Reasoning, Representation, and Learning in Computer Games, 95,100.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Sutton, R. S., and Barto, A. G. 1998. Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Sweetser, P. 2005. An emergent approach to game design. Ph.D Thesis. Available via http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/penny/publications.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. Tan, C. T., and Cheng, H. 2007. Personality-based Adaptation for Teamwork in Game Agents. In Proceedings of the Third Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment, 37.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Thue, D., and Bulitko, V. 2006. Modeling goal-directed players in digital games. In Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment conference, 285,298.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Wallace, N. 2004. Hierarchical Planning in Dynamic Worlds, first ed. Charles River Media, Hingham, Massachusetts.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. White, C., and Brogan, D. 2006. The self organization of context for multi agent games. In Proceedings of 2nd Annual Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Interactive Digital Entertainment (June).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Wikipedia, 2006. Game balance. Accessed December 20, 2006. Available via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamebalance.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Yannakakis, G. N., and Maragoudakis, M. 2005. Player modeling impact on players entertainment in computer games. In Springer-Verlag: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3538:74. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Yee, Y. L. H. 2000. Spatiotemporal sensistivity and visual attention for efficient rendering of dynamic environments. Master's thesis, Cornell University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. A combined tactical and strategic hierarchical learning framework in multi-agent games

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader