[Freeciv-Dev] Re: CMA passes back control without reason (PR#1505)

[Christian Knoke <chrisk@xxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 04, 2002 at 08:25:04AM +0200, Raimar Falke wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2002 at 11:51:01PM +0200, Christian Knoke wrote:

[discussion about problems with saving attributes]

Thank you for your attention.

> > Here is the point where I don't follow Raimar. He claims that agents
> > *need* to have a memory. But there certain are a lot of situations where
> > this is impossible. 
> 
> > The agents have to (and of course will) have a way to start work
> > from the "blank table".
> 
> > And thats why I think they shouldn't have a memory at all.
> 
> Without memory you will not see any planning which goes beyond the
> current reflexive scheme. 

Planning and achieving (long term) goals not neccessarily require
a complex historic memory. There are three areas: 1) things of the past,
most of them not affecting actual gameplay any more. 2) things
happening right now, that's what the client can see, requires no memory.
3) things to come, nobody knows ;)

> People want that the AI persuade long term goal. 

AI should do what's good for it, not what people want. I *hate* the civ1
diplomacy.

> Memory is needed for this.

A small bit of memory is needed for 1), yes. See below.

> > Think of an improved AI which remembers the positions of units it
> > can no longer see. Want to save that? What happens if you play a
> > single turn without the AI? All data lost?
> 
> What do you mean with without AI? 

Think of a game on civserver.freeciv.org. One player stops, another
continues. Another client. Another client side AI implementation
(aka agent). No agents at all. No client at all (--> aitoggle).
So much can happen, you *will* have trouble with the attributes.
You have it already with CMA (though it's not widely tested in the wild).
The CMA has a good algorithm, but the attributes are error-prone.

> The data is held by a history
> agent. You can't disable it but you may clear specific parts of its
> memory i.e. clear anything about player 3 because I just eliminated
> him.
> 
> > If there is a server side, central, authoritative memory, you run into
> > problems: some of them have been mentioned. 
> 
> > What if you use different agents for the same task? They can't share
> > their data.
> 
> They can't share their data. Just think of first one as a neural
> network and the second one as a prolog program. There is no automated
> way to let them share their data.

Yes, but you expect the agents keep working, don't you?

> > What if another player continues your game, with another client?
> 
> They can't share their data.

s.a.

> > If the memory is client-sided, you have the sinchronizing problem. Same
> > problems as above apply also.
> > 
> > I think the only content of an agents memory can be user input, some
> > presets, some goals and targets the user has defined. These data can
> > be read and loosely associated to a loaded game by the client at game 
> > start, always keeping in mind they may no(t) (longer) be valid. The agents
> > need the knowledge to realize the goals into specific action. And there
> > are other agents which will advice them.

Save the data local to the client. Server sends seed, randseed, and year,
and the client is clever enough to find the right information. It does
not *depend* on that information, but if it finds some, good. The information
*doesn't* need to be exact. Say "build a road from Rome to Valencia". If
Rome has grown, doesn't matter. If Valencia no longer exists, forget about
the road. Ignore the Information. Most information is about user intentions,
preferences, goals, planning - - not game data. If you think about history
agents, you won't find much things worth to remember. Store it in a way
the client can interpret it still, when cities, units, and terrain has
changed. - If the client can't find any local information, this only means
the user has to input his goals and preferences again (if it is still the
same user), and the client is a *bit* less knowledgeable about the game.

> > But you may say this is cheap talk.
> 
> So are this general objections or are you happy if the bandwidth usage
> is reduced?

Just some ideas about agents.

The ultimate test for bandwidth usage happens after the release.

Christian

-- 
Christian Knoke     * * *      http://www.enter.de/~c.knoke/
* * * * * * * * *  Ceterum censeo Microsoft esse dividendum.