AIs in ladder
-
It would be interesting if we took the winner of the AI tourney and put it on ladder for a few weeks as an experiment. It could be given a normal rating and then we'd have it queue infrequently (<5 times per day) and only when players aren't finding games.
We'd get some interesting data to see if this is a good idea long-term and players would get some matches when they otherwise would get none.
-
@swkoll said in AIs in ladder:
It would be interesting if we took the winner of the AI tourney and put it on ladder for a few weeks as an experiment. It could be given a normal rating and then we'd have it queue infrequently (<5 times per day) and only when players aren't finding games.
We'd get some interesting data to see if this is a good idea long-term and players would get some matches when they otherwise would get none.
Now that is an excellent idea and a good way to get some real data on the subject.
-
This post is deleted! -
@swkoll said in AIs in ladder:
It would be interesting if we took the winner of the AI tourney and put it on ladder for a few weeks as an experiment. It could be given a normal rating and then we'd have it queue infrequently (<5 times per day) and only when players aren't finding games.
We'd get some interesting data to see if this is a good idea long-term and players would get some matches when they otherwise would get none.
one could add a post game survey to ask the player if he enjoyed the experience. a simple from 0-10 how much did you enjoy playing against the AI will give useful information quickly. if the score is below 5 just axe the whole thing. if people enjoy it then keep it. simple solutions without many words are sometimes good I think.
-
Those things aren't that great. Even more as people who lose will tend to give a bad rating and those who win will give it a good one. Losing ain't fun mate.
-
Even if i would like to see many AI games,
there should be an option where the player can decide if he wants to play against an AI in general. -
I would honestly play ladder more if I could match against an AI if there are no people around. even if I got no rating from wins it would let me try out the ladder pool and learn how to play different maps without having to do all the setup myself
-
@chp2001 said in AIs in ladder:
I would honestly play ladder more if I could match against an AI if there are no people around. even if I got no rating from wins it would let me try out the ladder pool and learn how to play different maps without having to do all the setup myself
Perhaps best reason for ai right here
-
The alternative to allow one to quickly try out ladder maps against an AI is to have a button in the lobby of a custom game to quickly choose randomly from amongst the ladder pool. Still wouldn't set up AI for you though.
-
@chp2001 said in AIs in ladder:
I would honestly play ladder more if I could match against an AI if there are no people around. even if I got no rating from wins it would let me try out the ladder pool and learn how to play different maps without having to do all the setup myself
Still I think it would be better if it did give rating up to a certain level - like 0-rating, so negative rated people can develop rating.
-
Letting the AI's rating function like a normal player rating is probably ideal in order to prevent trueskill inflation/deflation.
-
If certain people lack the motivation or willpower to set up a custom 1v1 game against an AI on a ladder map, we should not be designing FAF ladder architecture to cater to those people. No offense. I'm 100% in favor of letting everybody coexist and use the FAF platform even if they have different playstyles/motivation than me. But I think it's crazy to change the ladder in order to accommodate those people. Ladder should always be about playing against other people. You can approach it casually, you can tryhard it, you can sandbox a dozen build orders or just drop in and see what happens. But it should always be about human vs. human and nothing else.
What even is the endpoint of designing an AI that's good enough to replace a human ladder player? We want to cutting off one form of human-human interaction and replace it with a human-AI interaction? That would not be an achievement.
I don't hate the idea of creating some AI "players" who play against humans in order to gauge the AI's trueskill rating but that could be done without changing the 1v1 ladder. You could set up a completely separate ladder where people often get matched to AIs and different AIs compete with humans and with each other for rating points to see which is the best AI. But leave the real ladder alone.
Look at how butthurt people were over the TMM rating reset. Putting AIs into the real ladder could cause problems 100x worse than that. There's so little upside compared to the amount of damage that could happen.
-
Ah come on arma it's a little science experiments, every bot plays 50 games, gets a rating, everybody gets sick of it and it's over. Sounds fun
Hahaha -
It's a valid point that people would whine too much about it because they are extremely sensitive about ladder... So as a lot of the time in FAF, it's an idea that's dead on arrival or could only be tested with significant effort in getting people to play rated AI games (and even getting some AI games to be rated). RIP
-
We could also call the rating reset a “little science experiment” but the consequences of that were more than just a revert. People stopped playing...
-
I mean AI in ladder would have a far smaller impact on ladder than a rating reset. As a low rated ladder spammer you would have smth like a 1/20 chance of getting an ai as opponent if we tune it properly. But mb we should get some input from those ranks if they would mind. time to pm coca
-
To think bisq was right all along biass, FAF truly is a bot scam.
-
yikes....
-
F Fichom referenced this topic on
-
F Fichom referenced this topic on
-
F Fichom referenced this topic on
-
F Fichom referenced this topic on
