Bay 12 Games Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 15

Author Topic: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released  (Read 244877 times)

ZeroSumHappiness

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #90 on: June 18, 2012, 11:42:42 am »

I'm just more worried that he's going to have a brain aneurysm due to trying to figure out how to implement a Mexican standoff.   :P
A Mexican standoff is quite simple.  The cost of backing down is greater than the cost of not backing down.  The cost of attacking is greater than the cost of not attacking.  Since he's currently working on a lethality ladder he just needs a state between non-lethal battle and lethal battle of "show of lethal force."
Logged

HiEv

  • Bay Watcher
  • Denizen of Counter-Earth
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #91 on: June 18, 2012, 12:17:23 pm »

I'm just more worried that he's going to have a brain aneurysm due to trying to figure out how to implement a Mexican standoff.   :P

A Mexican standoff is quite simple.  The cost of backing down is greater than the cost of not backing down.  The cost of attacking is greater than the cost of not attacking.  Since he's currently working on a lethality ladder he just needs a state between non-lethal battle and lethal battle of "show of lethal force."

This assumes that the "costs" are known and simple values (which they are not), and additionally that all parties are capable of understanding how the other parties have determined the costs, and that none believe that they can come out on top if they attack first.  That aside, you're starting from the point where the Mexican standoff is already established.  How do you implement a way for that situation to become established?

If you are collaborating with someone you don't care about and dislike, and your opponent threatens to shoot your collaborator if you shoot your opponent's ally, then you can laugh in his face and open fire.  That is a failed Mexican standoff situation because your opponent makes a reasonable but incorrect assumption.  How do you implement that?

Doing a proper Mexican standoff requires a lot of meta-knowledge to work, and can't be easily implemented except in the most superficial of ways.

(Yeah, I thought about this a lot myself, and had to stop pre-aneurysm in trying to figure out how to implement it properly.)
Logged
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has its limits.

ZeroSumHappiness

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #92 on: June 18, 2012, 12:40:32 pm »

Hmm.  Reading Wiki indicates that I'm off on my definition of a Mexican standoff, so we'll have to get a little more precise.

First, what I was talking about: I was talking about a standoff between two or more groups where each has the choice of attacking or fleeing and both are bad ideas, leaving continuation of threat as the only stable and reasonable option -- I'll refer to this as a stalemate.  Toady's working on what I refer to as costs because he's talking about companions fleeing battle.  A stalemate like this happens when party A elevates to "show of force" and party B believes that the best action is also "show of force".  If that situation is stable it's a stalemate like what I was thinking.

Wikipedia defines a Mexican standoff of as A threatening B, B threatening C and C threatening A, so if A attacks then B attacks then C attacks.  So this is more complex in that it does require some concept of consequence to action but I don't think it's that much more complex.  It would require one-way threats where A has power over B somehow but B cannot reasonably respond.  Then A just has to walk the directional path to see if escalating his threat yields an escalation in a  threat against him.  To make it a non full knowledge game (you're guessing about whether attacking your opponent's friend will cause your opponent to attack you or whether an opponent attacks your friend will result in harm to you) you just have add perceptions to the mix, but those aren't that terrible and can be based on reputation, gear visible and personal preference.

(P.S.  I did behavioral modelling for my senior project in CS.  We didn't do attacks from other live parties for the project but did have a probabilistic threat model from inanimate threats like fire.)
Logged

HiEv

  • Bay Watcher
  • Denizen of Counter-Earth
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #93 on: June 18, 2012, 01:25:56 pm »

How does one choose whether it is most beneficial to create a Mexican standoff situation?

What would the mechanics be for doing so in the game?

How does one go about resolving a Mexican standoff?

And what about bluffing?  Distractions?  Self-sacrifice?  Bloody stupidity?

I'll end my comments here, since we've gone a bit off-topic, but I still think it would be ridiculously complex to model properly.
Logged
The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that intelligence has its limits.

ZeroSumHappiness

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #94 on: June 18, 2012, 01:57:42 pm »

I'll answer and accept your terms of mutual dismissal without prejudice.  :P

You create a Mexican standoff when you are under threat, you can find a non-threatened ancestor to your threator in the threat graph that you can threaten and your other options are worse than creating the standoff would yield.  This requires such things as evaluating the value of a threat graph and finding where you can add a threat that would most benefit yourself (most likely by most un-benefiting your threator.)

The mechanics behind all this could be pretty complex but should be able to grow emergently.  For each other actor you need a threator and threatee perception value (how much you perceive the threat to and from that actor to be).  You need to be able to estimate the chances of the threat resulting in a death of the threatee and whether the threatee will be able to act before death takes place.  You need to be able to decide whether to threaten another actor.  You need to be able to re-evaluate how the threat graph would look after your threat, including what result your threat is likely to do to the threat graph.

The one big problem, however, is that this is exponential, but it's not that bad since larger than 20-creature fights are rare in adventure mode.

Resolving a Mexican standoff happens when someone's perception changes their action.  For example, some actors will have short fuses -- being threatened increases their desire to hurt the person they threaten.  Some actors who are initially stupid will start thinking out more than one move ahead, as they more accurately calculate the situation they see the chance of them losing getting very high and choose to back off.  Some will be cowardly -- being threatened makes it more likely for them to see backing off as the better option.

Bluffing is a modifier on perception.  In general you want to increase the perception that you are a lethal threat when you are threatening someone and decrease the perception that you are a lethal threat when backing off, so your skill in bluffing would change that.  If you want to add /causing/ distractions then you need to add an estimate as to distractability of actors.  Self-sacrifice would require you valuing someone else's life more highly than your own but should be able to just modify the "cost/benefit" number that comes out of the back end of whatever calculation is there.  Bare stupidity would be not being able to look many moves ahead or discounting the value of your own survival or an enemy's lethality.

If you want to open up another thread on this topic when we both have more time PM me and I'll keep track of it.  I'm a big fan of behavioral modelling and wish more games did it more realistically.  DF could end up being the most advanced behavioral modelling sim if it wants to be.
Logged

Karakzon

  • Bay Watcher
  • [ethics:give a shit?: denied]
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #95 on: June 18, 2012, 03:11:34 pm »

Just an interesting note on the new 'intelligant' dwarf builder positioning:

I have dwarves regularly standing ontop of the wall and cancelling build when their is a free space to stand to build from.
Logged
I am Dyslexic. No its not going to change any time soon.
Bolts of Exsanguination THE terrifying glacier export, get yours today!

Rafal99

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #96 on: June 18, 2012, 04:28:15 pm »

Just an interesting note on the new 'intelligant' dwarf builder positioning:

I have dwarves regularly standing ontop of the wall and cancelling build when their is a free space to stand to build from.

Known bug.
http://www.bay12games.com/dwarves/mantisbt/view.php?id=5991

Use the BugTracker, not the forum to report bugs by the way.
Logged
The spinning Tantrum Spiral strikes The Fortress in the meeting hall!
It explodes in gore!
The Fortress has been struck down.

greycat

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #97 on: June 19, 2012, 06:51:06 am »

I have dwarves regularly standing ontop of the wall and cancelling build when their is a free space to stand to build from.

Yeah, I get that every once in a while too.  The only workaround I've found is to completely cancel the build order and then re-request it.  (Un-suspending never works for me; the builder simply stands on the 99%-completed wall once again, and then finds a creature in the way (himself!) and suspends again.)
Logged
Hell, if nobody's suffocated because of it, it hardly counts as a bug! -- StLeibowitz

Buttery_Mess

  • Bay Watcher
  • 11x11
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #98 on: June 19, 2012, 05:33:46 pm »

Just got back into DF after a bit of a hiatus. Got to say, not liking the dwarves' new 'intelligent' behaviour regarding building things. They still trap themselves, and build things in a dafter order, but now you can't make them do things sensibly. Dwarves really need to be predictable. Haven't tested their digging powers yet.
Logged
But .... It's so small!
It's not the size of the pick that counts... it's the size of the man with the pick.
Quote from: Toady One
Naturally, we'd like to make life miserable for everybody, randomly, but that'll take some doing.

Bulwersator

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #99 on: June 20, 2012, 01:40:57 am »

Just got back into DF after a bit of a hiatus. Got to say, not liking the dwarves' new 'intelligent' behaviour regarding building things. They still trap themselves, and build things in a dafter order, but now you can't make them do things sensibly. Dwarves really need to be predictable. Haven't tested their digging powers yet.
A known and reported bug. Lets hope that it will be fixed in a near future.
Logged
The worst bug - 34.11 poll
Tired of going decades without goblin sieges? Try The Fortress Defense Mod
the Bugfixes apostle of Bay12forum. Every posts he makes he preaches about the evil of Bugs.

Durin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #100 on: June 23, 2012, 05:54:07 pm »

Intelligent masons?
Hurray!

I'm sure I'm not the only one that figured masons walling themselves in and starving to death was meant to be a feature...

D'oh!
Logged

Durin

  • Bay Watcher
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #101 on: June 23, 2012, 05:58:21 pm »

Just got back into DF after a bit of a hiatus. Got to say, not liking the dwarves' new 'intelligent' behaviour regarding building things. They still trap themselves, and build things in a dafter order, but now you can't make them do things sensibly. Dwarves really need to be predictable. Haven't tested their digging powers yet.

Ah! Thought so...
Logged

geoduck

  • Bay Watcher
  • mollusk
    • View Profile
    • Geoduck's Page
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #102 on: June 23, 2012, 07:05:59 pm »

The only workaround I've found is to completely cancel the build order and then re-request it.  (Un-suspending never works for me; the builder simply stands on the 99%-completed wall once again, and then finds a creature in the way (himself!) and suspends again.)

I had a situation in my current fort where even that didn't work, and I finally had to channel out the tile so the idiot mason couldn't stand on it.
Logged
Geoduck's graphic set: simple and compact!

WillowLuman

  • Bay Watcher
  • They/Them Life is weird
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #103 on: June 24, 2012, 12:43:29 am »

Hi! It is now almost completely impossible to build walls. Dwarves will stand in the tile they're trying to build walls in, then cancel because of creature occupying site. I prefered it when they walled themselves in.
Logged
Dwarf Souls: Prepare to Mine
Keep Me Safe - A Girl and Her Computer (Illustrated Game)
Darkest Garden - Illustrated game. - What mysteries lie in the abandoned dark?

misko27

  • Bay Watcher
  • Lawful Neutral; Prophet of Pestilence
    • View Profile
Re: Dwarf Fortress 0.34.11 Released
« Reply #104 on: June 24, 2012, 12:54:05 am »

Seriously? Is this a problem for others? Not for me. Other wall related problems, yes, but they dont stand in the same tile with me. Maybe world-gen evolved me some slightly smarter dwaves.
Logged
The Age of Man is over. It is the Fire's turn now
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 15