Game balancing is an important part of the (computer) game design process, in which designers adapt a game prototype so that the resulting gameplay is as entertaining as possible. In industry, the evaluation of a game is often based on costly playtests with human players. It suggests itself to automate this process using surrogate models for the prediction of gameplay and outcome. In this paper, the feasibility of automatic balancing using simulation- and deck-based objectives is investigated for the card game top trumps. Additionally, the necessity of a multi-objective approach is asserted by a comparison with the only known (single-objective) method. We apply a multi-objective evolutionary algorithm to obtain decks that optimise objectives, e.g. win rate and average number of tricks, developed to express the fairness and the excitement of a game of top trumps. The results are compared with decks from published top trumps decks using simulation-based objectives. The possibility to generate decks better or at least as good as decks from published top trumps decks in terms of these objectives is demonstrated. Our results indicate that automatic balancing with the presented approach is feasible even for more complex games such as real-time strategy games.
Jaffe2013 introduces a technique called restricted play that is supposed to enable designer to express balancing goals in terms of the win rate of a suitably restricted agent @cite_3 . However, this approach necessitates expert knowledge about the game as well as an AI and several potentially computationally expensive simulations. In contrast, we explore other possibilities to express design goals and utilise non-simulation based metrics.
@cite_3
2346665340 2152729775 2337798556 2786478526
Game balancing is the fine-tuning phase in which a functioning game is adjusted to be deep, fair, and interesting. Balancing is difficult and time-consuming, as designers must repeatedly tweak parameters and run lengthy playtests to evaluate the effects of these changes. Only recently has computer science played a role in balancing, through quantitative balance analysis. Such methods take two forms: analytics for repositories of real gameplay, and the study of simulated players. In this work I rectify a deficiency of prior work: largely ignoring the players themselves. I argue that variety among players is the main source of depth in many games, and that analysis should be contextualized by the behavioral properties of players. Concretely, I present a formalization of diverse forms of game balance. This formulation, called 'restricted play', reveals the connection between balancing concerns, by effectively reducing them to the fairness of games with restricted players. Using restricted play as a foundation, I contribute four novel methods of quantitative balance analysis. I first show how game balance be estimated without players, using simulated agents under algorithmic restrictions. I then present a set of guidelines for using domain-specific models to guide data exploration, with a case study of my design work on a major competitive video game. I extend my work on this game with novel data visualization techniques, which overcome limitations of existing work by decomposing data in terms of player skill. I finally present an advanced formulation of fairness in games—the first to take into account a game's metagame, or player community. These contributions are supported by a detailed exploration of common understandings of game balance, a survey of prior work in quantitative balance analysis, a discussion of the social benefit of this work, and a vision of future games that quantitative balance analysis might one day make possible. Developing computer-controlled groups to engage in combat, control the use of limited resources, and create units and buildings in real-time strategy (RTS) games is a novel application in game AI. However, tightly controlled online commercial game pose challenges to researchers interested in observing player activities, constructing player strategy models, and developing practical AI technology in them. Instead of setting up new programming environments or building a large amount of agentpsilas decision rules by playerpsilas experience for conducting real-time AI research, the authors use replays of the commercial RTS game StarCraft to evaluate human player behaviors and to construct an intelligent system to learn human-like decisions and behaviors. A case-based reasoning approach was applied for the purpose of training our system to learn and predict player strategies. Our analysis indicates that the proposed system is capable of learning and predicting individual player strategies, and that players provide evidence of their personal characteristics through their building construction order. We propose a hybrid model for automatically acquiring a policy for a complex game, which combines online learning with mining knowledge from a corpus of human game play. Our hypothesis is that a player that learns its policies by combining (online) exploration with biases towards human behaviour that's attested in a corpus of humans playing the game will outperform any agent that uses only one of the knowledge sources. During game play, the agent extracts similar moves made by players in the corpus in similar situations, and approximates their utility alongside other possible options by performing simulations from its current state. We implement and assess our model in an agent playing the complex win-lose board game Settlers of Catan, which lacks an implementation that would challenge a human expert. The results from the preliminary set of experiments illustrate the potential of such a joint model. Policy gradient reinforcement learning has been applied to two-player alternate-turn zero-sum games, e.g., in AlphaGo, self-play REINFORCE was used to improve the neural net model after supervised learning. In this paper, we emphasize that two-player zero-sum games with alternating turns, which have been previously formulated as Alternating Markov Games (AMGs), are different from standard MDP because of their two-agent nature. We exploit the difference in associated Bellman equations, which leads to different policy iteration algorithms. As policy gradient method is a kind of generalized policy iteration, we show how these differences in policy iteration are reflected in policy gradient for AMGs. We formulate an adversarial policy gradient and discuss potential possibilities for developing better policy gradient methods other than self-play REINFORCE. The core idea is to estimate the minimum rather than the mean for the “critic”. Experimental results on the game of Hex show the modified Monte Carlo policy gradient methods are able to learn better pure neural net policies than the REINFORCE variants. To apply learned neural weights to multiple board sizes Hex, we describe a board-size independent neural net architecture. We show that when combined with search, using a single neural net model, the resulting program consistently beats MoHex 2.0, the state-of-the-art computer Hex player, on board sizes from 9×9 to 13×13.