|
I hope someone somewhere is getting actual-money rich off all of these dumb nerds and entry-level financial types selling each other spent electricity.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 17:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
TheScott2K posted:I hope someone somewhere is getting actual-money rich off all of these dumb nerds and entry-level financial types selling each other spent electricity. nvidia?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
When will Bitcoin die?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 17:27
|
|
|
Probably never as long as idiots like this exist This was in response to Valve ending support for a currency whose value could change by 25% in days, and fluctuate so rapidly that payments could be declined in progress, with absurdly high transaction fees making it a nightmare to perform any kind of resolution on a payment that failed because the value of BTC dropped by 20 dollars in a less than a minute.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
Valve's already in deep with the money laundering scene with it's marketplace and trading cards, no wonder they didn't want another target on their back with bitcoin
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Bitcoin is guaranteed to eventually fail because of how it is designed; it becomes less and less cost-effective to mine it, and it's possible that it's already cost-ineffective. The trouble is all the other bullshit cryptocurrencies that have sprung up in its wake. The inevitable collapse of Bitcoin will hopefully have more than a chilling effect when the poo poo hits the fan. Legislation, stories about suckers losing everything, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 18:25
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:Bitcoin is guaranteed to eventually fail because of how it is designed; it becomes less and less cost-effective to mine it, and it's possible that it's already cost-ineffective. Yea, without mining, Bitcoin is just another speculation-prone fiat currency without a state to back or manage it. In other words it's nothing. I don't see any of the other crypto currencies finding a way around that inevitability.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 18:31
|
|
|
Would it be possible to offload ai calculations to the gpu to run thousands of basic ai? In general i thought gains would be made in gaming by running basic things to the gpu instead just like bitcoiners do. I know it can only do basic math and would be a coding nightmare but isnt that where the real gains would be? Also what ever happened to dedicated physics cards? Thats basically where i thought they were going with that and it seemed like a good idea. I guess the only game i can remember that used it was ghost recon.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Bitcoins is the best video game
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:Or do you think loading screens provide better gameplay? mass effect's loading screens (elevators) were good gameplay
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Last gen Ridge Racer games had good loading screens
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
It's too bad Microsoft (I think?) has some sort of patent for playing mini games on load screens. They don't even use it either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
DogonCrook posted:Would it be possible to offload ai calculations to the gpu to run thousands of basic ai? I think it got rolled into proprietary gfx api like Physx and tressfx?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 20:37
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:It's too bad Microsoft (I think?) has some sort of patent for playing mini games on load screens. They don't even use it either. That was Namco. It expired.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:I think it got rolled into proprietary gfx api like Physx and tressfx? Yeah they were called physx cards. Gr might have been the first physx game or its launch title i remember they made a big deal about the explosions and how much better they were if you bought the card or something. Never really heard about it again after that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 21:04
|
|
|
DogonCrook posted:Yeah they were called physx cards. Gr might have been the first physx game or its launch title i remember they made a big deal about the explosions and how much better they were if you bought the card or something. Never really heard about it again after that. It's in the GPU now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:It's in the GPU now. Yeah those cards were just a shitload of cores dedicated to physx. But im curious if a gpu core could handle basic ai. Like dedicate an ai to each core youd have thousands of cores for thoudands of ai but im not sure if they can handle that because i dont know anything about programming.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 21:18
|
|
|
If a dev can make an AI that can play a game well out of the box, it's probably not a very good game because there obviously isn't much to it since the entirety of the game's strategy would have been well-discovered before it came out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 21:25
|
|
|
I thought the bottleneck wasnt really processing power but dipshit gamers? I read something somewhere and the essence of it is that it's easy enough to kake AI thats fairly "smart" but there's no incentive. The reason Rome: Total war had a smarter AI than Rome 2 is Sega/CA wanting to pander. A lot of games like assassins creed and batman and witcher 3 use slotting with large groups to hamatring AI and make the player feel like a badass. Of course good ai needs more cpu/:gpu juice but most devs don't want to make smart AI
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 21:35
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:I thought the bottleneck wasnt really processing power but dipshit gamers? The early total wars with the big unitary provinces had marginally better campaign AIs because there was far less to gently caress up, even getting an AI that moves reasonably on the maps they have now is an intense effort, especially as they've added more mechanics like army stances. I'm pretty sure them limiting the number of stacks on the map was there to help it out, in addition to adding and then constantly increasing the garrison forces. Basically, making an AI that can play a game with any kind of granularity is extremely hard, much less do it well. And in action games you could have the enemies all beeline the player and stunlock the poo poo out of them but that hasn't been a thing since early 90s brawlers in arcades. It's probably for the best. In action games it's less a matter of 'smarts' and more exactly how you want to challenge the player, i would scarcely call it AI. It's certainly not hardware holding it back.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 21:45
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:It's too bad Microsoft (I think?) has some sort of patent for playing mini games on load screens. They don't even use it either. When I played Everquest 1, well after release but before they put in the bazaar, it was so incredibly loving boring due to the downtime that they put in a puzzle minigame called Gems that you opened with /gems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YFeSnvYXFU This is bad
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:It's too bad Microsoft (I think?) has some sort of patent for playing mini games on load screens. They don't even use it either. It was Namco and it lapsed sometime last year.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
There is absolutely demand for good AI in those kind of games, difficulty can be chosen by the player at the start so there's no need to randomly dumb it down when there's settings to do it for you. The fact that like every strategy game increases the difficulty by gimping the player and artificially padding the AI's ability to get resources or whatnot says enough about how hard it is to make a worthwhile AI. I guess in the next decade or so they'll be making AI by doing the Open AI thing of making bots that play each other a bazillion times then releasing it into the wild with a few dev tweaks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 21:50
|
|
|
Jeza posted:There is absolutely demand for good AI in those kind of games, difficulty can be chosen by the player at the start so there's no need to randomly dumb it down when there's settings to do it for you. The fact that like every strategy game increases the difficulty by gimping the player and artificially padding the AI's ability to get resources or whatnot says enough about how hard it is to make a worthwhile AI. I kinda feel that modern strategy games are a couple orders of magnitude more difficult and multivariate than a starcraft game, but then when i started hearing about the attempts to make the best SC1 AI, the parameters were terran vs terran, marine only, and they've been getting better, but taking that to say, for example, eu4 is gonna get an amazing AI out of it is probably a long way way. You never know, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 21:56
|
|
|
Enemy AI in action games isn't a hardware problem at this point. What interests me is using cloud AI to replace conversation wheels when talking to NPCs in something like Deus Ex. Google's thing where they make phone calls for you could be really interesting if put in an RPG - you could talk into a mic and pick each character's brain, and not necessarily about questline stuff. There's a Game Maker's Toolkit about enemy AI on YouTube that is decent.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 21:58
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:I kinda feel that modern strategy games are a couple orders of magnitude more difficult and multivariate than a starcraft game, but then when i started hearing about the attempts to make the best SC1 AI, the parameters were terran vs terran, marine only, and they've been getting better, but taking that to say, for example, eu4 is gonna get an amazing AI out of it is probably a long way way. Yeah, and one of the big obstacles in my opinion comes from a slightly harder to appreciate factor, which is that people don't really want to play against AI that just seems insanely good, but rather that seems 'human'. People 100% prefer to lose by feeling they lost strategically and on decision-making, not because the AI has 0.0000001ms reaction times and has flawless unit micro and build order timing etc. which no human can ever feasibly mimic or hope to beat. The 1v1 Open AI DotA 2 bot thing was funny because even pros couldn't really hope to beat the bot mechanically, but then the bot played random amateurs who just used stupid tactics that would never fool a person and made it just malfunction. People want an AI that plays at human speeds and mimics human skills, but then makes far, far better decisions and reactions to player moves than we currently have. At the moment, that feels like it'll have to come from a fusion of dev input and brute force bot learning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 22:08
|
|
|
Jeza posted:Yeah, and one of the big obstacles in my opinion comes from a slightly harder to appreciate factor, which is that people don't really want to play against AI that just seems insanely good, but rather that seems 'human'. People 100% prefer to lose by feeling they lost strategically and on decision-making, not because the AI has 0.0000001ms reaction times and has flawless unit micro and build order timing etc. which no human can ever feasibly mimic or hope to beat. Forza kinda does this with drivatars and it kinda works. I wish they would try the same thing with like a fifa or nhl or sosomething where it mimics players habits and gives games more personality. Im not sure it would work in a shooter some peoples bots would probably just lay down and never move lol.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
Most games and most gamers wouldn't care for cutting edge A.I. As it stands, current A.I. in games hasn't improved in years. The reality is that most enemies are designed for you to kill them, not the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 22:50
|
|
|
yeah people always bitch about some games like the OG deus ex where people would just stop freaking out and alarming after a few minutes even though they were still bleeding from a gun wound but the alternative where the ultra-expensive cybernetically augmented death squad is actually working like a highly trained security force is really plodding and slow and generally not very fun
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 22:52
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Most games and most gamers wouldn't care for cutting edge A.I. current A.I. in games hasn't improved in years. The reality is that most enemies are designed for you to kill them, not the other way around. I think it's strategy games where AI improvements would make a real impact on how even normal players would experience the game. In the case of action games or other kinds of games, what we often perceive as good AI is a trick--it's often AI that's designed to make the player feel like they're outsmarting something intelligent without actually being all that intelligent. FEAR gets held up a lot as an example of great AI in an FPS, and almost all of it comes down to using vocal cues to make the player think that the AI soldiers are communicating with each other and strategizing. Like you're implying, AI that is really intelligently trying to outsmart and defeat the player probably wouldn't be very fun to play against. But AI that looks like it's doing that, if it's convincing enough, is a ton of fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
DogonCrook posted:Yeah they were called physx cards. Gr might have been the first physx game or its launch title i remember they made a big deal about the explosions and how much better they were if you bought the card or something. Never really heard about it again after that. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3TU65KaPXI CellFactor was probably the most prominent "title" that featured the use of the PhysX engine back when the cards were being manufactured by Ageia, which was later acquired by Nvidia. At the time this poo poo was mindblowing as a trailer, but the eventual game was little more than a glorified tech demo, and so few other games supported it that no one really could justify shelling out $300+ for a dedicated physics card. Having that poo poo go into the GPU was the best thing that could happen
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
everybody always says they want their strategy games to have great ai instead of just cheating but that seems so completely backwards to me if you're cheating anyway it's really easy to tweak the computer to be stronger or weaker in various aspects to simulate either a personality or faction differences or even the selected difficulty level, and unless it's particularly egregious 99% of players won't even notice
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
food court bailiff posted:everybody always says they want their strategy games to have great ai instead of just cheating but that seems so completely backwards to me I think it depends on what we mean by "great AI," too. Now that I think about it, it's probably the same as with action games: you want the AI to appear intelligent without actually being able to easily outplay the player. One of the examples I keep thinking of is Civilization, and how, as the systems get more complex, the AI's limitations become clearer. It's not just that the AI in Civ games is dumb--it just appears to act almost at random, while being almost totally unable to handle the way turn-by-turn combat works if they go to war. Better AI, in that case, would be more able to analyze the benefits and drawbacks of negotiating with a player, more able to handle multiple units in combat, and generally smarter and less binary when it comes to trade agreements.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
Strategy games don't need AI to be the reincarnation of Napoleon, but they DO need to be able to function without tripping over the basic mechanics to the point of embarrassment. When you have poo poo like Civ 5 where the AI just cannot handle the combat system at all or Stellaris where you conquer planets well into the mid or late game and it's just full of undeveloped land with starving pops, it's just ridiculous. The AI doesn't need to display a deep and naunced understanding of The Art of War but it does need to function within it's own drat game. Or if they AI just can't handle it, change your loving mechanics. That's where the Total War folks got it right. They mold the game to the AI where necessary. After enough tries they realized the AI just couldn't manage siege equipment and was never going to. So now all infantry can spawn ladders and gates can be bashed down (more slowly) without a ram. Does it seem slightly silly at first? Maybe, but in previous games siege battles against AI were always a loving joke and now they aren't (thanks to that change and others).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Most strategy/tactical games put you into the underdog situation where the enemy has the upper hand but you can outsmart them. It usually works
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Well why cant they make an ai that can drive a drat car without rear ending the poo poo out of you?
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 00:23
|
|
|
people wouldn't call for good AI in strategy games if they realized that this means a human loses every time (e: without cheating lol) ee: maybe the next gen of strategy games will flip the script and balance around a cheating human trying to defeat a vastly superhuman AI google's AI learned to play go in a few hours and proceeded to beat the best living human players and overturn centuries of "perfect play" and innovate on moves that had been perfected by the smartest humans in the east over thousands of years https://deepmind.com/blog/innovations-alphago/ poverty goat fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Jul 10, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 00:58
|
|
|
It blows my mind that fighting games have combos that work, identified by the game developers having put those combos into a training/trial mode with an option to have the game demonstrate that combo to you, but those combos don't get used by the AI opponents even at the hardest difficulty.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
So i read up on physx and what we have is just dumb pr. It was a company called agea and they had like physical debris in explosions and poo poo. They were using the ppu cards to track enourmous amounts of objects. Nvidia bought it and shelved it. They just call their own phyisics and soft body physics physx but it has nothing to do with the original idea. Would have been a lot of extra work on each game i guess for no real gain but kinda neat.
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
I think it's just that there are better ways to do physics now which are GPU-agnostic and don't require anyone to license anything from nvidia
|
|
#
?
Jul 10, 2018 02:30
|
|