1 |
[quote]Can you give us some example new unit prices? [/quote]
|
1 |
[quote]Can you give us some example new unit prices? [/quote]
|
2 |
[quote]For ZK it will be nearly impossible to solve the equation analytically[/quote]
|
2 |
[quote]For ZK it will be nearly impossible to solve the equation analytically[/quote]
|
3 |
Even
aside
from
indirect
combat
utility
(
things
which
don't
do
damage
can
be
useful:
constructors,
mex,
placeholder,
aspis,
vulture,
etc)
,
i
don't
think
that
even
when
solved
this
equation
would
be
very
good
at
least
for
things
that
interest
me
(
combat
outcome
prediction)
because
it
seems
to
model
combat
as
a
continuous
process
where
things
like
One
Hit
Kill
don't
happen.
I
would
expect
the
algorithm
to
undervalue
Duck
vs
Glaive,
for
example,
because
of
Duck's
DPS
not
being
that
much
compensated
by
its
health.
|
3 |
Even
aside
from
indirect
combat
utility
(
things
which
don't
do
damage
can
be
useful:
constructors,
mex,
placeholder,
aspis,
vulture,
etc)
,
i
don't
think
that
even
when
solved
this
equation
would
be
very
good
at
least
for
things
that
interest
me
(
combat
outcome
prediction)
because
it
seems
to
model
combat
as
a
continuous
process
where
things
like
One
Hit
Kill
don't
happen.
I
would
expect
the
equation
to
undervalue
Duck
vs
Glaive,
for
example,
because
of
Duck's
DPS
not
being
that
much
compensated
by
its
health.
|
4 |
\n
|
4 |
\n
|
5 |
However, it would be interesting to measure analytical (and other) combat models for their accuracy for combat prediction if there was a dataset of combats. Since that is useful in other ways too, maybe i'll try to figure out how to generate a reasonable dataset sometime autumnly, especially as replay archives are now accessible and scrapeable.
|
5 |
However, it would be interesting to measure analytical (and other) combat models for their accuracy for combat prediction if there was a dataset of combats. Since that is useful in other ways too, maybe i'll try to figure out how to generate a reasonable dataset sometime autumnly, especially as replay archives are now accessible and scrapeable.
|
6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
7 |
Now, for the fun part. Not solving an equation analytically means solving it either by brute force, or by approximation, right? There was a series of interesting papers that achieved good combat outcome prediction accuracies by using machine learning. The one i found most intriguing was the one that assumed a simple lanchester's square law combat model with [i]pairwise effective dps[/i] for each unit type, and machine-learned these pairwise DPS to make the model work. This was just a proof of concept for Starcraft, where armor modifiers are known and combat is fairly simple; for ZK, effective DPS could easily encode things like accuracy, leading, and maybe even AoE.
|
7 |
Now, for the fun part. Not solving an equation analytically means solving it either by brute force, or by approximation, right? There was a series of interesting papers that achieved good combat outcome prediction accuracies by using machine learning. The one i found most intriguing was the one that assumed a simple lanchester's square law combat model with [i]pairwise effective dps[/i] for each unit type, and machine-learned these pairwise DPS to make the model work. This was just a proof of concept for Starcraft, where armor modifiers are known and combat is fairly simple; for ZK, effective DPS could easily encode things like accuracy, leading, and maybe even AoE.
|
8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
9 |
(but not utility things like mentioned above: the lanchester model, even with pairwise dps, cannot model unit synergies and utilities)
|
9 |
(but not utility things like mentioned above: the lanchester model, even with pairwise dps, cannot model unit synergies and utilities)
|
10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
11 |
And again, applying that to ZK requires a dataset.
|
11 |
And again, applying that to ZK requires a dataset.
|
12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
13 |
What features should objects in such a dataset have?
|
13 |
What features should objects in such a dataset have?
|