Moderator: CCGHQ Admins
by Rob Cashwalker » 17 Jun 2009, 17:30
http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/a ... eature/43c
by Snacko » 17 Jun 2009, 20:07
Their design goals meet a casual player needs, but anything more advanced is crippled, like no hybrid mana (MTGForge didn't have mana pool since recently )
I suppose they end up with many vanilla creatures and very simple spells even thou a long development cycle (2 years with 40 people)
by juzamjedi » 17 Jun 2009, 23:18
I definitely give props to them for taking on the challenge of text-changing cards. I have not seen that before, has anyone else done this?..
Lastly I laughed out loud when I read this
Fortunately, Wizards never asked us to implement Shahrazad ....
by frwololo » 18 Jun 2009, 00:15
I guess they aim at flexibility to add more cards and rules in the future...juzamjedi wrote:I know very little of Lua other than (I think) it is the language used in WOW. But I wonder why there use several levels of code for something as simple as granting flying to a creature (Flying + GiveFlying?)
by BlackMamba » 18 Jun 2009, 01:41
I'm eager to see how they did AI since I'm knee deep in AI right now.
by juzamjedi » 22 Jun 2009, 16:48
The tips and tricks that they used for optimizing the AI are very interesting. Yet even with all the tricks employed they could not look ahead to the next full turn to calculate the value of keeping back blockers. Admittedly I have never tried coding an AI for Magic, but it struck me as pretty crazy that there are so many branches to evaluate
by Marek14 » 25 Jun 2009, 05:50
by juzamjedi » 25 Jun 2009, 14:32
Perhaps it would be a good exercise to actually lay out a reasonable board position and evaluate how many decisions exist with this brute force approach? (A good AI would need to include some reasonable ability to estimate cards in opponent's hand without outright cheating.)
I would predict that the Monte Carlo implementation would have one nice side effect: there would be the occasional random, silly decision due to the AI not going through enough scenarios in his head (like real life Magic )
by frwololo » 26 Jun 2009, 01:24
Well, that's pretty much what they do, except in a clever way (minmax + alpha beta pruning).Marek14 wrote:I wonder if there would be anything to gain from Monte Carlo method - i.e. make a sequence of few random moves, make many, many of them, and then look which one has the best results... It wouldn't be smart, but it wouldn't probably be exactly stupid either?
Both methods have the same issue: it is very difficult to analyze if the result is good or not (evaluation function is difficult to write).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests