[happyslobro]

Do you mean that the detective player's analysis would be, say, an input to the fitness functions of a genetic algorithm? That sounds super interesting. Would you care to elaborate on what form the analysis would take, in order to be both parsable by the system and writable by a player?

I have an idea for a fairly simple possibly: The user just declares that certain features of the scene are interesting and relevant, maybe by "taking a sample", so that the algorithm can boost the weight of inputs that have a relationship to those features. But, I suspect that you have something much more interesting in mind...

[saulrh]

So the question is how to complete the feedback loop. The Adversary needs something causally coupled to its victory or defeat that it can use to improve its monsters.

I think that the most straightforward way to do this is to have the Archaeologist player indicate features of the combatants or the scenario that led to victory/defeat, like you said. The Adversary then uses those to guide its optimizer. For example, you might indicate something like "The Monster won because: Monster had high armor, Player had low jump height, this platform in the middle of the room". The system then knows to put those features together more often.

Hmm, now that I think about it, there's actually a metagame issue here: Players will tend to support each other by trashing the AI. It'd be more effective to set players against each other somehow. Or we need a better way to reward players.

So what we want to do is tie the monster's success to the player's success. A simple answer is "I want this": The player gets to choose something to take from the monster's ship and add to their own. The Adversary might be able to use that somehow, but there's a little bit of a mismatch there because the player's ship and style will be different than the monster's, and a feature might be selected to shore up something about the player's ship rather than to point out a useful bit of the monster.

Maybe have the investigator player redo the fight with tweaks. The player's job might be to change the monster until it loses a rematch. Could do this by having the player take over the past player's ship and fight "in simulation", or could just do it automatically. Player gets a better reward the less they have to change the enemy to win, which encourages efficient changes. The Adversary then changes the monster in the opposite direction and sends it back out.

Could split things up into teams and set players against each other on a grand scale? The player's job is to find battlefields where their team's monsters lost and then optimize the allied monsters. You never actually see another player - might do something asymmetric here, with a dimensional boundary or something that prevents players from interacting with other players except via salvaged guncam footage from allied monsters.

[saulrh]

Maybe have the investigator player redo the fight with tweaks.

Now that I've had some hours to think, this'd actually work better in a single-player format: The player can only advance by tweaking enemies until they can defeat them, knowing that the next time they encounter that enemy it'll be stronger in exactly the wrong way. Then it becomes a complex game of managing how the enemies grow and balancing tactical concerns ("how do I beat this one enemy") versus strategic concerns ("I could beat this one by decrementing its dex, but then it'd be unstoppable in the future.").

EDIT: this feels a little bit like "warning forever" but maybe with more depth and a clearer focus?

[stcredzero]

Or we need a better way to reward players.

So what we want to do is tie the monster's success to the player's success.

One thing I've played with is to let Players take "contracts" to build security drone warships. The players will get paid a small royalty, plus a sizeable bonus for combat success.

To keep players from trying to rig the system in their favor too easily, the AI scripting language can be processed by the genetic algorithm. The players will still be able to exploit the system by nefarious means, but they will have to create bots that are tough on the surface, and hope that not too many others will discover and also exploit their backdoors. (I would love it if players started doing this!)

[saulrh]

That's pretty neat! Reminds me a little bit of the old terrarium game that microsoft used to demonstrate .NET, or maybe of a version of spore that doesn't suck, or even a little bit of the nature of open-source: build something, send it out into the world, see it grow and develop from where you started it.

Genius nefarious builds could definitely be flavored as a reward, and I agree that that's one of the big draws of this system: if you manage to build something that's good enough to survive and spread but still flawed in a way that you can exploit, kudos to you! Reward: you get to break into anything that's guarded by your creations. :P Just good luck building something that you can exploit that not enough other people can for it to not succeed.

(I think I'd love to check this game out when it's further along, BTW. Do you have a news list I could throw an email address at?)