In games like StarCraft you can have up to 200 units (for player) in a map.
There are small but also big maps.
When you for example grab 50 units and tell them to go to the other side of the map some algorithm kicks in and they find path through the obsticles (river, hills, rocks and other).
My question is do you know how the game doesnt slow down because you have 50 paths to calculate. In the meantime other things happens like drones collecting minerals buildinds are made and so on. And if the map is big it should be harder and slower.
So even if the algorithm is good it will take some time for 100 units.
Do you know how this works maybe the algorithm is similar to other games.
As i said when you tell units to move you did not see any delay for calculating the path - they start to run to the destination immediately.
The question is how they make the units go through the shortest path but fast.
There is no delay in most of the games (StarCraft, WarCraft and so on)
Thank you.
I guess it just needs to subdivide the problem and memoize the results. Example: 2 units. Unit1 goes from A to C but the shortest path goes through B. Unit2 goes from B to C.
B to C only needs to be calculated once and can be reused by both.
See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming
In this wikipedia page it specifically mentions dijkstra's algorithm for path finding that works by subdividing the problem and store results to be reused.
There is also a pretty good looking alternative here http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TylerGlaiel/20121007/178966/Some_experiments_in_pathfinding__AI.php where it takes into account dynamic stuff like obstacles and still performs very well (video demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4W1zSOLr_g).
Another interesting technique, does a completely different approach:
Calculate the shortest path from the goal position to every point on the map: see the full explanation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bspb9g9nTto - although this one is inefficient for large maps
First of all 100 units is not such a large number, pathfinding is fast enough on modern computers that it is not a big resource sink. Even on older games, optimizations are made to make it even faster, and you can see that unit will sometimes get lost or stuck, which shouldn't really happen with a general algorithm like A*.
If the map does not change map, you can preprocess it to build a set of nodes representing regions of the map. For example, if the map is two islands connected by a narrow bridge, there would be three "regions" - island 1, island 2, bridge. In reality you would probably do this with some graph algorithm, not manually. For instance:
Score every tile with distance to nearest impassable tile.
Put all adjacent tiles with score above the threshold in the same region.
When done, gradually expand outwards from all regions to encompass low-score tiles as well.
Make a new graph where each region-region intersection is a node, and calculate shortest paths between them.
Then your pathfinding algorithm becomes two stage:
Find which region the unit is in.
Find which region the target is in.
If different regions, calculate shortest path to target region first using the region graph from above.
Once in the same region, calculate path normally on the tile grid.
When moving between distant locations, this should be much faster because you are now searching through a handful of nodes (on the region graph) plus a relatively small number of tiles, instead of the hundreds of tiles that comprise those regions. For example, if we have 3 islands A, B, C with bridges 1 and 2 connecting A-B and B-C respectively, then units moving from A to C don't really need to search all of B every time, they only care about shortest way from bridge 1 to bridge 2. If you have a lot of islands this can really speed things up.
Of course the problem is that regions may change due to, for instance, buildings blocking a path or units temporarily obstructing a passageway. The solution to this is up to your imagination. You could try to carefully update the region graph every time the map is altered, if the map is rarely altered in your game. Or you could just let units naively trust the region graph until they bump into an obstacle. With some games you can see particularly bad cases of the latter because a unit will continue running towards a valley even after it's been walled off, and only after hitting the wall it will turn back and go around. I think the original Starcraft had this issue when units block a narrow path. They would try to take a really long detour instead of waiting for the crowd to free up a bridge.
There's also algorithms that accomplish analogous optimizations without explicitly building the region graph, for instance JPS works roughly this way.
Related
We are trying to find a way to create a full distance matrix in a neo4j database, where that distance is defined as the length of the shortest path between any two nodes. Of course, there is the shortestPath method but using a loop going through all pairs of nodes and calculating their shortestPaths get very slow. We are explicitely not talking about allShortestPaths, because that returns all shortest paths between 2 specific nodes.
Is there a specific method or approach that is fast for a large number of nodes (>30k)?
Thank you!
j.
There is no easier method; the full distance matrix will take a long time to build.
As you've described it, the full distance matrix must contain the shortest path between any two nodes, which means you will have to get that information at some point. Iterating over each pair of nodes and running a shortest-path algorithm is the only way to do this, and the complexity will be O(n) multiplied by the complexity of the algorithm.
But you can cut down on the runtime with a dynamic programming solution.
You could certainly leverage some dynamic programming methods to cut down on the calculation time. For instance, if you are trying to find the shortest path between (A) and (C), and have already calculated the shortest from (B) to (C), then if you happen to encounter (B) while pathfinding from (A), you do not need to recalculate the rest of the cost of that path; it is known.
However, creating a dynamic programming solution of any reasonable complexity will almost certainly be best done in a separate module for Neo4J that is thrown in into a plugin. If what you are doing is a one-time operation or an operation that won't be run frequently, it might be easier to just do the naive solution of calling shortestPath between each pair, but if you plan to be running it fairly frequently on dynamic data, it might be worth authoring a custom plugin. It totally depends on your needs.
No matter what, though, it will take some time to calculate. The dynamic programming solution will cut down on the time greatly (especially in a densely-connected graph), but it will still not be very fast.
What is the end game? Is this a one-time query that resets some property or creates new edges. Or a recurring frequent effort. If it's one-time, you might create edges between the two nodes at each step creating a transitive closure environment. The edge would point between the two nodes and have, as a property, the distance.
Thus, if the path is a>b>c>d, you would create the edges
a>b 1
a>c 2
a>d 3
b>c 1
b>d 2
c>d 1
The edges could be named distinctively to distinguish them from the original path edges. This could create circular paths, which may neither negate this strategy or need a constraint. if you are dealing with directed acyclic graphs it would work well.
Simple question on hello world example of the MCTS for tic-tac-toe,
Let's assume we are given a board and we want to make an optimal decision. As I undestand the choice of consecutive nodes while simulation (until leaf is met) is determined by a exploration/exploitation trade-off function (as described on wikipedia). I really wonder what is the intuition behind first component (exploitation) of the function here, especially for games between two players with oppposite goals. Then the meaning of "the most promising" changes depending on who makes a move. Shouldn't this function change depeding on who makes the next move (especially its first component)?
Yes, that exploitation part of the equation should be implemented to take into account the evaluations from the perspective of the agent/player who gets to select an action in that node.
For single-agent settings, the implementation is straightforward; simply always maximize.
For zero-sum, turn-based, two-player settings, you'd want to alternate between maximizing or minimizing that exploitation part of the equation (note: always maximize the exploration term!). This can also be implemented by simply multiplying that term by -1 in nodes where the opponent gets to move.
Other settings are possible too, but require slightly more implementation effort (e.g. keeping different average scores for different players in settings which are not zero-sum or have more than two players)
I have location data from a large number of users (hundreds of thousands). I store the current position and a few historical data points (minute data going back one hour).
How would I go about detecting crowds that gather around natural events like birthday parties etc.? Even smaller crowds (let's say starting from 5 people) should be detected.
The algorithm needs to work in almost real time (or at least once a minute) to detect crowds as they happen.
I have looked into many cluster analysis algorithms, but most of them seem like a bad choice. They either take too long (I have seen O(n^3) and O(2^n)) or need to know how many clusters there are beforehand.
Can someone help me? Thank you!
Let each user be it's own cluster. When she gets within distance R to another user form a new cluster and separate again when the person leaves. You have your event when:
Number of people is greater than N
They are in the same place for the timer greater than T
The party is not moving (might indicate a public transport)
It's not located in public service buildings (hospital, school etc.)
(good number of other conditions)
One minute is plenty of time to get it done even on hundreds of thousands of people. In naive implementation it would be O(n^2), but mind there is no point in comparing location of each individual, only those in close neighbourhood. In first approximation you can divide the "world" into sectors, which also makes it easy to make the task parallel - and in turn easily scale. More users? Just add a few more nodes and downscale.
One idea would be to think in terms of 'mass' and centre of gravity. First of all, do not mark something as event until the mass is not greater than e.g. 15 units. Sure, location is imprecise, but in case of events it should average around centre of the event. If your cluster grows in any direction without adding substantial mass, then most likely it isn't right. Look at methods like DBSCAN (density-based clustering), good inspiration can be also taken from physical systems, even Ising model (here you think in terms of temperature and "flipping" someone to join the crowd)ale at time of limited activity.
How to avoid "single-linkage problem" mentioned by author in comments? One idea would be to think in terms of 'mass' and centre of gravity. First of all, do not mark something as event until the mass is not greater than e.g. 15 units. Sure, location is imprecise, but in case of events it should average around centre of the event. If your cluster grows in any direction without adding substantial mass, then most likely it isn't right. Look at methods like DBSCAN (density-based clustering), good inspiration can be also taken from physical systems, even Ising model (here you think in terms of temperature and "flipping" someone to join the crowd). It is not a novel problem and I am sure there are papers that cover it (partially), e.g. Is There a Crowd? Experiences in Using Density-Based Clustering and Outlier Detection.
There is little use in doing a full clustering.
Just uses good database index.
Keep a database of the current positions.
Whenever you get a new coordinate, query the database with the desired radius, say 50 meters. A good index will do this in O(log n) for a small radius. If you get enough results, this may be an event, or someone joining an ongoing event.
I'm working on a project where I'll have an agent in a random maze, and this maze does not have an exit. The goal would be for the agent to explore the maze and 'remember' how it looks. After some time I'll spawn an item at a random location and the agent will be notified only if it has mapped out that given area. The agent will use the map it has generated to determine the shortest path to the item.
I know of maze algorithms like A*, but these algorithms require a start and end position for the traversal to stop. These algorithms don't 'remember' how the maze looks they just determine the shortest path between two points. Since the maze is closed there is no end position. My initial idea was to have the agent travel randomly and fill in a 2D array of how the map looks, this just seems inefficient to me. Any ideas would be great.
So you will have two steps, exploration and traversing.
Suppose you have explored the maze completely, then when the item appears, you can just use A* with goal being the item.
To explore the map and store it, you can create a data structure appropriate for the map. For example, if the connecting paths don't matter and only the conjunctions do, then just create a Node class where each node has a list of connected nodes. Finally, you can start a breadth-first search or depth-first search to explore the whole map, while storing the info in the aforementioned data structure.
Depending on the actual map, either exploration algorithms might be more effective. I'd start with depth-first though, since that sounds similar to our human approach to mazes - always turn in the same direction at an intersection! (Good that dfs takes care of circular paths!)
I am developing a game for the web. The map of this game will be a minimum of 2000km by 2000km. I want to be able to encode elevation and terrain type at some level of granularity - 100m X 100m for example.
For a 2000km by 2000km map storing this information in 100m2 buckets would mean 20000 by 20000 elements or a total of 400,000,000 records in a database.
Is there some other way of storing this type of information?
MORE INFORMATION
The map itself will not ever be displayed in its entirety. Units will be moved on the map in a turn based fashion and the players will get feedback on where they are located and what the local area looks like. Terrain will dictate speed and prohibition of movement.
I guess I am trying to say that the map will be used for the game and not necessarily for a graphical or display purposes.
It depends on how you want to generate your terrain.
For example, you could procedurally generate it all (using interpolation of a low resolution terrain/height map - stored as two "bitmaps" - with random interpolation seeded from the xy coords to ensure that terrain didn't morph), and use minimal storage.
If you wanted areas of terrain that were completely defined, you could store these separately and use them where appropriate, randomly generating the rest.)
If you want completely defined terrain, then you're going to need to look into some kind of compression/streaming technique to only pull terrain you are currently interested in.
I would treat it differently, by separating terrain type and elevation.
Terrain type, I assume, does not change as rapidly as elevation - there are probably sectors of the same type of terrain that stretch over much longer than the lowest level of granularity. I would map those sectors into database records or some kind of hash table, depending on performance, memory and other requirements.
Elevation I would assume is semi-contiuous, as it changes gradually for the most part. I would try to map the values into set of continuous functions (different sets between parts that are not continues, as in sudden change in elevation). For any set of coordinates for which the terrain is the same elevation or can be described by a simple function, you just need to define the range this function covers. This should reduce much the amount of information you need to record to describe the elevation at each point in the terrain.
So basically I would break down the map into different sectors which compose of (x,y) ranges, once for terrain type and once for terrain elevation, and build a hash table for each which can return the appropriate value as needed.
If you want the kind of granularity that you are looking for, then there is no obvious way of doing it.
You could try a 2-dimensional wavelet transform, but that's pretty complex. Something like a Fourier transform would do quite nicely. Plus, you probably wouldn't go about storing the terrain with a one-record-per-piece-of-land way; it makes more sense to have some sort of database field which can store an encoded matrix.
I think the usual solution is to break your domain up into "tiles" of manageable sizes. You'll have to add a little bit of logic to load the appropriate tiles at any given time, but not too bad.
You shouldn't need to access all that info at once--even if each 100m2 bucket occupied a single pixel on the screen, no screen I know of could show 20k x 20k pixels at once.
Also, I wouldn't use a database--look into height mapping--effectively using a black & white image whose pixel values represent heights.
Good luck!
That will be awfully lot of information no matter which way you look at it. 400,000,000 grid cells will take their toll.
I see two ways of going around this. Firstly, since it is a web-based game, you might be able to get a server with a decently sized HDD and store the 400M records in it just as you would normally. Or more likely create some sort of your own storage mechanism for efficiency. Then you would only have to devise a way to access the data efficiently, which could be done by taking into account the fact that you doubtfully will need to use it all at once. ;)
The other way would be some kind of compression. You have to be careful with this though. Most out-of-the-box compression algorithms won't allow you to decompress an arbitrary location in the stream. Perhaps your terrain data has some patterns in it you can use? I doubt it will be completely random. More likely I predict large areas with the same data. Perhaps those can be encoded as such?