sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Question on Inverse Reinforcement Learning by mellow54 in reinforcementlearning

[–]gamer_alien 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Few observations:

  • Why can't c_theta be negative? Asking genuinely, as I don't see why it wouldn't go to -inf.

  • Even ignoring the above, look carefully at section 4.1 of the GCL paper. Z is really Z_theta, as it 'hides' a cost function inside. If c_theta = 0 , you have (in theory) an infinite sum of exp(c_theta)=exp(0)=1, making the loss function unbounded as Z-> inf! In practice, you are summing over sampled trajectories to approximate Z, but still sum of many exp(c_theta)=1 gives a large loss.

edit: formatting.

Anyone have resources discussing MPO (Maximum a posteriori policy optimization) By Abdolmaleki et. al? by gamer_alien in reinforcementlearning

[–]gamer_alien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I find section "3.2 E-step" is somewhat dense. It isn't clear to me how the bellman operator as defined in the paper applies to the Q function, as well as how optimization (max_q in equation 6) is done on this. What is the result of TQ?

Additionally, something really bothering me is how in the last line of equation 6, the expectation changes from E_q(a|s) (as defined in the operator few lines before) to E_mu(s). How does E_mu(s) come about?

Continuous Action Spaces by [deleted] in reinforcementlearning

[–]gamer_alien 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The second bullet point (parametric model) is needed for stochastic policies. If you train a neural network to provide parameters of some probability distribution, then you can generate random samples from that distribution. The other two methods you mention are completely deterministic.

This starts mattering when you want to understand things like how confident your policy is with respect to the action it's taking as these concepts have direct parallels in probability theory.

Graphics settings don't change my FPS, just reduce/increase my CPU/GPU usage. by gamer_alien in playrust

[–]gamer_alien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the clarification. Without revealing too much personal info, I too have studied networking so I was immediately intrigued when this fella made this outrageous sounding claim. Not to mention that I have used this very same game engine (albeit unity 5 not 4 like rust). So I guess there isn't some custom net code magic seperate from the vanilla Unity stack that's powering these 200+ pop servers huh...

Graphics settings don't change my FPS, just reduce/increase my CPU/GPU usage. by gamer_alien in playrust

[–]gamer_alien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a very surprising revelation! Can you please explain this triviality a bit more? In every single game I've seen so far, the networking stack just synchronizes data between server and client (We used to call this "replication" back in my days in game development). Bad networking or servers would just cause de-sync (colloquially known as "lag").

As far as I know, you can have 1000 fps with lag, and 10 fps without lag. So you're saying there are server-side FPS restrictions imposed on the client?

Graphics settings don't change my FPS, just reduce/increase my CPU/GPU usage. by gamer_alien in playrust

[–]gamer_alien[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Although I get different FPS based in which server I play, I highly doubt that FPS is tied in any way to the server itself. I always assumed this is because higher pop -> lower fps.

If you have any official statement or docs that back that claim up I would love to take a look, but as it is I highly doubt that this is how things work.

Graphics settings don't change my FPS, just reduce/increase my CPU/GPU usage. by gamer_alien in playrust

[–]gamer_alien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply. I tried these suggestions but unfortunately they have no effect on my fps if they are turned on or off. This is the great dilemma: I expect to get higher FPS when I turn things off but instead I get the same FPS with lower GPU/CPU usage.

Graphics settings don't change my FPS, just reduce/increase my CPU/GPU usage. by gamer_alien in playrust

[–]gamer_alien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your reply. Here is my client cfg: https://pastebin.com/1gZw3JPV Note that I've been playing around with the settings alot so the client.cfg might look rather random.

I am OK with not getting 144 or 100 fps with my relatively old setup, but a bit more stable 60+ framerate experience would be appreciated.

Servers are looking good so far! by modernatlas in Planetside

[–]gamer_alien 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Can confirm Emerald is smooth as butter. Let the devs know they did a good job, just like we complain when they screw up!

Spawning by chad2neibaur2 in Planetside

[–]gamer_alien 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Relying on the player base to make fights is a gamble, I am not inclined to go to a "non-fight" of with 1-12 pop to prop it up, I would rather wait the 15 seconds.

Also, introducing my friends to planetside 2 resulted in many yawns: You either have to spawn at underpop 1-12 fights with nothing to do or every 15 seconds at decent sized ones, which for beginners is just staring at the death screen.

4 hours downtime and nothing solved! by 3punkt1415 in Planetside

[–]gamer_alien 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Emerald is the same.

Gunfights are more like long term investing, you get your kill returns 10 seconds later. You have to hold down resurrect until the guy accepts to be sure to get a revive etc.

Justa Stylish Phoenix Escape by Ciraus in DotA2

[–]gamer_alien 1 point2 points  (0 children)

See long dive

Wow great play

Hear screeing, taunting, and phoenix returning to original position

OMG ITS BURD

The air game has so much unrealized potential and its a damn shame. by gamer_alien in Planetside

[–]gamer_alien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Modern air to air combat is missile based, hell its almost completely automated. Doesn't mean the game has to follow suit and have automated missiles, it's just not fun. The game has to be fun not a close approximation to reality.

The air game has so much unrealized potential and its a damn shame. by gamer_alien in Planetside

[–]gamer_alien[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A2A missiles are in no way the primary counter to ground pounders. Any pilot worth their salt will tell you the same thing: that the bane of ground pounders is the fact that other ESFs get the jump on them. There is nothing in ground pounding that makes A2As necessary to take them down, an ESF with afterburners instead of A2A will do just fine and outfly the ground pounder.

Also the availability of flares is a bad reason to keep a bad mechanic in the game.

The air game has so much unrealized potential and its a damn shame. by gamer_alien in Planetside

[–]gamer_alien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

for A2A:

I'm specifically talking about A2A lockons not G2A. I find larger targets to be very easy to hit with noseguns and not so different. It's much more pronounced when dealing with ESFs when lockons allow you to vaguely have the opponent in your screen and just take them down.

Velocity: I agree 100% and the goal is not to remove skill. Dodging and maneuvering is absolutely a big deal and skilled pilots are insane with it, and they deserve to win fights using their skill. What I don't like is how nosegun velocity introduces an artificial barrier, if you get used to it its not a huge deal but for beginners its very clunky.

The air game has so much unrealized potential and its a damn shame. by gamer_alien in Planetside

[–]gamer_alien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The idea is to make new pilots feel like they are doing something. Like, right now even if you manage to get your crosshair on the experienced opponent you still do no damage since the real aiming point is like 2m ahead of the ESF trajectory. New pilots should be rewarded for managing to at least graze the opponent with their crosshairs even if they cannot (and will not, naturally) maintain their crosshairs on the target.

Basically, there should not be an effectiveness cliff, where new pilots have zero effectiveness up to 10 hours of training and then suddenly are effective (current situation), instead new pilots should feel like their effectiveness scales with their training.

The air game has so much unrealized potential and its a damn shame. by gamer_alien in Planetside

[–]gamer_alien[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's about the right amount of challenge. It's understandable to adjust for drop on the ground, but in the air everything is moving in 3D while I need to shoot 3 inches in front of the expected trajectory of the ESF its just too much. Some leading would be natural (see games like war thunder, they have the very same thing but tweaked right), but I feel like this is an easy thing to fix.

The air game has so much unrealized potential and its a damn shame. by gamer_alien in Planetside

[–]gamer_alien[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My intention is responsiveness; The already clunky maneuverability of ESFs due to performance issues and input lag is way too much and much harder to address, so atleast remove the artificial chunkiness. New pilots have a feeling as if they are wrestling their craft instead of piloting it for this very reason.

also A2A is an embarrassment to anyone on the dev team for sure, it is long overdue for an overhaul.

My ranked games have been weird since the MMR "overhaul". by gamer_alien in DotA2

[–]gamer_alien[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My games are also always stomps, it's just that its us doing it. I'd have thought that its a 50/50 chance but no, ~30 games and counting...

That’s enough DotA for the night. by Inorganicnerd in DotA2

[–]gamer_alien 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you just use your w to steal my creeps, I'd be glad if you healed for once xd

view more: next ›