NPC Auto-Evo Thread

This thread is for discussion of NPC auto-evo procedures only. Do not go OT here.

Here is my old idea for NPC auto-evo.

Quote :

What if we could cut down on thenumber of mutations and the variables in the environment? Say each time a creature reproduces that you don't see, it produces three types of offspring that directly tweak one variable- one stays the same, one lowers the variable, one heightens the variable, and the computer randomly chooses between the three which one will survive? We could even cycle what type of variable is tweaked in between generations. This way, each species will have one variable change every generation, unless the computer decides to "split" a generation so that more species could evolve. That would only rely on code for determining
A:which sections of share code can be modified (which doesn't even have to work very well, really)
B:dice roll (which one will survive)
C: cycles of modification and splitting

I know it's still pretty complex due to the sheer number of creatures, but we could also cycle what's getting evolved. We could retire a species from evolution for a while, then make it go through a rapid series of generations with mutations, simulating punctuated equilibrium.

Discuss, add your own ideas, make something completely different, but here are some ground rules first:
We can't leave the computer to do everything on its own: we need simple procedures for it to do to evolve creatures.

We can't hard code every mutation.

We must find a balance between hard coding and procedures.

Your idea sounds sound so far, perhaps theres a little bit I'm not understanding though. YOu say that every generation, the computer will change one variable? Somehow I see that as not enough. For example if that variable were to be leg size, then you would get new variants of a species, some with larger legs, some with smaller legs, some with the same legs. I think that this kind of evolution would need to be sped up in order to suit gameplay.

I mean If I advance a generation and I have larger leg muscles, a harder skull, a larger brain mass, slightly bigger claws and arm muscles where as all the NPC's are only different from one aspect, I don't see it making much sense.

Perhaps I have completely misunderstood your idea but if not i propose that the computer picks a set of variables (Perhaps tagged with specifics IE - Arms, claws and muscles that are good for digging, teeth, stomach acids and metabolisms that are good for eating) and makes a species with a heightened, lowered and unchanged set. Perhaps there could even be a noise field applied to it - Some variables are heightened whilst others are lowered.

Then we could get to the process of determining which set of variables would be edited to an NPC. If you never see it or interact with it in your generation, it could be fully random.
If you do however, it could determine what kind of things it did and what happened to interacted individuals, and act upon that. For example, If I am roaming a forest and I come across a large tasty lizard, and start chasing it, this will add a point to its probability of selecting its speed variable set at its next generation. If I eat it it will add a point to sets tagged with defenses (Poison, thicker skin, spikes etc). If I chase it into a hole it may become a better digger.

At this point I admit I have no idea whether our engine will be capable of logging actions like this...

Doing these kind of actions will merely influence the evolution of an NPC organism, not drastically modify it. Basically seeing as we are not playing through millions of years of evolution the game should assume certain actions will happen more than once and thus will make a difference. Bear in mind that higher selection pressures will cause faster evolution. For example if I keep eating that species of lizard multiple times in a generation, I may find that in the next generation that they are faster, harder to kill and slightly harder to see, where as the rat thing that I also ate once or twice is just a bit faster than usual.

This process will however require that we have to go through and hand select cause and effect variables for certain abilities (That would be a Belgium)

Everybody: If this sounds... sound, fill in the holes above, there are many.

/rant

I like your idea, but again, that's kind of doing evolution backwards. It's might create lots of super-creatures and eventually everything will be extremely fast, extremely toxic, etc. If we assign everything randomly, we'll get more variety of organisms and they'll evolve new things.

And yes, the model was to change one thing every generation, and only change animals every once in a while.

I interrupt this with a thought: evolution through niches could work like chess.

Each piece on the chess board has a role. Some of them are more plentiful (pawns) because they are less powerful. Some of them are quite powerful, but highly specialized (knights). Then there is the apex predator (queen) and the huge but non-aggressive one (the king). All of the pieces have the same killing power (since any piece can knock out any other piece), but the way that they move makes them worth more or less.

Now, this relates to a biome in many ways. There are way more little creatures than big ones. The little ones don't have much on their own, but they can evolve very quickly because they are less specialized. Therefore, if a creature occupies a lower trophic level or a smaller-sized niche, it has a higher probability of getting mutations. If the creature is large, it has a lower probability.

Therefore, each biome will have many "pawn" slots and few "special" slots. But we already knew that, right?

How does this affect NPC evolution?

Well, each layer in chess can only move one piece in a turn. Therefore in the biome, only one creature evolves at a time. Now this might seem crazy, but it makes a lot of sense for programming.

If only one creature evolves, the computer needs only track that one animal for that one generation. Next move (next generation) there could be a counter-move (if the last evolution threatened a certain species) or an unrelated move. That means if an herbivore evolves to be faster, the next generation could involve its predator evolving to be faster, or it could involve a bird getting different plumage. It all comes down to how the dice roll.

So if we accept this, evolution moves in jumps, one species at a time, and can work as a call/response system. Now of course, we could throw in two at a time or something depending on how big the biome is, but that's of little consequence to the model here.

When you play chess, you'll find that pawns are more disposable than other pieces because they don't do much and you have a lot of them. But then, if you get your pawn to the other player's side, you get a new queen. This is basically how taking over a niche would work. It's a lot like predator/prey relations except the mutation would change a creature so that it qualifies for a new niche, and the creature would occupy that niche with the original owner until there is a counter-evolution chance where the original niche holder pushes it out.

Well, let's say that all works, but how does the computer know what's good and bad?

It doesn't have to.

This sounds crazy, but I think I've settled this. "good and bad mutations" problem. Have all mutations be positive.

In chess you can either
a: move towards your own strategy
b: counter an opponent's strategy
c: dawdle

Most of evolution in the game can be like a chess game between two very bad players. Things will evolve, but nothing much will happen in the grand scheme of the biome. The computer doesn't have a strategy for any chess piece, because their movements are random, but it can react with the piece to the other player's move. So really, there's only one option for the computer other than dawdle: react.

So the new options are

a: move towards your own strategy (evolution has no strategy)
b: counter an opponent's strategy (evolution can do this)
c: dawdle (unproductive, but always possible.

Each reaction has a chance of mimicking the evolution of what it is reacting to, or trying something different.
If it mimics, then that evolutionary arms race is over and probability for a mutation in any creature goes back to normal and no creature has a higher probability of evolution in the next generation, like they would if they had the chance to make a reaction.

If it tries something different, the creature that it reacted to will have another reaction chance. The cycle will repeat if the right cards are dealt.

Since mutations are either reactionary, or random, the computer will assume that any mutation that spawns a reaction is good and any reaction mutation is good (this mimics natural selection), and the effects of mutations that are not reactionary are negligible.

So to recap:

-Each org in a biome has the same base chance of being selected for a random mutation.

-If an organism's food source evolves or its niche is threatened, their chance of evolving increases.

-These mean that, as long as our trophic levels are somewhere near correct, there will be lots of competition and evolution at the lower levels, because there are more orgs in them, and less competition as you move up the levels.



I know that was a huge post, but please, please read it.

So, it takes into account Pezzalis' idea, but also the idea of randomness.

~sciocont wrote:

Long post of geniusness!

But one thing: Might this counter a dawdle?
Although you said there's a fair chance it'll do something different to counter the dawdle, so that should dwindle the dawdle countering, meaning more useful dawdles...

But surely there's a chance there could be an arms race for sharp teeth between two unrelated herbivores? Or something... You said...

~sciocont wrote:

If it mimics, then that evolutionary arms race is over and probability for a mutation in any creature goes back to normal and no creature has a higher probability of evolution in the next generation, like they would if they had the chance to make a reaction.

Would that make a series of countering mutations just... Cancel each other out? :S <- We need a visual smiley for that.


And I understand the rest of it, it's just how we prevent arms races for rather unusual mutations I'm unclear on. Like arms races for who can be bluest between species that camouflage in lava.

The Uteen wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Long post of geniusness!

But one thing: Might this counter a dawdle?
Although you said there's a fair chance it'll do something different to counter the dawdle, so that should dwindle the dawdle countering, meaning more useful dawdles...

But surely there's a chance there could be an arms race for sharp teeth between two unrelated herbivores? Or something... You said...

~sciocont wrote:

If it mimics, then that evolutionary arms race is over and probability for a mutation in any creature goes back to normal and no creature has a higher probability of evolution in the next generation, like they would if they had the chance to make a reaction.

Would that make a series of countering mutations just... Cancel each other out? :S <- We need a visual smiley for that.


And I understand the rest of it, it's just how we prevent arms races for rather unusual mutations I'm unclear on. Like arms races for who can be bluest between species that camouflage in lava.

Well, to prevent an arms race, remember that a reaction isn't ever required, it's just more probable than a random mutation going out. So by a standpoint of probability, arms races are extremely unlikely.

Im not skilled enough to do the auto-evo, BashineRox seems skiled enough, so he should answer to your longpost. Our biggest problem is the amount of data to process wich i see you are proposing some solutions for. What im thinking to save resources is to gather all individuals of a specia into one big lump of data, they are just that, we are not going to focus on each individuals personal evolution. What i foresee is that we gather all units(that means, every single agent) and say this is "organisms". Then we divide the agents into species, wich in turn gives us the chance of one species survival, higher agent count, higher survival rate. For example, say we have 1000 agents. We have three species. 1, 2 and 3. specie 1 have 200 agents, specie 2 have 300 and specie 3 is succesfull with its 500 agents. Specie 1 have 20% succesrate, specie 2 have 30% and specie 3 50% sucessrate. What we will have to do is perform some given mathematical operations to calculate the chance for a new specie emerging from the already existing specie, hereby specie 3 would have 50% chance of generating a new specie. In the very end we would have a ton of species this might seem like, but, and there is a big but here (no pun..) we would have to give the planet size away and do some other mathematical operations with the planet size and the amount of species or agents carried. Then there would always be a diversity of species all relating to eachother in some way. Apply distance, and biome are, boom you got related animals close to eachother and unrelating on their way out of that zone.

On the individual area I have no clue.

Agreed. I'll write up some maths for this when it's all settled.

Right. I'll dig the population dynamics maths out.

A thought - so long as we're doing the virtual census thing, we can adjust the maths (predation rate, resources required, etc.) for the following time unit as well.

I think we need compensation for the ability of species to span multiple biomes, however. A creature that is more widespread geographically (say, on a distant island and the mainland) is going to have more sets of factors working on it, and therefore more possibilities of adaptation and mutation.

And isolation speeds evolution, but that's besides the point. That could be countered by "oh, you're isolated? have your mutation chances increased by 2-5%"

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Right. I'll dig the population dynamics maths out.

A thought - so long as we're doing the virtual census thing, we can adjust the maths (predation rate, resources required, etc.) for the following time unit as well.

I think we need compensation for the ability of species to span multiple biomes, however. A creature that is more widespread geographically (say, on a distant island and the mainland) is going to have more sets of factors working on it, and therefore more possibilities of adaptation and mutation.

And isolation speeds evolution, but that's besides the point. That could be countered by "oh, you're isolated? have your mutation chances increased by 2-5%"

This model already makes isolation have organisms mutate faster. If there are less species, each species has a higher chance of evolving in a generation.

Something I missed- a mutation could be to split the species into two separate species.

How do we determine that another niche is threatened?

roadkillguy wrote:

How do we determine that another niche is threatened?

A new animal meets the requirements of size and diet for that niche.

A new animal is using the resources I have tagged that are necessary for that niche. Size comes into it immediately after that.

So are we in agreement that this is the way to go?

Just read it. You are a genius. I see no problem with this logic.

Don't inflate his head, Alaska. I have to live with him...

No, it's all good. It's also been hashed multiple times over here, this is just the official approval stamp. Also, it links darn well with my layout for niches, which will go up this weekend once I do my actual job.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Just read it. You are a genius. I see no problem with this logic.

Unfortunately, what little genius I have cannot extend to strat mode. But that's why you're here.

I believe we're still skipping the most important (and bashinerox's favorite) question:

Fitness = ?

How will we determine that a creature fits it's niche?

I originally proposed with the niches that each niche has a script to do it, but that seems to have been overlooked with all the niches being thrown about.


Without this we cant determine threats to niches, or niches themselves.

Science: Niche = a set amount and type of resources used, a set amount and type of resources contributed. (i.e.: a rabbit's diet is 50% plant a, 30% plant b, 5% each plants c, d, e, & f. Rabbits are eaten primarily by predator I, but also by predators II, III, and IV.)
Mineral resources if necessary would also be tagged to the niche, as would specific sites for shelter, mating, nesting.

Given it a lot of thought, not sure I slapped it up anywhere near here. There's bits and pieces of this scattered all over planetary and org.

roadkillguy wrote:

I believe we're still skipping the most important (and bashinerox's favorite) question:

Fitness = ?

How will we determine that a creature fits it's niche?

I originally proposed with the niches that each niche has a script to do it, but that seems to have been overlooked with all the niches being thrown about.


Without this we cant determine threats to niches, or niches themselves.

A niche is determined by size and resource usage. Resources would be what it eats, or if it's a plant, nothing really, except size. We're probably not going to worry about soil minerals and stuff.

? Do you mean to say that this is by primary food source and size of creature? We'd end up with underwater monkeys at that rate.

My question is, how do we determine that creature A fits into niche A better than creatrue B?

roadkillguy wrote:

? Do you mean to say that this is by primary food source and size of creature? We'd end up with underwater monkeys at that rate.

My question is, how do we determine that creature A fits into niche A better than creatrue B?

Organs, mainly. Organs are the most quantitative part of the OE. If its organs do the job better. This can easily be determined by its average muscle strength, cardiovascular system level, etc. In the OE, internal organs level up, kind of like an RPG game.

~sciocont wrote:

roadkillguy wrote:

? Do you mean to say that this is by primary food source and size of creature? We'd end up with underwater monkeys at that rate.

My question is, how do we determine that creature A fits into niche A better than creatrue B?

Organs, mainly. Organs are the most quantitative part of the OE. If its organs do the job better. This can easily be determined by its average muscle strength, cardiovascular system level, etc. In the OE, internal organs level up, kind of like an RPG game.

And positioning of organs? So we don't get creatures inside-out creatures?
The Auto-evo can (presumably) make them, pathetic as they may be.

This was The Uteen, successfully poking holes in other people's clever cheeses.

The Uteen wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

roadkillguy wrote:

? Do you mean to say that this is by primary food source and size of creature? We'd end up with underwater monkeys at that rate.

My question is, how do we determine that creature A fits into niche A better than creatrue B?

Organs, mainly. Organs are the most quantitative part of the OE. If its organs do the job better. This can easily be determined by its average muscle strength, cardiovascular system level, etc. In the OE, internal organs level up, kind of like an RPG game.

And positioning of organs? So we don't get creatures inside-out creatures?
The Auto-evo can (presumably) make them, pathetic as they may be.

This was The Uteen, successfully poking holes in other people's clever cheeses.

Internal organs mean internal.

~sciocont wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

roadkillguy wrote:

? Do you mean to say that this is by primary food source and size of creature? We'd end up with underwater monkeys at that rate.

My question is, how do we determine that creature A fits into niche A better than creatrue B?

Organs, mainly. Organs are the most quantitative part of the OE. If its organs do the job better. This can easily be determined by its average muscle strength, cardiovascular system level, etc. In the OE, internal organs level up, kind of like an RPG game.

And positioning of organs? So we don't get creatures inside-out creatures?
The Auto-evo can (presumably) make them, pathetic as they may be.

This was The Uteen, successfully poking holes in other people's clever cheeses.

Internal organs mean internal.

You didn't say they were internal.

But the only reason they're internal is because of natural selection. That's why the Ood in Doctor Who aren't going to exist. They'd easily get damage to their external brain. We need to take into account position or we could be a web of linked organs. We'd have good organs, we'd be big, we could be carnivores, and so be selected even though it's obviously stupid.

The Uteen wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

roadkillguy wrote:

? Do you mean to say that this is by primary food source and size of creature? We'd end up with underwater monkeys at that rate.

My question is, how do we determine that creature A fits into niche A better than creatrue B?

Organs, mainly. Organs are the most quantitative part of the OE. If its organs do the job better. This can easily be determined by its average muscle strength, cardiovascular system level, etc. In the OE, internal organs level up, kind of like an RPG game.

And positioning of organs? So we don't get creatures inside-out creatures?
The Auto-evo can (presumably) make them, pathetic as they may be.

This was The Uteen, successfully poking holes in other people's clever cheeses.

Internal organs mean internal.

You didn't say they were internal.

But the only reason they're internal is because of natural selection. That's why the Ood in Doctor Who aren't going to exist. They'd easily get damage to their external brain. We need to take into account position or we could be a web of linked organs. We'd have good organs, we'd be big, we could be carnivores, and so be selected even though it's obviously stupid.

Ah, sorry. Yes, organs will be managed in the organs tab, and they will all be internal, except for whatever external structures are needed, like gills, etc.