Game Development Reference
In-Depth Information
For example:
Risk to Agent:
Our current health combined with the enemy's weapon consti-
tutes a risk to us. Is his weapon so powerful that a single hit can take us down?
If not, how long would it take?
Threat to Enemy:
In the reverse of Risk to Agent, how much health does our
enemy still have left? How does that compare to our weapon? Can we take him
out in one hit? If not, how long would it take?
These two attributes can then be combined into yet another attribute that rep-
resents an aggregate of the two of them.
Total Threat:
Given the risk that the enemy poses to us and the threat we pose
to the enemy, who holds the upper hand? All other things being equal, who
would die first in a firefight?
By looking carefully and perhaps changing a few words, we start to recognize
similar patterns to problems we have addressed in previous chapters. For example,
in determining the “total threat� utility, we included the
risk
that we are undertak-
ing and the
threat
we pose to the enemy (i.e., our reward). The respective utilities
of risk and reward are concepts that we dealt with in previous chapters. In Chapter
5, we pondered the risks and rewards of running out to grab the rocket launcher. In
Chapter 7, we addressed the risks and benefits of building a tower over our barracks
and whether we should grab the armor or boost our health first. In Chapter 8, we
put risk and reward directly opposed to each other to help us analyze the St.
Petersburg paradox.
In this case, we have constructed the concept of “Total Threat� from two other
utilities—each of which was constructed from two other utilities, which, in turn, we
created as measurements of utility. Assuming that we have confidence in the
choices we have made in the process so far, we can express similar confidence that
Total Threat represents an accurate assessment of whether or not our agent is in a
position of power in the engagement.
When the Heart Rules the Mind
Total Threat is only part of the total decision, however. It is a very mechanical “my
gun is bigger than your gun� question. Not a lot of subjectivity is involved in the
analysis of whether or not the rate of damage I can deal is going to be enough to
counter the rate of damage he is dealing to me. The inputs are fairly concrete num-
bers yielding an equation that can be solved by some simple algebra. The other side
of the problem, however, involves some speculation and subjectivity.
