skip to main content
10.1145/3402942.3409778acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesfdgConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Using Ant Colony Optimisation for map generation and improving game balance in the Terra Mystica and Settlers of Catan board games

Published:17 September 2020Publication History

ABSTRACT

Game balancing is one of the most challenging features to be implemented in a typical game design process. Approaches for evaluating and achieving game balancing include extensive playtesting - which typically requires several iterations of games with subtle adjustments in the components and adopted strategies that resemble brute force - and algorithmic solutions that use qualitative and measurable design goals when developing game components. The literature contains examples of methods that employ artificial intelligence to generate maps in computer games that offer balanced and fairness of starting conditions for the players. The use of such methods for tabletop games, however, has been scarce in the academic literature, for the best of the authors’ knowledge. This paper investigates the application of the ant colony optimisation metaheuristic to generate content and improving game balance for two well-known tabletop games, namely, Terra Mystica and Settlers of Catan. The resultant configurations satisfy complex game-dependent requirements while optimising a model for game balancing. Moreover, the results showed to be promising when compared with existing game maps and setup.

References

  1. Christian Blum, Mateu Yábar Vallès, and Maria J Blesa. 2008. An ant colony optimization algorithm for DNA sequencing by hybridization. Computers & Operations Research 35, 11 (2008), 3620–3635.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Igor Borovikov, Yunqi Zhao, Ahmad Beirami, Jesse Harder, John Kolen, James Pestrak, Jervis Pinto, Reza Pourabolghasem, Harold Chaput, Mohsen Sardari, 2019. Winning isn’t everything: Training agents to playtest modern games. In AAAI Workshop on Reinforcement Learning in Games.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Joseph Alexander Brown and Marco Scirea. 2018. Procedural Generation for Tabletop Games: User Driven Approaches with Restrictions on Computational Resources. In International Conference in Software Engineering for Defence Applications. Springer, 44–54.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Cameron B Browne, Edward Powley, Daniel Whitehouse, Simon M Lucas, Peter I Cowling, Philipp Rohlfshagen, Stephen Tavener, Diego Perez, Spyridon Samothrakis, and Simon Colton. 2012. A survey of monte carlo tree search methods. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in games 4, 1(2012), 1–43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Bernd Bullnheimer, Richard F Hartl, and Christine Strauss. 1999. An improved ant System algorithm for thevehicle Routing Problem. Annals of operations research 89 (1999), 319–328.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Guillaume Chaslot, Sander Bakkes, Istvan Szita, and Pieter Spronck. 2008. Monte-Carlo Tree Search: A New Framework for Game AI.. In AIIDE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Alberto Colorni, Marco Dorigo, Vittorio Maniezzo, 1992. An Investigation of some Properties of an” Ant Algorithm”.. In Ppsn, Vol. 92.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Luiz Jonatã Pires de Araújo, Alexandr Grichshenko, Rodrigo Lankaites Pinheiro, Rommel D Saraiva, and Susanna Gimaeva. 2020. Map Generation and Balance in the Terra Mystica Board Game Using Particle Swarm and Local Search. In International Conference on Swarm Intelligence. Springer, 163–175.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Fernando de Mesentier Silva, Scott Lee, Julian Togelius, and Andy Nealen. 2017. AI-based playtesting of contemporary board games. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games. ACM, 13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Marco Dorigo, Mauro Birattari, and Thomas Stutzle. 2006. Ant colony optimization. IEEE computational intelligence magazine 1, 4 (2006), 28–39.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Marco Dorigo and Luca Maria Gambardella. 1997. Ant colony system: a cooperative learning approach to the traveling salesman problem. IEEE Transactions on evolutionary computation 1, 1(1997), 53–66.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Miguel Frade, Francisco Fernandéz de Vega, and Carlos Cotta. 2009. Breeding terrains with genetic terrain programming: the evolution of terrain generators. International Journal of Computer Games Technology 2009 (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Marc Gravel, Wilson L Price, and Caroline Gagné. 2002. Scheduling continuous casting of aluminum using a multiple objective ant colony optimization metaheuristic. European Journal of Operational Research 143, 1 (2002), 218–229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Alexandr Grichshenko, Luiz Jonatã Pires de Araújo, Susanna Gimaeva, and Joseph Alexander Brown. 2020. Using Tabu Search Algorithm for Map Generation in the Terra Mystica Tabletop Game. International Journal of Machine Learning and Computing (IJMLC, ISSN: 2010-3700).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ken Hartsook, Alexander Zook, Sauvik Das, and Mark O Riedl. 2011. Toward supporting stories with procedurally generated game worlds. In 2011 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG’11). IEEE, 297–304.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Cathleen Heyden. 2009. Implementing a computer player for Carcassonne. Master’s thesis, Department of Knowledge Engineering, Maastricht University (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Ahmed Khalifa and Magda Fayek. 2015. Literature review of procedural content generation in puzzle games.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Hwanhee Kim, Seongtaek Lee, Hyundong Lee, Teasung Hahn, and Shinjin Kang. 2019. Automatic Generation of Game Content using a Graph-based Wave Function Collapse Algorithm. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Games (CoG). IEEE, 1–4.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Aliona Kozlova, Joseph Alexander Brown, and Elizabeth Reading. 2015. Examination of representational expression in maze generation algorithms. In 2015 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG). IEEE, 532–533.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Antonios Liapis, Georgios N Yannakakis, Mark J Nelson, Mike Preuss, and Rafael Bidarra. 2018. Orchestrating game generation. IEEE Transactions on Games 11, 1 (2018), 48–68.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Tobias Mahlmann, Julian Togelius, and Georgios N Yannakakis. 2012. Spicing up map generation. In European Conference on the Applications of Evolutionary Computation. Springer, 224–233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jonas Juhl Nielsen and Marco Scirea. 2018. Balanced Map Generation Using Genetic Algorithms in the Siphon Board-Game. In International Conference in Software Engineering for Defence Applications. Springer, 221–231.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Gonçalo Pereira, Pedro A Santos, and Rui Prada. 2009. Self-adapting dynamically generated maps for turn-based strategic multiplayer browser games. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Computer Enterntainment Technology. ACM, 353–356.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Michael Pfeiffer. 2004. Reinforcement learning of strategies for Settlers of Catan. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Games: Artificial Intelligence, Design and Education.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. William L Raffe, Fabio Zambetta, Xiaodong Li, and Kenneth O Stanley. 2014. Integrated approach to personalized procedural map generation using evolutionary algorithms. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 7, 2(2014), 139–155.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Noor Shaker. 2016. Intrinsically motivated reinforcement learning: A promising framework for procedural content generation. In 2016 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG). IEEE, 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Alena Shmygelska and Holger H Hoos. 2005. An ant colony optimisation algorithm for the 2D and 3D hydrophobic polar protein folding problem. BMC bioinformatics 6, 1 (2005), 30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Adam M Smith and Michael Mateas. 2011. Answer set programming for procedural content generation: A design space approach. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 3, 3(2011), 187–200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Adam Summerville, Sam Snodgrass, Matthew Guzdial, Christoffer Holmgård, Amy K Hoover, Aaron Isaksen, Andy Nealen, and Julian Togelius. 2018. Procedural content generation via machine learning (PCGML). IEEE Transactions on Games 10, 3 (2018), 257–270.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. István Szita, Guillaume Chaslot, and Pieter Spronck. 2009. Monte-carlo tree search in settlers of catan. In Advances in Computer Games. Springer, 21–32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Julian Togelius, Mike Preuss, and Georgios N Yannakakis. 2010. Towards multiobjective procedural map generation. In Proceedings of the 2010 workshop on procedural content generation in games. 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Julian Togelius, Georgios N Yannakakis, Kenneth O Stanley, and Cameron Browne. 2010. Search-based procedural content generation. In European Conference on the Applications of Evolutionary Computation. Springer, 141–150.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Julian Togelius, Georgios N Yannakakis, Kenneth O Stanley, and Cameron Browne. 2011. Search-based procedural content generation: A taxonomy and survey. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 3, 3(2011), 172–186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Josep Valls-Vargas, Santiago Ontanón, and Jichen Zhu. 2013. Towards story-based content generation: From plot-points to maps. In 2013 IEEE Conference on Computational Inteligence in Games (CIG). IEEE, 1–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Roland Van Der Linden, Ricardo Lopes, and Rafael Bidarra. 2013. Procedural generation of dungeons. IEEE Transactions on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games 6, 1(2013), 78–89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Georgios N Yannakakis and Julian Togelius. 2011. Experience-driven procedural content generation. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing 2, 3 (2011), 147–161.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  1. Using Ant Colony Optimisation for map generation and improving game balance in the Terra Mystica and Settlers of Catan board games

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Other conferences
        FDG '20: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games
        September 2020
        804 pages
        ISBN:9781450388078
        DOI:10.1145/3402942

        Copyright © 2020 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 17 September 2020

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article
        • Research
        • Refereed limited

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate152of415submissions,37%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format