non-profit, scientific use of ArmA II in publications

[Takbal 0]

We are thinking about using ArmA II for collecting data in multiplayer environment and test algorithms based on these data which produce better AI behaviour.

We understand that Bohemia Group recommends VBS2 for such purpose which we also own. The problem with VBS2 it is much harder to find players. With ArmA II it is easy to set up a server, run a popular mission and collect data about how players and AI behave, non-stop, 24h a day. Obviously players must be notified that some of their acts are anonymously recorded on the server.

The goal of the project is non-profit academic research and to produce publications.

My question is whether this use is allowed by BIS and the licensing, and to what extent. There are multiple possible levels of using ArmA II, which must be differentiated between.

1. Modding the game and setting up a server is obviously allowed as this is officially encouraged. Logging player data is a question of agreement between the players and the server owner (some data is always logged anyway). Probably the only concern here is using the program not for personal use, rather for common good (science).

2. A scientific publication can omit all refererence to the game, including its name, any data taken from it (like showing screenshots, its map etc.) and present the study's results in a general form (like 'we used a multiplayer game...'). This can be done in such an extent that it is not even obvious that ArmA II was used. It is not for hiding the fact, just to protect the concerns of the publisher about how the game is used.

3. A scientific publication can make explicit that ArmA II was used, but do not reproduce any data from the game, only the results of the research. License 3/III probably concerns this point: "[you are not entitled to] exploit the Program or any of its parts for any commercial purpose". It looks like BIS is actively chosen *not* to restrict non-commercial exploitation.

4. A publication may show some elementary data from the game, like showing map fragments, the layout of a town or screenshots. This looks like being forbidden in the license without written consent, as it is publishing parts of the game, although in a very mild form. What is the official BIS policy about this regarding academic research?

I would be happy if anybody from BIS could clarify whether any of the points 1-4 are allowed, and which one is preferred.

[W0lle 1050]

Please contact Jan Pražák about this, contact details you can find here

[no use for a name 0]

This would actually be interesting to see how differently the AI and human players actions are. Then maybe that could help better model the AI in the future?

[jerryhopper 286]

Very interesting post you got there Takbal. This sounds like an interesting study, since

i have been part of a TNO research on War simulations, where 5 real life gamers battled against real soldiers with VBS2.

i hope that you get an positive answer, keep us posted of your research!

[Tonci87 163]

Who won?

[max power 21]

The gamers, of course. Just like if the gamers met the armed forces in a MOUT excercise, the gamers would get stomped.

[SteveJA 12]

I wonder if the gamers would still of won if ingame death was simulated in real life by haaving the sh*t kicked outa them by the army. Might make them slightly more suseptible to becoming pinned and not popping thier heads up lol.

[jerryhopper 286]

Who won?

Complete writeup of that day : http://www.armedassault.eu/Articles/Misc.-Articles/field-report-gamers-fight-real-soldiers-in-vbs2.html

and yes, we (the gamers) won.

[KeyCat 131]

Very interesting topic, would love to read more if anything comes out of it...

/KC

[LJF 0]

Who won?

Would be interesting to put 100 gamers against 100 soldiers and see what happens.

[CW001 10]

Would be interesting to put 100 gamers against 100 soldiers and see what happens.

Or 100 gaming soldiers :p

Sounds extremely interesting, good luck with your plans.

[Muahaha 10]

Wow interesting read indeed! Any rematch ?

[Requiem007 10]

This sounds like a great idea. I hope you get an 'ok' with furthering your plans from Bohemia cause this sounds like very interesting and very useful research.

[katipo66 94]

Would be interesting to put 100 gamers against 100 soldiers and see what happens.

I dont think numbers matter, gaming is not soldiering and vise versa... same as soccer players would not do very well in rugby and vise versa.

A better test would be to pit soldiers against soldiers, preferably from differing nations, now that i would love to see :)

[dm 9]

A better test would be to pit soldiers against soldiers, preferably from differing nations, now that i would love to see :)

I guess it would end up like CAT where the nations involved got more interested in winning than on improving their skills. :(

[Takbal 0]

BIS answer was positive which we really appreciate. Setting up a server is under way.

Our study is more about how to help the decision maker, that is, how to improve AI decisions via learning by examples, rather than applying serious games for training.

To study decision making, fidelity is only necessary to maintain abstract properties of the problem space (like the problem of environment, teamwork, hidden observations and need to estimate probabilities). We do not want to re-create reality, just use something where players has similar problems to solve as in reality. We are happy if gamers play, as they are human 'experts' in this environment.

If you are interested in playing on the server and helping science, I will post its address later here.

[Dwarden 1125]

thanks, please let us know where and how to take part in this project ...

aka definitely post the address and such :)

[Takbal 0]

FYI: the server is up at 155.198.117.142 ([iMPERIAL] Warfare VETS) for a few months now and looks stable. It is using A2: Combined Ops and running Warfare with an improved version of Benny's edition on Chernarus (I felt the factions of Takistan are too asymmetric). It is on hard difficulty to make everything more realistic (down to no crosshairs).

I could definitely use data with more human players, so if you happen to have Combined Ops, give it a try.

Edited November 27, 2010 by Takbal

[Macadam Cow 1]

"Honey, I'm not playing, I'm helping science. I'll come back in a few hours"

:D

[kylania 568]

I could definitely use data with more human players, so if you happen to have Combined Ops, give it a try.

Anything but Warfare please. :)

[M.Andersson(SWE) 4]

Mmm...Warfare isnt AGAINST ai its against Humans..

PvP...

Sure you can have AI in your squad, and yes you have AI

opponents in your Enemy PLAYER squad...

I had the understanding that the INTEL would be on

HUMAN vs AI only....

[Macadam Cow 1]

yup I guess that's why he went for Warfare.

+ the human and the AI have the same goal, unlike evo or stuff like that.

[Takbal 0]

What I am trying to optimize is the defense of towns, which is done by server-side AI.

The fact that humans can be entirely replaced by AI was indeed one reason to choose WF, as I cannot expect that lots of humans are playing on my server. This way I can still collect AI vs AI data if nothing else.

BTW, whats wrong with WF? I know it is a matter of taste, but IMHO it is the best MP game mode.