CSP / 2026–27 / Anvar Madvaliev
High Level Overview
01 / THE IDEAReinforcement learning × pretrained decisions
Working title

Generalist vs.Specialist

Pretrained Decision Models Against Reinforcement Learning Agents in a Real-Time Arena Combat Game

A game-trained PPO agent and a frozen pretrained decision model will compete under shared observations and controls to evaluate combat performance and robustness to unfamiliar mechanics.

Arena combat concept Two agents positioned around walls, with projectile paths crossing a small top-down arena. This is an illustrative schematic, not implemented gameplay. 1v1 / PROJECTILES / COVER
Specialist / PPOGeneralist / pretrained
Concept schematic — not gameplay footage.
1v1Focused arena combat
Shared observationsIdentical action choices and controls
Training historyPretrained model vs. game-trained PPO
02 / THE GAME
ENVIRONMENT / 01

A compact game for 1v1 arena combat

Combat inspired by Brawl Stars, with original characters and assets, provides observable and repeatable agent matches.

  • 01
    Arena

    A top-down 1v1 map with walls and cover.

  • 02
    Combat

    Projectiles with travel time and spread, health and attack cooldowns.

  • 03
    Characters

    Different stats and a special ability for each character.

IMPLEMENTATION STACK

Godot 4 + C++

C++ gameplay through GDExtension / godot-cpp.

GameCombat logic + rendered matches
SimulationHeadless execution + fixed game-time ticks
PythonGymnasium-style agent interface
EvidenceSeeded runs, replay logs and rule tests
03 / THE AGENTS
POLICIES / 02

Two agents with different learning histories

SPECIALISTGame-specific training

PPO

Proximal Policy Optimization
Learning
Train from experience in this arena.
Opponents
Scripted opponents, followed by self-play.
Input
Structured observation vector.
Evaluation
Freeze the trained policy before testing.
GENERALISTNo game-specific weight training

Pretrained

Open-weight, Jev-style decision model
Knowledge
Pretrained capabilities + supplied game rules.
Execution
Local GPU inference, batched across matches.
Input
Equivalent state information rendered as text.
Evaluation
Keep model weights frozen throughout.
Select and pin the checkpoint after an early local benchmark.Open implementations / Decision Index ↗
04 / FAIR COMPARISONTactics, not response-time advantage.

A fair comparison on shared game-time ticks

Both agents observe the same simulation instant, and the game waits for both decisions before advancing, so slower inference gives neither side extra combat time; wall-clock decision latency is measured separately.

01 / OBSERVE

One information set

Encode the same observable facts as a vector and as text.

02 / DECIDE

Both choose actions

No access to the opponent’s pending decision. Inference pauses game time.

03 / EXECUTE

Shared controller

Execute both choices over the same fixed interval, then repeat.

05 / THE EXPERIMENTSPerformance + robustness

Who wins—and what happens when rules change?

Keep agent weights fixed during evaluation, train PPO in independent runs, repeat matches with swapped sides, and report confidence intervals rather than a single win percentage.

RQ1

Combat performance

Compare the agents across the implemented character matchup matrix and against scripted baselines.

RQ2

Generalization without retraining

Test character configurations and rule changes not used in PPO training, with the changed mechanics included in both agents’ observations.

EVALUATION

Win rate

Primary outcome, with draws and confidence intervals.

  • Damage dealt / taken & time to defeatCombat effectiveness
  • Ability usage & positioningBehavioural diagnostics and replay analysis
  • Performance under unfamiliar conditionsRobustness to new characters and rule changes
  • Training time, latency, throughput & memorySupporting resource measurements
06 / THE DELIVERY PLANBuild → train → evaluate

Build the game to compare PPO and a pretrained model

The project combines an original arena game, shared observations and controls, and a reproducible experimental comparison.

STAGE 01

Proposal & foundations

Review relevant literature, define the scope and experiments, and validate the engine bridge and local model.

STAGE 02

Working prototype

Build a stable arena, test the combat rules, integrate both agents, and collect initial training and evaluation evidence.

STAGE 03

Results & final report

Compare character matchups and unfamiliar game conditions, then analyse performance, failure cases and study limitations.

Deliverables: game + agents + replays + results + report.