Interesting, but surely it has to retain some information about the past to be able to know how to update that belief vector? Outside of directly being on a mission, the only major "good" or "evil" actions are voting for/against missions, once you know if the mission succeeded or failed. Do you just not take that into account?
It's possible this is in the paper - a lot of the more math/modeling parts went a bit over my head, so feel free to point me to a section to specifically read if I missed out.
If it's literally just a representation of the outcomes of the missions and who went on them, then isn't the Belief Vector just the venn diagram of how every mission went with some iterative statistics laid over it? I would have assume any regular/competitive players would be fairly good at keeping that mental model themselves, which makes it seem confusing to me that the Agent would be better than that, unless it's essentially just saying that the game is better if you play purely logically and ignore all context, which defeats the fun of playing it?
It's possible this is in the paper - a lot of the more math/modeling parts went a bit over my head, so feel free to point me to a section to specifically read if I missed out.
If it's literally just a representation of the outcomes of the missions and who went on them, then isn't the Belief Vector just the venn diagram of how every mission went with some iterative statistics laid over it? I would have assume any regular/competitive players would be fairly good at keeping that mental model themselves, which makes it seem confusing to me that the Agent would be better than that, unless it's essentially just saying that the game is better if you play purely logically and ignore all context, which defeats the fun of playing it?