EPTSolving Starcraft - Page 3
| Blogs > FiBsTeR |
|
blueblimp
Canada297 Posts
| ||
|
gyth
657 Posts
asking if something like golf can be solved. Just get a hole-in-one every time, SOLVED! At some point perfect play is too divergent from reality. Or think of bowling, where perfect play is known and occasionally achieved. + Show Spoiler [dead horse] + Arguably OPs question boils down to whether starcraft is a sport or a game. | ||
|
Pawsom
United States928 Posts
On June 21 2010 13:04 PanoRaMa wrote: For the most part, some formats of hold'em are solved, certain SNG structures for example. It's solved (and was solved quickly) because at its core it is a game fundamentally comprised of actions and decisions that can be measured quantitatively. Just because you can have positive expectation by following 10 simple rules in low limit sngs or whatever you're getting at, doesn't mean the game is solved in a game theory sense. | ||
|
Vinnesta
Singapore285 Posts
Leaving aside technical issues of APM and micro/macro skills, as I think the OP intended, Starcraft is a game with both simultaneous and sequential moves. The sequential strategy of players may be simplified to be recognised as only the "macro" aspect of the mid to late game, ie. the choice of unit compositions, number of bases to take, choice of tech, etc. which you decide when you are able to effectively scout your opponent's macro strategy. This aspect of SC may be solvable using rollback, as it is possible to come up with strategies to counter your opponent's strats (eg. vults to harass -> goons to defend -> sieged tanks to hold map control -> arbiters to stasis tanks -> vessels to emp arbiters). Again I must emphasise that this is possible because we are ignoring the "skill" of the players and only focusing on the balance of units between Perfect Players. Hence, it is mathematically possible to calculate a rollback equilibrium for this aspect. The simultaneous aspect of SC occurs when there is strategic uncertainty because of a lack of scouting. This is definitely applicable when choosing the build orders to start the game with (5pool or 12hatch?) when you are uncertain about what your opponent will play. Since SCBW has been played by progamers for 10 years now, and there is no "imba" unstoppable strategy that has been found, we can quite surely say that there is no dominance in any particular build order. It is obvious that there is also no Nash equilibrium for choosing build orders, if not we'll be seeing the same games over and over again. Thus the thing to look for would be a mixed strategy. I do think that a lot of progamers or coaches have already devised rather successful mixed strategies for early game BOs. Responding to some of the above posts, I do not agree that the "luck/chance" factor is a deterrent to solving the game. We know that a ranged unit has a certain miss chance against a unit up a cliff; the percentage might not be available to the public, but Blizzard certainly knows it. As such, it is theoretically possible to come up with the expected value of attacks that may miss or be dodged. With this expectation, it is now possible to come up with a mixed strategy. Pathseeking: this does not matter at all with perfect micro. The units should move in Perfect movements, accurate up to the pixel. Psychological mindgames: This should affect nothing other than the physical skill of a player; in a Perfect situation this can be ignored. I can't remember the proof off the top of my head, but in a zero-sum game such player communications (direct or indirect) can be ignored when devising strategies. Maps: This is obviously a null point when discussing the THEORETICAL possibility of solving Starcraft. The map changes the expected payout of each strategy, hence all that is required is to alter the mixed strategy or rollback to fit the new payouts of each map. Like some posters have mentioned, the second game's solution does not work if a player places a coin near the centre of the table. Is there a way to avoid this, or is there a more elegant solution? EDIT: I think there is a misconception that "solving" a game means that one race or one strategy will definitely Win the game 100% of the time. However, the idea in mixed strategies is that it maximises the chances of winning regardless of what the opponent does (his indifference in strategies). This assumes that the game is perfectly balanced and has no pure, dominant strategy, hence no strategy or race is superior. Perhaps that is what some people are thinking of or seeking. | ||
|
Inkarnate
Canada840 Posts
| ||
|
ella_guru
Canada1741 Posts
On June 23 2010 00:24 Inkarnate wrote: Good thread, 100% correct in my opinion. Unfortunately, that isn't worth much outside of cheese 1v1 games | ||
|
Vinnesta
Singapore285 Posts
I feel smart for realising this ridiculously easy solution heh =p | ||
|
Bash
Finland1533 Posts
On June 21 2010 12:56 Chairman Ray wrote: The fastest recorded APM was 808 by July, Do you happen to have a source on this? Sorry about the off-topic, just have to ask. | ||
|
JohannesH
Finland1364 Posts
| ||
|
trackd00r
Chile284 Posts
 | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On June 22 2010 18:39 blueblimp wrote: Because of the physical aspect and real-time nature of Starcraft, asking if it can be solved is a little like asking if something like golf can be solved. While I guess it's in principle possible to solve golf and Starcraft, it won't produce a strategy a human will ever be able to execute. It might be more relevant to ask about solving Starcraft with some input restriction, such as an APM limit. The question of whether or not a game can be solved becomes more and more ridiculous as a question as games focus more on execution skillsets than strategic skillsets. The amount of strategy in golf is miniscule compared to chess or SC - it doesn't matter if you solve the game strategically unless you can drive for 500 yards and put accurately, consistently. Its not a correct analogy, because SC's focus on execution skillsets is much less. | ||
| ||
