EPT2011 SC AI Competition - Page 2
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
CoWsGoesMoo
250 Posts
| ||
|
Rlentless
Hong Kong322 Posts
http://eis.ucsc.edu/BotInstructions And there should be a link on the words "part 1" and "part 2". Of course read everything. Note: Most of these bots you need different versions to run them. | ||
|
antrax
Peru191 Posts
Did AI's consider worker micro for harvesting purposes? With constant micro AI could achieve maximum harvesting with 2 workers per mineral patch, hence faster macro mode. In 1vs1 this little difference could give one side real economical advantage. | ||
|
YejinYejin
United States1053 Posts
Mutalisk micro is simple enough for the AI to do. They just have each of the mutalisks do a moving shot, retreat, and then repeat. Vulture micro is simple, too. Move the vulture away, patrol click back at a specific angle, and then right click away again. How about the concrete micro? Like in PvP, if each player has 2 zealots and 3 dragoons. I remember it happened at some point in a Stork vs Bisu game on Benzene, I think, and Stork came out of the battle without losing a single unit. Bisu's were all gone, and Stork's were just heavily damaged, but every single one was alive somehow. Or in TvP when Terran does Fake Double, and Protoss fights it with 3-5 dragoons. This micro is not a single action that you can perform easily over and over again given 1000 apm. It's a constant decision-making process. | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6259 Posts
| ||
|
YejinYejin
United States1053 Posts
| ||
|
ReketSomething
United States6012 Posts
On February 05 2011 11:43 gen.Sun wrote: A round where a bot has to play all 3 races. A round where a 'surprise' element is added to the game on tournament day, in order to check for AI's adaptability. In mirror matchups maybe a unit is removed. For example, zerglings or mutas in ZvZ. Or maybe a special Python where the the main has only 4 mineral patches. A sudden decrease of CC/Hatch/Nexus price to 75/100/100. (ehh, probably imba in favor of zerg) These are some example surprises. This way we can see whether the AIs are truly intelligent or have hard coded BOs. From my understanding all the current bots would fail pretty hard if tested like this. But with another year maybe it's enough time to write something more flexible? I actually disagree with this stuff. Adding random elements isnt worth it. its hard enough coming up with a stable AI. adaptability doesnt matter at all....coming up with the best standard ai is better. | ||
|
Mumei
United States254 Posts
On February 07 2011 22:33 Azzur wrote: For a long time, people thought that computers could not compete with humans in chess. The best computers now destroy the humans players. I think the advantage the computer has in chess (brute-force calculation to move that gives them the most profit in the short-term (say, next 5 or 6 moves, the subtractive nature of the game, fairly easily to create an evaluative system) based on a system that gives a value to each piece (with the King naturally being given an absurdly disproportionate value to represent how important it is) won't really help in StarCraft, since decision-making is more complicated in SC than that, since it is somewhat harder to determine what the exact value is of a given choice - at least for a computer; human players tend to have an intuitive sense of what they should be doing. It's the same reason that computer go programs are still at about 6 - 7 stone handicaps behind top human professional players, which is fairly huge, considering how much of an advantage 6 - 7 stone is worth. As the Wikipedia entry for go handicaps puts it, "In points terms, one stone is considered to be 13-16 points, but this figure is not constant over levels: the more skillful a player, the greater the usefulness of each stone." In other words, it's basically a 80 - 110 point advantage; games of go should be won by less than 10 points if the opponents are evenly matched or the handicap is correct. Go programs, in other words, aren't anywhere close to beating top human players at even odds, let alone to the point where computer chess programs are (which can actually give odds to human players ala 19th century chess money matches). Computer StarCraft will have a huge advantage insofar as having the APM to do everything mechnically perfectly, but I think it'll have the same problems with evaluating positions and decision-making that computer go programs have, and the same inability to brute-force calculations for what the best move is (in chess, programs look a few turns ahead; this is impossible in go, because there are so many more legal moves in an average turn, and because of the aforementioned difficulty in evaluating positions). Perhaps the micro / macro perfection will allow the computer to overcome that weakness fairly quickly, but I'd really like to one day see a StarCraft AI that is capable of outplaying a person while playing merely peak human level, mechanically speaking - I think that'll be more meaningful. | ||
|
Trias
Netherlands53 Posts
On February 05 2011 10:51 djsherman wrote: I'd like to hear from the StarCraft community: what would you like to see from this years competition, as far as organization, results, and rules? One thing to possibly add is to give the the opportunity to study its opponents. Each bot should have access to the replays of its opponent before the next match. No manual modifications to the bots should be allowed between matches. So, if a bot wants to take advantage of this info it should have an algorithm to study patterns in its opponents play. It would be interesting to see what different things the teams come up with to take advantage of this. A relatively ease thing to check for is the likelihood of the opponent rushing, which could be used to modified the priority of building early defense. If teams come up with successful ways of analyzing the opponent, it will also stimulate the development of less predictable bots. | ||
|
rasdasd
United States82 Posts
On February 08 2011 00:17 Trias wrote: One thing to possibly add is to give the the opportunity to study its opponents. Each bot should have access to the replays of its opponent before the next match. No manual modifications to the bots should be allowed between matches. So, if a bot wants to take advantage of this info it should have an algorithm to study patterns in its opponents play. It would be interesting to see what different things the teams come up with to take advantage of this. A relatively ease thing to check for is the likelihood of the opponent rushing, which could be used to modified the priority of building early defense. If teams come up with successful ways of analyzing the opponent, it will also stimulate the development of less predictable bots. I believe information could be saved between sets, but were wiped between rounds/matches. I believe Overmind saved some flags indicating if the opposing AI would rush or play economic. But i would not allow access to replays between rounds, as this is information that in a regular tournament would never be allowed. For instance in a tourney, people have set build orders as they have practiced them heavily. If a replay was seen before a set was played, the opponent could just create a build order advantage and the coolness factor has just been diminished. | ||
|
Trias
Netherlands53 Posts
On February 08 2011 11:10 rasdasd wrote: I believe information could be saved between sets, but were wiped between rounds/matches. I believe Overmind saved some flags indicating if the opposing AI would rush or play economic. But i would not allow access to replays between rounds, as this is information that in a regular tournament would never be allowed. For instance in a tourney, people have set build orders as they have practiced them heavily. If a replay was seen before a set was played, the opponent could just create a build order advantage and the coolness factor has just been diminished. But this is information that is usually available for public/televised tournaments. A human player can (and usually does) study the VODs of previous matches played by his/her opponent. Of course a VOD isn't exactly a replay, but still contains a lot of information. | ||
| ||
