|
On August 06 2018 15:05 Nymzee wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2018 12:21 acie wrote:
all the games were draft wins, the computer came up with the best strategy/draft for that tiny 18 hero draft pool. It's impossible to counterpick from such a small hero pool that people don't have experience choosing from. Maybe every win could be attributed to draft? Maybe that's actually a thing, where 1 team could theoretically have 80%+ chance to win based off draft but because they're human (and make mistakes) they don't actually have that 90%+ chance to win that the bots were often able to achieve.
The bots are still just as flawed as humans. Maybe more so, because their flaws are completely predictable. The win % is just programmed cockiness, no more or less accurate than Dota Plus.
|
Concerning draft wins, of course no draft is exactly 50-50. From a human perspective it's often hard to evaluate because humans can never play the same draft over and over again, the game changes all the time, and how good a draft is also depends on who is playing it. Some players are more comfortable on certain heroes and playstyles than others. The bots base their win probabilities on their self-play results. It's not some ultimate truth either, but rather reflects to an extent what sort of lineups the bots have found easier to learn and what sort of situations they know how to play better.
And indeed I think it's quite wrong to think about the bots as some machines that don't make mistakes. The bots have a clear advantage for example in terms of teamfighting, largely because they can observe and process everything instantly while humans have to move their camera around, click on targets, press buttons, communicate to their teammates and so on. Often the easily observable things like missed spells are what people call mistakes, but there are a lot of other things you can do wrong. Did they put their lanes correctly, did they play the laning matchups perfectly (here for example the answer is obviously no), did they choose the right times to go high ground in games 1 and 2, did they have a coherent plan to come back in game 3? I think the teamfight advantage is likely the big reason why the bots were so confident about the matches. I suspect it's quite hard for the bots to learn how to overcome a disadvantage against a team that has clearly the better teamfight. In the last game it looked to me like the bots managed to get through the early game even surprisingly well and got levels and some farm on all their heroes but then they didn't really know how to play a pickoff and farm heavy game with a later timing in mind that well.
|
It would be so fucking great, if after thousands of AI trainingyears, the AI would always jungle LC, because its the most effective strat all along...
|
On August 06 2018 07:36 polgas wrote:lol wtf. Twitch chat decides OpenAI heroes. + Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/MoonMeanderated/status/1026235975171629056 Win probabilities after draft. + Show Spoiler +
Wait...so does this mean that the OpenAI actually predicted that they would lose with a ton of confidence too? Somehow this makes it feel like the bots still won even when they lost lol
|
On August 07 2018 15:26 Aerisky wrote:Wait...so does this mean that the OpenAI actually predicted that they would lose with a ton of confidence too? Somehow this makes it feel like the bots still won even when they lost lol
I think VP/Liquid/LGD couldn't stomp the caster crew with those lineups. Actually, most of the TI teams probably could've pulled it off...
And the SEA and SA teams would intentionally draft those.
|
it was an interesting event overall, the bots were actually better than I expected especially their rotation and movement
excited to see how strong they'll be next year
|
If they really want to impress they should include OpenAI drafting and all of the heroes. To limit the hero pool and then give OpenAI an early game push lineup is just ridiculous.
If OpenAI outdrafted humans through a normal draft, then I would fully support our new robot overlords.
|
On August 07 2018 15:26 Aerisky wrote:Wait...so does this mean that the OpenAI actually predicted that they would lose with a ton of confidence too? Somehow this makes it feel like the bots still won even when they lost lol
Their prediction is based on the other team also being the same bots. I think partly this is because clearly the humans had the far better 5 man teamfight (without significant items) in the last game, so it's very hard for the bots to win against themselves in that kind of a situation. Especially given that their lineup didn't have a laning advantage or anything like that.
But I was quite impressed in how the bots played the early part of the game, and I think the game was winnable for them around the 15min mark when all their heroes had some sort of farm and levels. They had also managed to take more towers than the humans, which should make it easier for them to farm efficiently and set up pickoffs.
I think what a good human team would do in that situation is to let Sven be largely separate from his team and just farm, set up aggressive wards and look for pickoffs with Riki, Axe, Slark and QoP. Then when you get to Sven's BKB timing, Slark has SB+next item, etc you can start fighting properly. The bots didn't really seem to know how to play that sort of game and instead got into bad fights or got picked off. Largely this seemed to be because they didn't know how to use wards and Riki to scout the enemy out and be more efficient. They seem to be very hard to beat when they have the teamfight advantage and they can push. A lot of the best high ground defenders are not in the pool so it's pretty hard to specifically pick against that sort of play also.
|
|
|
they don't even play dota yet, should've waited 1 more year and figure things out
|
agreed bots didnt know how to play that lineup, they did ok earlygame but then they needed to split, dodge and look for teamfights. They sort of did that but not nearly as good as a top human team would use this draft.
|
+ Show Spoiler +
Nice analysis of OpenAI's gameplay, although some of the strategies may be viable because of the 5 couriers:
- Prioritize drafting heroes that can nuke early
- Does not buy regen items on start, buys stats or damage instead
- Does not get stick or wand, buys salves and clarities instead
- Focuses on crushing the enemy safe lane in laning stage
- Solo lanes for heroes with good teamfight abilities (Lich, Tide)
- Rotates other heroes on solo lanes to catch up on levels
- Balances the levels on all heroes
- Focuses on burst damage and control
- Good at punishing positional mistakes
|
Some observations. Seems like they base their win probability too much on hero composition, in the third game at one point ten minutes in they were actually slightly winning and yet their win probability was still only 10% or so. I think they don't take into account networth, skill and map control that much into account.
This made them play the third game way too risky in a sense, as they kept on sending solo heroes to push and cut the waves, allowing the human team to catch these heroes out and kill them, thus bots kept falling further behind. I think if the bots learned or were programed to base their prediction more off of actual gameplay they might have even won the 3rd game if they played a more normal game and team fought more, rater than the solo risky pushes and creep cutting.
The biggest advantage for the bots is the 5 invulnerable couriers though. As good as their team fight seems to be, they are able to get to that point by winning their lanes quite hard by abusing the five couriers. This allowed the bots to basically start off with zero regen and then just fairy hp and mana regen over and over, allowing them to stay on the lanes and constantly fight all the time, while the humans weren't used to 5 couriers and played a game more suited to what we are used to and that is only 1 vulnerable courier.
I think the AI would have lost all games if it had to play with just 1 normal courier. Again the strategy the AI executed was based around the 5 invulnerable couriers, basically using max regen all the times in the lanes to constantly fight and push and takes towers early.
So yeah. I think the AI will need to change its strategy completely once they have to play a fully normal game of dota. These strats and gameplay won't work in a game with a normal courier.
Another point is the limited hero pool, obviously the AI gas trained extensively with those 18 heroes and knows the best strategies and how to utilize those heroes the best, unlike the humans who play with 120+ heroes and certainly don't have as much experience with just those 18 heroes.
So yeah, the AI is definitely advanced and it does seem to be high level, but only within the context of the limitations. I think if this AI version was put to play the complete normal game it would lose every single time to any decent 4k+ team.
|
On August 10 2018 04:06 polgas wrote:+ Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTtg_DdOqPQ Nice analysis of OpenAI's gameplay, although some of the strategies may be viable because of the 5 couriers: - Prioritize drafting heroes that can nuke early - Does not buy regen items on start, buys stats or damage instead - Does not get stick or wand, buys salves and clarities instead - Focuses on crushing the enemy safe lane in laning stage - Solo lanes for heroes with good teamfight abilities (Lich, Tide) - Rotates other heroes on solo lanes to catch up on levels - Balances the levels on all heroes - Focuses on burst damage and control - Good at punishing positional mistakes
The regen part is due to 5 couriers. Normally you are extremely limited in amount of courier time you can take up to ferry your regen.
|
On August 06 2018 08:21 WolfintheSheep wrote:
And there's that typical "losing base but probability says we can't fight so just ignore base" behaviour.
I think it's a different flavor; their training rewards them for taking towers even if they lose, so the reaction to a certain loss is to push another lane and try to take a tower.
|
|
|
|
|
Neat! How did you know OpenAI only learns within a 5 minute window?
I think this is one of the reasons why the 3rd game went the way it did. The bots still can't match human's long term strategic thinking, and just keeps sacrificing themselves for short term gain (towers) instead of waiting for items. Humans have a chance yet!
|
It's not that OpenAI only learns within a 5 minute window, but rewards in the future are discounted, so that rewards in 5 minutes are worth 63% as much as the present, rewards in 10 minutes are worth 40% as much, and only 25% for 15 minutes in the future.
There's very little detail on the OpenAI TI match; no mention of it at all on the official TI site. I speculate that the winner of the All Star match will get to play OpenAI Five.
|
It was too obvious they have no long term strategy, my first impressions were these:
On August 06 2018 08:38 FreakyDroid wrote:
it seemed as if they do stuff that directly rewards them, ie take tower, last hit creep, make a kill, prevent them from hitting my tower etc. Dota is way more nuanced than that, the reward doesn't always have to follow a few simple linear steps, it involves a lot of prediction/foresight something which these bots didnt have.
After reading Evan's blog, Im glad that my observations without having any prior knowledge of how the AI worked are pretty spot on. So my question to Evan or anyone who knows about it is, is it hard to to code an AI that can, for the lack of better word, remember a more complex network of steps, or maybe plan/plot a more complex strategy that isnt that dependent on the immediate reward[s]? Basally try to mimic foresight and perhaps sacrifice an immediate reward in order to gain an advantage later on. Or is compute power (or perhaps storage) a problem?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/f23QMEO.png)
