On March 11 2016 00:11 Temporary Happiness wrote: I think these 2 videos tell who's gonna win if this is done in Sc2:
Video 1
Video 2
When opponent microes like that there is no room for outplay him strategically i think..
Reasons like this are why they're considering Brood War and not SC2. BW is by far the only one that displays enough stability to produce a real result. Nobody with a strategically adept mind would pick SC2 for this.
Also, there should be absolutely no limits on the AI. Strategic depth should win out over pure mechanics/speed because in Brood War its much harder to completely counter someone's micro unlike its sequel where things are much more tic-tac-toe and then its over instead of constantly stacking areas you have to battle and defend.
On March 11 2016 00:11 Temporary Happiness wrote: I think these 2 videos tell who's gonna win if this is done in Sc2:
Video 1
Video 2
When opponent microes like that there is no room for outplay him strategically i think..
Reasons like this are why they're considering Brood War and not SC2. BW is by far the only one that displays enough stability to produce a real result. Nobody with a strategically adept mind would pick SC2 for this.
Also, there should be absolutely no limits on the AI. Strategic depth should win out over pure mechanics/speed because in Brood War its much harder to completely counter someone's micro unlike its sequel where things are much more tic-tac-toe and then its over instead of constantly stacking areas you have to battle and defend.
I honestly wonder if Flash losing to DeepMind will result in simpler RTS games in the future. The problem with Starcraft is not that it is mechanically demanding, but that mechanics is disproportionately effective compared to actual strategy. A player skilled in mind games will lose to a player with better mechanics since he probably won't have the mechanics to execute his trickery in the first place.
Also, the fact that Starcraft is so mechanics-focused may give rise to new hacks that automate the game without making it obvious. If you guys remember the CS:GO fiasco last year, a progaming team was VAC'd for using subtle hacks. The hacks were not obvious and they amounted to a tiny boost in that team's effectiveness. At those levels, even the slightest advantage will make a big difference. It'd be like Flash vs. Flash, except one of them has a hack that automates SCV production in one command center. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a huge deal, but when both players are equally skilled, even the slightest advantage can tip the scales his way.
Games where mechanics matter less and strategy matters more might be the result of a human progamer vs. AI matchup.
On March 11 2016 00:11 Temporary Happiness wrote: I think these 2 videos tell who's gonna win if this is done in Sc2:
Video 1
Video 2
When opponent microes like that there is no room for outplay him strategically i think..
Reasons like this are why they're considering Brood War and not SC2. BW is by far the only one that displays enough stability to produce a real result. Nobody with a strategically adept mind would pick SC2 for this.
Also, there should be absolutely no limits on the AI. Strategic depth should win out over pure mechanics/speed because in Brood War its much harder to completely counter someone's micro unlike its sequel where things are much more tic-tac-toe and then its over instead of constantly stacking areas you have to battle and defend.
You could do similarly ridiculous stuff in BW with infinite APM... Also LOL at Comparing SC2 to tic-tac-toe.
On March 11 2016 00:11 Temporary Happiness wrote: I think these 2 videos tell who's gonna win if this is done in Sc2:
When opponent microes like that there is no room for outplay him strategically i think..
There are compositions where you can't micro that much for example roach vs roach zvz or roach ravager vs bio. In those situations perfect micro doesnt give you that much of an advantage.
Imagine 50 roaches, individually microed to create a perfect arc, pulling back before they die and burrowing, joining the battle again after regenerating.
Yea... no :D
This is what I've always said. It's usually countered by people saying burrow micro is soooo much less efficient than say, blink micro. Which is true, but if a bot pushed burrow micro to its limit I bet we'd see pros do it a bit more often after we see that it DOES work.
On March 11 2016 00:11 Temporary Happiness wrote: I think these 2 videos tell who's gonna win if this is done in Sc2:
Video 1
Video 2
When opponent microes like that there is no room for outplay him strategically i think..
Reasons like this are why they're considering Brood War and not SC2. BW is by far the only one that displays enough stability to produce a real result. Nobody with a strategically adept mind would pick SC2 for this.
Also, there should be absolutely no limits on the AI. Strategic depth should win out over pure mechanics/speed because in Brood War its much harder to completely counter someone's micro unlike its sequel where things are much more tic-tac-toe and then its over instead of constantly stacking areas you have to battle and defend.
You could do similarly ridiculous stuff in BW with infinite APM... Also LOL at Comparing SC2 to tic-tac-toe.
Indeed. In fact in BW I think there was one point where a pro microed a single marine to kill a lurker. I could be wrong on that but I think it was a thing.
I actually thought it would be pretty easy to get a super good BW AI.
You can teach it all the optimal pro build orders. You can show it whatever flash replays you can find. Have it learn literally how to play exactly like flash for a template skill level as much as is possible. Then implement management and micro subroutines i.e for a given strategy it will always be building out of X rax marines Y facts tanks/vults Z ports vessels and SCVs if relevant. Then for micro: TvZ: make sure it can destroy lurkers with marine micro, react instantly to mutas coming in range, always run from swarm, micro perfectly behind minerals from a dropship,perfect irradiate splitting and scourge dodging TvP: Perfect vulture kiting and target firing on zealots, mine placement that doesn't put your units in danger. Perfect target firing of tanks on dragoons and ignoring zealots if you'll friendly fire. TvT: Perfect range calculation for tank placement and scans etc.
Sure you might fall behind on decision making and playing vs some obscure strats but with perfect mechanics and copying the best players style it shouldn't be that hard for a big project team to handle. The fact that replays exist give a template for reaching a high level of play instantly. It can play itself vs flash or jaedong 1000 times a day with a learning algorithm for example.
I think it make it fair you'd have to limit it so it has to use a cursor and keyboard and they are limited each to certain speed/APM. That way the AI is under the same PHYSICAL limitations as a (very very fast) human and has to figure out how to win "mentally" from there with the same limits of spending your attention as a human and algorithms to decide how to spend that attention. You could also change the limits and see how certain strategies become better for slower players. (hue hue 100 apm bonjwa DeepProtoss)
It really depends on how you limit the computer. If you give it infinite APM and near perfect micro I think an AI can win easily just by using its superior mechanics. If the AI is constrained to more human mechanical capabilities, then it is a very difficult problem to solve.
The other Flash plays Broodwar with unlimited unit group cap, with hotkey-groups for buildings, with 0ms reaction time, pixelperfect minimap awarness. Who wins?
A AI in Broodwar plays the game like engine limitations do not exists. Its macro is perfect without spending 2ms in base, its control will be stellar, its awareness will be unmatched. The only thing the AI might not be perfect is strategy and decision making. But first of all, Deepthought in Go has shown us, that the AI is able to improve from "I beat some Euro Scrub" to "GSL Champion" in only 6 month by playing itself and learning from these games. And secound, the machine learns. And the machine would learn soon, that it wins game, that do not go into macro. Unlike Go, where Deepthought becomes better and better with each stone more on the board.
I dont see any player winning either BW or SC II against a neuronal network AI without HARD limitiations to the input.
The only way for it to be fair is to make a robot+AI actually playing with mouse and keyboard, otherwise with perfect micro and stuff it'll win eventually really easily but it's cheating.
On March 11 2016 00:42 BisuDagger wrote: hero can operate at about 450-500 apm on a consistent basis. To make this fair, the actions per minute should be clamped to <=600
The sad thing is it doesn't take 600 apm to have perfect micro. In the end it boils down to accuracy and efficiency.
On March 11 2016 02:03 Goolpsy wrote: Even with 400 apm limit, Neural network learning can easily teach it where to focus its micro most efficiently.
Game might seem like it, but Starcraft has far fewer strategies than chess.
I disagree. Starcraft may have fewer strategies then chess, but due to fog of war limiting information, the ai can only guess half the time. Furthermore, many strategies look the same and things such as drops could still catch the ai off guard. A starcraft game has many many more possibilities then a chess game.
The real problem though is that chess is turn based while starcraft is real time. This means that the computer would have much less time to think. Additionally, people make mistakes in execution in starcraft that differentiate the same strategy. Take a rally point, for instance. Depending on where it is set, there is a difference in time on when units get to different places.
Chess (and go, for that matter) are turn based, so making a move is the same for a grandmaster or a new player -- the pawn still goes to the square you want it to perfectly every time.
Finally, starcraft has so many orders of magnitude more board states then a chess board. This makes it overwhelmingly harder to try and brute force.
On March 11 2016 02:03 Goolpsy wrote: Even with 400 apm limit, Neural network learning can easily teach it where to focus its micro most efficiently.
Game might seem like it, but Starcraft has far fewer strategies than chess.
I disagree. Starcraft may have fewer strategies then chess, but due to fog of war limiting information, the ai can only guess half the time. Furthermore, many strategies look the same and things such as drops could still catch the ai off guard. A starcraft game has many many more possibilities then a chess game.
The real problem though is that chess is turn based while starcraft is real time. This means that the computer would have much less time to think. Additionally, people make mistakes in execution in starcraft that differentiate the same strategy. Take a rally point, for instance. Depending on where it is set, there is a difference in time on when units get to different places.
Chess (and go, for that matter) are turn based, so making a move is the same for a grandmaster or a new player -- the pawn still goes to the square you want it to perfectly every time.
Finally, starcraft has so many orders of magnitude more board states then a chess board. This makes it overwhelmingly harder to try and brute force.
But thats the point. Deepthought is not like Deep Blue brute forcing its way into the game. It is making a much more soft approach by learning to play it. The neural network architecture is not ment to brute force the game and "solve it". It learns the game by millions of games against itself and replays and learns from that, takes conclusions. Deep Blue just tried out millions of next moves when playing chess. Deep Thought learned to play the game and knows what to do where.
2. There are virtually endless scenarios in Starcraft and I am not sure if its possible to teach the bot everything. He would have to play/analyze thousands (maybe even more) of games to actually learn how the units interact with each other and how building certain units in certain moments affects the game. There is simply much greater complexity. Also as Flash pointed out, this is game with incomplete information.
So what's the difference between a normal game AI and Google's work?
I mean the default AI can cheat, does the functioning of the AI we've got rely on some gimmicky tricks not suitable for a human wisdom vs human creation scenario?
EPT
