5 ms·

One of the issues to overcome is the advantage machines can have in individual unit manipulations vs what a human can do in terms of APM https://www.youtube.co

One of the issues to overcome is the advantage machines can have in individual unit manipulations vs what a human can do in terms of APM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZawUuAccnc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZawUuAccnc

detaro 11y ago
If anyone, Google has the image recognition and robotics tech to make a robot sitting in front of a screen, with keyboard and mouse ;) Yes, anything where the interface to the game becomes critical is difficult to fairly compare with humans. Board games can use a human as an actuator, micro-heavy games hopefully won't for a long time...
- dogma1138 11y ago
  Not really since electromechanical engineering would then be the bottle neck. If you want "fairness" you can limit the instructions to what keyboard and mouse can actually interpret as in the limited latency between instruction that both the game, the OS, and the hardware can support.
  - smilekzs 11y ago
    The game is capable of accepting a much higher APM than Korean pro players are capable of pulling off even at peak. IMHO the AI should be subject to an APM limit (e.g. sliding window).
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      Not if it's done over the normal channels (USB) many players not even "pro korean" ones can easily encounter input issues like key rollover limits and polling rates on your mouse. USB has quite a bit of limitation for HID's and allot of the gaming mice and keyboards use various hacks to overcome them. Games and OS also have limits I can easily issue more commands using my keyboard than SC2 can handle so not all key presses will actually register. Not to mention is that the game actually has to run on regular hardware, start spamming your keyboard in a game and you see the CPU spikes, the game loop also puts quite a bit of limits on how many interrupts per second it can catch, and how long does it take for it to actually switch context (e.g. SC2 build menus). That said after AlphaSC2 destroys another Korean national passtime I would definitely love to see human like input being used by AlphaSC2. Not because I think humans deserve a fair fight, but because i think the most interesting part will be to see how AlphaSC2 has to modify it's play style to compensate for the limitations of having to use "meatbag" control methods.
      - smilekzs 11y ago
        IIRC the entire input polling/NKRO issue can be solved by simply switching from USB2.0 FS (aka USB1.1) to HS, which requires a more powerful keyboard/mouse controller.
  - MawNicker 11y ago
    I don't think that's quite fair. Human's aren't anywhere near what the system can handle. The most "fair" thing I can think of would be to add latency to every mouse movement using Fitts's law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law It may also be interesting to model the state of the keyboard hand. Instead of allowing the computer to access keyboard shortcuts directly it could be forced to operate a virtual hand that is in turn operating a virtual keyboard. Constraints could be added to the speed of various finger movements. This provides balance but also captures authentic strategic tradeoffs. Like the resting position of the hand. I imagine if you had a nice visualization it could even reveal subtle optimizations that were practical for humans.
    - ktRolster 11y ago
      That's a good idea
- ktRolster 11y ago
  If anyone, Google has the image recognition and robotics tech to make a robot sitting in front of a screen, with keyboard and mouse ;) Didn't they just try to sell that department?
  - daveguy 11y ago
    No. Those would be the robotics departments using electric actuators that they are keeping; not the hydraulic robot department they are trying to get rid of.
Mithaldu 11y ago
The problem is, as ActionButton argues in this review of Diablo 2 [0], Starcraft is a game that may contain some amount of strategy, but wherein the element of strategy is strongly over-powered by a reflex-based combat system more akin to Street Fighter than anything else. [0] http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=518 http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=518
- TulliusCicero 11y ago
  If that was true, then bots would already easily dominate humans, just like they can for fighting games. But they don't; even moderately competitive players can beat the best bots.
  - Umn44 11y ago
    "But they don't; even moderately competitive players can beat the best bots." That's because the programmers are bad at AI for that kind of game. It just means human beings don't understand how to make a good AI for a game like starcraft. AKA the human being being the idiot that doesn't understand how to make one.
- ktRolster 11y ago
  wherein the element of strategy is strongly over-powered by a reflex-based combat system This isn't true, in general a bigger army will beat a smaller army every time. After you can make equal size armies, the next problem is army positioning and when to take engagements. Finally, after you can do all that, then you can get an extra bonus to your power by microing really well. But not every micro is about speed - most of the time it's about knowing what to do. And even at the most extreme, it's less about clicking quickly and more about clicking precisely.
  - drwl 11y ago
    It's not always the case where smaller armies lose to big armies. There are many situations in Starcraft where superior micro of less units can taken on more units. One example is Phoenixes versus mutalisks. For those who don't play, Phoenixes are faster and have slightly longer range than mutalisks. Phoenixes can infinitely shoot and run and kill of mutalisks.
sesutton 11y ago
I'm a little worried that the AI will quickly develop a simple early game strategy where it sacrifices economy for early units (an "all-in") that never loses because of its perfect unit control. The AIs unit control speed may have to be limited to get interesting results where it has to use strategy.
- LetaBot 11y ago
  If the human player builds a wall, he/she will be ahead against a rushing bot.

detaro 11y ago

If anyone, Google has the image recognition and robotics tech to make a robot sitting in front of a screen, with keyboard and mouse ;) Yes, anything where the interface to the game becomes critical is difficult to fairly compare with humans. Board games can use a human as an actuator, micro-heavy games hopefully won't for a long time...

dogma1138 11y ago
Not really since electromechanical engineering would then be the bottle neck. If you want "fairness" you can limit the instructions to what keyboard and mouse can actually interpret as in the limited latency between instruction that both the game, the OS, and the hardware can support.
- smilekzs 11y ago
  The game is capable of accepting a much higher APM than Korean pro players are capable of pulling off even at peak. IMHO the AI should be subject to an APM limit (e.g. sliding window).
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    Not if it's done over the normal channels (USB) many players not even "pro korean" ones can easily encounter input issues like key rollover limits and polling rates on your mouse. USB has quite a bit of limitation for HID's and allot of the gaming mice and keyboards use various hacks to overcome them. Games and OS also have limits I can easily issue more commands using my keyboard than SC2 can handle so not all key presses will actually register. Not to mention is that the game actually has to run on regular hardware, start spamming your keyboard in a game and you see the CPU spikes, the game loop also puts quite a bit of limits on how many interrupts per second it can catch, and how long does it take for it to actually switch context (e.g. SC2 build menus). That said after AlphaSC2 destroys another Korean national passtime I would definitely love to see human like input being used by AlphaSC2. Not because I think humans deserve a fair fight, but because i think the most interesting part will be to see how AlphaSC2 has to modify it's play style to compensate for the limitations of having to use "meatbag" control methods.
    - smilekzs 11y ago
      IIRC the entire input polling/NKRO issue can be solved by simply switching from USB2.0 FS (aka USB1.1) to HS, which requires a more powerful keyboard/mouse controller.
- MawNicker 11y ago
  I don't think that's quite fair. Human's aren't anywhere near what the system can handle. The most "fair" thing I can think of would be to add latency to every mouse movement using Fitts's law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law It may also be interesting to model the state of the keyboard hand. Instead of allowing the computer to access keyboard shortcuts directly it could be forced to operate a virtual hand that is in turn operating a virtual keyboard. Constraints could be added to the speed of various finger movements. This provides balance but also captures authentic strategic tradeoffs. Like the resting position of the hand. I imagine if you had a nice visualization it could even reveal subtle optimizations that were practical for humans.
  - ktRolster 11y ago
    That's a good idea
ktRolster 11y ago
If anyone, Google has the image recognition and robotics tech to make a robot sitting in front of a screen, with keyboard and mouse ;) Didn't they just try to sell that department?
- daveguy 11y ago
  No. Those would be the robotics departments using electric actuators that they are keeping; not the hydraulic robot department they are trying to get rid of.

Mithaldu 11y ago

The problem is, as ActionButton argues in this review of Diablo 2 [0], Starcraft is a game that may contain some amount of strategy, but wherein the element of strategy is strongly over-powered by a reflex-based combat system more akin to Street Fighter than anything else. [0] http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=518 http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=518

TulliusCicero 11y ago
If that was true, then bots would already easily dominate humans, just like they can for fighting games. But they don't; even moderately competitive players can beat the best bots.
- Umn44 11y ago
  "But they don't; even moderately competitive players can beat the best bots." That's because the programmers are bad at AI for that kind of game. It just means human beings don't understand how to make a good AI for a game like starcraft. AKA the human being being the idiot that doesn't understand how to make one.
ktRolster 11y ago
wherein the element of strategy is strongly over-powered by a reflex-based combat system This isn't true, in general a bigger army will beat a smaller army every time. After you can make equal size armies, the next problem is army positioning and when to take engagements. Finally, after you can do all that, then you can get an extra bonus to your power by microing really well. But not every micro is about speed - most of the time it's about knowing what to do. And even at the most extreme, it's less about clicking quickly and more about clicking precisely.
- drwl 11y ago
  It's not always the case where smaller armies lose to big armies. There are many situations in Starcraft where superior micro of less units can taken on more units. One example is Phoenixes versus mutalisks. For those who don't play, Phoenixes are faster and have slightly longer range than mutalisks. Phoenixes can infinitely shoot and run and kill of mutalisks.

sesutton 11y ago

I'm a little worried that the AI will quickly develop a simple early game strategy where it sacrifices economy for early units (an "all-in") that never loses because of its perfect unit control. The AIs unit control speed may have to be limited to get interesting results where it has to use strategy.

LetaBot 11y ago
If the human player builds a wall, he/she will be ahead against a rushing bot.