6 ms·

Great summary. I'll add: - The coordination between AI bots are clearly beyond human level. Or at least as demonstrated from similar performance from the huma

Great summary. I'll add: - The coordination between AI bots are clearly beyond human level. Or at least as demonstrated from similar performance from the humans on similar style of heros. (It might not appear too different from the show match, but based on my 2-3k hours watching pro games, the coordinations are noticebaly better than the best team in history, aka Wings gaming 2016 TI champion). I am not sure how such coordinations are modeled in dnn, which itself seems the most valuable from this research. - In general I think with this show match, it pretty much sealed the doom of human players in dota2. As it shows that the general approach is scalable and capable to handle the problem itself. As from laning to team fight, and item building, the AI did not show weakness at all. I was worrying about AIs general inefficiency in deriving the winning strategy, laning stage, and team fight coordinations, which turns out to be obviously superior to human players. Drafting probably will be even more favorable to AIs. The challenge would be can they train faster by observing the change log, I.e. finding winning strategy without training from scratch each time after a patch release. I seem no reason AIs lose to vp/liquid/lgd (the top 3 going into ti8). The idea that split pushing hero can deal with the team fights seems underestimate the AIs discipline, which is clearly superior to the best humans. - Last is how much computing resources are used in the training and playing. Hopefully value can team with open ai to release a benchmark bot team for calibration and a different ladder systrm of playing different AI strength level

halflings 8y ago
> As from laning to team fight, and item building. I was disappointed to hear one of the devs say that item selection was hard-coded following a popular guide (don't think they communicated this before). This is OK, because what matters the most is that it won. It was previously impossible to build hard-coded AIs that would even beat decent players, and now the AI has beaten some pro players (albeit not the best of the best); but it'll still be nice to see superior item buying strategies being learned.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- darrenkopp 8y ago
  It's not as bad as it sounds. The bots are hard-coded to follow a item guide that is published by TorteDeLini, but at the same time many human players do the exact same thing. I'd say that most players blindly follow those guides from 1.5K to the low 3K mmr brackets most games.
haeffin 8y ago
Why wouldn't it have good coordination? A bot has access to a perfect model of how the other bot would act - itself. Also, computer engines didn't seal the doom of human players in chess and in go, so I don't get why it would do so in dota.
- BigJono 8y ago
  I think by 'seal the doom' he just means that this result shows that OpenAI is almost definitely going to be able to defeat a pro team in an unrestricted game of DotA. Which I'm still not completely sold on. It's likely, but the remaining restrictions aren't trivial by any means. There's an outside chance that removing one or more of them is going to brickwall their progress.
  - hohenheim 8y ago
    Not only that, but also lets not forget humans learn as well. Meaning the more games players play against the bot the better they would become at understanding and defeating it.
  - sakarisson 8y ago
    One should keep in mind that some of the restrictions were in place to prevent the bots from having too easy of a time. For example, the anti micro/illusion rule was intended to limit the obviously superior micro coordination of the bots.
    - Ntrails 8y ago
      I'm not sure that's true? I can see the bots being utterly terrifying with meepo in a teamfight - but would need supports stacking, proper farm prioritisation (much more use of jungling and ancients), etc etc. I genuinely believe the bot would win a game of turbo against any team in the world. But remove _all_ of the restrictions and it's not clear that it doesn't just lose at the moment
    - Karlozkiller 8y ago
      They specifically said they would have to implement a special case for heroes that control more than one unit in the future. So you're saying that even before they set up a rule about microing illusions to protect humans from a feature that they have not yet implemented nor, I assume, have trained the model on?
ufo 8y ago
The AI did show lots of areas of weakness, which still need better training. Their warding was very awkward, they never used smoke ganks, and they didn't play optimally against invisibility. The human team got a lot of mileage out of rushing a Shadow Blade, which is a cheesy strategy that a coordinated team should be able to easily counter. That said, the AI still won despite these limitations, which shows that it is very strong in other areas of the game.
iotb 8y ago
As someone who plays Dota, the matches were a clear demonstration of sloppy snowballing and brute force cheesing. Coordination 'appears' to be beyond human level because the bots are collectively synced on a team goal value. If a true 'pro' or pro team was allowed to observe and play multiple games against this bot, I'm more than certain one could find an exploit of such an unintelligent mathematical approach to action selection at the individual or group level. In fact, this would be what you would use dark seer strategically for or a whole host of other characters and functionality that is currently banned. Not everything can be calculated especially when tricks are intentionally done to throw a bot off. > I am not sure how such coordinations are modeled in dnn, which itself seems the most valuable from this research. There's a tuned group/individual driver function centered on various calculations. This is not actually a valuable part of the research as its dynamic and game dependent and can't cover all of the possibilities thus why someone broke their 1v1 bot (corner case) > In general I think with this show match, it pretty much sealed the doom of human players in dota2. If you are indeed a player and have viewed that many hours of dota2, I question the nature of such a comment. A great player wouldn't look to see how to 'beat' their bot, as it is a bot w/ no intelligence, the strategy would instead be to try to break it and shove it into corner cases. It's not playing the full range of characters that were intended to disrupt cheesy snowballing so I wonder why you're making such an optimistic statement .. being that you claim you have watch so many dota matches. Do you play much yourself? Maybe that would change your opinion. > As it shows that the general approach is scalable and capable to handle the problem itself. As from laning to team fight, and item building, the AI did not show weakness at all. I'm starting to see a pattern with your commentary. The gameplay look like your typical "south" players. Hardly anything impressive : Aggressive boneheaded tower diving and aggressive and cheesy snowballing.. If you can last past 30min, you outwit and outplay such people in the mid/late game. > superior to humans > superior to humans > superior to humans More than 50% of the Dota 2 dynamics aren't even present and are restricted at the moment. Are you getting paid for this post?
- justicezyx 8y ago
  > A great player wouldn't look to see how to 'beat' their bot, as it is a bot w/ no intelligence, the strategy would instead be to try to break it and shove it into corner cases. I cannot see any differences between "beating opponents" vs. "break it and shove it into corner cases", that's always how dota games are played out. Unless we formed different views on how Dota is played through our thousands of time watching games (I sensed from your statement that you had similar gaming experiences :) )

halflings 8y ago

> As from laning to team fight, and item building. I was disappointed to hear one of the devs say that item selection was hard-coded following a popular guide (don't think they communicated this before). This is OK, because what matters the most is that it won. It was previously impossible to build hard-coded AIs that would even beat decent players, and now the AI has beaten some pro players (albeit not the best of the best); but it'll still be nice to see superior item buying strategies being learned.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
darrenkopp 8y ago
It's not as bad as it sounds. The bots are hard-coded to follow a item guide that is published by TorteDeLini, but at the same time many human players do the exact same thing. I'd say that most players blindly follow those guides from 1.5K to the low 3K mmr brackets most games.

haeffin 8y ago

Why wouldn't it have good coordination? A bot has access to a perfect model of how the other bot would act - itself. Also, computer engines didn't seal the doom of human players in chess and in go, so I don't get why it would do so in dota.

BigJono 8y ago
I think by 'seal the doom' he just means that this result shows that OpenAI is almost definitely going to be able to defeat a pro team in an unrestricted game of DotA. Which I'm still not completely sold on. It's likely, but the remaining restrictions aren't trivial by any means. There's an outside chance that removing one or more of them is going to brickwall their progress.
- hohenheim 8y ago
  Not only that, but also lets not forget humans learn as well. Meaning the more games players play against the bot the better they would become at understanding and defeating it.
- sakarisson 8y ago
  One should keep in mind that some of the restrictions were in place to prevent the bots from having too easy of a time. For example, the anti micro/illusion rule was intended to limit the obviously superior micro coordination of the bots.
  - Ntrails 8y ago
    I'm not sure that's true? I can see the bots being utterly terrifying with meepo in a teamfight - but would need supports stacking, proper farm prioritisation (much more use of jungling and ancients), etc etc. I genuinely believe the bot would win a game of turbo against any team in the world. But remove _all_ of the restrictions and it's not clear that it doesn't just lose at the moment
  - Karlozkiller 8y ago
    They specifically said they would have to implement a special case for heroes that control more than one unit in the future. So you're saying that even before they set up a rule about microing illusions to protect humans from a feature that they have not yet implemented nor, I assume, have trained the model on?

ufo 8y ago

The AI did show lots of areas of weakness, which still need better training. Their warding was very awkward, they never used smoke ganks, and they didn't play optimally against invisibility. The human team got a lot of mileage out of rushing a Shadow Blade, which is a cheesy strategy that a coordinated team should be able to easily counter. That said, the AI still won despite these limitations, which shows that it is very strong in other areas of the game.

iotb 8y ago

As someone who plays Dota, the matches were a clear demonstration of sloppy snowballing and brute force cheesing. Coordination 'appears' to be beyond human level because the bots are collectively synced on a team goal value. If a true 'pro' or pro team was allowed to observe and play multiple games against this bot, I'm more than certain one could find an exploit of such an unintelligent mathematical approach to action selection at the individual or group level. In fact, this would be what you would use dark seer strategically for or a whole host of other characters and functionality that is currently banned. Not everything can be calculated especially when tricks are intentionally done to throw a bot off. > I am not sure how such coordinations are modeled in dnn, which itself seems the most valuable from this research. There's a tuned group/individual driver function centered on various calculations. This is not actually a valuable part of the research as its dynamic and game dependent and can't cover all of the possibilities thus why someone broke their 1v1 bot (corner case) > In general I think with this show match, it pretty much sealed the doom of human players in dota2. If you are indeed a player and have viewed that many hours of dota2, I question the nature of such a comment. A great player wouldn't look to see how to 'beat' their bot, as it is a bot w/ no intelligence, the strategy would instead be to try to break it and shove it into corner cases. It's not playing the full range of characters that were intended to disrupt cheesy snowballing so I wonder why you're making such an optimistic statement .. being that you claim you have watch so many dota matches. Do you play much yourself? Maybe that would change your opinion. > As it shows that the general approach is scalable and capable to handle the problem itself. As from laning to team fight, and item building, the AI did not show weakness at all. I'm starting to see a pattern with your commentary. The gameplay look like your typical "south" players. Hardly anything impressive : Aggressive boneheaded tower diving and aggressive and cheesy snowballing.. If you can last past 30min, you outwit and outplay such people in the mid/late game. > superior to humans > superior to humans > superior to humans More than 50% of the Dota 2 dynamics aren't even present and are restricted at the moment. Are you getting paid for this post?

justicezyx 8y ago
> A great player wouldn't look to see how to 'beat' their bot, as it is a bot w/ no intelligence, the strategy would instead be to try to break it and shove it into corner cases. I cannot see any differences between "beating opponents" vs. "break it and shove it into corner cases", that's always how dota games are played out. Unless we formed different views on how Dota is played through our thousands of time watching games (I sensed from your statement that you had similar gaming experiences :) )