5 ms·

Another advantage was that the AI is just reading the game state through an API, it doesn't have to look on the screen. The game can be difficult to watch from

by dx87 8y ago

Another advantage was that the AI is just reading the game state through an API, it doesn't have to look on the screen. The game can be difficult to watch from a pro's perspective since they have to constantly click around the map to see what's happening, but the AI has perfect knowledge of everything it is capable of seeing, all without having to physically move a mouse to click on the screen.

thomasfortes 8y ago
Yeah, put an eye tracker in a pro and you'll see that the eyes are constantly changing the focus point, if you can watch the entire scene with the same precision without the need to focus on it you're already at a nice advantage. As an aside, a few pro gamers prefer to play on windowed mode for exactly this reason.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
  Just supporting this. I remember the uproar when 800x600 resolution was removed as an option in SC2 around 2012[1]. [1] https://eu.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/6201040181 https://eu.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/6201040181
  - rootlocus 8y ago
    > the uproar I'm not saying you're wrong, but 6 posts with no profanity is hardly "uproar" by blizzard forums standards.
theflork 8y ago
Is the bit about reading the game through an api true? Earlier iterations of this same rl based agent that played Atari games would read just raw pixels not an api.
- setr 8y ago
  Any game that is specifically going out of its way to support these ai’s will naturally do it through an api, though I’m only aware of dota2 and sc2 (sc:bw also does, through a community-modified client that serves the api, iirc). For adhoc games, eg atari, pixel-parsing is the natural result, but no one would intentionally set it up like that
- sytelus 8y ago
  Yes, it’s true. A special PySC interface was created for AI. Also, it’s not only that AI doesn’t need to parse information available on much limited screen real estate but also that AI doesn’t have to use controller that have physical constraints. So AI has access to this super human controller and it can decide to click on one screen extreme and then another within 200ms.
spydum 8y ago
If you watch the 11th game where pro player wins, (prior was a 10-0 shutout by Alpha), the AI actually lost because they rebuilt the agent to use the same forced camera perspective as the human - so there is absolute truth to this being a compelling advantage. It was able to micro multiple units in disparate areas by having far better spatial awareness. When they took that advantage away it seemed more even.
- rcthompson 8y ago
  I don't know if we can absolutely claim that the limited viewport was the deciding factor in the 11th game, but it did seem to me that the Alphastar agent's blink stalker micro was somewhat compromised in that game compared to the seemingly superhuman blink micro in previous games.
  - ajuc 8y ago
    You can see the alphastar perspective of that 11th game here: https://youtu.be/H3MCb4W7-kM?t=5195 https://youtu.be/H3MCb4W7-kM?t=5195 It struggles with camera placement like real players :) And uses popular divert-attention tactics, which shows it understand that part of the game - for example when it sends oracles to mineral line at the same time as it attacks in front. Previous versions didn't do that, because they were taught playing vs cheating AI - so no point diverting attention of something that has instant access to any unit on the map :) It also struggles to defend against adept harras beacuse it has "tunnel vision" - controls its oracle instead of defending probes at home. Mana actually managed his attention budget a lot better (this is a crucial pro-player skill in starcraft - harras is effective because it trades little of your attention for a lot of attention of the enemy, it's a skill that becomes irrelevant when opponent doesn't really have "attention" and can perceive and interact with all units on the map at once like previous version of alphastar). This one is much more human, and much lower level. In my opinion it lost unfair advantage, so the mistakes in its errormaking are revealed. Previously it never was behind and never had to react to human player strategy - it rarely even scouted because what's the point - it wanted to build mass stalkers anyway.
    - 8y ago
gowld 8y ago
What happens if a human tries to use the API with a custom UI of the human's own choosing? Such a UI might not exist yet, but are there ideas for more efficient UIs that could be built?
- confiscate 8y ago
  Yes I am curious of this too. What happens if the human has a giant TV screen that can see the whole map at once Or, what if we slow down the game, so that the human can actually pause the game each second and consider what to do next. That's basically what the computer is allowed to do
  - maksimum 8y ago
    > Or, what if we slow down the game, so that the human can actually pause the game each second and consider what to do next. That's basically what the computer is allowed to do While this would make it more fair, it would just make the micro game more similar to chess or go. I don't think humans would necessarily win in the end.
    - zizee 8y ago
      Well, are we wanting to test the computers ability to strategize/plan, or their ability to out click humans? The former is an interesting AI challenge/achievement, the latter is a space in which computers are already known to outperform humans.
    - feanaro 8y ago
      That's a good insight and yes, humans would probably be overpowered eventually. However, this is just the consequence of the fact that all games are similar if you remove external limitations such as reaction time (or, alternatively, produce a more efficient "being" which is not as subject to these limitations as some other). Starcraft is like chess in some sense. The largest fundamental difference is that it isn't a perfect information game.
      - 8y ago

by dx87 8y ago

thomasfortes 8y ago

Yeah, put an eye tracker in a pro and you'll see that the eyes are constantly changing the focus point, if you can watch the entire scene with the same precision without the need to focus on it you're already at a nice advantage. As an aside, a few pro gamers prefer to play on windowed mode for exactly this reason.

bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
Just supporting this. I remember the uproar when 800x600 resolution was removed as an option in SC2 around 2012[1]. [1] https://eu.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/6201040181 https://eu.battle.net/forums/en/sc2/topic/6201040181
- rootlocus 8y ago
  > the uproar I'm not saying you're wrong, but 6 posts with no profanity is hardly "uproar" by blizzard forums standards.

theflork 8y ago

Is the bit about reading the game through an api true? Earlier iterations of this same rl based agent that played Atari games would read just raw pixels not an api.

setr 8y ago
Any game that is specifically going out of its way to support these ai’s will naturally do it through an api, though I’m only aware of dota2 and sc2 (sc:bw also does, through a community-modified client that serves the api, iirc). For adhoc games, eg atari, pixel-parsing is the natural result, but no one would intentionally set it up like that
sytelus 8y ago
Yes, it’s true. A special PySC interface was created for AI. Also, it’s not only that AI doesn’t need to parse information available on much limited screen real estate but also that AI doesn’t have to use controller that have physical constraints. So AI has access to this super human controller and it can decide to click on one screen extreme and then another within 200ms.

spydum 8y ago

If you watch the 11th game where pro player wins, (prior was a 10-0 shutout by Alpha), the AI actually lost because they rebuilt the agent to use the same forced camera perspective as the human - so there is absolute truth to this being a compelling advantage. It was able to micro multiple units in disparate areas by having far better spatial awareness. When they took that advantage away it seemed more even.

rcthompson 8y ago
I don't know if we can absolutely claim that the limited viewport was the deciding factor in the 11th game, but it did seem to me that the Alphastar agent's blink stalker micro was somewhat compromised in that game compared to the seemingly superhuman blink micro in previous games.
- ajuc 8y ago
  You can see the alphastar perspective of that 11th game here: https://youtu.be/H3MCb4W7-kM?t=5195 https://youtu.be/H3MCb4W7-kM?t=5195 It struggles with camera placement like real players :) And uses popular divert-attention tactics, which shows it understand that part of the game - for example when it sends oracles to mineral line at the same time as it attacks in front. Previous versions didn't do that, because they were taught playing vs cheating AI - so no point diverting attention of something that has instant access to any unit on the map :) It also struggles to defend against adept harras beacuse it has "tunnel vision" - controls its oracle instead of defending probes at home. Mana actually managed his attention budget a lot better (this is a crucial pro-player skill in starcraft - harras is effective because it trades little of your attention for a lot of attention of the enemy, it's a skill that becomes irrelevant when opponent doesn't really have "attention" and can perceive and interact with all units on the map at once like previous version of alphastar). This one is much more human, and much lower level. In my opinion it lost unfair advantage, so the mistakes in its errormaking are revealed. Previously it never was behind and never had to react to human player strategy - it rarely even scouted because what's the point - it wanted to build mass stalkers anyway.
  - 8y ago

gowld 8y ago

What happens if a human tries to use the API with a custom UI of the human's own choosing? Such a UI might not exist yet, but are there ideas for more efficient UIs that could be built?

confiscate 8y ago
Yes I am curious of this too. What happens if the human has a giant TV screen that can see the whole map at once Or, what if we slow down the game, so that the human can actually pause the game each second and consider what to do next. That's basically what the computer is allowed to do
- maksimum 8y ago
  > Or, what if we slow down the game, so that the human can actually pause the game each second and consider what to do next. That's basically what the computer is allowed to do While this would make it more fair, it would just make the micro game more similar to chess or go. I don't think humans would necessarily win in the end.
  - zizee 8y ago
    Well, are we wanting to test the computers ability to strategize/plan, or their ability to out click humans? The former is an interesting AI challenge/achievement, the latter is a space in which computers are already known to outperform humans.
  - feanaro 8y ago
    That's a good insight and yes, humans would probably be overpowered eventually. However, this is just the consequence of the fact that all games are similar if you remove external limitations such as reaction time (or, alternatively, produce a more efficient "being" which is not as subject to these limitations as some other). Starcraft is like chess in some sense. The largest fundamental difference is that it isn't a perfect information game.
    - 8y ago