5 ms·

> OG would absolutely handily win against any non-professionally-contracted dota team under the exact same challenge conditions. Because OG are mechanically be

> OG would absolutely handily win against any non-professionally-contracted dota team under the exact same challenge conditions. Because OG are mechanically better than them. Flawless reactions make for a big difference (see euls/hex scripters for the impact of that on a game). Throw in perfect global state and zero mistakes, it becomes very very hard to out-skill. The question that people actually care about is whether the AI can be strategically better. If you watch pro dota you'll see that there are often teams which flash, briefly super strong and then fall off as better teams study them and learn to counter their play. OG themselves have had serious problems with CIS teams that play fast (making them arguably the worst team vs a fast playing AI). The hero pool is also important, as currently it's very limited in offering counters to deathball. > OpenAI Five, if trained against the full hero pool, would completely and utterly dominate gameplay at the professional human level. It wouldn't even be close. Fundamentally disagree. The mechanical advantage increases but the strategic disadvantage also increases. Time will hopefully tell.

roenxi 8y ago
> The question that people actually care about is whether the AI can be strategically better. We already know the answer to that; computers dominate humans strategically. There are two types of strategic decisions - those made using maths, and those made by guessing. Computers are perfectly capable of doing both, and better at at least one. Besides, Go is far more strategic than DotA and computers are better than us at Go. The reason we are seeing research in videogames is purely tactical. Historically computers couldn't compete tactically with humans because there were too many variables and decisions to write up an if-then loop that made sense. DotA is 95% a game of mechanical domination, 5% strategic concerns. The strategic concerns could be modelled with some pretty basic Bayesian models and probably be world class; it is item-hero combinations, a few rules about location on the map and guesswork. All the challenge is taking that strategy then implementing it mechanically - doing all the stuff OpenAI 5 is demonstrating regarding jukes, tactical positioning, spell timings and judging relative strength with incomplete information. DotA isn't as fast as it looks either, it is quite a slow game in terms of reflexes. Reflexes tip close games, but positioning tips the average game. OG was losing because computers are just better at estimating margins of safety.

roenxi 8y ago

> The question that people actually care about is whether the AI can be strategically better. We already know the answer to that; computers dominate humans strategically. There are two types of strategic decisions - those made using maths, and those made by guessing. Computers are perfectly capable of doing both, and better at at least one. Besides, Go is far more strategic than DotA and computers are better than us at Go. The reason we are seeing research in videogames is purely tactical. Historically computers couldn't compete tactically with humans because there were too many variables and decisions to write up an if-then loop that made sense. DotA is 95% a game of mechanical domination, 5% strategic concerns. The strategic concerns could be modelled with some pretty basic Bayesian models and probably be world class; it is item-hero combinations, a few rules about location on the map and guesswork. All the challenge is taking that strategy then implementing it mechanically - doing all the stuff OpenAI 5 is demonstrating regarding jukes, tactical positioning, spell timings and judging relative strength with incomplete information. DotA isn't as fast as it looks either, it is quite a slow game in terms of reflexes. Reflexes tip close games, but positioning tips the average game. OG was losing because computers are just better at estimating margins of safety.