5 ms·

Is the screen view limitation much of a limit? You can scan through the map quite quickly using the minimap to quickly move the view.

levesque 7y ago
I guess with number of APM/delay restrictions this would be the same as what a pro player can achieve. And pro player definitely do this, they bounce over the map all the time to monitor what is happening.
jandrese 7y ago
It would be interesting to see if it clicks on the minimap 20 times per second to keep its state refreshed in addition to issuing orders when viewing the correct screen.
shawnz 7y ago
They claim that adding the limit barely affected the performance of the bot. So I'm guessing you're right. Requiring it to scan through different screens is not really taking away the inherent advantage of being a computer; it just means a few extra calls.
- MichaelDickens 7y ago
  AlphaStar is APM-limited, which means it can't just rapid-fire click every location on the map. It has to judiciously pick which places to look in the same way humans do. (At least that's how it worked for the version they showed last year.)
  - setr 7y ago
    I might be remembering the wrong bot, but iirc it was limited only in average APM, and targetting pro-level average APM. So two immediate and obvious flaws were: 1. It could still burst, with overwhelming APM during combat 2. Pro APM is not the same as bot APM, as humans have far more limited precision, and a lot of human APM is wasted on redundant behavior as a result (eg spam clicking to make sure the order goes through) If its still the same, then the bot probably still has lots of excess APM to burn through without impacting micro performance.
    - jplayer01 7y ago
      > Q. How does AlphaStar interact with the game? > A. AlphaStar has built-in restrictions, which cap its effective actions per minute and per second. These caps, including the agents’ peak APM, are more restrictive than DeepMind’s demonstration matches back in January, and have been applied in consultation with pro players.
  - ergothus 7y ago
    > It has to judiciously pick which places to look in the same way humans do There's a lot in that statement that can mislead. It has to "look" - that's true, AFAIK, and is super interesting. But that's not the same as a human. If AlphaStar is watching 5 points of interest on the map, there is basically no chance that it screws that up. For humans, that would involve bouncing between the minimap to commands (assuming we're not talking about hotkeyed locations), which invites lots of dexterity/accuracy issues, not to mention visual comprehension. Do you really think AlphaStar will have issues making out the blur of a cloaked observer? (for example). Consider some blink stalker micro - a human CAN select each unit as it's attacked and blink it to the back of the pack, keeping a steady rotation of fresh shields to tank the damage. But that is error prone, and even the best pros only do it in limited skirmishes. Not because of APM - it's not the raw clicks that are the problem - but because of accuracy and the opportunity costs of the attention. Alphastar won't have accuracy problems, and the opportunity costs of the attention are VERY different from the human costs. I think Alphastar is a great experiment, and I am glad they are cutting off some of the brute force advantages a program has vs a human opponent, but that's not the same as saying it is doing it "the same way humans do".
    - tempestn 7y ago
      I suppose if they wanted to, they could pretty easily add a click accuracy limitation as well, and force it to work around that, as with APM and map view.
      - baddox 7y ago
        My prediction is that no matter what limitations you add, some people will always reject the notion that a computer can be competitive with a human at anything that humans are perceived or expected to be uniquely good at. In chess, there were decades of resistance to the idea that computers were truly competitive the best human players in a "fair" match, even though that game has little or no physical component (I suspect this persists to this day). For some people, either there will be endless litigation of every tiny physical difference between the computer and human player that makes it "unfair," or the premise will just be abandoned and we'll hear things like "well, yeah, computers are great at RTS games, but RTS skill isn't really a sign of true intelligence."
  - shawnz 7y ago
    Are we sure that moving the camera is considered an "action" by the APM limiter? If so then that does indeed change things.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    The version they showed in january had full map visual information, but they focused the camera on region with the most actions. The new version is limited to one screen of information at a time as well as a 350ms reaction time. My question is if it can "click" through all possible screens in 1 ms, then click through each screen 350ms later with a reaction. The other question is what constitutes meaningful APM. If only 20% of human APM meaningful do to redundant clicks and hotkey cycling, what is the appropriate AI APM.
    - eric-hu 7y ago
      This is an interesting question. I would expect that to some degree, yes it could cycle through locations of interest to sample multiple spots. Pros do this quite often, so not only would I consider this legal but perhaps necessary for decent skilled play.
baddox 7y ago
Is it much of a limit for top professional players either? From what I can tell, they spend a huge portion of their time staring at the minimap anyway, to find the portion of the screen is the best place for them to focus their attention.

levesque 7y ago

I guess with number of APM/delay restrictions this would be the same as what a pro player can achieve. And pro player definitely do this, they bounce over the map all the time to monitor what is happening.

jandrese 7y ago

It would be interesting to see if it clicks on the minimap 20 times per second to keep its state refreshed in addition to issuing orders when viewing the correct screen.

shawnz 7y ago

They claim that adding the limit barely affected the performance of the bot. So I'm guessing you're right. Requiring it to scan through different screens is not really taking away the inherent advantage of being a computer; it just means a few extra calls.

MichaelDickens 7y ago
AlphaStar is APM-limited, which means it can't just rapid-fire click every location on the map. It has to judiciously pick which places to look in the same way humans do. (At least that's how it worked for the version they showed last year.)
- setr 7y ago
  I might be remembering the wrong bot, but iirc it was limited only in average APM, and targetting pro-level average APM. So two immediate and obvious flaws were: 1. It could still burst, with overwhelming APM during combat 2. Pro APM is not the same as bot APM, as humans have far more limited precision, and a lot of human APM is wasted on redundant behavior as a result (eg spam clicking to make sure the order goes through) If its still the same, then the bot probably still has lots of excess APM to burn through without impacting micro performance.
  - jplayer01 7y ago
    > Q. How does AlphaStar interact with the game? > A. AlphaStar has built-in restrictions, which cap its effective actions per minute and per second. These caps, including the agents’ peak APM, are more restrictive than DeepMind’s demonstration matches back in January, and have been applied in consultation with pro players.
- ergothus 7y ago
  > It has to judiciously pick which places to look in the same way humans do There's a lot in that statement that can mislead. It has to "look" - that's true, AFAIK, and is super interesting. But that's not the same as a human. If AlphaStar is watching 5 points of interest on the map, there is basically no chance that it screws that up. For humans, that would involve bouncing between the minimap to commands (assuming we're not talking about hotkeyed locations), which invites lots of dexterity/accuracy issues, not to mention visual comprehension. Do you really think AlphaStar will have issues making out the blur of a cloaked observer? (for example). Consider some blink stalker micro - a human CAN select each unit as it's attacked and blink it to the back of the pack, keeping a steady rotation of fresh shields to tank the damage. But that is error prone, and even the best pros only do it in limited skirmishes. Not because of APM - it's not the raw clicks that are the problem - but because of accuracy and the opportunity costs of the attention. Alphastar won't have accuracy problems, and the opportunity costs of the attention are VERY different from the human costs. I think Alphastar is a great experiment, and I am glad they are cutting off some of the brute force advantages a program has vs a human opponent, but that's not the same as saying it is doing it "the same way humans do".
  - tempestn 7y ago
    I suppose if they wanted to, they could pretty easily add a click accuracy limitation as well, and force it to work around that, as with APM and map view.
    - baddox 7y ago
      My prediction is that no matter what limitations you add, some people will always reject the notion that a computer can be competitive with a human at anything that humans are perceived or expected to be uniquely good at. In chess, there were decades of resistance to the idea that computers were truly competitive the best human players in a "fair" match, even though that game has little or no physical component (I suspect this persists to this day). For some people, either there will be endless litigation of every tiny physical difference between the computer and human player that makes it "unfair," or the premise will just be abandoned and we'll hear things like "well, yeah, computers are great at RTS games, but RTS skill isn't really a sign of true intelligence."
- shawnz 7y ago
  Are we sure that moving the camera is considered an "action" by the APM limiter? If so then that does indeed change things.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  The version they showed in january had full map visual information, but they focused the camera on region with the most actions. The new version is limited to one screen of information at a time as well as a 350ms reaction time. My question is if it can "click" through all possible screens in 1 ms, then click through each screen 350ms later with a reaction. The other question is what constitutes meaningful APM. If only 20% of human APM meaningful do to redundant clicks and hotkey cycling, what is the appropriate AI APM.
  - eric-hu 7y ago
    This is an interesting question. I would expect that to some degree, yes it could cycle through locations of interest to sample multiple spots. Pros do this quite often, so not only would I consider this legal but perhaps necessary for decent skilled play.

baddox 7y ago

Is it much of a limit for top professional players either? From what I can tell, they spend a huge portion of their time staring at the minimap anyway, to find the portion of the screen is the best place for them to focus their attention.