3 ms·

Precisely. Focusing on APM is kind of a red herring anyways because during previous matches there were only a few milliseconds that it spiked above human level

Precisely. Focusing on APM is kind of a red herring anyways because during previous matches there were only a few milliseconds that it spiked above human levels, and it was usually when moving workers: https://deepmind.com/blog/alphastar-mastering-real-time-strategy-game-starcraft-ii/#image-15401 https://deepmind.com/blog/alphastar-mastering-real-time-stra... Even so, this latest version has max APM limits instated to appease pro-players. Since Alphastar is forced to perceive the state of the game through machine vision of the screen, it's reaction time is already on par with humans anyways (~350 ms for Alphastar vs. ~250 ms for humans).

friendlybus 7y ago
Alphastar did some inhuman stalker micro that the APM debate seeks to cover, but doesn't. Stalkers have a player operated ability to instantly move a short distance 'blink' once every 5 seconds. When in a fight, you optimally let the stalker(s) taking damage soak up as much damage as possible and then blink them backwards so they can recharge shields and continue firing from behind other stalkers. They don't stop firing, so all the work the opposing force did trying to kill a shooter, resulted in no outcome at all. That functionality is balanced by the fact it is hard for a human to time activating the abilities of many stalkers at once in time with the damage they are taking and perform the many other actions the game requires at the same time. Alphastar can perfectly blink back stalkers with limited apm because timing things is obviously not a problem for it, making stalkers way more value-for-money than they should be and can hold off high investment attacks more cost effectively. Ultimately sc2 is a game of economy and timing so this small change gives a massive advantage.
- eric-hu 7y ago
  If I'm not mistaken, the blink micro was unrealistic because that version of Alphastar played a modified version of the game. It's "screen" covered the whole map and it had no need for a minimap. Human players can do some of the blink micro that Alphastar did, if restricted to just one screen of space. What made its micro different was that it did it consistently from flanks on several sides of an army exceeding the boundaries of a human screen. It was also notable that it did that while macroing at home, but some macro actions during intense micro is done among better pros. The blink micro advantage should be far reduced if Alphastar is playing the same StarCraft II installation as humans now.
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> Focusing on APM is kind of a red herring anyways because during previous matches there were only a few milliseconds that it spiked above human levels, and it was usually when moving workers If you believe Aleksi Pietikäinen -- and pretty much every one of the professional players who played against it -- the claim you're repeating here is so misleading as to be fairly considered an intentional lie on the part of the deepmind team. For example, TLO's inflated APM are presented in that chart without comment. Specifically, without the comment that his high APM counts come from a particular game context in which holding the mouse button down (i.e. a single click with a duration) is counted by the game as thousands of APM. https://blog.usejournal.com/an-analysis-on-how-deepminds-starcraft-2-ai-s-superhuman-speed-could-be-a-band-aid-fix-for-the-1702fb8344d6 https://blog.usejournal.com/an-analysis-on-how-deepminds-sta...
JyB 7y ago
You are misleading people with this comment. AlphaStar APM spiked to ridiculous inhuman levels during stalkers micro. On top of that, it controlled units that were screens apart at the same time, which is not supposed to happen. DeepMind's refusal to aknowledge it, on top of the sketchy and misleading TLO chart didn't do them any favor.
kilburn 7y ago
> Since Alphastar is forced to perceive the state of the game through machine vision of the screen Reference? I'm under the impression that the game provides several "layers of information" directly to AlphaStar, not the actual screen.
- eric-hu 7y ago
  From TFA: > Q. How does AlphaStar perceive the game? > A. Like human players, AlphaStar perceives the game using a camera-like view. This means that AlphaStar doesn’t receive information about its opponent unless it is within the camera’s field of view, and it can only move units to locations within its view. All limits on AlphaStar’s performance were designed in consultation with pro players. Your assumption us correct about the show matches against MaNa and TLO that many people are talking about in here. That was not the long term goal of the Alphastar team to keep it on that heavily modified version of the game. For one thing, it meant that Alphastar needed a customized version of the game that it couldn't play on the ladder. As far as an AI challenge goes, it's also really weak if the AI gets more direct access to game data than its human opponents.

friendlybus 7y ago

Alphastar did some inhuman stalker micro that the APM debate seeks to cover, but doesn't. Stalkers have a player operated ability to instantly move a short distance 'blink' once every 5 seconds. When in a fight, you optimally let the stalker(s) taking damage soak up as much damage as possible and then blink them backwards so they can recharge shields and continue firing from behind other stalkers. They don't stop firing, so all the work the opposing force did trying to kill a shooter, resulted in no outcome at all. That functionality is balanced by the fact it is hard for a human to time activating the abilities of many stalkers at once in time with the damage they are taking and perform the many other actions the game requires at the same time. Alphastar can perfectly blink back stalkers with limited apm because timing things is obviously not a problem for it, making stalkers way more value-for-money than they should be and can hold off high investment attacks more cost effectively. Ultimately sc2 is a game of economy and timing so this small change gives a massive advantage.

eric-hu 7y ago
If I'm not mistaken, the blink micro was unrealistic because that version of Alphastar played a modified version of the game. It's "screen" covered the whole map and it had no need for a minimap. Human players can do some of the blink micro that Alphastar did, if restricted to just one screen of space. What made its micro different was that it did it consistently from flanks on several sides of an army exceeding the boundaries of a human screen. It was also notable that it did that while macroing at home, but some macro actions during intense micro is done among better pros. The blink micro advantage should be far reduced if Alphastar is playing the same StarCraft II installation as humans now.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> Focusing on APM is kind of a red herring anyways because during previous matches there were only a few milliseconds that it spiked above human levels, and it was usually when moving workers If you believe Aleksi Pietikäinen -- and pretty much every one of the professional players who played against it -- the claim you're repeating here is so misleading as to be fairly considered an intentional lie on the part of the deepmind team. For example, TLO's inflated APM are presented in that chart without comment. Specifically, without the comment that his high APM counts come from a particular game context in which holding the mouse button down (i.e. a single click with a duration) is counted by the game as thousands of APM. https://blog.usejournal.com/an-analysis-on-how-deepminds-starcraft-2-ai-s-superhuman-speed-could-be-a-band-aid-fix-for-the-1702fb8344d6 https://blog.usejournal.com/an-analysis-on-how-deepminds-sta...

JyB 7y ago

You are misleading people with this comment. AlphaStar APM spiked to ridiculous inhuman levels during stalkers micro. On top of that, it controlled units that were screens apart at the same time, which is not supposed to happen. DeepMind's refusal to aknowledge it, on top of the sketchy and misleading TLO chart didn't do them any favor.

kilburn 7y ago

> Since Alphastar is forced to perceive the state of the game through machine vision of the screen Reference? I'm under the impression that the game provides several "layers of information" directly to AlphaStar, not the actual screen.

eric-hu 7y ago
From TFA: > Q. How does AlphaStar perceive the game? > A. Like human players, AlphaStar perceives the game using a camera-like view. This means that AlphaStar doesn’t receive information about its opponent unless it is within the camera’s field of view, and it can only move units to locations within its view. All limits on AlphaStar’s performance were designed in consultation with pro players. Your assumption us correct about the show matches against MaNa and TLO that many people are talking about in here. That was not the long term goal of the Alphastar team to keep it on that heavily modified version of the game. For one thing, it meant that Alphastar needed a customized version of the game that it couldn't play on the ladder. As far as an AI challenge goes, it's also really weak if the AI gets more direct access to game data than its human opponents.