4 ms·
The most disappointing part of AlphaStar to me was the fact that each game was played by a completely separate AI. I was sad to see that each intelligence seeme
by ralusek 7y ago
The most disappointing part of AlphaStar to me was the fact that each game was played by a completely separate AI. I was sad to see that each intelligence seemed to only be able to converge on a single strategy/unit composition. It was a failure to settle on a more generalized intelligence, as well as an indication that many of its victories in reinforcement were potentially achieved as a result of having composed units as hard counters to other compositions.
- s1artibartfast 7y agoRegarding your disappointment, human player goes into a game with an intended strategy, how different is this different than selecting a strategy based AI for each game? I would like to rewatch the replays with this in mind, but the AI did appear to transition between different unit compositions and strategies at different points in the game. I wonder the degree to which this was predetermined opposed to reactive.
- pinouchon 7y agoIt was pretty pre-detemined (at least in the matches vs Mana. The best pros can react very fast to unusual strategies (cheese), or change their strategy if the situation calls for it (eg: terran all-ins). I agree with the sentiment of disappointment of having to make a "league" with specialised AIs. It seems to be lacking a high level reasoning and executive module, and the league acts as a crutch. The league idea still super impressive and clever, but human players do not go around in gangs where only one of them takes a seat for each match.