3 ms·

I don't think the comparison with aimbots is fair. Aimbots are more like a perfect micro. In the beginning (when they did their first show match), Alphastar was

I don't think the comparison with aimbots is fair. Aimbots are more like a perfect micro. In the beginning (when they did their first show match), Alphastar was insane at that. Now the micro is not giving an advantage anymore. Where alphastar shines, is in making a strategy work. It won't attack into something that looks dangerous. It won't forget to build more units. It won't be distracted on two fronts. (That said: Alphastar did some really stupid mistakes as well.) I agree with you, though: it would be much more interesting, if Alphastar was actually handicapped in the micro (at least at a later point in the game). Then it would really need to find interesting strategies and counter opposing units with more cost-efficient ones.

MiracleUser 7y ago
>Now the micro is not giving an advantage anymore. I guess I need to learn more about the details here. Robotic consistency is a significant advantage, so unless it is handicapped I dont think the result is much of a leap from what we learned by it being insane at micro. You can feel consistency on your opponent and it is extremely intimidating. Usually, players are consistent at different things.. like my micro might be much better with marines than tanks. To have consistent human-level micro across all units is already a huge advantage. I agree the aimbot comparison is excessive, but the hyperbole was good for getting the point across. You could take an fps AI with aimbot, and give it 220 ms input lag to say it doesnt have advantage over players anymore - but its still going to climb to the top of the ladder system because it isnt going to miss. It is either advantaged at aiming or disadvantaged based on that 1 number