3 ms·

We mostly agree then. I think even after limiting the AI FoV, it still was seeing 4× more as I said previously. As for APM: > By throttling the AI to what a hu

We mostly agree then. I think even after limiting the AI FoV, it still was seeing 4× more as I said previously. As for APM: > By throttling the AI to what a human can do[...] I think this is far from true, a human cannot keep the APM throughout the game on the level the AI was throttled to. If the AI was throttled to the average APM in e-sports, that would be more fair, but it was throttled to the HIGHEST APM reached by a human. Again, it's not "highest average APM in a single match", it's just highest number of actions in a given minute [I don't know if it was an all-time record or just some arbitrary value inspired by some arbitrarily chosen local record; what I know it was way too high to be fair]. Furthermore, SC2 players spam unnecessary clicks to keep themselves warmed up - if playing against AI, that is limited to average APM of its opponent, was a thing, then I'd safely bet the APM of that player would decrease 3 to 5 times WITHOUT the player reducing the number of actions that are of little (but still some) significance in order to abuse this AI limitation. Again, the event was cool, but it makes me sad the technicalities weren't communicated clearly, which made it an advertisement rather than sport IMHO.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago
ah. ok. I do get that. I agree. Maybe top pro's keep APM at 400 over entire match, but not really, there are ebbs/flows/spamming. While AI can max out at 400 and do that the entire match, and it isn't spamming, so every move is probably meaningful. Maybe, throttle both AI and Human both to 200? Something like that? So both are capped lower. For real time games. This 'throttling' is tricky. For turn based games, time limits are equal. But real time, because if we are measuring AI performance, it could be unleashed and be faster than a human and win. So is slowing down the AI really allowing for measuring the AI performance? Like in real life. Lets say you have a robot with a gun, and a human with a gun. They both need to draw, aim, and fire. Would we 'slow down' the robot to match the human? That doesn't seem like the way to measure how 'good' the AI is at doing those tasks. It could be faster. Netflix has documentary on AI. Military had AI flying F16's, and it could beat all the best human pilots. Of course, No slowing down the AI. In real world there are physical limits. Just need someway to translate that to real time games.
- Etherlord87 3y ago
  You're right of course. The thing is, if you allow unlimited APM, I think you don't need an advanced AI to win - you can have an algorithm implemented, that rushes zerglings and micromanages them to save any from dying and regenerating. So the human vs AI match becomes lame. Very subjectively, I'd say: limit the APM to something very low, below 50. You now change the game: it's no longer about making many decisions, it's only partially about reacting quickly, rewarding thinking through your decisions before ordering them. This would measure the intellect more than speed. BTW there is a mode in coop mode that AFAIR makes you pay minerals for each action, so such throttling is within canon ;)
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    That would be great idea. Limit everyone to 50 APM, that would make it more about strategy, not twitchy reflexes. And as you say, be more measure of the AI's ability for strategy and planning. Of course, being Bronze, with a 50 APM, this sounds great to me.

FrustratedMonky 3y ago

ah. ok. I do get that. I agree. Maybe top pro's keep APM at 400 over entire match, but not really, there are ebbs/flows/spamming. While AI can max out at 400 and do that the entire match, and it isn't spamming, so every move is probably meaningful. Maybe, throttle both AI and Human both to 200? Something like that? So both are capped lower. For real time games. This 'throttling' is tricky. For turn based games, time limits are equal. But real time, because if we are measuring AI performance, it could be unleashed and be faster than a human and win. So is slowing down the AI really allowing for measuring the AI performance? Like in real life. Lets say you have a robot with a gun, and a human with a gun. They both need to draw, aim, and fire. Would we 'slow down' the robot to match the human? That doesn't seem like the way to measure how 'good' the AI is at doing those tasks. It could be faster. Netflix has documentary on AI. Military had AI flying F16's, and it could beat all the best human pilots. Of course, No slowing down the AI. In real world there are physical limits. Just need someway to translate that to real time games.

Etherlord87 3y ago
You're right of course. The thing is, if you allow unlimited APM, I think you don't need an advanced AI to win - you can have an algorithm implemented, that rushes zerglings and micromanages them to save any from dying and regenerating. So the human vs AI match becomes lame. Very subjectively, I'd say: limit the APM to something very low, below 50. You now change the game: it's no longer about making many decisions, it's only partially about reacting quickly, rewarding thinking through your decisions before ordering them. This would measure the intellect more than speed. BTW there is a mode in coop mode that AFAIR makes you pay minerals for each action, so such throttling is within canon ;)
- FrustratedMonky 3y ago
  That would be great idea. Limit everyone to 50 APM, that would make it more about strategy, not twitchy reflexes. And as you say, be more measure of the AI's ability for strategy and planning. Of course, being Bronze, with a 50 APM, this sounds great to me.