Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

DeepMind Challenges for StarCraft

gamasutra.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 137 posts

Re: DeepMind Challenges for StarCraft

#21

Post by ktRolster »

Mithaldu wrote: post #14
DanBlake wrote: post #3

One of the issues to overcome is the advantage machines can have in individual unit manipulations vs what a human can do in terms of APM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZawUuAccnc

The problem is, as ActionButton argues in this review of Diablo 2 [0], Starcraft is a game that may contain some amount of strategy, but wherein the element of strategy is strongly over-powered by a reflex-based combat system more akin to Street Fighter than anything else. [0] http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=518

wherein the element of strategy is strongly over-powered by a reflex-based combat system

This isn't true, in general a bigger army will beat a smaller army every time.

After you can make equal size armies, the next problem is army positioning and when to take engagements.

Finally, after you can do all that, then you can get an extra bonus to your power by microing really well. But not every micro is about speed - most of the time it's about knowing what to do.

And even at the most extreme, it's less about clicking quickly and more about clicking precisely.

Re: DeepMind Challenges for StarCraft

#22

Post by ktRolster »

MawNicker wrote: post #17
dogma1138 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really since electromechanical engineering would then be the bottle neck. If you want "fairness" you can limit the instructions to what keyboard and mouse can actually interpret as in the limited latency between instruction that both the game, the OS, and the hardware can support.

I don't think that's quite fair. Human's aren't anywhere near what the system can handle. The most "fair" thing I can think of would be to add latency to every mouse movement using Fitts's law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law It may also be interesting to model the state of the keyboard hand. Instead of allowing the computer to access keyboard shortcuts directly it could be forced to operate a virtual h…

That's a good idea

Re: DeepMind Challenges for StarCraft

#23

Post by ktRolster »

danharaj wrote: post #16
ktRolster wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty simple, you just take the starcraft AI, reduce the number of units it can handle at a time, maybe simplify its economy logic, and then let it go. Easy.

The interactions between individual unit types in a game like DOTA are much more complicated than, say, the interactions between marines, zerglings, and zealots; there are many more unit types, too.

as someone else pointed out, the interactions between the units are like fighting games. Computers already have the advantage at fighting games (like Streetfighter).

Micro and unit control is where the AI has the advantage.

Re: DeepMind Challenges for StarCraft

#24

Post by dogma1138 »

smilekzs wrote: post #12
dogma1138 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really since electromechanical engineering would then be the bottle neck. If you want "fairness" you can limit the instructions to what keyboard and mouse can actually interpret as in the limited latency between instruction that both the game, the OS, and the hardware can support.

The game is capable of accepting a much higher APM than Korean pro players are capable of pulling off even at peak. IMHO the AI should be subject to an APM limit (e.g. sliding window).

Not if it's done over the normal channels (USB) many players not even "pro korean" ones can easily encounter input issues like key rollover limits and polling rates on your mouse.

USB has quite a bit of limitation for HID's and allot of the gaming mice and keyboards use various hacks to overcome them.

Games and OS also have limits I can easily issue more commands using my keyboard than SC2 can handle so not all key presses will actually register.

Not to mention is that the game actually has to run on regular hardware, start spamming your keyboard in a game and you see the CPU spikes, the game loop also puts quite a bit of limits on how many interrupts per second it can catch, and how long does it take for it to actually switch context (e.g. SC2 build menus).

That said after AlphaSC2 destroys another Korean national passtime I would definitely love to see human like input being used by AlphaSC2.

Not because I think humans deserve a fair fight, but because i think the most interesting part will be to see how AlphaSC2 has to modify it's play style to compensate for the limitations of having to use "meatbag" control methods.

Re: DeepMind Challenges for StarCraft

#27

Post by jhspaybar »

hmate9 wrote: post #6

I think poker would also be a great challenge. It is a special game because as well as the math, you also have to understand your opponent and adjust accordingly. It'd be interesting to see weather DeepMind can beat professional poker players who have different playing styles.

My understanding is that limit Texas Holdem poker is essentially solved. No limit is a different thing though, one mistake and you could be done.

Re: DeepMind Challenges for StarCraft

#28

Post by broodbucket »

klog wrote: post #2

I would say Koreans are on supercomputer AI level in this game.

StarCraft would indeed be interesting for one of these challenges, however the peak of human skill in this game has already been lost. Tournaments are dwindling, many players have moved on to other games like StarCraft II or retired. The remaining players aren't at the level that they were, say, 5 years ago, when there were two major televised starleagues.

Even if some AI does defeat Flash in 2017, would they have defeated Flash in 2010?

The mechanical skill required for this game means you simply can't come back to the game after a year and resume where you left off. Knowledge and understanding aren't enough, your fingers must be lightning.

Re: DeepMind Challenges for StarCraft

#29

Post by daveguy »

ktRolster wrote: post #10
detaro wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If anyone, Google has the image recognition and robotics tech to make a robot sitting in front of a screen, with keyboard and mouse ;) Yes, anything where the interface to the game becomes critical is difficult to fairly compare with humans. Board games can use a human as an actuator, micro-heavy games hopefully won't for a long time...

If anyone, Google has the image recognition and robotics tech to make a robot sitting in front of a screen, with keyboard and mouse ;) Didn't they just try to sell that department?

No. Those would be the robotics departments using electric actuators that they are keeping; not the hydraulic robot department they are trying to get rid of.
Post reply on HN