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

Using genetic algorithms to find Starcraft 2 build orders

lbrandy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Using genetic algorithms to find Starcraft 2 build orders

#71

Post by Artagra »

dorianj wrote: post #64

Another unmentioned aspect of this is Blizzard's involvement. If this build is truly unstoppable in most cases, then Blizzard's balance team will simply nerf some aspect of Zerg to make it harder to abuse. For example, when the balance team determined that Reapers were too strong in early game, they made the tech required for them take longer to get.

I'm sure Blizzard will Nerf this. Early reapers, well executed, had about a 70% success rate. This has a 80% success rate at least, and is much harder to counter.

Re: Using genetic algorithms to find Starcraft 2 build orders

#72

Post by lawn »

seigenblues wrote: post #34
icegreentea wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Amateur's discuss strategy, professionals discuss logistics" And more specifically, it's not about maximizing your rate of production, its about maximizing the difference between youres and your opponents (this is both RTS and real life war). That's the basis of rush tactics. You actually stunt your own rate of growth in the hopes of stunting your opponents even more.

Totally -- not to mention surviving long enough to let compound interest naturally magnify that difference. As for the tactics or "logistics" -- if that means clicking 500 times/minute, then i really don't see the appeal :)

Starcraft isn't about clicking fast, it's about doing a lot of things at the same time. As you think about the game better you'll do more things faster, not the other way around.

Re: Using genetic algorithms to find Starcraft 2 build orders

#73

Post by JoachimSchipper »

olegkikin wrote: post #3
CoryOndrejka wrote: post #2

This echoes the story of Eurisko, a genetic AI written by Stanford's Douglas Lenat to build Traveller "Trillion Credit Fleets." Eurisko destroyed the competition at the national championship 2 years in row. http://aliciapatterson.org/APF0704/Johnson/Johnson.html In both cases, using the GA allowed a player to more comprehensively search the opportunity space created by the game designers than the designers did during…

It's sad that they banned him. What kind of logic is this? Do they really think it would stop other players from doing the same?

Probably, yes. Somewhat closed gaming groups can have fun with an imperfect game if everyone agrees not to abuse the holes in the rules. (After all, rules abuse does not necessarily lead to a more fun game.)

Re: Using genetic algorithms to find Starcraft 2 build orders

#74

Post by electromagnetic »

endtime wrote: post #8
olegkikin wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's sad that they banned him. What kind of logic is this? Do they really think it would stop other players from doing the same?

IIRC they didn't ban him - rather, they told him that if he kept competing they'd just cancel the competition. This was not out of spite, but because he was so dominant that it was discouraging the other players from even trying.

Create an open 'fight the machine' competition and let them brawl it out. Problem resolved.

Re: Using genetic algorithms to find Starcraft 2 build orders

#75

Post by seles »

mfukar wrote: post #68
seles wrote: post #58

I'm not going to say that this program is useless, but the example shown (7 roach) would have been near trivial to find by a mere human. Tricks like premaking the overlord, using extractor trick, etc. Have been around for over 10 years since the early days of Starcraft 1. Any person could come up with this build, the question is where did the idea to rush for 7 roaches come from? It sounds like that was manually set…

Yet nobody found it. The closest thing to a roach rush people found was the 5-roach build [1], which is slower and it suffers a lot economically if the rush fails. For the record, though, I've played against the 7-roach build a couple of weeks ago, and iirc that was a few days before EvolutionChamber was announced. So some people knew about it, maybe they found out about it from the creator, or played against him, wh…

Only because they never looked for it. Did this program decide to look for it on its own (having some idea of strategy, that would be impressive)? Or did the creator tell it to find fastest 7 roach build?

Re: Using genetic algorithms to find Starcraft 2 build orders

#76

Post by kahawe »

NyxWulf wrote: post #45
3pt14159 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure you are timing it correctly, using it on the right map, and microing ok? It should decimate most Protoss players unless they scout, discover, forge up, delay possible cannons until last min, dual exp, and quick air or go all in sentries.

> It should decimate most Protoss players unless they scout.. It should (annhilate|destroy|overwhelm| ) most Protoss players unless they scout... FTFY That usage of decimate is as grating to me as it is common. :/ I don't blame you, I'm just shaking my fists at the heavens in impotent rage.

And like many other words decimate's current usage and meaning has deviated from its original use.

Are you suggesting people should only and exclusively adhere to original meanings and "trve" origins of words?

Knowing where a word came from can certainly help us understand more but let's face it, languages are very alive and change a lot.

Re: Using genetic algorithms to find Starcraft 2 build orders

#77

Post by robryan »

seles wrote: post #75
mfukar wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet nobody found it. The closest thing to a roach rush people found was the 5-roach build [1], which is slower and it suffers a lot economically if the rush fails. For the record, though, I've played against the 7-roach build a couple of weeks ago, and iirc that was a few days before EvolutionChamber was announced. So some people knew about it, maybe they found out about it from the creator, or played against him, wh…

Only because they never looked for it. Did this program decide to look for it on its own (having some idea of strategy, that would be impressive)? Or did the creator tell it to find fastest 7 roach build?

I'd imagine you would assign each unit some kind of relative value to each other and then factor in a time weighing making earlier builds more desirable even if there unit score is lower.

Re: Using genetic algorithms to find Starcraft 2 build orders

#78

Post by G_Wen »

3pt14159 wrote: post #39
alnayyir wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah I was going to say, I'm a silver level and this strat does not work that well even in that tier.

Are you sure you are timing it correctly, using it on the right map, and microing ok? It should decimate most Protoss players unless they scout, discover, forge up, delay possible cannons until last min, dual exp, and quick air or go all in sentries.

I reasonable protoss player will scout. This build cuts out a lot of zerglings and unless you can deny a probe scout it will be very transparent that you're going for a 7RR. A zerg who does not take an expansion quickly or lets at least a few lings to scout / deny scouting is very suspicious. Additionally protoss have access to the sentry and zealots will kill a roach in a 1v1 battle. They key is to force the roaches halfway up your ramp then cutting them off in half. Ideally 3 on top of your ramp and 4 below. A few stalkers should be able to hold them off.

Forging up, and dual expoing (correct me if I misread you when you said dual exp) into "quick" air is not a viable strategy.

A reliable strategy would be to hold off the initial push and securing your natural. You should be in an economic lead since he sacrificed 7 larvae early on in the game for the attack. From there the game should transfer into a standard ZvP with the protoss being slightly ahead due to a higher probe count.

Re: Using genetic algorithms to find Starcraft 2 build orders

#79

Post by jonoff »

beagle3 wrote: post #62
CoryOndrejka wrote: post #2

This echoes the story of Eurisko, a genetic AI written by Stanford's Douglas Lenat to build Traveller "Trillion Credit Fleets." Eurisko destroyed the competition at the national championship 2 years in row. http://aliciapatterson.org/APF0704/Johnson/Johnson.html In both cases, using the GA allowed a player to more comprehensively search the opportunity space created by the game designers than the designers did during…

I've been looking for material about Eurisko. Other than this championship, there appears to be no credible documentation of any of Eurisko's reported achievements. It might be super-duper, but the fact that he wouldn't let anyone else use it, and that those amazing feats have not been reproduced by others despite huge advances - might just mean that there's more myth to truth in the stories about Eurisko.

Adding to the mystery, I read the newyorker article (2009) linked from wikipedia on Eurisko, and it seems Lenat forgot the winning strategy Eurisko developed, or the first article is wrong.

"Eurisko, however, had judged that defense was more important than offense, that many cheap, invulnerable ships would outlast fleets consisting of a few high-priced, sophisticated vessels. There were ninety-six ships in Eurisko’s fleet, most of which were slow and clumsy because of their heavy armor" - 1984 article

"astronomical number of small ships like P.T. boats, with powerful weapons but absolutely no defense and no mobility, Lenat said. They just sat there. Basically, if they were hit once they would sink." - 2009 article

Post reply on HN