DeepMind and Blizzard to release StarCraft II as an AI research environment

Post by lightbyte » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 8:20 PM UTC

placeybordeaux wrote: post #66

DontGiveTwoFlux wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a Starcraft brood war AI competition that did not have a limit on APM. The top contestants were employing strategies that required APM an order of magnitude higher than what players could do. For example, in brood war, SCVs can repair any Terran building or vehicle but it is not worth the effort to repair goliaths or tanks for a player. However, the AI could easily manage repairing it's tanks which makes th…

This was an example of extreme micro that a very simple AI can do that changes the game entirely: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKVFZ28ybQs

Post by nerchio » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 8:29 PM UTC

nharada wrote: post #19

Miner49er wrote: post #2

Looks like they are going to limit the APM of the AI. I wonder how they are going to decide the limit? I've never played StarCraft, but from what I understand very high APM is needed to play the game at the highest levels.

Back when I played SC2, you really didn't need a high APM to succeed, unlike SC1. SC2 offered some helpful mechanics that SC1 did not, such as the ability to select infinite units at once, or give commands to multiple structures at one. I think Sheth, a high level Zerg player, was famous for having under 100 APM.

Post by tylerpachal » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 8:31 PM UTC

Post by visarga » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 8:31 PM UTC

kurthr wrote: post #73

doikor wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it harder to make an AI that is mediocre at playing the game vs one that is good? That is the main issue with making good AIs for games now. We want AIs (if you can call them that) that play kinda like humans but worse then the player as the player wants to win. Making an AI for game isn't about making a good AI. It is about making an AI that loses in a convincing manner. This is especially try for games like Star…

I think it's really important to realize is that a game AI isn't really there to try to win, or maybe even to "convincingly" beat you the same way a human is. Perhaps you could train an AI to make the game more "fun", but that's pretty hard to measure and people are so different. It's a really hard optimization process. One commonality, it seems, is that players want to get better at the game. Perhaps, an AI that TEA…

Post by totalZero » Fri, Nov 04, 2016, 8:33 PM UTC

doikor wrote: post #42

formula1 wrote: post #15

I suspect this will eventually lead to AI as a service for games. Rather than build a terrible AI that delays a game by months, approaching a company that can build a decent AI initially which gets better overtime would probably be ideal and create better experiences. Im curious if a startup can be built from this.

Is it harder to make an AI that is mediocre at playing the game vs one that is good? That is the main issue with making good AIs for games now. We want AIs (if you can call them that) that play kinda like humans but worse then the player as the player wants to win. Making an AI for game isn't about making a good AI. It is about making an AI that loses in a convincing manner. This is especially try for games like Star…