On the Ball: Man Versus Machine

[Jinx_Dragon]

In addition people don't seem to realize just how difficult it is to program good AI that doesn't cheat. The human player has the advantage of being able to adapt and more importantly do new things. No AI is capable of doing something its not coded to do.

Agreed, it annoys the hell out of me that AI's have to be given obvious advantages but on the other hand I can understand why they need it. Just do this for example: Remove the fog of war. Now you are a little more on par with a computer and guess what, that alone is normally enough to kick it's little cheating arse all around a map.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

/snip

Goddess, you had to bring up Othello didn't you? When I feel really self loathing I boot up a Othello program just to have my arse handed to me again and again by the computer. Managed to beat it on simple once, ONCE, and many times on harder settings it takes the whole damn board many a time. There just isn't a way to beat a half decent AI in Othello, period.

 

[John Funk]

RAAAAAAAGE

The difference is, neither Othello nor Chess are in real-time, where you need to coordinate perfect optimal production whilst micromanaging an army of units on the field, using their abilities correctly, focus-firing, moving in and out of danger, etc.

The mark of a truly lightning-fingered StarCraft 1 player is that he can drop a Siege Tank out of a Dropship, have it fire at a Sunken Colony, and then pick it up in the split second before the Sunken Colony's attack connects. To be able to do that is to be ultra-hardcore.

A computer could do that without any effort. That's where Jordan is saying that computers could outpace human SC players; not in strategy but execution.

And regardless, calling contributors - let alone staff - "dickheads" and insulting them so rudely isn't something we tolerate here. You're going to take a little break and learn how to be more mature about expressing criticism Good-bye.

 

[Xersues]

Ragesnip

I don't think anyone has any reason to apologize. Starcraft comes with AI. There's an entire single player campaign dedicated to it.

Hell, did you fail to realize that almost ALL the game has some AI pathing to it? You DON'T get full control of the behavior of units, they follow some sort of A* or pathing algorithm to flock to where you tell them to.

I happen to be a computer scientist, and I happen to read a lot about AI. Like I said, AI is mostly a rule based engine for now (which isn't real AI), if it knows what you're building, why couldn't it just build a counter, especially a prescripted one, which isn't TRUE AI, but who cares. You rolled rock, so its going to make paper. How annoying would it be that you've been bested not by real AI, but by a rule engine, the same thing that manages your packages at UPS/Fed ex?

The game is not that easy however, as we all know, but it is possible to rank all possible units as threats, and have the counters listed for each, and make a rule engine that can systematically and perfectly destroy what you're bringing up. Just like John said:

The mark of a truly lightning-fingered StarCraft 1 player is that he can drop a Siege Tank out of a Dropship, have it fire at a Sunken Colony, and then pick it up in the split second before the Sunken Colony's attack connects. To be able to do that is to be ultra-hardcore.

A computer could do that without any effort. That's where Jordan is saying that computers could outpace human SC players; not in strategy but execution.

That can be added to a rule engine. Zerg unit A has a priority of 10 (highest) and it's counter is Protoss unit B. The rule engine finds out you're making A, and starts making B, effectively (by whatever tested means on a per map basis that might be) destroying your units because its doing 500+ actions per minute.

It would be controlling its base/building, unit production, and fighting at the same time. That's freaking HARD to do. The little bastard AI can rebuild while you're fighting and trying to micro the battle.

This is all theoretical. Blizzard made an AI, in a game that's partially controlled by AI. I don't see why it can't be attempted. It might not always be perfect, but it might have a strat to roll out on some maps that would just destroy.

I apologize to everyone that takes this entire thing too seriously. Because it's your blood pressure, not mine. Less reading opinions and more playing starcraft, right?

 

[Altorin]

And regardless, calling contributors - let alone staff - "dickheads" and insulting them so rudely isn't something we tolerate here. You're going to take a little break and learn how to be more mature about expressing criticism Good-bye.

I was literally gobsmacked when I read what they said Funk. Was all that to Deam? Seriously? I thought it was to Xerseus, and it was bad enough at that, but calling a staffer (especially an editor) a dickhead?

*laughs and shakes his head*

I think I've said my piece in this thread.. it was interesting discussing my experiences with Warcraft 2's AI.. it's not a game I get to talk about much anymore.

 

[BobisOnlyBob]

I agree.
And while I'm not a computer scientist, programming is a major part of my job. This post is the first one that seems to have any real understanding of programming. The AI required to play starcraft strategically against a professional player is miles outside our abilities at the moment.

I'm just a struggling undergrad myself, so you likely have a much greater understanding of the actual applications of code and their limitations. But thanks all the same.

Pathfinding is hard, pathfinding in a dynamic terrain is very hard, pathfinding in a dynamic terrain with other movable obstacles that some are trying to get pass you and other are trying to get to the same spot you are is INSANE. We think that a program will be able to turn every unit into a being as smart as we are, solving the problem of movement fulidly and smoothly as human crowd walking across a cross-walk. Sorry guys, we're not even close.

Pathfinding is my personal obsession within AI. The simple elegance of A* compared to the horrendous hacks you have to apply to it to get it to work dynamically fascinate me.

I happen to be a computer scientist, and I happen to read a lot about AI. Like I said, AI is mostly a rule based engine for now (which isn't real AI), if it knows what you're building, why couldn't it just build a counter, especially a prescripted one, which isn't TRUE AI, but who cares. You rolled rock, so its going to make paper. How annoying would it be that you've been bested not by real AI, but by a rule engine, the same thing that manages your packages at UPS/Fed ex?

The game is not that easy however, as we all know, but it is possible to rank all possible units as threats, and have the counters listed for each, and make a rule engine that can systematically and perfectly destroy what you're bringing up. Just like John said:

The mark of a truly lightning-fingered StarCraft 1 player is that he can drop a Siege Tank out of a Dropship, have it fire at a Sunken Colony, and then pick it up in the split second before the Sunken Colony's attack connects. To be able to do that is to be ultra-hardcore.

A computer could do that without any effort. That's where Jordan is saying that computers could outpace human SC players; not in strategy but execution.

That can be added to a rule engine. Zerg unit A has a priority of 10 (highest) and it's counter is Protoss unit B. The rule engine finds out you're making A, and starts making B, effectively (by whatever tested means on a per map basis that might be) destroying your units because its doing 500+ actions per minute.

It would be controlling its base/building, unit production, and fighting at the same time. That's freaking HARD to do. The little bastard AI can rebuild while you're fighting and trying to micro the battle.

This is all theoretical. Blizzard made an AI, in a game that's partially controlled by AI. I don't see why it can't be attempted. It might not always be perfect, but it might have a strat to roll out on some maps that would just destroy.

I mostly agree with you that it's plausible, but the majority of the existing AI is very much "conventional". It's not designed to use "cheap" tricks like dropping and reclaiming a unit so it can fire without being fired on; as much as that's a valid strategy, it doesn't make any sense within the game lore. A tank that can be picked up and dropped before an enemy can react, from a dropship that's in mid-air the entire time? It's absurd, and only emerged because of vicious competition and one-upmanship between humans. I think even with sufficient data and resources, a trained AI would never reach the point of requiring such a strategy unless demonstrated it first, and even then its execution may be flawless but the chances to use it would be so narrow as to never be attempted by a logical AI. It's so risky no probabilistic engine would ever try it!

What I'm getting at here, is that human players take queues from outside the game. They know their opponents, they know how much the High Templar lightning freaks out Zerg players, they know their opponents won't think to click past a floating engineering bay and might not notice a scanner sweep going off. To factor all these external behaviours into an AI is a task of such insane complexity, above and beyond merely getting pathfinding right on a map with fog of war - and even that's still not quite right. There's a reason micro exists, and it's because the AI doesn't.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Sport: an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition

playing SC competitively sure sounds like a sport to me ^-^ if you argue otherwise than please justify why Golf is a sport. Machines can do them both way better and consistently as well. other than competition neither sport require much physical exertion

edit:: mind u im not talking about the skill required to do either well