StarCraft AI Competition Announced

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

StarCraft AI Competition Announced

Posted by Soulskill on Thursday November 12, 2009 @06:31AM from the here-comes-the-reaperzerg dept.

bgweber writes "The 2010 conference on Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment (AIIDE 2010) will be hosting a StarCraft AI competition as part of the conference program. This competition enables academic researchers to evaluate their AI systems in a robust, commercial RTS environment. The competition will be held in the weeks leading up to the conference. The final matches will be held live at the conference with commentary. Exhibition matches will also be held between skilled human players and the top-performing bots."

155 of 200 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Does AI have to be good? by hitnrunrambler · 2009-11-12 06:35 · Score: 1

Or just smarter than the random BNET player?
1. Re:Does AI have to be good? by bertoelcon · 2009-11-12 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  I dunno the average Starcraft BNET player is Korean. The majority sets the skill average high too.
  
  --
  Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
2. Re:Does AI have to be good? by hitnrunrambler · 2009-11-12 06:59 · Score: 1
  
  eh... the good ones are Korean.
  The average ones are average.
  and... I'll be honest, I was just zerg rushing for first post
3. Re:Does AI have to be good? by Rocky · 2009-11-12 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't Jaedong the currently top-ranked player?
  
  --
  "I'm an old-fashioned type of guy. I worship the Sun and Moon as gods. And fear them."
4. Re:Does AI have to be good? by poetmatt · 2009-11-12 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  does AI need to be good?
  
  no, but Blizzard does want to be lazy and outsource AI development.
5. Re:Does AI have to be good? by DreadPiratePizz · 2009-11-12 07:27 · Score: 1
  
  No, Flash is currently the number 1 ranked player.
6. Re:Does AI have to be good? by EvanED · 2009-11-12 07:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Depends where you look. Last month's KESPA ratings (the latest, at least on TLPD) put Jaedong at #1 and flash down at #6. In fact, the last time he wasn't #1 in that ranking was March.
7. Re:Does AI have to be good? by Edmund+Blackadder · 2009-11-12 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  It would actually be very difficult to make it better than the random BNET player. Starcraft players are getting very good. And it is pretty hard for a computer to beat a human for an RTS in general (without cheating of course).
8. Re:Does AI have to be good? by Shillo · 2009-11-12 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  Well, computers have infinite APM, and AI bots will have to (ab)use this to win against other bots. It should also help them against humans. Do you consider this cheating?
  
  --
  I refuse to use .sig
9. Re:Does AI have to be good? by Asclepius99 · 2009-11-12 08:02 · Score: 1
  
  If you think about it, it's over 10 years since even Brood War came out. So I'd assume that the average person still playing (besides people that only do Use Map Settings) probably gets better each year as more and more people get bored of the game leaving mostly hardcore fans. I'd also assume that for the most part only hardcore fans are going to go to something like this for a chance to play against the AIs. So yeah, I'm guessing they'd have to be pretty good.
10. Re:Does AI have to be good? by Antiocheian · 2009-11-12 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  Step 1: Playoff/deathmatch style showdown to find the the best of the AIs
  Fallacious
11. Re:Does AI have to be good? by Cornflake917 · 2009-11-12 08:33 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  RTFA.
  The competition is being held by Expressive Intelligence Studio at an AI conference. Blizzard has nothing to do with this, AFAIK.
  
  --
  Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game
12. Re:Does AI have to be good? by hitnrunrambler · 2009-11-12 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Good point....
  However when SC2 finally comes out it will be a harsh reminder that the "(current experienced) average Starcraft player" is NOT the "average BNET player".
13. Re:Does AI have to be good? by teh+moges · 2009-11-12 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Hardly infinite. Most games place a limit on how much resources the AI can use, which means they need to make good decisions using limited resources. I'm not sure if Starcraft has these limits (a cursory glance suggests so), but it doesn't have good control over the micro of the player, which is what makes the difference between good players and great players.
14. Re:Does AI have to be good? by poetmatt · 2009-11-12 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Starcraft AI? Well what do you suppose that is for? Notably you think an open competition won't just be sucked up by Blizzard as a result? duh.
  Maybe you should again RTFA or learn what Starcraft is.
15. Re:Does AI have to be good? by COMON$ · 2009-11-12 10:25 · Score: 1
  
  One can get bored of Starcraft? Who knew....I still play on a regular basis.
  
  --
  CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
16. Re:Does AI have to be good? by TikiTDO · 2009-11-12 11:20 · Score: 1
  
  I think you are forgetting something pretty important. While I'm sure Blizzard will gladly grab the AI, provided it is released under a permissible enough license, I do not think they care all that much much. StarCraft 2 is (hopefully) just around the corner, so my best guess is that they are completely focused on that. While a Brood Wars AI would be nice, it is not likely to help much for a completely new game, with a whole ton of new variables, strategies, and game play mechanics. So if Blizzard really was behind the move, this would likely be an SC2 based competition, perhaps with some special beta release of the game.
  
  What I find more likely is that the competition organizers wanted to give AI researchers a more complex challenge than the traditional "Move a robot around a box" or "Interact with a user" project. StarCraft is a sufficiently complex, but not insurmountable challenge, allowing researchers to try out their ideas in a simple, and competitive environment. The latter being especially important in determining how each strategy stacks up, and which ones may be worth pursuing. StarCraft was just a convenient, cheap, and easily available sandbox that could be adapted for the purpose.
17. Re:Does AI have to be good? by Xest · 2009-11-13 00:17 · Score: 1
  
  Interestingly, I think there's a deeper point here. What constitutes a good AI? From the summary it sounds like it's ability to win.
  Creating an AI that can win I imagine wouldn't be too hard, because by focussing around just rushing the hell out the player or whatever as you can in most RTS games you can probably get a pretty high win rate for the AI.
  Yet, that's not what I'd call a good AI, to me a good AI would be one that can build little squads, setup patrols and flank you and so forth, yet, it may not be harder to beat if the player uses the same rushing type tactic as above against such a more intelligent AI.
  I don't think the former AI- one that just tries to win even if using dull tactics even adds anything to AI, we've been able to do this for ages, and it's not that fun to play against. The latter may be easier to beat, but is also much more fun to play against, it also opens the door for more advanced AI techniques so in general seems the better option to aim for.
18. Re:Does AI have to be good? by poetmatt · 2009-11-13 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  I am all for AI research.. My workplace even sponsors some AI research based competitions of the most traditional kind. However, SC AI being ported to SC2 I doubt is insurmountable by a long shot. Blizzard has more developers at their hands than any company I can think of except for maybe microsoft. So really all this is, is a small investment with a big reward for Blizzard, as I said.
19. Re:Does AI have to be good? by TikiTDO · 2009-11-13 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  Granted, Blizzard does stand to benefit, but I believe that the actual SC AI implementation is not likely to be usable in SC2 without quite a bit of time investment. Of course, with SC2 being somewhat close to release, they probably already have an extensive AI in place, with quite a few man-hours of development invested in it. If this conference can illuminate new AI techniques usable in the RTS genre, it might prove very beneficial for Blizzard. However, I think SC2 will be too different of a game, compared to the original SC, for the SC AI to be easily portable into whatever framework they have.
  
  That said, I do hope that Blizzard gets something from the conference, since it would only make the game that much better when it comes out :)
What could possibly go wrong? by webdog314 · 2009-11-12 06:35 · Score: 3, Funny

Let's teach our AI systems how to do battle... against humans. Skynet anyone?
1. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Trent+Hawkins · 2009-11-12 06:46 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  at one point the AI will realize that it's far easier to beat the human by hacking in to military computers and nuking the player.
2. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Icegryphon · 2009-11-12 06:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  at one point the AI will realize that it's far easier to beat the human by hacking in to military computers and nuking the player.
  Then the human players will black out the sky.
3. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by nobodylocalhost · 2009-11-12 06:51 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  *Nuclear launch detected*
  
  --
  Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
4. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by netsavior · 2009-11-12 07:05 · Score: 1
  
  or the much more feared
  N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-N-Nuclear launch detected
  especially if you are playing red.
5. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Goateee · 2009-11-12 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Sad thing the nukes are so underpowered in pro starcraft that they are only used as a humiliation. I hope nukes and other superweapons are better balanced in SC2.
6. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by otravi · 2009-11-12 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  I remember Skynet back when it was called Google!
7. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by space_jake · 2009-11-12 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not worried it'll probably just block the path with supply depots and think it is safe.
8. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by zippthorne · 2009-11-12 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  You mean, "worse" balanced...
  The nukes in SC are "tactical" nukes, and they have to be laser guided by an actual person on the ground. Realistically, they shouldn't be too powerful.
  Now, the real question is: The psi limit is explained in the manual (for the terrans), that the command center holds 200 people. But if they die on the battlefield, you can still reach 200 later on. Where do the new people come from?
  Also, where do dragoons come from if you didn't build any zealots first?
  
  --
  Can you be Even More Awesome?!
9. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Rocky · 2009-11-12 07:31 · Score: 1
  
  The introduction of the Medics explains that :)
  
  --
  "I'm an old-fashioned type of guy. I worship the Sun and Moon as gods. And fear them."
10. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by jeffasselin · 2009-11-12 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  I read that in the actual Starcraft computer voice in my head. I think I played that game too much, even though it's been a while.
  
  --
  If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
11. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by jgtg32a · 2009-11-12 08:39 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  What race did you hear it in?
  I heard it in Protoss
12. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Temujin_12 · 2009-11-12 08:42 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  *Nuclear launch detected*
  I remember playing Starcraft at a LAN party after I figured out how to rip the sound effects and voices out of the Starcraft data files. I'd intentionally play with the sound on (no headphones), wait just enough time so that it was believable yet frighteningly early, alt-tab over to a WAV player, then play the sound for "Nuclear launch detected" and watch people frantically scan their bases. It only works once, so use it wisely.
  
  --
  Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
13. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by selven · 2009-11-12 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  And the computers will... fight in the shade?
14. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by antdude · 2009-11-12 09:42 · Score: 1
  
  "Unit lost."
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
15. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Disgruntled+Goats · 2009-11-12 10:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Yes, but then that means they will be less likely to check that second time when you really do launch nukes at them. That's when they end up getting humiliated.
16. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Garrett+Fox · 2009-11-12 10:58 · Score: 1
  
  My favorite RTS hack involved a null-modem connection, some early edition of "Command & Conquer", and hacking config files to arm spies with lightning bolts and demolition charges.
  
  --
  Revive the Constitution.
17. Re:What could possibly go wrong? by Ihmhi · 2009-11-12 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  10 PRINT AWOO
  20 GOTO 10
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Brood War by Itninja · 2009-11-12 06:39 · Score: 1, Offtopic

So they are using the old StarCraft and not the new upcoming StarCraft? I love the old StarCraft. I was really looking forward to the new one until they gutted it by removing LAN play. I would rather play the old version is all its 640x480 glory then play a LAN game over the WAN. Sure I have the bandwidth, but it's the principle. Won't someone think of the Zerglings?

--
I judt got a nre Kinesis keybiartf so please excusr ant egregiou typos.
1. Re:Brood War by PopeRatzo · 2009-11-12 07:27 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Instead of an AI that can win at Starcraft, maybe they ought to try to build an AI that can finish Starcraft 2.
  Apparently, that's a much greater challenge.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
2. Re:Brood War by jellomizer · 2009-11-12 07:28 · Score: 1
  
  It needs an AI that can handle the following.
  Island maps. Against a Protost with cannons bordering the island 3 rows deep. Most human players can get past that. For the computer it always kept me safe. Of course there was one time I played stricly defensive and have the entire island filled with cannons. It took a good player 45 minutes to get to me. (and killed a medium level player) who was helping.
  An other blood bath was a map No Gas. Where there was a river and a small bridge to cross. All with a bunch of cannons around them. I have seen only one person to get past that and it was bloody very bloody.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
3. Re:Brood War by Captain+Splendid · 2009-11-12 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  3 rows deep? You wasted money. Island maps in SC are a piece of piss, even up against several AI. Not only do you not need anywhere near as much cannon as you said, you don't have to build them until later in the game, giving you cash to get production ramped up quickly. Plus, it's all air battles, so you save even more cash not having to build any (or almost any) land units.
  
  --
  Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
4. Re:Brood War by Sigma+7 · 2009-11-12 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  Island maps. Against a Protost with cannons bordering the island 3 rows deep
  A human can get past that simply by using heavy airborne artillery, armed with an escort. It would basically need to hit the supply limit as well.
  The reason standard Starcraft AI players can't crack that is because they don't normally last long enough to break through that. They usually take out inexperienced players by early rushes, and keep persistent patten attacks throughout the game.
5. Re:Brood War by jfz · 2009-11-12 16:20 · Score: 1
  
  > Apparently, that's a much greater challenge.
  Hardly. I suspect that Blizzard just has little business incentive to release it. Why risk the extra cost overhead of releasing another product- when you have an existing one that brings in continuous revenue through essentially the same division of labor?. Never mind the fact that the original SC is still in a league of its own, with little to no competition that forces innovation. Blizzard can pick and choose when to enter the market at this point. This is possibly the best position for a company to be in.
6. Re:Brood War by Anpheus · 2009-11-12 17:00 · Score: 1
  
  Recent patches may have changed this. I played against the AI with exactly that mindset and I was attacked by a zealot dropship rush that I was wholly unprepared for. I lost to the AI because I tried to game it with an unreliable recollection of their strategy or, perhaps, a change in AI strategy.
7. Re:Brood War by 10Neon · 2009-11-12 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  Blizzard has already stated openly that the delay of SC2 (to mid 2010) is because they misjudged the time it would take to develop Battle.net 2.0. They consider a functioning Battle.net 2.0 to be a prerequisite for the beta. There is no reason to believe that it has to do with market entry timing.
  
  --
  The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
8. Re:Brood War by PopeRatzo · 2009-11-13 01:53 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  They ought to release it with dedicated servers and LAN play and roll out Battlenet 2.0 when it's ready, if that is indeed the case.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
9. Re:Brood War by 10Neon · 2009-11-13 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  If they decided to ditch running the beta on Battle.net 2.0, and start it today, it would still take another five-ish months before you would see the game in stores, simply because the beta is expected to take that long. There wouldn't really be any reason to ship it without Battle.net 2.0, as it would almost certainly be completed before the beta is completed.
  On top of that- they consider Battle.net 2.0 to be an integral part of the StarCraft 2 experience, so StarCraft 2 isn't done until Battle.net 2.0 is done, and Blizzard (notoriously) doesn't ship their games until they're "done".
  
  --
  The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
10. Re:Brood War by jfz · 2009-11-13 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  > Blizzard has already stated openly that the delay of SC2 (to mid 2010) is because they misjudged the time it would take to develop Battle.net 2.0
  This wouldn't sound so laughably ridiculous if it weren't coming from a company that leads the MMORPG market.
11. Re:Brood War by 10Neon · 2009-11-13 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Your reply seems to imply that their great market position automatically gives them the ability to poof complex software into existence.
  
  --
  The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
12. Re:Brood War by jfz · 2009-11-13 09:47 · Score: 1
  
  In addition to their market position, in this case it is necessary to look at the sheer amount of expertise that a company such as Blizzard has acquired through development of WoW, and pre-existing battle.net software. It is foolish to think that a technical hang-up constitutes the sole reason for delay, especially given a 1 to 2 year release cycle that preceded Brood War. There are more factors at work here than simply the complexity of battle.net(2), which itself is subjective.
13. Re:Brood War by 10Neon · 2009-11-13 20:26 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Blizzard is basically trying to replicate all of the major features of a service like Steam, all in one go- and no, WoW expertise will only translate to the development slightly, if at all, since the Battle.net team is completely separate from the WoW team. It's not as if they just reassign all of their programmers (which likely don't even specialize in the kind of things a battle.net programmer would have to do), and put WoW expansions and updates on the back burner.
  While there are undoubtedly other factors at play, I believe you are grossly overestimating the effects of those factors. Development time for a new service is more than sufficient a reason for a delay.
  If I recall correctly, they were talking about Battle.net 2.0 features in a "we're going to have it but it's not implemented yet" way at this year's BlizzCon. That was three months ago. Considering the fact that is Blizzard we're talking about, a four or five month development time for anything is fast.
  
  --
  The Guide is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
14. Re:Brood War by jfz · 2009-11-14 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  One may choose to judge their position based on press releases and what amounts to speculation of their current allocation of resources. I prefer to instead judge them based on concrete facts of past release dates and current market position (>60%):
  http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart7.html
  and release cycles:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blizzard_games
  This leads to a likely conclusion: Blizzard is not compelled to innovate in a certain gaming domain, so they have chosen not to do so. The press releases may in fact be accurate as to the delays caused by technical issues, but this should be put into the context of the larger issues that I have cited.
Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by ChowRiit · 2009-11-12 06:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Perhaps a game not so dominated by rushing tactics would be a better choice of base game? It definitely seems an interesting idea, but there must be games better suited to an AI contest like this...
1. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Monkeedude1212 · 2009-11-12 06:45 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  How would you rather it be setup? I have not found a single RTS that isn't dominated by Rushing Tactics. I still play Age of Empires 2 for the whole walling off thing but it still doesn't beat a well developed rush.
2. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by DreadPiratePizz · 2009-11-12 06:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You have no idea what you're talking about do you? Go watch the professionals play and see how often they rush. Not that often anymore. Modern Starcraft is dominated by Fast Expanding, which is quite the opposite of a rush.
3. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by NeutronCowboy · 2009-11-12 06:50 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I don't know how you define rush.... I've had people complain that an attack after 10 minutes was a rush. Even the 6-pool was easily defeated by the proper build order and positioning. As a matter of fact, I liked SC more than others because every strategy had a proper counter. The only thing that was required was scouting - otherwise the other person could come in with the counter to your troops.
  While I don't think it is a great medium for a test, it's a pretty good one. Especially if the AI has to deal with fog of war.
  
  --
  Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
4. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by TheRealMindChild · 2009-11-12 06:50 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Rushing is an elementary strategy. You should learn to defend against it rather than complaining that it isn't far (in a war simulation game no less).
  
  --
  
  "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
5. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Chris+Mattern · 2009-11-12 06:51 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  StarCraft is only dominated by rush tactics when the players don't have the skills to defend against a rush. In StarCraft attempting a rush dooms you to failure if the rush doesn't fatally wound your opponent ('cause you stunted your economy to build your rushers). Correctly defending against a rush is mostly micromanagement (using your workers correctly to defend, which means constantly issuing them the attack orders they need since they won't attack on their own, while keeping some working on your economy). AIs should excel at micromanagement. I don't think rushing would be a problem in a StarCraft AI match.
6. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Monkeedude1212 · 2009-11-12 06:52 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  It's been a couple of years, but whenever I watched Boxer in the Korean SC tournaments a while back - the match is usually over within 15 or 20 minutes because they'd never need to progress past Dragoons, Hydra's, or Medics.
  An expansive SC player would be destroyed by 8 zerglings before he could get that second Command center off.
7. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-12 06:54 · Score: 1, Funny
  
  lrn 2 ply n00b
8. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by DreadPiratePizz · 2009-11-12 06:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Not true at all, the 1 RAX Fast Expand build is designed to allow a Terran player to expand early and EASILY defend against 8 zerglings. For you information, a lot has changed in just a few years.
9. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Sprotch · 2009-11-12 07:14 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  A good player can defend against a rush in Starcraft. It's all about micro-managing peons until your first combat unit arrives. Then you go head straight for their economically challenged base.
10. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-12 07:17 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  What about Total Annihilation? There is quite a bit that can be done to block a number of rush gambits. Of course, there is still always the LOL Gambit of building a swarm of transport aircraft to pick up the enemy commander (destroy their main unit and a large portion of their base since the base defenses are stupid enough to shoot it down.)
11. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by A+Friendly+Troll · 2009-11-12 07:22 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  How would you rather it be setup? I have not found a single RTS that isn't dominated by Rushing Tactics.
  Company of Heroes. http://www.companyofheroes.com/
  It's a modern RTS which utilizes things such as directional cover, suppression and per-squad reinforcements, as well as rewards proper flanking. Unless, of course, you try to prevent said flanking by placing some barbed wire and mines...
  There is no such thing as rushing in CoH; the game doesn't reward rushing because it will end with a horribly tragic loss for the player who attempts it (!). You can't wall-off because you need some map control, resources need to be connected to your base in order to receive them, and your low popcap (based on the number of captured sectors) spells your ultimate doom. The nature of the game is that for the most part, each side has no more than ten units on the field. You can be a very good player even if you aren't a hyperactive teen capable of performing ten clicks per second.
  Bottom line: if someone wants to rush you, you will win the game in five minutes. But if you want to wall-off, this game isn't for you, as it requires constant fighting on multiple parts of the map.
12. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by FauxPasIII · 2009-11-12 07:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Star Trek Armada and Armada II had a decent approach to preventing early-game rushes; your "town hall" equivalent building (starbase) is armed to the teeth. =)
  
  --
  25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll
13. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-12 07:28 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Parent should be modded insightful.
  Although I'm not an experienced RTS player, I am an experienced FPS player. People who claim that SC is dominated by rushing tactics are just as ignorant as the people who claim that dueling FPS games are dominated by item control or map knowledge. The answer to that is - Well duh. May as well claim it's about how well you use the keyboard and mouse.
  There's way more that goes into it when you break it down to the specifics. For SC - are you effectively scouting your opponent's base and resources to get a feel for where to attack him, what to attack him with, and how to counter his counter-attack? For FPS games - what resource do you decide to deny your opponent, and how are you going to go about doing that? Do you spam explosives at a chokepoint, or do you prepare for an ambush in which you can retreat so that you wear him down?
  Competitive games are complicated. Trying to simplify them in your mind doesn't make them simple.
14. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Goateee · 2009-11-12 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  Well it depends on what you call a rush. If you compare a game like starcraft to AoE2, a zergling rush would be like a drush and ignoring feudal. As far as I know this is easily countered. The more reasonable rush in AoE2 is feudal rush, and thats more like 10 min into the game, and will not kill of the player directly. He would rather die when rams come out in castle at 15-20 min. Compare this to a zergling rush where a player can be killed in the first few minutes.
15. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by vertinox · 2009-11-12 08:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  How would you rather it be setup? I have not found a single RTS that isn't dominated by Rushing Tactics. I still play Age of Empires 2 for the whole walling off thing but it still doesn't beat a well developed rush.
  This is why I prefer Real Time Tactics Games to Real Time Strategy games.
  You know... Like Total War series...
  
  --
  "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
  -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
16. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by icegreentea · 2009-11-12 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, AIs are kind of bad at micro certain types of micro. More specifically, they're bad at dancing. You can get AIs to focus fire really well, you can get AIs to spell cast retardedly well, but within the constraints of SC, its very hard to get AIs to dance their units properly (which is crucial during early game). That's one reason why all the previous 'super AI' built for SC have some cheating element involved (basically, free resources), because on average, given two equal forces, a skilled human player could always beat the AI controlled army.
17. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-12 08:07 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Expanding on the parent...
  Every matchup except for Zerg vs. Zerg starts with EXTREMELY fast expanding these days. Usually before they even have a single non-peon unit out. Hell, zergs expand TWICE right off the bat against Protoss. The players have figured out how to stop these early rushes with building placement, micro and build orders.
  If I were to guess, less than 2% of pro games in recent times are very early rushes aimed at killing a fast expanding players. Early rushes do happen more often than that but they are always with the intent of doing economic damage to get an advantage in the late game.
18. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by khallow · 2009-11-12 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  It's not "rushing". It's figuring out where the enemy is and seizing the initiative. I suspect even games that have mechanics that discourage swarming a base early, still have early game tricks that an aggressive player can use to mess up someone's start (say sniping targets of opportunity or blowing up some easy to kill structures).
19. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Chris+Mattern · 2009-11-12 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  I still play Age of Empires 2 for the whole walling off thing but it still doesn't beat a well developed rush.
  Say wha? AoE2 walls are fun, but you don't need them. Anti-rush tactics consist of ringing the frigging alarm bell and watching your holed up peasants shoot the hell out your moron opponent's attackers. You can *not* take a town center while in the Dark Age, and it's damn tough in the Feudal Age. You really can't develop a decent attack against an enemy base until the Castle Age, and you don't get the *really* cool siege toys until the Imperial Age. AoE2 is one of the most anti-rush RTSes I know of.
20. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by krnpimpsta · 2009-11-12 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps a game not so dominated by rushing tactics would be a better choice of base game? It definitely seems an interesting idea, but there must be games better suited to an AI contest like this...
  Perhaps the concept of shock tactics, such as "rushing" have been evolving for centuries and may just be one of the more effective battle strategies in games and real conflicts. The US has their Shock and Awe, the Germans have their Blitzkrieg, and etc.
  
  Wikipedia's "common interpretation of blitzkrieg": The word, meaning "lightning war", was associated with a deliberate strategy of quick and decisive short battles to deliver a knock out blow to an enemy state before it could fully mobilize.
  
  Sounds like rushing to me. Maybe the fact that rushing is so effective in so many games is because it really is a valid strategy?
  
  --
  New webcomic updated on Sundays: HERE
21. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Daveznet · 2009-11-12 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  The meta game for Starcraft has changed dramatically over the pass few years. The game is more of a macro management game now. Rush tactics are barely used in pro-matches and if they are and are properly defended with a proper scout the player rushing has a very little chance of coming back in the game because they are so economically behind. Most games now are based on quick expansions example 12nexus 14cc 12 hatch Starcraft is probably the best game for this as IMO is the most balanced and RTS available on the market. Hopefully the people programming the AI are seasoned players and know how the current meta-game for Starcraft Broodwar is.
  
  --
  GL HF!
22. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Monkeedude1212 · 2009-11-12 08:35 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  In the time that you spent calling all your lumberjacks back to your town center, your opponents 10 militia Men will take down the Lumberyard, the Mill, any mining camps you have, and utterly destroy your economy so that when you finally manage to build a Barracks farther from your base and fend him off, he'll show up with some Horsemen to finish off the army you just built, and then when you take those out he'll be at your door with Battering Rams.
  Either you aren't rushing properly, or your opponents aren't.
23. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Khashishi · 2009-11-12 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Watch the pros. Rushing is considered to be a risky move. If you can catch your opponent doing some ridiculous early expansion, you'll win. But in normal circumstances, you'll set yourself back economically, unless you can manage to do a serious amount of damage with the rush.
24. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by EvanED · 2009-11-12 08:40 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Every matchup except for Zerg vs. Zerg starts with EXTREMELY fast expanding these days. Usually before they even have a single non-peon unit out
  That's not really true, at least the latter part. Protoss will often forge fast-expand, especially against Zerg, but other openings like one gate tech aren't uncommon. For terran, you almost never see expand-before-marine, and often there's no expand until the factory is building.
  So you *see* FEs like that in each matchup, I wouldn't call them *the* standard build except for Zerg in ZvT and both sides in ZvP.
25. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Trepidity · 2009-11-12 08:44 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  For logistical reasons there aren't a lot of options. Past competitions have used Wargus, since it's open source. Game-industry people tend to roll their eyes at it though, and would prefer a competition using a "real" RTS, i.e. a popular mainstream one. Starcraft is one of the only choices for that, because someone's made an API for it that allows you to write external AI to play the game. Most commercial RTSs don't have any way of doing that, unless you were to screen-scrape the display and then have to implement all sorts of computer vision to even figure out what's going on (in which case it'd be more of a vision than an AI-strategy competition).
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
26. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Monkeedude1212 · 2009-11-12 08:46 · Score: 1
  
  I have watched some pros, and most of the times, their idea is that if you can get 2 zerglings (50 mineral) to take out a drone/probe/scv you've essentially made MORE on that trade off than anything else. Because those units cost as much, AND your denting your opponents economy. (So the idea is to send in 6 to get 3 probes, or 8 to get 4 drones, etc)
  I've never seen early expansion work properly in any of the pro matches I've watched, which to be honest is just short of a dozen so I'm not the know it all.
  It seems like whoever can take out the opponents mineral miners first ends up doing better in the long run.
27. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Khashishi · 2009-11-12 08:49 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I'd like to see how this statement changes after the winner of the competition is unveiled.
28. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by EvanED · 2009-11-12 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  I've never seen early expansion work properly in any of the pro matches I've watched, which to be honest is just short of a dozen so I'm not the know it all.
  When did you watch? Forge fast-expand is the usual play for Protoss vs Zerg, and you almost never *don't* see a FE by Zerg vs either Terran or Protoss.
29. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Trepidity · 2009-11-12 09:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I don't see any inherent reason why AI should be bad at dancing units. If anything it should be better at it, because the essentially infinite click speed and ability to attend to multiple places at once means that an AI could dance multiple groups of units at different parts of the map at all once, which for humans is something only really skilled players can do.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
30. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Red+Flayer · 2009-11-12 10:01 · Score: 1
  
  Anti-rush tactics consist of ringing the frigging alarm bell and watching your holed up peasants shoot the hell out your moron opponent's attackers
  Meanwhile, your opponent wisely pulls his militia off to harass your workers whenever you try unringing the bell. So while his workers are busy gathering resources to get him to Feudal etc, you are left doing nothing... just awaiting your unavoidable death.
  
  And depending on what race he is playing, he could just finish you off in the Dark Age. I've had it done to me, I've done it to other people. It's quite possible to be sending militia over to attack you faster than you can kill them from your TC.
  
  --
  "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
31. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Tubal-Cain · 2009-11-12 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  ...your "town hall" equivalent building (starbase) is armed to the teeth. =)
  So much so that I used them to defend chokepoints, instead of the Phaser/Photon cannons.
32. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by odourpreventer · 2009-11-12 11:14 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  > There is no such thing as rushing in CoH
  Yes, because you start with two machine gun nests in your base, making rushes impossible. CoH sucks.
  
  --
  Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
33. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by odourpreventer · 2009-11-12 11:33 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  > Rush tactics are barely used in pro-matches
  Yes and no. Players often apply the *threat* of a rush, forcing the opponent to build more defences.
  
  --
  Adventure, Romance, MAD SCIENCE!
34. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Khashishi · 2009-11-12 11:45 · Score: 1
  
  I have watched some pros, and most of the times, their idea is that if you can get 2 zerglings (50 mineral) to take out a drone/probe/scv you've essentially made MORE on that trade off than anything else.
  That's incorrect analysis, because you are hurting your own economy by building troops. Essentially, you are sacrificing a drone for 2 zerglings.
  If you only manage to take out a single drone with those zerglings, you haven't even broken even with your opponent, because you both lost a drone, but you lost yours earlier in the game. Realistically, you probably need to kill two drones to make it worthwhile.
  This is why zergling rushes are so risky. If you don't kill or cripple your opponent, you lose.
35. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-12 12:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  It's been a couple of years, but whenever I watched Boxer in the Korean SC tournaments a while back - the match is usually over within 15 or 20 minutes because they'd never need to progress past Dragoons, Hydra's, or Medics.
  An expansive SC player would be destroyed by 8 zerglings before he could get that second Command center off.
  Boxer's signature unit is is the dropship -- a mid-game unit that comes out only before the 3 science vessel units. 20 minutes by a pro's standard's is not a rush, its the beginning of endgame. They'll have 2-3 operational bases at this point.
36. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by EvanED · 2009-11-12 18:34 · Score: 1
  
  es now are based on quick expansions example 12nexus 14cc 12 hatch
  12 hatch you definitely see; that's one of the most common openings for zerg, I think in all three matchups. 12 nexus you'll see occasionally, but forge fast expand is more common, especially vs zerg. (The thing that will change there is whether the protoss plants the nexus or a photon cannon first; that decision is based on scouting information.) However, 14cc is a pretty risky strategy, and at least at the level of pro play is considered a bit cheesy. For instance, if you are terran vs a zerg, if you 14cc and the zerg 9 pools (not uncommon even if 12 pool or 12 hatch is more common), you're almost certainly sunk. 1rax or 1fact into expand (e.g. the fake double) is much more common for terran.
  The overall gist of what you say is right though; SC has gotten way more macro heavy over the past few years.
37. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by NBarnes · 2009-11-12 19:43 · Score: 1
  
  A proper rush in Starcraft doesn't need to touch the town hall, though that's always nice. Military dominance begets economic dominance via control of map resources. Thus has it always been.
38. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by l0cust · 2009-11-12 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  Congrats. Your comment made it to teamliquid's post on this competition
  
  EDIT: The competition's also been slashdotted, where it's being discussed by various people who don't know too much:
  
  Perhaps a game not so dominated by rushing tactics would be a better choice of base game? It definitely seems an interesting idea, but there must be games better suited to an AI contest like this...
  
  lol.
  
  --
  Politicians and Pedophiles: Two groups of exploitive bastards who are most dangerous when they're thinking of children.
39. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-11-12 21:49 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  A rush is when your enemy attacks you before you've rushed them.
40. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Bensam123 · 2009-11-12 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  This is BS. CoH is all about point griefing. It turns into a giant battle of running around and uncapping the other persons strategic points, then running away before they can do anything about it. Thats what the entire game is. You strangle the enemy without any sort of big battle. Dawn of War 2 is exactly the same way.
  
  If you want a good anti-rush RTS, check out Dawn of War (not 2). Strategic points are not only 'not' a hinderance, but are also a valuable asset for a battle as they can provide plenty of cover fire and bonuses depending on your race.
  
  This is putting aside all the different ways to play and win the game in addition to basic tactics. All the races are different, all the commander units are unique and powerful in their own way, the AI by default is pretty good, the cover system which you mentioned originated from this game, and of course it ISN'T balanced in the stereo-typical rock-paper-scissors fashion as is almost every other RTS in existence.
  
  Oh yeah, CoH is all about tanks and paratroopers too.
41. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by The_reformant · 2009-11-12 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  In Total Anhilation and to a lesser extent Supreme COmmander rushing doesnt really work. Best tactic is economic superiority (and thus winning through attrition) through skirmishing.
  
  --
  I have discovered a truly remarkable sig which this post is too small to contain.
42. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by A+Friendly+Troll · 2009-11-13 01:09 · Score: 1
  
  "Point griefing"? :)
  DoW2 is much too simplistic compared to CoH. It's a CoH-like RTS for casual gamers.
43. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by Jarik_Tentsu · 2009-11-13 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly.
  Unskilled players talk about unstoppable six-ling rushes, but really SCV's can beat them if managed well. Have a few SCV's attacking the zerglings, moving the ones that go to low health to the back of the formation and used to repair the ones up the front. Similarly good micro for Protoss Probes and Zerg Drones can protect against rushes.
  And scouting is half of it. Good players scout early (with a few exceptions), and they can predict the rush simply be seeing low amounts of drones and assuming they're going for an early Spawning Pool, or if you're not that good, noticing the zerglings leaving base.
  Rushes like that are more used to slow down the opponents economy, and are usually followed up by continuous attacks to keep on the offense and to prevent them from expanding. But the game rarely ends in the first few minutes (and when it does it's a do-or-die scenario, since usually all your workers are used in your rush as well).
44. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by donscarletti · 2009-11-13 05:14 · Score: 1
  
  The competition's also been slashdotted, where it's being discussed by various people who don't know too much:
  Starcraft is as good a topic as any to be completely naive about. Many people can sleep soundly in their beds without knowing how many units can fit into a Terran dropship. If he said the same thing at teamliquid.net then it would be different.
  Plus, Starcraft is as dominated by rushing as the players want it to be, it is only an ineffective strategy when it is properly countered. We will have to wait to see the AI to tell how their strategies unfold.
  
  --
  When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
45. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by A+Friendly+Troll · 2009-11-13 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Show me a top level replay with a baserush involved and I'll admit you are right ;) The only time that happens is when the game is over.
46. Re:Is StarCraft the right game to use for this? by edahl · 2009-11-15 01:59 · Score: 1
  
  This to me takes all the fun out of the early game. Rushing makes the first 5 minutes potentially a lot more exciting, because you never know what to expect. An alternative would be to just start every game at the mid-game so you don't have to worry, but then again why would we want to do that?
Breakdown by Monkeedude1212 · 2009-11-12 06:42 · Score: 1

Human Advantages:
Advanced Prediction
Flexible Stategies
Arguably Faster Learning
AI Advantages:
Able to command all units at once
Usually More efficient w/ resources
Instant Macro management
Another advantage to the AI could include knowing the map layout and what the player has at all times, which is something the original starcraft had so the AI would know whether to rush you or not.
1. Re:Breakdown by wizardforce · 2009-11-12 06:51 · Score: 1
 
 which is something the original starcraft had so the AI would know whether to rush you or not.
 It may have just been my limited experience with the AIs but most of the time it seemed that the AI was on a pretty fixed schedule in terms of attacks. If the AI had any comprehension of what the human player had built then I'd say that the AIs were very very poorly designed. They'd attack massive defense with a dozen zealots when a human player that knew the defense was there would have known it was futile to have done so. Their attacks were fairly predictable to the point where the game could effectively be repeated several times without much variety.
 
 --
 Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
2. Re:Breakdown by darkwing_bmf · 2009-11-12 06:56 · Score: 1
 
 If it's an AI competition, I doubt the AI teams would be given any more information than the human teams had. Computers could be better at micro management, but probably not by enough to make up for humans' ability to adapt to changing circumstances and come up with new tactics on the fly.
3. Re:Breakdown by aliquis · 2009-11-12 06:58 · Score: 5, Funny
 
 Human Advantages:
 Imagined Prediction Advantage
 Flexible Stategies
 Arguably Faster Learning
 AI Advantages:
 Able to command all units at once
 Usually More efficient w/ resources
 Instant Macro management
 Korean Advantages:
 Superior Strategies
 Advanced Prediction
 Flexible Tactics
 Arguably Faster Learning
 Able to command all units at once
 Usually More efficient w/ resources
 Instant Macro management
 Fixed that for you :D
4. Re:Breakdown by Goateee · 2009-11-12 07:09 · Score: 1
 
 Randomness is an obvious counter to this. So even before the AI knows anything about its opponent, it should cast a dice and rush fast at some percent of games as not to be predictable.
5. Re:Breakdown by musikit · 2009-11-12 07:10 · Score: 1
 
 actually a friend and i beat the AI back so far we decided to experiment with it. and the blizzard starcraft 1 AI will not do anything until it builds a building for harvesting gas. will not try to build unit buildings etc.
6. Re:Breakdown by Chyeld · 2009-11-12 07:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
 
 Most game AI's are not well designed, but not because they can't be. Most game AI's are built from the prespective that the player should be able to win, therefore Grandmaster level thinking is less desirable than preditable patterns that seem impossible to be till the player realizes they can be exploited.
7. Re:Breakdown by amoeba1911 · 2009-11-12 07:27 · Score: 1
 
 Another advantage to the AI could include knowing the map layout and what the player has at all times, which is something the original starcraft had so the AI would know whether to rush you or not.
 That's not an advantage AI has, that's just cheating. Circumventing game rules to see full map is just plain cheating, if a player did it you wouldn't say he's any better than the guy who doesn't see the map, same rules apply to AI. It's equivalent to making things 50% cheaper for the AI or giving it free units... it's just plain cheating.
8. Re:Breakdown by Icegryphon · 2009-11-12 07:29 · Score: 1
 
 kekekekeke!
9. Re:Breakdown by gedrin · 2009-11-12 07:29 · Score: 1
 
 The abiltiy to command multiple units at once is huge. Instead of moving groups, you move tactical squads. Micro manage a battle while doing a sneak attack. The level of sophistication allows for tactics otherwise unavailable.
 Of course, there might be human players that are able to do this at a level near enough to the machine to negate the usefulness.
 
 --
 Moderation : -1 Conservative Viewpoint
10. Re:Breakdown by Seth024 · 2009-11-12 07:31 · Score: 1
 
 The computer AI in Starcraft actually has knowledge of your position on the map (that's why it never has to scout you before he attacks). It's reasonable to assume that the AI competion would include these things as well.
 Making up new tactics on the fly is not as important as it seems. What is important is recognising your opponent's strategy and responding to it (something that can easily be programmed). Of course this would only work against other AI; a good Korean player can certainly come up with a strategy that the AI cannot deal with.
11. Re:Breakdown by thepotoo · 2009-11-12 07:54 · Score: 2, Informative
 
 RTFA. There are four competitions, and on the only "complete" game, all AIs have the completeMapInformation flag in the Broodwar API disabled. Therefore, fog of war is on.
 
 --
 Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
12. Re:Breakdown by Monkeedude1212 · 2009-11-12 08:00 · Score: 1
 
 Potato Potahto, I would agree that it isn't fair, but neither is being able to command over 100 units individually in a miniscule fraction of a second. When this kind of information isn't readily available to AI, they tend not to be difficult. I've never seen a human opponent lose against an AI when the Human goes on the offensive first.
13. Re:Breakdown by tool462 · 2009-11-12 08:23 · Score: 1
 
 Exactly. The levels can be treated more as puzzles that need to be solved. After a couple of times trying to beat a level, you get a feel for the types of attacks to expect, and figure out ways to counter them. This could lead you to doing things you could never get away with in a Battle.net game. For instance, I was never a big fan of Vultures, but there were a few Terran missions where the spider mines were very useful.
14. Re:Breakdown by Frogbert · 2009-11-12 08:25 · Score: 5, Funny
 
 Worst. Poem. Ever.
15. Re:Breakdown by bnenning · 2009-11-12 08:39 · Score: 1
 
 This could lead you to doing things you could never get away with in a Battle.net game. For instance, I was never a big fan of Vultures, but there were a few Terran missions where the spider mines were very useful.
 Vultures are very heavily used in pro matches, both for the mines and to sneak into enemy bases and kill workers.
 
 --
 How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
16. Re:Breakdown by Khashishi · 2009-11-12 08:41 · Score: 1
 
 In adventure games, or in campaign mode, I would agree with you. But in skirmish mode, the AI should be as smart as it can be (when set to hard).
17. Re:Breakdown by Chyeld · 2009-11-12 08:59 · Score: 1
 
 In a perfect world yes. In a realistic world, the game developer realizes that skirmish mode is simply what people play when they don't want to bother with going online and finding a human to play against, and the effort spent creating and polishing a seperate AI just for that mode would garner more points with the player if it was spent elsewhere (such as fine tuning the balance of the game, polishing the maps, and etc.)
18. Re:Breakdown by RedFlames · 2009-11-12 09:17 · Score: 4, Informative
 
 (I apologize in advance for the lack of paragraph spacing. Slashdot appears not to recognize the carriage return/line feed from this browser/computer?) Most games(I dare say almost all AAA titles) don't have anything resembling actual AI. Including AI is very very expensive computationally, it simply isn't feasible for most of the lower-end consumer users. To get around this, most games include a large variety of playbooks that define how the computer opponent should build, what to build, when to attack, etc... Sometimes there are minimal elements of AI, such as "if (terran) skip zergling rush". But, by and large, the AI is simply following a set of rules of when/what to build. If you switch the mode to "hard", most games simply ratchet up the minerals/second income for the computer, or remove fog of war (all Blizzard games do this). If you wish to experiment for yourself the 'ORTS' engine is a near replica of StarCraft but fully open-sourced. (http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~mburo/orts/) I believe there are multiple AI examples included (there used to be) so you can foray into the challenges presented by real AIs; computers that actually adapt their playing style to your own. As a warning, the engine does not abstract away details to make it easier (eg: there are unit collisions, writing a script to mine a patch of minerals effectively suddenly became much much harder). Disclosure: I am not affiliated with the ORTS engine directly, but I did take a class in my undergrad doing game AI on it.
19. Re:Breakdown by jack2000 · 2009-11-12 09:59 · Score: 1
 
 I like how it can be considered 3 haikus...
20. Re:Breakdown by Red+Flayer · 2009-11-12 10:10 · Score: 3, Informative
 
 (I apologize in advance for the lack of paragraph spacing. Slashdot appears not to recognize the carriage return/line feed from this browser/computer?)
 
 Allowed html is displayed below the comment form when you write a comment. Only the the following are allowed on slashdot:
 
  <a> <ol> <ul> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <tt> <blockquote> <div> <ecode> <quote>
 
 --
 "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
21. Re:Breakdown by Garrett+Fox · 2009-11-12 11:08 · Score: 1
 
 I read a book on game AI that argued for a fundamental split between AI for games, and AI in general. The point of a game AI is to lose entertainingly. Which means the designer should focus on fakery like spawning enemies in just the right spot to be dangerous, plus entertaining features like having them ineptly track the player and exclaim, "Where'd he go?" Because of that argument, I've lost some of my interest in game-focused AI.
 
 --
 Revive the Constitution.
22. Re:Breakdown by aliquis · 2009-11-12 14:02 · Score: 1
 
 Now when it got noticed so much I just wish I had modified it more to pick out the Koreans superiority.
 Like keeping human advantages to "overrate their own ability to predict what the opponent does", "can change strategy to a varying degree but has already made one up before the game even started"
 and so on, and how the AI makes sure to use up its resources, but never saves up if not needed in case it needs to change strategy later on.
 And well, then all the stuff about how the Koreans handles micro and macro control while still being able to read the game and turn every single move from the opponents to their advantage.
 But well, with similar words in all cases and not sentences.
 
 I like how it can be considered 3 haikus...
 Regular humans
 Superior ideas
 Poor in execution
 Programmed AI
 Never do anything wrong
 still, always lose
 Almighty Koreans
 Nothing is known for certain
 except you're screwed
23. Re:Breakdown by RedFlames · 2009-11-13 05:31 · Score: 1
 
 Ah, I see.
 Thanks a bunch!
SkyNet.... by mlauzon · 2009-11-12 06:43 · Score: 1

This is where SkyNet will emerge, :p

--
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
AWESOM-O by dotwhynot · 2009-11-12 06:45 · Score: 1

1.An AI may not injure a terran being or, through inaction, allow a terran being to come to harm. Only Zerg, Protoss and Xel'Naga..
Possibility for emergent gameplay? by StreetStealth · 2009-11-12 06:50 · Score: 1

What if, through the developers' virtual arms race, the AIs discover that rushing isn't actually the best way to win? Given enough room to experiment, could new, anti-rush gambits emerge that human players wouldn't have thought of?

--
Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
Restrictions? by Goateee · 2009-11-12 07:01 · Score: 1

I wonder if the bots will have any restrictions on apm and such. I could imagine the terror of trying to defend against 10 individually controlled mutalisks harrasing all my expansions at the same time, from all directions. And without any long-range trapping mechanism, or fast air-to-air unit, there is no way to catch them. And if I need cannons or turrets or units at all angles of attack, I will certainly lose the macro battle.
Re:Offtopic, sorry by TheKidWho · 2009-11-12 07:07 · Score: 1

Take a look at Sins of a Solar Empire, although it's in space...
AIIDE web site by MobyDisk · 2009-11-12 07:08 · Score: 2, Informative

The aiide conference web site has been Slashdotted... even though Slashdot didn't link to it. :-)
Re:Offtopic, sorry by jandrese · 2009-11-12 07:13 · Score: 1

Just be aware that a "medium" map game of Sins will take something like 20 hours to play, assuming you steamroll your opposition.

--

I read the internet for the articles.
At least now... by spammeister · 2009-11-12 07:23 · Score: 1

...we know when Starcraft II will be released. After October 1st 2010.

--
I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
Relevant? by IndigoDarkwolf · 2009-11-12 07:28 · Score: 1

What does game AI have in common with traditional AI? Most traditional AI research is focused on reasoning and pattern matching. Adversarial game AI, particularly of the complexity needed for StarCraft, is usually just a greedy algorithm with preprogrammed responses to predetermined scenarios. Don't get me wrong, game AI tournaments are flashy and stuff, which I guess is why MechMania at the UIUC has been going for 15 years, but they have very little in common with traditional AI.

Disclaimer: I only took a couple of AI courses in college, but I am a game developer, as well as a repeat competitor at and attendee of MechMania at the UIUC (which seems like a reasonably close analog to this competition).
competition announced? by MerlynEmrys67 · 2009-11-12 07:30 · Score: 1

Well, I guess it was announced almost 2 months ago. The teams have been submitted and the contest is currently running as far as I can tell FTFA. Hmmm... timely news. I don't think so, this would have been cool back in Sept. so someone that might be interested could simply create a bot and enter it. Now it is way past time

--
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
1. Re:competition announced? by Caspin · 2009-11-12 07:50 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The competition starts NEXT October (ie 2010). It's still 2009 check a calendar.
bah by jollyreaper · 2009-11-12 07:31 · Score: 1

The cheapest way for the computer to beat the human is to simply open up multiple fronts that cannot be simultaneously micro-managed. Even maintaining one significant skirmish at the front will prevent the human from micromanaging the base back home.
I've been a fan of RTS from the beginning but haven't seen anything really exciting since Total Anihillation. Maybe I've missed some great ideas but pretty much every one I've tried since has been met with the initial glee of pretty graphics and then the crushing disappointment of seeing AI mistakes that were getting old when Command and Conquer first came out.
Honestly, I found Starcraft 1 to be more compelling for the storyline than the gameplay. SCII seems to be the exact same game with prettier graphics.

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
1. Re:bah by TerranFury · 2009-11-12 13:07 · Score: 1
  
  I like TA as well, but in fairness I'd say it had the worst AI of that generation of RTS games. The best in my opinion was the somewhat later Age of Kings (in terms of AI). Even newer games (e.g., Supreme Commander) have less competent AIs.
2. Re:bah by aXis100 · 2009-11-12 16:11 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If you like TA, check out Spring at http://springrts.com/
  This is an open source fully 3d replica of TA. They've now built it to the point where it is a base engine that can host one of several mods - mostly based on TA style models and concepts, although a few are completely unique. AI's are plugins that can work over several mods if the author chooses so.
  My favourite is the Complete Annihillation Mod - http://springrts.com/wiki/Complete_Annihilation
  The "chicken" mode has a weak AI, but enough brute force (attack waves) to keep you on your toes.
naughty ai would win by hort_wort · 2009-11-12 07:55 · Score: 5, Funny

My AI would design its base to be a rough representation of a naughty picture on the minimap. Human players would always lose as they just let the AI build away to see the picture get a higher resolution.
1. Re:naughty ai would win by ZarathustraDK · 2009-11-12 08:08 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Easily countered with a Goatse-base centered around a vespene-geyser.
  
  --
  If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
Re:blacksheepwall by Tawnos · 2009-11-12 07:56 · Score: 4, Informative

It must be very difficult if you cannot click the link under "rules"
#
Programs that attempt to cheat will be disqualified
1.
Bots must disable the perfect information flag in tournaments 1,2 and 4
Re:Easy to make.. by Goateee · 2009-11-12 07:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

A player could feel more satisfied if it plays against a computer with the same knowledge and resources as a human player, because then it would have to play more like a human. With such cheats, the player will feel annoyed that the computer always attack when he is the weakest, without real knowledge, or can attack with twise the units he know is the maximum at a given time.
Re:Offtopic, sorry by socrplayr813 · 2009-11-12 08:04 · Score: 1

Sins of a Solar Empire is a very good game. Some people complain that it doesn't have a campaign to play through; it's strictly custom games, but that didn't bother me. I sunk days/weeks into it back when I got it and I still go back to play periodically. It doesn't have age advancement exactly, but research is a very important part of the game (to allow colonization of certain types of planets, give new abilities, improve your weapons, etc).
If/when you get sick of the regular game, there are also lots of mods to change things up, including some based on movies/TV series (Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, etc). Definitely worth it, especially as it gets older and the price drops.

--
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
LAN play by kwerle · 2009-11-12 08:47 · Score: 1

... I would rather play the old version is all its 640x480 glory then play a LAN game over the WAN. Sure I have the bandwidth, but it's the principle...
So your objection is that you would rather play over a network than over a network.
Re:Not that I am the smartest man alive... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · 2009-11-12 08:53 · Score: 1

With the exception of Fritz or Rybka, there hasn't been a single instance of AI that I personally have been unable to overcome in a matter of seconds, if not minutes.
Well, I wrote some Game AI that you cannot overcome. It didn't cheat at all. It simply used my strategy to win. Unbeatable!.

--
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I hope they do it for SC2 by vikstar · 2009-11-12 09:03 · Score: 1

I'll buy StarCraft 2 if they have frequent (1 per year or more) competitions like this. Hopefully Blizzard will release its own easy to use API for AI competitions with the release of the game.

--
The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.
Ah I get it by tengeta · 2009-11-12 09:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

Thats why StarCraft 2 was delayed, they don't even feel like writing the code anymore and want people to do it for free.

--
"They confiscated everything, even the stuff we didn't steal!"
Perfect micro will warp gameplay by xnor · 2009-11-12 10:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

I imagine that a computer's ability to control units with instant reflexes and frame precision will make AI Starcraft a completely different game from anything we've seen. Watch some Tool Assisted Speedruns and see how the gameplay of a person playing frame by frame transcends that a skilled human playing normally. Games are designed, tested, or balanced with the expectation that a player cannot press a button thirty times a second, anticipate the frame in which a projectile which hit, or issue commands at ten map locations at once. Without these limitations, the game can be broken and become something the designers never intended.
I expect the contestants to abuse lots of bugs and glitches exploitable only with frame-perfect control. For example, there's a known bug when about 1% of the time, a dragoon shot will miss a moving SCV (with no high ground or cover). If something like this can be consistently reproduced, the game will warp. Another rare bug has units become stuck while moving past each other, causing them to dart at ridiculous speeds in a perpendicular direction. This is likely reproducible, and could become the main mode of unit movement in this contest. Even if this doesn't work, there's probably a way to move faster by issuing rapid commands in a way that takes advantage of animations, since Starcraft ground unit movement speed is not hardcoded but animation-based.
Even without bugs, an AI could dance around ranged units to be basically invulnerable to melee, or any slower unit with lower range. This will give Terran a powerful rush strategy (how ironic).
Imagine a game of Terran versus Protoss. The Terran builds a fast barracks, and sends two three marines at the Protoss base. By then, the protoss has two zealots, but they won't matter, since they'll never get a hit. The Terran player dances the marines to shoot the zealots while taking no damage by always moving whichever two marine are being chasing, while the third is free to fire. Even against an equal-sized zealot force, marines are slightly faster that zealots, so they can shoot and move with impunity. The marines can slowly make their way into the Protoss base and behind the mineral line where they'll slowly wear down the mining probes' health, even as the Protoss makes focussing on any one probe impossible. The Protoss might try to get a surround with probes, though I think the marines will escape. Even if the Protoss fends off this rush, the Terran can have vultures before opponents have dragoons and wreak havoc with them.
Since zerglings are faster than marines, I'm not sure if this strategy would work in TvZ, though we might still see some epic bunker rushes.
Note that I don't think this distorted gameplay is bad, just different from human play. I rather like the ridiculous perfection, timing, and bug-abuse of tool-assisted speedruns, and look forward to seeing what the contestants come up with. I would love for a contestant to find a strategy that completely breaks Starcraft as we know it and wins unopposed. However, I think those who expect the final matches to look like really polished high-level human Starcraft play might be disappointed.
1. Re:Perfect micro will warp gameplay by Goateee · 2009-11-12 11:38 · Score: 1
  
  From the rules page:
  
  The following StarCraft bugs/tricks are permitted:
  
  1. Plague on interceptor
  2. Units pressed through
  3. Drops to defuse mines
  4. Mineral walk
  5. Manner Pylon
  6. Lurker hold position
  7. Observer over turret
  8. Stacking air units
  
  All other bugs/exploits are forbidden. Bots caught attempted these exploits will be disqualified. This includes but is not limit to:
  
  1. Flying drones and templars
  2. Terran sliding buildings
  3. Stacking ground units
  4. Allied mines
  5. Gas walk, to get through blocked entrances or ramps
2. Re:Perfect micro will warp gameplay by Fantastic+Lad · 2009-11-12 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  Holy smokes, dude! You sure know your Starcraft.
  No judgment here, but I am certainly awed. Do you by any chance live in South Korea? I hear Starcraft has taken on a sort of national sport status over there, and your depth of knowledge reminds me of hockey fans I've known in Canada.
  Just curious.
  -FL
3. Re:Perfect micro will warp gameplay by Legendre · 2009-11-13 03:30 · Score: 1
  
  xnor, I'd like to discuss with you your ideas about this competition some more. Please email or send me a private message with your email. Apparently your account isn't setup to receive messages.
4. Re:Perfect micro will warp gameplay by xnor · 2009-11-13 12:03 · Score: 1
  
  Legendre, I can't seem to figure how to message you, so I'm displaying an e-mail address by which you can reach me here.
Re:Easy to make.. by jollyreaper · 2009-11-12 10:11 · Score: 1

A player could feel more satisfied if it plays against a computer with the same knowledge and resources as a human player, because then it would have to play more like a human. With such cheats, the player will feel annoyed that the computer always attack when he is the weakest, without real knowledge, or can attack with twise the units he know is the maximum at a given time.
What always bothered me in 4x games is that I'd do my initial planet/city grab, then sit tight building defenses while shuddering at the big enemy force groups moving by. (Master of Orion, 32k ship stacks anyone?) Then I'd finally be able to put a death fleet together and relish some big clashes. Guess what? The enemy megafleets go away. Argh! Sometimes I just want to smash metal on metal and watch the sparks fly. It's no fun when the enemy doesn't come out to play. Ultimately the human wants to win but it's not any fun if there's no fight.

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
Wait, are you saying... by jonaskoelker · 2009-11-12 20:39 · Score: 1

Let's teach our AI systems how to do battle... against humans. Skynet anyone?
The robots will be no match for John "Bisu" Connor!
Yes, for (s)he/it will save humanity ! by da5idnetlimit.com · 2009-11-13 00:20 · Score: 1

Step 1: Playoff/deathmatch style showdown to find the the best of the AIs/human
Step 2: The winning AI plays the 'best' human player
Step 3: Whip (s)he/it to a top class "Ender's Game" facility and make (s)he/it fight for us (afghanistan, Yemen, Secret Darkside Moonbase against the fé'zer - this week only don't ask about next one....)
Step 4: Profit.
Here, I corrected that for you...8)

--
It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker