StarCraft AI Competition Announced
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."
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.
*Nuclear launch detected*
Where is the "Ignorant" mod tag?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The competition starts NEXT October (ie 2010). It's still 2009 check a calendar.
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.
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
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.
Worst. Poem. Ever.
*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.
(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.