Slashdot Mirror


Blizzard and DeepMind Turn StarCraft II Into An AI Research Lab (techcrunch.com)

Last year, Google's AI subsidiary DeepMind said it was going to work with Starcraft creator Blizzard to turn the strategy game into a proper research environment for AI engineers. Today, they're opening the doors to that environment, with new tools including a machine learning API, a large game replay dataset, an open source DeepMind toolset and more. TechCrunch reports: The new release of the StarCraft II API on the Blizzard side includes a Linux package made to be able to run in the cloud, as well as support for Windows and Mac. It also has support for offline AI vs. AI matches, and those anonymized game replays from actual human players for training up agents, which is starting out at 65,000 complete matches, and will grow to over 500,000 over the course of the next few weeks. StarCraft II is such a useful environment for AI research basically because of how complex and varied the games can be, with multiple open routes to victory for each individual match. Players also have to do many different things simultaneously, including managing and generating resources, as well as commanding military units and deploying defensive structures. Plus, not all information about the game board is available at once, meaning players have to make assumptions and predictions about what the opposition is up to.

It's such a big task, in fact, that DeepMind and Blizzard are including "mini-games" in the release, which break down different subtasks into "manageable chunks," including teaching agents to master tasks like building specific units, gathering resources, or moving around the map. The hope is that compartmentalizing these areas of play will allow testing and comparison of techniques from different researchers on each, along with refinement, before their eventual combination in complex agents that attempt to master the whole game.

27 of 52 comments (clear)

  1. Working backwards by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Assuming you could create some AIs that are really, really good at an RTS like SC2, I wonder if you could get them to work backwards to create (or just adjust existing) games that are more balanced as one of the major complaints about any RTS game is its balance.

    1. Re: Working backwards by bug_hunter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'll be interested to see an AI capped at human levels of APM, an AI with un-capped APM vs human and un-capped AI vs un-capped AI.
      I wonder if the un-capped versus will in anyway reflect the current game strategies or just be its complete own kind of meta.

      Anything that does splash damage would be less useful if your opponent can split perfectly every time without fail.

      --
      It's turtles all the way down.
    2. Re: Working backwards by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      To some degree you'd want a game that is balanced at both 30 and 300 APM (actions per minute for those unfamiliar with the term) because it's going to be played at both of those levels. Sure a 300 APM player is going to beat someone who has 30 APM assuming they're not just spamming nonsense actions that don't do anything, but that's okay. A tennis player who can serve ten times faster than another will probably win as well.

      What you'd want to do is look at how the effectiveness of a unit (or rather a control group, or even better multiple groups) scales with increases in APM and where there are spikes and valleys. For example, you don't need to have incredible APM to pull off siege tank strategies and I suspect that once you hit a certain amount, adding another 100 APM doesn't net drastically better results. It's okay for stuff like that to exist but ideally is also has some counters that can be executed that don't require drastically more APM or you end up with some very stale matches for players in that range or a rush to develop strategies to end the game (or severely disadvantage the opponent) before it reaches the siege tank push timing.

      If they AI can't find any good approaches, it probably means that a unit needs to be tuned downward or for something else that's underperforming to be given a buff in the form of making it a counter to a unit that's overly strong.

    3. Re: Working backwards by Falos · · Score: 1

      Just simulate all the things.

      It's what we do now, look at 500,000 player hours and say "lol no one above 10th percentile is using ice bolt oops we wasted time developing it"

      Simulating them overnight lets you polish it before even launching. And save money from making QA slaves play for 5,000 hours.

    4. Re:Working backwards by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, get the perfect AI, then use it to play 1B games per day, and tweak the results based on which race/team/character wins, until the stats are almost even.

      But that presumes the gameplay between a perfect AI and a human is anywhere near similar. The "too good" AIs that run into range, shoot once, then run out of range before your defenses activate can twitch at that point until the lowest unit in the game has defeated the best. Those types of gameplay "hacks" might be found and eliminated, but those types of reflexes and tactics may be inhuman.

    5. Re: Working backwards by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Nah, we'll do what they do today. Make a stupidly dumb AI, and have no fog of war for the AI, infinite resources for that AI, and higher health for the AI units. Difficulty levels will set those parameters, but under no circumstances will the AI be reasonable.

    6. Re:Working backwards by sittingnut · · Score: 1

      sure. past game data can be analyzed to create better games. nothing new.
      but what is this "they"? do you mean human data analysts,using same dumb but fast computers? lol

      ai - another name for data analysis.
      this news actually means ibm's deepmind subsidiary got cooperation from blizzard to use their game datasets. rest is hype.

    7. Re: Working backwards by GonzoPhysicist · · Score: 1

      A lot of the actions in SC2 is micromanaging units to avoid damage and keep units in perfect range all the while responding to your opponent doing the same. So an AI would still need to make all those quick actions to keep up.

      --
      horror vacui
  2. We all know the next logical step.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... from controlling units in a RTS to controlling drones in the field of war.

    Personally I welcome our robotic overlords

    1. Re: We all know the next logical step.. by Jesus+H+Rolle · · Score: 1

      It's a shame they aren't playing candy crush instead.

  3. Zerg rush! kekeke by guruevi · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure if this is good or bad for the game itself. Currently Blizzard uses cheats for "AI" opponents and in the original Starcraft game, many bugs and quirks that rudimentary classifiers found useful were then replicated by humans to make the game rather linear and boring.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  4. The architects of our own doom by haruchai · · Score: 1

    Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed.....

    Surely some revelation is at hand;
    Surely the Second Coming is at hand.

    And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
    Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
    W.B. Yeats, The Second Coming

    Not slouching towards Bethlehem but lurching ever closer to Judgment Day

    --
    Pain is merely failure leaving the body
  5. Is this about Koreans? by clovis · · Score: 2

    Have we found, at long last, a possible way to beat the Koreans at StarCraft?
    If so, will this Make America Great Again?

    1. Re:Is this about Koreans? by lucm · · Score: 1

      systemctl start maga

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    2. Re:Is this about Koreans? by clovis · · Score: 1

      lol, no. The post isn't about Trump. I suppose the reason it seems incoherent to you is that you probably don't play StarCraft. It should have occurred to me that the article would be as likely to attract people interested in AI as much as StarCraft.
      Mea Culpa, I should have provided some background.

      Most StarCraft players know that the multi-million dollar professional StarCraft competitions are totally dominated by the Koreans, specifically Koreans from South Korea.

      Here's some background.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://wcs.starcraft2.com/en-...

    3. Re:Is this about Koreans? by clovis · · Score: 1

      Using Trump's slogan makes it about Trump. So the Koreans are good at Starcraft? So what? Why bring Trump's slogan into it? Since when was America ever great at Starcraft? Since when did anyone but Koreans care about Starcraft? That game came out in the 90s for fuck's sake.

      Still not about Trump.
      Variations of "Make America Great Again" has been a staple of almost every politician running against an incumbent in the USA for quite some time. I've been hearing it for decades, and I can't imagine why anyone would be unaware of this slogan's long history.
      I would not be surprised if they used it in the Adams-Jefferson election.

      As for the questions about StarCraft, the article is about an AI that plays StarCraft. If the AI is going to be acknowledged to be any good, it will have to beat the Korean teams. They are presently and historically the world champions.
      It's like Deep Blue and Deep Fritz playing chess The world champions happen to be usually Russian. No one would care if the Deeps won against the Coffeeville Mississippi school team. So it's a big deal when the computers beat the Russians.
      Likewise, if the AI beats the Koreans in StarCraft it will be a big deal in advancing AI technology.

    4. Re:Is this about Koreans? by clovis · · Score: 1

      [citation needed]

      1980:
      http://www.iagreetosee.com/por...
      I remember this one because I voted for the guy in 1980. GHW Bush also used that phrase when campaigning.

      1991:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
      This is Clinton so it's not even a Republican phrase. It's just something people have been saying.

      As for the rest of it, I'm not being coy. I wrote the post, and I know that I was not making a Trump reference when I wrote it.
      After 16 presidential elections, Trump is just another one to me.
      You can attempt to tell me what I meant when I wrote the post, but you'll still be wrong.

      My post is about winning at StarCraft. The Slashdot article is about StarCraft. They say they want the AI to learn to beat the best players, and that would be the Koreans. And if the Google owned UK company DeepMind wins, then like any sports competition, it looks good for the winners. That would be the USA. And I suppose Great Britain should get some cred as well.

    5. Re:Is this about Koreans? by clovis · · Score: 1

      Well it's worse than I thought.
      I mentioned this thread to a friend in real life and found out that to a lot of people "Make America Great Again" is now code words for "Make America White Again", and saying that juxtaposed with beating Koreans in a video game only serves to hammer it home.
      Well that's news to me, but nonetheless it's wrong to have said it.
      I apologize for saying that.

  6. Re:Still Play, Not a Gamer by LesFerg · · Score: 2

    It takes a bit of talking at the EBGames store before the young ones realize I'm not there to buy something for a grandchild.

    --
    If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
  7. can it play global thermonuclear war? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    can it play global thermonuclear war?

  8. wopr says by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    US first strike = SK mass damage and china unknown.

    NK first strike = SK mass damage / Japan damage / 50-50 shot that 1 missile makes it all the way to the usa. China moves in to crush NK.

    1. Re:wopr says by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The best possible result is that DPRK makes a nuke that can reach Florida. They launch at Florida, and detonate over Kansas in low outer space. The EMP will take out NYC and Chicago, crashing the US financial markets. Chaos, and not a single life directly lost (though some plane and car crashes may kill indirectly).

      It'd be like a guy shining a flashlight in your face. Annoying, but not directly damaging. You can't shoot him for that. So what would the US response be to an EMP?

    2. Re:wopr says by murdocj · · Score: 1

      It's pretty obvious - a Korean nuke launched at the USA will mean an all-out attack on NK. That one is easy.

      Personally I think the next Korean missile will be launched on a trajectory that makes it clear that NK can hit ALL of the USA. Just to make the point that trumpski can't feel too safe right now, just because he's relaxing on the East Coast.

    3. Re:wopr says by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      You can't shoot him for that. So what would the US response be to an EMP?

      Uh, it's more akin to pointing a laser at a driver and blinding him while at the wheel. People would die from that. The result would be war.

      Even if we shot down the nuke before it hit a US territory (Guam) or ally would mean war. If NK demonstrates that they will shoot off nukes for whatever reason then all pretenses for diplomacy are off because they have demonstrated an act of nuclear aggression and we don't want to rely on THAAD to ensure millions don't die at the whims of dear leader.

  9. Re:Still Play, Not a Gamer by lucm · · Score: 1

    creimer has a similar problem when he goes to Victoria's Secret

    --
    lucm, indeed.
  10. Re:Still Play, Not a Gamer by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The neckbeards in the EBG near me are my age. They don't presume anything of anyone. Unless you are female. There's no such thing as female gamers. Sims is over there, next to the mice and keyboards.

  11. What could go wrong? by bobdehnhardt · · Score: 1

    So, we're going to develop and train AIs using a game that focuses on developing and processing resources, building weapons and defensive systems, and coordinating troops in an assault.

    Yeah. That'll be fine.