Automaton2000Micro
20 HN mentions · mentioned in 14 months, 2016–2026
2:09 · 1.2M views · Apr 4, 2011
A StarCraft 2 custom-map demo where a bot controls 100 zerglings against 20 sieged tanks and dodges the splash damage, leaving 19 survivors. The code was written in Blizzard's World Editor.
Cited in StarCraft and AI threads as a vivid example of superhuman micro and of machine speed advantage over humans.
20 comments from Hacker News
It's possible but it's a lot more context-driven than you think with a human involved. The bots do great against each other with their strategies and muscle-memory stuff. Throw a human in the mix, they start noticing patterns in how the units are managed, what strategies are likely, etc. They've exploited these in the competitions to hilarious effect. Here's the main site on prior work & results at the competitions: [LINK] Here's a few examples of how the muscle-memory approach, esp if focused on unit vs unit, can fail against humans. " In this example, Bakuryu (human) notices that Skynet's units will chase his zerglings if they are near, and proceeds to run around Skynet's base to distract Skynet long enough so that Bakuryu can make fying units to come attack Skynet's base. This type of behaviour is incredibly hard to detect in a bot, since it requires knowledge of the larger context of the game which may only have consequences 5 or more minutes in the future. " (2013) Note: At this point, they also sucked at building and expansion strategies which surprised me since I thought a basic planner would be able to do that. The constraints between rate of expansion, where to place stuff, what units to keep/build, and so on get really hard. The other thing they weren't good at was switching strategies mid-game based on what opponents are doing. " despite Djem5 (pro) making the bots look silly this year... they were able to defeat D-ranked, and even some C-ranked players. After the
dota 2 is not as extreme about this as, say, starcraft. in starcraft, most "strategies" are heavily scripted build orders that almost never deviate from a handful of openings (similar to opening moves in chess) and a large amount of winning comes from the ability to quickly give orders to your troops ("micro"). This is an example of a strategy that is not viable without superhuman reactions: this video if you directly attack 20 siege tanks with 100 zerglings you will only kill about two siege tanks, but an AI can kill all the siege tanks with some zerglings left over. There's some of this in dota, but there's a cap on the skill level for most playable characters that pros generally get "close enough" to, and beyond that the strategic depth comes from area control decisionmaking. Theres over 100 heroes and many of them have really weird abilities, like the possibility of creating a temporary wall (earthshaker) or the ability to teleport anywhere on the map every 20 seconds (furion). I could be wrong though, maybe the AI is winning games by playing heroes with long range and perfectly microing them to harass and prevent the other team from ever getting gold/xp.
It was also really unimpressive in my opinion, instead of being smarter and making broad decisions about tactics that are harnessed by some perfect unit composition knowledge, the AI won on a purely micro scale. There are videos from several microbots such as Automaton 2000: this video that showcase what super APM can do. The DeepMind AI that beat some pro players did it by having better micro while generally having worse strategies. The DeepMind matches showed how better micro can turn a generally weaker unit composition into the winning unit composition just as that Automaton 2000 video did. To me it seemed that the DeepMind team figured out that the only way to beat competent players was to do what all those microbots do and pump APM into godly levels. They decided to limit APM, however like you said, just average APM and have the bots explode APM when needed. The real funny match was when MaNa beat Deepmind by completely breaking the AI with generally simple drop strategies and made Deepmind look very much inept.
Frankly, superior reaction time and other mechanical skills in Dota2 (or Starcraft, or other games which are being tested) makes me think that a typical AI would beat a human. this video That's the "gloves come off" AI. Granted, its a problem solved by raw, mechanical button-pushes at a rate beyond what is possible on a keyboard/mouse, but it demonstrates the greatest skills an AI or computer has. Of course, no one wants to see an AI beat a human using known methodologies. They want to see an AI win at the abstract game of "a game of strategy". From this perspective, I think the poker AI results over the past year or two have been far more interesting. AIs figuring out the Nash Equalibrium and playing bluffing games around it. Sure, its a bit mechanical and mathematically inclined, but generalizing and solving the bluffing game is IMO far more useful.
When Watson won at Jeopardy, one of its prime advantages was the faster reaction time at pushing the buzzer. The fairness of that has already been hashed out elsewhere, but..... We already know that computers can have superior micro and beat humans at Starcraft through that(1). Is DeepMind going to win by giving themselves a micro advantage that is beyond what reasonable humans can do? (1) this video as one example