1,380 karma · joined March 28, 2012
FP gains are real. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't know what FP is.
To anyone out there who isn't on the FP train yet, get on. You'll become a better programmer for it.
So many better languages with better mental models. And I say this with a decade of Perl experience.
Don't suffer from the blub paradox.
You might know at a high level on paper, but you won't have clean, easy-to-read and easy-to-predict life times. Then you'll have race conditions.
Higher barriers of entry. The right to comment and occupy mind space is given away too easily. Penalize new accounts, start with limited capabilities, disallow short comments, etc.
Highlight exemplary content.
I don't think this analogy sets up anyone for success. For a long time now I've wanted to do a series on "FP for OOP folks".
But this bit isn't true during the interview process.
I think you're saying does it suffer from occlusion during selection. Based on how APIs typically work, I would say no it does not. So yeah that's another thing humans can't do. AlphaStar could hypothetically stack units into a singular mass and it would be discretely untargetable by human players.
Human limitations that AlphaStar shares:
- Data that requires the camera to see (e.g. enemy location, enemy HP)
- Inability to examine/target cloaked units
Possibly unfair, super-human things AlphaStar has access to:
- Instantaneous awareness of cloaked units
- Knowledge of things humans need to infer/click (e.g. upgrades)
- Global map awareness of unit positions (taking into account fog of war)
Definitely unfair:
- Can select arbitrary collections of units, including outside of camera view
Based on the initial AlphaStar against TLO/Mana, you would think that Stalkers are insanely OP and the only thing worth building.
I (and others) have wondered that if you continue to lower AlphaStar's APM, you would see a diversity of units. The money would be in where AlphaStar decides to spend its really tight APM budget. Is it worth casting that Psionic Storm?
I personally feel like it has an insane micro advantage by being able to select arbitrary units on the battlefield, as opposed to dragged squares or control groups. But I'm not a pro gamer, so I don't know what that feels like.
The configuration of control groups is visible in replays; AlphaStar's replay data does not have any control groups in it.
Though, via its API, it is able to select arbitrary groups of units from anywhere on the map.
Personally, I would have loved to see it work through control group management because I think that is something that is important and steals attention away from humans. But probably to the researchers, it is just annoying data to model that doesn't get to the "core" of StarCraft.
I don't play any competitive StarCraft so my view might be moot but I was surprised at the number of siege tanks it uses. It made me wonder if there's some critical advantage to having so many tanks stacked up in a line so that the splash is spread out.
Also I find it weird that it did not build any marauders at all, in any of the games I've seen.
And just in general, no sexy units. No battlecruisers, no infestors, no swarm hosts...
This doesn't sound native either.
What are you basing this on?
"Why should I eat my vegables? Innernet, tell me why!"