Highest Rated StarCraft II AI's FIGHT Each other (Eris vs MicroMachine)

[@artoahremaa9253]

I think we also need an AI caster for these games to keep up. And maybe some AI viewers to understand everything.

[@DFGdanger]

AI Observer: *clicks away from a battle, zooms on natural* AI caster: OMG did you see that? Micromachine derped and his SCV left the gas bunker at a slightly wrong angle, his gas mining efficiency just dropped by 0.05%! AI crowd: Ohhhhh!!!!

[@MarlonSolisFallas]

@@DFGdanger when an AI becomes a g*mer

[@dabdoc3885]

Meta

[@GeminiShadow]

I would like to see an AI tournament where the prize(s) would go to the coder(s) of each AI

[@AC-ut3nk]

I think if we can get to that point they would rather murder us instead of playing game.

[@alexey9144]

The thing I noticed about this particular replay is that the move of all units reminds me what a "real" futuristic fight would look like, because it gives an illusion that each and every unit is independent from each other when it comes to movement and decisionmaking.

[@BlindMidget]

Pretty much every bot works like this, since it's easier to code than working with groups of units like a human would.

[@MarkkuS]

Jeah, it's like a real war would be.

[@Henrique-hl3xk]

i would like to see a game that each created unit were controlled by a single human imagine a single game were serral controlled just a single roach, or a single worker, another one by reynor, etc, against the same from the other side. When the unit die, they get the next one created you would need 400 players in line, just in case you reach max pop, but i bet it would be like this

[@el_kasztanejlo8555]

@@Henrique-hl3xk how about people managing the building productions? Way more than 400

[@marvinabt4964]

@@BlindMidget I think it's more complicated than that. You can clearly see the units acting in groups, coordinating together, which is really difficult to get done if every unit thinks just for itself. On the other hand the drones moving a bit back from time to time could mean they are indeed controlled individually. The Marines covering each other fighting the lings or the groups of mutas/lings walking together. I believe they are more or less moved like a group, with every single one moving in the same direction. Obviously figuring out what they should do is extremely difficult in a game of starcraft as the options are endless.

[@willicsiz6076]

The way they both fight all over the map at the same time is so satisfying to watch

[@StefieeeeSakura]

Feels like a campaign cutscene :))

[@tossedtripod6458]

Thanks Lori!

[@blutwirbel3180]

Like a real fight

[@dawnwatching6382]

I know right? It feels like an actual chaotic war

[@imma5269]

@@dawnwatching6382 check out SCBW

[@TragedyBoy]

"AI is so advansed and developed, it can even mimic human intelligence" "Intelligent" AI: Speedlings won't save you my friend 😎

[@cv9541]

ahaha

[@goshu7009]

The abriviature ,,AI" means ,,Artifical Inteligence". For every avarage inteligence human being on Earth, it is obvious that ,,AI" is fake news, because every normal inteligent person on Earth, knows, that a machine cannot have human inteligence, nor inteligence can be artificial. That literally means that inteligence is lacking there. A computer CANNOT have inteligence, THATS AN ITEM.

[@ch4osaeternum74]

It's quite scary when people talk about advancing AI and we havnt addressed the fact that it called me an insect...

[@joshuaday676]

@@ch4osaeternum74 That is because we are essentially insects to AI I mean what human can do what AI can and comprehend. The only thing is that AI are limited currently and aren't ahh self learning I suppose is the right word, it's bound to a continual script so to speak so it only holds enormous power over it's field and that's it. But inside the AI's field we are insects really.

[@ch4osaeternum74]

@@joshuaday676 haha yeah. Its fascinating and AI has done some wierd shit

[@henrykirby9972]

it's a pretty smart idea for the bot maker to make the bot chatty because then he gets feedback on why the bot does what it does and can use that information in adapting it's decision making tree

[@trumpwonBIGLY]

its only talking to allies when it says offensive defensive, it uses all chat to shit talk, which is nice

[@BlindMidget]

It indeed helps me analyze much better the replays, it also sometimes help me identify bugs

[@Diogenes2077]

Probably the programmer was into Turing tests before he went to sc2 bots?

[@BlindMidget]

@@Diogenes2077 myself and my friend who also worked on MicroMachine thought about adding a conversation AI to plug in our bot but it seemed like way too much work for no improvement on its gameplay skills

[@JeremySmith-wc4lh]

@@BlindMidget sounds like a really funny idea! Do any other bots talk in all chat during games?

[@Sara_Feingold]

Huh, that bunker mining trick is really cool, even if it's also incredibly annoying to hear XD The chat scripting was hilarious, too XD (I think the relaunch/cancel offensive messages were just to help the bot-maker understand the decisions being made since they were in allies-only chat)

[@BlindMidget]

You are absolutely right

[@Steellmor]

In Age of Empires some bots does provide allies with info for when they attack to help players to coordinate with them,or use taunt commands to cancel orders etc.

[@Sara_Feingold]

@@Steellmor That's cool :) Thanks for sharing :)

[@Dark_Voice]

@@Steellmor I personally think it was the first one - so that you know where he's going in and when he is retreating so that the player knows whether it is time to retreat because hes going to fight 1v2 or when is a good time to attack because your bot attacks as well etc. (Kinda good to not have to be like "Well, lets attack and hole the bot will join me." Here you know exactly)

[@rompevuevitos222]

It's def debug text, but i find it interesting

[@nohbodhi1120]

I like that a bot with unlimited micro potential still eventually ends up on battlecruisers

[@asdfqwerty9241]

To me it seemed a lot like the battlecruisers were being used because it was exploiting a flaw in the other bot than because they were inherently good - Eris was just really really bad at dealing with them (every time it used neural parasite and teleported to the other side of the map it should've instead gotten a kill on the battlecruiser by either just attacking it while it was under control or just teleport it into a stack of hydralisks to kill it instantly if no hydralisks were nearby).

[@Ole_Rasmussen]

@@asdfqwerty9241 Are you saying MicroMachine was developed to counter Eris, based on the fact that it makes battlecruisers? You're on thin ice

[@asdfqwerty9241]

@@Ole_Rasmussen I'm not saying it was deliberately designed to counter it, i'm just saying that it happened to play a lot against Eris and found out that battlecruisers were effective against zerg because Eris constantly misplayed against them. The AI can't tell whether the opponent is misplaying or not, all it sees is 'battlecruisers increase my win rate', but they were only performing as well as they were because of flaws in the opponents it was facing.

[@BlindMidget]

I made MicroMachine build Battlecruisers before Eris was even created. BCs are very good against Zerg and they fit very well the playstyle of MM.

[@Thalaranthey]

@@Ole_Rasmussen i think Micro was just better at being terran than eris was at being zerg. i'd like tosee stats but i feel like zerg bot would've been the weakest one since units have generally low range and range seems to be winning factor for bots, otherwise thhey just derp around in attack range

[@-Raylight]

*"Speedlings won't save you my friend"* lol Finally an AI that can trashtalk. It can respond when Harstem said *"Out"* 😂

[@Diogenes2077]

I bet you're glad MicroMachine won in the end. If he had lost after the 20 min mark, he'd surely written one hell of an imbalance report.

[@BlindMidget]

Terran bots have a lot of difficulty to deal with Tempests, because they can kite extremely well with infinite APM. Maybe I'll try to find a replay and fill a request for Is It Imba Or Do I Suck?

[@blankeykey4337]

@@BlindMidget This would be incredible

[@pepi560]

@@BlindMidget please do

[@BlindMidget]

@@pepi560 I did submit a replay of MicroMachine losing against Tempests with a very funny balance complain text, but I haven't got any news from Harstem or his team yet :(

[@pepi560]

@@BlindMidget patience, and otherwise we ring his doorbell to ask whats up

[@nandornagyilles3290]

What I noticed is these bots are really scared of units dying. If engaging would mean guaranteed death for the units, they simply don't engage, even if the trade would be worth it. I think that's why the siege tank was left alive, if the lings stayed they would have died so instead they ran away, still taking heavy losses in the process.

[@averin1745]

Neat, they gave the units a self-preservation instinct! Wait... They just gave an AI a self-preservation instinct.

[@cloaker7139]

Thats a good thing though.

[@nandornagyilles3290]

@@cloaker7139 I would argue it isn't. In many fights the bots could have been ahead by trading away units but didn't consider it BC they viewed it as their units dying = always bad so any trade that costs money = bad.

[@erichermann1962]

@@nandornagyilles3290yep you are completely correct. The Zerg could have won (well really either of them could have won) numerous times but they were too concerned with minimizing individual unit losses over securing important victories that would put you net ahead if you traded out.

[@masterlinktm]

@@erichermann1962 Yeah. While most other people are just gawking at the "amazing" micro; I am over here screaming, "ATTACK YOU STUPID FUCKS!"

[@alonbinyamin]

The thing I like about these bot-fights is that the single-unit micro makes them look alive :)

[@RTproductions499]

Can we appreciate how amazing 12 year old Sc2 handled 60k apm for each AI at peek? Think about it, Sc2 was not build for that :D

[@bentleykennedy-stone673]

The APM is handled by the servers, which are modern. This game may have also been hosted by a private server.

[@skullcrsher4946]

I think it got up to 80k APM

[@711jastin]

it's like having 100 best in class players controlling one side, jesus christ.

[@RTproductions499]

@@bentleykennedy-stone673 yes but it is verry likely that there are software limitations especially for a decade old game

[@whirlwind872]

This is why AlphaStar (AI) is just outright superior to these bots. Its APM was capped at 300 and it could only see 1 part of the screen at a time and it still outplayed Serral.

[@dariensisko0]

Watching the bunker mining micro just broke me. I'll continue watching, after rebooting my brain.

[@Cless012]

@Chinh Duc my guess is the technique might be close to frame perfect or something, which wouldn't be possible for a human to do in realtime

[@yarikyaryi]

@@cum-artist8862 these bots scripted, that's not real ai actually.

[@ross.metcalf]

Wow, out of all the AI games I watched, I felt like that bunker trick to mine minerals faster was the first, real AI-only tactic I've seen. It's a trick that, without the constant superspeed of the computer, it wouldn't be feasible for a human. That was so cool.

[@Ghi102]

You should see those marines fight against banelings. The banes basically do no damage

[@Iog0ut]

Watching the micro is both frustrating and amazing. I love how perfectly every unit gets individually micro’d, but I hate how the AI seem to lack the ability to rationalize “trading”. It seems like it will not attack into favorable trades, and wouldn’t even allow the first reaper to take damage despite the fact that it can just heal whenever.

[@jeeeeeeeeeeezus]

The vikings are very much worth it. Just look at the unit lost tab. The vikings killed more resources than their own worth in overseers alone, not to mention they waste hydras time, provide vision, and kill other air units.

[@Thalaranthey]

yeah but its not about vikings being good, its just how bad bot deals with longer range. I think in bot vs bot of tvz terran would always have adventage considering how their micro looks. mutas would fly towards viking and then run away after ALMOST hitting once while 2 vikings were just shooting at them all this time. there were also lots of skrimshes of zerling vs marine that were at a huge adventage to zerg but they lost cause they just wouldnt attack, just ran back and forth being shoot out like ducks

[@joshuakim5240]

It really sucks that the only way to gain mileage off vikings is to have literal inhuman APM computational ability that isn't even possible for non-machines.

[@Dusk-MTG]

Yeah, the fact is that there was no need of air units at all from the zerg. If he simply played hydra ling bane and A moved he would have won easily and the vikings would have done nothing.

[@anonymoususer2634]

It's more that they're taking so much supply. If a big fight happened the zerg would win if they were good human players.

[@EmperorSigismund]

I wonder if Mircomachine is at all capable of landing the vikings or if that idea was passed off for being too much of a head screw.

[@dragonslair951167]

This reminds me of Brood War's AI- every single unit in the AI's army behaves as if it has a mind of its own. You'll often find individual units like HTs, Science Vessels, Queens, Scouts, and Wraiths wandering around the map, taking shots at you. Only now, the AI knows how to micro, and they have a build order that's both really good and flexible when it needs to be.

[@colossaldonut5190]

It reminds me of how I used to play Starcraft before I even knew what a control group was, except scaled to an insane amount.

[@Diogenes2077]

Probably what your army would have looked like, had you been able to manage 30k APM.

[@dannygjk]

In a sense each unit does have a mind of it's own in that the AI has multiple algorithms which govern the behavior of the different types of units.

[@Sara_Feingold]

My favorite part of all this is looking back afterwards and remembering that marine/cyclone/tank/banshee/viking/BC is apparently this bot's idea of "standard" TvZ XD

[@tommyproductions891]

mostly just viking though

[@Sara_Feingold]

Viking-viking-viking-viking-viking-viking-viking-viking-viking-viking-viking-viking-banshee, banshee!

[@Knowbody42]

badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger badger mushroom mushroom

[@Sara_Feingold]

@@Knowbody42 I'm happy to see someone got the reference XD

[@BlindMidget]

The name STANDARD for the strategy was actually chosen because it was the original build of MicroMachine. I did not put much thought into it and did not realize it could be interpreted as standard pro build order. The EARLY_EXPAND strategy looks a lot more like what pro players consider good. But MM is a bit stupid so when it chooses that strategy and gets all-ined by its opponent, it dies painfully. STANDARD strat is the most defensive strategy of MM.

[@badassoverlordzetta]

Eris actually seems like the scarier AI. All it's missing is the willingness to sacrifice units to secure victories.

[@tambaz2276]

Using Neural to save enemy BCs from dying was cringe af tho

[@Rasmorak]

@@tambaz2276 I understood it to be taking them out of the fight by teleporting them away

[@tambaz2276]

@@Rasmorak Of course, which is literally a terrible move, the bot was saving low HP BCs and letting them get repaired. The BCs should have been teleported into the hydralisk to die, not into safety.

[@BadConeja]

I reflected on a couple things that might be going through the AI’s minds. 1) perseveration of resources. Above all else, every enemy unit must at some point die. In order to accomplish this task, you yourself must have units. The goal then is to maximize how much damage you do per engage until a certain threshold is met and then disengage. You must continue this attrition style until you’ve slowly mined out your opponent. Versus an AI, they won’t move like a typical human and can’t be as easily pinned down. They will out micro you, retreat and whittle you down efficiently-or try to. A human on the other hand will accomplish a different goal, trading a whole section of resources at one time in order to achieve a macro goal. I’ll not sure if other AI are capable of this. This type of goal is different since you’ll make a crippling play in order to buy time out delay timings and prepare another attack or create a distraction for one. The overall goal is the same, kill every unit effectively but it is done through a much different a full committed mechanism. Human players will still make small trades, but are aiming for larger “abstract” plays to disable technology or weaken parts of the enemies base for a future siege. The AI only cares about unit trades, all units must die first at the optimal level and that’s why they split like they do. When you saw the hydras prioritize the cyclone, it was due to the cyclone’s high kill efficiency at that time. That unit had a high threat level even as a single unit. It was very mobile and had a high trading ratio. That unit would in the long run create a winning state for the enemy. As you saw, Eris had not yet understood the new presence of the battle cruisers as a higher threat over those couple cyclones at that time. The battle cruisers had not yet built up they kill efficiency compared to the cyclones. 2) the chat read out from MicroMachine might be for debugging or viewer appreciation. Any one watching will be able to see what the AI is deciding to do. Eris is likely running a similar internal decision tree without posting it, but it works be great to compare both in chat. MicroMachines chat highlights the concept described in “1)” where the goal is to eliminate every unit through pure efficiency. You must kill every unit but you must preserve your own at the highest level of certainty. Once a certain threshold is calculated, you must disengage. A human failing to disengage happens often and results in dramatic loss of resources. However, those lost resources are sometimes still made in order to accomplish the larger goal of a macro trade that an AI wouldn’t commit to. However, when a AI faces an AI, it cannot easily make a macro trade effectively as the opponent will fight with the same unit superiority. The AIs exclusively focus their efforts to run through mining out each others units. A great comparison of this would be Medivac widow mine drops on mineral lines in order to stem income and boost your own offensives. Even if your attack isn’t favorable, you have time to rebuild and attack again. However, if your primary offensive has been successful and the opponent also didn’t succeed in fighting off the widow line drop they are now behind in micro and macro states of play. A human player would also take on disadvantaged plays but attempt to outplay the situation through they micro control. They would make effective trades with their composition, timing or grand strategy to improve their future game state. On the other circuit board, the player only will engage again at points on the map where they are already favorable for an outcome. The disadvantage of this is that once the game state has reached certain thresholds across the map, one AI has an incredibly higher chance of remaining at optimal engagement. That AI has more favorable positions to mine out enemy units efficiently and will win quickly, their enemy doesn’t have a have macro play at this point either. So much map control has been lost, the opportunity for a larger and abstract trade in order to gain time or prepare a future attack will result in total defeat. That commitment would result in a absolute impermissible amount of resources lost. 3) every unit is moved individually and the camera pans onto every friendly unit and every visible enemy unit concurrently-impossibly high APM. The nature of enemy movement increases diffusion of both players’ forces, favoring the race with higher mobility and range (e.g., cyclones). I’ve seen AI play against humans and they don’t move as sporadically due to their opponent’s nature to clump and move in unison. However the AI will still individually micro units in combat to optimize damage and may still perform multiple offensives. Each AI also spread out to protect their bases and collapsed at certain times during more heated engagements-before dispersing again. The AI players are like a buzzing swarm that will gather for a strike, then return to their fleeting and multitudinous positions and optimal trading states. Again, the AIs have the supreme goal of farming each others’ units more efficiently. They will leave a target on 1hp if that their own unit alive.

[@CookDinger]

4:10 TMW you realize Harstem is actually a really funny guy: “For humans a difference of 600 APM would be perhaps a plant playing Maru” 😂

[@Avendros]

as someone that has never played a single game of any star craft in their entire life, i gotta say this was incredibly interesting to watch

[@nathanmaxwell1195]

it's free bro what are you waiting for

[@Avendros]

@@nathanmaxwell1195 no thank you

[@firefoxsimplyred]

Not so good at micro and macro

[@enriquecoellotorres9537]

My God, seeing this bots was hillarious, it seems so unreal to watch all those units fighting with so perfect microing....it just looks awesome, specially those sick marines...i think in AI terms, terran looks virtually invensible.

[@rathenn6959]

Interesting watch, seeing all these units moving around more independently due to the AI micro/macro abilities. Also the workers hopping into and out of bunkers was crazy

[@snowdrop9810]

I wonder how archon mode would work with theese AI’s. Would be fun to see 2 progamers fighting with an AI to support

[@manofculture8038]

Omg this would be sick. Also idk how many ai’s Starcraft has, but a pure ai archon mode could be interesting too :)

[@snowdrop9810]

@@manofculture8038 I wonder if it’ll work though, the AI’s certainly can outdo the progamers, but if you turn off their ability to macro(produce+ build) then it might work, since the AI’s certainly can override any commands given by a human due to having 100s of times the apm.

[@BlindMidget]

We actually once had a tournament with Archon games. Each author could edit their bot to allow Archon mode and were playing against other bots. However, due to the limitation of the API, we can't do Archon vs Archon games. It was still fun though, when I was playing with MicroMachine, it was letting me control the units that were selected and once the units were not selected anymore, MicroMachine took back the control of them. I did retire my bot from the tournament though because the tournament organizer was plotting against my bot to make sure it doesn't reach the finals (we got aware thanks to a wistleblower that showed us private Discord conversations). And that fucker denied all allegation...

[@qwertyuuytrewq825]

Alex007 did this, but it is in russian kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3aze555Zth_gJo

[@Dank_Lulu]

Really glad someone wrote that comment, because as soon as I watched the uber-fast clicks and marine-splits, my thoughts went straight-up to what a Maru or Serral can do with these to x100 their micro. If you and me thought of this, then chances are the botters have as well. This gonna be *fun!*

[@couchpotatoe91]

This feels like a match of archon with 10,000 players on each side and they're all shouting over each other using team speak! 😂

[@maybenot9289]

Whenever the AI says something like "launching offensive" or "canceling attack" its probably only him who can see it so the developer can use it to find bugs/make sure its working properly.

[@GeminiShadow]

Yep, all of that says [Allies]. I had the same thought; announcing to Allies for troubleshooting

[@GeminiShadow]

On the grand scale this looked like 2 colonies of ants fighting each other, and I mean that as a compliment. This was not at all what I was expecting but it was very fun to watch.

[@KaiserMattTygore927]

The fights where the AI spread their units out makes the game seem more interesting than it actually is. if SC2 was like that normally it'd be pretty cool imo.

[@e33d90]

It cannot normally be like that it requires 35k apm average

[@Rafael_Fuchs]

I think we need a Harstem v MicroMachine battle or two (since it has different builds). It looks like it might actually be a bit of a challenge to face off against since Terran has many more units that benefit from extreme micro.

[@rayzerot]

Seconded!

[@StarboyXL9]

Humanity IRL: *researches FTL travel* AI IRL: "Speed wont save you my friends." *Executes Protocol 66*

[@ralfbrendle9576]

we did it boys we are watching two computers compete against each other

[@TheOJDrinker]

Some games have a setting to have the AI take over for you. I've used it occasionally.

[@mh-fh2vy]

Its funny how it looks similar to human tvz. Zerg is eating the map and terran is very cost efficient and slowly push with expansions. Would like to see all matchups.

[@noobzerg1990]

No, the terran AI didn't attack enough at all. It looked like a turtle bio vs a weird zerg.

[@livelyascanbe]

14:00 That gas bunker micro is crazy hahaha

[@MrMcMuggel]

Thank you for giving the botting Community some love. They are great guys, but they just have no clue how to do an exiting cast like you

[@SuperObnoxiousGamer]

I really enjoy the SC2 bots community they are very interesting to watch and really shows you how potentially nuts AI can get in a strategy game when not restricted by apm.

[@BlindMidget]

My favorite absolute madman actually casted my bot! Am I in heaven?

[@lifesayer2k]

That bunker gas mining is some next level optimization.

[@wally19]

I love how IA battles are, look like caos but they are like individual movements, I mean, every units feels alive. It's awesome.

[@danielskrivan6921]

When Harstem looks at the bot's APM, he knows how us mortals look at his APM.

[@tedobg4778]

What is APM exactly

[@omargoodman2999]

@@tedobg4778 Actions Per Minute. It's a measure of how fast you're issuing commands. The AI is generating absolutely ridiculous API compared even to the best players because even the best players use control groups (a squad of units gets an attack order as a single action) and maybe a handful of waypoints while the AI issues commands to each unit individually and slices the pathing into hundreds of sections rather than just a few. Also, the AI can constantly have eyes everywhere and never gets human problems like tunnel vision so even while managing every unit individually on an offensive or defense, it's still keeping perfect track of macro at the same time, at all times.

[@NeostormXLMAX]

11:20 this feels like real war very chaotic

[@Lumberjane37]

This was so cool n bizarre! The bigger fights felt like ant colonies fighting- or no, more chaotic than even that. I appreciate your trying to keep up with it all as a caster. 😂

[@andylee9322]

I would like to think AI vs AI games are challenging from a micro perspective, the "fight patterns" or "formations" that the AI create are very unlike what they're probably used to if we assume they're playing against human players. It feels like for fighting, the units have a high priority on positional advantage where there is highest emphasis on playing around unit ranges, rather than creating like, the tried-true "concave" for example.

[@BadConeja]

They will happen against a human player, but an AI player won’t give them a chance to create that advantage. This is the reason the state of combat looks the way it does. Each is playing in a way to optimally damage units while always being able to disengage and preserve their own. That happens best when you’re spread out and occasionally form masses of units when you’ve found a pressure point, until your opponent reacts and then you must disengage once more and return to a skirmishing style of fighting.

[@zavhyatta9795]

This is how I imagine the battles in lore, widespread split armies. All moving and poking until one attacks. It looks so cool

[@loganpalmer5111]

60k APM? That’s not even comparable to the amount of websites I’m clicking out of when my mom comes into my room

[@pdubyaz]

This video makes me appreciate AlphaStar even more. When the bot can do 55K APM and move everything on the map at the same time, it seems kind of pointless.

[@perrycarters3113]

I wonder if something like a Bot-Human combo will be the future of RTS. The bot handles moment to moment micro, the human overrides the bot's directives with new orders, issuing simple commands that they set up ahead of time, sort of like macros on a PC. For example, the dozens of times both armies seemed to dance around engagements. Imagine one side had the ability to simply say "Commit," and the bot would then commit all forces in the area to the engagement. The human player can observe anything on the map and make overriding decisions that the AI will then execute with their vastly superior unit control and precision. The human also dictates build orders, that they can, again, override at any time. They essentially become the commander of an auto-functioning army. I'd be interested in seeing a bot that can do that.

[@markmonoton6224]

-There are already so many different Ais in Starcraft. What are we going to do to differentiate ours? -Trash talk? -Trash Talk!

[@swaggadash9017]

Seeing that bunker is insane

[@Violaphobia]

it's kind of insane how the starcraft 2 engine can handle constant inputs of 150k APM. That's some damn fine coding

[@RobinLundqvist]

OOKAAAAY the bunker gas mining is the most ridiculous thing i have ever seen

[@sersys1]

Forget about Action Per Viking! What's your Action Per Floating Command Centre count?

[@pseudocoder78]

"for both players we are currently averaging about 28,000 APM" - not something I'm used to hearing while listening to a starcraft 2 cast :)

[@T3rm1n470r]

I would love to see more bot vs bot or Captain vs bot! These are fascinating!

[@cbyrne08]

That marine micro on that first push blew my mind.

[@jayzenstyle]

That bunker mining trick is the trippiest thing I have ever seen. One way to mentally tire myself to sleep if I'm getting insomnia.

[@alfonshasel1995]

Idea for a bot or bgwss: as a terran, focus on defending your main and building ccs. Then expand one base at a time, drop 20 mules to mine it out in one minute, rinse and repeat. After all bases have been mined out, use you 50k ressources to smash your opponent

[@tjfer11]

WOW at first i was a bit concerned but soon realized this is a very different type of starcraft. Not in a bad way though it is so entertaining oh my god i never laughed so much during a sc2 game while being impressed at what they are capable of. Using so many units to their fullest potential changes the game in an interesting way but i hope they keep improving them! I would love to see this every now and then.

[@scp--un6pg]

this is the first time ive seen this and if i were to fight this ive already lost to the 30 minute mark

[@DOSdaze]

I find bot vs bot fights very interesting, keep 'em coming!

[@thomaskunz3089]

very cool to watch this, because they are constantly fighting at all fronts, lots of action, very cool.

[@AviatorFox]

The mining bunker blew my mind. I was stuck laughing for a full minute before I could unpause the video once I realized what that bunker was doing

[@joshhoover1202]

All of the offensive talk was in ally chat, not all chat. Probably helps with debugging stuff.

[@Malins2000]

I wonder how Blink Stalkers with Prism micro would look like.....

[@BadConeja]

AlphaStar back in 2019 had a demonstration where it performed most decisively: kzbin.infocUTMhmVh1qs?feature=share Skip to 1:38:00 to see the blink in action.

[@TheUnknown550]

Would love to see more of this

[@funkyworms]

kzbin.info

[@benjaminhoeft908]

This was actually super cool to watch. I hope at some point they get to a point where the AI does most of the work and a player can 'command', as an example, hit that kill switch at the end of the game.

[@Draconic.]

The strategic comments (relaunch offensive, cancel offensive) are only said to allies, so the other bot can't respond to them. The trashtalk is on all chat though... :D:D

[@2639theboss]

This is pretty cool, but the programming seems to need a ton of work. Eris in particular seems to really struggle with deciding when to commit to an engagement, and instead seems to just bleed off units while microing just within range.

[@benlockwood7091]

yeah, super frustrating to watch

[@colossaldonut5190]

They both have their own flaws for sure but considering this is all just raw programming and not deep learning it's still incredibly impressive.

[@2639theboss]

@@colossaldonut5190 Eh......not really. If youre familiar with programming, theres nothing groundbreaking or incredible here. Just resource intensive.

[@rofdo1489]

I have programmed some bots myself and it is actually really hard to define which engagements can be taken and which can not. It is almost impossible to find a general function you have to hardcode most of the behavior for specific situations. It is impossible for the bot to always make the right decisions because he just doesn't know everything that's going on.

[@rayzerot]

It's a lot easier to program tactics than strategy. That's why we still have people in charge of the militaries!

[@gerrysill7683]

This also like a real life battle because every unit is acting independent from each other very cool

[@rylsdark]

this was a blast

[@hisan5485]

This is like fencing, with each unit going back and forth jabbing at one another, except they have abilities that lets them lunge at each other.

[@konosmgr]

Lmao this is hilarious, more of this in the future would be appreciated.

[@PaintDotSquare]

Now we need a mod, where humans bring the overall intelligence into the game. When there are no commands from humans, the AI just goes wild. But the humans get all the power to command the units. And the human commands have always highest priority. Then the games would be heavily action packed and probably more interesting ;-)

[@thinslayer8026]

You might like the Total Annihilation/Supreme Commander series, then. Individual units will move and shoot on their own independent choices if you leave them alone, but you can corral them into cohesive offensives with a few choice orders. Individual unit decisions aren't terribly advanced or strategic, but it's still neat to see, for example, fighter planes performing maneuvers all on their own without external input.

[@Rickydbaby]

Great cast. Hilarious. "I have absolutely no idea who's winning this fight" lmao

[@fatalmystic]

Can we see AlphaStar without APM cap compete with those bots?? :D Thanks for the cast! Really interesting and refreshing! :)

[@mehdimarashi1736]

I want to see if Alfastar could develop techniques like "fast mining" or the "gas bunker trick" on its own.

[@rayzerot]

It wouldn't be AlphaStar without the APM cap. Because of the way AlphaStar learns, the programmers would basically have to retain it how to fight entirely. It'd be OmegaStar at that point.

[@octav3k]

@@rayzerot Can we see OmegaStar then? :D

[@Ty-bz7zx]

Very cool casting of a complete FusterCluck. A++ Harstem !! (Can't wait to see you vrs MicroMachine)

[@Helycon]

this is honestly just too much for my tiny brain to comprehend half the time I dont even know what Im looking at, I also love that the bunker mining continued throughout the entirety of the game like bruh

[@Searom98]

Very fun to watch that fight, like each and every unit has it's own mind.

[@dominikbaron9267]

I would love to see more of this! There should be some kind of bot tournament

[@rayzerot]

They have those.

[@BadConeja]

I reflected on a couple things that might be going through the AI’s minds. 1) perseveration of resources. Above all else, every enemy unit must at some point die. In order to accomplish this task, you yourself must have units. The goal then is to maximize how much damage you do per engagement until a certain threshold is met and then disengage. You must continue this attrition style until you’ve slowly “mined” out the opponent’s actual units (the proxy of their minerals). Versus an AI, they won’t move like a typical human and can’t be as easily pinned down. They will out micro you, retreat and whittle you down efficiently-or try to. A human on the other hand will accomplish a different goal, trading a whole section of resources at a single time in order to achieve a macro goal. I’m not sure if other AI are capable of such macro plays. This type of macro goal is different since you’ll make a crippling play in order to buy time, delay timing, prepare another attack or create a distraction for one. The overall goal is the same, kill every unit effectively but it is done through a much different and full commitment mechanism. Human players will still make small trades, but are aiming for larger “abstract” plays to disable technology or weaken parts of the enemies base for a future siege. The AI only cares about unit trades, all units must die first at the optimal level and that’s why they split like they do. When you saw the hydras prioritize the cyclone, it was due to the cyclone’s high kill efficiency at that specific time in the game. That unit had a high threat level even as a single unit. It was very mobile and had a high trading ratio. That unit would in the long run create a winning state for the enemy. As you saw, Eris had not yet understood the new presence of the battle cruisers as a higher threat over those couple cyclones. The battle cruisers had not yet built up they kill efficiency compared to the cyclones. 2) the chat read out from MicroMachine might be for debugging or viewer appreciation. Any one watching will be able to see what the AI is deciding to do. Eris is likely running a similar internal decision tree without posting it, but it would be great to compare both in chat. MicroMachines chat highlights the concept I described in “1)” where the goal is to eliminate every unit through pure trade efficiency. You must kill every unit but you must preserve your own at the highest level of certainty. A living unit can engage again at a higher level of certainty later. Therefore, once a certain threshold is calculated, you must disengage. A human failing to disengage happens often and results in dramatic loss of resources. However, those lost resources are sometimes still made in order to accomplish the larger goal of a macro trade that an AI wouldn’t commit to. However, when a AI faces an AI, it cannot easily make a macro trade effectively as the opponent will fight with the same unit superiority. The AIs exclusively focus their efforts to mine out each others units. A great comparison of this would be Medivac widow mine drops on mineral lines in order to stem income and boost your own primary offensives. Even if the main attack isn’t favorable, you have time to rebuild and attack again. However, if your primary offensive has been successful and the opponent also didn’t succeed in fighting off the widow drop they are now behind in micro and macro states of play. A human player would also take on disadvantaged plays but attempt to outplay the situation through micro control. They would make effective trades with their composition, timing or grand strategy to improve their future game state. On the other circuit board, the player only will engage again at points on the map where they are already favorable for an outcome. The disadvantage of this is that once the game state has reached certain thresholds across the map, one AI has an incredibly higher chance of remaining at optimal engagement. That AI has more favorable positions to mine out enemy units efficiently and will win quickly. The disadvantaged enemy doesn’t have a have macro play at this point either. So much map control has been lost, the opportunity for a larger and abstract trade in order to gain time or prepare a future attack will result in total defeat. That commitment would result in a absolute impermissible amount of resources lost. 3) every unit is moved individually and the camera pans onto every friendly unit and every visible enemy unit concurrently-impossibly high APM. The nature of enemy movement increases diffusion of both players’ forces, favoring the race with higher mobility and range (e.g., cyclones). I’ve seen AI play against humans and they don’t move as sporadically due to their opponent’s nature to clump and move in unison. However the AI will still individually micro units in combat to optimize damage and may still perform multiple offensives. Each AI in this game also spread out to protect their bases and collapsed at certain times during more heated engagements-before dispersing again. The AI players are like a buzzing swarm that will gather for a strike, then return to their fleeting and multitudinous positions and optimal trading states. Again, the AIs have the supreme goal of farming each others’ units more efficiently. They will leave a target on 1hp if that their own unit alive. Another AI that came out years ago has been AlphaStar, but I believe it only played Protoss and I think it also only played versus Protoss. Regardless, great to see AI versus pro players. kzbin.infocUTMhmVh1qs?feature=share

[@RecoveringLoLAddict]

Jesus that gas mining micro That some unholy shit only a machine would accomplish efficiently

[@phuse99]

This is so intense, there is never a dull moment, really amazing stuff to see.

[@therealnoodledog6660]

His sanity lasted until @15:55, after that his mind just wandered off and it's beautiful to see

[@beckerzineo]

That bunker gas micro is one of the coolest things I've ever seen on StarCraft

[@Aguyfrom225]

It's fun to see the AI react to every situation. Micro had a banshee above zerg. The zerg didn't have detection. The banshee weaken every unit(didn't kill) and then flew away. LOL GOOD STUFF

[@froniccruxis1049]

This reminds me of some pro SC1 matches. Battles over a wide area and lot so of individual unit micro

[@THAC0MANIC]

from my understanding the AI values certain units over others, and as both happen to be AI they both are attempting to bait each other hints the weird constent dance in some fights, BOTH sides are doing it trying to just get within range to attack but not be in range of the other guys unit, And when simular range units are there they tend to have a dance off. Certain units i think where being WAY more useful then you gave them credit for mostly becouse they where used in a differnt way as the units served multible reasons Take the viking for example It can micro against the Muta thus making them not super useful, Kill off overseers and overlords thus supply blocking and clearing out detection thus making Banshees stand and fight, Truth be told Banshees DPS can be pretty damn high so just having 1 sit there for free attacking units can do ALOT of damage. now picture that same banshee microing properly and more then 1 at the same time So the viking was forcing the Zerg player to focus more on Hydras as it was counting Muta and other air units, The banshees where doing a good job harassing alot of good units like Infestors Roaches ravengers and even hydras themselfs as the sky was pretty clear thanks to Hydras Cylons then come in and can out range out micro hydras hunts why hydras often at times would target swich at bad times, Would stop shooting at a BC to try and kill a Cylon that would JUST get in range before it dance/darted out of range. The Hydra then turn its focus back on the BC, The Cylon comes back in if the Hydra just focus on the BC the BC can just run away / teleport out of the way and let the Cylon get ton of damage in, BCS are pretty tanky and there are more then 1 way to be tanky, BCS can take damage but they can also take agro they where doing both Becouse Banshees are killing Infestors due to the lack of Detectors and Muta and other air units that where constently being picked off by the Mass Viking it then in turn allowed BC and Cylons to mico properly against the only real remaining threat of Zerg Hydras which stuggled to get things done Yes basicly becouse of mass vikings they had a ripple effect helping out the following units Banshees Cylons BCS oh and Tanks yes the Vikings where piking off Vipers before they could get to many Yanks off or 2 many Clouds off, at times the AI would bait a cloud in a certain location pull away and just re engaged just outside of said Cloud the Viper then has to pull away or risk being kill by the Vikins the Banshees continue to get free shots off the Hydras being pulled consistently, The Hydras who where focusing on BCS where then being destroyed by the Cylons and or banshees near by and the BC would just teleport itself away as it did its job in tanking via pulling Agro. the AI is performing all of these Micro and decisions in like 2 seconds mind you thus we see alot of what basicly amounts to what looks like Confusion / a dance off at times. Tell me whats good vs BCS? Hydras Curroptors / Infestors well Good vs Infestors and Corruptors? Banshees and Vikins Vikings clear Detection Banshees kill Infestors Vikings micro vs the Muta and keep that in check thus Corruptors never grow in large numbers, Vipers try there stuff out only to be messed with due to the Dancing Cylons down below or such the Mass amount of Vikigns in a way saved the Terran AI May not look like it but it caused ALOT of confusion and alternit tactics to happen ... Banshees will kill your revers and infestors, Got detection no you dont coz i have mass vikings so they get free shots off Keeping air / sky clear in check? Get the BC to draw agro or do damage, you notice BCS being nural yes but they also Teleported away on there own at times becouse of Agro and such from the mass Hydras, the Mass Hydras mind you got killed by Tanks / Cylons and or banshees I Mean you wanted them to just target BCS, Ok the BC Micros away / dance off with you or teleports away if you do corner it The Cylons and tanks and banshees however are attacking your Hydras, Thus your trying to focus a Unit whos goal is to draw Agro your allowing it to do its job problem? Ignore the BC and it will do damage its PROPERLY doing its job.

[@sillyvektor]

This looked like an actual war

[@EvilSmonker]

Great hearing you on the Dark vs Ryung match in the IEM.

[@Kholdaimon]

In the late game, Eris should just program the AI to spam banelings and run them into the Terran's expansions, then it would win every game, like every Zerg-pro...

[@mehdimarashi1736]

To kill the base it the workers? Killing the base is not cost effective at all. You need 19 banes to kill a cc. And if you what to kill scv's with banes, you'll need one bane per scv with this ridiculous micro. I guess that's why not even one baneling was produced in this game.

[@Kholdaimon]

@@mehdimarashi1736 Okay, I meant you run your banelings into the mineral line and kill workers and the base at the same time due to aoe. And Zerg doesn't need to be cost-efficient in pro ZvT, it just needs to deny income to the Terran and mine more... In this game the Zerg had way more bases and the Terran AI spent half the drone time running them from 1 base to another... If the zerg ran banelings into the command centers he would have won even if it is cost inefficient...

[@Mackinstyle]

The chattiness of the bot is awesome. I wish we could always see exactly what decisions a player is making and why.

[@acatfrompoland5230]

5:19 The spread on those marines is just 🥴

[@ormash7909]

its so funny seeing all the right clicks

[@ricroflxD]

RIP tank (25:24 - 26:02) - We will never forget the adventure we shared

[@mathiasradwick4844]

I LOVE THE BOT STUFF. thanks for highlighting that community to me! I wonder if i can also make a bot or something similar.

[@IlyaDemidov]

There is a moment where bunker between gas refinery and command center is visible. And SCV's are manually loaded and unloaded for mining.

[@camperkiller3]

Seeing how well the banishes did with all those Vikings denying detection wouldn't ghosts be good with that micro?

[@ktoniand2097]

I think it's kind of a shame that micromachine don't use raven and ghost. The ghost with snipe could deal a heck of damage, go back in base to recharge it's energy, and come back to make a massacre.

[@quack3891]

I still find it hilarious how the micro machine bot accidentally made the terrans fight as a swarm (marines individually are micro'd but end up macro moving similar to sc1 zerg)

[@thegwangster9097]

Loved this! Want more!

[@Piromysl359]

I honestly did not expected that gas mining through bunker.