your mum is boring and easy mate
Starcraft 2 is one of the most complex game ever made. And 2000 mmr is dogshiet, you shouldn’t even be able to post on the forum below 3k where people start to know how to play.
Sir, this is Wendy’s.
1 Like
SC2 is so easy that a bot learned how to play it. Bots can’t even drive cars in the rain, for crying out loud, but they can get Grandmaster in SC2. That means SC2 is easier than driving a car in the rain. SC2 is one of the simplest and easiest games ever made.
You find the game boring but your claims of it being easy don’t mean anything. You haven’t played enough of the game to discern if the entirety is easy or not.
“It’s easy when i lose” yea that will be true when you’re not good at the game.
It is really weird to hear something like that from someone, who has some skills in programming. You should have known, that AI has no problems with input of sc2 data, because it is always correct. It is not 55% chance marine, 40% marauder or 5% scv running, it is always 100% marine. In case of the real world, the AI has only the input from sensors and cameras and hopes that the recognition will go right. There should be no question in your head, why AI can play in the video game, which is a piece of two-digits and real world, which has to be somehow translated into two-digits first, which is not always goes as planned.
I figured they were being disingenuous in an attempt to troll.
That’s false. It’s ok to just not like the game. Conceptually SC is very simple. Build army fast, kill opponent.
The reason processing sensor inputs is hard in the rain is because the water distorts those inputs and makes it hard for the AI to interpret them. It can’t do that, but it can play SC2. The lesson being, visual processing is the hardest part of the game, by far. So, classifying if the pixels are a marauder or a marine is harder than the entirety of SC2, which proves my point that this game is incredibly easy.
P.S: computers can’t figure out where a car is when a little bit of water is involved, but they definitely can figure out where the planet’s climate will be in 100 years despite entire oceans of water involved. It makes sense, right? 
The only thing it proves is that the COMPUTEr is better at calculations, what step to take next, and is not that good at recognizing the objects. It is exactly the opposite of human, who can’t be that fast in calculations and can make mistakes, but is able to use intuition and imagination to recognize objects way more efficient (we actually still don’t know, how exactly that happens). So your point is wrong.
An AI has two steps. One is pattern recognition, the other is taking actions based on the patterns identified. The idea is that you have to know what situation you are in, and you need a map to the proper action. In driving, the second step is easy based on very simple goals. You want to follow the road, avoid other cars.
The problem is pattern recognition in the rain. The AI can’t figure out what situation it is in. You have data and you have to recognize the patterns that indicate where other cars are, and what direction they are heading, as well as their speed. The rain distorts what is an otherwise clear picture of what is happening.
This is analogous to the SC2 problem. You have to look at a game scenario, such as some marines engaging some zerglings, and identify where the zerglings are going, etc. Once you know what is happening, picking the right answer is easy. If banelings are going to hit marines, you load into a medivac. If you can’t, then you split the marines as best as you can in a direction opposite of the baneling movements. If there is no time to split, you run in the opposite direction. It’s really simple.
If you take a Gold-league player and have him watch Maru, he can identify the mistakes in Maru’s play. He can see what the proper response was. It’s so obvious that it shines like a blinding light: some banelings hit some marines that weren’t split. The problem is, only maru can figure it out fast enough to keep pace with how rapidly the game evolves. Pattern recognition in SC2 is the hardest part of the game, and bots can do it, but they can’t do it for cars driving in the rain.
SC2 is a very simple game. 95% of the skill in SC2 is reaction speed, and 95% of reaction speed is pattern recognition. The fact that bots can play SC2 is proof of how easy it is. Playing SC2 is easier than driving in the rain.
SC2 is a very simple game. 95% of the skill in SC2 is reaction speed, and 95% of reaction speed is pattern recognition. The fact that bots can play SC2 is proof of how easy it is. Playing SC2 is easier than driving in the rain.
One is a game. The other is control over a missile. The failure mode of driving is radically more serious than a make believe toy. Your banal, surreptitious characterization of those who are incompetent at a toy, must therefore be incompetent in other matters in life is a false premise on all fronts in addition to being derivative and insulting.
In sum, I’m sorry this is all you have but if you could not make it so obvious and insufferable that would be fantastic.
Yes, the severity of a wrong answer drastically increases the difficulty of the problem. That’s exactly why playing a video game is easy. There is virtually no risk to experimentation.
Are you sure about that? If we take 70-year-old-Maru and make him drive 1000 hours in the rain, what are his odds he gets into a crash compared to a 18-year-old-Maru? Now, if we take a 70-year-old-Maru and make him play SC2 1000 hours of SC2, what are his odds of winning compared to 20-year-old-Maru?
If you take 70-year old Maru, he still has all the game knowledge that current-day Maru has, so what has changed? He just can’t react to the game events with enough speed.
The majority of the difficulty in SC2 is the speed at which you can recognize patterns, and that skill will transfer over to anything that tests your ability to recognize patterns as fast as possible. In the case of cars, it’s about recognizing a dangerous scenario, and doing it as fast as possible. That’s based on the movement and positioning of cars. That’s analogous to SC2. A blob of banelings will soon hit my blob of marines / a car is soon going to hit my car. AI’s can’t do that, with cars, in the rain, but they can play SC2. SC2 is easier than driving in the rain.
The way players increase their reaction speed is through repetition. That’s why MMR rankings correlate with hours of games played: the more you play, the quicker you can do tasks within the game. We can, therefore, surmise that the majority of the difficulty in SC2 is the time investment: spending time to train your reactions to get your reaction speed as fast as possible.
Being bad at SC2 does not equate to being bad at driving in the rain because they actually spend time practicing driving in the rain. The amount of practice is going to vary. AIs allow us to isolate that factor and remove it from the equation, and it shows that driving in the rain is harder. So, people who are bad at SC2, but good at driving in the rain, simply haven’t practiced enough SC2.
Please read:
The researchers analyzed past radar data to identify what the weather was at the recorded time and location of 193,840 reported fatal crashes from across the U.S. for 2006 through 2011. The radar data helped them better determine the actual weather conditions during the crashes…
They found that the risk increased by about 26% and 146% for their classifications of light and heavy precipitation, respectively.
The difference between these two scenarios is how easily the operator of the vehicle (human or AI) can react to a danger, which requires classifying the scenario which is just pattern recognition. Pattern recognition in the rain is harder, which is why there are more accidents. It’s all about how fast pattern recognition is relative to how much time you have to react. People will be driving slower, which means more reaction time but, despite that, the ability of pattern recognition is so immensely impaired, by the rain, that the risk of a crash is higher despite the slower speeds.
Pattern recognition is the major challenge for AI’s and humans alike.
I have nothing nice to add at this juncture but I earnestly hope you get help with whatever it is you struggle with.
Yeah your theory doesn’t really fit. Someone with ADHD doesn’t have the patience to sit and write out an essay. That’s why ADHD impacts school performance so much and/or why it’s important to get it diagnosed and treated ASAP. So, when your response to an essay is to accuse the person of having ADHD, it begs the question of if you know what ADHD is.
If I have a problem, it’s that I have the problem opposite of ADHD. I have virtually infinite patience for the most complex and frustrating problems. That’s why I have no problem writing an essay about a complex computer science topic and relating it to a video game when there is a 99% chance nobody here will read it, let alone understand it or care. The writing, in and of itself, is the reward. It doesn’t matter how long it takes. In fact, the longer, the better. I could keep going, but I won’t. I have to show restraint here or I would write another essay.
Who knows, I might come back tomorrow and continue this as a writing prompt. You never know. Writing is just very good for you. Research shows that there isn’t much difference between writing about something and actually doing it. That’s because your brain still goes through the same processes, it just doesn’t articulate them with your limbs but instead with words. It’s not a difference in the mental processes EXCEPT for what the method of output is. That’s why they make you write essays in school. Writing about something makes your brain go through the same process as actually doing that thing, but with lower cost, less risk and more repetition.
Writing is fantastic. I love writing. It takes serious willpower to stop writing. Oh my gosh, this is so hard. I just can’t stop. It’s in my head and I can’t get it out.
1 Like
A slight update. Apologies for not replying to the thread, my laptop was randomly reaching 90 degrees in StarCraft: Remastered (somewhat less in SC2), so I had to have it fixed (by a family friend who’s like a maverick computer scientist from the USSR).
I have been playing some Brood War since, and even though I seem to like the game on the fundamental basis, the dearth of population means that I haven’t won a single game in 30 matches, and that is unfortunate (aping a zealot rush doesn’t count).
On the flipside, I have come to appreciate the close games that I tend routinely to get in SC2. There’s something to be said about the qualitative aspect of quantity. I don’t believe BW to be an inherently “difficult” game - it’s just that the community has decided to kill it (in the West), so getting to it is nigh-impossible.
Of course, there is less micro potential in SC2, and the macro is easy, but there are also no such overpowered imba units as the BW Siege Tank whose mere existence makes winning battles for the Protoss impossible.
I wish I were a girl only to hook up with you < 3
Isn’t it much more prudent to build space habitats such as O’Neill cylinders? See Isaac Arthur’s videos for reference.
Indeed, have you read Foucault’s Madness and Civilisation, detailing the emergence of modern medicinal approach to mental disorders (even though they lack any biochemical basis)? At least, psychology doesn’t tend to drug people.
P.S. Oh no, Blizzard have uglified the forum UI, adding this ridiculous sticky header eating up my screen space. What a travesty.
I think you mix a lot of things in one. The rain drops are disrupting the image, which has to be proceeded, they are changing it. The last home story cup had a match, where one player had a 180 degree turned view and he couldn’t do anything. AT ALL. Because the human has perfectly learned how sc2 looks, he can recognize the objects quickly, but if you introduce the skins, you would notice that some threads came up, where players couldn’t see the banelings (which were later changed for that reason), couldn’t see the droplords.
It’s actually far simpler than that. You are a narcissist of the highest order. Nobody cares. You are not an expert in this field or the plethora of others that you surely claim to have knowledge of. You live in a vacuum subsumed with diluted fantasy and egregious grandiosity.
Therapy can be helpful but only if you are willing to acknowledge that you are in fact, the entire circus.
Leave me alone. I’m not a friendly person.
I’ve worked on really serious problems regarding sensors. Occulusion, artifacting. FFTs. DFTs. You tell nobody anything new. Practice silence. It is a virtue people like you should seek to cultivate. Then to use all this crude barely intellectual bullying for the purposes of putting down new players, while keeping your record private is as insipid as it is disingenuous.
I think you and everybody like you is incredibly gross.
Guys he is saying that the game is boring both in his wins and his losses
And he is right, in lower leagues, you either die to rush or you macro for 10 minutes and a-move a maxed out army, that’s why I went to team games, because I couldn’t pass that point where 1v1 matches become interesting
And that’s because the game is HARD, not easy
Not liking the game is ok but it isn’t the same as saying it’s easy. An inexperienced or unskilled player can say it’s easy but it’s made in ignorance.
And saying it’s “conceptually easy” is an oversimplification. “Build army fast, kill opponent” sounds easy on paper, but in practice, it isn’t so easy. Otherwise, everyone would be in Master League. I can say “conceptually building a car is easy, put pieces together and start engine” - but I’ll find it very difficult when I put attach breaks to the bumper and wonder why my car won’t start.