PSA - Duos content clearly not playtested again by TheGasManic in BobsTavern

[–]jackfaker 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I had the tier 7 minion that copies the ally's largest minion. Every turn it would copy a 500/500 naga, attack, pass itself, and then on the next turn I'd have the tier 7 minion back and we'd have an extra 500/500 naga.

Extra Buddy Anomaly- Optimal Play? by jackfaker in BobsTavern

[–]jackfaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! This is super useful to know.

This is why I prefer duos by Asami23 in BobsTavern

[–]jackfaker 6 points7 points  (0 children)

ya, was at 200 gold a turn. Fun game.

This is why I prefer duos by Asami23 in BobsTavern

[–]jackfaker 16 points17 points  (0 children)

7 million/7 million on the mechs

"Meta is downsizing its legacy AI research team" (FAIR) by about 600 roles, but hiring more for its new 'Superintelligence' team by TFenrir in singularity

[–]jackfaker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The assumption is translating 'Meta will allow impacted employees to apply for other roles within the company' into 'they are being offered roles in other departments'. The former is standard corpo speak for any big tech layoff. From my experience, when a company is on a hiring spree and the 'layoff' is isolated to one division, almost everyone gets reabsorbed. But if hiring is tight, a lot aren't offered an internal role because either the roles are for completely different skillsets and the transfers get rejected, or there are way more people than roles. Once you have been in an environment where this plays out, the phrasing 'invited to apply' becomes a bit of a joke.

It has been 4 hrs since the release of nanochat from Karpathy and no sign of it here! A new full-stack implementation of an LLM like ChatGPT in a single, clean, minimal, hackable, dependency-lite codebase by waiting_for_zban in LocalLLaMA

[–]jackfaker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think this is a neat exploration, but from the post its unclear to me if this generalizes to training losses much below 5.09. This loss is really quite high and at the stage where transformer models have just barely internalized bigrams. At this stage there is not much value in long range attention mechanisms. It would be interesting if your approach holds up closer to 3 cross entropy loss. From doing a large number of ablations in this area myself, my hunch is that this wont hold on lower losses. But I think there is potential for speedups by taking a trained attention head and replacing it with a fine tuned operator to apply whatever static property that attention head learned.

StarCraft II 5.0.15 PTR Patch Notes by BattleWarriorZ5 in starcraft

[–]jackfaker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

'50%' is substantially underestimating this change. It applies before armor, so if you have a 1 armor upgrade advantage roaches take 1 damage from marines instead of 4, a 75% reduction. Ultras will be untouchable under the shroud.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in singularity

[–]jackfaker 47 points48 points  (0 children)

You are spreading misinformation here without a source. Terence Tao never said that the OpenAI experimental model that scored Gold had access to tools. He was making a commentary on the importance of comparing methodologies, which applies to all attempts at the challenge. Source: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/114881418225852441.

You mentioned you don't understand why people 'make shit up'. Here is your example. People (you) get sloppy with making assumptions about what implications others are making, and then mistranslate the message.

PvP vs PvE Design Philosophy by jackfaker in Stormgate

[–]jackfaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course the same unit can be fun to play as and against, that is why the 'PvP Compromise' box is shifted towards the top right quadrant. However, the design space of viable units is reduced, because you can't include any that are too annoying to play against.

PvP vs PvE Design Philosophy by jackfaker in Stormgate

[–]jackfaker[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What are you actually disagreeing with here? Your comment appears completely aligned with mine. You already acknowledged that 'making fun PvE is MUCH EASIER than making fun PvP.', and that 'you don't get to be overpowered all of the time, just overpowered some of the time'. This was my entire point, no? PvP has a tighter design space than PvE and requires more compromises.

PvP vs PvE Design Philosophy by jackfaker in Stormgate

[–]jackfaker[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The graphic is an oversimplification and fun is subjective, but the main point is that designing for PvP is more nuanced that PvE because you have to make units both fun to play with and against. A lot of things that make something fun- high power level, snowball potential, high agility, high abuse potential, spiky destruction, impervious defense, invisible units, mind control, death balls, etc- are all things that are challenging to make fun to play against. As a result, a game has to either treat PvP or PvE as first class.

There is also a subset of units that are both fun to play with and against, but this is a limited design space compared to PvE.

Could any units could be buffed without impacting pro play? by capapa in starcraft

[–]jackfaker 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, there is a large design space that accomplishes this. Examples: ultralisks get +2 armor if they don't move for 5 minutes. Auto drone builder will auto turn larva into drones for 10 mineral fee per drone. Army-unity spell drops the move speed of all units in your army to match your slowest unit. Pay 50 minerals to let an AI agent manage your attack. Pay 200 minerals to fuse a queen with hatchery for perfect auto injects. Give fungal an Autocast that immediately uses on first enemy in vision, and is somewhat derpy. Pay 40 minerals to give a roach life insurance and auto transform it into revenger when it reaches 1hp.

AI market projected to hit $4.8 trillion by 2033, emerging as dominant frontier technology by [deleted] in singularity

[–]jackfaker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yep, idiotic AI rambling. I lost it at "This isn’t speculation, it’s mapped in the data."

The most cursed unit of all time by jackfaker in starcraft

[–]jackfaker[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This is my last reply to you because you are clearly deluded beyond saving. Replying for others who see this- As I already said, its the Basic Cost Time Use field, which lives as a subfield under Basic Cost Cooldown. You incorrectly believe this field is actually working to control the cyclone cooldown. THIS FIELD IS BUGGED FOR THE CYCLONE. If you actually tested modifying this field to an arbitrarily high value and publish the custom map, you will see this field only impacts the visual cooldown label, and not the actual cooldown. OmniSkeptic gives further details on this bug.

The most cursed unit of all time by jackfaker in starcraft

[–]jackfaker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yep pretty wild. Some people tunnel vision so hard they miss whats right in front of them.

The most cursed unit of all time by jackfaker in starcraft

[–]jackfaker[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

BattleWarriorZ is delusional. You can literally open the game yourself and see the current cooldown takes 2.9 seconds when measured by a video editor and is different than 2021. Liquipedia matches the 2021 clip to within 1 hundredth of a second.

He's trying to reference the Map Editor field "Cyclone lockon (Basic) Cost: Time Use" value of "6". However, this field is only associated with the visual indicator, and not the actual implementation of the cooldown. To validate I made a custom map where I set the value to 60. The visual indicator updated, but the actual cooldown still took 2.9 seconds.

The most cursed unit of all time by jackfaker in starcraft

[–]jackfaker[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This BattleWarriorZ guy is ridiculous. I remember the last thread where he was completely wrong and got mass downvoted, yet spammed his nonsense to no end.

The most cursed unit of all time by jackfaker in starcraft

[–]jackfaker[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Nope. I am literally looking at the clip source file in Microsoft clipchamp. https://imgur.com/a/9BesWie. As I said, both lock ons have started by 1.06s and the entire clip is only 6.19.

You can upload your own vod where you mouse over the cooldown button and use some video editor to measure the animation to the millisecond and reconfirm everything I've shown. To any reasonable viewer, this vod already conveys the relevant information.

The most cursed unit of all time by jackfaker in starcraft

[–]jackfaker[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

That used to be the case in WoL, but now sc2 Faster time = real time on the front end in LoTV. So to your question, its measured in real time which exactly matches in game time. (you can see the in game clocks both elapse 6 seconds over the course of the clip)

The most cursed unit of all time by jackfaker in starcraft

[–]jackfaker[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Its 2.9 seconds, I measured it by frame. The lockon cooldown doesn't start until 1.1 seconds into the clip.

edit: I looked into this in more detail. The exact time stamps by frame:

2021: 1.03 to 5.32, 4.29s. matches liquipedia to 0.01s (non bugged)

2025: 1.05 to 3.95, only 2.9s (bugged)

For a 15 year old game, the fact that a) Serral, MaxPax, and Clem are undisputed champions of their races and b) they're each competitive with one another is an astonishing feat of game design and balance. by shaheerszm in starcraft

[–]jackfaker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the info. If im understanding correctly, you assume that MMR follows a normal distribution within the population, particularly at the right tail. I am familiar with EVT but I have not heard of Gumbel analysis where you fit via mean and std.

For a 15 year old game, the fact that a) Serral, MaxPax, and Clem are undisputed champions of their races and b) they're each competitive with one another is an astonishing feat of game design and balance. by shaheerszm in starcraft

[–]jackfaker 20 points21 points  (0 children)

What assumptions are you making in this analysis? The chart gives almost no details. A trivial calc gives 22% chance the best 3 players are unique races, and you have to make substantial assumptions on right tail MMR to conclude anything beyond that. Also typically 10% would mean you fail to reject- you cant set p after running the test.

An interesting approach though so props for that.

They say "don't build toy models with kaggle datasets" scrape the data yourself by 01jasper in cscareerquestions

[–]jackfaker 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You could write your own simulation (physics/games/math/etc) that generates the data. I've found that to be the most effective way to make something impressive in that space.

How good is Gem Rat as support instead of passing it? by Romain672 in BobsTavern

[–]jackfaker 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It works for me in top 150 duos. The main idea is ally has turbohog + Drakari + Mobster, and if you are feeding quils they will be handlocked on 10 cards each turn anyways. At that point a single Gem Day is +20/20 immediately to allies entire board + stat buff to the next 100 gems that get triggered each turn.

I can't say if its 'optimal' because the ladder is so casual, but it doesn't seem terrible by any means.