4 ms·

I don't think it's as easy as that. Even with perfect macro + micro, your opponent could simply scout you, see what build you're going for, and counter your bui

I don't think it's as easy as that. Even with perfect macro + micro, your opponent could simply scout you, see what build you're going for, and counter your build. Pro players do have (quasi-)perfect macro: They build units and buildings exactly when they should be built (especially at the early stages of the game). They also have an excellent micro. What makes one player win against the other is often the choices they make (going for a surprising build, or simply executing an attack in a way their opponent wouldn't be ready for). So I'm pretty sure an AI that would just mass zerglings and micro them "perfectly" still would be crushed by decent players that know how to counter that rush. (build a wall, and have siege tanks or a similar unit)

ethbro 10y ago
This is one thing that I think would be fascinating when (if) we get to a competitive AI in this arena. Do we eventually see the hypothetical human (or AI!) opponent trying to metagame against the way an AI system interacts with the game? E.g. human-pointless feints in an attempt to pollute AI logic? Under the premise that a competitive AI will reason and act differently than a competitive human (due to aforementioned difference in speed/memory vs abstract thinking resources).
tempestn 10y ago
The problem with that is, most counters to first tier units rely on splash damage. As zerg for instance, if your opponent is rushing with lings or marines, you need banelings. But it would be trivial for an ai to neutralize the splash damage, so that wouldn't work. Generally speaking, the counters are balanced for human players. Biased toward high level players, but still human.