3 ms·

The video of one of the top bots playing a top human makes it seem like the AI has a long long way to go. I don't know if it was just the AI recognizing that it

The video of one of the top bots playing a top human makes it seem like the AI has a long long way to go. I don't know if it was just the AI recognizing that it couldn't win any encounters so it just held back and lost even worse, or if it's strategy is just bad, but the human player made it look terrible.

dgant 9y ago
They sure do have a long way to go. That's what makes it exciting! Real time strategy games are the last frontier for human superiority in competitive games, and it looks to be a generational gap like Chess or Go.
FrozenVoid 9y ago
The AI doesn't "See the opponent" as humans do, like if there is a enemy transport incoming, a human opponent would prioritize it, micro around to destroy it, evac/spread out worker units before it lands(e.g. defending against reaver drops) and prevent/stop it from leaving(removing future threat). An AI would react to the transport as some data item in its to-do list and not recognize the threat of drop UNTIL it landed, just following the script and being purely reactive. A human player is proactive, he doesn't follow 'the script' and adapts to real-time events, even changing build orders to adapt to enemy army. These bots micro is geared to just win local battles(mini-scripts), not to read-ahead and prepare. In tactics and micro, despite having higher-APM and reaction speed, humans have more nuanced understanding of tactics depending on terrain/unit positioning, while bots rely on brute-force and simple repeatable actions, limited by their programming. Unlike complete information on the board, RTS forces these "rapid plan changes" where things occur 'out of the script' and AI has no idea how to fight it, making mistakes and losing resources. AI is blind to future threats and implications of build orders, while humans always send spies and try to predict enemy future plans. Knowing that enemy has 3 expansions instead of 2 means alot to human player, while AI wouldn't see when it loses attack opportunity window against weaker expansions(due less army units).

dgant 9y ago

They sure do have a long way to go. That's what makes it exciting! Real time strategy games are the last frontier for human superiority in competitive games, and it looks to be a generational gap like Chess or Go.

FrozenVoid 9y ago

The AI doesn't "See the opponent" as humans do, like if there is a enemy transport incoming, a human opponent would prioritize it, micro around to destroy it, evac/spread out worker units before it lands(e.g. defending against reaver drops) and prevent/stop it from leaving(removing future threat). An AI would react to the transport as some data item in its to-do list and not recognize the threat of drop UNTIL it landed, just following the script and being purely reactive. A human player is proactive, he doesn't follow 'the script' and adapts to real-time events, even changing build orders to adapt to enemy army. These bots micro is geared to just win local battles(mini-scripts), not to read-ahead and prepare. In tactics and micro, despite having higher-APM and reaction speed, humans have more nuanced understanding of tactics depending on terrain/unit positioning, while bots rely on brute-force and simple repeatable actions, limited by their programming. Unlike complete information on the board, RTS forces these "rapid plan changes" where things occur 'out of the script' and AI has no idea how to fight it, making mistakes and losing resources. AI is blind to future threats and implications of build orders, while humans always send spies and try to predict enemy future plans. Knowing that enemy has 3 expansions instead of 2 means alot to human player, while AI wouldn't see when it loses attack opportunity window against weaker expansions(due less army units).