4 ms·
I agree with the sentiment that for a human the difference is much larger than for a machine, however, taking into consideration that a huge amount of the AI in
by FlorianRappl 9y ago
I agree with the sentiment that for a human the difference is much larger than for a machine, however, taking into consideration that a huge amount of the AI in SCBW needs to be on the micro (i.e., in-battle) execution which is - for the most part - handled by the in-game AI in SC2 I feel both games are different enough on AI development. Some basics are definitely shared, but beyond a certain level the two games go in different directions.
One thing to add is the openBW project (http://www.openbw.com http://www.openbw.com). It is truly amazing: The guys there managed to reverse engineer the full SCBW engine (I thought that's nearly impossible, as the whole flow depends a lot on implementation details, some of the details are even considered bugs, which turned out to be just the right implementation to balance the game perfectly...).
- bfung 9y agoIt happens that SC2 implements certain micro AI functions for the game player, however, that doesn't stop a player from micro-ing all the units themselves, just like in SC1. The number of units in SC2 make it much harder to micro for humans, hence the game provides help. But the human player experience shouldn't define the AI player behavior; especially one that is to learn the game on it's own. Breaking down the goals, components, and constraints of the games, I'd actually say SC1 and SC2 are pretty similar games, especially to an AI on both micro and macro levels.
- nurettin 9y agoExtra waypoint actions, better pathing and the propensity to form nicer circles around an opponent targeted by an attack command isn't what I'd call micro AI. Most of that choppy feeling you get after switching to classic is because of how tiles and stacking is handled in sc2 where units step on each other's toes and slowly ease away and tiles are much smaller.