4 ms·
>There are limitations they put on the AI to try ti restrict to human levels. Such as having an action counter. Which is exactly why StarCraft is not a very go
by gambler 8y ago
>There are limitations they put on the AI to try ti restrict to human levels. Such as having an action counter.
Which is exactly why StarCraft is not a very good game to test AI on. It's absurd to put arbitrary limitation on something to make the game "fair" and then pat yourself on the back simply because the algorithm won. If it can already win through pure micromanagement, why
There are tons of strategy games which don't revolve around micromanagement where APM simply doesn't matter. All turn-based games, for example. Or real-time games where building stuff is more important than combat.
- gpm 8y ago> All turn-based games, for example. You mean like chess? And go? I think turning to a real time game with a complex rule set after showing they mastered turn based games with simple rule sets was very sensible. > Or real-time games where building stuff is more important than combat. Can you name one that is played professionally (important for balance and comparison to humans) where this is more true than starcraft 2? I think of starcraft 2 as very macro focused as games go. I used to be ~80th percentile in North America (worst region) and I'm certain at the time any pro could have beat me without clicking anything outside of their own base (except the minimap).
- gambler 8y ago>You mean like chess? And go? What a clever reply. No, like the ones I named in the post above. >Can you name one that is played professionally (important for balance and comparison to humans) If you pause to think about it, things that make for a "good" pro scene are exactly the things that make computer games less than impressive for innovative AI research.