Koki on 16/6/2010 at 05:21
@demagogue vs. addlink: (
http://www.costik.com/nowords.html#What_is)
@Dresden - of course in some kind of hypothetical future we will have PCs able to perfectly play Starcraft - and any other game for that matter. The point is, making a perfect emulation of Starcraft is much harder than making a perfect emulation of Chess, just like making perfect emulation of Chess is much harder than making perfect emulation of Tic Tac Toe. And that's because Starcraft is more complicated game than Chess and Chess is more complicated game than Tic Tac Toe.
Dresden on 16/6/2010 at 13:35
How does one play Starcraft "perfectly"? What the hell does that even mean?
Eldron on 16/6/2010 at 14:22
Quote Posted by Dresden
How does one play Starcraft "perfectly"? What the hell does that even mean?
Perfectly means that an AI will be able to take everything into account, and predetermine every possible outcome, making the most optimal choice at every moment.
Meaning that in no scenario would this AI ever lose.
And every AI vs AI match would end up with a draw.
I haven't however considered how many random elements there are in starcraft, are there any? (even the tiniest ones)
Sulphur on 16/6/2010 at 21:24
I still find the original System Shock to be really, really immersive. Dunno why, all those buttons and flashing bits and bobs on the UI ought to detract from the experience, but the moving and leaning around corners and switching ammo and checking logs and all that just gets me in there. Weird, like I said.
Which also brings up another point - player movement. Whilst controlling Gordon in Half Life, I've always felt that your movements lacked weight, as if Gordon were moving like a stick of butter sliding across a pan. A 'margarine effect', if you will.
Thief and SS1/SS2 avoided this handily, and so do lots of other FPSes. But for some reason, Valve's games always feature traversal that feels a little too smooth to me.
@demagogue/addink: What about a game that features little to no story whatsoever for an MO, like Noby Noby Boy? There aren't any concrete gameplay goals or challenges either. It's a literal sandbox with no win/lose/end state. But you can play around and do stuff with it. Does that fit the 'toy' hypothesis because it's not goal- or story-oriented?
Bluegrime on 17/6/2010 at 03:41
Quote Posted by Eldron
I haven't however considered how many random elements there are in starcraft, are there any? (even the tiniest ones)
Assuming you used the same map every time, the only variables I can think of is that units firing at other units under trees or on high ground have a 50% chance of missing. Aside from that, everything works the exact same way every time you do it.
Edit - Oh, and I'm pretty sure the Mutalisk's bouncing projectile hits three random units rather then following a set path, so there is another very minor random element.
And also critter's wander in a random pattern, but most maps dont have them.
Chade on 17/6/2010 at 04:46
Isn't starting position random?
my starcraft memories require dusting
hooded_paladin on 17/6/2010 at 19:21
Oh yeah, that makes me realize: fog of war goes a long way towards messing up your strategy. If you can't see your opponent building and moving, you can't plan for a victory against every possible outcome.
SubJeff on 18/6/2010 at 00:58
A perfect Star Craft AI would know what you are doing behind the fog of war though, which is cheating really.
Alternatively it could extrapolate from your units exactly what path you are taking and counter it perfectly. I wouldn't be hard to make a perfect AI for any RTS (and having a perfect AI wouldn't mean that 2 AI would always draw if there is any random element in the game at all).
Don't confuse complexity of gameplay mechanics with complexity of the game. Chess has incredibly simple gameplay mechanics but very high game complexity.
Chade on 18/6/2010 at 01:37
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Alternatively it could extrapolate from your units exactly what path you are taking and counter it perfectly. I wouldn't be hard to make a perfect AI for any RTS (and having a perfect AI wouldn't mean that 2 AI would always draw if there is any random element in the game at all).
Don't confuse complexity of gameplay mechanics with complexity of the game. Chess has incredibly simple gameplay mechanics but very high game complexity.
By perfect AI, I believe we are talking about an AI which cannot be beaten on average (while not breaking any of the rules of the game, such as seeing through fog of war). I can't make sense of your post in that light.
Surely you don't believe that a perfect perfect starcraft AI would only need local optimisations?
SubJeff on 18/6/2010 at 01:40
By perfect AI I mean an AI which cannot be beaten by a human being unless that human being plays the perfect attack or counter-attack. An AI that does everything right in any circumstance.
