that's why AI can only as good as it's creator, as it uses the creator's logic to beat the player. The Dev are supposely good players as they are the one who create the game.
Well... yes and no.
To begin with, I've written a large post on AI fundamentals elsewhere in the forums.
But, 1) AI can absolutely surpass it's creator.
It's like saying a computer cannot perform computations more complex than it's programmer. That's hardly true. It would also imply that the programmers of Deep Blue are far and away the absolute grandmasters of chess. This is also false.
The problem is the underlying statement "uses the creator's logic". You have to actually understand how decisions are made and WHAT an AI actually is, in order to make sense of that. And to be completely honest, I'm not entirely sure that you do.
It must be understood that mathematics and logic are closely related languages. If any part of that statement is a concept which strikes you as untrue, there's no need to read any further.
Under an absolute system, there are truths and falsehoods. 1 is less than 2. 1 and 1 is not 3. And so forth.
From this, we can build more complicated statements of truth and falsehood. 1 and 3 make 4. 4 is greater than 1. 4 is greater than 3. Therefore the sum of two positive integers is greater than either integer alone.
From there, we create futher complexities - conditional statements. If the sum of two values is greater than 6, then it shall be performed.
And that, at the fundamental level, is the actual Logic used by an AI. Logic is the only Logic there is. Anything else is Illogic.
Where the creator's input comes in is two fold: the application of rules and the assignment (and calculation) of values.
If at war, then:
If value of current army is equal to or less than X, then increase until value is X+10
To determine value, reference units available to chart 1 (value of units)
If value of current army is greater than X, then:
Compare value of current army to value of neighboring factions
If value of current army, etc....
More complicated forms include a consideration of the likelihood of an event to discount the value of an event, and so forth. To really get a more in depth discussion, search for an AI thread under my name.
So actually, the creator's skill is, largely, irrelevant. They need be able to create the proper conditional rules and such that enable an AI to 1) perform various tasks, and 2) know when to perform various tasks.
You could be the best starcraft or TF2 or whatever player around - doesn't mean you can create a really good AI in the same game. And you can be a really really bad player at a game, and still create a very good AI. Which happens frequently - because an AI program is just that - a program. A set of instructions, performed step by step. It's humans who deviate constantly, who write and rewrite rules as we go, who make irrational decisions and attempt to rationalize them.
At worst, the AI is unrefined. The sets of rules it follows is complete (in that it works at all), but lacks in variety (in that it does not know to do certain things). The table of values it references for decision making is likewise unbalanced - the AI over values some things, and completely devalues others in a manner that far and away most humans would not agree with under most circumstances.
But this also leads me to 2) just because you create something doesn't mean you are good at it. What does it take to be a programmer? or a game maker? Well, the ability to code instructions in a machine language. That's one person. Then there's art. That's another. A writer. A guy who simply thinks things up. Another guy who turns imaginary things into discrete things. A set of guys who run through make sure it all works. Another set that make sure things aren't unbalanced. So on and so forth.
But just because, for example, you wrote (a portion) of the code that is the game, doesn't mean you are awesome at it. It doesn't give you any special ability or insight, or any of that. Chances are, in any online game you've played with strangers, you have, at one point or another, played with someone involved in making games (and possibly even that game). And called them a noob.
The best players at Quake, or WoW, or Starcraft weren't the people who made it. They generally don't even rank in the top players (probably because they are busy making games and fixing exploits the top players find).
So cut a little slack They are only human...