Conflict between RPG players and numbercrunshers

Veneke said:

Maybe it's changed but I'm pretty sure that few, if any, role-players (or narrativists/simulationists or whatever you want to call that crowd) are against the concept of the AI being able to win. Not trying to win is a different thing, especially if the alternative is the AI playing in a way that matches its 'flavour' and the in-game setting.

Click to expand...

These two are tied together. AI that is trying to win should be capable of winning unless human player prevents it from doing so. If it's not trying, it's not winning. You see people complaining AI is too aggressive, too expansive, too fast etc all the time. Even though it's not really trying to win, just pretending.

Unreasonable trading system, flavors that encourage some of the AI to wonderspam instead of making proper defense, AI is sitting back waiting for human player to win instead of taking actions to prevent that, sub optimal SP picks based on flavors etc. Very long list. Bottom line - AI is not trying to win and is not capable of winning.

Click to expand...

you are on the totaly wrong road there, the difference from a civ "wonderspaming" and one playing "normal" in their amount of units is like marginal and definatly smaller als the amount it d have with increasing difficulty just 1 step up.

All what u describe is just poor programing AND having a bad enough ai which lets average joe, who isnt really trying, win. But average joe isnt a "rpg guy", he s just too lazy (or not interested) to understand and learn game concepts.

Coding a RPG ai which acts really "special" would proly be even harder as just a clever one. So its just not there, even when many people d like it to be there and by imagination some proly think it is there ...

Kazdum said:

I find pathetic to start a game and restart it just because "I have a crappy start". it, make it work.

Click to expand...

On this I strongly disagree. I'm fine with people who like to play that way, but to say restarting is pathetic (or many other things it's been called up to and including cheating) is just silly.

Games take hours, days sometimes. I get or good start of I re-roll. Period. I don't have the time and I play for fun. Playing a game I know I will lose from turn 1 because I had a crappy start, is not fun.

i will often find myself rerolling because a start is TOO good, 4 silver or 4 salt etc

The Pilgrim said:

These two are tied together. AI that is trying to win should be capable of winning unless human player prevents it from doing so. If it's not trying, it's not winning. You see people complaining AI is too aggressive, too expansive, too fast etc all the time. Even though it's not really trying to win, just pretending.

Click to expand...

Perhaps I simply took it in the wrong context but when you responded to the question of what the RPG elements were (and I really think we're using the wrong terminology here but meh) with the bottom line being that the AI is incapable of winning I took that to mean that the AI would not try to win and could not win; the two being very different things. An AI trying not to win would be an AI acting in a manner people would consider reasonable and someway realistic, an AI that could not win essentially means that the game is a foregone conclusion which is not something I'd consider a core tenet (woo, BNW reference) of role-players; Kazdum's example being a strong case in point.

There seems to be some confusion between RPG and realism. There is no connection, nor does their need to be.

RPG elements are things like your cities and civ growing in power over time. Your land being worked and gaining in value. Trading, diplomacy, barbarians, all RPG elements. All the text in the CivPedia going into depth on things - RPG. You get the idea.

When a game can start out mixing Civs that didn't even exist in the same time periods (America in 4000 bc) you are clearly in for a world of disappointment if you favor realism.

Realism and something being realistic are not necessarily the same things. Clearly, the Civ series doesn't go in for realism but it has tended to create an AI that acts in a realistic manner; if you attack it, it will respond in kind (or try to anyway), if you attack its friends it'll be annoyed with you and so on.

What I really can't understand is where this notion of RPG elements came from. How trading, diplomacy, the civilopedia or barbarians are RPG-like I have no idea. I can see the argument for city development and unit advancement being RPG-like but the rest of the stuff really isn't. Those elements you're describing as RPG are not really RPG at all, some of them are (or potentially are) narrative-building mechanics but narratives are not RPGs. They're mechanics that help create a believable portrayal of a world in which you're directing a civilization to stand the test of time (as the saying went).

There are two different meanings for RPG.
1. it has characters, stats, power, and/or equipment for upgrade/improve.
2. it is about story narrative and doesn't even need stats.
I think this thread is the latter. I haven't tried role playing yet because I don't know how do that in G&K. I do plan to do some role playing in Brave New World.

The Pilgrim said:

Unreasonable trading system, flavors that encourage some of the AI to wonderspam instead of making proper defense, AI is sitting back waiting for human player to win instead of taking actions to prevent that, sub optimal SP picks based on flavors etc. Very long list. Bottom line - AI is not trying to win and is not capable of winning.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. The AI certainly is trying to win, in a way that suits whichever civ they happen to be. Remember "They think you are trying to win the game in the same manner as them"? Talk about breaking the fourth wall.

I don't really get some of the points you brought up. The AI does try to stop you from winning. I had a game where every AI civ declared war on me on the same turn, when I finished the Apollo Program. They just don't try to stop you from winning all the time. Because that would get old very quickly.

As for AI wonderspamming instead of building up defenses - gee, I do that too. And the AI declares war on me for it. It's not as though it's something only AIs do.

I don't see anything wrong with these "flavors". It's the AI playing to their civ's strengths. AI Egypt likes to build wonders; it makes perfect sense. Unless you want to see the Mongols trying for a diplomatic victory or the Huns going for the spaceship victory or things like that.

Ok, about the term 'rpg' I used in the opening:

English is not my first language, so I happen to use wrong terms. I ment to adress the idea that you should come as close to feel like leading a nation as possible. Meaning that the mechanics and values of objects in the game should be created in a way that makes them 'feel real'. Idealy this would mean that someone who has a college degree in history should be intuitively play the game the right way, even without ever looking at the rules, just by knowing how things worked and what they mean. Thats a bit far fetched but I hope you get what I'm trying to say.

About the AI and its goals: I think the AI shouldnt play to win the game. It should try to build a great nation, with a flavor matching the culture it represents. If that means it wins, cool. But that shouldnt be its goal. From my perspective, the AIs are part of the world. They are there for me to deal with. Its a little like the enemys in a first person shooter: They are there as parts of the environment, as part of the story. But I am the center of the story. Its me who wins or loses. The opponents can not win, they can only do a good job at entertaining me or they can fail with that. Thats all. The AIs in Civ should behave the same: they should be a tool to present a world I can play in.

Not sure I agree with the AI in FPS games being part of the story nor do I fully get the connection between a college history degree and Civ (which fudges history to suit its own ends) BSPollux, but your general points I quite agree with.

@Red Pearl - I think people are confusing RPG and RP. The former refers to a particular style of mechanics or gameplay that focuses on character advancement usually, but not always, within a narrative. The latter focuses on acting out a narrative in which human agency typically dictates the development of the plot, if not necessarily the plot itself. Civ includes elements of both, certainly, but I'm kinda left scratching my head when people start using them interchangeably.

let me clarify
1. When I played WoW I didn't feel like I was playing a specific role, I was just playing a game with stats and whatnot.
2. When I played Mass Effect 1 I role play my character(shepard). Sometimes my charactar is paragon, sometimes my character was renagade, and other time he was just evil. Now obviously Mass effect has stats and whatnot. I have play RPG that doesn't have stats but does have an objective(s).

Veneke said:

Not sure I agree with the AI in FPS games being part of the story nor do I fully get the connection between a college history degree and Civ (which fudges history to suit its own ends) BSPollux, but your general points I quite agree with.

Click to expand...

The AI enemys in a shooter are ment to be defeated my the player, theire failure to stop you is part of the plot. Thats what I ment.

And the history degree: Lets say theres a culture A thats known for a great militaristic campaign at some point of history. Now there is a UU to that nation in Civ called B. If the player knows about the historic meaning of B he should be able to use them correctly even if he never looked at the values and abilities of that unit.
Another example: Lets say the players nation has some internal problem. The player knows when and how that problem was encountered and fixed in real history. He then has a look at the techtree and know which tech to go for, without looking for aditional info.
That would be great.

@Red Pearl: I'm not terribly familiar with WoW but ME1 is a RPG, definitely. Civ really isn't. It can be roleplayed but I don't follow the comparison between ME1 and Civ 5.

@BSPollux: Well, aye, the game should certainly be intuitive and because it's based on history that all does kinda square.

WoW is an online RPG, perhaps the definition of online RPG.

The Pilgrim said:

Unreasonable trading system, flavors that encourage some of the AI to wonderspam instead of making proper defense, AI is sitting back waiting for human player to win instead of taking actions to prevent that, sub optimal SP picks based on flavors etc. Very long list. Bottom line - AI is not trying to win and is not capable of winning.

Click to expand...

But is not the only real alternative to this that each of the AI civs pretty much behave exactly the same?

I lose, but enjoy, the majority of my games! Does that make me an RPGer? If the numbercrunshers [sic] don't find the game challenging at Diety, are there not about 100 ways to give yourself an interesting handicap?

BSPollux said:

About the AI and its goals: I think the AI shouldn't play to win the game. It should try to build a great nation, with a flavor matching the culture it represents. If that means it wins, cool. But that shouldn't be its goal. From my perspective, the AIs are part of the world. They are there for me to deal with. It's a little like the enemies in a first person shooter: They are there as parts of the environment, as part of the story. But I am the center of the story. It's me who wins or loses. The opponents cannot win, they can only do a good job at entertaining me or they can fail with that. That's all. The AIs in Civ should behave the same: they should be a tool to present a world I can play in.

Click to expand...

I don't think this should be the default AI behavior, but I sure wish it were an option! I lost interest quickly with Civ3 and 4 because I could not really progress to the higher difficulty levels. I probably will miss this option when I get to Deity with Civ5. (So far, I am quite enjoying Immortal, with maybe a 1 in 3 success rate.)

beetle said:

But is not the only real alternative to this that each of the AI civs pretty much behave exactly the same?

Click to expand...

Pretty much this. This is what I was trying to say, but couldn't find the exact words for.

The_J said:

I guess some people here might be interested in this older article on Destructoid, which is also about the different types of players:

Click to expand...

Interesting article. I like the gamer categories they use : SIMULATIONIST, GAMIST, NARRATIVIST.

With that being said I always thought of myself as a Narrativist, but the in terms of the games being recommended for the different play styles, I thoroughly enjoy the ones in the Simulationist category.

tommynt said:

you are on the totaly wrong road there, the difference from a civ "wonderspaming" and one playing "normal" in their amount of units is like marginal and definatly smaller als the amount it d have with increasing difficulty just 1 step up.

All what u describe is just poor programing AND having a bad enough ai which lets average joe, who isnt really trying, win. But average joe isnt a "rpg guy", he s just too lazy (or not interested) to understand and learn game concepts.

Coding a RPG ai which acts really "special" would proly be even harder as just a clever one. So its just not there, even when many people d like it to be there and by imagination some proly think it is there ...

Click to expand...

It's an AI that is programmed around flavors and just sitting there and waiting for the game to end rather than optimal play and trying to win.

Veneke said:

Perhaps I simply took it in the wrong context but when you responded to the question of what the RPG elements were (and I really think we're using the wrong terminology here but meh) with the bottom line being that the AI is incapable of winning I took that to mean that the AI would not try to win and could not win; the two being very different things. An AI trying not to win would be an AI acting in a manner people would consider reasonable and someway realistic, an AI that could not win essentially means that the game is a foregone conclusion which is not something I'd consider a core tenet (woo, BNW reference) of role-players; Kazdum's example being a strong case in point.

Click to expand...

AI that is not trying to win is an AI that sits there and lets human players do their thing, whatever it is, without ever threatening them or causing to change their plans in any way. Many players don't care whether they lose or win and some get very upset when being beaten due to the play style they have chosen. So maybe in theory that specific group has no problem with the idea AI is capable of winning, however, in practice, such an AI completely lacks this capability.
I was not talking about bad coding, e.g. being unable to add the final SS part, tactical ineptness etc.

Red Pearl said:

There are two different meanings for RPG.
1. it has characters, stats, power, and/or equipment for upgrade/improve.
2. it is about story narrative and doesn't even need stats.
I think this thread is the latter. I haven't tried role playing yet because I don't know how do that in G&K. I do plan to do some role playing in Brave New World.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're probably right. The terminology is somewhat unclear and confusing, but I think I understand pretty well what OP meant.

LoneRebel said:

I beg to differ. The AI certainly is trying to win, in a way that suits whichever civ they happen to be. Remember "They think you are trying to win the game in the same manner as them"? Talk about breaking the fourth wall.

I don't really get some of the points you brought up. The AI does try to stop you from winning. I had a game where every AI civ declared war on me on the same turn, when I finished the Apollo Program. They just don't try to stop you from winning all the time. Because that would get old very quickly.

As for AI wonderspamming instead of building up defenses - gee, I do that too. And the AI declares war on me for it. It's not as though it's something only AIs do.

I don't see anything wrong with these "flavors". It's the AI playing to their civ's strengths. AI Egypt likes to build wonders; it makes perfect sense. Unless you want to see the Mongols trying for a diplomatic victory or the Huns going for the spaceship victory or things like that.

Click to expand...

Let me guess, you're an RPG'er in your heart?

That's the difference between RPG/Historical simulation/Empire building simulation or a hybrid of all and pure strategy.

BSPollux said:

I think the AI shouldnt play to win the game. It should try to build a great nation, with a flavor matching the culture it represents. If that means it wins, cool. But that shouldnt be its goal. From my perspective, the AIs are part of the world. They are there for me to deal with. Its a little like the enemys in a first person shooter: They are there as parts of the environment, as part of the story. But I am the center of the story. Its me who wins or loses. The opponents can not win, they can only do a good job at entertaining me or they can fail with that. Thats all. The AIs in Civ should behave the same: they should be a tool to present a world I can play in.

Click to expand...

And that's a complete opposite to everything 'numbercrunchers' believe in.

beetle said:

But is not the only real alternative to this that each of the AI civs pretty much behave exactly the same?

Click to expand...

Well, not exactly the same. Correct decisions are situational and all leaders have their unique perks. But it's an 4X game. The best way to play it is to explore, expand, exploit and exterminate. So the alternative is an AI that is actually trying to do these things.

Another and completely unrealistic option is to develop two different AI's, one for higher levels and one for low-mid levels. How about that, Firaxis?

I lose, but enjoy, the majority of my games! Does that make me an RPGer?

Click to expand...

Yes.

If the numbercrunshers [sic] don't find the game challenging at Diety, are there not about 100 ways to give yourself an interesting handicap?

Click to expand...

Yes.

It's an AI that is programmed around flavors and just sitting there and waiting for the game to end rather than optimal play and trying to win.

Click to expand...

think we can agree on that.
But thats how ais in every (strategy)game act - thats not like its civ rpg related