Diplomacy, which system?

Which system?

  • Point-System, less realistic

    Votes: 43 50.0%

  • Whatever the system is now, more realistic

    Votes: 43 50.0%
  • Total voters
    86
drubell said:
You know I actually would like that feature from the advisors. It would essentially be a gimp version of espionage but I do think that the advisors should be able to help point out the things you listed.

I still use the foreign advisor because I often forgot to redo trades or don't notice that I can make a good trade. I don't think I use the advisors otherwise except to occasionally check the pointy stick levels.
Click to expand...

I do the same thing, especially when my empire gets large. I could look at the new resource dropdown, but the foreign adviser sometimes will specifically say which resource and which civ would likely buy it.

Other than that, there isn't much use for that adviser. They could have easily added messages triggered by interactions with the AI such as:

After a trade or attempted trade with a deceptive AI -
"The Germans are no longer trading fairly with us. I don't trust them and fear they are working against us."

After you wiped out a competing civ or city state -
"Our conquests of entire civilizations have isolated us from most of the world. It's harmed our ability to trade and makes us a target for aggression."

After Oda denounced you at "friendly" status -
"The back-stabbing Japan empire has significantly harmed our reputation. It will be difficult for us build relations and trade fairly."

And so on... Or, they just could have left a point system.

For most of us the adviser information isn't necessary, but I can't tell you how many times I've seen LPs on YouTube where someone gets crappy trade proposals and can't figure it out. If they put in enough hours, or check into forums like this, then eventually they'd learn what was happening, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to hide that kind of information.

apocalypse105 said:
It doesn't even act like a player there are just so many negatif modifiers and a lot not evne visable to the palyer that diplomacy feels random
Click to expand...

There are probably too many, but most of them make sense. After playing the game for a year and a half I've come to accept most of them. The only ones that still annoy me are "trying to win the game in a similar manner" and the wonder jealousy one. I think the changes that link beliefs and values (religion and social policies) to positive & negative modifiers in the expansion will give diplomacy some of the depth and sensibility (for lack of a better word) most of us have wanted.
 
NotSure said:
I do the same thing, especially when my empire gets large. I could look at the new resource dropdown, but the foreign adviser sometimes will specifically say which resource and which civ would likely buy it.

Other than that, there isn't much use for that adviser. They could have easily added messages triggered by interactions with the AI such as:

After a trade or attempted trade with a deceptive AI -
"The Germans are no longer trading fairly with us. I don't trust them and fear they are working against us."

After you wiped out a competing civ or city state -
"Our conquests of entire civilizations have isolated us from most of the world. It's harmed our ability to trade and makes us a target for aggression."

After Oda denounced you at "friendly" status -
"The back-stabbing Japan empire has significantly harmed our reputation. It will be difficult for us build relations and trade fairly."

And so on... Or, they just could have left a point system.

For most of us the adviser information isn't necessary, but I can't tell you how many times I've seen LPs on YouTube where someone gets crappy trade proposals and can't figure it out. If they put in enough hours, or check into forums like this, then eventually they'd learn what was happening, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to hide that kind of information.



There are probably too many, but most of them make sense. After playing the game for a year and a half I've come to accept most of them. The only ones that still annoy me are "trying to win the game in a similar manner" and the wonder jealousy one. I think the changes that link beliefs and values (religion and social policies) to positive & negative modifiers in the expansion will give diplomacy some of the depth and sensibility (for lack of a better word) most of us have wanted.
Click to expand...

If they keep all those other negatif modifiers then it will still be a pain to conduct diplomacy because they are all so sensetive

You get you are winning the game in a similar manner when you're score is higher(even if it is 1 point or just when you are doing great

And same with city state influence when the game start the AI should pick ONE city state they are going to like instead they will pick 1/2 of them and become angry if you have influence

Same with wonders

I would like to see negatif modifiers who actually makes sence and who you can avoid whats the use of modifiers if you get them automaticly?
 
Well, the city states do control a win condition... for some reason. So, it makes sense for the AI to compete for them. As long as city states determine who wins a diplomatic victory it probably makes sense to leave it the way it is.

I agree about the similar strategy modifier. It's the most unreasonable imho. I can't understand how the AI knows my strategy before I do and then hates me for it. :crazyeye:

I don't mind that CiV has hyper-aggressive AI anymore. At this point it's obvious that's a design decision and it's not going to change. I would only ask the cranky little buggers to kinda make sense. I wouldn't mind if the AI gets mad at me 'cause my people are Hindu or whatever, because I made that decision, and religious tension is a real part of history. I don't want it to guess (at my victory strategy).
 
TheKingOfBigOz said:
Strangely enough, the ponit-ssytem leads 14-11. So people still want it back.
Click to expand...

Again, though, the current system essentially is a point system. The points are just hidden. A better question would be about transparency of the system. But as it is, I'm not sure how meaningful this poll can be, when it seems to simply ask whether you'd like a points system or a points system.
 
Glassmage said:
I like current system. They plan and denounce and cheat and lie just like real people. :)
Click to expand...

And when I want that experience, I'll fire up a multiplayer game :p
(Issues with mp notwithstanding.)

Which is sort of the problem here. The AI is *trying* to act like a human opponent, but the algorithms aren't quite there yet. So you get a facsimile of the more extreme irrationalities in human behavior - the guys you hate to play against - instead of a good pseudo-PvP emulation.

apocalypse105 said:
Its all hidden under the hood if forums like civfanatic , 2kgames doesn't exist how is the player supposed to know about the warmonger penalty?
Click to expand...

And that's the other problem about trying to make human-like AI. If you were playing against a human player, you wouldn't expect to know those things at all; but because it's AI, we do have that expectation.
 
I'd like a points-like system but one that is not one-dimensional, so that when it's used in AI decisions it would seem a bit more natural.

For example, have points for:

Is the rival trustworthy/untrustworthy?
Aggressive/Passive?
Greedy/Generous?
Powerful/Weak?

and more.

I'd prefer the points to be hidden but there must be a way to be able to gauge their relationship with you and other AIs.
 
Camikaze said:
Again, though, the current system essentially is a point system. The points are just hidden. A better question would be about transparency of the system. But as it is, I'm not sure how meaningful this poll can be, when it seems to simply ask whether you'd like a points system or a points system.
Click to expand...

See by know I get it, I can't change the poll now though can I :p

And people still want the old system back ANYWAYS, while it has the points, the new system doesn't show it, and many people don't even know it's there, infact, it doesn't seem like there is a point system in place. The new system is bad because the AI doesn't forget and doesn't forigve, It's hard to get a Friendly Nation but easy to get Hostile/Guarded Nation, especially Guarded is just ever so easy to achieve.
 
aatami said:
The current system is better, it's realistic where the IV system is just another thing to abuse.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's realistic, i.e in real life, it's realistic as a point of view if the AI is human, then I guess I can understand that a player iwll get annoyed with everything another player does.

I think the main issue with the current system is how, again, it's easy to annoy the AI, and it's difficult to make him like you, which I actually see it as an issue on how many diffrent weights there are on various opinions (Land, Victory, CS, etc). There' few positive modifiers that the AI can choose from and there's plenty of modifiers that actually make him hate you.
 
TheKingOfBigOz said:
See by know I get it, I can't change the poll now though can I :p

And people still want the old system back ANYWAYS, while it has the points, the new system doesn't show it, and many people don't even know it's there, infact, it doesn't seem like there is a point system in place. The new system is bad because the AI doesn't forget and doesn't forigve, It's hard to get a Friendly Nation but easy to get Hostile/Guarded Nation, especially Guarded is just ever so easy to achieve.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. It doesn't forget and forgive the points that you earn from being adjudged to be a warmonger, though. The points system requires more flexibility so that the points you get from being a warmonger (which is what pushes you to hostile or guarded) can either decay or be outweighed by other points.
 
Camikaze said:
Yes, I agree. It doesn't forget and forgive the points that you earn from being adjudged to be a warmonger, though. The points system requires more flexibility so that the points you get from being a warmonger (which is what pushes you to hostile or guarded) can either decay or be outweighed by other points.
Click to expand...

Exactly, half of the things never disappear, like if I refused or denounced you while being friends, like, c'mon. That's in the past, let's move on.

And quite frankly I rarely ever see ANY positive modifiers late in the game.
 
aatami said:
The current system is better, it's realistic where the IV system is just another thing to abuse.
Click to expand...

Really I don't care about realisme

If i play a single player game of civilization I would like to have a fun experience and see my civilization grow and play like I want it because I am the king like sid meiers said:
" its good to be king feeling"

Diplomacy is a important part in this how you interact with other people reflect what kind of ruler you are.

How you turn it civilization still is a empire management and building game and if you are trying to make the AI act like a competitive human you basicly change the genre and thats why people start threats like this


Why do you thinx the AI in civilization revolution is so agressive and competitive because it is made for a other genre of players the console gamers who usally play online and competitive games !!!!!!!!!
 
apocalypse105 said:
How you turn it civilization still is a empire management and building game and if you are trying to make the AI act like a competitive human you basicly change the genre and thats why people start threats like this
Click to expand...

The introduction of hexes and 1UPT in Civ5 makes the current installment of the series at least as much a war strategy game as it is an empire management game.

Why would a competitively playing AI change the genre or the target audience? If it played competitively (like in, say, GalCiv2 or M.A.X,) without getting massive bonuses while the player gets massive penalties, and you could win at higher difficulties by playing better rather than by exploiting AI issues, I feel that the game would only benefit in every way.

There would also still be easier difficulty levels if you wanted a passive or less able AI where you could just have fun without the AI forcing you to play briskly and sharply.
 
The way its shown to us isn't the problem, ie points or no points. Its what the AI uses to gauge how it sees you. When something like you are trying to win the same way we are can cause a denouncement or war diplo is useless.

As they system stands now diplo is pretty much ignored when I play. I like how its laid out now as opposed to Civ 4 but when it works the way it does now a point system would be better to understand whats going on as I feel the AI is trying to be a person playing the game rather then the leader of a Civ.
 
Rupe said:
The way its shown to us isn't the problem, ie points or no points. Its what the AI uses to gauge how it sees you. When something like you are trying to win the same way we are can cause a denouncement or war diplo is useless.

As they system stands now diplo is pretty much ignored when I play. I like how its laid out now as opposed to Civ 4 but when it works the way it does now a point system would be better to understand whats going on as I feel the AI is trying to be a person playing the game rather then the leader of a Civ.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I prefer the AI to be a Leader rather than a psychopatic killer who just wants my lands.
 
The current AI makes decision randomly instead of judging a situation properly. It seems like they toss a coin to make decisions & try to take down the human player which leads to unrealistic & gamey experience. I would prefer point system as it atleast makes some sense. I would definately love (a true) more human-like AI will but that would need extensive AI programming & probably not economically feasible for developers right now.
 
What I would favor is a point system... that does not determine what the AI does

Instead it determines costs/benefits of AI and human action

So because an AI gave me a gift, I am now friendly to them, so if I declare war on them, I will lose Happiness temporarily.

On the other hand, if the AI has settled near me, or is a warmonger, then I am unhappy with them, so declaring war on them might cause me to gain Happiness temporarily, trading with them might cause me to lose Happiness temporarily.


The AI and the human would be affected by the same system... both are capable of declaing war on a Friend if they are willing to pay the Happiness cost. (if the AI is pursuing a Conquest win, it will come after its Friends.. but it will pay a Happiness cost in doing so)

So you would now (transparent) the part of the AIs calculation that weighed "happiness cost". but you wouldn't know
Their assesment of the Other risks and gains for going to war... including their guess that you will go to war first... that would vary from AI to AI, depending on their goals and your behavior.
 
civ 5 system is better and it's not even close. realism trumps predictability IMO
 
The AI needs to be reworked so these late game dogpiles end. Development of diplomacy needs to be spread out and not so absolute, yet needs to include intrigue, unseen events, and surprise, of course backstabbing, yet reasoning as well. If you break this certain rule= instanst outlaw= for the rest of the game= IMO no fun. Get rid of warmongering penalties that last the entire game. Or put a better system of reward in to help bring nations slowly together again. Time heals things. Yeah we fought bloody wars ages ago, but we would not think about doing it now. The US and Great Britain are an example, they fought bloody battles in the past, but have been allies for a long time. If real life used CiV's system we'd be fighting the Brits now and vice versa. And don't give me that its just a game crap. The game is made by man, thought up by man, by those who think like man. Man of course meaning man/woman because females work at Firaxis too don't they? But you get the point.

BTW the poll needs a third option= CiV needs a definte new reworked system for diplomacy. Yay!!! Its going to get one.
 
TheKingOfBigOz said:
I don't think it's realistic, i.e in real life, it's realistic as a point of view if the AI is human, then I guess I can understand that a player iwll get annoyed with everything another player does.

I think the main issue with the current system is how, again, it's easy to annoy the AI, and it's difficult to make him like you, which I actually see it as an issue on how many diffrent weights there are on various opinions (Land, Victory, CS, etc). There' few positive modifiers that the AI can choose from and there's plenty of modifiers that actually make him hate you.
Click to expand...
Your point is irrelevant (and all points of the same type are as well): To my understanding, we are discussing about and comparing the systems them selves, and not small perks that can be easily patched and modified without making a whole new diplomacy system...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

KayAU
Which are your favourite civs (in Vox Populi or vanilla)?
Replies
6
Views
3K
Darth Tribble
Darth Tribble
R
Possibility of bringing success chance back to espionage system
2 3
Replies
42
Views
3K
azum4roll
A
rsc2a
(7a) VP Events Overhaul (Expansion Pack system)
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
APLion
A
Tigranes
Oppenheimer and DoC
Replies
9
Views
825
brett0007
brett0007
S
  • Locked
(7-21) Sabotage Production Spy Mission Redesign [Spy Update 9]
Replies
5
Views
342
axatin
A
Top Bottom