A simple question.

[Clement]

An AI leader is unhappy with you because they feel you are trying to win the game the same way as them.

Quite simply, do you like this design concept or not?

Personally i don't like it, i feel it is much too gamey and gets stuck firmly in the way of any possiblity of more subtle diplomacy being implemented at some point in the future, if Civ 5 ever does get to see more meaningful alliances and subtle diplomacy, i believe it is a game mechanic that will have to be changed or removed entirely.

 

[gingerbill]

its a difficult one . People want the AI to try and win and do its best , and i guess this is one way to do it . Personally i don't like it . I like to make allainces and friends . I like to RP a bit and not just build the most effiecent way everytime .

 

[Hormagaunt]

In all previous versions of the game, there is an evolving planet. Civilizations are rising, jostling against each other, going to war, establishing peace, so on and so forth. You, as the player, stand above that and have a view of winning or losing. The AI civs, being in the game, do not. They have no concept of "winning" versus "losing". Their concept is expansion, or study, or snootiness, or whatever. It's only because we are outside that we can consider win and loss.

When the game pops up with "You're trying to win the same way I am", that's an immersion breaker, instantly. It's no longer society building, or empire building, or glorious conquest, or anything like that; it becomes just a game.

Yes, I want the AI to do it's best towards it's goals. But I never want to hear about it. I don't want to hear "you're trying to conquer the world just as I am" or "you're trying to become a super-tech society like me", or "you're trying to dominate with your culture just as I am". And I especially don't want to hear anything with the words "win the game".



PS: It's also a really, really bad idea to have it as a diplomacy reason for disliking me. A peaceful civ should never hate me because I'm also peaceful. Gandhi says "You're trying to be more peaceful than me; I hate you for that!".

 

[Zen.]

In all previous versions of the game, there is an evolving planet. Civilizations are rising, jostling against each other, going to war, establishing peace, so on and so forth. You, as the player, stand above that and have a view of winning or losing. The AI civs, being in the game, do not. They have no concept of "winning" versus "losing". Their concept is expansion, or study, or snootiness, or whatever. It's only because we are outside that we can consider win and loss.

When the game pops up with "You're trying to win the same way I am", that's an immersion breaker, instantly. It's no longer society building, or empire building, or glorious conquest, or anything like that; it becomes just a game.

Yes, I want the AI to do it's best towards it's goals. But I never want to hear about it. I don't want to hear "you're trying to conquer the world just as I am" or "you're trying to become a super-tech society like me", or "you're trying to dominate with your culture just as I am". And I especially don't want to hear anything with the words "win the game".

I whole heartedly agree with this post. Well said. Thanks for posting.

 

[Babri]

Personally i don't like it, i feel it is much too gamey and gets stuck firmly in the way of any possiblity of more subtle diplomacy being implemented at some point in the future, if Civ 5 ever does get to see more meaningful alliances and subtle diplomacy, i believe it is a game mechanic that will have to be changed or removed entirely.

It should be an option whether you want an AI who wants to 'win' or not. So for example if you select 'Ruthless AI' in advanced options when starting up the game, only then AI will show such behaviours. Otherwise they'll just play as they are supposed to i.e to make the human player enjoy the game by providing him a good challenge but not frustate him.

 

[lschnarch]

I don't like this feature.

Allegedly they tried to make leaders more acting like humans. This clearly shows that they haven't understood anything.
The AI leaders try to simulate PLAYERS of a game, but in no way they simulate real human behavioiur in a real life situation.

It is a "feature" resulting from the same mindset as "pointiest sticks", "shiny things", GDRs and FOY.

 

[BobDole]

I like it but at the same time it never quite fits into the game mechanics. Either they are oblivious to winning the game and don't eliminate you/vote for you to win/etc., which feels unrealistic for a game, or they try to win and backstab/blindside you, but it feels unfair. It's never gonna work out perfectly I think.

 

[cman2010]

I dont like the feature at all, its funny I was one of the people to first come out and say I hated this but I got told constanly by civ 5 supporters "the ai is just playing to win". I play civ games for immersion and this is an immersion breaker.

 

[JP1]

There's a lot of things to complain about related to Civ5 diplomacy, but I think this is totally reasonable. From a purely gameplay point of view, it makes sense that you end up at odds with a person who is trying to win the same way as you.... You're likely fighting over the same resources, be they city-states, enemy capitals, wonders of the world, etc. From a historical/realism standpoint, if I'm trying to plot world domination and there's another guy on the other side of the the world whose goal it is to take all the same land I want, of course we'll be stand-offish. If I'm trying to get recognized as the pre-eminent cultural authority in the world, and someone else is building their own fancy, shiny wonders of the world to attract peoples' attention, we'll be a little angry at each other. And what's the alternative, an AI which will happily trade Uranium to a another player who's obviously going for domination, and then everyone's complaining about how idiotic the AI is?

Now if you were trying to make a case that the game is poor at figuring out what victory condition you are going for, and which one they SHOULD be going for...

 

[moysturfurmer]

Siam doesn't want to "win" it just wants to be the first nation to settle a habitable planet. Russia doesn't want to "win" it just wants to be recognized as the first nation to successfully develop into a cultural paradise. Greece don't want to "win" it just wants to control the world via control of the UN. etc etc I just solved every one of the game's problems with 3 sentences I'm a regular Henry Kissinger I'm so impressed with myself.

 

[Clement]

There's a lot of things to complain about related to Civ5 diplomacy, but I think this is totally reasonable. From a purely gameplay point of view, it makes sense that you end up at odds with a person who is trying to win the same way as you.... You're likely fighting over the same resources, be they city-states, enemy capitals, wonders of the world, etc. From a historical/realism standpoint, if I'm trying to plot world domination and there's another guy on the other side of the the world whose goal it is to take all the same land I want, of course we'll be stand-offish. If I'm trying to get recognized as the pre-eminent cultural authority in the world, and someone else is building their own fancy, shiny wonders of the world to attract peoples' attention, we'll be a little angry at each other. And what's the alternative, an AI which will happily trade Uranium to a another player who's obviously going for domination, and then everyone's complaining about how idiotic the AI is?

Now if you were trying to make a case that the game is poor at figuring out what victory condition you are going for, and which one they SHOULD be going for...

There is a turn-based game called galactic civilizations 2 where you can play the game to win just like in Civ 5, however you can also win as part of an alliance and you can make long lasting friendships with the AI factions, it opens the world up to all sorts of interesting diplomatic narratives which distract from the gamey parts while delivering immersion.

With Civ 5 i always feel as if i am playing poker or some other board-game around a table where all the other nations/players are my short term acquaintances at first but then later on, my inevitable long term enemies, i feel that Civ 5 is in need of a more indepth diplomatic system so that more variety becomes possible with each new game, and i think that the game concept we are discussing in this thread stands firmly in the way of that.

 

[JP1]

You can be trying to win the game in the same way as another person, but still be friends with him. Gunning for the same victory condition as someone else is just a diplomatic demerit, not a guarantee that they'll hate you. Although you'll often be at odds with that person, you won't be if you have enough other diplomatic merits with them.

I hear a lot of people say that they always end up with the entire world hating them, and I don't see that. (Unless you're warmongering, and then it's kind of inevitable.) I usually end up winning cultural/space/UN games with a lot of friends, many of whom I've been friendly with for many years.

 

[Clement]

You can be trying to win the game in the same way as another person, but still be friends with him. Gunning for the same victory condition as someone else is just a diplomatic demerit, not a guarantee that they'll hate you. Although you'll often be at odds with that person, you won't be if you have enough other diplomatic merits with them.

I hear a lot of people say that they always end up with the entire world hating them, and I don't see that. (Unless you're warmongering, and then it's kind of inevitable.) I usually end up winning cultural/space/UN games with a lot of friends, many of whom I've been friendly with for many years.

I usually end up being hated for fighting defensive wars that were declared on me, happened to me again in my first game after the last patch.

 

[cccv]

I am firmly on the side of immersion and roleplaying over "AI plays to win," but that debate has been done to death and isn't very interesting, since it comes down to a matter of taste. Civ V chose to go the "AI want to win" route and I have to accept that. Having said that, "you are trying to win the game the same way as the AI" is moronic for two reasons.

First, less importantly, they didn't need to go that far out of their way to kill immersion just for the sake of killing immersion. There's no reason they had to come out and explicitly use the word "game." They could say, I don't know, "the AI considers you an obstacle to their goals."

Second, having that as a negative modifier on the logic of "AI wants to win" makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the AI wants to win, then they don't want you to win, period. The how doesn't matter. Winning a space race victory will still prevent the AI from winning a culture victory, so the AI should still hate you. The only options that really make sense are, give all civs a negative modifier with all other civs simply because they're all playing to win, or scrap the modifier altogether.

 

[SuperJay]

Wait, the AI civs actually uses the words "win the game" in communications with the player??

Wow. Nothing like having the game remind you its a game!

 

[JP1]

First, less importantly, they didn't need to go that far out of their way to kill immersion just for the sake of killing immersion. There's no reason they had to come out and explicitly use the word "game." They could say, I don't know, "the AI considers you an obstacle to their goals."

I can at least agree with this... It couldn't hurt for the AI demerit you get for pursuing the same goal as them to be worded in a way which makes it sound a little more immersive. "They consider you an obstacle to their goals" sounds pretty good.

 

[Left Foot]

Hell no. That's the single most god-awful stupid diplomatic "factor" in the history of video-games. The fact that I'm trying to win should not affect diplomacy. Otherwise, why bother having diplomacy at all in a game with the AI? I'm always trying to win, so by extension the AI should always hate me for it.

And before you say, "Ah no, the AI doesn't like you because you are trying to win the game the same way that it is, not because you are trying to win in general", this concept makes even less sense.

Gandhi: "I don't mind that you are two turns from a diplomatic victory, but the fact that you tried to win through culture, like I did, makes me hate you with the heat of a billion burning suns"

 

[cccv]

Wait, the AI civs actually uses the words "win the game" in communications with the player??

Wow. Nothing like having the game remind you its a game!

It's in the tooltips when you look at why they're happy or mad with you. It says something like "They feel you are trying to win the game the same way as them, and they don't like it one bit!"

This gets even more hilarious/stupid when the AI decides this on turn 9, but that's a topic for another thread >.>

 

[esemjay]

Wait, the AI civs actually uses the words "win the game" in communications with the player??

Wow. Nothing like having the game remind you its a game!

It can work in certain types of games, but Civ isn't one of them. Metal Gear comes to mind... when you hear "Press the 'X' button" or "Quick! Change your controller to port two!" it is a quick immersion break that you immediately recognize and overcome. In Civ5, those words are there the entire game; you cannot escape it.

 

[eric_]

I'm one of apparently very few who *really* like ciV diplomacy. But, I don't like this particular modifier. It's too meta.