I miss the times when a beta tester was paid for his job.
Are you pre-ordering?
- Thread starter EgonSpengler
- Start date
- Status
Last edited:
Obviously it sounds really self-centered to announce to the world I'm not buying this game day 1 anymore (I won't) but maybe it's some use to other potential buyers who don't feel like watching the battle royale before making a decision or for publishers/developers looking for why potential costumers won't buy Civ VI. And it's not like writing down opinions hurts anyone. Single player AI is a very important aspect of TBS and grand strategy games because single player is so much more accessible than multiplayer in the genre. And bad AI can really ruin the experience. For example one of the biggest issues with CK2 for a while was also that AI rulers kept seducing everyone, which seems like a minor error/annoyance but in practice can ruin so much of the fun. The battle royale showed so many faults to the AI that i don't think I can properly enjoy single player games against them. There's no use pretending the AI doesn't matter because it clearly does.
Still it was a brave decision by the publishers/developers to do this battle royale before release (I suspect 2K made the decision) and I'll applaud them for that.
Still it was a brave decision by the publishers/developers to do this battle royale before release (I suspect 2K made the decision) and I'll applaud them for that.
Zhahz
PC Gamer
I'm not going to repost the epic I put in the "royale" thread and I don't see the point in starting multiple threads on the same topic (moderation is neato).
But the bottom line is, ok.
If you're going to base your purchase decision on ONE AI vs AI game, when that's not even how Civ is designed (it's designed to feature players) then....ok
Seems akin to picking your next car based on a bike ride.
If you're convinced that is representative of a game with unlimited replay and that all AI vs AI games would play out the same way, so be it (even if they even discuss variance in such matches IN the video/stream).
Dunno why you need to share, but ok.
But the bottom line is, ok.
If you're going to base your purchase decision on ONE AI vs AI game, when that's not even how Civ is designed (it's designed to feature players) then....ok
Seems akin to picking your next car based on a bike ride.
If you're convinced that is representative of a game with unlimited replay and that all AI vs AI games would play out the same way, so be it (even if they even discuss variance in such matches IN the video/stream).
Dunno why you need to share, but ok.
Games got more complex over the last two decades. Beta testers can only do so much, and even a robust Quality Assurance team pales in comparison to millions of players playing the game in ways never imagined by the developers.
This has been the reality of computer gaming for at least several years. It is not going to chance any time soon.
Well, our point of view is that these conclusions aren't from one game and we're quite certain we know how the AI will work in the release because:
1. In the pre-release the AI (from videos) was already really easy to conquer and had a lot of failings. Basically just build 2 slingers, upgrade them to archers, take those plus your warrior to the enemy and you win an easy war. Later on it doesn't get any more difficult and AI doesn't seem good at winning wars in general. So we were looking how it improved in the newest version but:
2. Not only did it not improve (AI only built decent armies when they had unique units) but the AI developer straight up said that domination victories never happened and at most 3 capitals got taken. Once again, even with overwhelming military AI can't win wars and later on they have really crappy defensive armies.
3. Multiple civs had poor settling/developing which points to it being a general AI problem and not one specific to the terrain that the AI happened to have.
4. A lot of people expected these problems because of poor AI in Civ 5. To see an expectation confirmed (we hoped to be proven wrong) is a powerful thing.
Besides, in most maps half of the AI won't even interact meaningfully with the player for most of the game. So yes they have to be able to interact properly with each other which can be tested in AI vs AI. And the lead AI developer didn't seem surprised at anything that happened, so I assume what happened was normal.
The AI has always been weak, but that has not stopped me from enjoying 2682 hours of Civ 5, according to Steam (definitely inflated from AFK time), as well as several hundred hours of Civ 4, 3, 2, and 1.
The various write ups and videos let me see the play style, features, innovations, and weaknesses of the game. And thus far I am quite enthused.
Chances are that I will get far more than my money's worth, just as I have with all of the other Civ games. If you wish to be more cautious with your money, all the power to you.
Then I'm glad I don't buy games at release anymore. But this particular game hasn't been touched by "millions of players playing the game in ways never imagined by the developers", a stream run by the developers already exposed a major problem, yet people feel a need to buy the game to support.
Xyriach
Chieftain
I'm buying the game because I want it. Just like I wanted Civ 2,3,4 and 5...it's got nothing to do with support, it's plain wanton avarice.
In an article a few months ago professional AI programmers believe they have a program that will challenge the masters of the game Go. 1000s of hours we're put into the program and near the end the program played itself over and over to understand all of the permutations. We all want an AI that will play as well as we do (we'll not quite, we don't want to get beat) but as others have said that's just not realistic...
Zantetsuken
Chieftain
At least at the current moment anyway. One can dream though.. *whimsical sigh*
AinEiken
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2016
- Messages
- 16
The AI has always been weak, but that has not stopped me from enjoying 2682 hours of Civ 5, according to Steam (definitely inflated from AFK time), as well as several hundred hours of Civ 4, 3, 2, and 1.
The various write ups and videos let me see the play style, features, innovations, and weaknesses of the game. And thus far I am quite enthused.
Chances are that I will get far more than my money's worth, just as I have with all of the other Civ games. If you wish to be more cautious with your money, all the power to you.
I agree - the game is, at least for me, more than *just* the AI.
Sure, you need a decent enemy to compete and to polish your skills. So far, every CIV-AI lived and worked mainly through cheating (bonuses). But that's okay - you had to refine your strategy to compete with that (and not superb but generic AI-driven decisions).
But I'll play that game anyway. Don't need an additional meaning after the release. And yeah: money is money.
But 60 € or $ is fairly cheap for a potential zousands hours of play. Pff.
Some of us just want to play early, and don't particularly mind a weak AI as we set about exploring the game and its new features over the following weeks. If they improve the AI, great. If they don't, I'll just retchet up the difficulty level again.
Plus Ultra
Conquistador
Oh, this again.
Yes, bad Firaxis, evil Firaxis!
If not for mindless fanboys like myself that pre-order without understanding the severe consequences of such behaviour, this game would have perfect AI on release... damn those Civfanatics, they ruined Civ!
Yes, bad Firaxis, evil Firaxis!
If not for mindless fanboys like myself that pre-order without understanding the severe consequences of such behaviour, this game would have perfect AI on release... damn those Civfanatics, they ruined Civ!
Last edited:
jjkrause84
King
Exactly. The discount is the only reason I ever pre-order anything. I've been burned once or twice (Rome 2...), but even then it is not so bad as I tend to only buy 1-2 games a year (if that). I'm willing to gamble the price of a standard dinner date on a game series I've loved since childhood.
+1, people act like the AI is the only fun part about CIV games. For me, learning different strategies with different civs, optimizing tile yields, tech paths, timings etc. is entirely independent from the AI performance. It's important for the longevity of the game that Firaxis keeps working on improving AI decision making and tweaking unit upgrade paths but I'm pretty confident that it can be tweaked with good feedback from the community.
Abraxis
☮
There are always other ways to increase the difficulty as well, independent of AI. Waiting at the beginning for variable amount of time gives you basically infinite scalability even with braindead AI. You can also just play against yourself, for the most part. Seeing how quickly you can achieve a space race, what your highest score can be, one city challenges, or adopting an underdog civ mid-game and trying to make them win.
Obviously being limited to doing these things isn't ideal, but for me at least it's enough that I'm not too concerned about a malfunctioning AI on release. From what I've seen it seems competent enough at least for me to have my own fun around it. I'm at least confident Firaxis won't abandon this series before giving this game as much love as they gave Civ5, turning it into the masterpiece I think Civ5 BNW is.
Civ6, meanwhile, already looks like it's off to a much better start. And I am significantly more intrigued by the unstacked cities than I was about the unstacked units. All the systems in fact seem to have a lot more potential.
I'm still not really confident about the decision, and I don't think ore-ordering was really that smart, but I can easily live with the worst case scenario, and best case seems too good to let slip by. I would have easily payed $80 to play the limited press build we've been seeing.
Obviously being limited to doing these things isn't ideal, but for me at least it's enough that I'm not too concerned about a malfunctioning AI on release. From what I've seen it seems competent enough at least for me to have my own fun around it. I'm at least confident Firaxis won't abandon this series before giving this game as much love as they gave Civ5, turning it into the masterpiece I think Civ5 BNW is.
Civ6, meanwhile, already looks like it's off to a much better start. And I am significantly more intrigued by the unstacked cities than I was about the unstacked units. All the systems in fact seem to have a lot more potential.
I'm still not really confident about the decision, and I don't think ore-ordering was really that smart, but I can easily live with the worst case scenario, and best case seems too good to let slip by. I would have easily payed $80 to play the limited press build we've been seeing.
Last edited:
You should see a Civ5 AI battle and compare. Civ5 AI is a mess... got so many troops that it cant even move them. While Civ6 AI isn't perfect, I actually think it is an improvement over civ5.
When you see an AI that has warriors in late game, it's a matter of bad upgrade design - there's no upgrade alternative when you dont have iron or niter. This has nothing to do with the AI. An expansion with units can fix this, better mapbuilding can fix this and a mod with units can fix this.
I'm not worried at all to be honest.
When you see an AI that has warriors in late game, it's a matter of bad upgrade design - there's no upgrade alternative when you dont have iron or niter. This has nothing to do with the AI. An expansion with units can fix this, better mapbuilding can fix this and a mod with units can fix this.
I'm not worried at all to be honest.
LMAO. I think there's a little bit of that in all of us!
- Status
