1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Basic question re AI: RTS versus TBS

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Stringer1313, Jan 25, 2019.

  1. kaltorak

    kaltorak Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,522
    Location:
    Madrid
    Lol would be great, but it's the opposite. When a game is real time, and you have to to click 4 buildings for constructing units, order 15 units to advance, and send 3 workers gathering different materials while planing an expansion, all at the same time, then the AI shines. Not the opposite. The more time doesnt make the machine better (at least not much). But the less time does make the player worse.
    If starcraft would be a game that is paused and just moves as you click advance, no AI would win a pro player ever.
     
    cvb and Infixo like this.
  2. legalizefreedom

    legalizefreedom Inefficiency Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    625
    Location:
    Texas
    Many of your points are the way you personally see things. Everything you say about simulation, could also be said about 4th wall puzzles, etc.

    When you're dealing with things, logic works. When you're dealing with people, feel works.

    I'm not defending or advocating the game design of VI, only stating that some folks find entertainment in very different ways within the confines of a game. As evidence, GS launches, I start a game of BERT...

    For example: I play starcraft like a TBS. Wait, isn't starcraft all about the twitch? Not for me. There are a vast number of starcraft players that would state as fact I'm playing the game wrong and my desires for the game (like not having game speed tied to difficulty) had no merit, but you know what? They do for me. It seems so shallow to me to simply click/think faster to win.

    In Civ, victory conditions are clicking faster to win. I'm just not into fast strategy. So sue me.
     
    Equilin likes this.
  3. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,817
    Civ 6/games in general are not people. I know the UN and other morality fools get confused about that, but we can do better :).

    That is why there are different games, game genres, and non-video game entertainment.

    What I'm calling out are statements with logic akin to "I hate all games unless they have dominoes", then in the next sentence saying that chess is that same person's favorite game. That isn't coherent, and it shouldn't be used to inform decisions about how chess should be designed or played. Alphazero shouldn't start putting foreign objects on the chess board.

    Not for anybody optimizing to win. The event that started this thread is evidence.

    In StarCraft, if you join games with teammates and don't attempt to destroy opponents' bases you'd be rightfully banned for griefing. What you do on your own in SP doesn't matter, but it still shouldn't influence how StarCraft is designed or units are balanced.

    As I said, if the developers don't anticipate that the game is fun, they should make the game differently. There's no law stating that Civ needs 4+ victory conditions, single winners, or any particular VC or rule. Those were all things the devs intentionally put in the game. Why, then, are they openly admitting they don't think the game when played to incentives is fun by instructing their AIs in the spot of a human player not to play it?

    Nobody seems to be able to answer for that one.

    What is "wrong" is using incoherent rationale as a basis for how the game should work. You get arbitrary results and a lower quality game.

    Civ AIs that lead civ *are* gamers in a game. They are competing players taking a slot that could also be a human, and operating under the same rules as a human.

    The quoted logic is incoherent. Civ 6 rules represent the world in which the Civ 6 leaders "live". When Civ 6 leaders ignore the game rules, they literally *can't* be behaving historically. The concept is an oxymoron. Historical leaders didn't ignore their incentives.

    Quoted feeling of "realism" is objectively fake.

    What do you think would happen if someone winning the space race meant "game over" - the other country couldn't continue to exist? Not only did USA/USSR consider war and engage in proxy wars in real history, but I expect nukes would fly under this hypothetical.

    Exactly right. In the game, the incentive is to attack. So the player/AI should attack if trying.

    You seem to be misunderstanding the proposed solution.

    I'm advocating completely changing the rules of the game, not going into some advanced tech AI design. My whole point is that so long as the devs consider the design of the game itself poor, having a good AI isn't even a practical goal.
     
    Last edited: Feb 22, 2019
  4. legalizefreedom

    legalizefreedom Inefficiency Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    625
    Location:
    Texas
    But the way people consume games as entertainment does lean to the feel.

    There is virtually no such thing as a perfect game for an individual, so we play the closest match while tweaking the experience to our preferences.

    All the stuff you advocate for is perfectly fine with me. Refining the game is unquestionably good.

    Just because you can always "win" with domination, for example, doesn't mean that everyone enjoys playing that way. I would rather play the way I find the most entertaining and leave the victory focus for min/maxers. It's just not the primary driving force behind my play. It's a requirement, but not the reason I play.

    And maybe the AI has a bit of that frivolous, impractical spirit...
     
  5. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,817
    "Feel" is still derived from something in tangible reality. The game doesn't just display a picture of rocks and ask people to "feel" like they're having fun playing it. We can at least strongly suspect the "fun" therefore comes from properties of the thing (aka Civ 6). It's what the thing does vs doesn't do that's in question.

    If a given person X claims that Y mechanic makes them feel good or bad, we should soundly reject their position if they arbitrarily enjoy or dislike Y without apparent reason.

    Nearly every "AI should behave historically/role play" argument carries that fundamental flaw. Players are literally arguing against history in the name of history, and considering it a valid point. Whatever Civ 6 designers ultimately choose, it would be nonsense to reject history in the name of history. That has no control for anticipated experience, nor does it give coherent basis for shaping mechanics.

    If AI trying in Civ 6 wouldn't be fun, that's a flaw in the properties of Civ 6. If Civ 6 intends to incentivize things other than military as a primary vehicle to victory it fails. This is not the fault of the AI. It needs to be fixed first, before the AI CAN truly be "fixed".

    On that note, the following things are irrelevant to this particular back and forth discussion:


    Finally...

    There's no evidence that WE have "spirits" (unless we're talking alcohol, then maybe :p). The AI just does what it's been programmed to do. Right now, that is something other than consistently playing Civ 6.
     
  6. CornPlanter

    CornPlanter Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,066
    Location:
    Lithuania
    I don't see anything incoherent about my rationale.

    And I am saying rules as you propose would require advanced tech AI design if they are complex enough to offer both challenge and immersion only by providing AI "realistic" initiatives to work with.
     
    Equilin likes this.

Share This Page