Can we do anything to make Firaxis devote more resources to improving AI?

[hdbhdbvGFG541]

Nobody cares about "a lot of people". They can go play something else. The type of person who plays Civ does want to spend 8+ hours on a game, and would love to get beat on occasion. The plebs can stick with simcity.

Well firaxis does care about a lot of people.Every single decision tehy make is based on making a lot of people happy.
Simcity is too complicated for the casuals but they can play civ 6 while boasting that they are playing a complicated genre,and they can't loose do its a double win.

Also there won't be vox populi or similar mods for civ 6.Their decision to go after a larger audience will make the modders abandon it.In fact the mod scene is pretty much a joke compared to what existed in civ v vanilla.

 

[steveg700]

The thing is, a lot of people don't actually want better AI. As one of the first posts said, Civ is more sandbox than strategy. Most gamers don't have 8+ hours to spend (and I know a lot of people play matches for far longer) to lose.

People's time is so valuable these days, that the trend is for longer games to become more casual and games with really short play cycles (roguelikes, racing, minigame, etc) contain more lose conditions, because it doesnt make the user feel like they wasted their time.

If they wanted to improve the AI, it isn't terribly difficult. The issue is that civ just doesn't need to (and perhaps shouldn't?) be difficult anymore.

I think you're making a lot of generalizations about both game design and game players that are pretty questionable in terms of veracity.

At any rate, there are things that need improving that fall way short of the AI becoming capable of losing. There's basic stuff, like the AI not walking a lone siege unit up to a player's well-protected city.

 

[omega4]

This is a great point.

I always wondered why there are so many space Civ games (stellaris, gal civ, endless space, others) but no game even close to Civ. I mean Firaxis does a pretty good job of the game but that doesn't explain why there shouldn't be any competition. If there was, perhaps Firaxis would go the extra mile with the fans instead of ignoring them until they need to sell us something and perhaps really try to push the envelope with respect to Civ.

The best hope I think is with Stardock. They seem to like the 4X genre. Perhaps with Jon Shafer on board they may think about making their own Civ-type game.

The other games devs aren't focused on "catering to the masses" the way Civ games do. If anything, those other games are looking to outdo each other in complexity and micromanagement in some form or another.

For me, Civ games have just the right amount of complexity (if you can call it that). Anything more and I'd walk away from Civ much like the other 4X games out there.

 

[Wingednosering]

As a programmer with some AI coding experience and active Civ 6 player I have the following impressions:

1) The AI itself is fine, but full of bugs, which makes it bad.

2) The bugs are not necessarily (or only) in the AI code but may also be present in other parts of the game which interacts with the AI code, making AI look dumb.

3) Having only one AI programmers is fine, this type of work is difficult to distribute between more than one person.

4) Neural nets and self learning computers are neither required nor needed to write a good AI for a game. This whole topic is so lame…

5) The negative effect of complexity of the game on the AI code as discussed here is a huge exaggeration. It’s not that difficult to write a competent looking AI for a complex game, and certainly not impossible.

6) In general I see no signs of bad AI per se, because the cases I see are all individual cases which can be associated with a particular bug or deficiency (eg.: low usage of airplanes). But together they add up to a general experience of bad AI.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: civ should really implement potential fields to improve the combat/map level AI.

Diplomatic AI definitely needs to be reworked. I am of the opinion that most of the rest of the AI issues aren't really worth the monetary investment. Even if that is a bitter pill for us fanatics to swallow.

I think you're making a lot of generalizations about both game design and game players that are pretty questionable in terms of veracity.

At any rate, there are things that need improving that fall way short of the AI becoming capable of losing. There's basic stuff, like the AI not walking a lone siege unit up to a player's well-protected city.

Yes and no. I'm a regular gamer and a game developer that's really in touch with the indie scene. Like it or not, short game loops are in right now because people's time is more valuable than ever. Longer game loops like this are a dying breed.

It's tough to sell investors on a premise of:

- We don't appeal to casual gamers (too difficult)
- We don't subscribe to any modern gaming trends (microtransactions)
- We aren't catering to people that like short games (90%+ of the market these days)

At the end of the day, there are stakeholders at Firaxis that NEED returns and financial forecasts. They need to make the audience as wide as possible for Civ, even if it is an established franchise with lots of players. Make it too difficult and you drive away any casual/mid-level players. This has been shown with analytics and case studies. Even the idea of a difficulty setting is being frowned upon these days (with good reason).

 

[omega4]

I am of the opinion that most of the rest of the AI issues aren't really worth the monetary investment. Even if that is a bitter pill for us fanatics to swallow.

Well, I am of the opinion that if devs like Firaxis don't think fixing the AI and Civ6 bugs aren't really worth the monetary investment, then my buying the rest of the Civ6 products isn't worth my monetary investment as well.

Fortunately, I only wasted $12 on Civ6 and 2 DLCs via HumbleBundle.

I'm so glad I'm not foolish enough to pre-order any game, including Civ6.

 

[Wingednosering]

My point is that our community is just a few hundred people. We are an absolutely tiny minority. Most players don't notice or care about the AI issues (proven with basic analytics. heck, check the steam achievements). They do listen to us, but keeping the few hundred of us on here happier isn't worth the tens of thousands of dollars it would cost to improve the AI in a significant manner. That's why their AI patches are still happening, but are generally pretty small.

 

[omega4]

My point is that our community is just a few hundred people. We are an absolutely tiny minority. Most players don't notice or care about the AI issues (proven with basic analytics. heck, check the steam achievements). They do listen to us, but keeping the few hundred of us on here happier isn't worth the tens of thousands of dollars it would cost to improve the AI in a significant manner. That's why their AI patches are still happening, but are generally pretty small.

A lot of Steam gamers (myself included) check the gamer reviews before buying. The Steam game reviews for Civ6 are mixed and for good reason. Lots of negative reviews are about the AI and bugs throughout the game.

Now, I still bought Civ6 because it was at a massive discount (just $12 for Civ6+2 DLC). But the reviews could have a detrimental impact on potential buyers of CIv6.

 

[Wingednosering]

A lot of Steam gamers (myself included) check the gamer reviews before buying. The Steam game reviews for Civ6 are mixed and for good reason. Lots of negative reviews are about the AI and bugs throughout the game.

Now, I still bought Civ6 because it was at a massive discount (just $12 for Civ6+2 DLC). But the reviews could have a detrimental impact on potential buyers of CIv6.

Fair point. Honestly the whole gaming industry is in a really depressing, money-grubbing state right now. Civ is one of the only AAA games I actually play. Beyond that, I'm all indies. I'm just happy civ isn't entirely microtransactions yet.

 

[ChocolateShake]

Yup, I think sadly now it makes a lot more sense to release games in 80-90% finished states, polish them up later, and then monetize them as much as possible. Civ is one of the few franchises I'm willing to buy straight up on release, otherwise I wait a few months at least since prices tend to drop pretty quick, and games get patched and improved as time passes. I like XCOM as well, Firaxis is one of the few companies I still fully trust, even though I realize 2K pressures them sometimes to release early.

That being said, I'm trying to get into indie game development so there's that

I agree with @Wingednosering and others who mentioned that there's not much monetary reward for making a really strong AI. As long as they keep providing modders with more access though, there'll always be alternative AI mods and improvements. I think the AI will get a lot better with time, the combat AI just needs to be more consistent.

 

[Gedemon]

Also there won't be vox populi or similar mods for civ 6.Their decision to go after a larger audience will make the modders abandon it.In fact the mod scene is pretty much a joke compared to what existed in civ v vanilla.

replace "civ 6" by "civ5" and "civ v" by "civ4" and you'll have a good idea of what were the discussions on CFC one year after civ5 release.

replace "civ 6" by "civ7" and "civ v" by "civ6" and you'll have a good idea of what will be the discussions on CFC one year after civ7 release.

 

[omega4]

Yup, I think sadly now it makes a lot more sense to release games in 80-90% finished states, polish them up later, and then monetize them as much as possible. Civ is one of the few franchises I'm willing to buy straight up on release, otherwise I wait a few months at least since prices tend to drop pretty quick, and games get patched and improved as time passes. I like XCOM as well, Firaxis is one of the few companies I still fully trust, even though I realize 2K pressures them sometimes to release early.

That being said, I'm trying to get into indie game development so there's that

I agree with @Wingednosering and others who mentioned that there's not much monetary reward for making a really strong AI. As long as they keep providing modders with more access though, there'll always be alternative AI mods and improvements. I think the AI will get a lot better with time, the combat AI just needs to be more consistent.

The issue I have is that more devs / publishers of PC gamers are leaving it to modders to fix their games for them (for free). I won't support devs / publishers by purchasing their games at full price when they're taking advantage of modders like that.

 

[bbbt]

I agree with @Wingednosering and others who mentioned that there's not much monetary reward for making a really strong AI. As long as they keep providing modders with more access though, there'll always be alternative AI mods and improvements. I think the AI will get a lot better with time, the combat AI just needs to be more consistent.

Definitely, I think with the majority of Civ player base, money towards additional wonders/leaders/mechanics rewards sales better than money towards AI. Even with steam reviews, a lot of the AI complaints are about diplomacy (the AI denouncing and warring too much) rather than it's lack of tactical acumen.

I do wonder if something of a self-fulfilling prophecy - the more the Civ AI suffers at tactical combat the more players who want tactical combat go to other games (or multiplayer) for that. Personally, that's the case for me - Civs not the game I load when I want a combat challenge. Frankly though I've always found domination a pain in Civ, even pre-1UPT, it always devolved into micromanagement sludgery.

 

[steveg700]

Yes and no. I'm a regular gamer and a game developer that's really in touch with the indie scene. Like it or not, short game loops are in right now because people's time is more valuable than ever. Longer game loops like this are a dying breed..

Trends that apply to games broadly do not necessarily apply to every game. Not every gamer is of the PUBG or Angry Birds variety, and it's not the core audience of Civ. Civ will never have appeal at that level, no matter how facile they make it. It is a niche genre. The only argument to be made here is to stop making niche games completely and just try to jump on whatever's trending. You know, try to be the next Overwatch by being the next Battleborn.

Nothing is a "dying breed". There are trends, and they come and go. So many things have been declared as dying while others are deemed to be the inevitable future, and memories of how wrong all the pundits were seem to always be short. What Civ is better off doing is being the best in its class and serving the underserved gamer, i.e. fans of strategic gameplay.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I haven't read the thread because this topic has been discussed to death. Obviously, Firaxis and 2K have to make money, and judging from Steam only 1~2% of players finish the game on Deity. That means that Deity is too hard for 98% of players. Looking at those numbers it seems clear that if there is to be an improvement it will have to come from our modding community. There were a number of mods for 5 that made the AI more challenging, let's hope they'll do the same for 6.

 

[ChocolateShake]

The issue I have is that more devs / publishers of PC gamers are leaving it to modders to fix their games for them (for free). I won't support devs / publishers by purchasing their games at full price when they're taking advantage of modders like that.

I definitely agree with the idea of rewarding modders. I started getting into modding in Civ 6, and I have to say the amount of work it takes to test AI is a lot, it pushed me away from it and more towards gameplay mods. The modders like @Siesta Guru who tackled AI deserve some kind of reward for their work, but I think it'll have to be donation-based. I do hope devs in the future figure out some way to reward modders fairly, maybe they could have some in-game or Steam-based mechanism to make donations easier.

Definitely, I think with the majority of Civ player base, money towards additional wonders/leaders/mechanics rewards sales better than money towards AI. Even with steam reviews, a lot of the AI complaints are about diplomacy (the AI denouncing and warring too much) rather than it's lack of tactical acumen.

I do wonder if something of a self-fulfilling prophecy - the more the Civ AI suffers at tactical combat the more players who want tactical combat go to other games (or multiplayer) for that. Personally, that's the case for me - Civs not the game I load when I want a combat challenge. Frankly though I've always found domination a pain in Civ, even pre-1UPT, it always devolved into micromanagement sludgery.

Yup, I think most players probably care a lot more about the AI leaders behaving in a rational way than they do about having a strong tactical challenge. 1-UPT adds some interesting positioning challenges and puzzles, but not enough I think to make it a truly combat-focused game, other than in multiplayer.

It may have become a self-fulfilling prophecy like you said. I also don't load up civ for combat unless I'm really in the mood for some conquest, and even then after I take over one civ I've usually had enough, because I also dislike having to micromanage a ton of cities. I play civ mostly to role-play and build great cities/have a prosperous civ. The AI balancing situation is kind of in a weird place right now, since if the AI does get smarter, they might have to tone down some of their bonuses, and that might lead to easier science and culture victories.

I think it'd be ideal for the AI to be able to consistently punish players who don't invest enough in defense, that would elevate the importance of diplomacy enough to make it truly matter again. I remember having to sometimes agree to unfavorable terms in Civ 4 (And I think 3 too) when I felt like my defenses were too weak to handle a new front, especially if some of my most important cities were at risk. I think that's what they'll focus on, and the rest of the time they'll focus on making sure the AI can win using all the victory types.

 

[Wingednosering]

Trends that apply to games broadly do not necessarily apply to every game. Not every gamer is of the PUBG or Angry Birds variety, and it's not the core audience of Civ. Civ will never have appeal at that level, no matter how facile they make it. It is a niche genre. The only argument to be made here is to stop making niche games completely and just try to jump on whatever's trending. You know, try to be the next Overwatch by being the next Battleborn.

Nothing is a "dying breed". There are trends, and they come and go. So many things have been declared as dying while others are deemed to be the inevitable future, and memories of how wrong all the pundits were seem to always be short. What Civ is better off doing is being the best in its class and serving the underserved gamer, i.e. fans of strategic gameplay.

I agree, but investors don't agree with you. In the indie scene, sure, but AAA companies have shareholders and those shareholders DO want their companies to try and fail to be the next Overwatch over making something for a niche, even if it ends up being deemed 'successful'. It's all about those 10X premiums...

 

[heinous_hat]

The issue I have is that more devs / publishers of PC gamers are leaving it to modders to fix their games for them (for free). I won't support devs / publishers by purchasing their games at full price when they're taking advantage of modders like that.

If it wasn't for the dedicated mod support... and the inspiring, technical minded community that creates... there's no way I'd be wasting my time, endlessly fiddling with some product that's clearly designed to "sell and make money", more so than exhibit pride in craftsmanship. I'd take up painting, or gardening, where the end result is what I want it to be. Well, mostly. Sometimes.

I wouldn't characterize mod support as exploitation, at least not the way Firaxis, and most others currently deliver it. Hobbyists bred the practice, and some sympathetic studios support it, and even budget it. It's win-win, but it certainly doesn't exist due to some corporate mandate.

 

[omega4]

Fair point. Honestly the whole gaming industry is in a really depressing, money-grubbing state right now. Civ is one of the only AAA games I actually play. Beyond that, I'm all indies. I'm just happy civ isn't entirely microtransactions yet.

I agree. I don't see the industry getting any better either.

Speaking of which, does this site have an official connection with Firaxis or its developer Take2?

 

[pietro1990]

Fair point. Honestly the whole gaming industry is in a really depressing, money-grubbing state right now. Civ is one of the only AAA games I actually play. Beyond that, I'm all indies. I'm just happy civ isn't entirely microtransactions yet.

i've seen better indies game at launch then the last civilization games of firaxis.

have you tried Reus? its a god game where you create the world with giants. my first indie game no bugs no balance issues just a great game first try

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I haven't read the thread because this topic has been discussed to death. Obviously, Firaxis and 2K have to make money, and judging from Steam only 1~2% of players finish the game on Deity. That means that Deity is too hard for 98% of players. Looking at those numbers it seems clear that if there is to be an improvement it will have to come from our modding community. There were a number of mods for 5 that made the AI more challenging, let's hope they'll do the same for 6.

I don't think that means that it's "too hard" by any means, just not fun for many people to play that way.