cloud: future civ

[istaris]

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/...is-nvidias-new-cloud-gaming-server-explained/
i didnt see any threads on this but this article is interesting
basically they wanted to have cloud computing for gaming, where gameplay computing calculations is done on a server in the cloud
with processing outsourced to a better computing unit elsewhere, turn times and Ai may improve, less taxing on own computer too
main problem is that current latency is still too high for most games
turn based games like civ seems uniquely positioned to take advantage
with this, they can make better AI that doesnt drastically increase time between turns
and other advantages

 

[RedFuneral]

That would be pretty cool to have something like that added to the next Civ. The thing is, they'd have to have it as an option otherwise we'd have another online-only game that wouldn't be playable once the servers go down. That would mean that they'd have to have two different AI codes(assuming the server-side AI was too much for home computers) and it would likely not go over well with the community.

On a side note, I'd be open to anything that could reduce the turn times. Even with my i5 2500K computer turns on larger maps turn into 2 minute long lag fests.

 

[buchengshi]

I see two downsides:

The first is cost. Valve (or whoever is going to foot the bill) would need over sixty racks just to support Civ5. Not servers, entire racks of 20. And that's just to support a day like today. They would need 80-100 on days when a lot of people are on.

The second is that, for people like me playing, on one of those would be a big step down in performance. The number crunching in the article points out that each user gets the equivelant of a GT 640, and that it's only 1080p (at what I assume is 60fps). I suppose I could live with only getting 60fps. The other thing is that there would be no improvement to AI/turn times/etc. The only way to speed that up would be to rewrite the engine to make use of multiple threads. Assuming they did such a thing, they would have to dedicate 12 threads to me, and beat my overclock. Otherwise I'd have lower performance than using my own computer. I doubt any company would be willing to dedicate a couple of thousand dollars in equipment for each user.

Also, as RedFuneral pointed out, requiring people to be online sucks big time. I haven't played Diablo3 since the week after it came out. Losing half an hour of playtime to the whims of someone else's poor server connections is not my idea of fun. (And, yes, it was on their end. 3-4 disconnects per night playing D3, but none while playing WoW.)

 

[smallfish]

I sometimes wonder if this isn't already the case, that sometimes AI get a special brand of... knowledge or stuff that seems to be constantly updated from some source

 

[istaris]

I see two downsides:

The first is cost. Valve (or whoever is going to foot the bill) would need over sixty racks just to support Civ5. Not servers, entire racks of 20. And that's just to support a day like today. They would need 80-100 on days when a lot of people are on.

The second is that, for people like me playing, on one of those would be a big step down in performance. The number crunching in the article points out that each user gets the equivelant of a GT 640, and that it's only 1080p (at what I assume is 60fps). I suppose I could live with only getting 60fps. The other thing is that there would be no improvement to AI/turn times/etc. The only way to speed that up would be to rewrite the engine to make use of multiple threads. Assuming they did such a thing, they would have to dedicate 12 threads to me, and beat my overclock. Otherwise I'd have lower performance than using my own computer. I doubt any company would be willing to dedicate a couple of thousand dollars in equipment for each user.

Also, as RedFuneral pointed out, requiring people to be online sucks big time. I haven't played Diablo3 since the week after it came out. Losing half an hour of playtime to the whims of someone else's poor server connections is not my idea of fun. (And, yes, it was on their end. 3-4 disconnects per night playing D3, but none while playing WoW.)

basically point 1&2 boils down to cost, how much to charge customer and server maintanence, this is fundamental problem, i agree with you. i can only hope that server cost get cheaper in future, however, with optimisation and economies of scale, it can be cheaper to build servers that can dedicate equalivant processing power as home pc
point 3, there are many games that require constant internet connection and is widely criticised for that, most attempts to do that are just measures to halt piracy and doesnt add value to the game. however, if cloud computing can improve the turn time sufficiently and make the AI smarter, it could add sufficient value to justify the constant internet connection, after all every few other posts here is complaining about how pathing or player AI is dumb. if this could solve that problem, this can be worthwhile to players

another possible value add this cloud computing can have is that firaxis can possible collect and consolidate data on human players' strategies from different people and create a better AI, kind of like how google constantly improve their search algorithmn. of course this idea is dependent on much money firaxis is willing to spend in hiring people to analyze and improve AI

i would want to retain an offline option though, but may need to live with relatively dumber AI

 

[RedFuneral]

I see two downsides:

The first is cost. Valve (or whoever is going to foot the bill) would need over sixty racks just to support Civ5. Not servers, entire racks of 20. And that's just to support a day like today. They would need 80-100 on days when a lot of people are on.

The second is that, for people like me playing, on one of those would be a big step down in performance. The number crunching in the article points out that each user gets the equivelant of a GT 640, and that it's only 1080p (at what I assume is 60fps). I suppose I could live with only getting 60fps. The other thing is that there would be no improvement to AI/turn times/etc. The only way to speed that up would be to rewrite the engine to make use of multiple threads. Assuming they did such a thing, they would have to dedicate 12 threads to me, and beat my overclock. Otherwise I'd have lower performance than using my own computer. I doubt any company would be willing to dedicate a couple of thousand dollars in equipment for each user.

Also, as RedFuneral pointed out, requiring people to be online sucks big time. I haven't played Diablo3 since the week after it came out. Losing half an hour of playtime to the whims of someone else's poor server connections is not my idea of fun. (And, yes, it was on their end. 3-4 disconnects per night playing D3, but none while playing WoW.)

Graphics would still be calculated on the home PC. I think what the OP is suggesting that only the AI calculations be done offsite rather than it being a fully in the cloud game. If what you say is true, in that the game isn't taking full advantage of multi-core overclocked CPUs then having better CPUs off-site won't fix it either. In that case it just needs a better engine.

What would be real interesting would be a learning AI like Istaris pointed out. Tech-wise I don't think we're quite there yet but maybe we will be when it's time for Civ7 or 8? The only 'learning' AI I know of right now is that Clevorbot program and I'm not so sure it does much more than mimic responses that it gets a lot. You'd need an AI capable of telling what the human player is doing to win, rather than just copying moves that it sees a lot of.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

CiV is already in cloud gaming with onlive. Downside? No multiplayer, frequent crashes, you own less than you do with steam, and it's near going under, rendering peoples accounts useless.