Flashback

[King_Course]

Just got a flashback to Civ V, I was playing along just after launch, enjoying the game, when England wardecced me. Interesting I thought, then 2 ships of the line showed up, and parked themselves aside one of my cities. My city shot, their turn. They moved around in the water outside my city and that was that. My city shot again, and I saw that the AI was imbecile.

I got so mad, I had wasted hours and felt like being played for a fool.

The guy in charge of the AI said something like, the players don't like the AI to win, so it won't actually play.

I thought that was the dumbest thing I ever heard in the video game industry.

 

[Haggbart]

The guy in charge of the AI in CiV was Ed Beach. But I can't recall that he said that, do you have a source?

 

[Ashbery76]

The guy in charge of the AI said something like, the players don't like the AI to win, so it won't actually play.

That was Sid himself and I totally disagree.

 

[Red Menace]

The guy in charge of the AI said something like, the players don't like the AI to win, so it won't actually play.

people dont like losing to other players in MP either, so the obvious takeaway is: people dont like to lose.

 

[King_Course]

people dont like losing to other players in MP either, so the obvious takeaway is: people dont like to lose.

Well if that's all you got from it, then take that and leave.

The jest of it to others was: People don't like to lose, therefore the AI doesn't play to win.

The last part, is the important part.

 

[ptoss1]

I won't be pre-ordering the game anymore. I was considering it before I saw the civ clash, but I'm getting a sense of dejavu. Rome 2... So much AI budget. I think I'll wait for the first expansion, also the lack of Persia is disgusting. The Achaemenid was literally the first true empire.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

Well if that's all you got from it, then take that and leave.

The jest of it to others was: People don't like to lose, therefore the AI doesn't play to win.

The last part, is the important part.

gist, not jest. If it was a joke, that is a completely different spin.

 

[Zenstrive]

Sid Meier said that a game needs to provide a sense of victory to the players, so having a very optimized, aggressive AIs could somehow take away that sense and shut off players.

 

[narmox]

Sid Meier said that a game needs to provide a sense of victory to the players, so having a very optimized, aggressive AIs could somehow take away that sense and shut off players.

Coasting through without any challenge* or obstacle doesn't give a sense of victory either though. It's a hard balance to achieve, granted...

* I like how FilthyRobot put it in some videos, "you could roll your face on the keyboard and still win". Exaggerated of course, but funny.

 

[TruthfulCake]

I came in here expecting a thread reminiscing about our first Civ games in anticipation of the imminent release. Got an interesting quote from Sid instead.

I lost one of very first Civ games (it was V) to China, who won through science victory. I was there at first wondering why my city won't grow (not realizing that I committed 30+ turns into building a settler in a new city, and that settlers halt growth). I don't remember a war that I was involved in during that game (I think it was Warlord level). At that time I thought the I should catch up to the AI's level.

I'm recounting this story because I see a lot of bashing on the AI in this forum as of late. I would just like to remind that no matter how inept the AI seems to be at battles, the newbies probably need this handicap. They will learn the ropes and beat the AI when they do, but until then, it will disincentivize learning and figuring out the game if it seems like victory is unattainable because the AI keeps steamrolling you, especially since there are more ways to win than one. New players are probably not capable of taking all of those complexities into account while trudging through the turns having no idea what to do.

So I think there is a merit in Sid's quote about how people would hate losing. I certainly think that if I had kept losing to the AI in my early days, I would not have had the interest to keep getting better at the game. Kind of the reason I haven't improved much in Starcraft - because I couldn't win against the AI.

Last year, I won my first Deity game. And by then I was aware of how bad the AI really was. My take is, I appreciate that they included the higher difficulty levels as a challenge for more seasoned players, and left the lower difficulty levels with intentionally incompetent AI.

 

[Lyoncet]

That was Sid himself and I totally disagree.

Sid Meier said that a game needs to provide a sense of victory to the players, so having a very optimized, aggressive AIs could somehow take away that sense and shut off players.

Does anyone have an actual source on that quote? My hunch is that we're referring to Sid Meier saying that AI should not necessarily play to win, but instead play in a way that provides a credible challenge to the human player(s). A limp, impotent AI is the opposite of that.

I can't imagine him turning around and saying, "No, just kidding. AI should be completely feeble so our players can feel special and important," which is how it'a being reinterpreted. Assuming this is the quote people are relying on, this is clear straw-manning.

 

[JDexter]

I remember playing Civ 1 as a kid, getting my ass handed to me regularly by the AI, because I didn't know you could avoid city unhappiness by using entertainers. After a few years the challenge got less, certainly, so I increased the difficulty.
I'm pretty sure that increasing the difficulty in Civ VI will work the same way - you get a greater challenge.

*flashback is fun*