[GS] Future Update?

[Jkchart]

Hmm, I don't intend to assume how you normally play, but I think civ count has an impact on DV, since more active opponents means more potential votes that need to be overcome. I usually play standard settings, which is 6 total civs and 9 total city states, and over the course of the session I'm likely to eliminate one other civ. One (or two) fewer civs means less contenders for suzerainty, and fewer opposing votes to deal with. Maybe a better fix is to give -1 DV point for eliminating a civ lol.

At the very least, on my first forays into Emperor, my gut feeling so far is that one can achieve Diplo Victory faster than other victory types.

Edit: Oh yeah, and if one's basically annexed an entire other civ, it makes the DV competitions much easier.

That's fair! i didn't think of that. I usually play Huge with 12 civs, so that makes sense.

I also like the idea of losing DV points if you eliminate a civ after the WC is founded.

 

[The googles do nothing]

Why on EARTH would FXS make an AI that would compete with only 1 out of every 25 players when 96% will never know the difference?

There's ways that the AI could be improved that nearly everyone of any skill level would notice. If the AI asked players to join a joint war were the AI is competent, Interactions like the AI being upset at settling too close might actually make sense.

1. Civ VI barely runs on my PC. Would it still run decently well with "good" AI? How long would I have to wait for each turn?

I've wondered if Civ7 might be on a service like Stadia to get around this.

 

[Loerwyn]

That's fair! i didn't think of that. I usually play Huge with 12 civs, so that makes sense.

I also like the idea of losing DV points if you eliminate a civ after the WC is founded.

I'm agreed with the latter point. I tend to play the 6+9CS maps too, and in the last two games I've played (that have been more focused), I won one with a Diplo and the other Domination, finishing with 16DP before turn 300. I think wonders like Statue of Liberty don't help, as that gives you one fifth of the points you need in one go. I was also Suzerain of essentially every city state in both games (Cath!France, Vic!England) which helps me almost entirely control the WC every time it happened.

 

[CoconutTank]

That's fair! i didn't think of that. I usually play Huge with 12 civs, so that makes sense.

I also like the idea of losing DV points if you eliminate a civ after the WC is founded.

Goodness I think it's already really hard to out-vote 3 other civs if they really wanted something against me, I can't imagine out-voting 11 other civs lol.

Let's see, vote costs are triangular starting at 0, so 11 votes minimum would be 10 * (10 * 11) / 2 = 10 * 55 = 550. You'd need 550 Diplo Favor to toss in 11 votes for an outcome you care about, and the other 11 civs could just toss in 1 vote each (for free!) to balance against you rofl, and any of those other civs could just spend 10 Diplo Favor to tip the outcome in their favor.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I've wondered if Civ7 might be on a service like Stadia to get around this.

Stadia was a sorely underthought concept by Google that didn't have the framerate stability to appeal to hardcore gamers, nor the killer app that would appeal to casual gamers, nor the launch library that could scrape together pieces of either demographic. I don't even think throwing free subscriptions and controllers at people like home minis will necessarily be enough to establish a network effect.

But that said, I absolutely think multiplayer turn-based games like Civ are a genre would fare extremely well on a platform like Stadia. More processing power for the graphics and AI, no negative effects from input/output lag.

Actually, given that VI seems like it might be built to be a bit of a legacy game, there's nothing preventing the devs from building VI out on stadia. The AI is just code. And as far as graphics go, there are other legacy style games that have issued graphics updates (like WoW, for instance). So in theory we don't even have to wait for VII when VI is already a really, really good foundation.

 

[AntSou]

Actually, given that VI seems like it might be built to be a bit of a legacy game

What does this mean? I understand it in the context of board games but I don't see how you're applying that to CIV VI.

 

[bbbt]

I really doubt that there are several hundred developers working on any game at Firaxis. At best, there might be several tens of developers. Of that group, only some would have expertise in AI of any sort. Besides that, we have to consider a few things.

I'm assuming the poster meant developer as more generically people working on the game (sound, graphics, was, etc) rather than specifically 'programmer'. From the credits there were only about ~30 programmers (~15 on the core game/ game mechanics (including one dedicated to the AI) and ~15 on graphics/UI), but definitely 100+ if you include all the artists/QA/etc

Let's be honest, though. The AI has improved drastically since release. It's not very good, but it's certainly passable and it certainly presents enough of a challenge for the vast majority of players. That's not bad.

I think the majority of AI development time for game launch (and launch of new mechanics) just simply goes to the 'infrastructure' of the AI - getting it to recognize and use the different mechanics. Then comes the refinement of making it use them well. So the longer the game has expacs/active development, the better the AI should become.

But that said, I absolutely think multiplayer turn-based games like Civ are a genre would fare extremely well on a platform like Stadia. More processing power for the graphics and AI, no negative effects from input/output lag.

I played Civ via NVIDIA GeForce Now (their Stadia equivalent). It played pretty well, but lag could have negative effects even in Civ - specifically your unit didn't go where you intended sometimes if you clicked to fast. And this was just single player.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

What does this mean? I understand it in the context of board games but I don't see how you're applying that to CIV VI.

I guess the line is somewhat blurred between legacy board games and merely board games with expansions, but I would argue a major distinction is that the former is planned for long-term support, while the latter expands the property if concepts and demand present themselves.

But I do get the overwhelming impression that VI is intended to have a long life cycle. This is based partly on Firaxis' clear needs, and partly based on VI's own design.

As far as Firaxis' needs go, they fully realize how divided the playerbase was between V and VI upon VI's release, and how unprofitable a new title is/will be for several years. It is an upfront investment, and I would argue as the franchise gets more and more polished out, the opportunity-cost increases because the obligation to innovate mechanics grows and the unexplored design space shrinks. The average consumer is not going to buy a slight variant of America v. China v. Russia v. England over and over and over again, so each title has to be that much better and differentiated. In fact, releasing VI and VII back to back is probably an extremely bad idea because it doesn't offer enough new experiences to players and if anything evinces creative stagnancy. This is why Beyond Earth was likely developed: to give players a different experience for a few years so that the next mainline title wouldn't be canned as "just more of the same." So Firaxis has every incentive to extend VI as long as possible so that they can: 1) develop some alternative "filler" games to keep players' attention and 2) have more time to really figure out how they could develop VII to be generally received as a "must-buy" over V and VI.

And as far as VI's own design goes, I have already observed elsewhere that it seems the DLC and expansion packs were all planned together very early in development, and that there has been so much invested in the music and art design that it would feel like backtracking to start all over again. But even ignoring that, the "cartoony" aesthetic is often adopted by games to serve more than just accessibility purposes. As observed in other games like WoW, TF2, Overwatch, Fortnite, it is often the deliberate product of refining the art style to adapt well to future patches and mods, and, in some cases, an intent to make the game age well as graphics continue to improve. This seems to be a more recent phenomenon that studios only just caught onto in the past few years, but I think it happened around the time people were realizing that Nintendo's low-power attitude toward hardware and rendering was an extremely smart business model because 1) casuals ultimately don't care about hyperrealism and 2) Wind Waker aged far better than Twilight Princess.

Anyway, that's my two cents on VI being a sort of "legacy" game.

I played Civ via NVIDIA GeForce Now (their Stadia equivalent). It played pretty well, but lag could have negative effects even in Civ - specifically your unit didn't go where you intended sometimes if you clicked to fast. And this was just single player.

I have a Shield! But my laptop doesn't have the right NVIDIA card for streaming. Boo.

Seems to me that coding could feasibly fix a lot of lag issues in this instance, though that really depends on how much resources Firaxis would be willing to spend on making the code more efficient and speedy to utilize cloud services and narrow windows for input interruptions.

 

[sonicmyst]

Merry Christmas everyone.
Firaxis, I hope you have a surprise for us by New Year.

I am still not losing hope!

 

[Ondolindë]

Happy Holidays! Hope you have a wonderful season.

 

[nzcamel]

2. What exactly is "good" AI, anyway? Is the AI supposed to win, or is it just supposed to provide a challenge so that the player's wins feel like accomplishments? An AI really playing to win would create a very tedious and annoying end game, if nothing else. Is that really what we want?

At Chiefdom difficulty no. At King difficulty yes. With shades of grey all along the spectrum of levels.

You stepped on a terrible landmine: When you play an unmodded game of Civ6, you ARE playing against an average human player level AI.

Remember that 90% of of Civ6 players will never beat the AI at any difficulty higher than default. Ever. Only 4% will ever beat it at Deity.

Why on EARTH would FXS make an AI that would compete with only 1 out of every 25 players when 96% will never know the difference?

 

[oSiyeza]

If so, you are probably able to make (smd show us) a sort of design specification for the task and to make an educational guess how many lines of code decent AI would require. Then we all we be able to judge if several hundreds of developers and 5 years is enough for the task. Till that it's your word against mine.

AI programming is not about of lines of code anymore. Like many other things in computers, the trend is to move away from manual programming to a high level design.

Now the languaje in AI is about what strategies are used in what layers of decission, and how to combine them. How to approach difficulty. And so on.

You can think about integration of AI, as a similar problem as writing a good story. If you forget your script when you design your game, and then try to making a decent story that ties all the game elements in a coherent way after the game is done, your story will end being a mess. You need to consider how each element fits the narrative you want to tell along the entire process.

When you dont take the AI or the script into account in the beggining, you often need expensive rewrites and patches that end being much more expensive than making a good product in the first place. This is the situation we are in and, credit for FXS, they are really trying.

My point is that having a good AI, with a deep interconected gameplay, is posible in a big budget videogame. As it is posible to have a good script in a big superhero movie. And believe it or not, neither of those things require a big chunk of the developement money, or a hugue team. The AI, the same as the script, is the work of two or three people, and needs a lot qa testing or proofread, and a lot of care.

With the way the industry works, is getting more and more difficult to pull it trough. This is only my opinion, but the way elements are includded in games to fill market niches, the way the design is engineered many times by comitees, makes crafting a project with a vision dificult.

More often than not the elements of games feel a bit disjointed. Despite the best efforts of the developers, the people that actually puts work and care in the project.

Honestly I think that, when a discussion like this starts to be confrontational, with a side calling for credentials and using a "you against me" language, or a "you give me a better dessign or I will not believe you" narrative. The conversation stops being useful, or civil.

Some people assumes that FXS did not deliver a functional AI cause it is an impossible task. Or feel the urge to claim that we have the best possible outcome given the market and tech conditions.

This is just not the case. As the current AI shows, much better now than the barely functional one we had at launch. A better product is possible. A better design for the AI is possible. To say this statement is controversial does not make sense to me.

 

[Zdarg]

Honestly I think that, when a discussion like this starts to be confrontational, with a side calling for credentials and using a "you against me" language, or a "you give me a better dessign or I will not believe you" narrative. The conversation stops being useful, or civil.

Oh, was it useful before? I'd say all that endless, ad nausea, repeating of "they could do better AI easily if they only wanted" is not useful at all (and not civil to developers, either).
Even if it was true, it would be still useless.

 

[AntSou]

Oh, was it useful before? I'd say all that endless, ad nausea, repeating of "they could do better AI easily if they only wanted" is not useful at all (and not civil to developers, either).

Whether it's useful or not to developers is a bit irrelevant, we're fans discussing a game among ourselves, not company consultants.

And being critical of the AI has nothing to do with lack of civility toward the devs. You want to know what lack of civility is, just check some of the replies they get on twitter.
---

For context for others, this is your opinion expressed in another thread. I understand where you're coming from now, but it was hard to follow because you had not made it explicit in this thread:

Why? If they didn't make a change in 28 years, it's more than probable they won't make it ever. Why now? Why to hope for impossible exactly now?
I'd say if there was time to make a change to it, this time definitely gone. Many years ago. Too late.
And, personally, I don't regret this. I've grown accustomed to this weak AI and won't be happy to have better. It would ruin my experience with the game and I am too old to relearn.

I disagree with nearly every statement (other than the last one which is a matter of personal preference). I don't see how you can infer that the past makes it more likely that it will never happen. I fail to comprehend your notion of impossible. The idea that it's too late now compared to many years ago... just exactly, why?

You're making a bunch of baseless claims but then proceed to request from others evidence of credibility and also criticise the lack of usefulness of their posts.

People are free to post their opinions and that's his opinion, which honestly sounds a fair bit more grounded than your own.

 

[Zdarg]

I don't see how you can infer that the past makes it more likely that it will never happen.

It's called inductive method. Each and every man and woman who lived on Earth in the past - died. It's enough to conclude that every man and woman living now will die also. Somebody still might hope to live infinitely, but hardly anybody else would take it seriously.

People are free to post their opinions

Yeah. I heard opinions of this sort thousand of times, since the moment of joining this board.
And I never replied, because opinions are free and all this jazz.
At 1001th time, I lost my patience. Too bad. Bad, bad me.

and that's his opinion, which honestly sounds a fair bit more grounded than your own

How his is more grounded?

 

[bite]

Moderator Action: This thread is getting very off-topic, please move back on-topic please

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

i think we need a new topic named spring update

 

[blackcatatonic]

i think we need a new topic named spring update

Why? We have another two months of winter still to go.

It seems very unlikely to me that we won't get at least a patch in that time.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Why? We have another two months of winter still to go.

It seems very unlikely to me that we won't get at least a patch in that time.

I could definitely see a winter patch being released in January or February. Especially if they decided to delay the third expansion. It seems at the very least the pantheon glitch needs repairing so there is at least some impetus to cobble together something in the next few months.

One final thought on the third expansion pack. I do think part of VI's success is intentionally planned feature creep, where GS overall added more mechanics than R&F on top of including R&F's mechanics. Although this is an expensive strategy, it is a very smart one because it convinces earlier adopters to continue buying early into new expansions. Every new expansion is clearly a better value than the last (in fact, you could argue that, Nubia excluded, the DLCs also progressively added more and more desirable features), so on average players are much less likely to dismiss them as optional or maybe-later purchases.

That out of the way, it seems quite likely that expansion pack 3 will have more features than GS, to some degree or other. But I would further posit that this feature creep might just be reflective of how acutely aware Firaxis is of their target market. They seem to be doing everything they can to engage with and keep players interested. And yet, they missed (either by design or by necessity) their customary annual announcement of additional content. That is not something I think Firaxis would do lightly, and I would have to believe that they view any delayed release beyond February as costing them sales, to some extent or another. Some portion of the playerbase would have had expectations, or only so long of an attention span, and every month the expansion is delayed is a month that those players might lose interest.

Thus, I postulate that: the longer the expansion pack announcement is delayed, the more likely it is to have more than nine leaders. We might get ten or twelve civs instead of eight. We might get two or four or six alternate leaders instead of one. This, I think, is the most probable way Firaxis would justify delay. Either they planned a big blowout extravaganza and therefore knew they could delay. Or they had to delay and pushed forward some small DLC content to compensate for it. But the bottom line is: waiting longer may ultimately reward us with several unexpected or less likely civs/leaders that otherwise wouldn't make the cut of a strictly meritocratic eight-civ pack.

 

[AntSou]

Thus, I postulate that: the longer the expansion pack announcement is delayed, the more likely it is to have more than nine leaders. We might get ten or twelve civs instead of eight. We might get two or four or six alternate leaders instead of one. This, I think, is the most probable way Firaxis would justify delay. Either they planned a big blowout extravaganza and therefore knew they could delay. Or they had to delay and pushed forward some small DLC content to compensate for it. But the bottom line is: waiting longer may ultimately reward us with several unexpected or less likely civs/leaders that otherwise wouldn't make the cut of a strictly meritocratic eight-civ pack.

I think 12 Civs and 6 alts is pushing it a bit. But I do agree that if they have a third expansion planned toward the end of the year, they might need to keep players engaged by releasing one DLC, or better yet, release one alternative leader as part of a free update. But I could see that happening only in case of a Summer expansion announcement and November release. If they announce an expansion in early 2020 for a Summer release, they can keep us interested with videos about the upcoming features and Civs. Basically they need something to fill one of the Quarters. Worst case but also more likely scenario is that we just get a regular update, perhaps a bit more packed than usual.

8 Civs and Leaders + 2 Alt Leaders for a final expansion is kind of the max I would expect. There's precedent for your argument. BTS had more Civs and leaders than Warlords. But the animations and music weren't nearly as complex as those in CIV VI.

I'm also convinced a 3rd expansion will aim at the entire market on all platforms with only a small delay between releases. So it wouldn't have made sense to announce the expansion immediately after the console release.