Gamecrate interview - Rising Tide

Karl0413

Prince
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
554
Well we got another developer interview here, this time from Gamecrate, where they talk about the AI a bit:

GC: How much has the AI changed in this expansion?

DM: Well it's gotten a lot better. We've done a tremendous amount of work to get the AI to not just handle the new features -- certainly water settlement is a big one, the new diplomacy is a big one -- but to be better at the features from the base game. We've put particular improvement in their tactical and domestic operations, how they manage and fight, how they pursue the victory conditions, their tech choices.

Part of the doors that opened with new diplomacy is getting the AI to play more characterfully. They don't all play basically the same, they've got a lot more strong preferences and personality in what they're going to do. Their personality traits in the diplomacy system drive that. So not only is the AI generally more intelligent, they're much more idiosyncratic, so they're much more fun to play against, they're a little bit predictable and maybe even caricaturish, they have sort of foibles and things like that for you to exploit, so there's a lot more storytelling in that. So the AI is better and more diverse at the same time.


They also talk about the hybrid affinities a bit:

GC: We didn't see the hybrid affinity units in this gameplay demo, but can you tell us anything more about what those are and how they will feel to play?

WM: The hybrid affinities are kind of our answer to multi-classing. In the base game we encouraged players to traverse the tech tree, sort of role-playing a little bit. Like, what would I do if I were this civilization, what technologies do I want, how would I make these decisions that I'm prompted with? But what we found was players would often get into a situation where players would make the decision they wanted, but they've kind of gimped themselves, they can't unlock higher level units because they have mixed affinity, and the game really wants you to funnel into one so that you can pursue a victory condition.

So our hybrid affinities are an answer to that. They're three new affinities that are not really averages, but whole new ideas based on the philosophies of the two that they blend. They have a whole different look, new unique units and new upgrade paths for the base units, so there are a lot of unique new military toys you get with hybrid affinities.


GC: Is there any diplomatic effect to these hybrid affinities? Do the other leaders pay attention to if you're a hybrid or not?

WM: They certainly pay attention to differential in affinity. So if you are more Purity and this guy is more Supremacy, his AI might care about that. There aren't special points for the hybrids, so if I accumulate X in Purity and X in Harmony and they're equal, then I will be hybrid-ized. But the AI is always looking at what you're doing, you affinity choices along with everything else, and building an opinion of you.

GC:We got to see some Artifacts in the gameplay demo, and it looked like there was one that could be used as a temporary de-buff on an enemy unit? Is that correct?

DM: Possibly. I don't think we can comment on the specific Artifact mechanics, but they either manifest as yield gains -- kind of like clearing an alien nest or completing an expedition -- or you can use them to build buildings or wonders that you can only get through artifacts, or the artifacts unlock the ability to build them. Those have some pretty wild impacts, and they can do things that have not been possible in Civ before, up to and including manipulating the battlefield like you're describing.

http://www.gamecrate.com/interview-...s-improved-ai-and-mobile-aquatic-cities/11115
 
That part about the 50/50 gender split really made me smile. :lol: Will probably need to create some male, misogynistic, war-loving Civ-Mods just to destroy that 'Equality of Outcome'-Fantasy.

GC: How much has the AI changed in this expansion?

DM: Well it's gotten a lot better. We've done a tremendous amount of work to get the AI to not just handle the new features -- certainly water settlement is a big one, the new diplomacy is a big one -- but to be better at the features from the base game. We've put particular improvement in their tactical and domestic operations, how they manage and fight, how they pursue the victory conditions, their tech choices.

Part of the doors that opened with new diplomacy is getting the AI to play more characterfully. They don't all play basically the same, they've got a lot more strong preferences and personality in what they're going to do. Their personality traits in the diplomacy system drive that. So not only is the AI generally more intelligent, they're much more idiosyncratic, so they're much more fun to play against, they're a little bit predictable and maybe even caricaturish, they have sort of foibles and things like that for you to exploit, so there's a lot more storytelling in that. So the AI is better and more diverse at the same time.
The bit about combat AI is actually new information, isn't it? Sounds great, but I'm... skeptical about that change to be honest. Until now, everytime the Ai got updated, the actual influences on the game were really small, especially when it came to combat. Will be interesting to see if we still can sink a whole Navy with just one Submarine.
 
I'm always skeptical of claimed improvements in AI. It took IBM like two decades to build a state of the art computer that could finally beat the world's best chess player. Firaxis simply isn't working with those kinds of resources.
 
Despite what I normally say about AI and how Firaxis will have limited scope to improve it, we've come a long way since Deep Blue.

Also, video games are nothing like grandmaster chess. You're only kidding yourself if you think it is.
 
I like this part:
Part of the doors that opened with new diplomacy is getting the AI to play more characterfully. They don't all play basically the same, they've got a lot more strong preferences and personality in what they're going to do.

Hopefully, it means that we will get civs with more unique personalities.

We've announced Al Falah, which is from the Middle East, and even with all the weirdnesses in their backstory, they're one of the most conventional of the four new civs. The other three are a bit weirder.

This quote makes me more curious about the other new civs. Just how weird are they going to be?
 
Hybrid affinities still seem gimped in the kind of victories they can pursue. Seems like Contact and Domination are their only realistic options.
 
If you have the high seas, you *need* a Viking faction. They already have Somalis and Indonesians...

Japan is on islands, and maybe we could have a pan-Caribbean faction. Rastaman in space!
 
A pirate factions seems quite logic, what background could they have? Somali? Filipino? Norse?

Caribbean? Aleutian? Kwazulu-Natalian? Fuegoian? Just to name a few other possible nautical hotspots in a post-mistake world.
 
Hey, I'm not the one to complain about gender variety and all that, but it does feel kinda silly and um... forced? - to go THAT far as to actually ENFORCE it to be 50/50.
 
Hey, I'm not the one to complain about gender variety and all that, but it does feel kinda silly and um... forced? - to go THAT far as to actually ENFORCE it to be 50/50.

You're right, there should really be more women.

I hate sausage fests.
 
More women are welcome, just make them interesting. Female Leaders currently boil down to 'Stereotypical Indian Bollywood Mother', 'Stereotypical Empowered Business-Woman', 'Future-Wu Zetian' and 'Stereotypical Grandmother'. But I guess the same thing is true for the male leaders as well. I still think this whole idea of a fixed quote is stupid and bound to have an impact on the end product. If you have to look up charts to find out what gender, skin color and <add more arbitrary attributes here> your next character has, then that's bound to have at least somewhat of an impact on the characters in comparison to having a cool idea and just thinking about what the character that fits the idea would look like.

With that said though, the lack of openly transsexual leaders is problematic at best and at worst showing a strong, internalized hatred towards the LGBT-Community. I hope Hatuma at least comes out as openly gay in Rising Tide, or I fear the Social Justice Rating will be catastrophic.
 
With that said though, the lack of openly transsexual leaders is problematic at best and at worst showing a strong, internalized hatred towards the LGBT-Community. I hope Hatuma at least comes out as openly gay in Rising Tide, or I fear the Social Justice Rating will be catastrophic.

I can't tell if you're serious or not.
 
You're right, there should really be more women.

I hate sausage fests.

You know, I actually thought to myself just how fast I'll get a reply like this, when I wrote it, laughing in my mind. Fast. I guess the point went right over your head... Or maybe you simply misunderstood, because you wanted to.
More women are more than welcome, especially when we're talking about fiction scene with fictious leaders, compared to historical, where often female leaders felt like they are there just to meet the female quota (wu zetian, compared to actually good choises like elizabeth and catherine for example).

What bothers me:

More women are welcome, just make them interesting. Female Leaders currently boil down to 'Stereotypical Indian Bollywood Mother', 'Stereotypical Empowered Business-Woman', 'Future-Wu Zetian' and 'Stereotypical Grandmother'. But I guess the same thing is true for the male leaders as well. I still think this whole idea of a fixed quote is stupid and bound to have an impact on the end product. If you have to look up charts to find out what gender, skin color and <add more arbitrary attributes here> your next character has, then that's bound to have at least somewhat of an impact on the characters in comparison to having a cool idea and just thinking about what the character that fits the idea would look like.

With that said though, the lack of openly transsexual leaders is problematic at best and at worst showing a strong, internalized hatred towards the LGBT-Community. I hope Hatuma at least comes out as openly gay in Rising Tide, or I fear the Social Justice Rating will be catastrophic.

Agreed.

In the end I am of opinion that this over the board political correctness and equality and whatnot is silly bonkers and often counter productive to the actual "goal", making it more a caricature than anything remotely serious. If you have to enforce ideas on a ridiculous caricature level, then you in fact indeed have a problem.
Maybe Hollywood movies should always enforce a 50/50 cast too, even if it's a war movie or about male prison. And make sure to include representatives of every culture as much as nordics if it's a movie about vikings. It will surely help tremendously with gender equality cause and whatnot, in fact it's the only way! (Just a joke, please don't take this even remotely seriously... though it does start to shine through in hollywood movies). As a Finn I'll never understand this "extremes" mindset of more westernly Europe and USA. So you may just move on if all you see is red, racism! Intolerance! Mysogonism!
 
More women are more than welcome, especially when we're talking about fiction scene with fictious leaders, compared to historical, where often female leaders felt like they are there just to meet the female quota (wu zetian, compared to actually good choises like elizabeth and catherine for example).

You did NOT just use Wu as an example of a bad leader. I was glad to play her and if anything I think there should be a female choice for every civ/faction.

I don't want to play an ugly genocidal commie like Mao Zedong.

Also all the leaders in BE are dull cardboard mannequins and it has nothing to do with their gender.
 
A 50/50 split does feel like a bit equality-of-outcome. I mean, the Earth of BE has gone into a post-apocalyptic decline where only a few entities can manage to pull their stuff together enough to get off that rock. But hey, at least they solved misogyny, right? A more spiteful person may suggest that the social leveraging required to do away with mysogyny ruined the economy or fragmented society as part of the Great Mistake.

But whatever, it's Firaxis' world. We're just playing in it.
 
A more spiteful person may suggest that the social leveraging required to do away with mysogyny ruined the economy or fragmented society as part of the Great Mistake.

Sounds like something from a #gamergate or MRA mission statement.
 
Some devs were happy to work more women into a game they're building.

Responses include "overboard political correctness".

You couldn't make this up :D
Well yeah, if you rewrite "We feel like we need to hit a 50/50 split." into "Devs are happy to write women into their games!", then of course the whole thing ends up sounding really stupid - that's called a strawman. :D

The argument was that it's nonsense to start with some arbitrary limitation like that. Write characters that fit the role. If that results in less, but more interesting female characters, that's still a lot better than just filling the "minority"-slots with stereotypes that don't have anything interesting about them. Quantity over quality leads to bad products.
 
Top Bottom