1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

[GS] How much are you willing to pay for a “great” AI?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Engeez, Feb 5, 2019.

?

How much would you be willing to pay for a “great” AI

  1. Nothing, the AI is already great

    22 vote(s)
    17.1%
  2. Under $50

    54 vote(s)
    41.9%
  3. $50-$100

    24 vote(s)
    18.6%
  4. Over $100

    29 vote(s)
    22.5%
  1. ExemplarVoss

    ExemplarVoss Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    349
    Not voting, because all the options are terrible, but my answer:

    Nothing. By making the game , they have an obligation to make a _functional_ AI that can achieve game objectives. No additional money from consumers is warranted or morally OK.

    'Great AI' is a pipe dream that isn't worth chasing.
     
    markai likes this.
  2. Tech Osen

    Tech Osen Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,473
    I think a good AI means something different for everyone. What one finds an enjoyable challenge will cause another to throw their keyboard through the screen.
    I also don't think I'd enjoy playing against myself to be honest... :p
     
  3. Duuk

    Duuk Doom-Sayer Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,908
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    New option: Nothing, because I'm one of the people that knows there will never, ever be an AI in any video game that can challenge a human at a complex game. Every single strategy game on the market the number one complaint is "OMG FIX THE AI". If you want to play competitively, play multiplayer.
     
    Xarang, Josephias, Gorbles and 2 others like this.
  4. CPWimmer

    CPWimmer King

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2016
    Messages:
    803
    Gender:
    Male
    You need a different "A" vote. I voted "Nothing, the AI is already great" but my real vote is "Nothing, the AI is good enough to meet my needs, but I would love for them to keep upgrading it via patching it for free"
     
  5. Ziad

    Ziad Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    1,792
    Location:
    Lebanon
    .... mods are a thing.
     
  6. steveg700

    steveg700 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    3,287
    So, is the pretext of this post that for Civ to have a significantly better AI than it currently has, it would boil down to Firaxis having to make a far greater capital investment? Such a statement must be made in the vacum of what others have accomplished with no more, and often less.

    I would say that Amplitude, Stardock, and Paradox have produced games with better AI's than Civ VI. Heck, Stars in Shadow has a better AI than Civ VI. Those are games that cost no more than $60.

    So, my answer would be that I would happily pay $60 and then be pleased to see gradual improvements patched over the game's ensuing commercial lifespan.
     
  7. Duuk

    Duuk Doom-Sayer Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,908
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    And yet the #1 complaint in the Stellaris forum is "OMG FIX THE AI"
     
    ChocolateShake, Gorbles, bbbt and 4 others like this.
  8. steveg700

    steveg700 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    3,287
    Yep. More of those folks should come play Civ VI.

    Difference is, I expect Paradox to eventually straighten out the mess they made. With Civ VI, I just expect new mechanisms for the player without any explicit or implicit intent to get the AI to do anything better. And then spreading it to more platforms for consumption.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2019
  9. _ViKinG_

    _ViKinG_ BERSERKER

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2013
    Messages:
    305
    So just play lower difficulty, and us that wants more challenge on diety get that
     
    679x likes this.
  10. Zyxpsilon

    Zyxpsilon Running Spider

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2009
    Messages:
    3,061
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    On Earth
    Not at all.
    But this "opinion" is based on the improbability to ever enhance the current AI state furthermore simply because of the inherently more complex factors involved. There are many features in this game that prevent (formulated) tackling of various ruleset conditions including a lack of DLL control by modders -- which doesn't mean external interventions would make a worthy dent in the pseudo-flaws already there.

    Secondly.. the human mind is very far above & beyond anything we can manage to apply into code destined to mimic **our** intelligence levels.
    Lets speak again about such issues in a century or so when science has evolved to produce such artificial magic to a point where pure logic truly includes "natural" bio-emotion. Right now we only witness fiction & illusions.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2019
  11. riddleofsteel

    riddleofsteel Office Linebacker

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    518
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Down the pub
    In spirit, I would pay as much as the asking price might be. In practice, I wouldn't pay a single cent, because we should already have at least a passable AI.
     
  12. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    For those who are willing to pay, be aware that to be consistent, you will also have to be willing to pay the modders that will eventually fix it. Are you? :D
     
  13. Duuk

    Duuk Doom-Sayer Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,908
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    As a clarification, I don't play multiplayer. I don't play super competitively. I play ultra-casual, I don't theory-craft, I'm a "bad". I probably wouldn't have noticed that the AI doesn't use aircraft if someone hadn't pointed it out. But if you ARE one of the people that wants a bleeding-edge AI, then you really should be playing MP competitively.
     
    Xarang, Wizard-Bob and Ziad like this.
  14. Wizard-Bob

    Wizard-Bob Always remember to Find Your FUN!

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2010
    Messages:
    170
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    My opinion, the poll is flawed as it has as much or more to do with one's financial circumstances as it has to do with the value attributed to what one considers a better AI. I voted for "Over $100" but I empathize that it is not an option for one who is living paycheck to paycheck.

    That said,

    In the 1990's I played a multiplayer strategy game called CHQ which had leader-boards and what-not. I and many others contributed many 100's of dollars (back then - it was a lot of money for a game) to a small group who was bettering the game. Sort of like an early crowd-sourcing effort I suppose. So I am absolutely willing to pay for improvements.

    That said,

    For me, the Civ VI AI is fine. I am not a min-maxer, I play casually, for FUN, and each game I like to experience the "story" of the campaign (yes, this is all made up in my mind :) ) For me, it WOULD be great if the AI made fewer blatant blunders, but overall, I am happy camper!
     
  15. Ziad

    Ziad Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2013
    Messages:
    1,792
    Location:
    Lebanon
    If I'd ask anything to be fixed, it's AI city state aggression and propensity to settle loyalty negative areas with no possibility of retention.

    It seems the former is getting fixed to be more rational (no more Australia killing CS) and the latter is getting some improvements apparently so yay.
     
  16. Wielki Hegemon

    Wielki Hegemon Prince

    Joined:
    May 27, 2013
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Warsaw
    Sorry, but if you consider "bad AI" as a game malfunction/bug/incompleteness why you want to pay for fixing it?
    I understand paying for new content (new mechanics, civs, leaders, scenarios, content packs, even graphics), but when something which is already a part of a game works bad, it should be fixed.
    Imagine buying a new mobile with a camera which doesn't work. You go to a producer and he says it can be fixed for an additional fee. It is absurd.
    AI is not a new mechanic. It is part of a game and if you consider it not working, you should expect it to be fixed without additional payment.
     
    679x likes this.
  17. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,137
    One of my goals is that never in my lifetime will I see a "Great" AI

     
    Kjimmet, Fluphen Azine and Duuk like this.
  18. Swissy

    Swissy Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2002
    Messages:
    183
    Location:
    Chicago
    Nothing, as I mainly play multiplayer. Now I would pay for a stable multiplayer experience, say around $5 a month.
     
  19. bbbt

    bbbt Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    1,954
    Eh, I think most people here are aware there won't be a "bleeding-edge AI" - yes if you want a difficult tactical combat challenge, especially early game, it's probably MP (which probably all most MP is).

    I want an AI that's better at building and getting to victory conditions than it currently does and actually has more of a distinct personality.

    I.e. I was definitely a vote for "stop the AI from taking over all the city states depending on personality" even though taking city states probably improves the AI's chances overall.
     
  20. Duuk

    Duuk Doom-Sayer Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,908
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    Funny you say that, because that's a long running argument between devs, players, and marketing: Should the AI play to make the game "fun" for the player and "roleplay" its various roles (IE: Gandhi plays the pacifist, Genghis plays the conqueror) or should the AI play to win? Because if the AI is playing to optimally win then it can very definitely be min-maxed and crafted to achieve an optimal route to victory, with each AI targeted to a victory condition it should play for (with a possible "back up plan" if needed)... but is that FUN for the player?

    It's why the AI for chess, while "complex", can be coded: it's only playing to win, against 1 player, with purely optimal moves, with no randomization involved. Tic-Tac-Toe can be coded. But a game where hundreds of variables and possible shifts PLUS the fact that human opponents DON'T always select optimal strategies and CAN'T be counted on to oppose the AI in linear opposition makes a "true AI" impossible.

    Also, if you think that through, the AI should never, ever, under any condition perform diplomacy with the human player. The human is playing to win, the AI should automatically oppose them. Ergo, anything that the human proposes to the AI is a net-loss to the AI as it allows the human to continue to exist. Therefore the human is not losing and the AI is not winning. So the AI, by roleplaying as a civilization, is running non-optimally in a victory condition.
     

Share This Page