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. pgm123

    pgm123 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    Messages:
    1,168
    Gender:
    Male
    So, would you say the main issue is on the higher difficulties? I would guess the average player's average victory time is probably in the 400-500 turn range on standard speed. I may be way off, but the average civ player is playing on Prince and probably wants to win most games on that difficulty.
     
  2. Fluphen Azine

    Fluphen Azine What is Fluphen Azine?

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2013
    Messages:
    1,156
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I have had games where I think the Barbs are smarter than the AI Civ opponents.
    Many recent games they have given me plenty more trouble that will slow my game down by 20 turns or so.
     
  3. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,290
    Main issue is there on all difficulties, but is more noticeable on higher difficulties as a result of the AI's bonuses.

    Rather, a huge part of the "issue with the AI" is that the AI is sac'd to cover up bad design. That bad design doesn't go away. Not even below prince.

    To be fair barb AI is more true to the game-defined purpose for them. That AI script is written more in line with what the mechanic implies. Still awful tactically, but it mostly does its job.
     
  4. CaptainUnknown

    CaptainUnknown Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2010
    Messages:
    236
    I don't think I saw anyoneelse mention this (only read about half), but increasing the ability of the A.I. Could create additional performance costs. It would of course be great if the AI was better, but there is definitely other considerations that the developers must take into account. Turn times would probably be extremely affected by late game decision making which of course increases per each additional AI opponent. So in short, I care more about district/improvement placement, because I feel like that is at least manageable, asking the AI to move armies like a human would definitely not be easy.
     
  5. Engeez

    Engeez Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2019
    Messages:
    47
    Well I’m not talking supercomputer type AI here but rather highly functional tactically. I really think they over complicated things with battering rams, seige towers, supply convoys, ect. They should have just had a more robust promotion system that had these effects included. Also simple instructions to defend like having ranged units garrisoned in cities and encampments, perhaps Siege weapons garrisoned in coastal.

    I honestly wouldn’t even mind a 300% production bonus to AI’s producing units on Deity.

    I could rant on all day but the reason for this thread was to gauge interest in Firaxis perhaps sub-contracting a 3rd party to develop this because clearly they don’t have the ability or desire to persue this avenue.

    It makes sense, subcontract 3rd party, split the profit, Firaxis has no liability. There are very few games that would be worth this venture, I believe with the popularity of Civ it would be profitable.
     
  6. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,890
    Gender:
    Male
    The only viable path to this I could see would be to package it up as an expansion/DLC labelled "Challenge Mode" or some such. You'd need a couple of rules changes and some art assets to maintain the pretext. But the marketing around it could clearly identify that it's targeted to a particular audience, not the average consumer of the game.
     
    oedali likes this.
  7. Sherlock

    Sherlock Just one more turn...

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,208
    Location:
    Eagle, Idaho
    Not forty bucks more on top of the original purchase price.
     
  8. RealAntithesis

    RealAntithesis Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    239
    I wouldn't pay for a dlc patch just for better AI. Firaxis should have been improving the AI with every paid dlc with new content.

    However, Firaxis have clearly dropped the ball on the AI front (ie AI ships doing absolutely nothing during their turn while getting continuously hit by my ships, lack of combat coordination, surrendering all their cities in a peace deal when they were bigger than me etc).

    If they're not going to seriously look at improving the AI, the very least they can do is make the sdk available to modders so the community can fix it themselves. Anything else would be a slap in the face and keep the game broken.

    I still have fun at the start, but the loss of feeling challenged due to disfunctional AI results in loss of enjoyment and quitting the game.
     
  9. gcampono

    gcampono Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2018
    Messages:
    23
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree that the AI should be fixed without asking for additional money. Alas, since we already paid for the game even tough it has a horrible AI and since they know that we will probably pay future games regardless (I mean CIV V AI was not really bright and I still bought CIV VI), they don't really have an incentive to improve it.

    Playing multiplayer is not really a solution. I mean it is better than nothing: I now play multiplayer only, but the problem is we don't have any means to know if an opponent is good or bad, resulting often in games that are too imbalanced to be fun. Would it be so difficult to implement some sort of a scoring system?
     
  10. steveg700

    steveg700 Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2012
    Messages:
    3,266
    Note that there's a distinction between saying the AI should be "fixed" versus saying it should be "improved".

    If it needs fixing, then it's broken. Something isn't working as intended. Abusing chop overflows via policy cards is broken. You're supposed to get the bonus for building ships, not a bit of a ship and then a chunk of a district.

    I would say most of the AI problems are a matter of requiring improvement. The AI requires more robust programming to deal with variables. The AI early-rushing with warriros and slingers rather than waiting for archers is logic that requires improvement.

    Of course, the lines get blurred, because we don't always know what's going with the AI behavior. Is the reason that the AI doesn't build or use aircraft a coding defect, or just really bad logic that doesn't prioritize a major staple of modern warfare. Since it *never* builds them, I would guess the former.
     
    Wizard-Bob likes this.
  11. Onin

    Onin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    I still don't get what you are trying to say.

    I will say that how the AI gets to be competitive with you is not nearly as important as it being competitive.

    The capacity for a strong AI to curb stomp the player every single time is possible. It just isn't the goal. I think that is really the problem I have with these discussions about AI here. They seem to be missing the point.
     
  12. pgm123

    pgm123 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    Messages:
    1,168
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm the same way. I'll even go further and say that the typical civ player doesn't want the AI to be able to win. The game is a major time commitment and most people want to come away with a victory. Also, the typical civ player isn't playing on Deity. The typical civ player doesn't find Prince easy. Firaxis needs to cater to these people as much, if not more, than the people min-maxing.
     
  13. RealAntithesis

    RealAntithesis Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    239
    The goal should be to present enough of a challenge for the game to be enjoyable. At the moment, when sea battles just feel like turkey shoots with AI just giving up at some point and not doing anything - something is broken. The game ceases to be a challenge and there's no point anymore to continue.
     
  14. Zdarg

    Zdarg Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Messages:
    463
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    Nothing.
    AI isn't in any way "great", but after 28 years of playing with bad AI I grew accustomed to it and don't really want or expect anything better.
     
  15. Onin

    Onin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    Honestly I don't think the AI winning is really all that important. I think it is more about the player using the tools of the game that makes the game fun and interesting. The computer opponent is secondary to the game systems themselves. The AI civs are really just a bunch of pace cars.
     
  16. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,890
    Gender:
    Male
    I think what's in question is how fast should the pace cars be going.
     
  17. ExemplarVoss

    ExemplarVoss Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2016
    Messages:
    349
    When it comes to fixing or improving the AI, consider the number of times you've seen ranged units wander around rather than shoot at attackers, melee units in cities not attack nearby units to weaken them (or finish them off), even if it means the city gets taken next turn, or the AI abruptly abandon victory conditions.

    I wont speak for other people, but that's what I mean by the AI is bad and firaxis should feel bad and fix it. For no additional money, just basic dignity and professional pride as programmers, as well as ethics as a company trying to sell a product.

    The AI doesn't need to faceroll players, it just needs to stop wearing soiled underwear on its head.
     
  18. Wielki Hegemon

    Wielki Hegemon Prince

    Joined:
    May 27, 2013
    Messages:
    465
    Location:
    Warsaw
    By the way guys, what do you mean by great AI? What do you expect from AI? What are the main issues now? What changes do you expect?
    Maybe instead of complaining on AI, we should make "blacklist" of main AI problems based on specific cases. It will help both developers and moders to improve things.
    Only this kind of feedback is worth and can improve things. So instead of talking about how much you will pay for unexisting stuff, or repeating "how bad AI is" mantra we should make something like this? What do you think?
     
  19. Tech Osen

    Tech Osen Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,468
    It seems the AI is unaware that skipping a turn on water does not heal a unit like skipping a turn on land does. This happens especially often with embarked units.

    What bothers me is that when you have enough diplomatic visibility you get these message that so and so is going for a specific victory type. And often that victory type is so very obviously far beyond their grasps that you wonder what on earth is going on there. Like a civ lagging two eras in science with a handful of cities deciding to go for a domination victory. :rolleyes:
     
  20. pgm123

    pgm123 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    Messages:
    1,168
    Gender:
    Male
    I think people mean different things. Most of the problems are related to unit tactics. I think most people will be pleased if you simply got the AI to move units better.

    I do think there's a possibility that some of the problems are intentional. Other civs gets your cities to the point of conquest and then retreats to heal. City States don't do that. The AI seems to prioritize things differently and I have to think that's to prevent bad players getting rolled over and quitting.
     

Share This Page