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. Onin

    Onin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    I think that in the case of how the AI uses the units it has or building units that make sense (either strategically or thematically) there has to be some level of competence. I don't think many people would really want the AI to act like a smart human in terms of them using their navy to attack the player where they are weak.

    As for challenge I think it is very hard to scale AI up in terms of difficulty levels. It is much easier to just give them more resources. I think a moderately capable AI with more resources would probably be the sweet spot.
     
  2. Wielki Hegemon

    Wielki Hegemon Prince

    Joined:
    May 27, 2013
    Messages:
    462
    Location:
    Warsaw
    This might be a thing. I wonder if there is a possibility to make for example a few builds od AI with a different model of behavior.
    The least reasonable (something like current one) (for lowest difficulty levels)
    Moderate reasonable (for medium difficulty levels)
    Reasonable (for highest difficulty levels)
     
  3. ashendashin

    ashendashin King

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2016
    Messages:
    966
    Both modders and devs are far more capable of recognizing its failings. The author of AI+ made a long partial list and the Community Patch(Vox Populi core for Civ5) exists for comparison.
    The community would complain and complain about the same few things they can see while all of the inner workings that are missing/broken/detrimental go unnoticed. Firaxis doesn't even bother acknowledging the stuff that's obvious to the common user, so I don't see where your argument comes from.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2019
  4. Tech Osen

    Tech Osen Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,465
    I usually play on emperor but it just annoys me to no end that the AI is "cheating". It's just an emotional thing but it just feels weak, the easy way out. It also doesn't really fix anything, it's just a matter of catching up and once you done that it's just the same AI as on prince.
     
  5. Onin

    Onin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    Well the problem is that this weakness can be exploited in the same way no matter the difficulty level. Trying to scale AI decision making up would be very difficult.

    If the AI was smarter about using its units at all difficulty levels then just adding more units will create a challenge.
     
  6. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,286
    That is not how competitor civs exist according to the rules of the game.

    It isn't the goal because the devs don't think that would be fun. The devs don't think that would be fun because the game is poorly designed. If it weren't, opponents trying to win would not preclude fun.
     
  7. Onin

    Onin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    No one would want to lose to deep blue playing civ 6 every time. That has nothing to do with design of the game.

    A smart AI would first and foremost be better at attacking other AI enemies. I don't see that happening anytime soon mostly because I think game designers know the players would hate that.

    The biggest weaknesses of the civ 6 AI are in how it can be incompetent with basic stuff like unit movement and what types of units it produces. Failure to upgrade them. Stuff like that.

    A philosophy of game design built around making an AI that is going to play like a real human enemy is both cost prohibitive and not what people actually want.
     
  8. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,124
    Yeah, good AIs "looking to win" would make continent maps virtually unplayable. I mean, unless you wanted every game to be the same where you eventually have to take on some giant monster that swallowed all of its neighbors.
     
  9. Engeez

    Engeez Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2019
    Messages:
    47
    My minimum list would be:

    1a) Better Tactically in war: I know I’m repeating myself in saying one of the biggest mistakes they made was needing support units vs a robust promotion tree or great generals that could have an automatic seige or battering ram ability. The AI needs to chill the need to make a dozen or so supply convoys. What happened to the medic promotion?

    1b) Military Tactics: Be able to both defend and take cities efficiently. To defend, have ranged garrisoned in city centres and encampments (siege units near naval threatened cities, along with a garrisoned Naval ranged. When attacking with a large military, overwhelm the opponent and bring the proper tools to do so, similar to Civ 5.

    1c) Naval & Air: this is pretty obvious. Actually use Air units. As far as naval, just overwhelm and slam units along with ranged. Maybe allow all AI units that are embarked along with ships the ability to heal anywhere.

    1d) AI siege units ability to attack both units and cities. Perhaps get rid of the need for AI’s to have observation baffoons and allow catapult (2 line of sight), bombard (2 no sight needed), Artillary (3), Rocket Artillary (4).

    1e) 300% military production for AI on Deity, 200% Immortal, 150% Emperer.

    2) Civilian Units: Settlers escorted until settlement. If player happens to steal settler, it becomes a builder). Don’t settle in more than -7 loyalty. Builders properly improve terrain (this could be a novel).

    3) Wonder building: Certain terrain dependant wonders (Petra, St. Basils, Chichen Itza, ect) instruct AI must have 3 or more desert hills in 3 hex radius (in Petra’s case) to build.

    Other: Perhaps allow AI to see 10-12 hex radius at the beginning of each game to not settle in such ridiculous locations. Also build a script to plan their cities probably once it’s settled kind of like a human does. Should I waste that +5 adjacency bonus on a holy site or be smart and build a campus?

    I’m out of time to write and I’m sure GS will create another abundance of AI tendencies but I’m trying to think of things that are easy to do without involving MIT or NASA to implement.
     
  10. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,286
    This is ignoring/missing the point I was making.

    This too.

    If the AI "playing well" in terms of winning leads to degenerate outcomes, you have a badly designed game. Making the AI not attempt those things does not remove the core problem. All it does is attempt to mask the problems in the game with an AI script that plays a different game.
     
  11. jokii

    jokii Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    Messages:
    85
    I played hotseat games with my brother, and it is hard to explain how much better experience is playing civ when you have actual opponent.
    Playing against AI feels like Sim City game. Like a free build game...
    $100 easy...
     
    LastSword likes this.
  12. RohirrimElf

    RohirrimElf Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,073
    Biased poll. I would pay nothing because it should be part of the package of buying a civ game.
     
    Ondolindë likes this.
  13. Onin

    Onin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    It isn't ignoring anything.

    If you look at the game and say the AI should play to win then the AI will attack the weak. It should calculate efficient choices. It should race to victory conditions ASAP. That would absolutely lead to a fundamentally different game happening outside of what the player is doing as the AI wouldn't just see the player as the enemy but everyone as the enemy and then be better at attacking it to achieve victory.

    When developing an AI in a single player game a game designer is crafting an experience for the player. They are not creating an AI that is meant to win which is the frame of reference you try and put forth.

    This is a very important distinction that IMO needs to be made when talking about the AI. It is first and foremost about a player experience.
     
    Duuk and RohirrimElf like this.
  14. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,286
    This demonstrates you're still not addressing the point I made.

    This is not an honest representation of the AI's designated role per the rules of Civ.

    Chess AI doesn't play league of legends. It plays Chess. Dota2 AI doesn't play Madden. It plays Dota2.

    Civ 6 AI does not play Civ 6, because playing Civ 6 per its rules is apparently something the devs (and you) believe wouldn't be fun. That says a great deal about the quality of the design/rules of CIv 6.

    Until that quality improves, it is unlikely the devs will make the AI try. People will therefore keep calling it bad. Let's not pretend that AI is really the issue though. If you acknowledge it wouldn't be fun for the AI to try to win, you (and the devs themselves) are acknowledging the poor design of Civ 6 as the core problem.
     
  15. Duuk

    Duuk Doom-Sayer Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,905
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    Not at all. A huuuuuge part of the "Civ Experience" since the... wait for it... Dawn of Time... has been interacting with the CHARACTERS of the AI civilizations. Not just "build buildings. build units. click, click, repeat." Most Civ players play so we can interact, so we get that feeling of "sweet, I'm next to Gilgabro, send him a delegation and friend him quick." and (older Civ games) "Oh damn. Hello Catherine. Why sure, I'll be your friend..." <immediately starts building forts and units on that border against the sudden and inevitable backstab>

    If the AI played the game as just a series of optimal zeros and ones it wouldn't be Civilization. It would be Chess++
     
  16. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    8,766
    Location:
    France
    Add me in.

    That's also the reason why I don't play competitive MP, and don't want the AI to play competitive MP.

    You want Civ6 AI to play Civ6 like a chess AI plays chess, some of us don't.
     
  17. Wielki Hegemon

    Wielki Hegemon Prince

    Joined:
    May 27, 2013
    Messages:
    462
    Location:
    Warsaw
    And this statement came from where?
     
  18. ashendashin

    ashendashin King

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2016
    Messages:
    966
    You're absolutely right that I want fun interaction in Civ. You know what would really make it fun and meaningful to interact with those civs full of character? If their character reflected their capability. Civs should not have some arbitrary goals set like that old sexism agenda when the game has absolutely no mechanisms around gender beyond your leader. If there was a congress where you gain x yields or whatever for supporting this and that social controversy with an entire section of the game having you maneuver around sexes and personalities...sure, I guess it could work. It'd amount to a Civ dating sim but I'm sure people would be into such garbage. I'd say it'd work better in some sort of medieval court sim or something but whatever.

    There's probably a better way to say it but that agenda paints @TheMeInTeam 's argument clearly enough to me. If the interactions are just there for the sake of it then you don't even have much of an RPG because those interactions are tantamount to LARPing.
    I generally don't see them talking about their obviously poor AI in any sense. I've seen some patch notes here and there but honestly I don't keep up with things much. What I do know is that there are far too many glaring issues for them to just not be aware of way more than their playerbase.
    I stated it because you claim that having a list made by regular forum goers would help the devs more than the repeated complaints about the AI being overall terrible. I don't see the complaints on lack of air unit use being acknowledged, for example, if you really want something specific. Since FXS clearly doesn't even want to broach the topic, I don't see the reasoning behind your proposal.
     
  19. Onin

    Onin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2019
    Messages:
    50
    I am addressing what you said. It is just that what you said is fundamentally wrong.

    You are stating that the "designated role per the rules of Civ" like this is some fact we all have to accept. It isn't. In fact I just pointed out in my previous post why I don't have to accept it which you mostly ignored other than saying I am not being honest.

    Then you say that any thoughts to the contrary are evidence that the game design itself is bad which makes no logical sense but you keep repeating it.

    This isn't a game of chess or a MOBA. It is a 4x strategy game. In this case we are discussing what amounts to the single player experience. It is literally the job of the people making the AI for this game to craft that experience for the player. In no way shape or form is it their job to create an AI to beat the player. If you don't fundamentally get that the people making these games are making a game experience and a marketable product then you can't have a meaningful conversation on the topic.

    Now if some computer science people wanted to open up the CIV AI and program an AI to beat the player they certainly could. Same goes for MOBAs or chess or Starcraft or whatever.

    Firaxis isn't designing deep blue. They are selling a product. To the extent their audience wants an AI to fight back and play to win then they have an incentive to design an AI to fight back and play to win. That is it. It isn't because one guy on a message board thinks it would be better a certain way. It isn't because it is inherent in the "rules of civ" or an acknowledgement of bad game design.

    Once you understand that AI is really about user experience then you can have a meaningful conversation about the issue. Otherwise it is really just people listing off ideas they think they would like (but probably wouldn't).
     
    Duuk likes this.
  20. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,286
    Still missing the point.

    What is the stated object of a game of Civ 6? The answer is to reach one of the victory conditions. If you do that, you win. If someone else does it instead, you lose. That is objective reality so far. The AI is bound by these same rules, which is also reality.

    Now, what does gameplay in Civ 6 look like when everyone attempts to do the stated object of the game? Go ahead, show me the contrary evidence. Show me the competitive MP games that don't see heavy warfare and have multiple people attempting space ships and culture w/o fighting to intercept these.

    I hold you won't be able to show me that, and as a result that you can't refute my assertions about what actions the design of Civ incentivizes. Perhaps you can demonstrate that I'm mistaken about what players who try to win at Civ 6 do though. Ball's in your court on that one, and it's absolutely necessary to the credibility of your position.

    They have yet to craft a rule set that gives incentives consistent with this statement.

    Still missing the point.

    Still missing the point.

    Still missing the point.

    If the game were designed well, the AI trying to win would not make the game "chess++", or "deep blue", or whatever random assertions made. It would make the AI play Civ 6, because trying to win would not result in degenerate, unfun behaviors.

    Yes, this means victory conditions, diplomacy rules, and actual mechanics would look very different.

    Really? There's been an awful lot of emphasis on "role playing" in this thread.

    I'm aware that Civ 6 is a 4x strategy game, at least in theory. Apparently many players don't want it to be a 4x strategy game and go so far as to claim that if the AI were to play the game like a 4x the game would somehow be worse. This includes you. Asserting this is a 4x and that the AI should role-play something else to its own detriment is self-inconsistent.

    The game could be designed so that role playing AI are effective. That game would have different rules than Civ 6 has. So long as the rules of the game and the AI's behavior are inconsistent, the AI will be bad and the game's representation of what it is will remain dishonest.

    CK2 does this pretty well. Perhaps not so social-justice friendly though, given all the infanticide, marriages of political convenience, and strange prevalence of accidents.
     
    Elhoim and ashendashin like this.

Share This Page