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. Gedemon

    Gedemon Modder Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    8,664
    Location:
    France
    No, that's not "being an obstacle", that being an AI that make what seems to be a logical decision to win the game (by eliminating the biggest threat first) but in the most frustrating way for the human.

    The AI should make alliances, of course, but logically and to maintain a balance of power (which means sometime take side with the human), not to eradicate him ASAP.
     
  2. Biz_

    Biz_ Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2010
    Messages:
    482
    if it was for a good civ game, maybe $3 per hour

    so if i play for 500 hours, maybe $1500

    but it would have to be actually great, not firaxis marketing "great"

    it's unclear whether great AI would make civ6 enjoyable though. i know it would be great for something like civ4
     
  3. krasny

    krasny Prince

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Messages:
    547
    Nothing. A great AI should be in the game to start with. Which is why I have boycotted Civ6 and will continue to do so for future Civs.
     
    Zuizgond likes this.
  4. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,110
    Because the game rules force this right now, yes. Do you compete for territory in Mario Kart? You'd have to stretch the definition pretty hard for that. In Final Fantasy games? Excluding MMO variants not at all.

    To make this work in Civ, you would need to make the benefits of cooperation sometimes greater than the benefits of controlling territory.

    None of the victory conditions in Civ 6 are pure surprise. Even religion, though preventing it can be annoying. Opponent built up to victory just like you did.

    Interesting aside - if someone is legitimately role playing, why do they care? Can't you opt to continue playing despite that the AI won? If someone wants to role play but is also upset about losing, there's something wrong with the rationale leading to that state of mind.

    Every Civ game aside from maybe the earliest ones has attempted to combine 1 and 2 and they have all been worse for this dishonesty. Soren Johnson's speech on good vs "fun" AI is probably still available on YouTube, but it's essentially a speech making an excuse, and it runs directly counter to the Civ 4 design philosophy of designing mechanics around competitive play, then building the AI. A self-inconsistency in the construction of the game. It remains the best in the series, but this was a significant flaw, perhaps the greatest flaw of Civ 4.

    If you're trying to win, the only real options are to declare war and defeat the opponent(s) threatening to win or to win first yourself. Getting the AI to evaluate this well is non-trivial, however. I would guess that it's harder than making it good tactically, because it's more nuanced.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2019
    Uberfrog likes this.
  5. Zuizgond

    Zuizgond Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    425
    They should pay us to accept to play the game against such a pathetic AI.
     
  6. Duuk

    Duuk Doom-Sayer Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    1,849
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Detroit, Michigan, USA
    Or you could just not buy Firaxis games and play another company's games.
     
  7. RohirrimElf

    RohirrimElf King

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    967
    Stick with civ 4 (doomstacks). Civ games have become more complex since civ 4 with 1 unit per tyle. And the AI could not keep up.
     
  8. RealAntithesis

    RealAntithesis Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2016
    Messages:
    239
    The problem I see it with all the victory conditions except for domination is that none of them are all that natural or expected. I always untick all except domination because I can see the rug being pulled out from under me unexpectedly due to some arbitrary cultural counter or similar ticking over to deny me victory (if the game goes that long). Even a religious victory since I see religion as more of a supporting mechanic rather than an end goal all of its own.

    Maybe the AI has too many different ways to achieve victory, to its detriment.
     
  9. Deggial

    Deggial Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,204
    Location:
    Germany
    My answer to this question is twofold.

    1) The AI has to be able to use the basic game mechanics

    This has been said multiple times already and I agree: A game AI must be able to utilize basic game mechanics.
    The most prominent and glaring issue (for me personally) in Civ6 might be air units and their use (or rather the lack of it). Not just their production, not only their deployment, but actually using them to attack.
    Abstain from attacking already bombed-to-zero cities with siege units might be another one.

    I am not willing to pay money in order to get this fixed! I am simply a demanding customer here: I expect them to get fixed sooner rather than later. An expectation that nevertheless got betrayed again and again as it seems. Oh well ...

    2) Teaching the AI advanced tactics and making sophisticated use of the game mechanics is worth a dedicated DLC

    On the other hand, I do understand the caveat that most gamers do not need/want a capable AI as they play on lower difficulty levels anyway and are struggling to deal with the current AI already. Even some high-level players might want a role-playing AI rather than a competitive one.
    This is an as reasonable argument as the fact that the development of a decent AI takes time (and therefore money) and doesn't really increase sales for the base game (see above). I do understand this, too.

    This is, why I voted for the "under $50" option.

    I believe, a dedicated "AI DLC" might be the optimal way to go:
    - A DLC is optional. Hence players who are satisfied with the current AI difficulty can simply abstain from the purchase and play along with their relaxing play-style.
    - I still believe that more than enough players would be willing to spend (at least some) money on such a DLC. By charging a reasonable and usual DLC price (around $15-25), the actual development time would be funded and the company will even be able to make a profit out of it.

    It seems like a win-win situation for me.
    I, personally, would definitely be willing to purchase such a DLC.
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2019
  10. _ViKinG_

    _ViKinG_ Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2013
    Messages:
    283
    Yea would be great to have an AI DLC. As they dont do mutch to make an competitive AI now for us who like to play on diety. put in a couple of new civs in there to and they will make money on that DLC
     
  11. Trav'ling Canuck

    Trav'ling Canuck Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2018
    Messages:
    2,864
    Gender:
    Male
    The way I'd like to see this addressed is to shift victory so that you need all of the world's civs to recognize you as the predominant civ on the planet. Then how you gain that recognition can come from your cultural influence, cowing them with your military might, wowing them with your scientific prowess, religious leadership, etc. Leadership in one area won't be enough if that civ is also influenced by another civ who leads in a different area, so you need to keep an eye on who's strong at what and assess where you have opportunities. I'd also have leadership be transitory, so being the first to land on Mars may convince most of the planet that you're the technology leader, but once two or three others have also made it to Mars, that prestige fades and now you need to get to an exoplanet to re-gain that influence. When other civs recognize your leadership, you get additional benefits including influencing how they vote in the world congress (as long as you're not asking them to vote in a way directly contrary to their own interests).
     
  12. Casworon

    Casworon Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2014
    Messages:
    191
    I would like to see a shift to a victory point mechanic. Where the aim is to get a certain number of victory points.

    Everything that helps towards victory at the moment gives you victory points. For example, capture an enemy capital, thats a victory point. Launch the earth satellite. Thats a victory point.

    Think it would allow for empires to be more balanced rather than having to focus so much on one area.
     
  13. Zuizgond

    Zuizgond Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    425
    AI could not keep up because no resources have been dedicated to it.
     
  14. pgm123

    pgm123 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2017
    Messages:
    1,168
    Gender:
    Male
    I doubt that.
     
  15. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,110
    Empire management is easier in Civ 5 and maybe comparable in Civ 6 (policy card micro) when compared against Civ 4. Civ 4 vs 6 is hard to measure because their complexity in management is pretty different. Civ 4's maintenance and tile micro is more in depth, whereas in 6 cities are strictly positive but you have a lot of timing stuff introduced by the interaction of inspirations/eurekas and the cards.

    Players who think Civ 4 wars are just slamming stacks into each other do not know how to fight in Civ 4. The AI also doesn't. It was harder because of the penalties on the player + larger bonuses it received on high difficulties (nothing has come close to Civ 4 warlords deity bonuses since BTS tuned it down, and even BTS deity bonuses are oppressive compared to Civ 6 deity).

    As I've pointed out, it isn't the AI in this case. If you watch competitive MP games, how many end with a peaceful winner w/o military contesting? There's a fundamental design flaw in Civ when it comes to victory conditions - most of them are contingent on the opponent not trying, otherwise redundant with score in true deadlock scenarios (which basically don't happen in most civ games after nukes).

    The incentives in Civ 6 don't match programmed AI behavior, intentionally. There's no way to fix that without either changing the design itself or changing how the AI handles the design.

    Its tactical play could be improved regardless, but it's still not going to try because the developers don't want it to try, nor do they seem to want to make Civ 6 into a game where they consider trying fun.
     
  16. Deggial

    Deggial Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    1,204
    Location:
    Germany
    I thought this was exactly the point of my post and covered in point 2)?

    Topic of my point 1) wasn't any general gameplay/fun consideration, but basic game mechanics that have nothing to do with this aspect at all. Basic game mechanics like usage of airplains. Please, don't make me believe that Firaxis deliberately decided that a whole unit line is not used by the AI. If that would be true, it would be really ... depressing.
     
  17. Ondolindë

    Ondolindë Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1,008
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    La Paz, Bolivia
    My simple answer is "nada" whatsoever.

    My arguments are: why should I? and Modders will do it for free and probably better. They are awesome!

    Now, I wholeheartedly agree that there are very different ideas of what a "good AI" is. First, we would need to define that and see what are the most common issues and what can be done about each realistically. But no one will fulfill everybody's expectations. That's probably one of Firaxis' issues. Another is the cost/benefit ratio which is tied to the evolution of gamers in regards to taste and what they want in their games. Firaxis is trying to cater to the most important things valued by the old and new schools of gamers. Probably tough. Instant gratification is something that in psychology we've seen intensify greatly in the last 20 years, but it has been coming along longer than that. The world is catering to that from all sorts of fronts: like shopping at Amazon, news, responses, friendships from Social Networks, Game complexity and strategy mechanics, Christmas expectations and shopping behaviors, News feeds and fake news, you name it. In conclusion, maybe I believe Firaxis should do a serious redesign of the AI, but will we want what they have to offer?
     
  18. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    The game's AI can only be as good as the best player that happens to be a developer. In that sense, FXS devs are mediocre players at best, from what I have seen in their streams... even that oh-so-taunted Carl character has shown nothing that would make me believe that he would defeat any one player from CFC... how can their AI be good then? They TRULY think it is awesome, because they suck at their own game.
     
    Zuizgond likes this.
  19. treadwin

    treadwin Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2001
    Messages:
    210
    Location:
    Canada
    The issue isn't exactly the AI. It is the knock on effect and the game decisions they have felt they have to take to compensate for the poor AI. It makes the start position and which Civs you have next to you so important.

    And the AI playing badly against the player is one thing, but on large maps the Ai will play badly against a strong civ on the other side of the world, and that Civ will sometimes have an unassailable lead by the time you even meet them. I restart instantly if I meet a militaristic civs close by. They will hurl themselves at you no matter what, and at emperor and above, even if you fight them off, you are not going to win when there is a civ on the other side of the map, building away unmolested, and getting no opposition from a weak civ with lousy AI.

    The start position becomes so unnecessarily important. Given how some of the new civs are so OP, I am worried how the AI will deal with them. Playing against a rich Alexander buying Hetairoi is a nightmare. Playing against the Mali doing the same with the Mandekalu Cavalry that can actually fund themselves seems ludicrous. I don't see how the AI will not let them run away with the game.
     
  20. Ondolindë

    Ondolindë Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2016
    Messages:
    1,008
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    La Paz, Bolivia
    You might be right. Or they just dumb it down. Either way, it is a problem.

    I wonder how the game would be different if they addressed the AI issues. There might be certain things not needed to compensate. Organizations sometimes lie to themselves in order not to see what the problem is, much like we as individuals do.
     

Share This Page