Info on Next Patch

[Sonereal]

Ok stop hijiacking the thread now guys, we had a good discussion anyway.

Whose hijacking the thread? We're not having a good discussion. It's really just thirty people asking you to explain what do you mean and you keep deflecting the question.

 

[joyous_gard]

Seriously? After making vague statements about the "DNA" of the game, the only problem you could think of right now is a simple UI issue?

I am lolling so much. I was going to write something like that but figured I must keep reading. I hope it gets crazier from here.

 

[The_J]

Ok stop hijiacking the thread now guys, we had a good discussion anyway.

-> Moderator Action: The off topic discussion, the DNA discussion and the bickering will stop now.

 

[ZimbuTheMonkey]

Ok stop hijiacking the thread now guys, we had a good discussion anyway.

Have a nice time with the next patch, you deserve it.

Yup, this is the part where you do that.

Again, to re-iterate (because you think repeating falsehoods makes them right):

1. I never claimed that the next patch would fix the problems, I only acknowledged that they are attempting to fix the problems (due to 2kgreg's announcement).

2. I just wanted you to explain your original comment (that there are AI problems within the game that cannot be fixed with a change to the code)

3. We didn't have a good discussion, I'm more frustrated than ever with your lack of answers and explanation and your incessant attempts to derail the discussion, use of strawmen and cutesy defensive sarcasm.

 

[r_rolo1]

Do you honestly think if the Chinese gave Genghis some bananas that would have stopped him from attacking ? Hell no it wouldn't. Do you really think that giving Rome small amounts of gold would have stopped their conquest? No, for the glory of Rome they will just take your gold when they conquer you.

RL China passed almost all of it's history bribing the northern tribes to make them quieter, sometimes even spending a quarter of the whole empire surplus for that. the system worked well enough most of the times ( the 2 times it failed was with genghis and the Manchu ( that slipped inside in the same way the Ottoman Turks got to Europe, by the hand of a faction that let them in to help in a internal struggle ) ) ... And Rome was also content with tribute and quietness most of the times ( see the relations of Rome with Dacia until Trajan )

Those were a seriously badly chosen example

 

[gunter]

I didn't read the next patch interview, is there any details or he only referred to AI focus generally speaking ?


BTW I am out of the previous discussion of course now

 

[Snapp]

RL China passed almost all of it's history bribing the northern tribes to make them quieter, sometimes even spending a quarter of the whole empire surplus for that. the system worked well enough most of the times ( the 2 times it failed was with genghis and the Manchu ( that slipped inside in the same way the Ottoman Turks got to Europe, by the hand of a faction that let them in to help in a internal struggle ) )

That was a seriously badly chosen example

Meh, i think the point got across.

Basically, I think the desire to expand or conquer can and should be more influential on diplomacy than gifting and simple trade relations.

The problem atm is that this is true of all AI leaders, when it should be only some of them.

 

[gunter]

Yup, this is the part where you do that.

Again, to re-iterate (because you think repeating falsehoods makes them right):

1. I never claimed that the next patch would fix the problems, I only acknowledged that they are attempting to fix the problems (due to 2kgreg's announcement).

2. I just wanted you to explain your original comment (that there are AI problems within the game that cannot be fixed with a change to the code)

3. We didn't have a good discussion, I'm more frustrated than ever with your lack of answers and explanation and your incessant attempts to derail the discussion, use of strawmen and cutesy defensive sarcasm.

I think our discussion may have bored the thread starter so I would prefer to end it here and if you do not share my way of thinking I can't really change my mind or my ideas for sure even if alone vs a dirty dozen

 

[r_rolo1]

Meh, i think the point got across.

Basically, I think the desire to expand or conquer can and should be more influential on diplomacy than gifting and simple trade relations.

The problem atm is that this is true of all AI leaders, when it should be only some of them.

The point is alss that sometimes the desire to expand or conquer can and should be less influential on diplomacy than gifting and simple trade relations If Civ IV system was too much, Civ V is probably too less

 

[joyous_gard]

Eh, it doesn't say too much. AI and diplomacy are the subject of the next patch. Those are topics of conversation so hopefully it will be improved.

Not my main issues, but patches always sound good to me. "To remove a mountain a man must begin by carrying away small stones." The great Leonard Nimoy.

 

[Snapp]

The point is alss that sometimes the desire to expand or conquer can and should be less influential on diplomacy than gifting and simple trade relations If Civ IV system was too much, Civ V is probably too less

Yes I agree, there is a happy medium that they could find, and think that it should be leader personality based.

Certain leaders are less likely to be affected by your bribes, and others are more affected by them and so on.

This would help to bring back AI personalities.

 

[Horizons]

Hopefully it's more then a patch, hopefully it's a complete overhaul.

Bring back diplomacy modifiers and the ability to have friends!

Those features will be introduced in a premium DLC just in time for Christmas.

 

[gunter]

I would appreciate an alpha patch to test and to properly fill a bug report , what do you think on this idea ?

Why not feasible in your opinion ?

 

[Ankh]

A lot of people in this thread seem to want to go back to the Civ IV model of diplomacy where you can gift your way into friendship, or simply being friendly makes you friends.

I don't but you bring an interesting point. I see extra resources I have as potential growth for my civ, if I have extra bananas I would like to have an option:

1. Trade then for gold or other stuff
2. Gift them for a temporary relation boost.

Honestly I really don't agree with that at all. I think its not realisitic that you can just gift useless crap and expect an alliance.

Agreed

Do you honestly think if the Chinese gave Genghis some bananas that would have stopped him from attacking ? Hell no it wouldn't. Do you really think that giving Rome small amounts of gold would have stopped their conquest? No, for the glory of Rome they will just take your gold when they conquer you.

No but giving Genghis some bananas or Rome some gold would at least delay the dow somewhat. except the more rarely surprise dow.

I could see the AI making more demands and if you meet them they don't attack, that could be realistic. They want to expand their borders so they demand you hand over the cities bordering them or they attack. You want to be peaceful, then you hand them over.

Agreed

 

[Sonereal]

I would appreciate an alpha patch to test and to properly fill a bug report , what do you think on this idea ?

Why not feasible in your opinion ?

Because the game works through Steam and an Alpha patch would have to be unpatched....

 

[gunter]

Because the game works through Steam and an Alpha patch would have to be unpatched....

Anyway I am pretty sure that doing an alpha or beta patch and 2-3 weeks later the official one, the final result would be better, above all cause thousands of players around the world could spot more bugs than a bunch of betatesters alone.

 

[Sonereal]

Anyway I am pretty sure that doing an alpha or beta patch and 2-3 weeks later the official one, the final result would be better, above all cause thousands of players around the world could spot more bugs than a bunch of betatesters alone.

But then we get stuck in an infinite loop.

"They should give out a demo of Civ5 a week before the game to test it"

"Well, they should've made the beta testing of the game public."

"Actually, the should make players test patches."

Do you know how often you'll get save-game breaking patches if we were to test each single build?

 

[YoHo]

I think the last patch illustrated that there were and probably still are a few basic bugs that have had a negative impact on AI and those are easier to fix.

At the risk of bringing up a fight again, I think a core issue with the AI is the notion that it is now playing to win.

A real human plays to win, but doesn't do so robotically. There's a bit of role play and a bit of emotion and a bit of irrationality. The human knows that they are playing Civ and a Civilization, diplomacy, war all mean something outside the ones and zeros of the game.

the AI doesn't know this. In Civ4, by not playing to win, the AI could be coded to behave like a nation/Civilization in an easier way.
In CiV, it is harder to maintain that element of irrationality and randomness that represent's the human's understanding of the tropes and unwritten rules of the game. That being long term friends may not be in your best interests in an absolute sense, but it is part of the flavor of what Civilization is about.

So the job is much harder for the AI developer....on top of the combat issues, you have to basically code the AI in such a way that it behaves the way a player would expect a civilization's leader to behave while still trying to win the game.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I don't need or expect a patch to the perfect AI or for them to turn "lead into gold." I don't think the developers will be able to hire the entire Carnegie-Mellon student body to hone it to perfection. There are some changes though that would make the game much more enjoyable.

The AI in the last version of Civ wasn't perfect either, even through years of patching and modification. But somehow, some way, most people found the game somewhat fun anyhow.

 

[gunter]

Yep but that could be minimized to one build only and the bug list could be managed and therefore closed by Firaxis when they think it is wise to stop the bug reporting.

To be honest I do not like the missing of dialog between producers and customers, at least with Firaxis. An example , within Football Manager the situation is completely opposite. On a daily basis developers, managers, marketing men, CEO, etc on a daily basis they post on the forum, together with customers.

Nowdays modders are a crucial part of a game success, above all games like civilization so a dialog and at least one beta patch could improve a lot the final result.