Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Gazebo, May 1, 2018.
I noticed this also, is there a github open for it?
This is what I'm worried about it. Perfect storm or not, it would be better if it were fine-tuned to be less drastic.
It is not a mandatory quest, there’s a cap on the number a CS can have out at one time.
Considering the AI literally could not get the second bonus (or even the first in most cases?), this doesn't seem true.
your uncertainty here is telling... many had observed AI w/ 2nd bonus; it was not that uncommon. They did not use it optimally; though most war/combat things could be cut, if thats the qualifier for stripping out a vanilla feature. Some play human v human in vp, and from that perspective, losing tactical options, even small ones, does not really seem worthwhile for what I expect will be a very minor human-AI balance effect.
anyway, its a subtle flattening from vanilla, not gamebreaking by any means. if any future pass on the AI made them better at staying put in the right moment, would hope to see this re-enabled (or in an options/defines sql)
Any chance of more pantheons and beliefs to go with the extra religion or the 43 civ?
Considering it coincides with massive MP fixes, im wondering what the MPers think of this loss to their gameplay as well. AI doesnt know how to use fortify or multi-turn fortify but Players certainly do
didnt see last posts earlier, but its worth mentioning 1 turn or 2 turns fortify, it doesnt matter AI still won't use it properly. im in the middle of a game right now, newest version, enemy spearman on a hill took the initiative to attack my full health conquistador 1v1. he took 81 damage, i took 9. they dont know what theyre doing in combat and its safe to say after this many years of work on it they never really will. and thats fine, Ilteroi & company made the best of the system that was put in place by firaxis (theyre better than vanilla) and it is what it is. and AI have plenty of bonuses to compensate for that. so like Tekamthi said, no reason to start stripping legacy vanilla/civ 4 features from the game now.
I tolerate a lot of flak and complaints around here, but saying the tactical AI doesn’t know what it is doing wholesale because it made that mistake is absurd. You’re just trolling with that kind of talk, and you know that. The tactical AI has specific goals in many situations, some of which include dumping attacks into difficult targets to uproot them and/or attrit them. The AI will suicide units to give itself time to get everything else into postion. It also - amazingly - sometimes screws up and misjudges a scenario. But to say it’s wholly ignorant is ridiculous.
again with the calling people trolls? guy... I play the game. I used that example cuz it just happened and was easy to remember low hanging fruit. i play enough and pay enough attention the tactical AIs moves (and what it should have done based on what i know they could see) to know theyre consistently bad. now maybe I have a high standard for good play? maybe they look just great to warlord players? but i am seeing the mistakes constantly, their constant lack of proper fortifying not the least of which. I never said they dont have reasons for what they do, of course they do, they're still bad. if they wern't, they couldn't possibly lose games at high difficulties with the absurd amount of bonuses they have. first and foremost its their inability to fight properly thats the only thing keeping players in the game against those kind of bonuses. sorry if any of that stings but its what i see and feel, im welcome to my opinion and youre welcome to tell me im wrong and how great they are at tactics, but, again, youre being a troll when youre calling people trolls.
anyway thats not a personal knock on you or Ilteroi or anybody else. you guys done the best you could with what you were given, Ilteroi spelled out before if he were to make a tactical AI system he wouldnt have made the one firaxis did. and I certainly couldnt have done any better, it is what it is, but i cant sit here and lie about their play either.
I wonder if this isn't what prompted the fortification change in the first place... that recent thread seemed to have many anecdotes but little in the way of objectively confirmable evidence, at least to the lay-reader. Seemed to be a "dumb AI" flavor to that discussion as well. My own anecdotal experience was more favorable to the AI's use of, or stumbling into, the 2nd turn bonus.
That said, I absolutely trust our fearless dll-conquistadors; after having gained a sense of how civ's lua works, and along with it a minor ability to read-the-matrix so to speak when opening up mod files etc, I infer that the core devs here surely can tell what that AI is or isn't thinking about. The AI doesn't appear to "think" about fortification at all from the player's perspective; was this not the original concern raised? It seems to fortify as a consequence of other objectives.. ie it'll end-up fortifying if it needs to heal, or because it has found a choke point/resource to guard, but not directly to take advantage of a fortification benefit. It seems rare that such a circumstance makes a big difference, though I definitely was able to use the function with greater effect, and more consistently. No argument there.
My speculation on underlying mechanisms aside, can you comment on how this was implemented? ie is the 2nd turn bonus still there, under the hood, but set to '0' (ie modable somehow?), or is the 2nd turn bit disabled altogether?
You definitely take things way past the point of reason, largely due to your wording but also the fact that you bother to go on like this consistently. It's difficult to take anything you say as an opinion since you often state a number of things as fact.
The worst thing you consistently do is bring up this defeatist argument. That things can't get better and work should stop. That the pinnacle of VP is still bad but better doesn't make for much of a compliment considering that you won't find a single other strategy game with such a rewarding singleplayer experience against the AI. You've made it clear that you don't like the balancing going on, so why don't you take a step back and consider that perfection isn't always the immediate goal?
Constructive feedback is what a community project is built on, not those who say a change is crap and there's no reason whatsoever for the changed thing to get attention. At least when a legitimate problem was raised from the ones doing the work in the first place.
Genuinely dont know what youre talking about... i wonder if you know what youre talking about but you dont much see me comment poorly against anything i can change myself these days. youre right, i think the VP balance could be better but i dont go on about it since I learned how to fix it myself, problem solved. this particular change we've been discussing is a bad change and that needs to be voiced at the moment since it is something that affects every CP user unfortunately. VP is G's thing, CP was i believe supposed to be the actual community thing but the work done on this change was in the dark and it was rolled out in the dark, I dont like that. not gamebreaking, still minor obviously, like any change that could possibly be made to this enormous game, but still a poor move with some dubious reasoning behind it. I wish i could have stayed quiet, but nobody has said yet this change can be made optional and from what i know, it cant. but i hope im wrong on that?
anyway about the tactical being what it is right now, and my lack of optimism about it somehow magically getting better when Ilteroi already spelled out his limitations on working with it? come now, thats just being realistic. people been working on it for literal years now and we're well past the point of diminishing returns on that. you can hold your breath for another 4 years if you like, but this is basically as good as the tactical AI is gonna get. i didnt say it was worse than any other game, and do you really need me to say how much better it is than civ 3 or something? so lets stay on topic please...
My point is that you often make sweeping claims and present it as fact. It creates issues when discussing specific problems, though you do at least bring attention to these things. It's clear why G takes issue with your comments given how you so easily say that the AI can't do something at all.
Ilteroi presented the problem with fortifying because that's a limit of its own. Just the simple automated process allowed him to take a load off the AI. Discussion on how it works allows this continue and hopefully lower how often you see those mistakes.
The AI devs clearly have far more optimism than you, and I hope it stays that way.
henceforth, let it be known that any post I make which contains a statement not directly referencing my body odor (on which i may speak as fact) is to be considered as beginning with the statement "IMO". I would insert it manually, but it does get tiresome needing to repeat that my experiences have lead to my having opinions. the hat has spoken.
I think the point is that your comment didn't add anything constructive, just criticism. You could have just left it at "I don't think the AI can fortify correctly whether it is 1 turn or 2 to do so", but instead chose to continue on how any further work of the tactical AI will likely be a waste of time. That's just mean and pessimistic.
Yeah, if you could just go ahead and code the Civ version of Deep Blue AI, that'd be great. By next Monday. Okay ciao!
In other news... I think something is wrong with this picture...
Completely! It's an awful location for a city.
He was looking to rile things up the post before the one to which Gazebo responded -- when he asked MP players how they felt about the change, even though he doesn't play MP. After no one took the bait, he followed up with a second one.
Separate names with a comma.