Opinions on the "AI"

[ashendashin]

I would say that number of things that cannot be changed or tweaked is actually much smaller that things that can be changed. Things we cannot change, from my observations, are mainly:
- tactical behavior of specific units
- building / unit valuations and their impact on build decisions
- assessment of strategic situation

I thought diplomacy was one of those?

 

[Archon_Wing]

I mean, why defend the placeholder ai? People modded civ 5 and it wasn't rocket science or a learning ai or whatever bizzare strawman where people will complain until the ai becomes sentient. Hell, there are mods on the civ 6 workshop.

Civ 4's ai was improved with help from modders. It is pretty obvious Firaxis knew their limitations and sought help from the community leading to a much better game. None of this "the ai is fine if I make up my own rules". The game got better as a whole and they even reduced ai bonuses as a result resulting in smoother difficulty. Yea, that game didn't descend from the heavens in perfect form either.

As a former AI modder of amother game I know personally that not everyone needs the best opponent possible but rather that they feel engaged a little bit with the occasional surprise. Some don't mind if they will always beat the ai as long as they don't fall asleep.

I mean even with this ai, I recently had a emperor game where I almost died to Tamar's chariots but I got up encampments and a wall just in time (minus a warrior sacrifice). That was probably the most exciting 5 minutes I've had in a while, even though I enjoy the game otherwise. I mean, not only was there actual danger, but an encampment actually did something. That's way more interesting than just cranking up levels and fwiw I do like seeing the ai being opportunistic and trying to kill me even if they fail.Having quarduple DoWs near the end of a game is good. I can respect that.

Ultimately the failing is thinking that people always want the game to be harder when improving ai. It can be argued that it really breaks people's immersion when you are doing the equivalent of plaing chess with a monkey and the solution is to keep adding more pieces to them.

 

[MaryKB]

I feel that the game is likely designed for the multitudes of players who are not top quality competitive players. For most people, the artificial intelligence works exactly as it is intended to and provides a rewarding game play experience. It provides a challenge but one that can be overcome. The best of the best players will never be satisfied and make up only a tiny fraction of Firaxis' consumers, so unfortunately they cannot spend all their efforts to please the best players. They have to think first of how the game can be created to make the largest number of people happy with it. They do help the great players though by offering the tools so that they can change the game to how they want!

I find it offensive that someone said "a stupid dog could beat this game". That is absolutely not true, and there are thousands of people who struggle to win even on the easiest difficulties. Those people are not less than "stupid dogs". I know it was meant as a hyperbole but it demonstrates a lack of consideration and a dehumanization of players who are not as skilled as the poster.

The computer players successfully build empires, travel through the technology and civics trees, try to achieve victory, and can cause stress for the player. Please remember that for most people this is perfect! If it is not enough of a challenge, there are options such as playing against equally skilled human opponents or tweaking the game for yourself to be the way you want.

 

[ashendashin]

I feel that the game is likely designed for the multitudes of players who are not top quality competitive players. For most people, the artificial intelligence works exactly as it is intended to and provides a rewarding game play experience. It provides a challenge but one that can be overcome. The best of the best players will never be satisfied and make up only a tiny fraction of Firaxis' consumers, so unfortunately they cannot spend all their efforts to please the best players. They have to think first of how the game can be created to make the largest number of people happy with it. They do help the great players though by offering the tools so that they can change the game to how they want!

I find it offensive that someone said "a stupid dog could beat this game". That is absolutely not true, and there are thousands of people who struggle to win even on the easiest difficulties. Those people are not less than "stupid dogs". I know it was meant as a hyperbole but it demonstrates a lack of consideration and a dehumanization of players who are not as skilled as the poster.

The computer players successfully build empires, travel through the technology and civics trees, try to achieve victory, and can cause stress for the player. Please remember that for most people this is perfect! If it is not enough of a challenge, there are options such as playing against equally skilled human opponents or tweaking the game for yourself to be the way you want.

I wonder how some people get it into their heads that it's always a case of either terrible or the most challenging AI for all players. AI can be built to appease all sorts of players. That's why difficulty levels exist. If reviews and the constantly resurfacing complaints regarding the AI are anything to go by, I highly doubt this is fine for the majority.

 

[isau]

I dont think its quite fair to compare modders to paid developers. The situation for each group is very different.

The biggest difference IMO is modders are modifying a *released game.* They can add new features, etc. But, in cases like Vox Populi, have months or years to perfect it against a more or less stable product. The situation for in house AIdevelopers is different.

This isn't to say I give the AI in civ 6 a free pass. The AIs inability to use air units is unacceptable. It struggles with things it absolutely should not. I think Firaxis needs to devote a resource to fixing it. But, I also know whatever they build, once tools come out, the community will make it far better, becayse we modders are operating in a different paradigm.

 

[ashendashin]

I dont think its quite fair to compare modders to paid developers. The situation for each group is very different.

The biggest difference IMO is modders are modifying a *released game.* They can add new features, etc. But, in cases like Vox Populi, have months or years to perfect it against a more or less stable product. The situation for in house AIdevelopers is different.

This isn't to say I give the AI in civ 6 a free pass. The AIs inability to use air units is unacceptable. It struggles with things it absolutely should not. I think Firaxis needs to devote a resource to fixing it. But, I also know whatever they build, once tools come out, the community will make it far better, becayse we modders are operating in a different paradigm.

It's not as if I want this to be a case of bashing on Firaxis. I've been itching to get into Civ6 because one major issue I have with VP is that Civ5 being 32-bit makes it so that you're extremely limited when it comes to modding visuals unless you're playing on a small map. For a long time I looked at Civ6 with excitement, but the further it goes with limited modding makes me wonder if Firaxis will hold up to it being "The most moddable Civ ever".

 

[Aristos]

I wonder how some people get it into their heads that it's always a case of either terrible or the most challenging AI for all players. AI can be built to appease all sorts of players. That's why difficulty levels exist. If reviews and the constantly resurfacing complaints regarding the AI are anything to go by, I highly doubt this is fine for the majority.

Exactly. The "core" AI has to be able to play the game using ALL its systems. Then, on top of that, you add bonuses per difficulty level to give even more challenge to those who want it. This AI is NOT playing the game using ALL systems, and that is not acceptable. Do I need to go over the long list of systems that are one-sided in favor of the player because the AI does not use them or, best case, mis-"uses" them? (air force, spies, adjacency bonuses, governors, etcetcetc)

This is the main point here, and a serious one at that. Pretending that I have to "invent" my own challenge to have more fun when the AI does not play with many systems at all (or worse, calling me BS because I state that I can win the games without resorting to save scumming or others) is plain nonsense. With that logic, I should avoid using the air force, the spies, the governors, the district adjacencies, etcetcetc? Nonsense.

 

[Infixo]

I thought diplomacy was one of those?

1-on-1 diplomacy is driven by traits, agendas and diplo modifiers. These are fully implemented via modifiers and can be tweaked. Then there are few tables that define statements, state transitions, etc. I'd say it's pretty much all we need.
The world-level-diplomacy is what I put into "assessment of strategic situation".

 

[ashendashin]

1-on-1 diplomacy is driven by traits, agendas and diplo modifiers. These are fully implemented via modifiers and can be tweaked. Then there are few tables that define statements, state transitions, etc. I'd say it's pretty much all we need.
The world-level-diplomacy is what I put into "assessment of strategic situation".

I mean, that's extremely broad. I personally think awareness of dealings and how it can help your regional interests is important enough to merit its own major issue. 1-1 interaction is a bit too simple to call it for diplomacy, IMO.

 

[darko82]

I'm sorry, but this one sounds to me like another fallacy. Firaxis' single AI person (if true) is supposed to be a full time, experienced AI programmer, correct? And he is being paid for it, full time. Gazebo is a history teacher that picked up C++ as a hobby, and programmed Vox Populi in his spare time. Such an inversely proportional imbalance between background, time and result is what really speaks volumes.

A smart developer (lead designer, manager, call it whatever you want) would have kept people like Gazebo and Ilteroi very close, if not directly working on the new AI, at least beta testing it permanently. But Firaxis went the other way, completely ignoring them and even allegedly treating VP as the "enemy" (according to some reports of people claiming that they have been banned from 2K forums for just mentioning Vox Populi)... how is that smart?

I need to go to 2K forums and start a new thread about VP to see if they ban me. That would be a scandal. 2K might limit Firaxis in many ways, too. Probably it does.

 

[hdbhdbvGFG541]

I think people have to understand there is probably no dedicated ai programmer whatsoever in firaxis.
They probably just pull a semi competent dev off the main team and give him limited time to make something.
And the same dev probably still spends majority of the time working on stuff that isn't the ai.
So i guess we are lucky the ai even works,somewhat.

 

[Karpius]

I feel that the game is likely designed for the multitudes of players who are not top quality competitive players. For most people, the artificial intelligence works exactly as it is intended to and provides a rewarding game play experience. It provides a challenge but one that can be overcome. The best of the best players will never be satisfied and make up only a tiny fraction of Firaxis' consumers, so unfortunately they cannot spend all their efforts to please the best players. They have to think first of how the game can be created to make the largest number of people happy with it. They do help the great players though by offering the tools so that they can change the game to how they want!

Very well said and far more articulate than I have ever been able to achieve in trying to make the same argument.

 

[ashendashin]

Very well said and far more articulate than I have ever been able to achieve in trying to make the same argument.

It doesn't address how so many people that aren't the best players talk about the stupid AI. Or how the current tools are limited. It'd be a decent argument if the AI actually used all of the games systems to provide all the necessary interaction.

 

[Victoria]

People are not arguing that the AI is clever, they are saying that the assumptions and language used by a few optimum players are not acceptable to all.
That their opinion of the AI is that it plays fine for them even though it may be broke to others... and that is their opinion and should be respected, after all, it is the threads title.

 

[ashendashin]

People are not arguing that the AI is clever, they are saying that the assumptions and language used by a few optimum players are not acceptable to all.
That their opinion of the AI is that it plays fine for them even though it may be broke to others... and that is their opinion and should be respected, after all, it is the threads title.

That opinion spoke for others, and I don't believe it to be completely accurate. This is a forum, so I think it's well within reason to discuss the accuracy of a post that speaks for the majority.

 

[MaryKB]

What I was trying to say is that the players here are like in the top 1-10% of Civilization players. There are hundreds of thousands of people playing the game! We are talking within a small sample size of people who are really invested in the game, but do not represent everyone. Firaxis has to take into consideration the many players who do not visit online message boards but are still paying customers.

 

[Victoria]

That opinion spoke for others,

You have simply called our 'opinions' indecent, its a bit like that other chap implying Firaxis developers are morons.
Just not nice language and not conducive to good discussion.

 

[ashendashin]

What I was trying to say is that the players here are like in the top 1-10% of Civilization players. There are hundreds of thousands of people playing the game! We are talking within a small sample size of people who are really invested in the game, but do not represent everyone. Firaxis has to take into consideration the many players who do not visit online message boards but are still paying customers.

I can tell you with absolute certainty that this isn't the only place where people go on about the AI. Anywhere that people express their views on the game ends up having plenty of complaints towards that. Sure, most people don't express their opinions on the game, but claiming that acknowledging the terrible AI is limited to the top players is flatout wrong.

You have simply called our 'opinions' indecent, its a bit like that other chap implying Firaxis developers are morons.
Just not nice language and not conducive to good discussion.

I haven't. I try very hard to keep myself from insulting anyone here. Oops, I guess that crosses the line.
Edit:
Oh, I did say it's not a decent argument sort of. Quite different from a decent opinion, if you ask me.

 

[MaryKB]

Just because you do not like an argument does not mean it is indecent. I agree with Victoria that it does not help the conversation.

You don't see any complaints from people who are simply enjoying the game! The vast majority of people do not post on message boards anywhere, only those who are really interested and invested, and we make up a tiny fraction of players. We cannot go to message boards and see that there are a number of people unhappy with the artificial intelligence and then infer that the majority of people are unhappy with the game.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Civ 6 is probably the best selling game of the series and I can see why. The district system is brilliant (everyone likes it and thinks it's an improvement on the older models). So, no, I don't expect Firaxis to ever make good AI. For that we'll need modders.