Opinions on the "AI"

[ashendashin]

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.

Your argument did not address the counterarguments. If I can't even describe it, how will any progress be made? Just making flat statements saying there's nothing wrong?

Ok, so ignore those who speak up and hope that everything will be fine. Awesome, this forum has turned out to be so useful.

 

[ZubieMaster]

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 respectfully disagree with this post. For one, I'm not offended by the "stupid dogs" comment. My little equal opinion is that's humorous hyperbole, well-executed to make a point, that the AI is extremely flawed.

But my main disagreement is with the attitude that a minority should basically "shut up and go away". I avoid that position because some day I might find myself in the position that something I enjoy is taken away, and I probably won't like it when someone says "well it works for most people so who cares about you?"

It's further confusing when attempting to reconcile with your first comment. On one hand you take offense in the name of all the lesser skilled players, but on the other hand don't seem to care at all about offending the so-called "great players". I don't really think that's fair. I am not a top player, but I am able to empathize with those that feel Civ no longer offers that top challenge and read their arguments on the merits, not just send them off to go mod the game or whatever.

Plus, I always felt that Civ offering that top challenge -- even if I couldn't do it -- made it a better game overall. Conversely, a game with such a flawed AI cheapens the experience for me, even at lower levels. So I will continue to support the "great players" complaints that the game is too easy.

Finally, the flawed AI isn't just affecting the minority of "great players". Wars occur in every single game, even if just between AI, and the fact that the AI cannot competently conduct warfare affects every game, thus every player. Those that choose to ignore it or feel it's outweighed by other things in the game can happily continue to play the game as it is and have the luxury to not read these threads.

 

[MaryKB]

I very much dislike dehumanizing remarks, even when it's obvious hyperbole. I believe it adds to unconscious bias and ultimately causes great harm, even when that was not the original deliberate intention. It is far easier to dismiss peoples' opinions, then later much more, when we have started to view them as subhuman animals. At no point did I make any type of disparaging comment about anyone, at least I am pretty sure I did not. Would you please be able to pinpoint where I make such a remark? If I made such a mistake I would like the opportunity to correct my behavior and learn from it.

I did not say that the best players should "shut up and go away". What I did say is that Firaxis has provided tools for the best players to increase the challenge for themselves! Those who exceed beyond the common ability have the skill and resources to take the base game and make it whatever they want. This is how they can provide for everyone!

I do believe you may have misunderstood the spirit of what I am trying to say. This is not a case of a government making discriminatory laws against a minority, it is about a company trying to maximize on the equilibrium point of their business model. They have to make the game appealing to the maximum number of people possible, and that will mean there are going to be many players at the end of the curve for whom the game is not sufficiently challenging! They want to open the entry level so that more and more people can come in and play the game and have fun. For many, many people, the purpose of the AI is to provide an obstacle to overcome while trying to play the game, which right now the AI does do this, even if it is not to the strategic standard some would like to see.

I am simply attempting to offer a perspective that many people here appeared to be overlooking.

 

[ashendashin]

I did not say that the best players should "shut up and go away". What I did say is that Firaxis has provided tools for the best players to increase the challenge for themselves! Those who exceed beyond the common ability have the skill and resources to take the base game and make it whatever they want. This is how they can provide for everyone!

I do believe you may have misunderstood the spirit of what I am trying to say. This is not a case of a government making discriminatory laws against a minority, it is about a company trying to maximize on the equilibrium point of their business model. They have to make the game appealing to the maximum number of people possible, and that will mean there are going to be many players at the end of the curve for whom the game is not sufficiently challenging! They want to open the entry level so that more and more people can come in and play the game and have fun. For many, many people, the purpose of the AI is to provide an obstacle to overcome while trying to play the game, which right now the AI does do this, even if it is not to the strategic standard some would like to see.

I am simply attempting to offer a perspective that many people here appeared to be overlooking.

The current tools available are not only unnecessarily difficult to do that with, they're also limited in scope. Modders are currently not so free to work on the AI.

I've said this before, there is no such ultimatum on the AI. It can be built for players of all skill levels. It's been done. Firaxis doesn't view it as cost-effective, so we're left with one that's only worth anything to people that willfully ignore the opponent or barely play strategy games at all, even though it's totally possible to make one that satisfies all levels. Understand that an AI gets built by people. They are not limited to a singular skill level across the board for the AI and it's not even as if every part of the game has to be something where AI handles better than people.

 

[Karpius]

My opinions are based on MY OWN experiences, which seem to differ from some others. I can't say that the game doesn't utilize all its features because to me it seems to. Most of the time anyway. I know many here have lamented the AI's (bad term because it is not a true AI) inability to use air units, and yet I have had a number of games where the opposing civs did indeed use air units to varying degree. Then I scratched my head when I saw no air units for three games in a row. Then my last two games saw a proliferation of air combat. Go figure! But it does tell me the AI knows how to use them when all the algorithm paths take it that way.

Yes, the AI has flaws. Most of us who post to this forum of CivFanatics (emphasis on 'Fanatics') recognize this. Despite this, we still seem to be Fanatics nonetheless. I can't stop playing the game! Rather, I should say, I can't stop building empires using all the various features provided in Civ6. For me - speaking only for myself - it is not about the gamey part.

So when I see people constantly hammering home how bad the AI is, or broken the game is, should I begin to question if there is something wrong with me for still enjoying the game? Are these other people simply smarter than me because I don't quite share the same complaints? I have played only one game on Deity and one on Immortal and despite winning, found them rather unrewarding because I was only trying to beat the numbers. The AI is no smarter in those games. It simply has greater advantages. But that is MY subjective view and not meant to decry those who take pride in winning on Deity level. Though I do think we should be able to maintain some humility by remembering that we are using human brains while the game has no such advantage. I mean, seriously, the game will always be at an incredible disadvantage based on that alone.

I enjoy most of the discussions here. Comparing notes, or marveling at how some people can delve into the inner workings to give the rest of us a peak behind the curtain. I enjoy good debates over policy or play style or the inclusion/exclusion of certain features. It is fine to discuss the merits and mechanics of the game. Its fine to discuss where improvements might be made or ask what improvements the CivFanatics might want to see. But I can never understand the level of vitriolic comments that too often make their way onto this forum. I will never understand the purpose of raging against a $50 'game' when one can simply choose to NOT play it. I don't like 'shooter' games, but I have never felt the need to write an editorial denouncing them in horrorific ways. To what purpose? To show others the 'error' of their ways?

So no matter how many flaws one can list for Civ6, I still enjoy the game. Why? 'Cuz I do! Because I have yet to run out of things to try in this 'game'. Because I am always finding a new story. Because no two turns are alike. Or maybe I'm just an imbecile for not seeing the light and understanding how broken the AI >cough-cough< really is.

 

[Victoria]

But my main disagreement is with the attitude that a minority should basically "shut up and go away"

no-one has said that, just seems like a waste of breath to continue

Awesome, this forum has turned out to be so useful.

yeah, many have said that without sarcasm and that they enjoy it because its not full of flamers.
You get out what you put in I guess.

 

[ashendashin]

no-one has said that, just seems like a waste of breath to continue


yeah, many have said that without sarcasm and that they enjoy it because its not full of flamers.

I'm not the one who goes searching for every little thing that could possibly be offensive to supposedly frail minds.

It's difficult to not extrapolate posts here when you can't even describe something in negative tones without facing it yourself.

Edit:
I won't be taking personal effects further. It clearly happens too easily around here.

 

[Abaxial]

I think there is right on both sides of the argument here. Firstly, there is no doubt that the vast majority of players are not as skilled as those here who work on getting a science victory in 200 turns on Deity level. The average Joe probably does have a hard job winning even on easier levels, as witness complaints about getting nowhere because of being besieged by barbarians from the beginning. I think also of all those posts here saying "Magnus must be nerfed" - the average player doesn't have the knowledge to fully optimise a Magnus tactic, and his ability is probably about right (I'm not too good at it myself).

On the other hand, the AI does sometimes do crazy things. Never mind not fully exploiting adjacency bonuses etc (which might be quite hard to code effectively) - declaring war against a powerful neighbour when you have one little city and no units is suicide, and it shouldn't be too hard to get the AI not to embark on courses guaranteed to end in their own destruction.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I think there is right on both sides of the argument here.

Shhhh. You're interrupting the fireworks.

 

[Karpius]

Firstly, there is no doubt that the vast majority of players are not as skilled as those here who work on getting a science victory in 200 turns on Deity level.

It is a 'skill' achievable by anyone here determined enough to study the game, learn from others and give it a go. Why? Because its human versus algorithm. Truth be told, I am rather gratified thats how it is.

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

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.

Very true but I still think AI complaints are very common among the broader section of gamers - you only have to look at Steam reviews which are much more representative to see that. Also compared to previous interations of the series, I would say that Civ 6 AI is at a major deficit (although still incomplete). I am by no means a top level player and I consider the AI to be awful (it caused to me stop playing vanilla entirely). Firaxis should be more concerned about this because it definitely impacts the perception of their product.

 

[Aristos]

I see the "top/optimal/power player" argument repeated consistently, yet it is a strawman. I did not see anyone in this discussion imply or say that he/she is a super player nor anything similar, that is being distorted by some people for the sake of destroying arguments. I will repeat again: I don't consider myself a "top/optimal/power player" in any sense. I started my argument, and repeated it clearly, by saying that I start my games in a very suboptimal way, making mistakes and inefficient builds, etc. I did not yet use the Magnus chop, for example. I rarely act as a warmonger, and consider myself a builder. I do not save scum, even if some people do not want to believe that (their problem).

Even with all that "self-challenged", suboptimal play, I can end up winning all games in Deity by using some game systems that, by definition, the game itself should also be using (a.k.a. the AI). Best example I got (but far from the only one): the spies. When I start the game, I KNOW that my correct use of spies will get me out of any disadvantage created by myself with my suboptimal, relaxed early/mid play. Again, I repeat, I have destroyed the entire world's supply of Spaceports, EVERYSINGLETIME without any opposition, and won those games with ONE Spaceport. I have stripped Cultural civs from ALL their arts and artifacts, stopping their huge lead in CV, and winning once again, without ANY opposition. I have bombed the heck out of civs destroying their infrastructure and stopping their huge lead, without any opposition. And on and on, example after example...

What that shows me is NOT that I am a superDeityTopOfTheWorld player yeyme!, but that the AI DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE MAIN SYSTEMS of the game. That is a HUGE fail. Period. How some people see that as offensive to their ego/personality, I don't know, but I guess that speaks more about each different personality than about my statements.

I guess, in the end, this whole argument has to do a lot with different personalities. Some personalities are competitive by nature, and others are not. That is fine, and normal; it's part of our diversity. A competitive personality needs to feel challenged to enjoy almost anything, including work and games. Victory for them, in any sense, is empty if it does not come hard. Other personalities are more relaxed in nature, the journey is more important than the destination. Both should be able to enjoy their passion (and we are ALL here because the civ series IS our passion) in their terms, and to achieve that, the AI is very important. An AI that does not know how to use its own main systems "MAY" still satisfy the more relaxed personalities, but will never be enough for the competitive people out there.

What is definitively not right is for one type of personality to tell the other that they are wrong, and that they should adapt or create their own environment, or go, and that is exactly what I feel one camp (or some people in that camp) is telling the others.

Nevertheless, regardless of the personality analysis, I think we can at least agree on the fact that, by definition, the AI should be at the minimum be able to use ALL its systems when playing the game. If it can't, it is a fail by that definition, and needs work.

 

[Eliminator_Sr]

Nevertheless, regardless of the personality analysis, I think we can at least agree on the fact that, by definition, the AI should be at the minimum be able to use ALL its systems when playing the game. If it can't, it is a fail by that definition, and needs work.

At this point I'd just be happy with major systems like combat, diplomacy, district prioritization, and victory pusuit. I don't really care too much that the AI can't use air units - I never use them either (though largely because the AI can't compete in the endgame) and I still think they need to address glaring issues with standard combat like melee units not capturing cities before they can even begin to address that. I just want to see some progress and for the most part Firaxis has ignored the major flaws completely barring some adjustments to ranged combat and aggressiveness. I'm always somewhat baffled when they release a patch that barely addresses the AI at all and foregoes it to focus on things like stripping England of bonuses.

 

[Archon_Wing]

What's really weird is one patch, the AI was using Air Units, then for some reason it stopped.

 

[Victoria]

the AI DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE MAIN SYSTEMS

Well, its easy to assume joint wars are aimed at you and the AI does nothing if you do not bother looking at the game properly.
This was already shown with a lack of understanding in joint wars when piping up and now I guess you are going to say they do not use spies either.
I have been studying spies an awful lot as people will attest and I can promise you they do use the main system

I have stripped Cultural civs from ALL their arts

Rubbish, they hide them in places you cannot steal them from as well, maybe once when they had a relic in their palace and no wonders but not all the time....lack of understanding?

and won those games with ONE Spaceport

Well up to R&F that was the best way to do it and it was not hard

AI DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE MAIN SYSTEMS

You do not need to use capitals ... so what main system do they not use? airforce? well considering how hard it is to build them in the first place I am surprised they spend the time. It is a mightly shame Firaxis cannot get them to do anything but patrol (which they now do as opposed to sitting uselessly on the ground) Navy? well they do try, badly but they do try.

I have no problems with the essence of what you are saying and I even feel some of it is not a fail by definition but by design.
I have significant issue with statements like

AI DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE MAIN SYSTEMS - overexaggeration
EVERYSINGLETIME without any opposition - overexaggeration
and inflammatory remarks - just not required.

no-one is disagreeing with the AI being bad

 

[Aristos]

Rubbish, they hide them in places you cannot steal them from as well, maybe once when they had a relic in their palace and no wonders but not all the time....lack of understanding

AI DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE MAIN SYSTEMS - overexaggeration
EVERYSINGLETIME without any opposition - overexaggeration
and inflammatory remarks - just not required.

You really need to stop with fallacies as your main line of argumentation. It does not reflect well on you. I am sure you have more to offer.

 

[Victoria]

fallacies

well you will find plenty of people reading this log that have read or even asked the question why can I not steal the works I can see thay have to trade. so the fallacy is with ye.
Of course it plays with the main system... how well it does is another matter, its rubbish at it.
Of course the oppose, pretty poorly but they do oppose
but whatever I'm very done with the 200th thread on why the AI is so bad with yet another stream of inflammatories

 

[Aristos]

but whatever I'm very done with the 200th thread on why the AI is so bad with yet another stream of inflammatories

Again, fallacy. Repeating again and again "you offend me!" does not make it true, nor your "arguments". Point to the "inflammatories", explain why they are "inflammatories", and I am open to consider them as such. Show us.

 

[Karpius]

AI DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE MAIN SYSTEMS of the game. That is a HUGE fail. Period. How some people see that as offensive to their ego/personality, I don't know, but I guess that speaks more about each different personality than about my statements.

I can only recount my own experiences and say that I have seen the AI use every aspect of the game available to the human player on very many occasions. Why are my experiences so different? I have no idea!

I have also seen, through @Victoria 's hard work, the many ways the AI does indeed use the system. But it can only use it based on the algorithms, which means it cannot learn, memorize, predict or plan.....the way humans can. Therefore, it is always possible for the algorithm to take it down a less than optimal (or even ridiculous) path. Its just a bunch of if/then statements modified by random generators weighted by various conditions.

Now if you want a real challenge by the AI, try playing at the same speed as the AI. Limit how long it takes you to decide your turns to just a few seconds. Now thats an area where the computer has it all over us humans. Speed.

 

[Victoria]

Now if you want a real challenge by the AI, try playing at the same speed as the AI. Limit how long it takes you to decide your turns to just a few seconds. Now thats an area where the computer has it all over us humans. Speed.

Also you need to remove your memory, the AI has no memory of something it saw last turn.