[R&F] Rise and Fall General Discussion Thread

[HF22]

OTOH, Civ5 was far worse at release, and took at least two years to become
a reasonable game. Ignoring that past performance is just cherry-picking.
I'm more than happy to give Civ6 at least 2 years because it is very playable now.

I didn't like Civ 5, and its AI was never acceptable in my view.

 

[HF22]

I mean, could you name a few?

P.S. I don't think Civ6 uses "Decision Tree" algorithms. They aren't suitable for strategic games.

Obviously we don't have full access to the AI code, but my understanding from AI modders is that it looks to be based on decision trees and weightings.

But as an example, the difficulties of dealing with 1upt tactical combat would be an AI limitation.

Designing the combat mechanics so that they are beyond the AIs ability to deal with immersively, & making said combat so key to the game, would be an example of poor game design exposing that AI limitation.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Obviously we don't have full access to the AI code, but my understanding from AI modders is that it looks to be based on decision trees and weightings.

Weights should be highly used yes, but not decision tree. Pure decision tree algorithms are used for games with limited choices.

But as an example, the difficulties of dealing with 1upt tactical combat would be an AI limitation.

Designing the combat mechanics so that they are beyond the AIs ability to deal with immersively, & making said combat so key to the game, would be an example of poor game design exposing that AI limitation.

I see, "immersively"... In reality, immersion only bothers really small fraction of players, the "fans" and most of fans use (and make) mods anyway. The gameplay role of AI tactical combat is to provide challenge, adequate to the set difficulty levels, that's the goal AI achieves easily by using difficulty level bonuses.

Also, I strongly disagree with "poor game design exposing that AI limitation". Exposing AI weaknesses vs. human is actually exposing human strengths, which is good game design. Tactical combat is interesting, no matter if opponent strength is in equal tactics or handicap.

 

[dataswallow]

South Korean here (Hello everyone in CivFanatics)

Around 1:03 in the Expansion Trailer, there is a woman of royalty (a Queen?) wearing a unique golden crown, that seems very similar to the type of crowns used in the Shilla Dynasty. Considering that Korea usually got a slot in Civ games when there was a major expansion in the game, and the emphasis on Female leaders in Civ VI: could this be Korea with Queen Sun-Duk of Shilla as its leader? (Keeping my fingers crossed)

 

[Gedemon]

P.S. I don't think Civ6 uses "Decision Tree" algorithms. They aren't suitable for strategic games.

AFAIK it does, for some decisions at least.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

South Korean here (Hello everyone in CivFanatics)

Around 1:03 in the Expansion Trailer, there is a woman of royalty (a Queen?) wearing a unique golden crown, that seems very similar to the type of crowns used in the Shilla Dynasty. Considering that Korea usually got a slot in Civ games when there was a major expansion in the game, and the emphasis on Female leaders in Civ VI: could this be Korea with Queen Sun-Duk of Shilla as its leader? (Keeping my fingers crossed)

View attachment 481813​

You have a keener eye than me. I thought she was Byzantine.

 

[stealth_nsk]

AFAIK it does, for some decisions at least.

Interesting. Decision trees work with very limited sets of information. I wonder, what kind of civ decisions could be based on them?

 

[Martinus]

Some interesting stuff coming!

Like the idea of golden and dark ages, vaguely remember a previous civ game having them but im old and my memory is going so could be wrong

Pretty sure no Civ game had "dark ages" before, only "golden ages".

I love how the concept seems to be implemented, based on the lead designer interview - i.e. that getting a golden age effectively increases your chance of getting a dark age (and vice versa). "Good times produce weak men; weak men produce hard times; hard times produce strong men; strong men produce good times", pretty much.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Pretty sure no Civ game had "dark ages" before, only "golden ages".

I love how the concept seems to be implemented, based on the lead designer interview - i.e. that getting a golden age effectively increases your chance of getting a dark age (and vice versa). "Good times produce weak men; weak men produce hard times; hard times produce strong men; strong men produce good times", pretty much.

Civ4 BtS had the concept of colony split, which is vaguely similar to loyalty fall during dark ages of RaF. Other than this - yes, I can't remember game mechanics causing civilizations to somehow fall back on their own, without "help" of rivals.

 

[Simo]

Getting the AI perfect for an incomplete game is premature optimisation.



I also had no expectations that the game would be in anywhere near a complete,
almost perfect state for another year or two. Tough luck if you did. You should have
waited for another year or two until it matched your personal standards.

This has to be the most absured quote I have ever heard, you had no expectation that a game you paid full price for would be complete and tough luck to those that did? My god no wonder they get away with releasing such flawed crap, completed products are not personal standards rather reasonable expectations of products released and paid for.

Moderator Action: Let's keep the discussion civil and realise people have different expectations and perceptions --NobleZarkon

 

[clapyourhands]

This has to be the most absured quote I have ever heard, you had no expectation that a game you paid full price for would be complete and tough luck to those that did? My god no wonder they get away with releasing such flawed crap, completed products are not personal standards rather reasonable expectations of products released and paid for.

Reasonable is relative, I think that vanilla civ VI is worth what I paid for it as the AI issues haven't been a nagging problem for me. I didn't think it was complete because it's a civ game, which haven't been complete on initial release in decades, and I knew ahead of time there would be additional paid content to come. But in the current state I still enjoy playing it and think I received value for the money I put forth for it. I think what Ferocitus meant is that if you didn't think vanilla Civ VI was worth its price then waiting for an expansion might have been a better option, Civ V is no less of a great game than it was before its release.

________

Regarding the ferris wheel and pier I feel like we might just be overthinking it. It could just be an upgrade that at a certain technology you can now build Entertainment Districts on water, with the buildings being replaced with ferris wheels/other attractions but the effects being the same.

 

[blackbutterfly]

So, by real AI, do you mean AGI, or something else?

No, specifically I mean real AI like OpenAI → https://openai.com/the-international/

IMO when it comes to software engineering real world work experience beats academic experience. It's like business. They are those who study it (and get MBAs, etc) and there are those who do it (like Steve Jobs) and build the largest (valued) companies in the world with revenues larger than GDPs of small countries.

It's why I don't particularly mind I didn't get to do the PhD. I got valuable work experience as well as getting to meet my childhood idol, said entrepreneur above.

Anyway I'm now half way through transitioning to law, to become a barrister (should my health and doctors allow it), so tech is only a hobby now.

 

[Simo]

Reasonable is relative, I think that vanilla civ VI is worth what I paid for it as the AI issues haven't been a nagging problem for me. I didn't think it was complete because it's a civ game, which hasn't been complete on initial release in decades, and I knew ahead of time there would be additional paid content to come. But in the current state I still enjoy playing it and think I received value for the money I put forth for it. I think what Ferocitus meant is that if you didn't think vanilla Civ VI was worth its price then waiting for an expansion might have been a better option, Civ V is no less of a great game than it was before its release.

Could not disagree more, if advertised features of any product do not work I do not know how you could consider that reasonable (one simple example the AI cannot use an airforce). If you bought a TV and it could not display one particular channel until 4 years of updates would you consider that reasonable? Unless the game advertises only the working features it is crazy to accept the broken ones because previous efforts were also as crap. Even the recent patches did not solve errors they were supposed to fix, there is no reason to be so brand loyal that you accept this kind of service

 

[Siptah]

I wonder how the city-flipping through loyalty will be in practice. Sounds like something that will have to be veeeeeery carefully balanced to be a positive thing in the game. If you feel powerless to stop a city from flipping that won't be a good thing, or if you're punished for founding a lot of cities.

This is exactly the thing. The ideas are all(!) great in my opinion. But I can see a lot of potential balance issues. Governors may turn out like social policies in BNW or they can be really great and meaningful decisions each game. Also, there is a chance for incredible synergies between certain leaders and governors leading to new strategies and buffing civs, but it can easily turn out to be just OP with certain combinations.
Ed stating that Firaxis employees go deliberately into a dark age and aim for heroic ones seems the next balance issue. I like that dark ages give you extra possibilities to catch up, but it needs to find a good balance. Dark age/heroic age playing shouldn‘t be better than normal/golden age playing, even if the first might be more fun...

 

[Simo]

This is exactly the thing. The ideas are all(!) great in my opinion. But I can see a lot of potential balance issues.

I agree about potential balance issues and since most features are simple rehashes of previous features that suffered this I hope they have learnt from the past. Civ 3 brought in city culture flipping of cities and it was a debacle initially and ultimately removed, players hated their city simply changing to the opposition due to culture especially in its first iteration which was vastly imbalanced.

 

[clapyourhands]

I agree about potential balance issues and since most features are simple rehashes of previous features that suffered this I hope they have learnt from the past. Civ 3 brought in city culture flipping of cities and it was a debacle initially and ultimately removed, players hated their city simply changing to the opposition due to culture especially in its first iteration which was vastly imbalanced.

Their explanation of the mechanic made it sound like they did take note of the Civ 3 iteration at least. They said that instead of flipping directly from one civ to another, a disloyal city would instead convert into a free city, which 1) another civ could peacefully convert with loyalty or conquer without penalties or 2) the original civ could re-earn favor with through loyalty or conquer like a city-state. This way there was time to respond as well as counterplay; when a free city flips both the original civ and the neighbor(s) have actions they can take to take back/absorb the city as well as counter the other attempting to do so.

 

[Siptah]

I agree about potential balance issues and since most features are simple rehashes of previous features that suffered this I hope they have learnt from the past. Civ 3 brought in city culture flipping of cities and it was a debacle initially and ultimately removed, players hated their city simply changing to the opposition due to culture especially in its first iteration which was vastly imbalanced.

At least it happens in two stages this time. That alone should help a lot. And it‘s not just based on culture this time. You can affect loyalty with entertainment districts and governors, that has been confirmed. Maybe the government district helps as well.
And the spy mission that reduces loyalty seems very promising to ‚peacefully‘ expanding players like me

 

[Simo]

Their explanation of the mechanic made it sound like they did take note of the Civ 3 iteration at least. They said that instead of flipping directly from one civ to another, a disloyal city would instead convert into a free city, which 1) another civ could peacefully convert with loyalty or conquer without penalties or 2) the original civ could re-earn favor with through loyalty or conquer like a city-state. This way there was time to respond as well as counterplay; when a free city flips both the original civ and the neighbor(s) have actions they can take to take back/absorb the city as well as counter the other attempting to do so.

Sounds promising I like that implementation kinda like cities/regions such as catalonia going for independence. Just hope it isn't over the top like the initial civ 3 flips

 

[Uberfrog]

Ed stating that Firaxis employees go deliberately into a dark age and aim for heroic ones seems the next balance issue. I like that dark ages give you extra possibilities to catch up, but it needs to find a good balance. Dark age/heroic age playing shouldn‘t be better than normal/golden age playing, even if the first might be more fun...

Obviously there are always balance issues with this sort of thing, but I don't see what's wrong with this. By deliberately entering Dark Ages to get the super Heroic Age in the next era, you are taking a risk and suffering an immediate penalty for longer term reward. If it takes more careful management to counteract the negative effects of the Dark Age, and to defend yourself form opportunistic neighbours trying to conquer or loyalty-flip your cities, then it should definitely reap greater rewards than taking the safe option. If both routes were equal, there would be no reason to go to the extra trouble of a Dark Age.

 

[Siptah]

Obviously there are always balance issues with this sort of thing, but I don't see what's wrong with this. By deliberately entering Dark Ages to get the super Heroic Age in the next era, you are taking a risk and suffering an immediate penalty for longer term reward. If it takes more careful management to counteract the negative effects of the Dark Age, and to defend yourself form opportunistic neighbours trying to conquer or loyalty-flip your cities, then it should definitely reap greater rewards than taking the safe option. If both routes were equal, there would be no reason to go to the extra trouble of a Dark Age.

I can see that point, I just feel that Dark Ages should imply some kind of penalty, since didn‘t meet the requirements needed to keep your civ in a good state. It‘s good that you get extra policies to catch up, and it‘s good that you can even reach some spectacular bonus with that. It‘s a matter of opinion and taste, but I think the most you should get from fail-big success is the same as from success-success. Encouraging failure to get more rewards later on can be seen as a later reward for an investment, a good gameplay element. Thematically, it feels wrong. But we need to see more details. Maybe it isn‘t even an effective strategy, just a fun one.