1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

We are winning, they fear us

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Victoria, Aug 3, 2017.

  1. slowcar

    slowcar King

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2006
    Messages:
    819
    Location:
    hamburg, germany
    They had this in Baldurs Gate ToB (iirc) as a joke. Your high level adventurer party stumbled upon some other party of low level - which attacked you on sight. After you killed them all there was a message "xxx reloads", they re-appeared and were really really friendly and accomodating.

    Regarding the mechanism: I highly dislike it. There is already a warmonger penalty, the other victories should not lead to increased tensions. It destroys the immersion of the game, all other modifiers have an explaination (promise kept, agenda, gift etc) but "you are winning" is not something the leader of the AI should be "aware" of. Behind the courtains it would be fine if they would collobarate to stop you, but this mechanism is just making the bad diplomacy system worse.
     
  2. Karmah

    Karmah Emperor Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,087
    I'll keep it in mind next time I play a round of cards with friends. I'll tell 'em that they should not be aware that I'm winning !

    Or worst next time I play colonist of catan ,I'll tell them they don't have the right to calculate my victory points before I win !
     
  3. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    Beyond the Veil
    Ah the old "AI should act like a competitive human player" vs "AI should act in a historic immersive way" debate. It's a matter of style and taste; the closest it will come to being resolved is to make optimal play similar to historic role playing. Sadly, that will *never* work right up to the victory condition because there is no victory condition in real life history.
     
    TheMeInTeam and Karmah like this.
  4. Quarz

    Quarz Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2016
    Messages:
    38
    Again. Sure. But this rep-hit feels just like whining, not like fight for the victory. I would mind less if they would DO something, but right now they just sit and complain. THIS makes it totally wrong to me. Even IF two or more AI declare war on me, there hardly will come a flood of units. In my experience one of them might send a few units while the other Civ's units just sit at home - and start whining. Bah. Wrong.
     
    Karmah likes this.
  5. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,910
    The game design itself is biased against peaceful victories! Let's not pretend otherwise. Look at the unit costs/investment in defense vs VC cost.

    The AI shouldn't game throw. If someone is nearing victory, it SHOULD try to win. If anything, its actions are still far from consistent with actually trying to win. It never got there in civ 5, in fact it never got close.

    Arguments "for immersion" are requests that the game is consistent with one person's expectations. They have zero validity past that statement, unless one accepts the notion that one person's immersion is more important than others.

    Regardless, "immersion" arguments are fundamentally flawed. Complaining that AI attacking to block a victory condition breaks immersion is irrational unless making a case that victory conditions should not exist...as no coherent framework would allow for the existence of victory conditions while not being okay with them having an influence on player/AI decisions.

    Turn off victory conditions and you'll not trip the > 50% progress modifier.

    Leaving VC's on while making such a statement is self-inconsistent and necessarily irrational.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
    oedali likes this.
  6. Noble Zarkon

    Noble Zarkon Elite Quattromaster - Emperor (BTS) Super Moderator Hall of Fame Staff Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2012
    Messages:
    6,163
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Gibraltar
    I think you will find it is a lot more than one person! I agree it is not 100% but lots of us agree that "they are winning" breaks immersion - it might not for you and you might consider us silly but it is the reality for many players.
     
  7. Scaramanga

    Scaramanga Brickhead

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,190
    Location:
    Canada
    Why would it break immersion? The space race was real, religions competed, artwork and artifacts were stolen or copied, lands were conquered. If anyone goes above a certain threshold that should be a concern.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  8. Ryika

    Ryika Lazy Wannabe Artista

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,395
    This whole "You either have immersive diplomacy or a game that stays challenging towards the end"-dichotomy is in my opinion one of the big failure of the Civ series. Because the fact that it's a situation where you can either have one or the other is just a result of unimaginative game design, I think it could be avoided wholesome if they made diplomacy and diplomatic relations actually have influence on the world during the later eras.
     
    Kyro likes this.
  9. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,764
    Location:
    Toronto
    I think bringing back a form of "allied victory" would go a long way. There's a handful of games where it would be really nice to be able to stay allied with someone and conquer the world except them and get a shared victory out of it. At the very least, they need a way for you to bring an ally into a conflict you're already in. It's hilarious that I can be allied with someone, have another AI attack me, and there is no way for me to say, "hey ally, can you help me out?"

    Heck, they could bring in a cool if nearly impossible new victory condition: if all remaining civs are all allied to each other, the game ends in a peaceful diplomatic victory for everyone!
     
  10. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,194
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not pretending though. I take cities every game.

    That's in fact part of my argument.

    If anything that drives forward my point. It is the fact that the game design itself is biased against peaceful victories that it drags the pendulum furthermore where certain options become devalued, the gameplay decreases in both depth and breadth. In other words why put any justification to an option that might as well not even exist?

    Oh, and I don't think I actually objected to the very concept of military victories being optimal either. There's certainly a nuance here.

    This goes hand in hand with the increased settler cost. If we can justify everything by "Well this is a war game", then there should be no real argument against that either. But there is. Why? Because the game itself changes, quantitatively speaking. And that is up for discussion.

    Besides, warring is a joke in this game. And while technically a subjective argument, I'm going to say it's pretty damned objective too.

    So let's stop pretending. Okay. Then I will put forth the argument that peaceful victories are effectively time savers as to save the user many many turns of tedious input for a foregone conclusion. This mechanic gets in the way, if the main goal is QoL.

    Civ 5's AI (and this by extension) doesn't know how to play the game, much less how to win. I would argue the point of AI in Civ has always been to be an obstruction or be a tool of the player. Unless, of course, you can name an iteration of the game where the AI actually fits your definition. ;)


    In fact, with so many game throwing agendas in this game, I would argue that this intent doesn't actually exist. Some agendas are clearly antithetical to winning and not something that can be attributed to say, a misattibuted value.

    Now, let's consider that you chalk this up to incompetence and none of this was intended. Well, then you did bring up the unit costs opposed to other VCs right? I would also chalk that up to bad design too.

    Finally, Civ 4 and 5 did have negative modifiers for you doing better. I thought that was fine myself.
     
    Last edited: Aug 11, 2017
  11. Scaramanga

    Scaramanga Brickhead

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,190
    Location:
    Canada
    Y'all need to take diplomacy less seriously. Friendship is just a temporary non-agression pact. Alliances are for countering a third, stronger party.

    It seems victory conditions themselves are not immersive so turn them off and go for score.
     
  12. drubell

    drubell Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    513
    I remember when I played Oregon Trail and I got a message "Your character died because you secretly had a 43% chance to survive fording that river and you rolled a 30 on your RNG."

    Obviously the goal to win a Civ game is to win with one of the VC's available, but I don't want to be told by the computer while playing that I have a negative modifier because "you're winning by X amount." It feels gamey, like it was a Disgaea game.
     
  13. Archon_Wing

    Archon_Wing Vote for me or die

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,194
    Gender:
    Male
    Never ford rivers. (Except the first one)
     
    drubell likes this.
  14. Jaybe

    Jaybe civus fanaticus Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,574
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    An alternative interpretation is that players are being insufficiently unimaginative in their interpretation of game events.
    I am not saying there could not be extensive improvements in the AI's focus; for instance when they are suddenly at war they could interrupt low-priority builds (at least in cities with barracks/stables) with continuous military units until they at least have military parity, and keep parity. After the war is over, resume whatever was being built before the war. Also, gold reserves when not at war should be enough to purchase at least 1 or 2 first-line units.
     
  15. oedali

    oedali King

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Messages:
    905
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    I have been following this thread and debate and it could go on for many pages, and what I gather from it all is that as people said it really comes down to wording: "winning" ticks people off. If they changed it to "they feel threatened by your scientific/cultural/military/religious superiority ", most people who are bothered right now wouldn't be.
     
    WillowBrook, Karmah and Noble Zarkon like this.
  16. Ferevat

    Ferevat Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2017
    Messages:
    2
    Gender:
    Male
    whoever wants to get rid of it must go to the xml fvictory file and set criticalpercentage value to 200 or something, worked for me
     
    Victoria likes this.
  17. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,764
    Location:
    Toronto
    Yeah, the wording takes you a little away from the fictional world we create. Would have been much better with the simple line you mention.
     
  18. Ryika

    Ryika Lazy Wannabe Artista

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2013
    Messages:
    9,395
    I would still be bothered by it.

    For Military it does make sense of course, and for religion.. yeah, sort of. But cultural and scientific progress? Look at America, is anybody threatened by their scientific or cultural superiority? No, when they're not being bombed by them, or already in a cold war with them, other countries aspire to become more like America.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2017
    JH12345 likes this.
  19. Kruos

    Kruos Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2014
    Messages:
    140
    Thanks to the OP for the analysis.

    My opinion is that this competitive thing added to the diplo-AI is bad because it breaks immersion in solo play. What is the meaning of a solo play? Immersion and self story-telling! An AI is by definition made for solo play, and to achieve this it has to support immersion, not destroy it. It's game-design basics. So this thing is a pure non-sense.

    To the minority who like this change because "it makes the game more competitive", I will answer this : if you seek competition, play in multiplayer! It is a non-sense to seek competition against a video game AI (*cough*.. espescially the one of Civ6, but it is another subject..).

    So now we have this ridiculous situation : to please the MINORITY of players who want to compete with the AI (again, LOL), the devs have imposed to ALL a thing that polluate the game for everyone. *clap clap clap* It is a pure non-sense.
     
  20. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,429
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    I was wondering if someone would catch that. I thought of that as I made that post.
     

Share This Page