[R&F] When will we get a AI overhaul mod?

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I mean, where else would that definition work? "Well, your TV still has some real problems with displaying the signal correctly, but at our current technological level, this image that looks alright 70% of the time is the best we can do, so as far as I'm concerned, your TV is 'fixed' now."

I don't really want to feed this discussion, because debating over whether something is "fixed" seems counter-productive compared to agreeing on the objectives that the thing is supposed to be achieving, but this example caught my interest. If my current 4k TV displayed an image like my old portable 1970's RCA TV, I'd say my current TV needs a serious fix. But in the 70's, my old RCA was functioning completely perfectly, and needed no fix at all.

 

[Ryika]

Right, but that's because the acceptable minimum standard of quality was different back then. A TV that has a low resolution and bad color adjustments is not damaged if that's how the product was designed and accepted back then. Today you would not you buy such a product (if Image quality is a factor), and instead buy products that are on today's level of accepted quality. So "fixing" the old TV is simply never a thing.

The AI in Civ V and VI is, at least in the opinion of many players, sub-standard for today (and when it was released) and should be improved. Obviously accepted minimum standard of quality is subjective, so some people will be fine with the unmodded AI, others will be fine with a flavor-based AI mod, others will be fine with a dll mod, and then there will be people who aren't satisfied with either of these.

Of course any individual player can install a mod that puts the AI on an acceptable level for themselves, and then say: "Yeah. AI is fixed.", and subjectively that's a true statement, but it doesn't apply any more to a dll-based mod than to a flavor-based mod, other than that the dll-mod will satisfy a larger group of people because of the much greater improvements to the AI.

 

[ashendashin]

Of course any individual player can install a mod that puts the AI on an acceptable level for themselves, and then say: "Yeah. AI is fixed.", and subjectively that's a true statement, but it doesn't apply any more to a dll-based mod than to a flavor-based mod, other than that the dll-mod will satisfy a larger group of people because of the much greater improvements to the AI.

Your argument makes no sense. It doesn't get better than working with the DLL as that's as far as the engine goes. That it may not satisfy some people regardless doesn't detract from the fact that it's the only possible way to directly work on the AI. There is nothing subjective about comparing the adjustment of what currently exists and writing new functionality yourself. Objectively the AI is broken in places. These areas cannot be fixed without the DLL. But then of course you literally set the bar to 'fixing' areas that don't even exist in the current state of the AI.

There's a difference between broken code and poor capability. The vanilla AI has way too much of both.

 

[Ryika]

We've already been through this, I've explained at twice why I disagree with you on that.

No need to do another round just to end at the exact same point again.

 

[ashendashin]

We've already been through this, I've explained at twice why I disagree with you on that.

No need to do another round just to end at the exact same point again.

Yet you insist on arguing on the same point with others. The entire problem here is that you're only comparing different levels of a satisfactory AI. The topic is about directly fixing all of the things the AI directly fails at; i.e., if you see that the AI fails to attack a city it can capture (when the functionality should be there), you can only fix that with the DLL. Leaving it alone and adjusting an entirely different area in order to have the overall game be difficult means that a part of the AI remains objectively broken.
I was not telling anyone that their tastes are objectively bad. I personally do not find flavor adjustments to be satisfactory and that's how I intended to leave that point.

 

[Ryika]

Yet you insist on arguing on the same point with others.

So? Am I not allowed to further discuss the topic without agreeing with you first? Clearly the two of us are not getting anywhere, that doesn't mean that a discussion with other people cannot yield interesting alternative viewpoints.

The entire problem here is that you're only comparing different levels of a satisfactory AI. The topic is about directly fixing all of the things the AI directly fails at; i.e., if you see that the AI fails to attack a city it can capture (when the functionality should be there), you can only fix that with the DLL. Leaving it alone and adjusting an entirely different area in order to have the overall game be difficult means that a part of the AI remains objectively broken.

How desperate are you to go into another round of this? You simply cannot fix everything that the AI fails at with DLL modding. Hardware limitations prevent you from doing that. If you consider fixing parts of the AI as "fixing the AI", then flavor-mods are also fixing the AI. On a much lower level, sure, but they are fixing the production priorities of the AI for example. You simply cannot say one is fixing the AI and the other one isn't, that's a distinction that makes no sense and blah, blah, blah, we've already been through this.

 

[ashendashin]

How desperate are you to go into another round of this? You simply cannot fix everything that the AI fails at with DLL modding. Hardware limitations prevent you from doing that. If you consider fixing parts of the AI as "fixing the AI", then flavor-mods are also fixing the AI. On a much lower level, sure, but they are fixing the production priorities of the AI for example. You simply cannot say one is fixing the AI and the other one isn't, that's a distinction that makes no sense and blah, blah, blah, we've already been through this.

Bleh, if you really want to remove* the distinction then yes, working with what's available allows a form of 'fixing', as the priorities are poor. I'd say that fixing the flavors themselves is far from AI work but I'm sick of stretching these words and I've no coding experience myself. Not to mention that VP actually does do more than fixes so this topic's a pain.

 

[Gedemon]

Yeah, and my question is, why that definition? There's no reason for it other than that you want it to be the definition.

I mean, where else would that definition work? "Well, your TV still has some real problems with displaying the signal correctly, but at our current technological level, this image that looks alright 70% of the time is the best we can do, so as far as I'm concerned, your TV is 'fixed' now."

That's not at all a sensible definition of something being "fixed" in my book. The TV is clearly not "fixed", it has been band-aided as much as possible.

But again, you're free to disagree with my definition.

I use the real world definition of technology and hardware, the world where 2+2 = 4 not 5, I'm talking about facts, not opinions.

While you're still talking about fixing a black and white TV display with a hammer (aka trying to fix the tactical AI using flavors), we're talking about the kind of tools that could transform it in a 8K 3D flat screen (aka trying to fix it using the DLL)

And then you're arguing that you can still see pixels when sitting from 25 centimeters of the screen, so in your book the display is not "fixed"

I'm taking the, to my knowledge, most advanced AI as an example.

Surely it only strengthens my argument that a DLL mod does not actually "fix" the AI (as requested in the OP), if you say that even after... how many years now? ...of having access to the DLL, the best mod out there still doesn't provide an AI that is free from showing major flaws in some situations and you're arguing that it could be done even better.

6 years, on a few modders free time.

Give them another hundred years and you'll get a perfect tactical AI for civ5, if they want to improve it anymore.

Give us another hundred years playing at guessing what flavors do for civ6, and you'll get the exact same tactical AI as today (while some patches released by Firaxis that modify the DLL manage to improve it a bit there and there)

Again we're talking about difference between the possibility of doing "absolutely nothing" and "anything possible without bringing in science-fiction"

 

[Ryika]

Who the hell cares about the theoretical possibilities? Yeah obviously, with infinite resources and all hardware limitations gone, in an infinite timeframe, you can fully fix the AI by re-writing code. So what?

The OP asked when the AI will be fixed, people point out that it can only be fixed with access to the DLL, I said that DLL modding as it has been done in Civ V is also nothing but putting band-aids on, and apparently, that's such a sacrilege that for days people make stupid arguments to convince me that DLL modding is the savior of humanity. If you have to assume unlimited resources and unlimited time to "fix the AI", then that in itself already shows that in reality, what is being done with the DLL, is just putting band-aids on. Nobody has ever fixed the Civ V AI, and nobody WILL ever fix the Civ V AI, and the same is true for Civ VI.

 

[ashendashin]

Nobody has ever fixed the Civ V AI, and nobody WILL ever fix the Civ V AI, and the same is true for Civ VI.

Fixed it as far as the as the 32-bit application and time allows. Seriously just stop with this whole argument about it being impossible just because your definition of "fixed" is beyond what's possible with available resources. It's not as if Firaxis has actually prioritized fixing the AI, so it's easy to call focusing on it a practical fix in comparison.

Last time I'm saying this. The DLL is as far as it goes. Currently there are provided tools that don't allow actual access. As far as THAT goes, you can't fix anything about the AI itself. You can tune the limited tools but that's not what makes the AI function. The distinction is very real but you choose to ignore the difference for...what? You want to act as if an AI that actually has full functionality within its framework remains broken compared to one that doesn't, just because it still isn't perfect?

 

[tzu]

Nobody has ever fixed the Civ V AI, and nobody WILL ever fix the Civ V AI, and the same is true for Civ VI.

Ok, with this usage of 'fix the AI' I agree 100% with you. But as you said, who the hell cares about the theoretical possibilities / perfect solutions?
The point is, that without control over the DLL 'fixing the AI' in this sense is impossible (because the unmodified DLL always interferes eg. tactical improvements).
With control over the DLL 'fixing the AI' in this sense is possible (theoretical) - necessary, but not sufficient.

The OP asked 'when the AI will be fixed', but even more he asked: "Any progress on getting an overhaul mod like Vox Populi?"

So (in order not to develop a fixation on 'perfect fixing' the Civ6 AI) perhaps we can also discuss the term "Any progress on getting an overhaul mod"?

 

[Gedemon]

Who the hell cares about the theoretical possibilities?

Anyone interested in improving the AI of course, what is this question?

There is no point working on something when you know that there is nothing you can do to improve it.

Yes, you can keep trying to mock us modders as long as you want, but for once in this thread I can agree with one of your comparisons: "Savior of humanity" or "Holy Grail", those are correct descriptions of the DLL acces for AI modding.

"band aid" is just a bad or stupid joke.

 

[Ryika]

Ok, with this usage of 'fix the AI' I agree 100% with you. But as you said, who the hell cares about the theoretical possibilities / perfect solutions?
The point is, that without control over the DLL 'fixing the AI' in this sense is impossible (because the unmodified DLL always interferes eg. tactical improvements).
With control over the DLL 'fixing the AI' in this sense is possible (theoretical) - necessary, but not sufficient.

The OP asked 'when the AI will be fixed', but even more he asked: "Any progress on getting an overhaul mod like Vox Populi?"

So (in order not to develop a fixation on 'perfect fixing' the Civ6 AI) perhaps we can also discuss the term "Any progress on getting an overhaul mod"?

Sure, but the answer to that has already been given. Progress on such an overhaul mod can start when/if Firaxis releases the source code. I mean, that's not controversial in any way, obviously access to the DLL is required to make sweeping changes to the game in terms of AI and gameplay.

The only thing that even keeps this thread going is that I have a different opinion on how to call things than some people here, and these people really can't stand that I don't agree with them and keep pestering me with their nonsense to get me to retract my statement. But I won't, because I think my statement is more accurate than theirs, and no amount of dogpiling and making accusations against me is going to change that.

Anyone interested in improving the AI of course, what is this question?

There is no point working on something when you know that there is nothing you can do to improve it.

The question here is: Who cares about theoretical possibilities in a discussion about what current dll mods are? There's not a single mod that is not more than a band-aid for the AI, and the fact that it's theoretically possible to fully fix the AI - as you claim at least - does not change the status of actual mods that exist in real life.

Yes, you can keep trying to mock us modders as long as you want, but for once in this thread I can agree with one of your comparisons: "Savior of humanity" or "Holy Grail", those are correct descriptions of the DLL acces for AI modding.

"band aid" is just a bad or stupid joke.

I'm not mocking "you modders", I'm a modder myself. You're just offended because I won't use words the way you want me to use them. "Don't call dll mods band aids, wuah, wuah!" Are you serious? I'll call dll mods whatever I consider them to be, if that offends you so much that you just can't let go of it, then grow the hell up.

 

[Gedemon]

I'm not offended, I'm just astonished by your choice of words.

But you're right, you're free to call the DLL source whatever you consider it to be in relation to AI modding.

So from now on I'll call it the Holy Band-Aid.

 

[ashendashin]

I'm not offended, I'm just astonished by your choice of words.

But you're right, you're free to call the DLL source whatever you consider it to be in relation to AI modding.

So from now on I'll call it the Holy Band-Aid.

I'm astonished by your patience.
It let you grasp the concept of the Holy Band-Aid... The DLL will truly be a glorious way to patch up the entire idea of a Civ AI.

Edit: If we get it this time around for the higher memory overhead.

 

[Ryika]

I'm not offended, I'm just astonished by your choice of words.

But you're right, you're free to call the DLL source whatever you consider it to be in relation to AI modding.

So from now on I'll call it the Holy Band-Aid.

You're free to call it that.

 

[Aristos]

I'm astonished by your patience.

Me too. I lost it a long time ago, too old to not know when it is futile to debate with a... naah, won't say it.

 

[tzu]

They even claimed that [Civ6] would be the most moddable Civ ever.

I forgot this statement, but seem now to remember it as an early one (between first views and release of vanilla?). Does anybody recall, where this was made?

I mean, how shall 'the most moddable Civ ever' statement be valid without the release of the DLL source code? And wouldn't it be counter-intuitive or even weird, if one knows or assumes, "they won't this time around" ...

 

[Ryika]

I forgot this statement, but seem now to remember it as an early one (between first views and release of vanilla?). Does anybody recall, where this was made?

I mean, how shall 'the most moddable Civ ever' statement be valid without the release of the DLL source code? And wouldn't it be counter-intuitive or even weird, if one knows or assumes, "they won't this time around" ...

I think when they're talking about how moddable a game is to a general audience, then they probably don't talk about the DLL, as the fraction of people who make use of that, is really slim. They might not even be talking about Lua, and just be referring to the amount of stuff that is available to be modded with purely XML/SQL-based mods.

As for the "they won't this time around"... Beyond Earth never got its DLL released. But of course the community for that game was mostly dead shortly after release, so that doesn't really tell us that much.

 

[tzu]

talking about how moddable a game is to a general audience, then they probably don't talk about the DLL, as the fraction of people who make use of that, is really slim

I agree, but suppose as designer or developer, I personally would avoid making unforced statements as 'the most moddable Civ ever' in the light of an unavailable DLL.

civ2 with its simple text file was for me a milestone in the world of nearly or at all unmodifyable games. The same with civ4: another order of magnitude ... and 'most moddable' means (even) more - not less.