Would you buy an AI only improvement DLC

[calad]

Unfortunately before game is even released we already know that AI is as smart as a fork so it is likely on same level as in CiV5.

Developing AI takes more time than anything else, it is easier to market game with nice graphics so Firaxis has a little motivation to do so.

So what if Firaxis decides to launch only AI improvement DLC. New features would be smarter combat, trade, diplomacy and so on AI. It would be only about AI, about quality I dont want to speculate but it would be better than in Vanilla.

As a CiV veteran, I unfortunately see a little hope otherwise that we players would ever have an AI that would gives us a serious challenge.

 

[Krajzen]

This will never happen.

 

[Biz_]

depends how good it is

if it's just firaxis "working on the AI" for a few more weeks, probably not

if it was someone like me who mastered the game and wrote a AI that could actually play it competently, then sure

 

[Panixs]

AI updates should always be patches/expansions.

 

[ScorpionTDC]

If it made the AI genuinely good, 100% yes. Though I would be annoyed it's not in an EP like it should be.

If it was just small things, I'd wait for patches or modders.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I'd be pretty annoyed that it wasn't considered a default feature of the game to have better AI and that one needed to buy DLC for this. I could just about see 'improved, smarter AI' as a flagship feature for a big expansion pack, but there would be a lot of other features in said expansion pack as well, and the new AI would be tuned to work with those features.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

No... because any balance patch/expansion/other DLC would ruin the AI DLC (it wouldn't be compatible)

 

[Uberfrog]

They can't just magic up a better AI. All that's possible are tweaks and changes, like in Civ V's Community Balance mod. They can and should do these tweaks as free patches. It isn't some content you can switch on or off, and so cannot be a DLC, regardless of the dodgy ethics of such a thing.

As others have said many times before, decent (a troublesomely subjective term anyway) AI is not trivial, especially for a game like Civ. There are many factors why and it's not just as simple as "more development time".

 

[Stringer1313]

I disagree with the premise of this question. Computers will never be good as a human player in a game as complicated as this one. Agendas hamstring them even more. The only thing to do is to give AI players artificial bonuses. Borrowing from another poster here, AI players are obstacles, not humans. Totally different experience.

 

[Cuneiform]

Developing AI takes more time than anything else, it is easier to market game with nice graphics so Firaxis has a little motivation to do so.

I can't see that sentence going down well with Ed Beach...

Please give an example of another game that has had an AI only DLC pack, because I can't think of one.

 

[Biz_]

I disagree with the premise of this question. Computers will never be good as a human player in a game as complicated as this one. Agendas hamstring them even more. The only thing to do is to give AI players artificial bonuses. Borrowing from another poster here, AI players are obstacles, not humans. Totally different experience.

"we can't make it perfect, so let's do nothing"

 

[oakdragon]

I voted no because I would be supremely annoyed that they didn't think that was important enough for the original release. (If they couldn't make it decent with the original release date then that date should have been moved back.) But, as others have pointed out, all of that is moot because a., it would never happen and b., we don't really know that it needs that much improvement because we haven't played it yet. We might have valid reasons for assuming such, but that is all.

 

[Ulthwithian]

"we can't make it perfect, so let's do nothing"

To be fair, many people on this forum seem to have the opposite attitude: "If the AI isn't as good as a human player, it's worthless."

And no, an AI can't be as good as a human player.

 

[ehecatzin]

AI improvements is the kind of stuff they should do through patches, I would be really angry if there were trying to sell it to you., so yeah, voted NO.

 

[drubell]

For a variety of reasons, the only true answer to this question will be "will never happen."

 

[Stringer1313]

"we can't make it perfect, so let's do nothing"

Nice use of straw man.

 

[jmm]

Nope, and not gonna happen.
How much will that cost in development time? How well will it sell? How much time will pass between "release" and a Civfanatics thread complaining "how easy" is the AI?

The AI is geared towards "adequate for most players" because it sells to more players: Most Players > advanced players.
If the game has an AI that makes it almost impossible to win (fun to advanced players), it will scare the bulk of players away. So why waste money and resources. And hardcore players will continue to buy the games anyway.

Let's face it: AI expectations for advanced players WILL NEVER be met. And SHOULD NOT be met anyway if you want to sell enough to make it worthwhile to make the game (and future games)
Plus it is easier and cheaper to give the AI more bonuses, right?

I'm all in for a better AI, less exploits and an AI that will attempt to exploit player (and other AI players) weaknesses and try to their best to win, but that should be in the "base" game anyway, not a DLC (And AI/exploit fixes should never EVER be paid content)

 

[CaiusDrewart]

This isn't the kind of thing that would ever be made into a DLC, and for good reason. DLC's, if they have to exist at all, need to consist of more tangible things than AI improvements.

But if it somehow did happen, yeah, I would pay hypothetically pay 5 bucks for a significantly improved AI. It would improve my enjoyment of the game quite a bit, so yeah, that would be worth it.

 

[Lord Shadow]

It'd be a PR disaster if they were to sell something as critical as improved AI. What's next? Ship the game without a graphics settings menu and sell that afterwards?

It would never happen.

 

[Ryika]

I voted no, but there's some circumstances where I would buy such a DLC - mainly if the AI that is shipped with the game is already on a level where you can see that a lot of effort has gone into creating it, and the devs now went on to use some new kind of cool and expensive technology to push the limits of what was possible before. That's the kind of effort that would in my eyes justify putting a pricetag on what should otherwise be part of the "core experience", on which you can capitalize thanks to people buying other DLC, not DLC in itself.