|
Well, I mean, if the great library doesn't burn, WWI probably happens in like 1850, WII in 1875, but if that doesn't happen, BOOM Moon Landing in 1885. Follow?
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
Sorry if this has been asked, but when is it too late to pre-order for the Aztec DLC? I'm hoping I can grab it tomorrow night before midnight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
I wonder... is there a strategy game that a reasonable percentage of people agree actually has good AI?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:10
|
|
|
I meant that less about the year which means nothing and more like there's not enough techs to last 500 turns because if you've gotten to the modern era at turn 200 there's still 3/5 of the game left with 1/5 of the techs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
Yeah, I really feel after some thought that the Eureka Moments aren't the problem (though they are exacerbating an issue) but that the techs are just too cheap.Beamed posted:Sorry if this has been asked, but when is it too late to pre-order for the Aztec DLC? I'm hoping I can grab it tomorrow night before midnight. You're good right up until 0-hour in your region. So yes, worst case is you have another 12 hours or so if you live in Australia. I would hope that's more than enough time for your payment to clear.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:15
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:I meant that less about the year which means nothing and more like there's not enough techs to last 500 turns because if you've gotten to the modern era at turn 200 there's still 3/5 of the game left with 1/5 of the techs. Yeah, this is my thought. The Civic tree also seems a lot slower, probably because population gives less culture per citizen than science.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Vorpal Cat posted:The biggest thing I noticed in the battle royal was that the AI was really bad at upgrading its units. You had civilizations that had hit the medieval era but were still using slingers and had armies of warrior running around. The mentioned that warrior upgrades require strategic resources. If you don't have iron you're going to be stuck with warriors for awhile.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Joink posted:Honestly if WW2 didn't happen humans probably would have been on the moon around 1885 anyway. This is... what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:I meant that less about the year which means nothing and more like there's not enough techs to last 500 turns because if you've gotten to the modern era at turn 200 there's still 3/5 of the game left with 1/5 of the techs. I haven't watched anyone play a full game. Is 500 turns the norm? 500 turns would be a long rear end game of Civ 5. Maybe if one were to play on chieftain without knowing what they're doing they could see 500 turns without winning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
I would argue mankind would have never gotten to the moon without WW2. And I'll argue it with a song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDEsGZLbio
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Airfoil posted:I wonder... is there a strategy game that a reasonable percentage of people agree actually has good AI? Civ IV. EU IV, most of the time. It's hard to get right, certainly, but I don't think it means we should just let deva off the hook.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
So what time can we unlock this today using VPN?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Spikey posted:The mentioned that warrior upgrades require strategic resources. If you don't have iron you're going to be stuck with warriors for awhile. I wonder if this is semi-intentional or just the devs not really paying attention. It could honestly be a bit of a clever way to make conquering a bit harder. If you don't have the resources for offensive units (iron for swords, niter for early guns, horses for horses) it's a bit harder to wage war. Meanwhile you have weaker, cheaper stuff (hundreds of peasants levied into a pike formation) to defend your territory in a pinch. Then again it might end up the same as V where everyone (at least me) forgets to ever get the tech for swords even if I have iron and just builds walls of pikes to invade as my 1-3 ancient era warriors just act as barbarian-warding sentinels on a hill somewhere. Oh well, either way the unit upgrade lines in VI cannot possibly be more of a clusterfuck than in V. Even after two expansions trying to hammer vanilla's upgrade (holy poo poo, who thought having orphaned lines was a good idea) into something resembling sense you still have the silliness of pikemen suddenly learning to ride horses and then saying gently caress it to lug Anti-Tank guns around the map because Lancers are anti-cavalry cavalry (and admittedly you do need something between pikes and anti-armor guns). Fuligin posted:Civ IV. EU IV, most of the time. It's hard to get right, certainly, but I don't think it means we should just let deva off the hook. I would say it was less that IV had good AI, but IV's gameplay was more aimed at things modern AIs are good at doing/easy to program. Mainly: making bigger numbers to throw at problems. Make more culture to get your cities to legendary culture rank to win. Make more science to make a spaceship. Make more troops to make bigger stacks of doom. With the unstacking of units to 1UPT the AI suddenly can't handle military as well since it's no longer a question of pure industrial output, with pure commercial support and a dash of research to get the bigger units. Now a good AI could be made, but it would require way more money and resources than Firaxis has available...and way more computer resources so you start getting turns that grind to a halt. And I have to say, one overall positive I saw during the AI battle royale was how fast turns flew by, especially compared to V. So if they make V-level AI but only requiring half the computing cycles...that's definitely an improvement in my book. Alkydere fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
Spikey posted:The mentioned that warrior upgrades require strategic resources. If you don't have iron you're going to be stuck with warriors for awhile. This is almost excusable but every AI in that game was having issues with this. You can't tell me every AI in this game was having a resource issue. And if resources are the cause of this, then the resource mechanic is flawed. Either the AI should be good enough to handle the mechanic, or the mechanic should be redesigned to work better with the AI that they have. This is primarily a singleplayer game after all. The game mechanics should make sense with what they are capable of programming for the AI. Based on what I've seen from this stream today I think the AI is worse than 5. The only improvement I see is you don't have to wait ages for the AI to take its turn. xgalaxy fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:And compare this to V's release where Firaxis held everything close to their chest and had promised the AI would behave more like players. Which in turn translated to "would hate the player and be completely random, unpredictable and not to mention entirely obfuscated and opaque". They literally had to patch in the ability for the player to see the like/hate modifiers. To be fair, "Hates everyone else and is completely inscrutable" is a pretty good representation of what players must be like to the AI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Also I thought it was pretty sad when the one guy said that in all of their AI testing they never once saw an AI achieve the 'conquer' victory condition. Uhh... what? That is crap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
xgalaxy posted:This is almost excusable but every AI in that game was having issues with this. You can't tell me every AI in this game was having a resource issue. And if resources are the cause of this, then the resource mechanic is flawed. Either the AI should be good enough to handle the mechanic, or the mechanic should be redesigned to work better with the AI that they have. This is primarily a singleplayer game after all. The game mechanics should make sense with what they are capable of programming for the AI. Well, around turn 100 Rome's warriors all suddenly became legions so I'm inclined to believe that most of the time the AI would upgrade its units if it could. That said I saw some archers wandering around late and I'm pretty sure no resource is required to upgrade to crossbows.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
xgalaxy posted:Also I thought it was pretty sad when the one guy said that in all of their AI testing they never once saw an AI achieve the 'conquer' victory condition. I think that's more of a practical limit they set on the AI's aggressiveness because it would suck poo poo to realize that one AI has conquered its entire continent and now there's nothing you can do to stop it as it steamrolls you. Maybe it's a good example of the diplomacy working and the AI bands together against any outliers that conquer too much too fast? Then again maybe it's just bad tactical AI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
xgalaxy posted:Also I thought it was pretty sad when the one guy said that in all of their AI testing they never once saw an AI achieve the 'conquer' victory condition. Eh, I think this is probably a side effect of a dozen little things, but mainly the war weariness/warmongering point system. The AIs are probably less and less inclined to go to war as the game goes on if only because you don't want players to feel cheated by the AI getting to go on murder-roadtrips while the player can't. Not to mention the penalties for warring start at literally nothing and then ramp up (we did at least see the Aztecs go "I want that" and murder a city-state right off the bat). So you get AI who are likely programmed to be less aggressive at least in late game and, get bigger penalties for late-war warmongering. These both discourage them from completing a domination track that they started and head down another track midway through their progress. Now mix the fact that the AI is so very happy to go to war with un-upgraded trash units which hinders their combat performance. Oh and the AI really didn't seem so very eager to build piles of units (discounting some moments with Rome creating fucktons of Legions that would later evaporate?) I agree that there is definitely something wonky with the AI never coming close to domination (I can understand never quite winning, but they should at least come closer), but I think that something is caused by a whole bunch of little things. At the very least, the AI should have a modifier that increases their aggression the more capitals they own. Magil Zeal posted:Well, around turn 100 Rome's warriors all suddenly became legions so I'm inclined to believe that most of the time the AI would upgrade its units if it could. That said I saw some archers wandering around late and I'm pretty sure no resource is required to upgrade to crossbows. That Legion blob was weird. I saw that and was all "Aww, yeah, poo poo's about to get real" and then they basically evaporated, and Japan just sat there. Not sure what happened there. I guess the way of the samurai really is that powerful?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:That Legion blob was weird. I saw that and was all "Aww, yeah, poo poo's about to get real" and then they basically evaporated, and Japan just sat there. Not sure what happened there. I guess the way of the samurai really is that powerful? I'm pretty sure I just saw the legion blob hang around in Rome's territory even when it was supposedly at war. Granted it's a bit awkward when you have a bunch of legions and some Civs have already entered the Renaissance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:I'm pretty sure I just saw the legion blob hang around in Rome's territory even when it was supposedly at war. Granted it's a bit awkward when you have a bunch of legions and some Civs have already entered the Renaissance. Fair enough. I really think the AI does need to be a biiiit more aggressive though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Yeah, I really feel after some thought that the Eureka Moments aren't the problem (though they are exacerbating an issue) but that the techs are just too cheap. That's perfect, I'm NA. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Fair enough. Oh, I wasn't defending the AI's behavior in that case, Trajan absolutely should have attacked someone with all those legions. You don't keep a blob like that sitting around at home. I just thought it was more amusing than anything else that Rome finally upgraded its warriors to legion as other Civs were starting to enter the Renaissance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
Remember we're talking about a sample size of one game here as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
alpha_destroy posted:Well, I mean, if the great library doesn't burn, WWI probably happens in like 1850, WII in 1875, but if that doesn't happen, BOOM Moon Landing in 1885. Follow? It all went wrong when the Roman empire fell
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:Remember we're talking about a sample size of one game here as well. The upgrade woes at least are a common observation from the various YouTube videos that are playing the preview copy, as are the "joint non-wars". The AI being inept at achieving a Domination victory is straight from the mouth of the lead AI developer. I think he said he never saw a Civ approach domination, the most capitals he ever saw fall was 3 (presumably in a standard-sized, 8 player game). Those parts at least are not just based on the gameplay that unfolded in the one stream.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
Azhais posted:It all went wrong when the Roman empire fell but which one
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:The upgrade woes at least are a common observation from the various YouTube videos that are playing the preview copy, as are the "joint non-wars". The AI being inept at achieving a Domination victory is straight from the mouth of the lead AI developer. I think he said he never saw a Civ approach domination, the most capitals he ever saw fall was 3 (presumably in a standard-sized, 8 player game). Those parts at least are not just based on the gameplay that unfolded in the one stream. Yeah, the developer himself said the "joint non-wars" issue was a problem were the AI sees it in the best advantage is to let the other take the brunt and doesn't really prosecute the war. Now don't get me wrong, I don't mind non-wars in general, they happen all the other time in other civ games, but it sounds and looks to me that the AI is a lot less aggressive which...is something that's a bit frustrating really. Still hyped for the game though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Magil Zeal posted:The upgrade woes at least are a common observation from the various YouTube videos that are playing the preview copy, as are the "joint non-wars". The AI being inept at achieving a Domination victory is straight from the mouth of the lead AI developer. I think he said he never saw a Civ approach domination, the most capitals he ever saw fall was 3 (presumably in a standard-sized, 8 player game). Those parts at least are not just based on the gameplay that unfolded in the one stream. " joint non-wars" - love it. I dunno. Maybe there is a secret agenda that can get randomly assigned that is "mass murderer lunatic" or something that would make that AI extremely aggressive. Otherwise the lack of aggressiveness is kind of troubling from what I've seen so far. I get that they don't want AI going on murder rampages and steam rolling the player. But clearly this is something that could have been worked into the agenda system. If warmongering is such a huge penalty that disincentives the AI from ever going to war in a meaningful way.. that isn't fun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Alkydere posted:Yeah, the developer himself said the "joint non-wars" issue was a problem were the AI sees it in the best advantage is to let the other take the brunt and doesn't really prosecute the war. This sounds like me 99% of the time I agree to join the AI in war, not really seeing the problem with this part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:52
|
|
|
Azhais posted:It all went wrong when the Roman empire fell Justinian DLC, make Rome great again. I know it wouldn't happen because of reasons, but I'd love for Byzantium to have Justinian and Theodora together as a leader. Byzantine fucked around with this message at 07:05 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 06:59
|
|
|
So for VPNing purposes, the game is released in Australia at 12pm Eastern Time, right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
 The game will be released in the eastern countries in 9 hours: at 2 AM eastern Aus time, or 11 AM EST. Valve doesn't care if you VPN to play a game early, only if you VPN to cheat regional pricing. If something doesn't make sense, try reading the Civilopedia
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Krazyface posted:
This is 5 AM Hawaiian time. I know what I'm doing tomorrow morning. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Please lord let the multiplayer be quasi-functional.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
SlothBear posted:This sounds like me 99% of the time I agree to join the AI in war, not really seeing the problem with this part. The problem with this is its logical.. but it doesn't make for a fun game. If two AI agree to a joint war and they are both 'grid locked' from doing anything because both want the other to take the lead. That isn't good game design.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 07:32
|
|
|
Guess we'll have to wait for some modder to build a competent AI.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 07:49
|
|
|
Regarding the tech speed, I think an easy way to "fix" it is by just making the date/calendar progress faster instead of making tech go slower. I prefer faster games in general so this wouldn't bother me, though I admit it might be a problem if the balance is out of whack compared to the speed it takes to achieve victory maybe? The tech tree, ideally, needs to finish around the time you can also win other victories. But having a calendar on the top screen in 1300 AD when you unlock industrialisation creates some sort of illusion that tech is too fast, when maybe tech/turns wise it's balanced enough to work and the calendar could be 1750 then and nobody would notice. I think maybe the easiest way to help AI upgrade its units, is letting it upgrade when out of sight of the player in neutral territory. I'm willing to bet they don't upgrade troops because they don't spend time at home in friendly territory. Deltasquid fucked around with this message at 09:06 on Oct 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Guess we'll have to wait for some modder to build a competent AI. Toga posted:If anything, now that the AI's shortcomings are known, it might be the first thing to be modded as soon as modding kicks off. Cool as hell that I'd be buying a game that I have to rely on the players to finish development of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:11 |
|
|
Chucat posted:Cool as hell that I'd be buying a game that I have to rely on the players to finish development of. Except Firaxis have a good track record, especially within the Civ series, of robust patches long after release day. That doesn't include DLC / expansions. Not to say that modders won't come up with AI improvements - if I remember correctly, Firaxis ended up incorporating a certain mods improvements into their AI code (with permission natch).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 09:16
|
|
