|
really queer Christmas posted:I just got this in the humble monthly and man I’ve got so many little problems with this game, though looking over the last few pages they’re pretty common. Note that those numbers aren't their current relationship score with you, but the current modifiers to it, if I recall correctly. So their relationship with you will be going up, but that doesn't necessarily mean they like you yet. Edit: That is to say, they're how much your score with them will increase/decrease each turn, in case I phrased that poorly. Not to say that the AI isn't dumb and irrational. Civ AI's never been good, and VI has some issues to work out still from what I understand. I admittedly don't have a lot of experience with it personally since I play multiplayer almost exclusively, which is a lot more fun for me in both Civ V and VI. Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Jan 14, 2018 |
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
The numbers being modifiers make more sense. I did finally get that friendship, but it still made no sense that I got surprise war declared on me after being friendly for like 200 turns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 06:04
|
|
|
Yeah, the AI's priority for war declarations is apparently screwy. In the games with AI that I've played, I generally haven't had trouble keeping them friendly unless I was warmongering, but a few times I was still targeted for a joint war because the AI was really gung ho about those for a while. (And maybe still is? I'm not sure.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 06:18
|
|
|
The other problem is it's pretty opportunistic with regard to military score and thinks it should kill you because it has several times your army strength. But a couple ranged units properly screened and microd by a human are worth way more than that
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 07:25
|
|
|
several times? no, even a friendly AI will arbitrarily decide at a certain point that it wants to attack you regardless of difference in army strength. it'll go through the steps of building up an attack force and when it feels ready, it'll start parking praetorians on your borders next to your phalanxes... of m-1 abrams tanks... and they'll be declaring war in a few turns regardless of army disparity and diplomacy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
What is the reason the game doesn't just show the total relation score?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 10:02
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:What is the reason the game doesn't just show the total relation score? Because it probably isn't a sane number and doing that would demonstrate how utterly broken everything about the AI is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 10:04
|
|
|
ate poo poo on live tv posted:Because it probably isn't a sane number and doing that would demonstrate how utterly broken everything about the AI is. true diplomacy score: -712443
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 10:18
|
|
|
If I were being charitable, I'd say they hide the true diplo score because that would give the AI away when they're trying their "i'm being friendly but i secretly hate you so i'm going to backstab you" gambit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 10:29
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:What is the reason the game doesn't just show the total relation score? It's because they want you add the score up yourself to simulate actually going over each of the modifier issues with that leader as if you were in an actual meeting with them to encourage immersion. It's because the UI is poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
JeremoudCorbynejad posted:If I were being charitable, I'd say they hide the true diplo score because that would give the AI away when they're trying their "i'm being friendly but i secretly hate you so i'm going to backstab you" gambit. That has to be it, really. I am sure there are some players who think that AI should have 100% transparency, and also some players who would enjoy that numbers minigame if it were 100% transparent. I prefer surprise wars to be a surprise, but I don't think it would affect my enjoyment of the game if the actual relationship score were visible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
homullus posted:That has to be it, really. I am sure there are some players who think that AI should have 100% transparency, and also some players who would enjoy that numbers minigame if it were 100% transparent. I prefer surprise wars to be a surprise, but I don't think it would affect my enjoyment of the game if the actual relationship score were visible. well then make it 99% transparent, and make the invisible modifiers realistic instead of  . civ 4 had hidden values based on leader disposition, but they didn't go more than 4 in either direction. civ 5 also kind of had this where montezuma and i think harald bluetooth were specifically scripted to offer DoF with you if your army score was lower than theirs, with the goal of getting you to leave your borders undefended so they can attack you.if civ 6 showed true totals--have you looked at the diplo-per-turn when you're at war? it's like "WE'RE AT WAR -256" and that doesn't get cleared once you make peace
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
There's also something called a "mayhem counter" which basically makes the AI act more illogically if nothing is happening in the game (no war) for a long time, apparently. It was described a while back, and it doesn't always kick in, but it could explain some weird things that happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
I think part of the disconnect is that if the AI feels it has a good enough reason to go to war, it can decide to go to war regardless of its attitude. Which feels bad because you can get targeted by someone with a million positive modifiers if they really want to. It's tricky, because a lot of players want the AI to be more challenging, and making good relations a guarantee against attack undermines the AI's ability to pose a threat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
Yeah, no matter what they do with the AI, you'll always have people complaining that it doesn't behave "realistically", that it doesn't play to win, or both. That's a balance that's not easy to strike in something like Civ, where some people want a civ-building role-playing game basically and others play it competitively or as a game first. The arguments over whether the AI should attack you just for being close to a victory condition or not is a good example of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 21:29
|
|
|
The AI shouldn't attack me when I have a huge army and have eaten three other AIs. It should sit there cowering in fear until I get around to attacking it, ideally it should also bribe me with goodies in the meantime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 22:03
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:The AI shouldn't attack me when I have a huge army and have eaten three other AIs. It should sit there cowering in fear until I get around to attacking it, ideally it should also bribe me with goodies in the meantime. Corollary from my latest Beyond Earth game: if I can delete an AI's entire military in two turns after they declare war on me, they shouldn't have declared war on me. I would have been happy to leave the Americans alone, but no, Fielding just had to take it personally that the PAC was returning to Earth to liberate it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
The problem with the AI is that there is no baseline that the player can see. A friendly AI attacking you, or a weak AI attacking you is fine, otherwise every interaction with the AI would be predictable. But the issue is that the player cannot form any kind of rules or idea about how the AI works, and that makes diplomacy and how the player interacts with the AI exactly the same every time because the AI appears to be so random that the player's only option to treat the AI as a rabid dog. I can't even trade a luxury for a luxury with an AI across the world, on another continent. I have no idea how the AI values anything, so I have no idea how to interact with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 22:19
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:The problem with the AI is that there is no baseline that the player can see. A friendly AI attacking you, or a weak AI attacking you is fine, otherwise every interaction with the AI would be predictable. I think this is the key, really. Some degree of randomness is good, but in general it feels a lot better if the player knows when the AI is going to attack, or at least is able to deduce it based on the information the game provides them. Even something as simple as Civ IV's diplomacy menu "We have enough on our hands right now" signaling a build-up of forces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 22:23
|
|
|
Judge Schnoopy posted:I tried to really build out religion and see how the game went. I'm stymied by two other civs who are dominating their homeland with their own religions, and I have no idea how religious victories are possible. Sounds realistic though. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
A great deal of the issues with Civ, in all its incarnations, would be solved by allowing multiple winners. Basically, award each victory condition separately, and then the overall winner is whoever has the most individual victories. That way you avoid the problem with “winner takes is all”, where at some point in the game, if you’re not winning, you basically have to go all in into war because there no point doing anything else. This would also help diplomacy greatly because you’d no longer have the “should the AI declare war to compete?” dilemma. Some AIs could stay focused on peaceful win conditions only and hope to gather several of them. (The actual win conditions would have to be redesigned but that’s obvious.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 01:23
|
|
|
markus_cz posted:(The actual win conditions would have to be redesigned but that’s obvious.) Wasn't that what was done with the Smoky Skies mod for Civ 5? It was a best of 5 competition for overall winner; Most tech, most policies, biggest army, that sort of thing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 01:29
|
|
|
markus_cz posted:A great deal of the issues with Civ, in all its incarnations, would be solved by allowing multiple winners. Basically, award each victory condition separately, and then the overall winner is whoever has the most individual victories. That way you avoid the problem with “winner takes is all”, where at some point in the game, if you’re not winning, you basically have to go all in into war because there no point doing anything else. I've been thinking similarly. Add more win conditions, but you have to win two of them to actually win, and one ally can win with you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 01:44
|
|
|
markus_cz posted:A great deal of the issues with Civ, in all its incarnations, would be solved by allowing multiple winners. Basically, award each victory condition separately, and then the overall winner is whoever has the most individual victories. That way you avoid the problem with “winner takes is all”, where at some point in the game, if you’re not winning, you basically have to go all in into war because there no point doing anything else. I disagree with this completely. Civ is perfect as a cut-throat, one-winner take all strategy game. That is part of the heart and soul of Civ in my eyes. For something else, go to one of Paradox's game. But keep Civ one winner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:01
|
|
|
The real victory is the friends we crushed along the way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:06
|
|
|
civ needs to actually commit to being either a competitive or a sandbox game imo. either would be neat but it needs to pick one and stick to it
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
The Human Crouton posted:I've been thinking similarly. Add more win conditions, but you have to win two of them to actually win, and one ally can win with you. permanent alliance life
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
Endless Legend has an allied victory condition, works well. The actual winner is explicitly the winner of the game, but any allies they have get a nice little "You also did well and prospered, even if it ultimately wasn't your vision that shaped the world."
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
I don't know what they're planning victory-wise, but Rise and Fall is apparently expanding the alliance system quite a bit. Something mentioned "alliance points" or whatever that are earned over time, as well as multiple types of alliance, like cultural alliances where your cities and population don't lower each other's loyalty. I'm curious what they're planning with that. Here's what they had to say on the matter:quote:Alliances within Civilization VI already offered a lot, but this expansion adds more nuance. Alliances in the base game often boiled down to a sort of guarantee that the other player would not interfere with your strategy by attacking you, but only rarely did it offer tangible benefits. So for Civilization VI: Rise and Fall we added more tangible incentives to Alliances. We’re encouraging players to band together for mutual benefit rather than merely non-interference. We’re also giving players more active and flavorful choices to make. Alliances now have a type – Research, Military, Economic, Cultural, or Religious – that determines their benefits. Moreover, as the Alliance continues, the Alliance itself levels up and unlocks more powerful bonuses. This encourages players to think in the long term and to invest in diplomacy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:50
|
|
|
It means that instead of one alliance type that the AI will never accept, there will now be 5 types of alliances that the AI will never accept.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
homullus posted:The real victory is the friends we crushed along the way. Agreed. The real victory was smashing my friend so hard my allied city state conquered (and then razed) his city.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 08:22
|
|
|
markus_cz posted:A great deal of the issues with Civ, in all its incarnations, would be solved by allowing multiple winners. Basically, award each victory condition separately, and then the overall winner is whoever has the most individual victories. That way you avoid the problem with “winner takes is all”, where at some point in the game, if you’re not winning, you basically have to go all in into war because there no point doing anything else. I'm not sure this would work as intended - if you're way behind on getting any of the "peaceful" victories, then it would still be worth it to go to war (like you say, there'd be no point doing anything else) and curb-stomp everyone until there are no competitors left, ensuring victory. I take your point about redesigning the victory system but I can't see how this one would be avoided, unless total domination disqualified the player. Even then, the player could curb-stomp everyone until each competitor is a tiny nub, too big to count towards their disqualification but too small to actually compete for the peaceful victories.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 08:49
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:civ needs to actually commit to being either a competitive or a sandbox game imo. either would be neat but it needs to pick one and stick to it Civ as a sandbox empire builder is pretty poo poo. I think the real dichotomy is whether Civ wants to be a finely tuned virtual board game with historical theming or a fleshed out alternate history simulator. Unfortunately these often stand at odds with one another. So the Facebook page just posted a teaser about upcoming features that featured a guy with a very ‘I’m going to colonize the poo poo out of you’ look on his face. New leader or maybe the governor? Would post image but imgur doesn’t like my phone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
It's one of the governors.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
That's Magnus, one of the governors, yeah. His bonuses mostly involve production and resources, though he is, in fact, good at helping you colonize the poo poo out of things too. Anyway, here's the tweet: https://twitter.com/CivGame/status/952918328237961216
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 17:04
|
|
|
Will there be patch notes published alongside the new features? I guess not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
If you are dumb and want to pre-order Rise and fall, GMG has a voucher for 25% off (BLUE25).
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:If you are dumb and want to pre-order Rise and fall, GMG has a voucher for 25% off (BLUE25). Maybe after they go over the governor system again tomorrow, and nothing else, I'll be excited enough to pre-purchase.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 17:49
|
|
|
I'm not sure if I'll even post-purchase this one to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
i'm gonna wait at least a month
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2018 17:53
|
|
