|
You should at least post that on Civfanatics and the subreddit.
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
Some ideas from way back when I ran the Civ steam group for MP. If PYDT, start on a later age with advanced start of couple cities and units to significantly reduce initial slog. If simultaneous session, set a certain time for a certain lenght. Make it so that if one human doesn’t show up, he gets taken by AI or he can submit a sub. Game always proceeds at scheduled time if more than 50 percent are there and thus people who schedule time for themselves aren’t left hanging. Make the session end. Two hours. If someone leaves before timer is done, replaced by AI. If timer runs out, game only proceeds at universal consent. As soon as one person says they are done, game ends. Use simultaneous turns fucks sake. In war, house rules to let attacker go first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 13:03
|
|
|
Serephina posted:I guess the point of that story is that this is more-than-plausibly the issue, and sure as gently caress StraitWhiteShark will get zero credit for it. To be fair I'm not the first person who's noticed this. I hope the reason it's still around is that everyone else who caught it didn't realize the significance or didn't bother trying to bring it to Firaxis's attention.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 14:01
|
|
|
onesixtwo posted:My favorite part of the LITERALLY FOREVER argument is how none of the people bitching about the AI join the posted PYDT games. Kinda self-defeating but hey, forums warrior to your hearts content I suppose in a video game’s thread you dislike. I'm imagining a lot of multiplayer players lean more toward optimal build orders/deity difficulty play style. If that's the case, there's a gap between the level at which a lot of people wish they could play against a competent AI and the level at which you have to play to keep up with other players. Think of it as, "I wish the AI were better at this because I know people online will just wreck my poo poo if I'm not doing it perfectly." Generally I can get around the AI being what it is, but in Civ VI at least it seems weird that now other civs want you to be good at what they do. Genghis likes if you have a cavalry rivaling his, Trajan wants you to be your own Roman empire, Harald wants you to be just as much of a naval threat as he is. Why would your competitors like you for being competitive with their thing? I know we're not going for realism here, but this is one thing they could stand to make a bit more realistic, I'd say. Why would anyone be happy that their biggest competitor has a comparable navy or something when that's that AI's thing? I don't think this was even intended to be like "they're also strong, let's be friends," because if you're strong as hell but don't have a cavalry force, Genghis still mocks you for just sitting around with musketmen and field cannons. Harald shouldn't hate me for my coastal land being too easy to raid. That should be a big green light for him to go over and raid instead of telling me I have no defenses against him. It would be nice if they were even obviously dickish about it instead, and if I have no coastal defenses, Harald gets a positive modifier and befriends me, or initiates trade or something. THEN he goes and raids my coasts, and any retaliation on my part means giving up on a deal or DOWing a declared friend. I guess it still works if you think of it as such: Genghis knows you have no cavalry ---> Genghis hates you ---> Genghis DOWs because he hates you because you have no horses ---> you may or may not be equipped to fight him, but definitely not with horses, I guess. That's the sort of thing I notice a lot more than how the AI uses 1UPT or anything because it's the one thing where they can aim for a realistic approach without being inconsistent. I know Civ plays more like a board game, but the AI essentially serves as different flavors of players and it seems weird that one player would like that you also have the strongest navy. I know my friends would at least see that as a reason to target me rather than find common ground in having the exact same strength.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Ghost Stromboli posted:Harald shouldn't hate me for my coastal land being too easy to raid. That should be a big green light for him to go over and raid instead of telling me I have no defenses against him. It would be nice if they were even obviously dickish about it instead, and if I have no coastal defenses, Harald gets a positive modifier and befriends me, or initiates trade or something. THEN he goes and raids my coasts, and any retaliation on my part means giving up on a deal or DOWing a declared friend. Uh... Harald hating you is a big green light for him to go over and raid you. You want him to simultaneously be friendly to you for not having a navy but also more likely to attack you? Cuz let me tell you, having friendly civs attack you went over real well when they did it in Civ 5. Similarly, you got Genghis's schtick backwards: he hates civs that have cavalry. Genghis can capture enemy cavalry units. So he targets civs that have horses for him to steal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:Uh... Harald hating you is a big green light for him to go over and raid you. You want him to simultaneously be friendly to you for not having a navy but also more likely to attack you? Cuz let me tell you, having friendly civs attack you went over real well when they did it in Civ 5. You've got a good point with Harald, but I promise I've only ever received negativity from Genghis for having no cavalry. MAYBE he also targets you for having units he can capture, but he at least hates you for not bothering to build any horsies. Also the bug you found was hilarious by the way. It reminds me of people in an office telling someone to copy and paste instead of keying everything in to avoid typos, then it turns out the typo was immediately copied and pasted into everything... e: by the way, people were wondering why the gender modifier was taken out of the game a few pages ago. My guess is because Genghis for example (and others) would accuse anyone playing a female character that they wouldn't stop nattering and pestering him. Yes, even if you literally never initiated contact with him too. It felt like someone at Firaxis REALLLLYYY wanted to use the word "nag," but for obvious reasons it didn't make it in. Weirdly it did work in that it was a consistent modifier, but given the current social climate it only makes sense that the modifier was taken right back out. Unless I'm mistaken I also never really saw any negative comment toward male leaders that equated in any way to "stop nagging me all the time." Ghost Stromboli fucked around with this message at 18:11 on Mar 14, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Ghost Stromboli posted:You've got a good point with Harald, but I promise I've only ever received negativity from Genghis for having no cavalry. MAYBE he also targets you for having units he can capture, but he at least hates you for not bothering to build any horsies. The compliment he gives you for not having horses is incredibly backhanded ("The cavalry you field is an embarrassment, but thankfully a small one") but it's a positive modifier for sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 18:18
|
|
|
Ghost Stromboli posted:I'm imagining a lot of multiplayer players lean more toward optimal build orders/deity difficulty play style. If that's the case, there's a gap between the level at which a lot of people wish they could play against a competent AI and the level at which you have to play to keep up with other players. Think of it as, "I wish the AI were better at this because I know people online will just wreck my poo poo if I'm not doing it perfectly." Multiplayer is very different from Deity computers because humans aren’t computers. Past that...
You are correct in that you need to understand the game mechanics in order to be competitive, but you do NOT “cheese” other humans — and, in turn, they do not have +300% hammers/gold/faith in order to combat cheese.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 18:35
|
|
|
There's now a mod that fixes the typo issue : https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/84d5cz/firaxis_please_fix_ai_crippled_by_dumb_typo/
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
Straight White Shark posted:The compliment he gives you for not having horses is incredibly backhanded ("The cavalry you field is an embarrassment, but thankfully a small one") but it's a positive modifier for sure. Well gently caress, I guess I did have it backwards. DNK posted:Multiplayer is very different from Deity computers because humans aren’t computers. Past that... I'll have to try it and curb some of my admittedly sandbox-ish patterns, because especially the religion and diplomacy aspects in that list are the big appeal to me. I've sort of sworn off religion in singleplayer games since it becomes a war of spamming religious units against a computer that has no capability of feeling like that's loving tedious and giving up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
Ghost Stromboli posted:
The current hope is that if the YEILD_PRODUCTION stuff is actually causing the AI to way over value faith, then getting a religion should be easier in SP and the AI won't have near as much faith available to dump into units.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 19:35
|
|
|
Anecdotally this YEILD issue makes a lot of sense. Just looking to send my spies places it seems like no cities have industrial zones, even though they are probably the most critical district to scale into the mid and late game. On the other hand every city I conquer has tons of holy sites.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
I guess that says a lot about the Civ QA team
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
There's also the fact that holy sites are one of the first districts you get to build, and industrial one of the later. If you're hitting the pop cap for districts, it might look like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Who?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Honestly I'm not sure how I'd deal with AI that properly prioritized science and production. Definitely put my plans to try Emperor on the backburner I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Yeah if this fix makes the AI more difficult due to being more competent (at least on the city building side) I'd be okay with bumping it down again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
DNK posted:Multiplayer is very different from Deity computers because humans aren’t computers. Past that... 100% Agree with this, man, I wanna play MP Civ!
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 19:54
|
|
|
Honestly, I don't really see the point of giving the AI that "persona" or "agenda" per se. It is fun to give player some leaders with different abilities but for your rivals it makes much more sense to be just some whatever nobody cause it makes sense when some ancient era warlord tells you that he wants your land rather than the loving Roosevelt with his "agenda" attacking you. Because agendas as is are actually not that meaningful. AI on higher difficulty will attack you just because they are stronger and you have land that they do not have. Literally I have a couple of games that I befriended Harold while being completely landlocked just because I had somewhat competent military. It is not that hard, just send them an envoy when you meet them and sell them your luxuries for hundreds of gold and they will like you. Which still makes sense for ancient diplomacy. Agendas are drop in the water for modifiers at that point. Rather than set leaders there really should be different leaders for each era or whatever with their agendas. Maybe not even unique to leader but set to era. Like I said it makes sense for ancient warlord to just attack you on sight but in Renaissance maybe he wants to trade and so forth. It works for roleplay it works for expanding game options so I think it would generally be more fun to have more leaders for each civ with more agendas and bonuses. That will play into some civ being stronger in certain eras cause their "signature" leader while others have to deal being nonames without bonuses or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
Hey here's a quick question about this "YEILD" error thing and how AI values resources. I noticed in my latest game as I rampaged around on Emperor that most cities, even those founded in the medieval era, generally had holy sites, with some having campuses, and some with a commercial hub or harbor, but almost no industrial zones. Could this be because, when choosing a first district, the AI tries to find the most quick resources it can get, and the adjacency bonuses of industrial zones require planning while the other four get bonuses for pre-existing features (mountains, rivers, sea resources, etc.)? I don't know how the AI works even a little but this is a quick theory I had to explain why they almost ignore the best district until the atomic era even at high difficulties.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
I recall many leader personalities in Civ IV feeling distinct, and having that add to the game. I can still tell you that Mansa Musa tech trades extremely aggressively, that Catherine will stab you in the back in an instant if she thinks it benefits her, and that Shaka is the only warmonger AI who can actually win the game. I'm not sure why the Civ 6 personalities feel less distinct, but I think it might be because they all feed into attitude: it's not that tech trading made Musa like you, but rather that he was willing to trade techs with you even if he didn't like you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
So how is Rise and Fall compared with fully expanded Civ V? I’m not a good player and never play above prince so “dumb ai” isn’t a thing I care about. I just like having lots of options and poo poo to do when I play and Brave New World hit a good balance in every turn having a few meaningful activities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
Tom Tucker posted:Hey here's a quick question about this "YEILD" error thing and how AI values resources. I noticed in my latest game as I rampaged around on Emperor that most cities, even those founded in the medieval era, generally had holy sites, with some having campuses, and some with a commercial hub or harbor, but almost no industrial zones. Could this be because, when choosing a first district, the AI tries to find the most quick resources it can get, and the adjacency bonuses of industrial zones require planning while the other four get bonuses for pre-existing features (mountains, rivers, sea resources, etc.)? This is probably more because the AI will build things if it can, rather than intelligently determining that a given city doesn't need a Holy Site, and by the time it reaches the tech for Industrial Zones, it's either at the hard build cap (population bottleneck), or the soft build cap (hammer inflation).
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:This is probably more because the AI will build things if it can, rather than intelligently determining that a given city doesn't need a Holy Site, and by the time it reaches the tech for Industrial Zones, it's either at the hard build cap (population bottleneck), or the soft build cap (hammer inflation). I think it's a mix of those things. That's almost definitely a major problem for its early cities, but, for the test up there where the values were fixed, apparently the AI did do better. It still could be smarter, but if it valued production properly it'd definitely help, and I wouldn't be surprised if it also valued adjacency yields too much; in one MP game I'm in an AI city I took has a city center-harbor-commercial hub triangle, for example, which is a lot of adjacency bonuses but it's all gold, doesn't give a second trade route, and comes at the cost of other districts that do more. Though, the player may still have made that, I'm not sure; I didn't check out the city closely before and it's been a while since they dropped and let the AI take over.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
chaosapiant posted:So how is Rise and Fall compared with fully expanded Civ V? I’m not a good player and never play above prince so “dumb ai” isn’t a thing I care about. I just like having lots of options and poo poo to do when I play and Brave New World hit a good balance in every turn having a few meaningful activities. R&F adds the Loyalty and Governor mechanics, which round out the base game nicely. Since spies can affect both, and governors have a lot if interactions with the Loyalty mechanic, in the late game you can proactively try to steal cities. Shades of Civ III, but it's a whole city at once instead of tile by tile. Since I absolutely loved cultural expansion in Civ III, it's a nice nostalgia hit. I expect one more expansion with new mechanics, but as of right now there's a lot of game for someone who just wants to get stoned and hit the Next Turn button all night. e. It's still at least a little broken if I can win a Space victory as Montezuma on Emperor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
I always end up picking fights late game so I have something to do other than just hit next turn waiting for my spaceship parts to be competed. Though as the Cree right now I think i'm too powerful for anyone to do anything more than just meekly ask me to stop stealing all their great works and burning down their factories. and it looks like the Venicen Arsenal randomly gives you 2 ships rather than all the time? I built more ships and only about half the time I gave me 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 07:30
|
|
|
onesixtwo posted:My favorite part of the LITERALLY FOREVER argument is how none of the people bitching about the AI join the posted PYDT games. Kinda self-defeating but hey, forums warrior to your hearts content I suppose in a video game’s thread you dislike. As someone who loves Civ (4) to bits and has played a fair bit of multiplayer, comparing multiplayer games to single player games and calling people out for not wanting to play the former while complaining about the latter is laughable. I could write an essay on this but the short version on the differences are: Time investment - PBEM/Pitboss games will average around 2 turns a day, this might be faster early game when the moves are way simpler, but the speed slows down dramatically once turns take longer and wars start and you enter turnsplits and so on. This means that in a best case scenario, you're looking at a game taking at least a months, and a 'best case scenario' in this case means you get ejected from the game by an Impi rush or something. Of course, there are the local, faster multiplayer games, where you all join a lobby and take simultaneous or sequential turns. This is still a time investment of at least 4 hours, and you're beholden to waiting for other players to think about their moves or deal with emergencies and so on. And if you have an inconsistent schedule or something like that, good luck getting everyone back again. Diplomacy - Part of the reason why people liked 4's diplomacy and hated 5's so much was because it was clear why AIs liked and disliked you in 4, whereas in 5 it was a black box. The devs claimed they made 5's diplomacy like that to mirror humans, which is a problem because human players are loving psychopaths in Civ. I could go into absolutely insane metagame "full diplo" stuff, but most single player people don't want to either operate under this assumption that every other player in this game is likely to kill them at any point if they show even the smallest sign of weakness (or if you're just bordering a lunatic who will attack regardless), or handle 5 different groups of PMs, steam notifications and whatever to gauge what everyone thinks of them. Playstyle - Because the Pitboss games are way slower than normal singleplayer games, you get to spend a lot more time thinking about your turns if you're that sort of player. You'll get invested, you'll plan out stuff for the next couple of weeks (at least), analyze graphs, come up with wonder building plans and so on. And if you don't do that, unless you're really, really supernaturally good at the game, you're likely to fall behind. Then in much the opposite way, faster multiplayer games with an enforced turn timer are going to boil down to speed and quick thinking on some level, both of which are a far cry from the "I wanna just chill in single player" mentality. Quitting and leaving - People get frustrated when things don't go their way. In a single player game, you can just alt-F4 and try again, or reload if a battle goes badly, or you get wonder sniped and so on. In multiplayer, you can't do that sort of stuff, or you can, but you ruin the game for everyone else and you hold the game up for ages while trying to find a sub. tl;dr - Multiplayer is way more stressful than singleplayer and has a way larger time investment as well, so I'm not surprised not everyone is interested in it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 13:33
|
|
|
chaosapiant posted:So how is Rise and Fall compared with fully expanded Civ V? I’m not a good player and never play above prince so “dumb ai” isn’t a thing I care about. I just like having lots of options and poo poo to do when I play and Brave New World hit a good balance in every turn having a few meaningful activities. I think it's better overall. The only thing I really find myself missing from the Civ 5 experience is the civ design; Civ 5 made me a lot more fired up to try out new civs. I find the replayability in Civ 6 comes from the variety of circumstances that can occur where 5's gameplay was a lot more static, rather than from different civ playstyles, so that's still arguably a good thing overall. But more interesting/balanced civs would have been nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
Tom Tucker posted:Hey here's a quick question about this "YEILD" error thing and how AI values resources. I noticed in my latest game as I rampaged around on Emperor that most cities, even those founded in the medieval era, generally had holy sites, with some having campuses, and some with a commercial hub or harbor, but almost no industrial zones. Could this be because, when choosing a first district, the AI tries to find the most quick resources it can get, and the adjacency bonuses of industrial zones require planning while the other four get bonuses for pre-existing features (mountains, rivers, sea resources, etc.)? There's not really any documentation so how this all works is anyone's guess (including, probably, Firaxis's.) But this is my conjecture as well, and additional testing seems to bear it out 100%. I've been experimenting with further tweaks to the values, and one of the weaknesses I'm finding is that the AI is largely oblivious to the idea of building a badly needed district for reasons other than adjacency bonuses. For example, you can crank their bias for science yield waaaay up and they will hungrily pounce on every single mountain or double jungle spot to plop down a +1 campus--but if they build 6 cities in a flat region with no jungles, forget about seeing a single campus. Even if they manage to get some districts built close enough together that they could get a +1 spot from district adjacency, they can probably get a much bigger bonus from something else in that spot instead--even if you crank down faith, they'll still take a +3 commercial hub or industrial zone instead. The thought of plopping down some lovely campuses so that they can get some science generation from libraries never occurs to them. The AI also seems averse to removing features/improvements with districts, so if they happen to build mines all around their only mountain... no campus for that city, better luck with the next one. the holy poopacy fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Mar 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 16:24
|
|
|
One change I’ve noticed so far that I love is that map edge scrolling works the way you’d expect. I can’t remember exactly what made it so fucky before but it finally feels smooth and responsive. Was that in a latch?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:and it looks like the Venicen Arsenal randomly gives you 2 ships rather than all the time? I built more ships and only about half the time I gave me 2. I think the way the Venetian Arsenal works is that the city with the arsenal will produce double units--one on their water district, and one on the wonder--but other cities you produce naval units in will not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
The White Dragon posted:I think the way the Venetian Arsenal works is that the city with the arsenal will produce double units--one on their water district, and one on the wonder--but other cities you produce naval units in will not. Yup, that's exactly how its supposed to work.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 19:51
|
|
|
But all my cities receive two units from the Venetian Arsenal?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2018 22:51
|
|
|
John F Bennett posted:But all my cities receive two units from the Venetian Arsenal? Maybe there's a typo in the code.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 07:58
|
|
|
I was only building ships in thr city that had the wonder. And after playing this game since launch I manged to get a culture victory. Not that it was hard to pull off, normally I just get bored and build the suave ship. This time I waited until I won through culture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 08:44
|
|
|
What victory is the suave ship part of?
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 09:05
|
|
|
The secret Pimp Victory. They're removing it next patch along the sex based agendas though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 09:50
|
|
|
Straight White Shark, you're internet famous: https://www.pcgamer.com/typos-in-a-civilization-6-data-file-are-messing-with-the-ais-priorities/
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 10:35
|
|
|
One step closer to retirement!
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 12:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 09:02 |
|
|
“We’re aware of a community-reported bug that has a minor impact on AI behavior. We’ve also made sure that everyone knows that I goes before E except after C… or other weird exceptions. Thanks to all who helped bring this to our attention and there will be a fix included in our next update.”
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2018 12:31
|
|
