Nainstalovat Steam
přihlásit se
|
jazyk
简体中文 (Zjednodušená čínština)
繁體中文 (Tradiční čínština)
日本語 (Japonština)
한국어 (Korejština)
ไทย (Thajština)
български (Bulharština)
Dansk (Dánština)
Deutsch (Němčina)
English (Angličtina)
Español-España (Evropská španělština)
Español-Latinoamérica (Latin. španělština)
Ελληνικά (Řečtina)
Français (Francouzština)
Italiano (Italština)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonéština)
Magyar (Maďarština)
Nederlands (Nizozemština)
Norsk (Norština)
Polski (Polština)
Português (Evropská portugalština)
Português-Brasil (Brazilská portugalština)
Română (Rumunština)
Русский (Ruština)
Suomi (Finština)
Svenska (Švédština)
Türkçe (Turečtina)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamština)
Українська (Ukrajinština)
Nahlásit problém s překladem
Pravidla a pokyny k diskuzím
Nahlásit tento příspěvek
This one is actually a rather lame franchise meme. I forget whether it was Civ 3 or 4 that first had him be really nuke-happy as a joke, but it took off in the fanbase and has been a series staple ever since. Despite being kinda dumb.
That, and it has the rather unpleasant effect of making India always a huge nuclear aggressor, which... I wonder if they remember that India has nuclear weapons, which they've been just as calm in custody of as anyone else.
Not similar to a human, but expecting an AI that actually has the "intelligence" part of "Artificial Intelligence" doesn't seem like too much to me.
Had Russia declare friendship with me and the VERY NEXT TURN he declared war on me. Meanwhile, while I'm pursuing the suzerian of a citystate, something that goes directly against Germany's agenda, Germany is super happy with me but keeps denouncing me due to my pursuinig City states and still declaring friendship with me... I mean, the AI has no idea what it wants and no idea how to pursue what actions it takes.
I feel like the AI is being controlled by RNG. It just seems to roll dice to see what actions it takes.
That's cute, but he literally SAID he's a developer and could have done a much better job than Firaxis...so I'm not really sure what you're on about...
As someone who has developed small smart phone applications solo and with a small group of people I also have to agree with the OP - it's really not hard creating a switch statement or having conditional checks for actions. There are a lot of cases in this game where such conditional checks before AI action would result in less "Huh, really?" moments - my personal favorite was being Denounced by one of the Greek leaders on turn 30ish for never having gone to war despite there having never even been a war fought in the game thus far.
Playing Civ 6 compared to older titles in the Civ franchise gives the impression that there's some heavy RNG happening, as someone else stated above. RNG can be great if utilized correctly, but we're seeing more and more RNG in games where it doesn't really belong to create the feeling of "random" events when the whole premise of the game is to guide, build, and control your gameplay through the game. In Civ games, your build order and such already force you make decisions and sacrifice.
Having a diplomacy system like the one in Civ 6 gets thrown out of whack when you throw in RNG generated actions. Does it make it feel "more real" with "random" events? Maybe, I guess, but that's also not why we're playing these video games - we're playing to build, explore, expand, and mess around - not to be at the mercy of a Random Number Generator throwing gunk in our playthrough.
"of this complexity"
Yea, 4x games, like Civ6 are insanely complex so making the perfect AI is almost impossible. That said, Civ6 doesn't seem to be that much more complex than Civ5, yet Civ6's AI is nonexistant. It's not that the AI is stupid, it's that the AI is the stupidest. The issue is that Civ6 is not only worse than Civ5's AI, it's by far the worst AI I've seen in years, regardless of the genre. Even Endless Legend's early access period had FAR superior AI.
Stellaris's AI is far from perfect, but it still manages to work at a fundamental level. That game, imo, is FAR more complex than any Civ game has been and yet the AI, while not perfect, can still challenge the player. Stellaris AI can stick to a general goal and actively pursue that goal, Civ6 AI seems unable to stick to a general goal and it is unable to pursue its' own actions. When my neighbor declares war on me and it takes 30 turns to send ONE warrior at me and then immediately gives me tons of money to make peace, it's not that the "general behavioural rules" are difficult to make, it's that they weren't made in the first place. If you do have to balance between "bugs" and "rules", it doesn't make sense to go 100% in favour of "no bugs" since the lack of bugs is made moot by the sheer lack of "rules".
When I actively work against Germany's agenda and they denounce me and declare friendship at the same time and are super happy with me, it means you didn't even bother to make a general rule to follow. When I'm actively trying to appease my neighbor, they are happy and declare friendship with me and the VERY NEXT TURN declare war on me, it means you didn't bother to make a general rule to follow. The issue isn't how complex it is to make an AI, it's that it seems they didn't bother to make one in the first place.
If your team is incapable of making a core component of your game work, it means you shouldn't be making that game in the first place. Sending people to the moon was hard, but they still managed to do it and they didn't do a halfassed job of trying to get there.
I have a strong sense that they just ... threw in the towel on an AI for this one. Surely any playtester would have picked up the nonsensical AI within an hour or two of playing. Guess they had to get it out for Christmas, and so just shoved it out the door effectively without a functional AI.
So frustrating. If I took a week I bet I could design a set of rules that would generate plausible AI play. Not game-winning, just... passing a basic rationality test.
To play like the AI, you'd also have to only send one unit to take over their capital city after another 30 turns of declaring war, then offering all your money to make peace when that fails miserably.
So THAT's why you haven't done anything what so ever to improve anything.. I see. I betcha there are more modders than you not being programmers doing a lot more for this game than your silly whining that you got a surprise war because the AI thought you were too weak.
And the majority, yet again (why am I even surprised...) haven't even played above Prince where the AI actually gets "cheats" to improve it's gameplay.. Fan-♥♥♥♥♥♥♥-tastic. How does it feel to be.. Stupid?
Insults aside, what does the difficulty above Prince do to benefit the game? The AI's raw stats aren't the issue, the issue is the AI itself. I myself have gotten wars declared on me and seen nothing come of it, the AI sends one unit at me, loses it, and then instantly gives me tons of money for peace. Does diety difficulty fix that? My best friends in games are the AI that I am actively working against their agenda while the ones that constantly go to war with me are the ones that I'm trying to appease, does Diety fix that? The only thing raw stats does is increase raw stats, it doesn't make the AI competent enough to actually wage a war.
Here's the thing, Firaxis didn't hire Farnsworth to work on the AI, if they did, yea, it would be on him to "do a lot more for this game". As is, all he's doing is complaining about a core component of a game that he paid for. Look at all the reviews, most I've seen recently are bombing this game for one simple reason, AI. It isn't on me, or any other customer to fix the AI, that's what Firaxis hired developers for and they didn't do their job. If modders want to fix this, great, but that doesn't mean people are obligated to fix the game for Firaxis.
Raw stats are there to help the fact that the perfect AI is nearly impossible to program, NOT to serve as the only source of difficulty. It isn't on a third party, unpaid developer to fix the game.
Some of their code is open source so developers would do well to take advantage of their research...
IMO AI needs to be as a player and not an internal function of the game. The internal AI can also be a player AI with special priviledges and points to keep them involved.
Once we are through this AI muck as it is now, we will likely see something great in the near future. We may not even know whether or not we are actually playing against a human or AI at some point.
I am considering creating servers to populate AI players, if their research goes in a particular direction, that will learn games and fill other games' servers with these AI profiles. At first we should use LAN games, likely used from GOG and then release them upon the world... muahahahaha.
...but for real, the AI, as it stands for this game, needs some serious work to mesh with the gameplay. AI vs. AI is ok but vs. a player is just abnormal to me.
I disagree, largely because I disagree that this game is complex. Literally all my decision making while playing this game is a check list of actions and priorities which rarely changes based on anything other characters do. That aside, as I said before, you can use simple checks to keep odd or unwanted scripts from running in the first place - and that would be a whole lot better than RNG In a game like this. The female Greek leader denouncing me for having not gone to war around turn 30 - before any wars have happened in the scope of the game - is a prime example. And again, this isn't a fix all - it would just fix a lot of weird AI choices.
That's a Google Tech Talk on AI in game, from Soren Johnson, Lead Designer and AI programmer of Civ4.
And while I agree that the AI in this Civ game should be a bit better, there will always be cases where you get a DoW when you don't expect it. That's not random, that means the AI met some set of conditions to do a surprise DoW. Not having an army is definitely one of those conditions.
Not sending an army is something I consider indeed bad and hopefully gets improved.