Dumb AI

[EternalSpark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger Who is this mythical standard gamer?

Mythical? If you're looking at for the standard gamer, you can see it in the 125 million opening of Halo 2. The fantastic sales of the Sims and its expansion packs. If there's a game that's doing well, and is badmouthed by serious gamers, you see the casual gamer at work.

EDIT: But we're seriously getting off topic. I just wanted to comment that taking suggestions from Poly about the AI would be silly. Instead of wondering how to enhance the AI's skills with high-end strategies, have the diehard players play without anything the AI can't do.

[Toby Rowe]

Standard gamer?

They are currently growing up and in the second generation now.

They know one machine, it's called a "playstation" and it feeds utter rubbush to them in the form of parents' money. soon the PC will only be known as a connection to the internet.

Serious games used to exist in PC format, soon kids will laugh at the idea that dad or mum could even buy a game for a PC- that is the current standard gamer sadly.

Toby

Soon....those kids that only knew a playstation will only know the console as a gaming platform, no guesses what they will buy their kids for Christmas and birthdays.

[xxFlukexx]

Originally posted by EternalSpark
This is a pretty serious mistake in computer gaming, an increasingly mainstream and increasingly casual market. If you put a diehard Civ fan's strategies into the AI, you doom the game to be too hard to the standard gamer.

If developers listen too closely to their die-hard fanbase and demographic, we wind up with games like Planescape: Torment, System Shock, and Fallout. All overly complex games praised by overly complex players, never remembered outside of gaming forums.

EDIT: That said, though, I did take out Toku in my current game, cuz of all the other times he was annoying as hell for me. Although his legacy remains; I offed him hundreds of years ago and my new bordermates will remember me declaring war on "their friend".

I dunno games like DMC3 and Ninja Gaiden are popular because they are so freakin' difficult. Anyone who has ever played the game Battletoads (NES) will remember it as being the hardest game ever created and only for that reason. Ninja Gaiden, definetly very popular, very hard and has been remembered outside of gaming forums(its been around since '88 I believe) I think gamers can handle high difficulties and overly complex games won't always fail. I mean I still do the minigames on the Final Fantasy games and those have gotted to insane difficulty levels and tons of people do those.

I don't think putting in die-hard strategies into Civ AI would make the game too hard, it is quite trivial to take out those strategies for lower difficulties and only let the AI be at full power on the toughest settings. The reason there are cheat bonuses instead of good AI because good AI is hard to program, has to be created from scratch and doesn't win you any points with video game reviewers.

[CerberusIV]

That an AI that is a serious military challenge is hard to program I can understand. However my current game is in the final stages of a spaceship race and one of the AI players has a windmill on his only aluminium - so he's not getting any benefit in building spaceship components. That seems a basic flaw.

[EternalSpark]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
That an AI that is a serious military challenge is hard to program I can understand.

That's actually easy: make the AI send a force to your area for no reason, which triggers his "declare war for no reason" flag.

/venting, had to restart cuz a +8 Caesar decided to send 3 War Elephants to my territory, and no amount of reloading, even with the Change Seed On Reload flag set, will stop him from declaring war, and I simply can't deal with a war right now

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by EternalSpark


That's actually easy: make the AI send a force to your area for no reason, which triggers his "declare war for no reason" flag.

/venting, had to restart cuz a +8 Caesar decided to send 3 War Elephants to my territory, and no amount of reloading, even with the Change Seed On Reload flag set, will stop him from declaring war, and I simply can't deal with a war right now

I think your 'no reason' is his 'can't defend himself' reason. No amount of reloading will give you the units to cope with his attack so that's never going to change anything.

[eris]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Who is this mythical standard gamer?

I am much too eccentric to be considered a standard person, but I will be glad to speak up as being a standard gamer, whatever that may mean. In my case, as an example, it means I will never ever see Deity at this game, or any of the higher levels. There is sometimes a level of implied contempt on these forums for players like myself. I just want to mention that I paid for this game, too. I am part of the demographic Civ sells to. If Civ markets only to hardcore gamers, I, and probably others, will find somewhere else to spend my money.

I understand the desire that the game be more challenging in some way that satisfies hard core or extremely talented players, and possibly more than just changing the handicap system. What I don't understand is why other Civ fans would want to alienate the many like myself that will never become proficient at this game by their advanced criteria. It is highly disturbing and somewhat insulting.

Fortunately the game is still fun. And so are most of the people, actually.

(I cannot believe I just willingly accepted the label "standard". My friends will laugh at me long and loud. Ah well, someone had to speak up for those "Standard" folk who seem to be "substandard" by other folks' standards.)

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by eris


I am much too eccentric to be considered a standard person, but I will be glad to speak up as being a standard gamer, whatever that may mean. In my case, as an example, it means I will never ever see Deity at this game, or any of the higher levels. There is sometimes a level of implied contempt on these forums for players like myself. I just want to mention that I paid for this game, too. I am part of the demographic Civ sells to. If Civ markets only to hardcore gamers, I, and probably others, will find somewhere else to spend my money.

Fortunately the game is still fun. And so are most of the people, actually.

Spot on.

I think this article does a pretty good job on some of your points....

http://lostgarden.com/2005/09/nintendos-genre-innovation-strategy.html

[Arrian]

No amount of reloading will give you the units to cope with his attack so that's never going to change anything

The AI will hit you if you are too weak militarily. If there was a very weak but cultured & wonderful (great wonders) civ next to me, and I had a bunch of troops, I'd hit 'em 9 times outta 10, no matter how much they sucked up to me. That's just smart play.

...

I may be better at the game than the "average" gamer, but I still only play on Prince or maybe Monarch. I doubt I will ever play Deity. I choose not to push myself up to the highest levels. I could, most likely, beat the game(especially given the wealth of strategy advice available here), but I doubt I would enjoy it. To each their own. There is a reason there are so many different difficulty levels available.

I think most of us hope for a day when the difficulty level changes will be less of the "give the AI bonuses!" stuff and more of the "let the AI use better decision trees/strats" or something like that. The higher the diff, the smarter the AI. That would be cool. But that's a long ways off.

-Arrian

[EternalSpark]

I think your 'no reason' is his 'can't defend himself' reason.

Nope. I've had a large military through the whole game, much larger than his. I checked with the Worldbuilder, he sent out his army when we were at less-than-pleasant relations. Despite improved relationships while the army was slogging through the terrain, he attacked the minute he reached my territory.

I stand by my comment. No reason.

[padillah]

Originally posted by xxFlukexx


I dunno games like DMC3 and Ninja Gaiden are popular because they are so freakin' difficult. Anyone who has ever played the game Battletoads (NES) will remember it as being the hardest game ever created and only for that reason. Ninja Gaiden, definetly very popular, very hard and has been remembered outside of gaming forums(its been around since '88 I believe) I think gamers can handle high difficulties and overly complex games won't always fail. I mean I still do the minigames on the Final Fantasy games and those have gotted to insane difficulty levels and tons of people do those.

I don't think putting in die-hard strategies into Civ AI would make the game too hard, it is quite trivial to take out those strategies for lower difficulties and only let the AI be at full power on the toughest settings. The reason there are cheat bonuses instead of good AI because good AI is hard to program, has to be created from scratch and doesn't win you any points with video game reviewers.

You are confusing "Hard" with "difficult", they are not the same. Yes, Ninja Gaiden is hard, but is it really that difficult? As difficult as say...Civ? With hundreds of units and resources and leaders and culture and buildings and improvements... It's a difficult game.

I'm playing "Need For Speed: Most Wanted" right now and I can tell you: it's hard. You have to drive almost perfect to beat the last few racers and if the cops get to level 4 (or, heaven help me, level 5) you are pretty much guarenteed to get busted. It's hard. Difficult, no. Not in the least. It's driving a car... actually, it's not even that. There's no damage to your car, you never break it, you can jump off a cliff and it's fine. You can't leave the track and get lost, you can't loose (in as much as you just keep racing until you win or quit).

So, hard - yes, difficult - NO.

Tom P.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by EternalSpark


Nope. I've had a large military through the whole game, much larger than his. I checked with the Worldbuilder, he sent out his army when we were at less-than-pleasant relations. Despite improved relationships while the army was slogging through the terrain, he attacked the minute he reached my territory.

I stand by my comment. No reason.

Ah. Now that is a weakness. The AI would be better served if it could re-evaluate its decision to go to war.

However, a nitpick: there was a reason. The reason has become outdated, though. So it's not "no reason" it's "old, now invalid reason."

-Arrian

[padillah]

To fuel the "Difficult games are quickly forgotten" debate look at some of the best known video games in history:

Pac-Man - Not difficult
Doom - Not difficult
Quake - Not difficult
The Sims - Not difficult
Halo - Not difficult
GTA: San Andreas - Not difficult

When the "average consumer" wants fun, they don't want difficult.

Tom P.

[gdgrimm]

Originally posted by Arrian

I think most of us hope for a day when the difficulty level changes will be less of the "give the AI bonuses!" stuff and more of the "let the AI use better decision trees/strats" or something like that. The higher the diff, the smarter the AI. That would be cool. But that's a long ways off.

-Arrian

They're capable of doing it with Chess games. Admittedly, that's a far simpler and much more studied game than Civ, but I would think Civ could come at least a little closer than it currently does.

Can you imagine playing a Chess game where, at the highest level, the computer started with an extra row of pawns?!?

[Arrian]

Civ is vastly more complicated than Chess.

-Arrian