 |
| |
|
|
MrLeN
|
|
Melbourne
Jan 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
It is logical think that everyone that posts messages here and plays civ, must also have the option make use of the multipayer feature. Really, a computer has no intelligence. It is just programmed to do what 'we' asked it to. Is it ever really satisfying beating a computer? For me, the answer is yes, but only to a certain extent. The real satisfaction comes when you can beat another veteran time civer. When you have been playing for ten yaers there is no 'perfect' AI. And an AI that can beat a human consistantly must realy on 'cheating', 'more production' quicker building times etc... I don't like that Idea at all. I like to know that I started with the same 2 settlers and 100 buck and I ended up with the most cities, and larger and more techs and a kick a$$ army. The AI is there, 'in my opinion' to give us something as a comparison to how we are doing. The AI sucks bigtime in CTPII but hey, when it is fixed, and that is innevitable, where will the challenge be? It is 2001 now, not 1985. I don't care 'how' smart the computer gets, I do and always will get my satisfaction out of beating a person. Any game with the AI, inluding CTPII andf all the previous version, for me, is just practice, just learning and using the AI as a backdrop for my blackboard. In conclusion, the AI sux, but who gives a rats a$$? I agree that it shouldn't, and needn't and the previous civs are more challenging but on tyeh other hand there is nothing worse than an AI pulling your civ to peices when you are trying a head to head with a vet and also theres nothing worse than an AI offering all it has and sharing all just coz he's your friend. Real governments are not like that and never will be. Real governments aren't ALL hell bent on mass destruction. My opinionis that the game is well rounded with a few glitches and bugs that 'will' most innevitably be fixed, it is realistic and proposes a good challenge for multiplayer use. And it is my opinion that 'THATS' where the challenge is 
------------------
It's better to close your mouth and let everyone 'think' you're stupid, than open it and let everyone 'know' you are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bluevoss
|
|
Orlando, Florida
Dec 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
In the book "MicroSerfs", Copland makes a good point (and I'm misquoting, probably) - "Multiplayer is just a cheap way of getting out of writing good AI".
One thing AIs should do well is provide a competent background in a historical game. They should not come out of nowhere with a massive stack of units they could not have possibly built, they should not do amazing cheats, and they should not rabidly attack you for no reason at all. They should act (in this case) like their own empires, trying to carve out their own part of a limited globe.
Humans (to me) are a pain-in-the-a$$ to play against. They will read a dozen cheat books and then play out of context to win a game. I remember when I played Red Baron 2 online, there were all sorts of things going on that never happened in the real war, but happened all the time online. I also remember the one time I played Age of Empires online - some guy always played Phonician, and if he did not find trees something like 24 seconds into the game, his advantage was shot. He would watch the time and if it didn't work out, he would tribute all his resources to his allies and opt out of the game, then look for another to play.
Frankly, I get enough of humans in the real world. At home, I just want to play an interesting game without other humans to spoil it. Frankly, saying that AI is a "training ground" is a cop out.
------------------
Bluevoss-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrLeN
|
|
Melbourne
Jan 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
Yeah I know, that sux bigtime. There's nothing worse than a cheat head. And I do agree with you, sometimes I do like to sit down, relax and have a good game when there is no one else around. It would be nice if the AI was capable of standing in for the intelligence of a civer, but that aint so and I don't think it will be for another 10 years.
Also I would like to mention that I never play civ with people that I don't know, or have built up at least 'some' confidence with. For many reasons... The biggest being that most people will 'do a runner' if they are losing and they will use cheats.
I honestly only play with the same person that I have been playing with for ever. I know the individial wont "cheat" and I know he will be around to finish the game. It is hard to find a decent person to play with.
Quote... "They should not come out of nowhere with a massive stack of units they could not have possibly built, they should not do amazing cheats, and they should not rabidly attack you for no reason at all."
Quote" I agree totally, and have made similar comments on this forum. But really, what's worse, a computer that cheats or a person that cheats? I can assure you that the computer cheats one hell of a lot more profoundly than any person will, and that's what sh*ts me the most. I would love to play against a computer that uses the same rules as the human and can beat him at the game. Then I will look at getting my satisfaction from beating a computer.
The BIGGEST thing that annoys me is 'anyone' with half a brain will work out the computers weak spots within a few games. A person can see what the computer does and remember for the next attemp and even the next game. A computer can't do that, and once again wont be able to for another ten years. It doesn't matter how these games are programmed, right now our computers just don't have the goods to keep us on our toes and if the computer relies on cheats and 'one track mind' programming then it will never, ever provide good competition.
One last thing... I play against the computer more than I play multiplayer because of time issues and the Quote... "I also remember the one time I played Age of Empires online - some guy always played Phonician, and if he did not find trees something like 24 seconds into the game, his advantage was shot. He would watch the time and if it didn't work out, he would tribute all his resources to his allies and opt out of the game, then look for another to play" syndrome, but I can honeslty say... I enjoy playing an "honest" person more.
P.S. I'm not Implying that anyone else should, I'ts just my opinion, and therefore it can't be a cop out 
------------------
It's better to close your mouth and let everyone 'think' you're stupid, than open it and let everyone 'know' you are.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bluevoss
|
|
Orlando, Florida
Dec 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Well, you raise some good points. Its true that AI isn't that good yet. The sad thing is that it should be getting better. Its not that I'm trying to beat a chess genious here - I just want a computer that can survey a defensive line, figure out if I am weak and it strong, and then launch an attack. Thats not asking for the world - thats just asking for basic compentency. It lacks even that.
As far as changing basic operating premises, there are certain things (how strong must the computer be before an attack, how quick it will yeild to powerful deplomancy) that should not be too tough. Some variables can be generated that allow its logic to be determined. While it wouldn't be perfect nor always smart, it would be belivably varied.
Yes, I play online with my best freind about every other week. We actually have the best fun playing AOE coop, which means we take the same race (one handles citybuilding, the other the military) and we see if we can beat the computer. If we win, we make the next game tougher. If we lose, we think about makeing it easier. To me, thats the real fun of computers. Not everyone wants to win over flesh and blood. Some of us want to use the experiance to see what real teamwork is like (rather than corporate teamwork [sic]).
Anyway, I stick by my point - Multiplayer is fine, but dammit, the AI has to be at least SOMEWHAT competent!
------------------
Bluevoss-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gwap
|
|
Largs, Scotland
Jan 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
"I would love to play against a computer that uses the same rules as the human and can beat him at the game. Then I will look at getting my satisfaction from beating a computer."
I agree, MrLen ... that would be great, even though I already get beating by the current AI  . Now, I'm not a programmer, or even technical (just a paper pusher), but I would like to put in a little word of defence for those programmers that *did* write the AI.
Commercial programmers, I am sure, are not half as experienced as the majority of those that have bought the game. Same goes for playtesters/QA people; there is only so much testing they can do to be able to produce a (financially) competitive product. Bugs and inadequacies are at one level or another unavoidable.
Btw, Bluevoss, I think that CTP2 (and most similar games) have a far greater complexity than chess... more combinations, permutations, not to mention the fact that some of the moves of human players should be unknown to the AI... now consider the AI that is required to produce a chess computer that has the ability to challenge serious chess players (not to mention beat the best in the world). Now also consider the hardware requirements ...
------------------
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bluevoss
|
|
Orlando, Florida
Dec 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
Well, perhaps stratagy is tough to program (I did some of it years ago).
Of course, last night, when I was sieging Hong Kong with a million knights, it seemed a little odd for the computer to roll two of his caturpults out of a walled city over to one side, and then bombard me with them. A clever ploy, there. And we had units watching the other side of the city - nobody was coming in (no extra room was needed). And even if a new unit was produced, why roll two units out - you can't build two units in a turn. Unless one of the defending units was pregnant.
Who the heck knows with this product anymore.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gwap
|
|
Largs, Scotland
Jan 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
MrLen, my apologies. You are right. You didn't.
Guess all those threads criticising the AI/Activision must have clouded my vision.
In that case I think the remark should possibly be directed at Bluevoss ;-)
MKL, Thanks, I will have a read of that thread.
------------------
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Diadochi
|
|
Let forget the use of the word A.I. for the moment, for I don't believe any games use 'self learning' at the moment.
The computer opponent is desperately pathetic. There is no excuse for this in a basically single player game. Game designers have been creating reasonable computer opponents for years now. CTP2 is a step backwards.
Personally I think multiplayer doesn't rest easily with turn based games, however that is a different issue.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Gwap
|
|
Largs, Scotland
Jan 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
Interesting thread MKL referred to indeed. That'll teach me to start posting without reading everything ever posted before
Realising that some might find this a futile exercise (but similarly, whining about the quality of the computer opponents (hmm, AI is fewer letters doesn't appear to be very "useful"), it does make me wonder if the very experienced CIVers don't also play with "predefined templates". It appears from several posts I've read so far that this is the case. Some play to get to a certain military level and then beat the doodah out of everybody else, others mention lists of must have improvements, wonders, etc. I'm sure there are people that use guidelines as to how to use tile improvements (especially early on with limited PW available), etc. etc. etc.
It does, however, mean that one has to assume/hope that Activision are indeed convinced (as I am) that quality is what makes you sell quantity... even if it is in CTP3.
------------------
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
tomdy2k
|
|
mt. home, ar72653
Dec 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
hi as i said in a previous post. activision makes shanghai dynesty2 which has 4 types of mahjongg and let me assure you that the japanese verion of mahjong is the most complex with tons of variables. it has superb ai. if the ai in ctp2 were half as good the game would be awesome. if every incarnation of civ were a little stronger than the last ctp2 would be great.remember the japanese game of
go has been programmed for the computer, not really strong yet, just the fact that a program with over a trillion possible moves can give at least a mediochre play a good challenge means a game like ctp2 can at least be made challenging.
tom
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-01-2001 13:06
|