Who would you trust?

Cidifer · September 29, 2002, 20:29

If you were playing with a computer and Human ally who would you trust more? a human who's been nice to you the entire game or a computer player who's been nice to you the entire game?

Inverse Icarus · September 29, 2002, 21:32

the computer is definately more predictable.

plus, if you attack a human once, they'll be pissy all game. you cant win a partial war with a human and expect it to end there.

Kingof the Apes · September 29, 2002, 23:56

Yes, computer definitly. Remember, the human wants to win, he'll backstab you in an instant if he sees he could gain the advantage.
Computer if your worried about can just be paid off.

Carver · September 30, 2002, 00:46

The comp may not deserve "trust" be it's definently more predictable. If you are vastly superior to the AI it probably won't attack (although, of course it happens) especially if you whipped the AI in a war or two already. Humans are much more dangerous. Even if they know they can't win, they'll attack you just to screw with your plans.

Duddha · September 30, 2002, 01:05

Actually I think the human is more trust worthy. The AI in Civ3 can be very unpredictable, in terms of sound behavior. I have had friendly AIs turn on me in a number of situations. While many people who play computer games may not think so, people will generally act kinder than a computer. They may kill you in the end but will generally give you fair warning. Finally, I picked human because I know a human player who is friendly with you the whole game and than turns has a chance of feeling bad. The computer will never feel bad.

Tiberius · September 30, 2002, 02:37

Trust no one!

Jethro83 · September 30, 2002, 03:52

Neither computer nor human can be trusted. While the AI of this game is much more predictable, that doesn't change trustworthiness to me at all. A predictable sneak attack from the AI is every bit as shocking as an unpredictable human sneak attack.

Since it is in my nature not to trust anything or anyone, I definitely won't be placing my trust in either hands.

Adm.Naismith · September 30, 2002, 08:35

"Trust" depends from many factors: some are already mentioned in above posts, but I must add one:
If a trusted civ backstabb you, who will be more dangerous? A human or an AI attacking Civ?

I bet that human can attack with more devastating effect: an example is the limited use of bombarding units in AI's attack, or the retreat of many mildly damaged units while a human player would sacrifice some to crush my weak defence and win some key city.

WarpStorm · September 30, 2002, 09:06

The guys who I play board games and RTS games with regularly won't hesitate to screw you over if they thought they could get a win out of it (or even a good laugh). The AI (while it can't be trusted in an absolute sense), is a paragon of virtue compared to them.

Cidifer · September 30, 2002, 10:21

I would have to say human, because if a human has been nice to you the entire game and has always been your ally (meaning you've never been to war with them, even though some people brought that up anyway) I'd say they'd feel more obligated to help you if you went to war even if they couldn't nessicerily do it with troops.

Also a human player wont start to hate you for the kind of things a computer player will, like killing off a Civ in a war, or doing something else to a civ that doesn't really matter to them.

Also you can actually interact with humans to get them to like you, as opposed to the computer which you need to give things to and trade with.

WarpStorm · September 30, 2002, 10:58

There can only be one winner. Human's know this, AI doesn't. 'Nuff said.

Cidifer · September 30, 2002, 11:08

actually that's not completly true, it depends what kind of victory you and the enemy are going for, for example if the biggest Civ is coming after me trying to take all my cities then he's probably going for domination which would mean it's a good time for that ally of mine going for some other kind of victory to step in and slow him down.

Also I wouldn't really be disappointed in being the strongest or even 2nd or 3rd strongest civ then losing SR, I'd be pretty happy with a game like that (as long as it was fun). However the computer knows that it has a goal to get to a certain victory.

Caliban · September 30, 2002, 14:15

I trust nobody. The AI doesn't know anything about friendship... and humans don't care about it...

ruby_maser · September 30, 2002, 15:54

Is there gonna be an option or a way to conceal the fact that your civilization is being run by a human? Since trust seems to vary per person based on your knowledge of whether or not your opponents are AI or human, will there be a way to make it impossible for you to know the difference?

Cidifer · September 30, 2002, 16:33

I'm guess that 1. this wouldn't really help you as you'd have to talk and act like the AI and this would really make things harder on you and 2. the host would know which civs he set for AI and when he sees one that's not one he set he'll know your human.

Adm.Naismith · September 30, 2002, 17:07

Quote:

Originally posted by ruby_maser
Is there gonna be an option or a way to conceal the fact that your civilization is being run by a human?

will there be a way to make it impossible for you to know the difference?

Are you looking for a Civilization AI able to pass the Turing's test or for a human being so erratic to seems a computer program?

Thinking twice, I don't want to risk my play style to be judged "another example of that crap AI strategy"

I want a flag for my Civ, with enough room to host this sentence:
"Look, I'm human, right? Not one of that Cyberspace AI Sterling and Gibson wrote SF books about them. Honest. "

ruby_maser · September 30, 2002, 17:45

Quote:

Thinking twice, I don't want to risk my play style to be judged "another example of that crap AI strategy"

Good point

JtheJackal · September 30, 2002, 17:53

There will be some humans who you can trust and some you can't. Sometimes the AI will attack thier friends, sometimes they won't.

Cidifer · September 30, 2002, 18:28

Way to sit on the fence. I think most of us were able to come up with that on our own though

The Emperor Fabulous · September 30, 2002, 18:39

DTA: Don't Trust Anybody

Meaning, I wouldn't rely on any one else, because everyone just wants to win.

Caliban · October 1, 2002, 15:31

Quote:

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
DTA: Don't Trust Anybody

Meaning, I wouldn't rely on any one else, because everyone just wants to win.

Not if there is some kind of cooperative victory condition(diplomatic victory?). This way, allies could prove useful...

Cidifer · October 1, 2002, 16:28

Yeah it would be cool if they ha a kind of co-op play, for example 2-4 human teams, each team has 2-4 players, then 0-8 AI are put in and all you need to do is have one of your players win a victory condition or have your team be the last team of humans left, or maybe just take over a certain % of the world for your team.

The teams would be chosen in the beginning of a game (for example similar to a game of star craft or red aleart 2) and you could still ally with the AI and trade with anyone but your goal would be to help your team win. It would be especially exciting for a game with 3 or 4 teams, that way two teams could gang up on the more powerful team which is maybe leading by alot, but then that team could go to another team or the AI for help.

Oh well maybe some day.

The Emperor Fabulous · October 1, 2002, 18:23

I still wouldn't trust them any further than I could throw them.

All's fair in war

Love, on the other hand, isn't fair at all

Zero · October 1, 2002, 23:42

Depends on human... I would join a game and help out a cause for other human player to come on top agst bunch of AIs, since I place fun over win and dont necessarily need to have win to get fun... but if the players are competitive, they might be looking for that win agst you. If so, they will have to backstab you at one point. Back stabbing is not a bad thing,... I would be more than happy to co-operate with player who backstabbed me earlier in the game if I see that he has "reformed" his ways. But sadly theres only one slot available for victors in Civ III, so if you want the Big "V" you gotta have to keep that in mind

Zero · October 1, 2002, 23:45

AIs can (most of the time) faithfully wage war for 20 turns on your choice of target as long as you can persuade them with pretty flowers and gifts and that you have decent reputation for keeping treaties (then AI tends to keep their end of bargain better)

Cidifer · October 2, 2002, 09:28

Quote:

I would join a game and help out a cause for other human player to come on top agst bunch of AIs, since I place fun over win and dont necessarily need to have win to get fun

That was what i was saying, just becuase I don't end up winning if I'm alive at the end and still have considerable power I'll probably be more then happy with the way I played. Also I don't think I need to finish the game to have fun either, I'll probably play a game with a friend of mine or maybe my brother and load the rest of the slots up with AI and play over lan, then we'll probably work togeher (for the most part) to get rid of the AI then probably quit once it's down to the 2 or 3 of us.

This is similar to how we'd play Europa, we'd work toget her to kill other people and colonize most of the word then we'd call it a victory and quit. After a certain point in the game it become methodical anyway and why bother going through it just to get a "win" when you could just start another game and go back to the fun part.

Cidifer · October 2, 2002, 09:30

By the way I was really just using this poll to find out if I could trust other players, and apparently I can't!

haha suckers you fell for my plan

statusperfect · October 2, 2002, 13:35

It would be cool with many winners. Each player could choose or be given a Victory condition secretly. (Like in RISK.)

Adm.Naismith · October 2, 2002, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Cidifer
By the way I was really just using this poll to find out if I could trust other players, and apparently I can't!

STOP THE PRESS! Cidifer just discover hot water!

Adm.Naismith · October 2, 2002, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by statusperfect
It would be cool with many winners. Each player could choose or be given a Victory condition secretly. (Like in RISK.)

That's an interesting option! While it is probably difficult to have players with too much evident victory condition (i.e. a diplomatic victory would be impossible to obtain against humans), I suppose that different target point to conquer and keep for every player should be possible, like in Risk boardgame you mentioned.

Owning of every tile of a given resource or luxury should be a "trade / monopoly victory", if not for the depleting of resource that randomly reallocate it on another square