Luxury selling since the patch

[DaviddesJ]

If they make Deity "harder" this way I will just have to "un-handicap" myself to compensate which means a less fun Civ V

Why do you "have" to use exploits? If Deity is too hard (which it should be, that's the whole idea) then you don't have to take advantage of exploits to beat it, you could just play at a lower level.

 

[Gaspar~]

FWIW, I'm playing my first post-patch game on Prince (I often like to hang out on the lower levels where the game feels a little more relaxed to me.) I had a Pact of Cooperation with Hiawatha and we would only offer me 2:1 trades on lux and he definitely could have used the extra happy.

This irritates me to no end. I totally understand devaluing lux trades on Deity/Immortal where the AI clearly has no need for additional happiness. But on the lower levels, where the AI is much closer to playing the same game as you? There's no logical reason for it. I fail to understand why it couldn't be coded that the AI prices luxuries based on its need for additional luxuries as opposed to a flat penalty for human trades.

There is officially no logic whatsoever to Civ5 AI diplomacy.

 

[TheNoodle]

What feels bad is that there is no option to refuse a patch, it s auto-downloaded/ whatever, so when a major change like trades 2/1 happens well, I feel robbed lol It s my 49,95 anyway

 

[DaviddesJ]

There is officially no logic whatsoever to Civ5 AI diplomacy.

This seems a bit excessive. I would agree that there are a bunch of things that could be made more favorable (to the player) at lower levels but less favorable at higher levels. But when not everything is tweaked in that way it seems a substantial exaggeration to call it "no logic whatsoever".

 

[Lanstro]

It's a very good change

 

[aimlessgun]

You misspelled "brilliant".

There are better ways to make the game harder. Especially since this change affects every difficulty level. You also have Prince level players who also can only get 2 for 1 deals on luxuries.

-150 G luxuries = GOOD
-AI luxuries still worth 300g on all difficulty levels = DUMB

It's a poorly done change. Make every resource worth 150g, AI or Human. It solves the problem of excessive resource selling for massive cash.

 

[Blackluck]

I play on Prince as I just enjoy the building/exploring part.
I'm getting 1:1 trades and selling them for 400-450, so on that level at any rate nothing has changed.

 

[aimlessgun]

Are you sure you installed the patch? You have to reboot steam.

 

[sarah_aus]

I installed the patch and was playing immortal today. Lizzie asked me if I wanted to do a research agreement. Her side of the bargain was just the research and mine was research +200 gold!
Lol
I didn't ask for it and I'm the one being charged extra.
I'm not sure if this is part of the new patch or if this is normal behavior at that higher level.

 

[DaviddesJ]

There are better ways to make the game harder. Especially since this change affects every difficulty level. You also have Prince level players who also can only get 2 for 1 deals on luxuries.

I would sympathize slightly with making the game easier at lower difficulty levels. I agree the change doesn't really seem needed at low levels. But it also does little harm. If the game is harder than you like at Prince, it's easy to just step down a difficulty level. The balance at higher levels is much more important, because you can't increase the difficulty except by granting the opponents excessive handicaps.

 

[Chibiabos]

This doesn't make the game harder, it makes it dumber. The AI doesn't value getting stuff in trade. The game has been dumbed down even worse. The answer to everything is, even more, war. You cannot get fair deals from the AI even when they like you. Being stingy in trades to the point of hurting themselves is NOT an improved AI.

 

[Benzidrine]

I would sympathize slightly with making the game easier at lower difficulty levels. I agree the change doesn't really seem needed at low levels. But it also does little harm. If the game is harder than you like at Prince, it's easy to just step down a difficulty level. The balance at higher levels is much more important, because you can't increase the difficulty except by granting the opponents excessive handicaps.

Um a better AI would also increase the difficulty or has this concept been forgotten...

 

[DaviddesJ]

Um a better AI would also increase the difficulty or has this concept been forgotten...

I hope they will make the AI better, but even small improvements in the AI require enormous effort, so, as a practical matter, adjusting the parameters of the game is the main thing we have to rely on.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Being stingy in trades to the point of hurting themselves is NOT an improved AI.

I don't think they are hurting themselves. If everyone trades less, that's generally better for the AIs relative to the human player, because they are less able to take advantage of trading.

 

[Gaspar~]

This seems a bit excessive. I would agree that there are a bunch of things that could be made more favorable (to the player) at lower levels but less favorable at higher levels. But when not everything is tweaked in that way it seems a substantial exaggeration to call it "no logic whatsoever".

The no logic whatsoever is relating more to adding this to the AI's other diplo behavior, which is either unbelievably opaque or non-existent. I understand why they made the change, the lever they seem to have been most interested in removing from previous versions is the humans ability to out-trade the AI. I just wish they could fix the AI in such ways that don't require me feel more and more alone in the world. I much prefer a Civ where I can actually make friends with other nations.

Perhaps I was harsh, but I don't think anyone can argue that the change makes any sense in the game world: There is no reason your "friends" would or should gouge you consistently on trades.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Perhaps I was harsh, but I don't think anyone can argue that the change makes any sense in the game world: There is no reason your "friends" would or should gouge you consistently on trades.

Well, there's no reason your buildings would cost more to build than their buildings, either. Computer games require asymmetric advantages for the AI players, and disadvantages for the human players, for balance. Perhaps it would be nice if that weren't true, but it is.

 

[aimlessgun]

Well, there's no reason your buildings would cost more to build than their buildings, either. Computer games require asymmetric advantages for the AI players, and disadvantages for the human players, for balance. Perhaps it would be nice if that weren't true, but it is.

But it's much better design to 'hide' the asymmetry, so that it doesn't come up and slap you in the face.

The AI getting a free golden age at the start, getting bonus happiness etc are not part of your interaction with the game except indirectly. There is a facade, a suspension of disbelief where you can hide from constantly thinking about their cheating. This is important in a game that is based on the premise of a bunch of civs starting out on theoretically equally humble roots and developing from the dawn of time.

Call it irrational or what have you, but I think it is important to keep the cheating in the shadows, so that all your direct interaction is founded on a soothing lie of parity.

 

[LDiCesare]

Luxuries worth only 150, not 300 is a good move.

Luxuries exchanging 2:1 is a real pain. It's another mechanism that breaks immersion. Why would they only accept a 2:1 trade? With such a mechanism, if the AI's trade between themselves with the same rules as with the human, they CANNOT trade at all.
So either the human is treated differently out of racism (he's a human, not an ai) or the ai's don't trade at all.
Both options are very very bad.

 

[DaviddesJ]

But it's much better design to 'hide' the asymmetry, so that it doesn't come up and slap you in the face.

If you mean that's your subjective opinion, fine, you are certainly entitled to it.

I personally don't like that better. I prefer exactly the opposite, that the differences and asymmetries are as explicit and visible as possible, so I can take them into account when I play. So it's not surprising that if we like different things then we come to different conclusions about what's "better design".

Call it irrational or what have you, but I think it is important to keep the cheating in the shadows, so that all your direct interaction is founded on a soothing lie of parity.

It's not "irrational", it's just your own personal preference. Preferences aren't rational or irrational, different people just like what they like.

 

[aimlessgun]

My use of the word 'better' is based on my opinion that the majority of gamers share my opinion