1.0.0.62 Patch: AI /worse/ at trade

[d4everman]

I agree 100% the patch actually made the game MORE frustrating to play. Theyu need to bring back Soren Johnson ASAP and give Shafer a kick and a pink slip.

Note to ALL game devs in all genres: Frustrating <> challenging

Rep

See, the big problem, at least for me, is replayability. I never played Civ I, I started at Civ II. Picked it up as an impulse buy. But man, I loved it. I had friends and coworkers that got into it and we'd share our gameplay experiences over lunch or a beer. I played it so much I had to start forcing myself to go outside or go fishing or something. Civ III not so much, but still, it was Civ, and after patches and expansions it was ok....Civ IV? I took leave from work (army) just to play it. (I was in a very snowy environment...being able to spend a few snowed in days with hot tea and civ was pretty nice.)

Civ V? As it is, no. If I could go back in time I'd stop myself from buying it. Sure, I'll kinda play it for awhile....but only if theres nothing else to do at the moment. Its not engaging and its not a lot of fun...its just a time sink. Its almost like a one night stand....you do it cuz its available but you feel bad after you shut the PC down. The patch made it even worse, IMO....I might reinstall Arcanum in place of civ...and that game is what....ten years old? Or just play RISK on Pogo games....at least that game was made to be constant war. theres little more than that to Civ V in its current state.

 

[MadRat]

Indeed, what makes the patch so face palm worthy is that it removed the only outlet players had to make other stupid AI problems manageable. Principally, trading and its 1:1 luxuries/resources and decent GPT in trade treaties allowed players to be able to work around the idiot happiness system. All the gold you got from treaties helped pay for happiness buildings and the luxuries helped keep unhappiness at bay.

NOW you cant make any decent deal without making the situation worse. The games becomes frustrating mess as you cant get a lot of luxuries now and you cant really make a much in trading. /facepalm

Note: Is it my imagination or do there seem to be a LOT less resources and luxuries on maps since the patch???

Rat

 

[spiffamoo]

I'm not very comfortable with the recent change to AI trading as well, but you guys realise that you can counteroffer gold for the resource you want right? So next time you want that extra luxury resource, just do a 1:1 trade and throw in 150 gold. The AI will usually take it. 2:1 is most of the time silly.

 

[Tylerryan79]

I'm not very comfortable with the recent change to AI trading as well, but you guys realise that you can counteroffer gold for the resource you want right? So next time you want that extra luxury resource, just do a 1:1 trade and throw in 150 gold. The AI will usually take it. 2:1 is most of the time silly.

An ai will buy one of my resources from me for 150, but if I want to buy one of theirs I have to pay 300. An ai will trade me one of theirs for two of mine, or for 1 and 150 gold. That's not fun.

Anyways, I got my first 1for1 research offer. I was Babylon, and as you can imagine I was WAY ahead of everyone in tech. I had one warrior and a bowman, and one city. I was in last place for everything except literacy on the demographics. Napolean offered it to me. Still couldn't get a fair resource trade. So if your weak, you can't get a resource trade, but you can get a fair science trade? But I thought if your rocking science you can't get a fair research trade? What? Also I wasn't treating napolean any fairer than anyone else. I declined everyone everything, until I got this research offer.

 

[MadRat]

So if your weak, you can't get a resource trade, but you can get a fair science trade?

This is what I am seeing as well - the more powerful I am or the happier I am (and the farther away I am) the better my deals are.

It really does seem that the AI takes your power/score and happiness into the equation.

Rat

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I was under the persistent impresion the patch only made things better. At least I can't fool them in stupid trade agreements only benefitting to my growing empire... plus they still do accept to sign research agreement, open borders when it seems obvious they do have to do so.

Agreed. The AI civs have simply ceased to be pushovers, which is a good thing. How to get a certain resource one wants (for "We Love the King Day", for example) can now take a lot of planning. Is it somewhere on the map where you can settle, or can you bribe an AI civ with 3 luxuries for a period of time sufficient to get the day of celebration?

The AI now only trades for goods if they really feel a need for them. But one on one deals are still quite often possible. If it's just another old luxury for both sides.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

So there is a way to actually get the AI to like you? I haven't had a single AI minus the City States that I bribe even mention that they are friends with me. Is this based on actual tests or are you making it up? It would be good to hear that diplomacy has its own strategy to and your logic makes sense even though I didn't catch it before.

In practically every game, I get several civs calling me "friend". Sometimes because I've groomed them, sometimes because I'm very powerful and have offered decent deals.

 

[V. Soma]

Is it then so that when the AI is (a lot) more happier than me (say AI:+15, me:+3),
then AI doesn't give luxury 1:1 but for sg like double?...

 

[Txurce]

There are two threads for the same issue, so I'll post my reply here as well:

I have made one-for-one trades in two games since the patch. That ought to answer the major question. I think it seems rare because the AI has a weighing system to which it sticks, and one-for-one may often not seem quite right to it.

What I have learned is that how you propose trades (one-for-one or others) has a radical effect on its success. For example, I have wanted to gain a luxury without giving up a certain one of my own. I was turned down three different times before I found the right way to word it. It could be a No on some offer, followed by a No to "how about if I add this?" - followed by "what do you propose (to the adjusted offer)." In other words, it's a difficult negotiation. Succeeding at it makes it all the more satisfying.

 

[Silvis]

There are two threads for the same issue, so I'll post my reply here as well:

I have made one-for-one trades in two games since the patch. That ought to answer the major question. I think it seems rare because the AI has a weighing system to which it sticks, and one-for-one may often not seem quite right to it.

What I have learned is that how you propose trades (one-for-one or others) has a radical effect on its success. For example, I have wanted to gain a luxury without giving up a certain one of my own. I was turned down three different times before I found the right way to word it. It could be a No on some offer, followed by a No to "how about if I add this?" - followed by "what do you propose (to the adjusted offer)." In other words, it's a difficult negotiation. Succeeding at it makes it all the more satisfying.

I don't think I am following you. How were you able to get a 1 for 1 trade?

 

[Txurce]

I don't think I am following you. How were you able to get a 1 for 1 trade?

1-for-1 was as simple as asking for it.

What I also commented on is that many sorts of trades that seem not doable are, if you find the way in.

This is part of what I view as the fuzzy nature of Civ5 Diplomacy, which doesn't strike me as broken at all.

 

[rt12568]

EDIT....not working for strategic resources at least

 

[Kryhavok]

I've gotten a few 1:1 trades as well, but they were very rare and I don't remember the circumstances, just that it happened. That said, I think trading is atrocious. I understand that when I am trying to gain a resource to get some happiness, they might want a little more in return since they are giving me something and I'm benefiting. But why don't they consider their own gain? Someone here said "maybe they don't want your resource". I can see their luxuries - they don't have the Gold I want to trade them, so what possible reason do they have for not wanting it?

Basically, the AI is too greedy in their trades. As said, they'll request everything you have for a spot of cotton, but god-forbid you try to ask for any more than one resource EVER. They also don't seem to value their kingdom over a piddly amount of gold or some luxury. Yesterday I was wiping out China and the only resource she had was sugar. She had two sugar, and would not give me her surplus for peace. So I wiped her out. Smart decision there, China AI

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Don't forget that in Civ V there is a third way to acquire luxuries or strategic resources beside having them on your own land or trading them from the other civs. Go through the list of city states; one of them is almost certain to have what you desire. Be nice to that city state, give it a bit money, and it will continue to supply you with the luxury or stategic goods for as long as you can keep it happy. Morover, the value of what it suppplies increases over the game.

Of course, sometimes another civ will get miffed at you because *they* were grooming that particular city state. Handle that with tact or not, as you see fit.

 

[zonk]

Just because it isn't happening for you doesn't make it false. Have you considered that you're just pissing them off or that it's simply unwise for them to trade with you?

Let's be real here after all. If the AI was smart then diplomacy would be more about stopping them from ganging up on you than trading in the first place.

Edit: Also read my earlier post. It's definitely true that the AI is expecting too much in trades right now. That doesn't have anything to do with diplomacy not working though.

Sorry - but I spent several hours Sunday testing this (specifically for Research Agreements more so than trades... but I did tinker a bit with trading) and the OP is right.

Perhaps at lower levels, this matters -- but at immortal/deity -- it certainly doesn't.

The AI still lusts after RAs --- I SDK'd a map and a scenario that gave me philosophy off the bat, then gave each civ plenty of gold.

They ALL wanted to sign RAs with me immediately... but they ALL insisted that I kick in gold.

I tried multiple variations -- making myself the strongest empire in the game (not wanting to make me stronger, I can see that as "logical"), the weakest, and middling. I targeted specific Civs to "make nice" with -- pacts of cooperation, open borders, secrecy pacts -- even flat out gifting of resources.

Didn't matter...

For whatever reason, the devs seem to think the diplomacy issues are a matter of tweaking "AI to human trade valuation modifiers"; make things worth less/more.

That's not the problem.... the problem is that they've created a sociapathic AI which simply does not work or play well with others.

I suppose there are some wargames where that makes sense... but this isn't supposed to be a wargame.

I'm with the others --- diplomacy, which was a real achilles heal in the original release, has just been made worse.

At this point, there is literally zero value in ever negotiating with an AI or dealing with them other than for purposes of peace or war, at least on higher levels.

 

[zonk]

Don't forget that in Civ V there is a third way to acquire luxuries or strategic resources beside having them on your own land or trading them from the other civs. Go through the list of city states....give it a bit money...

Fixed that for you...

 

[Iberian]

Sorry - but I spent several hours Sunday testing this (specifically for Research Agreements more so than trades... but I did tinker a bit with trading) and the OP is right.

Perhaps at lower levels, this matters -- but at immortal/deity -- it certainly doesn't.

The AI still lusts after RAs --- I SDK'd a map and a scenario that gave me philosophy off the bat, then gave each civ plenty of gold.

They ALL wanted to sign RAs with me immediately... but they ALL insisted that I kick in gold.

I tried multiple variations -- making myself the strongest empire in the game (not wanting to make me stronger, I can see that as "logical"), the weakest, and middling. I targeted specific Civs to "make nice" with -- pacts of cooperation, open borders, secrecy pacts -- even flat out gifting of resources.

Didn't matter...

For whatever reason, the devs seem to think the diplomacy issues are a matter of tweaking "AI to human trade valuation modifiers"; make things worth less/more.

That's not the problem.... the problem is that they've created a sociapathic AI which simply does not work or play well with others.

I suppose there are some wargames where that makes sense... but this isn't supposed to be a wargame.

I'm with the others --- diplomacy, which was a real achilles heal in the original release, has just been made worse.

At this point, there is literally zero value in ever negotiating with an AI or dealing with them other than for purposes of peace or war, at least on higher levels.

Nice work. I wish we knew the numbers behind these calculations.

 

[Txurce]

Sorry - but I spent several hours Sunday testing this (specifically for Research Agreements more so than trades... but I did tinker a bit with trading) and the OP is right.

Perhaps at lower levels, this matters -- but at immortal/deity -- it certainly doesn't.

The AI still lusts after RAs --- I SDK'd a map and a scenario that gave me philosophy off the bat, then gave each civ plenty of gold.

They ALL wanted to sign RAs with me immediately... but they ALL insisted that I kick in gold.

I tried multiple variations -- making myself the strongest empire in the game (not wanting to make me stronger, I can see that as "logical"), the weakest, and middling. I targeted specific Civs to "make nice" with -- pacts of cooperation, open borders, secrecy pacts -- even flat out gifting of resources.

Didn't matter...

For whatever reason, the devs seem to think the diplomacy issues are a matter of tweaking "AI to human trade valuation modifiers"; make things worth less/more.

That's not the problem.... the problem is that they've created a sociapathic AI which simply does not work or play well with others.

I suppose there are some wargames where that makes sense... but this isn't supposed to be a wargame.

I'm with the others --- diplomacy, which was a real achilles heal in the original release, has just been made worse.

At this point, there is literally zero value in ever negotiating with an AI or dealing with them other than for purposes of peace or war, at least on higher levels.

The OP is not right, as long as anyone has had different results, and several have posted that they have (including me).

That it may or may not be the case in Immortal and Deity says nothing about overall diplomacy or anything else, since the entire game is heavily handicapped toward the AI at those levels (as it always has been).

 

[chaunceymo]

For whatever reason, the devs seem to think the diplomacy issues are a matter of tweaking "AI to human trade valuation modifiers"; make things worth less/more.

I think this is it.

The devs or their PR employees see a lot of people on boards like this one talking about how selling resources that the AI doesn't need for 300 gold is a huge exploit.

Instead of fixing the problem with a screwdriver, ie- going in and setting up a system that judges how desperately an AI needs the resource/research agreement/gold/etc and modifies the terms they are willing to agree to based on that and their relationship with the player, they fix it with a hammer, ie- flatly devalue everything of the player's by a huge margin.

As result, we go from the stupid situation of an AI with very little gold but a huge amount of happiness giving up all their gold for a luxury, to the equally stupid situation of an AI with serious unhappiness and a monstrous amount of gold refusing to buy a luxury for more than 150.

I will say it's not quite as bad as some here have made it out to be. In the one emperor game I started post-patch I managed to sell one luxury to an AI for 300, but immediately after that I couldn't get more than ~220, and shortly after than not more than ~180. I think it's tied in large part to your proximity to the AI, which is a massively negative modifier. If you have a city within 10 hexes of theirs, they are suddenly totally unwilling to give you an even remotely favorable trade, and very likely to declare war out of the blue (despite trades/PoCs/RAs).

Personally I see this as "fake difficulty". Since they won't spend the time or don't have the ability to make diplomacy difficult through nuance, they make it difficult through pig-headedness.

 

[Ironclad_dude]

Trade option should just be removed from CIV 5 cuz there is now no point in even interacting with your neighbors except for declaring war.

AI will always want one of your luxury That you have surplus of and one nonsurplus luxury just for one surplus luxury that they own.

Thus, AI gains ten happiness, You gain nothing from the deal.

You're better off invading and killing and razing their cities for the luxury you want.

I agree... I'm getting this all the time.
The best trade offer that the AI can give me is that they get +10 happiness and I get nothing.
I hope they fix this soon because the way that it is now just sucks!!!
Trading with the AI is useless now with the new patch.