Adding GPT reduces trade value? (vanilla 1.29f)

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Akka
You wish to talk about AI stupidities ?

I agree that this example is totally stupid, but it isn't an example of AI stupidity, but rather an example of human stupidity. If you really want to do something as stupid as giving the AI 1399 gold, then do that and the AI will happily accept.

There is absolutely no reason to make a trade where both sides give gold, so why should the AI be programmed to accept it?

 

[Akka]

The AI should be programmed to evaluate what it gives and what it is asked for, and accept if it's an acceptable deal. Be it for gold, tech, ressources or anything.
I don't see how the fact that both side give gold is anyhow relevant here.

What this picture shows is just that the way the AI evaluate a deal is completely broken.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Akka: I agree that a real smart AI would be the best, but I maintain that the current trade AI is very functional and logical, and that there will be aboslutely no improvement to the game if it allowed gold vs gold trades, since the only reason for trying such a trade is to make a screenshot of the stupid AI.

 

[Akka]

If the trade was very functionnal and logical, it would accept the deal in the screenshot.
The fact that it does not accept it proves that there is a very poor evaluation of the trade, and has NOTHING to do with the gold vs gold.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Akka
If the trade was very functionnal and logical, it would accept the deal in the screenshot.
The fact that it does not accept it proves that there is a very poor evaluation of the trade, and has NOTHING to do with the gold vs gold.

It has everything to do with the gold vs gold. The trade AI is programmed to never accept a gold vs gold or gpt vs gpt trade, and this is the only reason that the deal in the screenshot was rejected by the AI.

Now if you can come up with one single example of a trade involving gold vs gold or gpt vs gpt that could be remotely useful, then I will agree that this should be a candidate for fixing, but I don't think such an example exists.

 

[Park Ranger]

Indeed a gpt for gpt deal should NOT be accepted by the AI, as this could be used as an exploit by human player to discourage an aggressive AI from attacking, as breaking such a deal (which does nothing) would still cause a major rep hit.

Lump sum gold for the same makes no sense to me. If, in the middle of a deal with someone, they suddenly suggested we each add a sum of money to both sides, I'd be pretty suspicious and likely walk away from the "deal". In any case I forgive the Firaxis programmers for not allowing for this one...after all the whole point of trade is to get something you don't have, right?

 

[Quandary]

Okay, then let the advisor tell people why certain types of deal aren't acceptable. Or the AI itself. Since the 1 to 1400 gold for gold was used as an example:

AI: "What, are you stupid? If I wanted to destroy your civilization, I'd send my troops to do it. Now offer a real trade or get lost."

Advisor: "Uh, Sire, if you trade away our gold the people will revolt."

Here's an even better one. Let the 1 for 1400 trade go through... then make half the cities flip to the other side.

Advisor: Terrible news, Sire! YourCity has deposed their governer and pledged alligence to OtherCiv because they think you've gone insane!"

 

[Akka]

I can understand why the AI is programmed to not accept GPT vs GPT deals (though, if it's to discourage exploits, it could only accept GPT vs GPT deals that gives it a good advantage).
But just as you can't imagine a deal gold vs gold that makes a sense, I can't imagine a reason why the AI should refuse it.

Anyway, it's stupid for the AI to refuse it. Just come with a good reason. And "because it's like that" is not a good reason. I want a good, logical, undertandable reason why someone would refuse a net gain of 1399 gold.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Well Akka, I agree with you to a certain degree, but still agree with myself as well , so I guess my conclusion is:

There is no reason to allow gold vs gold trades and no reason not to allow it either, it doesn't hurt the game to have it, but you gain no functionality by adding it, so the whole thing is a non-issue.

But why do you want it? There's no example in the real world of trades where both sides give each other money, so why do you want it in civ?

 

[Quandary]

TheNiceOne mentioned

There is no reason to allow gold vs gold trades and no reason not to allow it either, it doesn't hurt the game to have it, but you gain no functionality by adding it, so the whole thing is a non-issue.

While I agree that trading gold for gold is dumb and not strictly needed, it could bring us closer to a trade system where the AI considers only value verses value, and that would be a giant step in the right direction.

The reputation, or even current income, modifiers, for one thing, make little sense in many situations. Such as offering gpt paid for luxuries received. If I stop paying the gpt (war or trade embargo), they stop giving me that luxury, so who loses?

Yes, if they got it all up front they wouldn't have to "worry" about the human reneging, so that's what they'd prefer. But asking for more gpt than lump sum gold would compensate. Pay over 20 turns and it'll cost you 1000 gold. Pay lump sum and get it for 600.

That's similar to what lending agencies do in real life. The better your credit, the lower the interest on a loan. The higher a risk you are, the more they want. Great credit could land you a $60,000 car at 1.9%. Bad credit might only get you a $5,000 car at 29%. But either way, they know that if you default they can get the car back.

That's the idea behind the entire "no credit! bad credit! you still qualify!" car brokerage industry, whose late night television ads one simply can't escape.

For the game, the luxury doesn't depreciate in value due to milage, accidents, or general wear and tear, so it makes even more sense. Especially when it's either take the gpt or lose the entire deal.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Quandary
TheNiceOne mentioned

While I agree that trading gold for gold is dumb and not strictly needed, it could bring us closer to a trade system where the AI considers only value verses value, and that would be a giant step in the right direction.

The reputation, or even current income, modifiers, for one thing, make little sense in many situations. Such as offering gpt paid for luxuries received. If I stop paying the gpt (war or trade embargo), they stop giving me that luxury, so who loses?

None (or both) lose, so this trade should be ok regardless of reputation, but this trade will actually be accepted by the AI regardless of your reputation. The AI already functions as you say it should here.

If I have screwed an AI, afterwards I can still make three of the four base trade types. I can:
1) Give per turn goods (resource, gpt) and receive per turn goods.
2) Give instant goods (gold, tech, map) and receive instant goods.
3) Give instant goods and receive per turn goods.

But the only thing the AI will never accept is that I:
4) Give per turn goods and receive instant goods.
The latter is the only way that the AI can be screwed, and is also the only trade type the AI will not accept after having been screwed once.

The problem (for many) is that if you have a trade of type 2) that the AI will accept, and then add 1gpt, the AI will suddenly stop accepting it, even if the deal is now better for the AI. The reason is that the AI now sees the trade as type 4) since it gives some instant and receives some per turn, and it ignores that it also receives enough instant goods to make the trade acceptable.

I think it would be an improvement if the AI accepted such a trade, but a very minor, since you can make the accepted trade first, and then give the AI 1gpt as a separate deal if you want to.

[/B][/QUOTE]Yes, if they got it all up front they wouldn't have to "worry" about the human reneging, so that's what they'd prefer. But asking for more gpt than lump sum gold would compensate. Pay over 20 turns and it'll cost you 1000 gold. Pay lump sum and get it for 600.[/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with you of course. In trades of type 4), the AI shouldn't simply not accept it as is the situation now, but it should modify your per turn goods by a multiplier between 0 and 1, depending on your reputation.

This is something Firaxis could (should?) do relatively easily, but its important that only trades of type 4) is modified this way. The problem arises when both sides gives instant goods and per turn goods. In that case they need to compute the difference in per turn goods given, and only modify this difference by the reputation modifier.

Ex:
Civ A and B wants to make a trade. A's reputation is 0.5 and B's reputation is 0.9.

1) If both trades per turn goods only, the values are unmodified.
2) If both trades instant goods, the values are unmodified.
3) If A gives instant goods and B gives per turn goods, B's goods is multiplied by 0.9, so B need to pay an interest rate of 11.1%.
4) If A gives per turn goods and B gives instant goods, A's goods is multiplied by 0.5, so A needs to pay an interest rate of 100%.
5) If A gives instant goods and per turn goods and B gives instant goods, the per turn goods from A is multiplied by 0.5, but the instant goods is unmodified.
6) If A and B both give per turn goods and instant goods, the following must be done. First must the unmodified trade values of the per turn goods be computed. Say that A gives 10gpt and B gives a luxury worth 8 gpt. This means that A gives 2gpt more than B. So this deal will be treated as 5), whith A's 2gpt multiplied by 0.5.

Let me do an even clearer example for 6.
B has a tech worth 500 gold and a luxury worth 8gpt. A has 400 gold and will pay the rest by gpt, i.e. enough gpt to pay for the remaining 50 gold for the tech and for the luxury. The gpt needed will then be 18 gpt, in addition to the 400 gold.

The computation is: (18gpt - 8gpt)*0.5 (A's modifier) = 5gpt.
So A is considered paying 400 gold and 5gpt for B's tech worth 500 gold, which is exactly the same sum.

If A's reputation was spotless (a modifier of 1), it would only have to pay 13 gpt, since (13gpt-8gpt)*1 = 5gpt as well.


So Firaxis, listen up, I've outlined the code for you. Now you implement it in your next patch.

 

[Akka]

But why do you want it? There's no example in the real world of trades where both sides give each other money, so why do you want it in civ?

I'm a collector. I like to have all these foreign coins. I buy them by the ton to the nation leader


Seriously, the thing that would really fix all the mess with the trade system is, (for the gazillionth time) to make the AI consider not the relative value of the trade (what you gain and what it gains comparatively to the size of your empires and so on) but the ABSOLUTE value (what you offer and what they offer, period).

We then would not end with totally stupid proposal such has

 

[Akka]

But why do you want it? There's no example in the real world of trades where both sides give each other money, so why do you want it in civ?

I'm a collector. I like to have all these foreign coins. I buy them by the ton to the nation leader


Seriously, the thing that would really fix all the mess with the trade system is, (for the gazillionth time) to make the AI consider not the relative value of the trade (what you gain and what it gains comparatively to the size of your empires and so on) but the ABSOLUTE value (what you offer and what they offer, period).

We then would not end with totally stupid proposal such has when a tiny civ ask for four to six times more than what it offers - making its destruction and the takeover of the ressource infinitely less costly than the trade...

 

[TheNiceOne]

Originally posted by Akka
Seriously, the thing that would really fix all the mess with the trade system is, (for the gazillionth time) to make the AI consider not the relative value of the trade (what you gain and what it gains comparatively to the size of your empires and so on) but the ABSOLUTE value (what you offer and what they offer, period).

We then would not end with totally stupid proposal such has when a tiny civ ask for four to six times more than what it offers - making its destruction and the takeover of the ressource infinitely less costly than the trade...

I completely disagree, if I understand you correctly. Do you mean that civs should pay exactly the same for a resource or luxury, regardless of benefit?

I.e., if I have two surplus rubber resources, should a 5 city civ that can produce 1 infantry per turn pay as much for the rubber as 50 city civ that can crank out 10+ infantry per turn? If you think so, then I disagree and think Firaxis has made a good implementation that forces the latter to pay 10 times more, since it will get 10 times the effect from the rubber as well.

Similarily for luxuries. Assume a luxury I buy means 200 new happy faces, this can mean 100 less entertainers in my cities, and thus 100 more worked tiles, that gives say 200 food, 200 shields and 200 gold. Then assume the luxury I sell to an AI civ means 40 new happy faces, aka 20 less entertainers and 20 more worked tiles for a total of 40 food, 40 shields and 40 gold. From this example I think its just right that I must pay 5 times as much as the AI civ for a luxury, simply because mu benefit is 5 times as high.

And if you want a realism reason: When you buy a resource, you don't buy a fixed amount per turn, but you buy as much as you can use per turn. It's only fair that a civ that uses 5 times as much per turn (and therefor buys 5 times as much) must pay 5 times as much as well.

 

[Akka]

TheNiceOne : yes you understood me correctly ^^

When you buy something to a store, you pay the same price regardless of the benefit you will gain from it.
When you buy oil for your car, you will pay the same amount regardless of whether you will be able to do 150 km or 350.
I will also pay the same price for sweets, whether I have nice kids that will be happy about them for the whole week, or I have pesky spoiled brats that will also ask for cinema, toys and TV before shutting up and letting dad play Civ3.
Samely, I will pay the same price if I buy the same shoes, regardless of the fact that I already have one hundred and fifty pairs (and then barely need them) or the fact that I'm barefeet and badly need them.

I do agree to alter slighty values depending on the benefit, as it's international trade, and you usually try to get the most you can. But paying five times more for the same thing is just absurd.

Still, yes, there is the point you intelligently raised with you realism reason. It could be understandable that if you have five times more cities, you ask for five times more goods, hence it's normal to pay five times more.
It could be a perfectly good argument IF the ressources were better managed, and QUANTITY was taken into account
A good system would be if each ressource could give you a given number of "use" each turn. For example, a luxury ressource could supply (let's take a fictionnal number just for the sake of the example) 100 population points. If you control 5 sources of sikls then, it's not "5 sources", it's "500 population points". Then you would be able to make trade that make sense ("I give you 200 luxury points, you give me 200, but as I've only 50 population points, rather than giving me 200 units of the same luxury, you give me 50 of each").

BUT, as the game is actually working, 1 source = 1 civ, whatever the size. If there is 2 civs with 2 cities each, and 1 civ with 150 cities, I actually need more ressources to supply the 4 cities of the two small civs than to supply the 150 cities of the big civ.
So as the system is currently working, the number of cities do not count. So this good argument about realism does not work.

I would REALLY be glad to see the ressources system being revamped.
It would definitely improves the whole game, make the battles over ressources much more interesting, make sense and make the trading options much more useful.
But in all cases, the evaluation of trade should be about absolute values, and not relative.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Akka, I would be glad to see the resource system revamped as well - I have actually suggested such an idea a few times before. Check the last post in this thread, or my post on the first page of this thread.

 

[Akka]

Ah well, I read the links, and in fact we do propose exactly the same things

You should repost the message about resource points in the thread you made about trade. Could be useful.

 

[Quandary]

I can't find one or two specific lines from the Akka - The NiceOne debate that sums it all up, so no quotes here.

Overall I agree with Akka's reasoning, and examples can be found in real life resource and luxury trading even to this day.

The only way that a relative value scenario can work would be if the AI Civ "knew" it was playing a game that it had to win by the year 2050, when in fact the only thing the AI should know is "does this deal help me in my current situation or not".

Slightly off topic, but I've had several instances of offering a military alliance to a tiny (or very beaten) AI Civ that's at war with, and getting pummeled by, a massive one.

You guessed it:

"It's doubtful they'd accept this deal"

How would they accept? If I also tossed in a tech, or a load of gold.

Let me get this straight, Lord AI ruler. It's not enough that I offer to help pull your chestnuts out of the fire and keep you from getting wiped out, I have to pay you for the privilege of saving your a$$?

I'm not looking for reality here. I'm just looking for some sense. If I were playing the Civ that was down to 5 cities all of which were under siege, and an AI Civ offered to ally with me against the one kicking my butt, I'd pay them to do it, not expect them to pay me, and be glad I was going to get some help.
But, as many others have mentioned, no matter how many Civs are in the game the programming is computer verses human, and the computer doesn't care if one or two Civs get wiped out anymore than I care if I lose a pawn or two while setting up a trap in a chess game.

 

[TheNiceOne]

Quandry, I agree that the AI often don't seem to make sense when it comes to military alliances etc., but I think that's a differentg matter than the value of resources luxuries. I won't repeat myself and tell why I think its fair and realistic that a big civ pays more for a resource/luxury than a small though.

 

[Quandary]

TheNiceOne, sorry man. I neglected to reply to all the things you've said where we do agree, and that wasn't right or fair. Made it seem like I was dead set on arguing with you, period. I'm not

Yes, I've read all your posts. Sometimes I can't quite agree with you because some things you talk about focus on a very tight area but could be applied to a much larger one. But in the sole area of focus, all other considerations put aside, I can agree with them.

Does that make any sense? I'm rush typing this now as my wife is calling me (wife unit, 32/32 bombard 120 operational range unlimited with cell phone in hand).