[GS] AI values Diplomatic Favor far too highly

[Bradypus]

I started up a game of CIV VI for the first time in a while because of the trade hotfix yesterday. I was keeping a keen eye on trade offers and came to realize that the AI values Diplomatic Favor far too highly.

The amount of gold per turn the AI is (still) willing to pay for Diplomatic Favor is so high that it's not worth it to amass Diplomatic Favor. Consider that even though you sell off all your (20) Diplomatic Favor for a ton of gold per turn, you can still vote in congress because you get free votes.

What does the diplomatic favor provide? Whatever the result of the vote, it's unlikely to make any significant impact. Beneficial effects are often shared anyway like buildings in districts or purchasing units. The AI tends to never place votes on placing burdens on someone. They will always go for something that benefits themselves directly, which tends to also benefit you.

In my current game I am making bank and voting for free on pointless votes. Who cares if buildings are constructed quicker in the Government Plaza? I'd rather have 200 gold per turn in the Classical era, buy anything I want, have 0 Diplomatic Favor and vote anyway.

Not only is 200 gold per turn in my pocket 200 gold per turn in my pocket, it's also 200 gold per turn less in their pockets. With the massive cost of upgrading units now, it's worth it more than ever to have gold. The AI will prefer adding a second vote on increased production for buildings in government plaza (for all) than upgrading its entire army.

 

[Minou]

I agree they pay WAY too much for DF in the early game especially, when it has almost no use. Almost feels wrong to sell it. I’ve been playing R&F instead of GS lately in part to avoid this.

 

[Kruos]

I am surprised it was not part of the hotfix. Even at the very first look in the original patch note, I remember re-reading it twice to be sure to well understand it, as it was so obviously wrong. It highlights once again some problem on their testing side.

No offense to the actual testers, they seems to do a very good job with what they have. But in term of difficulty balancing, it's seems they lack some good deity players (or just time) to properly evaluate changes and balance mechanisms. Any deity players testing the diplo-favor AI evaluation would have risen an alert flag about this, as it's make AI milking even more trivial & lucrative than before.

 

[Infixo]

Consider that even though you sell off all your (20) Diplomatic Favor for a ton of gold per turn

I'd rather have 200 gold per turn in the Classical era

Not only is 200 gold per turn in my pocket

Are you saying that you sold 20 favor for 6000 gold in total?

 

[Bradypus]

Are you saying that you sold 20 favor for 6000 gold in total?

No. I am exaggerating slightly (but only slightly). I'd just sell off favor any time I'd approach 20 or so. Also I'd sell in advance of congress gathering. I think 20 favor pays about 50 gold per turn in classical if you spread it out among buyers? This may depend on who's buying and your relationship with them.

 

[Infixo]

I think if you provide specific, real numbers then maybe this could be a ground for a discussion if they are too big or too small.

 

[DWilson]

The problem is that the devs don't want the player to be able to easily buy all the favor, so they made it expensive. So, they've basically made it an expensive sub-currency with occasional sinks.

The alternative they're trying to avoid is buying all the AI favor at 1 gold per favor, or similar.

Unfortunately it's hard to balance when they've basically made it an interrelated currency by making it tradeable for gold, but if they don't connect them with trade people will complain you can't influence votes with bribes.

Perhaps an ideal compromise would be the ability to trade for a more reasonable price of favor per gold with the caveat that you don't get the favor itself, but instead the other party commits to use said amount for some vote.

 

[Stilgar08]

agreed. I was surprised when I read in the patchnotes that they raised AI valueing df. I expected the opposite beforehand.
If AI is not going after DV they shouldn't rate df as high as they do...

 

[Takfloyd]

Diplomatic Favor should never have been tradeable in the first place. It's an abstract resource. There's a reason you can't trade Faith or Culture.

But as long as it is tradeable, the AI should only be willing to pay a lot for it if they are actively pursuing a diplomatic victory. They need to demand a high price to sell it while ALSO being unwilling to pay a lot to buy it. The evaluation can't be equal for buying and selling, that will always lead to exploitative gameplay.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Diplomatic Favor should never have been tradeable in the first place. It's an abstract resource. There's a reason you can't trade Faith or Culture.

Strongly agree.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm so used to hoarding Favor that I don't part with it at any price. If it comes up on my side of the screen I automatically decline to trade.

 

[Gwelengu]

Perhaps there needs to be a stronger incentive to keep your DF instead of selling it if it is highly valued. As far as I can remember, you need very specific requirements in order to trigger special sessions, and most of this comes as disaster relief or emergencies. Most of the stuff you vote on is randomized otherwise. This makes taking part in congress feel a bit like a roulette of various effects. I still feel like the diplomatic game needs some work for this reason. I feel like there needs to be a *bit* more opportunity to control congress proposals. I know this is in itself a dangerous proposal when considering what the AI already has to deal with.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Perhaps there needs to be a stronger incentive to keep your DF instead of selling it if it is highly valued. As far as I can remember, you need very specific requirements in order to trigger special sessions, and most of this comes as disaster relief or emergencies. Most of the stuff you vote on is randomized otherwise. This makes taking part in congress feel a bit like a roulette of various effects. I still feel like the diplomatic game needs some work for this reason. I feel like there needs to be a *bit* more opportunity to control congress proposals. I know this is in itself a dangerous proposal when considering what the AI already has to deal with.

While I have been against having a precursor vote to determine the resolutions you vote on, I think it might be acceptable to expend a great deal of Favor to get a specific one to appear or be avoided.

 

[shaglio]

Diplomatic Favor should never have been tradeable in the first place. It's an abstract resource. There's a reason you can't trade Faith or Culture.

I disagree. Trading Diplomatic Favor for gold is the equivalent of saying, "If you let me borrow some money, I'll owe you one." The other person can then say later in the game, "Remember you said you owe me one? Well, I'd like to push through this resolution in the World Congress vote."

 

[Takfloyd]

Perhaps there needs to be a stronger incentive to keep your DF instead of selling it if it is highly valued. As far as I can remember, you need very specific requirements in order to trigger special sessions, and most of this comes as disaster relief or emergencies. Most of the stuff you vote on is randomized otherwise. This makes taking part in congress feel a bit like a roulette of various effects. I still feel like the diplomatic game needs some work for this reason. I feel like there needs to be a *bit* more opportunity to control congress proposals. I know this is in itself a dangerous proposal when considering what the AI already has to deal with.

You're being far too conservative in your criticism. The world congress is garbage and should be scrapped and remade from scratch. Just follow the Civ IV (and V?) blueprint and have an elected chairman who chooses the proposals to vote for(and gets at least one extra free vote so it doesn't easily backfire). Then we can use Diplomatic Favor to gain the chairman position, and it becomes a lot more valuable.

 

[FenrisWolf456]

You're being far too conservative in your criticism. The world congress is garbage and should be scrapped and remade from scratch. Just follow the Civ IV (and V?) blueprint and have an elected chairman who chooses the proposals to vote for(and gets at least one extra free vote so it doesn't easily backfire). Then we can use Diplomatic Favor to gain the chairman position, and it becomes a lot more valuable.

While I can get on board with adjusting or a revamp of the World Congress in VI, I wouldn't say going back to V is desirable. While there is a certain strategic level to being the chairman, it also led to some brain-dead behaviour as well. There's a reason "Ban Crabs" is a meme. I'm sure part of the reason for going to random proposals was an attempt to get away from always have the same proposal brought up to vote on. However, the behaviour still hasn't really been fine-tuned, so we end up with some of the votes always going the same way (i.e., City Centre always being the discounted production vote).

Really someone needs to sit down and tweak the leanings of each leader (either the leader themselves or their agendas), as well as for victory path, so that there is more variety to the voting and to add to the feel that the AI is trying to pursue their victory path. Military civs should favour encampments and industrial zones and production in general, to better produce their armies; science victory should favour campuses and space ports and of course science yields; and so on.

Perhaps rather than a vote for chairman, there could be a pre-vote for proposals,, where each civ gets a chance to back a certain proposal to bring up in the upcoming World Congress. Perhaps add in a way to 'buy' votes from other civs. Then the top two proposals are what are voted on in the WC (or random amongst those actually chosen if there's no clear top choice). This would still need some tweaking of the AIs so that the same proposals aren't always brought up and we're back to Ban Crabs territory again.