Allow you to fix your reputation.

To lend a technical aspect to the discussion, the idea is was that the AI had a maximum reputation with the human which could degrade over time and couldn't be restored. For example, if you traded constantly with a civ, you'd be considered polite and the civ would like you and maintain good relations. The civ would, however, degrade their opinions down to furious. You might be able to get their opinion back up to Angry, but it would never again be higher than that, ever.

You could get it up to gracious if you signed a MPP but that usually requires that they be in serious trouble if they are angry or furious.

The scale was something like -100 to 20 or something like that, -100 being furious and 20 being gracious, and most civs beginning between -1 to 1 depending on the civ you were using. Many human civers only want to hit up the AI when they need something and the AI was designed around the fact that if you want something from them, you can't come knocking every 100 years and expect an easy trade, you had to actually keep up relations. The problem is that this forced you to keep up relations all the time and when relations soured through no fault of your own (The barbarian ship blocking trade routes is a great example) you could never fix it. The most important thing in the game is if things go wrong, you should be able to fix them in some way, and that the game should be out to try to make it tough for you to win, but it should never feel like being screwed.

As a side note, the barbarian ship trade route issue is something that should be fixed as a separate issue. It's not so much a problem with the AI as the several random elements of game converging at the right spot to cause tremendous grief, and having that instance happen way too often because sea power is weak, trade is important, and having trade routes over seas is fragile early in the game. The AI getting pissed at you and you getting a negative reputation is a symptom of a problem, not a problem itself.
 
Corvex said:
I think that when you break a deal, your reputation should suffer, but if you have a revolution, it should be restored to default (to reflect the fact that a different government is in place now)

Do you really want to open up that can of worms? First I'm going to break a very loopsided per turn (100 gpt) for a tech. Then I'm going to break the agreement (through war, trade route, etc). Then I'm going to switch to a new government so i Suffer no consquences.
 
Roland Johansen said:
If this kind of behaviour is logical in a multiplayer game, then why not add it to human-AI diplomacy?

I like your idea and I hope that someone from Firaxis reads this forum from time to time (or should we devise some summary document with the ideas and mail them regularly?)

I should also add that amount of reparations should increase exponentially as your reputation gets worse, and of course your reputation should not be completely restored even after you pay them.
 
Well, I guess you people are arguing all about nothing. Just add a little option of fixing your rep via time. The more deals you make the better your reputation gets, don't make you lose the game after one bad deal. Seriously.
 
garric said:
Well, I guess you people are arguing all about nothing. Just add a little option of fixing your rep via time. The more deals you make the better your reputation gets, don't make you lose the game after one bad deal. Seriously.
And here you go, just run into my mind and steal what I was going to say! :(

Hehe, ditto though.
 
warpstorm said:
Reputations should be allowed to heal, but it should be hard and take time.

i agree on this
 
It's more than that... reputation shouldn't be damaged in the first place if we "break" a deal through no fault of our own. Instead, we should have to resume deliveries or make payment in another form - or default, of course, and take the hit.
 
I have to say that you are actually quite correct on this Bkwrm. The difference between an accidental and deliberate breaking of a trade or diplomatic treaty should depend on the 'breaking' party's willingness to somehow 'make amends'. If they immediately do, then they probably shouldn't lose reputation. If they don't, however, then they lose reputation and-if it happens enough-then they could end up being viewed as an 'Indian Giver'.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Corvex said:
I think that when you break a deal, your reputation should suffer, but if you have a revolution, it should be restored to default (to reflect the fact that a different government is in place now)
Theory is good, but we want AI to play like real people ;)
 
yea, it could easily be an exploit with religious civs (if they still work anarcy the same way)
 
Back
Top Bottom