Maps and third party war were tweaked in this way as of the latest hotfix, for everyone's information.
Deal AI Development
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
Maps and third party war were tweaked in this way as of the latest hotfix, for everyone's information.
Yes I know. I think it used to be +25 and -25 the deal value, which would make sense that the current iteration. This version makes it so that I always take 1 more gold from the AI than they value it at.
It means I can sell 1 horse for 2 gold 4 times (I get 8 gold total), or 4 horses for 5 gold once (I get only 5 gold).
JamesNinelives
Emperor
Playing the 9/2 hotfix, I'm noticing a couple of oddities.
Firstly, the +/- is working a little strangely - the AI is often willing to give me an embassy for free for example. I would have thought the +/- would be relative to the total value (rounding down), so something worth 1 gpt would still be 1gpt for min and max valuation. I guess maybe they just want to give me their embassy. Not sure what is intended though.
Secondly, I haven't seen any of the exceptionally high resource valuations from the previous versions which is good. I am getting a lot offers for resources that are on the other end though - very low. E.g. several times now the AI has offered to buy my strategics for something like 1gpt for 3 horses. I'm fine with them not wanting what I have very much, but if they value the resources so little why do they keep asking me to trade them? I guess the text 'you don't seem to be using these right now' kinda makes sense, but if it's a freebie they want then they should ask for it as a gift. I guess this is part of working out edge cases from the deal AI and it's not exploitable for anything, just kind of annoying. Specifically if I have lots of horses/iron I haven't used yet, I get multiple offers for them regularly.
Firstly, the +/- is working a little strangely - the AI is often willing to give me an embassy for free for example. I would have thought the +/- would be relative to the total value (rounding down), so something worth 1 gpt would still be 1gpt for min and max valuation. I guess maybe they just want to give me their embassy. Not sure what is intended though.
Secondly, I haven't seen any of the exceptionally high resource valuations from the previous versions which is good. I am getting a lot offers for resources that are on the other end though - very low. E.g. several times now the AI has offered to buy my strategics for something like 1gpt for 3 horses. I'm fine with them not wanting what I have very much, but if they value the resources so little why do they keep asking me to trade them? I guess the text 'you don't seem to be using these right now' kinda makes sense, but if it's a freebie they want then they should ask for it as a gift. I guess this is part of working out edge cases from the deal AI and it's not exploitable for anything, just kind of annoying. Specifically if I have lots of horses/iron I haven't used yet, I get multiple offers for them regularly.
I've seem even worse deals for horses now. I liked the 1 GPT for 1 horse, that seems like a fine minimum number that seemed reasonable to me.
Yeah, I agree that the deal AI is exploitable for humans. You can get always better deals than the default, this is something that the AI can't do.
You can play with the rounding selling Resources this way:
1 Horse = 2 GPT.
Vs.
2 Horses = 3 GPT. (Usual Example)
This was a classic "trading strategy" in BNW. Maybe we should get rid of it somehow. But that's complicated of course.
You can play with the rounding selling Resources this way:
1 Horse = 2 GPT.
Vs.
2 Horses = 3 GPT. (Usual Example)
This was a classic "trading strategy" in BNW. Maybe we should get rid of it somehow. But that's complicated of course.
JamesNinelives
Emperor
I'm fine being able to get better value depending on 1 horse vs 2 horses. I think that's always going to be a potential issue to some degree and I don't see it as a bug.
Free gold on the other hand... haha XD.
Free gold on the other hand... haha XD.
Testing on my end shows that this deal will not be accepted by the AI.
In reality I should just get rid of the 'acceptable' text and have the near-zero value just show up anyways.
G
JamesNinelives
Emperor
Hmm. I was also getting cases of the AI telling me a deal was 'acceptable' and but then not accepting the deal lol.
I think the margin of error was working OK at some point. I like having 'acceptable' somewhere. It does feel odd to have a margin for such small values though.
I think the previous situation worked well. The AI always took a deal called acceptable. It's a way to indicate that it's the most I'll get.
We want acceptable to be true (it should not display if the yields won't be accepted) and not hide too much information (-50 and +50 hides a lot of information, if a deal has less than 50 value it takes a lot of clicks to figure it out).
I agree it should not display if it can't be accepted - currently the logic simply looks at the delta of the yield value and checks to see if it is in the 'margin of error' for the deal - in reality, I have additional AI checks against exploitation that prevent acceptance (but don't alter the text). This is simply a case of two functions calling similar routines but being mismatched in the UI.
G
InkAxis
King
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2020
- Messages
- 785
I've found the AI is sometimes offering empty deals again. A deal with rome ended on the turn he proposed this, so I would assume that he was trying to renew the deal, but something went wrong.
Also, I've found the AI more willing to trade for declaring war which is great. Though it may just be in this game because a lot of people hate each other.
Spoiler :
Also, I've found the AI more willing to trade for declaring war which is great. Though it may just be in this game because a lot of people hate each other.
Playing 9-2 version, this game again, as in the previous version, AI trade cities to each other for no reason peacefully. Why would they do that ? I mean, it makes sense sometimes, but it's rather extreme, no ?
Spoiler England sold a city to America :
Which wonders? If they are instant yield type wonders they might not actually be worth that much. I still think its likely too cheap but I'm curious.
Angkor Wat, Parthenon and something else I forgot. It'll be in my photojournal thread later.
I agree, before this last hotfix I was enjoy the normal 1 GPT for 1 strategic. I think there was some weird scaling problems, but the baseline was solid. Now they want 2,3...or even 6!! horses for 1 GPT. No way.
