Does anyone else....

[qemist]

Does anyone else consider selling luxuries to the AI and doing RAs with the AI as really cheats to the game, and not do them.

No, they are obviously not cheats. Cheats are mods or manipulations of the gaming system that give the player an advantage. Nor are they exploits because they are clearly an intended use of a game feature. If you choose to forego them then you are playing a challenge. The AI doesn't handle them very well, but it doesn't handle combat very well either. Do you think going to war is a cheat?

That's what I do.

Then you need to improve your vocabulary.

 

[Veneke]

I consider it a clearly programmed part of the game and representative of international trade and diplomacy. In the real world, when a nation has too much of something someone else wants, they sell it for a profit. I don't even consider selling luxuries to the AI you are about to declare war on gamey...just think of all the times when AIs have backstabbed you in spite of a DoF, reneged on a RA for war, etc.

Plus, 240 for 30 turns of +4 isn't that bad anyway. There are numerous times when I have bought luxuries or strategic resources from the AI because I had an immediate need...to get from unhappy to happy, for example.

If the AI valued the benefit an extra luxury would grant, then you'd be entirely correct. The fact that it overvalues the benefit it receives because of poor development of the AI's trade/diplomacy coding, and consistently does so, makes it bugged/exploitable/flawed/broken/not working/overpowered/whatever. The AI will almost always buy luxuries from you (exceptions are few and far between), and will always pay the same high rate for it in spite of having happiness to spare.

Buying luxury resources from the AI is a different kettle of fish and that actually works reasonably well. If you have the spare gold and need the happiness boost then you can choose to purchase the luxury. The AI rarely has such a choice.

At its most basic, the feature is intended to allow you to sell spare luxury resources for cash which is meant to mimic the export of goods. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that this should be removed. The value the AI is assigning to resources is too high, however, and that does need to be fixed or nerfed in some manner. On Marathon you net approx. 600 gold for 90 turns of single luxury resource, which is exceptionally strong. Given the map's tendency to cluster luxury resources together, it is quite possible to sell 4-5 of these to various AI. The clustering is good as it encourages trade, but the sheer amount of cash you can get from these exports is simply overwhelming, especially when combined with the AI's gold bonus' on the higher levels when they usually have cash (and happiness) to spare. Adjusting the AI's value of luxuries, having a maximum possible return a player can get from these sales, or even having it scale with the AI's need, allowing sale of resources to City States (coupled with scaling based on AI's need) are all possible solutions. There are likely others as well.

No, they are obviously not cheats. Cheats are mods or manipulations of the gaming system that give the player an advantage. Nor are they exploits because they are clearly an intended use of a game feature. If you choose to forego them then you are playing a challenge. The AI doesn't handle them very well, but it doesn't handle combat very well either. Do you think going to war is a cheat?

A clearly intended use of a game feature does not necessarily mean that it isn't exploitable in a manner not intended. I don't think it was the developers intent to have the AI value luxuries it didn't need so highly. If it was, then they calculated the bonus that the player would get from the sale of those luxuries incorrectly or assumed that people would prefer a higher return. As it stands, it is at least a fraction overpowered, in all likelihood an exploit/bug of sorts, and can be easily exploited - selling luxuries to the AI before declaring war on them for example.

 

[Becomedeath]

So let me get this straight. You want Friaxis to make happiness harder to achieve, gold harder to get and the AI to make entirely favourable deals that don't inspire you to go off and start a war?

Hmmm....


Many a time I've asked the AI to trade something with me, they've said no, I've located their city with maximum number of resources and then gone and taken it from them.

Now if only there was a real world resource to compare that to...

 

[manu-fan]

Then you need to improve your vocabulary.

Thank you. I was really looking for your opinion though, not your insults.

Cheers.

 

[Veneke]

How exactly would altering what the AI pays for luxuries make happiness harder to achieve?

As it stands, the amount of gold you can get from the AI is substantial and absurdly easy to achieve. Nobody is talking about removing this feature altogether, but rather scaling it, perhaps based on difficulty/need/surplus gold/etc.

 

[qemist]

Thank you. I was really looking for your opinion though, not your insults.

I have you may opinion and that was not an insult. If you wish to communicate you should use words correctly.

 

[qemist]

A clearly intended use of a game feature does not necessarily mean that it isn't exploitable in a manner not intended. I don't think it was the developers intent to have the AI value luxuries it didn't need so highly.

Do you think "240" was a typo and they meant 24 or something? If so I am sure it would have been patched by now.

The AI gets such a happiness bonus it hardly needs luxuries at all. The fixed high price is silly but that is the game as it was designed.

 

[chazzycat]

if luxes were valued lower, what would the incentive to play peacefully be?

 

[jerbacca78]

if luxes were valued lower, what would the incentive to play peacefully be?

The thought is that luxuries should be valued (more or less) in line with the rest of happiness. Eg: the upkeep of a colossuem is 1gpt and it gives 2 happiness. The AI values 1 happiness at 60 for 30 turns, or approx 2gpt for 1 happiness. That is 4 TIMES (!!) the happiness acheived by the upkeep of 1 colosseum. (I say approx because we all know the AI does not convert 60 for 30 turns to 2gpt.)

That said, the happiness generated by selling resources should be more expensive, but 4 times is excessive. (You should be able to profit by selling resources.) 2-3 times should be much more than sufficient.

However, the larger issue is the AI will buy luxury resources when it does not need them. And it will not turn down (or devalue) a trade unless it is not happy with you. But simply correctly valuing luxury resources would at least be a start at correcting the problem. While less money would be generated from lux resources, it is only seen as a bad thing because we think that the value of selling happiness should be 2gpt. When in fact it would simply be a "market correction" because luxury resources are currently overvalued, and change (ie corrections) is often hard to take.

All of that said, I too use this exploit: we should seek (and use) advantages while we can. However, this is something that the developers should adjust.

 

[Veneke]

The AI gets such a happiness bonus it hardly needs luxuries at all. The fixed high price is silly but that is the game as it was designed.

You've agreed that the fixed high price is silly and are shrugging your shoulders at attempts to suggest solutions for it?



Also, the fact it was your opinion does not make it any less of an insult. An opinion is not some kind of magic potion that instantly erases all other possible forms of interpretation or absolves it from adhering to common courtesy.

 

[grandad1982]

I have you may opinion and that was not an insult. If you wish to communicate you should use words correctly.

Any way.

I'm of the opinion that if the devs nerfed the stupid bonus the AI gets then I wouldn't mind them valuing lux based on need. However as things stand slightly gaming a system that is an intended part of the game is totally fine by me.

 

[Artingel78]

I think program is very stupid because they giving you 240 for 1 luxury resource so if you do that with 7 players you will get 1680 and if you sell OB with that you will get 350 additional
So that is 2030 :c5gold per 30 turns..
For that you can buy 6 RAs.

 

[killerloop]

two points I'd like to make:

1) related to thread:
Trading luxes and signing RA's I wouldn't consider a cheat, but breaking them intentionally though...

2) related to what I would call "miscommunication":
Please, realise that a lot of people that write in this forum are NO native english speakers. Wording therefore sometimes seems unintentionally rude, or insulting, but by reading carefully between the lines native speakers could/should figure out what is meant.....

 

[chazzycat]

The thought is that luxuries should be valued (more or less) in line with the rest of happiness. Eg: the upkeep of a colossuem is 1gpt and it gives 2 happiness. The AI values 1 happiness at 60 for 30 turns, or approx 2gpt for 1 happiness. That is 4 TIMES (!!) the happiness acheived by the upkeep of 1 colosseum. (I say approx because we all know the AI does not convert 60 for 30 turns to 2gpt.).

But for buildings, you have to invest a significant number of hammers and time. That's why you pay a premium for luxuries, they are instant and require no hammers. Think about what else you could have done with all those hammers & turns if you hadn't built the coloseum.

However, the larger issue is the AI will buy luxury resources when it does not need them. And it will not turn down (or devalue) a trade unless it is not happy with you. But simply correctly valuing luxury resources would at least be a start at correcting the problem. While less money would be generated from lux resources, it is only seen as a bad thing because we think that the value of selling happiness should be 2gpt. When in fact it would simply be a "market correction" because luxury resources are currently overvalued, and change (ie corrections) is often hard to take.

I understand where you are coming from with this argument. It would seem to make sense that the AIs should value the luxes based on need. But, I think the game was designed so that luxury trades are a diplomatic tool, and that changing the valuation would have unintended consequences. The price you get for luxes is the best way to gauge how a civ really feels about you. Basically getting a good price just depends on keeping that particular AI happy. If that price was instead constantly changing due to demand, you would lose that key piece of information. And if selling luxuries was less dependable as a moneymaker, there would be almost no incentive to play peacefully at all. As of now, the trading mechanism is about the only good reason not to just warmonger every game.

 

[qemist]

two points I'd like to make:

1) related to thread:
Trading luxes and signing RA's I wouldn't consider a cheat, but breaking them intentionally though...

I find the AIs quite often exploit themselves. Eg I offer Monty a lux for 240. He says no, but for a lux plus ob he will give me 252. Fine I say. Next turn he DOWs me.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The problem with selling Luxuries is that the AI pays gold they could use for something better than for happiness that they don't need.

Now if the AI luxury value was modified by -10% for every happiness above say 10 (so at 20 happiness they would pay 0 for luxuries) then it might be reasonable.

If the AI was also willing to use its gold to buy units or buildings or CS, then it would also be reasonable.

If they want to allow diplomatic manipulation, that what CSs are for.... perhaps trading a luxury to a CS could give you an influence bonus with them. (unless someone else was giving them the same resource)... perhaps the CSs could have a quest of "give us luxury X for 30 turns" (if they had multiple quests)

 

[qemist]

It would seem to make sense that the AIs should value the luxes based on need. But, I think the game was designed so that luxury trades are a diplomatic tool, and that changing the valuation would have unintended consequences. The price you get for luxes is the best way to gauge how a civ really feels about you.

I'm not sure that it is better than the price of strats. But you're right that these prices give away the AI's intentions. When an AI offers a deal it is wise to add one of your resources and see how it changes what they will give you.

This is artificial, over-predictable and it would be better removed from the game.

Basically getting a good price just depends on keeping that particular AI happy. If that price was instead constantly changing due to demand, you would lose that key piece of information.

I disagree. The way it is is unrealistic. If the prices AIs offered were due to demand, then you would still gain information, but this time about what they were short of. If it was also influenced by how they felt about you then you would both sets of information and an interesting problem to tease them apart.

Nation-nation trades aren't very realistic anyway. Almost all trading is by private parties. This could be represented by a global anonymous market with a neutral AI acting as market maker (representing the private sector).

And if selling luxuries was less dependable as a moneymaker, there would be almost no incentive to play peacefully at all. As of now, the trading mechanism is about the only good reason not to just warmonger every game.

I'm not sure why players should be incentivized to play peacefully. As it is most players use luxury trades to strengthen themselves before playing the warmonger, so their contribution to world peace is temporary.

 

[chazzycat]

@qemist

I don't really think the trading system is perfect, in fact I really liked the "international trade via open borders" system from civ 4. My post was really an attempt to explain it, not defend it. I agree with a lot of your points above. I am not sure, though, how to go about changing the system without having a lot of unintended consequences. And I do think it's important to have SOME kind of incentive for peaceful play. It does work for that.

 

[Rittmeyer]

starting with 2 settlers, some workers, a bunch of units and other stuff is cheating a lot. yet, the AI does this to me all the time while playing on Deity.

good thing I have the ultimate cheat on my favor: my human brain.

 

[jeramy]

When I play at Immortal or Diety, I use the strategy of selling my excess goods. There is just no other way to keep up with the AI, due to their bonuses.

Recently though, I have started playing again at Emperor again, and not using a lot of the 'strategies' that can be considered exploits / bugs. You know what, it is actually more fun.