Get rid of bargaining advisor

[Milan's Warrior]

I propose to get rid of the bargaining advisor.
I propose that when the player is dealing with an opponent, the leader-head could say exactly the same things as the bargaining advisor. And the leader-head could consider what is on the plate just as "chit-chat" until you actually click on "will you accept?"

 

[Yuri2356]

I agree, it would be far more realistic. How exactly would one of your advisors know exactly what someone you just met is thinking? Unless you were to rename him into some kind of "psychic advisor" and that's just plain crazy
They should definatley have the other leader say what they think of the deal.

 

[Sirian]

Better yet, get rid of bargaining altogether. What's the point of making players play twenty questions? If there's a fixed best price, stop rewarding those who are patient enough to click through until they find it. Give the best price to everybody and be done with it.

Or... Well, never mind. I'll save "or" for another day.


- Sirian

 

[Exel]

Instead of getting rid of bargaining I would suggest completely the opposite: add real bargaining! Being actually able to negotiate about the price would be a lot better than the current "find the best acceptable price" system.

And yes, get rid of the advisor and make the other leader comment about the offers instead.

 

[Jawz II]

not a big deal really to me

however, what i dont like is you cant find out the price of a tech if you dont already have enough money to buy it, how do they know how much money i have?

they should tell yoiu what the price is, so you can tell if its better to save up and buy or to research it!

 

[warpstorm]

I'd like a system where if you were "close" to the ideal price (in the AI's 'mind') it would accept the deal. If you overpaid, the AI would think more highly of you (a little), if you underpaid, the AI would think less highly of you.

Obviously, if your proposed deal was way off (on the low side) it not only wouldn't be accepted, but would lower their opinion of you for even suggesting it.

 

[CrazyScientist]

Or maybe sometimes the opposite. If you overpay the AI thinks you're a sucker that they can cheat all the time, whereas if you underpay they might respect your negotiating skills.

 

[searcheagle]

I like both Warpstorm and crazyscientist's ideas.

I do not want to do away with the advisor but would like the advisor to be wrong occasionally. Makes it less predictable and will make us be more cautious in pushing the limit to the max of what the civ will accept.

I also like the idea of giving valuations to techs, cities, and other tradable items. Civs treat them differnently, so it would be nice to find out what the current value of those things. Techs obviously have different values, because they have drastically different research times.

 

[Mewtarthio]

The Advisor should be a little less omniscient. Also, there should be a "Take it or Leave it" option that would make the AI a bit more likely to accept (you could continue negociations if the AI refused, but it would naturally ruin everyone else's expectations of you and make said option useless).

 

[Dreadnought]

@Mewtarthio - then everyone will use the option

 

[searcheagle]

Not if you introduce penalties and memories for threats that were not backed up.

You demand I give you Iron for 10 gpt as your final offer? Ha! Not true, you have never backed that up in the past, therefore I don't believe you.

 

[Jake5555555]

There should also be a "take this deal or die" option. This would be where you put out what you want and ask if they accept. If they don't war is automatically declared.

 

[searcheagle]

No automatic declaration of war. Remind the user of their promise, but give the option to bluff.

 

[Marzipan]

I wouldn't mind seeing the trade advisor just handle the deal, then give me the choice of accepting or not. The deals you get from the AI could be governed by the prowess of your trade negotiator compared with another civs negotiator, similar to how diplomatic deal are dependent on the relative diplomatic abilities of two civs. For example, say there is a tech I want from another civ. I pull up the trading screen, put the tech from the other side onto the table, then ask the negotiator to formulate the best deal. He then places whatever from my side would be the best deal we can get. I would then either accept it, or shuffle things around and propose another deal. The negotiator would then tweak the gold, gpt, and anything else necessary to make the deal acceptable to the AI player. I would then accept or reject the deal, or use a "take it or leave it" or "take it or die" option if these are available.

 

[Moonsinger]

I'd like a system where if you were "close" to the ideal price (in the AI's 'mind') it would accept the deal. If you overpaid, the AI would think more highly of you (a little), if you underpaid, the AI would think less highly of you.

In the real world, if you overpaid, the seller would most likely think you are stupid (and they probably will laugh at you behide your back). If you underpaid, they would think that you are a tough cookie who drive a hard bargain (just like them). They may think of you as a true adversary and they may respect you more.

Of course, I'm talking about business in Jamaica or somewhere. If you setup shop in Beverly Hill, it may be different. May be not! We all know Michael Jackson spending habit, but how many of us actually respect him more because of that.

 

[warpstorm]

Ah, but you are less likely to do something to lose the business of the guy who regularly overspends whether or not you respect him for it. He is a better trading partner than the shrewd skinflint whose business acumen you respect.

 

[sealman]

Better yet, get rid of bargaining altogether. What's the point of making players play twenty questions? If there's a fixed best price, stop rewarding those who are patient enough to click through until they find it. Give the best price to everybody and be done with it.

Or... Well, never mind. I'll save "or" for another day.


- Sirian

But whose best price? Yours or the other guys??

 

[Moonsinger]

Ah, but you are less likely to do something to lose the business of the guy who regularly overspends whether or not you respect him for it. He is a better trading partner than the shrewd skinflint whose business acumen you respect.

Very good point!

 

[Volstag]

Better yet, get rid of bargaining altogether. What's the point of making players play twenty questions? If there's a fixed best price, stop rewarding those who are patient enough to click through until they find it. Give the best price to everybody and be done with it.

Personally, I like the idea wherein you don't get an "unlimited" amount of time to fine tune your offer. If you make an initial offer, and the AI is agreeable to it, it makes little sense that you can keep re-offering a lesser quantity of "stuff" until you get them at the breaking point.

My $0.02.

-V

 

[Mewtarthio]

^ That's why they have your Trade Advisor telling you how good the deals are as opposed to the other leader. Can you imagine a real negociation like that?
"I'll teach you how to build nukes, what would you be willing to pay?"
"Hmm, I'd say a good deal on oil."
"That's not good enough. I want ten hundred million dollars as well."
"You drive a hard bargain, but we'll take it."
"Twenty hundred million."
"Uh... okay."
"Thirty."
"I guess."
"Forty." "This is ridulous!"
"Thirty-nine?"
"STOP IT!"
"How about thirty-five?"
"AAAAH!"
"Thirty one?"
(exasperated) "Yes. Okay. Thirty-one. Fine. End of discussion."
"Thirty-two?"

I like the ability to micro-barter, but I see your point. Maybe you could go to your Foreign Advisor to determine a good cost. Your Advisor's view of the item's value is based on both their apparent need and your use of it. Naturally, he would be somewhat innaccurate, so you'd have to decide for yourself if he's over- or undervaluing the goods on both sides. After you run everything through your Advisor, you could then place the revised deal on the table. You could negociate further with the emissary, but they might get annoyed if you take too long.