1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Proposal: Luxury resources trade value scales with era

Discussion in 'Community Patch Project' started by Cokolwiek, Jun 27, 2020.

?

Would you like luxury resource trade value to scale with era?

  1. Yes

    22 vote(s)
    84.6%
  2. No

    4 vote(s)
    15.4%
  1. Recursive

    Recursive Covets Lands That You Currently Own Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    2,217
    Gender:
    Male
    You can just add a scaling factor, e.g. "value + (era * bonus)" or "value * era", etc.

    It's not hard to program - the only real issue is choosing an era bonus that works.
     
  2. wobuffet

    wobuffet Barbarian

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,247
    @Recursive @Gazebo
    In terms of adjusting AI valuation of :c5gold:Gold as the game progresses, cost of typical Unit/Building investment in the current Era would be a natural starting point. Or since Era is a pretty chunky unit, maybe just scale it with # of :c5science:Techs to make things more granular.

    I went into Excel and grabbed a "typical" Unit and Building for each Era to see roughly how the :c5gold:Gold costs scale.

    Spoiler :

    For example, this suggests (see bold column) that
    2 :c5gold:GPT in the Ancient Era =
    4.18 :c5gold:GPT in the Medieval Era =
    11.1 :c5gold:GPT in the Industrial Era =
    17.9 :c5gold:GPT in the Atomic Era.

    Implementing this would be pretty trivial, I think:

    Spoiler :
    A decent first pass at this (essentially just an inflation index) would be something like
    Inflation = (0.002 * Techs_Discovered^2) - (0.0045 * Techs_Discovered) + 0.7

    And then simply use

    Gold_Equivalent = Trade_Value * Inflation
    to translate the current AI "trade value" into :c5gold:Gold whenever a trade deal involves :c5gold:Gold/GPT.

    One final note: as is, this would be a pretty aggressive change! Later-era units and buildings are more arguably impactful per unit, so the quadratic term in the inflation equation could probably be toned down.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2020
  3. Cokolwiek

    Cokolwiek Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2019
    Messages:
    512
    Gender:
    Male
    Great job @wobuffet! This scaling per era is just excellent. It achieves even more than only trade value, whole AI valuation of gold, do I understand correctly? It seemed complex on many levels, you made it even more clear than my and @Kim Dong Un gold increases.

    I want to throw a sidenote about this:
    Well, you assume their yields value and combat strength only I think? Which for the purpose of this calculation may be correct. Just a reminder that in player's hands later in the game new units are not that valuable because conquest or defense are achieved mostly through use of already experienced ones. Also as production becomes more abundant, buildings less useful, military cap rises, the value of every individual units decreases significantly in my eyes, as you need more of them to achieve anteing.
     
    wobuffet likes this.
  4. crdvis16

    crdvis16 Emperor

    Joined:
    May 2, 2013
    Messages:
    1,211
    It might be important to keep in mind whether any changes result in the AI being more human like or not.

    As Stalker pointed out, as the game progresses it's possible that luxes actually become less relatively important even as gold inflation occurs. A human probably wouldn't give the AI 50GPT for a lux in the late game (unless there's a bunch of WLTKD at stake or happiness is really hurting) so keeping an eye on making sure the AI doesn't do so couldbe important.

    Don't want to end up with an AI that is exploitable for tons of gold (has kind of happened in the past with strategics maybe?).
     
    DeAnno, Kim Dong Un, wobuffet and 3 others like this.
  5. Cokolwiek

    Cokolwiek Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2019
    Messages:
    512
    Gender:
    Male
    I think not with the current happiness that is really fragile. And defense pacts that may cut you off from many luxuries. Also, luxuries does scale, they gave two happiness in initially, then three, then four around industrial, so you don't see it when you have all of them when the price is low, but you would see the lack of some, if you wouldn't pay when the system had been changed.
     
  6. Stalker0

    Stalker0 Baller Magnus

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2005
    Messages:
    7,241
    So the trick is that its really not about the absolute value of the lux (2, 3, etc), but how much it improves your happiness situation (aka the % of happiness). My general experience is, in the early game if I have happiness problems, generally 1 lux will often correct the situation. Whereas by industrial, its more like 3 luxs to make any meaningful impact.

    If I extend that to the math:

    I would say 4 GPT for an early lux is a reasonable value to me.

    4 GPT = 44 GPT in industrial era (by the inflation math).
    44 GPT /3 (lux in industrial is worth about 1/3 as much) = 14.6 = about 15 GPT. That to me feels in the ballpark, though probably still feels a little on the high side.
     
    CppMaster likes this.
  7. wobuffet

    wobuffet Barbarian

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,247
    If you mean my math, bolded number should be 4 * 5.55 = 22.2 :c5gold:GPT, which after your "1/3 worth" heuristic would lead to 7.4 :c5gold:GPT.

    Definitely agree! I have no idea how the AI evaluates the benefit of a Lux... presumably in terms of :c5happy:Happiness, resulting yield/combat strength increases if Unhappy, WLTKD, CS quests, etc.? Certainly an Unhappy civ should be willing to pay a lot per Lux — and perhaps an increasing over time if suffering from extended Unhappiness.


    @Recursive: Does the (new upcoming) trade AI, when evaluating Lux deals, calculate out how its current Happiness ratio/% would change from gaining/losing a Lux? If not, what @Stalker0 is saying makes a lot of sense to me!
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2020
    vyyt and crdvis16 like this.

Share This Page