Soren - new tech trading system has ruined the game!

[Moulton]

SEee my earlier post on the details of trading. My objection is not that they can and do trade with each other, but that some how a civ with 0 gold can buy a tech... Trade for a luxury? On the trade screen just befire the trade, they will have 0 luxury available. Trade for an ROP... could but there weren't any of them.
Now this is not just one tech occasionally. I saved the game ever other turn for a long time and watch the changes. When Egypt and Persia and India and Babylon wer discovered, they wer like 8 or 10 techs behind, and had 0 gold. but they all caught up in just a few turns.
I will do more testing tomorrow. Too late tonight.

 

[Hurricane]

Some preliminary findings. One major factor which heavily favors the AI seems to be that they happily sell techs for gold/turn to each other, while they *never* will sell a tech to you for golf/turn. They won´t sell you a tech they consider is worth 700 gold (280 for the AI?) to you if you don´t have that money in your treasury. They don´t care if you make 500 g/turn. To the other AI civs they might sell the same tech for 2 g/turn.

Note that the calculations are when playing on deity (60% advantage to the AI).

 

[brody]

I think this is pretty much looking at only one side of the coin. I KNOW for a fact I'm not a better player than anybody else here; I've only played a couple of games. But I've had little trouble on Regent keeping a tech lead, and no trouble keeping people happy with me. I've gone to war only once (about to go again, though), and I'm always making trades with the AI. Granted, my tech lead is small (1-2 techs), but I have a lead and I have only lost out on building wonders about 5 times the whole game. I'm in the modern age and just built longevity and cure for cancer, and STILL nobody has genetics.

I don't know what I've done differently. I have a scientific civ (Persians), and that certainly helps, but commercial civs shouldn't have much trouble keeping up techwise (less corruption, faster money buildings, +1 commerce per city), and I've heard religious civs, with their quick gov changes, can easily take a civ lead because of time saved on anarchy.

Point is, I think a lot of people have a bad experience and think that's it for the game. Try a new strategy. The tech-whorring is mostly over (although now and then I can get 200+gpt when I have a new tech to sell)... I wish the AI would sometimes hold their techs for a while (longer than 2 or 3 turns at least), but I hardly think it ruins the game.

As for 0 income civs getting techs, I don't know where or when that happens. In my current games, those with no money and no luxuries (don't forget, just because they don't have luxuries to trade you doesn't mean that they have NO luxuries at all) are usually 5+ techs behind. Plus that, when you're that far behind, those old techs are worth NOTHING. If there are eight civs in a game, and 6 have fusion, the other two could probably get it for 1 gold/turn. And even a broke civ probably has an income of 1 or 2 that they use to trade with.

 

[brody]

Originally posted by Hurricane
Some preliminary findings. One major factor which heavily favors the AI seems to be that they happily sell techs for gold/turn to each other, while they *never* will sell a tech to you for golf/turn. They won´t sell you a tech they consider is worth 700 gold (280 for the AI?) to you if you don´t have that money in your treasury. They don´t care if you make 500 g/turn. To the other AI civs they might sell the same tech for 2 g/turn.

Note that the calculations are when playing on deity (60% advantage to the AI).

did you offer 500 gold/turn, or did you just have an income of 500? That wasn't clear in your post. I know I've paid gold/turn for techs before (in my current 1.17f game in fact), though they were older techs and I play Regent.

 

[SirPleb]

Originally posted by brody Point is, I think a lot of people have a bad experience and think that's it for the game. Try a new strategy.

I don't think that is the point here. Many people on this thread do not have a problem with the difficulty or challenge. I've been able to win at Deity after the patch. I think it was actually easier than before. Hard to say for sure, would need to compare more games.

The point IS, it hasn't seemed as much fun. There isn't time to build as much (due to the new tech pace), there isn't as much variety in the ways one must deal with the AIs, there isn't as much motivation to balance research against other things. (I didn't have to research ANY tech to reach a winning position at Deity after the patch. I literally left my tech slider at 0 from the very first move until the Industrial Age. I never tried that with 1.16 but doubt it would have worked. It does now in at least some games.)

Edit: A possible name for this new "strategy" (I hesitate to call it such, it seems too easy) with 1.17 would be "tech scavenging". It is less challenging and less fun than tech brokering was. What I really hope is that Firaxis doesn't just move forward from 1.17 determined to stop it too by making things more homogenous again. I'm hoping they will go back to the 1.16 AI and work forward from there again, abandoning the 1.17 AI changes as a failed experiment

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by brody


did you offer 500 gold/turn, or did you just have an income of 500? That wasn't clear in your post. I know I've paid gold/turn for techs before (in my current 1.17f game in fact), though they were older techs and I play Regent.

but then it`s always something+WorldMap+gold+gpt and only if they trust you.....
that`s on Regent, where an AI that has just ended a war with another AI will trade it tech 1:1 or for 1 gold....

 

[Mapache]

The A.I. of 1.16 cheated and the A.I. of 1.17 plays fair. I would favor some kind of delay, though. In my mod I made techs more expensive to enjoy the game more. Currently the speed is out of balance.

 

[loki]

Originally posted by brody
I think this is pretty much looking at only one side of the coin. I KNOW for a fact I'm not a better player than anybody else here; I've only played a couple of games. But I've had little trouble on Regent keeping a tech lead, and no trouble keeping people happy with me.

Wow... Must I say again, this is not the point of our rant. I won games on 1.17, I don't think it's anything harder than before. The game is just not fun anymore! There is now only one way to win the game. And it applies to lower levels too. There is no need to balance the tech slider, just pump out military units and buy techs from the AI (I agree it's not much different than what was required to win on deity...) but I don't play on higher levels for this exact reason. 1.17 has brought this only victory option to the lower levels. This is what I'm ranting about, there is only one strategy to win : and it's not the fun, deepest one.

loki

 

[eyrei]

I am actually beginning to agree with the original post on this thread. Playing last night as the Romans, I ended up on a continent with the Japanese, English, Americans, and Zulus. The other 7 civs were on another continent. My continent was wartorn, with the Japanese being wiped out by me, and the Zulus reducing the English and Americans to small civs. The Zulus and I were about the same size when we finally signed a peace treaty. Anyway, just before the war ended, the other civs on my island managed to get contact with the other continent. Now, it had only been three turns since I had done my routine check-in with the other civs. Three turns before they had not even contacted the other continent. Now, they all have managed to 'purchase' contact with all other civs(the other civs could have purchased contact with them I guess, but then why did they not purchase contact with me will they were at it), and they now have 6-8 techs that I do not. They had very little money (I made sure of that), so when I bought communications, I figured I could get most of these techs pretty cheap. Turns out, that to even purchase one of them, would empty my treasury! I can come to no other conclusion except that the AI simply gave these techs away for 1 gold apiece because the programming insists that they trade them. This is not right. There needs to be an absolute minimum a civ will accept for a tech, just as there is a minimum 4 turn research time. Funny thing is, I will eventually catch up and take the lead in technology if I don't instead decide to wipe out everyone on my continent in frustration first ! This does not necessarily make the game harder for a decent player, but I agree it does make it slightly less fun.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by brody
But I've had little trouble on Regent keeping a tech lead, and no trouble keeping people happy with me. I've gone to war only once (about to go again, though), and I'm always making trades with the AI. Granted, my tech lead is small (1-2 techs), but I have a lead and I have only lost out on building wonders about 5 times the whole game. I'm in the modern age and just built longevity and cure for cancer, and STILL nobody has genetics.
. . . Try a new strategy.

Great post, brody. So to reiterate what I believe to be your main points:

1. You can sustain a tech lead over the AI.
2. You can have happy subjects.
3. You can build wonders.
4. You can avoid wars.

Try a new strategy.

 

[Sodak]

I've still not downloaded 1.17 - too many posts like in this thread... I enjoy 1.16, but am sceptical of upgrading.

It seems the programmers have mistaken difficulty for fun. It seems most of the changes made by Firaxis have had no purpose other than to stonewall successful strategies developed by players. Improving the game has been secondary.

If the feel of 1.17 is human vs the world, I'll stay at 1.16. The whole point of improved diplomacy was to allow tech deals, backstabbings, trades, alliances. If now it is simply an interface with which to fork over gold every turn to 15 identical AIs, why bother? The fun lies in the dealing, not how the player may gain an advantage over the AI. If it gets too easy, I move up a difficulty level. No need to continually modify the program to disallow ways I've found to win. If there is no difference between the AIs, they may as well program them all into one big civ that starts with 12 settlers, and spare us the tech trading.

Firaxis needs to focus on making a fun game, not strive to make an unwinnable game.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Sodak
It seems the programmers have mistaken difficulty for fun. It seems most of the changes made by Firaxis have had no purpose other than to stonewall successful strategies developed by players. Improving the game has been secondary.

you hit the nail on the head. The game is less fun. Less immersive. It does feel like Me vs the world. But it is not more difficult to win. My scores are a little better post patch, but I'm not having as much fun doing it.

 

[davidttm]

I agree too!

I don't think the change has added difficulty (Not on Chieftain anyway). But it has had a levelling effect on the ai civs and it has gutted an important part of trade and diplomacy.

In my current game my seven opponents have all been within 1-2 techs of each other since first contact. Now, I pretty much accept that they are going to give each other better deals than me, but why are they trading EVERY tech to EVERY other civ AS SOON as they get it even when there is no advantage (to the individual civ, not the ai 'ueber-civ'). In terms of the tech race there are no mighty oaks and little shrubs. They've become like blades of grass in a well manicured lawn. Everyone is at the same level


If you are buying a tech you can guarantee that you are getting it last and still paying retail. If you are selling a tech your only decision is whether you want all the entire world to have it. There is not much point in giving your ally Chivalry to help their war effort, if the ai is going to trade it round-robin to their enemy.

This change = less fun

 

[Moulton]

Exactly. It is not harder to win, it is the idea of unfair trading. Trading should be an enjoyable update to the game, to enable other modes of play than just war.
I am currently (1050 AD) two techs ahead, have nealy completed SIstine chapel, and the others have not discovered Theology yet... Nor do I intend to sell it until I am ready. Anyway, they are racing for the Sun Tzu, which I cannot use--being on an island.
I made records, checking every turn. I have no other way of checking their income, but can tell if they have luxuries saleable. Since I only have one, furs, I can see anything they have, even it is not available becuase they did not build any harbors. I saw Germany, sit for many turns with 42 gold, no change, while she was putting 100% of her income into resaarch. Like wise, Rome, 0 gold, no luxuries for sale, suddenly gaining 3 techs in one turn.... My tech slider stays at 10%, mostly because it does not change the research time even at 100%. researching Invention is the first time I have been able to shorten the time.
I presume that if a civ's gold stays at 0 or 10 or 42 for 10 or 15 turns, he has no income to spare. Of course, it cold be that he is utting it all into research... and could change that if desired. But when I offer to sell, they say "It is not poissible..."
I will win this one--or at least I intend to, and it looks good -- Am now 7th, and declining on score... but I am two techs ahead, have 3000 gold in my treasury, and will have cavalry by the time they get knights. But I would spend some of that if it was a level playing field.

 

[Zouave]

Originally posted by davidttm
I agree too! . . . In terms of the tech race there are no mighty oaks and little shrubs. They've become like blades of grass in a well manicured lawn. Everyone is at the same level
. . . This change = less fun

I also agree.

1.17 clearly STINKS. Why it is long gone from my PC.

Firaxis took a flawed product - and succeeded in making it worse.

 

[No.Dice]

I'm finding emperor with 1.17 now is nearly unplayable. Civs with 0 gold, and no more than 3 g/p suddenly have the latest tech one turn later. I'll be exactly even in the tech race, then when i end my turn every single civ has the lastest advance, and wants to charge me 50+ g/p for it. This would normally be okay since i could sell the tech back to the other less advanced civs, but everyone is exactly even tech-wise.

Its seems like everyone discovers the lastest tech all at once, or one civ is handing them out to everyone (except me) for nil.

Its not a matter of adapting to new game play. This forces the player to play the game in only ONE way. You have to go to war very early, and involve the whole world in it. Otherwise you can't possibly keep up on the higher difficulties. Its definetly added a 1 vs. 15 feel to the game, since the AI won't deal with you for techs at all.

As was said before, theres no diversity in the tech paths, every civ always has the exact same tech, and usually (excluding 1 or 2) on the exact same turn. Tech brokering is now more or less impossible, and i'm finding the game a lot less fun.

Hate to say it, but i think i'll be taking a break from civ until they release a new patch, correcting some of the problems. I don't think the game was meant to be played with each civ having no diversity whatsoever.

 

[DGuller]

Sometimes it actually works the other way. I was playing Germany on Emperor, and it so happened that my growth was very stunted, I only had 7 cities, I was blocked in by four other civs. I had an early war with neighbor Russia, who probably saw me as easy pickings, but that ended in nothing for both of us, no alliances or captured cities. After I discovered all other civilizations, to my horror, I found myself about 10-15 techs behind. The suprising thing was that AI civs sold me all the techs for basically nothing, like 2 or 3 gold per turn. Utilizing this flaw, I just lay low, put 0% into science, bought up techs cheaply a few turns after everyone has them, built up infrastracture so I would have 7 extremely strong cities (I was lucky to get the grassland patch, it was a pretty mountaneous map), and wait for Panzers. I got the Panzers, got my GA, and was cranking them out, and now I have 27 cites from my original 7. What people are probably experiencing is AI players ganging up on the strongest civ. In my game, it actually happened to Iroquese. On the power histogram, they were the strongest of all the civs, then they had a lot of alliances against them, and off the go, from max to eliminated in just 40 turns or so. Americans were strongest after them, but they're about to be extinct. Now that Persians are the strongest, devouring both Iroquese and Americans, almost everyone is at war with them, even if they're on the other side of panagea. I'm not, though, because I get 4 luxuries from them at 50 gold a turn. The moral of the story? If you lay low, maybe you will be able to take advantage of the flaw from the other side. I disabled diplomatic victory, so maybe my game would stacked in my favor even more.

 

[brody]

Originally posted by loki

Wow... Must I say again, this is not the point of our rant. I won games on 1.17, I don't think it's anything harder than before. The game is just not fun anymore! There is now only one way to win the game. And it applies to lower levels too. There is no need to balance the tech slider, just pump out military units and buy techs from the AI (I agree it's not much different than what was required to win on deity...) but I don't play on higher levels for this exact reason. 1.17 has brought this only victory option to the lower levels. This is what I'm ranting about, there is only one strategy to win : and it's not the fun, deepest one.

loki

And you're missing my point... there is more than one way to win. I have my tech slider no lower than 60% unless I'm in the middle of a huge world war. And I still maintain good diplomatic relationships, and I still have the tech lead. Again, this is on regent, but I've heard a couple of others say that they still win on Monarch, Emporer, and Diety without having tech at 0.

There is no need to do anything, much less balance the tech slider. But if you enjoy being the techie, it's still doable.

 

[Hurricane]

I started a new game to test how trading really works under the new patch. And I found some really strange stuff. This is of course a limited test and will require more work, but I think I have found a few things already.

Game stats: Regent, 6 civs, small Pangea map, playing with the multi-trick to see the whole map. I started as the Russians to quickly contact the other civs. On Regent, the AI should trade with the human eqaully as with the AI:s. This is a screenshot of the map in 1175 BC.

 

[Hurricane]

Notes from the early game:

* All AI civs put 100% on science. Because of this they won´t offer anything more than 10 g lump sum, no matter what you offer. Even on Regent won´t the AI trade the starting techs equally (more like 3:1).

* The AI is very keen on signing ROP:s. They happily paid 25g or a Worker in order to get it. Neither party ever even came close the other civ's borders. The possible reason for this strange behaviour is that the AI is in its expansion phase and gets a granted 20 turn peace with the human player while it expands and leaves it military weak. They don´t sign ROP:s with each other. Signing ROP:s is an easy way of profiting from the AI, and discovering Writing should be a primary goal in the early game.

* The AI sells contacs rather cheap. In the test game, the Aztechs bought contact to the English for 15 gold (trasury 25g) and to the Romans for the remaining 10 g.

* When the AI discovered Map making, it traded it to everybody. No cash changed owners, so they must have got world maps in exchange.

* On Regent, it seems that the AI values one tech to cost in gold roughly 6 times the tech cost. For example, the AI offered 12 gold for Ceremonial Burial. This cost is then reduced depending on how many civs already know the tech. For example, China was ready to sell Map Making for 44 gold to me. Map Making cost 12 x 6 = 72, 4 civs of 6 knew it = discount 66%, which gives a value of 48. The difference of 4 can be explained by bargaining.

All the above things seem straightforward and ok. However, strange things start to happen when the World Map comes into play.

In 1200 BC, the 4 civs England, Atzechs, Rome and China all have the same techs. Egypt has fallen behind about 4 techs and has 0 gold. Everybody has contact with everybody, there are no goody huts left, and all civs have 100% on science, i.e. they have a zero cash flow. I trade maps with everybody twice, so that all civs (Egypt included) now have exactly the same maps. I end the turn.

England moves first and destroys a barb camp, get 25 g and now have 55 g total. Then the Aztechs move, then the Egyptians, Romans and last the Chinese. I open up the Forign Advisor, and suddenly the Aztechs, Romans and the Chinese have both Code of Laws and Philosphy! England has only Code of Laws, while Egypt has nothing new. I think this is what happens:

1) England´s turn. They get the barb camp and have 55 g.
2) Aztechs turn. They discover Code of Laws and sell it to the English for 55 gold. Code of Laws cost 10, so a price of 55 seems well within reason.
3) Egypt´s turn. Nothing special.
4) Romans turn. They discover Philosophy and trade it for Code of Laws with the Aztechs. Philosphy only costs 6, but Laws is now known by 2 civs, reducing its value to 6.67 (33% discount). Seems reasonable.
5) China´s turn. They also discover Code of Laws. They sell their world map to the Atzechs for Philosophy (worth 24) and 20 gold!

How the hell did that happen??? China only moved one warrior into new territory. Everybody had identical maps, and now China sell it for this ridiculous price.

If this is what actually happened, it has some severe consequenses. First, the human has no possibility of hindering AI trades by always making sure they have nothing to trade, since it seems they will happily pay lots for a map that has been updated since the last turn.

Second, the last AI player to move gets a heavy discount on most of its trades. England had to pay the full price of 55 gold for Code of Laws, and each later player got the tech cheaper. China, who moved last, could buy it for almost nothing. This can be the reason China always seem to be one of the best civs in my games, and why England always is a loser.

I attach the savegame so you can test it and see if there is anything I overlooked. This is the turn before they discover the techs.

As a sidenote, I can report as a possible bug that the game crashed if I tried to "contact governor" when I at the same time had the civmod.bic open in the editor.