Eqqman
Walrus
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2006
- Messages
- 342
I'm not sure what you mean by 'coded properly'. In my view, this means that GPT trades are a viable part of the game. Under this model the AI cannot follow human practices because like you say, an intelligent human will only pay what they can afford. I've already mentioned that it makes no sense to allow the AI to ever have a GPT surplus because this is monies that are not going to immediately develop its empire. Therefore the AI would never consistently allow interesting GPT trades, making this feature pointless. I'd rather have a feature I use nearly every game than one I seldom, if ever, use. The actual limit makes much more sense as the one I should be using since it is tied into happiness. I agree that I'm raising the AI's happiness via the gifts. However, from what I can tell this impact is just about negligible. I certainly haven't had a deal go from 27 to 28 just by giving a measly 27 GPT gift. It would be interesting to experiment and see exactly how much the subsidies are improving your deals 10 turns later in a case where you're reasonably sure only your subsidies have had the majority effect on relations over the last 10 turns.If the AI had been coded properly
...it's an exploit because it wasn't intended by the programers. That's the very definition of an exploit and there's no way around it.
I don't entirely agree. I might be convinced if the limit was fixed but a mutable limit is clearly meant to be reached, and as I keep pointing out, it is not practicable to have the AI even try to approach this limit. So the feature is clearly meant to be used but is in fact unusable by the current system. So I don't see anything exploitational in getting something that was supposed to work to actually work. Did the programmers intend for me to be able to make a decent trade? Yes. Did they expect me to use this method? Probably not. But I'm sure using a feature is more important than how it was used. And as I pointed out in my lengthy post, who are we to say that a proper AI is not supposed to be doing things that it can't afford? Human players run deficits, and the AI runs deficits. I don't see how the particular cause of a deficit has any relevance as I already went at length to point out.
I play Deity and don't find the AI challenging enough. It becomes challenging enough when i add "no tech trading". When i get better at the game, this may not be enough anymore to make it challenging.
I am genuinely impressed. But I am addressing my comments to those whose choices may influence others. If something makes the game too easy for me, why would I have the right to tell others not to? It's up to them to decide if it makes their lives too easy or not.