Caster of Magic II Game balance brainstorming.

[massone]

A trade interest penalty wouldn't have this side effect but would be counter-intuitive, as it means other wizards react to being left out of trades by refusing to trade instead of wanting to be part of it next time.

I'm going to agree with this here, and also that relations penalty doesn't make sense. Rational actors would want to reap the benefits of gains from trading themselves, and form a larger trading bloc. Not that relations penalty would even accomplish anything, as you can trade with Wizards with negative relations (and why wouldn't they trade even at low relations, if it's a good deal?)

Finally, if AI's eliminated each other at the intended speed then finding that many players to trade rares away to won't be so likely to happen

Eliminating any of these wizards on a Maximal map before Very Rare seems impossible, even if the AI was made much more aggressive. Remember I only just met Ariel when I did those trades, and it was turn 100. The distances are too large.

[Seravy]

Considering it was about trading rares, I assumed we are talking about turn 150-ish. I guess it was on a high difficulty setting.
Maximal maps are a different story, but those break everything else as well, there is a reason why the land size setting help text warns the players about it messing with game balance.
As long as AIs eliminate each other in a reasonable amount on time on average land size, I'm fine with that.

Ok, maybe getting 5 uncommons is good although it's questionable how much it hurts you to have 5 other people in the game with invisibility. (It certainly wasn't "free", if any of those people attack you, you can forget about using ranged units to garrison your cities.)

Either way, is there anything to do about it? I mean other than disabling spell trading entirely or making cray rules that literally make the function unusable.

...there is only one thing I can think of, which would be super effective, not completely unreasonable, but also a very low blow and one that breaks an unsaid game rule.
We could set up a condition that says "whenever any AI wizard receives a spell from the human player in a trade, all AI wizards who can learn that spell and have any valid trade option available for it in exchange, immediately trade that spell with that AI".
What makes this a rule breaking feature is the unsaid but obvious rule that players can only conduct diplomacy during their own turns. However that is a critical part because otherwise you can simply trade the spell to everyone during the same turn.
What makes it unfair is that the player essentially pays more than he thinks he is paying, as the hidden cost not only includes "all other AI also gets this spell" which is something that could potentially happen later on naturally because AIs occasionally do trade, but also includes the "this wizard gets a bunch of new spells in return" so basically, trading that invisibility might potentially put that Sorcery wizard ahead by 5 full rare spells worth of RP. Tho most often it won't. It also leaves the possibility open that they fail to trade anything at all because the other Sorcery AIs don't have spells this AI doesn't know yet, and that isn't as unlikely as it sounds because the AIs all research everything in the same order.

[JustOneMoreTurn]

Since this thread is for brainstorming, one possibility is to prevent the casting of a traded spell against the original researcher and maybe anyone in the trading path to the recipient. The obvious problem is unit buffs, but you could kludge that by switching off the buffs in combat when necessary. Likewise, summons would be unable to enter combat against someone the spell came from. Kind of a copyright for magic spells, with a team of legal devils keeping track of details. Researching (or finding in ruins) the spell yourself would give you full rights. The spellbook would have to be altered to allow you to choose a known traded spell to research for full rights.

A simpler solution is to make spell trading an option. I don't consider it an important/fun part of the game.

[massone]

We could set up a condition that says "whenever any AI wizard receives a spell from the human player in a trade, all AI wizards who can learn that spell and have any valid trade option available for it in exchange, immediately trade that spell with that AI".

Only if the turn wizard always has priority. It is fine if the trade happened on the AI's wizard's turn. It's not okay for the player to initiate a trade, and the AI then gets to trade with another non-turn AI.

More critically, it should apply also to spells traded AWAY, not only spells received. Every turn wizard should always maximize the benefit from each spell given away by trading it to as many wizards as possible.

The logic is like this:
If I have a spell, and somebody else has the same spell, whoever trades it away first gets the benefit, leaving the other with nothing. So everyone should race to sell any spell that somebody else has and is capable of being traded to the same customer, regardless of whether it was their own, or if they received it in a trade. But they should only be allowed to do it on their own turn.

That said, I won't deny that some people don't think this is the optimal strategy. It is just how I play, if the opportunity arises.

[massone]

An alternative idea, with some background explanation first:

In the real world, tech trading doesn't happen this way because of military secrets. You're not supposed to be able to know what the other country has, until they show it to you. And there are possible diplomatic consequences for leaking technology that was just traded to you, and there's the issue of long-term trading. A partner will not trade important tech to you, if they KNOW you're going to turn around and resell it.

So we can make it that if you "broker" a spell you got from another Wizard to a third Wizard, that first Wizard gets a massive relations hit and will have a huge penalty to trade interest, unless you pay them tribute to make amends. They could even demand tribute for violating their IP rights.
Similarly, other Wizards (who are in contact with the first Wizard) take a hit to trade interest/trade value calculation, knowing that you are a known IP violator, who will likely do the same to any spells they trade you.

So basically, the acting of "brokering" any spell not originally your own causes diplomatic problems, but more with the Wizard you first got the spell from rather than other Wizards. And there is no problem with regular trading.

EDIT: The only problem with the above is, how do wizards know you brokered it away? In the real world, that's also not easy to catch.

[Seravy]

Only if the turn wizard always has priority. It is fine if the trade happened on the AI's wizard's turn. It's not okay for the player to initiate a trade, and the AI then gets to trade with another non-turn AI.

Then it's a non-solution. I can trade my spell to all 5 AI wizards on the exact same turn and nothing changed. The AI needs to give the spell they received to the others before I have my chance to trade it to them.



IP is not a thing in a fantasy world and it's the very last concept I would like to promote by including it in my game.



To summarize, we need both a solution that works and proof that the current trading unbalances the game to take any action and so far we have neither. (Your example shows that trading can be done and it can be used to gain several lower tier spells fairly easily, but those were never the question. You can obtain all the missing common and uncommon spells in a game by clearing out lairs anyway, and I would expect that to be even more likely on larger maps with more lairs. Unless trading causes the player to obtain a significant amount of new rares or very rares - despite the AI players getting eliminated in the intended fashion - and/or allows them to accelerate a whole tier ahead by clearing out all current tier spells through trading from the book, we can't consider it proof that there is a problem.)

So everyone should race to sell any spell that somebody else has and is capable of being traded to the same customer, regardless of whether it was their own, or if they received it in a trade.

Yes, if someone else trades away Invisibility then there is a race but you can know who has what spells and even have a general idea of when they'll be able to research it. So unless an AI finds that specific spell in treasure which is very unlikely, there is no risk of it happening. Even if the AI does get the spell unexpectedly, you still have a lot of time to trade it because the AI trades depending on random chance based on difficulty and relation levels. Even if they get lucky and trade the spell before you can, that basically means they traded it instead of something else so it doesn't really make much difference unless they would have rolled a "failed to trade" result without that spell being in the list. Which of course can happen but again is not very likely.
Basically, it's not a race because the AI is not treating it as one and a race by definition requires at least two participants.

[massone]

Then it's a non-solution. I can trade my spell to all 5 AI wizards on the exact same turn and nothing changed. The AI needs to give the spell they received to the others before I have my chance to trade it to them.

There is nothing wrong with being able to trade your spell to all AI wizards. You should be allowed to do that on your own turn and benefit by doing so, especially if it was your own spell rather than a brokered one. I've never argued that that was a problem. But if the AI gives the spell to others before you have a chance to trade it to them, that's just plainly unfair.


I am strongly opposed to allowing the AI to trade away spells they just received on the player's turn, for all the reasons you mentioned yourself, but even more importantly, it's blatant AI cheating. Wizards shouldn't be allowed to do any actions when not on their own turn, period. It would make trading worse, not better, because that essentially makes the AIs become brokers whenever the player trades them and makes the player unable to broker, when the problem is brokering in the first place, regardless of who does it.

1. It's fair but could break pacing if both players and AI can broker.
2. It's not fair if only AI can broker, just as it's not fair if only the player can broker.
3. Every wizard should always be allowed to trade their own spells to everyone before somebody can broker it.

In summary, brokering = bad.

IP is not a thing in a fantasy world and it's the very last concept I would like to promote by including it in my game.

I used the term IP because it's easy to understand. Just because there's no IP in the game doesn't mean a Wizard shouldn't be angry that their spell was traded away to a third party. It doesn't matter if you call it a military secret or an exclusive agreement or whatever. The point is, if you trade a spell with someone expecting them to keep it to themselves, and they go and spread it around, it's reasonable to be angry about it and refuse to trade with that wizard afterwards, or even if not angry about it, you still wouldn't trade with that wizard anything you don't want to be spread around in the future.

If you feel that wizards shouldn't expect their spells not to be spread around and that brokering shouldn't be treated differently from trading one's own spell, then that's fine, and I would equally support having the AIs do it too, but only on their own turns.

Your example shows that trading can be done and it can be used to gain several lower tier spells fairly easily, but those were never the question. You can obtain all the missing common and uncommon spells in a game by clearing out lairs anyway, and I would expect that to be even more likely on larger maps with more lairs. Unless trading causes the player to obtain a significant amount of new rares or very rares - despite the AI players getting eliminated in the intended fashion - and/or allows them to accelerate a whole tier ahead by clearing out all current tier spells through trading from the book, we can't consider it proof that there is a problem.

No, my example was specifically about one on one trading vs brokering and the huge difference it made when there was a dual-shared realm wizard available.

If I had to trade my own Invisibility for several lower tier spells "easily" (I actually agree that that can be a tough decision), then I would agree that there isn't a problem here. But again, that's not what happened, and thinking of it that way misses the point. I got 2 Rares by trading within 5 turns of meeting Ariel. Then I got 5 more Uncommons by trading spells that weren't mine.  If I had the chance to keep playing that save, I would almost certainly have gotten several more Rares and Very Rares. I also could've traded for Summon Champion instead of Altar of Peace with Merlin, which would be technically be a 3rd Rare, but I wanted Altar of Peace more. AND if I waited a few turns, I probably could've traded Divine Order for another Uncommon/Rare. 

To summarize, I was able to trade (1 Rare and 1 Uncommon) of my own for (3 Rares and 4 Uncommons) OR (2 Rares and 5 Uncommons).
With the possibility of getting another Rare/Uncommon within a few turns, by brokering Divine Order too. Which would make it 1 Rare and 1 Uncommon for up to 4 Rares and 4 Uncommons (but actually even more, because I might be able to broker which ever spell I ultimately trade DO for).

But the Ariel situation happened in 1 out of 4 games. Half my first original post was about how trading one-on-one seems too hard now, and made trading irrelevant. I happen to enjoy trading and diplomacy as part of the game, and I found that equally unpalatable. These things are all relative. I'd like to be able to have trading be a consistent part of the game that takes a bit of skill and risk management and competing with the AI, without feeling like I'm getting a huge advantage out of it only because I was lucky enough to meet a dual shared-realm wizard.

Basically, it's not a race because the AI is not treating it as one

Yes, and I'm suggesting that maybe they should be treating it as a race so they benefit as much from trading as the player does.

[Seravy]

So basically, you are trying to say, just because you got your Invisibility spell from a trade for...what was it, Holy Arms?, it's a completely different scenario than if you traded your own Holy Arms for those 5 uncommon spells?
While I understand that this causes a positive feedback loop which does make it different, ultimately, it still is a "you can get every spell worth less than your best spell but nothing that is worth more" kind of deal, and at the price of giving away your best spell to at least one, often multiple other players. I'm not seeing why that would be a problem.
To begin with, if you are a single realm, you can't trade for anything you don't have already avialable, and by desing, dual/triple realms are supposed to have the advantage of getting more spells overall through trades and treasure because they have other disadvantages : Their spells are random with very few guarantees, they get fewer high tier spells overall, and their starting casting skill and magic power is generally lower while the number of picks needed for books is often higher and they don't get a bonus for their 9-10th book.
Having a chance of filling all missing commons and uncommons and potentially get slightly more rares and very rares than single realm is the benefit multi-realm wizards get in exchange for having to deal with random chance in their spell research and worse economy.

Based on that we can argue that AI's should attempt to trade more to take advantage of this intended game mechanic when playing multiple realms but it should still be done with moderation, see below.

I'd like to be able to have trading be a consistent part of the game

Yeah that would be nice but it's impossible. The amount of trading partners and all of their spells are random.

Yes, and I'm suggesting that maybe they should be treating it as a race so they benefit as much from trading as the player does.

If they did that the player would almost never get a chance to trade but more importantly they would also lose the game due to a massive spell disadvantage and it would break the game's pacing completely as well. AIs could even coordinate their research picking a different spell each then trade all of them, so 12 rare spells would only take 3 spells worth of research time for 4 wizards.

That said, the current, chance based system might not be ideal either. Dual realm wizards seem to be missing important uncommon spells a bit too often. Maybe we need something entirely different, that both allows the AI to consistently trade for new spells but also limits that activity in a way that maintains proper pacing. Like, giving them a quota of how many spells they can trade for at a give turn count? For example, turn 50 could allow trading for up to 3 commons and 1 uncommon, turn 100 could allow any number of commons but up to 3 uncommons and 1 rare, turn 150 could be 3 rares and 5 uncommons, turn 200 could be 1 very rare, 4 rares and any number of uncommons, and so on? And then the AI could consistently try to do trades every turn. Alternately, we could have an RP amount calculated from a formula based on turn and difficulty and only allow the AI to trade up to that much value total of spells. But where does wizard relation become part of this formula?

[MrBiscuits]

It has probably been mentioned earlier, but you could have no trade brokering where you can only trade spells that you have researched yourself.

[massone]

So basically, you are trying to say, just because you got your Invisibility spell from a trade for...what was it, Holy Arms?, it's a completely different scenario than if you traded your own Holy Arms for those 5 uncommon spells?

I think it's pretty different, because I never had the chance to trade Holy Arms for 5 Uncommon spells. Without brokering, I'd have only been able to get Invisibility and Altar of Peace/Summon Champion in exchange, and that's it. I suppose to a single realm player it might not be so different. I haven't tested any single-realm builds.

Yeah that would be nice but it's impossible. The amount of trading partners and all of their spells are random.

I'd agree if we were talking about the distribution of wizards with no shared realms. But that hasn't been the case. For whatever reason, it seems to me that it is now very difficult to trade even when there are plenty of trading partners with single realm shared. I commented before on how AI consistently demands a rarity tier higher, and while these may be intentional changes, I personally feel that it's gone too far in that direction. Essentially, my point is that if I meet 4 Wizards, who each share at least 4-5 books with in a single realm, there should be some trading options available. But there weren't. My tribute list to each of them was full. The trading list was either empty or they demanded a higher rarity tier, and they were selective about those too. There were Uncommons they refused to take for commons, and Rares they refused to take for Uncommons. Over the course of 10-20 turns, nothing changed. Even when spells became obsolete (common summons by the Rare stage, like nagas, as I mentioned before), they still refused to trade them in a fair deal. It seems extreme to me, but I'm happy to let other testers comment on whether they had similar experiences.

If they did that the player would almost never get a chance to trade but more importantly they would also lose the game due to a massive spell disadvantage and it would break the game's pacing completely as well. AIs could even coordinate their research picking a different spell each then trade all of them, so 12 rare spells would only take 3 spells worth of research time for 4 wizards.

That should only be possible if you program it that way. How can the AIs coordinate research if there's no programming to let them do that? They'll just pick research options the same way they used to. Also, my proposition would involve subject them to the same or equitably equivalent trade-value rules as the player. If they could more easily reach successful deals, then yes I agree the player would suffer a massive spell disadvantage.

That said, the current, chance based system might not be ideal either. Dual realm wizards seem to be missing important uncommon spells a bit too often. Maybe we need something entirely different, that both allows the AI to consistently trade for new spells but also limits that activity in a way that maintains proper pacing. Like, giving them a quota of how many spells they can trade for at a give turn count? For example, turn 50 could allow trading for up to 3 commons and 1 uncommon, turn 100 could allow any number of commons but up to 3 uncommons and 1 rare, turn 150 could be 3 rares and 5 uncommons, turn 200 could be 1 very rare, 4 rares and any number of uncommons, and so on? And then the AI could consistently try to do trades every turn. Alternately, we could have an RP amount calculated from a formula based on turn and difficulty and only allow the AI to trade up to that much value total of spells. But where does wizard relation become part of this formula?

Relation doesn't need to be part of it, in this version. Are you talking about just between AI to AI? If so, then that could work (it would be a equitably equivalent rule that limits trading to account for the different trade-values they offer to players vs AI). If you're talking about AI to player trading, then no. I don't want to limit trading even more for single-realm builds. It's already too hard. I can't trade even 1 common with 4 wizards by turn 50, this restriction would be entirely meaningless in that case.

If you don't want to distinguish between trading vs brokering, then I really don't see anyway to solve these problems without causing new ones.

It has probably been mentioned earlier, but you could have no trade brokering where you can only trade spells that you have researched yourself.

It's been proposed a long time ago. Personally, I think rather than a hard rule, it would be better for it to exist as a trade interest, relations penalty hit with the wizard you got the spell from, as I mentioned a few posts ago. It would feel more natural that way. If it's a hard rule, people will complain "why can't I trade a spell I have full knowledge of! It's mine already!" But if they get a message from the first wizard telling them afterwards "How dare you trade away my spell! If you're just going to spread my magic secrets to the whole world, I'll not share any more with you!" then it feels more reasonable, and they're able to violate it sometimes if they want to.