WFYABTA continued

[Kylearan]

Hi,

sorry for starting a new thread about the "We fear you are becoming too advanced" subject, but the forum software seemed to have hit a "We fear you are discussing too much" limit - I was unable to access Sirian's last reply to the old thread, both in "linear" and "threaded" display mode. All I got was the second last page, or a different reply. The only method I was able to read his reply was by clicking "post reply" and scroll down...


Emphasis on following quote are mine:

Perhaps it was merely an unfortunate coincidence. It might be that your score (or perhaps your tech lead) was raised by exactly the amount required to seal off further trading.

It might not be the AIs keeping track of what you traded, so much as they each make a decision based on your tech level, your score, and your trading history with them.

My frustration stems from the fact that I had hit the limit without having traded with the AI in question. He had given me nothing in that game, not a single beaker, no gold coin, nada. He wasn't annoyed either; relations were cautious (bonus from open borders and lasting peace; no malus).

I can live with a limit to prevent the player exploiting the system, but if the formula calculating it can result in "limit = 0 beakers" during the opening game for a particular civ I haven't traded with yet, then there's something wrong.

Is it AIs vs the player, ala Civ2? No.

Of course it's in no way comparable to Civ2, I grant you that. But for the trading part of the game, it feels similar. It looks like the AIs all share the same limit. It's modified individually for every AI by personal relationship and relative score and maybe some more, but the deciding factor (how much you have traded already) is AIs vs. the player. I make one trade to any of the AIs, and all other AIs react to it in the same (negative) way.

It's also another imbalance, in that the AIs can keep track of my trades with all other AIs while I cannot do the same with them. Either give me a log of their trades, or let them calculate the limit on an individual basis, so that my trades with civ A will only affect the limit with civ A, not the limit with civ B.

-Kylearan

[theGrimm]

I had the same problem, but it seems to have been fixed with the addition of my latest post

But in case people would prefer to continue here, I'll include the link to my last post, to save me retyping it:

http://www.realmsbeyond.net/forums/showt...1#post8911

[Kylearan]

This is an answer to theGrimm's post in the other thread. I could read it this time without any tricks but fear that any replies might become "invisible" to me again, so I decided to reply here.

Where was it that I saw that brilliant quote, "The plural of anecdote is not data"?

I love that quote, but it doesn't apply here. My single anecdote was something that should never occur in the game in my opinion, so one single occurence is enough to say something is wrong. It's like finding a bug in a program; you don't need to experience it a hundred times to see the need to remove it.

We expect an AI to make the optimal choice given the current situation [...] But we accept that Monty is nuts and plan accordingly.

No, I don't expect the AIs to make optimal choices all the time. First, I realize that won't be possible - the AIs will never be as good as the human, which I accept. Second, I like built-in suboptimal moves like Monty being nuts or Izzy being a religious fanatic, as this adds flavor to the game. Besides, in a complex game like this it's hard to say what moves are "optimal" anyway.

But it gets unfun if they overdo it. Imagine an AI personality which would declare war on you as soon as it meets you, in every game, and would only build warriors to send against you, even in AD times. That would be a non-optimal way of playing the game, but would it be fun? No.

The WFYABTA limit is similar. It has been introduced to prevent the player from exploiting the system, not to add flavor to the game. I know it won't ever be perfect. However, as it is now, it hurts the AI more than the it helps them against the human's tech whoring. If I play "the right way", I can still trade a lot. If I play a different way ("the wrong way"), I hit the unfun limit. And if the way the limit has been implemented leads to so many situations where the AIs hurt themselves more than the human, then it gets frustrating.


I accept the limit because I see the reasoning why they have included it into the game. But I have deep problems with the way they have implemented it. It's no fun. If I've never traded with an AI, and this AI suddenly decides it won't even start to trade with me because I've traded with a different AI already then this is deeply frustrating. And it gives me the "all AIs against the human player" feeling, which is highly unfun as well.

You say we should adapt and plan accordingly. Sure, I could do that - but that is not the point. The game, and especially the tech tree, has been advertised to be very flexible, to give the player a lot of options. Now I find out that a lot of options aren't really there if I want to avoid the WFYABTA limit. It all leads to a "one true way" to play the game. It takes away variety, which is essential for the replayability of a game.


To end this post with something constructive: Why do the AIs have no problems trading away aluminium during the space race? If I have already built at least one part of the space ship and the option to trade for aluminium would be redded out because "We don't want to help you building the spaceship", then I could accept this a lot easier than being unable to trade for Monarchy with a civ that hadn't traded with me before. It would have been a lot easier to program, too.

-Kylearan

[theGrimm]

I love that quote, but it doesn't apply here.

I don't necessarily agree.

My single anecdote was something that should never occur in the game in my opinion, so one single occurence is enough to say something is wrong. It's like finding a bug in a program; you don't need to experience it a hundred times to see the need to remove it.

Well, it will take a larger sample group than you and I to decide whether the occasional, rare burst of irrational behavious would be fun, and which kinds of irrational behaviour would be fun and which not. I wouldn't mind too much encountering your particular example, provided it was rare, and maybe backed up with the proper red-text "(I have been diagnosed with Extreme Possesiveness Syndrome)."

It could turn a game on it's head and make on where a win was clear into a challenge again.

But I realize that most gamers encounter enough irrational behaviour in real life, so I will concede this point to you

No, I don't expect the AIs to make optimal choices all the time.

My bad, I was over-generalizing. What I meant to say was that the AI's make optimal choices within the boundries they are set, which may include their personalities, the game situation and the code that governs them. Basically, we learn how they behave, and tend to counter with the learned behaviour in mind. For example, I've never been attacked early by an AI scouting warrior on monarch or below, even when I've left my city unguarded. So I will leave my city unguarded in favour of scouting at least for a while. Would you try this against a human? Would you try this if there was a 1 in 20 chance of an AI being a military psycho, mentally unstable or xenephobic?

In the context of a frustrating limitation on tech trading, I'll agree your example is not fun. I rather like the "tech assimilation" idea. In that it takes 5-10 turns for a tech you trade for to "become available" to your civ, and that you can't trade for new tech in that time (or maybe can only be assimilating two techs at a time, or something like that). It never made sense that a civ could be fielding swordsmen one turn, and building riflemen across the board next turn.

But I wouldn't mind seeing it happen occasionally in the context of better trading limitations.

[Atlas]

Why do the AIs have no problems trading away aluminium during the space race? If I have already built at least one part of the space ship and the option to trade for aluminium would be redded out because "We don't want to help you building the spaceship

This aspect of the end game is dubious, the AI should not be trading aluminium away to rivals, in my games (again anecdotale-not much to be done about that), the AI trade it away for a pittance (3 lux. resources).

As for WFYABTA, I don't think that I could say anything about that that has not already been said.

-Atlas

[Sirian]

Of course it's in no way comparable to Civ2, I grant you that. But for the trading part of the game, it feels similar.

This implementation is not the one I've chosen. I've stated that several times now. ... I would have gone with a much more restrictive solution. Tech trading is poison to the gameplay. It's like crack cocaine. It's bad for players in the long run even though many adore using it as much as possible.

Kylearan's complaint points directly to the heart of the problem. If not for the current method of restriction, the only right choice would be to beeline directly for Alphabet, use it to mop up all of the early game techs essentially for free, Civ3-style, and ride this wave to a dominant position.

What we have now instead is infinitely better. You still have the option to clean up on early tech with an early Alphabet rush. However, you will have to translate that advantage in to a commanding lead, perhaps by getting to key military techs faster and running over the opposition. I've seen Aeson do this in testing, so I know it can be a "valid choice". However, if you don't take advantage of the accelerated time period, and let the AIs catch back up to you (or get back ahead of you, or whatever, depending on your settings) then too freaking bad for you.

I've also said this many times, too: Tech Trading in Civ4 is like the singular long Golden Age of Civ3. It's a one-shot deal. You can ride it to victory if you play it well and maximize your capitalization upon the opportunities it affords you. (Civ3 golden ages during Despotism are very similar to Civ4 tech trading in the Classical Era!) Early tech trading can mean better opportunities for early warfare, early wonder building, or an accelerated economy. If you don't have a situation and a game plan to take advantage, then burning your golden age of tech trading too soon may not be to your advantage. If you wait, though, and climb too high in the score, you can also lose, by having them shut the doors on you sooner. You can get around the limits to some extent by having good friends among the AIs.

I'm not complaining to Soren about tech trading because I fear he might choose to loosen the reins and things will get worse. Kylearan complains of "only one right answer" for the current mechanism, but HELLO. THERE IS ALWAYS AND FOREVER GOING TO BE ONLY ONE RIGHT ANSWER WITH TECH TRADING, PERIOD. That is to get as much of that free **** in to your hands as possible.

No matter where the line is drawn on limiting tech trading, people are going to bitch about it. That's just the reality.

Civ3-style unlimited trade: people like me will bitch to high heaven and quit playing the game before long. (I quit Civ3 in January 2003, fifteen months after I started playing it. All I ever touched after that was wacky variants.)

Remove tech trading entirely: hordes of addicted Civ3 fans will complain.

Try to find the best middle ground available, which leaves tech trading in the game but limits its damage to a max of giving players a fourth of the tech tree for free: Kylearan will complain. And Arathorn. And many many more.

It's a no-win scenario, but considering the alternatives, the actual implementation that we have is better than 99.6% of the possible alternatives.


Complain away. Say your piece. Analyze to your heart's content. But don't expect a sympathetic ear from me, or even much interest. I'd put the screws on this thing even tighter if I could. What's left in there must be maximized, and that involves solving a puzzle, not devising strategy. Freebies on that massive scale have only one right answer: get as much as you can. That is true no matter where the line is drawn, so in that sense it DOES NOT MATTER WHERE WE DRAW THE LINE. It's the same mess in any case, so the solution was chosen that would try to give everybody some of what they want. I got enough game left over after the monster that is tech trading eats a quarter of it that the game is still worth playing to me. Tech traders got to keep some trading, and some options as to when to pull the trigger on that trading. That's all you can expect. Sorry if that disappoints anybody.


- Sirian

[Arathorn]

That is to get as much of that free **** in to your hands as possible.

No wonder you get tired of it. You get it for free. The rest of us pay, pretty significantly, to get our techs. Are you completely ignoring the outgoing price? Is the player paying a 5000 beaker tech to get a 3000 beaker tech FREE in your opinion? Sheesh.

Have you never played a game where trading is integral? Settlers of Catan? Or Civilization the board game (the one BEFORE the computer game, not the one after the computer game)? Or anything like that? Trading between A and B helps A and B vs. the other players in the game (if A and B are smart). The only way to justify not doing a mutually beneficial trade is if you view the game as a two-player game. If you see it as the human against ALL the AIs (the AIs are one player, a la Civ2 (no, it's not that bad, but it's leaning in that direction) and the human is one player). THEN, you can argue that a deal doesn't make sense. Of course, I'll disagree with your fundamental tenet, but at least I'll know where things stand.

If each individual AI "player" is trying to win, WFYABTA, as implemented, is completely non-sensical. About as non-sensical as trading aluminum with space enabled. Why do it? The AIs are programmed to not trade Rocketry (trying to win the game), which is fine. Trading a player the winning cards is almost never a smart move (to talk Settlers of Catan). Yet that seems to ruffle no feathers. And it's a heckuva lot "freer" for the player than trading away a tech.

I am really eagerly waiting for the SDK now. WFYABTA will be the first thing to go. But, rest assured, I'll replace it with something else. Friction on tech trading is good, I think we all agree. The implementation of it is important. But the current implementation is a game-killer for me. Seriously. WFYABTA is a strong enough reason to not play Civ4. It's so counterintuitive, so broken, and so stupid...I'm going to be limited to odd variants, until it can be removed. It's that unfun.

It's a no-win scenario, but considering the alternatives, the actual implementation that we have is better than 99.6% of the possible alternatives.

It may be a no-win, but the actual implementation that we have is WORSE than 99.6% of the possible alternatives, from my perspective.

What's bad?

It's completely artificial. It breaks the feel of the game. It breaks any hope of the player ever viewing the AI as an ally. It encourages meta-gaming. It forces one way of playing the game as best (no depth-first researching). It actively discourages forming teams. It highlights the additional information available to the AI (what trades the player has made with EVERYONE) which is not available to the player. It is deliberately sub-optimal play by the AI (why doesn't it get that "free" stuff, too?). It's 100% worse than NO tech trading would be. It's completely non-transparent. I honestly can't think of a single redeeming quality of this implementation.

Arathorn

[Sirian]

No wonder you get tired of it. You get it for free. The rest of us pay, pretty significantly, to get our techs.

Go ahead. Be a wiseacre. That doesn't change the situation. Tech trading is a positive-sum game. It's an unqualified loser for Civ. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can ruin the game faster.

The AI is an artificial construct. That's just the fact. If you want to play against thinking opponents, choose multiplayer.

The AI can be coded in only a limited number of ways.
1. It can be programmed to isolate the human.
2. It can be programmed to succumb to the human.
3. It can be programmed to treat human and AI exactly the same.

Civ3 showed us, once and for all, that #3 is the same as #2. That makes it a false choice, an illusion. The real options, therefore, are #1 and #2. If you understand this, then it's time to pick your poison. Do you want a sucker AI to fall at your feet and worship you? Or do you want a game?

If each individual AI "player" is trying to win...

They're not. That isn't their purpose.

AIs playing to win is a simple equation. Identify the biggest threat on the board and eliminate it. That's always the human. Anything less is being purposefully stupid. Anything less falls short of "playing to win".

The AIs aren't there to win. They're there to compete, provide adversity, measured adversity. On this basis, the rest of your argument is moot.

I am really eagerly waiting for the SDK now. WFYABTA will be the first thing to go. But, rest assured, I'll replace it with something else.

Your ideas so far sounded like a return to Civ3, to my ears. The SDK is there for folks to be able to mod the game the way they want it, though, so good luck finding a mix that will make you happy.

WFYABTA is a strong enough reason to not play Civ4. It's so counterintuitive, so broken, and so stupid...

You can turn off tech trading entirely. Why don't you avail yourself of that option?

You and I have been on good terms lately, but you are trigger-happy with your displeasure and scorn. Please find less abrasive ways to express your views, lest we stray back in to frictioned territory.

I honestly can't think of a single redeeming quality of this implementation.

It saves the game from ruin, creating a space in which all the other things we worked on get an opportunity to be experienced and enjoyed, instead of bulldozed by the tech trading steamroller.


- Sirian

[LKendter]

Personally I would rather have *no* tech trading then the current mess. I think that sums up my opinion pretty well.
Dealing with a counter-intuitive system of trading that you have no idea when it will shut down is broken. I especially find the message really crazy to understand. Until I was ready this thread all I kept saying is WTF?
Especially when the AI is 5 techs overall ahead of me and I research the missing gap to get that message.
I wonder how many players are scratching their head over this one.
I *agree* civ3 excessive tech traded need to go. I also agree with Arathorn that this method needs to go.


I have adjusted to most things outside of this, and the idiot governors that keep assigning unwanted specialists.

[Knupp715]

Originally Posted By LKendter
I have adjusted to most things outside of this, and the idiot governors that keep assigning unwanted specialists.

Finally, somebody that agrees with me. I must admit the governors do do a fairly good job when you emphasize commerce, emphasize ______, ect... but when you just want them to manage city tiles for a few turn, and have to check your city every turn (which you shouldn't have to do with the governors) to make sure they didn't make a unwanted specialists it relinquishes the purpose of the governor in the first place.

Hopefully, a no specialist option will be created in the patch. Of course this is entirely off-topic.

On Topic, My Two Cents:
I don't like the system they have now. I would prefer a new system be implimented (though I'm no programmer so don't ask me what) or just tech trading be taken out, which is already possible with the option you can turn on (no tech trading).

I like trading techs though as it is a part of the game that has grown on me (although not very realistic, hey England want to teach me chemistry if I teach you liberalism) and I think that instead of the AI as a whole saying WFYACTA, it should be each individual AI saying it.

But I have deep problems with the way they have implemented it. It's no fun. If I've never traded with an AI, and this AI suddenly decides it won't even start to trade with me because I've traded with a different AI already then this is deeply frustrating.

Kylearean said it best. (Edit: In my opinion)