thongor thongor

Trading weirdness -- a little more documentation

▼

Trading weirdness -- a little more documentation

from Stardock Forums
At Frogboy's prompting, I did a little more testing on the diplomacy. Here are the parameters of the game:

Tiny map, Habitable planets rare, all AI players set to Intelligent. Gametime is March, 2179 (turn 15)

In particular, I wanted to find the AI as soon as possible and try to eliminate the variable of rush-building colony ships.

I researched Comm Theory and Universal Translator and tried to time it with my first AI encounter. I encountered the Torians and planted my colony ship near their homeworld. They have one planet and I have two. They have apparently stumbled across a Battle Axe.

In addition, they have clearly been accelerating their research (which is good to know) because they already know Defense Theory, Medical Theory, Propulsion Theory and Weapons Theory. So that means they completed research on 4 techs in 15 turns. That's not hard to do, but they only have 307 BC left, so I'm guessing that they also rush-bought Soil Enrichment.

I chose to pursue a conservative strategy so that I would still have plenty a BC to test the trade AI.

The screen shot shows me offering a cash-for-cash deal, with the Torians turning down my offer of 525 BC for their 307 BC. Even though my "incredible ability in diplomacy gives me a great advantage", I am nevertheless unable to convince them to take an easy and free profit of 218 BC. It just doesn't seem like a very good deal for them. LOL

And since the Torians also had four techs I was missing, I tried trading for them. Here are the deals that the AI considered to be even:

Comm Theory = Weapon Theory + 39 BC
Comm Theory = Propulsion Theory + 39 BC
Comm Theory + 31 BC = Medical Theory
Comm Theory + 745 BC = Defense Theory LOL

So obviously when I criticized the trade AI in an earlier post, I mistakenly assumed that the overvaluation of Defense Theory was representative of the other deals. Instead, it seems that I randomly latched onto the worst possible example. The other trades seem to be pretty reasonable.

So, at this point, it seems like there are still two notable problems. One is the obviously exaggerated valuation of Defense Theory.

Secondly is the clear imbalance in favor of the AI on deals where even the variability of tech evaluations is eliminated.

For my 63 influence points, they will only give 4.
For my 100 BC, they will only give 55.
For my 20 BC, they will give 10 influence points.
But for my 63 influence points, they will only give 3 BC.

And keep in mind that these deals are what I would get when my diplomacy supposedly gives me a GREAT ADVANTAGE. :notsure:

Now it could be that the trading weirdness is restricted to BC, influence and Defense Theory. But the point is that it looks very suspicious.

I take Brad at his word when he says that the AI (at Intelligent level) will play by the same rules as the human with a few documented exceptions. And that is really what this is about. If Brad intends for the trading AI to be an uneven playing field against the humans, then that's OK with me. But if his intent is for the AI and player to use the same rules when trading, then this looks like a bug. And that is the purpose of this post: to point out a potential bug. :(

If anyone thinks this is all just different tech valuations, I am confident that I could get about a 4-tech lead over the AI in 15 turns and see if he offers me the same deals that he insists on from me.
915 views 41 replies
Reply #26 from Stardock Forums Top
I think this is because diplomacy is one of the most exploitable things.

1) Then you use diplomacy, you gain instant advantage, compared to almost any other action. If you can gain even slight advantage, you can repeat it as many times you want and gain HUGE INSTANT advantage.

2) There are 2 options:
a) you make trade with all opponents
b) comp makes trade with all opponents

In any case, someone gains big advantage, and other side is forced to do the same. This is not a good thing, because, say, you can't outresearch ~5 opponents in 'fair' competition. And not all players want to trade. So, there are 3 results - 'diplomacy is too efficient' or 'you almost can't win without diplomacy' or both.

So noone can make 'balanced' diplomacy - because it's imbalanced in one way or another for different players.

~SDC~
SoundPackager - Customize the Windows sound scheme
Reply #28 from Stardock Forums Top
waright,
I am not worried about being "shot down". It's not like I'm fabricating this stuff; I'm just reporting stuff that looks weird.

The cash-for-cash and influence-for-influence imbalances are very trivial to fix... simply prevent the player from selecting one if it is already "on the table" on the other side.

Besides, those imbalances do not affect the game because no one is going to make those deals - so fixing that is not a big deal. My concern is that those imbalances are an indication that the overall trading AI is tilted against the player.

However, asharek has a good point in that the playing field may *always* be tilted against the requesting civ, whether it is human or AI. If that's the case, then everything is still fair.

It should be easy enough to verify. Since the ballgame is on radio and not TV tonight, I get to multitask at the PC :)
Reply #29 from Stardock Forums Top
Horatio,

"Milking" weak opponents dry is a separate problem, I think. What I consider to be the main issue is the fact that the AI doesn't treat (otherwise equal) trades it initiates in a consistent way with trades a human player initiates. Witness the example I gave above as well as the fact that the AI refuses trades that are obviously to its benefit (The cash-for-cash and influence-for-influence examples already given).

I believe the cash-for-cash problem also affects trading techs and other things. I don't think this problem is a huge issue that has a significant impact on the game - but I do feel it is a valid issue and I'm glad it's been brought up and is being discussed.
Reply #30 from Stardock Forums Top
Ellestar,

"Then you use diplomacy, you gain instant advantage, compared to almost any other action. If you can gain even slight advantage, you can repeat it as many times you want and gain HUGE INSTANT advantage. "

I agree. This is a simple diplomacy exploit in most 4X games I've ever played. But there are ways to address it without automatically making the AI an "obstructive prick".

I think there are more options than the two you suggest:

-- Restrict the number of trades per turn.
-- Make it impossible or exceedingly difficult to sell techs without some form of diplomatic agreement. (do you see countries sharing techs in the real world with non-allies?)
-- decrease the trade value of techs as they are spread to more civs; a "monopoly to commodity" concept.
Reply #31 from Stardock Forums Top
thongor,

good work on documenting the discepencies in the cash/influence/tech trading. IMHO as far as the cash trades go I believe that frogboy posted at some point that it was broken, and it may not be fixed yet. Also in my mind this is how I think the trade agorithm works

Human: * * * * ] - [ * ]

Using this model it seems to make sense that even if your diplomacy is high that if your military is weak, or you suffer to much of an alignment difference the AI won't accept some reasonable trades.

As far as the "incredible diplomatic advantage" that may just be figured as your current diplomatic rating not your rating minus their AI diplomating rating.

It would be nice to find a way to test alignment and military advantage and how they affect trades.
Reply #32 from Stardock Forums Top
thongor,

good work on documenting the discepencies in the cash/influence/tech trading. IMHO as far as the cash trades go I believe that frogboy posted at some point that it was broken, and it may not be fixed yet. Also in my mind this is how I think the trade agorithm works

Human: " * * * * ] - [ * ]"

Using this model it seems to make sense that even if your diplomacy is high that if your military is weak, or you suffer to much of an alignment difference the AI won't accept some reasonable trades.

As far as the "incredible diplomatic advantage" that may just be figured as your current diplomatic rating not your rating minus their AI diplomating rating.

It would be nice to find a way to test alignment and military advantage and how they affect trades.
Reply #33 from Stardock Forums Top
Model

Human: diplomacy advantage * traded item value * military advantage <= AI: (diplomacy advantage * traded item value * military advantage) - (alignment difference * human influence rating)


Reply #34 from Stardock Forums Top
note to self: galciv forum doesn't allow posting of mathematical formulas. :)
Reply #35 from Stardock Forums Top
"-- Make it impossible or exceedingly difficult to sell techs without some form of diplomatic agreement. (do you see countries sharing techs in the real world with non-allies?)"

I like this possibility.
Certainly being able to trade with a race you were at war with was rather questionable.
But of course it requires more diplomatic relation options a la MOO, with non-agression, or similar... or a la Civ it would require an embassy on their planet.

Limiting the number of trades per turn is interesting as well. Would have to be play-tested to see if it is workable or unbalanced in some way.
Reply #36 from Stardock Forums Top
"Limiting the number of trades per turn is interesting as well. Would have to be play-tested to see if it is workable or unbalanced in some way. "

The benefit of this approach is that your choice of trading partner is even more critical as opposed to simply spamming techs to every civ to maximize your income. At least that particular exploit would be thwarted. ;)
Reply #37 from Stardock Forums Top
I don't know how effective limiting trades per turn would be. I'd simply spread my "spam tech" trades out over several turns instead of doing them all at once.

Or how about this idea: You can only trade tech/planets/ships/trade goods with civs you have a trade route with. (regardless of who initiated it.)

Money and influence would be tradeable always.
Reply #38 from Stardock Forums Top
I don't think you're trolling at all. The arguments you're making seem reasonable, and I don't think are the least bit disrespectful. I think the fact that this game's AI doesn't get any advantages over the humans is an impressive claim. From what I've read, it sounds like your interest is to understanded it, not discrediting it.

(Frankly, I think the guy who called you a troll, is actually trolling himself. Your comments seemed thoughtful, while his seemed so sudden off-base, that I can't help but thing that he's trying to pull this thread unneccessarily into a flame fest.)

~SDC~
Reply #39 from Stardock Forums Top
"I don't know how effective limiting trades per turn would be. I'd simply spread my "spam tech" trades out over several turns instead of doing them all at once."

Of course. But when you hit "turn", the AI will have the opportunity to trade it as well. Therefore you might only get one more chance to trade it, depending on the actions of the AI.
Reply #40 from Stardock Forums Top
Even if the AI treats other AI's different to the human in trading it's still "playing by the same rules".

There's no rule in the game that says you have to trade equally with all the other civs, why should the AI be bound by it?
Reply #41 from Stardock Forums Top
OneInTen,

so if the AIs all shared their techs freely and constantly allied against you every game, that would be OK with you? After all, they would technically be "playing by the same rules" since human players could technically do that as well.

That way, the AI would be unbeatable without ever cheating! :p