New and different complaints. ^_^

[Zachriel]

Re: Re: New and different complaints. ^_^

Originally posted by Tarquelne
Firaxis TO DO list for Mar 26, 2002:

But what will they do tomorrow?!

[Tarquelne]

Re: Re: Re: New and different complaints. ^_^

Originally posted by SpencerH
What does that mean?

If the AIs in K.s games are asking 10000 gold+3 techs for Rep. (and Rep. is "useless") when Flight is near, or only going down to 9990 from 10000 in negotation, and K. seems to imply things like that happen regularly. K. must be using an old, pre-public release version of the game. Firaxis should replace those at no cost to the consumer.

[SpencerH]

Re: Re: Re: Re: New and different complaints. ^_^

Originally posted by Tarquelne

If the AIs in K.s games are asking 10000 gold+3 techs for Rep. (and Rep. is "useless") when Flight is near, or only going down to 9990 from 10000 in negotation, and K. seems to imply things like that happen regularly. K. must be using an old, pre-public release version of the game. Firaxis should replace those at no cost to the consumer.

Thanks. Now what would the implications of that be I wonder?

[Thrawn05]

Re: Re: Re: New and different complaints. ^_^

Originally posted by Zachriel


But what will they do tomorrow?!

Like always.

[The Thinker]

Re: Re: New and different complaints. ^_^

Originally posted by Tarquelne
Make all trades 1 for 1, regardless of relative civ strengths, relationship, or the value of the items being traded.

This seems far too far in the other dirrection. I am rich and they are small, I don't mind paying extra for a luxury because I can afford it, say one luxury and a tech, or one luxury and 10 gold per turn. I guess I'm saying there should be a top amount, say 120% of an items value. It would be a smart thing to do, because at current prices it's easier to build 20 tanks. If I get an ally I can kill a Civ just because it overcharged,

Make the computer players less likely to trade with human, more likely to trade with each other.

What I'd really like to see is the AI treat the human player the same as another AI. Instead the AI will trade tech to each other for effectively 0 gold.

Rik

[Kenjura]

Thanks for the lovely to-do list.
I wish I had the capacity to post complete garbage. I only post criticism if there's at least a chance for it to be constructive. Criticising other people's criticism isn't going to improve civ3, nor will it stop them.


On another note, just what am I doing wrong? A strong human gets *good* offers from weak AI? Do I have to play Chieftain or Deity to get that? No, the only deals I get are 95% world map for world map, and 5% I give them some great new tech for some crappy old one that I've refused 20 times and could research myself in 4 turns if I wanted it.

There is the very core of my argument.

[Pius Popprasch]

I get 2 Luxuries for one, on Emperor. Not every offer is good, though. If you'd play against me you'd complain probably even more. About my unfair attacks and trade offers.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Pius Popprasch
I get 2 Luxuries for one, on Emperor. Not every offer is good, though. If you'd play against me you'd complain probably even more. About my unfair attacks and trade offers.

I'm tired of explaining why 1 for 1 trades aren't always fair, but you bring up another excellent point - if humans wouldn't do it, why should the AI?

I wish I could offer you unfair trade offers & unfair counter-attacks too. And we could be really unfair to Kenjura. So... when is that multiplayer + script & complete editor patch suppose to be released.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Pius Popprasch
I get 2 Luxuries for one, on Emperor. Not every offer is good, though. If you'd play against me you'd complain probably even more. About my unfair attacks and trade offers.

Of course! I usually play Monarch, but I still get great deals sometimes. It all "depends."

Keep in mind that at the higher levels your money is being devalued by the markets, like Argentina's peso. This choice of devaluation is a player choice at the start of the game.

[Tarquelne]

Originally posted by Kenjura
I only post criticism if there's at least a chance for it to be constructive.
Criticising other people's criticism isn't going to improve civ3, nor will it stop them.

The TO DO list seemed better (easier, more fun, probably just as effective) than posting "I think your utterly wrong, here's why...." Sorry if you thought I was merely trying to criticize-without-construction, but I do think that each response does point out the problem with your complaint. You're supposed to realize, for example, that there are reasons why the AI offers "unfair" deals.

The point of criticizing suggestions/complaints I don't agree with is - if the complainer is not going to be "stopped" (are you saying that you will _never_ change your mind, no matter what?) - to try to show others - esp. Firaxis - that a change doesn't need to be made. If people make what I think are bad suggestions and complaints based on misconceptions, I'm going to argue against them. I just think that's better than threads that simply stack on complaint upon the other.

[steelehc]

There's a difference between an "unfair" deal, and 10000 gold for republic. Thats just ****1ng ridicioulous. I agree that some of the "new and different complaints" are nothing new or insightful, but this one is.

Steele