A real reason why tech race looks like me vs World

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Arrian
One more thing. Despite my enthusiastic approval of this idea, we don't really know how it will effect the game. Therefore, clearly, it requires playtesting. Full-length in game playtesting. Sorry, but I felt compelled to state the obvious.

-Arrian

Playtesting??

I think Firaxis relies on US to do that - at $49.95 a pop.

[chiefpaco]

Cool ideas presented on the thread here. Here's my opinion.

I think tech devaluation (TD, for short) is necessary to keep the game balanced. Let's say gold TD is taken out. Then, I assume, the price of the tech costs the same amount as the beakers for it. Say 500 for my example. Consider this scenario (with made up numbers for ease of argument):

Case I
Civ A discovers Magnetism worth 500 Gold. Civ A on that turn sells it to 7 civs. Net profit: 3000.

Civ A just made way too much money. Now Civ A can reapply their research effort 6 times for the next advance. I think this would make the tech race a 1 player deal, which would favour the human since they would know best how to get this.

Case II
Civ A sells Magnetism to Civ B. Civ B sells it to Civ C. Now Civ B ended up losing nothing at all for the buy & sell. Even worse, had Civ B sold it to 6 more civs, it would gain a 3000 profit (same profit as A had!). In the turn-based game, the 1st civ has too many cards.

The current harsh devaluation formula seems necessary for game balance, IMHO.

Similar problems result in the case of a higher floor:

Case III
Civ A seels Magnetism to Civ B, C, D. Assume the floor has been hit. Civ D sells to E, F, and G. Civ D just doubled their gold. Again, I think this throws things off balance.

Alright, so what do I propose? I'm afraid my view is subjective, & only as the result of observations, but here goes:

I think the problem is the trading, not the TD. That's what changed in 1.17f. Not the TD. It seems the AI doesn't have up & down relationships any more because of constant trading. Thus, I've seen few wars & many many trades. I think that is what makes it look like me vs. World.

How big of a problem is it?
Well, I like the fact that on a higher level, I have to beat a number of opponents who are working together. I'd probably keep the system, at least as an option for experienced players who want more of a challenge.

What else was I thinking?
Something sits funny with me, but goes against my points raised above. That is, it seems tech ought to be more expensive than what it costs to research it yourself. What you're buying, along with the tech, is saving yourself "time" as well. There doesn't seem to be any value in the time you'd save from buying it to just researching it yourself. Hmm.

One more thing. Whatever change results, I'd prefer all the civs to be at the same tech over getting those half-era leads. I think we can't go back to tech research being so dominating & exploitable. This makes the game to unbalanced for the player. However, right now, 0gpt researching seems too exploitable. Hmmm. Trading on our turn was frustrating, but at least it took some (but not all) the cards out of your hand.

Sorry, I haven't thought more on solutions yet, but I'll try...

[Aeson]

I think a good solution would be to increase the cost of techs by difficulty level. Tech moved too slowly on lower difficulties, and now moves way too fast on Deity. I don't mind the player vs the world mentality, it's how I've always played the Civ games anyways. I just want to have an Ancient Era, Middle Ages, and Industrial Era in my games. As it is now, Deity is late Industrial/Modern only.

[Dominae]

chiefpaco, you've raised some interesting issues concerning a civ's turn number and their advantages in a tech race. It certainly seems obvious that if Player A discovers a tech first they'll get offly rich. However, I do think there are serious flaws with your examples.

---

Case 1: Player A discover some tech. Sells it to B, C, D, E...
Problem: Player A gets very rich very fast.

Yes, at 1000 Gold a tech this Player A gets very rich almost instantly. I see nothing wrong with this. The flaw here is that you're considering this example in a vacuum. What happens when Player B discovers their own tech? Player A will have to dish out Gold just like everyone else. The same with Player C, D, E, etc. So A appears to get rich off of everyone else, but there's a big tech circle here so no one is getting really rich (and even if they are, they're doing research and selling techs, which is good). Furthermore, who 'Player A' is depends on a whole slew of factors (number of Libraries, Tax rate, Government type, etc.); a good strategy is to try and position yourself in first place, but that's the reason it's called a Tech race. Given that other civs can always do their own research (and this is always cheaper than buying techs), it seems improbable that Player A is guaranteed to hold his or her coveted position.

Case 2: A sells to B, C, D, etc. B sells to C, D, E, etc.
Problem: Player B has obtained a tech for virtually nothing.

Maybe I don't understand your example, but why would Player C buy Magnetism from both Player A and Player B? If it goes "A sells to B, B sells to C, etc.", why didn't A sell to C in the first place (in which case we're back to Case 1)? Anyway, if B manages to pull this off, good for him/her! This is one of the reasons to withhold Communications, no?

Case 3: A sells to B, C. C sells to D, E.
Problem: C doubled his or her Gold.

Again, why didn't A sell to B through E in the first place? If there are two trading camps ABC and CDE, C should be advantaged. This has nothing to do with devaluation.

---

So I think my idea is still valid. I must point out that I was trying to solve the problem of never doing your own Research on higher levels, which is disctinct from the problem of "Me against the World" (the topic of this thread). Personally, I agree with Aeson in thinking that, if you're playing on the higher levels, you should expect to be fighting against the world. That's just one way making these levels difficult.

Arrian, I of course agree with you that this idea needs testing. I'm just defending it here because 1) it's simple and 2) it would bring the game back toward a Civ I enjoy playing (I HATE the idea of not doing my own research until the end of the Industrial Age).


Dominae

[Sirian]

Upon further reflection, while I still have problems with the tech devaluation, I've come to the opinion that the BROKEN element here is the fact that you can always always always BUY tech for HALF the coins as you can research it for yourself with beakers.

This means doing your own tech research is ALWAYS unwise unless you find yourself in a situation where you need a tech and aren't going to have any chance to buy it any time soon (beginning of the game, mainly, or if at war with a lot of civs, or at a place where you are ready to break out and take and hold the lead the rest of the game).

Because from what I can see, the tech davaluation IS even across both research and trade. That is, when the cost drops by half to research, it also drops by half to buy. Yet it ALWAYS costs much less to buy than to research for yourself.

Now maybe at the lower difficulty levels this serves a function as a "hidden extra difficulty factor" to keep players from outperforming the AI's commandingly. At the higher levels, the wise player just gives up on the tech race and rides the coattails of the AI's, buttering them up, buying the techs at the cheapest rate until they are ready and able to make a move.

I don't know about others, but I find this "one best way" to be so commandingly OUT OF BALANCE that it's equivalent to the old poprush loophole or the bombard bug: it's an option so "good", there's stops being any other way to play the game.

Rather than SLOW tech whoring, this patch has gone the exact opposite direction, forcing even stubborn players like me to cave in and admit, it's just not worth doing research. The tech trade game is the only game in town.

If the tech devaluation were left in place, but the COST to buy in gold were made equal to the cost to research in beakers, then it would still make some sense to ride coattails on higher difficulty, but at least there would be SOME purpose to building libraries and universities, instead of only markets and banks.

This facet of the game definitely needs more attention. Might be any number of solutions, but the current implementation leads the player down one easy path, and every game plays the same. That can't be what they intended? Can it?


- Sirian

[Dominae]

I was under the impression that the purchase cost of techs (in Gold) was already twice the research cost (in Beakers). Could someone clarify this?


Dominae

[alexman]

Originally posted by Dominae
I was under the impression that the purchase cost of techs (in Gold) was already twice the research cost (in Beakers). Could someone clarify this?

Dominae

Are you perhaps refering to the 100% total increase in science from libraries and universities? If so, then the cost in gold is twice that of the cost in beakers only if you have those science improvements in all of your cities, and you don't have any marketplaces or banks.

[chiefpaco]

Dominae. I respect your theory very much, which is why I'd like to try to make sure it can work. It's far easier to criticize than to theorize, so you can take this however you like.

I don't think you got the gist of all my cases there, but I think my argument can simplify to one general case.

- Selling tech at full price every time could be too dominating while the AI can not judge its overall financial situation.

Right now, I think the TD by gold is there to (also) close some cases where AIs will not bankrupt themselves over tech. Without it, I think games could gravitate to a single "tech leader" and in most cases, that would be the player.

So, I'd like to ensure that civs check on the cost of the purchase vs. researching. That way, by the time you want to trade it to Civ E or F, they will say, "500 gold? No way, we can research it ourselves in 3 more turns! Go away!" If this is already in, then it could work well.

Could there still be cases where the Player can target specific civs to bankrupt?

I think I'd still like to see a stiffer penalty for the relations between all civs. Might make for more of an "Us vs. them" approach rather than "Me vs. World". Eliminating tech trading between Furious and possibly Annoyed civs could help. After all, it might be realistic to not give key techs to suspicious civs that could become your enemy. After you start dealing luxuries & others, you can start sharing tech. However, the AI civs seem to trade amongst each other so much, it could be difficult to break the "Me vs. World".

[Dominae]

chiefpaco, I think we're agreeing more than we're disagreeing.

The point of the little solution I proposed is to eliminate the effect of never doing any research on higher levels because it's just easier to buy techs once they devaluate. If you've never seen this in action, start an Emperor game, slide your Luxuries and Science down to 0%, and check out how easy it is to catch up with Gold alone. I just thought that if the Gold cost of any tech far outweighs the Beaker cost, then it wouldn't be worth it to buy techs all the time. The simplest way to do this (I think), is to make the Gold cost of techs devaluate slower than the Beaker cost.

Whether or not the current AI can adapt to this new system is another matter. Not doubt, it's important, as you've pointed out. If the AI always prefers buying techs to researching, they could easily ruin themselves if techs suddenly cost a lot. But I think the reworking of the AI to go along with the new devaluation system wouldn't be as hard as it seems. First, the AI already loves doing research, on any level (and is good at it too); it's the human players that have discovered that it's better to buy than research (in a sense, we're the problem). Second, it's pretty easy (I think) to "teach" the AI when to buy and when to research (roughly), under any system. Making the Gold cost of techs devaluate slower would make this estimation even easier ("Replaceable Parts costs 1400 Gold today, and it'll probably cost around 1400 Gold some turns from now, so...").

I apologize if I appeared to "attack" your post. Like you, I prefer constructive ideas, and you definitely appear to have some to share.


Dominae

[Arrian]

It is important to balance this so that the AI will not bankrupt themselves buying tech. This was part of the problem with the game pre-1.16. You could just sell old tech to the AI for gold/turn, thus ruining their research rates and surging further ahead. 1.16 tried the "oops, we traded on your turn" thing, which most people disliked, and 1.17 tried the "aggressive AI tech trading" thing, which again most people dislike.

Now, what was wrong with the system in the first place? It was the AI's willingness to buy and/or sell tech no matter what, so long as the price was right. The human could tech whore (or even "Pope" - buy from one, sell to everyone else) and suck the AI dry with per turn deals. That's an issue.

I like the idea that "furious" civs should not trade tech. Makes sense, encourages making an effort to have good relations.

Making the tech more expensive to buy won't stop the AI from buying and selling it. A change to the AI's decision-making is needed as well.

-Arrian

[chiefpaco]

Originally posted by Dominae
I was under the impression that the purchase cost of techs (in Gold) was already twice the research cost (in Beakers). Could someone clarify this?


Dominae

I think korn469's post earlier on the cost of buying tech sort of answers your Q. Gold cost seemed to be a fraction of beaker cost.

The only thing I'm not sure about in the post was the tech cost and the tech rate. I thought the 2 multiplied each other, in which case, the total beaker cost of the techs would be 1000? This would make the gold trades even more ridiculous. However, I'm not sure of that factor.

And yes, all the 1.17f games I've played, I've gone 0% science throughout the game.

[punkbass2000]

Just a quick comment and an not-yet-completely-thought-out idea

First, though I like the idea of not being able to trade tecgs with furious civs, I don't think this will solve many problems with the 0% science strategy because if that's what you're doing then you're probably a) not going to war much, especially with advanced civs and b) having good relations with all the advanced civs due to your constant trading with them.

And a preliminary idea, that hopefully others will be able to manipulate into a real solution. My idea is to completely disassociate coin and beaker, not in trade, but in acquisition. Presume your city at the moment produces one commerce. With this change, your city now produces one beaker. Perhaps your next 'commerce' is also a beaker. Maybe the next one is a coin. Essentially, you lose the beaker slider, as coin and beaker totals are now absolute, and not related to each other, so now you are forced to do some research and collect some money, eliminating both the 'science king' and '0% science' strategies. You would still be able to sell a new found tech, but doing so would not drastically affect your ability research more tech. The only connection between the two would be indirect, in that the money could be used to pay for maintenance on even more scientific improvements, or to buy new improvements altogether.

Criticisms:
1. Overhaul of main game dynamic - This slider has been part of civ since the beginning, removing it altogether would greatly affect gameplay and strategy.

2. Luxury problems - What to do with them? There are a few possibilities: keep the slider, so you can still take luxuries out of your income; allow you to take luxuries out of science or gold, though you'd have to be able to keep track of which luxuries came from which; use the same system that I've proposed for coin and and beakers; eliminate luxuries altogether and have people less likely to become unhappy or place more weight on luxury resources, though this would again be completely reworking a major game dynamic.

3. Determination of coin and beaker - How would the game decide where to put coins and where to put beakers? Would it be one or the other anywhere there is commerce now, determined randomly? Or, perhaps, each associated with different terrain types (ie. grasslands have beakers, plains have coins, etc.)

4. Overall fun factor - It simply might be annoying and not fun to no longer have the slider. This kind of ties into to criticism one.

As mentioned earlier, I am hoping this will idea will be mutated, so if you have comments that would help with my own criticisms in order to make this a viable solution, or outright problems and criticisms indicating why this could never be a viable solution, please share.

Thanks

[Dominae]

punkbass2000, you're idea would (I think) eliminate some of the problems discussed on this thread. However, you pointed out yourself that this requires an overhaul of a main game dynamic. This is the sort of stuff Sid would have to be consulted on, I think. A good idea, but certainly not for Civ3 (I can't imagine them implementing it for a patch...).


Dominae

[korn469]

punkbass2000

hmmm, i'm not exactly sure how it would work, but are you saying that a tile for example would provide 2 food 1 shield, 1 gold and 1 science?

i think the biggest problem with that is it takes away a player's strategic choices which is a bad thing, the more interesting choices a player has to make the better

but i could see it working if the game was built from scratch with this in mind and had a variety of tile improvements, but i don't think that civ3 could handle it

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Dominae
punkbass2000, you're idea would (I think) eliminate some of the problems discussed on this thread. However, you pointed out yourself that this requires an overhaul of a main game dynamic. This is the sort of stuff Sid would have to be consulted on, I think. A good idea, but certainly not for Civ3 (I can't imagine them implementing it for a patch...).


Dominae

True. What I'm really looking for, I guess, is means to prevent a no research or no tax strategy. For one thing, I think this is highly unrealistic. Were there ever any civilizations that made absolutely no technological advances? Could you even call them a civilization if they didn't? I like the tech-leaking idea too, myself. Some have pointed out a problem with possible unfair leakage, but I would say that this really wouldn't be too different than culture flipping. I wonder if you could even have factors as to which civs were more likely to get it (ie. you're more likely to get a tech from a civ if you have an embassy with them, etc.) Also, I think warfare should yield techs from conquered cities like it used to, at least in ancient warfare. At the Nile River and Fertile Crescent (the 'Cradle' of civilization), most technology was spread by one civ conquering another.