A real reason why tech race looks like me vs World

[player1]

It's a tech devalvation.
Tech value depends from % of known civs wich have it.

So if you have tech that nodbody has, it will have for ex. 100 gold value.
After you sell it to one guy it will be worth less (for ex. 70gp)
After you give it to third, 4th etc.. vaule will be much lower.

It's not only a vaule, it's also a research cost.

So that's the main reason (exept of bonuses on higher levels) why tech lead is diffcult to achieve. Mechanic is same form first patch. It's just that AI now KNOWS to use it.

Now falling behind in tech is also diffcult, since all known tech become so cheap to research (or buy). If it happens (falling behind), that's probably since you are playing on higher diffculty where AI get bonuses.



Ways to fix this:
There is only one real solution. Lower tech devalvation. That way tech won't become cheap, so not all AIs will be capable of buying it.
Unfortunately it can't be done in Editor so we'll need to wait for Firaxis for some solution.

Tech devalvation == Tech leader vs World

Which doesn't need to be bad thing. Still it shuld be lowered a little.

[korn469]

Ways to fix this:
There is only one real solution. Lower tech devalvation. That way tech won't become cheap, so not all AIs will be capable of buying it.
Unfortunately it can't be done in Editor so we'll need to wait for Firaxis for some solution

the only thing is that if they set the devaluation level too high then the human will again the only one to take advantage of tech whoring

back in SMAC in the quickest transcend thread, i pioneered using tiny maps and then subjugating all of the other factions then basically the human coordinates everyone's research so that a transcend victory (comparable to the space ship victory in civ) would take less than than 80 turns, i think zsozso did it in under 70 turns

basically the AI automatically coordinates research with itself in Civ3, as soon as one civ gets a technology it sells it to the civ with the most money, then as the tech devalues the sell it for less and less, and even if the first civ doesn't sell it one of the others will unless a civ is either human or just broke, but the human will sell the tech to all other civs if it can get a decent amount from one or two of the civs, because they know it's better to get a little from the AI rather than to let the other AIs sell them tech

this means that if a civ gets isolated, while all of the other civs are close enough to get contact, then those civs can make it to the industrial age before the isolated civ even makes it out of the ancient era, while this is quite realistic, it doesn't make for good play balance

with the current civ tech system, if there was multiplayer in the game, then on a standard map with 8 players playing a coordinate game trying for an early space ship victory, the optional number of techs might approach 8 tech per 4 turns

what doesn't add up is that you can't research a tech faster than 4 turns per tech, but you can easily end up trading for like 4 techs in a turn

in the normal game on up to at least monarch, if you manage to get one high level tech first (republic and monarchy are two good techs to do this with), even if you are fairly far behind in tech, as long as you have contact with the other civs you can trade that for basically everything you lack by trading it for their most valuable techs when your tech is worth alot and trading for their less costly techs as it devalues, there is something highly wrong with that

here is what i'm thinking, how the AI values a tech, for both buying and selling should be more heavily dependent upon relations, and the AI should have relations with each other

for example if the greeks and the romans were in a military alliance against persia, greece and they have polite relations (or whatever is best i don't exactly remember right now) then maybe let the relationship be 1:1 that the greeks would sell the tech at the same price they would buy it for, however if they are furious at the germans (although still at peace) then maybe the ration should be like .25:3 meaning that they would only pay 25% of normal and that they would sell it for 3 times their normal rate

additionally, there should be a "lets keep this a secret option" where BOTH sides promise not to sell or trade the tech for 20 turns, or it will trigger a war, or other really bad diplomatic reaction

this would protech each side from abuses by the other, i mean why should the romans not be allowed to sell a tech they purchased from the greek to the germans because of an agreement if the greeks could wait a few turns for the german treasury to build up since they know the romans can't sell it

this could also work to make the game better

i dunno something needs to be done, but i'm not sure what exactly, though i think those two things would help

[solo]

I certainly agree with korn that relations should figure somehow into how much an AI will charge or have to pay for a tech.

In my first post-patch game, I gave Germany about 6 techs for free in order to trade for its scientific freebie by facilitating his entry into the Modern Age. When I asked what Germany wanted for Rocketry, he wanted an exorbitant amount because no one else had that tech yet. My tech gifts and peaceful relations should have knocked a lot off the asking price.

[Arrian]

Player1,

Yeah, I reached the same conclusion (after Soren explained the mechanic in the "1.17 and AI vs. AI tech 'trading'" thread), that tech devaluation is the main problem. I suggested a "floor" for the value of techs. Basically, there should be devaluation, but only to an extent. It's tough to balance, I think, but one thing I know is that Fission should never, EVER, be "worth" 1 gold (actual offer I received from the English, who had 600 gold kicking around, and would be "insulted" by 2 gold). It just needs tweaking, and so does the overall tech progress rate on the higher levels (hitting industrial times in 1000AD on Monarch is a tad too fast).

-Arrian

[Soren Johnson]

Originally posted by Arrian
Player1,

Yeah, I reached the same conclusion (after Soren explained the mechanic in the "1.17 and AI vs. AI tech 'trading'" thread), that tech devaluation is the main problem. I suggested a "floor" for the value of techs. Basically, there should be devaluation, but only to an extent. It's tough to balance, I think, but one thing I know is that Fission should never, EVER, be "worth" 1 gold (actual offer I received from the English, who had 600 gold kicking around, and would be "insulted" by 2 gold). It just needs tweaking, and so does the overall tech progress rate on the higher levels (hitting industrial times in 1000AD on Monarch is a tad too fast).

-Arrian

I would love to see a save game example of this (particularly near the late game...) It is certainly possible under the current system but also highly unlikely, so I'm curious if there is an unknown factor affecting things...

[godinex]

hey thats real it happen to a uncle a of a friend of my bro!

[solo]

Arrian and Soren,

I have seen very small offers for new techs in the modern era too, but I assumed this was because the AI was just 1 turn away from learning the tech in question. It's too bad I did not save that game at that time to provide an example.

However, while on this topic, I do have a save involving what appear to be other irregularities in tech trades if Soren would like to see it.

[Arrian]

Soren,

As we discussed in the Tech Trading thread, it's possible that, due to a combo of their own research and tech devaluation, that the English were 1 turn from Fission (even so, I still don't think 1 gold is acceptable). However, I don't have a saved game that could duplicate that. I do have a saved game later on, when the only remaining civs are me, Germany and France. I could try tech deals with them to see what happens... I'll check it out tonight. If I come across anything like that Fission deal, I will definitely save it, zip it, and send it your way.

-Arrian

p.s I'm KICKING MYSELF for not saving the game when my advisor told me Elizabeth would be insulted for 2 gold = Fission deal.

[player1]

Maybe there is an additional problem.

Main question is what happens when somebody get tech you were researching.
Tech price drops.
Now will that mean that is you researched 500 bulbs (science points) and price droped to less then 500 bulbs, that your tech will become 1gp worth and you'll get it in one turn.

If so, then that needs chages.

I would suggest research scaling.
If you discovered 50%, that it should stay on 50%.
If price droped form 1000 to 500, and you had researched 500 bulbs then your should have only 250 bulbs.

[Arrian]

Player1,

I disagree with that. Here's what I think:

The lowest "price" a tech should drop to is 40% of its full value. So, if a tech is normally worth 100 beakers (bulbs), the lowest it can ever get is 40 bulbs, even if 7 out of 8 civs know it.

Now, lets say you are researching a tech worth 100 beakers, and have accumulated 50 of them. Two civs, out of eight, discover the tech (and we assume you know them).

2/8 = 25%. However, only 60% of the tech's total value can possibly be discounted, so it's actually 25% of 60% = 15%. So the tech now costs 85 beakers... you are still 35 short. Under the current system, the tech would drop to a 75 beaker cost, and you would be 25 short.

I used 40% as the "floor" for this example, but I really don't know if that's the best number. It's gotta be tested.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

I just had an idea...

Soren, I have a question about how the devaluation works. Is it possible that devaluation screws up the 4-turn cap? Let's say you start researching a tech, and it will take 8 turns, current research speed. Next turn (so 7 to go), a bunch of the AI's get the tech, and the price drops such that, at your current research rate, you would only need 2 more turns to complete it. Would you be able to get it in 2 turns, or would it only drop to 3 (since you already spent one turn on it, three more would make the minimum four)?

-Arrian

[Quantum]

I don't think devaluation works like that. I don't recall ever seeing the "turns until tech advance" number decrease suddenly like that (unless the decrease is the result of building a library, etc, thus increasing my bulbs/turn). I think the number of bulbs you need to research the tech is determined when you choose the tech to work toward, and that that number stays constant regardless of what the AI civs do.

[player1]

Originally posted by Quantum
I don't think devaluation works like that. I don't recall ever seeing the "turns until tech advance" number decrease suddenly like that (unless the decrease is the result of building a library, etc, thus increasing my bulbs/turn). I think the number of bulbs you need to research the tech is determined when you choose the tech to work toward, and that that number stays constant regardless of what the AI civs do.

It happens to me all the time.
Even before 1.17f

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Quantum
I don't think devaluation works like that. I don't recall ever seeing the "turns until tech advance" number decrease suddenly like that (unless the decrease is the result of building a library, etc, thus increasing my bulbs/turn). I think the number of bulbs you need to research the tech is determined when you choose the tech to work toward, and that that number stays constant regardless of what the AI civs do.

No, trust me, I've seen my "turns to go" number drop drastically without me adjusting my science rate, building an libraries, or anything like that. Devaluation definitely effects your tech rate on a turn by turn basis. I'm just wondering whether or not it can actually circumvent the 4 turn cap. I doubt it, and I haven't tested for it or ever noticed it, but it occurred to me as possible, so I asked.

-Arrian

[Quantum]

OK, so I'm wrong. I play on regent a lot and often have a tech lead so maybe that is why I haven't noticed.
In my current game, though, I am stuck on a small land mass with two weak civs. From the demographics info, it seems that the other civs are on a large land mass and are tech trading a lot with each other . I'll keep my eyes out for the effect you're talking about.