Tech Trading AI cheating?

Do you mean 1.6 beta 4?

What did you update from? It changed to get much more difficult quite a while back. I think 1.5 DA introduced the change. Anyway, at first it seemed FAR more difficult (imagine how it is on higher difficulty settings, if you think those Though ratios are bad!), but you get used to it and can still get good deals from the AI. You just have to change your approach. There's quite a discussion about it in the thread Tech Trading is Ridiculous WWW Link

There are a couple of other threads also if you search "tech trading".

If you want good tech trading, play galciv1!

In galciv1 you can offer for them to pay you back over 50 weeks or more, so you can get far more over time than through a one off trade. Paying back over time was a very nice feature that vanished in DL and DA.

The AI-AI trading and human- AI trading are confirmed to play under different rules.

Yes it was 1.6 Beta 4 (edited). The difference is not 4-5:1 tech for tech ratio but the 20:1 cash ratio. The ratio for cash was altered when DA came out from about 3:1 to about 5:1. This made a tech trading more challenging, but possible, especially if you have a lot of opponents.
Now, unless you you turn tech trading off, it is you against the galaxy in terms of research. It seems that the AI can do something at all levels of play at 20x the level of what a human player can do. As I said, unless this is a mistake, this is blatent AI cheating.
Scincerely,
[email protected]

I would agree,,, this problem would be solved however if the tech trading ratio was variable according to the difficulty level. That way elite players could still have the 20 to 1 ratio while others on lower difficulty levels could have a more reasonable level.

Hi!

Just 10% diplo advantage is too low to be called an advantage. For making money through trade you need 100%+ advantage. But even with such high numbers you'll not be able to pry lots of money from poor AIs. They seems to determine the amount of BCs for a trade by a percentage of their money: two exactly the same civs, but one with 5000 BC in treasury, and the other one with 100 will offer for the same expensive thing 2000 and 60 BC.

BR, Iztok

Well, despite not having the numbers game under my belt, I have to agree with the OP, but I also have to say that I think the way the AI conducts trade amongst 'itself' doesn't work 'fairly' towards the player.
Regardless of what abilities, or lack thereof, the trades that the AI makes 'to itself' seem far more beneficial than anything 'offered' to me. With tech trading set on I often find that the AI has pretty much shared enough 'meaty' techs with itself that it becomes a big problem for me to compete against three or more of them at once. They gain the 'upper hand' when it comes to weapons techs especially. The only time this setting is beneficial to me, and it is a VERY small benefit, is when trading with minors.
Now I play with tech trading turned off, but it's not the same necessarily. Even though there is no longer an 'AI advantage', my play style suffers somewhat due to the inability to trade, period. Granted, a change in play style would counter this and actually shouldn't be a big deal, but it is.
I leave the number crunching to the likes of Mumblefratz and Iztok and Wyndstar. Despite some of their findings (which I have no doubt are 'accurate' based on what they have gathered) however, I still feel that the trade system is somewhat unbalanced, favoring the AI over the player. Just my two cents.

I wish people would stop being so cavalier about throwing the word "cheating" around. It certainly doesn’t sit well with players when they receive an undeserved “cheat” flag (as opposed to a deserved one) on a metaverse game. Conversely this can’t sit very well with Stardock to have the AI accused of cheating.

To me cheating implies intent to defraud. I can’t imagine anyone really believes this truly is the case. At worst this is an attempt to balance what has been a definite source of player advantage that has simply been adjusted too far in the other direction. The result may certainly be unfair to the player, but cheating is such a harsh word and I don’t feel it’s called for here.

This applies even more to the other thread about the AI potentially getting multiple rush buys (or whatever the AI does get) per turn. This is clearly the result of an unintended and previously unnoticed bug. To call this intentional cheating really isn’t helpful to anyone. I think that if these issues can be pointed out to Stardock and discussed in a mature manner without the assignation of blame then they would be resolved both more quickly and certainly in a more amicable manner.   

To quote the immortal words of the three stooges, Ixna on the Eatingcha.    

See, you don't have to use the word "cheating" to get your point across (who would've thought I'd be holding up Evil S as a model of decorum).   

Actually cheating means doing somthing to create an unlevel playing feild in your favour, such as taking drugs in sport, hiding extra cards up your sleeve, giving one team bad trades while other teams get good trades.

conversely, in horse racing they put weights on some horses and not others, and they don't call that cheating??

'AI cheating' is something that has long been talked about in strategy gaming. In this context it means that the AI is given extra advantages to make up for the fact that humans can out think it. In my original post I did say that it could be a mistake. On the other hand, I (and others according to this thread and others simular ones) don't think it is a mistake because this is only the latest step in a series of moves designed to make dominating the galaxy through trade and other deals impossible.
When GalCiv2 first came out, you could buy anything from anyone. This made the game a bit too easy as the AI had no idea how to value trades. People asked for a way to turn off tech trading as it made the game too easy.
Now, the shoe is on the other foot. I am hearing on this thread and others that they are turning off tech trading because it gives the AI too much of an advantage. Now if this was because the AI was beter at trading than the human player, that would be one thing. Unfortunately, what I am seeing is that is that the AIs have a little exclusive trade club that the human player is excluded from.All of this would be acceptable if the AIs and the humans were playing by the same restrictions, but currently, this is not happening.
Now Beta 5 just came out and there was no mention of adjusting this, but there was no mention of the adjustment that happened in Beta 4. If this issue has not been adjusted in the latest Beta, I will edit my originol post to leave a list of suggestions on how to even out the trading without giving the an unfair boost.

Scincerely,
Scintor

By this definition, exercising makes you a cheater at sports.

Et tu Mumblefratz?  I know I have my 'moments', ahem, but that doesn't mean that I'm a stark raving mad lunatic... does it?  
And to clarify, no, I don't call this 'cheating' but do like Scintor's reply of:




This does seem to be the case to me, but my position on this is neutral. I lent comment to this post to voice my opinion on Trade in general since this 'exclusive club' does seem to ruin the whole experience of tech trading for me, which used to be an 'entertaining' way to play... as well as get to relax on research a bit and devote my resources towards other things.  

Thats dumb since everyone is allowed to excercise.

Where talking about an unlevel playing field which if applied to your example, there could be a rule that team A can spend 5 days a week doing excercise while team B is only allowed 1 day a week doing excercise. Or both Teams are only allowed to do excercise 1 day a week but team A cheats, and does 5 days a week of excercise.

From Merriam Webster Online, note the first entry.


However my point was not really to argue the precise meaning of the word "cheat", my point was that these kinds of discussions tend to come off as rather strident. I was simply suggesting that no one benefits by taking an accusatory tone. I'm not saying that problems shouldn't be discussed, I'm just saying that they can most certainly be discussed in a less inflammatory manner. That's all. It's certainly trite, but you do catch more flies with honey.

Mumblefratz




I did not even know these words existed? I guess 'accusatory' makes sense,,, i mean you could say 'blamatory' or 'yourfaultatory' hehehe lol

Trite just sounds like somthing disgusting that europeans eat!

You obviously don't read enough.

Don't be fooled. He's just pulling your leg.   

What's being missed in all of this, in my opinion, is that you can still get over on the AI in tech trading. You just have to have goals. The AI isn't so good at having long term goals.

For instance:
1) If you know what you want: Do you need a weapons upgrade, or an econ or factory upagrade, or a morale upgrade? You can get those if you're willing to give up certain things.

2) Do you understand who you can trade with, without hurting yourself in the long run? For instance, trade with the Korx for an econ upgrade if they're relatively weak. Or, most importantly, trade with the weakest of the AI for the latest weapons upgrade you can get. That way you won't be falling too far behind the top AI race, but you'll be improving your own situation. And that's true even if you're giving away huge amounts of tech and money to get what you need.

3) Never make stupid trades. That's what you might think you're forced to do in this tech trading situation. If you trade a lower-level econ tech to the top AI for good weapons techs, what do you expect but to fall behind even farther? You have to be smart about it!


I personally have no problem with the tech trading the way it is. It keeps me honest and on my toes as I go along. Those who want to exploit the AI might complain, but to them I say, Adjust the way a human player can. The AI can't adjust that way, and that's why YOU have the advantage, no matter if the ratio is actually 20:1. There are techs that don't sell at 20:1, but more like 3:1, or even to your advantage, so you have to be flexible and consider what will help you and what ratio is to your advantage.

Anyway, that's just my 2BC.

I can understand and agree why the tech trading system allows inter-AI preferential treatment (an exclusive AI Tech Club), and I can see how it is necessary to keep the game balanced. That said, it does suck the fun out of that portion of the game for me, and I do get more than a tad piqued when I scroll through the debug.err files to see what and how the AIs are trading with each other. This puts me in Evil Stormbringer’s camp.

I turn tech trading off more to avoid the irritation. Yes, this does eliminate a nifty part of the game but it does level the playing field.

I really do enjoy seeing how creative players can make the system – or any system, really - work for them. Wyndstar comes to mind here – boatloads of novelty and ingenious work-arounds. I just wish I were that perceptive.

Hydro

I have started playing Beta 5 and the rediculous ratio has been scaled back. I don't know if it was a mistake or they changed their minds, but the result has been the cash ratio has been put to something more reasonable. Thank you to all the developers for this.
Scincerely,
[email protected]

Geez, look at all the undocumented changes! Colony ship capacity, capital city food, and now this!

Hi!

You forgot the +4 production and -2 maintenance for Initial Colony.

BR, Iztok

Actually,,, i do not read if i can avoid it! Although i am in an office job half the day, so i cannot avoid it, the other half of the day i spend driving a forklift.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/accusatory

Pulling his leg, huh?

I'm in Australia, so we still use the English anti alphabet way of spelling things...

hats off to you guys in America for fixing some of the idiot spelling that was fed to you by the English.

An example sentance... I like the efficient 'color' of the American flag, but the English flag, well it's 'colour' needs improvement. I mean cm'on what the hell do they need that stupid 'u' for in the word color? stupid, and the list goes on.