New AI cash-for-tech

I think it is just an over compensation for an exploit where if you need cash you can get it by selling techs.

It is because they have fooked the entire underlying structure of the game. I have made several postings, but all the amazing players will come on here and tell you that the way you have been playing (and enjoying) galciv is, at best, the "sissy way".

1. They changed the entire trading structure (amounts, techs etc)
2. They made it so that the minors expand impressively fast. Often impressively enough to leave you with few or no plantes.
3. They made building starbases cost $200 more incrementally the whole game throughout (first one $200, second $400 and so on).


I am with you. They have taken a nice fun game, fixed bugs and exploits you didn't even know existed, and limited your ways to win. On the other hand, the uber-genius guys that are top 100 will tell you over and over how great you should feel about it. They even want me to study someone else's style of play so I can learn the game.

For the Devs: Personally I thought I knew the game. I enjoyed the game. Now you take away parts of the game I used and enjoyed, and changed other parts of the game, and tell me I am not playing right. I could win before and now I can't. I could study these other people's games, but I thought GC was about variety, different people winning at different skill levels in different ways. You guys know this is bogus, as already everyone wins in their own manner (culture for example) and then bails on that at the last minute, and takes a WAR victory, because your system gives it a higher value.

~SDC~

I agree with you somewhat. I also find it amusing that you think you have to be an "uber-genius" to get into the top 100. But anyway, I have listened to a lot of people that have mastered this game complain that there are these so called "holes" in the AI. If you play the way one is supposed to, you probably wouldn't be exploiting these bugs in the first place. It's supposed to be about having fun, which is why I'll probably never move to Maso. The people that turn out 60K bombs four times a day are playing a formula, not a game.

That said, I've found that you can always tweak your strategy to adjust to the new reality of the game. Just learn to roll with the punches man.
[Message Edited]

A formulaic approach completely leeches the fun out of anyhing, IMHO. I don't understand why someone would want to get so entrenched in using just one strategy, to the point where even having to make the slightest adjustments to their playing style throws them for a loop and completely "ruins" the game.

I doubt very much that after this posthing that many people will take the time to tell anything. :notsure: Previous suggestions made to you to try to help and console have obviously fallen on fallow ground and weeds have sprung up in their place. Hope you find a game you can enjoy without destroying it for others.

~SDC~

I never said that I didn't approve of the AI change. I do think it's an improvement.

I was saying that the AI shouldn't discriminate against the human player. If the AI refuses to give up cash in exchange for tech, then it should be willing to accept very little cash in exchange for tech.

The real problem is that the AI doesn't properly value cash. The hack-fix was to make sure the AI gives up hardly any cash in trades.

Is there any reason to build the diplomatic translators anymore?

Sure... because you can, now that the minors aren't snagging them... LOL

Seriously though, I agree with you. Quick-fixes to fix holes are all well and good, but balanced design is better. Hopefully, when they find the right balance, it will work itself out. (Btw... I've noticed that the AI doesn't seem to value techs the same way when trading with one another either, and will often trade ship techs for other, less important techs apparently one-for-one).

What you describe is something that really bugs me about most games of this type, and it amounts to that 'cheating' by the AI that Stardock has worked so hard to avoid.

OTOH, I wouldn't expect that they would sell tech for the same price at which they buy it. Nobody does that. A ratio of 1/2 or 1/4 the asking price ought to be sufficient though.

In spite of these changes, people are still churning out four 60K games per day.

marquesa.........sigh........she spoke again.......

i've yet to play enough to see if the changes are unbalanced, but i have noticed that you get more money from trade - this was always something i thought would be more realistic, as trade should bring in more $ than techs (in the past it was definitely the other way round) and going to war should hurt you more financially by putting trade at risk.

i suppose i'm saying that at this stage i like the change. i find it more challenging than the previous set up, and i believe that $ from trade compensates for $ from tech (in fact i think it might be better...)

but i iz a bit simple......

I think Elkabong makes some good points, especially r/e the 'change to military victory' at the last minute hack. It's a decent game, but the patches are plugging holes in a leaky bucket, with the fun running out fast. I really don't mean to be a pug about it. I do agree though that these fast fixes are not really improving game enjoyment as much as they are attempting to address the underlying strategic weakness of the AI. You built a fine AI. These fixes are making the game more shallow. It may be more difficult, but at the expense of believability (that the AI is playing the same game we are, which is of course, false, anyways).

-Smack