I agree that the trading values are somewhat off, and some techs are bugged so that the AI gives them a negative value, like Enhanced Miniaturization.

One question though...why do you want to give away this planet?

Sentient species taste better...

The OP doesn't want to trade the planet. He was just making an example to show how screwed up the trading system can be.

The trading system is the one thing that I want fixed more than anything else.

I have a feeling that the trading system is intentionally biased against the player to make the game more difficult. Maybe it's made to limit the amount of money/tech a player can gain by trading the same tech to every race. But that's how it is supposed to work.

The negative bias is just too big right now. The AI sells the same tech for 10 times the amount it'll buy it. Planets and ships are similarly undervalued.

I prefer a system that is fair, even though it gives the player an advantage, rather than the one that is in place right now.

*decloak*

Trading (especially Tech trading) is the one thing that absolutely ruins what otherwise is a fantastic game.

Last time I played (its been a while), the fact that minor factions would be the most technologically advanced in the galaxy due to the AI freely passing techs around just bothered me to no end. In fact, the messed up trading is why I essentially quit playing.

Here's how to fix it (imo):
1) Require that the AI and player always have more tech that they researched themselves then what they trade for. For example, for every 10 research points (should be adjustable) that an AI generates, that AI can trade for 1 research point worth of tech. This way, the more a player or AI researches, the more tech he can trade for. This simulates the required expertise and technological infrastructure necessary to use tech that has been traded for. Ideally, this weighting would be a simple slider that a player could adjust at the start of a game.

2) Uncomplicate the trading AI. The cost that an AI will pay for something or sell something for should be based on the base cost (in research points or bc) for the item. This should be a standard formula that applies to all AI trading. The AI should not penalize the human but pass around techs like candy between themselves. There should be a slight weighting based on alliances, good/evil, etc.

It shouldn't be *that* hard to figure out a handful of equations that the AI uses to value items. And those *same* equations should be used even when the AI trades with the player and when the AI trades between themselves.

The cost of that planet the OP mentioned? That should be something that the AI can explicitly *compute* based on the number and type of buildings + population level, plus some adhoc figure based on location in the galaxy (e.g. based on distance from capital or something).

The equations should perhaps be listed in a moddable text file.

Aye, I've always thought the biggest limiter for tech trading should be that if you don't have the tech in your tech tree, you don't get to have it!

Maybe there could be a couple exceptions, like Weather Control, but the price should be astronomical.

BTW, I think 'borrowing' some ideas from the Civilization series would be a good idea. One big change is to make 'tech brokering' an option at the beginning of the game. That means you cannot trade a tech that you did not research yourself. That would significantly limit the player's ability to gain huge chunks of the tech trees by trade alone.

I've never seen the AI treat trading with any intelligence at all. While the game AI is dynamic and extremely smart (mostly, it still works pretty poorly during war sometimes), the trading AI is extremely simplistic.

It doesn't evaluate its position, the value of what it's getting, and how much it can benefit. I should be able to sell a planet to a planet-strapped civilization (ie: one of those suckers who gets trapped in a corner of space) for a LOT more than I could to someone who owns half the galaxy.

Likewise, selling them a unique, extremely powerful tech like Weather Control should be ridiculously more valuable to ANYONE than, say, Life Support III.

Similarly, if I only have 'Beam Weapon Theory', buying 'Doom Rays' would be very attractive - so attractive, the AI shouldn't sell it to me for less than an arm and a leg - and vice versa - or to each other! How advanced a tech is also works for its value. If I'm a few weeks away from Doom Rays, it has less value.

If the AI was simply more intelligent about trade, that'd fix most of it. HOWEVER:

1) The AI needs to stop trading techs to each other/b]. Honestly, even after the tweak why do they feel like just giving half their shit away for near-free, CONSTANTLY? I want Tech Trading on so that I or someone else can get a little advantage by skipping ahead some tech every once in a while. But in the end, I get screwed - one AI gets Phasors, and then EVERYONE has it.

2) [b]The AI needs to stop fucking the player every single damn time. Selling planets with nothing on them for 4000bc, while buying advanced planets for 200. Buying my warships for 50bc, while selling the same ship to me for 3500bc. This unfair advantage is most obvious with Economic / Research treaties - some AIs refuse to give me an economic treaty for anything less than half my empire, but they happily trade it to some ethically-maligned race who is dirt poor, for next to nothing.

3) Best case, add new tech trading options / restrictions. Worst case, make it default. The current method doesn't work, as evidenced by the number of people who turn it off. Anything that gets turned off so casually and so WIDELY should be evaluated for its use - like Surrendering (which is also broken worse than trading, and I turn off). New options like NO TECH TRADING IF ITS NOT IN YOUR TECH TREE, TRADE BROKERING, or anything else.

I still advocate teaching the AI how to trade (vs trying to nerf human trading to AI levels.) It still seems like the Humans and the Korx would try to establish dominance through trade due to their histories.

I also advocate the idea that trading for a tech does not actually give you the tech, but allows you to research it or gives you research points toward that tech.

Unfortunately, the devs have declared a feature lock and we are likely to get squat.

Scincerely,

Scintor@aol.com

PS Uranium! How have you been dude! Havn't heard from you in a while.

I love playing the largest most drawn out games possible. => Dunno why, I just love it. Glad we get even bigger maps w/TA.

Anyhow, to make the game more epic, I always turn off tech trading. You should still be able to get around it a little by buying and selling actual ships, and thus gettin' the benefits of the techs used to create them, but I don't mind that at all, and you can only get as many as you can buy or are available, and only from races willing to sell.

Would like to see (and this might already be possible in the xml) the ability to set a minimum number of turns, say X, that a tech takes to be researched. This way, late in game, even earlier techs which all now take 1 turn to research, will at least take X turns, even though you have enough resources to do it one turn. X being whatever X was set to by the user.

For those who like to have tech trading on, I'd think it'd even be nice for them, as it'd make the practice of trading all the more important.

Haven't fiddled around in the XML, holding off till the full TA is released, so this might already be possible.

Further, I can imagine, on super giant maps, ending up w/so many resources that even expensive techs will be researchable all too quickly, so some sort of option to make X progressively larger based on [ whatever ] would be nice too. For instance, early 1/3 of tech tree, could be set by the player to take at least X turns to research any given tech, just like the above but only applied to the first 1/3 of the tech tree - i.e. no 1 turn researching of techs no matter how late in the game it is and no matter how cheap the tech. Middle third of the tech tree, in the same way, set to Y turns, or X + X. Last third, set to Z, or X * 3. Thus, late in the game, even on super giant maps, even where you have a ridiculous amount of resources and can afford a late tech in just a couple turns, it will still take at least Z turns, preventing the situation where everyone has all their available techs, even late game.

I would think this would also make leaving tech trading on a more viable option for those that are riding the fence about whether to have it on or not (less likely for everyone to have identical sets of tech).

During my deployment, I'm going to work on a tech tree mod that will simply make the 'costs' of them astronomical. I despise the current tech speeds - on Very Slow, even on a very average (immense) galaxy, by the halfway point I'm getting new techs in two or three turns - I'd like to be forced to use a tech BEFORE it's obsolete. As it is right now, I build a fleet of little crappy ships to protect myself, and then I'm building Dreadnoughts with Doom Rays and BHEs on them.

As it is, weapon and defense techs are fundamentally flawed. It usually plays out like this:

Laser I - 10 weeks
Laser II - 6 weeks
Laser III - 6 weeks
Laser IV - 7 weeks
Laser V - 7 weeks
Plasma I - 12 weeks
Plasma II - 7 weeks
Plasma III - 7 weeks

etc. This is logically absurd. I have no motivation to EVER use an inferior tech as it'll take longer to BUILD the ship then it will to simply research a new level, thus making it instantly obsolete.

It should be something along the lines of:

Laser I - 10 weeks
Laser II - 18 weeks
Laser III - 25 weeks
Laser IV - 31 weeks
Laser V - 37 weeks
Plasma I - 51 weeks
Plasma II - 64 weeks
Plasma III - 76 weeks

I simply used 10 as the base for Laser, and for every level, did +10, with a 10% reduction in the overall cost. For the leap to Plasma, I used +20. These are entirely arbitrary, but reflect the progression technology should have, rather than the linear crappy curve it DOES have. For Phasors, I could use +30. The idea is that it becomes easier to refine a technology once you know it, so the curve slackens a little, but the jump to a new technology is a little intimidating.

Phasors I - 104 weeks
Phasors II - 132 weeks
Phasors III - 160 weeks
Phasors IV - 172 weeks


Technically it should be an even more robust curve, so that even WITH upgrading research labs, the costs of them never drop to anything short of 'really long'. This is what I think the problem with the current tech tree is - you upgrade one level of research labs, suddenly older technologies are terribly easy to get, they're almost free. And find a +700% planet with rings on it, dump a bunch of labs on it, and suddenly I'm getting vital technologies in a week. Lame. Such a planet should give an advantage, sure, but not the slippery slope 'i win' slide it is now.

The problem is, it comes down to a matter of what level of research is 'appropriate'. Frankly, it should be a 1:1 ratio. Lasers and Xeno labs, Plasma and Research Academies, Phasors and... whatever is after Research Academies....

I would prefer to leave trading off in TA to preserve the uniqueness of the races. However some of them (Thalans) just get completely shafted if you do so. It takes the Thalans SOOOO INCREDIBLY LONG to research any buildings that if they are unable to trade for anything along the way then they are just hopelessly crippled.

Lets not even talk about the fact that they don't get any farms.

- Manii Names

I have no problem with the ai denying techs or having astronomic demands for a deal. BUT I have a problem with the ai giving tech like candy to each other. The problem isn't trading human vs ai, it's ai vs ai. Stop them from sharing everything like closest friends (while keeping the human out) and nobody has a reason to be upset any longer.

Obvious design flaw aside, what do you base this on? Any quote from a developer saying 'Well we don't care how you play the game, we only want it to be fun for tiny maps'?

I've actually heard you toss that line around in a thread long-since forgotten (except by me, Mr. Fottergrafix Memereez), but I never asked exactly what you based that on.

Given that:

1) Immense maps are new, but there is no 'minuscule' galaxy size.
2) They added immense because many people were asking for it.
And...
3) Map sizes are: Tiny, Small, Medium, Large, Huge, Gigantic, Immense. Assuming Medium is the norm, that's more 'big' maps than little maps.

If they are focused and care only about tiny games, well, that's a ridiculously crap viewpoint for a developer to take.

Just because Metaverse games are INFINITELY easier on tiny maps doesn't mean the game was 'designed for them'. If anything it means the AI is crippled on such maps due to lack of options.

I am playing on crippling difficulty level.
The tech trading on this level is all right in my opinion. Its not to easy but with enough diplomacy advantage you can trade for your benefit.



Thats a point I would agree with.
Even on very slow research speed after the colonisation rush, research is too fast on larger maps. Later in the game I could every 3-4 turns upgrade my fleet (if I have enough money).