What did I missed from Dom I.? -> DIPLOMACY!

Particle · #1 October 18th, 2003, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Zerger:
Yeah, I think that trading items is a bad idea.
Sending gold, gems, or transferring provinces is enough.
Those cannot be abused. + The devs won't have to mess around with 2000 items.

Yeah, I agree.
Well if the devs will have time, they should sort out the items, and perhaps trading items should be allowed than.

Aristoteles · #2 October 18th, 2003, 12:27 PM

Ok so my diplo system idea is good than.

I don't know too much about diplo AI, but there must be some way to prevent the abusing.
Those global effects via diplo abusing sounds very cool. When the AI will detect that you are trying to double cross him with a fake alliance, and there will be big penalties for it, no one will abuse the diplo AI than.

I have another idea, maybe there should be a minimum time limit for alliances. Like for 10 turns you cannot cancel the alliance, and for additional 10 you cannot attack your former ally.

The AI must have a long memory, IE it must remember all major things, like alliances, wars, global spells, aggression, etc.

Items. Well the trading items is a very good part of the game, but you can abuse it. If it will be allowed to trade items, that must affect diplomacy.
All items must be categorized. Also only the "usable by everyone" items should be allowed to trade. Than we wont have a situation that the item is good good for "XY" but it is not good for "VZ". If you are giving away a good item, the relations will improve, if you are giving away a bad item, the relation points will decrease.
There is a more simple way, only allow "good, usable by everyone" items to trade.

[ October 18, 2003, 11:30: Message edited by: Aristoteles ]

Gandalf Parker · #3 October 18th, 2003, 02:55 PM

Any game which has allowed gifting provinces/planets/colonies/outPosts has been abused by me big-time. Ive used it to manipulate wars between AIs or to abuse an AI as a buffer zone. I would put the reaction to province gifts as low as magic items, with a much higher reaction to gold and gems.

And adding time to alliances might be good. One thing that developed in the MP games was non-aggression pacts which had something like a 3-turn notice. If you gave the 3-turn notice before breaking the alliance then there were no extra consequences. Breaking an alliance without warning tended to have "global" consequences with the other players. Maybe that could be worked into the AI agreements also.

[ October 18, 2003, 13:59: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

-Storm- · #4 October 18th, 2003, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
And adding time to alliances might be good. One thing that developed in the MP games was non-aggression pacts which had something like a 3-turn notice. If you gave the 3-turn notice before breaking the alliance then there were no extra consequences. Breaking an alliance without warning tended to have "global" consequences with the other players. Maybe that could be worked into the AI agreements also.

Yeah, that is the way to stop abusing.

How can you abuse things, like giving provinces?
You mean you are giving a province to raise the relations, right? Well that is normal.
Never forget, that the AI will do it too, and maybe you will be gang banged by the AI. That is the wonderful part of diplomacy.

PDF · #5 October 18th, 2003, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Aristoteles:
Ok so my diplo system idea is good than.

I don't know too much about diplo AI, but there must be some way to prevent the abusing.
Those global effects via diplo abusing sounds very cool. When the AI will detect that you are trying to double cross him with a fake alliance, and there will be big penalties for it, no one will abuse the diplo AI than.

I have another idea, maybe there should be a minimum time limit for alliances. Like for 10 turns you cannot cancel the alliance, and for additional 10 you cannot attack your former ally.

The AI must have a long memory, IE it must remember all major things, like alliances, wars, global spells, aggression, etc.

Items. Well the trading items is a very good part of the game, but you can abuse it. If it will be allowed to trade items, that must affect diplomacy.
All items must be categorized. Also only the "usable by everyone" items should be allowed to trade. Than we wont have a situation that the item is good good for "XY" but it is not good for "VZ". If you are giving away a good item, the relations will improve, if you are giving away a bad item, the relation points will decrease.
There is a more simple way, only allow "good, usable by everyone" items to trade.

You're talking about AIs as if they were real beings ... Back to Earth, man, those are only lines of codes, and ALL AIs are and will be abused for at least 20 years more

MStavros · #6 October 18th, 2003, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PDF:
Back to Earth, man, those are only lines of codes, and ALL AIs are and will be abused for at least 20 years more

I don't think so. Just think. If there will be options, like giving something to the AI, and it will raise the relation points between the 2 nations, that is ok. If you call that 'abuse', than what is your idea about diplomacy?
It is normal to use these ways to improve the relations.
Abusing means, that you are trying to cheat the AI.
We must list all possible abuse situations.

1. Improving the relations with the AI, to use him against others.

I think that this is normal. Everyone did this in the history.
BUT the other AIs must see these moves by the players, they must memorize it.
Example: You are trying to make an alliance with AI 1.
You are improving the relations with AI 1, and finally you are making an alliance with AI 1.
All of the other nations must react somehow: The AIs near your borders should try to make alliances as well, if it is possible. (example)

All little situations can be tweaked like this.
Just list more.

Taqwus · #7 October 18th, 2003, 05:39 PM

The "traditional" abuse in games that allow arbitrary gifting of territory is to give provinces in one AI's sphere of influence to a second AI, in order to start trouble between them. This works especially well if first AI (non-recipient) has some attachment to the province in question. A second form came up in GalCiv where a planet could change sides without war; namely, trading a planet for something while knowing that you'll get the planet back anyway.

Memories are important for diplomacy. Building a rapport over time should matter; e.g. you shouldn't be able to cancel the bad feeling from a recent war with a large gift immediately thereafter. Conversely, they should be readily destroyed given sufficient provocation; the friendlier you seemed beforehand, actually, the greater the perceived magnitude of betrayal. Enemies /expect/ things like hostile magic and assassinations, while doing an "alpha strike" on an ally would demolish that trust completely, provoke vast amounts of resentment, and make it harder to build rapports with anybody else for pretty much... forever, actually. And casus belli should matter as well; a war preceded by well-known provocations on both sides should hit global reputation less.