Exactly.

Now I must wonder where the disconnect is in why that means two completely different things to us ?

This has been an entertaining thread -- lots of personalities have made an appearance.

I just want to express my appreciation to frogboy for "nerfing" the trade goods, if that is what we are calling it. I am especially heartened by his statement that they may still be overvalued.

Anyone who traded Trade Goods knew they were overvalued and made the game way too easy.

If they are balanced fairly, then that is one big cheesy tactic removed from the game. *applause*

If this means that I can't beat Intelligent with my eyes closed and one hand behind my back, I guess I'll actually have to think harder when playing. And if I still can beat the AI, I'm not going to complain... I'm going to *gasp* play on an easier level. I don't have some special right to be able to beat the game at a particular level.

If the AI is playing by the same rules as me and is kicking my butt, then hats off to Stardock.

BY THE WAY;

ImperialGuard, I COULD NOT AGREE MORE!

post # 81

Well said!

Well said!

The first 1.04 patch was the least fun game I had of Galciv. Yes, it was partially because I am used to using Trade Goods to fix a variety of problems (military weakness, AI strength, peace, tech missing, etc).

I have to say that I'm playing a game with the latest patch, and it's the most fun one I've played. The balance in the rules seems good.

The main thing that seem different is

I'm having wars with all sorts of ship classes I never ever built before

Trade goods are still useful, and it seems I'm getting tech trades that seem more "realistic" to me.

I had to play 1.04 original for a whole day before it got patched, ouch

I have a possible reason for the disconnect between CodeMonkey and Frogboy's opinions...

Frogboy - you state that TGs cost 300 IU to build and therefore are overvalued at 1500. It may be true that the simple cost of a TG is 300, but (and here's where CodeMonkey comes in) the *actual* cost is much higher.

Not only is there the lost time in the social queue, but there's the risk that you may get almost to the end and have it taken away.

I don't think anyone's suggested this solution yet - why not nerf the ability to lease-buy TGs?

Actually, this one has been suggested a LOT (including by me above). It's the most obvious solution to the "trade good problem" and for some reason the one Brad doesn't want to try. I do think it's better in this last update, but they still seem weak for their costs as *trade* goods in my opinion.

First; I think Brad et al has earned the right to be treated with respect and not agression. Please try to be level, folks!

Second; I also think the trade goods have been nerfed too much. I really like the dimension they add to trading. However, we really need to find a balance where deciding to trade the good or not is a hard decision between short term profit and long term gain. Maybe simply increasing their power would have been enough - would you really sell a +30% or +50% morale boost to an enemy civ?

Third; there ARE other ways of keeping up technologically. One good way is to act as a broker - buy and sell everything to all civs, including minors. Don't keep techs to yourself. Ask money and offer money where no other options exist. When many techs move THROUGH you instead of directly between computer players, you can always squeeze out a small profit while keeping abreast. You just have to be quick about it and trade before the AI has a chance.

Fourth; I'd like a middle way between demanding tribute and offering a trade. I.e. if I'm considerably more powerful than another civ and want a tech he has badly, I'd like to offer a poor trade for the tech that has a chance of succeeding where a tribute request wouldn't work. And of course, I would like the Ai to act the same towards me.

Drengin: "We'd like to offer you Basic Repair for Dreadnaughts".

Me: "But I don't need Basic Repair..."

Drengin: "Your skin looks delicious."

Me: "Oh, I see. Ok, then."

I figured out part of the disconnect. It may indeed cost 300 IP while the two technologies cost maybe 1500 IP and the computer values it as such. I had to take a step back and figure "why this disparity when Diplo Trans takes 100 turns while the Tech Queue takes only a total of 20". The one thing I figured was that you have all your planets working on the tech simultaneously, but only 1 planet doing the translators (hence the huge difference). I'm not sure if this is possible to do, but having all that in mind, I'd almost leave the natural build time the way it was before the patch, only make it much more painful or impossible to rush as a few others have suggested.

As it is, with the latest patch as of last night, I've got this game going on intelligent (painful) and I've had to bend my strategy around a little. This has caused a couple consequences....one of which is an... "unorthodox" tech tree (been a strange combination of techs compared to what I normally do), and some creative wheeling and dealing (read: bringing cool hard cash to the table). The main consequence is that my ambient treasury is lower than what I'm used to (I usually try to keep around 5000 for TS) It's a bit more challenging, but Painful level isn't out of hand. I'm certainly in a horse race with the Torians and Drengins this time around, although a well timed deal with the Drengins and Acreans effectively kept the Torians in check. It's been an interesting game so far

SeanB

In particular, the risk of loss is particularly high for larger maps and earlier trade goods.

* Minors start with a pile of cash and less to spend it on, since they don't go on a massive colony binge like any major has to do on a Huge/Gigantic.
* Minors will be less likely to be crushed early on a larger map since it's less likely that anybody finds them that fast.
* There's a two-tech path that yields two trade goods (tri-strontium and frictionless), another two-tech path that yields a third (aphrodisiacs), and a three-tech path that results in a fourth (diplomatic translators). Gravity Accelerators is also not THAT far off.
* Early trade goods come when you have a truly lousy production base so that leasing them is the /only/ realistic way to beat the minors to them.

Hence, the minors are in a very good position to buy them outright while the majors are recovering from the economic penalties associated with focusing on large-scale colony ship production -- unless, of course, they play like minors and go for trade goods early, which I suspect would be a terrible strategy.


On the other hand, once infrastructure buildup starts to really take effect, the minors get left in the dust and it's the majors' turn to compete at mid-game goods such as harmony crystals, et al.

I have played 1.04 and did notice the change but still won on Normal. But I caution everyone to take it easy. Remember when the BOTF development team quit updating after a patch was lambasted. Several bugs and gameplay issues still remain unpatched 'cause the team got tired of abuse.

P.S. I get most of my techs and trade goods by playing warparty acting weak and cleaning up when they eventually want peace.

Sorry CM - I didn't remember reading that solution in this thread... For me it would make the decision to go for a TG a lot more critical and would make it a much bigger reward when I was successful.

Has Brad mentioned why he doesn't want to go that direction? Code-wise it can't be that difficult, so there must be a balance reason...
Now lest someone accuse me of just being a naysayer by aggreeing with CodeMonkey . I do want to say that I'm very impressed with the game and with the support we receive here - Brad and Co really go the extra mile for us and I for one appreciate it.
[Message Edited]

Can I say- DON'T MAKE RUSH BUYING HARDER. I LIKE RUSH BUYING! That would take away my particular crutch and then I'll have to whine! It makes the smaller maps workable and a real choice between going into debt, or trying to get a tradegood which the other civs will almost certainly get otherwise.

The only balance issue I can see is on the diffs above Intelligent, the AIs will almost certainly be able to beat you to any built project or trade good because of their economic bonuses. On the other hand, it seems strange to try to fold the rest of the game into a strangely shaped box just to keep the highest difficulties winnable when I would suggest the problem is with finding a better way of balancing the "cheating" AI at these levels.

If it does indeed have to do with balancing difficulty levels, I can certainly understand the problems (I have a little experience in that area myself).

On the "Rush / Lease" argument:

Why not go for a balanced approach here? Require at least a certain amount of actual work (50%?) be done before allowing the Rush option? And then charge the lease price as if financing the Trade Good from the start? (subtract 50% from current percentage of work).

Some sort of slow down that would show that you had to work for the Trade Good.

******************************************************

Also, are Trade Goods something that is traded, or given? Bear with me, please. I develop a Trade Good, Aphrodisiacs, and want to use it as a Trade Good. I offer it to the Scottlings. Later the Scottlings go to war with me. Since trade would be severed by the war, do they still have the Aphrodisiacs?

Or, after the trade is made, can the Scottlings then trade the Aphrodisiacs to others?

***************************************************

My views on these situations are that the Trade Goods are just that: TRADE GOODS. The creator is the only source of them, making them only useful as long as trade is flowing. Thus only the creator could offer them for trade. This option would make the lower value of the trade goods sensible. It would also make changes to the way trade goods are traded necessary. Trade goods would be traded on a set limited basis (X number of turns duration at Y amount of pay per turn, and/or lump payment in advance/after). Such a negotiation would be a major change to the games trade, but would be a fresh change.

This method could also be useful in other trades, negotiating trade pacts that included such terms as time, per turn, lump sum, advance/after, as well as other factors as access to resources...

*****************************************************

Back on the trade goods...

Perhaps I am seeing to much in trade (been playing trade empires for too long...) but it could be changed into something that is ongoing rather than one time. This would allow for more diplomatic relations, and make being on the right side important in a fight... (Oops, there goes the TriStron bonus...)

IMO

P.S.: Regarding the "I'm not being rude, you are" posts: Get a life.

So much drama in this post, now i don't need to watch any TV all week.

Loving the new changes, keep up the great work devs.

~SDC~

C_Ruppel:

It would be interesting to have trade goods be cancellable... but as that would greatly increase the power of the owner (e.g. "Bwahaha, I'm taking away all your morale- and influence- boosting trade goods, and pumping up destabilization too!"), I'd suggest that in that case there be something to counter-balance it such as allowing an expensive reverse-engineering.

(Actually, it's a bt interesting as it is now -- who enforces the intellectual property laws that make it a monopoly? Hmmm. If everybody could provide them... they'd be tradeable achievements, basically. Eh.)

Yeah, I know... this drama apparently cost me the veteran ranking, although I've little idea on how you get the ranking, or in my case, what to do to get the veteran ranking back

Twirlip:

The taking a trade good away sort of thing is something that would have to be adressed also, I agree.

But think more in terms of "breaking a treaty". The natural result would be against your reputation (Diplomatic bonus) regarding this race, and all others to a lesser extent. But there would also be damage to your reputation inside your own goverment (Approval rating).

Then there is the easier method of slowing down the trade goods: Limit the number of times that a trade good can be used. Make the number of races using a given trade good a factor in the trade goods value. If a lot of people are using it, it has a lower value...

On the subject of monopoly: How about an evil tech of black market? Allows the trade goods of others to be obtained at a per turn cost... Or a good tech of anti trust? Also allows access to other peoples trade goods, but again at a high cost...

These sort of things are great to talk about, but to actually code them into a finished game like GalCiv... But they (and many others) will still be at the top of my wish list.

Just another thought about trade goods: Can espionage be used to "steal" them??? (Just a thought for future)

I dont know what all has been said, I dont wana read 6 pgs of posts, so excuse me if someone else has already said some of these things.

First off, let me be blunt and say that I think what was done to trade goods sucks. It should and probably is being changed. However updates have been comming out once or twice a week sinve the game came out, you cant expect people to be perfect, something like this was bound to happen eventualy.

To the players: Everyone should just chill out, in a week or two Im sure tradegoods will be well balanced.

To the develoers: Many people have posted things they proabably shouldnt have. Dont be discouraged though, once the expansion comes out many of those same ppl will be singing your praise again. You have made a fantastic game and except for this one problem your updates have been great.