Quote:
Originally Posted by RchW
I think you are over analyzing both the decision and the verbiage. The AI is not human and has a miniscule vocabulary so it makes no sense to critique the manner of the turndown.
|
Isn't the purpose of the in-game text to actually inform the human player of what is going on and how the AI is evaluating things like trade offers?
The point of trade feedback is that it gives the human GM a sense of how fair the trade offer is, how close the two teams are in terms, and how much might need to be added to make things work. The whole point of it is to create some kind of meaningful interaction and feedback that is useful to the user.
Something is driving that vocabulary in the code, and it has to be the AI's evaluation of the trade. I know for a fact that the AI computes a value for each side of the trade and makes a decision accordingly. And the feedback, while limited, is supposed to reflect this.
If it's not going to reflect the actual trade value behind the scenes and give the human GM some sense of how close a deal is and how the AI really views it, then what is the point?
Think of the in-game play-by-play: sure, there are only so many ways that an announcer can call a double hit into the gap. The vocabulary is limited by the play-by-play text file. However, it doesn't describe a double when a home run or a single is hit. It accurately reflects what is going on and what the game has calculated behind the scenes.
But lumping trade negotiations together and simply calling anything that is rejected a "very bad deal" is like calling a home run a double. It's not accurate and it doesn't give the user a true picture of what is going on in the game.
So maybe the vocabulary needs to be expanded or maybe there is a problem with the trade evaluations having wild, random swings when they shouldn't. Either way, this could be easily addressed and I think it should be.