Probably, yes. But at the same time I think in order to balance it they would have to do things that would feel very contrived and artificial. But enough of this - we aren't arguing the merits of the traditional system - we know it will work and can be done. I concede

You totally just pulled a politician on me. You totally bypassed my question (it wasn't phrased as a question, but it clearly was one).

And I love how you're focusing only on the ways that a sophisticated trade system could make your starting position more difficult and completely and totally ignoring how it could make it better. Being in a good trade location might be the one thing that makes your otherwise horrible starting location passable. I've never played Dominions 3, but I have played AoW:SM and Civ 4, and your use of them, while understandable, kind of makes me more determined. Their trade mechanics bored me. I want a trade system that strategy games deserve. That a feature adds one more thing that could make a starting location better or worse is not a problem - there are so many factors that go into that, and they all work in concert to achieve the final affect. Adding one more factor into that mix isn't going to break the game (unless it's implemented terribly, anyway).

Stardock is not mindless. Yes, they listen very closely to its customers on the forums, but not to the point where they will give in and try to do something that they know they don't have time for, unless they're willing to delay release for it. If they see support for a feature, I think Stardock will seriously consider, but ultimately they will make their own decision, about what they think will be best. They have proven that time and again.

Not suggesting something for fear that Stardock will, god forbid, take a liking to it and try to implement it is downright silly. They won't take on anything they don't think they can handle. If they decide to do something that was suggested here that would mean they have to sacrifice something else they were planning, then it means Stardock things it's a good trade. Now is the time to suggest major features, because the farther along in the development process they get, the harder it will be to add in new major features. Minor things here and there are much easier to put in later on.

At least if I'm having major bad luck with the resources and terrain near my starting location, with an involved trading system maybe I can make up for it. It goes both ways, which is what I'm trying to get at. We've established that you don't like the idea of risks in trade - but I think we've also established that that isn't really a problem, merely a preference. So please, stop making this sound like it's the end of the world.

You might rather spend time strategizing about item forging, spell combos, unit builds, champion development and battle formations - well I would like to spend more time strategizing about my long-term goals and plans, which I would like to include trading prospects.

For one, I don't agree that dangers and delays to trade are a problem to begin with. Obviously some people would prefer less danger and time delay than others, which is why I've already stated that I think there should be options to help mitigate those - like being able to set caravan speeds, and maybe even base protection (and frequency wandering hostiles and such). Most people who play on hugely massive maps play for the epic experience of it, and I think many of them wouldn't be so bothered about trade taking time. Now, I am with you in that if my trade were taking 50 turns, I'd be annoyed - so up the caravan speed in the game options, problem solved... As to micromanagement, I already agreed with you that it should require very little of it. I don't want to spend very much time managing, looking over and giving orders to various caravans. There are several ways of minimizing this, including UI and, considering I think trade should be handled by a 3rd party, not allowing you to give orders to caravans that are already on their way.

I think you've actually misdiagnosed the largest issue. The main issue is, what happens if two players make a trade deal and the shipment going one way is raided? There are several solutions to that, which I've already given, but I think actual testing is the only way to determine the best way. And maybe there is no good solution to that - maybe that would be enough to kill the idea as a whole, I don't know. That's why this is a suggestion. If Stardock decides to go with the usual trade system, then it means they have made a conscious decision that they don't think my suggestion, or a variation of it, is a good idea, or they don't think they'll have the time to do it well without sacrificing more important content. And I will be perfectly fine with that.

It's called hyperbole. Obviously you haven't covered every little tiny detail, but you have brought up several of them and blown them out of proportion.

Agh, double post.

It seems to me, just to weigh in on a point that you guys have debated on more than one occasion, that the proposed caravan system would actually iron out some problems with civilization placement and leave the game actually more balanced. NTJedi continues to suggest that the civ placed way off to the side of the map with only one neighbour will be at a disadvantage when usnig this system (and that on average will be true) but personally I think that position in general terms without this system is massively beneficial as you only have one flank, and only one potential war on your doorstep to worry about! This means that you can concentrate your units on defence of that one flank and dedicate resources elsewhere to allow your economy, research, whatever you choose, to boom as a result. In this instance the trade system will act as a balancing mechanism helping to make this otherwise extremely fortuitous position slightly less so.

The counter example of course is being right smack bang in the middle of the map, you have potential enemies all around you, there's danger in expanding in any direction as you will almost certainly antagonise multiple other civs, and your borders will basically all need to be garrisoned unless you are extremely good at diplomacy (or extremely naive and trusting!). Now for me this situation is in general terms is horrible, you'll constantly be assaulted and it will generally be very hard to build up your infrastructure in the early game due to competition/interference from your numerous neighbours. However, with the proposed system there is a shining light on the horizon, a glimmer of hope, you may now be able to act as a trading hub and potentially make up for some of the many very real disadvantages imposed on you by your predicament.

So you see, in my eyes, this system could potentially work counter to the traditional balance problems inherent in random civ positioning on a randomly generated map. Thus, far from making your initial positiiong more of a lottery, it would actually make it fairer and give a better chance of a decent winnable game from every start.

Well, Gal Civ 2 had trade routes, and the people in the corners seemed to benifit most by having the 'longest trade routes' with other groups.  So it seems best not to be in the middle by any account.   You would think that the person in the middle would be best, since it would be a trading hub, but if its like Gal Civ 2, then that may not be true.  

The only way I can see 'the middle guy' benifiting from trading realistically, is if there is a 'trade' tech or something that that to dictate the maximum reach of your trade routes.  That way, early to mid game, the person in the middle could have tons of trade routes, where the people on the edges could only trade with... well, the guy in the middle.

An alternate idea is that trade routers build themselves based on supply and demand of different goods, which a higher chance that it is established with the closest source.    This also seems like a realistic solution, but it takes some control away from the player (maybe that is best?)

Of course there will be benefits and disadvantages, but first we need to verify the disadvantages won't be so extreme as to virtually eliminate an individuals chance at winning.  This is why I mentioned the learning curve CIV_4 introduced for those players who do find themselves unable to trade with anyone until mid-game and even with the learning curve they usually still suffer.  On the same note we would want to verify benefits from trading would not be too extreme and thus require a nerf later. 



 Wow you take my sentences and twist them responding with massive unrecognizable reactions.  As I wrote within my post Stardock listens to its customers and this can bend some of their decisions.  Bend means to lean it does not mean a complete change.  I did NOT say posts on the forums would cause Stardock to mindlessly obey as you reference my response as calling them mindless... where do you get this stuff...  it's like you channel dead crazy people. 

Suggesting major features now is a good idea, but as I wrote earlier each game can only have so many major complex features due to development time and deadlines.  Feel free to express your ideas whether it's a race of mad clowns or a complex trading system, I'm just advising to be more mindful of suggesting your most important major complex features ideas first. 

First there's no end of world references, please don't start being over dramatic here and keep that boiling point under control.  Anyways as map sizes increase so do the risks with trade between players the same as the increasing delay for a completed trade between players which results in less trading between players as when compared with the traditional trading system.  As I've written within a previous post suggesting the traditional trading system could still exist with a balanced magic cost which would still encourage players to use the trading system you've suggested, but I haven't seen much feedback.      

Well the dangers and delays naturally will result in less trading as compared with the traditional trading system since demand is often with a deadline where waiting 5 or 25 turns is not an option.  Even with an optional caravan speed setting, which would be tough explaining, there's still a delay.  These deadlines might be a hidden approaching army, unexpected natural disaster approaching, an angry independent dragon, etc., .  Waiting for trade is sometimes not an option thus less trading.  The same is true for dangers where you may offer an exchange yet one or more players will just respond saying, "sorry it's not worth the risk."... thus less trading.

  After careful consideration the best solution for one lost shipment or even both lost shipments would be having the 3rd party merchants refund the original owner(s) with gold equalling a percentage gold value of the lost contents thus 50% as the default and perhaps insurance raising the percentage to 75%.  Also when a shipment is attacked a random percentage of the goods should be damaged as a result of fighting the guards from the merchants guild.  The percentage of lost goods and percentage of refund would help prevent exploits.

You can continue saying I'm blowing tiny details out of proportion and I could continue referencing past forum history.  Then I could say you're closing a blind eye to anything which threatens your idea and you could reference past forum history.  These statements only promote senseless heresay let's return to the topic which seems to be shrinking in size.

Well, based on what we've discovered and the suggested improvements it could work.  However the dangers involved with trading and the delays involved with trading between players via caravans would result in less trading between players as compared with the traditional system.   The developers would have to decide if it's worth the extra development, AI programming, and bug fixing to try using a new trading system which will have less trading.

Thank you Jonny, for saying what I've been trying to say for days now, in a much clearer way. You seem to do that often, I'm jealous

I was thinking more along the lines that foreign caravans passing through your territory would generate income for you. In GC2 trade only generates income for the players on either end, and people in the middle of major trade routes get nothing - although you can milk them with economic starbases if I remember correctly... In reality, the people in the middle of trade routes between distant places benefit the most - and I think this is one of the cases where mimicking reality would be a good thing for gameplay.

'Trade routes' might just be rough routes through which many caravans pass (if caravans only or prefer traveling on roads, they would probably be fairly well defined), or they could be defined in other ways. Really I think that for a system like what I'm proposing to work, players would need the option of diverting their trade around obstacles like Geoff's swamp or their angry enemy. This would require a nifty UI, but would be doable I think. I'd love to be able to draw my own trade routes in the cloth map

The whole point of making suggestions is to get Stardock to lean towards them. My point still stands - we have to know that Stardock knows when to stop leaning and fall over, and when to stand up straight again. I am most definitely not going to refrain from making a suggestion for fear that Stardock might like it. I hope you make all the suggestions you'd want to see in the game, too.

Lol, first? I've been trolling these threads for 4 or 5 months and this is nowhere near my first suggestion. And this is somewhat of an about-face for you, as originally you said:

"We don't know how much time the developers have devoted on other more important features, so until we see what currently exists on a full beta requests for a complex trading system should be delayed."

But saying we should delay a suggestions about a potential major feature until we see the full beta is nearly the same thing as saying, 'don't suggest this at all.' Because the chances of Stardock being able to incorporate something major and totally unplanned for once the game is that far along would be much more difficult than doing so now - even if Stardock loves the idea. And "each game can only have so many major complex features due to development time and deadlines" make me even more sure that you have no faith that Stardock is capable of making competent decisions. If your statement is blatantly obvious to me, then it is even more so to Stardock - they know their limitations and abilities better than either of us, and they are the only ones capable of making the decision, "should we try this? Can we try this?"

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought you mean the traditional system instead of the one I'm suggesting (either absolutely or as an option). Having the two together could work - it would also make it easier to balance magic costs of teleporting trade. If there is another method, which doesn't require magic at all (caravans), then the magic costs of the 'traditional' method could be high enough to be balanced without breaking trade.

Just means you have to plan ahead more. Normally trade functions as an "OH SHIT!" button, kind of a deus ex machina. In my suggestion, you'd have to actually think ahead about what you might need that you can't provide for yourself, and then work out how to get it. It does mean you wouldn't be able to use it as an 'OH SHIT!" button - but if you combine both our ideas (caravan + teleport trade), then you could still have the oh shit button, it would just cost you - and it might not always be worth spending that mana on getting those resources now. It just bothers me that trade is always such a risk-free feature. I like risk in my strategy games, it makes it more interesting.

Not a bad idea. I completely agree that raiding a caravan should not yield everything that was in it. The rest could work well, but I still think any tentative solutions to this problem would have to be thoroughly tested as it is a rather tricky issue.

Potentially less, but more meaningful, trade. I think you are actually overestimating how much this idea would reduce trade. For one, in the standard system you always know exactly how much of everything you need, which means you can make precise trades for maximum efficiency rather easily. Under this system, you have to plan ahead, which means you don't have quite as perfect an idea of what you need (or rather, what you will need). This means that players might be more inclined to trade more often, or for more, then they might ultimately need, somewhat making up for the loss of trade due to the risks and delays involved.

  My two quotes ride parallel as trading can wait when compared to more important features.  Requesting a new complex trading system may UNKNOWINGLY cost you game depth from other features you may feel are more important such as champion development, building upgrades, battlefield formations, unit diversity, item forging, etc., etc., .  So if we have a stronger desire to see elves it would be in our best interest to wait on requesting a race of mad clowns.  Naturally it's highly unlikely Stardock would create a race of mad clowns, but time has been lost which could have been spent on requesting something of greater importance which Stardock would consider.    

Yes, and this would also help nerf some of the pains discovered from delays, exploits, bugs, etc., .



I wouldn't say trade normally functions as a result of an immediate need.  Usually near the end of my turn I will examine what spells, items, resources, etc.,  I'm willing to exchange for something I may find useful in the near future.   Well it's risk-free trading when it's between two permanent trusted allies.  The traditional trading allows the gamers to focus on other aspects of the game such as preparing one or more moving armies for battle instead of scouting the path of one or more traveling trade units.  I don't mind risk... my map from AoW:SM called Survival shows I like being the mortal fighting 3 enormous spiders as compared to being the immortal fighting 3 small spiders.  Its not the risk which bothers me... it's the overall reduced trading as a result of added risk.  Yet I agree the combination of both (caravan + teleport trade) would work best.



I'm looking forward to the beta testing starting in June... and whatever occurs with trading internally or between players we've identified several useful improvements for possible game concerns.

Well for small, moderate or even large maps your suggested trading system containing the improvements we discussed could work by itself.  The risks and delays concern consistently increase as the map size increases thus an XXXL size map would have significantly more noticeable risk and delay.  This would be even more noticeable within an XXXXXXXXL size map where if a trading caravan survives the risks and reaches its location the resources may no longer be needed as you might have acquired 3 mines of this type while waiting.  An adjustable speed setting for caravans would help yet some gamers might complain that the caravans are faster than their wyverns with haste casted on them.  Hopefully the combination (trade + teleport) will exist to help with the massive size maps.    

Speaking of  massively large maps I have to start planning the build of my next system so I'll need to find a motherboard which can utilize 12, 16 or 32 GBs of RAM. 

I still think this is a terrible reason not to make a suggestion. See, if we wait until beta to suggest a potentially major feature, then in all likelihood no matter how great an idea it is, no matter how much players and Stardock like it, it probably would no longer be feasible to implement, at least in its full incarnation. It would be too late. Waiting until too late to suggest a feature you'd like to see because you're afraid Stardock make try to implement it at the expense of other features that are more important to you is silly. Like I said, I trust Stardock to make good decisions. If they decide to work on a sophisticated trade system at the expense of depth in a feature that I think is more important, then I can only trust that Stardock believes that their time is better spent on the trade system. And I would withhold judgement until I play the game they create.

If you feel otherwise, then by all means refrain from suggesting your own ideas - we will just have to accept that we have totally different philosophies about it... Although honestly, I would prefer that you suggest any ideas you have that you think would make the game even better. So far I've agreed with some of your suggestions and disagreed with others; and I'm happy that you gave me the opportunity to make up my own mind about those ideas, and I'm happy you gave Stardock that same opportunity.

Yeah I guess. Although for such huge maps I envision it just means you'd only be trading with your nearby 'neighbors' (i don't mean only people adjacent to you, just relatively close), and not people on the other side of the world. As you and others expand you'd probably lose some neighbors, and gain new ones. I'm hoping that, to go with being able to play XXXL size maps, we'll be able to have an enormous number of AI players. It might make AI turns take longer, but I think it'd be worthwhile. I love huge maps, I usually only/mostly play the largest map sizes in TBS games, but I would get really bored if I'm playing on a massively huge map that's still limited to a max of 8 players. I don't want to play on a huge map where my nearest neighbor is 50 turns away; I want to play on a huge map with roughly the same density of players as you'd expect on a 'regular' large/huge map size. 

I can't remember what my motherboard is limited at... It's either 8 or 32 GB. I think it's 8 (and if so, it's already maxed out). Still, I think I can live with 8 GB of ram until my next new computer - even though that's probably at least 2-3 years away.

 

  We know internally at least the caravans will be moving resources which is already a new feature.  If Stardock decides to move all trading(between players) to using only caravans hopefully the community and developers following this thread will be able to use the details we've discussed to provide a more fun experience.   

  As far as suggesting ideas I feel we should prioritize our suggestions and suggest the features of greatest personal importance.  While it might provide humor for a few random games I'll hold off suggesting the mad clown race since it's not within my top twenty list of priorities. 

I agree with being able to have lots of AI and human players especially considering the massive map sizes for Elemental. One of the game websites currently list the maximum players for Elemental at only 8... so hopefully this is incorrectly reported.  Within Dominions_3 it's possible to have 20+ players on one game and if using a mod it's possible to have 70+ players on one game... yes very large maps.   

If Stardock is reading...  please allow more than 8 maximum players so massive size maps can have more activity. 

Awesome, if you're using a system with an 8GB setup you're probably running a 64-bit system as well.  Hopefully there's more beta testers also equipped with 64-bit systems using 6+ GBs of RAM.

Yes, please, at least for singleplayer. GC2 can have up to 10 major civs on a map, and I'd hope to see at least a couple more on a Ludicrous-sized map.

Seems like our discussion is more or less coming to a close, NTJedi

Yes, I am running a 64-bit system, but sadly I'm not .

I'm a mac guy. OS X is 64 bit, but bootcamp (apple's software that allows dual-booting windows) doesn't support 64-bit versions of windows . I'm hoping that when apple updates bootcamp to support Windows 7 it will also add 64-bit support, but who really knows...

I started out with 4 GB but it turned out not to be enough. MatLab kept giving me out of memory errors

I'm going to up the ante and ask for a much higher maximum than just 10. It seems like the only real limiting factor would be time required for the AI to work through its cycles for all the players - but chances are people with rigs capable of running huge maps can also handle a hefty number of AIs to go with it. And longer waits between turns would be an acceptable trade-off to me if it means I can have my huge 20-player map

If it does support more than 8 players, we are all supposed to have a game together (we as in the super early deticated Elemental guys.)

Wooooooooooooo Fanboy-Fight!!!!

OMG you two type much....

 

I want trade to be off like in GalCiv 2 since trading spells left and right destroys the spell identity of a faction (Like a Air mage in AoW Shadow Magic that trades for great Water and Life spells....

 

If we're talking about resources, then I don't want the instanteous, riskfree trading of AoW but instead something with more depth. Black markets, caravans and neutral raiding parties sound much more exciting.

 

Basically, if you want that wood in exchange for all that mana then you need to take a risk....

 

I would like that resources can't be destroyed (perhaps except by endgame spells) but instead just stolen and taken back. Oh the fun in MP when I steal someones wood and then another player steals it from me and so on....

oh you better not be dissin' my pigeon x2.   I'd go to war for that guy (apparently).   He isn't around to defend himself.

 

Well, at the same time I'd want the power to have it, I mean at least for some things.   If to trade between allies you actually had to send and wait for a caravan to travel across the world (especially if the enemy that is your mutual enemy is between) that would be kinda lame.  I mean it would be awesome too, but I'm not sure I'd always want to play that way.

maybe you could have instantatious, but at a cost (the neutral party, or 'bank', that would help make it instant takes a bit off the top to cover their own loss risks).    You could do it the 'old fashioned way' to get perfect 1 to 1 ratio, but that involves sending out a caravan (or several) that could be ambushed or something.

 

I think there is also a bit to be learned about instant trading to be learned from the black markets of SoaSE (and I doubt we'd have the related sync issues in a TBS)

Ouch... good luck on the updates providing 64-bit support.  Hopefully I won't be the only beta tester for the 64-bit systems otherwise I'll feel very guilty if I miss any major bugs.