It's too easy to make peace, AI can be gamed too easily, more mission types.

The underlying problem here is the metagame of unlocked teams currently.  There only NEEDS to be one loser.  The most sensible course of action is to identify the "fat kid" and have everyone else form a 7v1 (or whatever) team against him.  So long as this is a way to win, the mechanics are always going to be skewed and ridiculous.

I've been calling for a "there can only be X" setting for some time.  If you set the game to "there can only be 3", then the game ends when three empires are left standing.  If you make a 4-player alliance, you know it will be broken eventually, and this will mean friends are both easy come and easy go, as they should be in a FFA.

This has always been a problem with the AI.  It's colonization efforts are poorly coordinated and haphazard.  It's definitely a place where they could be improved.

Its part of the problem. Currently it really looks like the AI is actually a bona-fide ally, not someone who could stab you in the back if it seems worthy, regardless of being in peace already and with several treaties. the 7-vs-1 scenario does not even come up, as I just stated. I was growing stronger and stronger, allied with everyone, and all AIs were busy fighting each other.

Another point of the need of a military alliance is the placement of starbases on foreign gravwells. That is something the AI is not coded to do, except for the vasari when attacking. Placing several starbases on each gravwell of another empire and going at war with it can be devastating, and humans can do it easily. Accepting the immense firepower of a foreign starbase in your gravwell is not something to be taken lightly, since a war could mean that firepower turning against you. Without a military treaty, placing a starbase should be the equivalent of a declaration of war.

I never said that the 7v1 would come up.  My point is that if all players are rational the best course of action is to form a single massive team against one weak opponent.  This is why no one plays competitive multiplayer on unlocked teams; if you're playing to win, the goal is just to form an unfairly large team and overpower the remaining players, which is stupid.

The problem is that the AI does not play rationally.  If it did, the 7v1 situation would come up and people would be screaming bloody murder because they'd realize how broken the current setup is.  Instead, the AI is very much a psychotic player which acts arbitrarily in ways that are clearly unfavourable to its long-term success.  That is the problem: the current way the AI approaches diplomacy is completely and totally arbitrary.  Of course you can "game" an AI that is acting completely arbitrary.

Right now, there is no reason not to ally with someone.  This is because there is no reason to ever backstab someone.  Yes, you can be backstabbed, but the enemy has no reason for doing this.  Presuming he's playing rationally, this is a non-issue.  However, if only a certain number of players could win, then there is an assurance that at some point a large alliance will have to break.  This will mean there will be real diplomatic considerations and the AI's decision making will no longer need to be arbitrary.  Once it is based on a rational set of criteria, it will be much harder to "game" an AI and diplomacy should be a lot more interesting and fulfilling.

This problem has been aroudn for a while thou it's not unique to Diploamcy thou it may be solved by it if we work it out right. I played a game on 21 solar systems custom map I made back int he day. This was before entrenchment, and basically i did same thing. I would ally with everyone but the guy im currently pounding on.  And thus I slowly took voer his land. Then when he was done, I would pick next target.

generally the problem I have with diplomacy vs vanilla sins is that fact that I can have a relationship of 810+ with a faction who I have spent the entire game inflicting genocide upon. Simply because of "Military Actions", I'm in the midst of a 10 player game with normal AI's and I have no allies, I'm simply obliterating everybody, yet I still have 100% relationship with 8 out of 9 AI's, all of whom are continually offering me planet vision even as I bombard their capital. All the alliances I have made as of yet have been out of convenience. 

Yeah, true. Direct Military attacks against an empire  gravwell should simply negate the 'military actions' bonus, or weight alot (like 10x more) to subtract from it. 

Ship vs. ship embroils on neutral/not owned gravwells should also count to a lesser extent. Military Actions against an ally should also count negatively.

'Military Actions' against a common enemy should also count only if one is attacking an enemy's gravwell, not when defending. Similarly, fights on neutral gravwells would count, but weigh less.

The AI should be far more cut-throat, like the AI often is in most good turn-based stategy games.  It should be playing to win first, and win by Allied Victory only if they're much weaker than their ally.  Regardless of how much it may like the player, it should be fully prepared to break all its treaties and turn on the player if it senses weakness.

Just got the expansion last night. Started a "huge" map with unlocked teams and pirates active. By the time i reached the 2nd hour i had cease fire treatys with almost every team. And this was without doing any diplomacy, at this point i was still just securing my empire, building up army, resources etc.

At the 4 hour mark i have only had one small skirmish(edit - except for a few pirate raids, at which point i freely traversed the map and destroyed their home base), and have peace treatys with everyone(10 teams). Even though my relations with them are only around 35-45 percent. So my army has basicly just sat there for 4 hours while i max out my empire and watch the cash roll in.

Maybe this was a one off deal, but this is way to easy if every game is like this. I dont understand why you only need 35-45% relation rating to be at peace with another team. If the "diplomacy" functions were a little deeper this could work, but there really is not much to it other than ways to make more income.

I understand its only a 10 dollar expansion, but i would have gladly paid more for a more robust add on. Maybe i need to play more, but imo this needs major work before it comes out of beta.

Right now the reason it's suddenly too easy to make alliances is, 1) The added reputaion upgrades in the Diplomacy tree.  2) It doesn't appear that the AI is handing out missions frequently enough for you to fail and take negative rep. (personally last game I played the AI didn't give me any missions at all.)

As it is you only need a rep score of 3.00 to initiate a cease fire.  So after a few bribes, all the upgrades and defending your home turf,  you're bound to have that score with the majority of the AI.   Stardock DID slow the rate in which military action rep is gained.  But the Research upgrades are still too powerful. 

So way I see it Stardock can either tweak new Dip tree upgrades to make them weaker, (which I'm not sure I'd like to see) They can raise the the level of rep required for a cease fire. (maybe from 3 to 4)  Or they can undo the no negative military rep in your own grav wells.  ( I REALLY hope they don't do this.)Personally I think what the AI really needs is as way to give +/- rep for answered or ignored aid requests.  A human player wouldn't stay within an alliance if their ally was just sitting back and watching them get burned.  I know I wouldn't.  So imagine if the AI sent you a mission to Defend X grav well from Y AI/player.  If you're allied with both you're gonna get negative rep with one of them.  Negative with the defender for ignoreing or negative with the attacker for responding.  This way it'd be impossible to be allied with everyone keeping the game more dynamic.  To be fair though I don't think the penalties should be all that much.  Maybe small increments since the AI seems to spam help messages in the late game.

I totally agree, I didn’t even know the AI were supposed to give me missions, I haven’t received any. I haven’t been assisting them when they call for help. All I do is throw some resources and cash their way every now and then to keep them in the 35-40% zone.

I think huge penalties for not helping them in combat would be a good solution. That would require good strategic planning for which allies you choose. If the AI could be made to do the same that would work out quite well I think.

I just know when I play as Advent, I get the Cease Fire, plant a starbase in all his grav wells, then research Meteoroids.   If & when he ever goes hostile, say bye-bye to all his planets.  Totally easy.

To be fair, the AI in general doesn't know how to beat a meteor-control equipped Advent starbase.  Once you research it they could all be your enemies and you'd still win with ease...

Thinking on it some more, has anyone noticed if an assaulted AI's allies dislike you for attacking their friend?

If not it may help to stem off what seems to be an ever increasing source of rep bonus.  I mean even the Envoy cruisers will only get 1.5 rep from a given planet max.  While there doesn't seem to be a cap to military action bonuses.  I suppose the reason for that was because you can potentially gain quite a large negative value for it.   However like Shdwborn pointed out it seems that it's far easier to gain positives than negatives.

I haven't looked carefully enough yet, but I want to say that attacking an AI only gives negs to the AI you're attacking while giving bonuses to every other AI playing.  Which, if true, seems rather unbalanced.   Perhaps if military action against one AI gave negs to not only the AI in question but also to it's Allies,  then it would help to quell bloated MA bonuses.   Still implementing something like that seems to kill the spirit of backstabbing and betrayal that I always felt was a part of the game (may just be me but the Pirates always gave me this impression of encouraged espionage).  It could instead be something that only happens between AI's that are in a formal alliegence and not just a ceasefire.  Being as you can't place bountys on them anyways it makes sense.

Still that sort of creates a bit of a problem since the AI isn't forming Alliances with each other atm.  Least none that I've seen.... Just my idle thoughts.

We're toying with the idea of making it so that when you attack a faction, you also incur a negative military action penalty with all of that person's allies.  Look for it in the next public build.

YAY! gr8

/me approves it

please dont forget that defensive actions (fighting in my own gravwells) should not incur in negative penalty

"We're toying with the idea of making it so that when you attack a faction, you also incur a negative military action penalty with all of that person's allies.  Look for it in the next public build."

Great. Love it that you take into account the feedback! Beta testers, how does the  AI's diplomacy compare to other rts/tbs you know?

"Beta testers, how does the  AI's diplomacy compare to other rts/tbs you know?"

I sincerely expected more. All I see is that they've added another not-so-usefull-because-you-get-them-too-late-to-make-any-big-difference thingie to the diplomacy tree. Great, where's the diplomacy, though?
Definition of Diplomacy:

"Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states. It usually refers to international diplomacy, the conduct of international relations through the intercession of professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics and culture. International treaties are usually negotiated by diplomats prior to endorsement by national politicians.

In an informal or social sense, diplomacy is the employment of tact to gain strategic advantage or to find mutually acceptable solutions to a common challenge, one set of tools being the phrasing of statements in a non-confrontational, or polite manner. The science of diplomatics, dealing with the study of old documents, also owes its name to the above, but its present meaning is completely distinct from that of diplomacy."

Outake from Wikipedia: Clicky linky

I feel that something about Soase Diplomacy is lacking some... diplomacy

Make something like the government system of the guild 2!

           I love this game to death but, an ai that cant make something as simple as building superweapons is going to be really lacking in something as complex as diplomatic relations. I see no point in diplomacy....

That how it currently works.

"We're toying with the idea of making it so that when you attack a faction, you also incur a negative military action penalty with all of that person's allies.  Look for it in the next public build."

Neat! ^^

I dont like the idea of them not liking you for attaking thier allies. That just kills all the momentum you had built up to make pacts. as it is you lose pacts too fast because they move thier envoys and the envoy bonus drops like a rock. I really wish pacts wouldnt go away imediatly upon losing that envoy bonus level. Mabye like 2 under what it took to get that pact and you lose it.

The abysmal AI is one a the major reasons Diplomacy fails (a contender being logical fallacies such as the example of faulty metagame logic pointed out above by Darvin). The irony of it is funny though, basing a whole expansion pack around the relationship to the AI when the AI is completely broken in the first place.

Being a naysayer sucks, and yet I'm not going start to post suggestions on what to fix instead. I could fill page after page about metagame problems such as the aforementioned one. To me, however, this seems pointless as I have no confidence in any serious attempt being made to remedy the issues. The problems are simply too 'core' in the game, and seeing how Diplomacy is slated for a February release date isn't going to sway the dev's minds either. Truly repairing the metagame would require on the developers' part a taking the game seriously on a wholly different level rather than viewing it as another 'entertainment product' that simply needs to be complete enough to be 'fun for a while', satisfying the majority but clearly not the real connoisseurs.

What I'm going to suggest instead to anybody serious about creating a decent AI would be to take a look at Civilization IV. Even that AI is nowhere near perfect but it's heads and tails beyond what Sins has to offer - heck, not only do the different AI's know how to play the game, they even have different personalities!

To anybody to whom it might not be clear, I'm not here to simply bash Diplomacy (which would be utterly pointless). The only reason I'm on the forum in the first place is because I deemed Sins worthy of my time. Yet, I'm certainly here to vent my frustration about how Diplomacy yet again showcases the eternal lack of attention to game's logic/the metagame which is the case with so many PC games. Please, developers, it is no good we have shiny graphics, lots of units or few minidumps if core elements of the metagame is simply broken!

That's actually a fine and logical mechanic. Your allies getting attacked, that's bad for you. Hence, lower relationship when attacking AI allies. If you don't want that breaking your pacts, don't attack. It's part of better AI.

As for quality of AI, of course a TBS AI will beat an RTS AI. There's no way to compare them equally. You can't wait 10 seconds for each AI as they to decide what to do. You're limited by what the AI can realistically do in real-time without destroying the computer's processor.

Also, the current Diplomacy Beta has been out for quite a while now, and a number of the features were newly implemented in it. It's highly likely the AI wasn't implemented for those features then, but have been internally now. Work continues whether you see it or not.

Way to compare TBS AI that has essentially an infinite amount of time to do what it needs to do and an RTS AI that has much more limited resources and timetables.