"Fair Trade" completely unfair. True fair trade calculator

[DeletedUser96901]

I am trying to find out what the rarest VF good is

tea silk

because it is in a dead end research and many people don't research that technology

 

[Agent327]

tea silk

because it is in a dead end research and many people don't research that technology

They do if they need it. Besides that, there are many other ways to get it. My lowest at the moment is crypto, but basically once you are in VF there is no rare good.

 

[Goblin The Great King]

Correction: Not 1; but approaching 1. If the ratio is exactly 1 then 1 BA good for 1 VF good -- that is radiculous. But if let's say the ratio is 0.9. Then 0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9... the number becomes very small, so that you still can't trade 1 BA goods for 1 VF goods.

Thanks for the post. This paragraph makes no sence. But your whole point is partially correct and I agree with some of the points, but not the conclustion you got from it.

There is nothing fare of giving free VF goods to BA player 1:1. Even if VF player got them very cheap they still worth a billion to new player. So there is no matter how hard is it to get to old player.

To get true fair you have to compare how many tiles will it take for 1 particular player to produce one resource or another. Then compare the values.

 

[Emberguard]

Yeah while on a current age value it's much of a muchness for the player that's in that age, the real value comes in how far you could trade that down. 1 OF good is worth about 16k Bronze age goods if you're trading down 2:1.

While it's true supplies/coins become a non-issue in worrying about how much you have due to GBs, along with population and happiness, it's a false economy to negate them entirely from the equation. You still took the time and resources to gather those things. You still have to make sure that your income is greater then your expenditure. You still have the FPs invested into those GBs in order for them to lessen the risk in those areas. Where's your calculations in regards to both time lvl'ing up those GBs and the FPs invested in regards to the value of your goods?

If you negate coins and supplies because your GBs cover them then you need to tear down the GB to make it an accurate assessment of what retracting those calculations altogether really mean. If the GB makes for example, 6k supplies, and your goods buildings only use 3k, you still need to calculate what it takes to produce that 3k. That means if it would take more space with normal buildings then to build and lvl the GB you calculate with whatever it took for that 6k supplies. Because that's the real cost your city is using for those goods. Of course that's a lot of excess supplies, but it's still what your city requires to build the amount needed. Efficiency of space doesn't take away from the fact that there's a minimum amount of space that would have to be occupied in order to get the amount needed.

After all even if I had the same GBs I have now throughout the game, the amount of FPs required to lvl up those GBs to be able to produce current age goods is going to increase each time I go up a age. That's still a factor that needs to be done


For my Noarsil city back when it was Iron Age and producing with 10 goods buildings, what did it cost? It cost the FPs to buy the goods for: Innovation Tower, Alcatraz and Dynamic Tower. It also cost the space for Lighthouse of Alexandra prior to Dynamic entering the picture as without it I'd have never been able to support the supply cost.

Take away any one of these GBs beyond the Dynamic tower and the city would be in deficit for supplies or unable to produce. But given the DT gets goods anyway and was obtained to make sure the supply of supplies stayed strong that's a cost for goods too

In other words if we went "true fair" my goods would have to be crazy expensive to account for all the FPs put into obtaining the GBs plus the time put into winning the BPs

 

[Goblin The Great King]

For my Noarsil city back when it was Iron Age and producing with 10 goods buildings, what did it cost? It cost the FPs to buy the goods for: Innovation Tower, Alcatraz and Dynamic Tower. It also cost the space for Lighthouse of Alexandra prior to Dynamic entering the picture as without it I'd have never been able to support the supply cost.

In other words if we went "true fair" my goods would have to be crazy expensive to account for all the FPs put into obtaining the GBs plus the time put into winning the BPs

Completely true. That means that you chose the most uneffective way possible to produce your IA goods. That's why they cost that much to you. That doesn't mean your trade partners should pay for your FP spendings. They can just trade with other people who just built IA goods buildings.

 

[Emberguard]

Yes. And here's where economics become interesting.

The value of an item (real life) is based on four things:

> What was required to produce said item ( the main factor we've been discussing for "true fair" )

> how much your buyer values that item ( bronze is going to value everything because they can't afford anything if they had to use supplies + coins to produce advanced goods, advanced ages won't value higher aged goods in the same way )

> whether it's going to be / or is mass produced ( main benefit of using GBs )

> purpose of item (multipurpose tends to be a big deal. GvG is going to have higher value if it's to fight a war then GE unless the player is in GE exclusive playing)

Obviously I'm never going to sell Iron Age goods at their true cost value. I'm also not mass producing them to the extent I would be able to if I had a CF. In comparison to normal players without advanced GBs thought it could be considered mass producing

What I am doing is freeing up space so more goods can be produced then I could ever otherwise do and setting myself up in a better position for future eras.

That doesn't mean your trade partners should pay for your FP spendings.

And I shouldn't have to pay for their decision to build a bigger goods building anymore so then they should pay for the cost of my goods production. I may be able to spread out that cost between ages depending on how long I stay in each age, but it's still a cost every bit as any factor on the other persons end

Because ultimately the only thing you're measuring for "true fair" is the cost of space efficiency. And GBs are a form of space efficiency. So if it's fair to penalize smaller Goods building owners for the cost of larger Goods buildings then it's also only fair to penalize non GB owners for the GB cost

And as I'll be producing at least 2-3 times the amount non advanced gb owners can produce I can also afford to offer larger batches which generally the 50-100 amounts are a lot more attractive the small amounts

 

[DeletedUser]

As I see it there is no “fair trade” anymore.
To think I can trade my AF goods just fine for about any good it seems more like a matter of rarity and demand.

Edit: corrected a mistake

 

[Emberguard]

Yeah, that and ease of access to the way it is calculated.

True fair would only be as valuable as both your ability to calculate it's value and the buyers ability to come to the same conclusion.

Which is why 1:2 2:2 2:1 has enormous value. It's easy to access.

Anything else would require either memorizing a lot of data, or accessing info outside the game.


@Chalinna that's Arctic Era right? And is this with or without FPs involved for purchasing the goods beyond any taxes the game requires?

 

[DeletedUser]

@Chalinna that's Arctic Era right? And is this with or without FPs involved for purchasing the goods beyond any taxes the game requires?

Yes Arctic Future
Well if I sell an AO or for example I am sure I get a better fp deal than someone who sells Kraken at the moment ^_^
So far I only give goods to friends without fp’s involved or indirectly in the sense favor for a favor.

 

[Goblin The Great King]

Yes. And here's where economics become interesting.

The value of an item (real life) is based on three things:

> What was required to produce said item ( the main factor we've been discussing for "true fair" )
> how much your buyer values that item ( bronze is going to value everything because they can't afford anything if they had to use supplies + coins to produce advanced goods, advanced ages won't value higher aged goods in the same way )
> whether it's going to be / or is mass produced ( main benefit of using GBs )
> purpose of item (multipurpose tends to be a big deal. GvG is going to have higher value if it's to fight a war then GE unless the player is in GE exclusive playing)

Agreed on the first 3 things. Need to add one more. Rarity also comes along when you are on new server with only several people in the last ages.

Yeah, that and ease of access to the way it is calculated.

True fair would only be as valuable as both your ability to calculate it's value and the buyers ability to come to the same conclusion.

Which is why 1:2 2:2 2:1 has enormous value. It's easy to access.

Anything else would require either memorizing a lot of data, or accessing info outside the game.

As a general rule yes. But to people who are willing to count their resources - it's good to use true fair as a base to plan the most effective city. In later eras it's easy to produce something that will be easily sellable with profit by better rate than market. So that trades will go fast and still more goods will be produced.

 

[TheKingOfKool]

I'm not sure what the point of the thread is after making the initial presentation. After six pages of comments, I'm pretty sure everyone's mind has already been made up about what constitutes a "Fair Trade".

It's really not possible to argue the pure mathematics of the problem, however, fair trades are subjective to the buyer and the seller and that is a difficult concept to put into an equation.

 

[Emberguard]

Agreed on the first 3 things. Need to add one more. Rarity also comes along when you are on new server with only several people in the last ages.

yeah server age is a very important factor and to some extent would fall under how the buyer values the item, and whether it's been mass produced (in this case in the environment rather then from your person). But it can also be it's own point given how important of a factor it is.

As a general rule yes. But to people who are willing to count their resources - it's good to use true fair as a base to plan the most effective city. In later eras it's easy to produce something that will be easily sellable with profit by better rate than market. So that trades will go fast and still more goods will be produced.

If one persons doing it? That works. If most people adopt it? You risk devaluing the entire market depending on how exactly you go about making this profit, eventually making it the new norm. And to some extent players already do this across ages. I just don't know if it's from your calculations or if they're trying to make a profit without seeing your thread.

The ebony for honey for example, if we go off your calculator you've greatly devalued honey by ignoring houses altogether. It's going to potentially cost players double what it should to produce honey then what it currently costs. And given goods are most valuable in their current age, that's grossly unfair to consider them the same and ignore the increased costs of housing. (because if you stick with Iron age houses you wouldn't have the cost of replacing infrastructure, but you would have a great cost in space reduction. If you use EMA housing then there's a pretty large cost in replacing all the housing to current age)

 

[DeletedUser]

Funny thing was I was very short in the Tommorow Era because I could easily trade all I needed 1:1 from out the Contemporary Era as people where overstocked and needed those goods to produce AF goods.
There was someone, not even a friend, who was willing to stock me in the Tommorow era for very low era goods.

 

[Goblin The Great King]

If one persons doing it? That works. If most people adopt it? You risk devaluing the entire market depending on how exactly you go about making this profit, eventually making it the new norm. And to some extent players already do this across ages. I just don't know if it's from your calculations or if they're trying to make a profit without seeing your thread.

The ebony for honey for example, if we go off your calculator you've greatly devalued honey by ignoring houses altogether. It's going to potentially cost players double what it should to produce honey then what it currently costs. And given goods are most valuable in their current age, that's grossly unfair to consider them the same and ignore the increased costs of housing. (because if you stick with Iron age houses you wouldn't have the cost of replacing infrastructure, but you would have a great cost in space reduction. If you use EMA housing then there's a pretty large cost in replacing all the housing to current age)

Half a year passed from the topic start. At the moment I see that there is no way this might be a standard. So it's only for certain people to use inside the standing structure to make it more fluid. It's like having an insider information on stockmarket. 1 person will not do much on an influence, but will help market a bit and gain some profit

You are right. House initial cost is outside the equation.

 

[DeletedUser110503]

Gnerally speaking, there are too many inputs and too many non-linear relations... and it does not compute

-----------
IF I am allowed to contradict the original post without first fully comprehending it (too compolicated, too cubersome) or without even first fully reading it (too long, some factors too trivial) THEN:

The calculation is not valid UNLESS "all supplies are totally used for goods production (no other purposes)"

Think about it: the author neglected the cost of coins thinking "it is only a byproduct and costs nothing" well then as time goes on, players tend to have more supplies than they can ever spend (therefore the unbirthday) and the supplies, too, cost nothing and should be neglected from the calculation.

The only influential factor remaining would be the footprint, which is simple and does not change, for example, Rope (3x2) / Herbs (3x4) = 0.5... wait... that can't be right... what is the fault in this reasoning? No matter, let's not contradict ourselves but go on to contradict the original poster

As above said, coins and supplies are crossed off from the list of independent influential factors... what if, somehow, population also devalues? For exmaple, Inno and Habitat -- it is hard for lower age players to lay a hand on these. It is easier for advanced age players. If lower age players did build an Inno (like I did) they'll find they have MORE population than they can ever spend. Just like that, population is also crossed off from the list of inputs.

Other than footprint, the only true input left, it seems, is the amount of time to produce the goods, which is 8 hours for 10 goods, which is the SAME REGARDLESS of the age.

Conclusion: same age goods, 1:1, or 1:0.9, or 1:1.2, whatever, negligible. The 1:2 different age ratio is a TRUE problem. As time goes on, it should also approach 1:1, at either a faster or slower rate. The 1:2 ratio is only the INITIAL ratio, valid/applicable perhaps only to Bronze Age and Iron Age, since the number of players in that age is of the same "order of magnitude". In extreme analysis, say only one player made it to OF and only one player made it to VF. Should they trade goods with each other 1:2, or 1:1? when both have to spend 8 hours to produce 10 goods?

So, the inputs taken into account by the author have different weighing factors applied to them. In the long run, the weight of most inputs diminishes. And those inputs become negligible. First coins, then supplies, perhaps then populations, and then footprint size. All become worthless, except, it seems, the 8 hours for 10 goods. Still with the extreme example of only 1VF player and only 1OF player, it will then depend on how many goods building you build. If one player built one buildings for Goods OF(A), while the other player built two buildings for Goods VF(B), then the ratio should be reversed, from 1:2 to 2:1 (or the other way around). This also leads to another major fault to the reasoning of the original post, as follows:

You can't calculate the ratio like that because not all players in the world can trade with one another. Tax-free trade is limited within the guild. Even with tax, trade is limited within neighbors, guildies, friends. And they spread through different ages. The number of goods buildings becomes a very important influential factor WHEREAS, I think, the original post's calculation is based on the assumption of "there are equal total number of good buildings among different types" -- this assumption can be correct in the whole world for it gets evened out -- but perhaps not the case within a specific limited circle of friends, neighbors, guildies.

(I'm ranting on at the same time of forgetting what I wrote previously but maybe there is some sense in it. An important point is "the ratio of 2 for cross-age trades is unfair! All ratios should approach 1 in the long run!")

Correction: Not 1; but approaching 1. If the ratio is exactly 1 then 1 BA good for 1 VF good -- that is radiculous. But if let's say the ratio is 0.9. Then 0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9... the number becomes very small, so that you still can't trade 1 BA goods for 1 VF goods.

Continue to append: the game's "guidance ratio" (renamed from "fair ratio") is an "initial ratio" -- thoughtful for new players only; for old players (IDT "in the long run"), the system is messed up therefore old players leave

(Anyone who thinks the above makes sense please go into the game and trade 1 developed age goods for 1 undeveloped age goods with me )

I enjoyed your splendidly abstruse reasoning, I may even take the time to follow it through one day. Factoring in variables such as availability of raw material on the maps or putting a value on using space to produce goods from previous ages could add further layers of Byzantine complexity. Any trade that is acceptable to both parties is self evidently “fair” in the only sense that really matters. The 2.1 limit is unfair in my opinion, for instance, in light of my tech tree requirements and local market conditions, I would consider trading 3 ferroconcrete for each renewable resource eminently fair.

 

[Emberguard]

The 2.1 limit is unfair in my opinion, for instance, in light of my tech tree requirements and local market conditions, I would consider trading 3 ferroconcrete for each renewable resource eminently fair.

Yeah, more then 1 age up/down I'd consider 3:1 perfectly reasonable. Alas, it's not a thing

 

[Goblin The Great King]

I've now went though all stages of the game. Being in SAAB I can state that even when all the goods are produced from special buildings rates from true fair trade calculator make sense.
Still after this period of time I can state that this system is pretty complicated and hard to implement to big number of people. Supply / Demand is making it's business. Bad trades are just longer to get though the market, good ones are taken immediately. And there is no time factor in this system.

 

[potatoskunk]

This is a worthy attempt at calculating fair prices, but it's based fully on the supply side and ignores demand.

If, instead, the price floats freely based on supply and demand, reacting to temporary spikes in supply or demand, we wouldn't have to try to calculate a fair ratio. Instead, the price would depend on what people are willing to pay.

How would that work? More details in my post here. But in brief, whenever you want to make a trade, you would look in the market to see what trades were available. And then you would either take one of those trades, or you would offer your own. The trades that are sitting in the market would tell you what the current price is, and you could match them or beat them, or offer a higher price if you're prepared to wait.

No complicated calculations needed. All that's needed is a cultural change where we get away from the arbitrary and unfair 2:1 assumption.

 

[r21r]

in my world, SAAB sets are being sold for ~300-400FP's
i used to sell 5.000 Bronze Goods (1.000each) for 300FP's (to negotiators)
i still sell Iron EMA HMA and LMA goods, at prices if not bigger, but close enough to SAAB rates...
if this helps