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.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.
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
That doesn't mean your trade partners should pay for your FP spendings.
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)
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.
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.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.
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.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)
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.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 )
Yeah, more then 1 age up/down I'd consider 3:1 perfectly reasonable. Alas, it's not a thingThe 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.