Fair Trading.

[DeletedUser]

As a fairly new player to the game today I decided to explore the relative values of goods that can be produced. As people will know goods double in production costs each time you go up an era. Consequently in reality it costs 8 times more to produce 1 unit of glass than 1 unit of marble for instance.

I found and old thread in the guides which is a little out of date, but still had the costs detailed for all the goods:

http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/showthread.php?1328-List-of-goods-in-each-age

....and I decided that it might be helpful to update this list with the changes that happened since it was made, and also design a relative value chart to easily compare one type of goods with another:

Since doing that I discovered the new trading rules that limit possible trade ratios to double up or down, making my chart completely redundant (but not changing the truth of it).....and I found the explanation thread about what was now possible:
http://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/showthread.php?3964-Guide-The-new-trade-system-as-of-07-09-2012

I can understand that multi-accounters making unfair trades with themselves could easily be a problem, so something had to be done, but I still wonder if the solution which basically forces people into unfair trading in value is really the answer.

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the range of allowed trades pegged to the same possible spread as the true costs? Or at the very least a bit closer than only being able to receive 2 for 1 for something that actually cost 16, or possibly even 32 times as much if the new goods coming soon follow the same pattern as all the rest (which was my presumption making the chart)

 

[DeletedUser]

well i can see a lot of effort was made into this, but me personally i just made 1 of each goods building and make them myself instead of trading. more fun that way ;P

 

[DeletedUser]

Do you make all the buildings that you don't have the goods for yourself as well?

That kind of negates that whole idea it seems to me.

 

[DeletedUser]

well im a strange person , though i admit, haven the resource from the world map does help alot (think its 1 every 4 hours to 5 every 4 hours if u have the resource on the map) if im crazy enough to build 1 of each and struggle to find space/maintain enough population to handle them, then i deserve the fate but that doesnt mean other ppl wouldnt use the trade system if i choose not to, but i can see what your trying to say here aswell

 

[DeletedUser]

I can understand that multi-accounters making unfair trades with themselves could easily be a problem, so something had to be done, but I still wonder if the solution which basically forces people into unfair trading in value is really the answer.

No it doesn't.
Because trading Dye for Granite is already an unfair trade. Players using T3 do need T1, but only in certain cases and in amounts that they should have saved up already or can easily trade with their T2 goods.

I think the 0.5-2.0 ratio is good and eliminates a lot of crazy trades going on. This doesn't mean that people can't still create trades of Wine:Silk, it just means it's silly and unless you found a desperate or generous trader, no one's going to accept that.

- L

 

[DeletedUser]

Brilliant!

thanks a lot, really top notch!

 

[DeletedUser]

Well isn't it against the rules to have multiple accounts? The developers could just track IP's to make sure people dont cheat that way right?

 

[DeletedUser3157]

Also as u said, multi-accounters making unfair trades with themselves could easily be a problem.

I wonder when will devs understand that the 0.5-2 rate limit does not stop any semi-intelligent multi player for farming goods from his town A to town B. As a main reason or the excuse for this limit, it would be one of the least effective abuse preventing measures I've ever heard of, simply because it doesn't stop anyone pass their 4th grade from moving all bar 1 of their goods from town A to town B. Netting the exact same final result like in the days without the rate limit. It just takes few minutes more time now.

But I quess it does lower the scale of such events and makes it harder for cheaters, as it would be little more difficult to organize with the limit out there. Assuming ofc that goods multi farms is still some sort of relavent problem after the introduction of guilds. There is so much wrong with the rate thing, but tbh I don't really even care too much any more. I made my arguments on this issue multiple times long ago and they were either disagreed with or ignored, idk. Also read the arguments devs had in return, and thought they were really naive. But devs are super fixed on the rate thing being really great, so discussion on this matter for now would just be waste of time, just adapt and play to the rules u got.

 

[DeletedUser4800]

No it doesn't.
Because trading Dye for Granite is already an unfair trade. Players using T3 do need T1, but only in certain cases and in amounts that they should have saved up already or can easily trade with their T2 goods.

I think the 0.5-2.0 ratio is good and eliminates a lot of crazy trades going on. This doesn't mean that people can't still create trades of Wine:Silk, it just means it's silly and unless you found a desperate or generous trader, no one's going to accept that.

- L

That is just ridiculous. We all know you work for the company, you don't need to make it that obvious.

As far as the trade, I've been in 3 guilds and no one I know likes the restrictions.

Plus the "abuse" thing with multiple accounts, the devs are basically shooting a nuclear bomb on a tank, that was the reactions to this.

At the very least the trading limit needs to be increased to 10.

 

[DeletedUser]

That is just ridiculous. We all know you work for the company, you don't need to make it that obvious.

Well, I'm glad you find my posts knowledgeable enough to think that. :cool:
However, if you only think that because I'm voicing a strong opinion about this particular issue, it's just because I'm voicing it just as strong as you, but with a different opinion.

As far as the trade, I've been in 3 guilds and no one I know likes the restrictions.

That probably because this rule creates a difficulty in gameplay that the majority of the gaming community rather not faces. Let's be honest, nowadays most 'gamers' want to get everything handed to them on a silver platter.
Ofcourse, there may be cases where it would be handy to trade beyond the implemented limits, but nothing you can't do with a few extra steps within the limits.
I could go all 'satisfied customer review' in here and post numerous quotes of guildmembers that have had an increased enjoyable game experience since joining the guild I'm in that has pretty strict trading regulations, but let's not. :p

Plus the "abuse" thing with multiple accounts, the devs are basically shooting a nuclear bomb on a tank, that was the reactions to this.

I haven't seen much feedback from the higher-ups in the Forums about this statement, so maybe they agree and it was just a quick solution as they focused on other features.
Perhaps they don't feel the need to justify themselves because they wouldn't make immense game changing decisions like that on a whim.

At the very least the trading limit needs to be increased to 10.

That is already in the game. They're called the Game Merchants.

- L

 

[DeletedUser2206]

I think that it couls be a bit more fair in the sense that the "Merchant" gets away with we have to give 10 just to get one, but we cannot trade like that with others, but if we could, there would be so many taking advantage. lol, there already are hogs who want 2 for 1 in same-era trades. Perhaps the developers can make the merchant trading a bit more fair.

In reality, what some have already stated is correct: if you need Gunpowder, you should have something better than stone to trade, unless you are like me, and you have to struggle your way up, and don't have the goods or armies to get all of the sectors that have the better mines.

 

[DeletedUser276]

That is just ridiculous. We all know you work for the company, you don't need to make it that obvious.

You actually think he works for us? lol guess you dont read the forums much. Check out this link in the Announcements section.

Read the wording carefully.

As far as the trade, I've been in 3 guilds and no one I know likes the restrictions.

Plus the "abuse" thing with multiple accounts, the devs are basically shooting a nuclear bomb on a tank, that was the reactions to this.

They arent there to make friends but to narrow the trading field till something better comes out that can have more control. The ratios were put that way as far as I know because it was the first release of the open trades and people were going crazy with the ratios asking for people to take iron age for high age goods at way bad ratios which were plugging the market with absolutely stupid trades.

When the game is more released I know the trades system will get a bit of a revamp. They are leaving it as is as they are in a rush to try to get the game out. The fine tuning will happen later.

 

[DeletedUser]

I have seen lots of conversations about fair trading. The comparative costs of goods is not the whole story - the costs go up in line with inflation - you are earning higher rates of coin and supplies in the higher ages. Therefore within an age the goods are 1:1, but if trading outside of the age you could still consider relative values to be 1:1. Relatively it costs me the same to produce goods of the Iron Age when I am in the Iron Age as it does to produce goods of the High Middle Age when I am in the High Middle Age.

I think the only time when we should expect 'fair trading' is within the guild, and on the basis of my reasoning above this would always be 1:1 regardless of the goods. Otherwise let market forces drive the market. If I post a silly trade no one will take it, unless they really really need the goods RIGHT NOW and are willing to pay the price.

 

[DeletedUser]

I disagree with this.
That's like saying a rich person can trade his Porsche for a bike merely because he can afford it, and really needs a bike for some vacation trip.

- L

 

[DeletedUser6878]

Trade is good ...

 

[DeletedUser4800]

While I agree more or less with you about the last sentence, about the free market, I don't think is fair to trade let's say 10 lumber for 10 silk... for me, fair trading is 1:1 with goods from the same age, and 2:1 with goods from one age higher. If you are advanced, and need let's say 5 granite, if you don't have let's say 5 copper, for me is fair to offer 10 let's say cloth for it. So the 2:1 ratio is enough. You don't go offer 20 lumber for 5 granite, because even if the ratio would be rised to whatever, I belive no one would trade that. (If for some wierd reason, a player that already produce granite don't have lumber, he can always trade a lower age goods, like let's say 10 jewelry for 20 lumber)

P.S.
If you are so advanced in Early Middle Age that you produce granite, if you don't have enough lumber, or any other bronze age goods, well.. that's just bad economics.

Well you don't always have lower aged goods. This just proves my point, the current trade limits development and playing styles, forcing everyone to get all goods buildings, instead of having people play strategically and lets say for example getting 3 buildings for 1 good for early middle ages and trade everything with it. You are forced into buying all goods buildings, limiting players choice and strategies.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well you don't always have lower aged goods. This just proves my point, the current trade limits development and playing styles, forcing everyone to get all goods buildings, instead of having people play strategically and lets say for example getting 3 buildings for 1 good for early middle ages and trade everything with it. You are forced into buying all goods buildings, limiting players choice and strategies.

You keep bringing up that point and saying everything proves your point.
Your point is only valid if you insist on playing the game solo and in the extremely situational environment where no one in your neighbourhood or guild has any of the goods you require.

The game is not forcing anyone to build all goods buildings, that's just plain silly. I've never ever had to create any goods building I didn't have a deposit for.
My stocks are over 200-400 per good, of each Age, with the exception of a few. This is also true for goods I do not have a deposit for. I just trade nearly everything I can accept.

From this thread:

Just to give you a sense of what's needed:

High Middle Ages
66 Stone, 79 Lumber, 94 Marble, 90 Dye, 71 Wine
53 Limestone, 42 Ebony, 47 Iron, 30 Cloth, 10 Jewelry
20 Copper, 60 Granite, 20 Alabaster, 41 Gold, 30 Honey
40 Brick, 4 Rope, 11 Salt, 34 Dried Herbs, 50 Glass

If 1:10 trades would still be legal, and you needed 10 Bricks or anything else of higher tier, the Brick trader would be done with their tier1 requirements of a good after ONE trade. (10Bricks:100Stone)
For tier2 they'd be done with half of that. (5Bricks:50Ebony)

So a player with higher tiers would really be done after a few trades to get what he needs of lower tier, and that's even assuming that that player didn't save ANY lower tier goods at all.
To trade (much) lower tier goods for higher tier goods is basically just a charity trade. The high tier trader barely has any gain.

I think you need to change your strategy. Numerous players are doing just fine.

- L

 

[DeletedUser]

hello everybody

from my observation, i really think the ratio of 2 and 0.5 in trade is ok.
because if say u need glass to complete something, u would have already reached the age to produce 1age lower goods right?
so u can juz change your copper or granite or honey for the glass.

i think to still use dye or wine to exchange for super advanced resources would be quite ridiculous at this point in time?
u really expect others to invest their population points and time to produce higher age goods for u while u can stay wif producing bronze age goods till the end of eternity?

 

[DeletedUser]

Well you don't always have lower aged goods. This just proves my point, the current trade limits development and playing styles, forcing everyone to get all goods buildings, instead of having people play strategically and lets say for example getting 3 buildings for 1 good for early middle ages and trade everything with it. You are forced into buying all goods buildings, limiting players choice and strategies.

I agree with Lodroth's response to this. I haven't joined a guild yet and haven't felt compelled to put up any goods buildings that I didn't have a deposit for. I just keep posting trades to get whatever items I have the lowest amount of and I haven't had any issues. Even if I couldn't get something I really wanted, I still doubt that I would throw up a Goods building for it. It would make more sense to just build another workshop for something I already have a deposit for so I can use that excess to make guaranteed trades with the Merchant.

If anything I would bump up the Merchant rate slightly so he's 5:1 instead of 10:1, to make it on a par with trying to run Goods buildings you have no deposit for, but I can live without that feature. It might be better instead to make the `no deposit` minimum rate 2 instead of 1. Honestly it seems like nearly anything is better that trying to run a building with no deposit- even using the Merchant, since you can just invest in a few more more productive Goods buildings and base all your trading out of that. You make X and nobody wants to trade your X for Y? Trade X for Z and then trade Z for Y. You should still come out ahead.

 

[DeletedUser]

Perhaps people need to think about promotion and demotion of goods between tiers. The actual goods don't really matter much - it is the production costs you have already put into those goods which counts. What I mean is if you want to trade Tier 1 goods for tier 5 goods, say, plan ahead a bit, do a bit more work, and don't try to do it in one go. Do it tier by tier and promote T1 to T2, T2 to T3, T3 to T4, and T4 to T5. For fair trading purposes use a 2:1 ratio for each trade. Then 16 x T1 --> 8 x T2 --> 4 x T3 --> 2 x T2 --> 1 x T5. Compare these numbers with the costs of goods from each tier. You are effectively just redeploying your gold/production costs which you have already spent with no huge losses. This works going down the tiers as well. It assumes there are enough people with enough surpluses to want to do a bit of goods "tier jiggling" themselves.