• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can     REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Forum Contests

    Won't you join us for out latest contest?
    You can check out the newest one here.

Production costs for Colonial Age are different why the change?

DeletedUser

Hi everyone,

The main reason for this post is that I want to link it to my guild forum for a more complete discussion on how our trade policy should be ammended. It isn't particularly for open discussion as that is not my particular concern but feel free to do so if you should wish. My main aim was simply to get the immage onto the forum for a much clearer display using examples. I may also use this thread to add more immages for an update to my trade charter once fully accepted bringing it forward and looking refreshed.

Trade rates CA~LMA.jpg

Thanks FOE,

~ddrd1981
 

DeletedUser1009

Thanks for posting this. I didn't realize that the values were already calculated, I always thought the ratios would be 1 for 1. So, what would the rate of 15 Tar vs 15 Gunpowder be? And should be different for 15 Gunpowder vs 15 Tar.....
 

DeletedUser276

its basic math.

15 divided by 10 = 1.5

10 divided by 15 = .666666666666666667

which of course rounds up to .67

Not So Fast said:
Thanks for posting this. I didn't realize that the values were already calculated, I always thought the ratios would be 1 for 1. So, what would the rate of 15 Tar vs 15 Gunpowder be? And should be different for 15 Gunpowder vs 15 Tar.....
Click to expand...

15 tar to 15 gunpowder would be 1:1 as 15 divided by 15 is 1. And no its not any different if you reverse them.
 

DeletedUser

Is the point the OP was trying to make (although I'm not sure on this as it seems rather ambiguous) that previously the difference between one age and the next was that the goods cost doubled; with colonial age, the cost to produce goods was only 1.5 times that of LMA goods. Why the change?
 
Belcher

Belcher

Corporal
If you keep doubling the cost, it will eventually become outrageously expensive. At some point you need to reduce the rate of increase to keep it under control, which would be my guess on the reason for the change.
 

DeletedUser3157

It was poor reasoning, CA goods are too cheap. I hoped that was where they planned to go eventualy(very expensive goods).
 

DeletedUser1009

Blacksmith said:
its basic math.

15 divided by 10 = 1.5

10 divided by 15 = .666666666666666667

which of course rounds up to .67

15 tar to 15 gunpowder would be 1:1 as 15 divided by 15 is 1. And no its not any different if you reverse them.
Click to expand...


DUH! Brain Fart. Sorry.
 

DeletedUser

The issue being discussed here is not the math, but the fact that the CA Goods production costs are only 1.5x the cost of the LMA Goods production costs.

Any other Age has it's production costs doubled, so why not the CA. That's the discussion (as you can see from the title too).

The picture is just a reference for if you're trading goods in ratios dependant on production costs.
Normally in that case you'd put 20 Gunpowder : 10 Tar or 10 Tar : 20 Gunpowder, but because the costs for the CA are only 1.5x, trades that go by the above rule should be done in ratios as displayed in the picture.

- L
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

i think lowering the price of goods for the CA is a good decision because how many are afford to pay 12800gold and supplies just to produce 20goods....not even to mention the next age(INA) will be cost 25600 money and supplies...not many people are afford to pay that much even when they are in colonial age only diamond users are afford to do it...
 

DeletedUser

apocalipster said:
i think lowering the price of goods for the CA is a good decision because how many are afford to pay 12800gold and supplies just to produce 20goods....not even to mention the next age(INA) will be cost 25600 money and supplies...not many people are afford to pay that much even when they are in colonial age only diamond users are afford to do it...
Click to expand...

I would rather see the rate of price change stay the same and maybe have them tweak the amounts the houses / supply buildings produce to keep on par with the costs. I like things to be consistent and logical :)

~Mutzena~
 

DeletedUser

Mutzena said:
I would rather see the rate of price change stay the same and maybe have them tweak the amounts the houses / supply buildings produce to keep on par with the costs. I like things to be consistent and logical :)

~Mutzena~
Click to expand...

I think the rate at which goods cost should keep doubling and the houses keep producing the amounts they are now - there is nothing wrong with the amount houses produce and an extra 3200 gold & supplies is not that much.

I have no issue with IndA goods costing 25,600 gold & supplies. I have no diamond buildings and could quite happily afford to fund 2-3 buildings at that rate (although with multiple GBs giving free goods I wouldn't need to build that many).
 

DeletedUser

Lodroth said:
The issue being discussed here is not the math, but the fact that the CA Goods production costs are only 1.5x the cost of the LMA Goods production costs.

Any other Age has it's production costs doubled, so why not the CA. That's the discussion (as you can see from the title too).

The picture is just a reference for if you're trading goods in ratios dependant on production costs.
Normally in that case you'd put 20 Gunpowder : 10 Tar or 10 Tar : 20 Gunpowder, but because the costs for the CA are only 1.5x, trades that go by the above rule should be done in ratios as displayed in the picture.

- L
Click to expand...

In Greifental we have all agreed to trade with the ratios that I displayed as the majority agree that this is the fairest method. just thought i would share this with a fellow Fair Trader.

Long live 'The Fair Traders' guilds!

~ddrd1981
 

DeletedUser

hint said:
It was poor reasoning, CA goods are too cheap. I hoped that was where they planned to go eventualy(very expensive goods).
Click to expand...

I think your view on that subject is colored by the fact that you were waiting and stockpiling a good time for that age. I have to do the balancing so that it works out for all users of the game.

Regards,

Anwar
 

DeletedUser

Mutzena said:
I would rather see the rate of price change stay the same and maybe have them tweak the amounts the houses / supply buildings produce to keep on par with the costs. I like things to be consistent and logical :)

~Mutzena~
Click to expand...

but that is boring when every thing allways goes the same pattern no? if allways same pattern we use archer to lma and musketier to 2050 when game end. I happy they change pattern sometimes
 

DeletedUser3157

Anwar said:
I think your view on that subject is colored by the fact that you were waiting and stockpiling a good time for that age. I have to do the balancing so that it works out for all users of the game.

Regards,

Anwar
Click to expand...

CA came out about 2-3 weeks before I was done with LMA and GBs came out about 3 days before I was done with CA. So I've played a single non-stop run up until deep into great buildings. But I do agree my opinion could be biased, as above average active player resources are not too much of a problem for me. For a while though I just thought goods cost was indended to become more and more expensive and difficult by design, to make the game slightly harder with every next age.
 

DeletedUser6965

hint said:
CA came out about 2-3 weeks before I was done with LMA and GBs came out about 3 days before I was done with CA. So I've played a single non-stop run up until deep into great buildings. But I do agree my opinion could be biased, as above average active player resources are not too much of a problem for me. For a while though I just thought goods cost was indended to become more and more expensive and difficult by design, to make the game slightly harder with every next age.
Click to expand...

hm yes, I think there is no need to "complain"/discuss about this, because nobody gets disadvantages :)
By the way, I never produced a single CA-good by myself, nor I traded or plundered them :D But I did all researches and build the deal castle, only with goods from quests :D :D
 

DeletedUser

As this guild is primarly in Greifental, and the thread being primarly aimed at the guild... I'll move it there :)
 

DeletedUser

Blacksmith said:
its basic math.

15 divided by 10 = 1.5

10 divided by 15 = .666666666666666667

which of course rounds up to .67



15 tar to 15 gunpowder would be 1:1 as 15 divided by 15 is 1. And no its not any different if you reverse them.
Click to expand...

Yes this is what we all agreed upon in guild so this is now an aspect of our trade policy from now on.

~ddrd1981
 

DeletedUser

imo rate calculations are good and implemented correctly, cos when you set the need and offer, it will help you find the best trade
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top