Ashrem
Oh Wise One
I'm assuming that was meant to be a counter argument? Do you have some counter examples that apply generally?
-
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
Click here to register for a forum account!
If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.
Your Elvenar Team
Fair Trades?
- Thread starter KidWillow
- Start date
- Status
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
Very true, but there is no option to spend diamonds to avoid said frustration so this doesn't apply here:but frustration is something Inno uses to sell more
If I hate the trader because it's full of garbage that doesn't make me spend diamonds, it just makes me play less because checking the trader to see if there is anyone I can help out is just a nice social feature, I don't actually need it.
Yeah, sure. There is a whole list of features I would pay a subscription fee for if implemented or a 1-time fee for an upgraded game. As is the development of this game is glacial and not worth paying for imo.What if you pay a daily fee in
will you pay for it ?
I've said for years that to get money from me they need to do 2 things:
1. Implement QoL features in a timely manner.
2. Implement building skins (or similar) so I can buy something non-cheaty.
Killy-
Well-Known Member
Nah, no counter, the person winning every single tournament in my world with 30k points is just the better player and only bought some cosmetics.
I thought it is obvious that the game is p2w. Your text made me chuckle and I only had some sarcasm for it at 3 am my time.
BrinDarby
Well-Known Member
No I didn't say subscription..... Yes, I know you did....
That is a whole different discussion, I will quit if
Elvenar becomes a subscription based game.
I meant a rediculious fee, like everything else seems
to be, and on a per use basis.... like per 24 hrs.
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
I didn't say only cosmetics, I said cosmetic or time/space savings. The game has no win condition, the only thing people can pay for is the ability to play it faster or pack more into the same space. Even the elements within it which do have appear as though tey have a win condition don't have one, there is no prize except the ability to do things faster next time or pack more things into the same space. If people are traumatized by someone having cooler electronic buildings than them, that's about their life. The little avatars walk around my city at the same speed regardless of who "won" the last Fellowship Adventure.Nah, no counter, the person winning every single tournament in my world with 30k points is just the better player and only bought some cosmetics.
I thought it is obvious that the game is p2w. Your text made me chuckle and I only had some sarcasm for it at 3 am my time.
Killy-
Well-Known Member
Well, you find your own win condition in this game and a lot depends what it is for you (or you don't have any, that's fine too). But if you say there is no winning and you only play the game for the fun playing it, why would you spend money, so you have to play the game less?
ajqtrz
Chef - Loquacious One
I agree, but for two things. 1) All the "turd sandwiches" are at the bottom of the menu, clearly marked, and 2) whatever definition the menu creator has for a "turd sandwich" may be different from my own, and, more to the point, it may be different than yours. So some of the things above the "ts" (I'm getting tired of typing it out), may be ts to you, but not to me, and some of the things below the ts line may be things I'd put above the line and you wouldn't. In other words, since the menu doesn't really have a good standard for telling us what a ts really might be in our own estimation, you may occasionally take one anyway.
As for the misclicks it would be nice to have an "undo" feature that allowed you to go back a few clicks. But a filter would be okay too. Unfortunately, since the definition of TS is different for each of us to some general degree, neither would actually solve the problem, would they? The problem is measuring what is a TS and what is not, and since the value of the trade resides in the valuer (the buyer and seller) and not in the game, any filter or automatic arrangement is bound to be wrong a certain amount of the time.
AJ
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
Because some people do not enjoy the journey as much as others. Just as some people going on vacation camp in tents and others stay in hotels.
Killy-
Well-Known Member
But the journey is all there is (no win condition) or something like that.
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
Exactly. People who chose to stay in hotels are not a threat to your camping trip.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
Some parts of the journey are more fun than others, so skipping whichever part isn't bringing joy to get to the part that does bring you joy is basically the entire business model of this game and others like it.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
That's a ridiculous question.
Would anyone do anything they find ridiculous?
Would anyone do anything they find reasonable?
So yes, I would reasonably pay for better game features. Sub, DLC, 1-time, per use, Freemium, Patron, Kickstarter, GoFundme IDGAF, just give(sell) us the product we want.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
So I'm looking at @minmax's page for the tournament formula and came across the goods ratios for tournament and spire
I should have known he'd have the answer:
The demand for T1 is almost precisely double the demand for T3 in both the tournament and spire.
Cost Ratio (the original)
This ratio was determined based on the raw cost of supplies & coins needed to start factory productions.
16:4:1 = 16 planks per gem!
Production Ratio (current)
This system tries to account for the "true" space needed to produce goods including population, supplies, coins, and culture.
2.25:1.5:1 = 2.25 planks per gem
Demand Ratio (new)
This ratio is based on how many goods players use in the Spire & Tournament.
2:3:4 = 0.5 planks per gem! That's almost a full reversal of the current 2-star ratio!
The Cost Ratio's biggest flaw was that it didn't consider population and the required space actually needed to make goods as you can see from the drastic changes made when the Production Ratio was implemented.
The Production Ratio was an attempt to include as many production factors as possible to determine the cost of producing goods. It was a very significant improvement. Unfortunately, since its implementation, the production of goods has changed dramatically:
Set buildings, evolutions, and other event prizes now account for a significant portion of production- in some cases replacing traditional factories completely! Coupled with this was the "scaling" of prizes where in low chapters they gave T1 & T2 but in advanced chapters, they give everyone T3. Since advanced players make millions of goods (compared to the hundreds or thousands that a smaller player makes) this has further unbalanced the trades. So not only is the production ratio off, but it also doesn't take into account the need for goods which brings us to the demand ratio.
The Demand Ratio reflects the spire and tournament costs which are by far the greatest demand for goods across Elvenar.
It's not without flaws though:
Pushing the ratio down:
Conclusion:
While we may never arrive at a perfect ratio for cross-trades, the Demand Ratio at least explains why the others aren't universally accepted and why accepting them could be detrimental to your own city's development (especially on a misclick!)
Source for charts:
I should have known he'd have the answer:
The demand for T1 is almost precisely double the demand for T3 in both the tournament and spire.
Cost Ratio (the original)
This ratio was determined based on the raw cost of supplies & coins needed to start factory productions.
16:4:1 = 16 planks per gem!
Production Ratio (current)
This system tries to account for the "true" space needed to produce goods including population, supplies, coins, and culture.
2.25:1.5:1 = 2.25 planks per gem
Demand Ratio (new)
This ratio is based on how many goods players use in the Spire & Tournament.
2:3:4 = 0.5 planks per gem! That's almost a full reversal of the current 2-star ratio!
The Cost Ratio's biggest flaw was that it didn't consider population and the required space actually needed to make goods as you can see from the drastic changes made when the Production Ratio was implemented.
The Production Ratio was an attempt to include as many production factors as possible to determine the cost of producing goods. It was a very significant improvement. Unfortunately, since its implementation, the production of goods has changed dramatically:
Set buildings, evolutions, and other event prizes now account for a significant portion of production- in some cases replacing traditional factories completely! Coupled with this was the "scaling" of prizes where in low chapters they gave T1 & T2 but in advanced chapters, they give everyone T3. Since advanced players make millions of goods (compared to the hundreds or thousands that a smaller player makes) this has further unbalanced the trades. So not only is the production ratio off, but it also doesn't take into account the need for goods which brings us to the demand ratio.
The Demand Ratio reflects the spire and tournament costs which are by far the greatest demand for goods across Elvenar.
It's not without flaws though:
Pushing the ratio down:
For a very low-chapter player, T2 or T3 goods may not be asked for at all in the tournament or spire until the next chapter dropping their value even further.
This ratio doesn't reflect the excess T3 production from advanced players' event buildings which should reduce their value.
Neutral(?) effect on the ratio, but significant for this particular playstyle:Players who don't cater the spire or tournament will of course have different demands on their goods (mostly the tech tree)
Still, looking at the costs to cater at a high level (millions of goods per player every week) the total demand in Elvenar for goods should be close to the 0.5 planks per gem ratio even if the above comparatively minor factors could be counted.Conclusion:
While we may never arrive at a perfect ratio for cross-trades, the Demand Ratio at least explains why the others aren't universally accepted and why accepting them could be detrimental to your own city's development (especially on a misclick!)
Source for charts:
crackie
Chef, Scroll-Keeper, Buddy's #1 Fan
HA! Cause I didn't already say this 11 pages ago on the very first page and even quoted youI should have known he'd have the answer:
The demand for T1 is almost precisely double the demand for T3 in both the tournament and spire.
SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
Heh, I love that you take my hand-scribbled notes to have the same authority as Minmaxes calculations, but I'm always a little relieved to see my numbers match his...HA! Cause I didn't already say this 11 pages ago on the very first page and even quoted you
Katwick
Cartographer
Starter cities obviously aren't doing Spire, and only a few Tournament sectors are available, BUT they still add basic goods to the trading pool and that somewhat compensates for the T1 demand.
I don't have any data floating around but I think I remember that the smaller cities aren't asked for the same T1:T2:T3 ratios when they negotiate.
Ashrem
Oh Wise One
Not really. I think it's basically a rounding error on the quantities. A low chapter city with five fully leveled T1 factories can't produce enough T1 to cover a single province negotiation for someone in later chapters. An easy encounter in ring 15 for me requires 15000 marble. My Chapter three city, with MM spells running, and if I didn't miss any 3 hours production runs 24 hours a day would need 11 fully leveled factories to cover the T1 in that negotiation once a day.
Meanwhile, as is standard for early cities, it's finished just enough provinces to enter chapter 4, but has no easy provinces left to scout. A freshly scouted province for that city requires 2010 t1, 954 t2, zero t3, so it really has no t1 to spare for the higher level players
And that's after finishing the chapter 4 scouting tech.
ajqtrz
Chef - Loquacious One
Well, looks like we are getting closer to agreement here. I've always said that ratios should be tied to demand/supply. And, to some degree, they are in the real trading done even here in Elvenar. Real people demand and are willing to supply more than just goods in a trade. I call them "intangibles" and they are as much a part of the ratios as anything and, in fact, to some degree, influence them. Playing the tournament and Spire, for instance, can shift the supply/demand because those playing have a set of needs to reach their desired targets in the tournament and Spire. And those goals influence their valuation of the goods needed at the time they are needed.
So, "While we may never arrive at a perfect ratio for cross-trades," when we each determine the "Demand Ratio" for ourselves we can easily make our trading a positive influence on our city and it's growth. But if you let others determine the criteria for accepting trades, this too "could be detrimental to your own city's development."
AJ
Enevhar Aldarion
Oh Wise One
You can argue over all the ratios you want, but as long as normal goods are regional, and not server-wide like sentient and ascended, anything you come up with will benefit some people but punish others. And that big wave of scrolls and dust-boosted players quitting, before the changes to the moonstone set, continues to have long-term effects.
- Status