The Elvenar!

[DeletedUser2870]

I know I've stated this before, but why do people keep getting stuck in their head that trades need to be 'fair'?
First of all, the ratio of 16-4-1 is not 'fair' as has been discussed over and over. For those who don't believe that, just try and do the math on how much pop, culture and space one needs to produce 16x as much T1 goods as the same aamount of T3, or to try trading them for T3 at that rate and see how long you can keep that up.

Secondly, it would be nice if people started looking at trading from a different perspective; focus on your boosted goods. You have a boost on that production, which (without AW-bonuses) can reach 700%, So why do so many people feel so bad about offering a 5% discount?
I almost never have any trade sit for more than a couple of hours, but I never post a 'fair' trade either. Depending on the amount I offer, I offer a discount, anywhere between 3%-15%, sometimes even more than that if I really need something.

(edited for typo's)

 

[Ashrem]

I know I've stated this before, but why do people keep getting stuck in their head that trades need to be 'fair'?

A significant number of bad trades can wreck the experience for new, vulnerable, players.

When the game tells a new player that something is fair, they tend to take it at face value. That contributes to conflict between players

 

[DeletedUser2870]

A significant number of bad trades can wreck the experience for new, vulnerable, players.

When the game tells a new player that something is fair, they tend to take it at face value. That contributes to conflict between players

True enough, which is why Inno should look at that ratio. The ratio 16:4:1 is not 'fair' when all requirements are considered. It works if one looks only at the amount of supplies and gold needed, but leaves out the far more important factors of space, pop and culture required.

Changing the ratio to something that is actually fair, or at least a lot closer to the actual fair rate, should not only help lessen such experiences, it also is very likely to significantly reduce the amount of cross-tier trades showing up.
But hey, that's something that only has been mentioned about a gazillion times on the forums for pretty much every country, and only has been the subject of a million posts, so it's quite possible it has slipped by unnoticed by Inno's teammembers, devs and forummods.

 

[Ashrem]

True enough, which is why Inno should look at that ratio. The ratio 16:4:1 is not 'fair' when all requirements are considered. It works if one looks only at the amount of supplies and gold needed, but leaves out the far more important factors of space, pop and culture required.

Changing the ratio to something that is actually fair, or at least a lot closer to the actual fair rate, should not only help lessen such experiences, it also is very likely to significantly reduce the amount of cross-tier trades showing up.
But hey, that's something that only has been mentioned about a gazillion times on the forums for pretty much every country, and only has been the subject of a million posts, so it's quite possible it has slipped by unnoticed by Inno's teammembers, devs and forummods.

That's what they are asking for input re on beta forums. They're getting ready to change it and want opinions on what it should be.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

That's what they are asking for input re on beta forums. They're getting ready to change it and want opinions on what it should be.

Lost my login to the beta forum, and since I don't have access to that email account anymore I guess I'm screwed. But they really shouldn't need to ask about suggestions, just read the bloody posts as there have been many.
Soggy made the exact calculations, but if for the sake of simplicity it would be turned to 9:3:1 it would already bee much closer to the actual rate and close enough to at least get rid of most of the cross-tier offers.

edit : Never mind, found my password, posted my response.

 

[Pheryll]

Lost my login to the beta forum, and since I don't have access to that email account anymore I guess I'm screwed. But they really shouldn't need to ask about suggestions, just read the bloody posts as there have been many.
Soggy made the exact calculations, but if for the sake of simplicity it would be turned to 9:3:1 it would already bee much closer to the actual rate and close enough to at least get rid of most of the cross-tier offers

They are suggesting 4:2:1 or 2.25:1.5:1. The former is pretty good culture approximation, while the latter is a pretty good population approximation.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

They are suggesting 4:2:1 or 2.25:1.5:1. The former is pretty good culture approximation, while the latter is a pretty good population approximation.

Actually, they are not, they are much, much worse than that. (I'll quote part of my text there, with the exact numbers)

The real problem is in the amount of space, pop and culture needed to produce a comparable amount of goods. So I'm looking at my factories, all same level, all same boost (700% relics, 100% from the Mountain Halls)
Lvl 27 steel : 3960/3hours on 4x5, 6529 pop, 1690 culture.
Lvl 27 scrolls: 4860/3hours on 4x6, 10968 pop, 3499 culture
Lvl 27 dust : 5040/3hours on 5x5, 13057 pop, 4165 culture

So per square production is 198 : 202,5 : 201.6 which is well within reasonable comparison rates, with T1 being the lowest of the lot.
And the requirements per square are
pop requirement ratio 326,45 : 457 : 522.28, or 1 : 1.40 : 1.60
culture requirement ratio 84,5 : 145,79 : 166,6, or 1 : 1.72 : 1.97

So if we are just looking at the per square requirements, the ratio would be close to something like 2:3:4

 

[Ashrem]

Actually, they are not, they are much, much worse than that

The key word is "approximation." For the sake of human beings posting trades, the numbers they use need to look smooth on screen. Offering 1:00 of something and having the game suggest 172 or 197 does not look smooth. Any fractional share other than .75/.5/.25 is probably off the table from the start, so I think they are actually pretty good approximations.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

The key word is "approximation." For the sake of human beings posting trades, the numbers they use need to look smooth on screen. Offering 1:00 of something and having the game suggest 172 or 197 does not look smooth. Any fractional share other than .75/.5/.25 is probably off the table from the start, so I think they are actually pretty good approximations.

Which is why I ended with 2:3:4. Though 1:3:5 would be better I guess. But I can live with 4:2:1 or even 9:3:1

My main problem is that both culture and pop requirements are very, very far beside the range used now, with pop being the worst, and arguably the most important since that has it's own requirements in culture as well. So needing only 1,6x as much pop/square but getting 16x the value/square makes it very easy to understand why people choose to produce way more T3 goods.

 

[Pheryll]

Lvl 27 steel : 3960/3hours on 4x5, 6529 pop, 1690 culture.
Lvl 27 scrolls: 4860/3hours on 4x6, 10968 pop, 3499 culture
Lvl 27 dust : 5040/3hours on 5x5, 13057 pop, 4165 culture

Remember that in order to balance one is looking across a variety of levels. For example, level 15 numbers look quite different from level 19, 23 or 27 numbers.

 

[Pheryll]

Which is why I ended with 2:3:4. Though 1:3:5 would be better I guess. But I can live with 4:2:1 or even 9:3:1

2:3:4.5 is exactly the 1:1.5:2.25 that is being looked at. Can you explain why 1:3:9 should even be considered?

 

[DeletedUser2870]

Remember that in order to balance one is looking across a variety of levels. For example, level 15 numbers look quite different from level 19, 23 or 27 numbers.

One should always look at the output/square vs resources required for same level buildings. It makes no sense to compare them at different levels. That becomes a bit of an issue since only in chapter 14 one gets them all to be the same level again, which is why I compared them at those levels. It makes no sense to compare a lvl 23 T3 factory to a lvl 27 T2 factory. To get a real comparison they need to be the same level. That way the output/square can be measured equally, as can the amount of pop, space and culture needed to produce that output.
But feel free to build up a factory of each tier to lvl 10 again and compare them there, the ratio actually will not be that different. There is NO point in time where a T3 factory requires even 9x as much pop on the same level as a T1, let alone 16, or requires even 9x as much culture anywhere (except perhaps the first few levels, and those are hard to compare since steel for elves is 2x2 instead of 1x2, so the pop requirements aren't even close to the same. And yet a lvl 1 dust factory does not require 10x as much as a lvl1 woodfactory),
The fact they aren't always at the same level is pretty much irrelevant for comparisons.

As for the ratio's: anything with fractions in it should be avoided if possible, to avoid weird numbers showing up and not to have to deal with offers having to be rounded up or down which will become an endless new matter of discussion.
The 9:3:1 would still be much better than the present rate and keep a steady progression and would be something I could live with, not what I prefer. Which is why I suggested either 4:3:2 or 5:3:1

 

[Pheryll]

It makes no sense to compare a lvl 23 T3 factory to a lvl 27 T2 factory.

Never suggested that comparison. Each of my examples for levels were across the board for all manufactories.

The 9:3:1 would still be much better than the present rate and keep a steady progression and would be something I could live with, not what I prefer. Which is why I suggested either 4:3:2 or 5:3:1

And the developer's are suggesting roughly the 4:3:2. They have looked at the complaints and the math and have given a fairly balanced rate. Their is no need for an intermediary compromise, when the negotiations are already successful.

 

[DeletedUser2870]

And the developer's are suggesting roughly the 4:3:2. They have looked at the complaints and the math and have given a fairly balanced rate. Their is no need for an intermediary compromise, when the negotiations are already successful.

Ok, let me try to make this clear again: I do NOT suggest 9:3:1, Not sure why you keep trying to say so, I said it would be something I could live with.
I SUGGESTED 4:3:2 or 5:3:1.
There is a profound difference between being able to accept something and suggesting something. I've tried to make this clear several times now, I'm not going to respond to this again.

 

[LayDHawk]

you can do all the ratios you like! i dont do the math! i would like to see two star fricking trades not one star and if you are going to do a cross tier trade then make it a flipping two star trade or better.... for the greedy gougers that are jacking up trades now for the last exhausting chapter... I say knock off the duplicate accounts and play the game!

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Whatever new ratio they use, it has to be exponential for the coding to work. That is why the old system is 16:4:1 and and new one would be 9:3:1 or 4:2:1 or the proposed 2.25:1.5:1 and not any weird ratios like 5:3:1 or 5:2:1 or 4:3:2. And as I was reading things in the Beta forums, they seem to be wanting to take the 2.25:1.5:1 and round up, so the new system will likely be 4:2:1 for what the Trader will say is a fair, 2-star trade. Though apparently, the ability to post trades as bad as 16:1 will still be there, they will no longer be classified as fair trades.

 

[neeronie]

We use "fair" trades within our Fellowship and not so fair trades, too. We often take trades from our beginning cities at the 1 x 4 ratio allowed now". We do this to help our fledgling cities grow and to help fellows in tournament who are extending themselves to get relics for their boosted. It also serves to reinforce the concept that teamwork is the ideal. No one has to take an unfair trade. If all trades have to be "fair", we will lose a very valuable tool.

 

[Ashrem]

We use "fair" trades within our Fellowship and not so fair trades, too. We often take trades from our beginning cities at the 1 x 4 ratio allowed now". We do this to help our fledgling cities grow and to help fellows in tournament who are extending themselves to get relics for their boosted. It also serves to reinforce the concept that teamwork is the ideal. No one has to take an unfair trade. If all trades have to be "fair", we will lose a very valuable tool.

The ability to offer unfair trades isn't going away, they're simply adjusting the formula for what constitutes "fair." I don't think anybody wants people blocked from making unfair trades, though a lot of us would like the ability to "ignore" them filtering them out, because they way the list jumps, people who aren't careful can get stung by taking a trade they didn't want to.

 

[neeronie]

Thank you for clearing that up. Oh yes, I have taken some of the"fair" by accident and it sure can be frustrating when you need something when you Fellows are not on line, and all you can find are trades that you certainly, will not take except by accident. This has been a great discussion thread so many players have had good points to me.

 

[Duke00012]

yeah, except for someone who admits to not offering fair trades and expects others to pay the the price...sheesh!