Author |
|
Albatross
Postmaster General
Joined: 11 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1118
|
Topic: 11AUG12 - MAJOR RELEASE (Trade) Posted: 04 Oct 2012 at 16:05 |
Another example of the way that Illy has 'soft limits' - you can just raise something to manageable levels, but then there is usually a way to squeeze more out of your city, at disproportionate cost and considerable compromise to other aspects of your game.
|
|
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
Posted: 04 Oct 2012 at 15:34 |
nitin2011 wrote:
1. I have this vetted till 8th trader, i am assuming 9th and on-wards will follow the same logic (wine is kind of hard to get in double digits) 2. 10 traders is easy, I am talking about 15 or 20 traders - if series continue it seems next to impossible to build 20. |
But how come something that is possible (like 20 traders) is unfair because it's "next to impossible"? There are lot's of impossible things in the game (11 cities/player, 41 caravans/city, 6 commanders/city, etc...). The list is very long. Wouldn't it get tiring if players were to post that each impossible things was unfair simply because they had set a goal beyond the limit?
If you want 20 traders, rejoice! It's a lot more possible to get 20 traders than it is to get 21 and the devs could have as easily limited the number of traders to 10.
|
|
nitin2011
New Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 29
|
Posted: 03 Oct 2012 at 15:22 |
Salararius wrote:
nitin2011 wrote:
Rill wrote:
it's apparently not a true fibonacci, nitin -- it will level off |
What do you mean its not true fibonacci - I can find wine cost escalating as below?
1st trader - 0 wine 2nd trader - 1 wine 3rd trader - 1 wine (1 + 0) 4th trader - 2 wine (1 + 1) 5th trader - 3 wine (2 + 1) 6th trader - 5 wine (3 + 2) 7th trader - 8 wine (5 + 3) 8th trader - 13 wine (8 + 5) 9th trader - 21 wine (13 + 8) 10th trader - 34 wine (21 + 13)
So to build 10 traders one will need total of 88 wine
|
Two questions:
1) I can verify this is correct up to the 6th, but how do you know this continues as a fibonacci up to the 10th?
2) In regards to "fairness" I would assume you would be referring to a players ability to acquire 10 traders. The price of wine is dropping, so it may be a fibonacci in terms of wine units but if you can acquire those units at lower and lower cost, then from the standpoint of a player's ability to acquire the units it's rise is less than that of a true fibonacci series. You must also assume that each trader allows you to acquire either goods, gold or both more easily (at lower cost) so from that perspective each wine unit get's even less expensive than the market average (further dropping the differential from that of a fibonacci series). Even so, I'm not sure why a fibonacci series isn't "fair" as it's the same for everyone and mathematically elegant?
|
1. I have this vetted till 8th trader, i am assuming 9th and on-wards will follow the same logic (wine is kind of hard to get in double digits) 2. 10 traders is easy, I am talking about 15 or 20 traders - if series continue it seems next to impossible to build 20.
|
|
Salararius
Postmaster
Joined: 26 Sep 2011
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 519
|
Posted: 03 Oct 2012 at 14:45 |
nitin2011 wrote:
Rill wrote:
it's apparently not a true fibonacci, nitin -- it will level off |
What do you mean its not true fibonacci - I can find wine cost escalating as below?
1st trader - 0 wine 2nd trader - 1 wine 3rd trader - 1 wine (1 + 0) 4th trader - 2 wine (1 + 1) 5th trader - 3 wine (2 + 1) 6th trader - 5 wine (3 + 2) 7th trader - 8 wine (5 + 3) 8th trader - 13 wine (8 + 5) 9th trader - 21 wine (13 + 8) 10th trader - 34 wine (21 + 13)
So to build 10 traders one will need total of 88 wine
|
Two questions:
1) I can verify this is correct up to the 6th, but how do you know this continues as a fibonacci up to the 10th?
2) In regards to "fairness" I would assume you would be referring to a players ability to acquire 10 traders. The price of wine is dropping, so it may be a fibonacci in terms of wine units but if you can acquire those units at lower and lower cost, then from the standpoint of a player's ability to acquire the units it's rise is less than that of a true fibonacci series. You must also assume that each trader allows you to acquire either goods, gold or both more easily (at lower cost) so from that perspective each wine unit get's even less expensive than the market average (further dropping the differential from that of a fibonacci series). Even so, I'm not sure why a fibonacci series isn't "fair" as it's the same for everyone and mathematically elegant?
|
|
nitin2011
New Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 29
|
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 23:04 |
Rill wrote:
it's apparently not a true fibonacci, nitin -- it will level off |
What do you mean its not true fibonacci - I can find wine cost escalating as below? 1st trader - 0 wine 2nd trader - 1 wine 3rd trader - 1 wine (1 + 0) 4th trader - 2 wine (1 + 1) 5th trader - 3 wine (2 + 1) 6th trader - 5 wine (3 + 2) 7th trader - 8 wine (5 + 3) 8th trader - 13 wine (8 + 5) 9th trader - 21 wine (13 + 8) 10th trader - 34 wine (21 + 13) So to build 10 traders one will need total of 88 wine
|
|
ES2
Postmaster
Joined: 25 Sep 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 577
|
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 20:37 |
gameplayer wrote:
, i noticed in your chat that you were considering allowing alliances to restrict who can buy....bad idea....this is an old server and its already controlled by a few older players, too many naps and confederations, now trading of certain rare items is going to be controlled by them by too, a player will have no choice but to join them and be controlled by all their silly rules of how to play, we already seeing players joining these over- powerful groups to have access to rare items, trade might be the only way independent players might be able to obtain them.....i hate lemmings
|
Then do something about the older players and power bloc alliances instead of complaining about them, unless you are actively doing something about them to which I withdraw this statement.
@Devs, thank you, I wish there was a way to change the factional standings when this was released, but I trust it is not far off. Thank you again.
|
Eternal Fire
|
|
Rill
Postmaster General
Player Council - Geographer
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 7078
|
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 20:18 |
it's apparently not a true fibonacci, nitin -- it will level off
|
|
nitin2011
New Poster
Joined: 10 Sep 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 29
|
Posted: 02 Oct 2012 at 12:24 |
A fibonacci series for trader .. this is not fair ... :(
|
|
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
|
Posted: 08 Sep 2012 at 12:52 |
, i noticed in your chat that you were considering allowing alliances to restrict who can buy....bad idea....this is an old server and its already controlled by a few older players, too many naps and confederations, now trading of certain rare items is going to be controlled by them by too, a player will have no choice but to join them and be controlled by all their silly rules of how to play, we already seeing players joining these over- powerful groups to have access to rare items, trade might be the only way independent players might be able to obtain them.....i hate lemmings
|
|
GM ThunderCat
Moderator Group
GM
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Location: Everywhere
Status: Offline
Points: 2183
|
Posted: 08 Sep 2012 at 11:25 |
nitin2011 wrote:
Looks like I cannot modify my orders at hub, I have completed "Efficient Trading" research ?
|
You can modify sell orders (as they are the only ones you pay tax on), on the Sell offers page of the Faction hubs. This is where it shows only your offers.
|
|