Market Trading Vs Selling: An Analysis

[RicoJay13]

2nd Youtube video complete and dives into the economics behind Market Trading vs just selling excess wood for gold with the same population. Enjoy:

 

[pumukel]

You can add YT vids like this:

 

[RicoJay13]

You can add YT vids like this:

View attachment 158744

Thanks, done!

 

[Shed_]

Yeah, this is comfortably the worst thing I have ever seen in my life.

You use a shitty BF map with chokes, to highlight the fact that trade bumps. What about on super open maps where trade runs smoother? You use the 40 Mangudai example to show how trading "muh" wood will somehow win a game, no player is fully going to cut army production to make trade that is just ridiculous. This video is absolute reddit aoe propaganda and this level of tuna needs to be neutralised, however I wouldn't mind you showing this video to the next team I verse in a team game. I would love to have full trade whilst my opponents have some ****ed up eco trying to sell wood for gold at 1 hour.

I appreciate the level of effort that went in to making this video, however maybe your efforts could be better used to gaining a better understanding of the game before spouting this rhetoric.

 

[ChriSt]

Your first video about malay elephants was beyond cringy, but this is a whole new level of tuna, rotten tuna.

Good and experienced players will boom trade while maintaining a high villager count, so the so called less wood-food collection will be minimal as good players slowly reduce the number of vills as the trade is starting to stack up along with the excess food-wood.

Imperial age is never about being "efficient" or "cost effective (shitty malay elephants", it's about the ultimate unit combo composition that will make you win the fights and the game.

Having passion for the game is a good thing, but i suggest you start playing it before making videos like this. To be fair your not the only one doing this, there's multiple tunas making cringey claims (Spirits of the Law, Jred_Deathmatch, Chukonoob...and now you!).

PS: I don't doubt your mathematics, im simply telling you that your mathematics have no applications in any game with a 1650+ voobly level.

 

[GWLeibniz]

@Shed_ @ChriSt I think you have to see the video and analysis in context: Yes the test and model used is terrible for a highish level arabia or even blackforest game, but for lower level blackforest games it probably comes somewhat close.
So if the video is meant for high level players, then yes the analysis is most likely bad, bad for lower levels it might be fitting. And the general message of: "Going for trade is a resource investment that takes x time to pay of" is certainly true, though the times vary dependent on map and player skill.

I would view this similar as e.g. SotL's "When to replace lumbercamps" or "place the mill next to berries or one tile appart" videos:
The analysis he did there is logical, methodicaly sound, and probably can be applied to lower level games - however as e.g. close to none vil micro was done it is not a meaningful test for high level games.

As it is extremely time intensive (nearly impossible) to analyse such things for all maps, all player leves, one picks certain scenarios to analyse. And this is imo the point that can be criticised: It probably would be beneficial if the parameter choosen for the test would be stated precisely at the start (skill level/maps/other constraints assumed) so one nows if the analysis is applicable for oneself.

 

[Modri]

This hilarious video and its creator reminded of this:

 

@RicoJay13 I think that you miss the fact that when most players get to imp and start making trade, they already have enough resources to both make the trade investment AND have a huge army. It's not like investing into trade is meaning that you're going to run out of resources to make your Elite Mangudai. Trade is made at the stage of the game where you have enough resources to do both.

If your economy is too small to both make trade and make a big army (for whatever reason, I guess it will be more common in 2v2s, but still not too common), then your analysis can be applicable, since you'd rather invest your resources into an army that could win the game or save you from losing at that moment, rather than making trade which doesn't pay off for a while. But in big games where the players starting trade have big economies, starting trade isn't providing a hindrance; maybe a tiny one, but then it will eventually pay off and since the game will likely go late (as they do in TGs) then you will be really happy to have your 40 Trade Carts.

Also, don't worry about the comments here. People here are very anti-noob. But, be careful when challenging the meta (don't make the mistake that I made on reddit when I was 1400 rating 11).

 

[King_Marv]

If you dislike his video you could be a bit more diplomatic ?

Like saying this is the worst I’ve ever seen when someone is putting effort in something is not really motivating or helps him to improve..

 

[RicoJay13]

Your first video about malay elephants was beyond cringy, but this is a whole new level of tuna, rotten tuna.

Good and experienced players will boom trade while maintaining a high villager count, so the so called less wood-food collection will be minimal as good players slowly reduce the number of vills as the trade is starting to stack up along with the excess food-wood.

Imperial age is never about being "efficient" or "cost effective (shitty malay elephants", it's about the ultimate unit combo composition that will make you win the fights and the game.

Having passion for the game is a good thing, but i suggest you start playing it before making videos like this. To be fair your not the only one doing this, there's multiple tunas making cringey claims (Spirits of the Law, Jred_Deathmatch, Chukonoob...and now you!).

PS: I don't doubt your mathematics, im simply telling you that your mathematics have no applications in any game with a 1650+ voobly level.

I'm 1715 on HD. I win team games without trade often. The math doesn't lie.

 

[RicoJay13]

If you dislike his video you could be a bit more diplomatic ?

Like saying this is the worst I’ve ever seen when someone is putting effort in something is not really motivating or helps him to improve..

Thanks. I mean, those two posts above are just about the least diplomatic comments a message board can hope for.

 

[CZ_Mango]

What is with you aussies and tunas in every post. I still laugh at tuna squad in the other thread though 1111111

1715 on HD is equal to roughly ~ 1300 skill which is low even for NPL

 

[RicoJay13]

@RicoJay13 I think that you miss the fact that when most players get to imp and start making trade, they already have enough resources to both make the trade investment AND have a huge army. It's not like investing into trade is meaning that you're going to run out of resources to make your Elite Mangudai. Trade is made at the stage of the game where you have enough resources to do both.

If your economy is too small to both make trade and make a big army (for whatever reason, I guess it will be more common in 2v2s, but still not too common), then your analysis can be applicable, since you'd rather invest your resources into an army that could win the game or save you from losing at that moment, rather than making trade which doesn't pay off for a while. But in big games where the players starting trade have big economies, starting trade isn't providing a hindrance; maybe a tiny one, but then it will eventually pay off and since the game will likely go late (as they do in TGs) then you will be really happy to have your 40 Trade Carts.

Also, don't worry about the comments here. People here are very anti-noob. But, be careful when challenging the meta (don't make the mistake that I made on reddit when I was 1400 rating 11).

I appreciate your comment. I'm 1715 on HD and so I would at least defend and say I am not a noob. But even a noob can show his math.

I see your point that you can invest in military and trade, and it has merit. Like many things, it depends on the game you are in. When I forgo trade, I can definitely notice the extra resources that I havent socked into trade. That push can easily be decisive. And if its this bad on a 4v4 map, I would say trading should die in 2v2 matches and be a sometimes thing in a super long and boomy 3v3.

 

[Clemensor]

Aw man, if I knew that I could sustain a full gold army just by selling wood, my 1v1s until now couldve went way differently

 

[RicoJay13]

@Shed_ @ChriSt I think you have to see the video and analysis in context: Yes the test and model used is terrible for a highish level arabia or even blackforest game, but for lower level blackforest games it probably comes somewhat close.
So if the video is meant for high level players, then yes the analysis is most likely bad, bad for lower levels it might be fitting. And the general message of: "Going for trade is a resource investment that takes x time to pay of" is certainly true, though the times vary dependent on map and player skill.

I would view this similar as e.g. SotL's "When to replace lumbercamps" or "place the mill next to berries or one tile appart" videos:
The analysis he did there is logical, methodicaly sound, and probably can be applied to lower level games - however as e.g. close to none vil micro was done it is not a meaningful test for high level games.

As it is extremely time intensive (nearly impossible) to analyse such things for all maps, all player leves, one picks certain scenarios to analyse. And this is imo the point that can be criticised: It probably would be beneficial if the parameter choosen for the test would be stated precisely at the start (skill level/maps/other constraints assumed) so one nows if the analysis is applicable for oneself.

Totally agree. I cut out a section of the video where I disclaimed that I mostly play BF and this will be less suitable an anaylsis for open maps. BF provides natural protection for trade, so perhaps the good aspects of trade vs selling on Arabia (not unlimited wood, less bumpy chokes) would be offset by the higher likelyhood of raiding.

 

[Fall]

I'm 1715 on HD. I win team games without trade often. The math doesn't lie.

Impressive, very impressive. I'll take another look at the video. Next time my allies X and ask for a market, I'll definitely think twice before building one.

 

[Clemensor]

@Shed_ @ChriSt I think you have to see the video and analysis in context: Yes the test and model used is terrible for a highish level arabia or even blackforest game, but for lower level blackforest games it probably comes somewhat close.
So if the video is meant for high level players, then yes the analysis is most likely bad, bad for lower levels it might be fitting. And the general message of: "Going for trade is a resource investment that takes x time to pay of" is certainly true, though the times vary dependent on map and player skill.
.

This all goes out the window the second he brought his petty religious talk into it and how everybody has been doing it wrong for the past 20 years

 

[RicoJay13]

This all goes out the window the second he brought his petty religious talk into it and how everybody has been doing it wrong for the past 20 years

So you didn't get the star wars references haha? Oh, and it was meant to be dry, try not to fart a frisbee over a video game on a message board.

 

[RicoJay13]

Impressive, very impressive. I'll take another look at the video. Next time my allies X and ask for a market, I'll definitely think twice before building one.

I ignore them. Trade with my main market if you must. Jokes aside, I trade plenty when the situation calls for it. But it often doesn't is my point.

 

[Clemensor]

So you didn't get the star wars references haha? Oh, and it was meant to be dry, try not to fart a frisbee over a video game on a message board.

Not sure what you are saying, but jokes aside: Is it wrong to assume you are generalising your analysis to all lvls of play or are you sticking to exclusively <1800 HD lvl

 

[Tarsiz]

I appreciate your comment. I'm 1715 on HD and so I would at least defend and say I am not a noob. But even a noob can show his math.

I am 1640 on Voobly and 1900+ on HD and I am still a big noob.
You might have a grasp of units, counters and even build orders but at that level we still make huge mistakes at every single stage of the game. The skill gap in competitive AOE is just immense.

I haven't watched your video yet, just wanted to point that out… experts on Voobly will criticize harshly and they have the background to back it off; thousands of games and countless hours give you a much more organic feeling of the game than any math will.

 

[RicoJay13]

Not sure what you are saying, but jokes aside: Is it wrong to assume you are generalising your analysis to all lvls of play or are you sticking to exclusively <1800 HD lvl

I believe the math even moreso applies for experts, due to their better ability to utilize the advantage from having extra resources earlier from not trading.

 

[RicoJay13]

I am 1640 on Voobly and 1900+ on HD and I am still a big noob.
You might have a grasp of units, counters and even build orders but at that level we still make huge mistakes at every single stage of the game. The skill gap in competitive AOE is just immense.

I haven't watched your video yet, just wanted to point that out… experts on Voobly will criticize harshly and they have the background to back it off; thousands of games and countless hours give you a much more organic feeling of the game than any math will.

I refuse to believe that might makes right. I understand lots of people are better at this game than me. But that shouldn't be the basis for discussing the economics of market trading. Viper trades. I get it. This all started when I posted on reddit asking if anyone had crunched the return on investment, and everyone agreed it was one trip or 5 minutes at most. The first cart doesn't return until 6:15. I wouldn't have done this math or the video if someone had responded: we experts all know its about 14 minutes later before it pays off.

 

[bulletchen]

Poor soul.

 

[nimanoe]

One thing that nobody else really addressed so far is that either you need to invest into trade later anyway, because selling wood for gold just takes too much population, so you need to invest the resources into trade anyway, so why not do at when you still have gold left that you're mining? So unless you can finish off a game with the investments saved by not building trade, it's worth it to make trade anyway, or you will lose a lot of resources later in the game.