I disagree, too many variables. Plus it will take too long. My scenario takes just 45 minutes of game time....Like i previously said, play 100 4v4 games and show us the result here, anything below that proves exactly nothing.
part one has nothing to do with what I said ...I have a theoretical spreadsheet showing 14 minutes ROI, and a simulated 4v4 scenario showing 19 minutes ROI. How many games would you give someone to prove they can trade profitably? TheHand went 0 for 2.
im not really in favor of censoring, but can't we please close this thread once and for all? there are no winners in this 'debate', and there won't ever be. It's a huge waste of time for both ricojay and the rest of the community.
When people are capable of admitting they were wrongOh boy I was so wrong
TheHand went 0 for 2.
Less resources hurts winning chances all other things equal. Argument over. More money is good. Less is bad.
What would we be testing in your suggested further challenge matches? What happened to the guy who liked the idea of me (or others) booming in the 4v4 BF scenario with and then without trading to simulate and compare resource amounts at various times?
Prove to me if you think you can ramp up trading and collect more resources than I did without trading.
Do Halbs counter Camels? What is a good castle age time for a boom build? This is a game of numbers. What you said is true of any system: it's complex. But so are many systems. Ultimately what you said is closer to being false than true. I think showing a calculated breakeven of 14 minutes and then simulating it in a scenario with friendly carts showing a 19 minute breakeven is solid evidence. I get that in practice the whole thing becomes a mess and doesnt ever line up exactly with a theoretical or simulated model. But using "complex system" as an argument against crunching the numbers is silly. We arent apes. Trading takes a long time to pay off, contained within a complex game.Ok let me give it another try.
@RicoJay13
Will you at least concede that an RTS game such as AoE is too complex and has too many variables so that you will never be able to take everything into account when looking for a mathmatical answer? Especially in a rather complex scenario such as 8 player imperial age?
Me posting videos didnt work with my original youtube video, it wont work now that the mob mentality is dug in. Its going to take someone good running my 4v4 BF scenario and posting their results to really move this further. Preferably someone with a functioning computer who can build more than 8 trade carts in 50 minutes of game time.Firstly, stop taking my name in vain... I played those games in good faith, naively, but I gave you the aforementioned benfefit of the doubt. Secondly, you regularly accuse others of trying to have it both ways. Yet you cry you didn't know the rules in the game in which you got rekt, so it shouldn't count, but simultaneously say I didn't trade profitably, so it should count. If you had managed to survive longer, I would have got profitable trade. By your logic, we all need crystal balls in order to play AoE.
"Opinion. Zero data." And demonstrably unscientific. If only the argument could be ended just by saying so. Great troll.
He's doing swimmingly, thanks for asking. Please do the unit deletion scenario in each case, and post the recs. No-one's interested in the inflection point, post the full rec of your boom in each case. That's what scientists do. They reproduce records of their entire experiment for verification when feasible. If we played again, we'd be testing if the seller's advantage exists, and if it does, how dangerous it is.
As stated before, the burden of proof is on you, no-one else. It's your theory. You won't wriggle away from this fact.
You realize there was a game where you put your laptop in the freezer, shut the lid and it disconnected you and said I won. Do I get to say I won that game? By rekt, you mean the game screen showed 300 pop, and I built accordingly while you didnt? Much like the freezer loss you took, it has no bearing other than to notice you dont seem to be proving trade is profitable on behalf of the forum no matter the sample size.Firstly, stop taking my name in vain... I played those games in good faith, naively, but I gave you the aforementioned benfefit of the doubt. Secondly, you regularly accuse others of trying to have it both ways. Yet you cry you didn't know the rules in the game in which you got rekt, so it shouldn't count, but simultaneously say I didn't trade profitably, so it should count. If you had managed to survive longer, I would have got profitable trade.
Id settle for ONE person booming with trade and posting the result from my 4v4 BF scenario to show they got more resources for the same pop as my 125 non traders. Will you answer the call? Will anyone? Im surprised for how much you all mock me that nobody has tried to shut me up with a relaxing 40 minutes of scenario booming.... Or has someone tried it, got a similar amount of resources as my trading boom (less than non trade boom), and kept the results to themselves?part one has nothing to do with what I said ...
I would suggest more than 2 Games. At least something like 50, ideally up to 1000 to make any sigificant empirical statement.
Until than it's just anecdotal evidence and therefore irrelevant.
Me posting videos didnt work with my original youtube video, it wont work now that the mob mentality is dug in. Its going to take someone good running my 4v4 BF scenario and posting their results to really move this further. Preferably someone with a functioning computer who can build more than 8 trade carts in 50 minutes of game time.
You realize how silly it is when you say that if a game had gone longer, youd have turned a trade project? My whole argument is that games are decided before trade pays off. Our 2 games are two examples. I posted a viper game and a Suomi expert match where that also was the case.
Much like the freezer loss you took, it has no bearing other than to notice you dont seem to be proving trade is profitable on behalf of the forum no matter the sample size.
Ok heres a link to my data from testing the same boom on a 4v4 map with 3 AI teammates all with 15 carts going. I attached the save game at 25 mins trade or no trade inflection point so youre welcome to try to beat me in either my non trading boom or my trading boom. I also attached the scenario if you want to boom from scratch. Just warning: build your feudal market far right cause deleting a suboptimal market confuses the AI carts and they tend to just sit by it waiting, instead of doing their job which is to make trading unprofitable one bump at a time. The doc linked shows resource totals at various same time points.
So heres my comclusion based on this simulated data:
1. In terms of total resources converted to gold, the breakeven for the trader in my simulation is 17.5-20 minutes AFTER I start trading. Call it 19 minutes. This does do a better job of factoring in things just asked such as how to value the wood cost of early costs such as early carts, markets etc.
2. I did something because 143 people keep saying how since youre floating so much estra resources, who cares if youre 3k down at any point? Well you asked, and heres my answer. Go to rows 36-56 in this doc. Here what I do exactly 15 minutes after trader has started trade, is I spend all available resources on Paladins, SO, and BBC (used Teutons cause its a good example of a gold intensive army and theHand and I actually discussed ONLY making those units to take strategy out of the equation. Well these rows do just that. The NON trader can make about 22% more gold-intensive units than the trader if they BOTH SPEND ALL THEIR RESOURCES. Which player is floating extra resources? Neither one. They both have zeros across their resource amounts. Im talking sell that 450 stone, all excess food and wood after all upgrades, units, production buildings etc. I simulated a 22% stronger army by using 40 Paladins vs 49 Paladins (non trader has the 49). The 49 win with about 60% left alive. I believe its related to Lanchester (sp) law or something. Bottom line: 15 minutes after trading starts, the non trader absolutely slaughters the trader all else being equal. 22% is monstrous.
Trader vs Non trader budgeted spend
trader budget w guilds,0.17 no guilds,0.14 COMPARISON As Celts,Non-Trading (125v, 4TCs, 4 Castles, conscription, S.E., University and Siege shop, 1 Rax, houses to 180 pop (1 castle takes to 200), mill farm queued full, built 4 total castles, 37Farmers, bought Guilds t since trade,Gm Time,Non Traderdocs.google.com
Do Halbs counter Camels? What is a good castle age time for a boom build? This is a game of numbers. What you said is true of any system: it's complex. But so are many systems. Ultimately what you said is closer to being false than true. I think showing a calculated breakeven of 14 minutes and then simulating it in a scenario with friendly carts showing a 19 minute breakeven is solid evidence. I get that in practice the whole thing becomes a mess and doesnt ever line up exactly with a theoretical or simulated model. But using "complex system" as an argument against crunching the numbers is silly. We arent apes. Trading takes a long time to pay off, contained within a complex game.
I did notice I couldnt get yellow to stop trading with me. Throw the yellows markets over on the far west side I guess, unless you know some way to make yellow try harder to turn a trade profit. Yellows bad strategy reduced bumping by keeping his carts off the main trade route btw.Are you referening the scenario here?
Where all 3 of the ais don't have caravan and one ai is trading for 2 gold per trip?
If you take this scenario as cold hard facts everyone should trade with markets that are right next to eah other as it is worth the most profit.
View attachment 169629View attachment 169628
Clearly, this is the best way to trade as we have empirical and scientific evidence to support this finding.
It definitely is, but with my updated scenario with yellows markets on the west end of the map, its less an issue until you get your market up (which again has to be far right otherwise the AI carts will only use your first market and just sit there when you delete it.It's actually a bigger problem for normal eco. having 30 tradecarts run around your tc and block all your farms in feudal/castle age is pretty ****ing annoying 11
Yeah that scenario isnt as far either so you miss out on that exponential increase in trade route revenue from more distance. But yeah, as the previous poster showed (and I verified and agreed), a straight shot free of obstructions on Arabia is a totally different beast. Id be curious why he hasnt done a BF test yet...I think there is a taunt, that doesn't allow the AI to resign.
I will test the scenario aswell, I love just mindlessly building up eco. Even tested Henk's version, I was at 4k trade profit at min 40 and 30 FU pala and floating in resources. However I guess it's easier in his scenario to get fast to a high trade profit.
Edit: Taunt 100 should disable resigning, don't know if it works with TGs.
Again you are arguing for one game, which remains anecdotal evidence and therefore useless for any kind of argument.Id settle for ONE person booming with trade and posting the result from my 4v4 BF scenario to show they got more resources for the same pop as my 125 non traders. Will you answer the call? Will anyone? Im surprised for how much you all mock me that nobody has tried to shut me up with a relaxing 40 minutes of scenario booming.... Or has someone tried it, got a similar amount of resources as my trading boom (less than non trade boom), and kept the results to themselves?