Trirem's math shows 15+ minutes before trade pays off. I don't understand what you mean by "math based on higher vs lower levels of gameplay". The math is the math. After Trirem did his math, he changed the goalposts by saying that he didn't think that amount of resources was significant, I then challenged him to give me said resources 1v1 and he declined. Sorry if this sentence was super long and didn't pay off the way I wanted, like a trade cart.@RicoJay13
I think we are talking two different things here. At reasonably high level BF, there is no doubt that setting up trade is a better move most of the time. In 18+ HD BF games where people do not have optimum speed or builds to do this (nor defend properly) , I do not disagree that maybe burning the market is more efficient.
So yeah. In the context you are referring to you are correct. (low level BF games with 300 pop). Making trade at a high level of efficiency is absolutely better than burning market, but yes if you restrict things to your level of experience under the condition that trade is set up less then optimally , then yes again you are correct. The question you should be asking is "If I do not have the skill to boom properly and join higher level BF games with 200 pop, should I a) keep doing what I'm doing and burning the market (which works in low level I agree) or b) learn how to boom properly and play vs people who know how to defend".
This whole conversation is irrelevant because its based on a lot of people arguing based off different assumptions. RicoJay13 assumptions) 300 pop, low level game experience, math based off low level gameplay.
Everyone else) Voobly BF 16-2k+ , 200 pop, higher level game experience, math based on higher level gameplay.
I believe the best way to improve is to do the math and then use it in gameplay. I have traded many times, and as previously stated I guarantee I've traded more often in TG's than you've burned the market and forgone trade as a game strategy. My boom build is very solid, hence why I've repeatedly challenged what I assume are better players on this website to tribute me the resources they consider surplus from foraying into trading and let's test this out. I suspect the reason nobody accepts is that it's completely mathematically obvious that if you take the amount of resources we are talking about away from one player at say 35 minutes, like in the Tatoh boom build video, and give it to the opponent in an identical skill all things equal situation, the game will be over almost immediately.@RicoJay13
In summary, Rico, unfortunately you are wrong, an optimally done trade build can have you in a powerful situation very very early with unlimited resources, I've done it many times. I believe that in your level of tgs that selling resources is more efficient, but in higher level games it doesn't work nearly as well. If you want to improve I suggest learning more efficient builds for booming, if not, its pretty pointless to make threads on a website with many 2k voobly players telling them that builds used in 18+ HD games are better (only if you have no intention of improving, if you do actually want to, then it makes sense to make this type of thread to find out whats the best way to improve).
Was 14 minutes short in the Viper video where he played as Koreans? 14 minutes is an eternity only to BREAKEVEN vs the trader. It takes 8 minutes PAST that point for the trader to have an advantage equal to what the seller had in the first 8 minutes. Longer if you use Trirem's math, though it's hard to say because his spreadsheet runs out at 15 minutes and he still hasn't broken even. Plus he ignored the cost to build markets and Caravan and assumed the market price had crashed which is not the case in literally every video I've seen from Viper online, some of which I posted here showing market prices in the 50's and 60's for wood. Does everyone realize that the payoff for setting up trade if the market price of wood doesn't fall below 90 is NEVER? In fact, one way to look at trading is that you're betting the market price of wood will crash. A screengrab where that isn't the case means all this math changes in favor of the seller substantially.The thing is OP that no one has any major issues with your maths, its your interpretation which seems incorrect in practise (your interpretation being that you shouldn't build trade because of the investment cost). If you consider trade from a single market at the height of investment it costs about 8 paladin worth of gold at the point of highest investment, and once it becomes profitable your getting 3+ paladin advantage per min in addition to paying for own production. So since it is lower investment why don't people do trade with just single market? the answer is that the long term benefits of many markets is usually worth the heavy investment since it allows you to sustain larger gold armies faster.
You can some degree compare to tcs which take about 9-10 mins (if you account for farms, houses etc) to pay off and require more investment (significantly higher in terms of percentage of eco dedicated to it), and at a time when taking significant damage is which more likely and its a lot harder to stall, and yet it is still very common it invest in it. And while tcs do give you more res long term it is nothing compared to the amount trade gives (compared to selling), not to mention the pop cap issue which selling inevitably faces.
I should also add that it is really hard to read the situation enough to know that not investing in trade is the best move (I usually fail at doing this), that is why newer players are always told to trade, it is very difficult to capitalise on the small, temporary army advantage you get so its really not something that anyone should worry about til like 2k+ or something.
In short building trade is normal for a reason, and that is because the end result is nearly always worth the investment. 14 mins or so is a lot shorter than it seems when only a portion of your eco is dedicated to it (even 4 markets is only like 20 vil investment or so at its height of investment)
you don't respect my math.Sarcasm huh? Another typical post where the author doesn't care about the math. These are played out. If you want to keep doing the meta, freedom is yours.
I agree. An example where you push your edge vs investing for the future is my point about trading. Everybody has responded that those 3k resources are moot and wont decide the game. My point is that is not correct.you don't respect my math.
its quite simple:
if you have 24 villagers you can collect enough wood for 4 archerys on the way to feudal. then you can build archers from all 4 of them, while ur opponent wastes his wood into farms and his villagers into food.
after 30sec you got double amount of archer, which snowballs in any fight so you can win the fight with 70-80% of your army left and gg. then you have plenty of time like in your scenario to finish the game.
why would anyone invest in the future if he can gg the game at that point?
AOK, what is this 1999? Im not using data from a decade ago, Im using data from the current meta. Also, youre now the 200th person to say how good you are, but zero people are willing to put their money where their mouth is and see if 3k resources at 35 minutes is really decisive or not.Well if this was AOK, even BF games were played with no trade. It wasnt until AOC with the new tech, trade speed 50% faster, did we start seeing trade and even then many old school experts would not make trade in ARA TG. Trade in ara TG really hasnt evolved until about 5-6 years ago. So your assumption that players have always done this speaks volumes about your experience of the game. Obviously market abuse has its advantages sometimes. But why all the sudden is everyone making trade?? In my opinion massive trash units would win vs anyone doing gold units without trade. So your saying you win games without trade, but at 1715 HD i could probably win without a TC. I agree you can do math, but this game is just not a simple math equation. You are just missing too many key factors from your equations. Btw i only watched first 2 mins of your video.
"Noobs like you" is bashing. Saying you can win without a TC is bashing. Both are also wrong. Im 1860 HD. At least give me the dignity of calling me an intermediate. Besides, its all moot as long as your plan is to talk trash and just shy away from anything remotely close to backing it up. Id rather be a noob than a chicken.Buddy theres levels to this. You just not there yet. Not bashing you.
>made trade in TGs more times than melkorI have traded many times, and as previously stated I guarantee I've traded more often in TG's than you've burned the market and forgone trade as a game strategy. My boom build is very solid
"Made trade more times than hes burned the market." I know these convos always devolve into who is better than who else, personal insults, unrealistic threats that nobody backs up, etc. My offer stands: find me someone of equal skill, or someone who has made a hollow threat about their skill who is willing to boom vs me, tribute me the resources theyd meta spend on setting up trade, and lets test whether the resources are really worthy of the investment. Note this isnt me saying Im better than anyone, or bragging about my skills, or putting anyone else down: I genuinely want to test this out so we can settle it. I would think especially better players would be curious to verify something so meta.>made trade in TGs more times than melkor
>boom build is very solid
Something doesn't add up
This is exactly the problem though. You are taking all the feedback as if they are personal insults when actually people are trying to disprove the proposal you have brought.I know these convos always devolve into who is better than who else, personal insults, unrealistic threats that nobody backs up, etc
Theres been many valid arguments made vs my math/argument. I have no issue with that. Its not fair to say that I am taking valid criticisms of my argument as personal when there are clearly multiple examples of personal insults. Look at bMyers above. Makes a few valid points and then quickly falls back on hollow threats and chickening out from backing it up.This is exactly the problem though. You are taking all the feedback as if they are personal insults when actually people are trying to disprove the proposal you have brought.
As for testing, a better strategy than an unrealistic 1v1 would be for you to continue playing BF 4v4 and to never trade and only sell res. See how high you can climb. If you do infact break the meta and prove everyone wrong then you will have the evidence to prove it.
At 15 minutes which is where Trirems sheet ran out of rows, the seller still has 700 more gold than the trader. I attached a pic of it since you clearly didnt look at it fully like I did. He also assumes he gets 4 markets and caravan for free and that the market price of food and wood have crashed which isnt the case in my noob experience or Vipers BF experience. Zero screenshots have been provided to even show a single sample where the market prices crashed. Im sure its possible, but atypical given the data.TriRem showed you your math was wrong yet you dismissed his entire calculation and keep clinging to your ideas that go against the feeling of the all the expert players that have taken the time to answer you (expert's insight & feelings >> math in 99% of cases in Age questions btw).
Hence why people are making fun of you.
Besides, 1860 voobly could be considered intermediate. 1860 HD is still noob.
That's the core of the problem. Market trading is inherently a team game thing (unless you want to disrespecc your 1v1 opponent by trading with his market), so it makes no sense to put it into an evironment where it literally never happens (like a 1v1). I dont see what your proposed test would prove, apart from the fact that getting more resources is good.A 4v4 has so many variables such as the skills of all players etc.
I would not wager $5 on an 18xx hd player let alone $100If you had to wager $100, would another 1860HD player who tributes me half of 40 trade carts, 4 markets, and caravan after we both boom for 35 minutes: who wins?