Even with one of the civs least well-suited to selling wood for gold, this is a good example of even a super long game where the seller can keep up in gold generation.
Now that DauT has done the challenge, we can safely say that selling cannot be the substitute for trading.
Even with one of the civs least well-suited to selling wood for gold, this is a good example of even a super long game where the seller can keep up in gold generation.
I'll say the same thing that I said on the youtube as a message to SotL: I had hoped for a more exhaustive review of the return on investment of market trading vs selling wood in the market. Unfortunately, this video is a very simple breakdown of the various gold collection rates. And who can argue with the views he gets! But my spreadsheet looks at this video and says "yeah, that's a long way of saying what we have as part of one little cell". Like, I don't need an 8 minute video for the gold collection rate of various civs and how they turn it into gold by selling at the market. That's just their wood collection rates (26.7 no final upgrade, 30.21 final upgrade, 31.5Celts multiplied by their market bottom price which is just .14/.17/.19 for non guilds / guilds / Saracens. And not that the horse is still alive, but assuming the market price is bottomed isn't the case when most players ramp into trade. Put simply: that market bottom assumption is a gift to the trade cart profit return on investment.All Gold Sources Compared
Comparison of all gold sources, including trade at different distances. Big thanks to JaHeit for a ton of the spreadsheet work, as well as the mysterious str...youtu.be
The bottom line remains and has remained through this whole discussion: the return on investment when you ramp into trade carts is ~14 minutes and that's if you have constant production from your markets. ~11 for Spanish. In fact that has been conceded by several posters and then the argument morphed into "well that amount of resources isn't that big of a deal and isn't decisive". Which I've disproven in the editor, and frankly it fails the basic test of "do I really think there are many battles I choose to fight where an additional 40 Mangudai of resources wouldn't swing the result from me losing to me winning?"
not enough math
Insult, nothing substantive here folks. Besides, my skill level isn't relevant at all for several reasons. 1. Nobody cautions new players that ramping into trade is more of an over 1900HD ELO thing. Even noobs think trading is the default thing to do in every teamgame. 2. The whole point here is that the economics are skill-independent. Whether you are 1800HD, or 2100Voobly, extra resources should theoretically be an additional and decisive edge vs similarly skilled players. 40 extra Mangudai for Viper against a clone of Viper without that edge is the side Id want to bet on being able to decide the game.The bottom line remains and has remained through this whole discussion: you can‘t finish a 4v4 BF game in 1 push. And 1 push is all you got. Please show me where this point has been disproven.
I know you could get the impression that you can from playing 1600+ HD games with made up rules like „no rush“, „no sneak“, „no smush“.
But that‘s not how this game works at decent levels.
40 extra Mangudai for Viper against a clone of Viper without that edge is the side Id want to bet on being able to decide the game.
Asking me to do more math while doing none of your own is just lazy. I get that Im in the minority here, but Im also just an average recreational player here. Where are the people who do this for a living showing their math to defend why they trade by default. Where are their spreadsheets? Why are you in the majority? It sounds like pure herd mentality to me, certainly closer to that than actual testing, math responses.Ok:Just found this thread because my countryman @RicoJay13 posted today.
* Hmm, math, sounds interesting...*
* watches video *
* sigh... *
* reads 2 pages of posts *
* sigh... *
* tries to understand spreadsheet *
* sigh...
You know they said in 2000 that America would be 90% scientifically literate by 2020; but tbh I have my doubts.
Frankly I would love to insult you but it seems others have done so already.
I will simply criticize your method trying to be as unbiased as possible.
(and the grammar error minimized since you seem to disrespect people who cannot spel corekly).
1. You calculate the time for a return on investment.
Your claim is that trade is not worth it.
You never calculate what makes trade "worth it."
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises.
2. You calculate time for a return on investment for a very specific, difficult-to-replicate situation.
You would I assume (hope) admit that every game is different.
You don't demonstrate the generality of your simulation.
The applicability of your conclusion to any game is suspect.
3. Your analysis assumes that the trader will unwittingly make a butt-load of trade carts on an un-optimized path at the expense of building units.
You further assume that even if the seller goes full yolo all-in push (which is pretty much what you'd have to do to win without trade in a serious tg) the trader will just keep making trade carts.
In short, your analysis assumes players won't adapt in-game.I would hope we both agree that the trader doesn't need to set up full trade; he only needs to set up more trade than the seller. This is true much more generally even outside AoC (you only need to be faster than other guy running from bear). If your opponent goes for a 6 minute douche then researching loom or idling villagers to repair your tc is likely a good idea. This doesn't mathematically prove that researching foregoing loom until late dark age or keeping all villagers gathering resources is a "bad idea investment" or "not worth it". Similarly, if your opponent goes for a 15 vil tower rush at minute 12, then maybe idling your tc is ok to get that m@a upgrade a little earlier. This doesn't mathematically prove that building villagers in the early feudal age is "a bad investment," or "not worth it." If your opponent goes for a 1 tc all-in castle age push maybe forgoing some eco upgrades in favor of military techs is not a bad idea since you have a strong villager lead. Again, this doesn't mathematicall prove that researching hand-cart is simply not worth it. Lastly, if your opponent goes for an all-in imperial age push and never bothers to set up trade, maybe slowing down your trade cart production is a good idea (to build more mangudai?). For the last time, this doesn't mathematically prove that trading is a "bad idea" or "not worth the investment."
Your analysis is not applicable to most players, including all players who might seriously consider your analysis.
In conclusion, you need to define a function that inputs "time for return on investment" and outputs "is worth it or not," you need to calculate the return on investment more generally, and you need to be more explicit/clear on when the calculation works (and when it does not).
Only then can you make the claims you are making without Maths rolling Her sad eyes at the loss of another bright young soul wasting his time chasing after insults he received on some reddit post.
That is the exact slogan for NASA. Just kidding.You don't need spreadsheets or maths, if you have enough experience/common sence.
I never asked you to do more math kid, just pointing out the logical discrepancy between your math and your claims.Asking
Asking me to do more math while doing none of your own is just lazy. I get that Im in the minority here, but Im also just an average recreational player here. Where are the people who do this for a living showing their math to defend why they trade by default. Where are their spreadsheets? Why are you in the majority? It sounds like pure herd mentality to me, certainly closer to that than actual testing, math responses.
Again, thanks for the long post with zero math or simulation done to further this discussion.I never asked you to do more math kid, just pointing out the logical discrepancy between your math and your claims.
Btw, the professional mathematician doesn't make the types of grandiose claims and hardheaded, close-minded statements that you do with a simple spreadsheet.
Take statistical mechanics for example. There is literally over a hundred years of hundreds of very intelligent people who developed the mathematical background of statistical mechanics (compared to your single spreadsheet which took say 1 hour?).
In 1997 Tanaka said "It is now believed that the primary equilibrium aspects of simple models of protein folding are understood theoretically."
I searched the PMC (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc) for "statistical mechanics protein folding" and 297 papers were published in the last 12 months. That's a lot for a field that was already "understood" over 20 years ago.
The discrepancy lies in the difference between understanding the general theory behind something and being able to apply it to a specific problem.
There is still no function that inputs an amino acid sequence and outputs a 3D protein structure. Similarly, it would be quite hard to develop a function that inputs the parameters of an age of empires game and outputs whether setting up trade is worth it.
In conclusion, what sets you apart from the professional mathematician you referenced is your unwillingness to state the difference between what the numbers say and what you want the numbers to say.
Just pointing out how ridiculous his premise is. And if someone gets insulted by that, welcome to the internet.Can you prove your statement with math or you simply wanted to insult him?