Nice, I don't see coins anywhere though?Originally Posted by Draxxon
Nice, I don't see coins anywhere though?
Last edited by mod_Magenta; 08-09-16 at 01:22 pm.
Hi, thank you Audrey,
your trade values have been very helpful, so helpful we put your data in Excel and made a calculator...
Not sure how to load an Excel file in a web page, we have attached a snapshot.
Do you have an update for some of the missing items' trade values?
Any advice on how to share this spreadsheet will be appreciated.
Thanks!
Enjoy!
Try googledocs.
Last edited by Chrome; 10-31-11 at 08:00 am.
Audrey, I'm looking over these values and I'm not sure how you arrived at them. I've been working out a theory of market value, myself, thinking I could take your idea and run with it a little. But when I compare our values, not only are they different - which I would expect, since I have a variation to offer - but I realize I don't know how you calculated yours.
For instance, you say wheat and stone should trade at 3:4, or 1.33 stone per wheat. Now, if you were using only production times as the measure (which is what I thought at first), that ratio would be 5:12, or 2.4 stone to wheat. Again, you say wheat and fir wood should trade at about 1:4, but based solely on the time it takes to produce fir wood that would be 1:8.
The variation I was going to suggest is the concept of a "license-hour", which takes into account not just how much time it takes (for example) a fir cutter to produce fir wood, but also how many fir foresters are needed to support the cutter. With that concept in mind, wheat and stone would still trade at 1:4 (there are no support buildings involved), but a fir cutter needs 1½ foresters as well so instead of trading at 1:8, wheat should go for 3.2 stone, a ratio of 5:16. This doesn't match your values either.
The only guess I have left is that you take the cost of the buildings into account too. This is only fair - based solely on production times marble and stone should trade at 5:9, which just isn't going to happen - but how do you work out how to balance the one-time cost of a building against the ongoing cost of production time? I may end up disagreeing with your method, in the end, but then again I may not, for I'm not sure, myself, how to go about it. With mines it's easier, for the value of a mine is time-limited (when the deposit runs out). But for masons and other more-or-less permanent buildings, I'm not sure how to approach the problem.
I think we should make up a currency and report all tradable items to it. This way, the cost of the building can be factored in, as a percentage of the fix cost of the building and the producton time. Therefore for example, 1 stone = 3.78 curency ... and so on. Once you got this, all tradable items can be compared. Not to mention that for example you can add the cost of 1 coal to 1 bronze for example and 1 bronze to the total cost of 1 tool.
PS: stone should be the cheapest item since it requires no mine building cost, nor forrester building like for loggs. Since everything can be produced given enough time, the currency can be actually the time.
Regards,
Aetius
Last edited by AetiusWMD; 11-28-11 at 04:26 pm.
Once we get the values established we can start taxing the property and/or income.
Just kidding.
If something can go wrong, it will.
fir log is 1 and steel swords is 546 so 546 fir logs is worth 1 sword?
im confused trying to read this
I iz dumb?
Nice work on the update, Audrey. It's definitely a great way to get an idea on a place to start for pricing on things when you're unsure. =)
The trade calculator on [link invalid - removed] has been updated with these new values. The old [link invalid - removed] is still available as well.
Let me know if you find any inconsistencies. (And thanks again to Audrey for putting these values together, and especially for letting me know they had been updated.)
Thanks
-Draxxon
Last edited by mod_Magenta; 08-09-16 at 01:23 pm.
I put in a trade of 400 marble for 25 coins and got this message:
This might be a good trade. The suggested trade ratio is 3:1888 (0.002), but this ratio of 16:1 (16) is even better.
Something along the lines of 0 might be more fair, though. I think this ratio is off.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote