Planned market changes

[Lewin]

The market was never intended to be a core part of your economy, we never planned for it to be absolutely necessary if you want to succeed in multiplayer. The original idea behind it was more for emergencies (if you run out of something or have a sudden shortage) and for non-renewable resources. We (Krom and I) agree the market is currently being overused, and therefore we have decided to improve the formula for calculating resource values.

The old formula was very simple, for example tree trunks were the same value as corn and wine, which is obviously not very smart. Each processing step added 1 to the value, so for example flour_value = corn_value + 1.

The new formula is based on the time it takes to produce 1 of that resource, plus the cost of the components as before (so flour_value = corn_value + time_to_make_flour). There are some additional tweaks:
1. Trees take a large area to produce (compared to something like corn) so they get +0.25 to their value
2. The non-renewable resources (iron ore, gold ore, coal, stone and fish) are worth +25% compared to renewable resources like trees, corn, etc.
3. Wine takes some extra wood to build (compared to corn) so +0.1
4. You can only build a few iron/gold mines (compared to coal) so +0.2

Here are the OLD resource values (as of r4001):

  Code:

Tree trunks 1 Stones 0.666666686534882 Timber 1 Iron ore 2 Gold ore 2 Coal 2 Iron 5 Gold 2.5 Wine barrels 1 Corn 1 Loaves 1.5 Flour 2 Leather 2.5 Sausages 1.66666662693024 Pigs 4 Skins 4 Wooden shields 2 Iron shields 8 Leather armor 3.5 Iron armor 8 Hand axes 3 Swords 8 Lances 3 Pikes 8 Longbows 3 Crossbows 8 Horses 5 Fish 1.5

And here are the proposed values:
UPDATE: These values were tweaked a bit from the originals, see my post here.

  Code:

Tree trunks 1.61363637447357 Stones 0.362318843603134 Timber 1.11451053619385 Iron ore 1.13749992847443 Gold ore 1.13749992847443 Coal 0.967741966247559 Iron 2.65570068359375 Gold 1.41625726222992 Wine barrels 1.10000002384186 Corn 0.86956524848938 Loaves 1.16229581832886 Flour 1.61030602455139 Leather 2.31136417388916 Sausages 1.52928996086121 Pigs 3.88198757171631 Skins 3.88198757171631 Wooden shields 1.74608945846558 Iron shields 4.39763641357422 Leather armor 3.01724648475647 Iron armor 4.39763641357422 Hand axes 2.82902097702026 Swords 4.23882722854614 Lances 2.84440565109253 Pikes 4.23882722854614 Longbows 2.82902097702026 Crossbows 4.25502157211304 Horses 5.21739149093628 Fish 1.2295081615448

(please excuse the ridiculous number of decimal places, it's due to floating point conversion when they were exported from the game)

Please remember that as before when you trade you lose resources in the process. If we have two resource of equal value, 2.5 will buy you 1. (so 150% of the original resource is lost in the process of trading) This has not been changed.

Lets take some popular trades and compare them:
Coal -> Trunks:
Previously: 1 coal -> 1 trunk
Now: 4 coal -> 1 trunk

Iron bars -> Horses:
Previously: 2 iron -> 1 horse
Now: 5 iron -> 1 horse

We realise the market was useful for speeding up gameplay, and we might address these issues separately. If wood is slow to produce, that's a problem in itself, the market should not be the solution for such a problem.

Please let us know what you think
Lewin.

[Krom]

How to calculate trading?

TRADE_TO * 2.5 / TRADE_FROM = required wares count rounded

for example, Coal to Trunks:
Trunks cost 1.76 * 2.5 / coal cost 0.97 = 4,536 gets rounded to 5. You will need 5 coal to buy one trunk.

[Mulberry]

Sorry for replying without deepest calculation. I will try to calculate and share my opinion about different courses later.
We were discussing yesterday on team speak with Florek, Romek, Pizza, The Dark LOrd, Dicsoupcan, Matt the rate for new tree truncks courses. And we all together came up with that increasing it up to 2 iron ore - 1 tree trunck , 2 coal - 1 tree trunck is just enought to stop unbalanced trading. In my opinion 5 for 1 is so much hight. The last possible course for me is 3 coal/iron/gold - 1 tree trunck.

And also i am a bit against 5 iron bars - 1 horse. I think this way is better: 6 gold chests - 1 horse, 4 iron bars - 1 horse.

[The Dark Lord]

We realise the market was useful for speeding up gameplay, and we might address these issues separately. If wood is slow to produce, that's a problem in itself, the market should not be the solution for such a problem.

I disagree with this. I will be repeating myself but since you did not read everything in the other topic: timber has always been slow to produce and it never really was a problem. Now with the market, which speeds up things, we MAKE it a problem while the problem is (or was? ) the market itself.

About the values: it is better than I could have hoped! Victory!
But I fear a lot of people won't like it, and even I have to admit that 5 coal for 1 tree trunk is a bit much. Remember that, to keep trading and produce gold/iron at the same time, you will need much more coal mines now (and 1 coal mine = 1 woodcutter, (when speaking about building cost, but obviously coal mines produce coal much faster than woodcutters cut and plant trees; on the other hand, coal mines will run out of coal sooner or later so woodcutters are much more 'durable')). Also, you will need more serfs or serfs will have to walk much further to bring all the coal to your marketplace.
I've been thinking about it and on maps with much coal, 2 coal for 1 tree trunk won't change that much after all. I suggest 3 coal for 1 tree trunk: 3 coal = 2 timber. Timber requires one more production step, for coal you need only one building so this seems fair to me.
Then again, I'm not sure if the value of coal should be increased or the value of tree trunks should be decreased. I do not have time to do a lot of calculations right now but I'll get back to this.
HOWEVER: maybe we should first test these values on a map with a lot of coal.

[Lewin]

Sorry for replying without deepest calculation. I will try to calculate and share my opinion about different courses later.
We were discussing yesterday on team speak with Florek, Romek, Pizza, The Dark LOrd, Dicsoupcan, Matt the rate for new tree truncks courses. And we all together came up with that increasing it up to 2 iron ore - 1 tree trunck , 2 coal - 1 tree trunck is just enought to stop unbalanced trading. In my opinion 5 for 1 is so much hight. The last possible course for me is 3 coal/iron/gold - 1 tree trunck.

The market is not intended to be an efficient source of tree trunks, the woodcutter should always be the best way to make tree trunks. The market is not meant for primary production of goods.

@TDL: We could also reduce the 2.5 factor as well which makes all trades more viable. Ultimately that factor will control how much trading people will do. Perhaps with the smarter formula we could relax it a bit?

[The Dark Lord]

Sorry for replying without deepest calculation. I will try to calculate and share my opinion about different courses later.
We were discussing yesterday on team speak with Florek, Romek, Pizza, The Dark LOrd, Dicsoupcan, Matt the rate for new tree truncks courses. And we all together came up with that increasing it up to 2 iron ore - 1 tree trunck , 2 coal - 1 tree trunck is just enought to stop unbalanced trading. In my opinion 5 for 1 is so much hight. The last possible course for me is 3 coal/iron/gold - 1 tree trunck.

The market is not intended to be an efficient source of tree trunks, the woodcutter should always be the best way to make tree trunks. The market is not meant for primary production of goods.

In that case we might indeed use these values and turn the marketplace into a building that will be primarily used in emergency cases. Sounds great!
I think this needs to be thoroughly tested though, we must see how much effect 3 coal --> 1 tree trunk has economy-wise; same for 5 coal --> 1 tree trunk.

[Lewin]

In that case we might indeed use these values and turn the marketplace into a building that will be primarily used in emergency cases. Sounds great!

Well I don't see a problem with some people using strategies that involve trading, in the same way that people use strategies that involve militia rushes or no leather or lots of knights. But at the end of the day a person who trades a lot should not be at a consistent advantage to a person who does not trade anything in my opinion. The market should be a tech choice, not something that you are forced to use in order to be a good player.

[Krom]

Market was never intended to be a core gameplay element, only a complementary.

[Mulberry]

The market is not intended to be an efficient source of tree trunks, the woodcutter should always be the best way to make tree trunks. The market is not meant for primary production of goods.

I am not sure why are you quoting me because i havent said anithing against your point. I said that course wich you propoused is much bigger then it needs to be in consolidate opinion of very good players. You can be sure we discussed this topic in details.
The 5 -> 1 decission will make this game terrible for 66% of players. Also you know that you are killing few more mainly used strategies by this decision.
The consequnces of it will be begining of new balace discussion because i am sure that those who were able to make aditional militia against enemies towers will suffer. On maps like Across the Desert or Golden cliffs on some locations you will be not more player(no competition) against your opponents because you will be ALWAYS 7-10 mins behind.

[Krom]

Imbalanced maps are problem of their own
When it comes to market, both ratios (5:1 for Coal-Trunks and reverse 1:1) should be equally "bad". Right now I may agree, that 1:1 is not that bad, so maybe we tweak it a little to get 4:1 and 2:1 respectively.

[The Dark Lord]

In that case we might indeed use these values and turn the marketplace into a building that will be primarily used in emergency cases. Sounds great!

Well I don't see a problem with some people using strategies that involve trading, in the same way that people use strategies that involve militia rushes or no leather or lots of knights. But at the end of the day a person who trades a lot should not be at a consistent advantage to a person who does not trade anything in my opinion. The market should be a tech choice, not something that you are forced to use in order to be a good player.

Well I wasn't being sarcastic there.

We need to test things thoroughly. If the market is not meant to be an efficient source of tree trunks, 4 or 5 coal for a tree trunk is ok. But if we want cutting trees to be equally efficient as trading for tree trunks, 3 coal for a tree trunk might be good... I'm not sure though, I find it hard to estimate the impact on one's economy.

[Mulberry]

Personaly i would like to play without marketplace (this courses makes marketplace useless so i wont mention its present), but i dont like to play unbalance games in wich me, my enemy, my allies or any player will suffer of beeing behind beecause of place/number of tries/other factors. PLaying without marketplace nowadays is possible only on MIRRORED maps like TVoD2 wich is a great map but only some of us like it. I am not sure that you are happy if for competitive game we can choose only 2 maps (Volcano Valley is mirrored too) Also no one wants to increase peace time!!! Towers are allready overpowered and if you will make less troops in 60 min pt, tower will become eve more overpowered. Builder rush will be the only one chance to brake throught towers without mills. Balance and balance again...

Krom, Across the Desert, Golden Cliffs are 2 of the most important maps in KaM Remake. This maps are evidence of the highest skill of map making.

[Lewin]

The 5 -> 1 decission will make this game terrible for 66% of players. Also you know that you are killing few more mainly used strategies by this decision.

If 66% of players can only play the game by trading for trunks then the market is being completely overused. That's not how we want the game to work. And yes, strategies will have to change. It seems that currently most strategies revolve around trading huge amounts of resources, I'd rather only a few strategies be like that.

I agree with Krom that maybe 1:4 and 2:1 would be better.

PLaying without marketplace nowadays is possible only on MIRRORED maps like TVoD2 wich is a great map but only some of us like it. I am not sure that you are happy if for competitive game we can choose only 2 maps (Volcano Valley is mirrored too)

I think you're over reacting a bit. Maybe some maps need a few more trees at certain locations to be better balanced, that's easy to fix. But I really don't see why this change has anything to do with mirrored maps.

[vovets1]

Respect Krom and Levin! Maybe 5 to 1, and really expensive, you need 3 to 1 or 4 to 1, but the developers still great. Now I'm waiting for the trade between players.

[The Dark Lord]

Oh happy day!