"Fair Trades" Explanation?

[Mustapha00]

A "fair trade" would seem to be one both sides are satisfied with.
Not to say that I have any problem with the 'official definition' of "fair trades". Each Guild I'm in is a Fair Trade guild.

 

[DeletedUser8428]

A "fair trade" would seem to be one both sides are satisfied with.
Not to say that I have any problem with the 'official definition' of "fair trades". Each Guild I'm in is a Fair Trade guild.

Except that there isn't an "official" definition. There is a general idea that many players/guilds follow, but there is no rule

 

[DeletedUser10517]

A "fair trade" would seem to be one both sides are satisfied with.
Not to say that I have any problem with the 'official definition' of "fair trades". Each Guild I'm in is a Fair Trade guild.

There is no "official definition" of fair trades.....each guild adopts their own definition.

My guild is a "fair trade" guild.....which means 'We all Trade at the same ratios'......therefore, making it 'fair' across the board.

 

[DeletedUser24961]

The problem for me is when a guild says 'fair trades only' but doesn't clarify that they have a very specific meaning.

My view is simple; The basic currency of the game is the play area.
With a greater area you can generate a greater income, if I were to double your area you would have at least double the income. Actually it'd be even more as you almost certainly don't need to double your troop base which means that extra space generates even more extra income.

Now think on this;
Some goods buildings have an area of 9 squares, some 12 and some 16.
Generally speaking the stone based ones (stone, limestone, granite) have the larger bases.

I suggest that the value of resources is proportional to the area taken up, so we have 9:12:16 (use 3:4 for one step and 1:2 for 2 steps for simplicity).
The difference in gold/supplies value vanishes into insignificance compared to the income one generates from the extra space available.

I also believe that players are generally aware of this on at least a subconscious level. The substances I find it hardest to lay hands on are; Limestone, Granite, Ebony and (to show I'm not warping things to fit my theory) Honey. I have the good fortune to have a stone resource and I am finding that when I offer stone for trade it just goes.

The 'fair trades' concept based on the gold/supplies needed is actually resulting in a ridiculous situation where people don't want 4x4 production clogging up their cities when they can't get genuine return for value so they don't have them. 'Fair Trades' thus creates the critical shortages it's supposed to prevent!

I'll be very interested to see any informed and thought out rebuttals of this agrument.

 

[DeletedUser24459]

Since different goods buildings of the same age have different space requirements, and some different age buildings have the same, are you are suggesting that wire should have the same value as lumber, even though it is five ages beyond?

What about for example, the Packaging Factory? It is 7x4=28 squares. Plus it requires lumber which is another 9 squares. Would its value be equal to 37 squares?

Or am I missing the point?

 

[DeletedUser14354]

The 'fair trades' concept based on the gold/supplies needed is actually resulting in a ridiculous situation where people don't want 4x4 production clogging up their cities when they can't get genuine return for value so they don't have them. 'Fair Trades' thus creates the critical shortages it's supposed to prevent!

I'll be very interested to see any informed and thought out rebuttals of this agrument.

The fundamental problem with this entire thread (and the numerous ones similar to it) is the use of the term "fair trade". All trade is, by definition, "fair" in the sense that its not coerced. If you aren't happy with a deal, you don't have to take it. If you elect to take it, by definition you are happy with it.

What people are describing when the talk about their guild rules is not "fair" trade, but rather "orderly" trade. Most guilds have found that agreeing, in advance, to a set of exchange rates promotes orderly trade among members, because it eliminates the possibility of a "better" deal being out there if someone waits just a bit longer.

Whether that ratio is 2:1 or 3:2 or 6:5 is irrelevant. The key is that its set in advance for all members of the guild.

Yes, you can find arguments for why a particular ratio is more appropriate, more precise, better reflective of true "costs". However, they are all derived in one way, shape or form from a measure of input costs. If you only look at the coins and supplies, you get one calculation. If you attempt to adjust for the difference in the size of the buildings in a particular age, you get a different calculation, etc.

Now to your thesis, which is that fair trades create shortages. While you correctly identify one criticism of some of the more popular goods calculators (i.e., that it simply measures coins and supplies, not building size), you then fall into precisely the same trap, which is to view trade as static.

1. While, all things being equal, I would rather make the same goods in a 3x3 building than a 4x4 building, the game, not me determines whether I have a boost in a particular good.

2. If everyone produces Age Good A, there will be a shortfall of Age Good B. There will be some people in that world with the boost for Age Good B. They will eventually come to realize that it is to their advantage to produce Age Good B and trade it for other goods they need. While they may not be able to trade that good at an advantageous rate to their guild members, due to its internal "fair trade" guidelines, they will be able to trade it outside the guild.

One of the more interesting parts of this game (to me) is that, unlike similar games, it has created a robust market for its goods. You can argue the 2:1 1:2 extreme limits are arbitrary (I agree), but within those confines, meaning trade within 2-3 ages of one another, the market actually functions in an orderly way.

 

[DeletedUser24961]

Since different goods buildings of the same age have different space requirements, and some different age buildings have the same, are you are suggesting that wire should have the same value as lumber, even though it is five ages beyond?

What about for example, the Packaging Factory? It is 7x4=28 squares. Plus it requires lumber which is another 9 squares. Would its value be equal to 37 squares?

Or am I missing the point?

You're not missing the point, although I suspect it's intrininsicaly irrelevant. The person producing a surplus of a resource has used their space to create it, its cost to them is what they could have done instead with that space.
If someone who has wire needs lumber (does that ever happen?) then they have to either trade for it or create it themselves - any trade where they are better off than they would be otherwise is a 'good' trade, trades where the total benefit is as equal as possible are 'fair'.

You may argue that space for the wire chappie is going to generate more income than the lumber chappie's, but remeber that 1000 gold has a VERY different worth to each of them in terms of the proportion of a cost (building, exploration, whatever) that it pays.

 

[DeletedUser24459]

You do pose an interesting point. But what about the cost to build GBs. Lets say someone in BA manages to get all the BP for Deal Castle (Unlikely but possible). If this person holds the tree deposit then s/he could produce lumber and trade for wire 1:1. In this very hypothetical situation, one could end up having a GB that is five ages ahead of where s/he is at.

I'm not saying that this is a bad idea, just that there should be other factors involved. This, in turn, would begin to make it very difficult to figure out what a 'fair trade' is.

What's 'fair' is very much in the eye of the beholder, I believe this is one reason why Inno has not endorsed any one method. Indispose is correct in the there is a very diverse market. This allows people with similar views to trade among themselves for what they believe is fair. In my opinion this makes the game a little more fun since any one person does not have to conform to the popular census.

 

[DeletedUser24961]

Torin, agreed. The problem is that the common interpretation of 'fair trade' is 1:1 in same era, 2:1 if going one up, 1:2 if going one down and - and this is the real kicker - no trade separated by 2 ages seems to be counted as fair at all!

So a player in the middle ages can not offer a fair trade for stone unless he's kept lower level production......

 

[DeletedUser13838]

The problem for me is when a guild says 'fair trades only' but doesn't clarify that they have a very specific meaning.

My view is simple; The basic currency of the game is the play area.
With a greater area you can generate a greater income, if I were to double your area you would have at least double the income. Actually it'd be even more as you almost certainly don't need to double your troop base which means that extra space generates even more extra income.

There is a fundamental problem with this way of thinking. If the game sticks you with large footprint goods buildings, you will not choose unboosted goods as an alternative since the buildings are not 5x the size of the others and you don't have a monopoly on those goods. Therefore no one has to compensate you with a higher market value. The only way you'd be able to receive a higher value is if you team up with all the others with the same boost and refuse to produce those goods. Even then, those goods will come to the market (from quests, GBs and event buildings) but reduce supply somewhat. Of course any gain to the market value would be lost to you since you stopped producing the good. The only ones who would gain are the holdouts from your boycott.

 

[DeletedUser17462]

Torin, agreed. The problem is that the common interpretation of 'fair trade' is 1:1 in same era, 2:1 if going one up, 1:2 if going one down and - and this is the real kicker - no trade separated by 2 ages seems to be counted as fair at all!

So a player in the middle ages can not offer a fair trade for stone unless he's kept lower level production......

One thing to bear in mind if you want to propose a real change here is that this all changes after LMA. Production costs no longer double every age after that. Assuming that's the value you use to set equitable trades, it is entirely possible to "fair trade" across several ages. Some ages are even fairly close to 1:1. IIRC, FE to TE is 9:10.

 

[DeletedUser13838]

It's even worse than that. For every 100 FE goods you produce, you only keep 40 since 60 are traded for the 100 PME goods needed to produce the FE goods. While it's included in the fair value cost, the FE goods buildings themselves are only 40% efficient (TE is 43%, CE is 44%, PME is 47% and ME is 50%). It takes much longer to build up those goods.

 

[DeletedUser10415]

a player in the middle ages can not offer a fair trade for stone unless he's kept lower level production......

The player could trade down to get to Iron Age goods, at which point they could offer a fair trade for stone.

 

[DeletedUser15482]

Has anyone been told a trade would go like this?

tar is 3X5 so 15 squares
flav is 6X4 plus two-lane so 7X4 28 squares but flav needs tar so add the 15 squares as well, 43 squares
43/15 = 2.9 so 5 flav is at least worth 14 tar and this does not even take in to account that flav is a ME good

I think this person is FOS... LOL

If I wanted to do that much math (if that is really math) just to get 14 tar, I would build my own Tar Factory and make my own! Know what I am saying? Or am I wrong?

I said I don't believe this is fair trading. That seems too complicated for most players and we should just use the link...
http://foe.dppro.nl/index.php?l=tools&s=fairtrade

WHY DOESN'T "FOE" MAKE THERE OWN FAIR TRADE CHART? It should be a very simple thing to do.

I am seriously considering changing guilds over this debate.

 

[Algona]

WHY DOESN'T "FOE" MAKE THERE OWN FAIR TRADE CHART?

To what profit? Especially since every player and their sister would complain about it no matter what the chart said.

 

[DeletedUser13452]

I think you need to create a generic definition of "fair trade" before you can begin to debate the issue. This seems rather difficult given the many points of view on the subject. In any case, you'll never reach a conclusion that everyone is satisfied with, imo. Trade the way your guild wants and you never lose in terms of comparison from one trade to another. In other words, If you trade 2 PmE goods per 1 CE good, you haven't lost anything since the value of that CE good is still at 2 PmE goods. Use any value the game will allow and if the value remains constant, you stay even.

 

[DeletedUser8420]

Realize the definition of a fair trade is


Whatever someone is willing to pay for a good is deemed fair and whatever acceptable to the provider is deemed fair...thus If someone is willing to pay your asking price then that trade is by definition is fair.

Therefore, if the trade isn't acceptable then pass it by and look for one that is acceptable. If the person placing the trade doesn't get their trade accepted then they will learn it was not deemed fair by those searching the market and eventually take it down replacing it with something more acceptable.

 

[DeletedUser25273]

Totally coming out with a definitive rule for fair trade would be hard. There are several different factors that come into the 'cost' of a good. To produce a good you need supplies, space for the building and people (which also require space for houses and for cultural buildings to keep them happy). There are also other sources of Goods like GBs and special buildings to throw confusion into the mix.

Ultimately, what is fair would normally be determined by supply and demand, but in a game like FoE, there are enough people who particularly think enough about what would really be fair, and the market is small enough that a few big players could have an effect on it, that some groups have come up with their own rules for "fair trade". There are a couple 'standard' charts, like the link presented, that based on a given cost model come up with what is 'fair'. Some, for simplicity, focus on the supply cost for the goods (so all goods of a given age cost the same), others try to factor in space requirements.

All these calculations just produce GUIDELINES. At worst, a guild could threaten to kick someone out for posting trades that ask for too much based on their fair trade rules. This would generally be for a guild that wants to protect its younger, less experienced members from being tricked into an 'abusive' trade. One fortunate thing is that for the earlier ages when this would be more important, the costs to produce goods follows a fairly simple progression, with mostly slight variation in the size of the goods building, allowing the simple 2:1 rule to work fairly well (any space inequity is swamped by the 5:1 ratio of boosted vs unbolted good types). At later ages when you get into the complexity of unrefined/refined goods, things get more complicated and many guilds have more relaxed rules. At that point, people who want to charge too much are apt to find no buyers, and people willing to pay to little will find no sellers, so the economy will tend to self correct. The various calculations of 'fair trade' will give people a rough idea of what to offer/ask for, and they tend to be close enough to what an ideal economy would generate (whatever that really is), that they tend to work out.

 

[DeletedUser15482]

To what profit? Especially since every player and their sister would complain about it no matter what the chart said.

SO TRUE... SO TRUE!

 

[DeletedUser9433]

Realize the definition of a fair trade is


Whatever someone is willing to pay for a good is deemed fair and whatever acceptable to the provider is deemed fair...thus If someone is willing to pay your asking price then that trade is by definition is fair.

Therefore, if the trade isn't acceptable then pass it by and look for one that is acceptable. If the person placing the trade doesn't get their trade accepted then they will learn it was not deemed fair by those searching the market and eventually take it down replacing it with something more acceptable.

Not true in practice, people take trades they consider unfair all the time, even in real life. However whatever use they have for the trade is more important than getting a fair trade. Performing a trade is hardly agreeing it is fair.