[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Update of bug #15092 (project freeciv): Status: Ready For Test = Fixed Open/Closed:Open = Closed ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message posté via/par Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Follow-up Comment #14, bug #15092 (project freeciv): I have tested the patch and it works just fine. Up to now the best trade route I had was 3 and it became 9. Other intercontinental trade routes range between 5 and 8. Good for me. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Update of bug #15092 (project freeciv): Status:None = Ready For Test Assigned to:None = pepeto ___ Follow-up Comment #13: Patch attached with the division by 6. (file #7690) ___ Additional Item Attachment: File name: trunk_S2_2_trade_between_cities.diff Size:0 KB ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message posté via/par Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Follow-up Comment #12, bug #15092 (project freeciv): The bonus for trade routes spanning different empires has always been there, and for a good reason: if both cities belong to you, each city gets half the revenue, but the empire gets it twice. So, yes, if you lose a city, the trade for the remaining city will double (but you will lose all the trade from the other). The bonus for different continents has also been there forever, and it reflects the added difficulty of having to carry the caravan overseas. It does have an historical analogy: think the Silk Route or the gold trade with America. Trade with other continents brings more valuable stuff and traders get richer. As for the factor of 6 vs. 8, we should really do some simulations and choose whatever is closer to 2.1. Do you really ever get 5 revenue on the same island in 2.1, even in large islands? I'm afraid that, as game progresses, and trade routes span really large distances, we will have absurdly large revenues if the division factor is too low. I would start with 8 in beta 3, and perhaps try 6 in beta 4, then take a final decision before release. This will give my empire a much-needed economic boost in its war against cheating AIs :-). ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
Re: [Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
On Jan 12, 2010, at 22:30 , pepeto wrote: * Do you think it's normal or realistic to divide the trade route value by 2 if the owner is not the same? And the trade would increase if you lose a city... Or maybe should it be based on the initial owner? * Do you think it's normal or realistic to multiply by 2 he trade route value if the continent is not the same? It certainly makes sense from a 'real world' perspective. The more exotic the goods being traded, the more valuable they will be. Items from another culture are more likely to be seen as exotic than items from your own. Goods from another continent are also likely to made from raw ingredients that can't be grown/found on your own continent - thus making them more of a novelty. As to whether trade values should change due to change of ownership, that's a tougher nut to crack. As i understand it, the whole reason the formula got changed was to reduce the load on the processor. If so, then we should keep an eye towards not making this calculation too expensive or running it too often. I have one little question: in a 'gen 1' environment, is each little island considered its own continent, or is there some way of grouping them into archipelagos? I have one idea that i'd like to toss out there, though i'm afraid it may contradict what i wrote above. The more advanced transportation becomes, the more jaded consumers become. Perhaps we can adjust the total land distance some percentage down when railroads come along, and a similar adjustment of distance over sea based on what generation ships are in effect? Using a rusty Amiga 4000T, a shiny PowerMac G5, a homebuilt Ubuntu box Nobody goes there any more, it's too crowded. - Yogi Berra ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Follow-up Comment #9, bug #15092 (project freeciv): The original idea was to remove the usage of volatile datas in the calculation (the trade production of a city). Moreover, to allow to know the real value of a trade route on client side, even if at least one of the city is not owned. Is this really the case? If I establish a trade route with another player (no alliance/no shared vision/no unit near this city) my client will not know the current size of this city. Thus, additional information from the server would be needed to calculate the trade output on the client side. Or one could say, that a trade route means information transport and the size of the trade city is allways known. This way it is really a calculation which can be done on the client side. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Nachricht geschickt von/durch Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Follow-up Comment #10, bug #15092 (project freeciv): The problem, I think, with this is that it will slow the game down a lot, especially the multiplayer game. If you have to wait until you build a railroad or boats before you can trade, it will be at least twice as long before you can set up trade routes, rapture, and move more quickly through the game. As we all know, the multiplayer game is already very long, and I think that the new formula (and pepeto's proposal which is better, but still too low, IMHO) will extend the already 3-5 hour game to 4-6 hours at least, if not more than that. It may cause people to play less, and even now it takes a while to find a game in 2.1, this will only be worse. (note: I've not played a multiplayer 2.2 game, and didn't notice the amount of turns passing in the single player games I've played, so this is speculation) Maybe a division by 6 rather than 8 would be better. These numbers seem much more playable to me. This is what we would get with that ((distance+size1+size2)/6): same island, same player: ((9+3+3)/6)/2=1.25 ((12+6+6)/6)/2=2 ((20+3+3)/6)/2=2.16 ((30+6+6)/6)/2=3.5 ((30+18+18)/6)/2=5.5 different island, same player/same island, different players: ((9+3+3)/6)=2.5 ((12+6+6)/6)=4 ((20+3+3)/6)=4.33 ((30+6+6)/6=7 ((30+18+18)/6)=11 different island, different players: ((9+3+3)/6)*2=5 ((12+6+6)/6)*2=8 ((20+3+3)/6)*2=8.66 ((30+6+6)/6)*2=14 ((30+18+18)/6)*2=22 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Follow-up Comment #11, bug #15092 (project freeciv): Some questions in the goal of creating a new algorithm: * Do you think it's normal or realistic to divide the trade route value by 2 if the owner is not the same? And the trade would increase if you lose a city... Or maybe should it be based on the initial owner? * Do you think it's normal or realistic to multiply by 2 he trade route value if the continent is not the same? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message posté via/par Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Follow-up Comment #7, bug #15092 (project freeciv): Is the intention is to make trade weaker and make it harder to rapture? If so, maybe an option to either have the new low-yield formula or a higher-yield one from a previous version. I can see how a low yield formula could be better for a single player game, but I think that a higher yield formula is better for a multiplayer game. The original idea was to remove the usage of volatile datas in the calculation (the trade production of a city). Moreover, to allow to know the real value of a trade route on client side, even if at least one of the city is not owned. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message posté via/par Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Follow-up Comment #8, bug #15092 (project freeciv): In 2.1, it is already difficult to rapture on your own island. I think that distance should be a major factor in the revenue of a given trade route. It already is for the initial payout, isn't it? Anyway, from what I've seen, the goal of this change wasn't to decrease the power of Caravans: it looks like this reduction is the unintended side-effect of a change that intended to simplify trade computations and savegame complexity, breaking the circularity of having trade depend on trade routes and trade routes depend on trade. So, the challenge is to come up with a formula that doesn't use trade as an input, and gets a similar result to the old one. The old formula is basically (Trade1+Trade2+4)/16. This is doubled if cities are in different continents, and/or if cities belong to different players. Pepeto's proposal could be seen as an approximation of the old formula, if we think that trade is twice the size of the city. Then (Trade1+Trade2)/16 ~ 2*(Size1+Size2)/16 = (size1+size2)/8. The big difference is that other trade routes don't influence the final result, so they don't multiply. To compensate for that, we add the distance_between_cities parameter. I think it's good enough. Sure, at the beginning of the game on a single island, trade routes won't amount to much, but as game progresses, if you get a good railroad and transport network, the distance parameter may shoot up, resulting in astronomic revenues. Since we are in a beta, we might as well try it, and keep an eye on it, listen to feedback, and perhaps change it again before the final release (perhaps the distance_between_cities parameter should be divided by 16 instead of 8, I don't know). We should always check that the revenue is at least 1, to prevent short trade routes from giving 0 revenue. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
URL: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 Summary: Trade route revenue lower than expected Project: Freeciv Submitted by: jcreus Submitted on: Sunday 01/10/10 at 14:40 Category: None Severity: 3 - Normal Priority: 5 - Normal Status: None Assigned to: None Originator Email: Open/Closed: Open Release: 2.2 beta 2 Discussion Lock: Any Operating System: GNU/Linux Planned Release: 2.2 ___ Details: I am playing a game against cheating AIs. I have noticed that all my trade routes give a revenue of 2 or lower. For instance, a trade route between two cities with 39 and 21 trade points, on different continents, half a world apart, gives only 2 points. According to the formula in http://freeciv.wikia.com/wiki/Trade_route_revenue#Trade that should be 8 (39+21+4)/8 I am attaching a savegame. There are lots of trade routes, but you may look at the ones in Montserrat, on a small island north of the Catalan nation. ___ File Attachments: --- Date: Sunday 01/10/10 at 14:40 Name: creix.sav.gz Size: 84kB By: jcreus Savegame showing low-revenue trade routes http://gna.org/bugs/download.php?file_id=7647 ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Update of bug #15092 (project freeciv): Category:None = general Planned Release: 2.2 = 2.2.0 ___ Follow-up Comment #1: It seems it was a deliberate change by Per for RT#38029, committed at revision 12873. The new algorithm is: distance_between_cities + size_of_city1 + size_of_city2. However, it look like to be very less efficient than previous algorithm. Maybe should we modify this? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message posté via/par Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #15092 (project freeciv): Forgot to mention the division by 8 or 16 if both cities are owned. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message posté via/par Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Follow-up Comment #3, bug #15092 (project freeciv): With this algorithm, in one of the routes, the distance is about 30, city sizes are 11 and 6, and they are both mine. So, we get (30+11+6)/16 = 2.93. I get 2 revenue. Damn, at least we could round it up! This is one major change. It's a lot harder to make cities celebrate. Plus, trade route revenue doesn't depend on how commercial a city is or on which continent they are. Is this the goal? Were trade routes too advantageous to humans over AIs? I see that the change was done in March 2007, but there wasn't much discussion about its chilling effects on world trade. Maybe it's time to debate it now? My opinion is that it's too drastic, and most other users will complain loudly. At least, we should change the division factor from 16 to 8 or more. It will still be half of what it used to be, but right now, making trade routes is not that attractive any more. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Follow-up Comment #4, bug #15092 (project freeciv): Doing the calculation on the trade production of a city is quite dumb, because it can change at anytime, and caused some problem in the city refresh stuff which became recursive. Maybe this should be based on the trade collected in the last turn. But doing that would require a big work and wouldn't be in 2.2. I suggest for 2.2.0: * bonus = (distance_between_cities + size_of_city1 + size_of_city2) / 8. * if the cities are on different continents bonus *= 2. * if both cities are owned by the same player bonus /= 2. In your example, it would make ((30 + 11 + 6) / 8) * 2 = 11. Is it a good compromise? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message posté via/par Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Follow-up Comment #5, bug #15092 (project freeciv): I think in this case, the same-player quality cancels out the different-continent, so it would be (30+11+6)/8 = 5,87. If we round it instead of truncating, a 6. It would be lower than usual, but this is OK. I think trade routes are possibly too much of an advantage. Anyway, I think this issue has strong effects on gameplay and deserves some more feedback from the community. Any more opinions? One more question: will trade route revenues get updated as cities grow? ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
[Freeciv-Dev] [bug #15092] Trade route revenue lower than expected
Follow-up Comment #6, bug #15092 (project freeciv): * bonus = (distance_between_cities + size_of_city1 + size_of_city2) / 8. * if the cities are on different continents bonus *= 2. * if both cities are owned by the same player bonus /= 2. If the cities are both owned by you and 9 tiles apart, at size 3 they would have less than one trade point. ((9+3+3)/8)/2=0.93 If the cities are both owned by you and 12 tiles apart, at size 6 they would have 1.5 trade points ((12+6+6)/8)/2=1.5 It will be very hard to rapture on your own island, if you can at all...Even if the cities are on different islands, and the other numbers are the same, they would receive 1.8 and 3 points respectively. If they were owned by different players on different islands, you would receive 3.75 and 6 which means you have to settle two different islands before you could even think about setting up trade routes, or have to trade with and rely on possibly hostile or weak neighbors if you want to rapture before turn 150. Is the intention is to make trade weaker and make it harder to rapture? If so, maybe an option to either have the new low-yield formula or a higher-yield one from a previous version. I can see how a low yield formula could be better for a single player game, but I think that a higher yield formula is better for a multiplayer game. ___ Reply to this item at: http://gna.org/bugs/?15092 ___ Message sent via/by Gna! http://gna.org/ ___ Freeciv-dev mailing list Freeciv-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/freeciv-dev
