Merge Trading Post and Trading Port

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

Dear users,

please note that we have a new forum now. You'll find it here.

The old forum is set to read-only mode now.

Your Ikariam Team

  • Merge Trading Post and Trading Port

    In this thread I suggest merging the Trading Port and Trading Post. I think it deserves its own thread.

    Advantages:

    With the new pillaging rules, there is no need to keep a port low level.
    Removes duplication of purpose - both are to do with trading.
    Frees up a valuable space for other buildings.
    Adds value to the Trading Port.

    0024605
    Alpha: member of Pirate's Cove.
    Beta: Leader of United Galley Slaves.
  • True and it would remove all the confusion that new players have over what the difference between the trade port and trade post is.

    Put them together or perhaps have it where that the trade port by itself is only equal to say 1/2 its level as a trade post if their isn't an actual trade post. Would open op ability to trade with only the trade port, but still make a somewhat meaningful reason to build a trade post as well if you wanted.

    Honestly for myself would say just make them one building and be done with it though.
  • I would welcome this idea as the freed up space could be taken up by another warehouse (still hoping for a fix to that problem though).

    Implimentation method:

    Tabulated format
    - one for the trading of goods (Trade Post) and the other for the transportation of goods (Trade Port)

    For the purpose of determining level of Trading Port take the average rounded up

    Hint - A Trade and transport overview could be added as a desirable premium feature to compliment the rolling in.


    GAME FORGE!
    Please reconsider your permanent ban practices!

    :!: Contribute to & Vote on: :!:
    (Suggestion: The lit match has been dropped. Its too late now... :thumbdown: )
  • This seems like a good idea.

    The exchange of goods (offer, buy, sell, trade), all in the same building.

    The simplest implementation could just be to have a separate tab/link added for the tradepost.

    However, having them integrated would be nice.

    Imagine a slidebar setup in the tradepost display (like what we have when sending goods to another town). And page layout would be simple, just have "sell", "offer", as separate tabbed/linked pages (for further clarity), rather than having the drop down box. And then have "trade" as the third link/tab.

    Simple and straight-forward.

    I like this
  • I really like this idea. It has the added benefit of bring back the market to epsilon. The problem is imposing the new format for all those people (like me) that have a level 21 (or higher) trading post that is now worthless. Suggestions?
  • Kevin. wrote:

    I really like this idea. It has the added benefit of bring back the market to epsilon. The problem is imposing the new format for all those people (like me) that have a level 21 (or higher) trading post that is now worthless. Suggestions?


    The updated version would simply give you a Trading Port with a level of the higher of the two.
    Alpha: member of Pirate's Cove.
    Beta: Leader of United Galley Slaves.
  • Quartz wrote:

    The updated version would simply give you a Trading Port with a level of the higher of the two


    So you would just loose the trading post if the trading port is of a higher level? I do not see how this is at all fair.

    Here is how I think it can be fair for everyone: Keep the trading port at the same level it is, but remove the trading post. While removing the trading post apply its building material cost to the the trading port and have it automatically upgrade to the highest level it can reach with the amount of resources that was put in the trading post. Credit the remainder that does not complete an upgrade to the city warehouse.

    This will avoid the problem of someone loosing their port for nothing vs the person that gets an upgraded port for free by comparison.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Kevin. ().

  • I think what he's saying is that if his suggestion was implemented, the trading port would be the same level as whichever of the trading post (if there is one) or the trading post is higher.
  • Quartz wrote:



    Kevin. wrote:



    Quartz wrote:

    The updated version would simply give you a Trading Port with a level of the higher of the two


    So you would just loose the trading post if the trading port is of a higher level? I do not see how this is at all fair.


    You gain a building space in return.
    Correct me if I am wrong, but you mean the space your trading post stands. This is not "gaining a space." Let me show my point through an example so you can correct me if I am mistaken:

    Player A has a level 10 trading post and a level 10 trading port.

    They spent a total of 13769 wood and 7704 marble on building their trading post (assuming spirit level, but no Carpentry or Architect`s Office).
    They spent a total of 8713 wood and 2553 marble on their trading port (same assumption).
    Total spent between the two: 22482 wood, and 10257 marble

    Player B has an empty space and a level 10 trading port.

    They spent 0 wood and 0 marble on the non-existent trading post, obviously.
    They spent 8713 wood and 2553 marble on the trading port (assuming spirit level, but no Carpentry or Architect`s Office).

    Correct me if I am wrong, but under your proposition they would both end up with the same level 10 trading port, but Player A spent 13769 more wood and 7704 more marble, or 190% more resources to end up with the same level 10 trading port and same number of empty spaces. I do not see how this is fair.

    Under my proposition, player A's resources spent on the trading post would be applied to the trading port giving 3 upgrades to the trading port and a remainder of 1973 wood and 1941 marble credited to them. If you work up the numbers for someone that used the same exact resources as player A, but only built trading port, they would have the same outcome with a level 13 trading port, 1973 wood and 1941 marble sitting around. So I believe this to be the fairest transition since it gives no advantage to any player, regardless of what they chose to build or not build.

    :tnx:


    Foot note: The exchange could be done at any rate as long as it is constant: Ie spirit level, Geometry level, Pulley level, or none, Carpentry and Architect`s Office, or not, as long as it is kept consistent, because the percentages have the same effect across the board. The only difference is in the remainder, but this difference is almost negligible. To siplify transition (if they choose to go with it) is to assume no cost reduction, since this can be mass applied more easily.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Kevin. ().

  • hate to toss in a dash of cold water and realiality here.

    But this is game forge. we know how they have handled updates in the past.

    They *will not* demolish a building credit you with the full resouce cost of building, that pure fantasy.

    Odds are they wouldn't even give you the normal 10% or so you get from self demolishing a building.

    Am sure they answer would be, well we told that with update 0.x.x the two buildings would become one, so you shoudl have taken action accordingly before the update. The update itself would probably just leave the tradeing post there, so that you can demolish it yourself at best, at worst would just delete the trading post. Is outside chance they might boost the trading port 1 level if they remove a tradeing post from a city, but wouldn't count on even that. Anyone rememer the fun of the 0.3.0 conversion that radically changed building costs and *SCORES* as a result??? We know how they handle this sort of thing. Not saying it right or wrong, but that is the facts of the matter.

    I hope they do merge the two buildings in some way. Personally like idea that the trading port acts as a half level tradimg post so that the trading post buildign still exists, but the trading port can be used as a local alternative if not want to have a large trading radius. But if they merge them completely, you won't get the resources spent back for the trading post. can call it unfair all you like, is history here to prove this the way they procede. And it is a logical way to do it as any solution can be considered unfair in one light or another. So they pick the simplest means to achieve any new update and go forward.
  • qwerty wrote:

    hate to toss in a dash of cold water and realiality here.

    But this is game forge. we know how they have handled updates in the past.

    They *will not* demolish a building credit you with the full resouce cost of building, that pure fantasy.

    Odds are they wouldn't even give you the normal 10% or so you get from self demolishing a building.

    Am sure they answer would be, well we told that with update 0.x.x the two buildings would become one, so you shoudl have taken action accordingly before the update. The update itself would probably just leave the tradeing post there, so that you can demolish it yourself at best, at worst would just delete the trading post. Is outside chance they might boost the trading port 1 level if they remove a tradeing post from a city, but wouldn't count on even that. Anyone rememer the fun of the 0.3.0 conversion that radically changed building costs and *SCORES* as a result??? We know how they handle this sort of thing. Not saying it right or wrong, but that is the facts of the matter.

    I hope they do merge the two buildings in some way. Personally like idea that the trading port acts as a half level tradimg post so that the trading post buildign still exists, but the trading port can be used as a local alternative if not want to have a large trading radius. But if they merge them completely, you won't get the resources spent back for the trading post. can call it unfair all you like, is history here to prove this the way they procede. And it is a logical way to do it as any solution can be considered unfair in one light or another. So they pick the simplest means to achieve any new update and go forward.
    I understand what you mean, and I feel, in the long run, it is more valuable to merge these. You did state, however, that "..any solution can be considered unfair in one light or another." I challenge you to find how my proposition is unfair using a logical argument.
  • First, who said "any light" means people beign logical :)

    But one thing, it would be unfair to return 100% of the resouces spent in any such conversion. Since there is a standard return of resources formula for destroying a building already. Only fair way to procede would be to use it if use any at all. Second, how long would you expect the new merged port to take to gain its new levels? If they were given instantly, would be the issue of the time you given and saved.

    I guess could assume you get only the standard building demolish formula, roughly 10% for a decently high level building, and then have to wait out the build times for each level to make it truely fair.....

    Other fun could get into, and is part of why they rejected any attempts at this sort of things for 0.3.0 from what i understand. say you buildt your trading post *before* got spirit level and I built mine after got spirit level..... do we get the same amount of resources from the converstion? Think about that, not even sure if it is loged anywhere what price you actually paid for any building upgrade. And that not even getting into the fun of varing levels of carptenter and architect. Certainly would be unfair if we got the same amount of resources out of the conversion if I spent 10% or even 20% less resources wouldn't you think?

    Trust me during the 0.3.0 conversion where they massively changed building costs, they basicly admited they don't keep up with what price you paid for an upgrade so can't reconstruct your actual personal cost. So they just didn't try to adust building levels for differeing prices. Much gnashing of teeth occured over this aspect of it as it impacted scores signficantly.