Unconnected regions

[Velax]

With the current system on stable, can a region that is not connected to any other regions of that realm (ie it's surrounded by rogue regions) send any food to other regions? I assume it can't by ox cart, but can it by caravan?

And if it can, would it risk food being stolen by travelling through rogue regions?

[fodder]

you can send anything anywhere (foreign realm, etc) with caravans within range... might get robbed by npc.. but i think the npc bit requires a npc unit?

oxcart only goes to the neighbouring region and it'll be removed anyway.. (is it still there in stable? its demise in testing is separate from new trade)

[egamma]

Yes, you can send caravans to regions within range, as long as you're not at war.

Food stolen...10% of the time? I recommend sending several smaller (50 bushel) caravans instead of one huge caravan, so that only one caravan gets hit.

[JPierreD]

Food stolen...10% of the time? I recommend sending several smaller (50 bushel) caravans instead of one huge caravan, so that only one caravan gets hit.

It would be nice if the code prevented such action from giving benefit to the player. Rewarding players for making more clicks doesn't seem very appealing to me.

[De-Legro]

Yes, you can send caravans to regions within range, as long as you're not at war.

Food stolen...10% of the time? I recommend sending several smaller (50 bushel) caravans instead of one huge caravan, so that only one caravan gets hit.

It would be nice if the code prevented such action from giving benefit to the player. Rewarding players for making more clicks doesn't seem very appealing to me.

Its a matter of false statistics. By doing this sure IF the caravan gets hit only a small amount is at risk, but you have also increased the risk of ATLEAST one caravan being hit. Really is there a reward here? I doubt it.

[egamma]

Its a matter of false statistics. By doing this sure IF the caravan gets hit only a small amount is at risk, but you have also increased the risk of ATLEAST one caravan being hit. Really is there a reward here? I doubt it.

When you gamble, do you make one huge bet, or do you make many small bets?

Let's say that there's a 10% chance of your caravans getting hit, and you have 100 bushels surplus every week for 10 weeks--total of 1000 bushels.

You could send 10 caravans , and lose one.
Or, you could send 20 caravans, and maybe lose two. It's the same amount of food lost. But, maybe you'll only lose one, in which case you cut your losses in half.
Or you could send one caravan. You probably won't lose it, sure, but if you DO lose it, you'll hate yourself for it forever.

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

[De-Legro]

When you gamble, do you make one huge bet, or do you make many small bets?

Let's say that there's a 10% chance of your caravans getting hit, and you have 100 bushels surplus every week for 10 weeks--total of 1000 bushels.

You could send 10 caravans , and lose one.
Or, you could send 20 caravans, and maybe lose two. It's the same amount of food lost. But, maybe you'll only lose one, in which case you cut your losses in half.
Or you could send one caravan. You probably won't lose it, sure, but if you DO lose it, you'll hate yourself for it forever.

"Don't put all your eggs in one basket."

And over time what would the amount lost under both cases tend towards? If this is seriously what people are doing I would suggest we need to start charging each separate caravan sent. But you are making the mistake here of biasing the results. You could send out the ten caravans and lose anything UP to 10, the same goes for the 20 caravans. Only over a VERY large sample are the results going to result in a true 10% loss of total caravans sent.

End result, no matter HOW many caravans you send, the chances gods could end up making you pay for it. It is only OBSERVER bias that makes people think that sending the extra caravans building in protection. Thus my comment is correct. People may decide to send more caravans because they think that is a safer option, but we don't need to modify game mechanics to prevent this, because it is not a true advantage.


Also your understanding of gambling systems seems flawed. Many of the systems out there proscribe betting reasonable to large amounts, since the pay off for small amounts don't tend to cover your losses. Depending on what you are gambling on the system tends towards what your bets are, and the return odds. Its not about having so many bets that some win, since you have spent an inordinate amount on bets that don't.

[egamma]

And over time what would the amount lost under both cases tend towards? If this is seriously what people are doing I would suggest we need to start charging each separate caravan sent. But you are making the mistake here of biasing the results. You could send out the ten caravans and lose anything UP to 10, the same goes for the 20 caravans. Only over a VERY large sample are the results going to result in a true 10% loss of total caravans sent.

End result, no matter HOW many caravans you send, the chances gods could end up making you pay for it. It is only OBSERVER bias that makes people think that sending the extra caravans building in protection. Thus my comment is correct. People may decide to send more caravans because they think that is a safer option, but we don't need to modify game mechanics to prevent this, because it is not a true advantage.

There is a (1 gold) cost to sending each additional caravan.

And there's the added benefit of maybe not hitting a wall on the other end--spreading out your caravans means that they have a chance to eat the food or send it further on or at the very least set up more buy offers.

[De-Legro]

There is a (1 gold) cost to sending each additional caravan.

And there's the added benefit of maybe not hitting a wall on the other end--spreading out your caravans means that they have a chance to eat the food or send it further on or at the very least set up more buy offers.

And conversely sending out many over time might mean someone else has time to fill the orders, which you could have filled had you send a larger amount out. These simply AREN'T absolutes we are talking about.

[De-Legro]

I will point out something I thought was obvious, but from a IRC conversation it would seem that is not the case.

When dealing with time critical food shipments, then yes multiple caravans can be advantageous. If we need 1000 bushels to arrive to prevent starvations, then multiple caravans (almost) ensure that SOME food will arrive so at worst you reduce the effect of starvation if the amount you can ship only just covers the amount needed.

[egamma]

That's what I've been saying all along--if you want to improve the odds that some food arrives, then send multiple shipments.

[Charles]

Also, I do not think I have ever had an entire caravan lost.  It is always only a few bushels, maybe 10%?

[Indirik]

I have seen entire caravans, carrying hundreds of food, get destroyed by rampaging monsters. Of course, this does not apply to the new trading system.