How would having Closed Loop Trade Nodes adversely affect gameplay

[User29]

So When the ROTW revamp happened quite a few patches ago now many of us thought we saw the Indus Trade Node lead back into Kashmir meaning the Indian Trade Nodes would have been able to transfer power to each other in a closed loop if a power had the merchants and power to pull it off.

If say Paradox did do this change, and say did it for India and another closed loop in China lets say, Would this be a detriment to gameplay? Cause in my mind it would make sense for an Isolationist Empire that focused on internal trade, but I don't know if this could be somehow bloated and abused to lead to a broken game, Discuss?

 

[Golladan]

It's more about it potentially crashing the game than it being abusable.

 

[MrParadux]

With loops it would theoretically be possible to increase the value indefenitely. There are modifiers which increase the value of outgoing trade and create money "out of thin air".

 

[Wizzington]

It would crash the game.

 

[Denkt]

But there are ways to make trade multi directional without the need of a closed loop.

 

[hauptman]

Lets say you controlled 2 points of a 3 point loop entirely, and have maybe half the power in the 3rd. You collect in the half power node (with the other half pulling out) and steer in the other 2 for the increase in value.

You would collect half of an infinatly growing number. Since it only updates once per month, it wouldnt crash, but it would keep increasing by 60-70% every month. Eventually the number would probably crash the game simply due to number of digits.

Before they changed things to run smoother (removed floating numbers from provinces, and removng real time trade updates) it would have been impossible to even calculate the number in any given instant. that's why the simple answer is "It would crash the game".

 

[hashinshin]

It would crash the game.

the old "it would crash the game" argument. Can't really argue with that.

 

[Thesian]

It's a variant of the old "it would crash the plane" argument why you can't use certain electronic devices on a plane. Or a bus.

 

[BFTeixeira]

It's a variant of the old "it would crash the plane" argument why you can't use certain electronic devices on a plane. Or a bus.

Why? What's your basis to that statement?

 

[Johan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_loop

 

[beckermt]

Lets say you controlled 2 points of a 3 point loop entirely, and have maybe half the power in the 3rd. You collect in the half power node (with the other half pulling out) and steer in the other 2 for the increase in value.

You would collect half of an infinatly growing number. Since it only updates once per month, it wouldnt crash, but it would keep increasing by 60-70% every month. Eventually the number would probably crash the game simply due to number of digits.

Before they changed things to run smoother (removed floating numbers from provinces, and removng real time trade updates) it would have been impossible to even calculate the number in any given instant. that's why the simple answer is "It would crash the game".

No, you would collect the value of all three trade nodes divided by 2. (Since you have half the power in the node you're collecting in).

I don't understand why it would crash, but I trust Wiz. Johan's infinite loop reference would be problematic, but only with 100% control of a loop. Perhaps disallow pure "forwarding "loops without collection somewhere.

However, I hope very sincerely for a multidirectional trade system in EU5, because I really enjoy organic changes to those sorts of systems.


Edit: I guess there would be an issue of order of operations of a sort. If a node gets 10 ducats from another and has an internal value of 5 and passes 20% and 30% of its value to two other nodes... does it pass 1 and 1.5 ducats, then gain 10? or does it gain 10, then pass 3 and 4.5?

... sounds like a fun problem! Go Wiz, go!

 

[gwachnitz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_loop

Can't you just flag the nodes you traveled through and thus create a valid termination condition? This is assuming you know who is transferring/generating wealth.

You could go more formal and work on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarjan's_strongly_connected_components_algorithm

 

[yerm]

They would need to remove every instance of trade being created out of thin air. All of it no exception.

So long as more trade money can be created in each node than trade wealth is being collected, it will be possible to infinite loop it. You drop a trade circle in the middle of Europe where every OPM and their mother will toss steering merchants next door and it's bound to just happen - no player exploitation needed.

Since I suspect that removing these increases in trade would both nerf the everliving shit out of trade AND completely undo many aspects of the system... I suspect end nodes are not going anywhere.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

No, you would collect the value of all three trade nodes divided by 2. (Since you have half the power in the node you're collecting in).

I don't understand why it would crash, but I trust Wiz. Johan's infinite loop reference would be problematic, but only with 100% control of a loop. Perhaps disallow pure "forwarding "loops without collection somewhere.

However, I hope very sincerely for a multidirectional trade system in EU5, because I really enjoy organic changes to those sorts of systems.


Edit: I guess there would be an issue of order of operations of a sort. If a node gets 10 ducats from another and has an internal value of 5 and passes 20% and 30% of its value to two other nodes... does it pass 1 and 1.5 ducats, then gain 10? or does it gain 10, then pass 3 and 4.5?

... sounds like a fun problem! Go Wiz, go!

Because of the way value stacks up on each node right now you wouldn't need 100% to crash it.

 

[hauptman]

No, you would collect the value of all three trade nodes divided by 2. (Since you have half the power in the node you're collecting in).

Exactly, you would collect HALF of the value of the 3 nodes, then the other half would continue BACK INTO the loop, get added to the value of all three nodes again, and incresed by merchants every time it updated (which i asume is now only monthly). Thus your total value of trade would increase by around 60% (i think) every month (the 50% you sent back through, +15% for merchants steering). The total value that you collect half of, would just continue growing every update (month) even though the total trade value of the provinces remained unchanged.

 

[hauptman]

I suspect end nodes are not going anywhere.

I have absolutely nothing against end nodes, other than their present location. Holland was an important center because it was the mouth of the Rhine, where everything could be shipped inland. So in effect, the Rhineland node should DRAW from the channel, and it should be the end node. Same thing as Venice to Wien. You know, just thinking in terms of movement of goods, and collecting tariffs as it past through.

 

[RyanX]

I have absolutely nothing against end nodes, other than their present location. Holland was an important center because it was the mouth of the Rhine, where everything could be shipped inland. So in effect, the Rhineland node should DRAW from the channel, and it should be the end node. Same thing as Venice to Wien. You know, just thinking in terms of movement of goods, and collecting tariffs as it past through.

That would make sense from a movement of goods standpoint, but as it stands it would make rich trader nations poor and nations dependent on goods from these trading nations rich.

 

[Murminki]

That would make sense from a movement of goods standpoint, but as it stands it would make rich trader nations poor and nations dependent on goods from these trading nations rich.

How about the ability to "tax" the outgoing trade, as long as you control the (major) province(s) the centre of trade is in?

 

[RyanX]

How about the ability to "tax" the outgoing trade, as long as you control the (major) province(s) the centre of trade is in?

Would a cosmetic change like this justify shifting around the entire trade systems and putting in mechanics that would do the same thing we have now?

 

[zdlugasz]

It would crash the game.

However fully bidirectional trade would not. Will you ever enable it e.g. for modding purposes only?