When geeks think too much...

[ShuShu62]

... they wonder what a fair price for fame is.

Okay... It all started with Angkor Wat. I believe consensus is that Angkor Wat is a vanity auction. In other words, only folks who actually want to feel like they won a competition will bid on it because most game winners win by much more than 10 fame.

But I feel that most auctions can be won for roughly the price of 1-2 great people.

I freely contribute great people to win an era. Unless I am king, Angor Wat might price out favorably.

I then started thinking about the 80-100 points that I win from military/culture medals in a game. That is almost always the difference between winning and losing for me. I pay considerably more for those 80-100 fame than I would pay for 10 Angor Wats.

Winning eras, winning battles and building event wonders all have strategic and tactical reasons beyond just the current return in fame. But all of those considerations boil down to a net return in future fame. Ultimately, all gold spent or not generated (e.g. troop built rather than hammer sold) is spent to generate fame.

So the question is:

If you could buy fame on the open market just as you can buy everything else, what would a fair price for it be?

P.S. If you happen to see me bidding on Angor Wat in the future... It won't be vanity

[random user]

I don't think you can distill it to that, as 100 gold is worth a lot more in the early game than it is in the late game.

[ShuShu62]

Well of course you are right. :) It is a function of time.

But that only raises an even more geeky question... How much is 100 gold worth... err, yeah I said it, and I meant it!!!!


But i would rephrase your statement to fit the question. Fame is cheaper earlier in the game.

Stated differently... Gold earns interest while fame does not, soyou cannot asses the value of fame until you assess the value of gold at the same time. e.g. Assuming I can double my money every day and the game will last 5 days. 100 gold needs to buy the same amount of fame on day 1 as 800 gold on day 4.

Interestingly, I only believe 80 can buy more fame as the game progresses because the eras are worth progressively more. If all eras had the same reward, 100 gold would buy the same fame on day 1 that 800 would buy on day 8.

[random user]

Gold is pretty useless near the end of the game, and I think most people would be willing to trade all of their gold for any mote of fame offered right before the game ended.

[random user]

As a separate reply, I think that it would be interesting to see how the game changed if each of the eras were worth the same amount, and if nothing else, is an interesting mental exercise.

[robin74]

As a separate reply, I think that it would be interesting to see how the game changed if each of the eras were worth the same amount.
Many guild games are played in a way, where whoever wins the most eras is declared the winner, and so every era is worth the same then.

[AlanHunter]

It's about to find that sweet spot when the prices of GP are still high and you don't really need them anymore, and then unload as much as possible and get the economic win pre end of the game. Used to like starting the war against strong CIV, knowing if things go south we can pull 2 quick wins during the battle and end the game before they can win :)

[ShuShu62]

Many guild games are played in a way, where whoever wins the most eras is declared the winner, and so every era is worth the same then.

unfortunately, then fame is worthless and rank is irrelevant. I understand the motivation for a guild game, but that rule change changes too many other aspects of the game to be a fair comparison.

I also understand the desire of the game developers to keep everyone interested until the end, hence rendering early eras ... seemingly... worthless