Item/Rank/Feature:The pricing of gold ingots.Data Value: 266Current Price: $10Suggested Price: At least $25.Brief Description: Gold should be raised in price due to being priced only at 2.7 times more rare than iron.Open Discussion: The ratio of iron to gold in a chunk is 77 to 7.5 (averages). Iron is 10.2 times more common than gold. Iron is $7.50. 7.50x10.2 = 76.50Gold should really be at $76.50. The price should at least be raised to $30. (Under half what the price should be based on iron)
The price of diamonds is just based on keeping the supply and demand balanced. There are 25 redstone ore per chunk. Each ore yields 4-5 redstone dust with an iron pickaxe or better. A fortune III provides a %120 increase.
You seem to have done some math, but your basing the price of gold off of the price of iron. If you did all other ore prices in a chunk (forget redstone) based on iron price, and then all ore prices in a chunk (forget redstone again) based on coal, you might get some different numbers.
tl;dr Don't complain about these prices. Alright, time to do some math! If we were to take Jason1964's suggestion into account, and coal being worth $1/coal, here is what the other ores would be worth. First, let's analyze the amount of each ore in each chunk. Coal Ore: 134/chunk Iron Ore: 77/chunk Lapis Ore: 3.43/chunk Gold Ore: 7.5/chunk Diamond Ore: 3.1/chunk Redstone Ore: 25/chunk We will not take into account emeralds, which cannot be sold to the server, nor is evenly distributed throughout the chunks due to the fact that it is only available in the Extreme Hills biomes. Next, we will calculate the actual amount of each ore received if one were to mine out an entire chunk. This differs from the numbers above because lapis and redstone give more than one of the respective piece. Lapis: 3.43 * (6 per oreblock) = 20.58/chunk Redstone: 25 * (4.5 per oreblock) = 112.5/chunk Finally, we will use these numbers in comparison to the rarity of coal. If coal is worth $1, Iron ingots would be worth $1.74 Lapis would be worth $6.51 Gold ingots would be worth $17.87 Diamonds would be worth $43.23 Redstone would be worth $1.19. Therefore, this method would be terrible, as for 1) it does not properly incorporate an economic setting, one that is similar to andrew's current method, and 2) is impractical, and cannot be changed. We should just let andrew's economic methods do their work, based on supply/demand. Thanks for reading, guys.
Under the topic of gold, Gold should be somewhere of the lines of $10-30 a piece, I rarely ever find gold. But yet again, This economy has to be balanced, and something else would be effected.
Aw Logikable, clearly your signature is correct "Logikable is clearly amazing." -Nicks459 As you have shown, iron would be just under 2 bucks, and gold would be 17 bucks, but, if comparing with iron price, as in ilir's post, gold is up in the 50-70s range. We cannot base price suggestion changes when comparing with something else. Because then we could compare all ore with gold's price (lets make it 75 like ilir suggested), which would in the end, make everything else REALLY high, and we could compare and change prices until numbers go into the hundreds and the thousands. Like Nicks459 said "This economy has to be balanced, and something else would be effected". And also, like Logikable said "We should just let Andrew's economic methods do their work, based on supply/demand." Although i can agree that prices shouldn't be based on ore rarity, i do agree gold should be raised to 15 bucks and that iron-gold rate is a bit off balance. Thanks for reading (and letting me post)! And thanks to Logikable for those clearly awesome math calculations
You are saying the economy needs to be balanced but I am pretty sure mining makes a lot less than farming and so some mining materials need an increase. Gold is the most obvious choice. Raise gold to $15 and while mining you will make max 1k extra per trip. This would equal a max of 14k an hour of mining much less than the 15-18k you can still make pumpkin farming.
Things don't need to be balanced that way. I know it seems to be common sense to do so, but with the way andrew is running it, it seems like it is based on how it is gotten, compared to how much you get. A great example would be fish. Autofishers may have ruined it, but the price isn't going to go up because of how you get the supply, in this case, autofishing. Same thing applies to mining, I would think that mining is both more fun and technically easier than farming, which means it is a trade off to the lower price.
