You are all making an assumption that it is broken. The game is balanced around those ratios and it effects more than just the trader. Production and I am sure tech costs and such are all functions of the ratios. The game and its mechanics has to be set around something and they have chosen the cost value and a ratio as that mechanic. Altering to a different trading ratio would have far reaching effects some that might be highly unwanted by players not to mention huge time for devs when there are other jobs they can do (visits for browsers, broken shard limits, etc. etc.)
The game being "balanced around those ratios" is an assumption in itself. "Balanced" may mean you think that play is somehow balanced between various groups or types of players and thus, in some way, more "fair." My view is that it is inherently "unbalanced" if it does not reflect how players usually respond to trades. Most trades are done within a range of commonly perceive value and that value fluctuates according to market conditions. Unrestricted trade may effect more than trade, but that doesn't mean the effects will be detrimental. Nor do the "mechanics [have] to be set around something" when it comes to a free market trade scenario. The "cost value" was something the devs did set up, but why? And does it make the game more profitable than if they choose the free market approach? Did they think of it that way? I don't know. I suspect they felt it would be more profitable and/or make the game more or less fair by slowing down the "pay to win" crowd somehow. But I really don't know.
As for the "huge time for devs" when it comes to programming, I doubt it. They could make the ratios much, much wider (and thus simulate a free market) or they could re-write it so that the code doesn't look for anything and just allows whatever trade offered to be offered as is. Since the trade board usually has, at most, 100 trades listed, even sorting them might not be necessary --though perhaps desirable, I must admit.
The altered ratios that people suggest are a different view on value and people are welcome to post those values. The biggest issue you really face is stigma from other players and a lack of decent filters making it hard to find trades you want amongst those you don't. The player base can't even come up with consensus regarding trades and their values (cause in-game they keep being offered and excepted).
That the player base can't even come up with with consensus regarding trades" is not surprising since the value of anything is perceived, not absolute. They may do the math to figure out the cost of production, but when there is no marble to be found the cost is irrelevant when you are trying to finish a quest before a deadline. In the end players are not discovering the value, they are assigning value based upon their current sense of it. Ratios set by the production costs are discovering a formula to account for the cost of things, not their value. Free trade fluctuates according the age old formulation of Adam Smith: supply and demand. In this there is an opportunity for the game to become more complex as it allows for actual profit in trading.
The sorting of the current trade board for a player is already done. The amounts are pretty much secondary to the type of things offered, the star levels and if the trader has been "discovered." Star levels could be used to reveal profit perhaps but wouldn't be necessary and could be dropped. The job of figuring out what trades would offer the most profit would be the players responsibility.
The limit on free market trade is more by the players than by Inno. Players have a stigma with 0/1 star trades and not too many people are willing to place 3 star trades for the same effect. The star ratio isn't the limiting factor the trading cap is x4 of the 2 star ratio. So moving from one tier to the next you can trade those goods as 1 plank for 1 scrolls but not for 1 elixir. Inno has left quite some room for market trading and fluctuations while placing some protection to stop values getting too far off balance.
The idea that any resource could bet "too far off balance" is exactly the problem. If you mean that the game is "out of balance" because a free market system of trade will give an unfair advantage to some players but not others I'm wondering what criteria you have for making that claim. If all players can take advantage of an open trade system then all players can profit or lose according to their abilities. This is not like using diamonds which are restricted to those who have the cash to purchase them. Yes, you can effect the trade system indirectly with diamonds if you spend wildly to amass a lot of coins (to spend at the wholesaler). But other than that I see no real "imbalance" in allowing everyone to trade as they desire.
The range of market trading is limited, as you noted, and you also note that the "players have a stigma with 0/1 star trades," and I agree. But since you've admitted that it is the players who determine the actual ratio's used (meaning the range of 'acceptable' trades), why have the ratios at all? The only reason to have them is that in times of shortage some players may be desperate enough to actually pay a lot more for this or that resource and in doing so make something "imbalanced" in some way. I'm not sure what that way might be but it's not in the actual trade board. The desire of a person to sell and purchase is an opportunity to meet the needs of the players. Let's look at an example of how the ratios could restrict trade and thus the enjoyment of the game by those of us who thrive in an open trade environment.
Example: Let's suppose everybody needs marble badly. It's in short supply. You need 20,000k marble for some important project, and you need it now! I offer you 20,000 marble for 100,000 steel which you have in super abundance 1,000,000 let's say. The ratio I offer is 5:1 -- a greater than 4:1 ratio. In a free market game we would trade and both of us would be happy. We got what we wanted. But in this game we are not allowed to make the trade. Since I value my marble at a 5:1 ratio to steel I won't be offering it at below market any time soon. You might want the marble and be willing to pay the 5:1 ratio, but the game does not allow it so you won't be buying it unless somebody else has 20,000 and is willing to take 4:1 for it. Now here's the kicker. If there is nobody willing to offer it to you because nobody has the 20,000 you need, you lose. And if there is a person who is willing to offer it for the 4:1 ratio or less then you wouldn't purchase it from me anyway. Posting it at 5:1 is only effective if there is a buyer willing to pay 5:1. In this game most players are not willing to pay 0/1 star because the perceived value is not in line with that sort of trade. So even if you allow a greater ratio -- or no ratio -- it is unlikely the trade will move much out of that ratio anyway. Again, so why have it?
On the other hand, there are times, I believe, where players would pay the 5:1 or greater ratios. And those are the times where a smart trader can "make a killing" thus enhancing the fun for that player. Remember, no player is forced to pay those higher rates and if they do so it's because they value the resource that much. Free markets are just as free to walk away from a sale as to make it.
The fight your really up against is asking players to let the value of goods float around base on perceived value at the time. Good luck with that
, comparatively Inno is practically compliant with our requests.
Well, I've never been one to avoid expressing my opinion. I suspect the whole "don't let the value of goods float around" fear is a tempest in a teapot just as my "let free markets rule!" view would probably not have that big an impact on the game if adopted. But still, I do like to make more profitable trades.....
AJ
Dear forum visitor,
It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.
