Cross-tier trades

[Ashrem]

@Ashrem You are correct that you can simply accept or reject a trade.

? That's not what I said. I said in a better designed interface you would be able to do that, while here you have the constant worry about accepting a trade you didn't mean to accept when the latency catches up and suddenly shifts the trade under the mouse.

But in trading that rejection or acceptance is usually accompanied by a whole lot of other things, including an ability to make offers which other's might consider "gouging".
[/QUOTE]How much higher than 1:8 would trades have to be for you to consider them gouging? Because I think 1:8 is already gouging, even 1:1.5, which is common in Sentient offers on my world.


[QUOTE="ajqtrz, post: 193426, member: 8440"][USER=4971]@AshremIn this game such variances in the market are not allowed and thus trading it taxed in it's "range of motion." Anything taxed unnecessarily is not efficient and inefficiencies always weaken the markets, in my opinion, in this case, the game.

I take issue with several tightly packed points there.

• That game rules are tax (which position, in my estimation, exists solely to justify the rest of the tax analogy)
• That the rule is unnecessary (which perforce disagrees with the inefficiency of the market)
• That the rule weakens the market

None of which were identified as opinions, but rather laid down as presumed facts.

If the system were more-nearly perfect, and there was no chance of any player ever accepting a trade they didn't intend to, then there would be fewer issues. As it stands, a single accidental accept can be costly. with no rules limitting how lopsided trades can be, a single mis-click would be more frequently devastating.

@Ashrem

Having said that I guess what the advantage of allowing cross-tier (I mean the players allowing it freely) AND the game allowing a full variation in values would mean is that there would be a whole aspect of the game opened up -- traders would really be traders and would "play the markets" as a strategy for raising resources for their city. That's what's missing in this game and I'd like to see it exactly because it's an aspect of games like this that I truly like, and am pretty good at as well (Okay, I admit it's a bit selfish of me, )

And it would be a different game. I'm okay with people who want to play that game finding a game like that.

 

[BrinDarby]

@Ashrem ,
The fix to your apparent gripe is simple..... toggle on/off a confirm for all trades...
If I notice there is lag, I log in again, and personal responsibility means.,.. you need
to pay more attn or it IS ur fault.... While ur @ it, howabout fix all the different ways
it seems to mis-click anything, not just a trade......

I believe you are also against changing how the 50% fee is applies, maybee not.....
That is patently unfair to lower players and needs to be changed.... and its 1 line of code...
Currently its ..... if xxxx then zzzz , it needs to be if xxxx or yyyy then zzzz .....
( xxxx being player A has discovered player B , yyyy being player B has discovered player A,
and zzzz being no 50% fee add'd to trade )
There would still be some ppl that would have the fee applied, but only when neither player
had discovered the other player. It really should be as described.... if either player has discovered
the other player, no fee applied..... this actually benefits older players, while not punishing the
newer players with such a whimpy trade radius.

I'm all for lifting the 1 : 1.5 : 2.25 , and having players submit actual data on cost of goods,
and having the system be recalibrated to reflect that valuation... Untill that happens, for good
or bad, we kinda have to go with what Inno says.....

 

[Iyapo1]

There are many reasons for and against cross-trades, some are even valid but I have yet to hear of a single logical reason that justifies making rules against it.

Several logical reasons were given on this thread.

 

[DeletedUser27062]

Several logical reasons were given on this thread.

Can you please link them as I haven't found any that justify banning cross trades. I'm not trying to trap you or look for holes in your position. I genuinely want to know what the fuss is all about.

 

[Ashrem]

Can you please link them as I haven't found any that justify banning cross trades. I'm not trying to trap you or look for holes in your position. I genuinely want to know what the fuss is all about.

Human beings are mostly incapable of separating logic from their own opinions. There are lots of logical arguments in this thread, but people who don't like, or agree with, them will never agree that they are logical. A logical argument doesn't have to be convincing, and doesn't have to actually be factually proven, it just has to follow certain rules which are based on the point of view of the person making the argument. If I say that having 75% of my trade list taken up by trades I don't like is irritating, that is a logical argument. If someone doesn't agree with me, they will claim, falsely, that it is not a logical argument. If I say that it leads new players into practices which can damage their production output and cause them to quit, that is a logical argument. Someone who disagrees that happens, will claim, falsely, it is not a logical argument. If I say that the underlying value of goods is almost impossible to calculate fairly because there are a large number of inputs which are not possible to balance evenly because they depend on things which change all the time and that distorted value is multiplied when goods are traded across tiers, that is a logical argument. People who disagree (whether becuase they actually think it's not true, or just don't want it to be true) will claim, falsely, that it is not a logical argument.

When someone says they haven't seen a logical reason in other people's argument, the vast majority of the time what they really mean (whether they realize it or not) is that they haven't seen any arguments that convince them.

edit: corrected invalid word usage (their to there, that to which)

 

[DeletedUser27062]

Human beings are mostly incapable of separating logic from their own opinions. There are lots of logical arguments in this thread, but people who don't like, or agree with, them will never agree that they are logical. A logical argument doesn't have to be convincing, and doesn't have to actually be factually proven, it just has to follow certain rules which are based on the point of view of the person making the argument. If I say that having 75% of my trade list taken up by trades I don't like is irritating, that is a logical argument. If someone doesn't agree with me, they will claim, falsely, that it is not a logical argument. If I say that it leads new players into practices which can damage their production output and cause them to quit, that is a logical argument. Someone who disagrees that happens, will claim, falsely, it is not a logical argument. If I say that the underlying value of goods is almost impossible to calculate fairly because there are a large number of inputs which are not possible to balance evenly because they depend on things which change all the time and that distorted value is multiplied when goods are traded across tiers, that is a logical argument. People who disagree (whether becuase they actually think it's not true, or just don't want it to be true) will claim, falsely, that it is not a logical argument.

When someone says they haven't seen a logical reason in other people's argument, the vast majority of the time what they really mean (whether they realize it or not) is that they haven't seen any arguments that convince them.

edit: corrected invalid word usage (their to there, that to which)

I think you might be getting confused between rational reasoning and logical reasoning.

"If I say that having 75% of my trade list taken up by trades I don't like is irritating, that is a logical argument." Actually this isn't an argument at all.

What I was looking for were reasons (based on facts and not preferences, feelings or unsubstantiated beliefs) that provided justification for cross trades to be banned.

 

[Ashrem]

What I was looking for were reasons (based on facts and not preferences, feelings or unsubstantiated beliefs) that provided justification for cross trades to be banned.

Which is pretty much exactly what I said.

If I say that having 75% of my trade list taken up by trades I don't like is irritating, that is a logical argument." Actually this isn't an argument at all.

Certainly if you are going to strip the argument of the context of it being an argument for blocking cross-tier trades, then it stops looking like an argument. But that would be both a shallow, and a petty, way to try to score a point. So, for the benefit of your petty attempt to make the discourse about something other than it was, I will restate in full, rather than relying on context to define it, as normal human beings do in a conversation: If I say "Having 75% of my trade list taken up by trades I don't like is irritating, therefore I think we should block cross tier trades." that is a logical argument. Did that assist with comprehension, or do you simply prefer to strip arguments of their context in order to criticize arguments for not being arguments when they are out of context?

You aren't asking for logic, you are asking for arguments that you find compelling. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no point asking for logical reasons when you are only going to deny they are logical because you don't find them compelling. If you want to convinced, ask to b e convinced, and you are free to refuse to be convinced. Don't imply arguments aren't logical because you believe (or have a feeling or preference which convinces you) they are wrong.

It is a fact that some people are bothered by the clutter of cross tier trades. Whether other people like that or not, it is a fact that they believe it. Following from that, asking for them to be banned is a logical option. It doesn't mean they are correct, nor does it mean the developers should do so.
It is a fact, that some people believe cross tier trades lead to bad habits which in turn cause new players to leave. It is a fact that they believe that, whether other people like it or not. Following from that, asking for them to be banned is a logical option. It doesn't mean they are correct, nor does it mean the developers should do so.

For more information you may or may not choose to read "What Is Logical Isn’t Always True"

 

[Lelanya]

Can you please link them as I haven't found any that justify banning cross trades. I'm not trying to trap you or look for holes in your position. I genuinely want to know what the fuss is all about.

I will make one more stab at this.
1. Tier 3 goods are embedded far too early in the tech tree. Sadly the factories give a lot of ranking points, so players in chapter 2 and 3 place more than they need (which is 2 factories if they fight and 3 if they cater), so they climb the ranks quickly, to "catch up".
2. Small players end up with a lot of tier 3, and not enough of anything else. So, rather than build what they need at that point, they figure why not trade all this tier3?
3. There is a point where players can afford to take these trades: at Woodelf or higher. But, that chapter was not released until early 2017. In late 2015, when Dwarf was top of the tech tree, the cross tier trades from newer players were literally putting the game out of balance. The end game players took a hard stance and banned cross tier trading.
4. We have asked InnoG to rectify this problem. But they did not. So we have taken matters into our own hands. The fact remains that it is far too easy to simply push tier 3, and there are no quests to prompt players to add more tier1 or 2. The fact also remains that if a player spends all their carefully collected tier3, then they will be short come dwarf chapter.
Do you see where we made a rule? One that fit the circumstances for a year and a quarter and is still relevant for smaller players, because the game is still out of balance in this area.

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

I will make one more stab at this.
1. Tier 3 goods are embedded far too early in the tech tree. Sadly the factories give a lot of ranking points, so players in chapter 2 and 3 place more than they need (which is 2 factories if they fight and 3 if they cater), so they climb the ranks quickly, to "catch up".
2. Small players end up with a lot of tier 3, and not enough of anything else. So, rather than build what they need at that point, they figure why not trade all this tier3?
3. There is a point where players can afford to take these trades: at Woodelf or higher. But, that chapter was not released until early 2017. In late 2015, when Dwarf was top of the tech tree, the cross tier trades from newer players were literally putting the game out of balance. The end game players took a hard stance and banned cross tier trading.
4. We have asked InnoG to rectify this problem. But they did not. So we have taken matters into our own hands. The fact remains that it is far too easy to simply push tier 3, and no quests to prompt players to add more tier1 or 2. The fact also remains that if a player spends all their carefully collected tier3, then they will be short come dwarf chapter.
Do you see where we made a rule? One that fit the circumstances for a year and a quarter and is still relevant for smaller players, because the game is still out of balance in this area.

The time you are talking about is the time the old assignements where still there.
Each level 1 factory gave you like 1200 T1 or 900 T2 or 600 T3, I loved to cycle trough the quest when I started.
After the first week I started I had like 60K of everything. It was fun to cyle each day trough the quest many times just collecting goods.

This was at ancient times with no tournements so getting 700% was impossible even if you tried.
6-7x 50 goods from a bigger factory or 3x 1200 from level 1's

I even traded t1 for T3 as I got plenty more of those
fun and crazy times, unfortunately after like 2 months they pulled the plug on those quests

 

[DeletedUser27062]

I will make one more stab at this.
1. Tier 3 goods are embedded far too early in the tech tree. Sadly the factories give a lot of ranking points, so players in chapter 2 and 3 place more than they need (which is 2 factories if they fight and 3 if they cater), so they climb the ranks quickly, to "catch up".
2. Small players end up with a lot of tier 3, and not enough of anything else. So, rather than build what they need at that point, they figure why not trade all this tier3?
3. There is a point where players can afford to take these trades: at Woodelf or higher. But, that chapter was not released until early 2017. In late 2015, when Dwarf was top of the tech tree, the cross tier trades from newer players were literally putting the game out of balance. The end game players took a hard stance and banned cross tier trading.
4. We have asked InnoG to rectify this problem. But they did not. So we have taken matters into our own hands. The fact remains that it is far too easy to simply push tier 3, and no quests to prompt players to add more tier1 or 2. The fact also remains that if a player spends all their carefully collected tier3, then they will be short come dwarf chapter.
Do you see where we made a rule? One that fit the circumstances for a year and a quarter and is still relevant for smaller players, because the game is still out of balance in this area.

I really appreciate the response.

What do you class as a "small player"? Pre-chapter 4?

I'm growing 8 cities at the moment and there was never a point where I've been flush with t3 unless I picked up a lucrative cross trade. The huge number of pop required to build t3 manu's and their much larger size have limited how many I can afford to build. I have never had more than 2. When I would crosstrade at that level it was always a trade up, not down. I would trade t1 for t2 or 3 because so often t2 or 3 goods were needed for upgrades or tech unlocks and I simple couldn't make enough. And no, I'm not content to sit at a tech lock for days until I've produced enough t3 goods.

My experience doesn't mean that it's a typical scenario however but I am surprised that the smaller players are being pointed to as the leading culprit. In my experiences across all my cities I see mostly two types of cross-traders; <100k cities cross trading all boosted goods and the big cities, >250k who seem to be producing only t3 goods to trade for all other goods.

I'm going to put my neck on the block here. Firstly, all of what you've pointed out and what I have read regarding the cons of cross trading are very good advice and players would do well to take it. However, there are many ways to ruin the growth of your city yet nobody is suggesting we make such advice into a rule mandatory. I think the problem is that the need for t1 goods never goes away yet it's production rate is seriously stifled compared to t3. Really big players have mighty appetites for t1 goods so if people aren't producing/trading enough of them then it's these big players who have invested years into their cities that are affected. Most AMs have big cities and are seasoned players; they're also the ones who make the rules. I think the rule is a way to ensure big players have adequate access to t1 goods.

No AM has ever offered anything other than the "it's unfair to small players" reason. I find that odd. It does sound better than saying small players need to adhere to same tier trading to feed big cities though.

 

[DeletedUser27062]

Which is pretty much exactly what I said.

Certainly if you are going to strip the argument of the context of it being an argument for blocking cross-tier trades, then it stops looking like an argument. But that would be both a shallow, and a petty, way to try to score a point. So, for the benefit of your petty attempt to make the discourse about something other than it was, I will restate in full, rather than relying on context to define it, as normal human beings do in a conversation: If I say "Having 75% of my trade list taken up by trades I don't like is irritating, therefore I think we should block cross tier trades." that is a logical argument. Did that assist with comprehension, or do you simply prefer to strip arguments of their context in order to criticize arguments for not being arguments when they are out of context?

You aren't asking for logic, you are asking for arguments that you find compelling. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's no point asking for logical reasons when you are only going to deny they are logical because you don't find them compelling. If you want to convinced, ask to b e convinced, and you are free to refuse to be convinced. Don't imply arguments aren't logical because you believe (or have a feeling or preference which convinces you) they are wrong.

It is a fact that some people are bothered by the clutter of cross tier trades. Whether other people like that or not, it is a fact that they believe it. Following from that, asking for them to be banned is a logical option. It doesn't mean they are correct, nor does it mean the developers should do so.
It is a fact, that some people believe cross tier trades lead to bad habits which in turn cause new players to leave. It is a fact that they believe that, whether other people like it or not. Following from that, asking for them to be banned is a logical option. It doesn't mean they are correct, nor does it mean the developers should do so.

For more information you may or may not choose to read "What Is Logical Isn’t Always True"

I often say "I have my foot in my mouth so often I brush my teeth with Lamisil" - most people laugh assuming it's a joke. Those that know me don't.

It seems I've upset you and that wasn't my intention. I'm sorry. I don't know how to point out an error (as I perceived it) and not clumsily offend someone. I don't do shallow or petty, I don't care whether you like me or whether I sound like a dick. I do care if people think I'm attacking them when I'm not. Trust me, you'll know when I have a problem.

Anyway, I'm going to leave it there.

 

[Lelanya]

@Eudaemonia it is unfair to small players to take away all their tier3 goods, or their opportunity to learn how to build a balanced city. We have all suffered those growing pains. And yes I find cities in chapter 3 or 4 are the type of small cities that cross tier trade. We all have neighbours who have sold their tier 1 factories; I have NO fellows, I do not accept cities without all 3 tiers. Why, I had a lady join last fall with no silk, when the silk boost is why she was being considered for membership. I asked her if her factories were in storage (they were), and when she was planning to restore them to view.

I think you answered your own question. You've admitted that impatience is a big factor in your cross tier trading. I spent weeks waiting to gather resources at chapter 4, this too is part of the game. Remember to place some good pop culture hybrids if you are short population. A good culture rating increases your gold and supplies.

 

[DeletedUser27062]

@Eudaemonia it is unfair to small players to take away all their tier3 goods, or their opportunity to learn how to build a balanced city.

No one is taking all their tier 3 goods. When I cross traded I was trading t1 for t2 for 3 because I wasn't producing it yet.
This game is built on a painfully slow base yet Inno jam packs it full of timed events and tourneys. This is done on purpose to keep players needing more and spending more. It's like spinning kids on a merry go round before their arms are strong enough to hold on then blaming them for their fall.

 

[Alram]

4. We have asked InnoG to rectify this problem. But they did not. So we have taken matters into our own hands.

Thank you!

 

[Ashrem]

It seems I've upset you and that wasn't my intention.

I'm sad that you feel the exchange is personal. I encourage everyone to avoid saying they've seen no "logical arguments" in a disagreement, becuase it is almost inevitable that they mean "compelling" or "convincing." There are, of course, exceptions, which is why I use "almost."

I'm not remotely upset. I think you're assuming I want cross-tier trades forbidden (which is not true per my arguments in this thread, though I'm in favour of being able to filter them out, which leaves everyone with maximum choice), when I'm merely showing that there are several logical arguments (which, again, I've repeated, does not make them true or correct). I placed those arguments as though I were making them to illustrate how they represent logic (which is why each argument was preceded with "if I say").

 

[ajqtrz]

Human beings are mostly incapable of separating logic from their own opinions. There are lots of logical arguments in this thread, but people who don't like, or agree with, them will never agree that they are logical. A logical argument doesn't have to be convincing, and doesn't have to actually be factually proven, it just has to follow certain rules which are based on the point of view of the person making the argument. If I say that having 75% of my trade list taken up by trades I don't like is irritating, that is a logical argument. If someone doesn't agree with me, they will claim, falsely, that it is not a logical argument. If I say that it leads new players into practices which can damage their production output and cause them to quit, that is a logical argument. Someone who disagrees that happens, will claim, falsely, it is not a logical argument. If I say that the underlying value of goods is almost impossible to calculate fairly because there are a large number of inputs which are not possible to balance evenly because they depend on things which change all the time and that distorted value is multiplied when goods are traded across tiers, that is a logical argument. People who disagree (whether becuase they actually think it's not true, or just don't want it to be true) will claim, falsely, that it is not a logical argument.

When someone says they haven't seen a logical reason in other people's argument, the vast majority of the time what they really mean (whether they realize it or not) is that they haven't seen any arguments that convince them.

edit: corrected invalid word usage (their to there, that to which)

Logic is not a statement, it is an inference drawn from a statement or statements. It is, therefore, necessary that it have at least two parts: the antecedent (or antecedents) and the consequent. The reasons given for being against cross-tier trades are antecedent. The consequent is the conclusion that cross tier trades are bad. The logic between the two may be clear or unclear. If it's unclear then a person viewing it may very well say "I see no logical reasons presented here." The "proper" response to that is to go back, take the antecedent and show how it "includes" the conclusion by necessity. For instance, the old, "All men are mortal" is the antecedent. It is an assumption about things, that, if you agree with, forms the first step in a logical chain. The second, "Socrates is a man," is the second antecedent. And because you can demonstrate that if you drew a circle of mortal things and then an second circle, within the first, that included all men, it would be necessary that Socrates is mortal since all men are in the circle of men contained fully within the circle of mortal things.

Here's an example. "One should not root for bad teams." (Antecedent or Major Premise}. "The Green Bay Packers are a really, really bad team this year." (Antecedent or minor premise). "Teams should use fabric conditioner." (consequent or conclusion). I'm sure that because I stated it, you are convinced and are asking which teams are buying the most Downy fabric conditioner, so you can get a leg up on your betting right? You didn't draw the inference because it either wasn't there or you didn't see it. Thus, my conclusion may or may not be true for you even if I see the logic of it.

Often it's what is assumed the recipient of your message understands things the way you do but those things are left unsaid. For a silly example, take the Green Bay Packers being a bad team this year. Assuming you buy into the two premises presented (which I hope you don't), you might not know that the Green Bay Packers uniforms are commercially washed and that the company washing those uniforms has stopped using fabric conditioner. And you might not know that the players are in constant discomfort because their uniforms are scratchy. And that is affecting their performance. You might not know those things but my logic assumes you do and that you will, therefore, "fill in" the missing parts and see how my conclusion can be drawn from the premises given. Of course, the whole example is silly, but it does, I think, show how logic you can see in a statement may not be logic another can see. And when you start with premises with which the listener disagrees they won't draw the conclusions you draw exactly because logic doesn't allow you to start with opposing premises and end up with the same conclusion unless either your logic is faulty or there are hidden premises or antecedents.

In the end, then, when you say, "People who disagree (whether becuase they actually think it's not true, or just don't want it to be true) will claim, falsely, that it is not a logical argument." you may be right, but you may also be wrong. Sometimes conclusions drawn are not logical, sometimes they are logical but start with untrue premises, and sometimes they are logical and drawn from true premises. It's up to the speaker to deal with proving the premises to be true, and the logic clear. I don't think that has been done discussions of cross tier trading. At least on the side of those against the practice.

AJ

 

[Iyapo1]

Sometimes conclusions drawn are not logical, sometimes they are logical but start with untrue premises, and sometimes they are logical and drawn from true premises.

I'm merely showing that there are several logical arguments (which, again, I've repeated, does not make them true or correct).

So, all of that just to say you agree with Ashrem?

 

[StarLoad]

"The Green Bay Packers are a really, really bad team this year."

Some of us "cheeseheads" are taking exception to this. They are just bad, yes but "really, really" thats a bit harsh.

 

[SoggyShorts]

No AM has ever offered anything other than the "it's unfair to small players" reason. I find that odd. It does sound better than saying small players need to adhere to same tier trading to feed big cities though.

Umm... plenty of AMs (and co-AM's like myself) have listed several other reasons.

As for small players feeding big players as a motive for disallowing cross-trades, I don't see how that makes any sense.
The only way that forcing small players to feed big ones would be possible is to allow/force cross-trades.

Also, as a card-carrying member of the "I hate cross-trades" team who routinely gives away goods to smaller players at 8:1, I find attaching such a motive to my actions a little insulting.

 

[Ashrem]

Logic is not a statement, it is an inference drawn from a statement or statements. It is, therefore, necessary that it have at least two parts:

See:

Certainly if you are going to strip the argument of the context of it being an argument for blocking cross-tier trades, then it stops looking like an argument.

In the end, then, when you say, "People who disagree (whether becuase they actually think it's not true, or just don't want it to be true) will claim, falsely, that it is not a logical argument." you may be right, but you may also be wrong.

Again, divorcing an argument from context. Since I was talking about the "lots of logical arguments" in the thread, not the arguments which aren't logical, your conclusion that I might be right or wrong is a failure of logic. Had I said that every argument in the thread is logical, you'd have a case. As it is, you are incorrect.