The case FOR open trading.

[samidodamage]

The way I see it:
1. Players play the game the way they wish; form/join FS with others who play the game in similar ways.
My reaction: Fair enough.
2. Players play the game the way they wish, form/join FS with others who play the game in similar ways. Then complain about how other players play the game and what rules other FS have. Then are arrogant enough to state:

the rules should be dropped and players trained

My reaction: What business is it of yours how I play the game or what rules I find acceptable when looking for players who play in similar ways? And you think I'm trainable? Ha! My husband of 30 years would beg to differ...

 

[T6583]

@ajqtrz we're just going to have to agree to disagree. While I agree that Inno didn't think far enough ahead in how trading would be affected long term over the course of the game, I do not agree that it should have originally been set up based on real world economies. If it was than we should be able to change our boosts based on supply and demand. We can't. In my opinion I would feel slighted since I'm boosted in goods that are in abundance currently and have been for awhile. I would feel that others were profiting off of my hard work. Why should I get less in exchange because I'm unlucky in the boosts I was assigned when I'm putting in the same amount of resources and effort as the others with different boosts? What benefit would there be to me to consistently have to offer more goods than I get in return just to be able to move forward in the game with research and upgrades? It sucks doing that now and I feel like your idea would only make it worse. I also admit that I have trouble understanding the intricatices of real world economics. I doubt I am alone there. This is a game. It's designed to be co-op. In my opinion it's impossible to say if one way is right or wrong. Nor can I think one can be proven without initimate knowledge of why Inno has made some of the design choices they did. We can only speculate. Also how is proving who is right and who is wrong going to fix the problem? In my opinion the star system makes it alot easier for players to understand. Your idea in my opinion would create a tidal wave of other major changes to the game that would be needed such as being able to change boosts, player map location, and how that map is set up / works in general which could then affect tourney and other elements of the game. Otherwise Inno will most likely have very upset players, including myself, who would end up quitting.

 

[SoggyShorts]

If I go to my bank and get .5% interest on my money and am satisfied, do I therefore, not need to consider if moving to a bank that pays 1% wouldn't be better? Satisfaction is only a cause of inertia, not the justification of it if better options are available. And besides, nothing in players satisfaction or lack thereof, addresses the question of if they would or would not be better with open trading.

This relies on the false assumption that "moving to a better bank" (changing trading practices) is easy, simple, and that the rate increase is guaranteed. If it isn't, then the 0.5% increase isn't worth it.

In my experience cross tier trades don't languish very often and when they do the poster then reposts them at a more favorable rate ...and they are taken. Part of this is experience. If I'm trying to sell my house for $500,000 I can list it at that, but if average market value of similar homes is $100,000, I'm going to have to incur the cost of listing without the benefit of selling. Do that a few times and I learn to lower my expectations. In trading that's just learning the market conditions govern the price, not wishful thinking or artificial measures.

I'd like to see your trader. All 3 of mine and all 5 of the wife's are loaded with unwanted cross trades. Although admittedly anecdotal we took samples and compared them hours later and the results showed that cross trades (miraculously 100% downstream) were still there and same tier 1:1 were gone. Just like in our open trade FS.
And your analogy isn't true even in the real world. In practice unless absolutely necessary when a homeowner can't get their perceived value out of a sale they may move a little bit on the price, but often they do not relist it and choose not to move instead.
This is especially true if they have put more into the house than the market is currently willing to pay. People do not easily accept a loss, even if it is only a perceived one. They are certainly never happy about it.

I'm not sure why traders would check the trades less frequently or if they would.

Some certainly would, it's a fact. We've talked about it in my fellowships and many players don't bother with the world trades at all because of the flood of trades that they find undesirable. We've talked about it with players who are in both my open trade FS and my No-cross tier ones and they have the same answer. Based on all of the negative responses to your ideas I'm confident we aren't alone.

Since the trades are listed in star order, the "unfair" (by the star system measure) cross-tier trades are below all the "fair" ones there would be no delay in finding a 2-star trade. So all the "good" trades are at the top.

Again, in practice, this is absolutely not how it works. Trades are sorted by star and then size, so cross trades are completely mixed in with same-tier trades. Also, there are plenty of false 3 star trades to wade through in open trading (asking for 99% or offering 101%)

So yes, I'm trying to get the players to fix what was a mistake in the basic valuation presented in the star system by openly rejecting that and encouraging the adoption of Open Trades.

We've already found the solution for the mistake of using a star system for cross-trades: Don't allow them.

 

[shimmerfly]

That there "are not enough words in [my] vocabulary to change [your] mind on what [you] believe to be fair" means one of two things: 1) You have such an indisputable argument for the way you measure "fair" in trading, or 2) you don't wish to go through the trouble of making that argument so that others, including myself, can be swayed by it.

The first would be interesting the hear, the second, sadly, is reflected in the "I do not care." I do wonder, though, if you "do not care" why you bothered responding to this post -- which is about the trading.

@ajqtrz
I am a blunt person. I also carry my heart on my sleeve.
So I don't like to hurt anyones feelings or step on toes.
So I just back spaced my entire tirade.
The truth is I don't care how you play or what you think of me as long as you don't hurt anyone elses game.

 

[Silver Lady]

“If you can’t convince them, confuse them.” —Harry S. Truman

 

[Darielle]

This
This
This

Why do I feel like you're just going to keep throwing walls of words around until someone agrees with you?

Well fine.
You're right in everything.
You sir are a genius.
You are the Stephen Hawking of the Inno Stock Market.
I bow down to your effluvient use of bombastic verbosity and over whelming logic in the sometimes fallacious use of Keynesian economic principals that are so important to the general enjoyment of this game.
Because really, there is nothing that makes a game more enjoyable for me than the feeling that I am sitting in Jim Alm's econ 204 class.
OK?

I was trying to find a more polite way to use the word "verbosity" in a response to AJ's post, but I think I'll stop trying and just like yours instead.

 

[ajqtrz]

@ajqtrz
I am a blunt person. I also carry my heart on my sleeve.
So I don't like to hurt anyones feelings or step on toes.
So I just back spaced my entire tirade.
The truth is I don't care how you play or what you think of me as long as you don't hurt anyone elses game.

I agree. Unnecessary pain inflicted is not something I seek to do. But disagreements are, by nature, sometimes painful since they can challenge some basic assumptions and/or reveal that what a person has been doing has never been examined to really see if it's the right thing. Follow the crowd is how most humans run and examining if the crowd is headed toward a cliff or not comes late in the game, sometimes too late.

Nothing I propose will hurt anyone else's game. Each player is free to the extent their social group allows, to play as they will. I only wish we could get a wider range of options and a recognition that the "easy" star system ought not to be held up as the final answer.

The way I see it:
1. Players play the game the way they wish; form/join FS with others who play the game in similar ways.
My reaction: Fair enough.
2. Players play the game the way they wish, form/join FS with others who play the game in similar ways. Then complain about how other players play the game and what rules other FS have. Then are arrogant enough to state:

My reaction: What business is it of yours how I play the game or what rules I find acceptable when looking for players who play in similar ways? And you think I'm trainable? Ha! My husband of 30 years would beg to differ...

What business is it of mine to point out the rules of the game which might be hurting you enjoyment? Or progress? Or might be hurting the game overall by restricting the style of play through artificial measures and social rules? I suspect that while some cannot be trained it's not because the training isn't available. I've been married 40+ years and am still being trained in some ways. Some of the things I assumed about my wife 40 years ago have proven to be inaccurate and it was a painful experience learning that I had been wrong.

@ajqtrz we're just going to have to agree to disagree. While I agree that Inno didn't think far enough ahead in how trading would be affected long term over the course of the game, I do not agree that it should have originally been set up based on real world economies. If it was than we should be able to change our boosts based on supply and demand. We can't. In my opinion I would feel slighted since I'm boosted in goods that are in abundance currently and have been for awhile. I would feel that others were profiting off of my hard work. Why should I get less in exchange because I'm unlucky in the boosts I was assigned when I'm putting in the same amount of resources and effort as the others with different boosts? What benefit would there be to me to consistently have to offer more goods than I get in return just to be able to move forward in the game with research and upgrades? It sucks doing that now and I feel like your idea would only make it worse. I also admit that I have trouble understanding the intricatices of real world economics. I doubt I am alone there. This is a game. It's designed to be co-op. In my opinion it's impossible to say if one way is right or wrong. Nor can I think one can be proven without initimate knowledge of why Inno has made some of the design choices they did. We can only speculate. Also how is proving who is right and who is wrong going to fix the problem? In my opinion the star system makes it alot easier for players to understand. Your idea in my opinion would create a tidal wave of other major changes to the game that would be needed such as being able to change boosts, player map location, and how that map is set up / works in general which could then affect tourney and other elements of the game. Otherwise Inno will most likely have very upset players, including myself, who would end up quitting.

I wish the real world worked like that. If it did Bolivia would probably not be forced to rely on tin exports, since tin is in good supply and that's all they really have. Yeah, they could just move south a bit and take over northern Chile. Then they could have some copper to go with their tin. In the real world you are given resources and they might very well be things that the real world doesn't value as much as you'd like. Nothing you can do about that.

There aren't any intricacies of real world economics you need to understand to move to Open Trade. It might be better if you did, but all you need for Open Trade is a removal of the rules against Open Trade and a realization that the star-system is only one small factor in measuring the fairness of a trade.

This relies on the false assumption that "moving to a better bank" (changing trading practices) is easy, simple, and that the rate increase is guaranteed. If it isn't, then the 0.5% increase isn't worth it.

I'd like to see your trader. All 3 of mine and all 5 of the wife's are loaded with unwanted cross trades. Although admittedly anecdotal we took samples and compared them hours later and the results showed that cross trades (miraculously 100% downstream) were still there and same tier 1:1 were gone. Just like in our open trade FS.
And your analogy isn't true even in the real world. In practice unless absolutely necessary when a homeowner can't get their perceived value out of a sale they may move a little bit on the price, but often they do not relist it and choose not to move instead.
This is especially true if they have put more into the house than the market is currently willing to pay. People do not easily accept a loss, even if it is only a perceived one. They are certainly never happy about it.

Some certainly would, it's a fact. We've talked about it in my fellowships and many players don't bother with the world trades at all because of the flood of trades that they find undesirable. We've talked about it with players who are in both my open trade FS and my No-cross tier ones and they have the same answer. Based on all of the negative responses to your ideas I'm confident we aren't alone.

Again, in practice, this is absolutely not how it works. Trades are sorted by star and then size, so cross trades are completely mixed in with same-tier trades. Also, there are plenty of false 3 star trades to wade through in open trading (asking for 99% or offering 101%)

We've already found the solution for the mistake of using a star system for cross-trades: Don't allow them.

Moving to a different bank took me about 20 minutes and I've done it a number of times. Of course, if you have a bunch of accounts and whole lot of connections, in various forms, with your bank, it might take you longer. And, as for the guarantee, the more you switch the bigger the guarantee you can get. Our business always had a guaranteed interest rate but we had to keep a fairly large average deposit to to it.

You are right that a person listing their home way over current market values may choose to not list at all once they figure out nobody is buying. That only reduces the perceived problem of way out of wack trades, or cross-tier trades.

Unrealistic expectations are a product of bad measures. You sense you should get X but the market says Y. If you had done your homework in the first place and examined the market before you put your goods up for sale you'd probably lower your expectations and be more satisfied with the lesser amount. Happiness is not always the companion of a fair trade, nor should it be. The problem is not in the trade, but in the current state of the market.

What's a "false" 3-star trade and why is it "false" if the star system says it's a great deal? (see the problem here? It's relying on the "easy" star-system to tell you what to do and then using social pressure and/or artificial and often inaccurate measures to establish the rules.).

AJ

 

[SoggyShorts]

What's a "false" 3-star trade

You're being deliberately obtuse, I explained it in the same line.

Good luck with this thread, I'm glad that no one agrees with you, I can't wait for this to drop off the recent discussions.

 

[samidodamage]

you don't wish to go through the trouble of making that argument so that others, including myself, can be swayed by it.

This, I believe is the crux of the issue. I don't care about 'swaying' you and it doesn't look like shimmer does either. In fact, I can't find a single post in this thread other than yours either stating or implying that you or any other player or FS needs to change how they do things.
You have spent a year on this subject with multiple threads across every section of the forum where you could figure out a way to squeeze it in. I have yet to see one single person say they've made changes to the way they play or how they choose an FS because of anything you have said here. The closest I come to finding anyone that agrees with you is that one player who wants us to believe that their gouging/predatory trading practices are actually a 'service' to the community that deserves extra compensation.

What business is it of mine to point out the rules of the game which might be hurting you enjoyment?

There aren't any intricacies of real world economics you need to understand to move to Open Trade.

More arrogant comments. I enjoy playing the game the way I play it, tyvm. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand your position.

 

[mucksterme]

Could you elaborate in where I'm using Keynesian ideas? And how their use is "fallacious?"

No, because I get no enjoyment out of endless semantic debates until all but two of us have long since tired of the game. That's more Ash's thing, to each his own.
And I'm sure as heck not going to get into dissecting Uncle Milty here.

 

[GlamDoll]

I am still going to play & trade how I see fit...IDC how many times other people try to impose and/or project their will on me(or whatever the heck it is). If I see trades & I want to take them. Guess what? That is MY business. If I see trades and don't want to take them. Guess what? That is MY business.

 

[ajqtrz]

You're being deliberately obtuse, I explained it in the same line.

Good luck with this thread, I'm glad that no one agrees with you, I can't wait for this to drop off the recent discussions.

My wording was bad. what I should have said is, why do you consider your example a "false" 3-star trade when the system says it's a 3-star trade? In Open trading you have the right to call it whatever you want, but in the current restricted trading system you get in trouble for pointing out the unfairness of leading people to believe this or that trade is fair based pretty much on the production costs alone.

As for "no one agrees with you," I'm wondering how many do, since, in my part of the world I see more cross tier trades, more 1 and 0 star trades, and more 3 star trades AND my trade board is more robust. I've been encouraging my neighbors and fs to change their ways and now I see a LOT of large 3 star trades and even some large cross tier trades being posted. My fs trade board is very short and it's usually less than an hour that my trades move, -- even the large ones, though sometimes, I admit, the large cross tier ones take a few hours. I've never had to pull a 3 star trade for lack of interest because I've learned that the market wants 3-star trades and I can even use scrolls or anything else to rapidly get what I and my fellowship needs. I hear all about people having all kinds of trades they don't like on their board and complaining about it. So? Do you take every trade? Of course not. You take the ones that either benefit you or benefit somebody you'd like to benefit. That's great.

But do you also get mad because there are trades you don't like and find beneficial on the boards? Do you then turn around and put social pressure via rules on players to make only trades you like and find "fair?" Do you post rules for your fs, communicate that those rules are "fair" and otherwise encourage and sometimes enforce your standard of fairness? If you support the restricted cross tier or no 0 or 1 star trade, you do.

No, because I get no enjoyment out of endless semantic debates until all but two of us have long since tired of the game. That's more Ash's thing, to each his own.
And I'm sure as heck not going to get into dissecting Uncle Milty here.

I'm sorry if my posts sometimes seem like "endless semantic debates." But words do have meaning and sometimes more than one, which means you do, on occasion, need to enter into at least a discussion of semantics. Sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but it makes me uncomfortable to see almost every player taught when they get here to trust a system of rating trades that is patently inaccurate. And to have rules to enforce that, overall, harmful system.

I am still going to play & trade how I see fit...IDC how many times other people try to impose and/or project their will on me(or whatever the heck it is). If I see trades & I want to take them. Guess what? That is MY business. If I see trades and don't want to take them. Guess what? That is MY business.

How is it you've missed my many declarations that Open Trading is all about doing what you want? You want to (in my opinion, unwisely) uses the star system to measure the fairness of your trades? Knock yourself out! You want to reject cross-tier trades? No problem, Open Trading is " free trading." But if you want to go around telling others the star system is always a fair and useful measure of trades, or even most of the time fair and useful, and then have player imposed rules about that, then I get a bit upset because it imposes on others needless and unwise rules. Don't be disingenuous by insisting these rules stay in place. For if the players impose these rules then they are imposing! Open Trading is informed trading. Informed about how the star-system is based upon a faulty measure. Informed about the range of trades you can make, and about removing the imposition of bad rules upon new and old players.

To all posters.

I get that you don't like cross tier trades. I get that you don't like 0, 1 star trades. I get it you don't like the trade boards filled with trades you don't like that you have to scroll through. I get you want to trade however you want to trade, without a lot of extra work. And nothing I have said, other than to point out that such attitudes may be hurting you and your fellowship, has said anything about restricting how YOU trade, though, of course it might take a bit more time if the trade boards become loaded with more trades you don't like (you don't usually take ALL the trades you see, do you?). Open Trading is about freedom from social pressure and imposed rules telling others how they are allowed to trade and calling their trades "unfair" because you wouldn't take them given your current circumstances and belief that the star system is the best we can do. When you label a posted trade as "unfair" you are, as I believe it was Soggy who said it, making a moral judgement. Most of us believe we ought not post an "unfair" trade and use words like "gouging" to describe them. We think, therefore, the person posting the trade is morally suspect since he/she just did an "immoral" thing. Sadly, this is not healthy in any game. And rules which impose a moral standard upon people should do so because the lack of that moral standard hurts the people rather than harms them. The current player imposed rules do the opposite. They harm the freedom to trade as you wish and thus the freedom of the players.

AJ

 

[Kekune]

I feel like we're beating a dead horse here but...

The current player imposed rules do the opposite. They harm the freedom to trade as you wish and thus the freedom of the players.

Nobody is forced to be in a fellowship, either at all or any specific fellowship. Therefore, there is no imposition. If any player doesn't like the rules of a fellowship, they can (and should) join a different one or form their own. When all members of a group are in it voluntarily, rules become a filter to attract and retain like-minded people, not a way of imposing your will on the masses. Rules cover all sorts of things:

• Thou shalt trade fairly
• Thou shalt give neighborly help at least 4x weekly
• Thou shalt communicate absences in advance
• Thou shalt score at least 1000 tourney points
• Thou shalt not badmouth thy fellows
• Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

People get to choose which rules they'll subject themselves to. How is that limiting their freedom?

 

[Alram]

I feel like we're beating a dead horse here but...
People get to choose which rules they'll subject themselves to. How is that limiting their freedom?

It appears that likeminded people getting together and playing the way they wish to play is limiting AJ's freedom to trade and play as AJ wishes.

 

[Iyapo1]

you don't usually take ALL the trades you see, do you?

Aj, yes. In FS with trading rules the traders take all the trades every single day often more than once a day. A player can say "Hey I need steel right now for X" I can pass them my steel and repost to get it back. No three star, no one star, no cross, just passing about community property because we are a team. No one ends up "ahead in the trading" and we all move forward.

 

[maeter75]

Wow this is a thread and as someone mentioned discussed in several other threads.
What I personally find difficult about trades (as many do in my FS) is knowing IF I should take the trade

Example lets assume a 2 star trade:

On US server, typically 80 pages of trades

I see a player offering several trades of 200 elixir for 1000 marble
Do I take the trade (mind you I have over 1 million points so would be considered big)

I think
1. They are offering these trades so lower level players can get tier 3
2. They really need marble

Without visiting the city (to see if they are small) I cannot make an educated guess and honestly don't have the time to check every city.
Now if I could click on the players name and see they have 50,000 points I can guess they really need marble.

 

[maeter75]

Aj, yes. In FS with trading rules the traders take all the trades every single day often more than once a day. A player can say "Hey I need steel right now for X" I can pass them my steel and repost to get it back. No three star, no one star, no cross, just passing about community property because we are a team. No one ends up "ahead in the trading" and we all move forward.

I am able to do this too, luckily in a good FS

 

[ajqtrz]

I feel like we're beating a dead horse here but...

Nobody is forced to be in a fellowship, either at all or any specific fellowship. Therefore, there is no imposition. If any player doesn't like the rules of a fellowship, they can (and should) join a different one or form their own. When all members of a group are in it voluntarily, rules become a filter to attract and retain like-minded people, not a way of imposing your will on the masses. Rules cover all sorts of things:

• Thou shalt trade fairly
• Thou shalt give neighborly help at least 4x weekly
• Thou shalt communicate absences in advance
• Thou shalt score at least 1000 tourney points
• Thou shalt not badmouth thy fellows
• Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...

People get to choose which rules they'll subject themselves to. How is that limiting their freedom?

I agree with this to some extent. BUT if you've been trained falsely you may not think you have a choice. When I started I didn't join a fellowship for nearly 2 years. But I did receive messages saying that "cross tier" trading was frowned upon, that 2-star trades were considered fair, and so on. In other words, even if you are not in a fellowship, you do 'get the message.' And the "message" is wrong. Then, when you see all or most of the top tier fellowships have those rules you get the idea that somebody has actually analyzed things and found those rules good for the game (a point that I've seen made in this forum). But what if those rules AREN'T good for the game? "Re-suppossing what other's have presupposed" is not always a bad thing and that's what, I think has happened here. The devs set up the star-system and players just, naturally, bought into it. Now I'm re-thinking it and suggesting that we stop "influencing" others by social pressure to adopt it as the "true" measure of fairness.

Imposing a rule ought only be done when by not imposing that rule you are hurting others. Encouraging people to follow a rule that is harmful to others is nearly as bad, especially if nobody, apparently, has really examined those rules to see if they are harmful. I examined them and found them very much short of the mark even if you have the relative freedom of ignoring them, social pressure and example are how people generally learn the "norms" of a group.

It appears that likeminded people getting together and playing the way they wish to play is limiting AJ's freedom to trade and play as AJ wishes.

Sigh. It's not about "AJ." It's about everyone being trained by social pressure and stated rules to follow a bad system in measuring what is fair in trading. When I took over Active Traders (now Starship Valiant-) I had the same basic rules re trading. I've even "preached" them. But when the thread was started that asked the question of why we had the no cross tier rule, I did some thinking, some analysis, and read a LOT of posts about it. And I found the rules and social pressure to obey the rules (even if you aren't in a fellowship) to be harmful to the game and to other's play.

Aj, yes. In FS with trading rules the traders take all the trades every single day often more than once a day. A player can say "Hey I need steel right now for X" I can pass them my steel and repost to get it back. No three star, no one star, no cross, just passing about community property because we are a team. No one ends up "ahead in the trading" and we all move forward.

We do the same and most of the time when I get to my fs's trade board, it's pretty much empty, even with cross tier and 0, 1 star trades (the later are pretty rare). But what about all your neighbors? You take all their trades too? I mean the cross tier and 0, 1 trades? Why not? Do the large players who put up large 1 star trades get the same treatment as the small players putting ups small 1 star trades? Do you really take all trades, or do I have to be a member of your fellowship? You are right that within a fellowship trading -- cross tier or otherwise -- may fluctuate from the "rules," but only occasionally and usually with prearrangment. This leaves those outside the well developed and trained fellowships without much recourse especially if everybody automatically thinks: "it's a 1 star trade, bad, bad, bad!"

AJ

 

[Iyapo1]

But what about all your neighbors? You take all their trades too? I mean the cross tier and 0, 1 trades?

I am in chapter 5. My idea of a small player is different than yours. I do take trades from my small neighbors. If they are asking for less than 500 I will take pretty much any trade as long as it is a singleton. If it is six trades for 100 each I wont touch it unless I need it. If it's a bunch of little 3 star I also wont touch it as I am not the target.

Do the large players who put up large 1 star trades get the same treatment as the small players putting ups small 1 star trades?

No. Large players who regularly put up 1 star trades go on my never never list.

 

[Alram]

Sigh. It's not about "AJ." ...And I found the rules and social pressure to obey the rules (even if you aren't in a fellowship) to be harmful to the game and to other's play.
[ End Quote]

The only rules you seem to be having problems with are the rules preventing you from playing with the entire market the way you want to play with it.
The traders being full of cross tier and 0-1 star trades would seem to indicate lots of people are playing by their very own rules.
Have fun.