SoggyShorts
Mathematician par Excellence
50% the way I look at it:That jump is pretty big , thats a 34% uptick?
The cost for 36,000 silk is 36,000 scrolls, then after you click it the cost goes up by 50% every time.
50% the way I look at it:That jump is pretty big , thats a 34% uptick?
50% the way I look at it:
The cost for 36,000 silk is 36,000 scrolls, then after you click it the cost goes up by 50% every time.
True but a scroll boosted player trading at 2:1 for crystal or silk on the market could make three Wholesaler trades and still be better off.your right 36K is 66.66% of 54K so a 50% uptick indeed.
way to much lol
I have been using the wholesaler for months to get what I need for sentient goods production. The Blooming Trader helps.Or--those of you who are boosted in scrolls could build a Blooming Trader and level it. I can't use the wholesaler to trade in the 1.5+ million scrolls I have from accepting trades for my silk. But a scroll boosted player can. I am currently working with a member in my FS who is boosted in scrolls and has a Blooming Trader to switch out some of my scrolls for crystal. This could be a project for a FS--everyone helping the scroll boosted player level up their Blooming Trader so they get more silk or crystal for scrolls from the wholesaler. The Blooming Trader is not a junk AW. It is just highly misunderstood and under utilized.
As an AM I would never reject a player boosted in scrolls as long as I had enough silk and crystal in the mix. That player will also have T1 and T3 boosts to consider. There is more to a player than their boosts, too. Do they play tourney well? Do they participate in the Spire? Do they do regular visits and take trades? Is their city growing? Are they willing to be part of a team? So much more to look at than what their T2 boost may be.A potential problem with this is that a properly balanced 25-member fellowship should have 7 or 8 players who are boosted in scrolls. This make me wonder if fellowships are now rejecting join requests from players boosted in scrolls because they need fewer members who make it?
I'm replying late to this post, but I wanted to comment that it's a shame that you stopped reading my post after the second sentence. Could have at least read the whole thing before you wrote yours up!If you made shoes and went to trade them for pants, but everyone already had more shoes then they need and keep making more than they need, there isn't a market for your shoes and you have to run around without pants. Even if you make more and more shoes and offer 8 pair of shoes for one pair of pants, no one needs them. The shoe market crashes and you need to make something else or starve. That's the way a market works in RL. This isn't a world where you can change your job. Sure, you can invent 'work arounds', but in the end they cause their own problems and still leaves the scroll boosted at a disadvantage.
Scrolls might be worth less on paper than the other T2 goods, but if they're still being traded in quantities that match the value of the goods being received, seems fine to me. And that's the kicker: players still have to be able to use their scrolls. If that's not happening, that's the issue I can see needing to be fixed.
If you want to help "fix" the problem though, and you are, as I am, a scrolls boosted city, cut back on your production.
I think this is missing some of the key points. First, it's a hardship placed exclusively on people who happen to be boosted in Scrolls through no fault of their own. And it's not something those players can choose or change. Second, the issue is not necessarily getting rid of the Scrolls--the issue is obtaining Crystal and Silk. The entire point of trading is to get Crystal and Silk. If we don't trade Scrolls for them, how are we supposed to obtain these things? And that is why this statement continues to make me scratch my head:
So if we stop making Scrolls, how are we supposed to obtain Crystal and Silk? The entire point of this discussion is we have to produce twice the T2 as Crystal/Silk players just to break even in trades (assuming those trades even get taken at all). If we cut back, we'll have even less Crystal and Silk, stunting our cities' growth, while the Crystal and Silk players will still be just fine because they will continue to get all the Scrolls they need from their libraries.
Right now the solution appears to be to overproduce Scrolls and burn them in the Wholesaler; since the Wholesaler is an 8:1 ratio, we have to produce 8 times as much of our T2 as other players. Nice handicap, isn't it?
As a scrolls boosted player I have no problem with too many scrolls in the market. I've cut back on my production and have no problem getting crystal/silk. I would have to produce more of scrolls if I wanted to exclusively trade them for crystal/silk, but why would I do that if it's a "hardship" to me? I have 6 other goods and some of them are in demand too. If the problem is getting people to trade scrolls for crystal/silk, why restrict what you can trade for crystal/silk? Why not trade steel, or elixer or dust for the crystal/silk. Maybe it's because people are trying to judge other people by treating anyone who does cross tier trades as morally suspect, instead of letting each player determine the fairness of the trade for themselves? Enough said in response to your description of the "problem."
AJ
--the issue is obtaining Crystal and Silk.
Because if all scroll boosted players did that then all markets are %$"^^ up.
You do not prune a trees dead branches when it's sick at the roots. you fix the roots instead.
The fact that workarounds exist to circumvent a critical problem is already a very bad thing.
As a scrolls boosted player I have no problem with too many scrolls in the market. I've cut back on my production and have no problem getting crystal/silk. I would have to produce more of scrolls if I wanted to exclusively trade them for crystal/silk, but why would I do that if it's a "hardship" to me? I have 6 other goods and some of them are in demand too. If the problem is getting people to trade scrolls for crystal/silk, why restrict what you can trade for crystal/silk? Why not trade steel, or elixir or dust for the crystal/silk. Maybe it's because people are trying to judge other people by treating anyone who does cross tier trades as morally suspect, instead of letting each player determine the fairness of the trade for themselves? Enough said in response to your description of the "problem."
I agree. We just don't agree to the root of the problem. I argue it's in the players being a bit naive in being against cross tier trades because that restricts the flow of goods. This increases the supply of scrolls as it's harder to trade them if you restrict that for which you can trade them. This is all based upon the players assuming the devs stated level of "fair" is actually, or should be considered "fair," which means many players are unwilling to adjust to market conditions until they are forced by this type of surplus. The root of the problem is players, not trading surpluses themselves. Those surpluses only reveal the roots of this tree. They are a symptom, not a cause. The workarounds are okay but the solutions offered are only temporary as their will always be fluctuations in supply/demand even if the devs don't interfere with the markets.
AJ
You make the wrong assumption the marker is an open market.
In an open market you have all the choices. but we do not have open choices.
We are living more in a planned economy, and you cannot apply open market principles at a planned economy.
Thats telling an apple is the same as a pear as both are fruits.
And that's the kicker: players still have to be able to use their scrolls. If that's not happening, that's the issue I can see needing to be fixed.
I did read your entire post. Scrolls are still needed, but no where near the amount being made in the game due in large part to the Moonstone set. As a result, scrolls become very hard to trade which puts a burden on those boosted in them. A burden other boosts don't have. I used the shoes and pants story to show real world market doesn't work in the game no matter how many times people use it as an argument. And there have been many people who have done that for other situations. I finally got frustrated hearing the argument, so told that silly story. While it was intended to be personal since it reads better that way, it wasn't viscous. However, I'm sorry if it offended you.I'm replying late to this post, but I wanted to comment that it's a shame that you stopped reading my post after the second sentence. Could have at least read the whole thing before you wrote yours up!
It would make for a level playing field if we were starting from neutral, which we're not. It would at least stop adding to that surplus, but I'd imagine the existing surplus is going to affect trading far into the future, even if the set output changed today. So that leaves scrolls players still producing a good that isn't in demand. At least if it's +1, scrolls players can make something that's immediately tradeable.Of them, I prefer it being your boost. The would create an even playing field with the excess goods production.
Yeah, the horse is out of the barn, so not starting from level playing field and the surplus scrolls will be around for a long time. It's a very good point that scroll producers would at least be making silk from the libraries. Although, I didn't think of it at the moment I was posting above, with boost+1, I'll be making scrolls. lol Oh well, that's fine. They just go in storage with what will become an every growing spell frag pile. No biggie.It would make for a level playing field if we were starting from neutral, which we're not. It would at least stop adding to that surplus, but I'd imagine the existing surplus is going to affect trading far into the future, even if the set output changed today. So that leaves scrolls players still producing a good that isn't in demand. At least if it's +1, scrolls players can make something that's immediately tradeable.
It would make for a level playing field if we were starting from neutral, which we're not. It would at least stop adding to that surplus, but I'd imagine the existing surplus is going to affect trading far into the future, even if the set output changed today. So that leaves scrolls players still producing a good that isn't in demand. At least if it's +1, scrolls players can make something that's immediately tradeable.