Fair Trades?

[SoggyShorts]

What are you doing instead and why?

Taking trades you don't want happens while attempting to help other players by fulfilling their trade requests.

inside a FS like mine there is no issue because all trades are same-tier and easily reversed.

In the trader itself, you pass by the bad(irreversible) trades and take all of the same-tier 2-star ones.

This is especially devastating if you are clicking near the bottom of the page (so you can't see what is next) and have you target disappear only to be replaced by a zero star cross.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Please tell me where I told Soggy to just ignore, anything because I don't see it? Nor Did I say Soggy was wasting his time? And I did not say nothing will change.

Spoiler: Here is where you said those things

So no matter the trade, if you like it and it suits you take it; if not don't and move along, it is that simple And yes, we must have cross trades, so we just have to live with it as I don't see INNO allowing us to turn that off, display or otherwise now.

Ed

OK can we put this to bed now?

and this:

you either deal with the way the game is and change when it does or go off and play something else.

and this

Are we getting anywhere re-discussing it again?

and this

Having a discussion here will not bring about change.

 

[SoggyShorts]

So this discussion is actually leading somewhere, and isn't pointless?

Couple of pages back I said make a suggestion about it, and I still font see one.

Because we are still discussing it.

If you put an idea for something this controversial up without being prepared it will inevitably turn into a thread full of arguments rather than something actually presentable to the devs. The mods only present a few suggestions each and then from across all countries vote to pick 3 that the devs actually see. If you want an idea to have even the slightest chance it has to be pretty damn polished.

 

[Deborah M]

As stated I just want a filter.

THIS! I know I've seen this pic before and this is the one thing that I really, really want! The aspect of Elvenar that is most annoying to me right now is the Trader. I am changing my mind about the repetition of this debate. I can't even count the number of improvements that have been the apparent result of @SoggyShorts putting forth and repeating great suggestions for how to improve this game over the years. Having thought about it from this perspective, I hope we can keep up the repeated debates about this until Inno gets a clue that many players want filters to avoid what may be viewed a predatory trades and that should have no effect on those who like or condone cross tier or uneven trades.

 

[Killy-]

Taking trades you don't want happens while attempting to help other players by fulfilling their trade requests.

Yeah, I guess using the filters for all combinations would be a hassle.

This is especially devastating if you are clicking near the bottom of the page (so you can't see what is next) and have you target disappear only to be replaced by a zero star cross.

Yep, in that case I always start on the next page first, way to risky. ^^

 

[StarLoad]

I cannot fix everyone else's issues and wont try you either deal with the way the game is and change when it does or go off and play something else.

Make a new suggestion and be done with it. Having a discussion here will not bring about change.

Spoiler: Here is where you said those things

and this:

and this

and this

Better if you quoted in context or included the entire statement, but whatever makes you happy.

 

[ajqtrz]

Personally, I'm glad @SoggyShorts has realized that the "problem" is a supply/demand one. As he says:

"The issue now is two-fold:
1. A massive portion of goods are produced in non-factory buildings with a significant tilt toward T3 decreasing its value
2. The demand for goods is nowhere close to even across tiers with T1 having almost double the demand of T3"

Having concluded that the supply of one set of goods to out of blance due to the "massive portion" of which are produced bye "non-factory buildings" and are thus "decreasing in value" and that the demand for those goods is "nowhere close to even across tiers" the question has to be asked: are goods within the same tier subject to the same fluctuations? In other words, in the current market, are gems in huge supply as compared to dust and/or elixer? My trade board says yes.

Now the solution Soggy sees is simple: Make everyone in your fs trade only within tiers. No cross tier trading. Let's see if this works. I have 10 million gems and 2 million of dust and 2 million of elixer. I post 2 trades. 1 million gems for 1 million dust and 1 million gems for 1 million elixer. If I'm in a well balanced fellowship it must be that somebody has 10 million dust and somebody else (presumably) has 10 million elixer. Thus, since, in this case, all things being equal, within my fellowship there is no surplus of gems. But if there is, and everybody is in the same boat as me: 10 million in gems, 2 million of elixer and 2 million of dust, if I expect them to take those "equal" trades I'm asking them to add to their gems gems they don't need. Why should I do that? If gems are out of balance within the tier how does it help me to ask my fellowship mates to take my surplus when they have a surplus of their own?

Now of course, maybe, within the fellowship, you've managed a good balance within each tier. Overall your fellowship has exactly the same amounts of elixer, dust and gems and produces a balanced amount of each. Cool! Then, but the game has a way of distributing surpluses and unless your fellowship is both producing a perfectly balanced amount of goods within each tier, and not trading with anyone outside your fellowship, heavens not going to last.

What are the odds of such a nice balanced fellowship staying nice and balanced? Not too high unless you forbid trading outside your fs. In other words, the world surpluses and scarcities will filter into your fs and, once more, you will find that somebody has to store all that surplus.

It's been admitted the problem is a supply/demand issue. The game has become imbalanced in the supply of T3. It's been admitted that the value of T3 is less than the ratio used to denote "fair" or, perhaps better, "even" trading. Thus, any 2 star trade between tiers is patently uneven. The solution offered by Soggy and others is to keep trading within the tier. It's been argued that any balanced trading (i.e. 2 star within the same tier) will keep things balanced. But such a solution does not address the underlying problem and ignores the fundamental problem of what happens when things become unbalanced within a tier? The same forces apply and soon enough you have no place to "dump" those surpluses (and thus benefit from them). You just get to stockpile worthless goods.

The solution is to address the underlying problem by recognizing the value of the surplus goods is what it is from a supply/demand reference point. In other words, reduce production of the surplus goods. How do we do that? It's really quite simple and if we all cooperate (more than one way to cooperate, right?), it will work.

First, stop taking trades you don't need. That means all those surplus gems will slowly fade away as those producing realize it's a waste of space. As long as we "generously" take those gems and store them for those producing them they have little incentive to stop producing them.

Second, in the mean time, allow cross tier trades exactly because it gives you options you don't have if you do cross tier trading. For instance, if two of the three T3 goods are in abundance, but you need the other, why ask for either of the two that you have in abundance? Why not ask for some T2? Or T1, even? For me it's not been too unusual to have a lot more of two of the T3 goods than I need. And in such a scenario if I try to trade my surplus T3 for that third T3 I find that everybody else is short on the very T3 I want. So to get that T3 I just offer T1 or T2.

So the fundamental problem is not in the trading but in the production. Restricting trading to this or that set of rules actually reduces the paths to balance and thus, is not a wise thing. In the end if everybody just trades as they will and trades only for what they need at the current supply/demand value, those producing cheap goods (i.e. goods not in high demand) will be forced to stop producing those goods as nobody wants them. In some ways the generosity of players toward each other in this matter actually harms things as it encourages those who are over producing what we don't need, to continue to do so.

AJ

 

[Alram]

First, stop taking trades you don't need.

Why? My surplus of goods helps to insulate me from "market" fluctuations.

In some ways the generosity of players toward each other in this matter actually harms things as it encourages those who are over producing what we don't need, to continue to do so.

AJ

The generosity of players toward each other in this matter actually harms your ability to profit from their need which is caused by them having no surplus of goods.

 

[ajqtrz]

Muffy this is categorically incorrect. I'm thinking it was a few years into the game before cross tier trades became an real issue. Sometimes new players needed to post cross tier trades but their FS would usually pick them up. Otherwise they would usually sit there for the week before they expired and the player would realize it wasn't such a good idea. It was definitely not such a pain to use the trader like it is now. This is why a bunch of us long term players feel strongly about this subject.

The phrase "not such a pain to use the trader" is subjective. Whether it's a pain or not, is it better to have cross tier trades? Does it enhance the possible trades you can make? Does it allow for a wider set of trading strategies? The down side seems to be that a lot of older players used to have to scroll through a lot of cross tier trades and they aren't used to that as "before" "they expired and the playerr would realize [cross tier trades] weren't such a good idea." Now those cross tier trades rarely sit there a week and thus a lot of players have found them a good idea. Since the change in attitude amongst the players is pretty clear shouldn't all those "long term players" who "feel strongly about this subject" reconsider? After all, if the cross tier trades that would have sat back in the day, are now being picked up you have to say the game has changed. And if it has, shouldn't those "long term" players rethink their position?

Are you a moderator now? That usually comes with an indicator under the name.

In life, I think, there are three types of moderation. 1) Self moderation. You do this all the time when you think you want to say this or that but then refrain "upon further review." 3) Official moderation for when you think you want to say this or that and then go ahead. In between are those who care about the tone and tenor of a conversation and who, to save you and others from having the official moderator come down on you (and perhaps us), give us a warning. I, personally, appreciate the middle level because it's usually done with the conversation in mind and can be very helpful.

And now for a rebuttal of @SoggyShorts

In response to:
"Cross trades flood the trader
Some players like me ignore the trader to avoid the hassle instead of helping fulfill trade requests.
Newer players have their trades taken less frequently if at all
Smaller players quit more regularly and/or spend less money
Elvenar profits are lower

Results:
You have fewer people to play with.
Inno spends less on features and updates to your game."

I ask for some clarification.

"Cross tier trades flood the market" Please define "flood" My experience is that there a lot, but so what? If I don't like 2-star trades and they flood the market, should I therefore insist on no 2-star trades?

"Some players ... avoid ...helping fulfill trade requests." But the trades, as far as I can tell, still seem to be taken. And as long as they are taken the players offering and taking are satisfied, right? If the trades weren't taken they wouldn't be, but they are so what's the point of telling people they can't do cross tier trades other than you don't like that they "flood" the trader and are a hassle to wade through?

"Newer players have their trades taken less frequently if at all?" It would appear to be that a prima facie case could be made that if you offer more possible trade options, trades would be taken faster. Limiting the goods for which you can trade what you have can only limit the number of possible trades and trading partners. In other words, this seems to be a bit of a stretch.

"Smaller players quit...." Well, maybe. Since I've not interviewed any of the smaller players who have quit, I can't say why they quit. On the other hand, this is only true if the immediate statement above is also true. And since that statement is in doubt, so is this one.

In the end then, the cross tier trades, you believe, lower Inno's profits by pushing smaller, potentially lucrative, players out. Your argument is that since they can't get their cross-tier trades taken because players like you who don't like cross-tier trades, refuse to take them, they get frustrated and quit.

I dispute the premise that cross tier trades sit for a week and expire in any great number. My trade board does not reflect that.

And I dispute that the solution to the "problem" is the banning of cross tier trades. In fact, in my opinion, the answer is not to denigrate, ignore, and forbid cross-tier trades, but to join in and take and post the ones that benefit you. In any ten pages of trades of any particular kind, not all will benefit you. Pick the ones that do.

I might add that the only cross tier trades I see sitting for any length of time are the gems for something else ones. But that is not a sufficient reason to ban cross tier trades altogether since, in my neighborhood, gems have a huge surplus.

AJ

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Catching up on things here and just want to say that if I ever post a suggestion or an idea and someone else really likes it and wants to make it into an official Suggestion, go for it, as I hate trying to put my ideas into the format required for them to be discussed and voted on.

 

[Alram]

Anyone arguing for their right to profit is making a subjective argument. Their pursuit of profit negates their claim to being an objective contribitor to the conversation.

*I am not an objective contributor. I think people should join in FS with like minded players and have rules that reflect their shared views about trading..

 

[Ashrem]

Please tell me where I told Soggy to just ignore, anything because I don't see it? Nor Did I say Soggy was wasting his time? And I did not say nothing will change.

Couple of pages back I said make a suggestion about it, and I still font see one.

Ed

I read the part about ignoring things into the two things from your list above that you really did say (whether directly in one case or indirectly in the other:

Make a new suggestion and be done with it. Having a discussion here will not bring about change.

 

[Ashrem]

Catching up on things here and just want to say that if I ever post a suggestion or an idea and someone else really likes it and wants to make it into an official Suggestion, go for it, as I hate trying to put my ideas into the format required for them to be discussed and voted on.

As someone who put many, many hours into negotiating and formatting ideas, shepherding them through the process, and getting them successfully voted on only to have them ignored or rejected, I'd say Enevhar has encapsulated the feelings of many of us. Having people fling their feelings all over ideas here is nothing compared to the heartburn of "make a new suggestion."

 

[ajqtrz]

Why? My surplus of goods helps to insulate me from "market" fluctuations.

The generosity of players toward each other in this matter actually harms your ability to profit from their need which is caused by them having no surplus of goods.

First, I do like the idea that "surplus goods" insulate you from market fluctuations. Certainly true enough if that's your plan. However, what if surplus goods are at a level where you can't conceive of a market fluctuation where you would need them? I had nearly 20 million gems at one point. I had absorbed the over production of some smaller players in my neighborhood. I then realized three things: 1) They wouldn't stop offering gems for T1 and T2 if I kept taking their trades out of a sense of helping others; 2) I was just storing a lot of gems I would never use nd thus, was, in fact, throwing away goods (if you can't use something it's useless and thus should be discarded); and 3) by encouraging those players to continue producing T3 I was not solving the problem of excess T3 capacity since I was, in essence, making their T3 usable. So for the sake of the game and my own sanity, I stopped taking T3 trades. If everybody did that after a while those producing T3 in excess would have so much they'd stop making more and shift to something else.

All trades are profitable or they wouldn't be made. In other words, you are getting what you want/need from the trade at a price/cost equal to or less than you are willing to pay. Profit does not have to be "more" of the goods but might be tied to the intangibles that are a part of the trade.

Anyone arguing for their right to profit is making a subjective argument. Their pursuit of profit negates their claim to being an objective contribitor to the conversation.

*I am not an objective contributor. I think people should join in FS with like minded players and have rules that reflect their shared views about trading..

I think this is an error. Subjectivity certainly can be a problem, but if I say I think gold will be worth more in 3 days and it is, was my judgment, subjective or not, right? In other words, while a person may be motivated to argue from a subjective standpoint, that doesn't mean he/she is wrong. Technically it's an ad hominem fallacy, though in this case certainly not intended as an attack.

In addition, this argument tends to suffer from the "single motive fallacy," as if the only reasons being offered are purely subjective. Seldom in any conversation does a participant argue out of a single motive. For instance if I were in Congress and a bill was presented that would put a lot of money into curing cancer, should I refrain from voting for it because it benefits a research facility in my district, and thus myself as the Congressman?

In the end you may be right or wrong that subjective opinions sometimes do little to forward the conversation, but, fortunately for all of us, they aren't the only opinions offered.

AJ

 

[StarLoad]

As someone who put many, many hours into negotiating and formatting ideas, shepherding them through the process, and getting them successfully voted on only to have them ignored or rejected, I'd say Enevhar has encapsulated the feelings of many of us. Having people fling their feelings all over ideas here is nothing compared to the heartburn of "make a new suggestion."

And as those good ideas drowned in the morass of the CM meetings, and ended up in the Devs "round out box" you really think that monthly discussions here will change that? Sorry I don't by it. So I will stand by my answer.


Ed

 

[SoggyShorts]

you really think that monthly discussions here will change that?

Well, it took monthly discussions on the 16:1 for them to change that so... yes?

If you watch the Q&A on youtube from inno games they have said
"If players ask for that more often and we see a demand for it we will consider it"
or something to that effect several times on several requests.

Obviously, we can't be certain that bringing it up repeatedly will lead anywhere (although by your own admission we have already made some progress this time) but I am extremely confident that if we never bring it up again there will be no change.

 

[BrinDarby]

That information is available once you complete the tutorial.
Give it a shot, it's kinda fun

just answer the freak'n question ....
are there 9 sentient & 9 ascended goods ?? or (3 of each)
along with the , duhhhhh , 9 basic goods.....

 

[Ashrem]

just answer the freak'n question ....
are there 9 sentient & 9 ascended goods ?? or (3 of each)
along with the , duhhhhh , 9 basic goods.....

I think we all thought your "duhhhh" was an edit because you figured it out yourself. Yes, there are nine of each, as described in the wiki:

https://en.wiki.elvenar.com/index.php?title=Manufactories#Sentient_Goods

 

[Ashrem]

And as those good ideas drowned in the morass of the CM meetings, and ended up in the Devs "round out box" you really think that monthly discussions here will change that? Sorry I don't by it. So I will stand by my answer.

I think you missed my point again. Both posts and suggestions are mostly going to be ignored for weeks, months, and years, or forever, and posts take less effort, so why would I want to bother with suggestions?

 

[Alram]

@ajqtrz
Your experience with cross tier trades is exactly why I don't take them and I don't place them.