• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

How easy it is....

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
How easy it is to move away from the subject at hand. In my various presentations about how we should do away with using the star system to rule how others trade, I've implied a moral failure on the part of the community in their willingness to punish those who don't see things as they do. In fact, in the recent round of discussions, I implied pretty strongly, and may have even stated, that those coercing others into engaging in bullying behaviors. Now, in giving that some reflection, I do believe it was both an overstatement of the case, and an implication I should not have made. I've never thought of others as being morally suspect, even if I strongly imply it in my comments. It is this discrepancy -- between sounding condemning and actually condemning, which makes me pause.

The use of threat of coercion to get a player to do what you want IS a bullying act. But it does not mean the one doing it is a bully. We can do things the ramifications of which we are not aware. Making a copy of a copyrighted book, for instance, is a violation of copyright laws and is, under the law, stealing. But some don't know that and do so anyway. Driving even a mile over the speed limit is speeding -- but again, some sense it other ways. And when it comes to using a groups social pressure to get a member to conform to the rules of the group, it may be a bullying act, but that doesn't mean the one doing it is a bully. OR that the act is actually bullying.

I have reflected on what was said out "informing" a person about the consequences of his/her choice. That putting up certain trades consistently might get you in trouble, is certainly true. Thus, was it, or is it a bullying act to reveal that to a player? No. Not at all. I have, mistakenly, implied that it was, I think. I regret that.

Third, the problem, if there is one, is that any rule put forward by any group, if not done for the better of the group, but for the better of a person or persons in the group, is bullying. If it doesn't benefit the group as a whole those enforcing it to benefit themselves, are acting the role of a bully. I do believe that most of the people who stand behind the traditional rules of trading, are doing so for what they believe to be the better of the group and are not bullies. If I've implied otherwise, anywhere, and I probably have, I'm sorry I did so.

Finally, the real question is: which is better for the group? Restricted trading, or open trading. Who benefits from the rules as they somewhat stand, and who looses -- or does everyone gain? Who would benefit from open trading, and who looses? -- or does everyone gain? That's the real discussion and I'm sorry if I let my comments stray into what amount to something not as clear.

AJ
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Oh Wise One
I think I said it in another thread around here, but the trading system in Elvenar is more Socialist than Capitalist. And that makes sense to me because the game was created by, and updated by, people in Germany, with a parent company in Sweden. Germany has long been a bastion of Democratic Socialism and that is reflected in the limited version of capitalism in the game. Plus this is primarily a co-op game, not a PVP game like FoE or others from them, so being fair and limiting just how much one player can screw over another player is good for this game model. Greed is not good, so if people want to be cutthroat traders, there is a system for them to use in games like World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XIV.
 

BrinDarby

Well-Known Member
Contemplate the following :
"you are stupid" ... "you did a stupid thing" .... now lets try
"you are a bully" ... "your action was bully'n"
( 1 usually is a personal insult, 1 usually is Not )

now whether you bully 1 person 1 time, or 20 ppl 20 times....
semantically you are a bully, it might be insulting ( subjective ) yet
it also can be a plain jane fact. ( not insulting )
We all know the classic deffinition of pornography .....
ya know it when you see it .... same goes for bully'n.

We are brought up hopefully with good morals/ethics. We are taught
from very early on..... coersion, blackmail, bribery, extorsion are all BAD.....

Then our children go out into the world and what are they met with ????
coersion, blackmail, bribery, extorsion , and all seem "the norm".
Talk about your mixed messages, sheesh !!!!

Even worse parents use all 4 of these, to get thier children to behave/follow rules.
Parents cement into thier children that these 4 are ok, by example..... even when they
directly tell thier children the opposite.

Now AJ,
I do believe that most of the people who stand behind the traditional rules of trading, are doing so for what they believe to be the better of the group
whats missing is : (add this to your quote)
" , while @ the same time too many are closed minded to any rational discussion
that may change thier "belief", or even open thier eyes to things they may not have thought of".

Its hard to convey advanced game design concepts to someone not versed in coding & game design.
Its also hard to explain advanced economic concepts to ppl bad @ Math .....

As a Programmer, I wouldn't spend 6 weeks coding a trading system if all its gonna be used
as ... is a swap system. That could be coded in maybee 2-3 days. Also just because a game isn't
portrayed as a Econ game, doesn't mean there can't/shouldn't be an ingame economy.

During all these discussions I have heard......
"well it was like that because the old tier system was whack'd @ 1 : 4 : 16,
now that its 1 : 1.5 : 2.25.... cross tier trades aren't as much of a problem anymore." ....... or
"well sure, "fair" isn't exactly the right adjective, "even" would be a better, non subjective term" ....... or
a few other things I've heard ..... So don't sit here and say, that change doesn't happen , nor shouldn't.

BUT to say, the Devs designed it so X, Y, or Z is ok, but if you do X or Z .. go away, you'll be shunn'd,
you'll never get trade, and you might as well just quit now ....... thats complete BS.
It IS coersion, and that coersion is a form of bully'n, and actually is against EU Law.... ya know where
this game is operated from......

So if just telling players if another player is on, is not possible cause of EU Law, then this constant
bully'n of the playerbase is also against EU Law and should NOT be tollerated....
 

Sprite1313

Well-Known Member
ohh like telling players how they must trade or be shunn'd ????? wayyy to far ....
pot calling the kettle black ????
Nobody has said anyone would be shunned. What you refer to as “coercion” is actually more-experienced players explaining the agreed-upon norms of the game. It isn’t an economics problem, it’s a social contract. Read Locke or John Stuart Mill - in order to be a part of a functioning society that fulfills your basic needs, you must agree to function within the agreed-upon structure of the society providing the resources that feed, shelter and clothe you. If you consistently take more than you give, you are going to be seen as a burden on that society and treated appropriately.
 
Last edited:

samidodamage

Buddy Fan Club member
so if people want to be cutthroat traders, there is a system for them to use in games like World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XIV.
Here's how I see it:
There are people who cannot 'shine' in those games as they are, to be blunt, outclassed. So, they choose a cooperative game with a 'balanced' trading system, try to convince others their way is best, and (in their own minds) 'shine' as a 'cutthroat trader' in a co-op :rolleyes: Pity is what I feel for them.
 

Lelanya

Scroll-Keeper, Keys to the Gems
Well I have been wondering today, but the OP is on my ignore list, has been for quite a while.
 

helya

Beloved Ex-Team Member
This discussion about Trading comes up every once in a while and it always leads to at least one player getting a warning, usually more, so I remind everyone to be civil.

The general consensus among players, not just the few posting here, but in all of the groups I moderate or watch, as well as in tickets, is that 1 or 0-star trades are undesirable. Call them unfair, or uneven, or free trade, but players overwhelmingly dislike them. We get a large volume of tickets that include complaints about accidentally taking these trades.

I'm not saying that your way is wrong, I know some players enjoy using the trader like this, trying to squeeze out as much profit as possible from each trade. It's fun for them. But this style of trading is incredibly unpopular. Please do not be surprised when other players tell you this or warn other players that it is unpopular. That is not bullying, nor is it bullying behavior. It is a fact. These trades are disliked across the board, players complain about them constantly, and one of the most requested changes is to be able to hide them. You are not going to bring any players around to your point of view simply by insisting that their way of thinking is wrong, just as they are not bringing you around to their way of thinking by saying you are wrong.

I ask that if the subject of changing the entire game to fair trade comes up again, it remains in the suggestions thread where everyone can discuss it. I can also affirm that the developers have stated they have no plans to remove the star system, but they are considering allowing better filters for the trader.
 

BrinDarby

Well-Known Member
@helya ,
when we rollover trades.... 1 is expensive, 3 is cheap, yet 2 is fair ( not even, or equal )
that 1 word alone itself seems inflamitory ( & causes fights ), and because its subjective it
denotes the percception that its the view of Inno, thus giving it credibility... can that be
changed @least to "even", so the three are cheap, even, & expensive.
 

helya

Beloved Ex-Team Member
@helya ,
when we rollover trades.... 1 is expensive, 3 is cheap, yet 2 is fair ( not even, or equal )
that 1 word alone itself seems inflamitory ( & causes fights ), and because its subjective it
denotes the percception that its the view of Inno, thus giving it credibility... can that be
changed @least to "even", so the three are cheap, even, & expensive.
Feel free to post that in the suggestions thread.
also edited to add, the developers are not the ones that define trades as unfair/fair, etc, that comes from players.
 
Last edited:

Deborah M

Oh Wise One
Sorry but only one word comes to my mind reading the OP. Anarchy ;) Don’t get me wrong. I grew up rebelling against social expectations in an uppity town. Decades later I learned it just isn’t worth the drama. I mean just how much is it worth to know you are socially unaccepted? The gouging trades are annoying but not a huge deal as long as I am careful not to ever take them. What is really, really annoying to me is the couple of players who want to beat this drum over and over again as if they are going to change the minds of the vast majority of players. And, of course if all else fails stoop to socially charged buzzwords like bully.
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Oh Wise One
And a filter for cross trades too :)

As long as there is a filter to show by star value, cross-tier trades are not a problem. I will take them all the time, whether I need the goods or if I have the boosted goods to spare and the other player needs them from me. What I want is the classification for what is a 3-star or 1-star trades tightened up. I absolutely hate seeing a ton of trades that the systems says are 3-star, but the good being offered is only 5 or 10 higher than the good being asked for. It should be something like at least 5% more or less to be classified as 3 or 1-star.
 
Top