• 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

*** 3 Star Trade Classification

able99

Well-Known Member
Some players have taken to offering virtually even trades like 10001 offered, 10000 wanted so trade is classified as *** 3 Star.
This may have been suggested prior, but I wish classification formula is changed to require 5% premium for any trade to be *** 3 Star
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
While I agree with the sentiment that it, to me, is rather "cheap" to kick your trade into the 3-star category by offering just one more good, the whole star system is faulty in general as it is based upon production cost comparisons and not much more. It influences our trading exactly because we look at the stars and determine the value of the trade by how many stars it receives. But are our trades really only determined by the production costs? Of course not otherwise "fair" would be 2 stars and the system would or should give us a big "hey, stupid, that's not fair" warning when we try to trade below 2 stars or above it, right? What is actually going on is that every trader has some "intangible" aspects to his or her trading style, and sometimes we accept a 1 star or 0 star trade because we want to help out another player (which is a value to us), and sometimes we post a 3 star trade because we really need the goods and know there are those who see a 3-star trade and think "profit" -- a patently, by the game standards, unfair attitude! ;) But "profit" is a value to us as well.

I, personally, suggest you forget the star system measurement and use it as only mildly suggestive as to the relative value of the trade. You are the one who decides what your goods are worth and what the goods of the one offering are worth. If you don't like the +1 3 star trades, don't take them as they are not as valuable to you as a +5% 3 star trade. That's your value system kicking in and that's how it should work.

AJ
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
I wish classification formula is changed to require 5%
Indeed. I'd like to see 10% as a requirement for 3 stars or for even being sorted.
The advantage of being at the top of the list shouldnt be granted for 1 extra good.
E.g. a 1000 for 1001 trade shouldn't even be auto listed on top of a 1000 to 1000 trade.
They should be treated as equal with the oldest being on top
1100 for 1000 would be the threshold to get bumped up over others.
 

defiantoneks

Well-Known Member
why not just remove the stars and give +, =, or -
color + with green, = with yellow and - with red.
then you just get a visual warning that you're getting equal trade, better than equal or less than equal.
you decide whether that's ok or not and if you want to accept
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
why not just remove the stars and give +, =, or -
color + with green, = with yellow and - with red.
then you just get a visual warning that you're getting equal trade, better than equal or less than equal.
you decide whether that's ok or not and if you want to accept
That's exactly how it is now.
Replacing
*, **, ***
with
-, =, +
doesn't change a thing.

The whole point is that a +0.1% trade should not be ranked the same as a +10% offer. Under your adjustment, they'd both be marked "+"

Edit: Actually, showing the % instead of stars might be an improvement. Especially if it's rounded down to the closest 1%
That way in order to even show up as more than a 100% trade you'd need to offer at least 1,010 for 1,000
 

BrinDarby

Well-Known Member
Actually, showing the % instead of stars might be an improvement. Especially if it's rounded down to the closest 1%
That way in order to even show up as more than a 100% trade you'd need to offer at least 1,010 for 1,000
Browser version , hover on *,**,*** , shows % , but its really whacko on cross trades ....
1500 marble for 1000 crystal is a 2* trade so the % should be 100%
and thats not what it shows ... it shows all same tier trades, correctly %'s.
 

OIM20

Well-Known Member
I would also like to add that I can't see =. I highlighted and clicked reply from Soggy's post to get it in the window. But I can't actually see it in its native form here. The background in the trader window alternates between the same color as the forum post in the background and a slightly darker color.

As for the ratio that shows when you hover over the stars in the browser, the description on that is still misleading. Telling me that getting 100 more crystal than the scrolls I'm giving up is "far" better is a bit outlandish when we're talking about high numbers. Absolutely true if you're talking about asking for 100 scrolls and offering 200 crystal; not so accurate when we're talking about 5000 scrolls for 5100 crystal. (2.0 ratio v 1.02 ratio)

Still, we know changes are coming in the trader - the tab alteration is only the beginning, obviously. Since it was in one of the myriad 'unfair trades' threads that helya let us know that changes were underway, I'm curious as to whether the star system itself will be overhauled. I know she can't tell us, but I'm ready for them to implement something beyond the cosmetics that came with this upgrade so we can have a better idea whether we need to press the point on ratios that seems to be quite contentious.
 

defiantoneks

Well-Known Member
That's exactly how it is now.
Replacing
*, **, ***
with
-, =, +
doesn't change a thing.

The whole point is that a +0.1% trade should not be ranked the same as a +10% offer. Under your adjustment, they'd both be marked "+"

Edit: Actually, showing the % instead of stars might be an improvement. Especially if it's rounded down to the closest 1%
That way in order to even show up as more than a 100% trade you'd need to offer at least 1,010 for 1,000

would change it to a more obvious visual. but keeping stars or + = - also leaves it a simpler way to be able to filter, which hopefully is under consideration. honestly there's so much complaint and debate over what's "fair" blah blah, and no one wants to remove the extremely horrific offers because that's just fine with the scalpers among us, i look at any changes as those that should be clear, simple, and still eave it possible for people to do what they want and maybe add some functionality. it's hard enough when there are 3 star or "green" trades to stare and determine if it's REALLY good, by the time you decide someone's snatched the trade anyway.

ps… if i'm super worried about the exact amount being exchanged i'm the one PLACING the trade, not taking it.
 

CrazyWizard

Oh Wise One
That's exactly how it is now.
Replacing
*, **, ***
with
-, =, +
doesn't change a thing.

The whole point is that a +0.1% trade should not be ranked the same as a +10% offer. Under your adjustment, they'd both be marked "+"

Edit: Actually, showing the % instead of stars might be an improvement. Especially if it's rounded down to the closest 1%
That way in order to even show up as more than a 100% trade you'd need to offer at least 1,010 for 1,000
Actually a +10% trade is offered above a 0.01% trade.
Loosers who as +1 good to get to the top of the list, I treat there trades as 0 starts and refuse to take them.
It's soo lame.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Edit: Actually, showing the % instead of stars might be an improvement. Especially if it's rounded down to the closest 1%
That way in order to even show up as more than a 100% trade you'd need to offer at least 1,010 for 1,000

I agree with this, surprisingly. But only if the descriptions about the "fairness" of the trade are dropped. Those descriptions are imprecise and in many cases miss-leading.

As for the ratio that shows when you hover over the stars in the browser, the description on that is still misleading. Telling me that getting 100 more crystal than the scrolls I'm giving up is "far" better is a bit outlandish when we're talking about high numbers. Absolutely true if you're talking about asking for 100 scrolls and offering 200 crystal; not so accurate when we're talking about 5000 scrolls for 5100 crystal. (2.0 ratio v 1.02 ratio)

"Fair," "unfair," and anything like it are descriptors not of value but of, well, "fairness." Fairness implies the value of the two things being traded are equal and anything else is "unfair" to the one getting the less for his/her goods. In the end being a fair or unfair person is a moral description of a persons behavior, and thus, in many ways, of the person. Game playing choices, when allowed, should never judge the person making those choices and any system that uses "fair," "unfair," or their equivalents is setting itself up as a mild enforcer of morality -- even if that morality is only in a game.

So if they just drop the descriptions and put the percent "above" or below the cost of producing the items it would be a step in the right direction.

AJ
 
Last edited:

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
Actually a +10% trade is offered above a 0.01% trade.
Yes, but both are 3 stars.
So if only one of them is up today, and the other up tomorrow they are ranked (starred) equally.

The "ranking" system only has 4 possibilities: 1,2,3,0 stars. If there was a 1-10 star system it would be too big for the interface, so IMO the 0-4 star system could/should be tweaked to better represent "good" and "bad" trades.
 

CrazyWizard

Oh Wise One
Yes, but both are 3 stars.
So if only one of them is up today, and the other up tomorrow they are ranked (starred) equally.

The "ranking" system only has 4 possibilities: 1,2,3,0 stars. If there was a 1-10 star system it would be too big for the interface, so IMO the 0-4 star system could/should be tweaked to better represent "good" and "bad" trades.
No matter how many stars you add there will always be a complaint that it would not be granular enough.
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
No matter how many stars you add there will always be a complaint that it would not be granular enough.

This is a theoretical conjecture that doesn't hold up when examined....in my opinion, ;). Why? Because if you implement a system of granularity where there 100 levels you are are providing that level of granularity - a lot of stars! But if you replace the stars with numbers you can have the same level of granularity using just whole percentages. And each digit you add to the right of the decimal increases the granularity by 10. So, no decimals and you get 100 levels and lose no display space. One place added to the right adds 10 times the granularity or 1000 and takes another column. And so on. So for a couple more of spaces where the stars are displayed you can have 10,000 levels of granularity. I really don't think anybody would complain if they had "only" 10,000 levels of granularity -- though of course, you could still be right.

AJ
 

Yogi Dave

Well-Known Member
Browser version , hover on *,**,*** , shows %
3StarNot.png

This is a 0.2% trade which it shows as an even trade. (10% is shown as 1.10). While this is there, it doesn't stand out. You have to hover. How many people will do that?
but its really whacko on cross trades ....
It shows the ratio, so a perfect 2 star from T1 to T3 shows as 2.25. Which defeats the purpose to showing what is called a fair trade. (Please, let's not get into what 'fair' means.)
Actually, showing the % instead of stars might be an improvement. Especially if it's rounded down to the closest 1%
This sound better than stars. However, cross tier trades need to take into account the defined 'fair' trade ratios between the tiers.
Having the actual percentage would show more clearly what the 1 star and a 0 star trades actually represent.
 

defiantoneks

Well-Known Member
playing Devil's Advocate here… what we know is that the current system clearly indicates a plus/minus/equal trades.
What it also offers is a hover for percentage on the desktop version.
So, it's easy to see a) you're getting more or less an equal, more than equal or less than equal trade.
Based on your specific needs, any of them may be "fair" or acceptable.

So, what is being asked for? do we really need Inno to bare down all the facts and explain to us exactly what we should take or not, because we can't figure the math or worth in our own heads & minds?
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
So, what is being asked for? do we really need Inno to bare down all the facts and explain to us exactly what we should take or not, because we can't figure the math or worth in our own heads & minds?
It has nothing to do with the math for me.
For me, it's about the listings.

I dislike the $5.99 pricing in real life, and the 10,001 offers are no different.

Currently, if a bunch of players post even trades then they are listed together (in the order they were posted, largest first iirc)
But if some dude offers one single plank more then it shoots to the top of the list regardless of all other variables.
IMO that's crap.

Instead, I think that all trades within a defined range should be treated equally and only trades of exceptional ratio should be displayed as such with "top of the list" privileges.
Basically, up to +9.9% should all be 2 stars and sorted together. Offering 10% above a 1:1 ratio should be the threshold for becoming a top featured listing.

That's my preference though not, and not quite the same as the OP.
 
Last edited:

defiantoneks

Well-Known Member
Basically, up to +9.9% should all be 2 stars and sorted together. Offering 10% above a 1:1 ratio should be the threshold for becoming a top featured listing.


hm. by that math tho, you're basically punishing someone for making a better than even trade that isnt "good" enough for your standard. the way the order reads already tho, if there was a BETTER offer available it would be higher up the list. so their "less good good" trade would be at the bottom of the 3 stars, under the "really good good" trades. personally i dont think it would be fair to lump a better than equal trade with equal, no matter the ratio.
conversely if you use that same math,and logic, wouldnt the 1star trades that are still within the 9% also still rate as 2 stars?
 

SoggyShorts

Mathematician par Excellence
conversely if you use that same math,and logic, wouldnt the 1star trades that are still within the 9% also still rate as 2 stars?
Nah, only rounds against you.
E.G. if you offer 91% you're in the 90% slot, same as if you offer 99%.

hm. by that math tho, you're basically punishing someone for making a better than even trade that isnt "good" enough for your standard.
Yep, and I'm good with that.
Actually, I'd be fine with it if the game pushed you into 1:1 trades and made you click a + or - 10% button to alter it with no other choices being allowed (other than multiple button presses)
Plus one star rating per 10%
No more 2% deals, no more 0.2% deals. Just 1:1 or a 10,20,30,40...400% increase/decrease

*Queue "muh freedoms" wailing* ;)
 

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
playing Devil's Advocate here… what we know is that the current system clearly indicates a plus/minus/equal trades.
What it also offers is a hover for percentage on the desktop version.
So, it's easy to see a) you're getting more or less an equal, more than equal or less than equal trade.
Based on your specific needs, any of them may be "fair" or acceptable.

So, what is being asked for? do we really need Inno to bare down all the facts and explain to us exactly what we should take or not, because we can't figure the math or worth in our own heads & minds?

I'm going to say it again, because I can, but any move to define "equal" or categorize "good" or "bad" trades is and will be unable to actually say if they are good or bad for the user, specifically. That decisions should be made by the ones making the trade without comment or implied criticism inherent in "it's a bad trade." By providing numbers only you skip the whole categorization but give information upon which the person making the trade can use.

As for the cross tier problem, the production costs as rough approximations of the relative value of each item might be necessary but in reality the only way it actually be more accurate is if it reflected current supply/demand. Since it can't, probably due to all sorts of game restrictions and difficulties, the production costs model is probably about the best we can do/expect. Offering a number without categorizing the trade as good or bad, is not needed or useful as it also categorizes the player offering the "bad" trade as a "bad trader." At least the general response of many to seeing a lot of one and zero star trades has been, in the past, to call the player some pretty bad names.

AJ
 
Top