• 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

Alternate Solution to 0 Star Trade Problem - 0 Star Trades automatically convert to even trades after 3 hours.

able99

Active Member
I proposed 0 star trades expire quickly and got some intense discussion and reaction to that proposal.
I wonder what the reaction would be to Automatically Converting 0 Star Trades to Even Trades after 3 hours.
No doubt the parasite posters will try to delete their 0 Star Trades before 3 hours and re-post them, but I bet they will miss some deadlines and much needed goods will come on to the market at a fair price. Could this solve the problem?
 

OIM20

Well-Known Member
I'm trying to think of how the code might look for this because the harder it is to code, the less likely it is to become a priority for the devs.
This is not what any actually coding language looks like. These are logical if-then-do statements for the sake of determining coding difficulty, because I think that would be a big con here.

R= trader rating (stars)
T= time left on trade, in minutes
I=Inventory

If R=0 and T>180 then
reset T=180

If R=0 and T=1 then
{copy [trade]
copy PlayerName
delete [trade]
open [trade]
verify PlayerName-I > [trade-offered] <This is here because I foresee issues with the temp variables attempting to mis-align data, when the trades of multiple players on the same server all reaching the point of T=1 at the same time.>
trade match 1:1 <force R=2>
reset T=9900}

Why T=1 and not T<1: If it's T<1, then for 59 seconds, the temp data is continually being overwritten for the purposes of re-opening the same trade (the one being forced to trade match 1:1). That eats up a lot of resources and could conceivably cause a crash. Yes, this essentially means that for the logic the way it's written above, a minute of trade time would vanish entirely.

Why "reset T=9900": Trades last for 7 days from when you put them in the trader. The idea, of course, being that they still have a total of 7 days (minus that one minute) for their trades just like anyone else.
Resetting the time on the initial 0-star trade is easy to code, honestly, if they use basic variables in their coding and are able to employ multiple variables within an if-then statement (even if they nest them to do so). It would require the creation of a new command within their code (reset, or reset[T]).

But the second part... In order to do this, they have to create several variables that would have temporary values. Considering how many players there are on any individual server, using minutes as a basis for time being left on a trade may not be specific enough - it may need to be set to microseconds to keep the code from recording incorrect data into those temp fields, or mis-pairing the temp data. Sure, if they all placed their trades at different enough times, there wouldn't/shouldn't be a problem with the kind of simplistic code above (the second set).

But you're talking about reading the trader data for the whole server and being able to host multiple bits of info in temporary variable fields - ones created with the intent of housing the data for only a blink. The logic statements above are oversimplified, to be honest, because I'm including the entire trade (amount, item offered, item demanded) under the single variable [trade], which it most certainly isn't in the coding, and wouldn't be for anything they'd write to try to implement a system such as is being proposed. So that's several more variable fields. And if the same player is posting the same 0-star trade five times, that's another instance where microseconds are going to come into play.

I'm not saying it isn't doable. I am saying that I think the con of developer coding time would keep this proposal from becoming a reality. Then you've got customer service / tech support time being wasted when this is reported as a bug. I know some people think that's not worth including, but really it is - that's a lot of time that the folks you and I rely on for information here in the forum aren't going to be able to provide it because they're busy answering irate e-mails about why their trades are being deleted when other players' aren't, and if the devs want to force a 1:1, why don't they just do that instead of this system that punishes only them?

(Playing devil's advocate for a moment because, honestly, to those who are engaging in the 0-star trade behavior this type of change might seem a bit like personal persecution when they see their trades vanish/reset but don't initially notice the same happening to others engaging in the same 0-star behavior. I think the devs could easily counter with, "This game is meant to be one in which people work together to thrive, and your actions have undermined the character and purpose of the game." I don't think they would say that, but I think they could. That is, after all, the impression I've gotten of how those in the chapters where this is an ongoing issue perceive the price gouging / poaching / hoarding.)
 
Last edited:

Lelanya

Well-Known Member
In general I Iike this. Most of the time when someone is offering to support a fellow they are online together so I could see this working from that point of view.

I suspect that the time issue that set OIM20 thinking could simply be an automatic reset based on the original reset times for Crafting menus; that would be 4 times a day. It's not ideal, but then again this time switch already exists in the game.

Or like Ed says... wait and see what FoE ripoff is in the works next.
 
Last edited:

able99

Active Member
No way do I expect this to be implemented. I just wanted to see what type of reaction this would have. But yes, if its coding you are concerned with, then Lelanya's solution to use the crafting time instead of would work for me.
 

larbby

Member
This issue needs to be addressed like many others. I think the best way to resolve would be to have filters that default to only showing 2 and 3 star trades. Those who want to see the 1 and 0* ones can unclick the option and voila.
For those concerned about coding, it's also the simplest that coud be...
 

ed1960

Well-Known Member
This issue needs to be addressed like many others. I think the best way to resolve would be to have filters that default to only showing 2 and 3 star trades. Those who want to see the 1 and 0* ones can unclick the option and voila.
For those concerned about coding, it's also the simplest that coud be...
That only hides the issue, and besides a change is in the air...
 

larbby

Member
That only hides the issue, and besides a change is in the air...
Yes, hides the issue from those who don't want to see it and lets those who do want to deal that way still keep their playing style... I'm definitely against those low ball trades, some are ridiculous and could be clicked by mistake.

I think a filter for 1 and 0* and an undo that can take back any traded accepted in the past 10 seconds. Howbout that?
 

ed1960

Well-Known Member
Yes, hides the issue from those who don't want to see it and lets those who do want to deal that way still keep their playing style... I'm definitely against those low ball trades, some are ridiculous and could be clicked by mistake.

I think a filter for 1 and 0* and an undo that can take back any traded accepted in the past 10 seconds. Howbout that?
Not saying your idea is not valid and for some, it might be a fix, but it doesn't address the issue of the lack of goods for the players that need them especially in chapter 15 that is held hostage by the parasite traders. All I am saying is that there is a change coming that "will address these issues" in the works so better to wait and see for now.
 

larbby

Member
Not saying your idea is not valid and for some, it might be a fix, but it doesn't address the issue of the lack of goods for the players that need them especially in chapter 15 that is held hostage by the parasite traders. All I am saying is that there is a change coming that "will address these issues" in the works so better to wait and see for now.
I've stopped my chapter 16 research, in favor of the tourney and spire because the research is super expensive, so I know how you feel. I'm not sure that preventing hording would be in the spirit of a marketplace and we should not confuse unfair trades with goods imbalance.

Maybe Inno should just put to a vote if 0 and 1* trades should be limited to within each FS? I would vote yes.
 

able99

Active Member
Ed, If there is a change coming that will curb the parasite traders, I am excited and all for it.
Where did you hear that and any idea what approach they will take.
 

ed1960

Well-Known Member
Ed, If there is a change coming that will curb the parasite traders, I am excited and all for it.
Where did you hear that and any idea what approach they will take.
While I cannot tell you what it is yet, there is a new feature in the works that should help players get rid of their surplus goods while hopefully taking care of the goods imbalances. I would hold off on this suggestion for a little while.
The second I'm allowed to tell you more I will, but it is based on a community idea.
 

ajqtrz

Well-Known Member
Overall this is probably not an idea that would work, even if it could be done. Suppose I have put up a 0 star trade for 1000 scrolls for 8000 silk. And suppose I only have 1000 scrolls. If I've put the trade up for a 7000 silk profit and come back to find my scrolls have been traded for 1000 silk, I'm wondering who, exactly, is deciding what my scrolls are worth for me? Since nobody has to take what others might consider my "parasitical" trades, what's the real harm in leaving them listed for as long as I wish to do so? Only two have been listed that I know of in our many discussions of this issue: miss-clicks and a sense that the trade is "unfair."

Miss-clicks just means somebody isn't paying attention and that's a skill you need in any game you play, so why should the player posting the trade not benefit from a person's mistake? Is it any different if I put in 1000 silk for 100 Crystal? Both the miss-click and the miss-post may be mistakes, and if somebody takes my 3 star trade, that's just their luck and my loss.

As for the trades some find "unfair," I've spoken about this over and over. It's patently "unfair" to judge another person's sense of the value of their goods. Calling any player's trade posts "unfair," is using your personal standard to judge another persons actions -- a standard they may not have and which should not, as much as possible, be foisted upon them. You value the goods at X and they at Y. The only real measure of the goods actual value is at what price they can sell them at the moment of the sale.

So, let's not go there and see what happens. I've already seen the markets straighten themselves in my corner of the world and I expect, given time, they will everywhere else.

AJ