Cross-tier trades

[satchmo33]

So. 'K. Cross-tier trades are generally looked upon as terrible, terrible things. The vast majority of players are vehemently against them. A great many FSs actually have a RULE banning them. I've been scathed with scalding reprimands from other players in the past (in FSs other than my current one) for placing them. (BTW - there is nothing in anything that Inno/affiliates publish that speak to this matter.)

WHY?

I honestly don't see the problem. Could someone please explain?

I've heard it's because they're not fair and "hurt" the taker. Well, the taker has a brain in her/his head and as a human being has the built-in quality of choice from birth. Soooooo - again, why demean people by forceably "taking care of them" and removing that option of choice?

(I also think that there should be no trade disparity between tiers. A lot of the time when I'm placing a cross-tier trade (and I DO place a great many of them) I just make it tit-for-tat. 100 gems for 100 steel. Doesn't that make sense?)

Anyway - open for discussion.....and enlightenment....

 

[Iyapo1]

Why would you join a FS with rules and then not abide by them?Those rules are a legacy from a time when advanced players drained new players with "two star trades". It has been fixed but a lot of players do not even want to mess with them.

Your tit for tat does not make sense. 100 gems is not equal to 100 steel.

 

[samidodamage]

The change to the trader ratios have made the star rating of cross-tier trades more meaningful. The prior ratios only took into consideration the cost of coins and supplies to make the goods. The 'cost' in terms of space, pop, culture, etc were left out of those calculations. So, some of the aversion to cross trades is a holdover from that time.
One reason for an FS to continue to keep the 'no cross trades' rules even if they understand the changes and agree with the new ratios: Balancing boosted goods among members.
Simplified* example:
An FS is looking for a member boosted in marble: they are looking at the number of marble, steel, and planks players they have and see a need for more marble there. They are not in need of marble to take trades from their members who are boosted in elixir, dust and gems. If members post cross trades consistently, it throws off the balance of available goods within the same tier for the entire FS.
I 'think' (definitely could be wrong) most FS's who have such a rule also allow for cross trades if prearranged between members who are online at the same time and ask that those trades be limited to 'emergency' situations.

*assumes all members have cities close to the same chapter/production level

 

[KarlD]

So. 'K. Cross-tier trades are generally looked upon as terrible, terrible things. The vast majority of players are vehemently against them. A great many FSs actually have a RULE banning them. I've been scathed with scalding reprimands from other players in the past (in FSs other than my current one) for placing them. (BTW - there is nothing in anything that Inno/affiliates publish that speak to this matter.)

WHY?

I honestly don't see the problem. Could someone please explain?

I've heard it's because they're not fair and "hurt" the taker. Well, the taker has a brain in her/his head and as a human being has the built-in quality of choice from birth. Soooooo - again, why demean people by forceably "taking care of them" and removing that option of choice?

(I also think that there should be no trade disparity between tiers. A lot of the time when I'm placing a cross-tier trade (and I DO place a great many of them) I just make it tit-for-tat. 100 gems for 100 steel. Doesn't that make sense?)

Anyway - open for discussion.....and enlightenment....

Most fs require that a player place "fair" trades. It used to be that in the Trader a trade of 16 tier 1 to 1 tier 3 good was marked as a "fair" trade, but that was actually a very unfair trade. The Trader now marks 2.25 tier 1 to 1 tier 3 as a fair trade. That is a much more fair trade so I don't think fs's should just ban cross-tier trades in the name of fairness. However, there was a young city that I was taking a lot of their trades from just to help out because their trades were so small that it didn't really matter, including their cross-tier trades (using the current 1.5:1 ratio between adjacent tiers. So they join a fs that starts to complain about their cross-tier trades. At first I was thinking it shouldn't be a big deal making some cross-tier trades now that they are reasonably fair in the Trader, but then I found out that they actually didn't have a single tier 1 factory. I was taking so many of their trades offering tier 3 and asking for tier 1 that they didn't feel the need to build any tier 1 factories and figured they'd save a bunch of space with just T2 and T3 factories. That didn't work because as they grew I couldn't take those cross-tier trades anymore because it was throwing my inventory out of balance and their fs needed a city that would help balance the trading instead of making things more unbalanced. So although I think cross-tier trades should be ok I think people must try to produce a balanced amount of goods of all 3 tiers. Sometimes there will be a need to place cross-tier trades, but it should be the rare exception rather than the rule.

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

So. 'K. Cross-tier trades are generally looked upon as terrible, terrible things. The vast majority of players are vehemently against them. A great many FSs actually have a RULE banning them. I've been scathed with scalding reprimands from other players in the past (in FSs other than my current one) for placing them. (BTW - there is nothing in anything that Inno/affiliates publish that speak to this matter.)

WHY?

I honestly don't see the problem. Could someone please explain?

I've heard it's because they're not fair and "hurt" the taker. Well, the taker has a brain in her/his head and as a human being has the built-in quality of choice from birth. Soooooo - again, why demean people by forceably "taking care of them" and removing that option of choice?

(I also think that there should be no trade disparity between tiers. A lot of the time when I'm placing a cross-tier trade (and I DO place a great many of them) I just make it tit-for-tat. 100 gems for 100 steel. Doesn't that make sense?)

Anyway - open for discussion.....and enlightenment....

Remnants of the past that are now deeply rooted in negativity.
In the past the trade ratio's where really bad 1 : 4 : 16 instead of the current 1 : 1.5 : 2.25

As you might figure out by the difference between these 2 ratio's you can understand how bad they were, and how much chaos and anger this has created in the playerbase, cross tier trades are because of this treated like a bad disease. the image of the past still lingers and will linger in the playerbase for a long long time before vieuws on this will change.
We had 4+ years of cross tier insanity and changing people opinion on it will take a long long long time

 

[Darielle]

I do cross trades, but I always make sure they are excellent three star trades (not just "slightly" over, to make them 3 star, but a good 20 percent or more discount over what the trader says is a fair trade). That takes away the negative connotations. Even with that, they take a bit longer to find a buyer than same tier trades. I don't know why it should still be that way; I snap up 3 star cross tiers whenever they are on the market and I need the goods. But some people are still stuck in their mindsets and can't see the advantages, even with 3 stars.

 

[Kekune]

But some people are still stuck in their mindsets and can't see the advantages, even with 3 stars.

Even if something is 3-star, if I don't need it, I don't need it. Most of the cross-tier trades I see offered are offering either (a) t3 goods or (b) scrolls. As I also have a surplus of those things (probably for the same reasons the poster has a surplus of them), I don't see much point in taking them.

Now, when I see cross-tier trades ASKING for those things, I'm often pretty happy to oblige.

If members post cross trades consistently, it throws off the balance of available goods within the same tier for the entire FS.

And this is why a lot of fellowships care. We don't ban them anymore, but we did a long time ago when the ratios were bad and a large portion of our marble producers didn't offer it in trade because they would rather do cross-tier. The ratios aren't an issue now, but even traded fairly (or better than fair) it makes balancing goods that much harder.

 

[Iamaita]

I’m a new player at the beginning of chapter 5. At this point of the game, I may have leveled my tier 2 and 3 goods faster than I should have so currently I have a surplus of tier 2 and 3 goods. Now I try to save them up with the assumption that I will need them at some point. But if I see someone offer a 3 star trade for planks that I need for an upgrade in exchange for gems that are just collecting dust... well that’s a good deal, and I’m going to happily take that trade.

I do believe that if you are in a fellowship that has rules, then you should abide by those rules. It seems like everyone gets the most out of a fellowship when they are playing with people who have similar goals and priorities. The rules seem like a way to find other people who want to play the way you do and not like an attempt to force you to play a certain way. I’m a square peg. I’m going to find a nice square hole where I am comfortable and not waste my time trying to force a round hole to accommodate my corners.

 

[Pheryll]

But if I see someone offer a 3 star trade for planks that I need for an upgrade in exchange for gems that are just collecting dust... well that’s a good deal, and I’m going to happily take that trade.

The thing is these offers are very rare. They were almost unheard of when the ratio for cross tier was 16:4:1. Many cities do not produce more tier one than the other tiers and trade offers usually reflect that.

 

[ajqtrz]

Most fs require that a player place "fair" trades.

Yep, KarlD nails it again. The "fair trade" "rule." But of course, "fairness," like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Suppose you have 1 billion gems. You also have zero silk. Everything else is just exactly what what you need so the point is you need silk and you have gems. To get silk you can either wait for it to magically appear, trade (and thus short) crystal or scrolls for it, or use some of those gems. If nobody does cross tier trades, good luck with that! If everybody has a billion gems and no silk then, without cross-tier trades everybody will continue to have gems and the silk problem will continue to exist until the gods (i.e. the devs) make some change to the structure of the game so that the gems surplus dissapates. Then they would need to, of course, change something else to make sure the silk isn't in such short supply. Monkey, monkey, monkey, with the system to keep everything in balance because they've already determined what the balance is to be. (Nice being gods, isn't it?) "Thou shall trade 1 gems for every 1.5 silk because we, the gods, have declared that to be 'fair' and we don't want any nasty fluctuations away from "fair," even if we screw things up and suddenly you all have a billion gems each and no silk")

So the mechanism of "fairness" is used ("the 2 star is fair" measure) and we get the steady, predictable, and annoying imbalances. Scrolls on K, anyone?

The other way they could do it is to get out of the "fairness" game altogether. Natural market forces might not reduce the amount of fluctuations, shortages, and all that, but, I'm pretty sure, the markets would correct themselves as needed. And they would do so without the gods having to lift a finger. Save time and money that way. The objection to this is that, of course, it might be possible to "manipulate" the system so that some smart person earns a significant "profit" (are we allowed to say that word, here?) and even gets, "rich." And perhaps, at the beginning that happened a lot more than the devs liked so they implemented the controlled market system. I don't know the history.

In the end, then, there are two ways to measure/enforce "fairness" (which from the devs view may equal "balance.") One is to have the gods intervene and "re-balance" everything when it gets out of whack, either by changing the "fair" ratios between tiers or by changing the game mechanics in some manner. The other way to measure/enforce "fairness" is to let the natural forces of economics play out. The first is "no cross tier trades" (because the gods say they are bad, bad, bad), the other says, "you decide if the trade is fair to you." I prefer choice, myself and I think it would be cheaper, easier, and just as effective, if not more so, than "let the god's decide what's 'fair'."

AJ

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

The other way they could do it is to get out of the "fairness" game altogether. Natural market forces might not reduce the amount of fluctuations, shortages, and all that, but, I'm pretty sure, the markets would correct themselves as needed. And they would do so without the gods having to lift a finger. Save time and money that way. The objection to this is that, of course, it might be possible to "manipulate" the system so that some smart person earns a significant "profit" (are we allowed to say that word, here?) and even gets, "rich." And perhaps, at the beginning that happened a lot more than the devs liked so they implemented the controlled market system. I don't know the history.

AJ

This only works if you would remove the star system all together.
The main issue is that the old star system "claimed" that 16:1 was fair. and prioritised those trades not because it was "fair".

 

[ajqtrz]

@CrazyWizard

You are right, as I have noted in yet another post on a related issue. The star systems tells us what "fair" is. It is "the gods" determining the value of something that, in the course of things, we may or may not find as valuable or may find more valuable. As the game mechanics change the relative value of things the star system does not fluctuate fast enough to actually reflect the current value and thus either has to be constantly updated or will often get out of whack. A "free market" may get out of whack, but with the number of players on each world the "out of whack" would fairly quickly adjust itself as players, seeing the opportunity for "profit" either release their inventory or move to provide more of the desired good. The choice, to Inno, is spend the money constantly monitoring it all, or let the players do it as individuals. The players will respond more quickly anyway and thus, the "fairness" will return. The star system should just go, in my opinion, as it's an unneeded tax on both the players and on the developers.

AJ

 

[BrinDarby]

Whether or not something is fair, has no bearing on what each tier is in relation to each other.
The 1/4/16 vs 1/1.5/2.25 seems arbitrary by Inno.... In other games where it might take goods
to make other goods.... ( like 2steel/4planks=2marble ) its easier to quantify each "tier" of goods
because they do have a "cost", thus a inherant value.

Here in Elvenar, goods only cost ...... time / tools / coins / tiles. Time is equal, and so is CH once
you get to CH3, so ity becomes the other 3...... for comparison, we can't consider boosts or any
bldg other than a level-1 example of each, and we should just use the 3h version. We could also
convert tools/coins to a per tile cost to add to the production per tile, but personally it doesn't
effect things enuff for that math.... So we are left with.... goods per tile, as a cost. I can tell you
that if this is done, goods will invert in value due to efficiency gains, as the bldgs get bigger .....
the per good cost decreases, due to scale....

Since that would fundementally chg things, we would have to go by what Inno tells us those
goods are worth between tiers.... but we can use actual cost per tile within each tier, that currently
is not used, if a true'er cost is necessary.

Currently good's value is not a true value, its just the 1 / 1.5 / 2.25 value..... If we all just take
that as gospel ... then I can see no reason why cross tier trading would be taboo... Each good's
tier has a set value, thus can be calculated easily. I think any current reluctance to allow this,
stems from ppl not wanting to do simple math. And the "ratio" column is just wrong, plz
don't get me started there.

I cannot speak to sentient goods, as I am not that advanced....

In a feee market system, prices/values would be determined by the buyers/sellers yet Elvenar
also fails there when the status quo ....isn't trade, its swap..... ( 1:1 or better for buyer ) The great
thing about this fact is that it still doesn't effect anything as long as you are ok with 1 / 1.5 / 2.25.

Should cross tier trading be allowed ... yes 100%.
Should we all agree 1st tho, on what each tier is worth ... yes 100%.
BrinD

 

[skippyluke]

So. 'K. Cross-tier trades are generally looked upon as terrible, terrible things. The vast majority of players are vehemently against them. A great many FSs actually have a RULE banning them. I've been scathed with scalding reprimands from other players in the past (in FSs other than my current one) for placing them. (BTW - there is nothing in anything that Inno/affiliates publish that speak to this matter.)

WHY?

I honestly don't see the problem. Could someone please explain?

I've heard it's because they're not fair and "hurt" the taker. Well, the taker has a brain in her/his head and as a human being has the built-in quality of choice from birth. Soooooo - again, why demean people by forceably "taking care of them" and removing that option of choice?

(I also think that there should be no trade disparity between tiers. A lot of the time when I'm placing a cross-tier trade (and I DO place a great many of them) I just make it tit-for-tat. 100 gems for 100 steel. Doesn't that make sense?)

Anyway - open for discussion.....and enlightenment....

the system states if it is a fair trade or not by the stars 1,2, or 3 so if steel for gems it shows two stars it is a balance trade what is the problem

 

[DeletedUser19458]

We've recruited people based on their boost and cross tier messes up the system, so also against them in our FS. Plus I see a fair amount of 'abuse' by posting a 2* trade in disguise as a 3* - e.g. 850 dust asking for 1270 silk. Weird numbers that are hard to calc in your head.

 

[samidodamage]

so if steel for gems it shows two stars it is a balance trade what is the problem

A great many FSs actually have a RULE banning them.

We've recruited people based on their boost and cross tier messes up the system, so also against them in our FS.

That didn't work because as they grew I couldn't take those cross-tier trades anymore because it was throwing my inventory out of balance

Not much else to say if someone is truly trying to understand the issue and not just interested in a philosophical debate
Did you ever wonder why there are no FS's looking for only players who place cross-tier trades? What? That wouldn't be sustainable? Really?

 

[StarLoad]

If the "Gods" took the stars away us poor hoomans would have to figure out the value of a trade. Cool and fine that is agreed. Now tell me how this makes the goods imbalance in "K" world for Scrolls better? Or for that matter how does that fix the issue of Shrooms on Arendyll?
None of these issues should be that far out of balance except for the "Gods" breaking it to start with and then not stepping in to fix it.

Edit to add: And now we are getting a new tournament from the same "Gods" and fully expect it not to mess more things up......

 

[NightshadeCS]

I personally think that the cross-tier restriction, if one exists, should be for people over a certain chapter. My newest city, just about to enter chapter 5, has had a real struggle with tier 1. In those early chapters, it is very easy to go a little too far with an upgrade or the placement of a building and then struggle for the goods you need in tourneys and researches, etc. It can take a while to rebalance, and those trades are in such small amounts, it probably does not signify to most.

Seeing very strict language in a fellowship overview can often cause undue anxiety in newer players who may really just need a hand for a while. Worse yet would be someone calling them out in public. I hope those of us who are farther along remember the difficulties early on and are generous to those who just need a little bit of support to reach balance.

 

[Deleted User - 4646370]

The star system should just go, in my opinion, as it's an unneeded tax on both the players and on the developers.

However, how do you sort the trades then ?

 

[Ashrem]

Whether or not something is fair, has no bearing on what each tier is in relation to each other.
The 1/4/16 vs 1/1.5/2.25 seems arbitrary by Inno....

It only seems arbitrary to those who didn't follow the input into the changes. the old system was based purely on how many supplies it takes to manufacture a given good. The new system tries to include the Population and Culture inputs as well, in order to correct for the skew that while T3 takes more supplies, it takes less population and culture per unit produce, so can be produced in a smaller city-space.

There were hundreds of messages on Beta (and here) devoted to the closest thing to a true value, and plenty of math was on display. The ratios currently assigned are far from arbitrary.