• 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

Fellowship Only Trades

Kekune

Well-Known Member
Someone shoots me a message about needing a trade, I want to give them that trade, but we can't be online at the same time... it's a way of communicating and protecting the trade at the same time.
If they need a trade and you are helping them, why would them posting not be helpful? If a neighbor took it, they'd have what they need anyway. If a neighbor doesn't, it'll be waiting for you when you're back online.
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
Generally speaking my three star trades go outside the fellowship exactly because I use them to draw needed resources into the fellowship
I'm talking about real three star trades, of stuff people actually want, not "three star" trades where players desperately try to dump their scrolls and gum on other people

Thus, there are two great reasons to adopt this idea. First, it protects trades and makes them go where they are intended without risking their going to other players.
Protectionism begets protectionism, whether it's in Elvenar or the real world. All other cases apart, FSs will consistently use it to control who gets their trades during a fellowship Adventure, further exacerbating the difficulty and monotony for individuals and small/low-level groups, and thereby increasing their frustration.

The core of the idea is about controlling who gets to take your trades. It comes form a self-serving position of enabling some people's play style and does not (on average) make the game more interesting.
 

ajqtrz

Well-Known Member
I'm talking about real three star trades, of stuff people actually want, not "three star" trades where players desperately try to dump their scrolls and gum on other people

Protectionism begets protectionism, whether it's in Elvenar or the real world. All other cases apart, FSs will consistently use it to control who gets their trades during a fellowship Adventure, further exacerbating the difficulty and monotony for individuals and small/low-level groups, and thereby increasing their frustration.

The core of the idea is about controlling who gets to take your trades. It comes form a self-serving position of enabling some people's play style and does not (on average) make the game more interesting.
I am speaking of "real three star trades" as well. I regularly offer 3 star dust for elixer because we run short on elixer. Usually somebody outside the fellowship takes it and we then have more elixer.

"Protectionism" refers to the use of barriers to protect industries from competition. Usually this takes the form of import duties or tarriffs. It designed is to make the foreign goods less appealing to internal markets and thus boosts things produced within rather than outside. Since there is no penalty in selling the goods inside or outside the fellowship and since the only thing restricted is the advertising of those goods the "protectionism" is very small to non-existent. "All other cases apart," FS's will consistently use it to control who gets theri trades during a Fellowship Adventure" is exactly right. And that's a good thing since we've all experienced having posted 20 elixer trades only to find our neighbor or some other fellowship took them for their own use? The point of posting them was, usually, for our use, not our neighbors fellowship. As for it "further exacerbating the difficulty and monotony for individuals and small/low-level groups, the individuals we can forget as they don't play the FA's and the small groups can just as easily put up their own trades. As I think about it, if I wanted to "swoop in" and take that small groups FA posted trades what's to stop me now? If they are relying on others to post their needed FA trades I hardly think that's a good reason to not have the desired check box. If some small fs near me wanted me to post some trades for them, I'd do it if they asked anyway. Probably most of us would.

That the core of the idea is about "controlling who gets to take your trades" is a given. That having that option is good or bad for the game does not naturally flow from my motivations. Just because it benefits me doesn't mean it doesn't benefit anyone else. Enhancing the ability to encourage and retain members is an important goal, I think, and this would enable that -- thus making the game more interesting exactly because it encourages a play style that considers and responds to the needs of the new/inexperienced/uninformed players in a way that can help them.

AJ
 

T6583

Well-Known Member
Besides a lot of the cons already listed my biggest issue with this is that Mobile only players wouldn’t be able to even make use of it. They currently don’t even have the option to see just FS only trades. I’m against adding additional options to the trader right now until they get some of the other issues figured out like adding an FS only toggle to the trader for mobile players.
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
"Protectionism" refers to the use of barriers to protect industries from competition.
It's a game. The idea asks the developers to code in the ability to block other players from seeing trades unless the offeror wants to share. I think protectionism is a perfectly viable use in this context.

Just because it benefits me doesn't mean it doesn't benefit anyone else.
Never claimed it did. I think it benefits anyone who wants to play that game, and it is a detriment to anyone who is not in a Fellowship, plus some who are in fellowships that are smaller, less active, or not well balanced, since it denies them available trades. If it gets implemented I will use it extensively. I don't think I should have it available to me, because I don't think it make the game better and I think it will have a negative impact on the game's long-term viability.
 

SoulsSilhouette

Well-Known Member
If they need a trade and you are helping them, why would them posting not be helpful? If a neighbor took it, they'd have what they need anyway. If a neighbor doesn't, it'll be waiting for you when you're back online.
My point is I can't post the trade... they can. Sometimes when they are new, they don't understand how to do that.

I truly didn't intend to start such a ruckus. Obviously there are significant cons to the idea, although it does seem to work quite well in other Inno platforms, but maybe not here.
 

SoulsSilhouette

Well-Known Member
<am feeling very sensitive .... I made a lovely chocolate cake with whipped mocha icing and black cherries... except when I got home... it was gone. Apparently, games like Smyte and League of Legends makes people uber hungry for chocolate cake.
 

ajqtrz

Well-Known Member
It's a game. The idea asks the developers to code in the ability to block other players from seeing trades unless the offeror wants to share. I think protectionism is a perfectly viable use in this context.

Never claimed it did. I think it benefits anyone who wants to play that game, and it is a detriment to anyone who is not in a Fellowship, plus some who are in fellowships that are smaller, less active, or not well balanced, since it denies them available trades. If it gets implemented I will use it extensively. I don't think I should have it available to me, because I don't think it make the game better and I think it will have a negative impact on the game's long-term viability.
No, you didn't claim that it did, but when, rhetorically speaking, a speaker mentions negative motivations (like "self serving") without examining the other reasons for the persons position, it infers that the main or most prominent thing motivating their position is that it is "self-serving." I'm trying to point out that it is irrelevant if it serves the speaker or not and that there are other reasons it can be supported. The device of suggesting self-serving motivations for the speakers position is an ad hominem remark and, traditionally, not in keeping with a well-reasoned debate.

Now, for your other claim that it is harmful to small fellowships and individual players. Let's examine that. If I put up a 2 star trade to my fellowship alone the goods I'm trading may take longer to be filled since there are fewer people seeing the trade. If I put up 3 star trade under the same circumstances, ditto. In other words, there is a disadvantage to restricting access to the trades. But let's say some of my neighbors restrict their trades to their fellowship. Why would they do that if it lessens the chances of the trade being taken quickly? The answer: they wouldn't. If it doesn't matter who takes your trade then you wouldn't restrict it. But what if those same traders decide they want their fellowship to take the trade? If they do, as I've said, it's only because they want to keep the goods in their fs (meaning keeping their fs more balanced one would suppose) or they want to help some other player or receive help from some other player in their fs. If the motivation for the trade is to keep in in the fs in the first place and if they can't do that without excess risk, they won't put the trade up. OR they might put it up but attempt to coordinate it's reception with the targeted player in their fs. This scenario, under the current system, is cumbersome and risky since if the one supplying the goods puts the goods up at a favorable rate they might very well go outside the fellowship and thus harm the balance or at least not allow a fellowship player to be assisted.

In other words, the types of trades you would restrict to your fellowship wouldn't be intended for people out of your fellowship in the first place and thus would not be posted, which means the individual and small fellowship players would see little to no change in the number of trades available.

To the argument that fellowships would use the "fellowship only" button to keep goods within your fellowship, I concur. But isn't it part of any organization to manage and conserve their resources for themselves if that is the most profitable (or useful) route? That such a restriction might hurt others in the neighborhood by lessening the amount of trades available to them, is true, but, as noted, the amounts wold be very small, and it's also true that the one posting those trades and restricting them may be costing themselves something as well, especially if the trades, had they been offered to everyone, are not taken as quickly (which on average they wouldn't be snce they would be offered to fewer buyers).

That's my reasoning as to the question of if individual and small fellowships would be hurt by this idea. I concur that they might on occasion, miss some of those trades, but that the vast majority of them are not put up in the first place because, as favorable trades, they can be taken by "outsiders" before the targeted player gets to them.

On the positive side though, posting them with restrictions means you could potentially fill the trades with all sorts of "help" for your players. In fact, you could use the trade board as a sort "community" chest where goods are always available in various amounts -- some favorable, some not. In addition, on the positive side you would also encourage new and inexperienced players by posting those favorable trades (and thus help them grow faster). And, since you could see who is taking your trades you could also use the fact that they are consistently taking certain trades to start a conversation about trading/how their city is doing (maybe they aren't set up right and always need planks when they are boosted in planks).

Overall I think you are mistaken in thinking that the trades which are made under the current system would be the same type as under one in which you can restrict who sees the trade. By adding a restriction check box you would see different types of trades and more of them for the fellowship as they posted trades they wouldn't dare make if they couldn't restrict who took them.

I remain favorably disposed to the idea.

AJ
 

Yogi Dave

Well-Known Member
This is a cooperative game.

Limiting trades to only the fellowship is a non-cooperative thing to do.
It has a load of issues attached to it whom most are already adressed above.
I agree with this the most. Sometimes neighbors will get the trades and that is okay. The idea doesn't add to the game. I takes away from it, in my opinion.
 

ajqtrz

Well-Known Member
If they need a trade and you are helping them, why would them posting not be helpful? If a neighbor took it, they'd have what they need anyway. If a neighbor doesn't, it'll be waiting for you when you're back online.
Let's answer this question. What are the advantages of having a trade you need taken from your fellowship mate rather than your neighbor?

1) It demonstrates that your fellowship mate is paying attention to you and wants to help. Better relationships where commitment is demonstrated in actions means stronger ties and stronger ties help keep people playing.
2) It keeps the resources within the fellowship and benefits. This builds a sense of community "pool" of those resources. Fellowships already do this on occasion as they try to balance the fellowships needs by drawing in that of which they are short, selling off that of which they have excess... and/or by recruiting producers of what they need overall.
3) Neighbors don't have a formal commitment to the player and thus if you put us a trade favorable to you and not to your neighbor it may appear to your neighbors that you are either ignorant or you are trying to, "gouge" them. AND it may appear to them your fellowship is not run as well as it could be since it's members are putting up "unfair" trades. Not a healthy thing any way you take it.
4) When the same trade is made and restricted to the fellowship the fellowship members can deal with the ignorance, self-serving nature of the trade, OR, that it was a need and falls within the general fellowship guidelines because the player is considered new, small or whatever. The point is, inside the fellowship you can have a different set of "rules" about trades than are generally accepted outside.

Finally, in summary, trading with your neighbors is fine and dandy for the one making the offer. But it is not as good at trading with your fellowship because to actually receive real help you have to post a trade unfavorable to the one taking it. This may, and if done consistently, will, harm your reputation and that of your fellowship. On the other hand offering the trade within the fellowship will build the relationship between players because the fellowship is more willing to take those unbalanced trades and/or step in and instruct the younger or uninformed player in the "proper" ways to trade.

AJ
 

CrazyWizard

Well-Known Member
Let's answer this question. What are the advantages of having a trade you need taken from your fellowship mate rather than your neighbor?

1) It demonstrates that your fellowship mate is paying attention to you and wants to help. Better relationships where commitment is demonstrated in actions means stronger ties and stronger ties help keep people playing.
2) It keeps the resources within the fellowship and benefits. This builds a sense of community "pool" of those resources. Fellowships already do this on occasion as they try to balance the fellowships needs by drawing in that of which they are short, selling off that of which they have excess... and/or by recruiting producers of what they need overall.
3) Neighbors don't have a formal commitment to the player and thus if you put us a trade favorable to you and not to your neighbor it may appear to your neighbors that you are either ignorant or you are trying to, "gouge" them. AND it may appear to them your fellowship is not run as well as it could be since it's members are putting up "unfair" trades. Not a healthy thing any way you take it.
4) When the same trade is made and restricted to the fellowship the fellowship members can deal with the ignorance, self-serving nature of the trade, OR, that it was a need and falls within the general fellowship guidelines because the player is considered new, small or whatever. The point is, inside the fellowship you can have a different set of "rules" about trades than are generally accepted outside.

Finally, in summary, trading with your neighbors is fine and dandy for the one making the offer. But it is not as good at trading with your fellowship because to actually receive real help you have to post a trade unfavorable to the one taking it. This may, and if done consistently, will, harm your reputation and that of your fellowship. On the other hand offering the trade within the fellowship will build the relationship between players because the fellowship is more willing to take those unbalanced trades and/or step in and instruct the younger or uninformed player in the "proper" ways to trade.

AJ
If you want to help someone out, that person can set an unfavorable trade and you can take it like 2 seconds later so it will be almost invisible to anyone else.

Your argument(s) can be achived without a "hide my trades" button.
Which as posted above is harmfull to the game itself.

It's in the same ballpark as "I want the ability to disallow player X to give me neighbourly help" I want an option to disallow anyone but who I choose to invest in my wonders" ect

It's a cooperative game, tournament, FSA and spire are places where you cooperate with your fellows, everything else is a cooperative game between all players. and it should be that way.
 

ajqtrz

Well-Known Member
If you want to help someone out, that person can set an unfavorable trade and you can take it like 2 seconds later so it will be almost invisible to anyone else.

Your argument(s) can be achived without a "hide my trades" button.
Which as posted above is harmfull to the game itself.

It's in the same ballpark as "I want the ability to disallow player X to give me neighbourly help" I want an option to disallow anyone but who I choose to invest in my wonders" ect

It's a cooperative game, tournament, FSA and spire are places where you cooperate with your fellows, everything else is a cooperative game between all players. and it should be that way.
First, thanks for responding. Your response is reasonable but somewhat out of kilter with what is actually the case, in my opinion. Here are some reasons why:

First, you argue that the same thing can be accomplished withour a "hide my trades" button. but in this you are mistaken on two points at least.
1) It's not a "hide my trades" button, but a "hide this trade from my neighborhood" button. This is done for the same purpose of the "lopsided" trades of 0 and 1 stars, but more effective. In those trades anyone can still take them. You can't take what you don't see. Of course, since that is the case, you ask, what's the difference? Simply that if it's your fellowship taking the trade (because they are the only ones who can see the trade) the "unfairness" of it is not known to the general public and, if it is actually something you are doing in agreement with somebody in your fellowship (in general or specifically) that person gets the trade without impacting your reputation. Thus, while the same thing can be accomplished in the current system, it is not as effective and potentially damaging to your fs's and your reputation in the neighborhood.

2) "Almost invisible" assumes coordination and that takes a bit of knowledge of the sytem in the first place. Some new players do not know how to do this or that it can be done. Yes, you can stop and train them, but in the mean time they struggle. "Almost invisible" isn't the same as "truely invisible" which is what th button would do.

3) If you have a "fellowship only" button you do get the advantages you imply you recognize when you mention FA's Tournaments, etc. However, you also get a higher degree of cooperation within the fellowship as no those in need can post whatever trades they want without sending the wrong message to the neighborhood or having to coordinate with their fellowship so that their trade can be "almost invisible." Which is harder -- to time a post so that it's "almost invisible" or to simply post it and know it is invisible except for those with whom you wish to trade? Given the idea will primarily benefit new and inexperienced players as it strengthens the bonds of the fellowship, isn't it those very players we would want to encourage and keep by encouraging them?

The core of people's objection to this idea seems to be that they think the game is harmed by it. But, if as you say, the very thing asked for can be done by other means, what would the harm be? And if it can't be done by other means, then the benefits are obvious.

Finally, this idea does not lessen the cooperation between the player and the general public. Because it would be a check box for each trade (not for all at once), it would enable players to better coordinate "help" to those very players who may need it at the same time encouraging communication if there are problems with those new players understanding of "fair" and "unfair" trades.

AJ
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
1) It's not a "hide my trades" button, but a "hide this trade from my neighborhood" button.
It is not. it is hiding them from the entire world, unless you are excluding sentient goods from the ability to be hidden, and allowing non-sentient trades to be seen by people where they are not in your neighbourhood but you are in theirs.

Otherwise, defining "your neighbourhood" as anyone who can see your trades then saying it's "not a "hide my trades" button, but a "hide this trade from my neighborhood" button" is in the running for the most twisted argument I've seen here.

The core of people's objection to this idea seems to be that they think the game is harmed by it. But, if as you say, the very thing asked for can be done by other means, what would the harm be?
In the last year players have sent at least two requests to the developers for changes that would increase visibility of neighbours to each other with a goal of retention. There are players who already see a mostly empty landscape. Every single trade that gets concealed is reducing the activity in their trader, whether or not they want or can afford it.

The core of people's objection to this idea seems to be that they think the game is harmed by it. But, if as you say, the very thing asked for can be done by other means, what would the harm be? And if it can't be done by other means, then the benefits are obvious.
The harm would be turning something that you say is so complex that it's difficult to teach new players into something that is so trivial.

If there were absolutely no programming resource cost to it I might still be opposed. Asking for programming time to be dedicated to making it easier to transfer goods without your neighbours knowing you're doing it is too big an ask for me.
 
Last edited:

ajqtrz

Well-Known Member
@Ashrem Your post seems to assume that trades will be hidden from the neighborhood by default. That's not the case. It's an option.

In addition, the idea of "twisted logic" falls apart when you consider that my assumption was that the check box would be used mostly to insure an increase of interaction between fellowship mates as more established players in their fellowship seek to help them out. The hiding of sentient goods would be detrimental to be sure, but who would be foolish enough to do that?! The button is a choice, not a default. And choice makes the game more flexible and interesting.

Just today I found yet another place where it would be useful. Several of us have a lot of elixir in my fs, but overall we are weak. Transfering the elixir to those in our fs to balance out it's distribution, at the current method, requires time consuming coordination. Not bad it you want to delay things. But if we could post a bunch of "fellowship only" trades we could easily distribute goods where they are needed and insure they stay within the fellowship. This too, encourages others in the fellowship.

AJ
 

SoggyShorts

Well-Known Member
The point is that a system of restricting the advertising of your trade to those with whom you want to trade, is more efficient can be used to encourage new/inexperienced/uninformed players to stay around.
You keep posting this, but there is a massive hole in your argument:
The most new/inexperienced/uninformed players aren't in your FS.
100% of new players start with no fellowship, and seeing fewer trades would be discouraging.

If a new, inexperienced, or uninformed player doesn't know that there are event quests that tell him to acquire X goods, when he/she discovers the need he/she must post a 1-0 star trade to get those goods. Wouldn''t it be nice and much easier of the fellowship posted those goods ahead of time? I the quest says "acquire 500 planks" and it's already posted for the fellowship as 500 planks for 100 steel
Think about the consequences for small players who are outside of your FS:
If you keep your FS only trader stocked with 20-100 small trades then your baby player never needs to post their own requests.
Sounds great, right? Events, spire, and even the tournament would be totally great for your new players because they would never have to wait on trades.
However,
It totally burns all small players around your baby because there are no trades for them to take, and it burns them again because your baby city likely won't even bother checking neighborhood trades to take since there are always some small 1:1 trades available in the FS only section.
So with this change, small players in a powerful FS get a little piece of convenience by having instant trades available 24/7, but any "new, inexperienced, or uninformed player" nearby suffers from greatly reduced trades, potentially losing the ability to trade completely.

The more I think about this the more I like the idea. I hope you are moving in that direction too.
Nope, nothing new compared to the same threads in the past and the harm still outweighs the very minor gain.
 

Ashrem

Well-Known Member
ajqrtz, I probably should have been clearer yesterday. Tagging someone is a way of getting their attention, and I'm of the opinion that it should only be used if there's a chance they will miss something which they shouldn't, or on which they might have some particular input of value. You may not have been around when I stated my preferences in the past, so please don't tag me in conversations in which I am already a participant. It is easy to use a player's name without causing the system to send them an email. Either I'm paying attention to conversations in which I am participating, or I am sick of them and don't want to. I do not require targeted emails to help me make up my mind about continuing to participate. If anything, it is likely to drive me from the forums for a few months.
Your post seems to assume that trades will be hidden from the neighborhood by default. That's not the case. It's an option.
Your assumption about my post is incorrect. My post assumes no such thing. My arguments do come from an assumption that players will hide for more trades than you think they will.
In addition, the idea of "twisted logic" falls apart when you consider that my assumption was that the check box would be used mostly to insure an increase of interaction between fellowship mates as more established players in their fellowship seek to help them out.
The twisted logic has nothing to do with either your intent or how the mechanic gets used. It lies in claiming that the box doesn't hide the trades from everyone, just your neighbours. I'm confused as to why you interpreted it as having anything to do with the mechanic, as I feel my statement was unambiguous.
@Ashrem The button is a choice, not a default. And choice makes the game more flexible and interesting.
Choices do make the game more interesting for the person who gets to make the choice. When cause other players to be denied choices, they make the game less interesting for everyone who has no choice in whether you use it to hide part of the game from them.
Several of us have a lot of elixir in my fs, but overall we are weak. Transferring the elixir to those in our fs to balance out it's distribution, at the current method, requires time consuming coordination.
I'm not falling for feeling sorry for you over having to put a message in Fellowship email that people with extra elixir should post some trades so that it can get evened out.
insure they stay within the fellowship.
See:
The core of the idea is about controlling who gets to take your trades. It comes form a self-serving position of enabling some people's play style and does not (on average) make the game more interesting.
Opposing the desire to control who has access to goods is at the core of my opposition to the entire idea, so I am not going to be sold by the sudden inspiration that the mechanic is going to assist people in controlling who has access to their goods.


Put up an idea about implementing buy orders, and I'll support it. Hiding trades from other players is going to need better reasons than any listed so far to get my support.
 

SoulsSilhouette

Well-Known Member
The 'fellowship only' trade is in the spirit of fellowship. The thing is... it would give new players an additional reason to join a fellowship. Sure, there would be some fellowships that would never trade outside their group.

I would trade in and outside my fellowship just because you can't expect that every trade would get picked up. It would just be an additional tool to use when you wanted to protect a trade.

I think there is also an assumption that every member is on at the same time. I know I keep some pretty eccentric hours. I'm in the same time zone as they are. I keep vastly different hours than they do. I'm on here a lot more than they are.... I just think that should also be a consideration when you are skewering the idea and trying to grind it into the ground that maybe not everyone is in the same exact situation that you are.

Not to mention that not everyone has a decent neighborhood. I'm lucky that way. I have some really great neighbors and then there are neighbors that never take any of my trades or visit, although I take their trades and visit them. It's all in your perspective, I guess.
 

SoggyShorts

Well-Known Member
The thing is... it would give new players an additional reason to join a fellowship.
If they aren't so discouraged by the lack of trades that they quit what appears to be a dead game before joining one, and not just any FS will do, it has to be one quite strong in trading for this change to not adversely affect them.
Not to mention that not everyone has a decent neighborhood.
That's the whole problem with this idea: there are loads of players without great fellowships and many in mediocre neighborhoods, and this idea makes the game worse for those players.
  1. Players in a great FS are already fine. This change would help them a little bit.
  2. Players who are not in a great FS struggle a little. This change would cause them to struggle more.
That's it.
Aj and Ash can(and probably will) continue for a few more pages, but essentially that is what it boils down to and it's the reason why INNO has rejected the idea every time it has come up.