Fellowship Only Trades

[SoulsSilhouette]

Maybe they should FIX THE NEIGHBORHOOD problem instead of rejecting ideas that actually strengthen the bonds of fellowship... just a final thought.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

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.

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.

Plus even when in a decent neighborhood, new players have to deal with the Trader fee for nearby neighbors they have not discovered yet.

A separate idea would be to get rid of the fee completely for any city maybe within 5 rings of the new city. Just that could make the game friendlier for new players.

On the topic, the browser version at least has the checkbox to let you see only the trades posted by your fellowship. Mobile does not have this at all. I want to see the mobile version of the Trader made to work like the browser version before any other alternatives are added.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Maybe they should FIX THE NEIGHBORHOOD problem instead of rejecting ideas that actually strengthen the bonds of fellowship... just a final thought.

I don't see how that supports your idea at all.
Remove all inactives and place every active player in the same neighborhood...but then restrict trades to FS only thereby ruining the neighborhood?

Plus even when in a decent neighborhood, new players have to deal with the Trader fee for nearby neighbors they have not discovered yet.

Again, this compounds the issue and points to FS only trades making things worse, not better.

Players who are not in a powerful FS already struggle a bit, and FS only trades make it worse.

50% trader fee vs no trades at all?

 

[shimmerfly]

I am adamantly against this FS only cow paddy.
I play solo. Most of you know this by now. It would hurt the solo player. I'm not taking the time to explain why because I don't have to.
Some people don't want to join a "group" for exactly some of the reasons I'm reading here.
I think it's unfair and most of all silly or lazy. Please don't make this game a business for the lone player.
I'm being selfish but I need this relaxation.
If your FS needs this to make them stronger then someone's not leading well IMHO
haha now you know why I don't voice my opinion very often....

 

[SoulsSilhouette]

I'm glad you have success as a solo player. If you chose not to be in a fellowship, that is your choice, but what you are essentially saying is that nothing should be put in place that doesn't support your style of play.

I am in a fellowship in every world. Some are better with trades than others. My neighborhoods, with the exception of Khel are lukewarm to mediocre. I'm glad your in a neighborhood that takes all your trades and you get everything you need.

I am glad that everyone here has unlimited resources to post trades for their fellowship that even if taken by the neighborhood can be reposted until the person that your posting them for can pick them up. I'm glad that all of you are here so many hours of the day that you have continual contact with all your fellowship members. I'm glad you are all there to help the newbies in your fellowships (assuming that you have new players since you know what makes everything so discouraging and hard for them) and the new cities in your neighborhoods. I do hope to see your donation trades posted to encourage those new players. Since obviously they are so very important and it is so important to make it that they shouldn't really consider a fellowship because you have all those fantastic trades out there for them.

Have a lovely day everyone of you oh so generous traders and neighborhood residents.

 

[shimmerfly]

but what you are essentially saying is that nothing should be put in place that doesn't support your style of play.

So Untrue. and for you to assume I even think that makes me assume you have no idea why some chose to play solo.
There are quite a few of us.
I have advocated from day one that everyone has a right to play ( or suggest) anything you like to .
I'm just sorry you took my post the way you did. My fault for my poor communication skills~
I simply don't agree with the idea and I have been in a no mans land of a neighbrhood.
Another reason I play solo and enjoy it. No harm meant.

 

[ajqtrz]

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.

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.

First, I'm not aware that this idea has come up before. But I'm a relatively new forum poster so perhaps it was before my time. Second, can you tell me who it is in Inno with whom you are in contact to know why they have rejected this idea? Having such inside contacts must be great and quite helpful Perhaps you could have them post something explaining what you apparently have know, so we can put this whole thing to bed once and for all. Oops... a bit of sarcasm there.

Second, if players in great fs's are "already fine" why am I, who am in a great fs, supporting this idea? Seems to me that if I can see a benefit in a "fine" fellowship like mine I must think the benefit to be more than "a little bit." And I do. I would love the ability to balance goods within my fellowship without having to worry that the goods I just posted for that purpose will be grabbed by my neighbors.

Third, if players who are not in a great FS struggle, the only thing they would lose is the ability to gather resources not intended for them in the first place. Think about it. If I want my goods to stay in my fellowship all I have to do now is price them so that they aren't taken by those outside my fellowship. Those who are not in a great FS now probably won't take them anyway. So in the current system they stay in my fellowship -- but they could be lost if somebody really needed them and wants to pay the price of taking them. In that scenario I lose what I wanted to keep in my fellowship (and the person I wanted to help loses the help) AND I get the reputation of being a gouger because I offered them at higher than the perceived value! How does that make things better?

So, yes, those not in a great FS may lose on being "gouged," once in a while. Not a big lose in my opinion. Those in the fellowship though, without the desired button, lose by risking goods they wish to keep in their fellowship in general or for a specific person they wish to help, going out if the put those goods at a "fair" price AND if they put those at an "unfair" price risk being seen as "gougers." Nobody wins a great reputation if they consistently put trades up for less than the system says they are worth.

So in the end I'm really not sure this change would actually cause anybody to "struggle more," but as SoulsSiljouette said, it's a tool which can be used to help fellowships deal with balancing their goods inside and helping their smaller players with less risk and more ease.

And as for choices, why do I not have the choice to accept/reject everybody's trades? If that's really a concern why don't we push for the same unrestricted trade with everyone we have with sentient goods? My small neighbor, just out of my discovered range, doesn't have the choice to take my trades! Those I haven't discovered and not in my fs don't have the choice to trade with me! If that restriction somehow makes the game less interesting, let's push to get rid of it! But of course there are reasons that choice is restricted, aren't there? Not every choice has to be available to every player.

"Controlling who has access to goods" is what is opposed? Yet, just putting up a trade is a choice to do exactly that. You put it up to give others access to the goods you offer and you don't put them up if you wish to keep your goods. You put them up, presumably, because you need something or so that another person, who needs it, gets it. The former, if you don't care from whom you get the goods, is easy. You just post what you have and what you want and a restricted list of players will see it (except if it's sentient goods, then the list isn't restricted, of course.) The latter, where you want it to go to a particular person or group, usually in your fellowship, is more difficult and time consuming. But they are my goods, and as such I should have the right to send them to where I want them to go and not risk them going to others for whom they were not intended. The idea that I have to give access to my goods to everyone is sort of playing the game for me. And that's not as interesting as me playing the game myself, including the choice to whom to sell my goods. Since those choices will have a minimum impact on those outside my fellowship (for reasons already given) and can have a great impact on those in my fellowship (again, under scenarios already discussed), the benefits outweigh the costs.

AJ

 

[SoulsSilhouette]

[QUOTE="shimmerfly, post: 194165, member: 8469"o]
So Untrue. and for you to assume I even think that makes me assume you have no idea why some chose to play solo.
There are quite a few of us.
I have advocated from day one that everyone has a right to play ( or suggest) anything you like to .
I'm just sorry you took my post the way you did. My fault for my poor communication skills~
I simply don't agree with the idea and I have been in a no mans land of a neighborhood.
Another reason I play solo and enjoy it. No harm meant.
[/QUOTE]

I have played solo. I would still play solo in some of my worlds IF there was neighborhood support, but my cities in those worlds aren't healthy enough to progress without the additional support of a fellowship. I have to be honest, I would happily not play the tournament and spire in every world and skip the FA in a few worlds just so I wouldn't have the commitment of a fellowship, however, apparently I'm not in any of these fantastic and helpful neighborhoods, so I chose to join fellowships. I looked for the ones that wouldn't put too much pressure on me if I couldn't contribute as much one week as the next. There are plenty of those out there.. and those sort of casual fellowships would benefit from this sort of option. But, if it doesn't benefit a certain cross section... it isn't a 'good' idea.

edited to add.... because of the continual nerfing ... i will not buy pay to play, so no diamonds to help me through the rough patches and dry spells.

 

[SoggyShorts]

@ajqtrz
Sorry, TL;DR

This subject has been covered every year, including on a Live FB Q&A.
Nothing has changed the simple fact that there would be fewer trades in the world if this were implemented.

https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/trading-within-your-fellowship.10655/#post-62891

https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/fellowship-only-trades.7834/#post-48223

 

[ajqtrz]

"The devs have said no to this idea because it would make 90% of trades disappear for those who haven't found a FS yet, or choose to play alone."
SoggysShorts https://beta.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/trading-within-your-fellowship.10655/#post-62891

Do you have the link where the devs say 90% of trades? I'd like to see the reasoning for the number because, frankly, I don't believe it. But .... on the other hand, there may be reasons my reasoning has not reasoned. Thanks.

Thanks for giving me these links. The discussions there are pretty short, and in fact, weren't really discussions since somebody, in both cases, popped up and said, "rejected" and "archived" before any discussion could get going. Short discussions leave much to be desired. I assume the idea was addressed in other places as well. It would be nice to know how the devs came to their conclusions. Maybe I'll ask...LOL!

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

The video referenced in the second thread above is this one: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=1281632048592690&ref=watch_permalink, which is quite specific about their concerns, but does not have the 90% figure. I'm not prepared to go through the other 14 Q&As, and I suspect Soggy doesn't want to either. It's painful enough listening to them the first time, because the questioners don't always use the right terminology and the the Q&A participants don't have English as their first language.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Do you have the link where the devs say 90% of trades? I'd like to see the reasoning for the number because, frankly, I don't believe it. But .... on the other hand, there may be reasons my reasoning has not reasoned. Thanks.

Nope, and as Ashrem said, I'm not willing to sit through those videos again. Perhaps I was even exaggerating or paraphrasing when I posted that over 2 years ago, so feel free to change the number to anything you like.
Try 10%
Does reducing the number of trades that new players see by 10% sound like a good idea to you?
What if it's 20%? 30%?

Frankly, I'd have cut it off at 10% as unacceptable.

 

[ajqtrz]

A very good question because it's a question of cost/benefits. If we reduce the number of trades appearing to those outside our fellowship what number will that be of the percentage of trades the person would normally see? You seem to want to say something far north of what I think it would be. I think it would be far less than you.

A second question is: If we added a fellowship only button would it increase the amount of goods traded in the fellowship and if so, how much and in what ways. You seem to want to deny or discount any gain. I think the gain would be greater than the loss to players outside the fellowship.

Since we cannot actually do the experiment to determine actual numbers, it's either up to the devs (who, for reasons unexplained to me and difficult to find, have apparently rejected the idea), to do the math. If they haven't, and rather doubt they have since the idea has never been implemented, all we can do is discuss why we think as we do. And that's what follows.

I've argued that the impact on the average outside the fellowship player would be minimal and my reasoning is based upon the way such a button would, I think, be used. I argue that there are fundamentally different ways of trading between your fellowship and outside your fellowship, or could be if we had such a button. I also say that the current system restricts the types of inter-fellowship trade by making it too risky and too cumbersome to use effectively. I say that most of the "in the fellowship" trades would be to assist players balance goods between the fellowship members, or provide on-going "stockpiles" so players can freely get what they need from their fellowship mates more easily. That's my reasoning. You claim those outside the fellowship would be significantly impacted (the percentages can be argued but let's just use "significant" as a marker for significant enough to perhaps be too costly). To hold your position, I think, you would have to also assyne that the types of trades made within the fellowship would, under the new system, be substantially the same as being done in the current system and at the same level of activity. How did you get to these assumptions -- if they are your assumptions?

I've also argued that the impact within the fellowships would be positive and there would be an increase of inter-fellowship trading in order to balance goods between players, assist new/inexperienced ones, and provide a sort of fellowship stockpile. Do you find fault with this argument? If so, upon what grounds? I do know that my own actions in my own fellowship would be to assist more (since coordinating trades is difficult with our members scattered around the world), to use the new system as a sort of "community chest" in which possibly needed trades for various amounts are kept posted (just as in the FA we constantly post trades in anticipation of the needs of the fellowship) and to balance goods between members. Do you find fault with any of these potiential tools and believe that they would not increase inter-fellowship trading? If so, what's your reasoning and evidence?

The thing is, it's easy to simply react to a new idea based upon previous encounters. But sometimes the first few times you hear the new idea the arguments for it and/or against it are still to be discovered. Sadly, sometimes also, those discussions are cut short because people think the whole thing has been already decided/discussed/adjudicated and buried. But I believe, looking at the two threads presented, the whole idea was not explored .... or if it was it was before 2017 and the game has changed significantly in many ways since that date. This discussion, I think, has done a better job of highlighting the players feelings about the matter, but also some of their thoughts.

Sorry if this has been long, but your questions were really right on and got to the core of the question.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

You seem to want to deny or discount any gain. I think the gain would be greater than the loss to players outside the fellowship.

I've argued that the impact on the average outside the fellowship player would be minimal

And we keep arguing that people not already in fellowships are vulnerable and already too likely to quit while people in fellowships already have a stronger support system and are much less likely to quit. it doesn't matter if the increase of in-fellowship trading is larger than the decrease to external trades. that doesn't help player retention. As Soggy tried to get across, any loss to external trades is a negative for the game. It doesn't matter how much it improves the strength of fellowships, it doesn't help the game's biggest weakness, retention of new players, it makes it worse.

 

[ajqtrz]

The video referenced in the second thread above is this one: https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?v=1281632048592690&ref=watch_permalink, which is quite specific about their concerns, but does not have the 90% figure. I'm not prepared to go through the other 14 Q&As, and I suspect Soggy doesn't want to either. It's painful enough listening to them the first time, because the questioners don't always use the right terminology and the the Q&A participants don't have English as their first language.

Thanks for the link. I listened to their explanation from 3 years ago and, as they say, the "underlying" problem is not enough trades for those in small fellowships / independent. They say they think the addition of a fellowship button will only make the problem worse. They also say the goal is to "quickly exchange" goods. As I understand it they would like it to be that if you need some goods you don't have to wait for the goods to be posted by somebody in your neighborhood or fellowship as the trade volume is high enough that what you need is always available.

If the goal is to decrease the amount of time players have to wait for trades to become available, the trades for which they are waiting would be for goods somebody wants to move and doesn't care if they move in or out of the fellowship. Those are most of the current trades since most of the current trades are marked as 2 or 3 star and the generally the only time you see less than that are when players are trying to assist other players (usually in their fellowship) or new players/inexperienced players are posting.

The addition of a new button would, I think, would not reduce the number of the former types of trades exactly because they aren't intended for the fellowship only anyway. Those trades are posted to be traded to anyone who might come by. So the volume of trades would probably decrease very, very little. In other words, the devs are afraid of something that probably wouldn't happen because the fundamental purpose of trading is to get the goods you want and if you don't care who takes your trades making them "fellowship only" would be counter-productive as it reduces the chances of them being taken.

The addition of a the new button would, on the other hand, increase the trades and allow the fellowship to trade more efficiently because you could post a steady stream of trades in anticipation of the needs of your fellowship. And do it without the risk of those goods flowing out of the fellowship. That would, in turn, decrease the amount of time a player in that fellowship has to wait for a needed trade. Since the desire, acorrding to the devs, is to decrease the time waiting for trades, this would contribute to that.

In all this I repeat myself but with, perhaps, different emphasis. Now for something new.

Since 2017 the game has changed a bit. They added, at some point, the ability to filter from whom you will buy. You can now remove everyone but your fellowship. How did that effect trades with those outside your fellowship? It is doubtful it increased those trades but, apparently, it didn't reduce them enough to affect the overall trade volumes between those in and outside of fellowships. If I can choose to take only trades from my fellowship, why can't I also choose to sell only to my fellowship? And if the "buy only from my fellowship" button didn't significantly affect the trades going to those outside the fellowship, why would a "sell only to my fellowship" have any more affect? The "buy from my fellowship only" button may be the closest measure we have to the affect of a "sell only to my fellowship button," and it's, affect was apparently, not enough to be concerned about.

Sorry if it's getting repetitive but the evidence brought forward to show the idea a bad one isn't, in my opinion, strong enough to change my mind, while the reasoning and (minor) evidence leads me to believe the idea should still be supported.

Just read your next post, and you are right that any lose of trades to those just starting is a big negative. But, on the other hand, players stuck waiting for trades at any level of play are frustrated and can leave. New players may leave due to a scarcity of trades, but they also leave for a lot of other reasons. Personally I would think helping new and inexperienced players in your fellowship more easily would retain more than helping those outside your fellowship. In other words, if you look at many fellowships at the bottom half of fellowship rankings, you find one or two large, active players, and a whole bunch of small and inactive ones. Why did the inactive ones go inactive? If it was because they couldn't get the goods they needed, why was that? There were players in their fs who could supply (based upon size) so why didn't they? Perhaps because it was a matter of coordination? Perhaps they could have done so if they could have posted trades to their fellowship only and known that when those smaller players came on line hours later, those trades would get to them? Perhaps they could have even anticipated those players needs and kept a stream of small trades ready for them? The addition of a "sell to fellowship only" button would actually increase the retention of small players in fellowships (and that's a LOT of players) because it provides a way to help them when they need it most. If retaining members is the goal, and it is a good one, it's much easier to retain members in a fellowship who are leaving because they aren't getting the trades they need, than reaching the ones outside the fellowship who haven't the contacts of those inside. It would be interesting to know what percentage of players leave due to paltry trade options and how many of them are in and how many out of fellowships.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

You can now remove everyone but your fellowship. How did that effect trades with those outside your fellowship? It is doubtful it increased those trades but, apparently, it didn't reduce them enough to affect the overall trade volumes between those in and outside of fellowships. [.....] And if the "buy only from my fellowship" button didn't significantly affect the trades going to those outside the fellowship, why would a "sell only to my fellowship" have any more affect?

It has zero possibility of affecting the people in question, because even if they are in a fellowship and can use the button, it doesn't remove those trades from being available, only from being available in that view. That is not remotely like creating a set of hidden trades which there is no way for them to access no matter what they do.

 

[SoggyShorts]

@ajqtrz
I'm sorry man, but TL;DR
If you can't make your new points at least a little more succinctly, I'm out.
I can't imagine that the walls of text are full of completely new and unread points that are enlightening to the discussion. A quick skim even found an apology for repetition.

 

[Iyapo1]

You can now remove everyone but your fellowship

Only on pc. Mobile players do not have this option.

The "buy from my fellowship only" button may be the closest measure we have to the affect of a "sell only to my fellowship button," and it's, affect was apparently, not enough to be concerned about.

I wonder how many people play on mobile?

 

[SoulsSilhouette]

Tons of people play on mobile. Lot's of transients try it because it pops up in their 'try it' when they go into google play. So yes, not having that filter key is a GIANT pain when you are using mobile to contribute to your fellowship when you aren't at home. Mobile also only allows autofight. You can always tell a mobile only person because they are quite confused when it comes to certain browser only features. Until recently, mobile didn't have access to fellowship mail. However, it is far easier to visit your entire neighborhood on mobile. Cuts the time considerably.

 

[T6583]

I wonder how many people play on mobile?

I have at least 2 former PC players that have switched to almost exclusively mobile. I have several players that are mobile only and have never played on PC. I myself play about 50/50 between mobile and PC as having access to mobile allows me to check in more often when I otherwise wouldn’t be able to. Plus I know people who use mobile when they’re having computer problems and otherwise might not be able to log in. I see more ads for Elvenar on my mobile apps than I do in other places. According to RealWire Inno’s growth between 2018-2019 was due to 37% of all revenue coming from mobile players so I can only assume that mobile players make up a healthy number of players at this point.