Fellowship Only Trades

[ajqtrz]

@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.

Yep. The problem is that I do tend to repeat myself because nobody seems to be answering the logic of my argument. They say it's wrong, but then don't provide any counter argument except to make broad conclusions. How they arrive at those conclusions is difficult to say since they usually don't say. "Conclusions without warrant" is how that's described. So each time I present the argument I feel I have to repeat the reasoning. In addition I do keep pondering things and sometimes find a better way to put it, a new idea, a different line of reasoning and so on. Like most arguments, mine involves an involved mind that doesn't assume it can't be wrong and is always looking for more reasons to think one way or another.

So if it's repetitious without need, I apologize. Feel free to skip whatever you feel you need to skip.

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.

If I choose the "fellowship only" check box the trades from my neighbors all go away. They become "hidden" to me by my choice. Thus, it does, in fact create a "set of hidden trades." I'm wondering why I can decide that for myself (filtering out non-fellowship trades) but I'm not allowed to decide what others see of my trades. If I can filter out their trades am I not reducing the number of trades occurring? In both cases you create a "set of hidden trades" and in both you would decide what's hidden and what's not. But in one set you tell others they can't trade with you by screening out their trades, and in the other you tell them they can't trade with you by screening out your trades. Seems about equal to me.

AJ





AJ

 

[ajqtrz]

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.

If I choose the "fellowship only" check box the trades from my neighbors all go away. They become "hidden" to me by my choice. Thus, it does, in fact create a "set of hidden trades." I'm wondering why I can decide that for myself (filtering out non-fellowship trades) but I'm not allowed to decide what others see of my trades. IF I can filter out their trades am I not reducing the number of trades occurring? In both cases you create a "set of hidden trades" and in both you would decide what's hidden and what's not. But in one set you tell others they can't trade with you by screening out their trades, and in the other you tell them they can't trade with you by screening out your trades. Seems about equal to me.

AJ

 

[Ashrem]

If I choose the "fellowship only" check box the trades from my neighbors all go away. They become "hidden" to me by my choice.

which there is no way for them to access no matter what they do.

I'm not sure why the difference is giving you trouble. Choosing not to see something is inherently different from not being allowed to see it.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Hey, why not make this lots more..... "fun".

Zero and 1-star trades can only be seen by your fellowship. Then those 9900 for 10000 trades, or whatever size that are just 1-star, that people put up specifically for fellowship members who need the goods, do not get grabbed by random neighbors. This will also keep all those really bad trades from cluttering up our Trader.

2-star trades can have the option to be seen by all or just by the fellowship.

And 3-star trades cannot be hidden at all. After all, if you are making it a 3-star, you must need the goods right away and do not care who takes the trade.

 

[Yogi Dave]

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.

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 think your assumption on how the button would be used is incorrect. You keep making your arguments based on that assumption. We all do that. What I don't see is anyone being swayed in their thinking on this issue or any new ideas popping up. Due to the length of your replies, it becomes very tedious to read them without my eyes glazing over.

Basically, you and some others feel this idea improves the game. Many of us disagree and think this it does the opposite. Discussion does not seem to be going anywhere. Even though, this idea was only proposed 4 days ago, it's beginning to seem like it's time to vote and see what people say with their vote. I'd quit posting in this because there was no progress in the development of the idea. I'm bowing out of even reading this until there is a vote and my vote will be 'no'.

Oops, I spoke too soon.

Hey, why not make this lots more..... "fun".

Zero and 1-star trades can only be seen by your fellowship. Then those 9900 for 10000 trades, or whatever size that are just 1-star, that people put up specifically for fellowship members who need the goods, do not get grabbed by random neighbors. This will also keep all those really bad trades from cluttering up our Trader.

2-star trades can have the option to be seen by all or just by the fellowship.

And 3-star trades cannot be hidden at all. After all, if you are making it a 3-star, you must need the goods right away and do not care who takes the trade.

However, this is pretty much the opposite of what AJ seems to want.

EDIT: Last sentence was changed to reflect who the comment was intended for.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

However, this is pretty much the opposite of what you want. You wish to place 3-star trades and only your FS see them.

Maybe to a few people, but if I am placing a 3-star trade, then I need those goods as quickly as possible and I do not want to have to wait hours til someone in the fellowship, who has the right goods to trade, comes online and sees them. I was those 3-star trades taken by anyone and as soon as possible. This is especially true with Sentient goods, since this topic covers all trades, not just those for normal goods.

 

[Ashrem]

I'm trying to save the anxiety of what happens when someone requests a vote, but by all means, go for it.

 

[Yogi Dave]

Maybe to a few people, but if I am placing a 3-star trade, then I need those goods as quickly as possible

Oops, stupid me. That last line wasn't supposed to be about what you said. It was about it being the opposite of what the threads idea is.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Oops, stupid me. That last line wasn't supposed to be about what you said. It was about it being the opposite of what the threads idea is.

That is cool. But also, it does not matter if you are being serious or sarcastic, you should never call yourself stupid.

 

[ajqtrz]

I think your assumption on how the button would be used is incorrect. You keep making your arguments based on that assumption. We all do that. What I don't see is anyone being swayed in their thinking on this issue or any new ideas popping up. Due to the length of your replies, it becomes very tedious to read them without my eyes glazing over.

So how do you think the way a "fellowship only" trade would be used? If the intention is to trade with anybody who wants to trade then what would be the point of having a fellowship only? As I said a couple of times: it would be worse to use the "fellowship only" to do trading when you just want the goods because it would cut down the number of people able to trade with you.

So how or why would you use it? And if nobody used it why have it? But my premise is that there are ways to use it that are not available currently or require a lot more effort and risk than many people want to spend/endure.

1) You could use it to distribute goods throughout your fellowship....a sort of ongoing pool of goods so nobody runs short. You can't do that now without risking goods you want in your fellowship going to others outside the fellowship.
2) You could use it to insure that members you want to help get helped without having to post trades that were imbalanced, even when those players are not on line when you are. You can't do that 100% now.
3) You could use it to put goods with some members who are on line often to be used for quick trades -- meaning since that member has "community goods" and are on line they could hold those goods and respond quickly to those in need. Often people have needs but nobody currently on line has what's needed. By distributing goods to those in your fs you could actually cover things "around the clock." Quick trades, indeed. This can be done now, but it's a lot harder, again, because when you distribute goods you either have make an imbalanced trade to insure they aren't taken by others, or you have to risk they will be taken outside your fellowship.

Three things this button would do that you either can't do now or can't do without some risk/inefficient effort.

Will people use the button in these ways? I think they will as they learn the advantages of it and that they won't use it for the normal trades they currently do -- and thus those trades will not shrink at all or if so, by very little.

I do hope this is short enough. If you don't like reading my messages due to their length, ask yourself it they are, within themselves, too repetitive. Sometimes yes, but usually not. Thus, they say what needs to be said -- though I will admit I could sometimes condense them a bit. I'll work on it.

I'm not sure why the difference is giving you trouble. Choosing not to see something is inherently different from not being allowed to see it.

The difference isn't giving me trouble. It's the inaccuracy of saying that one way hides trades and the other does not. Both hide trades. The difference is who decides which trades are hidden. You want to restrict the choice to trades I see and I wish to restrict the choice of my trades an who see them. Bot hide trades, and that was my point. Since they are my goods I can hide them all I want by not posting them or by only posting them with my target buy standing by...though what a hassle that is. So "hiding" my trades can already be done...but not easily and with risk.

AJ

 

[SoulsSilhouette]

Well, I put it out there, but no I won't be asking for a vote. You all seem to think that you have your fingers on the pulse of this game, so what would be the point.

I think that it would improve a certain aspect of the game. You don't. Fair enough.

 

[samidodamage]

so what would be the point.

Confirmation or rejection of the premise that Inno's internal measuring of metrics indicates this would be detrimental for too many players and/or player retention. @Xelenia is not going to take an idea to a poll/vote if she knows the basic premise is unacceptable to the devs. She could also then add this to the list of things in that 2nd post in the Ideas/Suggestions Forum Guide of things that have been categorically ruled out by the devs.

 

[Xelenia]

Though I do understand how the fellowship only trade could improve certain aspects of the game, unfortunately, the negative far outweighs the positive. The problem with the concept is that it will throw a deeper unbalance scenario into the game and make certain matters much worst. On each server and certain category for Tiers goods, there is always that one good that is hard to come by...now imagine each fellowship who have abundant of those goods (or even just a bit), keeping it to themselves.

What will become of fellowship in need or individual players in need?

Unfortunately, I will not facilitate this concept to the developers. I do appreciate you taking the time to present and defend your position though! Also, I will advise searching the forum to see if ideas have been presented previously. This particular idea has been presented quite a bit already, and has been declined on multiple occasions

Xelie