Hide unfair trades coming from outside the FS

[ET-inf3rno]

I have at times helped newer players in my area by having them place some unfair trades which I take. With this idea, that would no longer be possible since I wouldn't be able to see them. My placing a good trade for them doesn't work because someone else could snatch them and they may have to pay a trader fee which kind of defeats the concept of helping them. Of course there aren't a lot of goods involved and they aren't S goods which is what the idea seems to be more concerned about. I would consider the loss of the manner of helping neighbors a downside.

Thanks! I add it to the description. I think if this feature is accepted, then another feature could be to add exceptions.

 

[Elf Emma]

Good solution and thank you for investing the effort and resources into rebalancing the trader!

 

[Lelanya]

Don't forget to vote folks!

 

[ET-inf3rno]

Don't forget to vote folks!

Note sure if it matters, we need admin review first and I think she will reset voting. But who knows. I wrote to her a few days ago, no response yet.

 

[ajqtrz]

I'm against this for long and complex reasons that others have often found offensive, so I'll summarize.

1) Fair is not an external standard of measure it is s personal one.
2) The trade you take (unless it's accidental) is fair if you consider your overall needs and timing, otherwise you wouldn't take it. It gives you something you need and want enough at a price you are willing to pay. The "willingness" may not be fun, but like the dentist, you sit because you don't like your teeth hurting.
3) Judging others trades in moral terms poisons the well of discussion.
4) It is patently unfair that I have to pay a lot more for something because I'm in chapter 16 and you are in chapter 4. -- My point being that "unfairness" is part of the game in the first place. Those "at the top" are already penalized for their "success."
5) The "problem" (which for the sake of argument I'll assume to be a true description) is in the supply/demand curve and hiding that with a check box does not address it. Thus, in reality, very little to nothing is solved by this "solution." I vote no.

AJ

 

[ET-inf3rno]

I'm against this for long and complex reasons that others have often found offensive, so I'll summarize.

1) Fair is not an external standard of measure it is s personal one.
2) The trade you take (unless it's accidental) is fair if you consider your overall needs and timing, otherwise you wouldn't take it. It gives you something you need and want enough at a price you are willing to pay. The "willingness" may not be fun, but like the dentist, you sit because you don't like your teeth hurting.
3) Judging others trades in moral terms poisons the well of discussion.
4) It is patently unfair that I have to pay a lot more for something because I'm in chapter 16 and you are in chapter 4. -- My point being that "unfairness" is part of the game in the first place. Those "at the top" are already penalized for their "success."
5) The "problem" (which for the sake of argument I'll assume to be a true description) is in the supply/demand curve and hiding that with a check box does not address it. Thus, in reality, very little to nothing is solved by this "solution." I vote no.

AJ

If you read the text, the goal was to solve the price manipulation problem, which I proved that this solves. It was not to make the game super fair. As of fairness, I think it is defined by the developers when saying that 1:1 for the same tier goods is considered fair.

 

[ajqtrz]

If you read the text, the goal was to solve the price manipulation problem, not to make the game super fair. As of fairness, I think it is defined by the developers when saying that 1:1 for the same tier goods is considered fair.

The price manipulation problem isn't a problem, it's an inconvenience. People will always take advantage of supply/demand imbalances and that's just part of trading. You don't fire your dentist because your teeth hurt and it's all his or her fault. You deal with it and get real about how you treat your teeth. The developers do not say 1:1 is fair, and if they do they are wrong for doing so. The 1:1 is a measure of production costs and that's only part of the overall "value" of any good. Being manipulated by the implied "1:1 ='s fair" is unwise and unnecessary.

But your point is true enough. I should have made a better connection between the purpose of your suggestion and the underlying causes of the problem in the first place, the manipulation by the devs into believing 1:1 = fair.

AJ

 

[ET-inf3rno]

The price manipulation problem isn't a problem, it's an inconvenience. People will always take advantage of supply/demand imbalances and that's just part of trading. You don't fire your dentist because your teeth hurt and it's all his or her fault. You deal with it and get real about how you treat your teeth. The developers do not say 1:1 is fair, and if they do they are wrong for doing so. The 1:1 is a measure of production costs and that's only part of the overall "value" of any good. Being manipulated by the implied "1:1 ='s fair" is unwise and unnecessary.

But your point is true enough. I should have made a better connection between the purpose of your suggestion and the underlying causes of the problem in the first place, the manipulation by the devs into believing 1:1 = fair.

AJ

Sure, you kick your dentist when they make your problem worse than it was. And this is exactly what is happening when people manipulate prices the way I described. There is a reason why stock market manipulation is not considered legal in real life, and this is just analog to that. As far as I understand making it not possible is the only way to solve this, because here admins cannot watch trades 24/7.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Note sure if it matters, we need admin review first and I think she will reset voting. But who knows. I wrote to her a few days ago, no response yet.

Unfortunately, I think the only regular mod we have here has not had much time for the game or forum for a while now. The only one I see here regularly is the forum CM, helya. You may want to try and contact her instead and see if anything is even being set for a vote or forwarded at all right now. I am also starting to think that any valid ideas we get here should be posted over on the Beta or EN forums by the players who are both here and there, so it can get more attention.

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

Currently, I have the choice of taking a trade at a 5-30% loss or letting my goods decay at 10% and hoping tomorrow someone will take my 1:1 or decay again.
If today is the last day of the spire and I need those goods for the last boss then your ban screws me more than the parasite does.

I hate those market parasites, but the real issue is the unbalanced production due to the moonstone set. If the supply of everything was 1:1:1 then the markets could not be so easily manipulated.
Edit: As long as I can post 3-stars when desperate, and the parasites have effectively been shut down by this suggestion the desperation issue basically solves itself.

Those "parasites" only exist because people are to lame to post there own trades.
nobody forces you to take them, people take them voluntarily, thats why it exists. (well unless you make an error like i did this week but thats not the point)

I think it would be much better to focus on a positive change instead of a change because of negativity.

Why do people not want to post trades?

• The want it now, and not wait a single second
• Trades spamm your notifications making neighbourly help much more a pain since you need to do the worldmap instead of helping trough notificsations
• People do not understand that posting trades works just as well.

The first point, you cannot avoid, people who want/need it now want/need just that. and nothing is going to stop them.
The second point can be solved, seperate the trade notifications from neighbourly help.
The third is slowy see some action towards it. in the past is wat alsways "take x trades from the market" quests, today we see more often place x trades quests. to often we have seen comments like "the market is horrible what I need is never there" I cannot count the amount of times I responded with "what about posting those trades yourself?"
We could get more quests that ask you to put up trades on the market, and none take trades from the market.

It's better to deal with an issue at the root instead of the figting the symptoms.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Those "parasites" only exist because people are to lame to post there own trades.
nobody forces you to take them, people take them voluntarily, thats why it exists.

IMO it doesn't really matter why they exist, just how to get rid of them.
I think it's way harder to get everyone together to stop taking bad trades when desperate than it is to flip a switch.

The game would be better for most players if this suggestion was implemented, and that's enough for me to support it.

 

[ET-inf3rno]

Those "parasites" only exist because people are to lame to post there own trades.
nobody forces you to take them, people take them voluntarily, thats why it exists. (well unless you make an error like i did this week but thats not the point)

I think it would be much better to focus on a positive change instead of a change because of negativity.

Why do people not want to post trades?

• The want it now, and not wait a single second
• Trades spamm your notifications making neighbourly help much more a pain since you need to do the worldmap instead of helping trough notificsations
• People do not understand that posting trades works just as well.

The first point, you cannot avoid, people who want/need it now want/need just that. and nothing is going to stop them.
The second point can be solved, seperate the trade notifications from neighbourly help.
The third is slowy see some action towards it. in the past is wat alsways "take x trades from the market" quests, today we see more often place x trades quests. to often we have seen comments like "the market is horrible what I need is never there" I cannot count the amount of times I responded with "what about posting those trades yourself?"
We could get more quests that ask you to put up trades on the market, and none take trades from the market.

It's better to deal with an issue at the root instead of the figting the symptoms.

I sent out messages about this thread to 20 FS on Sinya. 13 people responded and they all think that there is an issue by sentient trades. I don't know what would be more positive than solving this issue at least partially. In real life when somebody manages to exploit others legally people usually change the law to address the issue instead of saying that the law should not change because of negative people.

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

That doesn't really matter. The game would be better for most players if this suggestion was implemented, and that's enough for me to support it.

how would it be "better"?
removing an option is "better"?

When I played 2 accounts on the same world, I often helped my fellows with sentient good trades from my first account.
But that option we are going to block and that is better?

Would the world be better if we had no options and choices?
Does the fact that "bad trades" exist on the market make your game unplayable? does it limit your options?

Some goods arent easily found on the market since I started playing in 2015. noboday went into goods "trading" at that time.
But now these people are to blame for everything and must be eliminated?

Do people really think that would solve anything at all? what kind of whitch hunt is this?
Do people really think that this would magically "fix" the market?
Why should we remove options? just to feed some peoples hatred without a proper reason. they need to blame someone for an inefficient martket?

 

[ET-inf3rno]

IMO it doesn't really matter why they exist, just how to get rid of them.
I think it's way harder to get everyone together to stop taking bad trades when desperate than it is to flip a switch.

The game would be better for most players if this suggestion was implemented, and that's enough for me to support it.

For me the game is less fun if I have to avoid certain trades. Especially when we are talking about many pages in the trader.

 

[ET-inf3rno]

how would it be "better"?
removing an option is "better"?

When I played 2 accounts on the same world, I often helped my fellows with sentient good trades from my first account.
But that option we are going to block and that is better?

Would the world be better if we had no options and choices?
Does the fact that "bad trades" exist on the market make your game unplayable? does it limit your options?

Some goods arent easily found on the market since I started playing in 2015. noboday went into goods "trading" at that time.
But now these people are to blame for everything and must be eliminated?

Do people really think that would solve anything at all? what kind of whitch hunt is this?
Do people really think that this would magically "fix" the market?
Why should we remove options? just to feed some peoples hatred without a proper reason. they need to blame someone for an inefficient martket?

Is this some kind of white supremacy in elvenar form? Is this the new nazi party and are the "traders" to blame for everything.
Lets calm down and stop this populist nonsense.

Jeez, you have issues. For me this discussion is over.

 

[GlamDoll]

So, after reading all this, I have a question...

Is not the best solution to just add another box for filter in the trader, with the option to see the trades how one wishes, not the answer?

That way, everybody gets the trader their own way.

 

[NightshadeCS]

OP addressed that idea thus:

Warnings:
Be aware that this proposal is not the same as completely banning unfair trades, because many people needs them inside the fellowships to aid fellows who ran out of certain goods or who need some extra goods to complete a research faster. Another thing here that making this fix optional by a checkbox does not solve the problem, even if it is enabled by default, because there will be desperate players who turn it off and accept the unfair trades.

 

[ET-inf3rno]

So, after reading all this, I have a question...

Is not the best solution to just add another box for filter in the trader, with the option to see the trades how one wishes, not the answer?

That way, everybody gets the trader their own way.

The concept was that having the checkbox waters this down, because people will just uncheck it and accept unfair trades. So in theory it would not solve the problem of market manipulation and exploitation, but it really depends on how many people unchecks it. Having a list of friends outside the FS would be a better solution I think, it just needs more developer time than doing a simple filtering with a checkbox. On the other hand having friends could have other advantages like allowing URLs in messages or posting messages to all friends if they want to join when there is an opening, etc.. I think it would be just too much to ask currently.

 

[GlamDoll]

I see. Gonna re-read this thread...
Edit: So, don't allow Sentient trades to be less than 2 star & still allow 3 star sentient trades & problem is solved? Yes?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

The problem is that not all 1-star trades are bad when it comes to sentient goods. You offer 11000 platinum for 10000 moonstone, so you are offering a 3-star trade. Someone else offers 10000 moonstone for 11000 platinum, which is a 1-star trade. But the exact same amount of goods is changing hands, so I think there should be a range of 1-star trades that are close to being 2-star that should still be visible to everyone. If a good is harder to come by, the I see nothing wrong with a 1-star that is within 5-10% of being a 2-star. But regardless of what might be done with 1-star trades, I definitely agree that 0-star trades should be visible to your fellowship only, no matter what the goods being offered.

I also don't like how a trade that is just barely favorable to the one taking the trade is considered 3-star, when it is really 2-star in all but name. Maybe a separate suggestion that treats all trades that range from 10% below to 10% above to be 2-star, rather than the barely different amounts now that make something 1 or 3-star.

And that is all only for same-tier trades. When you talk about cross-tier trades, things get weirder, at least for all of us who were playing under the old 16:4:1 system. There are cross-tier trades now that the new system labels 1-star that would have been very good 3-star trades before. especially when talking about sentient goods.