Make the wholesaler a solution to market good imbalance issues.

[Deleted User - 1178646]

I would 100% support this! This would help with the scroll problem as well. I have no idea how the ascended trading works but could that be implemented across lower chapters?

Off course for the record this is what I suggest:

Note that nothing changes at the coin / supply side, those stay as is. it's just that the goods for goods side stay at a fixed rate.
This is not intended to return to the cheap buy everything you ever need from the wholesaler appraoch with spare coins / supplies but only an option to trade for goods you cannot get at a acceptable loss at the wholesaler as much as is needed to have the market rebalance themselves.

So yes those trillion scrolls stuck at people inventory can be swapped for silk or kristal at a reasonable loss to a point where the market wants scrolls again.
Note that only scroll players can swap scrolls in this case. because thats how the wholesaler works. but those are the players that really need this balancing mechanism, if your bonus good, whatever that good is, is a disaster at your server for whatever reason, you would now have an escape route that is expensive but acceptable. the market is still the best place but if that place does not provide this is the escape.

I do not have to tell you that the current wholesaler that asks with a level 30 BTG 1:1 on the first trade 1.5:1 on the second trade 2x on the third trade is an usefull mechanism, it's in fact the opposith, without a level 30 BTG it's way way way worse. asking for like 50:1 on the third trade.

With this change players who are stuck with the wrong bonus good are still at a disadvantage, but not at a massive disadvantage to a point where people are so desperate they are willing to do anything, and others that take advatage of that disadvataged position those players have.

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

I would 100% support this! This would help with the scroll problem as well. I have no idea how the ascended trading works but could that be implemented across lower chapters?

Ah I misunderstood, the ascended trading thing (merchants) is not a solution in any shape, way or form.
It only works in it's current form for goods that you only need for a chapter. you could see ascended goods atm as guest race goods with an asterix.
If you would implement ascended goods on the world map, tournaments, spire ect this system would fall flat on it's face in seconds and fail miserably.
It only works because you only need a very limited amound of goods over a certain set period. this means you can control how much a player needs and balance it on that.
With those other factors numbers would be unlimited and that system can't do unlimited trading. in fact it's based on limiting trading abilities. not expanding.

 

[Iyapo1]

Ah I misunderstood, the ascended trading thing (merchants) is not a solution in any shape, way or form.

You did not misunderstand, I was asking a question about ascended(I am not there). Thanks for the additional information.

 

[StarLoad]

I would support this

 

[Kekune]

The images above helped me process this. I like this idea. I've spent the entire game fighting against my boosts. I've always, for one reason or another, produced crap nobody wants (mostly scrolls and bismuth, these days). I've managed, but I've never wanted to focus so much of my game on trade. That's not why I'm here. A mechanism to limit the damage caused by bad luck with boosts would be lovely.

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

The images above helped me process this. I like this idea. I've spent the entire game fighting against my boosts. I've always, for one reason or another, produced crap nobody wants (mostly scrolls and bismuth, these days). I've managed, but I've never wanted to focus so much of my game on trade. That's not why I'm here. A mechanism to limit the damage caused by bad luck with boosts would be lovely.

I'll shall add the example to the opening post, if that helps

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

I think it's a good idea, but I'd probably make it even more expensive than that. Maybe strike a middle of the road price between the insane inflation now and the slight inflation you suggest. Human nature as it is, there would be people who would go straight to the wholesaler, if it were only 110 percent, instead of wading through pages of people's trades and risk the possibility of accidentally clicking on something you don't want. To them, convenience would be worth the premium, especially if they normally do 3 star trades. That would just exacerbate the shortage among traders and force more and more people to get into the habit of the wholesaler.

Maybe fix the rate at 140 percent? Idk ... something like that.

40% is already a lot, too much.

I have added some examples to the opening post, you'll see that the example already feels "expensive" enough. at least in my opinion.

 

[SoggyShorts]

do not have to tell you that the current wholesaler that asks with a level 30 BTG 1:1 on the first trade 1.5:1 on the second trade 2x on the third trade is an usefull mechanism, it's in fact the opposith, without a level 30 BTG it's way way way worse. asking for like 50:1 on the third trade.

About the BTG, would that be left as is or buffed in some other way to compensate?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

About the BTG, would that be left as is or buffed in some other way to compensate?

I would still build the BTG for the guest race goods boost, even if the wholesaler and trade fee reduction were both removed.

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

About the BTG, would that be left as is or buffed in some other way to compensate?

either left or only working on the coin / supply side.
It's kinda fun to get 500K goods a day with just supply/coins with a level 30 BTG

 

[Kekune]

Would it make sense to have the BTG still apply to goods, but perhaps at a different rate? Or maybe the cost increase just caps at the rate shown above? That way people can't achieve unlimited 1:1 wholesale trades, but there's still a benefit to upgrading it?

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Would it make sense to have the BTG still apply to goods, but perhaps at a different rate? Or maybe the cost increase just caps at the rate shown above? That way people can't achieve unlimited 1:1 wholesale trades, but there's still a benefit to upgrading it?

I remember seeing it said somewhere on one of the forums that the Wholesaler will never be more balanced because Inno knows people would just stop trading and only use the Wholesaler for their goods, and that would be bad overall for the game.

So if the Wholesaler, with or without the aid of the BTG, were to offer more balanced trades, there would also have to be a limit of how many trades a day you could do that way. Maybe something like 2 or 3 each for coins, supplies, and goods.

 

[Henroo]

The images above helped me process this. I like this idea. I've spent the entire game fighting against my boosts. I've always, for one reason or another, produced crap nobody wants (mostly scrolls and bismuth, these days). I've managed, but I've never wanted to focus so much of my game on trade. That's not why I'm here. A mechanism to limit the damage caused by bad luck with boosts would be lovely.

I find it interesting that both of your examples of "bad luck with boosts" are *SOLELY* due to the Moonstone Library set. Moonstone Libraries and Endless Scrolls give everybody scrolls, which unbalances the scroll market. Bismuth is the same. Once you reach a high enough level, Gum Trees and Moonstone Gates give everybody Bismuth, which unbalances the Bismuth trade environment. If the Devs would have implemented player's REPEATED requests to change the goods Moonstone Library set gives, both of these issues would be solved.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I find it interesting that both of your examples of "bad luck with boosts" are *SOLELY* due to the Moonstone Library set. Moonstone Libraries and Endless Scrolls give everybody scrolls, which unbalances the scroll market. Bismuth is the same. Once you reach a high enough level, Gum Trees and Moonstone Gates give everybody Bismuth, which unbalances the Bismuth trade environment. If the Devs would have implemented player's REPEATED requests to change the goods Moonstone Library set gives, both of these issues would be solved.

Except the ones that make gum and bismuth have to be intentionally leveled up to that point by everyone who won them in earlier chapters, while the ones that make scrolls, do that from chapter 1 to chapter 18. And Moonstone Gates give moonstone for two chapters, so people keeping them there also cut down on bismuth production. Also, sentient goods will never be as bad as the scrolls because they will decay, while the scrolls go nowhere.

 

[Henroo]

Except the ones that make gum and bismuth have to be intentionally leveled up to that point by everyone who won them in earlier chapters, while the ones that make scrolls, do that from chapter 1 to chapter 18. And Moonstone Gates give moonstone for two chapters, so people keeping them there also cut down on bismuth production. Also, sentient goods will never be as bad as the scrolls because they will decay, while the scrolls go nowhere.

Yeah. But why would you not upgrade them if you have multiple copies of Gum Trees or Moonstone gates? On a square for square basis these are 2 of the best, most efficient sources of sentient goods in the game because unlike your tier 3 manufactories, they don't require population or culture. And because of the small size of each of these buildings, it is very easy to do the upgrades.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Yeah. But why would you not upgrade them if you have multiple copies of Gum Trees or Moonstone gates? On a square for square basis these are 2 of the best, most efficient sources of sentient goods in the game because unlike your tier 3 manufactories, they don't require population or culture. And because of the small size of each of these buildings, it is very easy to do the upgrades.

What they give to a person not boosted in them is a tiny drop in the bucket of how much is needed for research or upgrades. Almost all of the ones I have in my chapter 14 Beta city still make mana.

 

[Henroo]

What they give to a person not boosted in them is a tiny drop in the bucket of how much is needed for research or upgrades. Almost all of the ones I have in my chapter 14 Beta city still make mana.

I did say they were efficient on a *square for square* basis. They are small, so it is easy to underestimate the impact they can have. But keeping Gum Trees as mana producers is not efficient unless you desperately need mana. What follows is a quick analysis which just focuses on production, population, and squares occupied. I am ignoring culture. I think if I did factor culture in, it would help my case even more. But I just don't feel like doing the extra math, so I am omitting it.

It just so happens that my Arendyll city is boosted in Bismuth, so I can give real game figures for Bismuth production. With max sentient boost, a level 27 Gems manufactory will make 4,749 Bismuth in a 3 hour run. It will make 8650 Bismuth in a 9 hour run. I think the most aggressive schedule likely is four 3 hour runs during the day and a single 9 hour run overnight. This works out to 4749x4 daytime (18,996) plus the 9 hour run overnight (8650). Total is 27,646.

The Gems manufactory is 5x5 in size. So 25 squares. It requires 13,057 population. Max level residence in Ch 15 is lv 35. They are 3x5 (15 squares total) in size and provide 4,700 population. When you do the math, it takes roughly 2.8 max level residences to provide the population for a L27 Gems manufactory. 2.8X15 is 42 squares. Therefore it takes 42 squares to provide the population for a L27 Gems manufactory and the manufactory itself occupies 25 squares. Total of 67 squares. Daily production of 27,646. 27,646/67 = 412.5 per square, per day.

Now let's compare a chapter 15 Gum Tree to this. It only occupies 1 square. And with full link bonuses it will provide 1,110 Bismuth a day. 25 Gun Trees are going to produce about the same amount of Bismouth a day as a L27 Manufactory. Which takes 67 squares just for the building and the population.

Now I also realize that the Gum Trees will need something to link to. But consider the options! Mana Plant, which is the best mana producer in the game on a square for square basis. Endless Scroll, which is the best scroll producer in the game on a square for square basis. And Moonstone Gate, which is the 2nd best Bismuth producer in the game on a square for square basis (Gum Tree is #1). So,

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

Now let's compare a chapter 15 Gum Tree to this. It only occupies 1 square. And with full link bonuses it will provide 1,110 Bismuth a day. 25 Gum Trees are going to produce about the same amount of Bismuth a day as a L27 Manufactory. Which takes 67 squares just for the building and the population.

I think you are confusing your goods here. The Gum Tree will only make tree gum from chapter 12 and up. It is the Moonstone Gate that makes bismuth starting in chapter 14, and it takes up 4 squares.

 

[Darielle]

I find it interesting that both of your examples of "bad luck with boosts" are *SOLELY* due to the Moonstone Library set. Moonstone Libraries and Endless Scrolls give everybody scrolls, which unbalances the scroll market. Bismuth is the same. Once you reach a high enough level, Gum Trees and Moonstone Gates give everybody Bismuth, which unbalances the Bismuth trade environment. If the Devs would have implemented player's REPEATED requests to change the goods Moonstone Library set gives, both of these issues would be solved.

What he said!

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

I find it interesting that both of your examples of "bad luck with boosts" are *SOLELY* due to the Moonstone Library set. Moonstone Libraries and Endless Scrolls give everybody scrolls, which unbalances the scroll market. Bismuth is the same. Once you reach a high enough level, Gum Trees and Moonstone Gates give everybody Bismuth, which unbalances the Bismuth trade environment. If the Devs would have implemented player's REPEATED requests to change the goods Moonstone Library set gives, both of these issues would be solved.

We gave seen worlds in the past with an overabundance in soap, moonstone library scewed all trades more in line for scrolls, bismut, and treegum but before those where common in massive numbers that we saw that each server had different issues.

So even if that one was fixed, there will still be balance issues, but it would go back to a point where each server would have it's own problems. Only a small inbalance in the ratio of players boosts will lead to a massive imbalance on a worldwide scale.