• 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

Sentient Goods are unbalanced

ajqtrz

Chef - loquacious Old Dog
Is that supposed to be a real argument? Are you asserting that in the absence of a simple marker players would be incapable of figuring out which trades consistently take more than they give? That they are less able to decide for themselves if they accept the value in a trade because it has a marker to indicate relative return on investment? Because I would assert that extensive studies on trade between individuals, and the existence of movements aimed at acknowledging the inherent flaws in current wealth distribution, show that human beings are generally competent at figuring out what isn't fair whether or not someone else calls their attention to it.

Having indicators to remove some of the effort required to calculate the actual value of trades is not what decides whether they are fair, it is a tool to remove some more-work-less-fun from a game.

First, asking how somebody would do something may imply, if read a certain way, that they are unable (could not) do it. But that's reading into the statement motivations not present in the words. "What if the star didn't show? I mean if there was no "star system" of rating? How would you, then, determine if the trade was "fair" or "gouging" or "parasitical?" is what I asked, not "how could you determine if the trade was fair" as if the star system was the only method available. My point being that you read the statement and received an impression, then went on to chastise me for the impression as if the immediate impression was the only one you could have received. But as I said in another post, you could have "put the best face on it" and assumed the question asked was not rhetoricall (implying there were no other methods the player could use) but an actual question. The sentences themselves were grammatically and syntactically correct and said what I meant. The choice of "would" rather than "could" makes it clear. That people often use "could" in place of "would" without realizing the distinction between "how the person will act" verses "what are the availble ways for the person to act" is understandable. It's a common confusion. But hopefully, you can see the question was not rhetorical but actual. I asked, what method or method, in the situation where the star system isn't there, will you choose to use to determine if the trade is fair or not?" The asking implies there are other methods and thus, implies, that the trader is able to use one or more of them.

Second, you note, "having indicators to remove some of the effort required to calculate the actual value of trades" may "remove some more-work-less-fun from the game," but that is not a statement about the game so much as a statement about how you play the game and what you find fun and what you don't find fun. It's pretty obvious that some player do, in fact, find a lot of fun in calculating things precisely. That you are not one of them does not therefore, mean that your likes and dislikes are in the majority. And even if they are, the do show a certain weakness in understanding how people make decisions for most people do not sit and calculate the value of a trade. Whatever "calculation" is done is intuitive and pretty much automatic. The psychologically "weigh" the options and make a choice. So I doubt it would be a large burden on many because almost nobody would decide that way anyway.

Third, the star system, to the degree it inaccurately reflects the current state of things for the individuals making the trade, influences the players to intuitively believe they are getting a fair trade at 2 stars when they are not. Thus, using it may be unfair in the individual transaction. Not having the star system and letting people weigh their options removes the inherent rigidity of the trade system and thus allows fairness to be determined in each transaction by the participants.

As I have written elsewhere, Inno is about macroeconomics, but trades are individual transactions. In macro-econimic theory the divide is over the amount of intervention by the governing authorities. One theory says intervene constantly, forcefully, and as needed to reach short(er) term goals, while the other says intervene rarely, foundationly, and only to reach long term goals. The first says they, usually daily, with maximum empact, and change directions as quickly as you need to avoid immediate problems. The second change the heading rarely, do it at the foundational level with minimum changes, and as little course correction as you need to get to the long term goal. The first takes constant supervision and is costly, the second less costly, but allows the markets to fluctuate more and thus entails a larger short-term risk. The star system is a macro-economic system which is in the middle and thus at the least effective spot along the continuum. It does not change quickly enough in response to market conditions, it steers peoples opinion of what is fair too much and it is often headed in the wrong direction.

Even if you were to have to calculate the value of the goods rather than let the system do it, your valuation would probably be more accurate for you exactly because the system assumes an aggregate value across thousands of transactions and sets the "fair market value" based upon that measurement. However, "individual results may vary" and the value of a thing at this time and place may or may not be in a standard deviation of the norm. In other words, just because the system assigns an average value to to a thing doesn't mean the value is applicable to every transaction. That's just basic market economics.

And, finally, I would argue that your implying that people would have a difficult time evaluating trades and need the help of the system telling them the value of their trade, is, itself, a statement of your opinion of people's abilities. You seem to pretty much imply that players would be unable or unwilling to do the calculations or unable to develop the intuitive grasp of the relative values of their goods within the context of their wants, needs, and desires. In other words, you own statement implies a belief in the relative weakness of the players to decide for themselves.

Having said that, I do admit an star free system would have more volatility. But the dips and peaks would be shorter lived because players would immediately adjust their thinking and actions and not have to wait for the ocassional "re balancing" by the devs. In the long run it would, I believe be more fair to every player as they would develop their own measure of fairness, and less costly to Inno as they would not have to make such changes but could just let the markets prevail.

AJ
 

StarLoad

Well-Known Member
What if the star didn't show? I mean if there was no "star system" of rating? How would you, then, determine if the trade was "fair" or "gouging" or "parasitical?"

I ask because isn't it you letting the system tell you if it's a good trade or a bad one? What makes a good trade good, and a bad trade bad? If I have two million soap and am desperate to get 32000 more shrooms, I'd rate that the top trade at 4 stars! In other words, why let the devs tell us what is fair and what is not? We are adults for the most part. Do we really need to be told what's fair?

I've posted elsewhere how the whole star system taxes the game and makes it more expensive to run and less profitable. My solution is to get rid of the star system and let "market forces" prevail. In the long run I'll be the one who determines if the trade is fair to me. Unless they hold a gun to my head I'm free to do my own evaluation. Yes, I might have to page through a lot of "unfair" trades, but right now, on K, I'm paging through pages and pates of scrolls offered at large discounts, none of which I want because none of them are "fair" from my perspective. It's pages of "unfair" either way so why not let the players choose what is "fair."

AJ
Fine remove the stars I would be fine with that, but the issue is the actions of a few, and it is a few that distort the distributions of goods across the server. This is clear as there are different imbalances on each server, Yes on Arendyll its an issue of "Shrooms, Ink and Platinum" however, the issue is not that you can ignore these traders it is that the game requires you to have the good they are hoarding. The tech in front shows I need over 1,700,000 yes Million of Shrooms, 2,700,000 of Soap, and 2,165,000 of Bismuth. I can only produce 1 and must trade for the other 2 and therein lies the trap. If I want to progress I must have shrooms in quantities that are not available in the marketplace without feeding the parasites. That leaves the wholesaler and in my case would mean buying 2 or 3 times just to cover the decay.

When all I see is complaints and struggle about the chapter 15/16 and delay due to goods unless you are blessed with shrooms as your S3 boost on Arendyll and I personally see the predatory actions of players that are not even producing S Goods, I dont see any FUN there and Wont go there.
I will not progress in 15, for the immediate future.
 

StarLoad

Well-Known Member
...
Having said that, I do admit an star free system would have more volatility. But the dips and peaks would be shorter lived because players would immediately adjust their thinking and actions and not have to wait for the ocassional "re balancing" by the devs. In the long run it would, I believe be more fair to every player as they would develop their own measure of fairness, and less costly to Inno as they would not have to make such changes but could just let the markets prevail.

AJ
That Assumes that the Devs do in-fact "rebalance" they have not in this case and have just made it worse, and if there is a systematic block in any economic model that in a macro-system is also required, that all have and nothing is done to alleviate that block, we see the black market rise and then what? The assumption that the Devs will fix the problem is long past and the player options are Quit or just stop.

When a game is no longer fun what is the point, I ask?
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
First, asking how somebody would do something may imply, if read a certain way, that they are unable (could not) do it.
I think we've both been around forums long enough to know it's not reasonable to pick how people will interpret our questions. You get the interpretation you get. Forums are generally adversarieal, this one not much more or less than any other.
And even if they are, the do show a certain weakness in understanding how people make decisions for most people do not sit and calculate the value of a trade
Even if you were to have to calculate the value of the goods rather than let the system do it
I don't really know what argument you are trying to make there, but the trader ratings (and player complaints about them) have generally not been about experienced, fully informed, players. They are about preventing new players from quitting in disgust when they realize they didn't understand a bunch of stuff about the production cost of various goods and have been bled of their input value by players who see that it is cheaper per unit to produce high-end goods and trade down.
 

NightshadeCS

Well-Known Member
I will reiterate also, that the star rating can be virtually ignored in my case. I can see the name of the person who takes my trades routinely, and I know I offer my trades at a 10% loss. I then open the trader to see if there are any trades that I can take, sort for Sentient, and see the same name with pages of offers at a 15% profit for that individual.

Good for them if that's what they want to do. I am simply saying that perhaps those of us savvy enough to see what they are doing try not to take their trades unless in great need, and to find ways to avoid having to pay such a premium. If we work together, we can devise a workaround.
 

able99

Well-Known Member
Wow, I was surprised to see my post caused such a firestorm on the word parasite. You can decide if they are parasites or free market traders, but although they have the right to do it, in my opinion, players consistently posting bad trades, are posting SPAM.
Even when they post a 3 star trade that is barely above a 2 star trade, it is still SPAM.
I don't want to see their trades, and would love the ability to block trades from people I do not want to deal with, just as I can block spam callers on my phone.
 

T6583

Well-Known Member
Khelonaar is currently at 79 pages offering bismuth, zero shrooms, and a total of 2 soap offers (asking for shrooms). The entire first page is all 10-20% premium. I want to post trades but feel that I would be making the issue worse by posting higher to get them to move quickly as I also don't want them just sitting there either. I actually have started to load my FS to having much higher numbers of soap and shrooms producers because things seem to be getting worse to try to at least help keep members progressing.
 

Palavyn

Well-Known Member
It seems my situation on Ceravyn is different than what most people are describing. Typically no one is even offering what I need, not even with a 0 or 1-star trade. Instead there are pages and pages of 3 star trades of people offering what I have for what I need. So I have to put up 3-star trades and hope that I put enough incentive in so that someone will eventually accept them. This is with all three of my tier goods. None of what I produce is ever in demand. It's always in abundant supply.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
It seems my situation on Ceravyn is different than what most people are describing. Typically no one is even offering what I need, not even with a 0 or 1-star trade. Instead there are pages and pages of 3 star trades of people offering what I have for what I need. So I have to put up 3-star trades and hope that I put enough incentive in so that someone will eventually accept them. This is with all three of my tier goods. None of what I produce is ever in demand. It's always in abundant supply.
I've not watched closely, are you playing solo? Because if you are in a FS and your trades aren't getting picked up, then your group needs to look at balancing the membership.
 

Palavyn

Well-Known Member
I've not watched closely, are you playing solo? Because if you are in a FS and your trades aren't getting picked up, then your group needs to look at balancing the membership.
That's the thing. I'm in a top fellowship and things eventually work out. But I'd like to be able to help and I don't feel good about obligating other FS members to pick up my relatively crappy (3-star) trades.

For example, right now there are 28 pages of people offering Cosmic for some other good. Most of those are 3-star trades. Now, if I had a boost other than Cosmic, I could easily get all the Cosmic I need via 3-star trades with no work and no wait. But instead, I have to investigate the market and then put up competitive trades and wait. It's pretty much the same thing with ALL my sentient goods. If I had just one of those three that were in demand, I could ramp up its production and things would be fine. But I don't, so it's just endless tedious work for me. That's the way the game has been for me for months ever since I got into sentient goods.
 

Ashrem

Oh Wise One
Not much to be done about that. I make a point of taking any FS member's two star sentient, even if it's something I have too much of, but I'm choosing to pause the tech tree, so can afford to be patient, and don't really care if it takes me several days to unload it at a slight loss.
 

Palavyn

Well-Known Member
Not much to be done about that. I make a point of taking any FS member's two star sentient, even if it's something I have too much of, but I'm choosing to pause the tech tree, so can afford to be patient, and don't really care if it takes me several days to unload it at a slight loss.
I created this thread in the hopes Inno would see that some players are being treated unfairly and that they would implement balancing changes. I even offered a few suggestions on how they could do it.
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Oh Wise One
I created this thread in the hopes Inno would see that some players are being treated unfairly and that they would implement balancing changes. I even offered a few suggestions on how they could do it.

Inno does not control who plays and who quits, so if one server happens to have a bunch of players quit who had the most needed boosted sentient good, that is just bad luck. They also cannot control how quickly players advance into the sentient goods chapters, so what may be a bad balance today, may level out in a few months as more players get to chapter 12 and beyond. They also cannot control when players pause between chapters, or at the end of the current final chapter, and stop producing or trading sentient goods. For example, I am at the end of chapter 16 and I have put away all of my sentient goods factories and I will not put them back out and start producing and trading again until chapter 17 is released on Beta.

Even if Inno tweaked how boosted goods are assigned to new players, those new players would not get to the sentient goods for a couple of years, and that would not help anyone right now. And there is no way that Inno could force a boost change on current players in order to even out any imbalances a server might have.
 

Palavyn

Well-Known Member
Inno does not control who plays and who quits, so if one server happens to have a bunch of players quit who had the most needed boosted sentient good, that is just bad luck. They also cannot control how quickly players advance into the sentient goods chapters, so what may be a bad balance today, may level out in a few months as more players get to chapter 12 and beyond. They also cannot control when players pause between chapters, or at the end of the current final chapter, and stop producing or trading sentient goods. For example, I am at the end of chapter 16 and I have put away all of my sentient goods factories and I will not put them back out and start producing and trading again until chapter 17 is released on Beta.

Even if Inno tweaked how boosted goods are assigned to new players, those new players would not get to the sentient goods for a couple of years, and that would not help anyone right now. And there is no way that Inno could force a boost change on current players in order to even out any imbalances a server might have.

For anyone who didn't see my suggestions. These apply to SENTIENT GOODS ONLY, which can be traded server-wide. The problem is that some sentient goods are significantly more in abundance than others.
A) Make it so that Spire catering goods are more likely to be what is offered in 3-star or 2-star trades on the given server. For example, if there are 2,000,000,000 Moonstones being offered in 3-star trades AND the Spire decides to require an S1 good, it is much more likely to choose Moonstone.
or
B) Make it so that the Spire will only require what you have most in abundance. For example, if I have more Cosmic than Soap and shrooms, and it decides to require a tier 3 sentient good, it will be Cosmic.
or
C) If the Spire decides to require a sentient good of a particular tier, let me use any sentient good from that tier. For example, if the spire decides to require an S2 good, then I can choose to place Obsidian, Ink, or Velvet.

D) Another option would be to allow us to convert any amount of any Sentient good into "Spire currency". Once converted, it can't be restored. When the spire requires sentient goods, it draws from your "Spire currency" first. This idea could be altered so that the currency is used for something other than the Spire, but still any sentient goods can be used to produce it.

These are all changes that mitigate the unbalances. Players will adjust their Spire play to use up more of the sentient goods that are in abundance at any particular time on their server.
 

Palavyn

Well-Known Member
The idea is to let players choose which sentient goods we use in some limited situations. This allows for more of the sentient resources that are in abundance to be used up while more higher-demand resources are preserved, thus mitigating some (but not all) of the imbalance. I see the Spire as the easiest mechanism for this. But I'm sure other players will come up with better ideas than mine. So please post them here.
 

T6583

Well-Known Member
so what may be a bad balance today, may level out in a few months
This is very true. I remember where the trader was overloaded with Elixir trades and basically giving it away because I had so much of it. Now its scrolls, bismuth, and tree gum. And while it does feel like there is a problem (that may or maynot be caused in part by the Spire set in conjunction with the number of players with certain boosts) I do believe that it will even itself out and change again at some point. I'm more concerned with figuring out how to get through it now. Like Ashrem and others I try to take all of my FS's trades whether I need them or not. I've rebalanced my FS as players have left to include players boosted in goods that are tough to get on the trader. I've requested that those who need soap and shrooms post those trades and then post in chat so some of our mobile players boosted in shrooms and soap have an easier time trying to find those trades. I think Kekune had a great idea about developing a new spire set that gives goods based on your current boosts like other buildings do. Will it change the imbalance problems right now in the trader? Maybe. But its a start. I remember people building certain evolving buildings solely because it gave them platium which was / still is in high demand. Just not as badly now IMO.
 

Deleted User - 4565442

Guest
This idea/suggestion addresses that and was forwarded to the devs on July 30th:
Adjust Spire Set goods output

This idea was sent originally from Polish servers not US one.
It was already accepted and sent by CM long ago to no effect. They just don't care.
Changing set's bonuses is 15 minutes of work in literally two text files, changing values and names in a few lines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Palavyn

Well-Known Member
I remember where the trader was overloaded with Elixir trades and basically giving it away because I had so much of it. .......
I wish people would stop giving examples of non-sentient goods on this thread. I never had a problem on any of the worlds I play on with them because there are many things you can do to effectively counter any shortage. For example, if we could buy sentient goods in the wholesaler with coins like we can buy non-sentient goods, that would solve most of the problem.
 
Top