The case FOR open trading.

[ajqtrz]

Having spent a lot of time on the thread generally against cross tier trading AND that thread, having reached a point where we've understood the need, I think for logic and reasoning upon premises, I thought it best to not bury this at the end of 8 pages of that discussion. Here I'm using logic and premises to lay out what I think is the case FOR doing away with both the cross-tier trading rules AND the anti 0 star and 1 star rules. I call it Open Trading and to make it easy (I hope) I've laid out the premises and conclusions as I see them at this time. I know they could be wrong but if we keep our heads about us we should be able to sort them out and either confirm or correct my thinking. Thanks.

Premise 1: The value of a trade is determined by the ones doing the trade. " It is a judgement based upon some desired outcome made by those involved in the transactions." Lyapo1 Soggy also acknowledge this point in one of his threads.

Premise 2: "Fairness" is a measure of the value of a trade in the sense that each party believes they have received about the same overall value as the other party.

Premise 3: All trades contain pressure from intangible things, like timing, supply, demand, that must be included in the measure of value.

Thus: Since it is the individuals in the trade that determine if the trade is fair or not (since they determine the value of the trade), and since they alone are able to measure the intangibles in their individual cases, it stands to reason that they alone are the ones who can best determine if the trade is fair or not, provided they do their own evaluation of the trade.

Premise 1: Those outside the trade have little to no ability to measure the value of a trade since they are not party to many of the intangibles within the individuals situation.

Premise 2: The star system is a measure developed by those, for the most part, out side the individual trades.

Premise 3: The star system does not and cannot measure and include the intangibles in it's evaluation of the trade because it relies upon the cost of production almost entirely and does not include the intangibles mentioned above.

Conclusion: Using the star system to access the fairness of the trade is seldom accurate.

Premise 1: Using the star system to set rules about trading means some trades will be patently unfair.

Premise 2: Cross-tier trades are just like any other trades in that their value is determined by those who make the trade.

Premise 3: Those who use the star system to measure the fairness of a trade are using an outside measure that cannot reflect the specific value of the trade within the context of the needs/desires of the parties in the transaction.

Conclusion: Therefore, since the star system is not an accurate measure of the value of the trade, since using it can and will produce an inaccurate measure of the value of the trade, those who use it will, inadvertently, take trades that are unfair to them.

Premise 1: Encouraging the use of the star system to determine the fairness of the trade encourages players to inadvertently make more bad trades than they would if they considered the value of the trade and included their own personal intangibles.

Premise 2: Restricting the ability to do cross-tier trading through rules restricts the ability to take advantage of what may be valuable to the ones doing the trade, limits the opportunities to engage in fair trades. (After all, if I can't trade it, I can't do a fair trade, right?)

Premise 3: Cross-tier trading assumes the value of the trade is based upon the cost of production and thus is a faulty and inaccurate foundation.

Conclusion: Encouraging or using any restrictive system to impose, suggest or coerce a belief in the value of a trade, often trains players in the fine art of making bad trades look like good ones.

Objections:

1) If everybody stuck to the 1:1 ratio within tiers and did not cross-tier trading everything would be fair.
Response: Since fair is determined by the traders, if I know the supply of scrolls is 20% more than silk and I am forced to trade my scrolls for silk at 1:1 I will know that the trade is not equal in value and thus unfair.
In addition, if everybody had to stick to 1:1 within tier trades, the pressure of the intangibles would become discouraging. The reason people don't always trade 1:1 is the intangibles. They are important in evaluating the value of a trade and if you have no way to get more silk when you need it because you don't have crystal (or need it too) and nobody is buying scrolls (as the market has become saturated and nobody is about to give you 10000 silk for 10000 scrolls since they don't need the scrolls), you are forced to do nothing. You will not be finishing that last quest which needs the silk and you will not be getting that last prize. Experiencing enough of that, and you will, means more people quitting.

2) Cross-tier trades help/harm somebody.
Response: The measure of help/harm is in the hands of the traders, not those outside. A player who consistently harms themselves in the game by letting those outside the trade determine it's value will suffer more than one who measures the value of the trade for himself/herself.

3) The flow of goods will be harmed by cross tier trades.
Response: It may be that the flow of goods will slow in some cases, but since the opening of the trading to allow cross-tier and 0 or 1 star trades will also increase the size of the market (meaning more trading going on) the rate of transactions may go up. And since the player can now offer his or her scrolls for T1 or T3 goods, the player has more possible things they can buy with those scrolls. Overall I believe the flow of goods will increase, not decrease, though I may be wrong.

Overall conclusion: Since the two main restriction in trading: the 0 star and 1 star rule and the no cross tier rule (with exceptions of course) cause players to inadvertently make less than optimal (and thus "unfair") trades, the rules should be dropped and players trained to ignore the star system and measure the value of the trade including the intangibles.

AJ

 

[Alram]

Fellowships can have whatever rules they deem fit. People who don't like those rules are free to move on. Individual players already do whatever they want regarding trades.
Who is your target audience?

 

[SoggyShorts]

Nah.
Most (95%+) trades by my FS members are taken care of within the fellowship. 1:1 same tier trades keep that sustainable.
Significant cross trading or trading at ratios other than 2 stars would cause an imbalance within and since traders outside of our FS can not be relied upon to address such imbalances that would be bad.
Sorry if you wanted this thread to just be a FOR your position, but there's just no compelling reason to try and emulate a free market when the nearly closed one satisfies everyone's needs so well.

 

[Lelanya]

Nah.
Most (95%+) trades by my FS members are taken care of within the fellowship. 1:1 same tier trades keep that sustainable.
Significant cross trading or trading at ratios other than 2 stars would cause an imbalance within and since traders outside of our FS can not be relied upon to address such imbalances that would be bad.
Sorry if you wanted this thread to just be a FOR your position, but there's just no compelling reason to try and emulate a free market when the nearly closed one satisfies everyone's needs so well.

What about all the players who do not have the opportunity to seek good advice somewhere?
My mentor showed me a home grown, neighborhood based fellowship once (game ages ago). All the players were in chapter 2 with 600 points difference between top and second last player. "Who is going to teach them? How will they learn anything? A fellowship needs a mix of players, so the more advanced can teach the new players. Don't fall in with these fools." It WAS a long time ago; I think Fairy chapter was just out. And I did better than he could anticipate when I did find a fellowship, I fell in with a CM's test city and a retired mod! He was a FoE transfer 4 chapters ahead of me, so between my oldest friend and my fellowship, I had some really great teachers!
Many things have changed since then. I am wondering if @ajqtrz has a Blooming Trader? Since Fairy chapter was mentioned. It might account for some of AJ's interesting views about trading.
I have nothing against open trading, necessarily, I just would appreciate the opportunity to block sentient traders I see using 'shortages' to get something for free from other players. I think that once we get over and past the lower level trade issues, that this IS the part that really enrages a lot of players.

 

[SoggyShorts]

@Lelanya
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my post, but as far as players who are not being able to get advice anywhere, I think that's only due to lack of looking. I mean do games that don't have some sort of wiki or forum even exist?

Even if they are not willing to seek out those resources, is it so hard to find an advanced player and reach out to them?
Yeah, they may be shy, but I don't know how to help anyone who doesn't ask for any help. In my own FS sure, but outside? It's hard to even know they exist since inno doesn't do the best job at deleting inactives.

And regarding fellowships with a mix of levels, I couldn't agree more- it's simply more fun/interesting.
My fellowships have members at over 1m and under 6,000 score.

 

[ajqtrz]

Fellowships can have whatever rules they deem fit. People who don't like those rules are free to move on. Individual players already do whatever they want regarding trades.
Who is your target audience?

None of which addresses the premisis, logic or conclusions listed in my post. What you might infer is that I think fs's should not have a couple rules most seem to have, but saying they are free to do so or not does not address the question of if they should do so.

Nah.
Most (95%+) trades by my FS members are taken care of within the fellowship. 1:1 same tier trades keep that sustainable.
Significant cross trading or trading at ratios other than 2 stars would cause an imbalance within and since traders outside of our FS can not be relied upon to address such imbalances that would be bad.

Sorry if you wanted this thread to just be a FOR your position, but there's just no compelling reason to try and emulate a free market when the nearly closed one satisfies everyone's needs so well.

If I go to my bank and get .5% interest on my money and am satisfied, do I therefore, not need to consider if moving to a bank that pays 1% wouldn't be better? Satisfaction is only a cause of inertia, not the justification of it if better options are available. And besides, nothing in players satisfaction or lack thereof, addresses the question of if they would or would not be better with open trading.

How does having a 1:1 trade ratio for scrolls vs silk work out to a balance if scrolls are actually 1.2 times more plentiful than silk? If I had access to your fellowship trades (even in part because I'm a neighbor) and I put up a 1:2 to 1 trade, scrolls for silk, and you actually thought 1:1 was fair you'd grab my trade because it was "more than fair" as you could then just turn around and offer the scrolls you just got for 1:1 and somebody in your fellowship would take them, right? Which means you would be selling scrolls for 1.2 and buying them for 1. Of course, if you didn't turn around and sell the scrolls at 1:1 you'd have a bigger excess of scrolls, which would equate to an imbalance. On the other hand you could just forbid your members from buying at anything but 1:1 and have a heck of a time unloading all those excess scrolls -- is that the word "imbalance" I hear echoing in the background? In addition, to sell scrolls in most neighborhood because why would anybody trade 1 scroll for 1 silk when they could get 1.2 scrolls for 1 silk? And if you didn't get the trades, well, that too would be an imbalance.

When you say, "traders outside our fs cannot be relied upon to address such imbalances" it doesn't match my experience...but if it did it wouldn't be because I didn't stick to the 1:1 ratio, but because I didn't rely upon supply/demand. In other words, and this is my experience, if my fs is short of something I can always simply offer more for that something in and open trade situations. So I want silk and I offer crystal at a 1:1 ratio. Nobody takes it. So I offer at 1:1 to 1. Now I get silk (and that's about what I find it takes, though sometimes the ratio goes up to 1.15 to 1). My point is the markets will always provide once you get rid of the artificial measure of what is "fair" and the rules supporting that artificial measure.

Finally, if I'm living in a house without reasonably good insulation and thus using more energy than needed, does this affect the supply/demand of energy? Since I'm using excess energy (for which I'm paying) the supply is less and thus the overall price is higher. So if I'm paying more for something than I need to do because I'm using a bad measure, that is good for the seller, but bad for me. I don't grow as fast, and the rate of growth affects how many people stick around. In other words, you claim it's "good enough" but don't show how the current state of things isn't wasteful, which is one of the claims in my argument.

What about all the players who do not have the opportunity to seek good advice somewhere?
My mentor showed me a home grown, neighborhood based fellowship once (game ages ago). All the players were in chapter 2 with 600 points difference between top and second last player. "Who is going to teach them? How will they learn anything? A fellowship needs a mix of players, so the more advanced can teach the new players. Don't fall in with these fools." It WAS a long time ago; I think Fairy chapter was just out. And I did better than he could anticipate when I did find a fellowship, I fell in with a CM's test city and a retired mod! He was a FoE transfer 4 chapters ahead of me, so between my oldest friend and my fellowship, I had some really great teachers!
Many things have changed since then. I am wondering if @ajqtrz has a Blooming Trader? Since Fairy chapter was mentioned. It might account for some of AJ's interesting views about trading.
I have nothing against open trading, necessarily, I just would appreciate the opportunity to block sentient traders I see using 'shortages' to get something for free from other players. I think that once we get over and past the lower level trade issues, that this IS the part that really enrages a lot of players.

What about those players purchasing the wrong buildings, building non-boosted mfrs? What about them over-scouting? Whatever they learn they either learn from others or figure out for themselves. Even the rules against cross-tier and 2-star trades need to be learned. My argument is that we don't serve those new players well by reinforcing and artificial and limited way of measuring the fairness or efficacy of a trade.
Or, as Soogy says:

@Lelanya
I'm not sure what any of that has to do with my post, but as far as players who are not being able to get advice anywhere, I think that's only due to lack of looking. I mean do games that don't have some sort of wiki or forum even exist?

Even if they are not willing to seek out those resources, is it so hard to find an advanced player and reach out to them?
Yeah, they may be shy, but I don't know how to help anyone who doesn't ask for any help. In my own FS sure, but outside? It's hard to even know they exist since inno doesn't do the best job at deleting inactives.

And regarding fellowships with a mix of levels, I couldn't agree more- it's simply more fun/interesting.
My fellowships have members at over 1m and under 6,000 score.

So far the responses have not addressed any of the premises upon which my call for open trading are based -- and spelled out. Hopefully, further thought will change that and we can discuss things like if and how the 2-star trade measure helps or hinders players in achieving their goals, or if "fairness" should be measured by productions costs, and so on.

AJ

 

[Darielle]

I am convinced that much of the zero star trading is done by accident ... the buyer accidentally clicks a trade. The only possible way I would agree with you (and I'm still not sure I would) is if there were an "are you sure?" button. The only zero trades I have taken have been accidental, and I've kicked myself afterward. That just doesn't sound fair to me.

I sense that you are trying to turn this game into a day trader venture, (perhaps unwittingly) in order to experience that thrill within game. There are many features Inno could add, but I don't think that one fits with the Elvenar theme, and in the end, it would be a detriment to the game. Too many people would get "burned" with accidental clicks and others would try to "one up" another's outrageous trade. It would be hard to find "normal" trades. Even the gougers would suffer in the end. Everyone would.

 

[SoggyShorts]

Wait... do you think that fellowships are forbidding players from posting 3 -star trades?
There's a difference between taking a 3 star and offering a one star.
It's like jacking the price of water when you know there's a shortage.

The overabundance of scrolls is unfair, but it is a reality.
If I take advantage of that by asking my FS members for 12 scrolls in exchange for my 10 silk, that's not being a good team player.
If a fellow offers scrolls at 12:10 though, that's not harming any of us.

Scrolls are an anomaly though, rather than a reason why it should always be so.

Maybe I just don't get having a PvP mentality in a game like this.

 

[SoggyShorts]

So far the responses have not addressed any of the premises upon which my call for open trading are based -- and spelled out. Hopefully, further thought will change that and we can discuss things like if and how the 2-star trade measure helps or hinders players in achieving their goals, or if "fairness" should be measured by productions costs, and so on.

This was already discussed in the other thread(s).
Seeing how the cross-tier trades languish in the FS that allows them is a pretty clear indication that players don't want them. Worse though, is that players check the trader less frequently and therefore the smaller 2-star trades that players need aren't picked up as quickly which is obviously a hindrance. The same applies to ugly world maps with 1 and zero-star trades.

So, I say players would NOT be better off with an open trader based on the fact that I and many others would then not take all of the trades because the ability to "undo" those trades on the world map would be more work if it is even possible.
That obviously would lead to everyone's trades sitting longer than before.

Again though, we've been over this in the other thread(s).

 

[mucksterme]

Again though, we've been over this in the other thread(s).

This
This
This

Why do I feel like you're just going to keep throwing walls of words around until someone agrees with you?

Well fine.
You're right in everything.
You sir are a genius.
You are the Stephen Hawking of the Inno Stock Market.
I bow down to your effluvient use of bombastic verbosity and over whelming logic in the sometimes fallacious use of Keynesian economic principals that are so important to the general enjoyment of this game.
Because really, there is nothing that makes a game more enjoyable for me than the feeling that I am sitting in Jim Alm's econ 204 class.
OK?

 

[Iyapo1]

So far the responses have not addressed any of the premises upon which my call for open trading are based -- and spelled out.

Your argument is flawed in the initial 3 premises.
In your first third premise(akward) you state that all trades contain pressure from intangible things. Then you list out the intangibles that have value to you like timing, supply, and demand.
On multiple threads other players have listed intangibles that have value to them.

The solution is for like minded players to join FSs with people who place value on similar intangibles.

 

[ajqtrz]

Your argument is flawed in the initial 3 premises.
In your first third premise(akward) you state that all trades contain pressure from intangible things. Then you list out the intangibles that have value to you like timing, supply, and demand.
On multiple threads other players have listed intangibles that have value to them.

The solution is for like minded players to join FSs with people who place value on similar intangibles.

I apologize if my list of intangibles didn't include all the possible ones. My intent was to give some examples. The statement that all trades include some intangibles is still true. In fact, one of the biggest intangibles is the timing of the trade itself. You post out of a sense of need -- and the strength of that senses is an intangible, usually depending on your personal goals.

I would argue that while different people do put different values on intangibles, they do so differently at different times. The need of the Spire is 0 on Saturday night, for instance, but might be much greater on Friday morning. This the intangible sense of wanting to finish catering the Spire is different at different points of the week, I think, for most players.

In addition, I would argue that the need for things to be "fair" or "unfair" is, itself, and intangible. Some players seem to have a need to see all trades as fair -- even if they are not a part of them and can't measure the intangibles -- and some players are less inclined to judge others as "gouging" or "unfair" in their posts. Tolerance of other players "style" of play is just another reason to get rid of social rules.

Seeing how the cross-tier trades languish in the FS that allows them is a pretty clear indication that players don't want them. Worse though, is that players check the trader less frequently and therefore the smaller 2-star trades that players need aren't picked up as quickly which is obviously a hindrance. The same applies to ugly world maps with 1 and zero-star trades.

In my experience cross tier trades don't languish very often and when they do the poster then reposts them at a more favorable rate ...and they are taken. Part of this is experience. If I'm trying to sell my house for $500,000 I can list it at that, but if average market value of similar homes is $100,000, I'm going to have to incur the cost of listing without the benefit of selling. Do that a few times and I learn to lower my expectations. In trading that's just learning the market conditions govern the price, not wishful thinking or artificial measures.

In addition, being conditioned to see cross-tier trades as bad may be as much responsible for the languishing of cross-tier trades as anything. If I tell a new member that cross-tier trades are bad they tend to believe they are and when they see them, to ignore them. Few, including most AM's I think, have really considered the structure of the markets in this game and most, I also think, have just gone along with the "received wisdom."

I'm not sure why traders would check the trades less frequently or if they would. Since the trades are listed in star order, the "unfair" (by the star system measure) cross-tier trades are below all the "fair" ones there would be no delay in finding a 2-star trade. So all the "good" trades are at the top.

In fact, it may be that trading goes up. If they system says that 20,000 steel is worth 30,000 scrolls and I'm offering 20,000 steel for 28,000 scrolls, isn't that a benefit to the purchaser? And if it is, isn't it going to increase the "bargain hunting" done by players looking at the trade board? I personally watch for 3 star trades because they are usually in the ballpark of profitable. I may or may not take them depending on the level of profit, but I do look for them.

And how can you claim that traders check the boards less frequently? I'm not sure how you have measured that.

This
This
This

Why do I feel like you're just going to keep throwing walls of words around until someone agrees with you?

Well fine.
You're right in everything.
You sir are a genius.
You are the Stephen Hawking of the Inno Stock Market.
I bow down to your effluvient use of bombastic verbosity and over whelming logic in the sometimes fallacious use of Keynesian economic principals that are so important to the general enjoyment of this game.
Because really, there is nothing that makes a game more enjoyable for me than the feeling that I am sitting in Jim Alm's econ 204 class.
OK?

In an effort to be polite I can only say, thank-you for your insightful and revealing comments. Sadly, since all econmics are human economics one has to see how in any economic system humans will respond. And that means, yep, econ 101 should be understood a bit.

Actually, my thinking is more in the Chicago School of Economics than Keynesian. Could you elaborate in where I'm using Keynesian ideas? And how their use is "fallacious?"

And if you think my writing verbose, you are, to some degree, correct. But my writing is seldom bombastic. I leave the bombastic for others.

AJ

 

[shimmerfly]

@ajqtrz

Let me spell this out.
I'm going to trade however I please no matter how many threads you start.
Do not take this personally.
I do not care what you say about fair trade markets and all the other turgid posts in which you have insisted on trying to sway others to your way of thinking.
There are not enough words in your vocabulary to change my mind on what I believe to be fair.
(Please don't go off on my beliefs now) Thank you

 

[T6583]

Those that don't like the star rating system don't need to go by it. An FS is free to make its own rules. If a player doesn't like those rules or doesn't agree with them than they can go find an FS with more like minded people. I personally dislike cross-trades for pretty much similar reasons pointed out by others. I don't like them clogging up my trader either and would love a way to filter them out. Same with 1 and 0 star trades. It makes it harder to find trades to help smaller players. It's horrendous (sp?) trying to use the trader on Mobile to the point that I've decreased how much trading I do some days until I can have access to a PC which means I'm not helping the smaller players and my FS as much now.
Trade how you want to. But in my opinion this is a city building game that trading is just a small part of. It is not an economics game. If you enjoy that so be it, but I do not like applying real world economics to a game that I play for fun. That's not fun for me. I respect that you have a different opinion but right now it's starting to feel like an egotistical contest in trying to prove who is right and who is wrong which misses the core point of the problem in my opinion. There are balancing issues that need to be fixed. The developers need to figure out a way to address that. The trader isn't going to magically fix those balancing issues, especially in the higher chapters with the sentient goods which seem to be experiencing it the most across multiple worlds. Most of which I believe is due to player retention and Inno not doing something about the abandoned cities. There's gonna be some sort of data that shows that there are X number of abandoned cities with Y good compared to Z number of active cities with W goods and they can maybe somehow adjust goods being assigned to new players for better balance but that will still take a long time to balance out the issues with the sentient goods. I said it before and I'll say it again. If things are this bad with sentient goods, imagine what it will be like when the new goods are introduced (rumor has it that they're coming in Ch. 18). It'll be even worse due to again players who've quit the game that were in the higher chapters. So far TomatoHu's trade bot idea is the one I think is the best solution.

 

[Iyapo1]

Since the trades are listed in star order, the "unfair" (by the star system measure) cross-tier trades are below all the "fair" ones there would be no delay in finding a 2-star trade. So all the "good" trades are at the top.

Maybe on PC this is accurate, I play on mobile and this is incorrect.

I would argue that while different people do put different values on intangibles, they do so differently at different times.

Yet again you are limiting the intangibles to those thing you value: timing, supply, demand.

There is nothing wrong with that. There is a problem with your insistence that everyone else needs to assign value as you do.

 

[shimmerfly]

But in my opinion this is a city building game that trading is just a small part of. It is not an economics game. If you enjoy that so be it, but I do not like applying real world economics to a game that I play for fun. That's not fun for me. I respect that you have a different opinion but right now it's starting to feel like an egotistical contest in trying to prove who is right and who is wrong which misses the core point of the problem in my opinion

T6583 said it much better than I.

 

[Iyapo1]

@shimmerfly
I actually thought your firmly planted foot was very well articulated.

 

[ajqtrz]

Maybe on PC this is accurate, I play on mobile and this is incorrect.

Yet again you are limiting the intangibles to those thing you value: timing, supply, demand.

There is nothing wrong with that. There is a problem with your insistence that everyone else needs to assign value as you do.

I didn't know that about mobile. I do hope they fix it to be like the PC. Not sure how it affects things though, since we really don't have a lot of information re if the quantity of trades go up or down when cross-tier/0,1 star are listed.

And, again, if I'm using intangibles with which I'm familiar they are only examples. I suppose I could go back and find all the ones mentioned and list them every time I speak of intangibles, but my posts are long enough as it is. Right? The point of my observations though, is not which intangibles are at play in a trade, but that there are always some and they are "intangible" and thus can only be sensed by the traders involved in the trade.

AJ

Those that don't like the star rating system don't need to go by it. An FS is free to make its own rules. If a player doesn't like those rules or doesn't agree with them than they can go find an FS with more like minded people. I personally dislike cross-trades for pretty much similar reasons pointed out by others. I don't like them clogging up my trader either and would love a way to filter them out. Same with 1 and 0 star trades. It makes it harder to find trades to help smaller players. It's horrendous (sp?) trying to use the trader on Mobile to the point that I've decreased how much trading I do some days until I can have access to a PC which means I'm not helping the smaller players and my FS as much now.

Trade how you want to. But in my opinion this is a city building game that trading is just a small part of. It is not an economics game. If you enjoy that so be it, but I do not like applying real world economics to a game that I play for fun. That's not fun for me. I respect that you have a different opinion but right now it's starting to feel like an egotistical contest in trying to prove who is right and who is wrong which misses the core point of the problem in my opinion. There are balancing issues that need to be fixed. The developers need to figure out a way to address that. The trader isn't going to magically fix those balancing issues, especially in the higher chapters with the sentient goods which seem to be experiencing it the most across multiple worlds. Most of which I believe is due to player retention and Inno not doing something about the abandoned cities. There's gonna be some sort of data that shows that there are X number of abandoned cities with Y good compared to Z number of active cities with W goods and they can maybe somehow adjust goods being assigned to new players for better balance but that will still take a long time to balance out the issues with the sentient goods. I said it before and I'll say it again. If things are this bad with sentient goods, imagine what it will be like when the new goods are introduced (rumor has it that they're coming in Ch. 18). It'll be even worse due to again players who've quit the game that were in the higher chapters. So far TomatoHu's trade bot idea is the one I think is the best solution.

I agree that every fs and person in the game should be free to list/use the trader as they see fit. However, social pressure restricts that freedom, does it not? The use of the "no cross tier" trades and the "no 0 or 1 star trades" is restricting the freedom of many players -- to the detriment of others and the game in general. I've listed several reasons for this above. So while you are correct that people can do as they wish and fellowships can have the rules they wish, I'm trying to convince more fellowships and individuals to scrap the artificial star - system based measure of "fairness" and go with an Open Trade model. My fellowship is now an Open Trade fellowship and hopefully, some other fellowships will join us as we seek to open the trader to a more efficient and productive model.

I'm of the belief that there is right and there is wrong. Either the star-system based model of measuring trades is right or the Open Trades model. And yes, I'm out to prove one is right rather than the other. That's the nature of debate. Nobody debates a "maybe" unless it's "please admit that maybe you are wrong and/or maybe I'm right".

As for real world economic principles in the game, guess what, the reason it's unbalanced is exactly because somebody didn't pay attention to real world economic principles of supply/demand. They set up a declaration that one thing is equal to another in a 1:1 ratio, increased the first thing to the point where nobody is willing to trade 1:1 for it unless there is a rule enforced in their fs, and then further restricted the trading of the abundant thing by declaring that it can't be traded (though the game allows it) or anything but the two things on the same tier (or to purchase KP if you're lucky). If we had and encouraged Open Trade we'd still have a surplus but the surplus goods would move a lot more because we were allowed to discount them (which we do anyway) and trade them for more than the same tier goods.

So yes, I'm trying to get the players to fix what was a mistake in the basic valuation presented in the star system by openly rejecting that and encouraging the adoption of Open Trades. I think it's for the better of the game and will make for more robust and "fair" trading.

AJ

@ajqtrz

Let me spell this out.
I'm going to trade however I please no matter how many threads you start.
Do not take this personally.
I do not care what you say about fair trade markets and all the other turgid posts in which you have insisted on trying to sway others to your way of thinking.
There are not enough words in your vocabulary to change my mind on what I believe to be fair.
(Please don't go off on my beliefs now) Thank you

Trade however you wish. But be sure that you are trading effectively and efficiently since that's just more enjoyable and helps the overall game to be better for all. Using false standards to measure "fair" isn't helpful even if you don't care.

That there "are not enough words in [my] vocabulary to change [your] mind on what [you] believe to be fair" means one of two things: 1) You have such an indisputable argument for the way you measure "fair" in trading, or 2) you don't wish to go through the trouble of making that argument so that others, including myself, can be swayed by it.

The first would be interesting the hear, the second, sadly, is reflected in the "I do not care." I do wonder, though, if you "do not care" why you bothered responding to this post -- which is about the trading.

AJ

 

[Iyapo1]

Using false standards to measure "fair" isn't helpful even if you don't care.

See now you are violating your first 2 premises and reinforcing your faulty first third premise(awkward).

ie: Shimmerfly gets to determine the value of shimmerflys trades. Fairness is a measure of the value determined by shimmer.

And you calling it false....simply means you place value on different intangibles.

 

[Kekune]

I'm of the belief that there is right and there is wrong. Either the star-system based model of measuring trades is right or the Open Trades model.

Maybe... just maybe... it isn't this stark. Maybe it all comes down to playstyle and personal preference? And fellowships SHOULD set rules that protect preferences important to their members. Otherwise, they run off the very people they want to keep.