• 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

Trades

Zoof

Well-Known Member
This topic is now about the cheese trade.

A quick Google search says that cheese was, globally, the 105th most traded product in 2020, with Germany taking up, by proportion, the highest percentage globally of both imported and exported cheese.

Since Inno is based out of Germany, does this make their developers more susceptible to cheese-related suggestions and comments? Inquiring minds needs to know!
 

Alram

Well-Known Member
I play all US servers, and I am noticing that there are several trading issues. For example in one of my worlds there is no one trading crystals at all , at all hours if the day . I do not know if this is a strategic decision by the developers to force poor people out of the game , or force people to buy diamonds. What say you ?

Post in thread 'Cross trading' https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/cross-trading.29776/post-248714

There are a lot of good tips in this thread. Why redesign your city so others don't have to balance their productions?
 

SoulsSilhouette

Buddy Fan Club member
Deep fried Cheese.... that is a delicacy. Thankfully I do not live in the back of beyond, so Door Dash it is.... tomorrow... Today I cooked baby beef wellingtons. I had to use the full puff pastry I was making and that seemed an appropriate dish. Although it is not the authentic wellington, it is my version of it, because in addition to the mushrooms, I use bacon (everything is better with thick sliced peppered bacon) and cheese. Pepper Jack for that kick of spice, so a wellington in spirit if not in reality.
 

Sir Squirrel

Artist and Buddy Fan Club member
Yeah that was my bad. I apologize for that. I should have done that through a PM or just did it quietly. I usually just close the forum page and move on. The thing is I don't actually disagree with the idea that the trading system is free flowing. I just do not like how it is/was explained as if we all have no clue and are sheep needing to be woke. Even if there never was a star system in place I would want to get 1000 planks for my 1000 steel (an even amount for goods of the same tier). Also even with the star system in place if there is a good that is in short supply I know I will either have to give more of another same tier good or use another good of either higher or lower to trade for that good! We all know this and we all do this whether or not we wish it to be so or not. (Except for maybe very new to the game players who usually figure this out on their own fairly quickly). So I really don't think anyone of us wants or needs a lesson in trading to play Elvenar and if some do then the posts are already here to be linked to so it doesn't need to be explained again in any case. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

Flashfyre

Well-Known Member
I see trading here as a 'bartering' economy, rather than a 'currency' economy.
Bartering by nature is subjective in its allocation of value: what is valuable to one may not be valuable to another, yet both items have some level of value in the system. That value changes, however, with nearly every transaction. Say I make a lot of wooden widgets, and I offer 1000 widgets on the open market with the stipulation that I want 1000 steel sprockets in return; my neighbor makes sprockets, but he also has a cousin who lets him have wooden widgets at wholesale. So my widgets aren't as valuable to him, and he may decide to pass on the offer, saving his sprockets for something that he really needs. I might be able to get him to trade, but only if I increase my offering amount, say to 1500. Now he might take them, as they are about equal in value to the wholesale ones his cousin Shecky gives him.

Meanwhile, another neighbor crafts marble doohickies which, truth be told, are in short supply in my house. She is offering 1000 of them for 1250 widgets (I see she also has a listing for the same 1000 marble doohickies for 1250 sprockets). At first glance, this doesn't seem to be a "fair trade" within the bounds of the "Barterer's Code", since she wants more (value) than what she is offering. However, I really need those doohickies (they have higher value to me) and I swap my widgets for her doohickies. My neighbor, though, has another cousin who gets him marble doohickies at a song, and he thinks she is over-valuing her doohickies, so he doesn't trade his sprockets to her either.

As you can see, all 3 items (widgets, sprockets and doohickies) have the same intrinsic value within the Barterer's Code"; yet they can be traded at differing artificial values depending on what each trader considers them to be worth.

OTOH, in a 'currency' economy, the widgets, sprockets, or doohickies would have a universally accepted value, equal to a set amount of currency (coins, supplies or self-produced goods). In the above example, I wouldn't be making an offer of my own produced goods, I would look to the "Buyer's Price Index" to see how many of the 2 items I cannot make could I buy for what amount of my own widgets. The Index tells me for 18,000 widgets, I can buy 5,000 sprockets or doohickies. No more, no less. There is no negotiating with the Index. It also tells me that, for 400,000 coins, or 125,000 supplies, I can get the same number of sprockets or doohickies. But the Index has no price for widgets, because I am cannot buy what I already make.

Here, all 3 items (widgets, sprockets and doohickies) have the same intrinsic and artificial value, and neither value can be altered during the trade. This is the function of the Wholesaler booth in the Trader.

To sum it up, Trading through the Trader is, for all intents and purposes, bartering. Each barterer decides for themselves what the value of the goods are, both theirs and those of the other barterer. As there is no set value for the items, trades can be as equal or as lopsided as the 2 participants are willing to allow. If each is satisfied with the end result, who are we to tell them that they committed an infraction?
 

ajqtrz

Chef
Good. But before you suggest someone's reasoning is "motivated reasoning" don't you first have to show how their reasoning is not an "accurate reflection of the evidence?" In other words, suggesting someone's argument is "motivated reasoning" presumes there motivation is based on their "emotional biases" which lead to "justifications or decisions based on their desirability," and not on the evidence at hand. And that, my friend, is considered an "ad hominem" fallacy. It matters not why I say what the truth is, but what reasoning and evidence I bring to bear and how those things lead others to believe it to be the truth. Saying something to be true or false may is independent of my intentions or motivations. Read Whimsatt and Beardsley on "The Intentional Fallacy."

To see how this is so, suppose I liked and desired a particular outcome. I'm even excited to the point that I press the point on the question. Now suppose the question is: "what material makes the best sidewalks?" I say concrete. Does the evidence show that I'm right or wrong? Since most sidewalks are made of concrete it would appear that most engineers agree with me, right? My being caught up in "motivated reasoning" does not change the fact that most engineers prefer, or seem to prefer, concrete. My motivations have nothing to do with the "right" answer to the question and my use of reasoning and evidence can only be critiqued from the bases of if the reasoning and evidence are true and valid. And they can be that independent of my emotional motivations.

In summation,

1) Using a claim of "motivated reasoning," without showing why the evidence and reasoning are wrong, presumes the answer to the question is so well known that the only way a person could come to another conclusion is if they were not motivated by reason but by "emotional bias."
2) Claiming "emotional bias" does not have any bearing on the evidence or reasoning presented. Thus, it is irrelevant and an ad hominem remark.

AJ
 
Last edited:

Myne

Well-Known Member
The issue with 3rd tier goods was pointed out MONTHS ago. It was also predicted to be a serious problem in the future if it continued. Seems that is now coming home to roost.
At this point the only option I see is for us to request the devs to fix this issue. We need specific suggestions for them to fix the issue, rather than saying "don't do that anymore"
One good suggestion I can think of is to offer a building that will offer choices of what tier goods you can set it to produce, maybe like the Triumph of the Tides but the choices would be different tiered items instead of ONLY tier 3. The pilgrims set was very good imho because it offered tier 1.
 

Quixotique

Active Member
Good. But before you suggest someone's reasoning is "motivated reasoning" don't you first have to show how their reasoning is not an "accurate reflection of the evidence?" In other words, suggesting someone's argument is "motivated reasoning" presumes there motivation is based on their "emotional biases" which lead to "justifications or decisions based on their desirability," and not on the evidence at hand. And that, my friend, is considered an "ad hominem" fallacy. It matters not why I say what the truth is, but what reasoning and evidence I bring to bear and how those things lead others to believe it to be the truth. Saying something to be true or false may is independent of my intentions or motivations. Read Whimsatt and Beardsley on "The Intentional Fallacy."
Nope. Like I said, I did my homework. So many peeps pointed out ur faulty logic. You don't listen tho.
I'm gonna go ahead and put u on my ignore list now.
 

SoulsSilhouette

Buddy Fan Club member
ANYWAY, back to the trade topic. After reading all of this, after looking in my trader, after talking to all of you and some others... here is what I've deduced. This is an economy issue that has been created by INNO by the type of goods their buildings produce. Much like the issue with the scrolls and the Moonstone Library, which I wish still made scrolls because I burn through them and have always traded for them. We need some builds that produce T1s and T2s, whether they be our boosts or not. It would get the trade machine rolling smoothly again. My golden hen doesn't give me enough T1s nor does my Mermaid, both of which are fully evolved in Khel. So maybe that is what we should be discussing. The underlying issue of production.

Thanks for listening my friends.
 

ajqtrz

Chef
I agree that Inno could do something to change the production rates of T1 and T2. Or we could all adjust our thinking and produce more T1 and T2 as we also reduce in any way we can, our T3. I've started contacting neighbors in my my part of Khelonaar and I've seen some improvement. Now, instead of having page after page of gems for something else at 2 stars, I at least see more gems offered for things AND, fewer actual pages of them. In other words, the markets have been, and I believe, will continue to adjust.

One of the reasons I believe it's a market adjustment thing rather than an Inno adjustment thing (though it could be both) is that when scrolls on Khelonaar were in abundance the community reacted. In game they reacted immediatly by reducing scrolls production. And, after a long while, Inno adjusted the output of the Moonstone Library. But, before that "fix" arrived, I found the scrolls less and less of a problem and, at the time of the change, in my part of Khelonaar, the problem was about 1/2 rectified and moving in the right direction. It's my belief that since, apparently, people shelved their scrolls mfrs (as I did mine) the market was adjusting to the over-production and would have ended up in a more balanced area within a few months, at most. However, Inno changed the Moonstone Library, and that explains today.

Today, in my part of Khelonaar, scrolls are in very short supply. To get them I need to discount T2 goods by about 15%, T3 by 30% (or more) and T1 by about 20%. I do, and then I trade them at even for smaller players. I'm not sure I should do this as it just encourages those smaller players to continue to set their value by the star system rather than in game reality, but I do. In other words, since many scroll producers found their scrolls so worthless they left the game, put their scrolls mfrs way, or both. In other words, they, naturally, reduced their scroll production. When Inno then cut scroll production by changing the Moonstone Library, we naturally got a shortage of scrolls, a condition which now, in my part of Khelonaar is pronounced.

In the long run, then, I believe whatever Inno does will not balance the markets in the manner we would like and since such changes take an awful long time to get done, the markets will adjust more consistently and more quickly if we leave things alone and let them do so. And we can increase the speed of the adjustment by encouraging people to value their goods by supply/demand, and to allow cross tier trading.

AJ
 
Last edited:

ed1960

Buddy Fan Club member
I would also add that the economic structure of Elvenar favors both early and long-term players more than newer ones, and not just because you have had more time to accumulate goods, but access to building sets of the past that were/are better than some of the more recent ones.

You have the same issue with noneconomic buildings too like the Fire Chicken. So not every player is going to see these issues the same, and while I don't have issues with any mfg good NOW that does not mean others will not. Take out the trade system issues and its clear that some players are in need of goods that others may have but can't trade effectively with them due to the distance limits imposed on Standard Goods.

I think that dropping the limitation on the trade penalty would/could go a long way to alleviate this issue in time.

Ed
 

ajqtrz

Chef
Aj you may be correct in many aspects, but the reality is that due to the less desirable traders out there that will take you trades 1:1 and retrade them at outrageously inflated rates all you would be doing is feeding the leechers. That is a less desirable outcome too. So its a catch 22.
I have one account that is boosted in shrooms on "A" that if I offer trades 1:1 or even slightly less they get snapped up by the same folks that over trades like 347K shrooms for 1.8Mil soap ....

Ed
I agree that there will be people wanting to increase their profit margins and who will do so as much as possible. However, the "value" of the goods to those "desperate" to get them, can only be measured by the one who is desperate. In other words, desperation adds value to the thing desired. Market conditions respond to perceived value, not fixed ratios. And, if you tell people that X is worth Y at Z ratio, when the conditions are such that X+2 is tradeable for Y and the ratio is not 1:1 but 1:2, you are teaching, forcing or encouraging people to trade at the 1:1. This means you are presenting an opportunity for those who wish to make a profit and making those who follow your lead more likely to be inefficient in their trades. It's not the desire for profit that presents the opportunity, it's the unrealistic perception of what amount of X can be offered for what amount of Y. Following the actual supply/demand curve makes players more efficient in their trades and, restricting them in that freedom only serves to present profit opportunity to those who understand the real basis of value.

@samidodamage I agree that you have the right to play the game as you will. But what if your style of trading actually reduces the pleasure of others? Think about it. If you trade strictly 2-star non-cross tier you encourage and make all the goods equal within their tier. If everybody did that, as has been pointed out many, many times, it would work. As long as nobody posted anything but 2-star trades (3 star trades are just the same as 0 and 1 but just issued with the flow of profit going the other way), and no cross tier ones it would all work out. But that would be both an unlikely occurrence since, as you have noted, some of us like to help smaller players by taking their 1 star or 0 star trades and since some of us also only post 3-star trades. In reality, value of goods is not set but fluctuates -- in response to supply/demand and intangible things the players may want -- it may be counter-productive to teach others through the example and rules, ignore market realities. And that, in most cases, will harm others in their trading.

On top of that, if you then, begin to preach that trades outside the model are "leeching" or are done by "gougers" (which I don't think you do, btw) you are actually making the worse appear the better cause by making it a moral issue.

To me it's a bit ironic when people say they care about other players, engage in actions that actually harm those players and restrict their freedom to play as they will. But I will say this also. However you play it affects others. You can't have a perfect world where you play as you will and let others play as they might, because this isn't a single player system but a multi-player one. Nobody here, truely, plays alone unless they avoid the trader all-together and never join a fellowship. But even then they would be keeping their goods out of the market and that would also have an affect.

AJ
 
Last edited:

crackie

Chef, Scroll-Keeper, Buddy's #1 Fan
You have the same issue with noneconomic buildings too like the Fire Chicken.
This is very true. But some of it is willful ignorance or pure laziness. Some players really want to take all thinking and decision making out of the game and pawn it off to others, aka take zero responsibility for their own cities. They want to be told how many factories, workshops, armories, and settlement buildings to build without taking into consideration everyone’s playing style, online availability, and game goals are different. They want to play it like a cookie cutter recipe. :rolleyes:

I am of the belief the Fire Chicken is the most powerful building in the game. In practice though, I’ve been in fellowships where players get this because everyone tells them they should get it and how it’s all powerful, but then they keep it around like some disturbing trophy wife. They still don’t get very far fighting so you ask them if they are feeding the darn thing, but they give you blank stares back. People, this building is not great and mighty because it gives you coin rains or portal profits every two days! :rolleyes:

Same type of players are also likely to find themselves desperately short on one tier but can’t be bothered to fix their cities to make more of that tier, but just claim they are stuck. :rolleyes:

Keep doing the same things that got you undesirable results, but blame the game makers while ignoring the fact people who don’t build their cities like them or play like them don’t have these problems. :rolleyes:

This post is brought to you by :rolleyes:
 
Top