There is still decay for goods in trader, it doesn't help decay at all.I thought it was done to avoid sentient goods decay by using the trader like storage. I don’t think there is decay on an open trade, but I don’t know for sure.
define lopsided ??? % ??
Good to know. Thanks.There is still decay for goods in trader, it doesn't help decay at all.
View attachment 11779
Same tier sentient, all from the same player. 1:3 seems a bit lopsided.
There's no such thing as lopsided arms. All arm sizes should be considered "fair", and if he wants to slap you with his right you should thank him for it.1:3 seems a bit lopsided
There are so many bad trades on the trader because the good trades are taken en the bad trades are almost not taken (unless someone is desperate)Pls explain why people do this when it is not pre arranged.
Personally I will use the wholesaler before making 0 or 1 star trades.
We actually have a handful of people in Sinya that post unfair trades later in the day, before decay. They grab all the good trades throughout the day then repost them as unfair trades later in the day, keeping the difference for themselves.There are so many bad trades on the trader because the good trades are taken en the bad trades are almost not taken (unless someone is desperate)
Imagine a shop where 1 seller sells a good TV for 200 dollar and is out of stock and the other sells them for 5000 dollar and has a shop full of TV's
Unless you are desperate you are not paying 5K for the same stupid TV
They are only "bad" trades to you, if you take them and don't like the fact that you clicked on them and thus accepted them.
And if they aren't "bad" trades to the one offering them, what's the problem?
The problem is you taking them. In another thread people are arguing that when you accidently click on produce #1 when they meant to produce #3 (#1 being a 3 hour standard goods production and #3 being a 3 hour sentient goods production) the game shouldn't be changed to help them avoid that miss-click because it's their fault. How is accidentally clicking on a 1 or 0 star trade any different? It's not the poster's trade that's the problem. Let's be consistent, shall we?
Finally, I agree that some of the 1 and 0 star trades many don't like are there to try to "catch" somebody's missclick. You may not find that ethical, and I wouldn't do it. But it's allowed and if it's allowed by the game isn't it a bit over the top to act as if the one taking advantage of one aspect of the game is a bad person? Morally judging others for their actions should be restricted to actions that are actually their fault and against the "law." Being in too much of a hurry when clicking on trades (Yes, I too have done this), isn't the fault of the poster of the trade.
I hear what you are saying but at least a production mistake can be cancelled and reset. Perhaps you have solved the trading problem as well...add a cancel option ;-)
But that is an entirely different issue than the scooping up of all fair 2 or 3 star trades and then filling up the trader with the same trades at 0 or 1 star in order to skim the difference.
Way too deep of thinking for me, lol.You are right, of course. Since you can't "un-click" a trade the fault may be somewhat put on the poster since he/she, in posting as they do, raises the danger of you making a missclick and suffering harm from it. And there is, I think, some moral culpability in making the gaming world less safe for our neighbors. But that's just based upon my own ethical and moral standards.
On the other hand, the motivations for posting such trades are assumed to be bad. This is a problem on two fronts. First, how are the motivations known? Second, why are they bad?
To get to the first you observe that they are taking 3 star trades and posting them at a profit. The observation assumes the motive because that's just the most obvious reason the average person would do such a thing. But is this person "average?" In other words, there may be other reasons to post such trades even if we don't see them. Thus, assuming you know the motivation for any action is questionable.
Second, from what moral or ethical standard do you derive the idea that using the trade board as a profit generating device is bad? We do it in commodities, stocks, bonds, bank accounts and all sorts of other devices in the real world -- often to the detriment of the "little guy", but nobody, or very few, seem to think this a bad thing. So why is profit seeking bad in this game?
Now of course if the poster of such trades begins with a different ethical and moral standard what you are doing when you condemn his/her behavior as "bad" is implying his/her standards are also bad -- meaning they, as persons, are at least morally suspect. Sadly, the question of moral standards is so personal, or at least taken as such, we can't discuss them here (since most people seem to forget how to discuss thing in a civil manner when it the subject is central to their identity). So I would rather just refain from making such a judgement, or at least just keep it to myself. Sharing them in public only encourages other players to jump on the band wagon and pretty soon you get a lot of "rules" all derived from moral/ethical standard(s) we are not free to discuss. Even if you allow that the "proper" standard is "is it good for the game," you end up with, "why should I care if it's good for the game if it's good for me?"-- and then where can you go in your discussion? In the end I'd rather try to refrain from picking on a particular person or group and declaring them to be morally suspect.
Just my thoughts. I do appreciate the calm and respectful manner in which you put your objections.
Way too deep of thinking for me, lol.
I go by INNO's definition of good (3 star), fair (2 star) and bad (0 or 1 star). That is the extent of my thinking about it, except to avoid subsidizing others game play unless I am doing it voluntarily.
And fyi, I play on the mobile app so trade offers are automatically sorted by stars so mistakenly taking a 0 or 1 star trade is less of an issue. There being nothing but 0 or 1 star trades in the trader because all 2 & 3 stars trades are immediately taken by those offering the 0 & 1 star trades is the problem.
Actually a 0 or 1 star trade IS INNO's definition of a request for a game play subsidy, not mine.The "subsidizing others play unless I'm doing it voluntarily" means you AREN'T just using Inno's measure.
That's my take, anyway.
Actually a 0 or 1 star trade IS INNO's definition of a request for a game play subsidy, not mine.
It only becomes voluntary if I choose to accept that request.
And the intangibles (subjective) do not alter the objective, only the motivation to engage . . .Not sure you got my point here. The value of the trade you make is not, strictly speaking, just based on Inno's evaluation. Inno doesn't consider the "intangibles" in the value of the trade, but only the goods themselves and the cost of producing those goods. When you voluntarily take a trade to subsidize another player, the value of the act of subsidizing itself, is part of the trade. After all, if you didn't value the subsidizing you wouldn't make the trade. But you do because the goods you are giving + the value of subsidizing a player => the value of the goods they request.
In any case, it's probably a minor point to it all anyway. I just like to help people understand that Inno's evaluation is incomplete in that it doesn't adjust for the intangibles and/or current market conditions. To me it's better to understand this and be free to make your own choices rather than to simply follow what Inno says things are worth.