Worlds Becoming Unbalanced on Goods Production

[Kekune]

I want everybody who is not scroll boosted out of the scroll making business.

I understand so very, very well. But since they're in it already, and I can't force them out of it, I'd like very much to not be stuck in it myself.

 

[ajqtrz]

As a scrolls boosted player with 8 moonstone library sets I have found little need to reduce my scrolls. I did remove one Scrolls mfr but that was because I'm busy putting in 8 more steel T1 (see above suggestions by edeba). As long as "scrolls in abundance" is profitable I'm sticking with them as much as possible. Of course, they wouldn't be profitable if people actually traded them for their true market value but some people believe the devs should be setting their "in-game" market value. That the deves use production costs rather than supply/demand is obvious and that people believe production costs are the measure of value allows me to make a profit.

Of course, I'm shooting myself in the foot a bit because I am letting everyone know over and over that the star system isn't about the value of the goods but about their cost of production. Thus, a 2-star trade says, "the cost of production of X is the same as Y," not, the value of X is so many Y. Each star level is saying, "the cost of producing what you are offering in comparison to what you are asking in exchange is .... 0 stars, "way, way out of whack," 1 star, "out of whack", 2 stars, "about the same", 3-stars "more expensive." None of it has anything to do with the value of the goods being offered or accepted and THAT is why we have the imbalances we have. If people traded at market value you'd see all scrolls on Khelonaar going for 1.2 to 1 at the T2 level and soon things would be back in balance with the scrolls producers able to get what they need easily.

It just sounds like a stretched argument to make a point. Sorry, just not on board.

How is it stretched? Does everyone pretty much sense that there are an abundance of some goods and not of others? I think the answer is clearly, "yes." This is a supply/demand imbalance. Do people adjust their asking price and reduce what they ask for in exchange for that which they have in abundance? Yep, that too. Do people feel they have to get what they need when they need it and are willing to pay more for it? Can't disagree with that. All of which sounds to me like the human psychological responses you get in the "real world" when there are surpluses and shortages. Doesn't sound stretched to me at all, but actually a pretty good fit. So how is it stretched? And if it's not, how come you aren't "on board?"

AJ

 

[AtaguS]

So how is it stretched? And if it's not, how come you aren't "on board?"
[/QUOTE

If all you were pointing out where similarities that'd be fine. But to what end? In various forms of this argument over time I've seen you use those similarities as reasons for why the trading system ought to better reflect your definitions of fair or unfair. You referred to the Dev's star rating system as artificial. But this is a game, so the entire system is artificial. Psychology, market systems, etc etc are intersting topics in the right thread, but none of it changes the fact that in this game, 2 star trades are defined by the developers of the game as fair, while 1 or 0 star trades are defined as unfair.

 

[Dew Spinner]

If all you were pointing out where similarities that'd be fine. But to what end? In various forms of this argument over time I've seen you use those similarities as reasons for why the trading system ought to better reflect your definitions of fair or unfair. You referred to the Dev's star rating system as artificial. But this is a game, so the entire system is artificial. Psychology, market systems, etc etc are intersting topics in the right thread, but none of it changes the fact that in this game, 2 star trades are defined by the developers of the game as fair, while 1 or 0 star trades are defined as unfair.

They have to justify their predatory behavior and normalize it which just proves how wrong it is. If it was right no justification or normalization would be needed.

 

[Iyapo1]

As a scrolls boosted player with 8 moonstone library sets I have found little need to reduce my scrolls.

Of course not, you dont see any problem with the devaluation of scrolls.

If people traded at market value you'd see all scrolls on Khelonaar going for 1.2 to 1 at the T2 level and soon things would be back in balance with the scrolls producers able to get what they need easily.

You are being deliberately disingenuous here and playing word games. I am done here.

 

[ajqtrz]

If all you were pointing out where similarities that'd be fine. But to what end? In various forms of this argument over time I've seen you use those similarities as reasons for why the trading system ought to better reflect your definitions of fair or unfair. You referred to the Dev's star rating system as artificial. But this is a game, so the entire system is artificial. Psychology, market systems, etc etc are intersting topics in the right thread, but none of it changes the fact that in this game, 2 star trades are defined by the developers of the game as fair, while 1 or 0 star trades are defined as unfair.

There are fluctuations in the value of things and they are caused by a change either or both of two things: supply, or demand. From my perspective the devs have not declared the 2-star trades as "fair," but have declared them as of equal production costs. If you use that as your measure their value can fluctuate and does fluctuate in spite of what you may think the devs intended. What that intended may, or may not have been a sense of what is "fair" or not but it certainly is a declaration of the equality or inequality of of productions costs. In other words their foundation for declaring the value of goods is faulty and if you follow it strictly you will benefit those of us who understand supply/demand and intangibles as a better system of valuation.

The players are the ones who declare a trade to be fair or not since fair is a measure of what I'm willing to give for what I'm willing to take.

Of course not, you dont see any problem with the devaluation of scrolls.

You are being deliberately disingenuous here and playing word games. I am done here.

Declaring a person's intentions is dangerous. Can you climb into my mind and see "disingenuous?" You can't? Then how do you come to that conclusion?

Second, "playing word games," seems to me to be an excuse for not dealing with the words I've used.

And finally, your claim that I "don't see any problem with the devaluation of scrolls" assumes that scrolls have been devalued. If they have it's the players who have done so. Think about it. If all the players stuck rigidly to what the devs have, in some people's minds, declared to be a "fair" trade, scrolls would be trading at a 1:1 ratio. The reason they aren't is exactly because, in spite of our trying to act otherwise, human psychology predicts that humans will devalue them and offer more of what they have in abundance for that which they lack. In other words, if the devs could tell us the actual value of scrolls, scrolls would be valued at that. That they aren't tells us that we, the traders, have declared their value in spite of any intentions or desires on the part of the devs.

I would also suggest that instead of just resisting the ideas with short and, obviously, frustrated messages, you might like to actually discuss and show where my thinking is wrong. "When emotions rule, they seldom rule well." That, of course, is a suggestion for anybody and everybody.

AJ

 

[Kekune]

Bottom line, I dont care why my scrolls are worth less. They are worth less and I am salty about it.

But they are responsible for introducing buildings that are widespread and make only scrolls. If the moonstone library gave a mix of silk and crystal with the 1x2 endless scrolls giving scrolls there would be no imbalance.

But this is a game, so the entire system is artificial.

I think this sums up the problem for a lot of players. Say what you want about market forces, supply/demand, etc. This is a game environment. It is artificial and the resources that are available to us ARE controlled by the devs. That the devs would abruptly introduce a massive imbalance in resources that disproportionately affects 1/3 of the player base feels fundamentally flawed and unreasonable. If this were the overall way of the game (that is, if there were multiple such imbalances that each affected different groups) it might make more sense. However, in every other way, the game has seemed to attempt to balance goods production: boosts are, at least theoretically, evenly distributed among the player base and within a neighborhood. Players cannot choose their boosts, and it does not in any other way affect a city's strengths, aside from variations in factory sizes at low levels. Overwhelmingly (perhaps exclusively?), other event buildings have created an even distribution within a tier by offering boost-specific production or by providing a blend of goods. The game encourages a person to produce and trade ALL of their boosted goods.

Taken altogether, it is reasonable to believe that the game's overall intent is for goods within a tier to be similarly valued. It is therefore reasonable for people to be salty that they are not, and to be angry that their goods have been devalued by a conscious decision the devs made, which seems to serve no purpose other than "libraries have scrolls, we made a theme!"

 

[Dew Spinner]

I think this sums up the problem for a lot of players. Say what you want about market forces, supply/demand, etc. This is a game environment. It is artificial and the resources that are available to us ARE controlled by the devs. That the devs would abruptly introduce a massive imbalance in resources that disproportionately affects 1/3 of the player base feels fundamentally flawed and unreasonable. If this were the overall way of the game (that is, if there were multiple such imbalances that each affected different groups) it might make more sense. However, in every other way, the game has seemed to attempt to balance goods production: boosts are, at least theoretically, evenly distributed among the player base and within a neighborhood. Players cannot choose their boosts, and it does not in any other way affect a city's strengths, aside from variations in factory sizes at low levels. Overwhelmingly (perhaps exclusively?), other event buildings have created an even distribution within a tier by offering boost-specific production or by providing a blend of goods. The game encourages a person to produce and trade ALL of their boosted goods.

Taken altogether, it is reasonable to believe that the game's overall intent is for goods within a tier to be similarly valued. It is therefore reasonable for people to be salty that they are not, and to be angry that their goods have been devalued by a conscious decision the devs made, which seems to serve no purpose other than "libraries have scrolls, we made a theme!"

Now, that makes perfect sense, so you know the sharks won't be having any of that.

 

[AtaguS]

From my perspective the devs have not declared the 2-star trades as "fair," but have declared them as of equal production costs.

They did both.

 

[AtaguS]

I think this sums up the problem for a lot of players. Say what you want about market forces, supply/demand, etc. This is a game environment. It is artificial and the resources that are available to us ARE controlled by the devs. That the devs would abruptly introduce a massive imbalance in resources that disproportionately affects 1/3 of the player base feels fundamentally flawed and unreasonable. If this were the overall way of the game (that is, if there were multiple such imbalances that each affected different groups) it might make more sense. However, in every other way, the game has seemed to attempt to balance goods production: boosts are, at least theoretically, evenly distributed among the player base and within a neighborhood. Players cannot choose their boosts, and it does not in any other way affect a city's strengths, aside from variations in factory sizes at low levels. Overwhelmingly (perhaps exclusively?), other event buildings have created an even distribution within a tier by offering boost-specific production or by providing a blend of goods. The game encourages a person to produce and trade ALL of their boosted goods.

Taken altogether, it is reasonable to believe that the game's overall intent is for goods within a tier to be similarly valued. It is therefore reasonable for people to be salty that they are not, and to be angry that their goods have been devalued by a conscious decision the devs made, which seems to serve no purpose other than "libraries have scrolls, we made a theme!"

Thank you Kekune, this says it all so well. Now, how do we get this post before the devs?

 

[Deleted User - 1178646]

As a scrolls boosted player with 8 moonstone library sets I have found little need to reduce my scrolls. I did remove one Scrolls mfr but that was because I'm busy putting in 8 more steel T1 (see above suggestions by edeba). As long as "scrolls in abundance" is profitable I'm sticking with them as much as possible. Of course, they wouldn't be profitable if people actually traded them for their true market value but some people believe the devs should be setting their "in-game" market value. That the deves use production costs rather than supply/demand is obvious and that people believe production costs are the measure of value allows me to make a profit.

Of course, I'm shooting myself in the foot a bit because I am letting everyone know over and over that the star system isn't about the value of the goods but about their cost of production. Thus, a 2-star trade says, "the cost of production of X is the same as Y," not, the value of X is so many Y. Each star level is saying, "the cost of producing what you are offering in comparison to what you are asking in exchange is .... 0 stars, "way, way out of whack," 1 star, "out of whack", 2 stars, "about the same", 3-stars "more expensive." None of it has anything to do with the value of the goods being offered or accepted and THAT is why we have the imbalances we have. If people traded at market value you'd see all scrolls on Khelonaar going for 1.2 to 1 at the T2 level and soon things would be back in balance with the scrolls producers able to get what they need easily.



How is it stretched? Does everyone pretty much sense that there are an abundance of some goods and not of others? I think the answer is clearly, "yes." This is a supply/demand imbalance. Do people adjust their asking price and reduce what they ask for in exchange for that which they have in abundance? Yep, that too. Do people feel they have to get what they need when they need it and are willing to pay more for it? Can't disagree with that. All of which sounds to me like the human psychological responses you get in the "real world" when there are surpluses and shortages. Doesn't sound stretched to me at all, but actually a pretty good fit. So how is it stretched? And if it's not, how come you aren't "on board?"

AJ

Why do you own 3 scroll factories and 12 steel?
Isn't that because it's easier to trade steel for crystal and silk than scrolls?

Why are you required to make that move?

 

[Deborah M]

I would also suggest that punishing a person for "gouging" is a rather harsh way of imposing your valuations on another player

Seriously? If I go to a store and see that they are charging "gouging" prices I will not go back to that store. I will go to a store who charges average pricing for the items I want to buy. They gain a loyal customer. Frankly, I think you are also forgetting that trades posted do expire after 7 days so that is where some of them go. The ones that don't go away due to expiring are shameful in my opinion! They are either laying in wait for someone to accidentally click going down the rows or laying in wait for a player who is in serious need right that moment, like when someone needs to finish something before nightly decay. Anyway, I really don't want to play MY game with players who gouge other players and that is my choice! FYI, it isn't my valuations. It is Elvenar's valuations.

Adding: This conversation is about trade imbalances that are of no fault of our fellow players. So isn't "gouging" akin to kicking people while they are down?

 

[Knight of Mystra]

I am happy to see an active forum. Interestingly enough the forum seems to be the PvP component of this game.

 

[SoggyShorts]

I am happy to see an active forum. Interestingly enough the forum seems to be the PvP component of this game.

Thems are fightin' words!
Wait...

 

[MichaelMichael]

That seems to be a decent suggestion. They could change it to be “Endless Goods” and give tier 2 boost +1 or +2. Inno could even update the Endless Scrolls I have placed or in inventory and I’d be good with that. But I would kinda like for it to still give spell fragments. Why don’t you post that in the Suggestions & Ideas forum?

I did as you suggest

 

[Lelanya]

I am happy to see an active forum. Interestingly enough the forum seems to be the PvP component of this game.

Lol
There are certain topics that seem to bring this out.
There are goods imbalances, planned from the outset to put pressure on the players in each realm. One of the senior staff confirmed this on the EN Forum, gotra be at least 3 years ago (Muf-Muf and Marindor traded roles over there, I am sure it was one or the other). It is part of the problem solving aspect of the game. I suspect that the RNG award setting, plus the difficulty level of the Spire, has meant that the Moonstone Library sets have remained in circulation for far longer than expected, and yes, this has altered the balance too.
The trouble with this kind of discussion is that sooner or later trades get brought up, and then the debate turns ugly.

 

[Enevhar Aldarion]

I am happy to see an active forum. Interestingly enough the forum seems to be the PvP component of this game.

Yep, that is the 1% of the game players, who think everything should revolve around their playstyle.

 

[SoggyShorts]

There are goods imbalances, planned from the outset to put pressure on the players in each realm. One of the senior staff confirmed this on the EN Forum, gotra be at least 3 years ago (Muf-Muf and Marindor traded roles over there, I am sure it was one or the other). It is part of the problem solving aspect of the game.

Wow, seriously? Sounds like a cover-up for incompetence, but maybe it really is just big kids who like to play with ants and a magnifying glass...

 

[AtaguS]

I did as you suggest

I couldn't find your suggestion, any chance you could post the link?

 

[Knight of Mystra]

There are goods imbalances, planned from the outset to put pressure on the players in each realm.

Well it looks like I am by necessity doing my part to fix this issue. When the tournament change I found myself knock out of the top 10 even though I placed 16 fighting buildings in week 1.

I frankly use to think it was wasteful to negotiate as the cost was ridiculous however with a large excess in Scrolls and lumber and gems (from decaying Tree Gum & Bismuth). I found my way back in the top 10 by using excess good to negotiate.