• 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

Worlds Becoming Unbalanced on Goods Production

samidodamage

Buddy Fan Club member
There are many reasons for and against cross-trades, some are even valid but I have yet to hear of a single logical reason that justifies making rules against it.
FS's have a need to balance regular goods production across the entire group. They recruit new members looking for goods they are low in. If they recruit for players boosted in Gems, they are not looking for that member to make gems to trade with marble members, they're looking for them to trade those gems for dust and elixir. Most FS's will allow cross trades when pre-arranged for specific member needs. Allowing cross trades on a regular basis makes it much harder to balance goods in the FS.
 

DeletedUser27062

Guest
FS's have a need to balance regular goods production across the entire group. They recruit new members looking for goods they are low in. If they recruit for players boosted in Gems, they are not looking for that member to make gems to trade with marble members, they're looking for them to trade those gems for dust and elixir. Most FS's will allow cross trades when pre-arranged for specific member needs. Allowing cross trades on a regular basis makes it much harder to balance goods in the FS.

That's one of the best most logical reasons I've seen. I agree with you. I think cross trades need to be controlled/limited because every player has a responsibility to contribute to the balanced functioning of their group. I don't think they're unfair or "bad" in and of themselves but when players no longer trade all their boosted goods then it can become one.
 

edeba

Well-Known Member
That's one of the best most logical reasons I've seen. I agree with you. I think cross trades need to be controlled/limited because every player has a responsibility to contribute to the balanced functioning of their group. I don't think they're unfair or "bad" in and of themselves but when players no longer trade all their boosted goods then it can become one.
This is so old school. Back in the day when the trading system rated 1:4:16 as fair it was enormously unfair to put up high tier for the lower tier trades and the land cost to make that trade was drastically more expensive to make 16 t1 for every 1 t3.

But not the 1:1.5:2.25 fair trade system is balanced. You require a lot more land for culture and population to make t3 than t1 so even though it looks like the same production/square when you are on a chapter that you've just updated your t3, when you take into account the land and culture cost the 1:2.25 for t1:t3 is fairly similar.

So, you do have a problem if something just wants to build one kind of manufacturer and you don't look at the FS needs and work to balance it as a group.

The scrolls are so far out of balance, making use of cross trades and encouraging a shake-up what teammates make to create better balance for the FS is a strategy that FS can reduce the degree of this problem.

But, before the trades were adjusted to be "fair," I was in a FS where we had a player who did not have any t1 manufacturers and the trades all showed up as 3 star, but they were all ultimately unfair to the teammates that took them as they were all 1:2.5:6.25. And there was pages upon pages of them and it was awful. But, cross trades are no longer unfair, but people haven't adjusted their attitudes and beliefs around them since they balanced them.
 

DeletedUser27062

Guest
This is so old school. Back in the day when the trading system rated 1:4:16 as fair it was enormously unfair to put up high tier for the lower tier trades and the land cost to make that trade was drastically more expensive to make 16 t1 for every 1 t3.

But not the 1:1.5:2.25 fair trade system is balanced. You require a lot more land for culture and population to make t3 than t1 so even though it looks like the same production/square when you are on a chapter that you've just updated your t3, when you take into account the land and culture cost the 1:2.25 for t1:t3 is fairly similar.

So, you do have a problem if something just wants to build one kind of manufacturer and you don't look at the FS needs and work to balance it as a group.

The scrolls are so far out of balance, making use of cross trades and encouraging a shake-up what teammates make to create better balance for the FS is a strategy that FS can reduce the degree of this problem.

But, before the trades were adjusted to be "fair," I was in a FS where we had a player who did not have any t1 manufacturers and the trades all showed up as 3 star, but they were all ultimately unfair to the teammates that took them as they were all 1:2.5:6.25. And there was pages upon pages of them and it was awful. But, cross trades are no longer unfair, but people haven't adjusted their attitudes and beliefs around them since they balanced them.

I agree with you. Well said.
 

Sir Squirrel

Artist and Buddy Fan Club member
I have a question about S2 shortages.

Ink decays into scrolls. I would think it would be harder to trade off than velvet or obsidian.
True or not true?
Not in my area of the map, the 2nd tier sentient goods I seem to be able get. My boosts are steel, scrolls and dust, so my sentient boost are Gum, velvet and bismuth. I am finding bismuth the hardest to trade and have to add 10% on to it to get it to go. Gum and velvet I add 5 % on. I think it is partly because the spire giving Gum and Bismuth making trades for them less needed. You get S1 a chapter earlier (which might help with there being more S1 to trade) and then S2 a chapter after so there are more players that have them then S3. I think most of the imbalance comes more from not having an even amount of players with all boosts in the later chapters. I don't think the spire is having as much an impact on the Sentient goods like it is with the over abundance of scrolls. I still wish the spire set wouldn't let my boosted goods (regular or sentient) to be made by other players though. It takes away trades and makes my goods not worth as much!
 
Last edited:

Deborah M

Well-Known Member
@ajqtrz I don't even have the energy right now to read everything. Here's the bottom line. You go right ahead and pick up those zero and one star trades along with whatever those players post. I choose not to. If I want to or feel the need I will post +% trades to get what I need. I would just rather be on this side of opposite approaches. Please don't try to preach economics to me. I'm a retired Corporate CPA and have had my fill of real life economics my entire adult life. I've seen charitable approaches like when I sent $1M to 9/11 fund for a company I was upper management in. I have also seen Board Members whisked out of the US after a company was found unanimously guilty of dumping. And, of course, everything in between. I'll take the corporation that was charitable above the other any day! I'm very clear on my beliefs in right & wrong. We can debate on & on but it won't change my values on fair trades, re capitalism, and unfair. (Hoping real life examples clarify my position)

Where I am on the map has pretty bad imbalances. I will still ignore someone trying to gouge me in trades. That is my prerogative. This is just one more of the building number of aspects that have me asking on some days why I even still play, let alone spend $.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser27062

Guest
Small cities do not need the same amount of goods to advance. If small cities constantly need cross tier trades then their production is not balanced and they need to put up more manufactories of whatever tier they are short or they need to join a FS that allows cross trades.
Edit to add: nicely detailed
2nd Edit, lol derailed.

I don't consider it derailing to examine cross trades as a potential factor in the perceived imbalances of goods.
 

SoggyShorts

Well-Known Member
There are many reasons for and against cross-trades, some are even valid but I have yet to hear of a single logical reason that justifies making rules against it.
As one of the founding fathers of "Cross-trades are bad" perhaps I can shed some light on this.

Samido pointed out that it becomes complicated to balance a FS when some members are balanced tier-wise within their cities, and some are not.
i.e. if everyone makes enough T1-3 for their needs and someone joins who only makes enough T3 and needs cross trades, anyone taking them must become unbalanced themselves. This creates a domino effect where they now must get a cross-trade in order to fulfill their needs.
Eventually, someone in the FS loses the game of hot-potatoe/musical chairs.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The issue of what is "fair" in a cross-trade is much more complex than the 1:1 same tier trades even before factoring in "market forces".
With same-tier it's simple enough to see that 2 players with the same support buildings but different boost factories can produce identical amounts of goods, and this is consistent in every single chapter.
With Cross-tier this calculation is almost impossible because it changes in most chapters.

That said, with no easy way to determine if a trade is truly balanced between 2 players, it is certainly not the old 16:4:1 ratio. This was proven again and again using examples showing how a chapter 8 city could bankrupt a chapter 14 city with just a few days of cross-trades.

Setting aside that bit of history, if it really is the new ratio of 9:6:4, why is it that all of the 2&3-star cross-trades sitting in all of the traders for all of my accounts are down-stream? Consistently.
In half a decade of playing, I have never had a player ask for an exception to the rule in order to offer their planks for gems.
----------------------------------------------------------------
One often-overlooked factor though is convenience.
Aside from scrolls, it is generally very easy to swap goods at 1:1 in the same tier outside of the FS. This means that in a FS with a rule against cross trades the more advanced players can pop open the trader, tick the "FS only" box, and power click the "accept" button.
They can do this regardless of what is being offered, whether it's their boost or not because when they are done they can simply repost the trades in order to regain balance and be fully confident that their repost will be taken.
If instead, the trader is littered with cross-trades that are difficult (or even impossible) to "undo" by reposting them for neighbors/larger FS members to take, then they must be avoided.

This extra step of carefully only taking trades that won't hurt the more advanced player while dodging all of the rest is a deterrent to regularly clearing the trader.
E.G.
I have 3 FS, one has no rule against cross-trades. In the other 2, I clear the trader multiple times per day, and if I get out of balance, I repost some 500K-1m trades every couple of weeks to fix it. Unless someone in the third FS messages me directly I basically ignore that trader and the 8-15 pages of trades 90%+ of which are cross-tier.

I'm certainly not alone in this either. The fellowships with rules routinely have empty traders when I check them and the other never is.
The same applies to the trader outside of the FS. There are almost no same-tier trades sitting there compared to the cross-tier trades posted.
--------------------------------------------
Note: much of the above has scrolls as an exception and to a lesser extent bizmuth&gum for reasons anyone reading this thread should know.

For your lamb-shank story, I have a rebuttal:
In short, they put 5 monkeys in a big cage with a ladder and fruit on top. If any monkey climbed the ladder the others got sprayed with cold water.
So, the monkeys would actively prevent each other from climbing the ladder.
Then they replaced one monkey with a new member and he immediately tried to climb the ladder only to be prevented from doing so by the others.
One by one they replaced the original monkeys until none remained. All of the new monkeys continued the behavior of preventing each other from climbing the ladder despite having never been punished with cold water.

If you could ask them why, they might have responded "I don't know, it's just how it's done here".
 
Last edited:

SoggyShorts

Well-Known Member
In most fellowships I've been in I've asked why cross trades are frowned upon and every single time I'm told they're unfair because you can produce a greater quantity of t2 or 3 goods in the same amount of time as it takes to produce t1 goods. That response appears legit on the surface until you consider that same tier trades can be equally unfair if production per hour is the metric to determine a 'fair' trade. Tiny cities can't produce at the same rates as bigger cities therefore a 1:1 ratio is hugely unfair to lower level players.
You forget expenses.
I produce a total of 10 million goods across all tiers. You produce 1 million.
So when trading your planks for my steel, an equitable trade would be your 100 planks for my 1,000 steel. This has the same impact on each of us, so it seems to be fair.
BUT
What about the fact that to negotiate my next tournament province will cost 100,000 Goods and your's will only cost 10,000?
 

TomatoeHu

Well-Known Member
This is not directed at any player, i too have skimmed some replies, but this is how i feel. As an AM, a player of many years and a fan of community, fellowships and Elvenar.

If a player wants to learn this game, and be good at it, they don't need cross trades. They will need to advance properly and sustainably and make solid choices in their city to be a good player. This game is based on making boosted goods, one per tier. and trading for what is needed, and if everyone is doing that, there is a balanced 1:1 trader.

I don't care what other groups or players feel is appropriate trading in the game, but I will not take cross trades. I never needed them, they are not needed and while the new ratio is closer, its not 100%. small cities need to do their time and play the game the way it was designed, when they can sustain their desires they can decide to give away their goods how they choose to.

I don't make any Tier 1- Tier 3 goods unless its an event quest or collection from a set building. My goods i use to trade must be at a 1:1 and same tier to maintain what i have. i can take unlimited trades and help unlimited players by passing within the same tier. If i cross trade, this costs me extra buildings, space, supplies to run them, time personally to set and collect them. i don't feel i should have to compromise how i want to play my city, nor should any other player be made to play how i play or sustain another player's growth. cross trading allows for the cross trader to skip a few steps and acquire what they need easier then doing the correct steps themselves. Cross trades are the cheap way for the cross trader to advance and the player who helps by taking them are always at the disadvantage. Helpers are the type of players I don't want in my group. I feel fellows have a more realistic expectation of their contributions to the group if they are not asking for help - cross trades indicate to me that a player needs help, is unbalanced The fellowship will never have enough goods to feed cross trades. The chapters are not equal in relied upon goods, making it not predictable or reliable to trade this way with a variety of chapters in a fellowship.

When my fellowship trader is 1:1 and same tier, I can always help, and other fellows are more inclined to help regardless of chapter. Asking everyone to follow 1:1 trading allows all players to make their own allowances and changes to their city and growth based on the growth and efforts they put forth by leveling correctly, advancing sustainably and respecting others desire to do the same on their own respective schedules.

I feel cross trades have made my life as an AM personally a nightmare as players needing their goods back have real concern about getting it back. but the cross trader is always reluctant to return what they wanted in the first place and the player who involuntarily helped is out the wrong tier for their city needs.

Cross trades have zero need to exist to be the best player in this game and cause a boat load of issues including accidental collection in the trader which really screws players over. I hate losing goods i wasn't expecting. happened just the other day with sentients. with decay and the gross requirements at a higher chapter, this is a huge loss. I don't care if its 3 stars. I didn't want or need what i accidently took. I encourage helping small cities but its not sustainable for sentient players to cross trade. Players often want to do more then they can, push further or acquire the same as a higher chapter city. but that is not a necessary to pass goods cross tier. It is easy to bulk up any chapter players with same tier trades.

If a player can't balance the goods they make, they will struggle learning that balance is needed in every chapter, learning to create the goods needed for its requirements to pass through. And it is not on anyone else to adjust for by trading in a way that benefits the player not making efforts to balance. We are not allowed to trade sentients for non sentients, why are we allowed to trade magical for non magical? If the game wants us to reach ch. 8 and start orcs or reach ch. 11 to get seeds, it asks us first, to be in the correct chapter. The game requires us to to unlock ch.12 to trade for sentients. Players should also, need to unlock a tier and trade within that tier only. Tournaments don't require tiers outside of research, spire doesn't ask for tiers outside of research acquired. If we received the same treatment that magical can buy only magical and crafted can only buy crafted, basic goods for basic goods, this whole conversation on cross trades would be mute. The game may not be consistent in the early chapters but it pays off in the later ones having followed the main quests and being prepared in every chapter with the request goods and resources unlocked.

If an entire fellowship is cross trading, with more of one tier then the other, they affect and unbalance the world trader which will unbalance other goods. If everyone stops making tier 1 and cross trades for it, the small players can not support the large players, and there will be a shortage. make any scenario of tier goods and and this happens, there will be shortages. crossing up or down, there is a disadvantage to someone. we will have more issues then scrolls, gum and bismuth. My scrolls certainly are not moving faster because of cross trade requests, if anything, there is way too many players posting scrolls for one type of tier 1 and that tier 1 is only buying one type of tier 2 so now, i need a different tier to trade up for but that other tier 1 is buying gems, so I am trading for something else, to get back to what i originally needed and this is not efficient, fun or without a need for foreseeable demand to be ahead of it. Trading basic for basic, boosted for non boosted gives everyone a fair and equal chance to move through the game. It doesn't need to be faster. Time boost everything and don't have the goods, tough. Want to acquire next chapter resources in advance, tough. This is not possible in later chapters, best to learn and be prepared earlier on. There is no joking about how much slower players end up advancing in later chapters. Following the game and how it unfolds has an appropriate growth rate, speeding any part of it up and players will need to adapt city design and strategy but, not need to cross trade. Keeping this in mind, players can manage expectations from neighbors, fellowships and the trader in all chapters
 

Enevhar Aldarion

Well-Known Member
I feel cross trades have made my life as an AM personally a nightmare as players needing their goods back have real concern about getting it back. but the cross trader is always reluctant to return what they wanted in the first place and the player who involuntarily helped is out the wrong tier for their city needs.

In the days of the old trade ratio, you could always tell the bad traders who said cross-tier was fine by how they were happy to offer 1000 tier 3 for 4000 tier 2 or 16000 tier 1, but would never take the reverse of those trades.

Cross trades have zero need to exist to be the best player in this game and cause a boat load of issues including accidental collection in the trader which really screws players over. I hate losing goods i wasn't expecting. happened just the other day with sentients. with decay and the gross requirements at a higher chapter, this is a huge loss. I don't care if its 3 stars. I didn't want or need what i accidently took. I encourage helping small cities but its not sustainable for sentient players to cross trade. Players often want to do more then they can, push further or acquire the same as a higher chapter city. but that is not a necessary to pass goods cross tier. It is easy to bulk up any chapter players with same tier trades.

Sentient cross-tier are tricky and their value varies greatly from server to server. On Arendyll, there is one trader who offers 11k tier 5 for 20k tier 4. It may be a 1-star trade, but for any of us in sentient chapters, we remember the old, bad system, so a trade like that at a little better than 2:1 is actually good and they do not stay up for long. Plus, tier 5 seems to be the one I have the most trouble getting, so I take those trades fairly often.
 

Darielle

Chef, Scroll-Keeper, and Buddy Fan Club Member
Small cities do not need the same amount of goods to advance. If small cities constantly need cross tier trades then their production is not balanced and they need to put up more manufactories of whatever tier they are short or they need to join a FS that allows cross trades.
Edit to add: nicely detailed
2nd Edit, lol derailed.
Overall, I agree with you. The only problem is in events, where they may be asked for t3 goods before they can build t3 factories. They have no choice but to post cross tier trades for those goods. I remember distinctly one event when I was a newbie, and I spent 2 days trying to get someone to take a cross tier trade so that I could complete the quest.
 

Lelanya

Scroll-Keeper
Overall, I agree with you. The only problem is in events, where they may be asked for t3 goods before they can build t3 factories. They have no choice but to post cross tier trades for those goods. I remember distinctly one event when I was a newbie, and I spent 2 days trying to get someone to take a cross tier trade so that I could complete the quest.
Good point! I seem to recall begging the guy with the used swim trunks to take a cross tier trade so I could make a potion badge during FA.
 

SoggyShorts

Well-Known Member
Overall, I agree with you. The only problem is in events, where they may be asked for t3 goods before they can build t3 factories. They have no choice but to post cross tier trades for those goods. I remember distinctly one event when I was a newbie, and I spent 2 days trying to get someone to take a cross tier trade so that I could complete the quest.
Good point! I seem to recall begging the guy with the used swim trunks to take a cross-tier trade so I could make a potion badge during FA.
As with just about anything there is an exception.
If a FS member needed a cross-trade for almost any reason I would more than happily help out- It's habitual cross-trading as a design choice that I find unacceptable in my fellowships.
Just this week I took multiple 1:8 same-tier trades after asking my FS members to post them so I could assist with their spire progress. It was made clear though that the expectation was for leftovers to be spent on factory upgrades to improve spire sustainability.
"Tech a man to fish" sorta thing
 

ajqtrz

Chef
@SoggyShorts the long and useful quote from Samido relies on the same assumption -- that it's the cost of productions that determines the fairness of the trade. Since cross-tier trades are just more complex it's more difficult to say what the production costs would be. That is all. No matter what though, if you start with the wrong assumption about a trade you will probably get the wrong answer when you do those complex calculations, if you do them at all.

In addition, quote his discussion about fellowship imbalances as if the fellowship is an isolated and closed market. It isn't and the number of traders having access to trades in you fellowship that are not in you fellowship is more by a factor of 25-100 at least. Thus and imbalances can be pretty easily rectified. We do it occasionally in our fellowship by just marking our trades as "foreign" -- a "9" anywhere but in the first digit of an offer, means "bringing in stock." So far we haven't had a real shortage in at least a year or two.

Valuing a cross-tier trade if viewed from the supply/demand assumption is easy. Do I have what they are asking for? And if I do, is what they are offering acceptable to me? Not complex calculations needed. If everybody just allow cross-tier trading markets would adjust quickly to shortages and surpluses, as they do anyway -- it just takes longer when you restrict what can and cannot be traded and at what level. Especially when you imply that the person posting a trade you don't like is "gouging," or being "unfair." Social pressure sometimes gets in the way too often.

@TomatoeHu When you say "If an entire fellowship is cross trading, with more of one tier than the other, they affect and unbalance the world trader which will unbalance other goods. If everyone stops making tier 1 and cross trades for it, the small players can not support the large players, and there will be a shortage. make any scenario of tier goods and and this happens, there will be shortages. crossing up or down, there is a disadvantage to someone. we will have more issues then scrolls, gum and bismuth." you might be right. But if you think about it, so what? So there's a shortage. When there is a shortage of something the price for that something goes up. Now those small players are getting a LOT more T2 and T3 goods for their T1 and will, no doubt, increase production. And, seeing the advantage of producing T1 (because you can get more T2 and T3 for it) some of those larger players will put some T1 production back. But of course this only works if there isn't a stricture against cross-tier trades. Since there is it restricts the free movement of goods valued by the traders and slows the markets and rate of market adjustment. So it's not the people cross-tier trading that are the problem,. it's the attempt to avoid shortages (or surpluses) with restrictive rules out of the false notion that production costs alone should determine the "fairness" of a trade -- cross-tier or not.

Here's an example. I have a million Planks. I need 700,000 of silk. You have 2 million of silk and need 500,000 of planks. If I offer you 500,000 planks for 700,000 of silk and you accept it, you get your needs met. If you offer me 700,000 silk for 500,000 planks and I accept, I get my needs met. Whoever accepts the trades believes their needs are worth what they have traded to have them met. It doesn't matter who put the trade up or even why. Since both parties accept the trade it's meeting their needs and they have valued their needs at the price they pay. Cost of production has little to do with it.

Of course, on the other hand, if they think: "Hey it cost me X to produce those planks so it better have cost you X to produce those silk or the trade is off," that's using the wrong measure of the value of the goods and the fairness of the trade. All trades have intangibles and those intangibles determine how far from 1:1 the trades will go. Supply/demand is a lot of it, but timing in the game is also a factor, as well as if you are catering, doing the Spire and all that. In other words, the value of goods is constantly changing and thus, the 1:1 production model for evaluating a trade not the right measure, even if it is the easiest thing to calculate and the devs have given the false impression via the star system, that it is.

AJ
 

SoggyShorts

Well-Known Member
relies on the same assumption -- that it's the cost of productions that determines the fairness of the trade
The value of anything is going to end up being what both party's of a trade agree upon, but by choosing 1:1 same-tier everything is super fast and easy.
Sure, you can do dozens of calculations and watch the trader and add up the costs in each chapter and and and, but most players aren't here to play "Market sim 2000" So we do what's easy: a little bit of "equal outcome for equal effort" and no one ever feels cheated that way.
If 2 players perform the exact same actions and have the exact same outcome it's really hard to call it unfair.
If no one feels cheated at the end of a transaction, that's close enough to "fair" for me.

I have yet to see an alternative methodology, while everyone can see at a glance if a trade is 2-star and same-tier so it's super easy to go by.
Feel free to recommend a consistent, easier, more reliable measurement of fairness, and I'll think about switching.
 

DeletedUser27062

Guest
You forget expenses.
I produce a total of 10 million goods across all tiers. You produce 1 million.
So when trading your planks for my steel, an equitable trade would be your 100 planks for my 1,000 steel. This has the same impact on each of us, so it seems to be fair.
BUT
What about the fact that to negotiate my next tournament province will cost 100,000 Goods and your's will only cost 10,000?

I think you got the wrong end of the stick. The point I was making was that you can't determine "fairness" by simply looking at production rates. There are lots of variables, including expenses. :)
 

DeletedUser27062

Guest
The value of anything is going to end up being what both party's of a trade agree upon, but by choosing 1:1 same-tier everything is super fast and easy.
Sure, you can do dozens of calculations and watch the trader and add up the costs in each chapter and and and, but most players aren't here to play "Market sim 2000" So we do what's easy: a little bit of "equal outcome for equal effort" and no one ever feels cheated that way.
If 2 players perform the exact same actions and have the exact same outcome it's really hard to call it unfair.
If no one feels cheated at the end of a transaction, that's close enough to "fair" for me.

I have yet to see an alternative methodology, while everyone can see at a glance if a trade is 2-star and same-tier so it's super easy to go by.
Feel free to recommend a consistent, easier, more reliable measurement of fairness, and I'll think about switching.

I don't think we need an alternative and I dont think AJ is suggesting we do either. It's simply about accepting that 2 star trades = fair according to community nod.
 

DeletedUser27062

Guest
This is not directed at any player, i too have skimmed some replies, but this is how i feel. As an AM, a player of many years and a fan of community, fellowships and Elvenar.

If a player wants to learn this game, and be good at it, they don't need cross trades. They will need to advance properly and sustainably and make solid choices in their city to be a good player. This game is based on making boosted goods, one per tier. and trading for what is needed, and if everyone is doing that, there is a balanced 1:1 trader.

I don't care what other groups or players feel is appropriate trading in the game, but I will not take cross trades. I never needed them, they are not needed and while the new ratio is closer, its not 100%. small cities need to do their time and play the game the way it was designed, when they can sustain their desires they can decide to give away their goods how they choose to.

I don't make any Tier 1- Tier 3 goods unless its an event quest or collection from a set building. My goods i use to trade must be at a 1:1 and same tier to maintain what i have. i can take unlimited trades and help unlimited players by passing within the same tier. If i cross trade, this costs me extra buildings, space, supplies to run them, time personally to set and collect them. i don't feel i should have to compromise how i want to play my city, nor should any other player be made to play how i play or sustain another player's growth. cross trading allows for the cross trader to skip a few steps and acquire what they need easier then doing the correct steps themselves. Cross trades are the cheap way for the cross trader to advance and the player who helps by taking them are always at the disadvantage. Helpers are the type of players I don't want in my group. I feel fellows have a more realistic expectation of their contributions to the group if they are not asking for help - cross trades indicate to me that a player needs help, is unbalanced The fellowship will never have enough goods to feed cross trades. The chapters are not equal in relied upon goods, making it not predictable or reliable to trade this way with a variety of chapters in a fellowship.

When my fellowship trader is 1:1 and same tier, I can always help, and other fellows are more inclined to help regardless of chapter. Asking everyone to follow 1:1 trading allows all players to make their own allowances and changes to their city and growth based on the growth and efforts they put forth by leveling correctly, advancing sustainably and respecting others desire to do the same on their own respective schedules.

I feel cross trades have made my life as an AM personally a nightmare as players needing their goods back have real concern about getting it back. but the cross trader is always reluctant to return what they wanted in the first place and the player who involuntarily helped is out the wrong tier for their city needs.

Cross trades have zero need to exist to be the best player in this game and cause a boat load of issues including accidental collection in the trader which really screws players over. I hate losing goods i wasn't expecting. happened just the other day with sentients. with decay and the gross requirements at a higher chapter, this is a huge loss. I don't care if its 3 stars. I didn't want or need what i accidently took. I encourage helping small cities but its not sustainable for sentient players to cross trade. Players often want to do more then they can, push further or acquire the same as a higher chapter city. but that is not a necessary to pass goods cross tier. It is easy to bulk up any chapter players with same tier trades.

If a player can't balance the goods they make, they will struggle learning that balance is needed in every chapter, learning to create the goods needed for its requirements to pass through. And it is not on anyone else to adjust for by trading in a way that benefits the player not making efforts to balance. We are not allowed to trade sentients for non sentients, why are we allowed to trade magical for non magical? If the game wants us to reach ch. 8 and start orcs or reach ch. 11 to get seeds, it asks us first, to be in the correct chapter. The game requires us to to unlock ch.12 to trade for sentients. Players should also, need to unlock a tier and trade within that tier only. Tournaments don't require tiers outside of research, spire doesn't ask for tiers outside of research acquired. If we received the same treatment that magical can buy only magical and crafted can only buy crafted, basic goods for basic goods, this whole conversation on cross trades would be mute. The game may not be consistent in the early chapters but it pays off in the later ones having followed the main quests and being prepared in every chapter with the request goods and resources unlocked.

If an entire fellowship is cross trading, with more of one tier then the other, they affect and unbalance the world trader which will unbalance other goods. If everyone stops making tier 1 and cross trades for it, the small players can not support the large players, and there will be a shortage. make any scenario of tier goods and and this happens, there will be shortages. crossing up or down, there is a disadvantage to someone. we will have more issues then scrolls, gum and bismuth. My scrolls certainly are not moving faster because of cross trade requests, if anything, there is way too many players posting scrolls for one type of tier 1 and that tier 1 is only buying one type of tier 2 so now, i need a different tier to trade up for but that other tier 1 is buying gems, so I am trading for something else, to get back to what i originally needed and this is not efficient, fun or without a need for foreseeable demand to be ahead of it. Trading basic for basic, boosted for non boosted gives everyone a fair and equal chance to move through the game. It doesn't need to be faster. Time boost everything and don't have the goods, tough. Want to acquire next chapter resources in advance, tough. This is not possible in later chapters, best to learn and be prepared earlier on. There is no joking about how much slower players end up advancing in later chapters. Following the game and how it unfolds has an appropriate growth rate, speeding any part of it up and players will need to adapt city design and strategy but, not need to cross trade. Keeping this in mind, players can manage expectations from neighbors, fellowships and the trader in all chapters


I really appreciate your response Tomato.

I'm going to close out my comments on this topic but before I do I want to share some experiences.

I really enjoy playing the trader. I would go on there and look for lucrative trades that could help the fellowship I was in at the time. Posting cross trades was a no-no but nobody said I couldn't take them so I did just that. I was even able to secure much needed goods that we had a shortage of by brokering cross trades from my neighbourhood and bringing those goods into the fellowship. Sometimes I'd see that player x wanted to trade Planks for Marble and player y wanted marble for planks so I'd take both which cost me nothing but helped two players get their trades taken sooner. Occasionally I'd get stuck with an unwanted trade but that was no biggie because I learned a long time ago that you don't gamble what you can't afford to lose. Sometimes cross trading is a good thing imo.

Also, I think it's unfair to blame the imbalance on the player when the entire game is designed to keep you off balance. Inno's idea of keeping things interesting is to rip a wheel of your cart and see how you manage. The games base is designed for very very slow methodical progress yet inno pumps the game full of events and tournaments that are timed. They do this on purpose. You are never supposed to have enough because hungry folks spend money when the clock is ticking. I don't think you can blame the player for falling into a hole Inno created.

I may not think that banning cross trades is justified but I'm also not so arrogant as to assume my experiences and opinions are more right than anyone elses.
 
Top