Fair Trading

[FieryArien]

The main problem I personally have with the current cross-tier trading is the constant need for explanation. People post these “fair” trades as the system sets them up and afterwards they are upset/disappointed when no one takes those trades. They are doing nothing wrong (just accepting guidance from the system) and people who don’t accept those trades are doing nothing wrong either (just refusing to be abused and also unhappy for having these trades occupying prominent places in trader window). Both parties are dissatisfied (before anyone says that: yes, exceptions exist). That does look like broken system to me.

Even though I’m sure nothing like this will happen, I’d love to see percentage based rating with clearly marked tier of goods (T1/T2/T3/T4/T5 - note that I don’t know anything about T5&6 yet, but I suppose they might be cross-traded as well). Example follows:

offer # demand # rating
1600 marble (T1 label) # 100 gems (T3 label) # 1600%
500 marble (T1 label) # 600 planks (T1 label) # 83%
1000 Magic dust (T3 label) # 8000 marble (T1 label) # 12,5%
1000 elixir (T3 label) # 16000 steel (T1 label) # 6,25%

There are obvious disadvantages:
- Within the same star bracket (trades with the same number of stars) the current system sorts trades from the biggest to the smallest. That’s a cool feature allowing me to take fewer big-ish trades and saving me clicks/taps. I don’t see how that could be done in the percentage system.
- Even the most commonly argued rate 1:2:4 would mean the T1:T3 trades are rated as low as 12,5%. Would people really take those? And from the other trade point of view - would anyone be willing to post 800% rated trades?

My personal conclusion: 1) The current rating system is pretty bad. 2) I don’t see any perfect solution. 3) I would fully support the change of the rating system from 1:4:16 to 1:2:4 as a compromise solution.

 

[DeletedUser5754]

I wonder why you think that people who are criticising the points made are, in fact, supporting the current system or are saying it is fair. I certainly haven't done either. It would seem that you are dividing the discussion in two camps, making a lot of assumptions in the process. Nice and easy in one's mind, I am sure.
At worst that's a strawman-esque discussion technique, but instead I will just assume you hadn't thought of the other option; people agree that it is unfair, but do not agree with the proposed solution. Want to try reading my posts again, with that in mind?

I just don't see the problem here.

I am happy with the star system of trades

I am personally good with Innos ratings

There is nothing wrong with cross tier trades,

I did read all the posts and not just the ones I need to turn a discussion about trade rates into a personal argument.
For your information I'm not the one dividing the discussion in two camps, usually there are at least two camps needed in any dicussion. Or is this just another assumption?

One question: Is someone against any form of change in favor of the current system or not.

 

[Lelanya]

I used to be content with the system. No more. I feel that new players are taking advantage of, and vice versa, the tier3 goods exchange system.

 

[LazyTony]

I keep track of goods needed for tournaments and sofar all tournaments come up with the same number of goods needed in all three tiers. Almost a perfect 1:1:1.

Nu Huh. I need almost twice as much t2 as t1 or t3. Its more like 1:2:1 for tourneys (where I spend nearly all my goods).

I fell out with an old archmage over "fair" trades. When I trade down tier (e.g. t3 to t2) I do it at 2 or 3 to 1. When I (very occasionally) tried to trade up tier (e.g t1 to t3) at less than 2 stars my arch told me off. We went through all the maths, she agreed with me that the game ratios are way out, then still insisted I couldn't post "unfair" up tier trades that were actually killing me.

A bad rating system is worse than no rating system, just look at the credit agencies role in the global financial crisis, rating junk mortgage securities triple A. When you ask for directions, would you rather someone made up some wrong directions or said "I don't know". I'm not sure what a fair system would be, but removing the totally wrong (at least for cross tier) current rating system would at least force players to think through themselves what is fair

 

[DeletedUser5976]

Nu Huh. I need almost twice as much t2 as t1 or t3. Its more like 1:2:1 for tourneys (where I spend nearly all my goods).

I feel this might be related to the chapter you're in. I used to need a lot more t1 than t2 and very little t3 (chapter 6) and now into chapter 7 it seems the need for t2 is increasing.

 

[CrazyWizard]

Nu Huh. I need almost twice as much t2 as t1 or t3. Its more like 1:2:1 for tourneys (where I spend nearly all my goods).

I fell out with an old archmage over "fair" trades. When I trade down tier (e.g. t3 to t2) I do it at 2 or 3 to 1. When I (very occasionally) tried to trade up tier (e.g t1 to t3) at less than 2 stars my arch told me off. We went through all the maths, she agreed with me that the game ratios are way out, then still insisted I couldn't post "unfair" up tier trades that were actually killing me.

A bad rating system is worse than no rating system, just look at the credit agencies role in the global financial crisis, rating junk mortgage securities triple A. When you ask for directions, would you rather someone made up some wrong directions or said "I don't know". I'm not sure what a fair system would be, but removing the totally wrong (at least for cross tier) current rating system would at least force players to think through themselves what is fair

I completly agree with this one, if the stars are removed we at least do no longer have to battle the bad rating system.

 

[DeletedUser5754]

I can't say whats needed in other chapters, but I'm in dragons and the goods I used are:
Scrolls tournament 331K:325K:298K and in silk 361K:367K:379K, not spot on, but very close to 1:1:1. Both tournaments equal points.

 

[Killiak]

I did read all the posts and not just the ones I need to turn a discussion about trade rates into a personal argument.
For your information I'm not the one dividing the discussion in two camps, usually there are at least two camps needed in any dicussion. Or is this just another assumption?

One question: Is someone against any form of change in favor of the current system or not.

At least two, and I am obviously the third one, since I believe it is inherently unfair but I also do not see the proposed solution solving the issue. In fact, there is no actual way of fixing a trade system to be fair, unless you actually FORCE trades into specific ratio's. Which will then annoy people again, leaving you with the same issue.
Your question is pointless and rhetorical, and does nothing to adress the issues/points/arguments I have brought up so far.


However, yes, you are dividing it into two camps, and blatantly lumping me in with others (by selectively quoting again), which is obviously a falsehood and is a strawman argument if I have ever seen one. Accusing me of turning it into a personal argument is also rather far fetched and borders on Ad Hominem.

Now, you can keep misrepresenting my statements and strawmanning it up, bolding bits of text in quotes whilst ignoring the rest of the text and pulling it out context, or you can start discussing with me in an honest manner. It's your call.

 

[CrazyWizard]

At least two, and I am obviously the third one, since I believe it is inherently unfair but I also do not see the proposed solution solving the issue. In fact, there is no actual way of fixing a trade system to be fair, unless you actually FORCE trades into specific ratio's. Which will then annoy people again, leaving you with the same issue.
Your question is pointless and rhetorical, and does nothing to adress the issues/points/arguments I have brought up so far.


However, yes, you are dividing it into two camps, and blatantly lumping me in with others (by selectively quoting again), which is obviously a falsehood and is a strawman argument if I have ever seen one. Accusing me of turning it into a personal argument is also rather far fetched and borders on Ad Hominem.

Now, you can keep misrepresenting my statements and strawmanning it up, bolding bits of text in quotes whilst ignoring the rest of the text and pulling it out context, or you can start discussing with me in an honest manner. It's your call.

So your conclusion is, It does suck and it's totally wrong, but since I am not 100% sure how to fix it, so lets do nothing at all?

So you start a discussion without any argument that makes any sense at al?
I like to requote

A bad rating system is worse than no rating system

 

[LazyTony]

I feel this might be related to the chapter you're in.

Its been the same through halflings, elemental and now amuni.

 

[Killiak]

So your conclusion is, It does suck and it's totally wrong, but since I am not 100% sure how to fix it, so lets do nothing at all?

"So you're saying". My conclusion is already written out, and does not need to be misrepresented, so please don't.

Currently, players already need to be very aware of what they click, and keep an eye on the actual numbers. That is not going to change no matter what you change in the current system, whether that is changing ratio's, dropping the star system or going full free market.

What I am 100% sure of is that you can't fix the system we have now. It's going to remain unfair, and you are going to keep having arguments. That doesn't mean you should do nothing, but you are likely going to need a redesign.

So you start a discussion without any argument that makes any sense at al?

They make perfect sense, you simply disagree.

 

[DeletedUser6357]

Reading the thoughts of some people up, I want fair trade to be announced 1:1:1!
Why?
I have built 5 manufacures of the first type of resource - 100 tiles.
I have built (after 3 days) 4 manufacures second type of resource - 96 tiles.
I have built four third-party types of resource - 96 tiles.
I'm in the last chapter of the game.
Removing the stars from the market will be a great fool!
And it will be against the new players:
Player second chapter launches a 100 steel bid and wants 100 crystals. And he is angry and tells other players that they do not buy it!
Such an offer, if it is not marked with the stars for fair trade, will be bought by another new player. And then he will ask and will not understand why he lags behind in development and does not get his resources.
If there are no stars on the market, I will need every offer to calculate if it is good. In mind or with a calculator. Oh, what a great pleasure the game will come up with!

Remember, not only in this game - the world is not what your cabin is seeing!

The world is much larger and more diverse.

 

[DeletedUser5754]

Great post, @Lynxze thanx.

This post includes all the math
https://en.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/market-value-ratio-highly-inaccurate.2296/

Edit, changed the link, it refered to a single post, not the thread.

 

[Lelanya]

Lynxze is back too? I missed seeing that, wow

 

[DeletedUser7733]

Less reasons to argue means less arguments. What is the point of keeping something that creates arguments and confusion. The star rating needs to be removed.


@Viskyar I already have to calculate whether a trade is good or not. That's why I suggested to list trades based on how much is offered compared to how much is demanded to make things easier.

 

[Sir Derf]

So, I got bored and started cranking some of then numbers I was interested in. One of my curiosities is the overall spatial efficiency of the manufactories.

I've done my math so far through chapter 5, because a) it's a satisfying level to compute for, as residence, workshop and all manufactories max at level 15, and b) That's the chapter I'm on.

As each manufactory goes up in levels, the output (in terms of unboosted 3 hour production) goes up, and the building footprint increases in three stages. And when you compute the per square productivity, that value gradually rises with each level. Of note, these values are nearly identical for all nine goods types at each upgrade level. The level 1 values range from 4.50 to 4.75, the level 8 values range from 16.15 to 16.50, and the level 15 values range from 28.50 to 28.83.

Expressed in terms of how many squares (manufactory only) are needed to produce 100 units of each good, at level 15:

3.47 - Marble
3.50 - Steel
3.47 - Planks
3.51 - Crystal
3.49 - Scrolls
3.51 - Silk
3.50 - Elixir
3.50 - Dust
3.50 - Gems

Now, each manufactory also requires working population, which comes from residences, and those residences also increase their population by level, with three building footprints. When you include the squares necessary for the residences that supply the population, there is a similar progression, but it gets a little more spread out.

Expressed in terms of how many squares (manufactory + residence) are needed to produce 100 units of each good, at level 15:

07.88 - Marble
07.50 - Steel
08.31 - Planks
10.38 - Crystal
09.08 - Scrolls
09.75 - Silk
11.33 - Elixir
10.62 - Dust
09.91 - Gems

At earlier chapters, since the manufactories are technology limited at different, unequal levels, the relationships vary, but at least by the conclusion of Chapter 5, the spatial requirements, when looking at manufactory and residence footprints, are pretty similar. The largest ratio difference, Steel to Elixir, is only 33% more efficient in space.

Next, I want to incorporate the culture footprint requirement, but I don't think that will have that big of an effect.

 

[Wowwie]

there is nothing to say what you can or cannot trade for the trader is set up for flexibility,
if you dont like the trades do not take them
If you want trades just keep posting how you prefer
the only restrictions are what is placed in a fellowship guidelines by Archamages and what their fellowship say fair trading is
that is where you decide which fellowship is good for you
if its not broke do not fix it
Happy Sp(o0)ky Elvenar

 

[DeletedUser5754]

there is nothing to say what you can or cannot trade for the trader is set up for flexibility,
if you dont like the trades do not take them
If you want trades just keep posting how you prefer
the only restrictions are what is placed in a fellowship guidelines by Archamages and what their fellowship say fair trading is
that is where you decide which fellowship is good for you
if its not broke do not fix it
Happy Sp(o0)ky Elvenar

This thread is not about telling people what they should or shouldn't trade and in what amounts. Its about the star rating 'telling' people whats a fair or even a good trade. Is it correct or is it misleading.

 

[Wowwie]

This thread is not about telling people what they should or shouldn't trade and in what amounts. Its about the star rating 'telling' people whats a fair or even a good trade. Is it correct or is it misleading.

Title says
Fair Trading
and starts out The main problem I personally have with the current cross-tier trading is the constant need for explanation. People post these “fair” trades as the system sets them up and afterwards they are upset/disappointed when no one takes those trades. They are doing nothing wrong (just accepting guidance from the system) and people who don’t accept those trades are doing nothing wrong either (just refusing to be abused and also unhappy for having these trades occupying prominent places in trader window). Both parties are dissatisfied (before anyone says that: yes, exceptions exist). That does look like broken system to me.
I m saying the system really is not broken
I see your post and few other have mathematical equations and
suggestions
I my post ws to the response of the first remarks is all

 

[DeletedUser5754]

All I can do is to invite you to read these posts:

Producing T1 goods vs trading T3 goods for T1 goods, Part 1

Producing T1 goods vs trading T3 goods for T1 goods, Part 2

Both posts perfectly explain whats going on and can be found here:https://en.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?threads/market-value-ratio-highly-inaccurate.2296/page-2

Great job @Lynxze