• Good day, Stranger! — Are you new to our forums?

    Have I seen you here before? To participate in or to create forum discussions, you will need your own forum account. Register your account here!

Fair Trading

Killiak

Artisan
Removing the Star system, regardless of it's shortcomings and the trading unfairness, will still not lead to any less arguments. It's just a visual representation of an underlying problem, nothing more. The real cause for arguments and fights over trades lies in the number of goods offered/demanded and cross trading.
Changing the ratio's only changes the numbers people will argue over and there will still be hagglers trying to sneak in extremely unfair trades.

The best you can do is altering the production rates so that 1:1:1 becomes fair (in terms of space needed), and setting the trade system to have a much stricter limit on how much extra you can demand. The repercussions this will have on the Tech Tree etc I will gladly leave to the devs to consider.

Of course, this kills all flexibility in trading and likely even creativity in city design. Even then, arguments/fights will still occur.
 

DeletedUser7733

Guest
Removing the star rating is a progress and progress is good :)
 

m4rt1n

Adept
I'm very happy with how the trades are now, in my opinion if you dislike a trade no one is making you take it.
It costs far more coins and supplies to produce T3 than it does T1 goods to the same amount.
 

DeletedUser7733

Guest
Less reasons to argue means less arguments. Removing the star rating is a progress and progress is good.

@Killiak Can you give us some facts or logic to go by rather than your opinions? Let's also think of everyone not just our own interests.
 

DeletedUser7733

Guest
The arguments are about what the developers labeled as a fair trade so if we remove the label there will be less arguments. The fairness will still be questioned but it will become a personal opinion rather than official labeling.
 

Killiak

Artisan
The real cause for arguments and fights over trades lies in the number of goods offered/demanded and cross trading.

The arguments are about what the developers labeled as a fair trade so if we remove the label there will be less arguments. The fairness will still be questioned but it will become a personal opinion rather than official labeling.

So you're going to "solve" the issue by making it seem like the imbalanced trades are a personal opinion, which you can just dismiss away?

You keep saying "less reasons, less arguments". Unfortunately, what you are stating will only give people MORE reasons to argue, because the 'opinion' on fair trades is then based on individuals instead of a world-wide rating!
 

DeletedUser7733

Guest
Sorry, to me I keep stating the same thing over and over.

Less reasons = no label of fairness
Less arguments = no arguments about a label

If there's an opportunity to make things better, we should take it. Why to go against it?
 

Killiak

Artisan
If there's an opportunity to make things better, we should take it. Why to go against it?

Because just removing the star system won't make things better.


The best you can do is altering the production rates so that 1:1:1 becomes fair (in terms of space needed), and setting the trade system to have a much stricter limit on how much extra you can demand. The repercussions this will have on the Tech Tree etc I will gladly leave to the devs to consider.
 

DeletedUser7733

Guest
Unfortunately, the solution has to be practical. I still believe that progress is better than nothing. Even our argument wouldn't exist if the label was removed.
 

DeletedUser5754

Guest
Believing in falsehoods doesn't magically turn them into truths. Sorry.
I'm sorry, I should have added that each opinion is equal is normal to most people, ofcourse there are exceptions. Thank you for your explaning the difference between your opinion and the ones who don't agree with you.
I'm very happy with how the trades are now, in my opinion if you dislike a trade no one is making you take it.
It costs far more coins and supplies to produce T3 than it does T1 goods to the same amount.

If you build the residences for the workers, you will get the coins for free. There are no costs to produce them. Same is true for supplies, no costs to produce them except the space you need to place them. 16 Times zero is still zero.
 

m4rt1n

Adept
I'm sorry, I should have added that each opinion is equal is normal to most people, ofcourse there are exceptions. Thank you for your explaning the difference between your opinion and the ones who don't agree with you.


If you build the residences for the workers, you will get the coins for free. There are no costs to produce them. Same is true for supplies, no costs to produce them except the space you need to place them. 16 Times zero is still zero.

I'm still very happy with the current system, and despite what you say, like eveything with this game my coins and supplies cost me the most, TIME in my life. ;)
 

DeletedUser219

Guest
@Diadal By that logic, everything in the game that can be produced is also free, including the Residences and Culture Buildings that support the Manufactories, and the space they are built on, unless you are foolish enough to spend Diamonds for Expansions.

Since it is all free, a trade offering 1:steel: for 600:elixir: should be considered fair, but I doubt anyone in this conversation would agree with that.

The Trader needs a rating system, for the protection and guidance of new players. Removing the existing rating system without an adequate replacement cannot be seen as progress.

The existing rating system is more than adequate for trading in same-Tier Goods. The mathematical arguments proposing a reduced ratio for cross-Tier Trading are pertinent only for those with more advanced cities. I produce Steel, Scrolls, and Elixir. If I need Planks or Marble, I offer Steel, for Silk or Crystal I offer Scrolls, for Gems or Magic Dust I offer Elixir. I see no reason why someone who is too shortsighted to produce their Tier 1 Boost should benefit from my Steel.
 

DeletedUser7733

Guest
Yes, if we remove the rating it has to be replaced with something. I suggested to list trades based on how much is offered compared to how much is demanded to make the calculations easier. Also, the default trade ratio can be used to help new players.
 

m4rt1n

Adept
I still really don't understand the issue here, don't take a trade if you dislike it.

I have no issues for example putting up 40k steel to get 10k silk, or taking a trade 3200 planks wanting 200 elixir or visa versa. :)
 

DeletedUser5754

Guest
I'm still very happy with the current system, and despite what you say, like eveything with this game my coins and supplies cost me the most, TIME in my life. ;)

You might be right, but it takes me 30 seconds to collect coins twice a day and if we didn't have the time we wouldn't be playing this game I guess.In my city (dragons) 1 elixer (lvl 19) produces 4K (9h), steel (lvl 21) also produces 4K (9h). So I would need 16 steel manu's to produce an equal amount of 'ingame value'. Its there in plain sight.

@Diadal By that logic, everything in the game that can be produced is also free, including the Residences and Culture Buildings that support the Manufactories, and the space they are built on, unless you are foolish enough to spend Diamonds for Expansions.

Coins and supplies are free and everything produced using them are also for free and following up on that math all goods produced are equal in value. The only difference in producing them is the space they take up to produce and therefore difference in space is the only facter that should affect the rating.

The Trader needs a rating system, for the protection and guidance of new players. Removing the existing rating system without an adequate replacement cannot be seen as progress.

Agreed, but I don't think telling new players 16K T1 is equal to 1K T3 is helpfull.I've been playing for about 2 years now and I've never seen a trade offering 16K T1 for 1K T3, not even from players stating there is nothing wrong with the current rating.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top