Replace Trade Ratio with Values of goods.

[DeletedUser30143]

It is a time-consuming work-around, but it is not silly. It is an intentional part of the game mechanics. It should be hard to get goods from more than an era or two away from the one you're in. It's part of the challenge of the game, and part of the incentive to find good friends and a good guild that will work around it with you.

Most importantly, though, as many others have pointed out, this change would be open to all kinds of abuse. And neither you nor the OP have addressed that objection at all. And, it would do nothing to help with the supposed problem of younger (I'm assuming he really means newer) players getting taken advantage of. People will still post unbalanced trades, and newbies will still sometimes unwittingly take them. It's part of the learning process that we all went through, as has also been pointed out.

In summation, the proposal is ripe for abuse and doesn't even solve the main problem that is stated in the proposal itself, therefore I say no to it.

You're right, Stephen, I shouldn't have used a subjective word that's a target for dismissal. What's silly in my opinion may be prudent, or even calculated, to others. And Inno's use of these "game mechanics" is intentional, but not because they want to make BA goods (for example) hard to get for players. In fact, as each player progressives, the lower age goods become increasingly easier to stockpile, both because players continue to manufacture lower-age goods (at low supply costs) while acquiring newer-age capabilities, and because they can trade their higher-age goods for a lot more lower-age goods.

The reason Inno has created a suppression mechanic in their trading code is to slow down players' progression through the game so that that are forced stay in game longer, with the intent to encourage higher, long-term game population, which may also provoke and encourage real-world transactions of money for diamonds. When you study their ratio charts, you can clearly see the bottleneck created during the first 5-7 ages by suppression of accessible trade that slows economic growth. In the charts, if you click on the button that reveals the hidden ratios surrounding the suppressed cells, you can see that Inno already has the trade ratios in place for expanding trade between ages. This is how we know that, even continuing to use their current ratio system, they could control players from making exorbitant trade offers.

Right now, higher-level players are rewarded for staying in-game so long, by being allowed to make larger trades when in the later ages -- the ratio charts show, in the white cells (not greyed out), how the newly allowed trades open out gradually from the earlier funnel of allowable, ratio transactions. It's not only a reward, it's necessary, in order to accommodate trading for and manipulating the compound goods being manufactured in the latest ages.

I'm not saying that Inno doesn't have the right to try to control gameplay and encourage player spending of real money. And it's wise to reward loyal, late-stage players; a lot of game companies don't think so and are willing to lose them to recruit "new money." But it can also be a mistake to penalize early (young, new, low-level, newbie/noob, whatever you want to call them) players by suppressing their growth and ability to "learn" game mechanics or to make satisfying progress. They'll give up when frustrated too often, and that's just loss of potential revenues for the company.

As for your suggestion that the OP's proposal opens the system to abuse, and that we haven't spoken to this suggestion by others, it's because, at least in my case, I simply don't understand what those abuses could be as explained to date. No one has made an example that I understood to be true. I think this may only be due to misunderstandings about what is being proposed, or feared, for that matter.

If we were talking about an unrestrained, global economy like used by World of Warcraft, for example, then I could understand the trepidation about opening the market up to rampant inflation or a glutted inventory. If anything I or Keith said was misleading or unclear and has led to this supposition, I'm sorry for not being more concise. One has only so much time and energy for communicating in a forum environment.

We're not suggesting implementing "free trade," only that by using a ratio rate as the sole terminology for trade value, but then suppressing the ability to apply that same ratio principle within the market structure, Inno has created an unnecessary confusion and partially false economy.

You would never tolerate this yourself when out shopping in the mall. If you went to the grocer and wanted 2 oranges, but only had a hundred dollar bill, you would expect change (fair trade of values). If the orange seller said, "I don't have change," and you really wanted oranges, you would at least then expect to get as many oranges as you could for your $100. Currently, Inno says "No, you can't get more oranges because you did not bring a $10 bill. So if you want those 2 oranges, you will cough up the big bucks."

Are you sure it's not silly?

 

[Keith96olds]

Value = coin supplies & time to make. I'm hearing that varies depending on the era your in. The era your in doesn't mean the era the goods were created in though. Also boost / time is a factor. I figured the techs of the game would be the ones to figure out fair ranges. The type of things we see are same era goods offered at one for two ratio by high-end players to unsuspecting low-end players who haven't learned yet. We need to develop our low-end players, not rip them off. I was doing this myself until I learned what I was doing to the low-end players.

 

[Salsuero]

Value = coin supplies & time to make. I'm hearing that varies depending on the era your in. The era your in doesn't mean the era the goods were created in though. Also boost / time is a factor. I figured the techs of the game would be the ones to figure out fair ranges.

Are you taking into account building footprint size? What about road requirements -- single vs. double width? What about unrefined vs. refined vs. double/triple/etc.-refined? In order to do what you ask in the absolute sense, you would create an incredibly more difficult system because goods would be so much more variably-valued. It would be nearly impossible to do math in your head and to see trade economics on the fly.

The type of things we see are same era goods offered at one for two ratio by high-end players to unsuspecting low-end players who haven't learned yet. We need to develop our low-end players, not rip them off. I was doing this myself until I learned what I was doing to the low-end players.

You simply need to teach those players how trade works, not reinvent the wheel. I didn't get ripped off when I started playing this game. I learned and adapted to such attempts at "trickery". Besides, you should tell your players to be 100% skeptical of hood trades, somewhat on their toes about friends trades... and if you have this happening inside your guild, trade values are not your issue. I'm not interested in babying rookies. Part of the challenge in a game like this is learning how to play and not get taken advantage of. Teach your guildmates what to look for and if they are incapable of learning, maybe you should find better guildmates rather than make the game easier for them. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I have my opinion.

 

[DeletedUser28670]

Value = coin supplies & time to make. I'm hearing that varies depending on the era your in. The era your in doesn't mean the era the goods were created in though. Also boost / time is a factor. I figured the techs of the game would be the ones to figure out fair ranges. The type of things we see are same era goods offered at one for two ratio by high-end players to unsuspecting low-end players who haven't learned yet. We need to develop our low-end players, not rip them off. I was doing this myself until I learned what I was doing to the low-end players.

You need to get off that unofficial calculator.
I do not agree with that #?@! calculator.
Coins? Supplies? Meaningless.
Value of goods IS NOT EQUAL to coins and supplies and time to make.
That may be your opinion,
But you cannot make others bend to your opinion.

 

[DeletedUser28670]

Say what you want, @gutmeister .
No matter how you put it, 1000 BA goods is not remotely close to 1 BA good.
It's a 1:1000 ratio.

Warp the truth all you want.
Because it's not working.

 

[DeletedUser28670]

Suero and Muggle, you guys seriously think that people aren't dumping goods to other accounts because the ratio limits them? If people want to dump goods, its unbelievably easy as it is. the ratio makes it a TINYYYYYY bit harder. you guys are being so ridiculous with this. how many people with connections to Future Era players who would dump them goods arent able to acquire Bronze age gods to cheat? so stupid. you two should be ashamed of yourselves if you're being serious, UNLESS you're trolling me, and it worked, well done!

Please spell @Salsuero 's name correctly, the addition of an apostrophe would be welcomed, some capitals would also help.
I can't take a person seriously if his post looks like he typed it up at 12 PM eating chips half-asleep.

 

[Keith96olds]

Say what you want, @gutmeister .
No matter how you put it, 1000 BA goods is not remotely close to 1 BA good.
It's a 1:1000 ratio.

Warp the truth all you want.
Because it's not working.

In your example it would be value 1X = value 1000X. In this case ridiculous in value and ratio.

 

[DeletedUser]

You're right, Stephen, I shouldn't have used a subjective word that's a target for dismissal. What's silly in my opinion may be prudent, or even calculated, to others. And Inno's use of these "game mechanics" is intentional, but not because they want to make BA goods (for example) hard to get for players. In fact, as each player progressives, the lower age goods become increasingly easier to stockpile, both because players continue to manufacture lower-age goods (at low supply costs) while acquiring newer-age capabilities, and because they can trade their higher-age goods for a lot more lower-age goods.

The reason Inno has created a suppression mechanic in their trading code is to slow down players' progression through the game so that that are forced stay in game longer, with the intent to encourage higher, long-term game population, which may also provoke and encourage real-world transactions of money for diamonds. When you study their ratio charts, you can clearly see the bottleneck created during the first 5-7 ages by suppression of accessible trade that slows economic growth. In the charts, if you click on the button that reveals the hidden ratios surrounding the suppressed cells, you can see that Inno already has the trade ratios in place for expanding trade between ages. This is how we know that, even continuing to use their current ratio system, they could control players from making exorbitant trade offers.

Right now, higher-level players are rewarded for staying in-game so long, by being allowed to make larger trades when in the later ages -- the ratio charts show, in the white cells (not greyed out), how the newly allowed trades open out gradually from the earlier funnel of allowable, ratio transactions. It's not only a reward, it's necessary, in order to accommodate trading for and manipulating the compound goods being manufactured in the latest ages.

I'm not saying that Inno doesn't have the right to try to control gameplay and encourage player spending of real money. And it's wise to reward loyal, late-stage players; a lot of game companies don't think so and are willing to lose them to recruit "new money." But it can also be a mistake to penalize early (young, new, low-level, newbie/noob, whatever you want to call them) players by suppressing their growth and ability to "learn" game mechanics or to make satisfying progress. They'll give up when frustrated too often, and that's just loss of potential revenues for the company.

As for your suggestion that the OP's proposal opens the system to abuse, and that we haven't spoken to this suggestion by others, it's because, at least in my case, I simply don't understand what those abuses could be as explained to date. No one has made an example that I understood to be true. I think this may only be due to misunderstandings about what is being proposed, or feared, for that matter.

If we were talking about an unrestrained, global economy like used by World of Warcraft, for example, then I could understand the trepidation about opening the market up to rampant inflation or a glutted inventory. If anything I or Keith said was misleading or unclear and has led to this supposition, I'm sorry for not being more concise. One has only so much time and energy for communicating in a forum environment.

We're not suggesting implementing "free trade," only that by using a ratio rate as the sole terminology for trade value, but then suppressing the ability to apply that same ratio principle within the market structure, Inno has created an unnecessary confusion and partially false economy.

You would never tolerate this yourself when out shopping in the mall. If you went to the grocer and wanted 2 oranges, but only had a hundred dollar bill, you would expect change (fair trade of values). If the orange seller said, "I don't have change," and you really wanted oranges, you would at least then expect to get as many oranges as you could for your $100. Currently, Inno says "No, you can't get more oranges because you did not bring a $10 bill. So if you want those 2 oranges, you will cough up the big bucks."

Are you sure it's not silly?

If I wanted to read a novel, I'd go to the library, not this Forum.

 

[DeletedUser30143]

If I wanted to read a novel, I'd go to the library, not this Forum.

My, you must read teeny-weeney novels. But novels are fiction. This is non-fiction.

Your attempt at a witty, dismissive retort is mildly amusing. Though, 6 more paragraphs than yours do not a "novel" make, and unless I'm mistaken, you called for answers from us (the proposers) to address what you accused us of avoiding. In that spirit, I addressed a few issues some posters here called into question, and most specifically yours. I was candid, yet friendly. Your shutting a door in the face of facts, examples, and opinions that were gently-but-firmly presented only strengthens my position.

 

[DeletedUser]

Okay, so I read your novella.

The reason Inno has created a suppression mechanic in their trading code is to slow down players' progression through the game so that that are forced stay in game longer, with the intent to encourage higher, long-term game population, which may also provoke and encourage real-world transactions of money for diamonds.

This is pure speculation on your part. I believe the trade system was set up the current way in order to make the game challenging. If you want to acquire the necessary goods, you have to work at it. That's why you only get 2 boosts per age in the first several ages, so you have to network with other players to get your needs filled. Personally, if I were a game developer, making the game fun and challenging at the same time would be my first concern, because if you succeed at that the money will follow. I get really tired of people "accusing" Inno of trying to get us to spend money. They aren't a charity, so that is definitely a consideration, but it would be a pretty dreary job to be a game developer if these "accusations" were true. Hard to get excited about working on a game if everything was first filtered through "will it make people spend money?" instead of "will the players enjoy this feature?".

But it can also be a mistake to penalize early (young, new, low-level, newbie/noob, whatever you want to call them) players by suppressing their growth and ability to "learn" game mechanics or to make satisfying progress.

The only thing suppressing growth is lack of ambition to learn things and work with current game mechanics. Thousands of players have successfully, and some of them rapidly, grown and learned with the current system. And avoiding game mechanics is no way to "learn" them, so I'm not sure why you put that part in there.

No one has made an example that I understood to be true.

So if you don't understand the abuse, it isn't there? Let me assure you it is. The people that have been telling you that are all experienced players. They know what they're talking about here.

We're not suggesting implementing "free trade," only that by using a ratio rate as the sole terminology for trade value, but then suppressing the ability to apply that same ratio principle within the market structure, Inno has created an unnecessary confusion and partially false economy.

I think your problem here is that you think there is no other way to trade except using the numbers that are sometimes automatically inputted by the trade mechanism. I always input whatever amount I want when I create trades. Always. I never let Inno tell me what or how much to trade. I do have to stay within the 1:2-2:1 ratio range, but that shouldn't be a problem. It encourages trade within a close range of your development, which in a perfect game world would be where most trading is done. A lot of the problems with many parts of this game are people impatiently trying (and succeeding) to get stuff that is way ahead of their development level.

You would never tolerate this yourself when out shopping in the mall. If you went to the grocer and wanted 2 oranges, but only had a hundred dollar bill, you would expect change (fair trade of values). If the orange seller said, "I don't have change," and you really wanted oranges, you would at least then expect to get as many oranges as you could for your $100. Currently, Inno says "No, you can't get more oranges because you did not bring a $10 bill. So if you want those 2 oranges, you will cough up the big bucks."

This "example" makes no sense in the context of FoE's trade system. And doesn't even pertain to the proposal from what I can see.

 

[Lucifer1904]

Please place this in the proper format. This allows proposals to be more easily implemented. For now this will be moved to the forge hall for discussion. You may gain some valuable feedback on your idea there. You can find a link to the proposal guidelines in my signature.

 

[DeletedUser29563]

Based on the replies so far, it sounds like more information is needed to clarify what's being proposed here. I'm from Keith96olds' guild, so I know what the issue is, as we've discussed it.

Currently, when making comparison trades in the market, there is a "rate" shown in one of the columns. Many players are under the impression that this is the value difference between goods of different eras, so they attempt to "even out" the ratios between high and low value goods that are not the true value, thus creating unbalanced trades. Unsuspecting players often accept these trades without realizing they are being cheated. The "rate" is only a ratio of quantity, so goods of eras only 2 levels apart may be fairly traded at 1:1, 1:2 or 2:1. But if you try to trade goods from Bronze level with those of High Middle, for example, the goods values are completely skewed. In essence, one of the traders with be severely robbed.

It's one thing to knowingly agree to trade goods of superior value for those of little value, while it's another thing to assume you are getting an "equal" trade because the market shows you a 1:1 deal (5 bricks for 5 dye, anyone?) just because you're trading the same quantity across the board.

Showing a value difference in a column with trade comparisons would at least let all players really know what they are agreeing to.

Secondly, and even more importantly, in my opinion, we would like InnoGames/FoE to consider making it possible to trade directly between all the goods from each era without forcing traders to limit their quantity ratios. This would allow each player to decide how to scale their trades (fairly or unfairly, as they choose). For example, a player could offer 5 bricks for 40 dye, which is a fair trade, as far as the pyramidal, value system actually works currently; as it now functions in the market, however, if you try to input these figures, you are warned that the quantity ratios don't work. Of course they don't! You can't place a limited qty. ratio (faux "value") on a pyramidal value system. They work at cross purposes to one another.

The solution is to allow the full range of trades from lowest to highest era. The ratios can even be left in the table for comparison purposes, but they shouldn't define the physical trade limitations. That should be left to the traders to decide.

The proposal is in your favor, traders. This is a win/win. Trades will be made faster, too, with less waiting for people to accept your offers -- because you'll be able to ask for what you want, and not have to wait while you trade 5 different types of goods to work your way up or down the eras.

I'm all for making these changes. I hope some of the rest of you will agree.

Very good post. And I agree 100%. This could very well be the most thought out, "well put" contrast between our current trade model vs. function. Very smart...

 

[DeletedUser29563]

That being said...its a no for me as well...