• Dear forum reader,

    To actively participate on the forum by joining discussions or starting your own threads or topics, you need a game account and to REGISTER HERE!

Discussion Proposed trading star rating changes

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeletedUser626
  • Start date Start date
FINALLY! Our FS (live) REQUIRES c/t trades of 4:2:1, instead of the grossly inflated 16:4:1, so this will much closer reflect the proper production value as well as material value of the offered goods. DO IT!
 
What's this? Inno is asking our opinion before making a major change to the game? Do my eyes deceive me? Was that a flock of flying pigs I just saw swooping through my city? An unexpected development, but definitely not an unwelcome one.

In terms of ratios, I am generally quite happy to accept tier3:tier2 or tier2:tier1 at a ratio of 1:2.5 or better, e.g. 1000 elixir for 2500 crystal, and 2 tier difference at a ratio of 1:5 or better, e.g 1000 elixir for 5000 marble. I appreciate that the maths can be a bit tricky for this though, and some nice round numbers are preferred.

I'd say the proposed ratio of 1:2 for tier3:tier2 or tier2:tier1, and 1:4 for tier3:tier1 is an acceptable balance. The alternative of 1:1.5 seems quite generous, and makes the maths a little more tricky, so I wouldn't recommend it.
 
UlyssesBlue said:
In terms of ratios, I am generally quite happy to accept tier3:tier2 or tier2:tier1 at a ratio of 1:2.5 ... and 2 tier difference at a ratio of 1:5 ...
Click to expand...

I just wanted to mention that 2 tier difference has to be the square of 1 tier difference. In your example of 1:2.5 for 1 tier, it would be 1:6.25 for 2 tiers.
 
Great idea. I avoid cross tier trades as much as possible due to the unfairness of the current system, but since so many people are now using them it is difficult to re-supply goods with out taking some of them. I end up having to post all my own trades to attempt to get same tier goods instead.
 
At last! This has been asked for regularly almost since the game started.
2:1 is not enough of a change to solve the problem so I would favour 1.5:1 but even that is sometimes too high
 
Es ist nicht das Problem 1 zu 4 zu 16 sondern die nicht fairen Angebote, auch der Kreuzhandel gehört dazu. Wie Luna Star, das beschreibt, sie haben keine Fabriken, die Holz, Marmor oder Stahl produzieren. Sie bieten 1000 Elixier gegen 12.000 - 16.000 an. Wenn es 1,5 oder 2 ist, wird dieser Kreuzhandel bestehen bleiben. Auch dieses gebe 500 nehme 600 ohne Stern, ist nicht ok. Die Fristen für diesen Handel müssten viel kürzer sein.
Also wenn es sein muss bin ich für 1 zu 2.
 
Anec said:
UlyssesBlue said:
In terms of ratios, I am generally quite happy to accept tier3:tier2 or tier2:tier1 at a ratio of 1:2.5 or better, e.g. 1000 elixir for 2500 crystal, and 2 tier difference at a ratio of 1:5 or better, e.g 1000 elixir for 5000 marble.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to mention that 2 tier difference has to be the square of 1 tier difference. In your example of 1:2.5 for 1 tier, it would be 1:6.25 for 2 tiers.
Click to expand...
These are simply the values of trade I am willing to accept, not the specific ratio I am proposing is adopted. Consider it an approximation, nothing more.

And actually my values correspond more to 1 : 2.25 : 5 for tier3 : tier2 : tier1, equivalent to about 1000 elixir for 2250 crystal or 5000 marble. It's also very similar to the 1:2:5 ratio that a lot of people state is already in use within their respective fellowships. All I'm saying is that anything along these lines would be acceptable to me.
 
Am I the only understanding that the proposed change is only cosmetic?
meaning you can still only propose a t1 for t2 between 1:1 and 1:16, regardless of the "fairness stars" displayed?
IMHO you need to be able to go from 2:1 to 1:8, to make up for the change
 
I like 1:2:4 for ease of calculation! (Though given the system does it I wouldn't be averse to 1:1.5:2.25I generally offer/take cross-tier at 2:1 or 3:1 rates anyway if necessary, so changing how those trades appear would be great.
 
I'm happy with the proposed sort of change. In one of my fellowships we had a situation for a long time where by far our largest player only had T3 manufactories and posted lots of cross-tier trades. As a result I try to avoid cross-tier trades wherever possible. I've been in fellowships with a 1:3:9 ratio so 1:2:4 or 1:1.5:2.25 are steeper than I'm used to but any change should help the smaller players and reduce the abuse.

I know that the system refuses trades that it regards as too extreme. Will this mean that the existing 2 star trades get bounced when the ratio changes? Also will the pricing of goods in the wholesaler change to reflect this new pricing structure?
 
No, it very clearly says that it is to only change the appearance of the trades, but a sense of fair is very important and I think it will also change the order of the trades, no "unfair" more cross trades first.

maxiqbert said:
Am I the only understanding that the proposed change is only cosmetic?
meaning you can still only propose a t1 for t2 between 1:1 and 1:16, regardless of the "fairness stars" displayed?
IMHO you need to be able to go from 2:1 to 1:8, to make up for the change
Click to expand...
 
1:2:4 would be a HUGE improvement. People who produce only bonus goods can well live with that ratio. It will somewhat discourage the chronic tier3 offerers and a least get those pesky trades (3999:1000) to the bottom of the pile. OTOH it still gives beginners a chance to get the goods they need across tiers.
 
You might want to also change the "Did you know..." that says that crafted goods are four times as expensive to produce as basic goods.
 
I like the idea of a fairer trade system, but will this also apply to trading with the trader or just with the other players?

I trade based on how much spare goods I have and whether the player is relatively new or more established... I think the game is very difficult for newbies to get attached too, as it takes ages to grow without the help of established players who are pretty much giving away their goods to encourage growth of the new players.. Maths isn't my strong point and I don't look at ratio's, if it looks too high, it won't be taken, I don't care how long it sits in the trader. But we do need a system that helps the newbies more than anyone else.. The outcome remains the same, we will choose to accept the offer, or not :rolleyes:
 
I think the proposed change to the trading system is a good one. Thank you for working to improve the system.
 
I am for it.
Especially because now the correct 3* trades come in front of the line.
Loving it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top