-
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 Marindor
- Start date
DeletedUser1939
Guest
I am a fan of 1,5 main reason is to discourage cross tier trades.
in addition: if you dropped the stars and make it a one decimal number one would even be able to see the ratio offered better.
in addition: if you dropped the stars and make it a one decimal number one would even be able to see the ratio offered better.
chris0707070707
Active Member
We've been asking for such a change for ages 
Trading ratio 1 : 1.5 : 2.25 sounds just perfect.
Trading ratio 1 : 1.5 : 2.25 sounds just perfect.
Deleted User - 81190
Guest
That would make it inconsistent. If you trade down T3->T2 and then T2->T1 at 2*, it would make sense that corresponding amount of T3->T1 would also be 2*. If you do 1.5:1 for one tier, but 3:1 for two tiers, then 2* would be different whether you post 2 single tier trades or a single double tier trade.
It can be done, but would likely lead to some weird trade setups.
edeba
Well-Known Member
This is a good and long overdue move.
So just for the numbers, what used to look like fair trade was 100 t3 for 1600 t1. With the change it will be 100 t3 for 400 t1. So... With this change, there is no way to make a 3 star t3 to t1 trade. With what you say about this being a visual change to the ranking of a trade, you can't go 100 t3 for say 300 t1. It might also be a good thing that no t3 to t1 trades show up as 3 star.
You can still make 3 star single tier cross trades but they will have to be better than the 1:2. Depending on how much, and the level of the player, I'd probably grab those trades.
So just for the numbers, what used to look like fair trade was 100 t3 for 1600 t1. With the change it will be 100 t3 for 400 t1. So... With this change, there is no way to make a 3 star t3 to t1 trade. With what you say about this being a visual change to the ranking of a trade, you can't go 100 t3 for say 300 t1. It might also be a good thing that no t3 to t1 trades show up as 3 star.
You can still make 3 star single tier cross trades but they will have to be better than the 1:2. Depending on how much, and the level of the player, I'd probably grab those trades.
Konniver
Well-Known Member
As a player who uses only troops for spire/tournaments/world map. I have no use for goods (outside research) other than for buying KP. The 16:4:1 trading ratio highly incentivises me to place cross-tier trades to get more value ... with the current ratio and my current KP prices, I still get 5 KP at T1 for every 1 KP I would get at T3. Despite these trades being regularly taken, it is often to the annoyance of uninterested parties seeing them in their trade feed. Any kind of ratio balancing will remove this incentive for the seller, give more value to the buyer, and make cross-tier trades more palatable to anyone else. I'd say a win for all.
Personally I would go with the 4:2:1 for the convenience of mental arithmetic and hopefully this will be a good compromise for all involved.
Personally I would go with the 4:2:1 for the convenience of mental arithmetic and hopefully this will be a good compromise for all involved.
Lovec Krys
Well-Known Member
4:2:1 should be fine.
DeletedUser2632
Guest
4:2:1 is good, and 2.25:1.5:1 is even better.
Deleted User - 62044
Guest
-1 don't like the star system , this new one is just another brick in the wall
DeletedUser2262
Guest
Well done. Most appreciated.
DeletedUser2951
Guest
Yes, asap please
alainemk
Well-Known Member
Thank you for addressing this issue! I do have a question on what calculation triggers the 3 stars to appear, however. Currently, a trade posted requesting 10,000 of a T1 good and offering 10,010 of another T1 good will trigger a 3-star rating. It is a 1:1.001 ratio. Hovering over the stars shows the rounded down ratio correctly at 1.00 but the 3-star rating floats this trade to the top. Will there be a greater ratio between the offering and the request that will trigger the star rating itself? Visuals are powerful which is why the current star rating is dissatisfying. Not many hover over the stars to check the actual calculation.
Dony
King of Bugs
i believe trades should be sorted by rating like i suggested in old bug report which wasnt a bug, current visualisation is misleading
your example can be on top with worst 3 star ratings from all in some circumstances, which doesnt make sense
DeletedUser724
Guest
Just maintain 1:2:4
we have our effort thro' different chapter
it is not a matter of value supplies/coins/time between goods
1000 gem to get 16000 plank is much fair as it is more represent high-chapter player with lower-chapter player
do not down-grade high-chapter player to lower-chapter player
game require some in-balance between players result dis-advanatage and advantage, never fair
Just like battles...u want faster with AUTO, u get bigger loss
u want reduce loss, do manual and spend time .....
Making game SIMPLE (1: 2: 4) is more important
it is only those player ( who has plenty of time ) use their calculator to ask for BALANCE of goods between chapter ignoring player effort in advance each chapter, it is impossible to match exact ratio, why not keep it unchange
if you do not like it, just do not produce it
but u cannot avoid it as
Tons of quest of event ask for to get T1 goods, may be T2 and T3 in future event quest
they get "no where" to dispose those T1goods and ask for exchange more T2 and T3 goods
Just keep existing ratio (1:2:4) to represent player effort in advance to new chapter/new upgrade
by the way, inno should think
if player is ask to produce t1 goods....etc in event or daily production
player has tons of it
but "how to use it"....e.g. donate ?? goods to Inno as 1 of for event quests...etc <p.s. not FA>
like "donate 10k of your non-boosted T1 goods for event quest getting ?? ticket",
like "daily quest...donate ?? your boosted T1 to get ? kp, your non-boosted T1 goods to get T2 or t3 goods"
we have our effort thro' different chapter
it is not a matter of value supplies/coins/time between goods
1000 gem to get 16000 plank is much fair as it is more represent high-chapter player with lower-chapter player
do not down-grade high-chapter player to lower-chapter player
game require some in-balance between players result dis-advanatage and advantage, never fair
Just like battles...u want faster with AUTO, u get bigger loss
u want reduce loss, do manual and spend time .....
Making game SIMPLE (1: 2: 4) is more important
it is only those player ( who has plenty of time ) use their calculator to ask for BALANCE of goods between chapter ignoring player effort in advance each chapter, it is impossible to match exact ratio, why not keep it unchange
if you do not like it, just do not produce it
but u cannot avoid it as
Tons of quest of event ask for to get T1 goods, may be T2 and T3 in future event quest
they get "no where" to dispose those T1goods and ask for exchange more T2 and T3 goods
Just keep existing ratio (1:2:4) to represent player effort in advance to new chapter/new upgrade
by the way, inno should think
if player is ask to produce t1 goods....etc in event or daily production
player has tons of it
but "how to use it"....e.g. donate ?? goods to Inno as 1 of for event quests...etc <p.s. not FA>
like "donate 10k of your non-boosted T1 goods for event quest getting ?? ticket",
like "daily quest...donate ?? your boosted T1 to get ? kp, your non-boosted T1 goods to get T2 or t3 goods"
Blackwood5
New Member
Good work, I think 4:2:1 will be much easier for most people. Would displaying the ratio e.g. 2:1 (max 1 decimal place) of the offered trade be better than the star system ?
DeletedUser2734
Guest
I like the Idea very much.
But: I would prefer if you change in a way, that the fair trade (2-star) is a bit cheaper for the one who accepts the trade and a bit more expensive for the player who put in the trade. Why?
Cause I think the best way is to produce all sorts of goods in the amount the player needs himself an cross should be only for the fine-balance.
Of course a easy-calculating solution is very important ... even if we can see the exact calculating in mouseover over the stars.
But: I would prefer if you change in a way, that the fair trade (2-star) is a bit cheaper for the one who accepts the trade and a bit more expensive for the player who put in the trade. Why?
Cause I think the best way is to produce all sorts of goods in the amount the player needs himself an cross should be only for the fine-balance.
Of course a easy-calculating solution is very important ... even if we can see the exact calculating in mouseover over the stars.