Re: Ingame trading - what's allowed

by Admin Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:07 pm

last time I checked he was intending to delete his account after I banned him for using offensive language, see "secret update" topic

I am glad to announce that the whole system is almost ready on paper, by almost I mean 90-95%. Since I know how it works now, the implementation will be much quicker than if I still have to develop most of it as it gets coded.

I can promise now that significant progress in removal of trading restrictions will be made this weekend.

by Kingofshinobis1 Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:44 pm

I don't know if this has been mentioned before but if I wanted to sell my acc what exactly would the person do with the acc they had before hand? Would they continue to play it and use both accs or would they have to put one of their accs on vac mode?

by Admin Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:47 pm

clearly one of them would have to turn inactive Smile

On another note, I'll upload system that will display to users how many units they send to their commander as officer and how much kuwal they get as officer (as a sum for the whole duration of the relationship).
Will be the first step in making sure people know how much they are sending through normal channels and are then later allowed/forced to send extra through direct sending to make sure they stay in the green area for not sending too much nor too little to their officers/commanders

by Nomad Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:47 am

ok?

so who decides the price? i mean if 1 is paying 200K per and one 150K per will they not get red tagged at different times or something?

by lil monsters Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:25 am

omg has hitler returned from the dead?

what next. Rolling Eyes

by ian Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:28 am

lil monsters wrote:omg has hitler returned from the dead?

what next.

Mars attacks

by lil monsters Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:36 am

ian wrote:
lil monsters wrote:omg has hitler returned from the dead?

what next.

Mars attacks

@ ian

on topic, are people allowed to trade with people?
commanders trade with officers ?
and question on both, are people / commanders / officers - allowed to trade their resources for what ever they want? or has that freedom been taken away?
just wondering, plz answer with simple answers, ty

oh my question is directed to you admin.

skylar

by seaborgium Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:59 am

you can still trade, just certin interactions have currently been stopped, untill the new system is out.

by Admin Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:42 am

ok, for the record

all trades on the private market/galactic market (the auction house) are permitted, these can be used without any problems by everyone at all times.

just the broker and direct send have been limited to instant fair rate trades

@ nomad, rates will be decided by the players themselves

by kingkongfan1 Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:46 pm

Admin wrote:ok, for the record

all trades on the private market/galactic market (the auction house) are permitted, these can be used without any problems by everyone at all times.

just the broker and direct send have been limited to instant fair rate trades

@ nomad, rates will be decided by the players themselves

O.k. now, let me make sure that I understand what is going on...
Broker & Direct send have been limited to instant fair rate trades?...
Rates will be decided by the players themselves?...
What exactly does that mean? because it sounds like the game as usual without any changes. What/Where is the catch?...

by seaborgium Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:42 pm

there is a trade 'limit' as in positive/negative flow.
The more you send then you have a negative flow, the more you take in the positive the flow.

by Admin Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:59 pm

kingkongfan1 wrote:Rates will be decided by the players themselves?...
What exactly does that mean? because it sounds like the game as usual without any changes. What/Where is the catch?...

The catch is for the game to be able to say on its own that if you broker someone 10k uu's and only ask 1.2 bil in return, it will mark your account as having received 500 mil kuwal since the actual fair rate would be 1:170k.
That and the fact that it will be actually shown to you so you can always see how your in/out ratio is developing

No one will force you to have any particular broker at only the prescribed rate as that is your own choice if you buy for more or less.
However if you chose to do so continuously you might find yourself "in the negative", restricting the kinds of brokers you will be allowed to do in order not to get into the "suspicious list".

A good way to avoid this problem for example will be to use only the private market since these trades will count neither for nor against your ratio. Needless to say this will improve trading and game play for many, since a filled private market promotes more trading and by extensions improves the user interaction.
However you are not limited to this option. You can still have a supply of cheap sellers who only broker you, if you can offset the ratio by sending resources directly to others or occasionally buy resources at a slightly higher price then again you will not be affected at all by this.

by ian Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:13 pm

So... let me get this straight.

If i buy say.... 100k UU for 12billion kuwal - when based on market rates the game decides those UU are worth 17billion... I ll be in 5billion in the positive.

Then if i send that 5billion to someone else, that will even my account back to being neutral?

If thats the case.... I see a major problem: Whats to stop me sending 5billion to a inactive then immediately farming most of that back? Laughing

Not sure if you ve considered that admin.... But if you haven't, you should consider it.

I d personally never do that but i can think of at least 1 or 2 people who might.

Also to clarify... In the example... if i gifted say 5billion kuwal to a TIE member to reward their activity regarding farming/raiding... the effect would be to put me in neutral (If i was 5billion in positive), while the person I brought the discounted UU off would be 5billion in the negative, while the person i sent the 5billion as a gift to to would be in the positive?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another thought - what will the limit be for where you go too far in the negative/profit margin?

A simple solution I d have is reseting the limit on a monthly basis - but having the limit relatively small.

I.e. base the limit on daily economic production - you can have 6 days flexibility negatively or positively before you get warned, then another 2 days before you get banned.

I.e. if a person has a 10k total U.P and a 100million income and the game considers UU 170k rate:

10,000 U.P = 1.7billion
100 x 48 = 4.8billion

Daily economic generation: 6.5billion. This means the person using the 6 day limit (before being warned) can:

- Go positive or negative up to 39billion that month
- Go positive or negative up to (39/170000) 229,411 UU.

It would be a combination of the 2 I.e. if you ve gone negative in 100k UU (17billion kuwal's worth) you could go a further (39 - 17) 22billion in negative in kuwal before being warned....

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This way you resolve several issues:

- Alliance Projects and taxation become workable. I.e. players contributing will go into negative (and those receiving positive)... but with each month the limit will reset meaning the project can be sustained if carefully thought out. A cumulative permanent non-resetting limit however means the longer a project runs the more negative/positive a player will become... untill eventually they get banned or something. I.e. if a TIE member contributes 5billion a week in alliance-tax and does all his other trades at "fair" values... sooner or later all those 5billion negatives will add up to get them banned.... same goes for the receiver....

- Loans/Gifts. Players will have sufficient flexibility to give loans & gifts out... but have a limit to how large these loans of gifts can be based on their account economic size, and the receiver's economic size.

Something worth to note on a loan:

A player like me has a 300million+ income and 25k+ Total U.P. Thats a daily economic generation of say 18.25billion. Meaning i can go positive or negative up to 109.5billion kuwal/ 644,117 UU or a combination of them both.

Thats means in this example thats the max i can loan or gift in *total*, or recieve/be gifted for 1 month. If i loan it... then its worth considering unless the debt is repaid before the limit resets, it would consequently count towards the next month's limit in terms of a positive influence when the person pays back the debt... which in turn would impact my ability to recieve loan/gifts that month etc....

By setting the acceptable limit at 6 days based on economic generation it means you can be garanteed a player isn't:

- Feeding another player/group of players
- Being fed by a player/group of players

As at the end of the day.... 6 days out of 30 days (or however long you class a month) maximum negative/positive ability means for the other 24days worth that player has to be doing genuine trades i.e. not feeding or being fed.

If you wanted you could even tie the limit into AE (i.e. those under 100% AE can have up to 20billion in positive or negative or something - so that way a new account recieving 1billion wouldn't jump straight past the limit lol).

Just my thoughts on the matter/ a *possibly* workable suggestion Smile

by r1maru Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:34 pm

will a player be able to pay kuwal or uu in return for a ss package?

by Admin Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:39 pm

ian wrote:If thats the case.... I see a major problem: Whats to stop me sending 5billion to a inactive then immediately farming most of that back?

That would pop up on the scanner if someone with 0 def suddenly had 5 bil/50k uu's popped away from them that showed up out of thin air Smile

There is only so many combinations of actions which you can do (transfer, use protection, bank, etc.) to try and hide the nature of such an attack.

Obviously it's a thing that will be part of something to look out for, needless to say that whoever tries that and get caught will get immediately into serious trouble, independent of previous history with said player, since clearly someone who does something like that knows exactly why they are doing it, and I make it a mental note to have this stated in the online rules.

ian wrote:Also to clarify... In the example... if i gifted say 5billion kuwal to a TIE member to reward their activity regarding farming/raiding... the effect would be to put me in neutral (If i was 5billion in positive), while the person I brought the discounted UU off would be 5billion in the negative, while the person i sent the 5billion as a gift to to would be in the positive?

That is your choice and will count against your limit, however something to consider is that by sending resources away you dont get back, you are also reducing your limit by which you can then act as the alliance masser.

Also if you plan to ask, then yes, part of the intention is that an alliance CANNOT simply fund one striker, give him massive techs and then use him to mass all big defenses in each war they get into, I want to see many different people participate in massings even if it means that overall an alliance cannot mass as efficiently as it could.
This is very much an intended objective rather than an unwelcome one

However you can easily use this tactic to a certain extent by having said masser contribute somewhat to alliance projects, thereby reducing his ratio and then allowing them to receive more resources should a war break out.

ian wrote:Another thought - what will the limit be for where you go too far in the negative/profit margin?

There will be no hard limit where by reaching it you will automatically get punished or cannot send or receive resources.
There will be a recommended value, currently the idea is around 20-25% of your account value (so you can reduce this % by simply growing)

ian wrote:A simple solution I d have is reseting the limit on a monthly basis - but having the limit relatively small.

That idea was considered and has been rejected as non-viable alternative.

About growth loans, as you know yourself, they require a bit more complicated method of calculation than a simple net in/out flow of resources and it is my plan to allow such a functionality to exist at least to some extent.

by Admin Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:42 pm

r1maru wrote:will a player be able to pay kuwal or uu in return for a ss package?

yes they will, current thoughts were planned to be that anything up to 2 times the current ingame cash market rate does not count against your transfer limit.

Example:
Cash market rate 1$ for 1 bil kuwal
Someone wants 10$ Donator Package
The buyer can ask from 0 to 20 bil kuwal without any impact on either persons transfer limit.

Of course this will not be an eternal rule, if there is a significant change in cash market rates compared to people spending then the rules might get revisited

by seaborgium Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:32 pm

I really can't help but notice that a few ideas are to stop how TIE handled things during the war. Also how TIE did its growth programs, I can't just say TIE, I know another alliance that would sell to each other for a lower rate then what is on the market.

TBH I really see this trade system having a good bit of potential, but I see it more as trying to stop players from working together to get stronger then the rest.
I can really see a lot of Kenzu's idea of 'Someone who spends 20 hours on this game shouldn't have more of an advantage then a player who spent 30mins playing'

by Admin Mon Aug 09, 2010 8:44 pm

seaborgium wrote:I really can't help but notice that a few ideas are to stop how TIE handled things during the war. Also how TIE did its growth programs, I can't just say TIE, I know another alliance that would sell to each other for a lower rate then what is on the market.

TBH I really see this trade system having a good bit of potential, but I see it more as trying to stop players from working together to get stronger then the rest.'

This system does actually allow to work together as long as at the end of the day (or year) the people end up with having received as much as they put in

You can easily have a big player support smaller players during peace time, and then the smaller players return the big player the resources to mass targets efficiently during war.
That will be perfectly possible, and being together in an alliance doesn't even make it a requirement to be used.

by ian Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:16 pm

Admin I ll be honest - I m VERY skeptical of what your saying.

During the war with T.O.C some of TIE's main guns may well have received upwards of 200 - 300billion kuwal and million+ UU to take down T.O.C targets.

According to you big players can help small players in peace-time then get the resources paid back during a war to allow the large players to mass effectively... Are you SERIOUSLY about to tell me that you d have no problems with players giving out 200 - 300billion+ kuwal in peace-time in loans/gifts as well as UU under the POSSIBLE scenario there could be a war at some undefined point in time which that large player *may* be involved in and *may* then receive those funds back to mass effectively?

So If i were to randomly send a TIE member 300billion kuwal the day you annouce the system is functional and say I ll get it back when TIE next goes to war - you wouldn't have a problem with it?

How about if SA47 or seaborgium loaned to their alliance under the understanding when they go to war they get the "loans" back to mass more effectively with?

I don't for a second buy what your saying. I think if anyone tries to loan or donate the level of kuwal they are likely to burn through/recieve during war-time to players in peace-time... that they d be banned or warned by your new trading rules.

Lets also not forget war's generally seem to increase in cost each time. The next war i wouldn't be suprised if it costs some of the heavy striker's/main players upwards of 600billion throughout the war to take down enemy targets... are you seriously gonna say you d have no problem if "main players" start lending out 600billion+ kuwal in peace-time under the understanding they get it back in war-time?

by Admin Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:33 pm

Admin wrote:Also if you plan to ask, then yes, part of the intention is that an alliance CANNOT simply fund one striker, give him massive techs and then use him to mass all big defenses in each war they get into, I want to see many different people participate in massings even if it means that overall an alliance cannot mass as efficiently as it could.
This is very much an intended objective rather than an unwelcome one

However you can easily use this tactic to a certain extent by having said masser contribute somewhat to alliance projects, thereby reducing his ratio and then allowing them to receive more resources should a war break out.

by kingkongfan1 Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:22 pm

Admin wrote:
kingkongfan1 wrote:Rates will be decided by the players themselves?...
What exactly does that mean? because it sounds like the game as usual without any changes. What/Where is the catch?...
The catch is for the game to be able to say on its own that if you broker someone 10k uu's and only ask 1.2 bil in return, it will mark your account as having received 500 mil kuwal since the actual fair rate would be 1:170k.
That and the fact that it will be actually shown to you so you can always see how your in/out ratio is developing

No one will force you to have any particular broker at only the prescribed rate as that is your own choice if you buy for more or less.
However if you chose to do so continuously you might find yourself "in the negative", restricting the kinds of brokers you will be allowed to do in order not to get into the "suspicious list".

A good way to avoid this problem for example will be to use only the private market since these trades will count neither for nor against your ratio. Needless to say this will improve trading and game play for many, since a filled private market promotes more trading and by extensions improves the user interaction.
However you are not limited to this option. You can still have a supply of cheap sellers who only broker you, if you can offset the ratio by sending resources directly to others or occasionally buy resources at a slightly higher price then again you will not be affected at all by this.

As usual I really do appreciate the explaination & having read through all the posts, & responses, I quoted this one so I could ask this next question...
you say above that 1:170,000 is a fair rate; I assume this means that 1 unit = 170,000 kuwal? so then is this just an example of what a unit costs? or is this actually the cost of a unit? & who decides the final costs of units, kewal, turns? etc. & such?
basically "who/what determines fair?" if say me & another player wanted to trade turns for units, 1:1 would that be fair? just trying to get a grip on the whole "what is fair" concept, not trying to be an ass, sorry if that is the way I am coming off...

by Nomad Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:24 pm

1 question.

Lets say you have a 5 man alliance. one of them has no SS. All 5 donate 1/5th of the cost in UU to trader X, and trader X buys the SS for said member.

This is an alliance tactic but how will it be gauged against each member and against trader X?

kingkongfan1 wrote:
As usual I really do appreciate the explaination & having read through all the posts, & responses, I quoted this one so I could ask this next question...
you say above that 1:170,000 is a fair rate; I assume this means that 1 unit = 170,000 kuwal? so then is this just an example of what a unit costs? or is this actually the cost of a unit? & who decides the final costs of units, kewal, turns? etc. & such?
basically "who/what determines fair?" if say me & another player wanted to trade turns for units, 1:1 would that be fair? just trying to get a grip on the whole "what is fair" concept, not trying to be an ass, sorry if that is the way I am coming off...

I thought this system would be based off the ingame market?

presently it says 1 UU is worth 133,195.4 so where is the 170 rate coming from?

GM says [1:161,000] and [1:179,999] presently, is this where you get 170 from? because if it is, that is highly exploitable and how can you know what GM said when the deal was done?

by Admin Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:10 am

Nomad wrote:1 question.
Lets say you have a 5 man alliance. one of them has no SS. All 5 donate 1/5th of the cost in UU to trader X, and trader X buys the SS for said member.

This is an alliance tactic but how will it be gauged against each member and against trader X?

the people brokering the person the units will have their limits affected.

Now you present a good argument though, the original plan was for the last broker, resources vs donation, not to count against either person's trade ratio, but this shows an example where the sender might want to have the resources sent to count against their trade ratio, so that at the end they end up with a zero sum. (obviously the people sending the resources would have the transfer count against their limit)

One thing to note, the system is meant not to look simply at the amount of resources you have received or sent too much, but rather the % value of the unbalance vs the value of your account. So one way to decrease the ratio will be by simply growing your account.
If your up will be 20k and your ratio is 10% resources sent away, then each day you can send away ~1.8k units to others and you will still remain at the same ratio forever (20k - 1.8k = 18.2k of which the 1.8k you send away is equal to 10%)
(on the other hand, if there's some multi with a 4k up WITH SS, and they keep sending you 1.8k uu's each day, then their ratio will rise to over 50% very quickly and then show up on the scanner)

The "fair rate" (It will always be publicly available to see) would be a function of actual traded resources mostly on the galactic market (the public SS one) and to a limited amount off the trade brokers (altough for obvious reasons this will only be used as sort of a backup check value).
Without any human checking, I agree it is exploitable, but if trading there gets more incentives (like removing transfer fee, not having trades count against the limit) to increase the total trade volume and a few safeguards to prevent a few people to distort prices in their favor through rinsing of resources through certain rates then most of the concerns can be adressed adequately.
I could never claim that getting the system right will be an easy job, however I truly believe that if it gets the right conditions and execution it can become a very good asset to the game (graphs showing trade volume, and price development over time being displayed publicly, as well as severe reduction of feeding as well as removal of uncertainty for the players themselves what constitutes feeding and what is permitted).

And most importantly, even an attempt is worth the time invested.

by Nomad Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:15 am

I think I just need to see it in action TBH.

One point I need to counter is this

If your up will be 20k and your ratio is 10% resources sent away, then each day you can send away ~1.8k units to others and you will still remain at the same ratio forever (20k - 1.8k = 18.2k of which the 1.8k you send away is equal to 10%)

I may be wrong, but to look at this in reverse, what happens when someone sells 10 or 20% of their account (uu)? could this mean you go from being in the green to being a large blip on the scanner?

by Admin Tue Aug 10, 2010 12:30 am

Nomad wrote:I may be wrong, but to look at this in reverse, what happens when someone sells 10 or 20% of their account (uu)? could this mean you go from being in the green to being a large blip on the scanner?

safe ratios were planned to count that if your account is worth 100, then you can send or receive 20 and still be "in the green"

then again only if you're found to not work to improve your ratio then you might get into actual trouble, until then you'll just get some occasional automatic message.
You could sell some uu's off individually, then sell the account and if the new owner has an account of their own then in that case they'd be able to transfer some resources from their previous account onto the new one "fixing" the transfer ratio on this account, though offsetting the ratio on their previous account Smile

For the most part, where trade brokers and similar user controlled player to player transfers are involved, it will be a zero sum game.

by Sponsored content