Exchange Blueprints for Random Building Blueprints

[DeletedUser113976]

Proposal : Add an additional trade option that allows for random trading of Blueprints for a Random Great Building

Current System : You can trade 2 Blueprints of a specific Great Building for a random Blueprint of the same Great Building

Details : Create a second option that allows one to trade say 4 Blueprints of a Great Building for a random Blueprint of any Great Building. Perhaps using the same or similar randomizer that is used when Aiding another person and you get a Blueprint. This will allow players to still put the Blueprints to use if they are using a certain strategy where a particular Great Building will be of little to no use to them or accessing a higher level is of no interest to them without granting anyone an advantage since the Blueprint they get will be completely random although it would be nice if one was not to get the same Great Building Blueprint that one was trading the 4 Blueprints from but depending on the randomizer if the likelihood of this happening would be fairly small then I suppose it would be okay. Not appreciated but I guess no less annoying than trading 2 Blueprints and getting one of those back in return.

Abuse Prevention : Since it requires you to trade 4 Blueprints from a single Great Building and the Blueprint you get in return is completely random there should not be an avenue for abuse with this as the concept is very similar to what already exists.

Yes all those extra unused Blueprints folks have will cause an initial run on the market so-to-speak but ultimately it would be no different than if they had been doing it all along. Then once the initial surge is out of the way you will have a more normal flow. It would still require 4 Blueprints of one Great Building to get 1 Random Blueprint of a Great Building with no guarantee that you would get a specific Blueprint as it would be a 1 in 34 or 35 (if you can get the building you are trading from as well) chance. This is of course assuming the percentage chance to get anyone of the 35 Great Buildings is the same and while I would be guessing I believe this not to be the case as I get more of certain buildings than I do of other buildings and have not gotten some buildings at all. As such I believe the randomizer associated with Aiding someone takes this into account already somehow and thus would curtail the farming of any specific Blueprint.

Lastly, as stated, this suggestion would use whatever mechanism is currently in place for gaining a Blueprint from Aiding someone. Thus this would allow the use of a game feature that already exists (no extra coding required) rather than creating something new. Basically simply selecting the 4 Blueprints you want to trade and clicking the Trade 4 button launches the mechanism used by the Aid to generate a random Blueprint. Thus minimal coding effort required to implement a new and useful feature.

 

[Agent327]

This isn't the ideas section and your idea is on the list of what not to suggest.

Besides that it wouldn't work. I have about 1000 spare BP's to trade. The moment a new GB is available I start trading and will have it in no time.

 

[DeletedUser113976]

I checked a list of things not to suggest and did not see this on that list. Can you point me to where this is stated please.

Okay I saw the Ideas thread but that did not seem like a place to post a "discussion" about an idea but more a place to post a "well thought out idea" which to me means after its been fully discussed. If that is a wrong assumption I apologize.

As to you getting the BPs for a specific GB by trading 1000 BPs definitely does not mean you would actually get it in no time -- the odds are not even in your favor -- since the basic odds (if all things are equal which I believe they are not) would be something like 1 in 35 for a single BP meaning to guarantee you get a single BP of a specific building would mean trading about 35 x 4 = 140 BPs and thus to get 9 BPs of that specific building would mean spending about 1260 BPs but then we would have to factor in the odds of what it would take to get the 9 different BPs that you would need which would greatly increase this number. So as you can see 1000 BPs does not guarantee what you say it does and in fact only states that by the odds you might get 8 BPs for a specific building you are trying for. It does guarantee that you would get 250 BPs of which by the odds (assuming you can get the same building you traded from) 7 of them would be of the building you were trading from. Of course this would change slightly if they did not allow the building you traded from to be part of the results but again this does not factor in the weighting that they do for each of the various GBs as I do believe they are using a weighting system such that you are more likely to get certain GB BPs over others.

 

[Agent327]

I checked a list of things not to suggest and did not see this on that list. Can you point me to where this is stated please.

Guide to the Ideas section. Read it.

Okay I saw the Ideas thread but that did not seem like a place to post a "discussion" about an idea but more a place to post a "well thought out idea" which to me means after its been fully discussed. If that is a wrong assumption I apologize.

If all you want is to discuss it, why do you put it in a proposal format?

As to you getting the BPs for a specific GB by trading 1000 BPs definitely does not mean you would actually get it in no time -- the odds are not even in your favor -- since the basic odds (if all things are equal which I believe they are not) would be something like 1 in 35 for a single BP meaning to guarantee you get a single BP of a specific building would mean trading about 35 x 4 = 140 BPs and thus to get 9 BPs of that specific building would mean spending about 1260 BPs but then we would have to factor in the odds of what it would take to get the 9 different BPs that you would need which would greatly increase this number. So as you can see 1000 BPs does not guarantee what you say it does and in fact only states that by the odds you might get 8 BPs for a specific building you are trying for. It does guarantee that you would get 250 BPs of which by the odds (assuming you can get the same building you traded from) 7 of them would be of the building you were trading from. Of course this would change slightly if they did not allow the building you traded from to be part of the results but again this does not factor in the weighting that they do for each of the various GBs as I do believe they are using a weighting system such that you are more likely to get certain GB BPs over others.

Why would I need 9 BP's? One is enough, so the odds are heavily in my favor. When I said I had 1000 BP's I was exaggerating. I have many more when I also count the GB's I am never going to place.

 

[DeletedUser113976]

Guide to the Ideas section. Read it.

Thanks I will but a more direct URL would have been more helpful since you already seem to know where it is exactly I will have to search for it. Perhaps it is easy to find?

If all you want is to discuss it, why do you put it in a proposal format?

Because it is a prelim to a proposal as such it seemed to be the most effective to do so.

Why would I need 9 BP's? One is enough, so the odds are heavily in my favor. When I said I had 1000 BP's I was exaggerating. I have many more when I also count the GB's I am never going to place.

Because the last time I checked it required more than 1 BP to actually construct a GB --- or are you implying (without clearly stating) all you need is 1 BP if that is the case well you have a 1 in 9 chance of getting that specific Blueprint combine that with the odds for that specific building then your chances are 1 / 315 assuming the odds are not weighted as I believe they are. So are the odds really in your favor? I certainly would not face certain death with those kind of odds -- heck I would not even place a bet with those kind of odds against me, yeah better odds than playing the lotto

 

[DeletedUser113976]

Guide to the Ideas section. Read it.

Ah yes I did finally find this but not where I would have expected to find it --- First it exists under Archived Ideas -- Second the initial list does not cover it -- Thirdly the actual post that might cover this is titled "Extra Blueprints" which is not my proposal. However to help all with this I will share what appears to cover this -- now grant you should Inno get wind of this suggestion perhaps they might include it along with what ever they already have planned but ....

Yes, there has been an announcement in forum that there is a new use planned and how bps will become very valuable, we are all waiting eagerly to see what this will be :-) kim.

I would post a direct quote of the above but could not figure out how to do so.

Of course depending on what this new use is. It may have the same "issue" that mine had that being what to do with all the long term players plethora of stored up BPs ??

 

[Agent327]

Because the last time I checked it required more than 1 BP to actually construct a GB --- or are you implying (without clearly stating) all you need is 1 BP if that is the case well you have a 1 in 9 chance of getting that specific Blueprint combine that with the odds for that specific building then your chances are 1 / 315 assuming the odds are not weighted as I believe they are. So are the odds really in your favor? I certainly would not face certain death with those kind of odds -- heck I would not even place a bet with those kind of odds against me, yeah better odds than playing the lotto

I only need 1 BP. I can buy the others once I have that one. I have so many blueprints that if I want to I can free up my Arc way beyond level 1000. What odds are against me?

Ah yes I did finally find this but not where I would have expected to find it --- First it exists under Archived Ideas -- Second the initial list does not cover it -- Thirdly the actual post that might cover this is titled "Extra Blueprints" which is not my proposal. However to help all with this I will share what appears to cover this -- now grant you should Inno get wind of this suggestion perhaps they might include it along with what ever they already have planned but ....

Fourth, you did not find it.

https://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/guide-to-the-ideas-section.32401/

 

[DeletedUser113976]

I only need 1 BP. I can buy the others once I have that one. I have so many blueprints that if I want to I can free up my Arc way beyond level 1000. What odds are against me?

Ah interesting okay so perhaps here is another abuse of the proposal and perhaps it might be need to be limited to only other GBs you already possess a Blueprint for. Still perhaps not if it is going to get you to spend more money on the game that is a win for Inno and perhaps another reason for Inno to implement such a concept. I mean your argument holds about as much water as a colander since currently I can easily get a blueprint for just about any GB for any age. In fact I can (and have) gotten numerous blueprints for GBs way beyond my current age The Arc for example. I am currently sitting on a full set of blueprints for The Arc and just working at getting the resources to build it and I am only in EMA and have had these blueprints since IA. So how would "trading" unwanted blueprints create a situation that does not already exist. Of course due to the note I found in the actual thread that expounds upon what ought not to be proposed this whole conversation is rather moot.

Fourth, you did not find it.

https://forum.en.forgeofempires.com/index.php?threads/guide-to-the-ideas-section.32401/

Okay and this link has nothing in it that says the idea I presented is not to be proposed which makes your original claim false. Further this same information about what should not be proposed is in that area that I did find. So I did not find what you were vaguely talking about; I actually found something better. For what I found does cover this proposal just not in an easy method to be found. Thanks for providing this link though it might be useful for me in the future.

 

[Agent327]

Okay and this link has nothing in it that says the idea I presented is not to be proposed which makes your original claim false.

Really?????

• What not to suggest:

OVERTYPE said: ↑
In particular, please do not suggest the following ideas, as they will not be implemented:
- Ideas to make yourself richer.. or make the game easier. The game is meant to be played over time and is meant to have a lot of strategy to it.
- Trading of items other than Goods (this is simply too open to abuse, and is potentially a breach of our game rules).


Note: These are things that InnoGames is not looking for currently, they may end up adding strong units or events/buildings that provide an easier access to Diamonds but they don't want any more of such things suggested to them.

 

[DeletedUser113976]

Really?????

• What not to suggest:

OVERTYPE said: ↑
In particular, please do not suggest the following ideas, as they will not be implemented:
- Ideas to make yourself richer.. or make the game easier. The game is meant to be played over time and is meant to have a lot of strategy to it.
- Trading of items other than Goods (this is simply too open to abuse, and is potentially a breach of our game rules).


Note: These are things that InnoGames is not looking for currently, they may end up adding strong units or events/buildings that provide an easier access to Diamonds but they don't want any more of such things suggested to them.

Okay -- the concept of trading Blueprints already exists and trading away Blueprints you will never use for potentially a Blueprint you might use does not directly make you "richer" especially if your are trading more Blueprints for less Blueprints. Further if you read a bit more detail about what they are talking about when it comes to Trading they mentioned somewhere that it has more to do with the concept of an open market kind of trading or the trading apples for oranges and not the swapping of several apples for a different random apple.

Of course all of this is horribly moot (due to the other item I found that more directly address the proposal presented) and so I am not sure why you are so intent on kicking this dead horse over and over again. Its not going to get any deader by doing so.

 

[Agent327]

Okay -- the concept of trading Blueprints already exists and trading away Blueprints you will never use for potentially a Blueprint you might use does not directly make you "richer" especially if your are trading more Blueprints for less Blueprints. Further if you read a bit more detail about what they are talking about when it comes to Trading they mentioned somewhere that it has more to do with the concept of an open market kind of trading or the trading apples for oranges and not the swapping of several apples for a different random apple.

And your proposal does not make the game easier?

 

[DeletedUser112745]

If I may wiggle in here just a bit...

I can see part of the intention of this suggestion. Which is to reduce the number of BPs that you don't want in hope that they can be exchanged for a BP that you do want. It looks at first glance a good initiative for those with a lot of BPs for a GB they don't ever plan on building due to personal choice or play-style.

However on the flip side, it does make the game easier. Which is a "do not suggest" criteria.
This exchange system would make it far too easy for lower age players to potentially acquire higher age GBs which you would otherwise need to put in a lot of effort to acquire, which wouldn't be very fair on those who have had to go through the grind of getting the BPs they want.

Great buildings are supposed to be risky FP investments, just like real-life investments. I feel that the suggestion would take away this risk and eliminate the challenge of getting relevant blueprints and great buildings.
I get the good intention of the suggestion, but in conclusion, it does:

• Unbalance the game by making it too easy to get BPs, especially if the player has dozens of BPs for a GB they have no intention of building.
• Make the game too easy for the same reason above.
• Cause a level of unfairness for the long-term players who have had to work and engage in risky FP investments for BPs.
• Upset the challenge involved in trying to get BPs that you seek

 

[DeletedUser4800]

The biggest downside to this idea is that it could potentially allow lower age players to get a higher age GB. Otherwise its okay, its not a bad idea. In fact at one time Inno said that we could trade two BP for a BP of the same GB, but the exact GB that we want/need. They then implemented the current random system, rather than the one they promised.

 

[Agent327]

I can see part of the intention of this suggestion. Which is to reduce the number of BPs that you don't want in hope that they can be exchanged for a BP that you do want. It looks at first glance a good initiative for those with a lot of BPs for a GB they don't ever plan on building due to personal choice or play-style.

It is more than that. It is not just BP's you don't want, it is GB's you don't want. The game brings a lot of GB's. Some good, some not so good. You have the choice to place them or not. You can not sell them. With this you can.

 

[DeletedUser96901]

The biggest downside to this idea is that it could potentially allow lower age players to get a higher age GB.

how ?

random BP are never higher than your era
if you trade BP to a random BP from another GB it also wouldn't be higher than your era

 

[DeletedUser113976]

If I may wiggle in here just a bit...

Respectful wiggles are always welcome

I can see part of the intention of this suggestion. Which is to reduce the number of BPs that you don't want in hope that they can be exchanged for a BP that you do want. It looks at first glance a good initiative for those with a lot of BPs for a GB they don't ever plan on building due to personal choice or play-style.

Yes this is the basic intent -- for instance I know I will never build the Colosseum (unless they change it somehow) and I have already acquired quite a few of its BPs. Frankly I do not care what BP I would get in exchange for whatever handful of BPs Inno would decide was a fair trade (aka not necessarily make the game easier because of the down trade -- many for 1 random). It just seems like a waste to have them just sitting there. Of course this has been made moot I believe by something Inno is planning on doing that is supposed to make extra BPs very valuable. No details on that one.

However on the flip side, it does make the game easier. Which is a "do not suggest" criteria.
This exchange system would make it far too easy for lower age players to potentially acquire higher age GBs which you would otherwise need to put in a lot of effort to acquire, which wouldn't be very fair on those who have had to go through the grind of getting the BPs they want.

Actually this would not necessarily be the case. As stated in the suggestion it could use an already random selector such as the one associated with the Aid feature or perhaps the one associated with GE or simply one very similar to these that would restrict its abuse. Again my intent was not to create a feature that gave any great advantage just a feature (similar to the one that currently exists) that would allow you to off load unwanted BPs and get something minor in return (a random BP seemed appropriate)

Great buildings are supposed to be risky FP investments, just like real-life investments. I feel that the suggestion would take away this risk and eliminate the challenge of getting relevant blueprints and great buildings.

Okay I do not follow this line of thinking at all? First how is a GB a risky investment when you know exactly what you are getting upfront. Further how would getting a random BP effect this risk of investment since it has nothing to do with the actual investiture?

I get the good intention of the suggestion, but in conclusion, it does:

• Unbalance the game by making it too easy to get BPs, especially if the player has dozens of BPs for a GB they have no intention of building.
• Make the game too easy for the same reason above.
• Cause a level of unfairness for the long-term players who have had to work and engage in risky FP investments for BPs.
• Upset the challenge involved in trying to get BPs that you seek

Not any more than the current BP trading does and definitely not nearly as unbalancing as the ability to acquire say The Arc in a Iron Age city which can currently be done. Or the ability to easily acquire BPs by donating to someones current building. I mean this current situation that does exist makes this minor convenience pale in comparison. You do not get to choose what BP you are getting while in the current means for acquiring BPs you do. Further depending on how the restrictor is set up you might not even be able to acquire BPs beyond your current Age which is something you can currently actually do. When it comes to game balance perhaps the most unbalancing aspect of the game to date is this ability to farm for BPs that are way beyond your own age. Which as I state this minor convenience pales extremely when compared to it and I hear no complaints about this current feature which to me makes so very little sense.

 

[Vesiger]

I'm sceptical as to the likelihood of Inno doing anything to make excess BP 'very valuable ', since most end-game players are potentially sitting on hundreds...

 

[Emberguard]

I'd say BP trade of the same era random BP as opposed to any BP of any age (upto your age)

 

[DeletedUser112917]

when i trading i usually expect to get something i want in return. when trading blueprints, not only do i pay 2 for 1, but i have no choice in what i get. how is this trading? i wouldn't mind trading more BP to get one piece of my choice, towards a set.

 

[Agent327]

when i trading i usually expect to get something i want in return. when trading blueprints, not only do i pay 2 for 1, but i have no choice in what i get. how is this trading? i wouldn't mind trading more BP to get one piece of my choice, towards a set.

And for that you have to revive an old thread?