What is all this stuff about 'fair trades'?

[Prinza the Hunter]

I don't understand this 'unfair trades' stuff. What exactly is meant?

I put trades on the market for guild-only at 1 to 1. I do this to help out players in the hope they will help me out in some way when I need it, even though some of these 1-1 trades are not favourable.

I also put trades on the market to see what the market will bear, in other words I don't attempt any kind of communist parity but do my best at the capitalist market. Some of my offers expire withour being picked up, many are taken.

I also raid players, taking goods off them without giving them anything at all in return.

On the market, nobody has to accept my offers: I am not making them trade at any price at all and if nobody took any trades, the exchange rates available would go down (be more favourable to buyers). When raiding, even some good defenders lose out and they can do little about it.

It certainly can't be fair that all goods of an age are traded on a 1-1 because not all goods-poducers take the same space. A stone mason takes up almost an entire house more than a lumber mill, so it's quite reasonable that stone should cost more, or why would anyone bother with the stuff instead of a house and something they can force other people to sell stone to them for? In the Middle Ages, a player can fit two roperies in the space of a single saltworks.

So, what ARE 'fair trades' and who is it that has determined this 'planned political economy' (aka communism) and decided that it should be what all other players adhere to?

 

[DeletedUser110195]

All goods of an age cost the same to produce, all cost the same population, what you get a boost for is just good or bad luck of the draw, depending on how you view it, but fair trades are 1:1 same age, 1:2 trading down an age, 2:1 trading up an age and never skipping an age. If you think goods buildings are unfair at low ages....just wait until you see what you get at the high end....buildings that are not only larger than others, but also hit you with negative happiness, while others in the age have no effect or GIVE happiness. While your logic here has its merit, since space is arguably the most valuable resource we have in this game, all goods of an age take the same coin/supply/time to produce, and in this game none of it is worth more than anything else.

 

[DeletedUser99692]

As a rule both open market and guild only trades run on the same perception of "Fair Trade" rates as Augustavian has described. What a lot of players fail to take into consideration is that all of your trades regardless of how they are posted can be seen when a guild member selects Guild Only trades. If you are trying to be a "Capitalist" and trying to make a profit it might be at a Guild Mate's expense this does not go down well in most guilds and might end up in your removal from guilds that request Fair Trade from their members.

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

I will just highlight your own words that prove that your concept of 'fair' is not actually fair at all.

...what you get a boost for is just good or bad luck of the draw, depending on how you view it,...buildings that are not only larger than others, but also hit you with negative happiness, while others in the age have no effect or GIVE happiness. While your logic here has its merit, since space is arguably the most valuable resource we have in this game, all goods of an age take the same coin/supply/time to produce, and in this game none of it is worth more than anything else.

These matters (and more) all give the lie to the idea that "none of it is worth more than anything else."

It is wrong to say that all goods cost the same. They cost the same nett amount but the gross cost of production varies. Ask any accountant.

As a rule both open market and guild only trades run on the same perception of "Fair Trade" rates as Augustavian has described. What a lot of players fail to take into consideration is that all of your trades regardless of how they are posted can be seen when a guild member selects Guild Only trades. If you are trying to be a "Capitalist" and trying to make a profit it might be at a Guild Mate's expense this does not go down well in most guilds and might end up in your removal from guilds that request Fair Trade from their members.

So, it is my fault if a guild member can't read the market screen and make sensible decisions?
By your logic, everything in a shop should always cost the same because some customers might feel hard-done-by when they chose to pay more for their product than anyone else!
I post 1:1 trades for guild members. If a guild member takes the option to pay more that 1:1 that is certainly not my fault.

But it goes further than that. @Augustavian seems to want ALL trades to be his definition of 'fair' regardless who the seller and buyer are. It is OK to raid and steal but not to give people the chance to buy at rates that reflect supply and demand!

I didn't know about guild members not having the option to pick only 'fair' guild member trades: I use the app, which has a restricted-ability market. I still think it is up to the buyer to decide whether a rate is what they are will to pay. After all, they could always put on a trade for their own purposes and if someone thinks the trade is 'fair', they will buy it.

 

[DeletedUser107476]

There is already a penalty for those taking your trades, when not in your guild and that is the cost of a forge point per trade.

You must also consider that the main others taking your trades will be your friends. Mates rates always work best with friends I have found online or offline

As to your hood who are the 3rd group who can take your trades, it could be proclaimed fair to charge them more, however with the current trade system there is no way of choosing if they are the ones to take them. Also they could be allies to your guild

Therefore fair trade is the obvious way to go as 2/3 potential customers are guild or friends.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

It is wrong to say that all goods cost the same. They cost the same nett amount but the gross cost of production varies. Ask any accountant.

In this game, they cost the same, require the same effort to produce. All goods are demanded evenly, so 'supply and demand' does not apply to this game.

 

[Vesiger]

I didn't know about guild members not having the option to pick only 'fair' guild member trades: I use the app, which has a restricted-ability market. I still think it is up to the buyer to decide whether a rate is what they are will to pay. After all, they could always put on a trade for their own purposes and if someone thinks the trade is 'fair', they will buy it.

Eh? It doesn't make any difference whether you're on the app or not - the 'guild-only' option is set by the player creating the trade, not by the one viewing it, no matter what platform he's viewing it on.
And it hides the trade from people outside the guild. There simply isn't any way to hide trades from fellow guild members (even though a variety of ideas have been suggested).

And the reason why guilds tend to object to profiteering of this type is that it discourages trade within the guild; if you need to examine every trade individually to work out whether you're making a loss on it, you're much less likely to bother to whizz down the guild-only list swapping goods cost-free and with merry abandon - which is what we encourage people to do as often as possible, on the grounds that even if they don't personally need the goods at that moment they will always be able to exchange them for something else later without suffering any penalty for being helpful.

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

Eh? It doesn't make any difference whether you're on the app or not - the 'guild-only' option is set by the player creating the trade, not by the one viewing it, no matter what platform he's viewing it on.
And it hides the trade from people outside the guild. There simply isn't any way to hide trades from fellow guild members (even though a variety of ideas have been suggested).

Obviously the seller is the one deciding whether it is a guild-only offer or not.
What was not obvious was that, even on the browser version, it is impossible to select only those offers marked for guild-only. I think if the market were to give this option, most of your issues could disappear.

And the reason why guilds tend to object to profiteering of this type is that it discourages trade within the guild; if you need to examine every trade individually to work out whether you're making a loss on it, you're much less likely to bother to whizz down the guild-only list swapping goods cost-free and with merry abandon - which is what we encourage people to do as often as possible, on the grounds that even if they don't personally need the goods at that moment they will always be able to exchange them for something else later without suffering any penalty for being helpful.

I have a problem when you describe equalising the gross cost of product as 'profiteering'.

The most sought-after resource is not coins, nor supplies, nor even goods. It is space. People will squander coins and supplies and sometimes even goods but they work hours to make every last square count.

Someone producing goods out of a 16-square building is not producing goods at the same cost as someone producing goods out of a 6 or 9-square building. If the goods were freely interchangeable across an age (as you suggest) then nobody in their right mind would bother with a goods building taking 16 squares instead of taking 9 squares. Augustavian even mentions that in later ages, the differences between the buidings are even more that just size. Why would anyone bother with a 20-square building with negative happiness (if such exists, I haven't looked it up) instead of a 9-square building with positive happiness?

I do take your point about some guilds wanting to make things easy for lazy players. As I see it, such an arrangement is wide open to what I would see as abuse, while you define it as 'fair trades'.

Note: This post is all entirely distinct from the issue of whether free-trade is more sensible than controlled economy. As many people living under communism can confirm, there is nothing fair about communism, never has been, never will be.

 

[joesoap]

even with the size difference in goods buildings or the -ve happiness in later ages it still better to build a boosted 16 square building than an unboosted 9 square building & trade 1:1
in some ages you win out with smaller buildings & some you get the larger 1s, thats the nature of random boosts & working around them is part of the game

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

even with the size difference in goods buildings or the -ve happiness in later ages it still better to build a boosted 16 square building than an unboosted 9 square building & trade 1:1
in some ages you win out with smaller buildings & some you get the larger 1s, thats the nature of random boosts & working around them is part of the game

1) You can't boost goods buildings.
2) It is better to build a 9 square building that is boosted than a 9 square building that isn't. If the output is 'the same', whether it is boosted is not going to be dependant on size of building. That's why, for example, Farms can be beneficial even though they have a lower output per square than Alchemists available in the same age.

I come back to the question: if the output is going to be considred the same, why would anyone bother with a 20-square building instead of a 9-square building? Read the discussions of Great Buildings and they are full of people debating whoch is better per square. Here, however, people want to twist that same discussion into the idea that the output per square suddenly has no bearing!

 

[DeletedUser108047]

my guild is a simple fair trade guild (1:1 etc etc) for several reasons:

• fair trades keep it simple and encourage market liquidity particularly within the guild
• guild members are encouraged to take as many trades as possible again to increase liquidity and to improve the guild
• better than fair trades within the guild are regularly offered/encouraged to encourage the advancement of guild members and the construction of particularly guild beneficial great buildings eg Obs, Atom, Arc, Traz, Deal, St Basil etc
• put simply you don't seek to profit from your mates
• it makes it easy for farmer/banker style players to add value to the guild

Our experience has been that a highly liquid market of goods within the guild has lead to beneficial levels of guild contributions, guild buildings and guild levelling up

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

my guild is a simple fair trade guild (1:1 etc etc) for several reasons:

• fair trades keep it simple and encourage market liquidity particularly within the guild
• guild members are encouraged to take as many trades as possible again to increase liquidity and to improve the guild
• better than fair trades within the guild are regularly offered/encouraged to encourage the advancement of guild members and the construction of particularly guild beneficial great buildings eg Obs, Atom, Arc, Traz, Deal, St Basil etc
• put simply you don't seek to profit from your mates
• it makes it easy for farmer/banker style players to add value to the guild

Our experience has been that a highly liquid market of goods within the guild has lead to beneficial levels of guild contributions, guild buildings and guild levelling up

I like the way you describe this as a "simple fair trade" arrangement. Perhaps you are aware that it is not actually fair? In that light, it seems to me that your guild actually goes against the principles of "put simply you don't seek to profit from your mates" given that people with a relatively high gross cost of production are expected to trade 1:1 with those having a low gross cost of production.

Fine, your guild makes the rules for your guild members and that is as it should be. But the communist economy principles you describe is not 'fair' under my terms, though I accept your statement that it has beneficial effects.

 

[joesoap]

1) You can't boost goods buildings.
2) It is better to build a 9 square building that is boosted than a 9 square building that isn't. If the output is 'the same', whether it is boosted is not going to be dependant on size of building. That's why, for example, Farms can be beneficial even though they have a lower output per square than Alchemists available in the same age.

I come back to the question: if the output is going to be considred the same, why would anyone bother with a 20-square building instead of a 9-square building? Read the discussions of Great Buildings and they are full of people debating whoch is better per square. Here, however, people want to twist that same discussion into the idea that the output per square suddenly has no bearing!

you seem to be confusing goods with supplies, supplies (from farms & alchemists) are motivated to give double the output but arent traded so they are irrelevant to this conversation
goods are boosted if you get the goods boost from the map (eg stone, marble, lumber from BA) so if i dont have the boost i dont care what size the building is i'm not going to build it
in colonial paper mills are 6 squares whereas porcelain is 16 squares, if i have the map boost for porcelain but not paper then i will produce 5 times the amount of porcelain for the same time & cost as paper so its better to find the space to build a porcelain factory, i still need paper for tec/maps/GBs etc so i need to trade for it, people who have the boost for paper wont be willing to give away nearly 3 times the amount of paper to get porcelain because their building is smaller

 

[DeletedUser110195]

i still need paper for tec/maps/GBs etc so i need to trade for it, people who have the boost for paper wont be willing to give away nearly 3 times the amount of paper to get porcelain because their building is smaller

That is the long and short of it, there are more than enough means of getting needed goods outside of trading that if people who got the crap end of the stick with their boosts all felt entitled to trade ratios tilted in favor of them, then all that would happen is people would become insulated, never bothering with the market.

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

you seem to be confusing goods with supplies, supplies (from farms & alchemists) are motivated to give double the output but arent traded so they are irrelevant to this conversation
goods are boosted if you get the goods boost from the map (eg stone, marble, lumber from BA) so if i dont have the boost i dont care what size the building is i'm not going to build it

No, I'm not getting confused between goods and supplies. i thought that you were, since 'boost' is a term used by noth the game and players to describe increasing supplies buildings. I don't see what the whole issue of boosts has to do with anything. I don't suppose any sensible player tries getting goods without the Map boost (I am aware there are plenty of players who do it, though! I).

in colonial paper mills are 6 squares whereas porcelain is 16 squares, if i have the map boost for porcelain but not paper then i will produce 5 times the amount of porcelain for the same time & cost as paper so its better to find the space to build a porcelain factory, i still need paper for tec/maps/GBs etc so i need to trade for it, people who have the boost for paper wont be willing to give away nearly 3 times the amount of paper to get porcelain because their building is smaller

Every age gives two goods on the Map. Given that, why would anyone in Colonial Age under your rules and able to build boosted Paper build anything else, and expect everyone else to pay them on a 1:1 even though they can also build a couple of dwellings and earn coins, too, in the same space as the person they trade with.

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

That is the long and short of it, there are more than enough means of getting needed goods outside of trading that if people who got the crap end of the stick with their boosts all felt entitled to trade ratios tilted in favor of them, then all that would happen is people would become insulated, never bothering with the market.

But if, by your definition, they "got the crap end of the stick with their boosts" then surely by definition charging more (if it were possible) does not mean they are tilting the ratios in their favour. I just don't see how you can agree that goods production is not equal and yet think it fair to enforce trading as though it is. That sounds distinctly unfair trading, to me, by definition.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

I've gotten boosts that apply to 16 tile buildings, and I got paper in colonial along with tar which is a 15 tile building, you will never see me trade at anything but established fair trade rates. If you feel deserving of more goods than what you produce, then feel free to post those trades, and wait longer when people don't take them because they're not fair trades. You won't convince fair traders, I won't convince unfair traders and for the love of pete stop using communism like a buzzword to shut the opposing viewpoint down. It is not communism, so you have to use up more tiles producing your goods than someone who got lucky, big deal. That does not make us communist.

 

[Prinza the Hunter]

Communism has the principle that the charge for something is disconnected from the effort to produce. It is also colloquially used as the counter-point to free trade principles. I mean no insult to anyone who supports "fair trading" but it distinctly follows economic communist principles. (In a way, the entire guild structure can be seen as a reflection of social communism but that is just a way of looking at things, not a condemnation in itself.)

That does not make any player a communist, I agree and apologise if I have caused offense.

 

[DeletedUser110195]

What communist principles? My goods buildings are mine, I use what they produce for my own desires, not anyone else's. Communism is about all means of production being owned by the entire society and goods being distributed evenly...while even trade is what fair trade is about, I'm not gifting what I produce to anyone, nor are they gifting me. I have large stockpiles of what I produce, it is not handed out evenly to everyone so that everyone has an equal stock of all goods. THAT would be communism.

 

[Vesiger]

What confuses me is that 'communist' is apparently regarded as an insult that needs to be disclaimed at all costs; the principle of communism is "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities", which is pretty much what goes on in any healthy guild (or family, or community)...