Trading etiquette for warring parties...
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: The World
Forum Name: Politics & Diplomacy
Forum Description: If you run an alliance on Elgea, here's where you should make your intentions public.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=4503
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 04:38
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Trading etiquette for warring parties...
Posted By: Le Roux
Subject: Trading etiquette for warring parties...
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 18:05
|
There seems to be some trend developing in regards to trade and war in general. As neutrals in the war, it may be helpful for participants to understand our views about trade in general (and by neutral I do mean without alts on one side or another ). If you are in the war and know you have a blockade/siege at your city, it would be extremely poor form and bad etiquette to buy from the public market and knowingly expose an innocent 3rd party's vans to seizure. Trying to pass this off as the fault of the person doing the blockading does not pass muster. The innocent 3rd party trader puts up a sale on the market expecting nothing more than a business deal. If you order their vans into a war zone, it is your act that triggers the risk to the seller, the person doing the blockading may or may not have a reason to be blockading you, but that is of no matter to the trader. The blockading party did not order the vans. From a personal standpoint, if i lost vans to blockade where the buyer knew the blockade was in place, but was so desperate they risked a market buy, I might well be tempted to join in the siege and recoup my vans cost and the time and effort to rebuild via more punitive means. If you are under siege and blockade, look to your alliance and confeds for help and leave the market out of it.... .. simple common sense really. ------------- 
|
Replies:
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 18:12
|
Le Roux wrote:Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 18:18
|
Only for trading hub deals. You can still trade city to city. There is a difference. -------------
|
Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 18:23
|
the term "public market" seems to inject some confusion here. the market writ large ("illy marketplace", if you will) is, i think, what Le Roux refers to, not a specific hub. town trades will involve the seller's vans delivering the goods (Le Roux's scenario) while hub trades will cause the buyer's vans to pick them up at the hub from which they were ordered (The_Dude's scenario). those who wish to take care that their vans are not involved in what might be perceived as providing support to one side or another will restrict their trades to the hubs. unfortunately, that requires a trader at a hub and a much later entry for many smaller players into the illy marketplace. town trades carry, as they always have, the risk of having one's vans lost to blockade, but now appear also to carry the additional risk of involving the seller in the growing conflict, whether or not the buyer is under siege.
|
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 18:30
|
Yes, I refer to the market in more broad terms. Personally, i tend to sell t1 res directly out of my cities (seemingly better selling prices) , and T2 res / gathered res via hubs. If someone bought 210k clay from me and tried to sneak it through a blockade, I might be .. er ... unhappy..... -------------
|
Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 18:38
| For a town trade, where a town under blockade accepts my town trade offer, and my vans are caught by the blockading party, what is the real problem? I wanted to sell or buy something, and as long as I get my part of the deal, and my vans return empty -- later as expected, maybe, but trades can always go to the other side of the map -- it worked. OTOH I'd be seriously annoyed if the vans from the blockaded town to me are caught. |
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 18:47
|
The simple point is, if you are under blockade/siege, feel free to risk your own vans, or those of your alliance/confed.... just don't risk vans from those uninvolved , unless you want to perhaps add more enemies at your gates.... -------------
|
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 18:54
You don't get your vans back. ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: Epidemic
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 18:58
| It might be a good idea to ask devs, in http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/suggestions-game-enhancements_forum16.html" rel="nofollow - Suggestions & Game Enhancements , to change the rules so players in sieged towns can only trade thru hubs. Just my opinion. |
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 19:07
|
Yea, I like my vans, and if i have to replace 70 because someone tried to save their sieged/blockaded town at my expense, expect more than a nasty IGM... Just a simple matter of personal responsibility, don't risk my units to save your city. Risk your own , or those of your alliance/confed. Unless you want another 30 cats and 100k trueshot at your walls....
-------------
|
Posted By: abstractdream
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 19:37
|
Yes, this seems like common sense to the experienced player but not everyone is experienced. If you are being sieged/blockaded you probably know the risks but any player with a Marketplace can try selling in the town-to-town market and therein lies the issue. This scenario may be unlikely (is it during a large war?) but it could happen and there should be a way to avoid it for lower level, inexperienced players. At least a warning should be in order? ------------- |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 19:50
70 horses, 700 gold and a little under 6 hours of build time. I don't understand why this would be such a big deal and especially don't see how it equals sieging someone. Besides, someone could easily accept a trade and then become bombarded. -------------  |
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 20:05
|
Of course there always could be mitigating circumstances, but there is indeed more to it than just the cost of the goods... it goes to the intent of the buyer, and disregard for the consequences. I have had to deal with explaining away intercepted vans on occasion, and assuring the warring parties these were just market buys, and not covert attempts to supply one side or another. There is no way for the blockading party to know one way or another from the intercept alone. It is annoying they were placed in jeopardy to begin with, and vastly more annoying if it possibly damages ones reputation. So yes, under some circumstances, i'd feel perfectly justified in taking severe action against someone who should indeed know better..... and would not hesitate to do so... admittedly it would require the perfect storm of circumstances, but it is not hard to imagine them ... -------------
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 20:53
Yes, private shipments do work differently but because the sending player will know the war and blockade status of the recipient, he will not be "blindsided."
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 20:54
|
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 21:08
I think you are missing how trade works.... all "public trades" are not done through trade hubs, many (if not still a large %) take place city to city.... if my #1 city offers to sell 1000 saddles , and your#4 city buys them in the market , our vans will cross in the night without a trade hub involved.... if you also happen to be blockaded... my vans run the risk of evaporating.. that is my point. All public market sales are not trade hub deals.... -------------
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 21:39
|
Posted By: Darmon
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 00:47
|
Why wouldn't the seller assume some responsibility for posting orders to the public market? If there was a specific set of people they didn't want to sell to -- for example, people under siege or people at war -- then shouldn't they choose a method that eliminates that risk, or at least removes their own investments from harm's way? I imagine that's why the public market potentially has lower prices and/or higher volume: because of higher supply (people trading all over the map) and/or higher demand (people in trouble are probably willing to pay more for closer goods). The only traders that I think people might be willing to make an exception for are particularly new players. But I'm not sure how many of those delve into trading early on, or if they can trade significant quantities of goods (or even have access to more desirable goods). It seems like recent issues seem to be arising for, or in regards to, players that have been around long enough to hopefully be familiar with the uses and implications of trading using the various methods.
|
Posted By: Le Roux
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 01:20
That argument simply shifts the responsibility from the shoulders of someone who knows they are a risk over to the broader market. There are always at least minor conflicts going on, the Illy market goes on, always has. You surely are not suggesting an end to the economy because 2 parties are at war? It makes far more logical sense for the parties involved in the war not to knowingly involve a neutral trader , as i mentioned... far easier for people to accept personal responsibility. Saying no one should ever trade in the public because a buyer might be sieged/blockaded is impractical at best. That means everyone stops trading? The selller doesn't know the buyers circumstance, the buyer, if blockcaded, certainly does. The guilt and responsibility seems pretty clear.
-------------
|
Posted By: Darmon
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 03:33
| I'm not saying the buyer is guiltless in trying to lure a third party into the sticky web of war. That seems to be the assertion of other parties around here: "you sold them the stuff, so you're in trouble (because we're already at war with the buyer, so there isn't a lot more we can do to them, that we aren't doing already)." I'm just saying it's impractical to expect people who become desperate enough not to use every means available to them to stave off destruction. I thought self-preservation was an instinctual thing, that affects people at a level deeper than morality? |
Posted By: tansiraine
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 05:58
|
I can understand completely what Le Roux means. I do buy from neutral alliances and as you know I am in H? Personally I would not put some one in jeopardy if i was under siege or blockade. If it happened I would make sure that the people that intercepted it knew it was a market purchase. I would lose the gold that was sent to the person I purchased from and then replace the resources to build. So it would be annoying yes to the seller but i would be a bit more upset cause i paid what ever amount and never got the stuff... |
Posted By: Sajreth
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 08:37
| Just adding my thoughts on the matter, as a person who was predominately a trader in the past on this game, I found that most of my larger sales were to warring parties, let's face it, war makes for a better economy when selling items. If a person is truly that concerned over the loss of vans, or simply not wanting to risk that outcome they have a choice not to place sell orders on the market. The only true threat in my opinion is that "map watchers" aren't able to tell a market order from a rogue supply order from a neutral party. So honestly what I see as the point of this thread is "please don't buy from the market, because it's causing tension with neutral alliances, due to legitimate market transactions." |
Posted By: deorasandeep
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 10:04
is trade without risk are buyers paying 4 times the value for no risk of yours and attacking with enemy either side will not make u friend of attacker side and yes in war times traders may take a vactaion who do not wish to move between war zones" |
Posted By: BlindScribe
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 11:48
Posted By: kerozen
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 16:03
|
If I read corectly, H? is saying that sending res. to his opponents are acts of war. I've also read that helping breaking a siege is NOT an act of war. You guys have to make it clear. also, the confed graph shows all alliances are linked. Will H? ask for non-consone alliances to resign confed or NAP with them ? the CE case seems to be an attempt to isolate consone a little more. will they ask FoH to break link with CE ? will they force GRUJ, BZZZZ and IND to stop their confed with Roads and Druid ? or ask Dark to change diplomacy ? Can FREE be in trouble ? Kero ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/194801" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Kabu
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 16:16
| Isn't that one more reason to use hubs for trading? They're underused as it is, so I don't mind personally. |
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 16:24
| one should point out that following vans is a simple process and perhaps traders should consider this if trades go to warring group, that trading can be consider an act of aggression to one side of conflict...other words trading can be a risky activity in the game unless u can properly protect yourself, remember this is a game with limited rules, a sandbox which means high risk for any activity.....maybe traders need to join one side or the other or establish an organization such as the training alliances have....traders can always pay for protection or pay fines to avoid war when caught....hint hint use trading hubs |
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 17:07
I've gotten apologies from players who bought from a distance of greater than 1k for causing my vans to be out so long. If you bought say 210k food or something. Its really annoying as a trader for someone to tie up all your vans for 4 days. So as a courtesy unless your paying 20g per food. Yea buy closer. If your buying say 3k armor or something its less annoying, but for traders vans moving in and out of ur city mean ur making money. If that doesn't happen for a week because someone across the map decided to buy them, your not making money.
|
Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 17:49
| There's a huge price difference between basic resources FOB (hub) and CIF (town): Buyers already pay for "not my vans", and sellers can offer their goods in nearby hubs if they don't like long distance trading. The devs should enable the announced town market visibility limits when they are ready with critical trade v2 bugs. |
Posted By: Loud Whispers
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 17:54
| It would be entertaining if warring buyers sent an additional caravan of gold; twice the pay if they succeed against the risk or else as compensation. |
Posted By: Deranzin
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 18:07
Considering the current prices on many items, one could say that they are doing that already
|
Posted By: DeathDealer89
Date Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 20:58
| Idk taxes go toward allowing vans out that fullfill orders, lets just leave it at that. |
Posted By: BlindScribe
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2012 at 13:40
Posted By: Loud Whispers
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2012 at 17:44
Hermes - God of thieves AND merchants :D
|
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2012 at 21:04
|
If I want to discourage faraway people from buying my stuff, I price it at a bit of a premium to the going rate of the market. I figure people nearby will be more willing to pay a higher price for the convenience. Even if a faraway person happens to buy it, I get a better price for my stuff. Awww gee, now everyone is gonna do this and inflation is gonna get worse ...
|
Posted By: twilights
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2012 at 23:04
|
trading is a very important tool in a economy, very important in maintaining a war time economy, in fact it can be used as a deciding factor in the outcome in a war...it is just a matter of time before someone blockades a trading hub and manipulates trades to intercept vans to gain a huge advantage, i think people are already experimenting using this method on individual siege castles...hint hint...be careful of buying and posting trades...hubs are still safe and the other system not |
Posted By: dunnoob
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2012 at 08:38
Mostly I have to decide if I want to use my vans to carry, say, wood to a hub, where I get a decent price, or if I want them to carry stones to the town where I need stones. In both cases these vans will be busy for about two days. Hopefully the devs limit the visibility of town markets sooner than soon; they could also try to get a similar effect with town market taxes depending on the distance. Until they do that, you could (1) send a second trader to a hub where you are sure that the prices for stones are always higher, (2) collect surplus stones at your local "mega-warehouse" hub, (3) send stones to the far away hub before you go offline with an order to stay, (4) and send them back to your local hub when you're online again, filled with basic resources cheaper at the far away hub. Ideally. In practice nothing is really cheap at my far away hub, and I skip the stay at hub steps.
|
Posted By: Gragnog
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2012 at 09:49
|
Lets face it, if you have something posted in the trade section and someone somewhere wants it, they will buy it. If your vans are tied up then it is your responsibility to make a plan to get them back. As a player not focusing on the trade aspect I fit into the group of players who do not really know much about the mechanics of trading, thus I have the attitude that the customer is always right and the supplier is providing a service I am paying for. The ideal situation would be everyone takes everyone else into consideration, but that is not going to happen. Perhaps there will be mechanisms in place to limit the distances your trades can happen at (apart from the hubs) and ways to select your clients, but at present those options do not exist. Bottom line is if I need something and it is on sale in the market I will buy it, irrespective of the distance. Of course I will look for items closest to me but in the event they are not available then I will take whatever is available. THE CUSTOMER IS ALWAYS RIGHT. ------------- Kaggen is my human half |
Posted By: HendelTheDwarf
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2012 at 14:40
That can't be done right now. Not to say that it won't change in the future....
|
Posted By: Bonaparta
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2012 at 18:34
|
Outgoing gold carrying trade caravans can not be captured by blockade… A few months ago I wanted to destroy global market. The devious plan was: Conclusion: There is no risk for the seller as seller will always get the gold. If buyer is stupid enough to buy from blockaded towns, he risks that resources he paid for will be redirected to player blockading his town... Of course smart players might use this little information to transport out the goods from blockaded towns, but no incoming trades are safe... ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/95216" rel="nofollow">  |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2012 at 19:56
|
That was very informative Bonaparta. So the seller will always get his gold. It takes only 5 minutes per caravan to train. And one can train new caravans and use them as soon as their caravans are captured by a blockade. So in effect, you can get your caravans back faster if they are captured by a blockade. (Assuming you are around)
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2012 at 20:21
|
Are captured vans destroyed after they deliver the captured goods? I see them just disappear once delivery is completed. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2012 at 21:30
|
It used to be that caravans would "travel slowly to the intercepting city" before dying, during which time you could not create new caravans. My understanding is that this has changed and that you can create new caravans immediately, in which case the inconvenience of having a caravan captured by a blockade is now significantly less. In prior times when you had to wait up to several days before you could create new caravans, the exasperation of sellers is more understandable; if it's possible to create caravans immediately, then this is really not that big a deal.
|
Posted By: Bonaparta
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2012 at 22:07
|
Intercepted caravans travel to the city that sent out blockade at about 1/10 of their speed. If that city is far away that may be weeks... Once they deliver gods to the blockader they are destroyed. ------------- http://elgea.illyriad.co.uk/a/p/95216" rel="nofollow"> |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2012 at 23:06
| Well, then the reduced speed of vans penalizes the captor and does nothing to the captive player. That's silly. I understand with the greatly increased efficacy of 'cades that it is too much of a penalty to the captive player to slow them down on replacing vans, but what's the point of slow vans to the captor? |
Posted By: Daufer
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 04:07
The caravans will still arrive at the capturing city... eventually... carrying goods that someone else paid for, and the purchaser who was blockaded doesn't get them. Having someone else's captured vans bring you free goodies slowly but surely as a reward for camping an army outside their walls for a while doesn't strike me as much of a penalty. Sure the town suffering the blockade can build a new caravan immediately, but they still lost gold and didn't get their stuff. Now they have to send more gold in new caravans on another shopping trip, and assuming your blockade is still in place and they are unlucky you could conceivably end up with a few hundred stolen caravans creeping to your city.
|
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 28 Nov 2012 at 05:35
|
>as a reward for camping an army outside their walls for a while doesn't strike me as much of a penalty. 'cades are usually attacked quite a bit. I wouldn't call it "camping."
|
Posted By: Daufer
Date Posted: 29 Nov 2012 at 05:13
| True, but since you would be blockading the city with the primary intention of stopping the flow of supplies coming in, the fact that those supplies are diverted to you instead is a bonus. Receiving a bonus slowly while your opponent/victim receives nothing at all isn't really a penalty You still get what you wanted, which is to stop them from building troops or repairing buildings at will. |