| Author |
|
abstractdream 
Postmaster General
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
Location: Oarnamly
Status: Offline
Points: 1857
|
 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?
|
|
Bonfyr Verboo
|
 |
Brids17
Postmaster General
Joined: 30 Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1483
|
Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 19:50 |
 Le Roux wrote:
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... |
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.
|
|
|
|
Le Roux
Wordsmith
Joined: 30 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 151
|
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 ...
|
|
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 20:53 |
Le Roux wrote:
Only for trading hub deals. You can still trade city to city. There is a difference. |
Your original comment dealt with buying on the public market and it was that comment to which I was commenting.
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."
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 20:54 |
The_Dude wrote:
Le Roux wrote:
Only for trading hub deals. You can still trade city to city. There is a difference. |
Your original comment dealt with buying on the public market and it was that comment to which I was referring.
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." |
|
|
Le Roux
Wordsmith
Joined: 30 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 151
|
Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 21:08 |
The_Dude wrote:
Le Roux wrote:
Only for trading hub deals. You can still trade city to city. There is a difference. |
Your original comment dealt with buying on the public market and it was that comment to which I was commenting.
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." |
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....
|
|
|
|
The_Dude
Postmaster General
Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
|
Posted: 23 Nov 2012 at 21:39 |
Le Roux wrote:
****
I think you are missing how trade works....
**** |
|
|
Darmon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 315
|
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.
|
|
Le Roux
Wordsmith
Joined: 30 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 151
|
Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 01:20 |
Darmon wrote:
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? ....
|
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.
Edited by Le Roux - 24 Nov 2012 at 01:20
|
|
|
|
Darmon
Forum Warrior
Joined: 15 Aug 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 315
|
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?
|
|
Tweet
Trading etiquette for warring parties...
Topic Options
