|
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345> |
| Author | |
DeathDealer89 
Postmaster 
Joined: 04 Jan 2012 Status: Offline Points: 944 |
 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.
|
|
 |
|
|
twilights
Postmaster
Joined: 21 May 2012 Status: Offline Points: 915 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
Kabu
Wordsmith 
Joined: 27 Jul 2011 Status: Offline Points: 118 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
kerozen
Greenhorn 
Joined: 02 Nov 2012 Location: quebec Status: Offline Points: 81 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BlindScribe
Wordsmith
Joined: 12 Sep 2012 Status: Offline Points: 168 |
Posted: 24 Nov 2012 at 11:48 |
|
I'm not sure I can find it within myself to get too worked up about the prospect of losing vans because of enemy troop activity. Call it a cost of doing business. Prices generally go UP in times of war, because materials are being traded at a more frantic pace, with people replacing troops in the field as quickly as they can, and every trader benefits from this phenomenon, even if they're risking nothing in the war that's causing the prices to spike. So...sometimes you lose a batch. Part of the game, right? I once got a nastygram from a player who didn't like the fact that I bought stuff (at an excellent price) from a trader who was 1800 tiles away (I was going to be off for a couple days, and wanted to "time" my purchase so that it wouldn't hit till I got back. I was informed that I needed to buy from closer sources and not tie up his caravans for such long periods of time. Do we need rules for that too? Seems to me that once you get on that particular treadmill, there's no getting off.... IMO, of course. Edited by BlindScribe - 24 Nov 2012 at 11:49 |
|
|
|
|
deorasandeep
New Poster 
Joined: 17 Sep 2012 Location: lucknow,india Status: Offline Points: 35 |
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" |
|
|
|
|
Sajreth
Greenhorn
Joined: 24 Apr 2011 Location: Ohio Status: Offline Points: 74 |
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."
|
|
|
|
|
tansiraine
Wordsmith
Joined: 14 Oct 2012 Location: pensacola FL Status: Offline Points: 172 |
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...
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
Le Roux
Wordsmith
Joined: 30 May 2012 Status: Offline Points: 151 |
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.
Edited by Le Roux - 24 Nov 2012 at 01:20 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Trading etiquette for warring parties...
Topic Options
BlindScribe wrote: