Remove Trades

[lonewolfe2015]

Simple, exactly what the topic says... remove trades.

You'd need to up the start bonus to two million to compensate, but growth wouldn't be so ridiculous and we could stop having issues with trades. would be a fun experiment. They are a pretty big hassle too.

[Derwood1]

I have personally lost interested in at least 3 separate rounds' nations due to screwed up trades. I could support this idea.

[grandeza]

I don't know. This sounds absolutely ridiculous to me. Setting up trades is one of the hardest things to do and once you set them up the reward is great. Just because they're a hassle doesn't mean get rid of them. It just means the dedicated players who take the time to set up circles and continue to mass message get ahead when their circles are done.

[lonewolfe2015]

I don't know. This sounds absolutely ridiculous to me. Setting up trades is one of the hardest things to do and once you set them up the reward is great. Just because they're a hassle doesn't mean get rid of them. It just means the dedicated players who take the time to set up circles and continue to mass message get ahead when their circles are done.

Yea, you brought up the biggest reason to keep them.

But in the same respect, removing trades can be a great way of testing ways of improving SE, remember TE is also a SE testing ground.

I think the hassle to set up trades (and pray you get a decent set) is not worth it, but that trying a round without them, if admin looks at these threads and if he can do the coding in that manner (may be too entangled in the game) it's worth a shot.

[Tiberius C Nero]

Simple, exactly what the topic says... remove trades.

You'd need to up the start bonus to two million to compensate, but growth wouldn't be so ridiculous and we could stop having issues with trades. would be a fun experiment. They are a pretty big hassle too.

You'd also have to raise the price of the Manhattan Project aswell or you'd have every nation spending their entire startup on Manhattan Projects and a resulting ridiculous amount of nukes. Every war would be Thermonuclear Bedlahm. I mean not that it's a bad thing, You'd have them holdouts that would be like ZOMG NUKES are wayyy too easy to get

[lonewolfe2015]

You'd also have to raise the price of the Manhattan Project aswell or you'd have every nation spending their entire startup on Manhattan Projects and a resulting ridiculous amount of nukes. Every war would be Thermonuclear Bedlahm. I mean not that it's a bad thing, You'd have them holdouts that would be like ZOMG NUKES are wayyy too easy to get

2mil for MP... 2mil start up aid. So if you buy the MP at start then you're instantly bill-locked and unable to buy a nuke for your nation. Not to mention the minor infra/tech requirements involved!

Brilliant political move

[Thomasj_tx]

I'd say keep trades, but if a nation that you are trading with idles out and is deleted, you do not lose their resources.

[shadoz19]

I'd say keep trades, but if a nation that you are trading with idles out and is deleted, you do not lose their resources.

I actually think that is one of the better ideas that I have heard, the only issue would be preventing abuses. You would have to only be able to keep those trades that the nation deleted after 25 days versus a manual delete.

[Ghuxalia]

Outright getting rid of trades is a bad idea, but keeping them after deletion makes it a lot easier. But permanently keeping them would result in too much abuse. Maybe having a grace period of 5 or so days where your nation uses up the last of the resources from the trade before they actually run out.

[Thomasj_tx]

I actually think that is one of the better ideas that I have heard, the only issue would be preventing abuses. You would have to only be able to keep those trades that the nation deleted after 25 days versus a manual delete.

That is exactly what I meant. Thanks for stating it clearly.

[XRCatD]

I agree completely with the suggestion in the OP. Too much of starting resources and trades are based on chance. We could try a round without trades.

[BozDaBoz]

Here's an idea, if you are looking for fast growth. Give everyone 3 resources when they start, so you could get almost? all of the resources available if you traded smart. Also you could have more bonus resources. Since rounds only last 2 months it would still help the "smart" traders while even letting the new folks get better trades.

[Fizzydog]

No uranium= 90% of nations w/o nukes.

[SoADarthCyfe6]

[quote name='Liman Von Sanders' date='12 January 2010 - 05:56 PM' timestamp='1263336973' post='2102211']
You'd also have to raise the price of the Manhattan Project aswell or you'd have every nation spending their entire startup on Manhattan Projects and a resulting ridiculous amount of nukes. Every war would be Thermonuclear Bedlahm. I mean not that it's a bad thing, You'd have them holdouts that would be like ZOMG NUKES are wayyy too easy to get
[/quote]

I would like to point out that the Manhattan Project is perfectly fine at 1 million, if people were stupid enough to buy this at the beginning, then you shouldn't worry about it, they wouldn't be able to afford nukes afterwords, anyways. After a few days, you should be well over that persons NS and they shouldn't be able to nuke you. Nukes are also meant to be easily obtainable, if they weren't, then people who would buy their way to winning the round wouldn't have anything to worry about other then the other people who donated as well. And you need Uranium as well.

Removing trades I suppose is worth a try, but trades provide a lot for nations if they join the correct trading circle. Easily one of the worst resources to get stuck with is Furs and Water (my resources) you are able to get into a good trading circle, but you will easily get screwed over for not having uranium. It is a hassle, but it's there to give the game a better challenge and advantage. Removing trades would have to be well thought of before anything is done.

[LeDee]

Wow, am I the only one who hates this idea? Trades and deletes (either inactive or manual delete) are a big wildcard in the game, and part of what makes it fun/interesting is the wild card aspect of it. You can't plan for everything, and the game would be boring if you could.

One thing that would be neat, not sure I'm endorsing this myself, but just thinking out loud, would be if you could pick one resource going in. You'd probably get too many picking uranium, of course, but then they'd have to pay the price for that by having a harder time finding trades. But it would allow for at least a partial ability to coordinate trades between reset rounds. Like I said, not sure I love the idea, but it just occurred to me...would be interesting...

[Thom98]

I have to disagree with the OP, getting rid of trades would be to radical of a change. If the resources needed for bonus resources we cut and or the number of naturals increased.

[scytale]

What about if everyone was one color. We could try it for a round.

[JonBoy16]

[quote name='scytale' date='26 April 2010 - 03:10 PM' timestamp='1272312639' post='2276296']
What about if everyone was one color. We could try it for a round.
[/quote]
That would eliminate part of the strategic advantage of setting up a good trade circle, don't ya think?

[JimKongIl]

Believe it or not I like the fact that it is difficult to organize trades, it rewards the people that work. I'm not going to say that someone that starts with furs/lead has the same opportunities as someone that starts with fish/wheat, But eventually we get the same opportunities.

[Wabooz]

All the work doesnt matter imo, as the lack of people and activity make it a pain in the neck.
TE is pretty much trade circle or you are screwed.

[Bleh32]

first they take away aid, now this. this game will become POINTLESS if you keep removing all the features.

[sammykhalifa]

No offense, but this sounds like a bad idea. There's nothing wrong about having to put a little effort into putting something together. The problem is (still) how unequal the resources are. Bad resources will ruin a round no matter what you do.

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='sammykhalifa' date='22 June 2010 - 08:59 AM' timestamp='1277211563' post='2346477']
No offense, but this sounds like a bad idea. There's nothing wrong about having to put a little effort into putting something together. The problem is (still) how unequal the resources are. Bad resources will ruin a round no matter what you do.
[/quote]

This is a little extreme I'll admit, but something needs to be done about trades.

I've had to reroll twice this round, because when there is only 1600 players getting bad resources screws you over. Now I'll have to haul butt to catch up to everyone.

[Bleh32]

well lonewolfe sorry but that's just the luck of the draw. you wouldnt be complaining if you had gotten fish and wheat. having all resources as good resources is just stupid. the fact of the matter is that all resources server some purpose, and there has to be some bad ones to balance out the good ones.

[lonewolfe2015]

[quote name='Bleh32' date='25 June 2010 - 04:03 PM' timestamp='1277496198' post='2350276']
well lonewolfe sorry but that's just the luck of the draw. you wouldnt be complaining if you had gotten fish and wheat. having all resources as good resources is just stupid. the fact of the matter is that all resources server some purpose, and there has to be some bad ones to balance out the good ones.
[/quote]

Nope, you're right, I wouldn't be complaining if I had a round of good resources, problem is that hasn't been for 5-6 rounds now and I'm not the only one finding it. The past two rounds there has been a viral resource combo that caused 10x the amount of people as normal to get it.

Trades are magnified in TE because there are less people to trade with.