Jump to content
TJ09

Trading Hub Feedback

TJ09

Please report all bugs in the Help section. This thread is for discussion and feedback only.

Message added by TJ09

Recommended Posts

Quote

Wants

Enter a message to help others understand what types of offers you are looking for.

Warning: Misuse of this text may result in disciplinary action, such as loss of ability to create public trades.

 

 

Yeah, that honestly seems very straight-forward and unambiguous to me. The want box is to describe what kind of offers you are interested in. End of. It's not for direct communication to one specific user, and certainly not for random lyrics and jokes. I don't really understand how that could be misinterpreted so badly. (But yes, there should definitely be an explanation-message if it's disabled.)

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know if any of this is passively directed at me (I'm getting the impression that I asked a stupid question beforehand), but it's not the fact that I was confused about what the purpose of the "wants" box was. 

 

I just wanted more clarification on what "misuse" meant. It's a bit vague to me (but hey, maybe I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed), and I certainly did not think beforehand that a one-time use of telling someone that they are egg-locked would mean that I could be banned from public trading for an indefinite period of time. Especially since I saw it done several times before for weeks on end and no mod came in and explicitly said "this isn't allowed" until today. I honestly thought it "misuse" referred to something like "don't put something offensive here". And I never would've found out otherwise had I not asked on this thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Lucere said:

I don't know if any of this is passively directed at me (I'm getting the impression that I asked a stupid question beforehand), but it's not the fact that I was confused about what the purpose of the "wants" box was. 

 

I just wanted more clarification on what "misuse" meant. It's a bit vague to me (but hey, maybe I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed), and I certainly did not think beforehand that a one-time use of telling someone that they are egg-locked would mean that I could be banned from public trading for an indefinite period of time. Especially since I saw it done several times before for weeks on end and no mod came in and explicitly said "this isn't allowed" until today. I honestly thought it "misuse" referred to something like "don't put something offensive here". And I never would've found out otherwise had I not asked on this thread. 

 

In this case, "misuse" is pretty narrowly defined, and matches the English definition: using something for the wrong purpose. The purpose is also given right above the warning: help others understand what offers you're looking for. If your message is not doing that, then it can be considered misuse. Naturally, things aren't black or white, but I don't believe any of the types of chat messages I've seen in reports have much of an argument against being "misuse."

 

I will also point out that no one has been banned from public trading without multiple trades worth of "bad" messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, TJ09 said:

 

In this case, "misuse" is pretty narrowly defined, and matches the English definition: using something for the wrong purpose. The purpose is also given right above the warning: help others understand what offers you're looking for. If your message is not doing that, then it can be considered misuse. Naturally, things aren't black or white, but I don't believe any of the types of chat messages I've seen in reports have much of an argument against being "misuse."

 

I will also point out that no one has been banned from public trading without multiple trades worth of "bad" messages.

 

I saw it as: if message is not stating the wants, it can be considered misuse, i.e. it could be misuse, but it isn't always. I'm only asking for clarification on when not posting a wants is misuse, and when it isn't. If it was made absolutely clear on that page what constitutes as a "misuse", then I wouldn't have an issue. But I'd still argue that "misuse" is incredibly vague, as someone could easily put something that is trade related (like telling someone they are egg-locked, or that their hatchling offer is precogged a certain gender) in the want-box without realizing that it would constitute as spam.

 

For example if I put, say "wants: CB Antarean; username I'd like to accept but you are egglocked" is that still "misuse," even though I did put a want in the want-box? 

 

The thing is, even if I didn't include "CB Antarean" in that suggestion, it is still arguable that I was using the want box for its intended purpose, i.e. communicating what kind of offer(s) I wanted. In that example, I wanted username's offer, but they were egg-locked. But apparently that's considered spam (and possibly a bannable offense?), even though I communicated exactly what I wanted in the want-box. 

 

Because of how vague the term "misuse" can be construed, wouldn't just posting "Offers" also be considered "misuse," since the message isn't helping people figure out what you're looking for? What about if you put your "haves" in the want box, is that considered "misuse" too? Or for some users who are experiencing some kind of bug where their scrollname gets posted in the want box (haven't experienced this myself, but have seen others have the issue), is that considered "misuse" as well? Is listing "see my post on the trade forums" counted as "misuse"?

 

I (and many others) find that the trading hub lack features that are necessary to facilitate trades. Such as being able to tell someone you would like to accept their offer but they are egg-locked. Or you like most of what someone is offering, but you don't want/need that extra cb common egg/hatchling they threw in. Or you offered an S1 hatchling on someone's trade and they asked for a certain gender, and you'd like to tell them that it was precogged/influenced to be that gender. And, when that happens, people can and will find workarounds to get stuff done. As a result, they'll use the want-box to send messages and discuss a trade because there's no in-game messaging system.

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Lucere said:

 

I saw it as: if message is not stating the wants, it can be considered misuse, i.e. it could be misuse, but it isn't always. I'm only asking for clarification on when not posting a wants is misuse, and when it isn't. If it was made absolutely clear on that page what constitutes as a "misuse", then I wouldn't have an issue. But I'd still argue that "misuse" is incredibly vague, as someone could easily put something that is trade related (like telling someone they are egg-locked, or that their hatchling offer is precogged a certain gender) in the want-box without realizing that it would constitute as spam.

 

For example if I put, say "wants: CB Antarean; username I'd like to accept but you are egglocked" is that still "misuse," even though I did put a want in the want-box? 

 

The thing is, even if I didn't include "CB Antarean" in that suggestion, it is still arguable that I was using the want box for its intended purpose, i.e. communicating what kind of offer(s) I wanted. In that example, I wanted username's offer, but they were egg-locked. But apparently that's considered spam (and possibly a bannable offense?), even though I communicated exactly what I wanted in the want-box. 

 

Because of how vague the term "misuse" can be construed, wouldn't just posting "Offers" also be considered "misuse," since the message isn't helping people figure out what you're looking for? What about if you put your "haves" in the want box, is that considered "misuse" too? Or for some users who are experiencing some kind of bug where their scrollname gets posted in the want box (haven't experienced this myself, but have seen others have the issue), is that considered "misuse" as well? Is listing "see my post on the trade forums" counted as "misuse"?

 

I (and many others) find that the trading hub lack features that are necessary to facilitate trades. Such as being able to tell someone you would like to accept their offer but they are egg-locked. Or you like most of what someone is offering, but you don't want/need that extra cb common egg/hatchling they threw in. Or you offered an S1 hatchling on someone's trade and they asked for a certain gender, and you'd like to tell them that it was precogged/influenced to be that gender. And, when that happens, people can and will find workarounds to get stuff done. As a result, they'll use the want-box to send messages and discuss a trade because there's no in-game messaging system.

 

 

Honestly I think this is splitting hairs. It's really fairly simple and you seem to be making it more complicated then it needs to be. The 'wants' box is for, I'll quote again, 'a message to help others understand what types of offers you are looking for' . It says that right there on the page. 'Misuse' is ANYTHING that is not that. If it's not describing what kind of offer you want, it's misuse. Direct communication to a user, even if it's *about* the trade, is not 'helping others understand what offers you want'. 

 

Right now there is no 'Have' box, so I think 'haves' in the Want box is unavoidable, but yes technically that could be considered misuse as well. If there are things the trading hub is missing that would make it easier to do trades, ask for those things. Post your support for those things. Talk about those things. But using the Want box for those things just because there is no better option at the moment is still misuse. It's not really a good idea to justify misusing a feature by saying that other features aren't available. 

 

edit: I would support a change in wording, something like 'this box is only for a message to help others understand what types of offers you are looking for' or something. But I don't think the word 'misuse' is the problem here. If someone is unsure of the definition of the word they can look it up. Online dictionaries say: 'use (something) in the wrong way or for the wrong purpose.' The purpose of the box is stated, so using it differently is misuse.

Edited by HeatherMarie

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it's fair to chastise users who "misuse" a feature in a way to message others when there's no current way to do so. Trading clearly needs more communication abilities than it has. As it is, I don't really have an interest in utilizing the trading hub with it's limited features. And, in my opinion, having to unlock dragons in the encyclopedia to be able to search for them in the trade hub is super unfair. I was down a Nexus and I ended up having to go to a hatchery to look at some so I could buy it from the market. I would have loved to trade for it to get the encylopedia info, so I could unlock it by grabbing it instead of viewing it. There are many different ways to play, and having it like that hurts my ability to play my way.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Sextonator said:

I don't think it's fair to chastise users who "misuse" a feature in a way to message others when there's no current way to do so. Trading clearly needs more communication abilities than it has. As it is, I don't really have an interest in utilizing the trading hub with it's limited features. And, in my opinion, having to unlock dragons in the encyclopedia to be able to search for them in the trade hub is super unfair. I was down a Nexus and I ended up having to go to a hatchery to look at some so I could buy it from the market. I would have loved to trade for it to get the encylopedia info, so I could unlock it by grabbing it instead of viewing it. There are many different ways to play, and having it like that hurts my ability to play my way.

 

I completely agree about the Encyclopedia requirements. It seems to be a rather limiting requirement... Until now the only benefits that come with unlocking Encyclopedia info was seeing the breed name on the dragon's page (I think that was all?). Requiring unlocking things from a completely different feature in order to use two very important features seems like overkill. Especially since, to my knowledge, it's not actually stated anywhere in the trading area that you need to unlock Encyclopedia entries to use the filters and such. At least in the Market it has a message to that extent, but in the Trading Hub there really is no way of knowing that *that* is what you have to do.

 

Again, I don't think it's right to justify misusing a feature just because there are certain features you wish were there but aren't. There is currently no way to directly message a user in the game, and it's been that way the entire game's history. With the new Trading Hub it might be more convenient to have that feature now, but going 'well we don't have that feature so I'm going to use this other feature the wrong way as a workaround' is not okay. Trading, in general, has been a Thing in this game for years, ever since Teleport was implemented. Wanting to contact a user about a trade and being unable to do so is not a new thing. Maybe it's more frustrating now, with a public hub like this, but it's not a new issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

Honestly I think this is splitting hairs. It's really fairly simple and you seem to be making it more complicated then it needs to be. The 'wants' box is for, I'll quote again, 'a message to help others understand what types of offers you are looking for' . It says that right there on the page. 'Misuse' is ANYTHING that is not that. If it's not describing what kind of offer you want, it's misuse. Direct communication to a user, even if it's *about* the trade, is not 'helping others understand what offers you want'. 

 

Right now there is no 'Have' box, so I think 'haves' in the Want box is unavoidable, but yes technically that could be considered misuse as well. If there are things the trading hub is missing that would make it easier to do trades, ask for those things. Post your support for those things. Talk about those things. But using the Want box for those things just because there is no better option at the moment is still misuse. It's not really a good idea to justify misusing a feature by saying that other features aren't available. 

 

Sorry, but maybe I came across as rude in the previous post. I'm not purposely playing dumb, or purposely trying to make things more complicated. I'm really not. I just honestly want clarification. And I want clarification so that I don't end up breaking the rules unintentionally. I'm not asking because I'm looking for a "hah! gotcha! " thing, I'm asking because I don't understand. Maybe it is perfectly clear to you and to others, but it wasn't (and to some extent still isn't) to me. I find it insulting that people are insinuating that my asking for clarification is trivial. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Lucere said:

 

Sorry, but maybe I came across as rude in the previous post. I'm not purposely playing dumb, or purposely trying to make things more complicated. I'm really not. I just honestly want clarification. And I want clarification so that I don't end up breaking the rules unintentionally. I'm not asking because I'm looking for a "hah! gotcha! " thing, I'm asking because I don't understand. Maybe it is perfectly clear to you and to others, but it wasn't (and to some extent still isn't) to me. I find it insulting that people are insinuating that my asking for clarification is trivial

 

I'm sorry if I misread your post, it honestly did sound a little like 'I'm trying to find loopholes' or something. Asking for clarification when you are honestly unsure about something is totally fine. Maybe it could be made clearer that the stated purpose of the Want box is the *only* thing it should be used for, and that anything else *is* misuse.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, HeatherMarie said:

Again, I don't think it's right to justify misusing a feature just because there are certain features you wish were there but aren't. There is currently no way to directly message a user in the game, and it's been that way the entire game's history. With the new Trading Hub it might be more convenient to have that feature now, but going 'well we don't have that feature so I'm going to use this other feature the wrong way as a workaround' is not okay. Trading, in general, has been a Thing in this game for years, ever since Teleport was implemented. Wanting to contact a user about a trade and being unable to do so is not a new thing. Maybe it's more frustrating now, with a public hub like this, but it's not a new issue. 

 

Except people have been able to communicate on the forums about trading. Throwing us a trading hub where we can't communicate doesn't make sense. Limiting us on a feature that, for plenty of people, requires more communication than "wants" isn't fair. We deserve the features we need, punishing us for trying to make lemonade out of lemons isn't fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

Enter a message to help others understand what types of offers you are looking for.

Warning: Misuse of this text may result in disciplinary action, such as loss of ability to create public trades.

 

Yes it is incredibly simple, but I'm not sure why we're expected to read "You're not allowed to facilitate trades by communicating in the only way possible on the in-game trade hub" into a pair of non-specific sentences. "I'm egglocked, x remove your egg please" does "help others understand what types of offers you are looking for" and until we get that wants box expanded and/or other ingame expansions (have box, egg/scrolllock notif on the other player's end, selective acceptance, pagination) we're stuck with a tiny 100 character text box for at least 3-4 different purposes (Haves, Wants, space available, any further clarification or communication).

 

Banning chat in the trading forums was fine and dandy because it didn't affect things in-game and most of the audience there has or can make an account to communicate with. Banning someone ingame from trading because they used a trading text box for what they thought was a logical extension of its intended purpose sounds like a terrible idea.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Shadowdrake said:

 

Yes it is incredibly simple, but I'm not sure why we're expected to read "You're not allowed to facilitate trades by communicating in the only way possible on the in-game trade hub" into a pair of non-specific sentences. "I'm egglocked, x remove your egg please" does "help others understand what types of offers you are looking for" and until we get that wants box expanded and/or other ingame expansions (have box, egg/scrolllock notif on the other player's end, selective acceptance, pagination) we're stuck with a tiny 100 character text box for at least 3-4 different purposes (Haves, Wants, space available, any further clarification or communication).

 

Banning chat in the trading forums was fine and dandy because it didn't affect things in-game and most of the audience there has or can make an account to communicate with. Banning someone ingame from trading because they used a trading text box for what they thought was a logical extension of its intended purpose sounds like a terrible idea.

I would sooner see an option to remove unwanted items from a trade -  such as the egg that hinders it.

 

Also, no one is banned from trading. they are prohibited from posting in the want box.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Shadowdrake said:

Banning chat in the trading forums was fine and dandy because it didn't affect things in-game and most of the audience there has or can make an account to communicate with. Banning someone ingame from trading because they used a trading text box for what they thought was a logical extension of its intended purpose sounds like a terrible idea.

 

What people are getting banned for is typing the lyrics to all star by smash mouth via multiple trades in the hub. THAT should obviously be not an extension of it's intended purpose. 

 

Quote

Except people have been able to communicate on the forums about trading. Throwing us a trading hub where we can't communicate doesn't make sense. Limiting us on a feature that, for plenty of people, requires more communication than "wants" isn't fair. We deserve the features we need, punishing us for trying to make lemonade out of lemons isn't fair.

 

Would you rather have nothing? It's not unfair, it's just how the feature works. It just doesn't facilitate any more communication than the 'wants'. What isn't fair about that? That's what the forum is for, and if someone doesn't have a forum account, maybe the trade doesn't happen. Oh well. Nothing unfair about it. Why do you think this game TJ develops in his spare time OWES you something? That you 'deserve' it?

 

This is why the in-game trading feature didn't happen for so long.

Share this post


Link to post

But you'd think a site that depends on the users to stay alive(Although I'm pretty sure dc is pretty stable that something catastrophic would have to happen for it to die.) would be a little more willing to help out it's users. Is it really so much to want and desire something to be able to really utilize it?

 

I mean, I do art, for free, for the users. I don't expect anything in return, but I do listen to the people I do art for. I follow their request the best I can, and even try to improve it. It wouldn't hurt to see similar behavior from TJ regarding giving us a way to communicate through something users begged for for years.

Share this post


Link to post

Haves in the message is indeed unavoidable. I like those because it's convenient, so I'd hate to see them be illegal to use. The "haves" are unrelated to "help what others understand what you want rule", so they may be considered "misuse/spam". How about just remove the "wants" word entirely, and rework it into a general trade message... something like "Note:"? Separate "haves" message to go with "wants" adds extra space/line for what could've been put in the original "wants" message anyway. As long as the note relates to the trade itself, it's not misuse/spam. Of course, any misuse can still be reported/dealt with.

Also, editable trade message. Naturally, any changes have to be related to the trade itself.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Sextonator said:

But you'd think a site that depends on the users to stay alive(Although I'm pretty sure dc is pretty stable that something catastrophic would have to happen for it to die.) would be a little more willing to help out it's users. Is it really so much to want and desire something to be able to really utilize it?

 

I'm not sure what this has to do with misusing the Want box? TJ has not shut down a 'have' box, or a way to tell the offerer they are egglocked, or anything like that. 'A feature not currently being available' is in no way the same as 'unwilling to help it's users'. And 'wanting and desiring' better features is not the same as 'misusing a feature because those other ones don't exist'. You can definitely want a feature without misusing another feature to make up for it. Just because a few really helpful features haven't been implemented yet does not mean they never will be, or that the site (or TJ) is unwilling, or anything like that. 

 

I also don't really understand the idea that, because someone wants a feature that they think will make the game easier/better, it's somehow 'unfair' to not have that feature. These features being talked about would be helpful and making trading easier sometimes, certainly, but it's not like the Trading Hub is completely unusable without them. Hundreds of trades have been made on the hub so far, without those features. It's not some horrible injustice that those features don't exist yet. Just because they may make things easier doesn't mean they *have* to be there for the hub to function. And it certainly doesn't mean users 'deserve' the feature just because it would make things easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Quote

What isn't fair about that? That's what the forum is for, and if someone doesn't have a forum account, maybe the trade doesn't happen. Oh well. Nothing unfair about it.

 

How is that not unfair? A portion of players is cut off from using an onsite feature to its full extent unless they make an account on a different site that needs a whole separate log-in and password, and if they're mistaken about what they're allowed to post they now can't communicate at all, trades or no trades. Trading was already unfair but it wasn't a central feature like it is now, despite the half-finished state it clearly is in. Players shouldn't have to use the forum to play the game when they're fully separate sites, regardless if you have a forum account or not.

 

Not even going to get into this "deserves" and "entitlement" subject that happens every time players get invested in a possible feature.

 

 

 

Anyway being a trade offerer is a huge setback compared to being a trade maker because you don't get lock info, have to wait for an accept or decline, don't get notifs (as of yet, hopefully we will Sometime Soon), and are locked to one trade when trade makers get several offers. If players can offer on several links at once that would at least mitigate some of the downsides, even if it's say only 5 trades at once; I can't imagine offer spam would be that big of a problem when you're already locked to one offer per trade and people can decline or ignore trades at will, especially if there's still a limit but it's not as limiting as "wait for days only to have your now-low-time hatchlings declined, good luck finding a new trade for them before they grow up". There's no upside to being an offerer but everyone only making trades slows trading down a ton.

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Starscream said:

So self explanatory that I am not even sure why its used in other ways and really why its difficult to understand when actions happen regarding it. Some message to the effect as to why its disabled would be good though.

It's completely self-explanatory, but as people can't post "I'm egglocked" etc anywhere else, people "misuse" wants.

 

A solution to that would be short messages to/with offers/trades (either ~32 chars or just a dropdown of options), or possibly a few automatically-added indicators to traded things (like "precognitions X gender") and egglock indicators (some sort of warning when posting a trade saying "other player is egglocked").

Edited by osmarks

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Naraku said:

Haves in the message is indeed unavoidable. I like those because it's convenient, so I'd hate to see them be illegal to use. The "haves" are unrelated to "help what others understand what you want rule", so they may be considered "misuse/spam". How about just remove the "wants" word entirely, and rework it into a general trade message... something like "Note:"? Separate "haves" message to go with "wants" adds extra space/line for what could've been put in the original "wants" message anyway. As long as the note relates to the trade itself, it's not misuse/spam. Of course, any misuse can still be reported/dealt with.

Also, editable trade message. Naturally, any changes have to be related to the trade itself.

This may actually be the best approach to this, in my eyes.

 

And YES, editable trade messages would be awesome!

 

8 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

Yeah, unfortunately the current trend of rapid-bumping is sort of *necessary* to make up for the lack of pagination.

Luckily, if *everyone* was limited to one trade with the same contents every X minutes, the hub would move much slower, too.

Such a limit would need to be accompanied with editable trade messages, too, though. Otherwise, having forgotten something you want would mean you'd have to wait and wait - and then real life declares that you have to go and no longer time for playing DC for a while. :dry:

 

3 hours ago, Starscream said:

I would sooner see an option to remove unwanted items from a trade -  such as the egg that hinders it.

That sounds like a great solution, actually. Most of the time, that would completely spare the need for any messaging.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Ruby Eyes said:

This may actually be the best approach to this, in my eyes.

 

And YES, editable trade messages would be awesome!

 

Luckily, if *everyone* was limited to one trade with the same contents every X minutes, the hub would move much slower, too.

Such a limit would need to be accompanied with editable trade messages, too, though. Otherwise, having forgotten something you want would mean you'd have to wait and wait - and then real life declares that you have to go and no longer time for playing DC for a while. :dry:

 

That sounds like a great solution, actually. Most of the time, that would completely spare the need for any messaging.

Making people unable to push their trades up will make it move slower, as well as making them much more hidden. It does not replace pagination.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, osmarks said:

It does not replace pagination.

I never said it should.

Essentially, pagination should be the first thing to be added (apart from changing the "wants" label to "notes"). From a programmer viewpoint, it's not at all tough to do, really.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

I completely agree about the Encyclopedia requirements. It seems to be a rather limiting requirement... Until now the only benefits that come with unlocking Encyclopedia info was seeing the breed name on the dragon's page (I think that was all?). Requiring unlocking things from a completely different feature in order to use two very important features seems like overkill. Especially since, to my knowledge, it's not actually stated anywhere in the trading area that you need to unlock Encyclopedia entries to use the filters and such. At least in the Market it has a message to that extent, but in the Trading Hub there really is no way of knowing that *that* is what you have to do.

 

Again, I don't think it's right to justify misusing a feature just because there are certain features you wish were there but aren't. There is currently no way to directly message a user in the game, and it's been that way the entire game's history. With the new Trading Hub it might be more convenient to have that feature now, but going 'well we don't have that feature so I'm going to use this other feature the wrong way as a workaround' is not okay. Trading, in general, has been a Thing in this game for years, ever since Teleport was implemented. Wanting to contact a user about a trade and being unable to do so is not a new thing. Maybe it's more frustrating now, with a public hub like this, but it's not a new issue. 

 

This. I do think the encyclopaedia requirement is tough - especially on new players trying to fill their scrolls with every different dragon they can find.

 

Also very much yes to the bolded bit.

 

3 hours ago, Sextonator said:

 

Except people have been able to communicate on the forums about trading. Throwing us a trading hub where we can't communicate doesn't make sense. Limiting us on a feature that, for plenty of people, requires more communication than "wants" isn't fair. We deserve the features we need, punishing us for trying to make lemonade out of lemons isn't fair.

 

It's new; it works for very many people; it isn't that it doesn't make sense (You can carry on trading as you always have after all.) We don't "deserve" anything; this game is free and we are lucky to have it. Some changes would be nice, but we absolutely do not deserve them.

 

3 hours ago, Starscream said:

I would sooner see an option to remove unwanted items from a trade -  such as the egg that hinders it.

 

That would be brilliant. I've wanted that for ages anyway - even in threads (a lot of people offer and then vanish form the thread, and you can't find them in time.)

 

3 hours ago, Kaini said:

Would you rather have nothing? It's not unfair, it's just how the feature works. It just doesn't facilitate any more communication than the 'wants'. What isn't fair about that? That's what the forum is for, and if someone doesn't have a forum account, maybe the trade doesn't happen. Oh well. Nothing unfair about it. Why do you think this game TJ develops in his spare time OWES you something? That you 'deserve' it?

 

This is why the in-game trading feature didn't happen for so long.

 

Right on, Kaini

 

3 hours ago, Naraku said:

Haves in the message is indeed unavoidable. I like those because it's convenient, so I'd hate to see them be illegal to use. The "haves" are unrelated to "help what others understand what you want rule", so they may be considered "misuse/spam". How about just remove the "wants" word entirely, and rework it into a general trade message... something like "Note:"? Separate "haves" message to go with "wants" adds extra space/line for what could've been put in the original "wants" message anyway. As long as the note relates to the trade itself, it's not misuse/spam. Of course, any misuse can still be reported/dealt with.

Also, editable trade message. Naturally, any changes have to be related to the trade itself.

 

It isn't unavoidable. You do not actually HAVE to say what you have - the person can go look. (I always do anyway - I have twice thought someone had exactly what I wanted and - it wasn't that at all; they had misdescribed.)

 

10 hours ago, HeatherMarie said:

 

I have to comment on these... I would most definitely want an option to disable/disallow any sort of private messages if #1 were to happen. I don't care if my offer doesn't get accepted or why it isn't accepted, I do *not* want to be messaged in-game by another member. For any reason. Period. 

 

I'm with her. And I don't wish to be told yet again how wrong I am and how it would improve the game, and how I'd love it once I had it, and the rest. If any kind of interscroll messaging were to come in, I would not want to use it. AT.ALL.

Edited by Fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

Good thing no one can force you to use a messaging system if you don't want to.

 

All I want is for this game to be easier to actually play as a game instead of a series of loopholes and dodges around mechanics we don't need or have.

 

By the same vein, if you shouldn't be forced to use messaging for trades, why should people be forced to use the forum for trades? Just because it was here first? That seems like an open and shut case of "well back in my day it was like this so that's obviously superior."

 

I don't know of any game with a trading system so hobbled and antiquated by a subsection of its own users.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Alrexwolf said:

Good thing no one can force you to use a messaging system if you don't want to.

Depends. If you're getting notificed on-site about every incoming message, then that's kind of forcing you to act: either by directing your attention to it, or by having to ignore it.

 

You can already disable the messenger for yourself on the forums. The same should be possible on-site, if it were ever implemented.

Edited by Ruby Eyes

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Ruby Eyes said:

Depends. If you're getting notificed on-site about every incoming message, then that's kind of forcing you to act: either by directing your attention to it, or by having to ignore it.

 

You can already disable the messenger for yourself on the forums. The same should be possible on-site, if it were ever implemented.

 

Exactly. You use it if you want to. I do not want to be bombarded with messages about my trades; I'd rather lose the trade. I want to be able to block ALL interscroll messages. That doesn't affect any other player. No problem for those who want such messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.