UU holding on private broker

[Mujo]

i think uu should be held on private broker when trade is complete,or rejected - like have a button there saying "withdraw" the uu or something.
this is because the way broker is used, people are making offers(sometimes overnight,or in any period while they cant be online), and what if deal is unreasonable, and side offering uu is rejected? they would be prone to raiding and it also discourages offering big trades, as they might get rejected, raided and perhaps also massed...
same thing if its the other way around, buying uu with naq, and other party accepts(although this is not as bad as people buying uu generally have more naq, and therefore def )
same thing when the offer expires.
i dont think this would be too exploitable(ptb is exploitable bad enough already) as the people who want to exploit would do it anyway...send uu to a pal, and he brokers you back with them

[Wolf359]

The broker was introduced to make trades more secure and less prone to scamming - i.e. so that you can arrange a deal with someone first and then carry it out through the broker so that it is secure.

It was not introduced so people could randomly send out trade offers to people without first negotiating the deal with that person.

So, if you offer a trade with someone before negotiating it with them first, and that person then rejects the deal, meaning your UU or whatever is left in the open - then tough luck - perhaps you will learn to negotiate the deal properly first!!

Having said that - if you are in different time zones and have negotiated - you are right - it can be a problem. In that case - I would suggest that the person selling the uu is the one that should initiate the trade.

Another reason your suggestion should not be introduced is because it would mean that the broker could effectively be used as a bank to store naq/uu.

[Mujo]

yes, i see your point.
but, people are using the broker like i mentioned, and newbs dont see that they can lose uu.
check the black market, every other thread is(was, when buying uu was more common) "buying uu via private broker - make me an offer. i dont want you adding me to msn and buggering me - between the lines"
so, any guys making threads like that shouldnt be permitted to open such trades - as they possibly couldnt afford all thrown at them and therefore possibly damaging newbs who either didnt know or didnt think of this.
i myself dont have much problem with this as i negotiate my deals before, but i made this suggestion as i saw many people are offering deals this way, and i dont know how many had tough luck.

Another reason your suggestion should not be introduced is because it would mean that the broker could effectively be used as a bank to store naq/uu.

i suggested this only for uu, naq sounds perfectly logical the way it is - if you accept the deal, youre online therefore naq should end in the open...
and, you are right this could be used as unlimited uu storage - but it already is...
doesnt make much difference, if i make my pal an offer, offering uu i want to store for his 1 naq or something, and then he rejects, and they wait in the broker until i click eventual withdraw uu from broker button, or if he accepts and makes a counter-offer, which i would accept whenever i want them back.
about infinite naq storage,its also possible, i wrote quite a few posts about it but no one listens(but that isnt the topic here as im not suggesting naq storage)

and,thirdly...what if 2 guys agree on a deal, say uu for naq, and guy selling uu makes an offer - guy buying them just doesnt accept it, in fact rejects it a few minutes after, and has a friend raid the uu which he rejected,or even does it himself...as far as i know, this isnt even a scam(maybe it is, not fulfilling your part of the deal), and i dont know if it has been done before(try esker perhaps ) but it sure as hell isnt nice, and is a way of "scamming" using ptb(which people think is 100% safe) without scamming itself, and with even worse consequences than regular scam - they could lose their defense in the process

[Wolf359]

As I keep saying though - scamming isn't cheating - which is why you should trust anybody you are making a deal with. There is only so much that can be done to the game to make trades 100% secure. But if everything was 100% safe then it would become a bit dull don't you think? Let's keep some risk eh??

Also - the main reason for not implementing what you say (in my opinion) is because you could essentially use the broker as an additional bank whether for naq, UU or turns. You do a trade with your friend for 8 billion naq say, then get your friend to cancel the trade, the 8 billion naq then stays with the broker until you press the 'withdraw' button - the same could be said for naq and turns.

[Mujo]

As I keep saying though - scamming isn't cheating - which is why you should trust anybody you are making a deal with. There is only so much that can be done to the game to make trades 100% secure. But if everything was 100% safe then it would become a bit dull don't you think? Let's keep some risk eh??

thing i said about, was not scam in full sense( i think), but just something very **Filtered**(sorry for the term if its not allowed, i couldnt think of any other word) to do.
also, there is still plenty of room for scamming still(esker again)

Also - the main reason for not implementing what you say (in my opinion) is because you could essentially use the broker as an additional bank whether for naq, UU or turns. You do a trade with your friend for 8 billion naq say, then get your friend to cancel the trade, the 8 billion naq then stays with the broker until you press the 'withdraw' button - the same could be said for naq and turns.

again, i never suggested this for naq(or turns). in fact, i think its better off that it isnt for naq at all. although, it wouldnt make much difference - as i can already put up a trade for, to use your example, 1 my naq for 8 bil of my friend's, and he does 8 bil of mine for 1 of his...
first i accept trade my friend made, hence placing 8 bil in his bank, then he accepts mine, placing those 8 bil in my bank...and i have unlimited banking already. i tried to point this out in several threads about trade broker, but no one listened.

i just think there should be uu(and uu alone) holding,because people are often using the trade broker as i said, by not negotiating the deal before.
and i also think admin doesnt mind that kind of use, even kinda encourages it(way i see it), because he allowed the naq to end in person's bank,if hes the offer maker - risking infinite banker exploit.
so,in other words, we have it for naq...why shouldnt we also have it for uu?
both resources can be stolen, so perhaps same analogy should be applied.
or remove the naq banking feature - this would force players not to make deals that way.
even so, this would still leave room for exploitation - again, i make friend an offer, he accepts and puts counter-offer. we again have infinite storage of any resource(only with less comfort), at the cost of 1 ptb open trades.
and i accept the deal when i need the resource.
while infinite storage of any resource is possible, and always will be until broker is dramatically changed

[Wolf359]

I still think it is part of teh risk that needs to exist.

Example - if you send 10,000 men to the border to trade with someone, if that person then decides not to trade are your men instantly transported to a safe zone? or are they left standing there open to attack (raid in this case).

I do see where you are coming from - but if you wish to trade in UU I believe it should be an accepted risk.

[Mujo]

yes, i meant that they be transferred to the safe zone in case:
1) you send an offer,offering uu and get rejected
2) you send an offer,offering naq/at for uu and get accepted
3) you offer uu, and offer expires
in short, in cases when youre the offer maker, and uu end up in your realm.

are you proposing that deals offered that way should be stopped alltogether?
because any responsible trader wouldnt reject unreasonable trade so lightly(say someone offers me 2 mil uu for 900 bil naq - of course i couldnt accept it, but i wouldnt reject it before verifiying hes online,because its quite clear what consequences would that have on his account. i think any responsible trader would do the same.)
there will always be irresponsible people, which are perhaps making an offer without a black market thread even - and possibly putting me in a difficult situation, since guy only wanted to trade with me, and if i reject him he will most likely have his account destroyed. perhaps other way out of this is a (good) idea suggested recently, about closing yourself for broker trades.

also, i would like to hear what others think about this

[Oldman]

ok i can see the point in what your both saying to each other and this is a very good discussion

in the first it wouldnt be fair to the player that would lose his defense if that did happen mujo .
But saying that it wouldnt be fair to have it as a storage which could in theory happen .
But i also agree with wolf with the fact that yes if the trade got rejected then yes the troops would be sat at the border of your realm awaiting instruction.
So what about implementing orders for your troops

say if trade gets rejected then you order them to defend or what ever

like i said found this a good and interesting subject on both parties

[goldenh]

while some risk is necessary, that is already in existance while you are setting up the PTB with your stuff in the open. Adding the additional risk of someone cancelling your offer and then raiding you is just silly.

on cancellation, the naq should go directly into your bank (which is easilly done already, and either should be fixed by a time limit you can have too much naq in your bank, or allowed), and let the uu be automatically trained into a new uu type (say, "traders") that cannot be raided and do not generate any naq or defense.

Personally, it doesn't effect me either way as I have the luxury of only offering trades while on PPT. But not everyone can do that, and we should be more concerned about helping small accounts rather than the big ones.

[Wolf359]

It isn't helping big accounts if this is implemented though. I don't want this to be implemented because I want people to concentrate actually playing the game rather than trading with other people to build it is GateWARS and not gate TRADER after all.

You could count on 2 hands the amount of times I have traded with other people - and that is in 14 months of playing the game - it is not needed.

[goldenh]

Exactly, it isn't helping big accounts so it should be implemented, it will only help small accounts who cannot adaquately defend themselves and make a raid/naq attack impossible.

and sure, if you've been playing a long time you don't need to trade, in fact it probably just takes valuable time away from looking for lucky hits with your massive attack score, but if you're new to the game than trading is the only way you can possibly increase your rank fast enough. I've only been playing for 8 months and I cannot emphasize enough how important trading is to the game if you ever want to be anything more than some farm who thinks a 300 million defense is "awsome".

[Wolf359]

I couldn't post earlier - but seems to be fixed now....??

I wasn;t saying that it shouldn't be implemented because it doesn't help big accounts - I was simply pointing out that it dodn't because of what your previous message said:

and we should be more concerned about helping small accounts rather than the big ones.

And you are right - big accounts do not need to trade - but trading is nothing new - it has always been possible as long as people have had SS - and even when I was a new player and got SS, I didn't trade - so that part of your argument is not valid.

Simple fact is - trading is not the only way to increase your rank fast enough - and fast enough for what by the way?? I have seen players who have played for less time than you have (8 months) who have managed to get good accounts without the need for trading.

Perhaps something does need to be done to stop this problem - but I don't think that this is the answer as, like I said previously, it has the potential to be abused as an additional bank - unless of course it is just implemented for UU - in which case people who lose naq the same way will only complain that it isn't fair.

Perhaps a solution could be to train rejected trade UU into miners - and the player would just have to accept the 10% loss? This would also stop people from just initiating trades with people without negotiating beforehand. And that is the key to this - if negotiations are done previously then there should be no reason whatsoever why any of these trades should be rejected. However, if you insist on just randomly initiating trades with people you have not negotiated with - then it is your own tough luck in my opinion.

[Mujo]

well, like i said, i have no problem negotiating a deal involving my uu before i set it up(in fact, i always do that).
but, for example, on the black market i said once, i will buy any quantity of uu for attack turns, at some ratio. and i wouldve accepted all deals in the morning(say i posted that before i went to bed) at that ratio, and if i was any turns short, id wait until i get them, and before deal expires of course.
but what if player wants to offer me a deal at lower rate then i said?
i would have to "hunt" him down on msn or something(if he even has one), to find time when hes on to reject his uu, so they dont get stolen,because i woulnt want his account destroyed, just because he offered me unreasonable trade, and i dont think thatd be fair to him.
basically, what im saying is, i am responsible for my own actions and deals via broker, but i dont want to be responsible for other peoples' , and i would be even if i dont do anything, let offer expire that is, loss of their uu would be on my soul, and i didnt do a thing about it - and anyone can place the broker deal even without black market thread or anything.
i can also think of numerous other ways to avoid this problem(for example "agreeing" on the offer through some kind of system similar to broker, and each player would have to click again to have goods taken from his account, or "scripting" - say, i offer my uu, that would be untrained from say miners, when other party accepts the offer).
but i realise none of these systems would work well in practice, because they are just too complicated - and i dont think we need to complicate this game, fun and even complexity comes from simplicity in its core.

and, again, when i posted this,i thought this system should be used ONLY for uu, if naq system remains as it is(its already more exploitable then this). but, this system might be nice for naq also, it would force people to use naq at once, and not to have it in the bank and use it in chunks any size - this would of course be only in cases in which naq ends in the bank now - if youre the offer maker. if youre reciever, it would be in the open.
(i just thought of this, inspired by your repeating that this system is exploitable, especially if used for both resources )

P.S. just to make clear, im talking about hypotetical situation here, i wasnt in it before, and i hopefully wont,

[Wolf359]

lol - yes - but I also said that if your system was only used for UU that people who lost naq through rejected eals would start complaining and would demand to have the same sort of protection that UU get.

for example, on the black market i said once, i will buy any quantity of uu for attack turns, at some ratio. and i wouldve accepted all deals in the morning(say i posted that before i went to bed) at that ratio, and if i was any turns short, id wait until i get them, and before deal expires of course.
but what if player wants to offer me a deal at lower rate then i said?
i would have to "hunt" him down on msn or something(if he even has one), to find time when hes on to reject his uu, so they dont get stolen,because i woulnt want his account destroyed, just because he offered me unreasonable trade, and i dont think thatd be fair to him.
basically, what im saying is, i am responsible for my own actions and deals via broker, but i dont want to be responsible for other peoples' , and i would be even if i dont do anything, let offer expire that is, loss of their uu would be on my soul, and i didnt do a thing about it - and anyone can place the broker deal even without black market thread or anything.

Yes - you are responsible for your own actions - but, if other people initiate trades with you before they negotiate (and it doesn't have to be via MSN, it can be just as effective negotiating via in-game messageing or pm) then they are responsible for any loss of UU for initiating a trade with you that you may not want (i.e. they have not bothered to confirm it with you first so it is their own fault if you reject it and they subsequently lose UU).

I have an example from real life: A couple of years ago I took my car into the garage to have some work done on it - I was going away for a few days and agreed a price of £200 with the garage for all the work to be done. Once I got back to civilisation (4 days later) I found I had a call on my mobile - it was the garage saying that they had finished teh work on my car, and had done some other work which, in their opinion, needed doing - and that the total cost was £500. I bluntly told them that I would not be paying the £500 as they had carried out work on my car which I had not authorised - I was quite within my rights to say this. They stated that they had tried to contact me but could not get through, so had done the work anyway. Guess what - I didn't care - so I gave them two options - undo all the extra work they had done, or not - either way they would only be getting £200. They got all upset and angry, but guess what - ultimately they left all the work as it was and I only paid £200.

i.e. - the moral of the story being that you have to agree on something before you take action - otherwise you accept the consequences!

[Mujo]

very good point - but i have a feeling people dont take naq as lightly as uu, and i certainly wouldnt want to put say 200k uu stolen on my back, or have it put on my back...
also, not having this opens broker to be even more prosperous for scammers then without it. and it wouldnt even get them in the spotlight, on the contrary, make scamming the easiest way to progress through the game. notice the irony - private broker introduced to prevent scamming and scamming being easier with it. and scammed person could accuse him - but who is guilty? its just ones word against another's(im of course assuming scammer's mate took the uu)...and whichever has more reputable players behind him speaks the truth in community's eyes,and other one gets completely disrespected, and probably destroyed couple of times over, even if his claims were true.
plus there is no way to prove it.