Topic: Suggestion: Allow trading in exchange for same item type  (Read 428 times)


udAL

« on: January 10, 2018, 06:18:13 PM »
Hi,
When you're trading for an item, they don't accept items of the same type (It's you who wants ___, not me).

For example, let's say I have a northern bow and I find a fine northern bow. When trading, they don't accept my normal northern bow in the trade.
This functionality makes you exchange the item you want to upgrade for a trade item (like arrows) and then try to buy the item you wanted in the first place with the risk of not having enough to buy the upgrade ending without the item you had in the first place.

Another one, let's say I have a fur I want to exchange for arrows. I don't know how many arrows my fur it's worth so I start at a number and keep reseting the trade lowering that number till my fur it's accepted. Why couldn't I start the trade for X arrows in exchange for my fur and an increasing number of my arrows till the trade it's accepted? Wouldn't that be a more convenient way of performing the same trade?

To me, it looks like an unnecessary control that producces hassle for no reason.
Thanks! 

PALU

« Reply #1 on: January 11, 2018, 12:02:14 AM »
In a barter economy it doesn't make sense to accept inferior trade ins: that's something that would make sense only for  dedicated traders (and the foreign traders won't count as they're mobile and thus have a very limited inventory). When bartering your offer ought to be something your trading partner wants, so in fact the current system is a great simplification in that you don't actually have to offer something they are in need of (just think of running around to conduct 7 different trades with different people to get the items your primary trading partner wants).

When it comes to asking "How many X will you give me for this/these Y?" it would make logical sense that they'd give you a number, but it's a specific case, and the coding of that case probably won't carry over to more complicated trades, so while it would be nice to have, it might not be worth the implementation effort.