Overvalued Cards

[Pluvie]

Question to Toerana: if the MV cap is somehow implemented, what would happen with existing cards? I would certainly not like existing inflated cards to decrease in value after all time and effort I've spent on inflating cards, nor do I think anyone that also inflates cards would agree with that solution.

Ideally, they'd be reverted to the cap. However, naturally, lots of people would be mad about that, so I wouldn't be against just having the cap affect cards that aren't already above the cap. If they fall back below the cap, they can't go back above it, but people don't loose thousands of DV overnight from their cards having a cap forcibly applied

Hmm no because if you left all current inflated cards it would mean current inflation players are over powered compared to any new player who ever tries to play that strategy

[Toerana]

Ideally, they'd be reverted to the cap. However, naturally, lots of people would be mad about that, so I wouldn't be against just having the cap affect cards that aren't already above the cap. If they fall back below the cap, they can't go back above it, but people don't loose thousands of DV overnight from their cards having a cap forcibly applied

Hmm no because if you left all current inflated cards it would mean current inflation players are over powered compared to any new player who ever tries to play that strategy

The problem I see is that these cards aren't crashed at the same rate as they're produced. Stopping the production allows them to be naturally crashed over time

[Hookah Castle]

In the end, this doesn't matter anyhow, as NS cards is a game, you choose how you want to play, whether you define success by having high DV, or by your collections, or by just having fun selling and accumulating bank. You should not limit any aspect of inflation as you will take away many players initiative to play. In the end, yes, inflation will bite you back but that is up to the player and how they want to go about playing that ballgame.

Infinitecimal

I agree with this. I legitimately don't even know the value of my deck itself. I'm still new to all of it but from what ive gathered the fun of the card pool for me anyway is

1: Easy way to see other player's nations and see if I like the cut of their jib. Might even join their union or something. Doubt it though.

2: Card price estimates. Its a delicate game to make a profit, but I feel like if there is either a short list of holders of a said card, or I see others selling at a high price, if I sell slightly below the higher seller I beat the system of it's greater than junking it but I still made out like a bandit. because with currency I can buy whatever card I want anyway. Not that I hold particular value of any of my cards because as OP said, many commons and uncommons are actually in higher demand than the ultra rare and legendaries.

The optimal situation is me selling a card that several players already own but could somehow make above junk level for selling. That's probably not going to happen though, so the more realistic situation is happening to have something someone else is selling for slightly cheaper, or something of relative short supply and can charge whatever I want for it within reason.

Rule of acquisition 239: Never be afraid to mislabel a product.

[Giovanniland]

Ideally, they'd be reverted to the cap. However, naturally, lots of people would be mad about that, so I wouldn't be against just having the cap affect cards that aren't already above the cap. If they fall back below the cap, they can't go back above it, but people don't loose thousands of DV overnight from their cards having a cap forcibly applied

Hmm no because if you left all current inflated cards it would mean current inflation players are over powered compared to any new player who ever tries to play that strategy

That's kind of what happened post-TCALS nerf: players who joined after it was enacted can't achieve the success of pre-nerf pull events (since everyone has on average only one pack per a 5 issues nation, in comparison to 9 before the nerf), even though there have been many pull events with dozens of finds.
However, I'm not really sure if this MV cap idea is the best one, and that's if admin action is even needed. Recent experiences have shown to me that, if someone really wants to mess with inflations in the current market, they can - not really stop them, but make it harder for me or other inflators.

[The Atlae Isles]

For the purpose of this rant, I define inflated/inflation as the state or process of artificially raising the market value of a particular card - most often a common - via transfers, piggybacks, or otherwise to increase one's deck value without an intent to sustain that market value. That means I would exclude 9003's card, *most* Legendaries, S2 Farrakhan, and others.

I don't really like inflated commons. I own a few, yes, and a substantial part of my deck value is made up of them. But I don't really like them. I suppose that part of it stems from the fact that I'm a primarily collection-oriented person and not a DV-oriented person. I focus much more heavily on my TEP collections than my DV, for example, and it annoys me when they're inflated (doubly so when they're ones I don't have).

One time Gio inflated a wreath card that was in TEP (called "Ealt h".) It was a pain to get that onto my collector nation because it was way over gift capacity and MV sharks kept trying to bite at it. It was a very stressful occurrence and annoying for me because at that stage I was not as proficient at transfers or clearing puppets as other traders.

Barring my own bad experience, I think there are other negative externalities of inflating cards like that. One that has been brought up before is that it hurts collections. I'm fortunate to have most of the S2 TEP cards, and to have lots of puppets and resources. However, I know quite a few people who are also trying to collect cards from TEP, and while inflated cards certainly existed before, it's another obstacle for the small farmers/collectors to collect. If they were Legendaries, perhaps this would be justified. (Although what we consider the "fair price" of cards like Legendaries in general is really just a social construct.) I know Gio has stated in this thread that he will give cards that he inflated. (And he has donated a card for my Yeats collection as well, how generous!) But if hypothetically a regionmate tries to emulate Gio's collection, they would hit a bunch of roadblocks waiting for the charity of Gio. And ultimately, I don't think that's healthy for the cards community in a region or in general to thrive. I also feel sorry for 9003 because I see those cards that will never be a part of his ambitious collection, at least not for a long, long while.

I've touched on the divide between Big Farma and the smaller ones here. But I think that inflation is seriously exacerbating the inequality here. Inflation primarily benefits Big Farma. They are the ones with the bank and resources to inflate the cards they want. And when those cards inevitably deflate in value, more often than not they have already inflated more to cover that gap. Smaller farmers lack those resources. To benefit from inflated commons, they must either spawn them (which happens occasionally, but again this skews towards those with the most puppets) or bid on them (commonly and derogatorily called "MV sharking") below their inflated MV value to temporarily take advantage of the inflated MV before the card's value deflates due to continuous MV sharking. Yes, the most effective/efficient way to increase one's DV as a small farmer is by MV sharking. But this presents a depressing picture of smaller farmers bidding on the scraps of Big Farma's indulgences, and that their way of increasing DV involves relying on incredibly volatile cards that will collapse in the long run. It is primarily an avenue for the rich to get richer and increase the wealth gaps in the game. For those that do find an inflated card: there's not much you can do besides have a boost in DV for a bit. No MV shark is going to pay anywhere near its MV for it, since no other player sees that card's value as anything near what the game says it does. And then it will fall. Inflaters would like to say it doesn't have to fall as long as people don't sell them. But it wastes space. You can't dump them for the value it tells you to, to invest in solid assets like Legendaries or to fund a collection. And the only way really to get rid of them while breaking even is to sell them, and that still won't get you anywhere near the purported value. Then the value falls. To make up that gap, more cards are inflated. The cycle continues, regardless of whether inflation or deflation is done intentionally, out of spite, or whatnot.

And here's my last point for why it's toxic to the cards community in the long run. The ever increasing focus on DV at all costs is bad. Greed when it comes to DV, MV, JV has always existed and will continue to exist. There's nothing necessarily wrong with collecting for DV, but the negative externalities affect the whole game, some of whom aren't in the business to collect for DV. One thing that's been mentioned is that pull events more and more have been disrupted. I consider pull events, especially when publicized, community events. But with an increasing number of them blocked, we seem to be heading into a state in which more and more are private. Card Defenders may love that, but of course their goal is to keep their DV high above the rest. Perhaps the market was always like this and I hadn't noticed, but the cooperative atmosphere is slowly deteriorating in my view.

I believe that the cards market should be free and I don't have any solutions regarding inflated cards technically. I can only tell you perhaps to trade with more conscience, I suppose. Consider those who are trying to finish a collection and don't want to be ensnared within the petty inflation/deflation conflicts. I don't have anything against players that do inflate cards, and aside from a few specific people, don't hate MV sharks with a burning passion. I don't know if anyone will need my words or I am speaking into an empty void, but please consider others in mind when making trades.

Edit: for clarification I am not speaking on behalf of TEAPOT

[Ioavollr]

The trading cards market is supposed to be a free market, with little to no restrictions. It's up to everyone how they want to play the card game: whether to collect cards pertaining to a certain theme, earning DV by storing legendaries, inflating cards, etc....

...Placing a cap on the value of cards doesn't make sense and will not only kill a perfectly fine market strategy, but also end the rivalry between inflators and deflators with a clearly lopsided solution. It's like if raiding was suddenly declared illegal. I also disagree with the idea of junking affecting MV because it's an action impossible for those who want the MV of a card up to prevent, as opposed to an open auction where both sides must fight for their goals of increasing/decreasing the MV...

...Inflation is a legitimate strategy in the trading cards market. Saying it 'distorts' the rankings sounds like saying it's a bad thing, and it isn't...

I understand the fear of changes to the system you like and have mastered. I think a change in the way MV is calculated may address concerns of those who find the current system exploitative or skewed, while allaying some of your fears of a loss of fun. It would fundamentally change what is required to maintain a high MV for a card, but would be more accurate to the vast majority of traders. Also, factoring the junk value into MV is absolutely accurate and reflective of what the value of a card is. It doesn't matter if the broader market didn't participate in the transaction, that's the case for monopolized cards already. Additionally, you claim there's a rivalry between inflators and deflaters, but from what I've seen the vast bulk of deflators are the bottom 100(?) thousand+ card collectors trying to make decisions based on the intentionally skewed (by inflators) information being presented to them.

For the purpose of this rant, I define inflated/inflation as the state or process of artificially raising the market value of a particular card - most often a common - via transfers, piggybacks, or otherwise to increase one's deck value without an intent to sustain that market value...

...I've touched on the divide between Big Farma and the smaller ones here. But I think that inflation is seriously exacerbating the inequality here. Inflation primarily benefits Big Farma. They are the ones with the bank and resources to inflate the cards they want. And when those cards inevitably deflate in value, more often than not they have already inflated more to cover that gap. Smaller farmers lack those resources...

...And the only way really to get rid of them while breaking even is to sell them, and that still won't get you anywhere near the purported value. Then the value falls. To make up that gap, more cards are inflated. The cycle continues, regardless of whether inflation or deflation is done intentionally, out of spite, or whatnot...

...I believe that the cards market should be free and I don't have any solutions regarding inflated cards technically. I can only tell you perhaps to trade with more conscience...

The problems you're describing are with the nature of monopolies distorting markets, which I think you accurately point out in the first sentence there. Farrakhan's S1 currently has 3 bids of 500 on his S1 card so the tradeable value of the card is at least that high. British Rashah, currently the second highest MV card hasn't traded for over 31 bank in 6 months. The value of this card instead reflects the fact that Noah has more copies than all other owners combined and at one point exploited an effective trade monopoly on the market. The price isn't sustained, nor is it reflective of the value of the card, it's scarcity, or any other tangible aspect (it is, for example, part of zero collections).

This introduces one of the biggest problems with the current system, and one which you touch on perfectly: the cards are being given value because of market manipulation. Refining the computation of MV to more accurately asses the tradeable value would help the average player make a more informed and accurate determination of a card's value.

I propose a more accurate market value, though note it would be a bit more complicated.

• Maximum MV should not surpass current highest ask/match price
  This one seems obvious, if I'm offering the card for .50 and there aren't any takers, it's clearly not worth 5.50
• Junked cards should absolutely factor into the MV.
  As Riemstagrad stated
• A greater weight should be given to recent trades instead of a flat average
  If someone sold a card to himself 7 months ago for 3000 bank and the next two people sold for under a hundred, that card is clearly worth less than a thousand bank. Matched with the above factor of counting junks in market value, the MV of inflated trash that has no tradeable value would quickly diminish.
• Value should degrade as more finds are hoarded
  The value of holding a single unique copy of an Epic might be 200 bank, but as soon as the supply of that copy increases the value should fall. This may skew the value of cards to monopolists, but would accurately depict the immediate degradation of limited supply value

I'm sure some clever game theorist will discover a way to exploit these recommendations, and I'm sure they wouldn't solve the inflation problem alone, but they are designed to more accurately reflect the actual, tradeable value of cards, which may drop some people's incentive to inflate.

[Fhaengshia]

I propose a more accurate market value, though note it would be a bit more complicated.

• Maximum MV should not surpass current highest ask/match price
  This one seems obvious, if I'm offering the card for .50 and there aren't any takers, it's clearly not worth 5.50

This is interesting, I think you mean lowest ask as there are many cards with 10,000 asks, either way having ask price factor into MV calculation creates new opportunities for manipulation, I think if this were to happen there'd need to be an easier method of finding below MV asks before they go to auction.

• Junked cards should absolutely factor into the MV.
  As Riemstagrad stated

I'd be against junking being a factor to MV, but open to JV being a factor if the algorithm made sense. Accidental or malicious junking would have an overpowered effect. Having JV be a factor though would weigh against commons being inflated while not affecting higher rarities as severely.

• A greater weight should be given to recent trades instead of a flat average
  If someone sold a card to himself 7 months ago for 3000 bank and the next two people sold for under a hundred, that card is clearly worth less than a thousand bank. Matched with the above factor of counting junks in market value, the MV of inflated trash that has no tradeable value would quickly diminish.

I can agree with this, although not every card can trade frequently due to the size of the market, recent trades reflect the current market for good or ill.

• Value should degrade as more finds are hoarded
  The value of holding a single unique copy of an Epic might be 200 bank, but as soon as the supply of that copy increases the value should fall. This may skew the value of cards to monopolists, but would accurately depict the immediate degradation of limited supply value

This is interesting as cards are found equally (barring CTE's), but non-legendaries (and some exceptions) are junked much more frequently, so the cards which are "hoarded" the most are the most valuable rarity. I think this suggestion interferes a bit too strongly, especially as this is what happens for the most part due to supply/demand (barring a few exceptions)

[Ioavollr]

This is interesting, I think you mean lowest ask as there are many cards with 10,000 asks, either way having ask price factor into MV calculation creates new opportunities for manipulation, I think if this were to happen there'd need to be an easier method of finding below MV asks before they go to auction.

Spot on, the lowest indeed. I agree that this could be used to manipulate, perhaps a time delay would help (a day on the market or something)

I'd be against junking being a factor to MV, but open to JV being a factor if the algorithm made sense. Accidental or malicious junking would have an overpowered effect. Having JV be a factor though would weigh against commons being inflated while not affecting higher rarities as severely.

Making junked cards a lower-weighted factor may be a better solution.

[Giovanniland]

One time Gio inflated a wreath card that was in TEP (called "Ealt h".) It was a pain to get that onto my collector nation because it was way over gift capacity and MV sharks kept trying to bite at it. It was a very stressful occurrence and annoying for me because at that stage I was not as proficient at transfers or clearing puppets as other traders.

Barring my own bad experience, I think there are other negative externalities of inflating cards like that. One that has been brought up before is that it hurts collections. I'm fortunate to have most of the S2 TEP cards, and to have lots of puppets and resources. However, I know quite a few people who are also trying to collect cards from TEP, and while inflated cards certainly existed before, it's another obstacle for the small farmers/collectors to collect. If they were Legendaries, perhaps this would be justified. (Although what we consider the "fair price" of cards like Legendaries in general is really just a social construct.) I know Gio has stated in this thread that he will give cards that he inflated. (And he has donated a card for my Yeats collection as well, how generous!) But if hypothetically a regionmate tries to emulate Gio's collection, they would hit a bunch of roadblocks waiting for the charity of Gio. And ultimately, I don't think that's healthy for the cards community in a region or in general to thrive. I also feel sorry for 9003 because I see those cards that will never be a part of his ambitious collection, at least not for a long, long while.

It is true that I did inflate that card, and I later gifted it like I do when someone needs an inflated card for a collection. But, like I said before, inflation is only one of many roadblocks that one may find when seeking cards for a collection (other ones are cards of CTE'd or well-known nations, or a card hoarded by someone). For example, the major block in the way for me to complete my TWP season 2 collection is a card that nobody owns, and I still wait for the unlikely chance someone finds it.

I've touched on the divide between Big Farma and the smaller ones here. But I think that inflation is seriously exacerbating the inequality here. Inflation primarily benefits Big Farma. They are the ones with the bank and resources to inflate the cards they want. And when those cards inevitably deflate in value, more often than not they have already inflated more to cover that gap. Smaller farmers lack those resources. To benefit from inflated commons, they must either spawn them (which happens occasionally, but again this skews towards those with the most puppets) or bid on them (commonly and derogatorily called "MV sharking") below their inflated MV value to temporarily take advantage of the inflated MV before the card's value deflates due to continuous MV sharking. Yes, the most effective/efficient way to increase one's DV as a small farmer is by MV sharking. But this presents a depressing picture of smaller farmers bidding on the scraps of Big Farma's indulgences, and that their way of increasing DV involves relying on incredibly volatile cards that will collapse in the long run. It is primarily an avenue for the rich to get richer and increase the wealth gaps in the game. For those that do find an inflated card: there's not much you can do besides have a boost in DV for a bit. No MV shark is going to pay anywhere near its MV for it, since no other player sees that card's value as anything near what the game says it does. And then it will fall. Inflaters would like to say it doesn't have to fall as long as people don't sell them. But it wastes space. You can't dump them for the value it tells you to, to invest in solid assets like Legendaries or to fund a collection. And the only way really to get rid of them while breaking even is to sell them, and that still won't get you anywhere near the purported value. Then the value falls. To make up that gap, more cards are inflated. The cycle continues, regardless of whether inflation or deflation is done intentionally, out of spite, or whatnot.

Well, isn't it fair that the people who put the most time into farming, maintaining puppets, watching the market, etc. earn the best results? There are many guides and helpful tools/scripts available for those looking into creating their own card farm and start their trading cards journey. It's true that some people may not have the time due to real life or other duties, but the door's open for those who do have free time and are willing to spend it on NationStates.
Anyways, back to the topic of inflation. I disagree that MV sharking is the best way for a small farmer to increase their DV, since inflated cards are volatile assets after all. I usually tell people to invest on other cards such as legendaries or valuable cards where someone constantly backs the value, and only keep inflated cards if they manage to find those themselves. It may very well be a waste of space for someone who does not care about DV, but some people will be happy with the DV increase. Unfortunately for inflators like me, many people like to sell them on the market, and I have to inflate more cards to compensate for the loss. You can see how I have to keep inflating by looking at my deck value graph between late September and October: I did not inflate during that timeframe and my DV fell by seven thousand, hypothetically even more had I not watched the market during the timeframe and seeked to stop people who flip inflated cards to earn profit, which cause twice or more the loss than someone just buying it for DV. It means that, although my DV has increased ever since, I do have to keep inflating or else it would fall. This is why I don't see why restrictions on inflation are needed: it's a cycle where I have to continue inflating cards in order to maintain my DV, and not just leave the game for a while and expect the value to stay intact.

And here's my last point for why it's toxic to the cards community in the long run. The ever increasing focus on DV at all costs is bad. Greed when it comes to DV, MV, JV has always existed and will continue to exist. There's nothing necessarily wrong with collecting for DV, but the negative externalities affect the whole game, some of whom aren't in the business to collect for DV. One thing that's been mentioned is that pull events more and more have been disrupted. I consider pull events, especially when publicized, community events. But with an increasing number of them blocked, we seem to be heading into a state in which more and more are private. Card Defenders may love that, but of course their goal is to keep their DV high above the rest. Perhaps the market was always like this and I hadn't noticed, but the cooperative atmosphere is slowly deteriorating in my view.

Regarding pull events, I've stated in this thread before that inflated cards aren't the only cards that can block a pull event. Often it's someone transferring bank to their puppets, and sometimes it may even be someone buying a low-owner CTE'd common card for a collection - those are harmless activities that nevertheless can still block pull events, just like inflated cards. Furthermore, I fail to see how inflated cards have blocked pull events when recent ones like Testlandia season 1 (the long list of finds during January 28, 2021) gathered nearly a hundred finds and the Partnership for Sovereignty pull event also reached a fair amount of pulls across all three pull evented cards despite going on for over 3 hours and thus having a greater chance of being blocked. The cooperative atmosphere of the trading cards market has certainly not deteriorated, with an increasing number of regional cards organizations providing help to their residents in their trading goals and of course, an entire Discord server dedicated to cards where people can ask for advice.

Additionally, you claim there's a rivalry between inflators and deflaters, but from what I've seen the vast bulk of deflators are the bottom 100(?) thousand+ card collectors trying to make decisions based on the intentionally skewed (by inflators) information being presented to them.

Small farmers do often buy inflated cards for lower prices (MV sharking), but there are also many big farmers with hundreds of puppets that have stated before that they will deflate cards if given the chance, often by selling them on the market at 0.01 in an attempt to lure MV sharks into bidding higher. Considering these big farmers have many puppets and thus more chance of finding inflated cards, it's not entirely right to state that only small farmers contribute to deflation.

I propose a more accurate market value, though note it would be a bit more complicated.

• Maximum MV should not surpass current highest ask/match price
  This one seems obvious, if I'm offering the card for .50 and there aren't any takers, it's clearly not worth 5.50
• Junked cards should absolutely factor into the MV.
  As Riemstagrad stated
• A greater weight should be given to recent trades instead of a flat average
  If someone sold a card to himself 7 months ago for 3000 bank and the next two people sold for under a hundred, that card is clearly worth less than a thousand bank. Matched with the above factor of counting junks in market value, the MV of inflated trash that has no tradeable value would quickly diminish.
• Value should degrade as more finds are hoarded
  The value of holding a single unique copy of an Epic might be 200 bank, but as soon as the supply of that copy increases the value should fall. This may skew the value of cards to monopolists, but would accurately depict the immediate degradation of limited supply value

It seems for me like the 3 first items are too overpowered. For example: if I inflate a card to 500 bank and then someone matches an 0.01 bid on it, the new value would be whatever the final match price was, which usually does not surpass 10-20 for most inflated cards. Complete deflation only after a hour, and all the time and effort spent on inflating that specific card is gone forever.
Item 2 would mean that, if a player/group of players gathered enough copies of an inflated card, they could make a coordinated junking effort to significantly lower the card's value. It would need to be debuffed in comparison to auctions since it's an instant action (just like gifts, which do not count for value). Another important point is that, in order to allow players to predict future MVs accurately, junking would need to be shown in the trades record.
Similar to item 2, item 3 (greater weight to recent trades) could also quickly deflate a card's MV if a player/group of players gathered enough copies of an inflated card and then traded it to themselves several times. I am aware the way MV's currently calculated does allow this, but in a manner that allows the inflator to possibly buy the cards and stop the deflators from making 10 full low trades (i.e. deflating a card completely), so I think it doesn't need to be changed.
Finally, I don't really understand the purpose of the last item. When someone finds an inflated card, more often than not they are someone who'd rather make some bank than keep the DV, thus they sell the card and already deflate the value. Furthermore, this would damage the pull event mechanic, as a large amount of finds would mean a significant MV loss on the pull evented card, disencouraging many people from taking part on these events since they often simply want to cash out by selling the copies they find.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

~snip~

If you are explaining, you are losing.

This is a toxic culture.

[Ioavollr]

It seems for me like the 3 first items are too overpowered. For example: if I inflate a card to 500 bank and then someone matches an 0.01 bid on it, the new value would be whatever the final match price was, which usually does not surpass 10-20 for most inflated cards. Complete deflation only after a hour, and all the time and effort spent on inflating that specific card is gone forever.
Item 2 would mean that, if a player/group of players gathered enough copies of an inflated card, they could make a coordinated junking effort to significantly lower the card's value. It would need to be debuffed in comparison to auctions since it's an instant action (just like gifts, which do not count for value). Another important point is that, in order to allow players to predict future MVs accurately, junking would need to be shown in the trades record.
Similar to item 2, item 3 (greater weight to recent trades) could also quickly deflate a card's MV if a player/group of players gathered enough copies of an inflated card and then traded it to themselves several times. I am aware the way MV's currently calculated does allow this, but in a manner that allows the inflator to possibly buy the cards and stop the deflators from making 10 full low trades (i.e. deflating a card completely), so I think it doesn't need to be changed.
Finally, I don't really understand the purpose of the last item. When someone finds an inflated card, more often than not they are someone who'd rather make some bank than keep the DV, thus they sell the card and already deflate the value. Furthermore, this would damage the pull event mechanic, as a large amount of finds would mean a significant MV loss on the pull evented card, disencouraging many people from taking part on these events since they often simply want to cash out by selling the copies they find.

Your objections are all very legitimate; the suggestions I make would favor devaluing cards over rapid inflation and may upset the mechanics of the game you mention. The difference in our two reactions to the suggestions are the approach to what MV is. You present MV solely as a system to be exploited in order to increase DV, while I'm imagining MV as a more accurate system for assessing the value of a card.

As per my examples above, the cost to maintain an inflated value would be quite high, because you would have to put (and keep putting) your money where your mouth is. The price for inflating a card isn't just transferring bank between puppets, but from those which have bank to those who find cards (admittedly, this will still frequently be puppets).

The system I imagine makes it more intuitive and straightforward for the casual player to assess which cards are worth keeping or buying and makes it easier for those collecting to do so. It skews high values to cards which have intrinsic value (rare cards, legendries) and those which have extrinsic value (interesting artwork, specific regions, specific card numbers).

[Western Theram]

its almost as if the values of these cards are really just arbitrary numbers with no real value... its almost as if money was some arbitrary number with no real value.
just let people play how they want i literally dont pay any attention to the market value. i just keep the cards that look cool or of nations i find interesting.

[Giovanniland]

~snip~

If you are explaining, you are losing.

This is a toxic culture.

What? Of course arguments need to be explained. If neither side did that, this would just devolve into "inflation bad" and "deflation bad," and I'm glad we haven't come into this so far. Your comment makes no sense at all and doesn't help the discussion by simply calling inflation "toxic."

[Kuiper Empire]

I agree, there are inflation services and it just make it hard for newer players to get into the game because it is a few card that have ridiculous values

[Baloo Kingdom]

If you are explaining, you are losing.

This is a toxic culture.

What? Of course arguments need to be explained. If neither side did that, this would just devolve into "inflation bad" and "deflation bad," and I'm glad we haven't come into this so far. Your comment makes no sense at all and doesn't help the discussion by simply calling inflation "toxic."

I agree with Giovanniland on the importance of a free card trading market. Without our ability to inflate or deflate a card's value, 90% of the Trading Cards would become relatively useless to the average card collector.

[Kuiper Empire]

I just did some organising and my 45 ultra rare and 33 rare cards have only ~10MV more than my 17 uncommon and 40 common cards.

[Lone survivers]

Do I err, or are some of the practices some people try to defend/explain in here charged and punished by the law in real life ? For example, on the real life stock exchange market manipulation is illegal in the way done and/or described in here...
I´d say, the whole trading card system is/was greatly flawed from the beginning on, because it allows s unfair practices like inflating or deflating cards, circumvention of limited storage space (without paying the increasing costs), farming and/or the endless accumulation of uncountable puppets, and many more; and, imop, there´s no way to change anything for the better, since the whole trading-card system relies on an unlimited and cost-free supply of cards, contradicting the mechanics of a "free market" (supply and demand) and a pseudo-free-market, easy to manipulate by anyone who has the resources and will to do so without any consequences and not reflecting the "real" value of most cards.
Interestingly too, that for example, low-owner-CTEs or other commons are valued (by most players) almost worthless, though their scarcity (especially series 1 cards), because they are much harder to get than legendaries, but legendaries with hundred or more owners are traded for tens or hundreds of bank.
However, imo the only real solution to the inflating/deflating dilemma would be to cancel this stupid "ranking list", as this would take away the main incentive to inflate cards; which, I guess, wont be done...

[Ioavollr]

Do I err, or are some of the practices some people try to defend/explain in here charged and punished by the law in real life ? For example, on the real life stock exchange market manipulation is illegal in the way done and/or described in here...

I'm not an expert in worldwide law, but I imagine you'd be hard-pressed to find a court that would find harm done in a game where no money is exchanged and the underlying assets are fundamentally worthless. Especially when the assets aren't being stolen, just devalued.

I´d say, the whole trading card system is/was greatly flawed from the beginning on, because it allows s unfair practices like inflating or deflating cards, circumvention of limited storage space (without paying the increasing costs), farming and/or the endless accumulation of uncountable puppets, and many more; and, imop, there´s no way to change anything for the better, since the whole trading-card system relies on an unlimited and cost-free supply of cards, contradicting the mechanics of a "free market" (supply and demand) and a pseudo-free-market, easy to manipulate by anyone who has the resources and will to do so without any consequences and not reflecting the "real" value of most cards.
Interestingly too, that for example, low-owner-CTEs or other commons are valued (by most players) almost worthless, though their scarcity (especially series 1 cards), because they are much harder to get than legendaries, but legendaries with hundred or more owners are traded for tens or hundreds of bank.
However, imo the only real solution to the inflating/deflating dilemma would be to cancel this stupid "ranking list", as this would take away the main incentive to inflate cards; which, I guess, wont be done...

I think you might be attempting to impose your vision of what you think the card game should be on the reality of what the card game is. Just look at the difference in play styles and goals put forth by Giovanniland and The Atlae Isles. There isn't a "right way" to play, and one of the main effects of card farms is an increase in the number of available cards. I agree the focus on the ranking list is incentivizing practices that are damaging to collecting, but collecting isn't necessarily the point of the game; it's just what many players enjoy doing. I think the introduction of a market at all, regardless of rankings or card valuations, incentivizes bad faith deals, but that's a little above the pay grade of a silly card game.

[Fhaengshia]

I apologise if this is considered a gravedig (just under 2 months since the last post), but based on discussions in the cards discord server I have come to new ideas about this issue.

Shortly: Strategies for inflation have been developed that almost completely mitigate the risk offered by tcals.

Nearly all inflation takes place with the inflator owning at least 2 copies of the card and only placing the inflated bid in the last seconds of a much less risky auction. This reduces the risk of being "heisted" (which I believe to be a disingenuous term, but that is a different issue) as there is just seconds for tcals to magic a card into being and have the new owner "heist" the inflator.

It is my understanding that tcals was introduced to give an element of risk to "bank transfers" where a trader sells a card to a puppet of theirs to move the bank. Actually this intended purpose becomes obsolete once a trader uses a mass-copy transfer card, where the trader owns multiple copies of a single card and sells for lower amounts to their puppets over and over again. In this case tcals generating extra copies allows the trader to purchase more of the transfer card to generate more efficient transfers in the future.

Rather, the above described method used for inflation is an emergent behaviour in which tcals offers an insufficient risk. This method for inflation allows an amount of bank to be leveraged over multiple copies of cards with no actual cost as the bank is moved between nations owned by the inflator, allowing the inflator to repeat the process for as many cards as they have. The only bottlenecks for the inflator is how much bank they have, and how many low owner cte cards they have. Even tcals can assist an inflator in this as if the inflator owns just one of a low owner cte card, they can utilise tcals to generate an extra copy they can then purchase cheaply allowing them to inflate as they desire.

There have been a bevy of proposals, but I believe the core of the issue is not addressed by these proposals: Inflators will continue to evade risk by only bidding in the dying seconds of auctions between their puppets. An implementation that I believe would address this would be having absurdly high bids increase the auction timer by more than one minute, perhaps the higher bids multiple of the lower match (no higher than the current auction time limit of course). Also tcals introducing more than one new copy as the copy may go to the inflator if they are answering issues. Another option would be the purported account system with a single account not able to change the mv of a card. Even a simpler version that is similar to the 9003’s owner report should be able to manage this.


I am unsure of the further value of the thread here as these discussions tend to devolve to arguments of "inflation good" / "inflation bad". But by all means come up with more suggestions we can take to a technical forum thread.

(edit: emphasis added)

[Drongonia]

I don't actually think this is a bad idea/concept... BUT it would affect the value of my cards so I have to say I don't like it

I don't really think cards being overvalued is a problem that needs to be solved, the card trading game doesn't really have any impact on the rest of NS (aside from the International Artwork stat) or the forums.

[Fhaengshia]

I don't actually think this is a bad idea/concept... BUT it would affect the value of my cards so I have to say I don't like it

I don't really think cards being overvalued is a problem that needs to be solved, the card trading game doesn't really have any impact on the rest of NS (aside from the International Artwork stat) or the forums.

It would affect my deck value as well. But I feel this current meta of inflation has been caused by a level of greed that is now being perpetuated to an unhealthy extent throughout the game. Changes were made in the past to try to add risk to abusive levels of greed, this is an instance where many feel something should change again.

[Panagouge]

I feel that inflation would be less of an issue if there was another way to transfer bank that didn't involve "piggyback" transfers and the like. For example, perhaps we could be allowed to send directly, but we have to pay a 1% fee each time. Something like that. But I'm sure there are a million possible objections to that. I'd love to hear them.

[The Atlae Isles]

I feel that inflation would be less of an issue if there was another way to transfer bank that didn't involve "piggyback" transfers and the like. For example, perhaps we could be allowed to send directly, but we have to pay a 1% fee each time. Something like that. But I'm sure there are a million possible objections to that. I'd love to hear them.

There are lots of options. Mass transfer cards, in my opinion, are more fun and efficient. But I don't think people inflate because they need to move bank. They inflate because they want to, so opening up that option wouldn't really do anything.

[Riemstagrad]

Let market value of a card evolve towards the highest bid on that card (IF the MV of the card > highest bid)

[Minskiev]

no cap :flushed: