Trader grades should be fixed (along with some other things)

(Sima Seal4) #1

When I look at the trading grades of people when trading, I look only at people with an A+ grade. Anything lower than that means that they probably haven’t been on in weeks or months. And sometimes (not rarely) an A+ user hasn’t been on for like a week! So I find myself constantly clicking on profiles and checking when they were last on. This makes the already pretty tedious process of trading even more tedious, with people who opened 1 pack of a series and then finished with it.

Suggestions -
On the thing were you choose with whom to trade with, write how long it’s been since they’ve been on.
On the trading interface, make a “more than x%” thing depending on difficulty so if they have more than(let’s say) 50%, you know they’re collecting it, and series under that percentage won’t appear.


OK but seriously this has been a problem for a long time and shouldn’t be too hard of a fix, right? I know you’re focusing on things like the legendary rarity but this improvement could improve player experience a lot.

(Shawn) #2

The order of potential trade partners is populated using an algorithm based on a number of variables. I’ll ask the team to look into tweaking it.

We’ll add your suggestions to items to be discussed.

CC @vagrantscout

(Naud van Dalen) #3

When searching for a card, I’d like to see only high trader grades in the list from people who have at least 2 copies and don’t have 100% completion, because they don’t need my duplicates and likely won’t accept my trade. Or maybe also show single copies from people who aren’t collecting the series, but it’s hard to know if someone is not collecting it, so that’s risky.

Sorting is nice, but sorting on trader grade means seeing some people with a single copy, sorting on copies means seeing some people with a low trading grade and sorting on percentage completed means seeing people with low trader grades and people with single copies. A filter would be nice, like setting duplicates only, minimum trader grade and a range of completion percentages.

The best thing would be only seeing people who need duplicates that you have. Whether from the same set or from sets they also collect. The second one is more work for the user to find matches and the server for calculating all of that, but it gives more results. Maybe people can check “search matches in all sets” when there are too little results or only people with a low trader grade.

(Haze) #4

@sima.seal4, would it be more or less tedious to just make the trade offer instead of going into the person’s profile? Making an offer to someone who is not logging in will help reduce that person’s trading grade, right? Though, I suppose if you are offering to multiple people, one would accept, causing the other trades to auto-withdraw and then the inactive collector’s grading wouldn’t be affected.

Okay, yeah, I suppose having inactive players’ grades deteriorate automatically, without relying on lapsed trades, could be a better solution. Your idea of including a “days absent” column could help, too.

@naud, I would like greater control over the sorting & filters, sure! Being able to specify a completion range would certainly be helpful when trying to make same-series trades.

Collectors with very low series completion percentage can often be assumed to not be collecting. The sorting options seem to be capable of providing a nested sort that would help you find this kind of series. I believe you can specify that it first sort by trader grade, then sort by ascending completion percentage, and that should first show you the A+ traders with the lowest completion percentage.

When trading same-series, I like to sort by trader grade, then by number owned, then by decending completion percentage… but I then have to scroll past all the 100% ones; your first suggestion would be helpful if implemented.

I’d made a suggestion earlier that the trading interface could make better use of one’s own wishlist. Already, if you pick a print you own and look for seekers, collectors with that print on their wishlist will top the list; if you could also optionally have this list check each player’s duplicates of the same rarity against your own wishlist, that’d be fantastic. It has been suggested that this cross-checking may be too resource-intensive or too time-consuming.