Not that I am aware of, because it is computational expensive, especially if you want to support something other than 1:1 trades.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are tools which compute that.
Shouldn’t take long to find these possible circles.
Comment has been collapsed.
[Games = nodes and trade offers are directed edges between nodes]
Finding circles is not hard, but what you are actually searching is finding the set that maximizing the number of edges that form circles.
My gut feeling tells me that this task is np-hard.
Comment has been collapsed.
In order for this to work, people would have to declare somehow or another what games they want for each of their tradeables, which is prohibitively time-consuming.
Comment has been collapsed.
You have a list of your items on the columns and a list of items others like to trade on the rows.
You then click on each connection, where you think it would fit.
Sure it’s a bit more work, but trading is anyway.
Comment has been collapsed.
Haven’t looked at Barter
Can you there trade only 1 on 1, or also with multiple users?
Comment has been collapsed.
Like in my scenario described above?
Math Trades are trades with theoretically unlimited middleman
Comment has been collapsed.
1 to 1. The site checks your wishlist and the list of games you're offering, and it matches you with everyone who has something you want and you have something they want.
Comment has been collapsed.
Although that’s totally different, it’s probably worthy to look through it.
Comment has been collapsed.
On barter, you can set up trade so that it sends to everyone who has your wishlisted items in their tradables, but you can only set one up, and it's a direct trade between you and someone else.
Comment has been collapsed.
I've only ever seen them on boardgamegeek.com, but that's, um...for board games.
Good luck!
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I‘ve seen it there and now was curious if it would work with pc games too.
Here it would be easier, as you wouldn’t need to ship anything, so the trade could be worldwide.
Comment has been collapsed.
For just 3 people, that would require each one to trust 2 others so 2x3 = 6 "trust" instances instead of 4, had it been one person to do the whole deal with each of the others instead. People barely trust one person with their game. What would be the fail scenario here? 3 people with the wrong game or worse? The problem isn't computational, it's one of trust..
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, that would be an issue
Maybe only allow people to participate if they have certain rep (or at least limit those that have only few trades)
Comment has been collapsed.
someone still needs to go first. Presumably, trades would go in inverse order to their reputation
Comment has been collapsed.
no, for 3 people it would involve 3 trusts - A&B, A&C, B&C. For 4 people it would involve 6 trusts - A&B, A&C, A&D, B&C, B&D, C&D.
The formula is (X-1)!
Comment has been collapsed.
They are bilateral trusts so A&B ≠ B&A. Imagine it as if each person presses a button to aknowledge their trust to the other person. They both have to press the button for each other. For 2 people that's two presses, not one. If one person doesn't press a button then all trusts turn to invalid. The formula here is [n! / (n-r)!] and r=2 in this case.
Comment has been collapsed.
I was about to say you're right, and admit that I'm wrong. Then I realized that I'm not.
If we envision a trade where A gives to B gives to C gives to A, we don't need 6 trusts, but 3 - A does not need to trust B, A only needs to trust that C will give to A, regardless of whether or not B gives to C. Likewise, B does not needs to trust that C will give to A, B only needs to trust that A will give to B, and C only needs to trust that B will give to C.
Or, to continue with your button scenario, each person only has to push one button to acknowledge that he/she trusts the person from whom he or she will be receiving their item. If I'm part of the circle, I only care that I get my item - if someone else in the circle gets screwed, it's their problem, not mine.
That actually means the formula is N
Comment has been collapsed.
Was thinking about this.. and perhaps it could be implemented/interpreted both ways, if we take into account actuall "trust" and depending how secure or efficient this system will be:
- Require that all parties aknowledge each other and accept their trust. If one party doesn't accept another party in this circle, regardless of whether they receive from or give to them, then the circle is broken. This would make the trust circle more reliable because maybe one party has information about another and they don't trust them for some reason. They know that if that party enters the circle, they will not behave properly and that may ultimately ruin the circle for one or more parties. An example-result: You get your game but some others don't and this leads to trust issues, misunderstandings and general bad sentiments which can prevent you from entering any more circles because others left unhappy. So instead you choose not to trust one of the parties and avoid the hassle. It renders the system slower to "activate" since everyone must pretty much accept everyone else.
- Require that trust is only needed for the receiving-end party, like in your reasoning. That would make for a more efficient circle (faster actions) but trust knowledge isn't shared and this could be a less successful system in more occasions. Easier to enter the circle, accept only one trust but also accept the consequences if an "untrustworthy" party is accepted even though some of the other parties had knowledge of this "untrusted" party but they didn't use it (they didn't have to anyway, in this implementation).
So I think in the end either trust system could be accepted. It depends what is required with regards to security.
I suppose there's always a trade-off between efficiency and security..
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay i will give you my calculus homework if you give me your algebra.
Comment has been collapsed.
Awesome, always liked calculus better then algebra
Comment has been collapsed.
Watch out, I heard FBI busted another math lab recently. You're just in the streets, trading math, but still, please watch out and quit as soon as possible.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because games all have different inherent values, as well as different perceived values by each individual, it would work a lot better if there was some kind of universal currency with a stable value, that everyone could use to smooth out trading. You know, like, money, or CSGO Keys
Comment has been collapsed.
I've done a lot of math trading on bgg, but the board game community is a lot smaller, and there are far fewer instances of scamming. I'm not sure how well it would work for video games.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are there any sites which do Math Trades?
This is when everyone enters all the games (or other items) to trade. When everybody did that, you can mark which trades you would do. Then a program would run over it and find any matches, no matter how many middle man would be in there. That way more trades then 1on1 would be possible.
Example:
I have games A
I would like to trade for B
but the owner of B only trades for C
But that owner would trade for A
so we can all trade
Comment has been collapsed.