||Jan 1, 2012 08:24 AM
||Jan 2, 2012 08:19 PM
||Jan 2, 2012 08:19 PM
View User Blog
Send Private Message
jam has contributed to 2 posts out of 1071 total posts
(0.19%) in 2,573 days (0.00 posts per day).
20 Most recent posts:
Quote: Hmmmmm, I'm yes and no on this one!
Quote: The way it is now, you know who owns what on the PM. No matter how good the price is that you offer, doesn't guarantee sales. I have had many rounds where people didn't buy my goods at ridiculously low prices because they knew where the money was going. The PM can easily be shut down by a player up the top by players simply not wanting their gold to go to them. If it doesn't go to them, nobody can sell anything.
I agree. An alternate solution is that rather than a player having multiple batches, they only have one big batch (size isn't displayed). In public market, batches are displayed with cheapest first, minimum batch size filter, and an option to display the next 10 cheapest on the PM. A player enters the amount they want (as they do now), with a max price in a "public" table, and grabs all cheapest until amount filled. Or, they can choose which batches to buy from. Basically you can embargo specific player imports. Sound like real life? Of course if their price is at 15 and the other is at 30, maybe the benefits will change your mind :).
Grab Amount: enter here Max Price: enter here
Player price amount wanted
Tem 15 enter here
DR 30 enter here
Admin 80 enter here
Do need price limits, etc. but you get the idea. If you are a player people just don't like, or DO like :) --- Original message by DR on Jan 2, 2012 05:56 PM
I like the convenience of picking up the goods you want in one pass. Though I don't like restricting batches - the reason for that being that I tend to list batches of different sizes and prices for a whole lot of reasons :)
I'd definitely be in support of adjusting some price bands, in particular I think it is the maximum rather than the minimum that needs attention. Too often basic resources are listed at prices no one will favour over the local until ~8b score. Trillions will be spent on the local instead, and then yes, of course, those people who listed their goods too high find they have no gold to buy anything. With your food example you've basically said you have no choice but to sell at a price which someone wants to buy at... I don't understand where the issue is, and how that diverges from the principles of supply and demand which you support?
I'm against automation or fixing of prices though. Primary reasons for my being against this are:
1 - Whilst you can measure supply, demand is a FAR more complex thing, and I don't think you can accurately calculate that. It doesn't seem right to enforce a price on players which can only ever be based on a flawed formula. What something is worth also depends on individual circumstances.
2 - The price at which things sell already reflects market variables such as supply and demand (the underlying principle on which billions are traded daily through technical/quantitative trading, all be it simplified). An item is worth what someone will pay for it, and available at what someone will sell it for. A deal is mutually beneficial, or it doesn't proceed.
3 - To be frank, I don't see why anyone not directly involved in a trade expects to decide what price I choose to sell or buy at.
4 - Some of the things you've complained about, such as people intentionally not buying your goods... I'd consider that really quite appropriate to a strategic war game. Taking out an enemy's economy for one reason or another is still a basic principle of war today. You should also be able to adapt to that happening.
5 - Economic agreements - let's be honest, the aid system is not sufficient for trading large numbers of goods, and most deals ie wood for bows are executed over the PM.
6 - Inflation and deflation. The relative worth of gold is not constant. The gold pool in game fluctuates quite substantially, as does a player's own wealth. You'd have to consider the supply and demand principles not just of the resources, but of the gold pool... of course that will never take in to consideration relative worth to an individual player.
Haha perhaps got a bit carried away, but I really don't think this is good for gameplay. I don't like to object without alternative though, so here's a few suggestions for the problems I can see:
Feeding - This seems like the big one with the PM. I would propose that trade interaction between accounts be profiled. It's very easy to spot net transfer of resources. I could probably achieve that client side by monitoring a few pages... so server side with direct access to the DB it shouldn't be as complex as it perhaps sounds.
Storing Goods - Not something I'm against myself, but if the community as a whole wanted to remove that I'd suggest lowering the maximum price of goods to make doing so more risky, or increase the withdrawl fee even further.
Stalled Economy - My view is that an active economy starts with the most simple unit, ie primary resources. When food or iron etc is expensive it will be bought on local, meaning less gold in the economy, meaning less purchases in general. Supply and demand shows that increasing the abundance of these fundamental resources will lead to more trade throughout the economy. Making resources more common would of course have other consequences, so again, perhaps reducing the cap on prices could be beneficial instead (very different to price fixing).
Oh, and as I keep missing things... I'd be open to the early capitalisation notion with the server picking up suitably priced goods for a day or two.
Edited by jam on Jan 2, 2012 at 08:16 PM