Trading Fee

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • I would like to give you some background info on what some of these changes are supposed to tackle, as I am sure that some of these are likely to be discussed quite a bit.

    Elite AI
    This change means that there will be no “Elite AI” as such in the game anymore, as the current “normal AI” will be replaced with the Elite AI. With this change we want game round to be more realistic than they currently are. This change will make AIs play a more active role in the players game experience. Paying more attention to diplomacy with AI will become slightly more important with this change, if player would like to avoid having AIs declaring war on them. This also means that the gold feature for creating a map with Elite AI will be removed as the Elite AI will be available as default and free of charge.

    Market Overhaul
    The changes to trading and the market in general are designed to make the game more realistic and more balanced for all players participating in the game round. They give players more equal opportunities because circumventing the intended map balance is harder. The changes also add value to being part of a team/coalition, and make it harder for betrayal of a coalition by a member as trading with enemy coalitions is not possible anymore. Additionally, these changes prevent the market being used as a private resource storage, for example to avoid resources being captured when losing the capital.

    Cooldown after leaving a coalition
    At the same time it makes multi accounting/wolfpacking/pushing harder and adds a minor “punishment” for betrayal of a team without taking the entire strategie of spying on other coalitions by joining them away from the game.

    Espionage Name and Price Changes
    Despite changing the names of spy actions in the game to make it more obvious what these actions do, we also decided to adjust pricing for spy actions in the game. We reviewed the spy actions and simply acknowledge the power of these espionage measures and believe that the new price points reflect their value. It also means that players will think twice whether they want to invest in the action and are less likely to overuse a powerful spy action.
    BMfox
    Moderator
    EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
  • BMfox wrote:

    The changes also add value to being part of a team/coalition, and make it harder for betrayal of a coalition by a member as trading with enemy coalitions is not possible anymore. Additionally, these changes prevent the market being used as a private resource storage, for example to avoid resources being captured when losing the capital.
    One of the most evil betrayal is leaking secrets, 2nd to back stabbing only . And no feature of the game can prevent this. So there is no point in restricting trade in order to prevent betrayal. Besides betrayal can be perceived as valid choice, any attempt to limit it also means to limit the game experience.

    Also the market fee does not prevent that the market is used as private storage in case the own capital is about to be captured. If one puts all his money in the market the loss is 10%, still favorable compared to 50% not going to the market. This goal can be reached only if the plundering also buy orders in consideration and deduct 50% of their value. Again there is no point in restricting the global trade at that extend.

    Please consider to downsize market fee to 10% for executed orders of the seller only. That way day trading, that is buying on low prices and selling on high prices is still possible. And to tackle abuse of the market as private storage implement that plundering also takes call orders in consideration.

    The post was edited 4 times, last by helmuth.moltke ().

  • helmuth.moltke wrote:

    One of the most evil betrayal is leaking secrets, 2nd to back stabbing only . And no feature of the game can prevent this. So there is no point in restricting trade in order to prevent betrayal. Besides betrayal can be perceived as valid choice, any attempt to limit it also means to limit the game experience.
    Exactly!

    Anything humanly possible in real life, should simply be allowed too.
    Otherwise you reduce:
    - the realism
    - the experience
    - the need for skill & development

    Low level players are low level because they are new and must still learn...if and when capable to do so.
    There is no need to adjust the rules of CHESS, for instance, because some players are better than others.

    Devs, if you want a game where everyone can be a winner, than CREATE A NEW ONE.
    I have a suggestion for the name even: 'CoW for COWS'

    Then measure the players progress and - as you do with automated proposals for joining FP - propose the mediocre and worse players who do not progress to join 'CoW for COWS'.

    But STOP dumbing down this game.
  • _Pontus_ wrote:

    BMFox,

    the market overhaul is a DISASTER.
    Try putting in a buy order for 11...

    Just try...

    and do let us know your enhanced experience :)))
    I've put 7000 food in for 12 hopefully someone buys it, if not it's a lot of money wasted. I'm not even sure if I cancel the order I'll get my money back.
    BMfox
    Moderator
    EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
  • BMfox wrote:

    I've put 7000 food in for 12 hopefully someone buys it, if not it's a lot of money wasted. I'm not even sure if I cancel the order I'll get my money back.
    What I meant...
    When I make a sales offer with a price starting with 1 (wanting to put 11), the 1 changes automatically to 3.
    So, without resorting to tricks, it is IMPOSSIBLE to put the price 10 to 19,9.

    The same goes for any price starting with 2 from 20 to 29,9

    Let us know how you put that sales offer up for 12 without the 1 changing to 3 or which easy trick you use for it. Thanks.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by _Pontus_ ().

  • _Pontus_ wrote:

    BMfox wrote:

    I've put 7000 food in for 12 hopefully someone buys it, if not it's a lot of money wasted. I'm not even sure if I cancel the order I'll get my money back.
    What I meant...When I make a sales offer with a price starting with 1 (wanting to put 11), the 1 changes automatically to 3.
    So, without resorting to tricks, it is IMPOSSIBLE to put the price 10 to 19,9.

    The same goes for any price starting with 2 from 20 to 29,9

    Let us know who you put that sales offer up for 12 without the 1 changing to 3 or which easy trick you use for it. Thanks.
    Current workaround I've found for this bug is to put the number you want in right to left instead of the normal way. Use arrow keys or tapping ahead of the number in the "ones" digit place.
    --
    Trying to be helpful, If my answers are incorrect, please let me know and provide the right information.
    I am not all serious, will tag along for a joke.


    Delby
    Moderator
    EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh
  • Unfortunately there is no easy fix for the mechanism of the $3 minimum to predict your intention of a two digit number solely based on the first digit you enter. If someone knows how to add mind reading capabilities to this please let us know :)



    So it will be necessary for a time to select and change one digit at a time only, or use the slider to adjust, instead of removing the entire amount any replacing it, until a more elegant solution is crafted.


    I haven’t tried pasting a number into that space, that might work also.
    War is a game that is played with a smile. If you can't smile, grin. If you can't grin keep out of the way til you can. - Winston Churchill



    VorlonFCW
    Main Administrator
    EN Support Team | Bytro Labs Gmbh

    >>> Click Here to submit a bug report or support ticket <<<
  • New

    VorlonFCW wrote:

    Unfortunately there is no easy fix for the mechanism of the $3 minimum to predict your intention of a two digit number solely based on the first digit you enter
    You hit the nail properly on the head...almost.
    Methinks there is no fix at all, as mind-reading is not yet possible.
    Hence, the conclusion must be that this change was introduced w/o the required proper mind-work (i.e. thinking it over thoroughly) and field-work (i.e. testing).

    An unnecessary change - with very irritating side-effects- was thus improperly introduced and there is no fix...except...for reverting back to the old, well working market.

    Methinks this thread - as well as many other threads - have proven that nobody was really bothered with the loopholes that are supposedly closed by this change, as well as that these threads prove how many are bothered by the unnecessary cgange and its side-effects.

    So, with...:

    - 99% of players against this change
    - and 100% being confronted with having to use work-arounds,
    - while 0.00001% of players are now merely mildly restricted from 'free' hiding of resources (because it is not prevented in any way; it now just costs 10%)

    ...we may thus confidently conclude this change should be reverted at the very first opportunity to do so.

    PS: Knowing Bytro as very reasonable, which thus thus implies using reason and ratio, it would be logical to use the same instance to revert other bad changes as well (diplo-trade/fire@will/etc).