Market Overhaul

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

  • The above is too messy to find out all that was written, while in a 10x speed game...

    Anyways, did anybody notice that when putting prices, basically:

    a. the number 1 is banned?? This means all buy order pricing from 10 to 19,9 is ALSO banned.
    b. but the number two too. Ergo, all buy order prices from 2,0 to 2,9 are banned.

    So, bright overzealous developer who came up with this unholy idea, what you achieved is a market where I can put a buy order for either 3,0 to 3,9 or... 30

    I cant put any other buy offer on the market!

    Nobody is helped by this market overhaul except some very stupid players who wont stay anyway.

    Conversely, almost EVERYONE who is in this game for real, is being HURT.

    Ergo: REVERT this change!

    As you had to revert the 'Fire at will'

    The big question is however: Devs, who are you listening to that you come with these idiotic, unnecessary, game ruining ideas for changes??

    I dont know who it is, but I do know: IT IS THE WRONG PERSON!

    The post was edited 2 times, last by _Pontus_ ().

  • After hard thinking, I found a trick to put a buying price of 11...

    So, now - out of some misconceived mission to save the utter and complete idiots who wont stay in the game anyway - I have to resort to TRICKS to put a buying price I envision.

    LATELY I DO NOT FEEL LIKE THE GAME IS IMPROVING!

    A suggestion for you Devs - from the heart & from the brain: STOP!

    Just STOP messing with a game that was almost perfectly in order and needed only some tweaking here and there.

    And THINK AGAIN! Better RETHINK your ideas thoroughly... You are going overboard!
  • Hans A. Pils wrote:

    Now HMS Surprise's post indeed comes as a... surprise. As it's the first one praising the trade/market limitation after about 30 forum users swearing it to hell.
    I figure with "abusing the market" you mean you've been trading a lot? I wouldn't call being an active trader an abuse. Your statement is similar to saying "I've been abusing my skills in unit choices, diplomacy, trade, creativity and strategy to outdo everyone, so it's good this change more or less removes unit choices, diplomacy, trade, creativity and strategy from the game".

    Also it's merely a thesis, without profound argumentation. Can you explain why it should be good that players can no longer profit from being willing and capable to take the effort of being an active and successful trader?
    Yes, I meant I've been trading a lot. And I always thought that market is so powerful that it shouldn't have that much effect on the game. I still make profit from the market. It still gives me advantages, but limited as it should be.
  • HMS Surprise wrote:

    Yes, I meant I've been trading a lot. And I always thought that market is so powerful that it shouldn't have that much effect on the game. I still make profit from the market. It still gives me advantages, but limited as it should be.
    Even tho they added a 10% tax, focusing all resources to be traded through the market, it gives the market even more power, because if we're not in the same coalition, the only way to trade with you is through the market.

    We had an oligopoly market, we could go to the market or go to diplomacy, now we'll only be able to go to the market, making it a monopoly market.
    Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

    Manual: Básico y Machiavelli
  • atreas1 wrote:

    (see the 10x speed map they dare to advertise)
    10x speed is incredible fun and super dangerous. Even total noobs can take half your country while you take a dump :)

    it is definitely strategy; just different thinking!

    As for EVERYTHING ELSE being changed: STOP pls!!
    (even the AI for all, which seems nice, but will mess up PvP ranking totally, but then again, the ranking system is weird anyway, so maybe redo ranking too?)

    I am all for IMPROVEMENTS, but I don't know which ex-DDR politician took over at Bytro, putting all these not-well-thought-through limitations in place.

    These trading and diplomatic restrictions KILL an important element of the game.
    And the market mark up of 10%?? Even Chinese games don't go higher than 5%...and they ARE communists.

    And all this for the purpose of what? This is not BALANCING. This DUMBING DOWN the game.

    Are you Bytro-guys playing yourself? (remember the South Park episode with the Sword on the memory stick??!! Go find it if you dont know it!)

    Anyways, I always buy HC. Expiring soon. I am really going to make an assessment of whether the game is still what I want.
    Ofc I know that my few bucks won't matter in the big picture. Not trying to black mail you with peanuts...

    ...but the fact that I am contemplating not buying anymore, should tell you that my CLIENT JOURNEY along various TOUCH POINTS lately is very DISSATISFYING.

    And - now that cognitive dissonance has been triggered by all too many crap changes (and some good, I admit) - is CoW still offering what I liked about it?
    Is it still and will it be offering me...

    ...
    wait for it...

    ...

    wait for it....

    ...


    A CHALLENGE?
  • HMS Surprise wrote:

    And I always thought that market is so powerful that it shouldn't have that much effect on the game.
    Silly me ... And I always thought that the players are so powerful, that they shouldn't have that much effect on the game.

    Hence I came up with the 'MOTHER of ALL BALANCING SOLUTIONS':

    Let's put limitations on players! ... 1 per map... All issues solved! Everyone can be a winner! Skill or no skill!

    BTW, anyone able to win a map or even sway the odds in his favor by using the market is ... in a map with awful players only.
    Yes, you can have fun with the market. But NO, it does not have an awful power.
    And when one has so much cash that one can manipulate the market - while not needing cash and materials for buildings and troops apparently - than one is already the winner ...or incredibly stupid...

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

  • HMS Surprise wrote:

    Yes, I meant I've been trading a lot. And I always thought that market is so powerful that it shouldn't have that much effect on the game. I still make profit from the market. It still gives me advantages, but limited as it should be.
    So.. market is 'so powerful' because you can actually trade, a lot? How this is even an argument?

    Obviously market plays quite significant role in the game, as economy largely relies on trading. And planning your economy is part of your strategy. I don't know what's wrong about it.

    Banning trade between players and limiting market is just ridiculous.

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

  • Now that all of us (except for Mr. Surprise) have agreed the trade&market limitations ruin the game, let's make constructive proposals.
    Mine is the following (thanks @atreas1 for some input):

    1.: Allow trade of resources between all players again.

    2.: Remove the 10% tax from the market again.

    3.: To fight multi accounting, add a new table to the database in which you can query for players having a suspicious trade balance with another player.
    Technical details of how this might look like:
    Columns gameID, playerID_lower, playerID_higher, value_received, value_given.
    Whenever a trade is done, update the record with playerID_lower matching the lower playerID of the two players involved and playerID_higher matching the higher playerID of the two players involved (if no record found, create a new one): Add <amount received by player with lower playerID> * <current market value of that resource> to value_received and <amount given by player with lower playerID> * <current market value of that resource> (money always has market value of 1.0).
    Then the following query will give you a list of players with the ones with the most suspicious trade balance on top:
    -------------------------------------------
    select * from name_of_new_table
    where max(value_received, value_given) > 30000
    order by max(value_received, value_given) / min(value_received, value_given);
    -------------------------------------------
    Your Support personnel can then just check the players in the list starting at the top and after deciding whether it's a multi account or not, just delete the data record (maybe give them a button for it).

    4.: To make it impossible to use the market to hide resources from looting when one of your resource provinces is about to get conquered, allow looting to make your resource stock negative.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Hans A. Pils: typo ().

  • Anything humanly possible in real life, should simply be allowed.
    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.
  • nemuritor98 wrote:

    , which will lead to a "funnier" and harder stock market.
    well from my point of view the market is no fun at all anymore. The 10% buy and 10% sell fee conducted when placing an order result into a minimum attrition of 20% for day trading. Before the update it was possible to improve your situation with call and buy orders. Now after the update placing an order gives me shivers, because it even could mean a loss without any gain.

    Yuk, horrible
  • Even ignoring how much this neuters competitive games, this is a massive insult to role players.

    This practically removes all diplomacy from the game. I don't understand why bytro doesn't make these settings one can select when creating games, but I think we lost the ability to make games a while ago.

    I don't know how I'll roleplay now. And I don't know how I will play with friends without being able to give them troops in times of need.
  • Chickenus wrote:

    Even ignoring how much this neuters competitive games, this is a massive insult to role players.

    This practically removes all diplomacy from the game. I don't understand why bytro doesn't make these settings one can select when creating games, but I think we lost the ability to make games a while ago.

    I don't know how I'll roleplay now. And I don't know how I will play with friends without being able to give them troops in times of need.
    To be fair, Bytro has made an effort to organise RP games and to please the RP communitiy but the reality is that very few players in the RP community were interested to join the events.

    Giving troops to other players has been abused to create superstacks. Even more so trading troops should never be an option, name one country that just gave his army away and gave them to another nation?

    How will you play with your friends? You will each speciallize in a troop type. If you specialize in navy you will protect their shores, if you specialise in air force you will be able to fly to the resque. You can help your friend by giving him resources that he lacks, you can advise him on stratigy and you can move in with your land force whenever he is under attack. That's what they did in WWII so it shouldn't be any different here.
  • BMfox wrote:

    To be fair, Bytro has made an effort to organise RP games
    When did this happen? Never saw such a thread, maybe I missed it.

    BMfox wrote:

    Giving troops to other players has been abused to create superstacks.
    They already managed to create a way to avoid superstacks, by moving the SBDE from the unit to the whole army itself, they could've kept the army trade and change how SBDE works to avoid superstacks created due to level disparity.

    BMfox wrote:

    name one country that just gave his army away and gave them to another nation?
    To use it and then give it back or to give it for free or to sell it?, it's different.

    BMfox wrote:

    How will you play with your friends? You will each speciallize in a troop type. If you specialize in navy you will protect their shores, if you specialise in air force you will be able to fly to the resque. You can help your friend by giving him resources that he lacks, you can advise him on stratigy and you can move in with your land force whenever he is under attack. That's what they did in WWII so it shouldn't be any different here.
    The only difference between "what they did in WWII" and what they do here is that this is a game that must, under any circumstances relay on playability first and realism second and the fact that maybe your ally is from Beijing and you are from New York which makes it 12 hours difference between you and him and it's very hard to coordinate because I'm pretty sure in the WWII they didn't have to wait 12 hours so their ally gets connected to a device. Imagine being in 1944 in the West front, preparing to strike the nazis and it just happens that your ally has gone to sleep(because when you just came from work and are about to take a shower, the other guy is in his house at 4AM waiting for you to get online) and there's no way to contact him.

    Implying that the only way to play with your friends is by specializing in one branch or by breaking sleeping schedule's and having a non-healthy lifestyle just to play the game is just nuts.
    Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

    Manual: Básico y Machiavelli
  • Selling or giving troops is basicly the concept of slavery.

    In the 25 games that I played I won 14 of them and I have never felt the need to trade troops.

    If your ally is in another time zone that doesn't really matter. It takes an active player at least 48 hours to get conquered. When under attack you pull back, you regroup, you counter attack our defend on the terrain that is to your advantage and you do not enter a fight if you cannot win. Eventually your ally will wake up, come to the resque and you just take back what you have lost.

    Both Bytro and Vorlon have organised RP events but they were never a succes. Don't ask me why, I don't do RP personaly so I didn't follow it and I'm not long enough around here to know the whole history.
  • BMfox wrote:

    Both Bytro and Vorlon have organised RP events but they were never a succes.
    Links to Bytro thread/s organizing RP? Never saw one of those and I'd really like to.

    BMfox wrote:

    It takes an active player at least 48 hours to get conquered.
    Nah, less than 12 if the other guy is asleep.

    BMfox wrote:

    Selling or giving troops is basicly the concept of slavery.
    It's a bit hard to have a plane or a battleship as a slave, unless you have some type of filia towards iron.
    Estoy dispuesto a darlo todo, a luchar por lo que soy, a ser libre dentro de mi, a guerrear mientras viva.

    Manual: Básico y Machiavelli