Announcement Market Overhaul

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

    • Elite AI

      What is causing or preventing AI's to put Sell orders on the market... is it changes in AI or is it the changes in market mechanics. I'm Day 6 into my game and NOT A SINGLE sell order has been placed in my game by AI's... after I bought all the goods off the market on day 1.

      Cooldown after leaving a coalition
      How long was Italy's "cooldown" for leaving the Axis? I'd be curious for a single example where a country suffered a penalty and was NOT accepted immediately by the inviting party after betraying a coalition they just left. Just one historical example would be all that's needed to make this mechanic "realistic". This explanation makes no historical sense, no diplomatic sense. Is it not the point of the game to break up alliances and make them weaker? Lie, cheat, threaten or steal whatever you can from your enemy to weaken them. If I promise someone a spot in my coalition if they betray their current coalition, they leave that coalition and declare war on their former mates... And I refuse to take that person into my coalition because they are untrustworthy and if they betrayed their former mates they might just betray me as well... Will he now be able to get back into the alliance I just convinced him to leave.... I doubt it... So I've just weakened my enemies and improved my position. Why would you want to prevent that kind of play?

      Multi Accounts
      What you area saying is this... because a guy rode past my house in a loud red car last night... I'm burning all red cars in the neighbourhood to prevent loud red cars from waking me up a night.
      This doesn't make any sense to me. You are trying to shape game play into something that has no basis in fact, in history or current world affairs. Alliances shift, have shifted and will shift in the past, present and the future. That's the nature of diplomacy. For you to try to input some framework to create some form of Interaction that never existed in the real world is just whacked.
      An Intelligence spy in my coalition mates capitals does provide Intel on their trades... so I do currently have way of finding out if they sending resources to an enemy. By simply making all Player-to-Player trades visible to other coalition members would that not solve that issue immediately ? Game mechanics seem to be mostly in place to do that.... making artificial boundaries that have no parallels in the real world seems an odd way to go about trying to solve this issue.
      You might want to try... say checking IP addresses... I'm not computer geek but that's just something I came up with off the top of my head.

      As for the Market being used "as a private Storage" concerns...
      If I'm about to lose my capital, and place a Buy order for 1,000,000 cash and I've payed the 100k Tax, and then have my capital captured... what happens to my 1,000,000 offer... If I cancel it after losing my capital... I've just evaded losing 550,000. So your 10% tax did not prevent me hiding my cash.. it just added a cost to it.

      The ONLY way to prevent it would be by simply adding a game mechanic which immediately cancels all placed orders on the market of a player who has Unfulfilled Market Orders outstanding and loses their capital, then calculates the rewards for capturing a capital once those orders have been cancelled. Seem like a much easier way to implement that desired outcome.
    • Arcorian wrote:

      With today's release we revert the change that limits trading resources on the stock market within a price range of 3 and 30 money. The price range will be set back to between 1 and 30 money again.
      According to Arcorian there has been a slight change to widen the limits again. No sign of a change on the trade penality. But lets hope it has gone too.

      On my maps the trade penality is still in place however. Was your map a new one, started today?
    • The commission is in effect in my current round.

      Considering RL:

      Charging a commission on completed trades is normal, but totally unreasonable to charge up-front non-refundable fees on OFFERS that never get accepted. Impossible to cheat without a completed trade so there is no valid rationale to tax offers. Resource "hiding" can be eliminated by cancelling all offers when the Capitol falls.

      10% on both ends is a VERY high commission -- unless the purpose is to discourage ALL trade.

      Anyway, the net result of the commission will be to raise prices (like any tax). Most arbitrage becomes infeasible unless bid and ask prices are far apart.

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

    • It is weird and confusing...

      The penalty was supposedly on the sell orders (to 'prevent' an anyway rare case of a player hiding a resource) and on the buy orders (to prevent hiding cash.. an evenly rare occurrence)

      But I am sure I made a profit buying at 6,5 and selling at 7,0....

      Can someone from staff clarify pls?

      Edit:
      Just checked in another map:
      - in Historical 25 the commissions are being charged (and the market is DEAD)
      - in the fast 100 ... not (and the market is ALIVE)

      So, in 1 map the trading PENALTY is charged and in the other not... What the heck ?!

      The post was edited 3 times, last by _Pontus_ ().

    • _Pontus_ wrote:


      Edit:
      Just checked in another map:
      - in Historical 25 the commissions are being charged (and the market is DEAD)
      - in the fast 100 ... not (and the market is ALIVE)

      So, in 1 map the trading PENALTY is charged and in the other not... What the heck ?!
      Your map WITHOUT the Tax was likely started BEFORE the update took effect, then all maps starting AFTER the update have the TAX. Check the start dates on those maps and I'm sure that will be the reason why the newer map has it and the older one does not.
    • BMfox wrote:

      Giving resources to other players outside your own coalition, I personally don't see the point. Even if you have no allies and you give resources to the winning coalition you just make it more easy to win. You should fight them instead, but that's my humble opinion
      I used to play this game way before coalitions were introduced and trading between players (both resources and armies) was a normal thing, it worked just fine. It's called diplomacy. And diplomacy doesn't limit only to coalitions.

      Hell, I even traded with my enemies. Because signing peace means nothing, but if a peace offer is followed by a substantial amount of some high value resource – that’s a different thing.

      Trading was a great thing, when it came to paying for mistakes, unintended (but bloody) perfidious act of war or as war repatriations.

      It also helped a lot, when together with other weak players we united themselves against some major, leading country (backstabber etc.).

      And this patch just ruins so much fun you can - or rather - you could have with CoW.
    • The Idea or "Preventing Backstabbing" is in my opinion the dumbest attempt to interfere in game play. WHY would you want to prevent that? I want to break up stronger alliances by sowing dissent and getting those guys not to trust each other... to turn on each other. What's the point if the 3 of the strongest countries picked by the first few players hold on to their power, strength and position, the game was decided by join order not game play.

      I want to be the underdog who comes from behind and manipulates the big boys to their destruction. My current game I started as 20th or so to join game on the 1939 map. Playing As British India. Starting position somewhere around 16th largest economy and army. 1 Week into game I'm 2nd largest economy. Not only because I'm working on it... but because I got two weak countries to attack one of the top 5 by convincing them it would be in their self interest before that guy turns on them. They prevailed and one fewer guys ahead of me in points, economy and army to worry about. I took him out without ever firing a shot or declaring a war on him.

      Now with the Market a complete wreck... I've lost my ability to bribe other players.... Very disappointing.

      If you're playing CoW because you get to move soldiers around... you're playing it wrong.
    • BMfox wrote:

      Well obviously you play soft style and I play hard style so we will never agree. If someone offers me peace for resources I well accept, declare war again and continue attacking. Why? Well because I can

      Giving resources to other players outside your own coalition, I personally don't see the point. Even if you have no allies and you give resources to the winning coalition you just make it more easy to win. You should fight them instead, but that's my humble opinion
      So the game has been "hijacked" by players like yourself who have this style of play. Do you not see that others have different styles and the changes that have been made stifle these to a great extent. Personally I loved the many mechanisms by which you could engage with other players, not just the brute force approach of kill or be killed.

      It is not too much to say that, for me, the boredom levels of the "new style" mean that I will probably not start another game when my current ones have finished and will not be renewing my High Command subscription as a result = small, tiny loss for Bytro but I suppose in the grand scheme of things this does not matter to whomever is in charge
    • Definitely different styles of play. I know my game play is more aggressive than most who are content sitting within their borders for the first couple weeks.That's probably why they can start a dozen games at a time. I can't do that. I play one at a time and I play it to win. That means when I make allies it's for the goal of winning.... when I join/accept coalition... it's for the game and I'm loyal to a fault... but every mechanic the game allows for me to defeat my enemies and allows me and my coalition to win... I will use.

      These market changes are definitely a step backwards for options I had available for the meta game a few weeks ago.
    • And I know people have said this before but the market and trading changes will really kill any role play efforts. It is hard enough to get a good bunch of roleplayers together for a game but now it will be impossible. I fondly remember an RP game where I was playing Poland and by dint of fast talking I managed to get Germany looking elsewhere and in the process I created a "Resource Banking" system whereby I would take deposits from players, pay interest and loan out resources to other players to assist their development. Now there is the 20% fee and no trading out of coalitions, it kills ideas like this dead and, IMHO, severely reduces the attraction of the game.
    • People please vote in the Polls under Suggestions & Criticism/

      Maybe, when enough people vote, it will mean something. Maybe the great Deafs ...errr... I meant Devs... will see their mistake and return the game to what it was:

      ....a game with many more options to play than just throwing armies at each other.