Marketplace

Check here for the latest news, problems & ideas

Moderators: trewqh, korexus

Post Reply

Should the marketplace be fixed?

Poll ended at Sun Sep 29, 2002 6:41 am

No, it is fine as it is
0
No votes
Maybe change it a little
5
33%
Yes, needs a total rehaul
10
67%
 
Total votes: 15

User avatar
Dameon
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1056
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Valn Ohtar Chapterhouse

Marketplace

Post by Dameon » Sun Sep 22, 2002 6:41 am

Simple question, should we change the marketplace or not? I'm leaving the specifics as to HOW out right now, and keep in mind this all depend on Al's free time. However it was suggested that not all players want to see it fixed, so I am curious.
"A Knight is sworn to valor, his heart knows only virtue, his blade defends the helpless, his might upholds the weak, his word speaks only truth, his wrath outdoes the wicked."

User avatar
Kiesta
Recruit
Recruit
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Hong Kong
Contact:

Post by Kiesta » Sun Sep 22, 2002 8:38 am

I think it needs changing. It IS used, but very rarely, and only on a small scale. Actually, I don't know if it is ever used in normal games, I've only seen it used in X-games.

I also think that the HOW is a big factor in the asking of the question WHY. 'If it isn't broken, don't fix it', unless you are absolutely sure that the fix is worth it.

So since the other thread is actually about bridges and this is about the marketplace, I'll start on my two cents (haha, you know it's never just two) about the market here.

As is my usual approach to 'problems', I must identify the problem first.

THE 'PROBLEM'
People are not satisfied with the current marketplace system, because it isn't useful enough. I tend to agree that it is rarely used, because of several reasons.

1. Sold items can only be sold for gold. No one is ever short of gold without being short of anything else. Generally, an abundance of gold's only possible use is to buy from the market, and no one is going to take the risk of not being able to buy something when you need it.

2. The OOP is a BIG factor in whether you can buy what you want. Thus it is practically impossible to trade specific items between players.

3. Relative to trying to risk buying and selling on the marketplace for essential items, it is a simple matter for players to engineer their workers to produce what resources they need and the put the rest to GCAs or LEV or something.

Well, now that we have identified the problem, we have to justify fixing it - by coming up with something better. I went back to the drawing board and thought "So what is the point of the marketplace anyways?"

A. Enable players to trade with other players, while not being unfair.
>> The limit of one trade per turn and the requirement of a border seem to me to be better than the current system.

B. To get gold for extra goods that you produce.
>> I think that for this to work a price will have to be set on the items, or you will only get your gold when you least expect to.

C. Just to add a bit of realism.
>> Reality is a far cry from WOK. For one thing, it isn't 'easy to learn, tough to master'.

D. Anything else.
>> Please, explain.

None of the solutions are anywhere near complete, because the aim is not clear. One thing I do know, is that I as a player do not want the marketplace to turn into something that can be easily abused. It is not used currently because it using it entails a significant risk. A million what-ifs emerge, and you can't possibly trust the marketplace to do anything you want it to. I do not think that is such a bad thing.

User avatar
Mac
Recruit
Recruit
Posts: 90
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Edinburgh!
Contact:

Post by Mac » Sun Sep 22, 2002 9:59 pm

Does it really affect the game that much that it needs a complete change?
You last visited on Sat Sep 13, 2003 11:22 am
The time now is Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:19 am

It has been a while!

Goat Herder
Trooper
Trooper
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Post by Goat Herder » Sun Sep 22, 2002 11:50 pm

I agree - the marketplace really has no effect on the game at the moment because is is very seldom used. If we want to be serious about allowing trade as a viable element in the game, then I think it really has to be improved. If we are happy to relegate trade to the unimportant basket, then no worries! Just leave it like it is.

One game I played - I think it was Fredo's X-Game of Middle Earth - the GM put small amounts of gems onto the market and there was vigorous competition for them. I think that shows that the marketplace certainly has potential, .... perhaps all it requires is some supplies from external sources to fulfil that potential.

My other thought is that trading for cash only is very limiting - trading for other resources like corn or wood could also be considered.

****************************
Here's a different approach you could think about:
I played in a game called World War 4 where they had a very good marketplace using a simple concept. There were 6 resources: Oil, Light Ores, Heavy Ores, Precious Metals & Uranium +one other(can't remember what it was). Each had a trading range of 1-5 gold, with the "buy" price 1 gold above the sell price - the trading price was set by the supply and demand of each resource on the market, which included a certain predetermined amount coming on from neutral/outside sources. People traded directly to the market at the going price, but the trades would then affect the price for the following turn. Example: the price today for Precious Metals & Uranium is both 4 gold - you can make an instant decision to sell one and buy the other if you feel like it. You didn't have to plan a turn in advance like with WOK. There was active trading as people tried to scrounge up money to buy their short resources. If more people wanted to buy more than was available, then it was split up proportionally (hence you don't always get what you ask for).

Sometimes long-term strategy was employed where allies decided to buy up a limited resource (eg. Uranium) at any cost, trying to corner the market before the neutral/external supplies ran dry.
Due to the tech levels, U & PMs were not needed at the start of the game so they were cheap, but became expensive later on as advanced weaponry started to be produced - hence the desire for stockpiling and planning for the future.

I don't know if an approach of this type would work here, but it may be worth thinking about.
Live long and prosper ---- but don't let the Taxation Department know.

Goat Herder
Trooper
Trooper
Posts: 200
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

Post by Goat Herder » Mon Sep 23, 2002 1:52 am

As Baron Roland said, OoP could definitely be a limiting factor for the design of a changed system. The system from the WW4 game would require 2 runs of the orders through the program, while OoP is irrelevant.

I'm not sure about your "corruption" idea. Here's anotehr idea - perhaps the "external" stockpiles could come from the unconquered neutrals & quit players - I'm sure we could come up with a calculation to put the appropriate number of goods on the market.

If we are tied to using the OoP approach, we may have to find a way of removing the problem of one person buying everything. One possibility would be to limit the amount any one player can buy (say 25% of stockpile, perhaps applying the limit only on the stockpiles coming from the external markets). Unsold stocks would force the price down for the following turn. Fully sold stocks would push the price up.
Live long and prosper ---- but don't let the Taxation Department know.

User avatar
gm_al
Creator
Creator
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Vienna, Austria

Post by gm_al » Mon Sep 23, 2002 1:55 am

The never-ending MP story....

* only currency will stay gold. No "corn for spell" whatever trade
* players tend to produce what they need and keep the extra corn/wood etc. - no one wants to get short on anything by trading
* if you allow direct trade between players, you unbalance the system: Clan players will have an advantage and split their workload
* I like the "corruption" idea - a lot. If we find some nice rules to implement what would be corrupted and how pricing is done it could be a real stimulation for the MP.

So many ideas... still its also a matter of effort - I know by heart no matter how much we will improve the MP a lot of players will still argue or not use it. And I have other projects too - Im not looking to go endless hours just trying to fix the MP.

Keep those ideas coming, Im listening. But dont expect miracles.

User avatar
Saladin
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1652
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 7:00 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Saladin » Mon Sep 23, 2002 2:50 am

Like Dameon said, i doubt that clan players will have an advantage...Players form alliances with players from all clans through out a game. Having a (private) trading system will definitely improve the game a lot! Personally i think that it will be a great way of getting favours from players...if you bomb him with 50 missiles for me i'll give you 100 missiles. :lol:

If there really are players out there that play in a group without any allies than they're simply playing the game wrong. :P So that should not be a real reason why something wouldn't work.
"Never attribute to malice what can satisfactorily be explained away by stupidity."

"To speak ill of others is a dishonest way of praising ourselves."

Post Reply