Market Suggestion

I was thinking about the market and I love how the interface functions, but there are a few issues I am seeing. Perhaps there are already solutions implemented in the back end that I don't know about but if not then here are my thoughts.

1. The "Market" price needs to be regulated.

I'm guessing that it's simply a number manually created by The Keeper of Thane, but I would suggest this instead. The value could be along the lines of the rate of total production of the resource compared to the production of gold. I'm not sure if it's feasible to calculate the ratio of wood, iron, or food to gold, but if it is, then that figure multiplied by some value like 1.1 to 1.5, should create a steady anchor for the value of a resource.

For example, I make 75,000 gold per tick. I make 2,000 wood per tick. This would make a ratio of 37.5 gold per 1 wood. In the market people are buying wood for mostly between 1 and 9, with only one person offering 15 gold, and selling for 50 or 90 gold for 1 wood. The market price is set at 100.

Another way of implementing a market price is to base it off of averages of prices that have sold. This works well when there is a lot of data, however it can be manipulated. Though there are ways that I've tinkered with that can prevent market manipulation.

2. The market should be anonymous for buyers and sellers.

This way no player could intentionally be boycotted or ostracized, and no player could be pointed out stockpiling.

3. When putting up resources, there needs to be consequences.

I've seen a bunch of players putting up ridiculous prices for resources, granted this may be for testing purposes, but for this to be effective as a real market for the game there needs to be consequences for putting up terrible prices. I suggest something like if you put up a resource and it doesn't sell in 20 or so hours, then you lose 10% of the resource you put up, and your market item is taken down. This will force players to try and price resources at a reasonable level rather than what is currently happening. The percent can be tinkered with, but I would want something that isn't so punishing that it prevents people from selling, but enough that the consequence has an effect on the player listing the resource.

4. Market selling rate.

This isn't as important to me, but it is an option. This would be a Market rate/2 which should be a worse rate than selling on the open market, but an easy way to convert a resource in times of need. Think any RPG where you buy an item then sell it back and it's only worth half the price.

Leo Thanks for the reply! I appreciate you talking on each point and expressing a solid opinion.

1. I see your point about Market price and how it's supposed to be higher. That's the same point I make when I said that the Market price would have a multiplier on it. See where I mention that it could be 1.5 or 1.1, some reasonable number. It is designed to regulate the market just like how free markets work. In a free market there are consequences if pricing is malicious, therefore regulatory bodies will set reasonable bounds for pricing. If pricing is ridiculous, companies will fail. That's an incentive to price fairly. That also doesn't exist in the game here.

2. You make an excellent point about transfers from multis, however the point is moot since it's only anonymous to us and not to Thane or anyone else on the back end. And I believe the benefits are as I stated, to prevent people from being malicious to any individuals, and to prevent the collection of data from provinces stocking up. Granted this may go a bit far on what I believe people would do to win, but I believe if there's a way to exploit something on here, then people will do that. Anonymity prevents most of that.

Also, there is nothing that prevents standard trading, which people will do instead of the market.

3. Firstly, I wouldn't want a game to function how the real world functions because games lack the parameters that the real world includes. Secondly, you would only get penalized if your pricing is way too far off and no one wants it.

If you were to price 10k iron selling @ 1GP, it would go instantly. Everyone would buy 10k iron for 10k gold. So I disagree that the resources don't move. They only don't move quickly when the pricing is terrible, like it is now.

I also think there should be an incentive like, if you put a resource up for sale and it's bought within the first hour, you get a 10% bonus gold from the game. It's a great way to incentivize people to use reasonable pricing and promotes a boost of resources into the game.

4. While it does sound crazy, it's the same reason why you would want market pricing to be higher than what people are spending on. You could flip your question around and ask "Why the hell would you want to buy @ 100 per wood as the market price is set?"

The reason you would have this, and it would be set at such a horrible rate is so that if there is no one who is buying, then you could sell at a terrible rate to get the gold you might need in a quick moment of desperation.

But the BIGGEST point is:

If the market is set so that malicious pricing exists and isn't regulated, then people won't use it.

We will just go back to posting on the forums "100k wood for sale 10:1" and then people will negotiate.

The main reason I love the market and the way Thane and The Keeper have it setup is that it's secure. Whereas before we would rely on people paying what the said and you had to rely on honour.

Lord Thane I appreciate all the work you put into this and I think you do an excellent job. You make an excellent point about how in a real round GP will be more readily available. I totally get that it's risky to try and put coding towards a market and risk bugs. I have no intention to make things more difficult for you guys on the back end. Also, cool idea with the black market!

Eri I think it's a bit absurd when people say that they want to make things "realistic" in a FANTASY game lol

We cast magic, have fantasy races, economies that exist based on 4 resources, and so many unrealistic things. How can anyone ever claim to know what realistic would look like in this fantasy world? Nothing about it is realistic, and that's why it's so good. The game mechanics are what make it fun. So as long as the game mechanics are solid, then makeup the lore and reasons why that could be realistic and it ends up being so much better.

Also I think you make a great point about enemies not wanting to trade, and also a great counter argument by Thane about the work arounds.

Leo I've played since round 2. I've seen everything good and toxic this game has had. I also believe that the good people can overpower and overrule the toxic, especially when they are people like The Keeper and Thane who have the power to change things to prevent much of the toxicity.

I believe you want the same thing that I want, a game that works, that's fun, and doesn't have exploits. Something fair that requires skill, and that has cool features. We may not agree on what those features are, or how they should be implemented, but I believe as long as they add fun, are fair, and balanced, then we all win.

Leo I think anyone who uses the market would want it to be faster and more convenient. And by reasonable I don't mean for me. I mean for the market. I think that's a great point about the player base, and once there is a much larger amount of people using the market, prices will change and do it's thing. I think that you're probably right that given enough time, people will eventually start pricing things reasonably because if they don't, they won't be able to buy or sell anything.

Leo The problem with this is conditions change overtime. There is no exact way to tell 1 iron is worth x gp. Demand from a big human province wagging war can make iron prices x2 over a day. I'd like us to have the option to list our prices predicting such fluctuations. When prices go up people looking for gold (for example to start and expensive tech) to build more mines and sell. Enough people selling will make the prices decline. Vice versa.

I think that's an excellent point, though we do have an idea of what they are worth given that we've played in many rounds and the prices tend to stay very similar, while still fluctuating during times of war. For example, I remember wood going from anywhere between 10:1, up to 25:1. But it usually stayed within that range. Of course that is something that can change, and the prices will be what they will be, but there is precedent and data history to show how it's been relatively consistent.

But I do agree that you should be able to price however you want and try to predict trends.

Leo "Fast moving consumer goods" is a term. I used it to address group of products that usually have a considerably short shelf-life that you need to sell them quickly. For example milk, cheese, packaged food.

My point here is that the shelf life of a resource in a game becomes quick with good pricing. Milk, cheese, and packaged food will not sell if they are way overpriced. But I agree with the term

Cora What's your School ratio?

CyberPtra You are correct in that it's less efficient use of supplies, however that's not what @Cora was referring to.

And no, it does not seem to have a negative effect to use a larger ratio. Using 10:1 and failing is the most amazingly bad luck, or you in particular had a bug.