Specific Economic Proposals

[The Beatles]

I do wish I had a Ferrari. Hmm... no, maybe the wishing thing only works once?

I don't think we ought to calculate the worth of goods. After all, their prices by the sellers are determined by many factors: rate of consumption, style of server (defensive, offensive, short, long, kills-based, etc.), emotional value (perceived utility, real-world associations) and really a myriad of reasons. Instead of dictating worth (which is what will happen if we introduce our bias into the networth calculations), we should rely entirely on the market. Changing prices once a day based on how they were traded the previous day is good, and it's realistic, it's just too prone to manipulation in a virtual game. But that's a defect of the small market rather than the method of calculation. So overall I think we ought to use a similar metric to calculate worth, then apply specific measures to combat manipulation. You suggested one: randomising the time of the updates. That's reasonable, and I'll accept it in lieu of any better method, although I am hoping for a better one, of course.

[edit] Apart from that, I think our other outstanding issue was ownership. How are profits to be divided in markets and banks? How exactly is ownership to be handled? As you said, a board sounds nice, although I have no idea how it would be implemented in practice.

[bjornredtail]

The problem, of course, is as you mentioned above. This obviously becomes more problematic for the smaller the player-base. An alternative: well, on what are prices based? For one, the value of goods is largely based on scarcity (i.e., diamonds vs. water). Likewise, have the value of goods be somehow based upon the total current amount of them present in the game. I'm not exactly sure as to a proper implementation: perhaps defined by the ratio to total goods available? Of course, one needs to take into consideration how easy it is to produce a given good, as well. In any case, this is much less prone to manipulation, as it would be a game-wide trend to alter, rather than simply lowering certain current-market levels.

I would like to add to that return on investment. Goods that can provide something of value to the player are going to be worth something reguardless of how common they are. Though perhaps it would be best not to attempt to take that into account, thus forceing the player into a value judgement.

Changing prices once a day based on how they were traded the previous day is good, and it's realistic, it's just too prone to manipulation in a virtual game. But that's a defect of the small market rather than the method of calculation. So overall I think we ought to use a similar metric to calculate worth, then apply specific measures to combat manipulation. You suggested one: randomising the time of the updates. That's reasonable, and I'll accept it in lieu of any better method, although I am hoping for a better one, of course.

Perhaps an adverage the value over a a period of many days? Or perhaps the adverage of the mode of each of the previous three days? Or perhaps some combination thereof.

[The Beatles]

Any chance of my felx-goods idea being implemented? It would really compliment system.

Which system would that be again? Could you please link me to a description?

[FireFrenzy]

You suggested one: randomising the time of the updates. That's reasonable, and I'll accept it in lieu of any better method, although I am hoping for a better one, of course.

It seems like a workable solution for the moment. While there are hopefully better ones looming, I think that that could suffice if not.

Apart from that, I think our other outstanding issue was ownership. How are profits to be divided in markets and banks? How exactly is ownership to be handled? As you said, a board sounds nice, although I have no idea how it would be implemented in practice.

Well, as it seems currently devised, creating a market would be closely akin to creating a clan, except --among other things -- that members may belong to multiple at once, rather than one. Likewise, the forums could work similarly as they do for clans now, I'd expect. And I presume it'd be used frequently, as market members would post their current wants, presumably to be either fulfilled or unfulfilled by those supplying the market. Of course, there would likely need to be a way to delete threads, otherwise they could get quite lengthy.

I think that bank profits should be returned to the bank owner directly. This resembles reality, and makes sense: as you said, there could be a new "Banker" class of players seeking solely to build their nation via this route. Of course, while they could make profit, their expenses would be in the form of their savings rate, given to other players.

Markets seem a bit more tricky: Each one of our markets seem to resemble national markets, assuming that tariffs, quotas, etc. are implemented. Yet no one, in the United States, for instance, "owns" the US market -- obviously. Nevertheless, the government does set restrictions on trade to and from other markets, and even sets restrictions within the market. How to rectify this thinking with virtual markets, I'm not quite sure. There could be a single owner, there could be a board, or decisions could be made by a member majority vote. Or none of the above. Or perhaps there could only be a particular race that could establish markets. Or perhaps players wouldn't create markets, but markets would exist for various regions. I'm just tossing out ideas and alternatives, as there are so many: I'm not sure as to the best, though.

Perhaps an adverage the value over a a period of many days? Or perhaps the adverage of the mode of each of the previous three days? Or perhaps some combination thereof.

I think that this may incur the same problems a set-long average, as was originally conceived, would: Namely, that value of a good is determined by its present prices, not past prices. That said, unless networth is adjusted constantly, the current "value" of networth will almost never equal the current "value" of goods, so extending it to an average value of a few days is not a particularly devastating alternative.

[The Beatles]

Good. I posted this in the detail thread:

* Introduce funds/trusts (the last main thing on the economy agenda)
** Simply a balance, to which and from which all aid sent is public, but only cash may be sent, multiple users may manage it, rather like a non-profit, and on death of all the owners the funds go into the raffle. A very simple management interface. This is mostly what the description says: funds or trusts or charities.

Like, don't like?

I'm sure there are markets that are controlled by individuals though. In a sense, the US federal government does "own" the US market in that it collects tariffs and sets restrictions. Obviously, they do not own the goods sold on the market, but I wasn't proposing that either. Just let the founder and any other players he/she invites to the board be staff of the market, with equal rights except the ability to promote/demote players. The structure could be very similar to that of clans, with two-tiered officers. I don't think clans and market should be the same, though, just similarly structured w.r.t. leadership.

[FireFrenzy]

In a sense, the US federal government does "own" the US market in that it collects tariffs and sets restrictions. Obviously, they do not own the goods sold on the market, but I wasn't proposing that either.

As disturbing a notion as this is, I cannot really debate its logic.

The structure could be very similar to that of clans, with two-tiered officers. I don't think clans and market should be the same, though, just similarly structured w.r.t. leadership.

Agreed. I actually think that the dynamic between markets and clans could work quite interestingly: in a sense, it would give players membership in two very separate, though important, aspects of the game. I think what I mean is that the clan in which a warband resides gives that warband a direction -- the clan likely has a goal (obviously, usually winning, though by various methods). It's an interesting notion that the markets, too, will have goals, and many may conflict with the goals of many clans.

[The Beatles]

Exactly. Clans are political associations; markets economic ones, but it's very hard to separate the two, if not impossible.

I mean to create some insurance trusts and charity markets.

[bjornredtail]

I must somewhat dissagree with the idea of artificaly splitting up the market for any given class of goods. It would simply dillute the number of users, thus huring the liquidity of the whole operation, which is going to be the major sticking point in the whole operation. As many users as possible should be using same market, to ensure that the market remains fluid.


I guess I never did explain the flexable troops/goods system properly...
Think of what it takes to equip an infintaryman. A spear, armor, sheild, sword? First, would all infintary have the exact same armorment and equipment? What if you could make up "new" units by pieceing together what equipment you the unit to have? The player would have to ballence the cost of produceing this equipment (see point 2) with the benefit it brings. Second, what would it take to produce all this stuff? A logging camp would cut the wood, then a woodturner would have to make the wood into a spear before an you could equip an infentryman with it... Or any number of other examples of the number of industries and goods that would play a part in the player's economny.

[The Beatles]

That's true, we need fluidity. On the other hand, the aggregate of all open markets might be able to provide that even if niche markets existed, don't you think? I mean, the need to buy and sell will still exist. (I'm not sure of the answer, obviously.)

[FireFrenzy]

I must somewhat dissagree with the idea of artificaly splitting up the market for any given class of goods. It would simply dillute the number of users, thus huring the liquidity of the whole operation, which is going to be the major sticking point in the whole operation. As many users as possible should be using same market, to ensure that the market remains fluid.

Well, first, I agree that we shouldn't artificially split up the market. And, well, we wouldn't be -- players would, obviously, if they so choose.

I think that this really relates to market entry and accessibility, not to mention playerbase size. First, if we allow markets to be closed, then that is the ultimate barrier to entry -- no competition. Additionally, the liquidity of that market would obviously decrease, as it would be inaccessible to a number of potential sellers and buyers. With that thought, perhaps the accessibility of the market should be separate for buying and for selling; that is, perhaps there should be an option to allow countries to buy from the market, but not sell. Thus, there will be available buyers to accommodate the sellers. Of course, without many sellers, there would be low market depth, prices would rise, and goods may even become unavailable: the problem you were noting in regards to market liquidity. However, this seems relative to size: if there are ten buyers and ten sellers, then the market depth is equal to there being one hundred buyers and one hundred sellers. Of course, the smaller the playerbase, the more influence any given buyer and seller can have on the market.

This all is getting beyond my area of knowledge, however, so consider your opinions as valid as mine. I guess my thinking is that individual markets will be adjusted to accommodate buyers. I would think that markets would be created as they were demanded, rather than in excess, because an unused market would obviously be of no use to its creator. Likewise, to ensure this, perhaps there should be a cost to opening-up and/or maintaining a market. This way, hopefully the creation of markets would follow demand, and should there be enough demand to integrate markets, this should be able to happen.

Also, it might have been mentioned elsewhere, but even if one doesn't belong to a given market whatsoever, prices and amounts should still be listed: this would keep competition more stiff and information more flowing.

I guess I never did explain the flexable troops/goods system properly...
Think of what it takes to equip an infintaryman. A spear, armor, sheild, sword? First, would all infintary have the exact same armorment and equipment? What if you could make up "new" units by pieceing together what equipment you the unit to have? The player would have to ballence the cost of produceing this equipment (see point 2) with the benefit it brings. Second, what would it take to produce all this stuff? A logging camp would cut the wood, then a woodturner would have to make the wood into a spear before an you could equip an infentryman with it... Or any number of other examples of the number of industries and goods that would play a part in the player's economny.

This is interesting thinking, and obviously has greater semblance to reality. I think that equipment would be an excellent idea for the market system, as the greater the number of goods, the better. Furthermore, it'd allow far greater customizability of a given nation's army, rather than the current set-unit values. It would simply require a bit of time, were it implemented, as it is another large alteration, I'd think.

[Turock]

After reading the 3 pages of debate much of which was proposed seems overly complicated. I think that its a good idea to make some changes to the markets but too much change at once is not going to be accepted favorably by players. Right now I will have to go back an dread through the posts again because there is sooooo much that maybe I missed some things, which I'm sure I did.

[bjornredtail]

I have to admit to being a bit lost on the whole open markets idea as well...
I do get the following out of it:
-The value of all items in game as part of networth would no longer be static values, but would change based on economic activity. What is up to debate on how exactly this would be done...
-A new method of transfering goods and services between players would be establishted.

This is interesting thinking, and obviously has greater semblance to reality. I think that equipment would be an excellent idea for the market system, as the greater the number of goods, the better. Furthermore, it'd allow far greater customizability of a given nation's army, rather than the current set-unit values. It would simply require a bit of time, were it implemented, as it is another large alteration, I'd think.

Yes and no... I really don't think it would be all that diffacult to implement. With the flexable troops system we have, we would simply make each type of item it's own trooptype, with a new database table to determin the properties of it. Adding new buildings wouldn't be all that diffacult either, just new database columns and changes in three places (Build, demolish, runturns). Making it easy for the player to understand and manage... That would be somewhat more diffacult.

Wait, what was that about show me the code?

[The Beatles]

It's true that private markets would be a vulnerability, but in practice, they do occur, and are quite useful to boot.

But let me tell you why I'm optimistic the open markets will see use. Your successful Promi player is specialised, therefore, if we cut off his means of converting cash to goods, we force him to either become a generalist or trade for what he lacks. Since specialised strategies are the best, there will be demand for markets, and where there's playerbase-wide demand, but not an insane amount of coordination, there will be open markets. That's why I'd argue in favour of keeping open and closed markets as already planned.

Turock: only way to tell is to try it, which we'll do.

[FireFrenzy]

After reading the 3 pages of debate much of which was proposed seems overly  complicated.  I think that its a good idea to make some changes to the markets but too much change at once is not going to be accepted favorably by players.  Right now I will have to go back an dread through the posts again because there is sooooo much that maybe I missed some things, which I'm sure I did.

Well, I think that that William of Occam was a pretty smart fellow; I still find his razor more useful than those Norelco ones with arbitrarily large numbers of blades, though the verbosity inherent in most my posts suggests otherwise.

Anyways/Likewise, if there is any unnecessary complexity, it'd best be beaten out of any final implementation, I agree. If you have any supplementations, subtractions, or combination of them, they'd be quite welcome!

Complexity or lack thereof aside, I do agree that too much change is often taken unfavorably. My hope would be that this market system could be either 1) straightforward and preferable enough to be accepted readily, and/or 2) a configurable game option, so some servers could utilize it, while others did not, to give players the ability to ween into the idea.

But, the very fact that is quite different from the current market structure does nothing but add to my enthusiasm: It'd be a nice change from the myriad of identical Promisance-type markets, should we get it worked-out appropriately and properly. Getting it worked-out appropriately and properly is, of course, the predicament.

[Turock]

Oh don't get me wrong, I am all for the changes, but I would hate to see tons of work poured into something and then have players not like it and want to go back to the old ways.

One thing that I have worked hard on preventing is market storing. In the past sets we ran at ME the common complaint was that players had too much gold and nothing to do with it. So what I did was add 3 new troop types to the existing 4 so we now have a total of 7 troop types. Market max sell % on the PM was then set at 35%. This has pretty much nerfed market storing and the PM functions great! Reseller strats have come to power this age and with the additional troop types. It has also prevented the scenario where one person rises to power and collects all the land and holds it.

At the minimum I would like to see a market where there is a supply and demand based on the resources available in the entire game.

Have an ebay type system where players can put up goods for sale allowing other players to bid and compete for the resources.

Some sort of rating system for seller reputation maybe?

I'm sure there is much more but I just wanted to touch only on the markets for now.