This is my opinion. So it's subject to debate. I really do not think the market reflects reality. When the buy side is 30 and the sell side is 1.
I know in real life if Gold was going for $2000 an ounce. The Sell side would be following that price very closely. The 30:1 ratio we have here is unrealistic and fantasy.
I know you're trying to sell gold but this takes away from the game. It also can take away a players ability to control other players by buying up all the resources. A strategy of starving an opponent into buying your gold. Because there's no other option. So you're only hurting your company by manipulating the price this way.
It will keep some players in the game longer and you may find it more profitable.
Take what you want and throw away the rest.
BrutusOf7th Things are gonna change. I can feel it!
4 Replies
18 Jul 2023, 03:35
Bytro has no economic incentive to make game resource markets more efficient.
The less efficient they are, the more players turn to gold, the better for Bytro.
That's all working as intended and it's not going to change.
What matters is that you can do things to overcome this reality.
1. Adjust your build to your country, to fit its resource and doctrine. For example, Southwest Africa has rural supplies of metal, oil, and rares. It has a goods deficit. And it's Axis. So don't try to build a military based on infantry and artilery, because it won't work. Build RRG's and ships and airplanes. Every country has its own strengths and weaknesses. Work with them, don't fight them.
2. You also have control over your industry. Need more food? Use your metal, oil, and rares to build industry in your core food city and provinces (if you have any). This can use up industrial resources in the short term to give you more of what you need over the long term.
3. Trade with your coalition partners. Look out for each other. You can exchange 1:1 with no fees. You don't need a marketplace, just good communication and teamwork.
18 Jul 2023, 07:52
Well, I do study economics and let me tell you that this could be somehow realistic
Imagine end game with 2 countries only against each other.
Well, there will be no trade between them since there is no reason to benefit the opposing side.
Same on a larger scale if 2 teams are left Or 3 teams, they will shares their ressources among themselves forming smaller scales markets without getting through the global market fees. (Transportation costs)
Therefore the relationship gets balanced around 1:1 among the team itself until prosperity. And the market gets abandoned since the objective of a win-win is undesirable.
Lastly, there could be much better update to the market ... But it will difinetely be abandoned in the end stages of any round.
For example: "the in-game currency" is a way to f*** up any understanding of economics
Since economics is based in rarity/scarsity but with gold ... Market is useless feature.
18 Jul 2023, 14:01
I don't think the market is intended to be realistic. Like many game mechanics (such as revolts, morale, AIs declaring war, etc) I believe it is intended to provide some counter to the snowballing effect of expansion so that games aren't over within the first few days. The buy side is 30 and the sell side is 1 because it's an economic penalty checking the most powerful countries, not because it's supposed to be an efficient market.
20 Jul 2023, 05:09
jubjub bird wrote:
I don't think the market is intended to be realistic. Like many game mechanics (such as revolts, morale, AIs declaring war, etc) I believe it is intended to provide some counter to the snowballing effect of expansion so that games aren't over within the first few days. The buy side is 30 and the sell side is 1 because it's an economic penalty checking the most powerful countries, not because it's supposed to be an efficient market.
Yup, I goin with this. Exactly right. It's unrealistic and it's not going to change. Don't need to tell me twice. I lead you to the water. You don't have to drink it.
BrutusOf7th Things are gonna change. I can feel it!
