what do you think?


qz edit:

Like in express, we'd remove the 2B limit, but add a 0.1% corruption (decay) rate on all $ over 2B

so if you had 3B on hand, you'd have an additional 1M expenses per turn; at 4B on hand you'd have an additional 2M expenses per turn

I disagree

i also disagree

Sure, why not. It doesn't radically alter the game, just some aspects of it.

It can always be fixed if it turns out to be bad for the game.

it would make cashers pwn.

And no need to stock Bushels, so Farmers would be garbage.

It should be removed, with no taxes, and the downside of stockpiling cash should be in that a lot of it can be stolen in a single langrab since you can't protect it using the market.

Two Laf guys say its a bad idea, so i'm inclined to question my statement.

What exactly would the change do that unbalances the strategies? Assuming that they alter it like they did on express, with a cash decay; corruption?

moderators are not allowed to comment!:P

btw without the cap there would be a 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 bug:)

if you disagree it would be helpful to state why...

Your sig says your from LCN, a netgaining alliance, and you cant see how it would unbalence strategies, enough said.

Imo i dont think it should be removed, but it should be perhaps increased, i.e. to 3b. When the game was first played, every server played alot less turns than EC plays now, more turns comes more land, more income per turn, more nw, and cash limit should reflect that.

Having said that, it would add even more power to FS's than is already the case, and imo a change like that could really only be enacted if the player base increased.

SS makes some good points.

If anything, I would try it out in primary server first, but farmer would be considerably weaker as there would be no spike in bushel price.

I would agree with SolidSnake that it was not a limit meant to be reached with such frequency. Removing it would radically change the commodity of food which, I am not necessarily against, because it would lead to changes in government types to compensate farmers. However, it seems logical, in an effort to not make 'radical changes' to the game at this stage, to simply expand the limit to something less frequently reached. To this end, cash on hand would be as susceptible as ever to landgrabs and spy ops.

I like the idea of modifying the $2b limit to something like $4b. ($3b is more in proportion to the relative increase of turns from 2 to 3 per hour but with the increase in land acquired through grabbing it seems low still)

>>The 2b bug should be modified by server. It seems unnecessary to change it on a server like primary.

the limit can be changed by server from what I understand.
note that there is a thread like this on FFAT as well.

I think the 2B bug should be randomly altered each set.

;p

Actually though, I have said for years that the food-cash-indy-tech-oil production formulas should be tweaked (just a few percent) each set to help spread the wealth a bit. The best netters would still usually end up on top, but robotically following the herd would not guarantee a top 50 finish anymore.

marty:

Remove the 2B bug but increase the costs of corruption beyond the .1% that it is in express. Corruption places a large penalty on running turns with more than 2B dollars, but it does not place a penalty of human errors such as not logging in while selling stockpiles, or accidentally selling significantly more than 2B --- its those types of errors which ruin gameplay and make the game less enjoyable.

However, having corruption and removing the 2B cap does not place a penalty on human error because a player can spend any corruptable money before running a single turn and taking the corruption penalty.

As well, it does not change gameplay because people are still going to stock food to avoid paying the large corruption charges. People are still going to de-stock food in order to purchase goods. If anything, it would speed up the decline of food prices, and the rise of military prices, because people would no longer be required to sell in 2B chunks -- at the risk of getting grabbed with 4B dollars on hand.

no, because I said so!

what navisis said ;)

I'm always against the removal of the 2b bug because it allows players to dump their entire stockpile instantly, creating a very volatile bubble where the food market will crash as soon the someone starts destocking.

i really don't think it would do that though pang... because if you had that, there wouldn't be a food bubble anyway i would think....

Someone tries to give your alliance kudos and implies respect for your opinion and you respond by insulting him. Stay classy, SS.

Regarding the possible change...what's the worst that happens? There is valid reason for a $2B cap, but it was put into place when this game was literally and figuratively a completely different game.

Trying to tweak the game for the better, even if it ends up being a bad change that gets removed after one reset, is not a bad thing IMO. Some folks said the sky would fall if some of the previous proposed changes were implemented and to this point, it hasn't.

You can theorize and number crunch all day, but in a game where the player base has a direct influence on all aspects of the game to the point where the devs practically adapt the game to the players rather than the players adapting to the game, you can't always predict the effect of a change until it's actually tested and tried ingame.

I didn't plan to actually debate anything about ingame specifics, but since the food thing is a hot topic -

Food prices would still rise mid-set, not necessarally because of people stocking food, but because overall country size would be much higher, military levels much higher, thus an increase in overall food demand.

You could argue that Farmer income would be down because in that situation they would be selling food at say $42-45 rather than $55+, but you also have to consider that most Farmers aren't actually selling food at $55+. Farmers have the $2B cap just like other strats, so unless they jump early, stock something other than bushels, or otherwise play some deviation of a standard Farmer Strat, selling bushels at $43 would actually be a large boost in income. As it stands now bushels produced even when food is at $55 are just going to be stocked to be sold later at $32 anyway.

we'll always see food bubbles based on the nature of stocking... the only difference is the frequency with which it deflates, the height it gets to and how many players are able to sell over the peak

also, having standing orders will allow people to recall their bushels in an attempt to undercut eachother, turning a 4-6 day crash into a 8 hour crash, where only a handful of players get ALL their bushels destocked, while others get none destocked.

we would need to put a cap on bushels/oil sold like we do for military for this idea to work -- and that is another equally as radical change as the 2b bug removal

i think we could do full destocks in one day fine without affecting things too much... it'd only take once or twice for that to happen before people would adapt to it imho

i think you'd probably see more full-scale conversion of stock from bushels to oil actually

try to avoid one peak and ride out onto another

The 2bn limit is a major major gameplay mechanic right now, removing it will kill food peaks. Sure food demand will rise as the set goes on as food demands increase, but you also have to remember the farmers are also getting bigger and producing more food. This will drastically alter the market mechanics, the game cant support it at this stage.

The corruption factor isnt a big enough incentive to stock food. Most ppl will be better off hoarding cash over stocking food.

You can have 2 bil bug removed if i can sell bushels @ 300 on the public market.

It is a bad idea.

And it radically alters the game, and not by only screwing farmers (which will hit war tags hard).

Only up side of it is that it makes the game a lot simpler. If we can say that is an upside.

I'd say, remove the cap, but have the "FDIC" only protect $2b. In other words, any successful SS/PS would take 50% of the $$ above $2b. Similar with bombing/raiding banks.

Rather than corruption, you should increase the returns on Bomb Banks spy op. That way it will be more risky to keep such a large amount of cash on hand, and that spy op will finally become useful for something.

omg qz editted my post. I am SHOCKED!!
:P

*runs off*

I agree with what eric said that devaluing farmers would tend to bias against war tags.

Also, as it stands, the inefficiency inherent in destocking penalizes cashers. With the ability to hoard cash cashing would become a much more efficient netting strat. Sure, hoarding cash is risky, but a casher that slips through the cracks with his hoard intact is likely to be a jauggernaut.

The devaluing of food would also drive many farmers into teching (especially among war tags) which would lower tech prices and remove the other major check/ballance against cashers - the need to buy twice as much tech as farmers.

Right now, earth is a bushel based economy, deregulating cash will likely change that. On the upside, there is no reason not to play around with it for a set and see what happens. Who knows what could happen, all that cash may drive mil prices up and suddenly the commie-indy is a viable strat again. Go for it I say.

well, along the same lines as archaic and others said, I don't think it's viable to change the way cash works without changing the way bushels and oil work too.

We're unbalancing what has become a very 'balanced' and important aspect of the game by simply altering cash and not changing how other aspects of the game function

I also agree that devaluing bushels -- which I think everyone agrees this will do -- is a big detriment to fighters over netters, as netters keep their bushels and fighters are consistently selling their bushels. This is something we need to keep in mind as well.

keep the 2 bil bug and remove the market recalling goods, if you wanna up the bug to a 3 bil cap instead that works too i guess

I actually revise my previous argument, we should remove the 2B bug.

It will throw the game into disequilibrium for a reset or two, but then it will settle in a new balancing point. At least that balancing point will be something new and potentially interesting.

Thanks to servers like team and tourney, we can get more test runs in to figure things out.

Its a terrible idea. Tmbrs destocking all at once, means whoever gets it first wins and everyone else loses, so its simply a race to being the first, and tmbrs will be able to sell max goods further increasing their stockpiles because the corruption won't even effect them. So the last week or more no tmbrs will be selling on the public market, becuase they will already have so much money, that they can't keep up with their private markets as it is, completely eliminating everyone else from stocking till the last week and destocking.

The game cant support a drastic change like this atm, everything will be out of whack. If the game takes off post fb, then its doable...as the reasoning for the 2bn limit is quite silly nowdays.

For now maybe double the limit to 4bn instead of 2bn?

I am sure that if they decide to do it, it would be implemented with some thought, i.e. only allowing 25% of your bushels on the market at a time or slowing the private market recharge so that destocking is a longer process.

The point is, set after set the formulas are the same and most of the artistry has been removed from netgaining. Thats why I would like to see the production formulas randomized a bit so that nobody knew exactly what they were dealing with until a few days into the set.

Dave could become the 'external market force' on the economy, randomly moving the benefits around from set to set. I bet a +/- 10% randomizing factor would not even be that hard to write into the game.

Hrrm i see what you mean.

A 10% random variation is huge. You wouldnt want to decide to play casher, only to find pci is 10% lower, or food production is 10% less. If it happens then luck will be a major variable in the top ranks.

The game has lost alot of dynamicism....mostly from the dwindling player base more than anything else. I dont think anything that dynamic will need to be added in if we are looking/hoping to expand the game. The influx of new players will take care of all that.

well, i think, RaTS, that that would only happen once before people modified their behaviour to avoid that situation... like if "only the first person wins" then.... how would you modify your behaviour? dump ridiculously early? but then that would essentially flatten and drop the peak... so really then it wouldn't be the first person... you'd just have a flattened peak imho

i really don't think it'll affect things much... sure it'll allow more rapid selling of goods and whatnot

tbh i think the biggest effect would be felt by demo (techer/casher/farmer)'s playing the market
take a demo farmer or demo casher
stock your bushels $1 or 2 above current price
set SO's....
resell your entire bushel stockpile several times on the way up the peak, and down even
just on $1 or $2 margins with good SO's you could increase the value the entire time
incidentally that would also serve as a massive buffer to the market volumes
that in and of itself would flatten the bushel price

I'm not sure if the game is ready for such a shift in metagame. I also think that som strats such as farmer will be hurt, at least for netgaining purposes. I wrote a post about some of the effects earlier;

Destocking - you can dump all your stock in one day

Buyouts - llaar will reach new heights

Early vs late destock - time the food peak right and you're golden

Food peaks - Will be affected both in timing and price - if you're a casher making 25 mil per turn and the food price is 50 you can have about 14.5 bn cash on hand before corruption exceeds the loss you take from stocking and then destocking food, which will seriously affect demand for food at various times in the set

Demos- everyone will destock at 31, money to be made

Jump timing - almost irrelevant, especially with the recall function, all you need to know is how much cash you get and how fast your PM regenerates

Resellers - shorter window, higher public prices end of set will reduce ability to sell on public and buy from a replenishing private market

These are just a few things from the top of my mind, will be a COMPLETELY new meta-game

Remove both limit and corruption. Those things are getting old. If that means rebalance govt then do it.

farmers currently don't sell food mid set really.... so it won't affect a farmers income

if "everybody knows" that the market will crash as soon as somebody dumps many techers & early destockers will
1) try to diversify
2) try to dump first

#1 will result in a lower bushel price
#2 will result in bushel peak being lowered and drawn out;

late stockers will
1) try to hold on as long as possible without buying
2) still buy bushels

these will result in a lower bushel price, but perhaps a protracted peak


The long and short of it is this:
1) total volume of supply will remain similar when integrated over the bushel peak
2) total volume of demand will remain similar when integrated over the bushel peak

the actual shape of the bushel peak will probably change; but if the volumes of both supply and demand are the same... your peak may move or shift, but there should still be a bushel peak to some extent.



The *real* change, imho, will be the ability of demo's (and other people with lots of cash hanging around) to play the market.

Say you're a demo farmer; you put a standing order at $40 and sell your bushels at $41; you do this a few times, essentially "stocking" at $41and picking up anything below that; this buffers the bushel market, and in theory makes the demo reseller a viable strat, as you actually can pick up everything below a certain price, and then resell it a bit higher;

repeat x many goods and NP

nobody does that now because if your 300M bushels sold you'd be SOL; in this case though, you'd be perfectly fine, you'd have come away with lots of cash, which you can convert into any good you want now.... if the bushel market has gone crazy, fine, buy oil....

You can always look into forming a tech or building that will benefit the capacity to store either. Like a building that allows you to store 200k bushels, so if you have 1000 then you can hold 200mil onhand without loss. Or a bank that allows you to keep money onhand without loss.

This surely spells the beginning of the rise of the Rainbow!

what if you raised the limit to 2.5 or 3bil and then also raise the minimum sell amount for food to compensate?

i also like oats fdic tech idea

a cap on amount you can sell?

thats a horrible idea

in FFA especially where you can have like 1.5 billion bushels without too much effort, you'll what be spending 30 turns selling 50 mill bushel chunks?

is that what you meant pang?

as for 2 bill limit... its such a feature of the game, that changing it would really shake things up

what it would do, you can guess, but you'll never really know til you try it

i think it should be removed for at least a set to see how it pans out. there are lots of scenarios being presented here, but like llaar said we won't really know for sure until it actually happens. it would definitely bring some change to the game.

if no limit, then llaar will win every set.