Placentica

Supply is definitely way above demand. I want the days just a few days prior to the war when we had $2k munitions and $4k steel!

Congrats to you both! Heard great things about Asgard. Welcome to the Orbis treatysphere.

Pre-war muntions sold for no more than $600 usually. They are at $897 now on the sell side and still over $600 on the buy side. I'd say these were still pretty good days for you bro.

I think tanks would've been used more if it had been an even war. Like if EoS only had declared war on TAC and not UPN/DEIC as well. I still think they are a great way to win land battles when you both have the same amount of troops. Costly, yes, but still going to be necessary cost. I just think when VoC and UPN joined they felt they didn't need tanks to get the job done. In an even fight that would change drastically as tanks don't get destroyed as fast and don't require as many improvement slots. But I agree planes should have cost raised along with maybe 2-3x the alum requirements.

(a bit of a gravedig, my apologies, but it still holds kinda true now) Needs more people willing to play both buy and sell sides to keep the markets fluid, lol. But seriously, just not enough cash and resources are at way too high levels from war and now are coming back down to reality. But not one wants to put in buys that are higher than pre-war levels. I know for me it was much easier to buy stuff than sell it, so I'm being cautious.

Welcome and thanks for your help!

I'm glad the list contains at least one global market manipulator though.

I love you Sheepy. You cheeky capitalist.

Oh I'm sorry. Next time your ally declares war on someone and gets owned because it bit off more than it can chew and then needs allies to further join into the fight, we'll be sure to pat you on the back and say, "Good doggy, such a good doggy!" I think all the "flak" really started when you tried to claim you/your allies were not the aggressors and all of us "neutrals" pretty much uniformly disagreed and laughed at that notion.

I do think there is low demand in the market. The war has boosted it but it's falling back down now. Pre-war prices were extremely low. So doubling resource costs wouldn't be a bad idea. But if they are higher it might just mean people produce more themselves. I'm just excited to see more players join the game. As the game ages there will be a natural separation in the real price to produce resources and this should great more market sales.

By this post I'm assuming you didn't read my post, even the easier-to-read bolded parts. You do know that EoS, UPN, and BotC is doing the same thing, right? You going to embargo your allies too? So it's wrong to try to optimize your income, but this is okay, huh?

Interesting idea and good luck. Love the creativity in growth.

I agree with you, I'm not a manipulator, like I said in the OP. Your alliance thinks so though. Don't want to get out/under bid - then make a better offer bro not this +/- $1 business. Anyway right now as nations are growing and the game is growing there really isn't much supply/demand in the markets. As that picks up things will be much more fluid. Pre-war resources were so amazingly cheap that it only made sense to keep buying as much as I could. The only reason I was selling was b/c I just got too much stuff. Post-war I expect it to be closer to reality in what resources should go for. I also think the option to buy all your resources carries with a need to be very active in the markets. At my peak I was buying 600 food a day, just to meet nation demand. That just isn't feasible anymore for a variety of reasons, but it might look like I was trying to control the food market when all I was doing is trying to feed my people.

I'm going to save you from a stale-sounding wiki definition of "market manipulation". What matters is from market manipulation come price fixing, price escalation, false news (war isn't happening, no need to stock up!), or whatever you can do to achieve a certain buy/sell price. It can be quite effective if you have massive amounts of capital. Usually it’s people who would short a stock or buy options, which have a rapid time value/decay in value, and then sell/buy large amounts of the stock to achieve a certain stock price. There are as many ways as people can think to manipulate markets, so the above list is short. If you can make a resource/stock do drastic things without news it can spook others to sell, thinking it's better to sell quick than wait for the avalanche of selling when the news hits. With market manipulation there is generally there is a fixed amount of stock, commodity, etc. You know what you have to control. Would you try to price fix the cost of bottled water or a rare earth element? (ooc) OPEC has a lot of supply so they can attempt to control price, but they aren’t just one single nation either. Will market manipulation work on Orbis? I would say no, absolute not and all attempts I’ve seen have failed. And here’s why. Currently (ideas Sheepy? lol), we do not have stock options, we cannot short a resource. We cannot control the SUPPLY of resources. Markets are all about demand and supply dynamics. Remember the spikes a few days ago with $4k steel? When people settled down and the demand/cash settled down, price returned to a more normal level, albeit much higher demand. But I have seen my fair share of people try to manipulate the price/buy/sell side of a certain resource. I made a lot of money selling into it as they bought my overpriced resource thinking that it was all I had (the iron run in speedround was fun). All that happened is that people realized they could sell their resource for a ton of money and did so. People started flooding the market with overpriced iron. People buying iron realized they could just produce it now and demand went way down. Orbis is the worst place to try to manipulate markets and I’m not entirely sure why people think you can. With 10,000 people, you’d fail in a matter of hours. With 1,000 maybe a day or two max. So am I a “global market manipulatorâ€? LOLNO. I've witnessed 3-4 runs on the market since Beta. They all failed quite badly, even if I think it is a way to make the game more fun. So I’d encourage people to think of creative ways to make money here. The main reason for the market manipulating failures is, while we don’t have an infinite supply of resources, we are close to it since we have the ability to switch to more refineries or mines. If lead shoots up to $2000 a unit, I put up lead mines, and everyone else does and we get lots more lead supply driving the price down. Bauxite being one that the least people have (I believe) and thus would be a good target *wink wink* buy my baux, lol, but still would fail in my opinion as well. Is trying to be the lowest sell or highest buy manipulating the markets? No, it is absolutely not. It’s merely trying to sell what you have at max profit or lowest price. It’s not more manipulating markets than selling 100 alum you have or 50 food. If it is, then we are all “global market manipulatorsâ€. For me, who is heavily involved in the markets you could say I’m more of a “Market Maker†and you can google that if you want to bore yourself. And in the case they can be quite useful and sometimes necessary to make markets run smoothly, not that I am claiming I’m necessary because there are maybe 10 or so Market Makers I’ve noticed in the game, which is good and makes the markets more lively for everyone. But I have never and will never try to control price. I roll with the punches and if something spikes, like anyone else I sell more, and if it drops, I sell less and lower my buy offers or remove them entirely. So before we try to make the markets a new political spin-zone I felt we should at least discuss how they work and what you can and can’t do. Please feel free to disagree with me or share you own opinions as I’d love to hear them! Obviously many have figured out I think the markets are the most interesting aspect of this game and I think they are what will make, and are making, this game really awesome. Also a few terms that seem to be confusing some: Global Level Sponsored Embargo: this would be when every nation on Orbis embargo’s you. Say during the Red Raiders time, but 1000 embargos would be a bit hard to coordinate. But I know there were more than a few alliances that embargoed them. Alliance Level Sponsored Embargo: This is when you order all your members to stop trading with a specific nation or alliance. This is what the DEIC/VoC did to me for a reason that is still unclear, but completely acceptable since I don't mind and it doesn't affect much. It doesn’t work because one alliance only makes up at most 7% of all nations, and usually about 3-4% of the total nations. Imagine a boycott where only 3% participated. Yea, we'd all laugh and ignore it. Just thought I should clear that up since it seems there is some misunderstanding there. tl;dr – bold parts Thoughts? I've love to start a discussion about how you use the markets in Orbis!

I look forward to applying this to your own future plotting. Or are you saying you never plot to roll someone and never will in the future, lol.

Is that honestly what DEIC are telling you? Just do some research and look at the warscreens. EoS attacked TAC, then multiple EoS members said it would be 1v1. Fine, good match, it'll be fun to watch. Then a VoC said the same that EoS could handle itself. Finally when EoS was getting beat, UPN had two people jump the gun, then UPN lied about the attack on TAC, even after no one believed them. They continued to lie and destroyed any credibility they might've had. And then VoC joins the fight after saying it wouldn't. That could get you up to speed. If you want more info come to #guardian. This is the alliance and bloc you are in. This is the stuff they try to pull.

Welcome, feel free to msg me if you have any questions!

UPN name calling, awesome man. It's not semantics. This is a case of spin, not semantics. You are trying to paint it as a case of semantics, but it is not, lol. So before you start the petty name-calling, go re-read what I said. We both agree on the terms like "aggressors" or "aggression" and "defense" in their pure form. And that's what you have to do in a semantic dispute, to resolve it. If you defined both words in their pure form, unrelated to Orbis, I'm sure I'd agree with you. So it's not semantics, sorry to bring you back to reality. Lol, to prove my point, the link you sent me....I completely agree with it's definition of the term "semantic dispute". And besides all that, similarly, it's used in a more general form to be when two parties pretty much same the same thing, with different words. In this case, we are saying 100% opposite of what you are trying to claim. You've heard people say, "Oh it's just semantics, we basically agree". We do not basically agree and it's silly to even try to suggest that as you are doing. I never thought we'd have to have an English lesson from the wiki/urban dictionary fanboys. Jokes on me for responding to your post when you are just going to resort to name calling though. So +1 for you, well done.

lol, awesome

Someones got his google bookmarked! Lol, you still think you understand how that word is used. You are persistent bro. tom(ai)to tom(aw)to - aggressive defensive. See the difference? Let it go man.

I can already tell this thread will be golden. It's not semantics and maybe you don't even know what that word means or the context it's used in. If some UPN/DEIC members would face reality then we could move on to something more interesting. What's funny about it is that I don't really have a problem with aggressive actions, but clearly you guys are sensitive to the issue for some reason.

And then lie about it being your hand vs. a girl?

Just gotta quote this before he edits it.

So why did you even bother lying about the two UPN who jumped the gun? Integrity is complete #*@&*@#! Congrats on making EoS look completely inept for attacking TAC.

You don't want 100% of us to be ruthless capitalists?