Tamasith
-
Posts
38 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Tamasith
-
-
19 hours ago, firedash said:
I'm saying that because I'm not who u want to mess with
Wow. Everyone be careful.
I'm sure these 25 votes on food prices will have a large impact on the future development of prices. Just make sure every food producer knows the result of this poll so they can adjust their prices because this is how a free market works.-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
United Orbis
-
1
-
7
-
Hello @Alex,
I think there is an error with the alliances API:
The raw data however seems to be generated fine:
Could you look into this, please?
Thanks a lot.
-
1
-
-
I generally agree that this would be an awesome feature. Unlike embargos set by alliances against other alliances however, I think implementing tariffs might be a bit difficult regarding programming and calculating.
-
1
-
-
A planned economy has never worked. So in this simple market simulation the principles of a free market do apply. If there is a shortage in raws and prices increase further, at some point people will switch to the production of raws until there will be a new equilibrium.
Simple as that, no need to interfere.
-
2
-
-
On 4/29/2020 at 2:07 AM, Pascal said:
Pointless. An alliance shouldn’t be able to force his members to participate in alliance-wide embargoes. Every nation of an alliance can do it individually if the leadership ask them to and if they want.
Not sure what you’re trying to implement here.
Alliances are able to force their members pay taxes yet they should not be allowed to set embargos against other alliances?
The individual freedom is that you can leave an alliance any time you want if you don't agree with that alliance's policies. This already applies for foreign and fiscal policies so why not for trading policies, too?
-
5 hours ago, katashimon13 said:
or yall can actually try to engage with your respective members instead of treating them as pawns in a power fantasy
rawr
Same applies for taxes I guess. In the end we are all pawns.
-
So, is this suggestion still a thing?
It would make trading and development of prices much more interesting if alliances could embargo entire other alliances.
-
1
-
-
Let the nukes fly!
Oh wait, you don't have any...
-
1
-
-
First!
Matters are created all the time by the mind. It's not a theory, it's a fact that some matters are stupid and some are not.The only collective illusion I know is the one that happened in East Germany and most of Eastern Europe. About the colors I'm not so sure. I see quite many colors every day.
-
@Alex, given the many previously stated arguments for (and the few against) this extended embargo mechanism:
Could you comment on whether such a new feature could be implemented in the game or whether this suggestion is off the table?-
1
-
-
37 minutes ago, Alex said:
If you want your alliance to embargo someone, have your alliance leaders instruct their members to embargo them. If they trade with them after the embargo is declared by the alliance leader, kick them out of the alliance.
Would it be difficult to add this feature to the game?
Alliances would not be obliged but would have the opportunity to use it, similar to taxes. Taxes are handled by alliance leaders, too, so they don't have to ask members for donations on a regular base.
As was mentioned before already, it's extremely difficult to manage an alliance-wide embargo against another alliance. Leaders can't even check members' active embargoes except for checking the activity list on the nation page. -
In addition to increasing the likelihood of conflicts and wars, embargoes set by alliances against alliances make the market more dynamic again. This would also somewhat address the issue of constantly decreasing market prices. If major alliances reduce the amount of available resources to other alliances, supply decreases and therefore prices increase.
I don't think that alliance-wide trade policies imposed by alliance leaders reduce individual freedom in the slightest. If someone is unhappy with an embargo set by the alliance leader, he/she/zie/they/etc. can either communicate their disproval or leave the alliance as an act of their individual freedom, i.e. vote with their feet.
-
1
-
-
Indeed there is no "normal price" since all prices are determined by supply and demand. Currently decreasing prices occur due to the large supply and prices may well increase again with the next war.
The only thing that can be considered problematic is that some of the offers for large amounts of resources or money are fake offers. These offers are not backed by money or stockpiles and might influence prices one way or another.
-
6 hours ago, Steve Delaminecraft said:
if anyone of u want to invest into my P and W country with IG money I will give u the double of it later when i am able to.
Would be a wonder getting back half of the invested money from a self-proclaimed socialist nation...
-
2
-
-
I don't get why so many people keep complaining about low market prices. It's all a matter of supply and demand and most of the resource prices resonate with each other.
Small nations benefit from the currently large supply and the small demand. Large nations that specialize in manufactured resources can buy the required raws cheaply.
To which point might market prices eventually fall? The bottom boundary is the marginal cost of production which can probably be calculated within this simple economic system, taking into account interdependencies including pollution.
In theory, prices equal to the marginal costs imply the highest overall welfare. So instead of propagating some false ideal price or asking for additional mechanisms to prevent prices from decreasing, let the market to the work and let it provide the highest overall surplus.
-
4 hours ago, Mad Max said:
As you all know - if you pay attention - Pantheon's leader part deux - has departed leadership and the game once again. Previously, The Emperor created/led pantheon and then dropped out due to a blurry stage of drama/war/etc. After that, he came back and took the reigns. Pantheon has always been in some type of drama and wrapped around the tongue of many who call it a waste of space, useless....etc. There are, however, many people who like and support Pantheon, even since the beginning.
How do you think Pantheon will fair with this change? Do you think the current leadership has the strength to continue on their own? Do they have the experience? Or are they just a pawn/puppet to The Syndicate?(feel free to go into detail)
Yes.
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Mad Max said:
Are you in a large alliance? Find out if you're trash.
The list is rigged!!!
-
It was a project worth trying. Best of luck to TUE, OWR and Polaris!
-
1
-
-
15 hours ago, TheRebelMan said:
It's a 3 man micro that doesn't reach 2k score.
What is there to protect?
Actually it's a 2 man micro that doesn't reach 1k score. The one with the highest score saw better things for his future.
-
1
-
2
-
-
Feel the drama!
-
Best of luck!
-
2 hours ago, Merkurios said:
I think enough has been said about you cherrypicking. The fact he "thinking about it" shows weakness. Bombardier would never give up sovereignty to any attacker, that shows weakness and he deserved to be annexed. Luckily for him he merged.
Are you real?
-
Bravo
Food Dropping Time
in Free Trade Market
Posted
Perhaps a new poll about max. infra per city or a new world war would help to reduce food consumption.