Another perspective on market deflation

[Aerys Targaryen]

Before some recent changes in game mechanics (i.e.) the score formula change, increased population dependence for military, reduction of tank damage in ground attacks to half, the wars were resource intensive. Steel was considered an extremely important resource for war, all of us produced/bought it. Once a side losses first round in an alliance war, their score will drop too much (since infra's score contribution was higher and city's/military's lesser than what it is now) after which they can get a decent military (without increasing the infrastructure too much and without facing heavy downdeclares) and continue next rounds. In order to get back into fight (and to continue longer), we needed resources in the past.
 
In current wars (take last war for example), which is one of the longest and we barely spent our resources. We of course spent comparatively more money (for infrastructure) after every round. Since the score drop is not that significant (compared to the old score formula) and aircrafts being OP, we ended up using just money and aluminium. Thus, except the first round, wars are no longer resource intensive, but they are money intensive. Once peace period started, everyone will be looking for money, with their whole stockpile intact and thus severe market deflation.
 
The above combined with the fact that we now have more cities with high infrastructure, means they are manufacturing a lot of resources plus maintain 100% commerce rate contributes to the problem as well. With the introduction of projects like Uranium Enrichment Plant, the situation became worse for new nations. A few old nations have lots of land area (others are getting there) in order to make some decent profit from farms for the infra slots they are allocating, this too makes it useless for a newbie to produce food for a very long time.
 
How to fix the issue?
Restore the old game mechanics. Once the war gets over, nations should spend their time rebuilding their infra as well as buying stockpile (not just rebuilding infrastructure), if the mechanics can be changed accordingly, it'll fix the issue. Overall, old nations are not going to suffer the most, it'll be newbies.
 
Just to quote Senry here from another post on the same topic
 

People are concerned that resources are being over-produced, I think another and more legitimate way of looking at it, is that currency is being under-produced.

A valid way to look at it is, currency is under produced (or) currency is over used. And resources are under-used.

[丂ħ̧i̧₣ɫ̵γ͘ ̶™]

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.

Tell us, why do you choose to save organics rather than replace them synthetics? Why give us this information?

[Aerys Targaryen]

Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto.

 

Tell us, why do you choose to save organics rather than replace them synthetics? Why give us this information?

 

My point is, we are not spending enough of resources in war (after change in war mechanics) and we are spending more money instead, which contributes to market deflation. (In addition with other factors which were discussed in other threads)

[Senry]

This game exhibits a problem that is opposite to that of more standard RPG-ish MMOs, where the currency inflates as there are not enough places to sink it. Everything in P&W is a sink for cash, but few things are a sink for resources.

 

I think there are a multitude of ways you can fix the imbalances.

 

I just think that mine was the simplest :3

[Dubayoo]

A part of me wants to believe that infantry tactics should be an effective counter against airplanes since you're plundering a lot more off your opponent than your opponent is destroying with airstrikes.  The point of tanks is to prevent this from happening, but people aren't employing infantry tactics, so others can get away with mass-producing airplanes to defend themselves.  Infantry are also much cheaper to replace.  

 

The market is convinced that demand for resources will be high due to players failing to realize how infantry is an effective trade off, so it's continuing to supply a surplus of resources as prices continue to crash.

[Aerys Targaryen]

A part of me wants to believe that infantry tactics should be an effective counter against airplanes since you're plundering a lot more off your opponent than your opponent is destroying with airstrikes.  The point of tanks is to prevent this from happening, but people aren't employing infantry tactics, so others can get away with mass-producing airplanes to defend themselves.  Infantry are also much cheaper to replace.  

 

The market is convinced that demand for resources will be high due to players failing to realize how infantry is an effective trade off, so it's continuing to supply a surplus of resources as prices continue to crash.

 

Mostly people use aircrafts alone and not ground units to reduce their nation score as low as possible. Aircrafts can destroy a lot of tanks as well.

 

Edit: The main purpose of using just aircrafts is to control the opponent, no one usually cares about loot. If someone is using just aircrafts, he/she will deposit the excess stockpile in bank to make sure they don't lose it.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bot

[Senry]

(Not like at the moment you'd lose it if you didn't want to anyway)

[Ryleh]

Maybe nerf how much of the raws are made.

It'll help out the really small nations as well, since those things costing more will mean they get a bigger bang for their buck. (and that bit more of money is important at that level). 

[Them]

Cutting some of the cash costs from infra and cities and replacing them with manufactured resources should fix most things.

Doing so would make resources more valuable in a post-war rebuild.

 

Last war I used up all of the cash in my warchest, but only ~10% of the steel.

[ComradeMilton]

require a credit per war declaration