Keegoz Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Hopefully something is done soon because it will still take the market a while to rectify itself even if there is a fix. 4 Quote [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: But Keegoz is actually bad. [11:52 PM] Prefontaine: He's my favorite bad leader though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Stills Posted March 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Seraphim said: You seem to be confused. If you didn't understand what I said or don't agree, then get in line and downvote. Simple as that. I don’t think you understand famalam, I’m not downvoting because it’s the new hip and cool thing to do, I’m downvoting because I think you should stop posting. 8 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willam von Waldreich Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 The market has gotten out of hand and I agree with the statements that it has gotten harder for smaller nations to grow effectively. In turn this has also stagnated the concept of alliances to an extent. Now if you don't join a large alliance that can finance (or at least is willing to finance) your growth you are not going to get far. What really should be a red flag for the markets was when the price of Raw in some cases I have seen cost more than the price of a Manufactured resource. I don't have a problem with the updates per say...but I think it was an update that was massive and was implemented way to fast and all at one time instead of making slight updates here and there to watch to see how the markets did as well as to watch and see how everyone was able to react as well as to give everyone time to react and make changes. I also think there are some things that need to be looked at into updating that could be used to help with the current problems such as new Projects, new improvements, maybe a new resource (though I honestly doubt that would help much). There is no "easy" fix to this issue but nothing is ever easy. 3 Quote The United States of Belveria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patty Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Communism. Solves. Everything. 2 1 Quote "There's nothing you can know that isn't known,Nothing you can see that isn't shown,There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be, All you need is love,Love is all you need." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willam von Waldreich Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 8 minutes ago, Patrick Higgins said: Communism. Solves. Everything. And if you don't agree the Commissar will shoot you to raise morale. 2 Quote The United States of Belveria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redarmy Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 24 minutes ago, Patrick Higgins said: Communism. Solves. Everything. 15 minutes ago, Eugene Faulkner II said: And if you don't agree the Commissar will shoot you to raise morale. I agree but I may be biased. 4 Quote "Though it starts with a fist it must end with your mind." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Micchan Posted March 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 2, 2018 Totally agree And we are pretty much still using the stockpiles pre update, if a major war happens the prices will double Having projects for raw resources would be nice, doesn't fix the problem but at least is something 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curufinwe Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Ugh, I actually agree with an argument Sketchy made. ... I feel a little dirty right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Willam von Waldreich Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Micchan said: Totally agree And we are pretty much still using the stockpiles pre update, if a major war happens the prices will double Having projects for raw resources would be nice, doesn't fix the problem but at least is something At least it would be a step in the right direction...and may lead to updates that would eventually fix the problem...or at least ease it. 2 Quote The United States of Belveria Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post PackAnimal Posted March 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 2, 2018 Everyone bar 1 agrees with the premise Sketchy has laid out @Alex. Don't get us wrong, we're immensely grateful for the game you've created and the updates/improvements you continue to develop for the community (even if alot of the good ideas receive skepticism from some people when they're implemented). We don't mean to attack your ideas because it was agreed at the time there were flaws with the economy side of the game, though the solutions you've provided for them have been too effective and swung it the other way. A rollback would do wonders for the game. Thank you for listening to us @Alex, i get we can be asses alot 17 1 Quote Mans two modes of existence can be thought of as his light and dark side. He is either the Protector or the Ravager. The Immovable Object or the Unstoppable Force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sir Scarfalot Posted March 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 2, 2018 Truth be told, I'm not really feeling quite as strongly about the economic mechanics as the majority here. (This could be due to my being almost completely outside of the general 'economy' though, I admit.) Changing the costs of producing resources changes the price of resources, yes, but the price of raw resources has increased as well as the price of refined resources, so small/new/defeated nations still aren't screwed over entirely. Adaptation is economic behavior. Still, the fact that the change made it so that one requires so many more improvement slots to reach the hard cap of resource productivity per city now means that it requires far too much infrastructure to reach that, forcing people to protect their investments more jealously and stagnate harder. This also screws over those with less capital to invest in the first place, otherwise known as the almighty silent majority "casual player" that Alex is trying to court. That said...@hydraik @Seraphim You're both wrong in so many ways it isn't funny. 5 hours ago, hydraik said: (1)I don't think that a complete rollback of the system at this point is reasonable nor would it fix the issues. (2)The issue with the current system is raws are worthless with the exception of uranium with a uep but even they can be bad at times. If raws are worthless then the manufactured prices skyrocket because of a lack of supply. That happens until an equilibrium is met. Lately that seems to put steel at 5kppu. (3)5kppu is a horrible price for steel because it makes tanks and ships next to impossible to build for war (4)(though I think the fortify system is a bigger cause to lack of war). That said sheepy just needs to make raws more desirable. (5)Takeout the stupid pollution requirements he set on them. Let's face it in a first world country mining for raw materials hardly produce pollution beyond gasoline usage in vehicles. It's the factories that refine the material that produce decent amounts of pollution. See if that does the trick and makes the market stable if it doesn't then more might need to be done, but I don't think we need anything as drastic as a rollback. (6)Prolly the biggest problem with the current economic setup is that it makes pirating the most profitable tactic. So screw the 90% of players that aren't pirates! (1). Well, there are issues that it would not fix, but there are issues that it would.(2). If raws are worthless, then the manufactured prices would drop due to lower overhead, not increase due to lack of supply. And if they did, then the demand on the raws would increase their price. Please learn basic economics, or at least check the prices of basic resources (hint: they're not worthless). The pollution costs increase the cost of production for both, and the improvement slots increase the investment required to reach the hardcap, but that's not what you said.(3). The price of steel has made tanks overwhelmingly expensive relative to their combat performance, but that was a problem since before the update. Ships on the other hand compete against ships and aircraft, NOT cheap soldiers, and therefore their resource price doesn't matter quite so much.(4). NO. Longer response: Fortify was and remains a perfect rebalancing factor mechanically. With it, an underdog nation could choose to, through their own actions, avoid ceding profit to attackers. This enabled attrition warfare and allows them to remain competitive or at least have options to fight back regardless of how many resources or nations their enemies could bring to bear. The balance problem is that winning wars leads to having more resources relative to the losing side with which to win more wars, which leads to having more resources with which to win more wars, until the losing side has nothing and can only have nothing. Since winning wars shouldn't result in a disadvantage, there must be some other counterplay option to enable competition despite that imbalance. Removing fortification will result in more wars in the short term, but it will make competitive warfare 100% impossible when (not if!) one side becomes overwhelmingly dominant and protects their dominance by preventing anyone from playing at all. I know guys like you just wanna beige people and make yourselves feel like you've won, but stop trying to justify your selfishness and lack of long-term vision through shilling for removing mechanics designed to keep your enemies competitive. Just because you've killed the game does not mean you've won it, only that everyone has lost a valued game experience. (5). Realism takes a back seat to game balance, and it should. That said, your argument is absurd even in and of itself. Mining in first-world countries requires less pollution than in poorer countries, but at a far higher operating overhead and level of investment. This therefore results in first-world countries buying minerals from nations that strip-mine and worse, which they very much do. How do you think North Korea pays for their missile program? Hint: It's selling minerals like coal to China. Which they mine using prison labor. How do you think middle-eastern dictators pay for their solid gold toilets? Hint: It's selling oil to the West. All of this also encourages dictators that keep their population at a rock bottom level of development and quality of life, but that's another topic.(6). Piracy IS the most profitable tactic. Arrgh. 6 hours ago, Seraphim said: I'm sure Alex has his reasons to stay put with the existing update. For one, (1)PnW is growing even without investment into ads unlike the past. (2)Secondly, I think Alex feels loosening up Econ mode could just make top 2-3 Alliances simply swell faster and continue to create a stagnant ice peak that continues to chill high up and not flow down. (3)Let's face it, there's hardly any alliance wars happening. The Alliances that do go to war are the lower tier Alliances. (4)What Alex needs to do is bring some vigour and vibrance to the game to promote some long awaited action among the silent ice cold Alliances. (1). First, that's irrelevant. Second, that's completely and demonstrably wrong; Alex has invested into new advertisements recently, which resulted in the growth that you're referring to. (2). Nope. I mean, I guess it could be possible that reducing the amount of investment needed to be competitive in the marketplace will result in those now more able to invest and compete lose more against those that are now on a more even field than they are. Somehow. Maybe. (3). Surely you jest.(4). Alex doesn't need to do that, and Alex cannot do that without compromising his integrity as a neutral entity. All he can do, and all he should do, is create and enforce mechanics that enable and encourage "vigor" and "vibrance" while allowing the players to choose how they play and who they compete against and cooperate with. Unfortunately, due to shills that want to 'win' despite that concept being counterproductive to a perpetual game, he's feeling pressured to give up on the mechanics that allow competitive 'vigor' and 'vibrance' to be sustainable or reasonable. Since he has a deep profit motive, this pressure is defining his actions, and THAT is why we are seeing fewer alliance wars and without maintaining mechanics that enable and encourage competitive balance, will see fewer alliance wars until we reach the point where no competitive warfare is possible at all. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post TheNG Posted March 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 2, 2018 Much smarter folks than I have given good reasons why the current system isn't working, so I will simply give a +1 to the OP. The econ update was done with good intentions, but has broken things in more ways than one, I didn't like it then and I still don't now. A rollback would be greatly appreciated. 10 Quote "They say the secret to success is being at the right place at the right time. But since you never know when the right time is going to be, I figure the trick is to find the right place and just hang around!" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <Kastor> He left and my !@#$ nation is !@#$ed up. And the Finance guy refuses to help. He just writes his !@#$ plays. <Kastor> And laughs and shit. <Kastor> And gives out !@#$ huge loans to Arthur James, that !@#$ bastard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Revan Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 I support the OP. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post durmij Posted March 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 2, 2018 The solution always needed to be demand side, not supply side. 15 Quote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjI4ROuPyuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUUEHv8GHcE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post WISD0MTREE Posted March 2, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 2, 2018 It's been 9 months? What have I been doing with my life? 13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edward I Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 Sketchy is right. Please implement his suggestions Alex. 4 hours ago, Eugene Faulkner II said: And if you don't agree the Commissar will shoot you to raise morale. Morale was never low. Reports to the contrary are false and can be disregarded. 33 minutes ago, durmij said: The solution always needed to be demand side, not supply side. Actual communism ^ 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Arianne Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 11 hours ago, Seraphim said: I'm sure Alex has his reasons to stay put with the existing update. For one, PnW is growing even without investment into ads unlike the past. Secondly, I think Alex feels loosening up Econ mode could just make top 2-3 Alliances simply swell faster and continue to create a stagnant ice peak that continues to chill high up and not flow down. Let's face it, there's hardly any alliance wars happening. The Alliances that do go to war are the lower tier Alliances. What Alex needs to do is bring some vigour and vibrance to the game to promote some long awaited action among the silent ice cold Alliances. Then... Loosen up on the Economy mode, which more active and veteran players in PnW are yearning so much for. War, you seriously can't believe the economy or market prices are konked just cus of some update? The larger nations, who can churn out large production also has part to blame. Plus these rabid prices are ridiculous when there's wars happening or smell of some disputes catching fire. And BTW, smaller much younger nations will always depend on help irrespective of updates interfering. That's what Alliances are for. Unfortunately, gluttony knows no boundaries and top level alliances expect quick results.. Can't blame Alex for that. Not to be harsh... You haven't been playing long enough to be able to compare the new system with the old system. Try to figure out what it was like before, compared to now. Also, if people can make more resources... Then we have more war and action, which this game needs. You literally make more money with raws compared to the commerce build, which is just wrong because commerce becomes useless unless you just want to keep positive numbers in your revenue. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exar Kun -George Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 +1 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hydraik Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 4 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Truth be told, I'm not really feeling quite as strongly about the economic mechanics as the majority here. (This could be due to my being almost completely outside of the general 'economy' though, I admit.) Changing the costs of producing resources changes the price of resources, yes, but the price of raw resources has increased as well as the price of refined resources, so small/new/defeated nations still aren't screwed over entirely. Adaptation is economic behavior. Still, the fact that the change made it so that one requires so many more improvement slots to reach the hard cap of resource productivity per city now means that it requires far too much infrastructure to reach that, forcing people to protect their investments more jealously and stagnate harder. This also screws over those with less capital to invest in the first place, otherwise known as the almighty silent majority "casual player" that Alex is trying to court. That said...@hydraik @Seraphim You're both wrong in so many ways it isn't funny. (1). Well, there are issues that it would not fix, but there are issues that it would.(2). If raws are worthless, then the manufactured prices would drop due to lower overhead, not increase due to lack of supply. And if they did, then the demand on the raws would increase their price. Please learn basic economics, or at least check the prices of basic resources (hint: they're not worthless). The pollution costs increase the cost of production for both, and the improvement slots increase the investment required to reach the hardcap, but that's not what you said.(3). The price of steel has made tanks overwhelmingly expensive relative to their combat performance, but that was a problem since before the update. Ships on the other hand compete against ships and aircraft, NOT cheap soldiers, and therefore their resource price doesn't matter quite so much.(4). NO. Longer response: Fortify was and remains a perfect rebalancing factor mechanically. With it, an underdog nation could choose to, through their own actions, avoid ceding profit to attackers. This enabled attrition warfare and allows them to remain competitive or at least have options to fight back regardless of how many resources or nations their enemies could bring to bear. The balance problem is that winning wars leads to having more resources relative to the losing side with which to win more wars, which leads to having more resources with which to win more wars, until the losing side has nothing and can only have nothing. Since winning wars shouldn't result in a disadvantage, there must be some other counterplay option to enable competition despite that imbalance. Removing fortification will result in more wars in the short term, but it will make competitive warfare 100% impossible when (not if!) one side becomes overwhelmingly dominant and protects their dominance by preventing anyone from playing at all. I know guys like you just wanna beige people and make yourselves feel like you've won, but stop trying to justify your selfishness and lack of long-term vision through shilling for removing mechanics designed to keep your enemies competitive. Just because you've killed the game does not mean you've won it, only that everyone has lost a valued game experience. (5). Realism takes a back seat to game balance, and it should. That said, your argument is absurd even in and of itself. Mining in first-world countries requires less pollution than in poorer countries, but at a far higher operating overhead and level of investment. This therefore results in first-world countries buying minerals from nations that strip-mine and worse, which they very much do. How do you think North Korea pays for their missile program? Hint: It's selling minerals like coal to China. Which they mine using prison labor. How do you think middle-eastern dictators pay for their solid gold toilets? Hint: It's selling oil to the West. All of this also encourages dictators that keep their population at a rock bottom level of development and quality of life, but that's another topic.(6). Piracy IS the most profitable tactic. Arrgh. #1 so you agree ok #2 you're right I worded that wrong I more meant that the cost of raws production increased making them at their original prices worthless and then upshooting their cost a ton. #3 ok you disagree about ships #4 where did I state in that, that I think fortify is a bad mechanic? That's all that you're arguing. I said I think it causes less war and it does. The harder it is to win war, the less war there will be. In some cases you want it to be harder I understand that. Don't argue about a point I didn't even touch as a derogatory mark. #5 I understand realism takes a back seat and I understand there's third world countries etc. But I've worked on a surface mine myself there's really not much pollution going on. Smelting on the other hand even in ideal conditions has a ton of pollution. #6 that's prolly not gonna change but you don't need to penalize most of your playing base with decisions that only benefit them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kamea Arano Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 Just popping in to say that i'm with Sketchy on this. Quote Terms of Service | Wiki | Contact Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForgotPants Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 I agree with Sketchy and I would like to add that whatever changes you plan to make @Alex please don't blindside us again. I can't quite understand the need to keep things hush hush if something major like an economy revamp was being planned. Look at someone like EVE Online that publishes their expected economy changes months in advance to let everyone know what's coming. Putting such things on the test server lets you work out the kinks before it goes live. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Them Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 I think the real question is as to how a student in one of the best econ programs in the US didn't see this coming. 5 Quote [insert quote here] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Dio Brando Posted March 3, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted March 3, 2018 Just now, Them said: I think the real question is as to how a student in one of the best econ programs in the US didn't see this coming. Easy. He made a model based to increase market prices, but didn't account for side effects, and eventually created a world where there was no real limit to what price producers could charge consumers and still sell their produce. He also didn't think of long-term eventualities, opting to tweak supply rather than demand. At the same time, he vastly overshot the 'solution' by nerfing commerce. And uh, because he's Sheepy and I've yet to see more than say, one update that doesn't do something retarded. 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 33 minutes ago, Them said: I think the real question is as to how a student in one of the best econ programs in the US didn't see this coming. There's two possibilities. One is that Sheepy didn't see it coming due to himself, the other is that sheepy didn't see it coming due to his economics studies. I'm not sure which one makes me cry harder. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WISD0MTREE Posted March 3, 2018 Share Posted March 3, 2018 1 hour ago, Sir Scarfalot said: There's two possibilities. One is that Sheepy didn't see it coming due to himself, the other is that sheepy didn't see it coming due to his economics studies. I'm not sure which one makes me cry harder. If it makes you feel any better, my cousin is getting a psych degree from a uni with a less-than-15% acceptance rate and she didn't know what cognitive dissonance was her junior year. College, as a learning experience, is overrated. It's all about the paper you get at the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.