Spheres/trading idea

[Rozalia]

Market sharing mechanic would have to be removed to apply this. This suggestion involves establishing sphere leaders which I will run through some ideas on the suggestion.

 

It may well be too complicated or difficult to implement, and perhaps not even fulfill the functions I believe it would. I am aware that this is going to be very wordy, apologies. 

 

Sphere leaders = Top 10 alliances

Alliances that can be sphered - first off alliances in the top 10 cannot be sphered at all as they are too powerful. Only alliances below the top 10 can be sphered.

Alliances can only be sphered by one Sphere leader - In an effort to stop big top 10 alliances rigging it by having their allies all be sphered by them all at once, alliances can only be sphered by one leader. To sphered by another they'd have to be removed first.

 

Effects of Spheres - Those within spheres when buying resources must buy from nations within their sphere first, only when there is none available within the sphere are they permitted to buy on the global market. This promotes inter sphere purchasing but to avoid certain members abusing that by setting up crazy prices the sphere leader can set up a minimum and maximum price on each resource to avoid this abuse. 

 

Prices in and out of sphere - Now one thing this shouldn't do is restrict sellers because we play in real time and forcing sellers to wait a day before having their goods go on the global market I don't believe is something people want. So here is a suggestion on promoting in alliance buying while still having your goods on the global market.

 

Tariffs - Sphere leaders can set a percentage based tariff that will apply to nations within their sphere which will only apply to nations outside the sphere buying goods from your sphered nations. So say:
 

The Dutch East India Company is the sphere leader.

Genius Corps is a sphered alliance under DEIC.

Cobalt is a sphered alliance under DEIC.

DEIC has a tariff of 30%.

Genius Corps nation is selling 1000 Steel at $2000 per unit. 

For a DEIC or Cobalt nation that $2000 per unit would be what they'd have to pay.

For other alliances like let us say United Purple Nations for example the price would instead be $2600 per unit.

 

The tariff of course would be adjustable once a day or perhaps a week may be better by the sphere leader. It could be set 0-100% up to them.

Now where the extra money goes can be dealt with in different manners. It could simply become extra money into the pocket of the seller, it could go into the sphere leader's bank, the seller and bank can split it... or you can allow all those options by allowing the sphere leader to set what they'd like (so do they want to enrich their sellers? Their own bank? Or a bit of both?).

 

How to sphere and leaving: Tricky business but here is some ideas.

 

First off a sphere leader can straight up invite an alliance into it's sphere, and can also remove an alliance. I was thinking there could be two types of agreements, two sided and one sided.

 

One sided: Sphere leader can diplomatically remove sphered alliance. Sphered alliance cannot remove itself diplomatically.

Two sided: Both parties can remove the sphered alliance from the sphere. 

 

Of course the one sided agreement has to allow the sphered alliance a way out so one way to allow that would be a decision available to the sphered alliance's leaders that they can take when they have 5 ongoing wars with the sphere leader's alliance. Than they'd need a certain amount of victories to break free, but at the same time if they recieve the same amount of defeats than their attemp fails. If we set the amount needed at 33% your member count than an alliance of 30 would need 10 victories to break free, but if they recieve 10 defeats first than they remain.

A cooldown would likely have to exist to not allow those alliances to constantly start such wars.

 

Losing sphere leader status - When you drop out of the top 10 you have a week to regain your spot. Failure to do so removes you as a sphere leader, your sphered alliances are "freed", and the new sphere leader takes your spot.

 

Thoughts? 

 

NOTE: I didn't really take into account the colour mechanic above but you could also integrate that too I suppose. If each sphere leader has a different colour than you can make it so sphered alliances to get the colour bonus they must take the colour of their sphere leader. Such a thing would be problematic for alliances like GPA for example as VE would like get the green but oh well.

You could to be fair give the #1 ranked alliance first dips on choosing a colour, than the #2, and so on. 

Edited June 5, 2015 by Rozalia

[Isolatar]

Don't you mean alliances in the top 10 cannot be sphered?

[Rozalia]

Don't you mean alliances in the top 10 cannot be sphered?

 

Thanks for the catch. It is of course as you say.

[Greatnate]

I like the tariff idea. Price discrimination is currently labor intensive, making it easier to sell at a different price for members of the same alliance and favored alliances would be useful. I can imagine it getting out of hand quickly, imagine if you had to set tariffs for each good for each alliance. It would be tricky to balance utility and ease of use.

 

I don't like the sphere idea, 10 ten alliances should be able to cooperate economically if they choose and shouldn't be able to profit off of sphered-alliances. Maybe some sort of system of trade groups? Or just the ability to grant "favored alliance" status and set a different tariff rate.

[Shakyr]

Why not expand on the current system and allow alliances to set a tariff, for all external trades (the tariff would go into the bank and be displayed in tariff records, like tax records). Any nations that are in alliances that are linked via market sharing, would be exempt from the tariff.

[Rozalia]

I like the tariff idea. Price discrimination is currently labor intensive, making it easier to sell at a different price for members of the same alliance and favored alliances would be useful. I can imagine it getting out of hand quickly, imagine if you had to set tariffs for each good for each alliance. It would be tricky to balance utility and ease of use.

 

I don't like the sphere idea, 10 ten alliances should be able to cooperate economically if they choose and shouldn't be able to profit off of sphered-alliances. Maybe some sort of system of trade groups? Or just the ability to grant "favored alliance" status and set a different tariff rate.

 

You could allow a different tariff for each good but it's likely unneeded. One tariff that applies to all goods would do just fine I think.

 

It makes the top 10 spot worth holding, promotes relations between the top 10 and other alliances, gives reason for wars (if you want to use it as a reason), and... promotes competition I'd think.

 

Why not expand on the current system and allow alliances to set a tariff, for all external trades (the tariff would go into the bank and be displayed in tariff records, like tax records). Any nations that are in alliances that are linked via market sharing, would be exempt from the tariff.

 

That would be one way to do it. The only issue I have is allowing other top 10 alliances to be exempt by being under market sharing as that will promote abuse. If the most numerous and powerful alliances all market share with each other than it'll strangle everyone else.

 

I also just noticed I forgot to note something that should be obvious, but nevertheless. An alliance should only be able to be sphered by one of the sphere leaders.

[Samdoo]

NO!!! NEVER! NEVER! NEVER! NEVER! Hate this idea. Market sharing trades not being seen on the global trade market and in there own market is what is keeps the market stable. 

 

This tariff style system making it so market sharing trades would be viewed on the global makes it so everyone would post in the market sharing area almost exclusively. 

 

Put a huge tariff like say 200% get together 5 or so alliances and buy out a part of the market... now everyone must join your trade group or pay a massive price to get the good thus re-enforcing the market holding even more. What ever the cap would be on a tariff would be the tariff used across every sphere. There is no reason to use a lesser tariff. 

 

You would then end up in constant combat or in a political system locking out other play styles and even new alliance from emerging easily. 

 

The market sharing system is heavily underused but addresses this and stops this from occurring with their being an alliance marketplace and a global market place. 

 

The market sharing system does run the risk of someone buying out the shared market and putting it on global but that is a risk associated with market sharing, It is better than the global market getting locked out though. 

 

Alliances being in the top 10 is already a self motivated drive and need for competition. no reason to add a further bonus to being top 10. It would simply make it harder for other alliances to get into top 10.(you`ve made it even more desired to be in a top 10 alliance.) Limiting strategy and making the only way to enter the top 10 being with war. 

 

This discourages competition and would create a massive market upheaval. Interesting thought to get market sharing used more but it is very easy to abuse a tariff system. 

[Rozalia]

NO!!! NEVER! NEVER! NEVER! NEVER! Hate this idea. Market sharing trades not being seen on the global trade market and in there own market is what is keeps the market stable. 

 

This tariff style system making it so market sharing trades would be viewed on the global makes it so everyone would post in the market sharing area almost exclusively. 

 

Put a huge tariff like say 200% get together 5 or so alliances and buy out a part of the market... now everyone must join your trade group or pay a massive price to get the good thus re-enforcing the market holding even more. What ever the cap would be on a tariff would be the tariff used across every sphere. There is no reason to use a lesser tariff. 

 

You would then end up in constant combat or in a political system locking out other play styles and even new alliance from emerging easily. 

 

The market sharing system is heavily underused but addresses this and stops this from occurring with their being an alliance marketplace and a global market place. 

 

The market sharing system does run the risk of someone buying out the shared market and putting it on global but that is a risk associated with market sharing, It is better than the global market getting locked out though. 

 

Alliances being in the top 10 is already a self motivated drive and need for competition. no reason to add a further bonus to being top 10. It would simply make it harder for other alliances to get into top 10.(you`ve made it even more desired to be in a top 10 alliance.) Limiting strategy and making the only way to enter the top 10 being with war. 

 

This discourages competition and would create a massive market upheaval. Interesting thought to get market sharing used more but it is very easy to abuse a tariff system. 

 

If a sphere leader was to set a 100% tariff than the rest merely need to set a lesser tariff to make it so people are more likely to buy it from their nations. The top 10 not being allowed to sphere each other is an attempt to cut down on abuses like the one you describe. If an alliance were to convince the majority of alliances below the top 10 into their scheme and screw the other top 10 alliances than... sounds like a casus belli to me.

[Ayayay]

Why would anyone willingly join a sphere? 

 

This is even more !@#$ed up than Victoria II's economic simulation (which you obviously based it off of). Unless I can rush prestige techs to get into the top 10 then screw that. 

[Rozalia]

Why would anyone willingly join a sphere? 

 

This is even more !@#$ed up than Victoria II's economic simulation (which you obviously based it off of). Unless I can rush prestige techs to get into the top 10 then screw that. 

 

If you join someone's sphere than you don't have to pay tariffs (which the sphere leader sets) on goods from the alliances in that sphere. So if you join a sphere with a lot of nations that sell on the market than you'll be getting stuff cheaper than you would normally. Besides that it can be brought up when alliances discuss treaties and such as a condition.

 

Nice of you to notice.

[Lamia]

Exactly what benefit does this provide? I see that it gives some players more micro-mangement over the game/others, but I fail to see what the exact benefit there is to a majority of the players. 

 

Also how does it relate to players that don't belong to an alliance. Or purposefully chose not to belong to one? Or are part of a very small new alliance that no "sphere leader" has picked? How does a sphere leader deal with the disbanding of alliances? What happens if top #10 Alliances choose to splinter (UPN -> UPN Alpha and UPN Beta) while still maintaining cohesiveness outside of the game mechanics ( such as maintaining a single set of forums and splitting in-game alliance leaders among a president/emperor and vice president/regent?)

 

I'm not exactly shooting this idea down, but I think there are still many issues that would need to be worked out, and I question whether there are any benefits to be gained from doing so. 

[Rozalia]

Exactly what benefit does this provide? I see that it gives some players more micro-mangement over the game/others, but I fail to see what the exact benefit there is to a majority of the players. 

 

Also how does it relate to players that don't belong to an alliance. Or purposefully chose not to belong to one? Or are part of a very small new alliance that no "sphere leader" has picked? How does a sphere leader deal with the disbanding of alliances? What happens if top #10 Alliances choose to splinter (UPN -> UPN Alpha and UPN Beta) while still maintaining cohesiveness outside of the game mechanics ( such as maintaining a single set of forums and splitting in-game alliance leaders among a president/emperor and vice president/regent?)

 

I'm not exactly shooting this idea down, but I think there are still many issues that would need to be worked out, and I question whether there are any benefits to be gained from doing so. 

 

People when buying resources are forced to first buy from their sphere (their own Sphere's tariff doesn't apply to them), only being able to go buy elsewhere when there is none of the resource they want to buy. Sphere leader can set minimum-maximum prices on resources so there isn't any abuse of that fact. Essentially due to a lot of sellers now having a tariff over them it should make your sphere's goods the cheapest for you to buy, and with the forcing of you to buy in house first it promotes keeping the money inside the sphere.

The seller does not get a selling restriction as other alliances can still buy their goods the moment they put it up... but that is what the tariff is for as it's existence should prevent all your sphere's goods being brought up by others... though if it happens than at the very least your selllers made a lot of extra dosh so they'll be happy.

 

For simplicity's sake the tariff's are tied to the spheres. An alliance that isn't top 10 and doesn't belong to a sphere doesn't have access to a tariff. So they can join a sphere, keep their prices the same so as the cheapest goods after an alliance has bought everything in house they'll naturally go for their goods, or they could look at everyone's tariffs and raise their prices accordingly so they are still the cheapest but will be making some extra moolah.

In terms of buying goods if they ain't in a sphere than they'll likely run into a tariff most of the time making goods more expensive for them to buy.

 

If an alliance splinters than one half merely needs to maintain the top 10 spot so they can sphere the other. If both stay within the top 10 than the mechanics I laid out means there is no way for them to still be "cohesive" in game. If both are not in the top 10 than they merely need to join someone's in the top 10 together sphere. They won't be able to set the tariff themselves as they aren't the sphere leader but they won't have to pay tariff's on each others goods. 

 

It's fine. I'm happy to address whatever issues are raised.

[seabasstion]

im not sure i understand what you are trying to suggest but this bit:

 

 

 

People when buying resources are forced to first buy from their sphere (their own Sphere's tariff doesn't apply to them)

 

really makes me question this idea. what happens when nation A puts up an offer at the max price and continually buys up any uranium sold on that sphere. nation B, a less active player, logs in and finds themselves only having a few turns worth of uranium left to power their nation. are you suggesting that they are forced to buy this manipulated price? what if the party responsible for setting the min/max is the one trying to manipulate the price? what if the min price of food on one sphere is 110 but elsewhere it is easily selling for 100. this just seems overly complicated in my eyes and would be very easy to abuse.

 

i think an easier to understand (and implement) idea for trying to keep resources local (which is what i think you are trying to accomplish) is to incorporate the existing color stock bonus. if you are buying from a nation not on your color you have to pay an additional sales tax (that equals the current color stock bonus of the selling color).

 

so if i were to buy 1M worth of food from a nation not on my color, i have to pay 1.1M (assuming they have 10% bonus). 1M still goes to the selling nation and 100k gets either destroyed, which would help reduce inflation, or used for another idea*. if you are buying from your same color, the tax is waived.

 

*one thing we can do with this extra 100k is direct deposit it into the bank of the strongest alliance in that color. This would add significant incentive to be the top alliance of your respective sphere which in turn adds incentive to war. a common complaint i see is there is no incentive to war and it is extremely unprofitable - this addresses both concerns. This extra passive income should provide a nice reason to want to be the best. there is a long list of political ramifications this can have. example: peace terms could require those losing in the war to switch to the winning nations color so that they can collect this tax. protectorates on the same color etc. there may need to be tweaks to the color bonus to better capture the spirit of the idea behind this but that could be easily addressed

 

with that said, this suggestion of mine definitely has its downside as well. we could easily have a situation where a powerhouse alliance could become a runaway in strength. additionally it could be very easy to harvest funds this way from multis, provided you are the top of each color. i dont necessarily like my suggestion, but i think it is slightly better than what is offered in the original post

Edited June 9, 2015 by seabasstion

[Rozalia]

im not sure i understand what you are trying to suggest but this bit:

 

 

really makes me question this idea. what happens when nation A puts up an offer at the max price and continually buys up any uranium sold on that sphere. nation B, a less active player, logs in and finds themselves only having a few turns worth of uranium left to power their nation. are you suggesting that they are forced to buy this manipulated price? what if the party responsible for setting the min/max is the one trying to manipulate the price? what if the min price of food on one sphere is 110 but elsewhere it is easily selling for 100. this just seems overly complicated in my eyes and would be very easy to abuse.

 

i think an easier to understand (and implement) idea for trying to keep resources local (which is what i think you are trying to accomplish) is to incorporate the existing color stock bonus. if you are buying from a nation not on your color you have to pay an additional sales tax (that equals the current color stock bonus of the selling color).

 

so if i were to buy 1M worth of food from a nation not on my color, i have to pay 1.1M (assuming they have 10% bonus). 1M still goes to the selling nation and 100k gets either destroyed, which would help reduce inflation, or used for another idea*. if you are buying from your same color, the tax is waived.

 

*one thing we can do with this extra 100k is direct deposit it into the bank of the strongest alliance in that color. This would add significant incentive to be the top alliance of your respective sphere which in turn adds incentive to war. a common complaint i see is there is no incentive to war and it is extremely unprofitable - this addresses both concerns. This extra passive income should provide a nice reason to want to be the best. there is a long list of political ramifications this can have. example: peace terms could require those losing in the war to switch to the winning nations color so that they can collect this tax. protectorates on the same color etc. there may need to be tweaks to the color bonus to better capture the spirit of the idea behind this but that could be easily addressed

 

with that said, this suggestion of mine definitely has its downside as well. we could easily have a situation where a powerhouse alliance could become a runaway in strength. additionally it could be very easy to harvest funds this way from multis, provided you are the top of each color. i dont necessarily like my suggestion, but i think it is slightly better than what is offered in the original post

 

I've addressed that in a couple of places. The sphere leader will be able to set minimum and maximum prices to avoid such abuses.

If you've taken that into account and are saying that someone will buy up any non max goods to make it so people have to buy their maximum allowed goods than... unfortunate but it happens sort of already now as some people have done that. The sphere leader can attempt to avoid that by looking at the average price of a good and setting the max to that, or if they want to allow some additional profit than a bit above it (only enough so it's still cheaper than other alliance's tariffed goods).

 

I suppose how you've laid it out is another valid way of doing it. Main issue I see is the tariff becomes locked at a maximum of 10% and it isn't directly controlled either.

My idea doesn't take into account colour, but I did make a note at the bottom that it easily could. 

 

Sphere leader colour: Each alliance in the top 10 would have a different colour. So no 3 alliances in the top 10 with green and white like right now. 

Sphered alliance's colour: Either change the alliance's colour to the sphere leader's when sphered, or make it so to be sphered both alliances have to be the same colour. 

 

Forces other less popular colours to be used, and for those who get "screwed" gives them a goal of sphering alliances to bring them over to their colour. Deciding who gets what would likely have to be done over IRC or something like that with the number 1 ranked alliance getting first pick, number 2 second pick, and so on. When number 10 loses sphere leader status their colour is what their replacement takes. 

[Ayayay]

I'm going to be honest. This is a shit idea in that people like me who avoid "buying" goods as much as possible massively benefit. When I sell steel for $0 and buy bauxite for $0 I'm not paying a cent. So unless you want to remove that feature (or bring back the avg price feature and have it apply to personal trades) this will simply not work in any form.

[Rozalia]

I'm going to be honest. This is a !@#$ idea in that people like me who avoid "buying" goods as much as possible massively benefit. When I sell steel for $0 and buy bauxite for $0 I'm not paying a cent. So unless you want to remove that feature (or bring back the avg price feature and have it apply to personal trades) this will simply not work in any form.

 

If we're talking of personal trades than... umm it is worth bringing up definitely. The ways to handle it would be to remove it, allow it as it is, or allow it but restrict it to in sphere only (possibly allowing those not in any sphere too). I'd go with the third one I mentioned myself though admittedly that would negatively effect some people, it pushes the concept while still allowing it.

 

Thanks for bringing the matter up.