Aug 8th 2019, 20:49:50
I dont see / never thought about how a stable market helps sof more than an unstable one (ESP if we need more netters to make it happen). Player pool seems to small and the orders / history just calls out for market manipulation.
Why would a stable market be better for us ?
I think if you have no sense of why a market needs to be reasonable stable and reliable to have a purpose I cant explain it to you in a post, you will be needing a book or a library.
If you go to the supermarket and theres no food there one day you'd be a bit bummed out, you go to the next one theres no food there either and so on. You go to 2-3 supermarkets a day and eventually you find food before you are starving, but its not the food you want; you wanted beef but all they had was pasta and milk, so now you buy what the market has instead of what you want. Next day you do find beef but it costs $170/lb. You will eventually start making your own food and so will everyone else, the trust you felt that the supermarket would have what you needed is no longer there and that is not good for the producers either because when they eventually get a product there is no one to buy it and it rots in the stores. Is that good for your life quality? Is that good for anyones life quality?
This is very much the situation on team server most resets. You go to the market in anticipation of finding nothing. Buying a tech, be it an income tech or a war tech will not be a strategic choice and neither will how much you buy. People rely on long inefficient tech phases to get all the need they want and every reset is the same over and over and over again because they can't afford to believe in a market that only delivers every other reset. Its a selfpromoting spiral in which THE key feature of this game is taken out of play. The market is as central to this game as buildings or the war room but only the market made this game more or less unique at one point.
Any decent country is impossible to make worth killing at this point due to the oil prices pretty much. We can each break bigger countries but the attacker loses 2-5 times more resources than the defender even if the kill is successful. Thats not because of this war thats just because of the oil price.
A techer spending all his turns teching makes $2500/turn/acre if teching residential tech, but $300-400/turn/acre when teching something else.
An oiler with no tech makes ~$3000/turn/acre by attacking, spying, sending missiles, building CS or exploring.
A casher with full tech makes $750/turn/acre cashing all his turns.
A Farmer with full tech makes $600/turn/acre from a brief stint where they made $800-900/turn/acr
An indy makes $600/turn/acre.
Normally techer makes more than the others and cashers are second but farmers and possibly oilers make more than casher in part of the endgame because everyone is stocking their product. This is how it should be because the investment you make in your country is far higher per acre if you are a casher or farmer than if you are an oiler. And a techer has to spend all his turns teching to get his income, which means less turns for everything else. There is a balance that has been in this game where those strats compete with each others over which is the best on a given reset, based on market conditions. This has been put out of play. Your choices don't matter when there is only one choice.