Market Fix

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • John B Dixie wrote:

      Ummm I'm sorry Dealer of Death is that not allowed? A discussion to come to an agreement of views? I don't mean to break rules, I thought that was the point of a forum?
      Not at all, by all means continue your quixotic quest. I only meant you will never convince ME.
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Hi @John B Dixie - don't get discouraged by some comments - of course you can discuss here, and yes: that's the whole purpose of a forum.
      Please continue asking questions. In regards to the market, the main thing is that we don't want players simply trading resources 1:1 - for abuse reasons.
      This is allowed in Alliance matches, where there are set rules and two opposing sides. In public free-for-all rounds we already face the inevitable "multi-account" pushers trying to gain a benefit by playing several nations (until they are caught and banned by us - every day).

      Hope that explains it a bit better.

      //G
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf
    • Thanks for the reply Germanico. I hope I didn't sound like I thought it was a bad thing that the structure was to encourage spending gold (ie real $). It's a business after all and without revenue there is no game. I understand and support that. And I think you guys have done a great job.

      On that same note I had an idea. There is a subset of players that play a lot but don't ever spend any money. If you randomly gave a bunch of them a free U.N. subscription, you would probably find a percentage of those would then continue to maintain that subscription once they saw the benefits. Seems like a minimal cost to try with a possible increase in revenues.

      "The first one's free..."
    • If you ever want to start an alt account with 13k gold and an SC, search up "infographics show conflict of nations".
      Then tap the description for the video and there's a link to free gold and SC if u start a new account.
      "Le patriotisme, c'est aimer son pays. Le nationalisme, c'est détester celui des autres."-Charles De Gaulle, Leader of Free France in World War 2.
      English: "Patriotism is to love your country. Nationalism is hating that of others."
    • I think the market works rather well, i just wish that defeated countries would use it more often, sell all their resources and start performing spy actions. How many nations will still be trading once WW3 begins?

      Too further expand on it, you can't trade with people you are at war with, but likewise if i have a buy at max... why should someone buying for less take precedence, its just another feature that gives players the ability to stop abusive and stacked play.
    • I find this discussion very amusing. I don't see anything in the game that prevents you from making any trade at any price (within game defined limits) with any player, except for someone you are at war with. You just don't know who you are trading with.

      But there is a very simple way to trade with another player of your choosing. And if you can't figure that out, I'm not going to tell you.
    • To me, the market doesn't work.

      I've played a lot of Call of War, which is essentially the same game as this, and it does work there. Ignoring the fact that CoW allows direct player-to-player trades in the diplomacy panel, the open market also allows resources to be bought and sold regularly and at (fairly) reasonable prices throughout most of the game. If you need a quick fix of - say - fuel, you can get some on the market; you might have to pay a lot, but you can make up the shortfall to a particular unit or building or research that you need, if you need it NOW. Similarly, if you are desperate for cash, you can flog some of your resources; again, probably at a horribly low price, but if money is necessary immediately, you can do it. It only tends to dry up towards the very end when there are only a handful of countries left, and nobody wants to give their enemies anything at all, even at massively distorted prices.

      In CoN, it just... doesn't work! I'm not sure why - I don't know how it's governed in terms of the mechanics. But the result is that hardly any trades are available on the market. Ever. To buy or to sell. If you are short of cash - tough shit, wait until your cities have earned it. If you are short of Rare Materials for research - tough shit, wait until you've produced it yourself.

      Is it really supposed to be like that? Call of War isn't. Maybe it's the AI? Are AI nations programmed to be more willing to buy and sell in CoW than they are in CoN, and they keep the market going? Or maybe it's because resources are much scarcer in CoN than they are in CoW? Or the fact that research always requires the same 2 resource types in CoN, whereas it varies for different unit types in CoW so not everyone is demanding the same stuff at the same time?

      I don't know the answer. But I do think the game would be improved if the resource market could have some actual trades available, occasionally.
    • crazystoner wrote:

      Would be cool to offer trades for resources, peace deal for 10000 eletronics.
      I like the idea of peace agreements. At war but need peace? Try and strike up a deal! Gives more power to having unspent recourses, and gives incentive for countries not to kill you. You could add in the ability, for example, to strike up a peace deal for "x number of days for x number of resources," or something of the sort. The countries that agreed and made the deal can not break it without a huge moral debuff. I think personally, diplomacy is so underutilized. Developers should really consider adding in more mechanics to support player x player interaction.
    • StopThereCowboy wrote:

      crazystoner wrote:

      Would be cool to offer trades for resources, peace deal for 10000 eletronics.
      I like the idea of peace agreements. At war but need peace? Try and strike up a deal! Gives more power to having unspent recourses, and gives incentive for countries not to kill you. You could add in the ability, for example, to strike up a peace deal for "x number of days for x number of resources," or something of the sort. The countries that agreed and made the deal can not break it without a huge moral debuff. I think personally, diplomacy is so underutilized. Developers should really consider adding in more mechanics to support player x player interaction.
      ... and buff MRLS while they're at it! :)
      *** Warning: This poster is on double secret probation ***

      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • StopThereCowboy wrote:

      crazystoner wrote:

      Would be cool to offer trades for resources, peace deal for 10000 eletronics.
      I like the idea of peace agreements. At war but need peace? Try and strike up a deal! Gives more power to having unspent recourses, and gives incentive for countries not to kill you. You could add in the ability, for example, to strike up a peace deal for "x number of days for x number of resources," or something of the sort. The countries that agreed and made the deal can not break it without a huge moral debuff. I think personally, diplomacy is so underutilized. Developers should really consider adding in more mechanics to support player x player interaction.
      I wonder if more diplomacy interactions could make for less inactivity.
    • The Inquisitor wrote:

      StopThereCowboy wrote:

      crazystoner wrote:

      Would be cool to offer trades for resources, peace deal for 10000 eletronics.
      I like the idea of peace agreements. At war but need peace? Try and strike up a deal! Gives more power to having unspent recourses, and gives incentive for countries not to kill you. You could add in the ability, for example, to strike up a peace deal for "x number of days for x number of resources," or something of the sort. The countries that agreed and made the deal can not break it without a huge moral debuff. I think personally, diplomacy is so underutilized. Developers should really consider adding in more mechanics to support player x player interaction.
      I wonder if more diplomacy interactions could make for less inactivity.
      I believe higher base production would help more, I suspect most players turn inactive when they spend all resources and have not much to do anymore
    • I think this is a good point.

      The game is pretty unforgiving to newcomers. You look through the unit roster and think, "Awesome! I'm going to start by building this and that, and I'll support them with these, and it'll be cool as fuck."

      And then you realise that you've spent all your resources not even building the basics that you wanted, and you aren't going to have produced enough to make more progress towards your plan for about another week. And there's nothing on the market to compensate for your shaortages. It's pretty dispiriting.

      You have to learn, through bitter experience and failures, what sequence of building, research and mobilization is efficient in the very early part of the game - and what isn't. If you get it wrong you hobble yourself quite seriously, and you can't recover from it for many days.

      I think this puts a lot of people off.