Sunday, March 07, 2010

Proposal: I even want a free market

Self-killed. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 09 Mar 2010 12:03:39 UTC

Enact a new subrule of Rule 2.1 “Commoner’s Economy” entitled “Free Market Trade”, which reads as follows:

 

As a Weekly Action a Commoner may trade with the market directly: They may decrease the amount, known as the “Offered Amount” of any Resource to any value higher or equal than zero. The difference between the previous and the current amount of this Resource is known as the “Offered Resource”. They may now increase any other Resource (of their Resources), known as the “Sought Resource”, by a “Free Market Amount”. This “Free Market Amount” is calculated as the total Amount of all Commoners of the “Sought Resource”, divided by the total current Amount of all Commoners of the “Offered Resource”, multiplied by the “Offered Amount”, rounded down. If no Commoner, including the Commoner, who likes to trade, own the “Sought Ressource” or the “Offered Ressource”,  the trade will not be possible.

  For example: If a Commoner would like to trade 100 Coal, the total Amount of the Offered Ressource may be 1000 Coal then (after the Commoner has decreased his or her Coal!) and the total Amount of the Sought Resource, Iron, is calculated as 500. This Commoner would receive 50 Iron then.

repropose again: I forgot to multiply with the Offered Amount.

» I was thinking of reducing the “Free Market Amount” (mabye just 4/5 or so), but I think it’s enough to do not count the Trader’s Amount of the “Offered Resource”. If you want to trade a lot or if you are the only one, who owns lots of a Resource, you may not trade that easy…” «

Comments

Kevan:

03-07-2010 10:25:58 UTC

against Having to trade with other players seems more interesting, and healthier for the game. If I always have the option of trading at base value with the bank (with my paid resources being safely destroyed), I’d need a big incentive to trade with an opponent who’d instead get to keep the resources I’ve lost.

Josh:

03-07-2010 10:49:03 UTC

against

Kevan:

03-07-2010 10:54:19 UTC

Trading-based board games (like Settlers of Catan) tend to allow trading with a bank, but at cripplingly high rates, so that it’s always in your best interests to trade with another player if you can.

Keba:

03-07-2010 14:30:43 UTC

You are only allowed to trade once in a week with “the bank” and only one Ressource with another one. For more complex trading you need others.

Additionally, the rates are not that good, because the Trader’s Amount of the “Offered Ressource” does not count… So it’s a big fail to trade a lot at once.

dbdougla:

03-07-2010 14:45:23 UTC

for

Kevan:

03-07-2010 15:07:30 UTC

Oh, I suppose making it weekly is quite crippling.

Although crunching the numbers, I’m not sure I like how this interacts with Scavenging - the optimum scavenging strategy would be to pick one Resource you wanted, and to calculate whether any of the other Resources could be traded favourably with the bank for another Resource you wanted (at current rates, I can Scavenge 10 Wood and 10 Iron, or I can Scavenge 10 Wood and 1 Gem, immediately trading the Gem in for about 25 Iron). I don’t want to have to calculate that every week; the current noticeboard of simple trades seems about right.

Keba:

03-07-2010 15:33:45 UTC

Well thats right. Hm…

How do you think about “free market scavenging?” You can scavange 10 Iron. And you can scavange Total Amount of $Resource/Total Amount of Iron * 10, rounded down of $Resource. So there would be a nice belance between all Resources and their values. But for the flavour it’s senseless…

Ienpw III:

03-07-2010 15:51:12 UTC

against

Kevan:

03-07-2010 16:04:28 UTC

[Keba] I mean to say that the this rule would make Scavenge-and-Trade a strong and cumbersome strategy, and a bad thing. Making it a part of the Scavenge rule would also be a bad thing.

Oze:

03-07-2010 17:00:37 UTC

against

Klisz:

03-07-2010 18:46:06 UTC

against

Keba:

03-07-2010 19:43:40 UTC

Hm, Im thinking of self-killing again… But I am not sure…

Mabye, I should vote imperial - if ais votes against this, I have deferential self-killed my Proposal :P

lordcooper:

03-07-2010 21:55:34 UTC

imperial

digibomber:

03-08-2010 08:37:00 UTC

against

Purplebeard:

03-08-2010 08:56:55 UTC

against

ais523:

03-08-2010 10:09:16 UTC

against Trade is more fun when people actually have to trade, rather than magically conjuring resources from the ether. (And what was the precedent about whether an Emperor can indirectly self-kill someone else’s proposal?)

Kevan:

03-08-2010 10:25:32 UTC

I’m not sure there’s any ambiguity: ”[A deferential] vote will count as the same as the Mad Prince’s vote.” and a proposal may be failed if “The Commoner who proposed it has voted AGAINST it.”

I suppose there’s room to argue that they didn’t actually vote AGAINST, they voted DEFERENTIAL, so it should maybe be “It has an AGAINST vote from the Commoner who proposed it.” to match the rest of the rule.

Roujo:

03-08-2010 11:49:08 UTC

imperial

Keba:

03-08-2010 14:45:09 UTC

Hm, I dont know really. But meanwhile:  against anyways ;)

Qwazukee:

03-09-2010 05:00:51 UTC

against