Poll: $mini-game How do you feel about the solutions?

[Kuciwalker]

My model is going to make subproducts an INTEGRAL part of the game.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I got my spreadsheet all ready to test the subProduct market all we need to test that in a session is an agreed on source for the shield Demand:Supply numbers.

Maybe we could add a bonus consumption to represent the war effort. Say each military unit consumes 2 food also. There are 5 spearmen stationed in our 4 cities so that would give us a demand of 38:8 and we produce 38 food.

[Kuciwalker]

That'd be great. We'd make a lot of money.

[civman2000]

Franses: It is too restrictive to say that sales NEVER go for over the market value. If there is less supply than demand, there should be a good chance (using random # generator) of sales being successful. Also, you should be able to sell for specific values (as it is now) instead of always being the same. The current system is logical and seems to work well enough. The restrictions proposed are unrealistic and IMHO too strict. Except for sales not always being successful with S

[Epistax]

Supply and demand alone should not set price.

Take real fresh caviar.
Supply? Actually quite high.
Demand? Low.
Price? Extreme.

Thus, caviar would have a high base rate where for everything we have right now, it is 100$.

[Kuciwalker]

So, which solutions exactly are we using?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Epistax
Supply and demand alone should not set price.

Take real fresh caviar.
Supply? Actually quite high.
Demand? Low.
Price? Extreme.

Thus, caviar would have a high base rate where for everything we have right now, it is 100$.

I agree that's why I thought that subDemand variable would work. The one about the Beer and Bananas.

I'm to keep this locked to the three markets with simple variables that alter the premium on more prestigious products.

[Franses]

Originally posted by civman2000
Franses: It is too restrictive to say that sales NEVER go for over the market value. If there is less supply than demand, there should be a good chance (using random # generator) of sales being successful.

I agree but none of the D:S proposals addresses this.

Also, you should be able to sell for specific values (as it is now) instead of always being the same.

I agree but as mentioned before: If all players had the time to alter their deals continuously, the price in the current system would be the same for all also. This final price would be exactly equal to the latest default price and in case of oversupply to $1 (if players are out of stockpiling capacity). So, the current system is unfair to those that do not have the time to post regularly and has the same result as in the current proposal except that it takes a lot more time to get there.

[Franses]

Originally posted by skywalker
So, which solutions exactly are we using?

As it stands now all favour to introduce the building proposal. Other buildings may (and I am sure will) be added later.

As to the D:S issue. Two nobles support solution 1 and two nobles support solution 2. So the votes are inconclusive. If no more nobles vote I suggest to introduce solution 2. Just because this is a Beta.

As to the trade proposal. Two nobles support the solution. One is opposed to it and one proposed an alternative. So, a slight preference for implementing the proposal but not really conclusive. Again, because this is a Beta I suggest to try it in the next trade session.

Is this fair? In case no more nobles vote tonight, I suggest to start the next trading session tomorrow morning (September 1, 10.00 hours) and end the session on September 3, 10.00 hours. All times are in GMT.

[notyoueither]

Trade. Solution 1. Yup.

Buildings. Solution 1. Yup

Supply/Demand.
Solution 1. OK by me.
Solution 2. Nope.
Solution 3. I prefer this to give it a try.

[Franses]

Lost my post, so I will try again.

GhengisFarb,

If your D:S solution is implemented (Solution 2) the base supply for food, shields and commerce goes down drastically. To keep the bank and bakery buildings into balance, the base supply for bread and loans should go down to. I suggest to use 1 as the base supply for bread and loans. I think that is in line with your solution. Or did I miss something here?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Franses
If your D:S solution is implemented (Solution 2) the base supply for food, shields and commerce goes down drastically. To keep the bank and bakery buildings into balance, the base supply for bread and loans should go down to. I suggest to use 1 as the base supply for bread and loans. I think that is in line with your solution. Or did I miss something here?

Bread receives a bonus and is tied to the same base demand as all food. In my proposal we never expand past 3 markets, simply allow some products to sell at a premium. Your proposal expands our system to 5 markets.

I suggest we try the market of Proposal 2, using the same shield supply and demand. And the building list from Proposal 1 with the following changes to make it work with Proposal 2:

Originally posted by Franses
STOREHOUSE (Costs 2 shields/labor) stores up to 20 commodities (including food).

TAVERN (Costs 3 shields/labor) allows you to sell up to 2 food per turn at a 50% bonus.

SHOPPE (Costs 3 shields/labor) allows you to sell up to 2 commerce per turn at a 50% bonus.

WORKSHOP (Costs 4 shields/labor) allows you to sell up to 2 shields per turn at a 50% bonus.

BAKERY (Cost 10 shields/labor) converts up to 2 food into 2 bread (1 food into 1 bread).
Bread sells at a 100% bonus
Bread can not be stored.
Bread sells in the FOOD market.
The city a bakery is build in must be specified

BREWERY (Cost 15 shields/labor) converts up to 2 grain per labor used into beer(1 grain into 1 beer).
Beer sells at a 150% bonus.
Beer can be stored.
Beer can be sold in the FOOD or COMMERCE markets.

To build a building in a city you must hire at least one labor from that city. Additional labor may be brought in from any noble's estate, but the first labor must be from the city or local authorities will not allow any construction on your building to take place.

The only building that should be "useable" the turn its built is Storehouse. All others technically use the turn to alter/sell products and should be in existence at the beginning of the turn to generate benefits.

Also, we might want to PM each other on the starting D:S numbers to make sure we both understand where the numbers are coming from before we open the next trading session.

[Franses]

Ghengis, this is no answer to my question .

I do not agree with your adaptations. The Bakery and Bank were designed to solve oversupply and to convert food and commerce into something else. Your adaptations take that effect away. Since the nobles voted in favor of this proposal we should keep it that way for at least until the next building proposal.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

When I signed on as Banker there were 3 Markets not 5.

This lag in the playing of the game and the refusal to fix the system has greatly diminished any desire I have to play it anymore. I'm seriously considering pulling out of any involvement. I need to know if there is someone willing to take over the role of Banker and manage all the estates that are currently left in my care if we continue down this path.

I will give a list of the management conditions/instructions for each.

I find it very sad that the players refuse to compensate Captain for his involvement in this game.

[Nimitz]

Trade. Solution 1. Yes.

Buildings. Solution 1. Yes

Supply/Demand.
Solution 1. If the others don't work.
Solution 2. yes.
Solution 3. second choise.