Resource Pricing

[Aeson]

I posted this in the Green thread. I think it offers a lot of advantages over simple split pricing schemes.

The proposal is that each landholder in a market (city) is given a vote on how to dispense the city funds. They divide up 100% between Food, Production, and Commerce and give their vote (there could be a minimum set for each good, or just free market completely). All votes are tallied and averaged to get the market distribution.

This opens up the ability for each landholder to affect the price, so everyone is represented. It opens up the possibility for bargaining between landholders to set a price beneficial to them by giving incentive for various vote splits from other landholders. It could mean that markets become very specialized, meaning more differentiation between markets, and more overall choice in where/when to sell your goods.

Here is an example of how it could work:

It would depend on what you guys wanted to vote for. All food was just a hypothetical. T & M would be best to vote for all Commerce (half each), while Jonny could vote for shields and/or food equally (he has 1/3 of each).

To illustrate the additional 'fun' this could bring to the table...

Jonny's position is a good example. I would want him to put more into shields instead of food. It's the same either way to him. Makahula would want him to put more into food instead of shields. So some bargaining could be done.

Or I could have my vote swayed to Commerce. It's worth $8.33 to me to vote 100% Shields, but it would be worth $12.50 for Makahula and $3.92 to TORARADICAL if I voted 100% Commerce. So if between Makahula and TORARADICAL they came up with incentive more than $8.33 I might be swayed. Jonny would want me not to switch (it's worth $8.33 to him if I don't), so there could be some bargaining power.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

So a player would vote:

I vote for 25% Food, 25% Shields, and 50% Commerce.

Another player would vote:

I vote for 10% Food, 10% Shields, and 80% Commerce.

So assuming those were the only two citizens in the city the result would be:
Food (25+10)/2 or 17.5% of money allocated to Food
Shields (25+10)/2 or 17.5% of money allocated to Shields
Commerce (50+80)/2 or 65% of money allocated to Food

Is this how the proposal would work?

[Aeson]

Yes.

[Aeson]

Although there could be minimum limits. Say 20% for each is minimum, so 20/20/60 would be maximum differential.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Aeson
Although there could be minimum limits. Say 20% for each is minimum, so 20/20/60 would be maximum differential.

Bah, we don't need no stinkin minimums. What is this a Comedy Club?

[Aeson]

I just mentioned that in case someone had a problem with the (extremely remote) possibility that a city would never spend anything for food.

I mean... how would they eat?!

But I would prefer no minimums. That would guarantee the widest possible range of markets to choose to sell in, and the largest range of options to negotiate your vote for incentives.

[mrmitchell]

Wouldn't you have players continuously changing their averages to cancel out others' votes and return to their own, just like what I plan to do?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Why would you continuously change it?

[Aeson]

Well the system is going to be automated. We could make it transparent so you don't see the results (or the votes of others) until they are finalized.

Generally I'd agree with GF though. Doesn't seem to be much issue about how you'd proportion your votes. Either you'd go with what's best for you (ie. all into the area you have the highest percentage of supply in), or you'd go with what's best for someone else in exchange for whatever incentive they were offering. If your warehouse was full... 50/50, and you needed to unload one or the other of your goods at full price, there may be some benefits to changing your votes... or you may end up being flooded out of that market if a good gets too much funding. So it would work both ways, and generally it would be who is selling what that will end up deciding just how well things turn out.

There may be some other manipulations of the market while you hold your own goods, but seems fair enough to me. Things like selling your vote for other's benefit, and holding onto your own goods until you can buy votes for that type would open up a whole new income stream to exploit or fall behind in.

[mrmitchell]

Generally I'd agree with GF though. Doesn't seem to be much issue about how you'd proportion your votes. Either you'd go with what's best for you (ie. all into the area you have the highest percentage of supply in)

Say that I want 50-25-25, but PlayerX votes 100-0-0.

So instead of submitting 50-25-25 I submit 0-50-50.


See?

[Aeson]

Why would you want 50-25-25 though? Generally you'll want to vote as much into your best area as you can. Even if things don't go quite right after you vote, you can choose to hold off and sell another time, or in another market. So changing your vote isn't that big a deal. You're certainly more likely to get 50-25-25 (or any other abnormal split) this method than the other two.

We could just say no changing of votes if it matters so much, (I personally figured it as a given.. vote and be done with it) until it becomes a moot point once it's automated.

[mrmitchell]

No, dude. It was just an example.

I suggest if we follow this system then we go by PMing the votes in.

[Aeson]

But why would you want to split your vote? I'm just asking because an example would need to be realistic to show any problems in the system. If a problem could arise from a situation that would never arise itself, then it's not a problem.

The only case I could see for wanting to switch your vote is if you have equal representation of 2 or 3 goods, and want to boost up whichever one gets the highest funding through everyone else's vote. Even then though you're running into the problem that since it's getting the highest funding, it's more likely you'll have to split it more ways (other people funding it would be those wanting sell too). You might be worse off by switching your vote in that case anyways.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by mrmitchell

Say that I want 50-25-25, but PlayerX votes 100-0-0.

So instead of submitting 50-25-25 I submit 0-50-50.


See?

But the smart person would go 100-0-0, sell their Food and store their Commerce to sell later.