9/14/2018
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System
LunaMoth
|
I think it would be a nice addition to the game if people could trade goods instead of needing to use credits as a middleman. For example, say I produce water and want to trade it for basic chemicals. In the current setup, I need to set a contract to sell my water and then buy basic chemicals. Then both parties need to fill up their trucks/transports and dump them back down. It seems like a bit of a hassle.
It could tie into that auction house/contractless trade idea.
edited by LunaMoth on 9/14/2018 |
9/17/2018
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System
LunaMoth
|
Doctor Dread wrote:
One of the "What should we work on next" poll options is to make it so you can simply go to a stack of product and declare it for sale with a price and then anyone can click on it to buy it. No transports needed. The contracts will be there for formal deliveries and persistent trades. Its something I want to add soon after Guild Bank because it shouldn't be that difficult
I wanted to emphasize trading goods without credits for this feature; i.e., trading water for basic chemicals. |
9/17/2018
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System
LunaMoth
|
Wreith42 wrote:
you don't have to use credits for trades now.
setting the price to 0 works fine.
If you're talking about a separate contract system where the contract creator selects both a commodity to get rid of and a commodity to receive in exchange, I doubt that will happen any time soon.
The in-place selling Dr. Dread is talking about will essentially just get rid of the shipping requirement that all contracts have now.
Setting the price to zero is still using credits and requires two separate contracts. |
9/17/2018
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System
LunaMoth
|
Harkon wrote:
Selling products for another product is clumsy, unpractical and people would use it very rarely so its pointless to implement something like that. Chance that someone would need your product for another specific product with so many goods in the game is very small aka nonexistent.
Well that's your opinion. I can see it being very useful by utilizing research points. Guild members can focus on specific resources or components and trade with each other more effectively than the current system. With the resources they obtain at cheaper production cost, they can make components and products for cheaper, or they can afford to make more of it. All this from something as simple as having the opportunity to trade a good for a good.
And I don't mean 1 good for 1 good. I just mean the option to trade a good for a good, whether 20 water for 40 basic chemicals, 10000 basic materials for 10000 basic polymer, 500 exotic metals for 500 advanced electronics, or whatever.
edited by LunaMoth on 9/17/2018 |
9/18/2018
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System
LunaMoth
|
Skratti wrote:
Can you elaborate how the exchange can be setup in the interface? Should I click on a goods asset (for example basic metal), and then choose "Trade 1:1 for basic rare woods"? Everyone then could accept this? What if I want to select multiple things that I would accept in exchange?
I think it would be much easier if my teammate transferres his stuff down on the same spot and marks it as "for sale" (perhaps "for everyone" or "my guild"), and then just buys my stuff. That way, I can choose what kind of resource and in what amount I want to buy goods myself.
There is a possible downside to this that I didn't realize until now: this new feature would create a very simple way of trading goods, and might make the contract trading obsolet. And it's not always good to add features to a game that simplify the game.
It can be as simple as a contract except you don't use credits. It can be as complicated as a structure with trade ratios set by a person. |
9/22/2018
Topic:
Inaccurate Population Lost in Battle Reports
LunaMoth
|
I have collected some data regarding this claim. Here is a summary:
Turn: 70974; Pop: 167,905; diff: N/A; -31 shown
Turn: 70975; Pop: 167,873; diff: -32; -31 shown
Turn: 70976; Pop: 167,841; diff: -32; -32 shown
Turn: 70977; Pop: 166,130; diff: -1711; +449 shown; BattleID 32328 reported 240 population lost
Turn: 70978; Pop: 166,098; diff: -32; -31 shown
Turn: 70979; Pop: 166,067; diff: -31; -31 shown
Turn: 70980; Pop: 166,035; diff: -32; -31 shown
Observations:
- Discrepancy between population shown in Viewscreen and population lost in battle reports.
- Value of -1711 appears to be -2400 (military power) + 240 (population lost?) + 449 (population increase shown on the Viewscreen that turn)
- Game Turn and Credits do not update (shows 70966 until I realized) unless I go outside of Viewscreen tab (such as Assets tab) and come back; Game Turn was determined from BattleID 32328 (Turn 70977).
edited by LunaMoth on 9/22/2018 |
9/23/2018
Topic:
Inaccurate Population Lost in Battle Reports
LunaMoth
|
It is difficult to know the relationship for that battle since the population decline before the attack and the population increase during the turn of the attack are not known. London had one attack with 1,937,000 military power. 70% of that is 1,355,900 which statistically could be a bit far off from the supposed 1.5 million.
There is a factor that counteracts attacks with a population increase (in this case +449). I don't know how dynamic that factor is; whether it depends on the current population (seems to make more sense to use this), is just an additional reduction (which seems pointless), is based on the military power, or a combination.
Displaying the population as 10% in reports but actually calculating 70% is a possible error (7 mistaken for a 1). But it doesn't explain that factor that counteracts attacks.
edited by LunaMoth on 9/23/2018 |