Name the Market Crash

[Anneal]

Since the market value still hasn't gone up yet and has continued to stagnate, and OWF sure likes to name stuff, this time I want to get the extremely friendly and civil people here to come up with names for the current market crash and severe deflation. Also I'll do a vote to narrow down the choices within three weeks or whenever the market feels like going back up significantly (market index >$15000). 

 

So yeah, I trust my fellow friends here to come up with creative and original names. 

[Patty]

The Great Sheepression

[Psweet]

This isn't really a crash so much as a prolonged correction.  Prices have been trending downwards since 4/13.  Just call it what it is - oversupply.

[Biel]

The Spider Bubble

[Spaceman Thrax]

Sheep-side Economics

Partisan's Fault

Basically 2007

Bustin' Makes Me Feel Good

In Orbis, first you get the resources, then you get the resources, then you get the resources, then you get the resources, then you get the resources

 

Edit: That last one is extra great because you never get the women

Edited June 9, 2017 by Spaceman Thrax

[Insert Name Here]

"P&W's 99 Cent Store"

[Queen M II]

Hoarders' Delight

[Kamea Arano]

GPA Undercutting Strikes Again.

[hope]

something something market value something something sheepy

[vonnorman]

Trickle down economics

Edited June 9, 2017 by vonnorman

[Ogaden]

I like it, good time to stock up

[durmij]

The Invisible Hand needs to stop spanking it.

[Ripper]

"People do not war enough and thus, believe it or not, they haven't spent the resources that are used to war, resulting in an oversupply" market crush

 

I guess that the current peace terms deciding of having no major war for the next 3 months will certainly fix the market, since people will focus on buying  resources rather than keeping 0 military and building back the all precious infra (as they do).

[Patty]

Sheeply and Demand

[Spaceman Thrax]

If ur in the pantheon channel, check last night's logs

If not, we had a convo in that

 

Wars do too much infrastructural damage, with the amount of resources constantly being made we'd need a ton of wars to restore the market fully, and only way that'd work would be if everyone decided "let's all do a war, and keep it going until everyone in the top 50 alliances has no more infrastructure, but our 1 ship 2 soldiers 0 spies 1 tank and 6 airplanes ought to carry atleast a week longer"

It'd be fun but I don't think people could//would do that

 

But, y'know if anyone wants 8,000 coal at 2,200 PPU we can start change

 

I dunno. Once you have someone's troops down, you can take 10% of someone's infra off, in all cities, by attacking with an amount of troops that doesn't actually cost any resources. Even if every single thing that might happen to increase the number of wars that could occur actually does happen, there's still a lot of resource efficiency to be found in the current mechanics that most alliances/players haven't really had cause to think about.

 

I think that resistance update brought about an era where basically every war resource is totally irrelevant except steel which still isn't essential, and we're starting to see that effect in the market.

[vonnorman]

To be quite honest, its not the hedgemony that broke the game. It was this horrible new war system.

[Ripper]

... we'd need a ton of wars to restore the market fully...

 

Let me see...

 

No, we do not have enough wars: You say that we already tried hard enough, but the wars can never be enough... I guess that no one noticed that the two last major wars took place 7 months the one apart from the other. I mean, yes... of course this current war was not enough to spend all the resources that have been produced in a 7 months interval...

 

The current war took place mainly in bottom tiers: The number of wars is not of course the only problem. The nations that produce most resources are those of high tiers. Did these nations lose their infra? Did they fight? Did they have to spend their resources? Did they have to spend 1k munitions/gas per attack just to move their army? No. 

The current war only took place in the low tiers and some of the high tier nations that got dragged down and didn't have the chance to build up score again to escape (or didn't VM), with but a few exceptions.

 

Current status - Treaties: I see no problems with the mechanics. The only problem I see is a. that the game is strangled by treaties and b. the "builders rationale" (which actually causes a.).

The dominant high-tier nations have no opponents to face.

IF a thrid sphere gets to appear, even an unofficial one, it is destroyed (see Papers, Please conflict).

If an alliance follows purely a war-focused economy instead of a builders/miners or bankers one, it is labeled as a bad pirate anarchy with evil people that are irrational and barbarians and savages that you should avoid.

 

The problem: People just avoid and fear war. And actually... they are TAUGHT to do so.

• Just look at how the alliances are structured and what new players face when they join the community. New players just join alliances, pay their taxes, get their loans and grants and are told to not hit any of the top 30 alliances or alliances that are protected (meaning 95% of the active players). If they are lucky, after 6 months they get their chance to participate to a war or, if they are more lucky, an ally of theirs is attacked by a bad pirate, so the nation is given the chance to counter and fight for justice. I saw players that have been around for a year and are candidates for Best Rookie at the current war...
• Now look at the older nations. They build massive ammounts of infra just to open some slots to produce more food, while no one actually keeps soldiers because... it would be better to build farms than barracks.  Circular logic. Just look at your own nation for reference Zeebrus.

 

Wars do too much infrastructural damage...

 

Essentially, that's the problem. People love to build infrastructure. Its cost rises exponentially. The return of investment for this infra is some months long. People, to protect their infra, make sure that no wars take place at least for some months.

 

Let me put it another way around... By your own logic, if people didn't build 2.5k infra per city (needing 1-2 months to rebuild if it is destroyed), they wouldn't be afraid to go to wars. But whose fault is that people love building crazy ammounts of infra?

 

I will give a hint: it's not the war system...

Edited June 9, 2017 by Ripper

[Ripper]

To avoid having to face the best counter-arrgh-ument ever, I will present it on my own:

 

 

 

[Patty]

To avoid having to face the best counter-arrgh-ument ever, I will present it on my own:

 

 

 

Tl;dr - start signing treaties to cause problems Edited June 9, 2017 by Catsby

[Micchan]

I saw players that have been around for a year and are candidates for Best Rookie at the current war...

 

It happens when the player is forced to join an alliance because playing alone on in a micro not protected it's impossible with the costant raids by Arrgh 

[Anneal]

Just look at how the alliances are structured and what new players face when they join the community. New players just join alliances, pay their taxes, get their loans and grants and are told to not hit any of the top 30 alliances or alliances that are protected (meaning 95% of the active players). If they are lucky, after 6 months they get their chance to participate to a war or, if they are more lucky, an ally of theirs is attacked by a bad pirate, so the nation is given the chance to counter and fight for justice. I saw players that have been around for a year and are candidates for Best Rookie at the current war...

 

There were a lot of new fighters this war and could fit under "Best Rookie" if they were nominated. Shiho and Felkey are less than 9 months old and 13 cities and while this is a complete guess this is probably their first war (and a good fight ). There are some others too, such as Nexa, RedFive, Senry, and Reuben. 

[Ripper]

 

It happens when the player is forced to join an alliance because playing alone on in a micro not protected it's impossible with the costant raids by Arrgh 

 

Damn... I think you have a point.

 

Arrgh has forged the current structure of the top 30 alliances I guess.

[Arkiri Arch]

Since this moved from a naming thread to a problem solver thread, its simple.

 

Increase the amount of resources it takes to build units and improvements. Anywhere from 2-5 times the amount it is now would be good in my opinion. That would take us back to the times where having full military actually put strain on your nation.

 

Resource crisis solved.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Arkiri Arch

[Ripper]

Since this moved from a naming thread to a problem solver thread, its simple.

 

Increase the amount of resources it takes to build units and improvements. Anywhere from 2-5 times the amount it is now would be good in my opinion. That would take us back to the times where having full military actually put strain on your nation.

i

Resource crisis solved.

 

There are two reasons that people don't build tanks, especially during peace-time.

1. Aircraft are OP.

2. Tanks are really expensive: steel is expensive and the tank upkeep is expensive.

 

An airstrike from 1k aircraft can wipe out 2k tanks = 2k steel = about $4 million when prices were "normal". Once a player loses air control and most of the nation's planes, he/she can as well just decommit to save the steel.

 

This shows that, if you increase the expense of the military, people will just war/militarize even less.

 

The problem is a problem of mentality. Players have learnt to fear and avoid war and consider it a state to avoid at all costs.

 

However, IF we insist in wanting to fix the problem through changing mechanics, then motives must be given for alliances to war more. The Color Stock bonus was one such mechanic.

Edited June 10, 2017 by Ripper

[Arkiri Arch]

There are two reasons that people don't build tanks, especially during peace-time.

1. Aircraft are OP.

2. Tanks are really expensive: steel is expensive and the tank upkeep is expensive.

 

An airstrike from 1k aircraft can wipe out 2k tanks = 2k steel = about $4 million when prices were "normal". Once a player loses air control and most of the nation's planes, he/she can as well just decommit to save the steel.

 

This shows that, if you increase the expense of the military, people will just war/militarize even less.

 

The problem is a problem of mentality. Players have learnt to fear and avoid war and consider it a state to avoid at all costs.

 

However, IF we insist in wanting to fix the problem through changing mechanics, then motives must be given for alliances to war more. The Color Stock bonus was one such mechanic.

 

 

To that last comment, maybe discourage high infra by multiplying the amount of food is needed to feed a population. This would encourage population control, and if you built over a certain infra, it would be nearly impossible to feed your nation without importing vast amounts of food. Maybe this would discourage the building/pixel farming mentality. That along with the increase resource usage for units also should at least help the global economy to some degree. 

Edited June 10, 2017 by Arkiri Arch