Mercatores - week 8

[Mad Jackal]

sorry about the edit, I had listed teh oil costing 10600 instead of 11600, AND I typed "64" total good instead of replacing the 4 with 6....

[HackerHuck]

Trading slave would be the best for me as well, so do you want to just keep doing that for now?

If you're referring to my preferred offer, I'm agreeable if you are willing to take all 24 slaves for 6 marble. Otherwise I would rather trade with CES.

Offer 24 slaves to sprontalic for 6 marble

Please let me know soon if you don't plan to accept so I can make a trade with CES.

[sprontalic]

Nah I can do 6 marbles

Mid Buy Phase Subtotal

6,590 coins
2 Grains
4 Marbles
Total Goods: 6/28

Buy Phase continued

Buy 2 Marbles from Graeca (1300)
Buy 2 Slaves from Roma (400)

Post-Buy Phase Subtotal

4,890 coins
2 Grains
6 Marbles
2 Slaves
Total Goods: 10/28

Trade Phase

Accept trade 201: 6 Marbles for 24 Slaves to HackerHuck

Post-Trade Phase Subtotal

4,890 coins
2 Grains
26 Slaves
Total Goods: 28/28

Sell Phase

Sell 26 slaves to Graeca (6500)

Office Upkeep Phase

Level 2 office in Roma takes 1 grain
Level 2 office in Graeca take 1 grain

End Week Total

Coins 11,390
Total Goods: 0/28

@HackerHuckle: Still want to do a marble for slaves trade next week?

[Raffles]

My offer for timber terminates on thursday.

[Lawrencelot]

@HackerHuck: you're right about the unfair values, however I just noticed it when Raffles' friend sent me his analysis. I'm hoping of getting more fairer values next week, because I didn't understand exactly what you meant last time.

Also, to everyone:

the values will change every week from now on

, this is to prevent someone from always having an advantage above other's, and vice versa. If you had a disadvantage in the beginning of the game, I hope I can give you an advantage later. Also, now that the values will be changing, there is a point in keeping your goods rather than selling them, because the value might rise.

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

To what extent are they going to change? Could, for example, the price of wine go up by a 1000 in one week?

[Cogito Ergo Sum]

(In a specific region, of course.)

Will there also be "global" price changes? For example, a bad wine year causing the wine prices to drop?

[Raffles]

I have a problem with this.

The value changes every week, yes, this would make a game fairer. But I see a few problems.

For example, I have full capacity on timber at this moment. But I might not choose to sell it this week, but timber price has decreased since yesterday. But if I do this, I can't buy anything next week. So it is unadvisable.

I have thought of all possible solutions, and I'll explain why some will not work.

1. Scrap phase system

This will fail, for the reasons discussed previously. (Keep buying from your region then keep selling it to rome/vice versa, making you infinitely rich.

2. Scrap Rome, and limit people to one region.

A long term solution, and it is closer to a classic trading game. A drawback is it is quite a radical change to the rules, and the game itself.

3. Bite the bullet, but increase all the maximum capacity to feasible levels.

Increase the capacity because you'll need to have space later on in the game. I haven't considered all the factors in this one so it could be flawed.

[Shanba]

Just to let you know, I'll have limited access for the coming week.

[Lawrencelot]

@CES: well, the example you gave was a bit of a huge difference, but for examle all wine prices could rise by 200 or the marble price in one province could drop by 100.
@Raffles: I dont exactly understand the problem. If the values drop while you are storing your goods, that is the risk you take. If the values rise you can sell, if they drop you can wait till they rise again. Or you make sure you have some space left even when the prices are low, so that you can buy more if the prices get even lower.

[Sailor Jerry]

For the record - I think changing the values each week is a sucky idea.

It basically turns the whole thing into a lottery instead of a trading game, since the patterns cannot be predicted in any way.

Realistically - it turns the game from something that was the most original and exciting new game to appear on Mish Mash for ages into something I really wouldn't have signed up for.

[Mad Jackal]

Frankly , while I think the values may need adjusting I don't think they need to do so right now (or that they needed to already) . And I agree with SJ that with guarnateed fluctuating prices this game turns into something completely different.

I knew full well I could get an "undesireable" province when signing up for the game, and made some plans and strategies for each that I thought might work.

I'd prefer to play this out as designed, with the values that were listed at the beginning to get data to then change the values if need be for the next match up.

Granted if the lower provinces are "SO bad" that we can't have 11 players, then the point is moot anyway isn't it?

Whihc brings me to this point. Why if the prices were so "off" were no changes made to correct the at that time only vacant province? Surely one would think the values for the next to last province that was picked (and one that was then declined to be played) would be in need of adjustment?

Hmmmmmmmmm.

[HackerHuck]

Before I make my purchases, I'll weigh in on the pricing issue. I think the biggest issue is that the intent of the game is to trade with others, otherwise it's simply about winning the lottery to pick the site with the most favorable trade route to Roma. Now, I don't think that all prices should be so volatile as to change each week. Some kind of random event that impacts prices - bad storms in Roma wipe out olive groves or bandits attack your caravan confiscating goods/ransom or even some regions assess tariffs on others. The risk could be announced ahead of time or kept entirely random. I do think that without

some

volatility, there is a risk that the game gets stale - everyone making the same trades week after week.

[HackerHuck]

Week 2
Capacity 24
lvl2 Roma 12
lvl2 Afrika 12

Inventory:
Timber 2

Coins:
10206

Buying
Resource office qty price total
Bricks Afrika 10 80 800
Timber Roma 8 100 800

Total Spend 1600
Inventory:
Resource qty
Bricks 10
Timber 10

Remaining Capacity 4
Remaining Coins 8606

Upgrade:
Afrika Lvl3 New Capacity 14
Roma Lvl3 New Capacity 14

Remaining Capacity 28
Remaining Coins 8606

Buying:
Resource office qty price total
Slaves Afrika 26 140 3640
Grain Afrika 2 7 14
Total Spend 3654

Inventory:
Resource qty
Slaves 26
Grain 2

Remaining Capacity 0
Remaining Coins 2048

End Buy Phase

Trade #201 - 24 Slaves to Sprontalic for 6 Marble

Inventory:
Resource qty
Slaves 2
Grain 2
Marble 6

Remaining Capacity 18
Remaining Coins 2048

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Anyone want a couple of slaves? I'll be shopping them tomorrow.

[sprontalic]

I'm think the price change idea is ok. But they shouldn't be extremely significant, and some kinda of warning should be given. Like "Rome has successfully conquered X" would result in a reduction of slave prices in Rome. Or "Citizens of the world are indulging in luxuries" meaning a rise in one or more of the expensive commodities.

Also if you made it so that the amount of stocks withheld by the players between weeks have an impact on the prices (ie increased demand = increased price since some stocks were withheld from the economy). This would add an extra level of strategy to the game.

Nonetheless, I don't think it's such a good idea to change the game by this much now. If you're going to start adding variations such as this then we should start the game afresh. As SJ said, those that signed up to the game signed up to the rules you placed at the start, not the ones that you will eventually change it to.

I say we either change the prices and then leave them be and continue the game, or incorporate volatile prices but start the game afresh (so people can play their cards differently).

[Lawrencelot]

Alright, you guys have a point. I won't change the prices every week, but I will change them until they are fair enough (if you look at the luxury goods, they are not really fair for everyone). The myth powers will add some variety, which was said in the rules from the beginning of the game, but these are not random, because the players choose everything. What I could do is make the values based on how much has been bought from a certain province, but this would change the game too much. So,

The prices won't change every week, but will be adapted until they are fair

. I won't include random events like a bad wine year, but these will be included in the myth powers, along with robbers, pirates, war and peace and such.

[Raffles]

Thing about this game is if you get a decent region, then you don't trade with other people. That would be helping others to get richer, and if you are winning, it is not in your interest to do so.

[Sailor Jerry]

I think I'm /out of this. Maybe I'll play another time when it's out of beta.

Enjoy it you guys.

[Mad Jackal]

Alright, you guys have a point. I won't change the prices every week, but I will change them until they are fair enough (if you look at the luxury goods, they are not really fair for everyone). The myth powers will add some variety, which was said in the rules from the beginning of the game, but these are not random, because the players choose everything. What I could do is make the values based on how much has been bought from a certain province, but this would change the game too much. So,

The prices won't change every week, but will be adapted until they are fair

. I won't include random events like a bad wine year, but these will be included in the myth powers, along with robbers, pirates, war and peace and such.

I have no problem with changing prices until they are fair- I only object to the dynamic prices model. The dynamic prices model makes this a market manipulation/speculation game as opposed to a trading game.

I disagree that

Thing about this game is if you get a decent region, then you don't trade with other people. That would be helping others to get richer, and if you are winning, it is not in your interest to do so.

Tell me exactly who is doing that right now. And why this is a better strategy for them ?

[bird1111]

Since my last post had several mistakes

Prepost status:
4 Grain
10 Slaves
6565 Coins

Buying 2 Iron from Germania for 760 coins

Postpost status:
5805 Coins
4 Grain
10 Slaves
2 Iron

[Raffles]

No one is doing it right now, because the game hasn't progressed anywhere far enough. If your regions are such that you can trade with maximum profit, then why bother trading with anyone else? Trading will only help those who are less well off, and that is not in your interest if you are winning.

[sprontalic]

Nah i agree with Raffles. Once you get the 2 regions that then gives the best prices...theres no reason for you to trade with anyone else because you'll get the best price by trading with yourself anyway (unless someone is stupid enough to trade with a price that yields a loss).

[Raffles]

Sell 24 Timber to Rome @ 80 each

[bird1111]

Prepost status:
5805 Coins
4 Grain
10 Slaves
2 Iron

Selling 10 Slaves to Roma for 2000 coins
Selling 2 Iron to Roma for 1000 coins

Postpost Status
8805 Coins
4 Grain

[Mad Jackal]

One small question. How is this resolvable? (I had considered trading in slaves this week which is why I have held off completing my buy phase...

I know it doesn't matter "much", with the delays in everyone posting.

But posts 201 202 and 213 do not follow the rules.

Post 201 is a Trade offer where HH proposes a trade to spront.
This trade is accepted in 202 by Spront. Thus HH must clearly be in the trading phase and un-able to make any more purchases. Yet he goes and acquires goods in 213.
This is Especially problematic as Spront has already sold slaves in post 202 that HH didn't buy until 213.......... ?