So, what is abuse?

D DeilocheOP

OP 23/02/2010 · 03:21 AM #1

There has been a lot of controversy caused lately by MK`s use of the UW function. Much of this has been saying that this is abuse of the UW function. This brings up the question of what "is" abuse. Several things that COULD be argued as abuse:

A-Buying out the food market by going far over the limit and simply burning food
B-Buying out any market and burning resources
C-Buying out a market when resetting just to burn your credits and similarly impact the market
D-Hoarding/buying up minerals to prevent opposition from having the minerals to fight a UW, or fight at all
E-Buying a huge number of resources not because you need them but because you can and have nothing else to do
F-Holding on to a UW well past it`s natural expiry time and not due to inactivity

NONE of this is currently labeled abuse. Of them all, I consider A to be by far the worst, and yet it is the most acceptable. I guess not everybody plays tax empires that have to VM for six months of a paid because their empire cannot play, not because there isn`t enough agriculture production but because empires artificially inflate the market price to screw taxers. Specifically virals. :P

So, here`s the question: What do the masses think is abuse?

Notes from my end:
-For F, I hope to ask Stephen whether or not this is meant to be a part of the game. If it`s not, then we need to make publicly visible rules stating that it isn`t, adding constraints and potential fallout.
-I am working on a proposal to stop A entirely, and to limit E (which only affects RT).
-D is completely legitimate and frankly there`s absolutely no way to stop it.
-B is a set containing A, so my plans for A include B.
-C cannot really be stopped, though it would be faced with the same restrictions as B.

R Ragnarok

26/02/2010 · 09:30 AM #83

If you cap the food market, instead of having overpriced food you will have NO food at all. Especially in a highly inflationary environment like RT. Too much cash chasing too few resources.

A Aacra

26/02/2010 · 08:10 AM #82

ive always been in favor of food price caps, i would just like to retain the ability to buy back my food and re-post it before it disappears into cyber-space.

A Apoapsis

26/02/2010 · 06:43 AM #81

wow. agreement from the 2 polar opposite sides of the issue. Is there anyone who can give a good reason not to cap the food market? that seems like something stephen could do extremely easily.

A Aacra

26/02/2010 · 06:25 AM #80

i would say a good cap is 17, which is the value at which tax virals draw even (so i`ve heard), and a min of 4 or 5. i think this would be good as it sets a decent minimum income (always posative) for tax miners, and still makes virals playable, even if they are constrained to researching infrastructure until the market stabilizes. i think this would work as you could still use the market as a strategic war tool on virals by effectively making their income 0 (not negative), and on A.miners, as their ships are sooo dang expensive that food at 17 would severly limit their ability to carry a large fleet. though large fleets could still be made and conserved by saving up cash before fleet building. And would also limit (not eliminate), playing the food market for cash. I would also hope that food prices dont hit either high or low caps often. Of course there would be drawbacks, but ill leave that to others to explore post....

L Loof

26/02/2010 · 03:59 AM #79

Food price max and min should be tweaked to 20 and 5 or thereabouts imo, would prevent the insane cash transfer of a guard buying food at 1 and getting it sold at 50 and such.

A Aacra

26/02/2010 · 03:38 AM #78

on the contrary lord, if it wasn`t for me food prices would be 17-30 regularly. i do my best to keep them 10ish. i always try to reposted food at 10ish. which i consider slightly cheaper than 11-15, given it is 50% cheaper on the high end there, but i dont lose any money cause buying my own food doesnt cost me anything and i repost it more affordable later.As long as i keep that same food in circulation, i dont lose income. and I really dont try and tie your hands with the market...... unless your hammering me with a 141mill lyth spam for days on end, lol. And when i figure out how to beat a massive lyth spam tucked away behind a mass of hoko`s, ill not tie you hands with the market at all....is a very good tactic that im very frustrated with :(

R Ragnarok

25/02/2010 · 08:24 PM #77

Glad to hear you like what I posted :)

BTW, when i talk about (Total food units Y sold), I meant (Total food units Y sold on the market over the last X days)

L LordaeroN

25/02/2010 · 08:08 PM #76

I really couldn`t be arsed reading all the walls o`text you guys wrote,but I read Aacra`s post as it concerns me in particular.

If you don`t want your food to rot ,just post it slightly cheaper mate. You know I love your cookies :p I know that keeping the food price high is most likely a part of your strategy to keep my hands tied,but that`s damaging your income a bit,isn`t it ? Anyway, I hope you`ll change your mind and make things a bit more interesting in the future :)

@RVW : I love this idea of yours
@Rag : Even better idea.Sounds unlikely to happen as it most likely requires a bit of coding from Stephen`s side but it`s a GREAT way to balance out some things.

As Deil said,the game shouldn`t be dependant on a large player base. It should function properly with both small and large player base.

R Ragnarok

25/02/2010 · 07:57 PM #75

But again, this is just a suggestion

R Ragnarok

25/02/2010 · 07:57 PM #74

So A% can either be a mere 10% boost and the percentages can continue to work its way up until the food shortage problem is fixed (as in, the average goes below Z for like a week or something).

R Ragnarok

25/02/2010 · 07:47 PM #73

This is a very good idea, since taxers can max out food stores much more during good times and then try to wait it out if prices get too high. Plus big food producers can store more food as well.

However, this is not enough. What should happen is that there should be a 5-30% temporary agriculture production boost server wide (but doesn`t affect the other servers) lasting about a week if average food sales go above a certain level. Something on the order of this:

If (Total server-wide food revenue on the market over the last X days)/(Total food units Y sold) > Z for W days

Then agriculture food production among all races increased by A% for B days

If (Total server-wide food revenue on the market over the last X days)/(Total food units Y sold) > Z for V days after agriculture boost

Then population consumption decreased by C% for D days.

If (Total server-wide food revenue on the market over the last X days)/(Total food units Y sold) < Z for V days, then reset all consumption and production values to default values

What values A, B, X, Y or any of the other variables ends up being is determined by stephen according to what`s balanced. I refrain from using actual values since people tend to get distracted by such values and end up missing the concept I`m trying to convey.

This sort of logic can be refined, but do people sort of understand what I`m trying to get at here?

The sad thing is, this sort of code would require stephen, but so would increasing food storage limits too.

R RipVanWingnut

25/02/2010 · 06:03 PM #72

what about raise the food storage to 4 bill and make the cap total food in or out of the market? prices would drop, taxers would proliferate, and food market would stabilize.

D DeilocheOP

25/02/2010 · 05:49 PM #71

That`s a catch 22. To increase our player base (or, at the very least, to prevent it from decreasing) we need to make the game so that it doesn`t chase people away. A major thing that chases people away (it certainly made me leave for quite a while) is the issue of being unable to play due to the food market, which we cannot "fix" without more players.

So the only solution is to make the game work with few players AND many players. The game shouldn`t be reliant on a large player base to function.

R Ragnarok

25/02/2010 · 05:31 PM #70

Well you could always make it 20 per unit for viral for the pop consumption rate, but then that`s just making the viral overpowered isn`t it. =/

The answer is to add more players to the game so the economy overall in the game gets bigger. When fewer than 100 players have over 50 planets on a turn based server, that`s tiny no matter how you look at it.

A ArchAng3l

25/02/2010 · 05:14 PM #69

The advantage of higher income should already compensate for the risk of high food price. Ultimately people have the choice to become comm viral, agri viral instead of tax viral anyway..

with such a high income, they should already save enough extra cash/resources to tide them over during high food price.. they also have the option to plunder pop and switch over to comm infra temporary if they cant afford the food..

D DeilocheOP

25/02/2010 · 04:49 PM #68

The disadvantage of tax is SUPPOSED to be the base PR, not the complete inability to play due to ridiculously high food prices. *Shrugs* To each their own, I suppose. It`s all opinion.

D devorock

25/02/2010 · 03:27 PM #67

ya hb one they reasons i always play a agri race even tried agri guard but never got to dig for artis before gave up.. honestly no matter what race i never player taxer it`s way too risky and much higher pr then others.. i`d honestly like to see them get some kinda beni to promote those that are taxers.. minus aminers their rich enuff as it is ! ..

H HoneyBucket{HH}

25/02/2010 · 02:21 PM #66

Good point aacra, some people buying food and posting it lower is because they are trying to get their food back and have to buy others` food in the process.

And another element to keep in mind here is people buying food high and posting lower for the stability of the game. There are times when tax virals can`t play at all, as many have mentioned, because they can`t afford the food. I know friends that have had to kill off their pop sometimes in order to build fleet, because they can`t afford the current food prices. So is it so wrong for others that can afford it, to buy expensive food, post it at a reasonable price, a price that doesn`t make the taxer uber rich, but be able to afford to play the game?!? Seems fair enough to me. Plus, in this case everyone profits, the food seller gets food sold at a high price, the taxer can play the game and the buyer\reseller gets to enjoy a game that is more balanced.

Many people here seem terribly bias in the sense that they have had enemies profit from something and they can`t stand it. You can`t outlaw something just because someone happens to profit from it. That very thing, is sometimes done with poor intention yes, however it is not always, so it in all fairness should not be punished.

As Scarlet said, many things discussed here or based ethically. Things that should not be done but are and cannot be punished because nobody can prove the intentions.

D Deiloche

25/02/2010 · 02:06 PM #65

The people who intentionally keep food high are why there are fewer taxers playing, especially virals. A.Miners can survive with fairly high food prices, but I won`t buy over 15 as a viral unless I have a VERY good reason to be burning cash.

*Shrugs* I understand the argument that it should be fair for players to be able to hurt other empires through market warfare. I understand that. Definitely needs to be an option in the short term. It is NOT fair when it is in the long term though. By keeping food prices high, taxing becomes a bad choice and it destabilizes the economy of the game.

If I had my way, I`d remove commerce from the game. But that won`t happen. :P

A Aacra

25/02/2010 · 09:48 AM #64

I wasnt specifically refering to you loof. You would be surprised how many people play the food market, im surprised tax virals are able to play this game at all anymore. And to respond to Pete, the food market had been running from 10-15 for a few prior days, i know because i posted most of it. and there wasnt more than 800k food b/w 20-30, cause no one expects food to rise to the price. and i did reposted it all at 10, which is fine cause 90% of the food i bought off the market was mine anyway. Which is why im still bordering max cash. If i play alot for a few days, and i dont buy up the food market and repost it on the second day, i will lose a 100billion or so worth of food as it will be returned to me and will most likely rot. There are not alot of tax empires playing spacefed anymore, which means i get alot of food coming back to me. So i can either buy it back, plus a bit of other peoples food, and repost it all, or i can let it come back and rot. It is true some people may profit from this, but I am saving far more cash than anyone else is gaining. To say that i cant buy back 10-15stacks of my own food to save it from rotting isnt really fair.

Reply