I am returning to the game with a new account.
I cannot afford to use my MT's and so I sell them.
I still get something from it so it works just fine.
change the market pricing
-
Thelen
- Fledgling Forumer
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:21 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Aussie LOL
- Contact:
Having the amount you can use the market based on multiples, instead of 3 usages, is alot better idea. The main problem with the market is the bigger players wanting more turns. If they want them so much, why not just remove the market limit. Where is the harm in the bigger players buying so many turns? If they buy that much, it will only keep getting more and more expensive.
On the other hand, if you had the market static, and the prices based on the account size, then that would mean the smaller players would still have a chance to buy, without the pricing increasing way too high, due to the higher players using it too much. You could have a combination. The higher you get, the more of the market you can use (more trades), but the more it will cost you. Eg, you get the first 15 multiples at no cost, but from then on there will be an increasing surcharge.
eg, you buy 15x600 turns, cost 3x17 bil (or whatever.) so then say if you want to buy another 1x600 turns, you would still get the turns, but you would pay something more (like 10% more). the 2nd extra lot of turns would cost you 20% more.. etc etc etc, so the more they use the market, the more it will cost them.
On the other hand, if you had the market static, and the prices based on the account size, then that would mean the smaller players would still have a chance to buy, without the pricing increasing way too high, due to the higher players using it too much. You could have a combination. The higher you get, the more of the market you can use (more trades), but the more it will cost you. Eg, you get the first 15 multiples at no cost, but from then on there will be an increasing surcharge.
eg, you buy 15x600 turns, cost 3x17 bil (or whatever.) so then say if you want to buy another 1x600 turns, you would still get the turns, but you would pay something more (like 10% more). the 2nd extra lot of turns would cost you 20% more.. etc etc etc, so the more they use the market, the more it will cost them.
-
Dagr
- Forum Expert
- Posts: 1345
- Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 8:24 pm
- Race: Asgard
- ID: 50627
- Alternate name(s): Day
- Location: U.S.A.
That made my brain hurt, lol, well if I am getting this right I don't like it.thelen wrote:Having the amount you can use the market based on multiples, instead of 3 usages, is alot better idea. The main problem with the market is the bigger players wanting more turns. If they want them so much, why not just remove the market limit. Where is the harm in the bigger players buying so many turns? If they buy that much, it will only keep getting more and more expensive.
On the other hand, if you had the market static, and the prices based on the account size, then that would mean the smaller players would still have a chance to buy, without the pricing increasing way too high, due to the higher players using it too much. You could have a combination. The higher you get, the more of the market you can use (more trades), but the more it will cost you. Eg, you get the first 15 multiples at no cost, but from then on there will be an increasing surcharge.
eg, you buy 15x600 turns, cost 3x17 bil (or whatever.) so then say if you want to buy another 1x600 turns, you would still get the turns, but you would pay something more (like 10% more). the 2nd extra lot of turns would cost you 20% more.. etc etc etc, so the more they use the market, the more it will cost them.
-
Thelen
- Fledgling Forumer
- Posts: 183
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 5:21 pm
- ID: 0
- Location: Aussie LOL
- Contact:
yea, it is a bit hard to understand, i don't understand it myself lol, and i wrote it!!
what i was basically saying is this:
1. bigger players should be able to get what smaller players get, for the same price, at the start.
2. once bigger players want MORE than the smaller players get, they have to pay for the priveldge.
3. this means A: smaller players don't have to pay huge prices that the bigger players create, and B: the bigger players can still get ahead.
what i was basically saying is this:
1. bigger players should be able to get what smaller players get, for the same price, at the start.
2. once bigger players want MORE than the smaller players get, they have to pay for the priveldge.
3. this means A: smaller players don't have to pay huge prices that the bigger players create, and B: the bigger players can still get ahead.