StarGateWars Forums

No.

It's not the place of the Forum Admins to limit gameplay in anyway, or make decisions that will affect the game like that. If there is a demand for Cash section in The Market then there should be one. As simple as that.

Without a clear indicator of prices in P2P trading, the market will become far more dynamic, price ranges will become subject to speculation, mass purchases and near-infinite monopolies. Cash in game trade is the actual 'creation' of resources from nothing and is, as such, far more lethal to the ingame economy than any outside influence can ever become. P2P trade uses only the existing volume of resources for trade.

Removing the market sections will deregulate the market as a whole and allow for profiteering and speculation, things we do not want ingame. Things Jason does not want ingame.

Summarising: "Hellz to the 'No', my brother." Could write a **Filtered** essay on this if I cared enough.

Juliette wrote:Without a clear indicator of prices in P2P trading, the market will become far more dynamic, price ranges will become subject to speculation, mass purchases and near-infinite monopolies. Cash in game trade is the actual 'creation' of resources from nothing and is, as such, far more lethal to the ingame economy than any outside influence can ever become. P2P trade uses only the existing volume of resources for trade.

Removing the market sections will deregulate the market as a whole and allow for profiteering and speculation, things we do not want ingame. Things Jason does not want ingame.

Summarising: "Hellz to the 'No', my brother." Could write a **Filtered** essay on this if I cared enough.

Well he didn't say the entire market, he said the currency market.. lulz

Juliette wrote:Without a clear indicator of prices in P2P trading, the market will become far more dynamic, price ranges will become subject to speculation, mass purchases and near-infinite monopolies. Cash in game trade is the actual 'creation' of resources from nothing and is, as such, far more lethal to the ingame economy than any outside influence can ever become. P2P trade uses only the existing volume of resources for trade.

Removing the market sections will deregulate the market as a whole and allow for profiteering and speculation, things we do not want ingame. Things Jason does not want ingame.

Summarising: "Hellz to the 'No', my brother." Could write a **Filtered** essay on this if I cared enough.

Wow, what she said

Juliette wrote:Without a clear indicator of prices in P2P trading, the market will become far more dynamic, price ranges will become subject to speculation, mass purchases and near-infinite monopolies. Cash in game trade is the actual 'creation' of resources from nothing and is, as such, far more lethal to the ingame economy than any outside influence can ever become. P2P trade uses only the existing volume of resources for trade.

Removing the market sections will deregulate the market as a whole and allow for profiteering and speculation, things we do not want ingame. Things Jason does not want ingame.

Summarising: "Hellz to the 'No', my brother." Could write a **Filtered** essay on this if I cared enough.

Disagree, the cash market like you said is the 'creation' of resources from nothing. It's an outside influence on an otherwise would be free market model.

If this was a new game, then yes it would start off with speculations, but it would quickly balance out depending on the resources at hand. As long as there's competition in pure in game trading, there won't be a dynamic such as the one you suggested.

Juliette wrote:Without a clear indicator of prices in P2P trading, the market will become far more dynamic, price ranges will become subject to speculation, mass purchases and near-infinite monopolies. Cash in game trade is the actual 'creation' of resources from nothing and is, as such, far more lethal to the ingame economy than any outside influence can ever become. P2P trade uses only the existing volume of resources for trade.

Removing the market sections will deregulate the market as a whole and allow for profiteering and speculation, things we do not want ingame. Things Jason does not want ingame.

Summarising: "Hellz to the 'No', my brother." Could write a **Filtered** essay on this if I cared enough.

Indeed, I agree there.
Lack of information on the market allows hustler trades, monopolies and speculation (you need resources, you don't know where to find traders, you find one, the trader already has other partners in trade, they can speculate and make prices way above/lower than the "logical" value).
Don't forget, less players than there used to be...thus less traders, if not monopoly, then we will get oligopols of traders.

I say no.

Cash trades are here to stay, I say we accept it like grown men and women, we adapt to it (if we haven't already) and we move with the flow of the game.

Some people use the forums purely for the market (whether that's cash or non cash), and we don't want to turn users away from the forums.

If we take away the cash section then we'll have more and more people demanding that we take away non-game related sections.

Accept it and adapt to it.

Clarkey wrote:I say no.

Cash trades are here to stay, I say we accept it like grown men and women, we adapt to it (if we haven't already) and we move with the flow of the game.

Some people use the forums purely for the market (whether that's cash or non cash), and we don't want to turn users away from the forums.

If we take away the cash section then we'll have more and more people demanding that we take away non-game related sections.

Accept it and adapt to it.

So when a partial solution to a clear negative impact on the game exists, instead of chasing that solution we accept the negative impacts 'like grown men and women'? Damn, imagine if a government managed to convince it's people to do that.

Whether we like it or not, the section is going to stay because the forum admins can't take actions for the game, and where the forum itself is concerned that section does no harm. On that note, it was a good idea bringing it up, certain issues should be brought to light to see if there's a viable solution. It was certainly something, in my opinion, a grown man or woman should do.

xDaku wrote:So when a partial solution to a clear negative impact on the game exists, instead of chasing that solution we accept the negative impacts 'like grown men and women'? Damn, imagine if a government managed to convince it's people to do that.

Removing the cash section would have it's own "negative" impact on the game and community. Plus it's the players that have the most negative impact on the game, not the cash.

Clarkey wrote:

xDaku wrote:So when a partial solution to a clear negative impact on the game exists, instead of chasing that solution we accept the negative impacts 'like grown men and women'? Damn, imagine if a government managed to convince it's people to do that.

Removing the cash section would have it's own "negative" impact on the game and community. Plus it's the players that have the most negative impact on the game, not the cash.

What negative impact would the cash section removal have on the game? It would have one on certain members, but not in the gameplay. This game was originally played with less cash trading than is done now, and it worked fine if not better.

And that second argument is completely rubbish. I'll give another game as an example. In Call of Duty: Black Ops, people complain about players using the Ghost perk. It's not the player's fault it's in the game, when something is clearly that OP it will be used. Cash is very similar in this game. It's 'OP'.

id like to raise a point that my scan read didnt notice anyone else point out:

if you remove this market, players that have contacts that buy and sell for $$ will still be able to use this feature, any player like myself(even though i have a few contacts) that only occassinally uses the $$ market for various reasons, may struggle to find a buyer/seller rendering me at a disadvantage to say ice breaker, who sells naq regularly.

having a market section provides a guide for those buying as to what prices are deemed reasonable by the rest of the sgw community.

How else will you know what an account/uu/naq is worth if you are not a regular buying..

would be like walking into a store where nothing is priced.

btw I am not a cashbuyer, have not spent a cent on game so far ..so removing it wouldn't effect me other than the flow on effect to ingame trades.

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:How else will you know what an account/uu/naq is worth if you are not a regular buying..

That's a silly point to make. This suggestion is aimed at reducing the cash flow.

Clarkey wrote:

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:How else will you know what an account/uu/naq is worth if you are not a regular buying..

That's a silly point to make. This suggestion is aimed at reducing the cash flow.

It is anything but a silly point. While the main focus may be to reduce the cash flow on the P2P market, that same market will no longer be 'watched', opening the floor to even more scammers and such. If I, like Femme, were to go look for a $-trade, I would prefer if I had any idea of what the 'regular prices' are. As we know, the BM is not representative of the P2P market, and we would be subject to the whims of sellers more so than we are now, having an idea of what things are worth.

xDaku wrote:

Juliette wrote:Without a clear indicator of prices in P2P trading, the market will become far more dynamic, price ranges will become subject to speculation, mass purchases and near-infinite monopolies. Cash in game trade is the actual 'creation' of resources from nothing and is, as such, far more lethal to the ingame economy than any outside influence can ever become. P2P trade uses only the existing volume of resources for trade.

Removing the market sections will deregulate the market as a whole and allow for profiteering and speculation, things we do not want ingame. Things Jason does not want ingame.

Summarising: "Hellz to the 'No', my brother." Could write a **Filtered** essay on this if I cared enough.

Disagree, the cash market like you said is the 'creation' of resources from nothing. It's an outside influence on an otherwise would be free market model.
If this was a new game, then yes it would start off with speculations, but it would quickly balance out depending on the resources at hand. As long as there's competition in pure in game trading, there won't be a dynamic such as the one you suggested.

The cash market ingame is the creation of resources from nothing, indeed, but the P2P market is merely the redistribution of already existing resources.
I think you and I agree, actually, that in the end it would not make much of a difference whether those forums exist or not, just that it might put newbie traders at risk if 'current prices' no longer are public? That was my main point. Reducing the cash flow itself is a silly goal in an established economy like GW.

I agree with your 'if this was a new game'; one of the main differences between an 'established economy' such as this and a 'new economy' being that attempting to remove an integral part of an established economy is much more complicated (and actually turns out not to be worth the time) than it is to remove an integral part of a new economy.

It wouldn't make a difference, the last time admin removed it from the forums within about 3 hours there was a new forum up called SGWMarket or something like that, and it acted as a trading outpost for $$ buyers etc,

As soon as admin allowed it back on the forums, the other site was removed/made unavailable, the same thing would happen again if admin did this.