I keep stating over and over that the market needs netters to function. I don't know if that comment is glossed over by those who don't know I'm right most of the time. But just so that I never have to argue that it's a valid point for why the game needs netters; just take a look at the market today. Nothing else, just a quick glance.

Monsters, omega, evo, PDM and PS are clearly not enough.

I'm not going to give away how we in LaF work to stabilize the markets, but we do it very successfully and very consistently and every set we netgain you have a functioning market mainly thanks to us. It's our pleasure to do it, because it benefits us in giving us higher NWs.

many do fasc farmer/oiler hybrid (reason for that is well known) and whatever rest as techers etc produce can be bought quickly as goods hit market.

You missed his point entirely, but I'm sure you are aware of that and posted for the sake of posting.

laf rules?

Well thanks for topping my thread Marshal.

But yeah your reading comprehension is beyond saving if thats your take.

The market needs netters to function and the small tags that are currently netting are not enough to balance the bots OR the warring tags.

agreed

The problem is there is not enough player base to make a market completely stable period. The bots, the warring tags, and the netting tags are completely at odds. If most of the tags war than the market will act one way... If most of the tags net than the market will act another way... If we have a somewhat balanced set than the markets will act another way. Markets will do what markets do....


This is very similar to the stock market and the different thoughts. Rational market, Irrational Market, and Hybrid market...

I agree with gerdler.

The market is fine with enough netter. But the current set has maybe 20 full time netters and this isn't enough to have a balanced market.

Question is.....will Marsha understand....

Stable markets are overrated. There are more arbitrage opportunities in unstable markets and the good players will find them.

Maybe netting would be more interesting if the market wasn't always so predictable and boring?

But then again, I actually enjoy competition. Go back to farming your bots. Anyone worthwhile has moved on to real PVP games.

Go on and try to compete today before you speak.

Thin and dysfunctional markets promote buyouts, oil transfers and blind luck rather than competition deciding the winner.
Grabbing, the market variations, and your general turn-by-turn play and the strategy, timing and decisions with which you tackle them still distinguishes players very effectively based on skill, tho adding back a proper destock phase that requires decisions, timing and strategy as it was before would be ideal.

This oil destock thingy is overpowered and takes a lot of skill, art and pschycology away from netting in 1a, as the destock is a step by step carbon copy of what you did every reset before. I want that to be a fringe thing rather than the only way to destock. But that is beside the point really.

True, that's why you are still here? ;-)
Have not seen you around in a while. Still in elders or netting somewhere?

I made a country in SoF this set hoping there might be a decent war and some real PVP. I should have known that it would be lopsided and not much more than another reason for people to waste their time. Back to retirement for me.

You guys do realize this is a problem right? You have an influx of players who come back for a war and then skew numbers so much that they all leave midset? What's your endgame here?

Well, as I said - enjoy your bots. I've never seen a gaming community that struggles so much to recruit or retain members act so toxic to each other. This game deserves to die.

It would have been a cool comeback if sof didn't politically assisante itself with literally every other tag on the server.

You were here for the whole thing. No one knows why there wasnt a cf. It's a fluffin mystery. If you find out what the goal was you let me know.

Funny that YOU mention that as a problem, considering how you welcomed me to this game. You have long been one of the most toxic players in this community.

Also, are you telling me we should not try our best to win in war? How is that competetive?
We didn't have to be in eachothers ways LaF was happy to just sit and net and let the big war dogs fight over who was the best warriors in the game, but that choice was not made by LaF, if was made by SoF. They also decided to hit us in the way they knew would create bad blood - it was a toxic act followed by loads of toxicity on AT and ingame towards LaF in order to start a drawn out conflict. That has pretty much died down now and those who said "SoLs legs must be tired" (https://tinyurl.com/y54p5kl9) were too heavy to even be carried by SOL.

Tl;dr: So you suckerpunched us and now we are toxic because we fought back too hard lol. kthx bai.

I've only been back a few resets but I've found netting to be very interesting this reset, precisely because the market has screwed with the oil destock.

People have to actually figure out whether continuing to buy $1000 oil is worthwhile. Whether or not they should just keep buying bushels, and hope to catch oil later when it dips (roflmao, when it what?). Whether or not to gamble by unloading early and trying to jump from public (people coming to this realisation are waaaaay too late! see #1)

Trying to dynamically adjust to conditions has been really interesting. I can't claim I've done a very good job at it but it has been fun.

Someone who gets it. Unfortunately, people on 1a literally play this game to oil destock
Waves @ Vamps

Actually Ugo that math has already been done, and its rather simple to get a handle on by yourself, and depending on your strategy you shouldn't oil destock past 350-500 dollar oil.

There is no sensible reason that oil should ever be so high tho, and it has never been on a real reset...

At 250 oil a rig on a fascist without tech makes more than a rep casher with 100 tech points per acre (179.9% res/bus) per acre. That level should be unheard of except for very short spikes, and indeed it is.

Oh, what a smart post!

You know, the competition would be more fun for both sides if your side actually put up a decent fight once in a while.



Also, talking about toxic: Two players who will jump to whatever tag will fight LaF in a given set (only to lose)

That math works in a centrally planned LaF economy sure. Right now though who knows if it's better to buy $900 oil or hope for sub $1440 tech. That's the dilemma oil destockers face, because they didn't see what was happening and carried on stocking bushels hoping for better days.

fluff about to hit the fan out there, some players positioned themselves for it, others didn't. Maybe you can just put that down to luck though?

no no... you well enough time of knowing the oil prices were gonna be above the cut-off point. You could easily just plan for a 5-6 day destock by dumping that oil you stocked instead of spending it. Im buying NW on the public market for sub-$200. ofc it would be a bit higher if you gotta dump $100-300B cash than my measly ~$12B, but still.

Public destock only looks so good now because hardly anyone had the foresight to switch gears at the right time. A testament to the oil destock! Long live oil destock (lol).

I think my point is that the market this set created a much more interesting environment where oil destock was no longer the safe default choice - I think that's what you've advocated for, and in that I agree.

Players had to think. For me that made it more interesting than a simple race to target acreage, stock, then jump in last 10 mins.

So it is our fault SoL refused to resign our FDP and wanting to change the dynamics of the server and SoF saying they would war LaF until we quit playing?
You are not going to make LaF quit this game that will never happen.

Hardly anyone had the foresight to predict that the 9 netting fascists with an average acreage well below 100k acres this set was not enough to feed a 150+ member war and the rest of the netters with oil when LaF usually has 20+ fascists with an average acreage above 100k acres to do it?

I mean, really?

I know. Incredible isn't it... imagine the opening that leaves :D

So what you are saying then is that the lack of competition this set makes it more interesting?

You could say that, or you could say it was more interesting due to the lack of a centrally planned economy engineered to guarantee a LaF win.

However, I said neither of those things.

No, it's not to guarantee LaF a win, you are making up that intent for your own purposes. I never said that. What it does is it increases our TNW by making sure we don't have people waste 2 months on a strategy that cant work. It costs our top finishers NW most likely but benefits us in TNW.

When LaF takes rank 1 at least while I have been in LaF it has been under their own power 100%. No free tech leeches no free FA, no market buyouts, no market aid as most think 1a should be.
When our top netters net I generally see the difference in how they grab, allocate building and turns and their general activity level throughout the reset.

And the market balancing act hurts our top NWs since we would certainly be the ones who benefit from market fluctuation more than almost anyone else due to activity, math and the ability to spitball ideas with ~10 likewise active and knowledgeable players at any given moment. :)

You gotta understand that LaF netgains about 2 resets per year on average, and for a netting alliance of mainly netters it's a bit much to ask members to play 4 resets for us in war and then not do everything in our power to let each and everyone of them have a productive netting reset once we get there. That and high average/total NW is more important to us than to boost a member or two to an as we see it undue advantage to rank 1.

well i switched to the old theo destock with no MBs, only lost 75 mil net from what i was expecting with my oil destock.

selling my 130 mil barrels of oil for 550 ( profit of 225 a barrel) certainly helped.

I think everyone was hoping the other guys would do the 5-6 day destock and they could scoop up their oil stock ;) Didn’t really work out lol.

selling em for 1400 would have been better like some in laf did :-P

Vamps comes back with SoF, declares war on a netting tag, gets ass kicked, declares war for the next 4 sets, gets ass whooped again in following set, cries about toxic environment and throws in the towel.... Did I understand that correctly?

That was my point ;)

Anyway I ain't even mad about it, its all cool. I don't have a problem with you or LaF, I sincerely wanted to join you because I thought it would be best shot at getting a win (something I've still to manage on *any* server) but my stubbornness got in the way of that. So here I am putting up second rate finishes in monsters ;)

One of the things I never appreciated back in the day that Alliance server allows for much more co-ordinated play than I had considered. I thought it was like "tag up, get protection, do your best" but in my senior years I appreciate there is a much richer side to it, whilst you cite tech leeches, market aid as on the no-no list I could just as arbitrarily cite 'ensuring there are enough oilers'. I think your perspective is coloured by being in a larger alliance, this affords you the ability to do things which smaller alliances couldn't hope to. Things which you would certainly categorise as being fair, honourable etc but what you can't deny is that they are things which are not available to smaller alliances. They are a competitive advantage that only the largest alliance has.

I'm not bitter about that, but I think you should acknowledge that if smaller alliances use the things they have available (within the rules) to their advantage, that is no more or less frowned upon.

This drives right to the heart of the altercation that occurred several resets ago where it is LaF that dictates what is policy. I'm over that, it is what it is. That's one of your "competitive advantages". No point in me hating on it. The real skilled player would attempt to understand it and try to find a way to use it give them an edge.

Still working on that part though, maybe one day ;)

I like Vamps and he's no idiot.

I think he's as disappointed in his own leadership in sof as he is anyone else. It's the only way what he's saying makes sense. Because no one on our side wanted these wars.

I said last set, sof should fs stones, elders, mercs and sol. Practically begged them to do so. Why? Because it was a better war. No other reason other than it could have gone either way. Thats fun.

This set was basically chirping from day 1, and while laf held off as long as possible (until sof started storing turns) the writing was on this wall. I asked for a cf multiple times. I got told "why would i cf you, i enjoy wantching you talk about me." Again, any idiot could have predicted the outcome of this war, because neither sol nor sof have come back from a significant nw disadvantage. The better thing to do would have been to war tags that were around your level rather than stick it to the better warclans after years away.

Next set, the only war that seems to make sense for sof is hitting sol now with a clan like elders making up a numbers disparity. And maybe we'd finally get a stocks war out of this awful comeback. But even though that war makes the most sense, everyone in FR in sof is like "we can't hit sol."

It makes no sense to me. There was a dozen ways to make decent, competitive wars but sof leadership is constantly choosing bad, noncompetitive wars. That's hardly the fault of someone like me who prefers a really competitive stocks war. We did everything we could to stop this nonsense. There's even a ten page thread where I'm legit trying to call this off in favor of something better and getting told off for it. It's not the leadership of clans that caused this idiotic war, it's the leadership of a clan not giving a fluff if the server gets put thru the ringer for 6 weeks, and being nearly inactive for it while nearly 40% of participating countries quit out of frustration. It's silly.

Even the fact you have "~10 active&knowledgeable" players is a competitive advantage.

I think what I am getting at is that posts like this come across as trying to delegitimise other people's performances.

They are working with what they have got. I am really impressed with some of the great countries I've seen LaF run since I've been back.

Last reset when I was on for a great finish I thought I would get to compete, but then you got blindsided and I felt sad for you guys and disappointed that t10 became easy. Meaningless (almost).

At least this set with early war and the screwed up market everyone netting faced a new challenge on a different playing field. I think this reset the finishes will reflect to some degree the capacity in which players were able to adapt to the conditions on the fly. You say its easy to predict what would happen without laf running oilers, I say that is information that might seem obvious to those that normal plan the economy, and that to anyone else that isn't privy to that it's not so clear.

SoF declared several sets of war on LaF, the ball is in their court, they made their bed, for people like Vamps to come on AT and blame LaF for the "toxic environment" is plain asinine.

LaF sucks donkey balls

They're delicious!

Im so much better than LaF.

I saw it coming and made my tyranny indy oiler.

I'm LaFing all the way to the bank, every day I log in to $3b to $4b cash....

Money: $3,072,385,735

I'm not even in the top half of LaF....

And he FA's me to die <3

FA me, so I can hit some of you and then you can kill me because I will be within range =]

Can we focus on the market and not the so called toxic fluff since there are enough threads about it.

I dont see / never thought about how a stable market helps sof more than an unstable one (ESP if we need more netters to make it happen). Player pool seems to small and the orders / history just calls out for market manipulation.

Why would a stable market be better for us ?

It'll be easier for you to build proper war countries.

/me drops mic

Be nice, he was legit asking.

A stable market would make things cost less or what they should to begin with and there will be enough of a supply to support large wars like this. It boils down to we need more players, but whoever finishes will still have the best country for the set "stable market" or not.

I actually enjoy netting in unstable sets, but warring for sure benefits from a stable market.

Especially with the way bots are now, they get hulkamania on stocked cash if people dont farm them. And the cashers just load up on tech, people steal the tech and then the casher bots buy more.

This dynamic is a major attributing factor to the tech prices surging to 7k+, in addition to $1000 oil and unchanging food prices. In addition, the milit markets are able to keep up largely with demand a little better and there's less sway in those markets as well. This dynamic makes builds largely unimportant and puts the winner as whoever steals the most tech to resell, and farms the techer bots most efficiently. I, for example, am a techer. I have not used my labs since week 3 tho. I could have been any build and i wouldnt be using my buildings at all.

There's a lot of benefits to warring in a stable market tbh, but if builds are important at all, a stable market satisfies having those things make a difference.