| Friday, October 10, 2014 - 11:07 pm |
We need to stop calculating the price of goods based simply on how much is offered vs how mush is requested.
For example, someone is currently manipulating the oil market on KB by offering a large strategic reserve that never actually sells. This creates an artificial surplus that can be controlled by the player to manipulate the price.
The price of goods should be based on how much sells vs how much was requested.
Some of these artificial shortages would also disappear then.
| Saturday, October 11, 2014 - 09:27 pm |
the amount that is requested is the same as how much sells when there is a shortage
| Saturday, October 11, 2014 - 09:37 pm |
Not if there is an artificial shortage, it isn't.
| Friday, October 17, 2014 - 02:25 am |
I gave up on discussion and countered with artificial demand.
| Friday, October 17, 2014 - 09:34 pm |
what is artificial about demand or supply.
the price is based on demand and supply that is offered and requested at market value only.
this is not "artificial" this is what is being traded.
buying large and selling when you think is the right time is part of the game.
The market is large enough to make it hard to manipulate it for a long time.
Offering a product at a high fixed price to increase the amount offered and reduce the price does not work at all.
Such offers or orders are not taken into account when the shortages or surpluses are computed.
| Friday, October 17, 2014 - 10:47 pm |
Your wrong Andy.
Plus now you've irritated me enough with you flippant know it all attitude that I'm just going to take advantage now instead.
| Saturday, October 18, 2014 - 01:50 am |
I designed it.
I wrote part of it.
I love to be told about errors.
Me and my colleagues make many and like to fix them.
So if you have a proof of an error, I would love to know.
| Wednesday, October 22, 2014 - 04:02 am |
Well Somebody was kind enough to bring it to my attention that the trade strategies for corporation product sales doesn't actually work. Product actually is now sold at (market price * quality/100) irregardless of trade strategies I set.
There was a time when sales obeyed the strategies set. Back when the strategies actually worked I had trade strategy protocols that would reliably detect market manipulation. Since the strategies I set weren't actually used to determine the selling price, my means of detecting market manipulation created false positives. While I was wrong about the nature of the problem, there is still a problem.
I would reccommend you fix the trade strategies, since this is very annoying. Or remove the pages were you set them, so as to not create these kinds of misunderstandings in the future.
| Thursday, October 23, 2014 - 04:39 pm |
obviously we mutually do not agree on style.
as long as you keep it decent and constructive, it is fine with us.
The trade strategies work but with limitations.
The limitations are imposed by the way orders are placed.
although you can offer products at very high prices, nobody is forced to purchase at that price.
in fact, nobody does.
In the past, already several years ago, the trading procedure was wrong and sometimes forced buyers to purchase at absurd prices.
when the quality ordering was introduced, we have fixed it and now, prevent buyers from falling into traps.
the trading process must make decisions as it goes or otherwise, even now, many products will remain unsold and many orders unfulfilled.
We had the same discussion here, several years ago, using the same words so this is not new.
It is like on the real stock market, people used to put a sell offer for 140 when the stock sold for 15. They were waiting for someone to mistype 150 instead of 15, and they got them sold for 140.
They fixed that too.
The trading process is not perfect. It is however trying to make sense of the orders and offers and luckily, because of the large volume, most times it succeeds.