|Previous Thread:||W3C - Peaceful Countries - initial implementation|
|Next Thread:||Havoc with private investment funds|
| Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 06:18 pm |
The Designers have rejected eliminating market interventions on numerous occasions. If I understand them right, the market system would not recover from such a crash because it is too heavily dominated by computer-controlled entities. With many more players in the game, it might be possible to convince the Designers to take the brakes off.
I should point out that this would be a MAJOR change to the game. Like the suggested changes to the war game, a change like this to the economy game will favor the active players and penalize the passive. Large established empires will do far better than new or single countries, and those with CEOs will have an advantage. If the Designers ever give a hint that they will remove market interventions, that should be everyone's signal to diversify their corporations (if they are not already so). Be careful what you wish for...
| Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 06:21 pm |
On the other hand, removing market interventions is more or less the economic equivalent of removing attack limits.
If I could post here a copy of a poster I saw, I would do it. It has three fish, one little, one middle, and one big. The little fish says, "There is no justice in the world," the middle fish says, "There is some justice in the world," and the big fish says, "The world is just."
| Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 07:36 pm |
... and eats the smaller ones...
| Monday, January 05, 2004 - 01:52 am |
Yes Erehwon, I have that very same poster in my office, lol. I call it "doing business".
Here is an idea for the game developers. It would even cut down on the lag and make it more realistic (since there are no C3's in the "real" world).
Eliminate C3's. Just barren land. A Country can conquer that land very easily. Oh course, Countries can still "do battle" with established Countries. Think of it as an "exploration" into new territory. Once conquered, it is assimilated into your current Country. CEO's receive an invitation to build (like We-Build-All, GMBH ©). Presidents and CEO's build whatever Corps they desire. Of course, they will build what is in short supply. It will take time to establish.
A new player, who registers, gets a new Country, location of his/her choice. A 1T $E bank account to spend and a new "slate" to begin their Country (with 1 game year of attack protections).
Over time, the games economy and world supply is 100% human controlled. The game gods won’t need to place any "safeguard interventions" to prevent collapse.
All this, of course, would require a game reset. Existing Countries remain intact but all your non-main account Countries are reset. The player gets 500B $E as "compensation". I would accept a reset if the game would give bonus gold credits to existing active players, for an example, 10 credits.
By having the game 100% human operated, you would have a true global economy with the supply and demand dictated by the players.
All the other game ideas posted in the BB and TNN could be incorporated. Like player set loan rates, President and CEO loans to his/her Corps, a true Strategic Storage Facility and so on.
Also, the stock market needs a complete rework. In its current format, it's a joke.
Just remember one thing. Erehwons' (and mine) poster.
| Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 08:10 pm |
An intresting side note about what would happen if the US was cut off from oil
| Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 08:47 pm |
The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) is just about one of the most biased “news” organizations around. It is right up there with Al-Jazeera. Just examine their reporting of the Gulf War II. Even the Royal Crown was fuming and Parliament considered withdrawing British Government funding of the BBC. Heck, even the Americans have one, called CNN (a.k.a. Clinton News Network.)
News reporting is no longer a profession of reporting the “facts”, it is the narration of the reporters (notice I didn’t say “Journalist”, there are none anymore) left wing views of what they “think” they saw and heard, not of what actually transpired and was said.
The only “legitimate” News Organization around is Fox News Fox News . At least they present BOTH sides of the debate.
| Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 11:12 pm |
Personally I find the BBC very good for one thing, reporting on things the U.S is doing. I mean watching U.S. news stations you wouldn't think much is going wrong in Iraq and the people there ALL love us except for those evil Sadam loyalists.
And please Fox News not biased? Every time I hear O'Riley say fair and balanced it makes me laugh. Though its still my favorite news agency.
They may tell you that there's another side to an argument, but that doesn't mean they give it equal area time.
P.S. Ever noticed how crappy the BBC wheather reports are? Its like a guy standing in front of a map of England with stick on magnets of storm clouds... it makes me sad lol
| Tuesday, January 06, 2004 - 11:15 pm |
give it equal air time