Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (
More info?)
Lordfire wrote:
>May I as why Prics and Cents trade less contra?
I could have actualy named a few more races.
>Ok .. Privs in the beginning when they sell the contra they find ..
same
>goes for Rebels if they use cantinas..
Maybe the privs are only excluded because you said 95 % - and
that is a little harsh considering their money stealing ability.
And then the list is acutualy longer, but in that case my post would
have also benn longer...
>But in the long run Cents and privs will also trade contraband. Why
>shouldn't they?
The problem for the Cents are in the long run, if
money is not the issue, the resource points.
And then the amorphous worms are also giving each turn a
little revenue (aside from breeding). And you really have to consider
if popping most
amorphs and selling them for contra trading is giving them a greater
revenue than just having them (and the races which do like lerchin
spice breed).
I can tell you that not always contra trading will be more
profitable not even in the long run - in any case you would not make
the biggest share
of your money that way.
And ever tried to safely forecast the contra prices, the ups and downs,
while wagin' war on all other races and launching attacks on the main
population
worlds of more than one race at the same time, and not knowing whether
the population will be evacuated before you hit them or if he does not
even suspect
an attack on his HW or thinks his HW (and base shield) to survive the
onslaught?
You see thinks can get increasingly difficult. And in those cases it is
much safer to not invest money
into the contra market, especially since in some case it is possible
that about all types of contra will
fall in price! - Ie. As a Cent you do not have a too big
influence on the contra prices, with your population, not even
on the price of Illegal Music Disks, especially when a few other races
who like that type are in the game.
>The Grandadmiral told me so some moths ago. By now I have convinced
him that
>contra trading pays off.
>150k mc tomorow are usually better than 100k today.
No, it actually very much depends on the situation you are in.
And of course contra trading pays off (if done with the right amount of
money at the right time)
- maybe you want to remember who
did know more at the end of 2003 know about
the contra market you or I?
I for my part try to forecast how long the game will probably take,
until
it is decided, and how much money I will probably need. And then act
accordingly. You see you do not need one turn later 50 k mc more if
you did end the game this turn.
And then you are looking at it from the wrong side.
The ratio of your money to the money of all enemies (for simplicity we
are just assuming that all
other races are the enemy - that is my usual viewpoint unless I am
allied (and then I am only not counting that to a certain extent))
does matter not if you have a little bit more money sometime later.
Ie. What does it help you to have 150 k mc one turn later (instead of
100 k now)
if the enemy then has instead of 10 k mc over 50 k mcs?
Will your chances then be better or worse?
>> And to get back to the topic of contra trading, if you invest in
contra
>> the money is doing essentially nothing for you (except
reproducing)...
>As long as you have a good infrastructure and ways to spend the money
fast
>you can wait until somebody attacks you to invest the money.
Unless of course you choke on a lack of resource points, which you
might
have changed if you only did invest a few thousand
credits a little bit earlier into military equipment...
Otherwise see the part about money ratio - what does it help you if you
are getting
richer by not attacking but investing - when the enemy does earn more?
>> Oh, the games were fast because I did make them fast by the way I
did
>> play in these games. The same would have happened in games like
>> Endurance.
>Oh - another person who walks around telling people that if *they* had
>playing in game X everything had been different. Most unfortunate that
we
>will never find out.
You must be very disappointed about that. And of course you are not
seeing any difference between me claiming
that and most others saying that.
>> I did look the map up before I did come to that conclusion.
>> You see you and a few others do not have an awfully lot of money
since
>> the last few turns, but for a long time. The S-Pulse would have been
>> mandatory, to be in effect. Since at one point it is not more
important
>> that you do get a higher income increase than the others but that
your
>> turns stay to be easily manageable. I guess for quiet a few races
100 k
>> mcs are peanuts and have been for quiet some time. I can get into
more
>> details, as to why quiet a few players in that game did not play
>> properly, but maybe you are already getting this point.
>I tried to use the S-Pulse and had almost 20 empires invade me due to
this
>
Of course that would happen in that case. I could have told you before.
Of course you would need to be prepared - or better
be already against a few of them on the offensive.
And then with enough patience - no premature disabeling of the S-pulse
-
the S-pulse would have payed off - even alone - if you were strong
enough.
And then why did you not try to convince a few single races that it is
actually advantageous to
keep the S-Pulse enabled. You might have gotten help...
>I agree, however - you could have played Endurance differently. I am
lucky
>that nobody did, because I wanted to have fun.
Of course you could have had fun also in that case.
The problem with so large empires, aside from the money/contra problem,
and the manageability problem (especially with the client as it is now)
is that many
low growth races will not have a chance that way - they will choke on
lack of rps. And many of the low growth races will also become poor
in comparison to many high growth races (I am not counting
the bots or borg as low growth race).
>> You see you should have told that a few others who did claim that a
>> certain person did an incredible job with the Aczanny in one of your
>> games.
>> You only need a small look at the setup, know what a few things do
mean
>> for a few races (Cantinas, Air... etc.), and you would not be
surprised
>> neither by the outcome of the game nor by the way it was won.
>Indeed - the Cents were one of my favourites for that game...
You mean Aczanny. With no starting ships (and no fuel which is more
important -
more important than the starting Shamia is the 14 k kt
of starting fuel on that ship),
such a low population and so few
money, there was not much of a chance for the Cents.
And I would not have joined that game with any race - no
challenge with a few races about no chance at all with the others.
>> Really? You see you seldom can buy the same stuff from a person for
the
>> same price at the same time as you could sell it to the same person.
>> (Do you want me to elaborate).
>Yes - the computer roleplaying shop solution.
>BUT: In a real stock market it doesn't work this way. You don't even
have to
>sell back to the same person.
Yes in real stock market it works a little bit differently, but still
even in
real stock market you can about never sell the stuff to the same price
as you would
have to buy it. Or think about currency exchange there is always a fee.
Of course you can tell me that it has nothing to do with it...
But for that the only reason would be that it is too trivial.
>> Am I already seeing ways to abuse that system?
>> Well it probably does depend on how it is implemented.
>> In any case I guess you should think it through and also think about
>> ways to abuse it.
>Indeed - it would be important to look out for 'abuseability'
>But since I am not the creator of VGAP and the creator has rejected
all
>these ideas by a lot of people.... why should I think it through??
>Why don't you do
>it ??
Why would I? And then what makes you think
that I have not already done that?
>>> Btw: I study physics. I'm finished with financial mathematics.
>> Does that change anything about my comment?
>> Probably not, at least not to the better (for you).
>What kind of comment is *that* ??
If you would understand it - a not too nice one -
and then you would need to see it in context
with the initial reason for you having put
up the part after "Btw".
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram