Re: Floating Markets Revisited
Fri, 26 Aug 94 13:13 EDT
>> If [price changes] are large enough as to significantly impact on
>> strategy, then they are large enough for manipulation to be
>Since I quoted this exactly in my message, I don't see why you're
>confused. As I said, I don't understand what this means, if anything.
>And please don't explain the other half of your statement to me again.
>I understood it (and agreed with it) the first time.
>I *think* that you believe that a floating market is a bad game design
>because it can be manipulated in a bad way by the players. If that's
>the case, I'd like to hear your reasoning. I've posted a simulation
>you can use as a strawman. I'd love to hear one solid reason or one
>example of how the floating market can be abused.
I _think_ what David means is that the floating market design you have
proposed fits under the 'so small an effect as to be not worth having in
the game' category. If your proposal is altered to have enough effect to
make it worth including, then manipulation of it would probably unbalance
the game. That's his second point. Your current simulation is not of much
use for analyzing this.
To continue this deiscussion, you should adjust your simulation from its
current effects (10% chance per turn of 1 gold adjustment) to a level where
it would be worth including in the game. Once you've done that, then we
can discuss the possibility that manipulation will unbalance things.
Unless, of course, you think the 10% 1 gold/turn market is worth including.
Then we have two things to discuss.