Market order cancelling
Jay Gischer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 8 Sep 94 11:25:57 -0700
C.M. Yearsley writes:
> Just after reading Rich's promise to allow retraction of mistaken
> 'sell's, I thought it was a good and necessary chance.
> Now I've thought about it, and I'm not so sure. It's sort of changing
> the state of the game in between turns.
> If I have a noble at the head of the stack in a location, and something
> shows up on my report as 'for sale', and I plan my turn on the assumption
> that I'll buy it, I won't be happy if it magically goes away. It would
> mean that we can have trades shown on the market report that no-one
> ever has the chance to buy - I don't like that idea at all.
> There are many instances in the game of mistakes which are non-correctable.
> Would this one be better retained?
Being a person who blew a sell order, I still must concur. I don't
think a change like this can be made without prior annoucement. After
all, it was me that wrote the order incorrectly. I'll live with the
As for how it ought to work, it seems to me that the natural
sequencing ought to be in effect here. That is, there are currently
no outstanding orders for my stuff, and if no one issues a buy before
it gets to be my turn to do p0 stuff, then I can change it. But if
someone does buy them before it's my turn, too bad.
What is really odd is how the city buy/sells interact. They don't
behave like players, which is what makes things confusing. That is,
the only way you can have outstanding buy/sell orders which match before any
orders are executed is for one of them to be from the city. This is
because cities regenerate items/cash or something on day "31", while
players do not. I don't really see a way around it that doesn't mess
up buying/selling to the city on day 1 a little bit.
What Rich suggests (waiting until after t0 orders), would sort of have
the effect of cities not regenerating their orders until the end of