Food buy/sale worth

[The Beatles]

It seems food is worth too much on this game, as Holby's just pointed out. One would think that one of you would have brought that up, playing as you do other promisance games.
Anyways, I propose a buy worth of 30, and sell worth of 6. Suggestions, ideas, comments?

[Ruddertail]

You need a higher sell worth. It was 7 before, make it at least that... 10 would be good, I would say. And didn't you mean "Food" instead of "FAF"?

[Zephyrus]

Er... no. Food selling makes only slightly more than leader loot.

Buy: > 25
Do NOT make it profitable to loot and buy as in RWL.

Sell: < 20
Make pubmarket sales still worthwhile, but the pvtmarket should allow moles to succeed.

[Holby]

Er... no. Food selling makes only slightly more than leader loot.

Buy: > 25
Do NOT make it profitable to loot and buy as in RWL.

Sell: < 20
Make pubmarket sales still worthwhile, but the pvtmarket should allow moles to succeed.

It is not profitable to loot and buy food, it's more profitable to make food. Any person that buys food only does so if they need to raise net for the end of a round and other mercs are spent, or genuinely need it to survive.
At RWL, it is 10/2. If you are in need of food, and running a traditional troops strat. then 30 to buy food is too high.
Food selling is not worth only "slightly more than leader loot" because this is far from the truth. You need to create and maintain leaders first, you need loalty for them to use. It is also dependent on how much land you have in the game. In this strat of Beatles, he needed to spend no time creating anything that required food/cash to run on, needed nothing for them to produce cash with, he didn't even need land. It works right off the bat, but I do not know how well it can be maintained. The amount of cash I have seen in circulation, having stolen about 20 bil of it and viewing the stats of every one of my opposition, I KNOW that even if leaders required none of these things, it would still be nowehere near as effective. Please, if you're going to have an opinion, know what you're talking about first.

[The Beatles]

You're using ambiguous phrasing. One does need to spend time building foragers, and also needs land for them to forage, right?

[sh0e]

no holby
taking even what you have said into account
loot makes more.

the reason things are the way they are right now is only because of the player base

however.. it is true that food is worth too much
but do NOT use the rwl values

[Holby]

One does need to spend time building foragers, and also needs land for them to forage, right?

I never said you had to build huts.

In protection, you have to scout regardless to be effective, just you use them all doing one thing in your strat. If you were to start with leaders in protection, when you come out you can't do anything but try and attack with them, not enough land to be effective. If you make troops in protection, that's just another extra thing to do, yet is more effective than starting with leaders. Your strat wins either way.

no holby
taking even what you have said into account
loot makes more.

the reason things are the way they are right now is only because of the player base

however.. it is true that food is worth too much
but do NOT use the rwl values

Loot does not make more. It is not because of the playerbase in Duels, every one of these guys could kick my behind in this strat. I do not know how it performs over an extended period, that much I grant you, but on the land we have, it easily outperforms any leader player and leaves you with no weaknesses.

[sh0e]

agreed.
i guess with land that barely breaks 20k it would probably be very difficult

in any case the cash factor for loot is higher than that of foraging.. even now
although it will not be as evident as on rwl.. it is still higher

no matter what the case food is indeed worth too much in its current state
7 was fine