The 'Food Should Be Worth More' Rant

[Zephyrus]

I've just returned, or so I hope. Maybe I'll be gone again soon. I'm not planning on it, but I can't plan for anything. Sophomore year is a pain. What I'm trying to say is this: consider the following argument for what it is, and take no note of who is giving it.

In this, I hope to convince the devs as well as the player base that raising once again the value of food on the black market is fair and helps to add another strategy to the mix of what people use. I ask that you all read it, and consider the ideas put forward, not only my own but those I've read before, somewhere, somehow.

When FAF was first formed, and even in WB I/II, food had an autosell value (i.e. one at which sales could be made without finding a second party as buyer) that was at least 10, sometimes even in the mid-to-high 'teens. Now, people took advantage of this and created a strategy that other Proms call "agrarian". That is, a strategy in which an empire financed itself entirely through the sale of food to the black market.

Then food gets nerfed to the autosell of 2.

Now, I've seen plenty of places with that. However, I don't think we can quite be compared to them. In those Proms, people fit into three groups: indy, hawk (or, their name, mage), and food. Each was especially suited to the production of one valuable item. Indies made troops at very fast rates, hawkers looted for high amounts, and agrarians had a constant flow of grain. As each empire needed all three for success, they would barter between themselves. Generally, the hawks gave everyone money, and everyone gave hawks what they produced, then used their money to buy troops/grain depending on their strategy.

But we can't use that model. Partly, it's because we've got a small player base. We don't have enough of each type to really have significant economic dealings betweeing the three types, and even if we did, some group(s) would outnumber others too much. Not to mention, from what I've seen, people here will value self sufficiency above all else. Even if that means being less than 100% efficient, people don't really care.

Now, in our situation hawks and indy have self sufficiency, from loot spell and troop selling respectively. It would seem only fair that going full agrarian should have such an option. If we were to raise food to, say, 5 ~ 15 (exact number to be determined to balance out,) then agrarian would be able to sustain itself.

Decent black market prices for food seems to be an aid to two strategy groups. First are those going fully agrarian. The prices would make it feasible to use a strategy that is mostly foragers, and uses barracks near the beginning of a round. Those going indy would also gain a boost because they could use foragers as an alternative to either troop selling or markets.

Having the lack of such prices makes the agrarian strategy at best obsolete and at worst nonexistent. Indy takes a hit, too. Now, either troops must be sold, or markets used.

Food selling wasn't overpowered. Those who had massive quantities of food gained little net from it. People were going mole only because it was a decent indy (and offense) bonus, and the food was just a side benefit in lieu of the upkeep bonus of vole. They weren't an example of overpowering food.

Food is very little net. It is only for upkeep. It can feed troops and (not can, could, past and future) finance their wages. So, having food would be like having a good utility ratio and lots of runes. It's not any more overpowered that runes are. And I doubt anyone would take a nerf to hawk spells.

You cannot send your food on a mission to destroy an opponent. Food doesn't work that way. It just sits there and waits to be used. Troops can be used to attack, and so are not free to keep/maintain. Why then shouldn't they be equally viable as a source of cash?

Food will not overpower indy. This is because aside from building foragers to sustain itself, an indy does not gain an advantage from foragers. Selling some land's worth of food will not be any advantage over than some land of troops. Troops sell for more, enough more to make up for upkeep and then some.

I believe that food's black market value should:
-be around 10~15
-be viable as an alternate source of income not far from being comparable to hawk loot, though hawk loot is probably intended as the best
-be low enough as to make hawk loot the best source of cash
-encourage a fair share of people to agrarian partially or fully

Now, I know the arguments from last time on how I was wrong. I think I'll try to dispel some of them.

People were afraid that agrarians developed too quickly, as hawks needed a run to set up their ratio and indies needed to pay steep upkeep. But agrarians leave their food vulnerable, and have far less attacking power. Also, indies will get more from selling their products to the black market than agrarians.

Food's static nature is not of much importance. Stopping people from banking food to sell later won't make much difference so long as they can bank cash, which they can readily purchases troops with.

I want agrarians to once again be a part of the game. I think we can do that by raising food prices once again.

[The Beatles]

That's very well, but have you considered that what makes agrarians so strong effectively boosts indy too much?

I remember our old 'Fair Foodworth' topic in which we fixed it at 7. Would you consider going back to that value fair?

Ruddertail's proposals include a dramatic increase in food worth. Will agrarian thus be too strong?

[Zephyrus]

Indy doesn't get any boost it doesn't already have. Selling troops and selling grain should give approximately the same cash, or troops give more.

I'm not sure whether 7 makes agrarian competitive.

[Ruddertail]

I wouldn't think it would. You can't sell food and use it for net at the same time.

(That was in response to Beatles' last point, BTW.)

[Zephyrus]

Use it for net? Whatever happened to food has no net value?
You just sell it, forget the net.

[Zephyrus]

Agrarians get net the same way as cashers/hawkers do. Land and troops. And like indy people do too.

[Ruddertail]

Food now has net value. Fairly good net value. 1/100 of a dollar, was it?

[Zephyrus]

That's mediocre, and since your idea nerfs troop net, it might be significant.

[Gen. Volkov]

I never really understood the idea of have low price but high value food. In fact, I can win this set doing nothing more than foraging. For the first time ever I think, I would have to say RWL has a better idea of what to do with food than you guys. Make it worth very little to NW, but sell for about 10 on the BM.

Zephyrus, its hard to look at your argument objectively given its you, a well known agrarian, who is giving it. But I tried to. Some cogent points, but I would ike to know where this came from:

"Now, I've seen plenty of places with that. However, I don't think we can quite be compared to them. In those Proms, people fit into three groups: indy, hawk (or, their name, mage), and food. Each was especially suited to the production of one valuable item. Indies made troops at very fast rates, hawkers looted for high amounts, and agrarians had a constant flow of grain. As each empire needed all three for success, they would barter between themselves. Generally, the hawks gave everyone money, and everyone gave hawks what they produced, then used their money to buy troops/grain depending on their strategy."

Where did this happen? Some places will have clans set up like that, but that's usually only when they are definite they will be in a war. A whole game like that I have never seen. Pretty much everywhere I have been, people have aided each other when in clans, but for the most part where on their own as far as cash and food and troops went during a run.

[Devari]

Unless things have changed, food sell is nerfed on RWL and food is actually still worth quite a bit of NW.

At least, I remember having a few billion food and cruising along quite nicely in the net department...

[Gen. Volkov]

Quite nicely being what exactly? And food sell is $2. My bad.

[Zephyrus]

I went mole one set and I'm a "well known agrarian"?
I've gone shrew more than mole and squirrel combined.

Look in the pubmarket of most Proms. You will see people selling their food between blackmarket sell and buy prices. The only food we have is market stored stuff.

[The Beatles]

It's more because of your title.

But seriously, propose new food buy and sell prices. Do you think the old ones were adequate?

If so, what about with the new NW changes that Ruddertail has?

To sum up, I'd be perfectly happy to restore the food price on the normal servers (WOA), but I don't know about BFR.

[Zephyrus]

BFR food prices should be decently high too. Like selling around 10. I prefer the old net, but the new one won't impact the food's worth in terms of usefulness. The same piece of grain can't be both your final net and money supply at the same time.

EDIT: Maybe 10 is too much. Maybe not.

EDIT: I rather dislike land and food net, but I really don't know how to back up arguments against it.

[Devari]

$10 is way too much. Agrarian was too powerful at $7 - as evidenced by a couple rounds where there were nothing but Moles.