Fun topic :D
I was recently watching a stream -- and this is something that has always bugged me.
I know that non-english speaking casters tend to use the phrase "abuse the market," and I feel like at some point it got picked up and thrown into the vernacular of English casters as well.
I super appreciate the community have -- and I love all of our casters. Sometimes though, in a mixed environment where Engllish isn't everyone's first language it becomes obvious certain things get repeated even though they might not necessarily make sense -- and no one says anything so it perpetuates.
When using "abuse the market," most casters are typically referring to the use of the market of the player to trade resources for another resource in order to click up -- or in the case of Saracens, use the market advantage to gain a competitive advantage (ie: sell stone for more gold.)
One of the markets only purpose/use is to trade one resource for another. I therefore contend that "use" of the market is actually correct and the intent of most casters when they utilize this phrase. Abuse has a negative connotation that the player is doing something nefarious/using the market for something other than its intended purpose --which would indicate the player is doing something negative or taking advantage of something inappropriately -- when in fact they are using the market for its intended purpose.
Some could potentially argue market use as "excessive use," to be abuse --ie: to the point of being detrimental to their own economy -- but that is not the context of which it is being used when said in casts.
I often hear "market abuse," being used ANY TIME a player uses the market. Just using it to sell stone as Saracens would not = abusing the market, it would mean using one of the civs' advantages as intended. As such, that's not abuse, just intended use of the market for a civ that not only gets a cheaper market, but favorable rates therein. Selling a few hundred wood to afford an upgrade would not be "market abuse," it would be a calculated risk to gain a technology or to age up faster.
I would contend this is not actually abuse -- it, outside of trading (up building/walling aside,) is literally its only use.
You wouldn't say creating a unit from a barracks is abusing the barracks, etc.
Thoughts?
From Webster:
noun
1: a corrupt practice or customthe buying of votes and other election abuses
2: improper or excessive use or treatment : MISUSEdrug abuse
3: language that condemns or vilifies usually unjustly, intemperately, and angrilyverbal abusea term of abuse
4: physical maltreatmentchild abusesexual abuse
5obsolete : a deceitful act : DECEPTION
transitive verb
1a: to put to a wrong or improper useabuse a privilege
b: to use excessivelyabuse alcoholalso : to use without medical justificationabusing painkillers
2: to use or treat so as to injure or damage : MALTREATabused his wife
3: to attack in words : REVILEverbally abused the referee
4obsolete : DECEIVE
Also shameless plug come have fun and troll the hell out of me here:
I was recently watching a stream -- and this is something that has always bugged me.
I know that non-english speaking casters tend to use the phrase "abuse the market," and I feel like at some point it got picked up and thrown into the vernacular of English casters as well.
I super appreciate the community have -- and I love all of our casters. Sometimes though, in a mixed environment where Engllish isn't everyone's first language it becomes obvious certain things get repeated even though they might not necessarily make sense -- and no one says anything so it perpetuates.
When using "abuse the market," most casters are typically referring to the use of the market of the player to trade resources for another resource in order to click up -- or in the case of Saracens, use the market advantage to gain a competitive advantage (ie: sell stone for more gold.)
One of the markets only purpose/use is to trade one resource for another. I therefore contend that "use" of the market is actually correct and the intent of most casters when they utilize this phrase. Abuse has a negative connotation that the player is doing something nefarious/using the market for something other than its intended purpose --which would indicate the player is doing something negative or taking advantage of something inappropriately -- when in fact they are using the market for its intended purpose.
Some could potentially argue market use as "excessive use," to be abuse --ie: to the point of being detrimental to their own economy -- but that is not the context of which it is being used when said in casts.
I often hear "market abuse," being used ANY TIME a player uses the market. Just using it to sell stone as Saracens would not = abusing the market, it would mean using one of the civs' advantages as intended. As such, that's not abuse, just intended use of the market for a civ that not only gets a cheaper market, but favorable rates therein. Selling a few hundred wood to afford an upgrade would not be "market abuse," it would be a calculated risk to gain a technology or to age up faster.
I would contend this is not actually abuse -- it, outside of trading (up building/walling aside,) is literally its only use.
You wouldn't say creating a unit from a barracks is abusing the barracks, etc.
Thoughts?
From Webster:
noun
1: a corrupt practice or customthe buying of votes and other election abuses
2: improper or excessive use or treatment : MISUSEdrug abuse
3: language that condemns or vilifies usually unjustly, intemperately, and angrilyverbal abusea term of abuse
4: physical maltreatmentchild abusesexual abuse
5obsolete : a deceitful act : DECEPTION
transitive verb
1a: to put to a wrong or improper useabuse a privilege
b: to use excessivelyabuse alcoholalso : to use without medical justificationabusing painkillers
2: to use or treat so as to injure or damage : MALTREATabused his wife
3: to attack in words : REVILEverbally abused the referee
4obsolete : DECEIVE
Also shameless plug come have fun and troll the hell out of me here:
Last edited: