Use? OR Abuse -- the Market

[Rey_Fer]

1- it is only used when the caster wants to emphathise exaggeration: he abused the market to buy his way up = buy 600 food to click up castle age

2- casters are putting down a show, so they often exaggerate things

 

[IYIyTh]

1- it is only used when the caster wants to emphathise exaggeration: he abused the market to buy his way up = buy 600 food to click up castle age

2- casters are putting down a show, so they often exaggerate things

Rey, they're using it for any use of the market.

It's not to emphasize an exaggeration. I hear "abuse the market" any time a caster is describing, in completely calm language, use of the market. "He needs to abuse the market and click up." "The Saracen player is going for market abuse."

This is simply incorrect usage of the word abuse, when use is actually the word they are looking for/mean to say.

There is nothing exciting/awe inducing about saying "abuse the market," vs. "use the market." In fact, the latter is more succinct, natural, and provides for brevity.

Saying abuse only leads viewers to believe that a player is doing something wrong, or taking advantage of something that they should not (when a civ like Saracens has a bonus for that specific feature) that allows them to trade resources as intended in the market. The argument that they are actually referring to resource inefficiency is not actually what they mean when saying abuse the market --they're simply conflating abuse with use -- the normal actions that are attributed to the market of buying and selling of resources.

I'm not singling out casters -- but have a listen when it comes up and you'll see what I mean.
Use the market is completely correct.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Rey, they're using it for any use of the market.

It's not to emphasize an exaggeration. I hear "abuse the market" any time a caster is describing, in completely calm language, use of the market. "He needs to abuse the market and click up." "The Saracen player is going for market abuse."

This is simply incorrect usage of the word abuse, when use is actually the word they are looking for/mean to say.

There is nothing exciting/awe inducing about saying "abuse the market," vs. "use the market." In fact, the latter is more succinct, natural, and provides for brevity.

Saying abuse only leads viewers to believe that a player is doing something wrong, or taking advantage of something that they should not (when a civ like Saracens has a bonus for that specific feature) that allows them to trade resources as intended in the market. The argument that they are actually referring to resource inefficiency is not actually what they mean when saying abuse the market --they're simply conflating abuse with use -- the normal actions that are attributed to the market of buying and selling of resources.

I'm not singling out casters -- but have a listen when it comes up and you'll see what I mean.
Use the market is completely correct.

No one is arguing with this. They are arguing with your insistence that "use" is always correct when in some cases "abuse" is a perfectly valid term to use instead. It had to come from somewhere legitimate before it became the bad tendency of certain casters that you are criticizing it for.

 

[IYIyTh]

No one is arguing with this. They are arguing with your insistence that "use" is always correct when in some cases "abuse" is a perfectly valid term to use instead. It had to come from somewhere legitimate before it became the bad tendency of certain casters that you are criticizing it for.

Eh, I think the origin is just the fact we have a beautiful community of casters/players for whom english isn't their first language -- and with that sometimes people hear things that might sound right that aren't actually appropriate/applicable. I think people have more or less gotten used to it rather than notice/say something like

You keep using that word.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

www.youtube.com

I think that what you might be attributing abuse actually is proper "use," of the market.

 

[Giuseppe551]

It's not just the market either. You'll also sometimes hear people say that someone is abusing a civilization bonus for example when they are in fact utilizing a civilization bonus.

If we're airing grievances, certain people have also inexplicably started referring to civilizations by country name instead of civilization name-China instead of Chinese, Spain instead of Spanish-which is annoying too. Don't do that.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

It's not just the market either. You'll also sometimes hear people say that someone is abusing a civilization bonus for example when they are in fact utilizing a civilization bonus.

If they are overusing a civilization bonus that is broken it is valid to say they are abusing it.

 

[IYIyTh]

If they are overusing a civilization bonus that is broken it is valid to say they are abusing it.

That's incorrect.

They are using the civilization as intended. There is no such thing as a broken civilization bonus, and to insinuate a player is using something "broken," implies they are cheating the game. They are employing all faculties they are able to use -- not abuse.

You don't abuse hand cannoneers by employing them against infantry.

You don't abuse trebs by firing them against castles.

You don't abuse mangonels by using the attack ground feature.

Abuse would mean to utilize so extensively, it is a bad thing -- ie: medication, alcohol, etc.

As mentioned -- you can use a market so extensively as to be detrimental to ones own economy -- but you wouldn't be using the phrase "market abuse" at that point to convey that point. You would be using the market, which in turn had a negative consequence on their economy. But that is rarely the case when casters are saying "Market Abuse," and would still not be apt to convey that point as "Market Abuse," rather than inefficiency through using the market -- which is completely subjective related to the point the player is using the market in the first place. It's not inherently a negative thing to sell something to click up or to afford an essential upgrade, it is something that should have a neutral connotation -- if anything -- not negative.

But that's maybe 5% of the time. I'm speaking to when the casters are saying any use of the market -- at all -- is considered abuse.

It's simply improper English.

But, continue to be a contrarian for the sake of it!

 

[lecracheursagacite]

But, continue to be a contrarian for the sake of it!

no u

 

[The Bloodless]

This is nothing new. Love it or hate it, the aoe2 community has some odd turns of phrase. Even native speakers find themselves saying things like "deers" or "sheeps". Sometimes people will start speaking abbreviated English because they're used to using it in game, especially with Chinese players with bad English. For example, "I go Archers" instead of "I'm going Archers". Or "I kill all" instead of "I'll carry" or "I'll kill them all".

I support your move to get people to say use instead of abuse lol. However, it's an uphill battle. It sounds kinda snappy and is "abused" ironically elsewhere quite often. Take a guy going plumed Archers -- he might say something like " just gotta abuse the mobility of these cheap units". Or Slavs farming before nerf -- "I'm gonna abuse the slav farms and everything is gonna be ok" haha. So I think abuse is used instead of use too often but I don't really mind it much. It's just aoe2 slang

 

[Henkdesupernerd]

I agree with OP.
I think it's better to use the words "use the market" rather than "abuse the market" in most situations.

I suspect the term 'market abuse' to come from more a few specific scenarios where one player uses the market which has great (negative) consequences for others in the game.

Here are a few examples in which it is correct to say 'market abuse', 'he crashed the market' or 'the market is f$%ed'

1) you play Michi / greatwall / black forest (no rush) with your friends. You are having a good boom and realise you could secure yourself some gold and stone for the lategame if you sell your food and wood at the market. However, when you click it, you see that the wood and food price are at the minimum of 14:100 already and stone has become as expensive as 250:100. You ask your teammates "WTF guys, who abused the market?!" Upon which they answer "I don't know! I think the enemy crashed the prices before we had the chance"

2) you play forest nothing.
You reach feudal age first. You consider abusing the market by selling ALL your food and wood for gold and buying stone. This actually sets you back a bit since you might struggle with villager production for a minute. However by abusing the market you secured yourself some valuable resources.

3) you and your mates are playing a game. It's far into lategame and wood is getting low on the map. Your team isnt doing too hot but you still have a good amount of map control - and more importanlty: the majority of unchopped thick forest. You tell your teammates: " Okay mates, there is no way we can push them, but I believe they are running low on wood. Lets all abuse the market by buying wood so it gets unreasonably expensive for them to buy wood when their wood runs out!"

 

[Henkdesupernerd]

I agree with OP.
I think it's better to use the words "use the market" rather than "abuse the market" in most situations.

I suspect the term 'market abuse' to come from more a few specific scenarios where one player uses the market which has great (negative) consequences for others in the game.

Here are a few examples in which it is correct to say 'market abuse', 'he crashed the market' or 'the market is f$%ed'

1) you play Michi / greatwall / black forest (no rush) with your friends. You are having a good boom and realise you could secure yourself some gold and stone for the lategame if you sell your food and wood at the market. However, when you click it, you see that the wood and food price are at the minimum of 14:100 already and stone has become as expensive as 250:100. You ask your teammates "WTF guys, who abused the market?!" Upon which they answer "I don't know! I think the enemy crashed the prices before we had the chance"

2) you play forest nothing.
You reach feudal age first. You consider abusing the market by selling ALL your food and wood for gold and buying stone. This actually sets you back a bit since you might struggle with villager production for a minute. However by abusing the market you secured yourself some valuable resources.

3) you and your mates are playing a game. It's far into lategame and wood is getting low on the map. Your team isnt doing too hot but you still have a good amount of map control - and more importanlty: the majority of unchopped thick forest. You tell your teammates: " Okay mates, there is no way we can push them, but I believe they are running low on wood. Lets all abuse the market by buying wood so it gets unreasonably expensive for them to buy wood when their wood runs out!"

And you could make an argument when you are actually hurting yourself by using the market. For example if you have a terrible eco management - floating 3000 gold at the end of castle age, and when you see the enemy hits imperial age, you hastily decide to spend all that precious gold to buy enough food for imperial age advancement.

 

[ltm]

Always figured "abuse" describes a heavy use of the market like Saracens no farms play, buying 500f to click up etc and not just selling 100w or something here and there.

 

[The_ChinChilla]

This phrase annoys me a lot, but i think ZeroEmpires used this phrase way back, and he, is undisputable native speaker.

In all honesty, if a player uses a market extensively, said player is ABUSED BY THE MARKET, instead if him abusing the mkt, coz prices go worse and worse.

 

[kaaaai_]

I think as the community evolves, those phrases are absolutely fine as long as they are accepted by most players.

For example, there is no official definition of 'lame' as a verb, or having meaning of 'stealing', but we still say it in the aoe community habitually.

 

[IYIyTh]

Always figured "abuse" describes a heavy use of the market like Saracens no farms play, buying 500f to click up etc and not just selling 100w or something here and there.

Is that really abuse? They're using the market as intended.

 

[IYIyTh]

This phrase annoys me a lot, but i think ZeroEmpires used this phrase way back, and he, is undisputable native speaker.

In all honesty, if a player uses a market extensively, said player is ABUSED BY THE MARKET, instead if him abusing the mkt, coz prices go worse and worse.

Eh, I've heard plenty of native english speakers use the phrase. Just because they repeat it doesn't make it correct.

I think as the community evolves, those phrases are absolutely fine as long as they are accepted by most players.

For example, there is no official definition of 'lame' as a verb, or having meaning of 'stealing', but we still say it in the aoe community habitually.

Lame makes sense in the context of the impact of the boar being stolen (ie: verb -- you have made your opponent weak/crippled them), not the actual stealing of the boar -- completely agreed.

 

[archxeon]

This is nothing new. Love it or hate it, the aoe2 community has some odd turns of phrase. Even native speakers find themselves saying things like "deers" or "sheeps". Sometimes people will start speaking abbreviated English because they're used to using it in game, especially with Chinese players with bad English. For example, "I go Archers" instead of "I'm going Archers". Or "I kill all" instead of "I'll carry" or "I'll kill them all".

Even though my grammar/vocabulary isn't the best, i'm bothered a little by these: "kill buildings", calling zebras, ostriches etc. "deer" and lions/crocs as wolves and pigs/goats as "sheep". (although surprisingly, I rarely hear elephants or rhinos being called boar)

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Even though my grammar/vocabulary isn't the best, i'm bothered a little by these: "kill buildings", calling zebras, ostriches etc. "deer" and lions/crocs as wolves and pigs/goats as "sheep". (although surprisingly, I rarely hear elephants or rhinos being called boar)

"Deer" and "sheep" are easier to pronounce and those + wolf were the only animals in the original game so when it's just a reskin and the unit is functionally the same natural to be a bit lazy. Elephant and rhinos are different than boar (higher food amount and faster attack) so it makes sense they would distinguish these more from the original.

 

[archxeon]

"Deer" and "sheep" are easier to pronounce and those + wolf were the only animals in the original game so when it's just a reskin and the unit is functionally the same natural to be a bit lazy. Elephant and rhinos are different than boar (higher food amount and faster attack) so it makes sense they would distinguish these more from the original.

Debatable on easier to pronounce. Players I am more okay with, but casters less so. After all their entire job is to describe the game. Might be helpful for newer viewers as well. Anyways, I know its not a huge deal.

 

[lecracheursagacite]

Debatable on easier to pronounce. Players I am more okay with, but casters less so. After all their entire job is to describe the game. Might be helpful for newer viewers as well. Anyways, I know its not a huge deal.

One syllable words are typically easier to pronounce, and they aren't completely off-base because the "deer" and the "sheep" and the "wolves" are understood as gameplay mechanics. I do agree that they should make a better effort to match what they are saying with what the audience is viewing on the map. Just wanted to point out there is a bit of validity to it.

 

[IYIyTh]

Funny enough -- was browsing reddit -- this misuse of the phrase "market abuse," still exists in most streamers vernacular despite it being patently incorrect.

 

[LowEloNobody]

I prefer "force the market into an involuntay long-term relationship in which one party isn't respected and often subject to physical violence"

 

[Helichaos]

I like the distinction of market "abuse" describing when a player is making massive changes to their economy whereas market "use" is e.g. buying 200 food to click up faster to the next age.

Myth, once you've won this war would you be interested in taking a stand on "utilize" vs "use"? A lot of people use "utilize" as a substitute for "use" because it's a longer word and makes them sound smarter 11.

 

[IYIyTh]

I like the distinction of market "abuse" describing when a player is making massive changes to their economy whereas market "use" is e.g. buying 200 food to click up faster to the next age.

Myth, once you've won this war would you be interested in taking a stand on "utilize" vs "use"? A lot of people use "utilize" as a substitute for "use" because it's a longer word and makes them sound smarter 11.

Eh, the problem with endorsing the use in some situations is that in neither case is it considered market abuse, as you're using the market for its intended purpose and at no point abusing it and/or its function(s).

It's like saying you're abusing archers by using them to shoot over woodlines.

 

[leppard10]

what if i am attacking hes market while he is repairing it and using it at the same time to buy and sell .

am i abusing hes market or is he? because we are both miss treating its feelings to achieve what we want .