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