Forums » Suggestions
Roda: The system you describe is a very bad idea, for exactly the reason Lecter points out. This is why no one does it (not EVE, not Sid Meier, not Will Wright, no one.. everyone attaches artificial constraints, brakes and bounds, "magical" artificial supply/demand, etc). Even real-world systems, like the NYSE, use artificial braking mechanics to maintain sanity amidst human manipulation.
Creating a simulated economy with bounds and overview goals is actually drastically simpler than building an unbounded, closed-form system that does anything other than go batshit insane when real people are involved.
Aside from all of this, my mandate is to create something consistently fun, for someone who jumps online at 3am on a Weds or during a busy period on a Sunday evening. The hardcore might find it hilarious that routes are tanked across a large area (by preventing demand), or that grayspace no longer has any manufactured items for sale (by preventing supply). But this isn't good for the overall game, for the more casual players, etc. On a small, regional basis, within bounds, it's a good thing, if it creates conflict and a dynamic atmosphere. But there have to be limits to how "out of hand" things can get, and mechanics to step in and moderate in need.
Aside from this, certain aspects of the game, such as political geography and "virtual history", are designed, not dynamic. These need representation within the economic structure, and no, I don't expect the players to just "behave that way" naturally.
I am not, nor have I ever been, in the business of simulating reality. I make videogames. Ideally, much of the economy will be as player-driven as possible, and will require only a pretty light touch to manage, but we'll have to see how it goes, and I'm certainly going to hedge my bets.
I didn't misunderstand anything about your intent, I just purposefully ignored the more naive aspects.
Creating a simulated economy with bounds and overview goals is actually drastically simpler than building an unbounded, closed-form system that does anything other than go batshit insane when real people are involved.
Aside from all of this, my mandate is to create something consistently fun, for someone who jumps online at 3am on a Weds or during a busy period on a Sunday evening. The hardcore might find it hilarious that routes are tanked across a large area (by preventing demand), or that grayspace no longer has any manufactured items for sale (by preventing supply). But this isn't good for the overall game, for the more casual players, etc. On a small, regional basis, within bounds, it's a good thing, if it creates conflict and a dynamic atmosphere. But there have to be limits to how "out of hand" things can get, and mechanics to step in and moderate in need.
Aside from this, certain aspects of the game, such as political geography and "virtual history", are designed, not dynamic. These need representation within the economic structure, and no, I don't expect the players to just "behave that way" naturally.
I am not, nor have I ever been, in the business of simulating reality. I make videogames. Ideally, much of the economy will be as player-driven as possible, and will require only a pretty light touch to manage, but we'll have to see how it goes, and I'm certainly going to hedge my bets.
I didn't misunderstand anything about your intent, I just purposefully ignored the more naive aspects.
The hardcore would most assuredly find it hilarious that . . .
Fixed that for ya.
Fixed that for ya.
Being as the Trac system is not availible would you pretty please post your design goals so we might have a basis to work from?
I apologise for not being able to locate what you have posted but I have trouble finding posts I made over a year ago and actually know what to search for. I did suggest that you create a few folders and sort some of these suggestion threads so that it is a lot easier to find stuff. ie. Weapons,ships,bots,economy,gameplay might work as a start. <shrug> low priority....
Anyhoo...
The feedback I had in mind was to calculate the actual demand and then satisfy it based on a percentage.
100% or more - halt all mission generation
75% or more - Player only
25% or more - Player and bots
less then 25% - Backdoor methods like stock injections which could be later removed to keep things in balance.
Also as the percentage fell the prices would alter to make the item more attractive. Proc and mineral missions would pay more so that there would be a point that mining even Aquean ore would be somewhat attractive.
The method would allow shortages but prevent complete outages. Any method that would force Guild to constantly tweak things to keep the game running is obviously a bad idea IMHO. The limits you mentioned actually dont exist in most MMO's and that is one of the reasons most of thier economies run out of control.
Fun of course is the point but fun is not always what it seems to be. Overcoming challenges is "fun" even for rats. I for one find living in a paradise where I can afford to buy a Cappy out of petty cash kind of boring. I do agree that it is not "fun" in a normal sense to be denied access to stuff BUT when it is in fact due to the rules of the game then I simply accept it and find a way around the problem.
Sorry if I am a bit jumbled but I did in fact take a lot of pain killers today....
I apologise for not being able to locate what you have posted but I have trouble finding posts I made over a year ago and actually know what to search for. I did suggest that you create a few folders and sort some of these suggestion threads so that it is a lot easier to find stuff. ie. Weapons,ships,bots,economy,gameplay might work as a start. <shrug> low priority....
Anyhoo...
The feedback I had in mind was to calculate the actual demand and then satisfy it based on a percentage.
100% or more - halt all mission generation
75% or more - Player only
25% or more - Player and bots
less then 25% - Backdoor methods like stock injections which could be later removed to keep things in balance.
Also as the percentage fell the prices would alter to make the item more attractive. Proc and mineral missions would pay more so that there would be a point that mining even Aquean ore would be somewhat attractive.
The method would allow shortages but prevent complete outages. Any method that would force Guild to constantly tweak things to keep the game running is obviously a bad idea IMHO. The limits you mentioned actually dont exist in most MMO's and that is one of the reasons most of thier economies run out of control.
Fun of course is the point but fun is not always what it seems to be. Overcoming challenges is "fun" even for rats. I for one find living in a paradise where I can afford to buy a Cappy out of petty cash kind of boring. I do agree that it is not "fun" in a normal sense to be denied access to stuff BUT when it is in fact due to the rules of the game then I simply accept it and find a way around the problem.
Sorry if I am a bit jumbled but I did in fact take a lot of pain killers today....
..no, I won't focus on organizing suggestions/news/threads right now, as it would be more useful to put that time into actually releasing the trac.
Yes, we've discussed doing variations on what you describe, using the convoy system, at least as far back as '05, and probably as early as the late 90s. The "bounds" I describe are not hard limits, but rather thresholds where increasingly corrective behaviour is triggered, much like your suggestion. "Boundaries" do not have to be absolute, they can be curves that ramp up to create a more naturalistic reaction with the same result. And yes, at the absolute end there can be an emergency ripcord of total limitation. Our intention was always to use "magical" injection of production or consumption only as a last resort, following NPC/convoy driven solutions, and probably based on time as much as any demand-percentage type concept (the longer you completely blockade station X, the greater the ramp of the response, which I think would also be appealing to the userbase.. a way to start impromptu wars; also has been discussed as part of Dynamic Warfare).
The real issue I was attempting to cover, originally, isn't even the mechanics of the bounds, but rather finding the desirable ballparks they should cover based on political geography and desired gameplay ramifications. It's easier to start out with clamped, tested values, and then slowly increase the degree to which they dynamically sway. Coming up with heuristics for triggering behaviour is not very hard (at least to me), the historically-framed socio-economic gameplay map is more involved.
"Most MMOs" don't actually have economies at all, just static rules that are even less dynamic than our current half-loop "Demand" driven system. EVE and a few others have actual economies, and they most definitely have injection rules for certain bounds, there are plenty of articles out there describing them. Some of them allow greater degrees of "haywire" than others, but all of them have corrective tools. Now that many are preferring "dual economies" nailed to actual real-world dollars, for micro-transactional purposes, their permitted volatility is decreasing even further.
The "fun" that I describe has to be balanced across all players and playstyles. Not just those who find certain areas, or certain dynamic mischief, to be the most entertaining.
Yes, we've discussed doing variations on what you describe, using the convoy system, at least as far back as '05, and probably as early as the late 90s. The "bounds" I describe are not hard limits, but rather thresholds where increasingly corrective behaviour is triggered, much like your suggestion. "Boundaries" do not have to be absolute, they can be curves that ramp up to create a more naturalistic reaction with the same result. And yes, at the absolute end there can be an emergency ripcord of total limitation. Our intention was always to use "magical" injection of production or consumption only as a last resort, following NPC/convoy driven solutions, and probably based on time as much as any demand-percentage type concept (the longer you completely blockade station X, the greater the ramp of the response, which I think would also be appealing to the userbase.. a way to start impromptu wars; also has been discussed as part of Dynamic Warfare).
The real issue I was attempting to cover, originally, isn't even the mechanics of the bounds, but rather finding the desirable ballparks they should cover based on political geography and desired gameplay ramifications. It's easier to start out with clamped, tested values, and then slowly increase the degree to which they dynamically sway. Coming up with heuristics for triggering behaviour is not very hard (at least to me), the historically-framed socio-economic gameplay map is more involved.
"Most MMOs" don't actually have economies at all, just static rules that are even less dynamic than our current half-loop "Demand" driven system. EVE and a few others have actual economies, and they most definitely have injection rules for certain bounds, there are plenty of articles out there describing them. Some of them allow greater degrees of "haywire" than others, but all of them have corrective tools. Now that many are preferring "dual economies" nailed to actual real-world dollars, for micro-transactional purposes, their permitted volatility is decreasing even further.
The "fun" that I describe has to be balanced across all players and playstyles. Not just those who find certain areas, or certain dynamic mischief, to be the most entertaining.
As an FYI, here are a couple of earlier posts from me about the economy (please don't post in the old threads or revive them):
A longer one from 2007, and a brief response from 2009. The latter thread represents the last time I was able to fully dedicate real time and resources to economic work; some bad stuff happened shortly thereafter and derailed things until pretty recently.
A longer one from 2007, and a brief response from 2009. The latter thread represents the last time I was able to fully dedicate real time and resources to economic work; some bad stuff happened shortly thereafter and derailed things until pretty recently.
I look forward to seeing positive results in 2015.
or
You could throw a bone like station consignments.
edit: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/21982#271953
or
You could throw a bone like station consignments.
edit: http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/21982#271953
Excuse me, it is almost out of topic, but directly derived:
We must incorporate manufacturing and logistics into economy. One idea would be to have an big logistics (wholesale) company that could outbalance economy, both with NPCs and offering missions.
This major company(ies), just like Trade Guild, which can be operated by Guild Software, either by hand, either by reactive scripts triggered by variations in price and demand, either offering missions to players, or by issuing convoys, and even operating in background. This would be continuosly improved to react to players/market hiccups...
Also, we need much more unique items, that have production and demand very apart. Any item widely available should result in smaller profits, and rare items pays more, unique goods as Sedina Chocs or Ineubis Weapons should have much higer demand from Itani and Serco stations, and therefore higher price and profits.
((Inc, I drafted something on logistics in PCC, please comment about it? Maybe it can provide you another approach to balance economy.))
The things gets more interesting if there are more stations producing more unique items, each one with its requirement. And that brings specific and permanent demands, which are offered to players first, then achieved by NPC logistics companies.
That creates a varied demand for many items. Instead of convoys of widely available items, but allways same few unrelated items, make stations demands based on their production, while making most stations produce unique or rare items consumed by other stations. And TG operating in shadows to keep balance.
We must incorporate manufacturing and logistics into economy. One idea would be to have an big logistics (wholesale) company that could outbalance economy, both with NPCs and offering missions.
This major company(ies), just like Trade Guild, which can be operated by Guild Software, either by hand, either by reactive scripts triggered by variations in price and demand, either offering missions to players, or by issuing convoys, and even operating in background. This would be continuosly improved to react to players/market hiccups...
Also, we need much more unique items, that have production and demand very apart. Any item widely available should result in smaller profits, and rare items pays more, unique goods as Sedina Chocs or Ineubis Weapons should have much higer demand from Itani and Serco stations, and therefore higher price and profits.
((Inc, I drafted something on logistics in PCC, please comment about it? Maybe it can provide you another approach to balance economy.))
The things gets more interesting if there are more stations producing more unique items, each one with its requirement. And that brings specific and permanent demands, which are offered to players first, then achieved by NPC logistics companies.
That creates a varied demand for many items. Instead of convoys of widely available items, but allways same few unrelated items, make stations demands based on their production, while making most stations produce unique or rare items consumed by other stations. And TG operating in shadows to keep balance.
I was under the impression there were others that could handle the actual moving and sorting of threads......
It seems we actually agree on a lot of what the economy needs to do on a general level. Are you interested in getting down to specifics at least as far as the information is not a secret?
Is a separate server desirable or compatable with the VO server? I just feel the level of AI needed to keep things in balance and provide entertaining gameplay will require a lot more CPU time then would be prudent for a realtime application...
I would also like to know what your opinion is on having everything crafted is. Obviously this would limit supplies and have a substantial effect of gameplay. The system I came up with determined prices in part by the cost of the components it was built from. It also could result in supplies being wiped out by a few individuals if they destroyed all the right convoys.
Would it be feasable to have the PCC create a construction table showing how everything gets built.. IE ferric ore -> steel -> Hull plating -> Ship. It may help determine price averages and make a solid baseline referance for future expansion work. It would also clarify how the VO world actually works. I dont see that this info would be kept secret in any case.
Would an energy component (like our oil) be of interest? This single consideration could have a massive influence on the game as energy is the single biggest influence in the real world. An aquean based (hydrogen) economy or perhaps a more dangerous and volitile substance could be employed. Each Nation could in fact use a different source of power. Also some Items could be crafted from just availible energy ala Star trek replicators....
Would you be against limiting the money suppy. I know this could create a bunch of problems but I think the supply could be regulated automatically. It would mean that some mission might have to be cancelled or the payout reduce due to a lack of funding. It would also mean that the station may not have enough funds to purchase goods from players either.
Would you be interested in including other markets such as one for trading stock shares (wall street?) that would not detract from normal gameplay?
It seems we actually agree on a lot of what the economy needs to do on a general level. Are you interested in getting down to specifics at least as far as the information is not a secret?
Is a separate server desirable or compatable with the VO server? I just feel the level of AI needed to keep things in balance and provide entertaining gameplay will require a lot more CPU time then would be prudent for a realtime application...
I would also like to know what your opinion is on having everything crafted is. Obviously this would limit supplies and have a substantial effect of gameplay. The system I came up with determined prices in part by the cost of the components it was built from. It also could result in supplies being wiped out by a few individuals if they destroyed all the right convoys.
Would it be feasable to have the PCC create a construction table showing how everything gets built.. IE ferric ore -> steel -> Hull plating -> Ship. It may help determine price averages and make a solid baseline referance for future expansion work. It would also clarify how the VO world actually works. I dont see that this info would be kept secret in any case.
Would an energy component (like our oil) be of interest? This single consideration could have a massive influence on the game as energy is the single biggest influence in the real world. An aquean based (hydrogen) economy or perhaps a more dangerous and volitile substance could be employed. Each Nation could in fact use a different source of power. Also some Items could be crafted from just availible energy ala Star trek replicators....
Would you be against limiting the money suppy. I know this could create a bunch of problems but I think the supply could be regulated automatically. It would mean that some mission might have to be cancelled or the payout reduce due to a lack of funding. It would also mean that the station may not have enough funds to purchase goods from players either.
Would you be interested in including other markets such as one for trading stock shares (wall street?) that would not detract from normal gameplay?
Roda:
I look forward to seeing positive results in 2015.
Thanks, your positivity is super encouraging.
You could throw a bone like station consignments.
That's not a "bone", that's a major undertaking. It's also not a new idea, I've talked about it as part of when I added station limits, but it is a good idea and has been one of my goals for the whole concept of renting a "warehouse" at a given station (which would add a wide variety of options, including auto-purchase of locally produced items when they hit a configured price point). So, anyway, not a "bone". And there are more critical aspects of stations that need re-working first.
PaKettle:
It seems we actually agree on a lot of what the economy needs to do on a general level. Are you interested in getting down to specifics at least as far as the information is not a secret?
Sure, when the actual Trac is released, hopefully it will include more specifics. But I'm not going to be posting it on the forums, where we all know it will be buried, and people other than the.. three, reading this thread, will forget about it in two seconds. Re-treading old posts has been half the content in this thread already. I do have plenty of notes and design and things on the economy, for my own reference, but it would take me time to boil it down into something cohesive for public consumption.. time I don't currently have.
It is not an effective use of my time to post extensive design to the forums, except for when I'm seeking specific feedback due to near-term implementation. A dynamic economy is not going to happen in the next few weeks, we are buried in other projects, including one major one.
I was under the impression there were others that could handle the actual moving and sorting of threads......
..who? I have Michael and Ray stacked up with projects, and all of us are under the gun for E3, which is only weeks away. I shouldn't even be posting on here, I've been stressing all week over the sheer load of what I need to accomplish by tomorrow (today? Fri night, whatever).
[EDIT] - Although if you really want to get involved, then I'd suggest doing it yourself. Do a bunch of searching and create a new "Stuff incarnate has said about the future of the game" thread, full of links to posts. That's how the RFC thread came to be, Aticephyr did it, not us.
Is a separate server desirable or compatable with the VO server? I just feel the level of AI needed to keep things in balance and provide entertaining gameplay will require a lot more CPU time then would be prudent for a realtime application...
I don't even know how to answer that. Our entire game is a distributed product which scales near-linearly across a large number of individual machines. Our economic changes will be built on the same platform. There is no "separate server", the whole thing is a cloud, and always has been, since like 2000.
Any advanced economic mechanics would be implemented in Kourier, with Erlang. But I don't expect "economics" to be very server intensive. It's trivial compared to physics or collision detection that has to maintain a realtime framerate.
I would also like to know what your opinion is on having everything crafted is. Obviously this would limit supplies and have a substantial effect of gameplay.
The game already works like that (and always has), each station has manufacturing facilities that assemble things based on available nearby resources. The supply side is currently unlimited, but the expectation was for tying it directly to PC/NPC based deliveries of raw materials to stations (which could then be impinged by piracy, the hive, etc). The problem is that it's a giant freaking mess right now, written in Lua, and any time we want to make X item available in Y new place, we have to hack the "manufacturing" back-end to do it. A new system will have all of this exposed, but will probably be more flexible as well. The whole implementation of stations really needs to be redone, which we have partially undertaken as an aspect of the "station conquest" thing.
At no point will everything be user-crafted or anything like that. But manufactured from component resources.. yes. I expect there will always be PC and NPC manufacturing, with competition between. That also ties directly into the plans for player-owned stations, as people can choose to read if they want to use Google on the forums.
Would it be feasable to have the PCC create a construction table showing how everything gets built.. IE ferric ore -> steel -> Hull plating -> Ship.
Not at present. The current build tree is out of date, and regardless, I'll be adding new raw materials as part of the universe redux. If you do a google search of the forums (site:vendetta-online.com) for "build tree" you'll probably turn up some of my prior posts.
Would an energy component (like our oil) be of interest?
No, not right now. I don't need more ways to complicate things, I need to take what we have and make it more dynamic.
Would you be against limiting the money suppy.
Yes, I am against it, and before you ask, I will also not be floating individual currencies per nation and factoring inflation. That shit is only fun for economists.
Complexity is only of value in so much as it enables dynamic gameplay that is widely accessible. Plus, complexity makes implementation more problematic and prone to bugs. We will be Keeping It Simple.
Would you be interested in including other markets such as one for trading stock shares (wall street?) that would not detract from normal gameplay?
This has been planned since the 90s, although the degree of "reality" is uncertain. I think it would be intriguing to tie it to various success/failure metrics for the grayspace corporations, but even something very basic could be entertaining.
As part of the general economic redux, though, this falls under "complicated and not necessary". It can be bolted on later.
I look forward to seeing positive results in 2015.
Thanks, your positivity is super encouraging.
You could throw a bone like station consignments.
That's not a "bone", that's a major undertaking. It's also not a new idea, I've talked about it as part of when I added station limits, but it is a good idea and has been one of my goals for the whole concept of renting a "warehouse" at a given station (which would add a wide variety of options, including auto-purchase of locally produced items when they hit a configured price point). So, anyway, not a "bone". And there are more critical aspects of stations that need re-working first.
PaKettle:
It seems we actually agree on a lot of what the economy needs to do on a general level. Are you interested in getting down to specifics at least as far as the information is not a secret?
Sure, when the actual Trac is released, hopefully it will include more specifics. But I'm not going to be posting it on the forums, where we all know it will be buried, and people other than the.. three, reading this thread, will forget about it in two seconds. Re-treading old posts has been half the content in this thread already. I do have plenty of notes and design and things on the economy, for my own reference, but it would take me time to boil it down into something cohesive for public consumption.. time I don't currently have.
It is not an effective use of my time to post extensive design to the forums, except for when I'm seeking specific feedback due to near-term implementation. A dynamic economy is not going to happen in the next few weeks, we are buried in other projects, including one major one.
I was under the impression there were others that could handle the actual moving and sorting of threads......
..who? I have Michael and Ray stacked up with projects, and all of us are under the gun for E3, which is only weeks away. I shouldn't even be posting on here, I've been stressing all week over the sheer load of what I need to accomplish by tomorrow (today? Fri night, whatever).
[EDIT] - Although if you really want to get involved, then I'd suggest doing it yourself. Do a bunch of searching and create a new "Stuff incarnate has said about the future of the game" thread, full of links to posts. That's how the RFC thread came to be, Aticephyr did it, not us.
Is a separate server desirable or compatable with the VO server? I just feel the level of AI needed to keep things in balance and provide entertaining gameplay will require a lot more CPU time then would be prudent for a realtime application...
I don't even know how to answer that. Our entire game is a distributed product which scales near-linearly across a large number of individual machines. Our economic changes will be built on the same platform. There is no "separate server", the whole thing is a cloud, and always has been, since like 2000.
Any advanced economic mechanics would be implemented in Kourier, with Erlang. But I don't expect "economics" to be very server intensive. It's trivial compared to physics or collision detection that has to maintain a realtime framerate.
I would also like to know what your opinion is on having everything crafted is. Obviously this would limit supplies and have a substantial effect of gameplay.
The game already works like that (and always has), each station has manufacturing facilities that assemble things based on available nearby resources. The supply side is currently unlimited, but the expectation was for tying it directly to PC/NPC based deliveries of raw materials to stations (which could then be impinged by piracy, the hive, etc). The problem is that it's a giant freaking mess right now, written in Lua, and any time we want to make X item available in Y new place, we have to hack the "manufacturing" back-end to do it. A new system will have all of this exposed, but will probably be more flexible as well. The whole implementation of stations really needs to be redone, which we have partially undertaken as an aspect of the "station conquest" thing.
At no point will everything be user-crafted or anything like that. But manufactured from component resources.. yes. I expect there will always be PC and NPC manufacturing, with competition between. That also ties directly into the plans for player-owned stations, as people can choose to read if they want to use Google on the forums.
Would it be feasable to have the PCC create a construction table showing how everything gets built.. IE ferric ore -> steel -> Hull plating -> Ship.
Not at present. The current build tree is out of date, and regardless, I'll be adding new raw materials as part of the universe redux. If you do a google search of the forums (site:vendetta-online.com) for "build tree" you'll probably turn up some of my prior posts.
Would an energy component (like our oil) be of interest?
No, not right now. I don't need more ways to complicate things, I need to take what we have and make it more dynamic.
Would you be against limiting the money suppy.
Yes, I am against it, and before you ask, I will also not be floating individual currencies per nation and factoring inflation. That shit is only fun for economists.
Complexity is only of value in so much as it enables dynamic gameplay that is widely accessible. Plus, complexity makes implementation more problematic and prone to bugs. We will be Keeping It Simple.
Would you be interested in including other markets such as one for trading stock shares (wall street?) that would not detract from normal gameplay?
This has been planned since the 90s, although the degree of "reality" is uncertain. I think it would be intriguing to tie it to various success/failure metrics for the grayspace corporations, but even something very basic could be entertaining.
As part of the general economic redux, though, this falls under "complicated and not necessary". It can be bolted on later.
Guys... what's coming is coming, and bitching at the devs is probably going to only make it come slower. If the devs don't like your idea, it probably isn't going to happen, and attempting to rub their face in it surely isn't the way to make them agree with you.
Post your ideas, hear the response, if you think you were misunderstood then elaborate. After that, it's time to move on.
That time has come.
Post your ideas, hear the response, if you think you were misunderstood then elaborate. After that, it's time to move on.
That time has come.
Yeah, I think I have to drop out of posting to this thread. Ironically, to go work on the.. economy (grayspace routes).
And in fairness, I really like 90% of the ideas on here. I had them myself, many years ago :). That's not a bad thing at all. They are all still goals, and real goals not just "landing on planets, someday" type crap. The economy is genuinely central to my intended game direction for VO 2.0.
Everything has taken drastically longer than I ever thought it would; but honestly, looking back on, well.. "why it took so long", I'm amazed we're even here at all. So frankly I'm content with that fact, and to look towards the future, still optimistic about implementing all of this stuff.
If I come off a bit snippy on this thread, it's partially because I've been running a little ragged on some of our current projects, and we have a lot going on. I just hope that when it's all formally announced, people like it and don't say "you did that instead of awesome dynamic economy capship planet-landing@!?#". This E3 stuff is more about getting some press than anything else, something we sorely need. But hopefully it'll also be well received.
And in fairness, I really like 90% of the ideas on here. I had them myself, many years ago :). That's not a bad thing at all. They are all still goals, and real goals not just "landing on planets, someday" type crap. The economy is genuinely central to my intended game direction for VO 2.0.
Everything has taken drastically longer than I ever thought it would; but honestly, looking back on, well.. "why it took so long", I'm amazed we're even here at all. So frankly I'm content with that fact, and to look towards the future, still optimistic about implementing all of this stuff.
If I come off a bit snippy on this thread, it's partially because I've been running a little ragged on some of our current projects, and we have a lot going on. I just hope that when it's all formally announced, people like it and don't say "you did that instead of awesome dynamic economy capship planet-landing@!?#". This E3 stuff is more about getting some press than anything else, something we sorely need. But hopefully it'll also be well received.
Chin up Inc. We are a lot more than three reading here, we are a lot that remembers the stuff you have "promised" over the time. If we didn't remember, we wouldn't hang around waiting for it, right?
Atice, stop pretending to be a forum moderator. Your role as [VPR] space cop cadet does not extend beyond the RP aspect of VO and into the forums, nor are the Devs traders in need of your (dubious) assistance.
That being said, it's getting pretty silly when I'm the voice of reason in a thread, Roda.
That being said, it's getting pretty silly when I'm the voice of reason in a thread, Roda.
lol Lecter. Shit was getting out of hand, and I thought the players involved could use a bit of perspective. I don't think my position in VPR gives me any special forum powers.. but there is a reason I chose a role as VPR: it does fit my personality (flame as you will).
No, I completely agree. The difference is that I think it makes you a paternalistic, self-righteous asshole, and you think it's just peachy. The idea of you providing (relevant) "perspective" is as hilariously arrogant as it is wrong-headed.
Please keep the blatant trolling out of Suggestions.
/snark
/snark
Lecter, dial it down.
Guh, I guess I need to lock this one too.
Guh, I guess I need to lock this one too.