Forums » Suggestions
I appreciate the thought, but I absolutely do not want a class system. We don't do that here. I know they make things easier, but making things easier is not a sufficient reason to go in that direction, imo. Part of the whole "sandbox" thing is that you can push in a direction purely on license-level. We can certainly add more types of licenses, but nothing that locks a specific character into a category, for the rest of the "life" of that character. But.. that's pretty far afield from the topic.
I am well aware of TGFT's intelligence assets relating to trading, I know perfectly well that they're often aware of the best routes. But that does nothing to diminish the value of my proposal for improved awareness for all traders, universally throughout the game. My point is framed in the backdrop of the original General thread asserting that people "couldn't make enough money", and my objective data showing that actually, you could make a lot of money on the routes that already exist now. I diplomatically glossed over the fact that obviously the TGFT people already know the things I shared, but that doesn't mean I'm unaware of their knowledge, or that improved tools are any less valuable to the rest of the playerbase (or, in general, to tuning the economy, based on broader and more informed player feedback).
I am also aware that economic profitability should be based on an actual model, and not just a "feeling".. that was what I had actually asked for in the aforementioned General thread. Specifically, I asked: How much should a person be able to generate from trading, per-unit-time, and why? What defensible model and reasoning is used to make a given calculation? Still, since then I received hardly any input on the subject at all, so honestly I'm happy to see people just giving their "feelings" about how much they should earn, because that's at least more input than nothing.
Aryko wrote:
Now my point is, Latos has an entirely dynamic system. People can already pretty quickly tank routes, and a dynamic system with a galaxy-wide tool that reports on these prices would result in people drying up goods faster than what stations in Latos currently supply(even more so with people trading in 1200 units at a time). Almost all commodities are dependent on stations to produce them magically, so there's really no other way to procure them.
I'm not sure if you fully appreciate how the Latos economy works..? We have NPC traders that kick in based on relative needs and related timing heuristics. There's no reason that we can't scale that to offset people's increases in consumption. The only downside is that if we accelerate the NPC fulfillment, it will greatly shorten the available trading opportunities for players in the meantime.
I appreciate the example of challenges in other games, but understand that we are not that game, and we've been walking into this with our eyes open for a long time. The existing "balance" of the Latos economy does not represent its limitations, it only shows the current state of something that was chosen as a testbed.
Let's drop the discussion of increased revenue-generation for combative gameplay styles, for the moment, that's just getting too far afield of the core discussion here. I'm all for increasing opportunities for people to be fighters (or pirates, or miners, or whatever), and it does all tie back to the economy, but it isn't absolutely linked in the context of the OP discussion point, which is really..
What model should be used to support the definition of the economy? As I mentioned in the linked General post above, "in the old days it was basically how long someone had to trade before they could go back to shooting stuff again (basically ship replacement cost generated per time trading)."
That bears directly on TRS's point: "Refactoring of how much profit per hour should be made should be viewed through the lens of the relative costs of things - and not just capships."
Capital Ship Value is the single biggest underpinning that has been raised, in the context of my changes "breaking" the economy. But, that's fundamentally a player valuated concept. You can't "buy" a capship in the game. So, the fact that someone sold a capship for a Billion credits in the early days of Conflict Dimaonds first-gen ship, versus less now, only reflects the perceived value of the playerbase.
The question being: Is the problem with "earnings" from trading Real, or Perceived based on prior inflation?
Or, to make that point a little more concise, from the OP at the start of the thread, Rolfor makes the statement:
"I have made several billion credits I have spent almost all of it."
Perhaps it would be illuminating to help me understand how you spent Several Billion credits? Because, that's a hell of a lot of furballs in B8. I'm well aware that people can chew through credits quickly on a lot of combat, but that's also a lot of credits.
The reason for the question being: If the finances were spent primarily (or even in large part) on P2P traded player-generated content that is overvalued by the players, then why is that the fault of the game? Yes, the initial inflation was originally the fault of the game, and caused the perceived value of a "credit" to be X instead of Y, because of the relative ease of generating those quantities. But, that doesn't mean the solution should be to forever-adhere to an inflated standard; it could be better for people to shift their mental expectations?
Regardless, at this point, it would be helpful to come up with a more robust model for how things should actually work.
Greenwall's point is that this should be generated based on some kind of assessment of P2P valuation, and I definitely get that, although I'm not 100% sure if I can easily deliver on that, in the short-term. That's a fully "floating" economy and market, and while everyone then says "that's great! that's what we want!", but it makes things a lot harder in some ways. I'm not here to be the SEC, running around and making sure people aren't trading things improperly, or dealing with market manipulation.
I'm more inclined to have a market that's pinned to fundamental game constructs, like.. the stuff we have for "sale", and then let the purely player-driven economy do whatever they like to define their own perceived "value" of player-constructed content. That keeps me out of the loop on whatever chaos happens on the player side of things.
Please don't take my candid questions as reluctance to boost trading earnings. I'm still not against that. I did "fix" the bad trade routes, knowing full-well it would upset some people, because I knew we needed to start back over at some kind of level of sanity, and find the economic "ground", where-ever that was, and then re-think how things should actually work, with intent.
I'm fine with building.. whatever we think is best, from here. But it has to be defensibly best, and not just based on.. what people are "used to". The whole idea of making a Billion credits, or a Million credits or whatever is arbitrary and largely perceptual.
The idea of people have to spent X time to be able to achieve Y content or gameplay benefit is at least more grounded in some kind of system.
Please keep continued feedback on the topic of the Economic Model, and avoid other tangents, those are welcome in other threads.
I am well aware of TGFT's intelligence assets relating to trading, I know perfectly well that they're often aware of the best routes. But that does nothing to diminish the value of my proposal for improved awareness for all traders, universally throughout the game. My point is framed in the backdrop of the original General thread asserting that people "couldn't make enough money", and my objective data showing that actually, you could make a lot of money on the routes that already exist now. I diplomatically glossed over the fact that obviously the TGFT people already know the things I shared, but that doesn't mean I'm unaware of their knowledge, or that improved tools are any less valuable to the rest of the playerbase (or, in general, to tuning the economy, based on broader and more informed player feedback).
I am also aware that economic profitability should be based on an actual model, and not just a "feeling".. that was what I had actually asked for in the aforementioned General thread. Specifically, I asked: How much should a person be able to generate from trading, per-unit-time, and why? What defensible model and reasoning is used to make a given calculation? Still, since then I received hardly any input on the subject at all, so honestly I'm happy to see people just giving their "feelings" about how much they should earn, because that's at least more input than nothing.
Aryko wrote:
Now my point is, Latos has an entirely dynamic system. People can already pretty quickly tank routes, and a dynamic system with a galaxy-wide tool that reports on these prices would result in people drying up goods faster than what stations in Latos currently supply(even more so with people trading in 1200 units at a time). Almost all commodities are dependent on stations to produce them magically, so there's really no other way to procure them.
I'm not sure if you fully appreciate how the Latos economy works..? We have NPC traders that kick in based on relative needs and related timing heuristics. There's no reason that we can't scale that to offset people's increases in consumption. The only downside is that if we accelerate the NPC fulfillment, it will greatly shorten the available trading opportunities for players in the meantime.
I appreciate the example of challenges in other games, but understand that we are not that game, and we've been walking into this with our eyes open for a long time. The existing "balance" of the Latos economy does not represent its limitations, it only shows the current state of something that was chosen as a testbed.
Let's drop the discussion of increased revenue-generation for combative gameplay styles, for the moment, that's just getting too far afield of the core discussion here. I'm all for increasing opportunities for people to be fighters (or pirates, or miners, or whatever), and it does all tie back to the economy, but it isn't absolutely linked in the context of the OP discussion point, which is really..
What model should be used to support the definition of the economy? As I mentioned in the linked General post above, "in the old days it was basically how long someone had to trade before they could go back to shooting stuff again (basically ship replacement cost generated per time trading)."
That bears directly on TRS's point: "Refactoring of how much profit per hour should be made should be viewed through the lens of the relative costs of things - and not just capships."
Capital Ship Value is the single biggest underpinning that has been raised, in the context of my changes "breaking" the economy. But, that's fundamentally a player valuated concept. You can't "buy" a capship in the game. So, the fact that someone sold a capship for a Billion credits in the early days of Conflict Dimaonds first-gen ship, versus less now, only reflects the perceived value of the playerbase.
The question being: Is the problem with "earnings" from trading Real, or Perceived based on prior inflation?
Or, to make that point a little more concise, from the OP at the start of the thread, Rolfor makes the statement:
"I have made several billion credits I have spent almost all of it."
Perhaps it would be illuminating to help me understand how you spent Several Billion credits? Because, that's a hell of a lot of furballs in B8. I'm well aware that people can chew through credits quickly on a lot of combat, but that's also a lot of credits.
The reason for the question being: If the finances were spent primarily (or even in large part) on P2P traded player-generated content that is overvalued by the players, then why is that the fault of the game? Yes, the initial inflation was originally the fault of the game, and caused the perceived value of a "credit" to be X instead of Y, because of the relative ease of generating those quantities. But, that doesn't mean the solution should be to forever-adhere to an inflated standard; it could be better for people to shift their mental expectations?
Regardless, at this point, it would be helpful to come up with a more robust model for how things should actually work.
Greenwall's point is that this should be generated based on some kind of assessment of P2P valuation, and I definitely get that, although I'm not 100% sure if I can easily deliver on that, in the short-term. That's a fully "floating" economy and market, and while everyone then says "that's great! that's what we want!", but it makes things a lot harder in some ways. I'm not here to be the SEC, running around and making sure people aren't trading things improperly, or dealing with market manipulation.
I'm more inclined to have a market that's pinned to fundamental game constructs, like.. the stuff we have for "sale", and then let the purely player-driven economy do whatever they like to define their own perceived "value" of player-constructed content. That keeps me out of the loop on whatever chaos happens on the player side of things.
Please don't take my candid questions as reluctance to boost trading earnings. I'm still not against that. I did "fix" the bad trade routes, knowing full-well it would upset some people, because I knew we needed to start back over at some kind of level of sanity, and find the economic "ground", where-ever that was, and then re-think how things should actually work, with intent.
I'm fine with building.. whatever we think is best, from here. But it has to be defensibly best, and not just based on.. what people are "used to". The whole idea of making a Billion credits, or a Million credits or whatever is arbitrary and largely perceptual.
The idea of people have to spent X time to be able to achieve Y content or gameplay benefit is at least more grounded in some kind of system.
Please keep continued feedback on the topic of the Economic Model, and avoid other tangents, those are welcome in other threads.
The question being: Is the problem with "earnings" from trading Real, or Perceived based on prior inflation?
It's both.
It's both.
It's both.
Maybe you could be a little more detailed in your response?
Given that P2P / player-constructed economics are entirely perceptual, what aspects of trade-earning deficiencies are "real"?
In what way do people need to be able to generate more than the current $500k+ per hour?
Maybe you could be a little more detailed in your response?
Given that P2P / player-constructed economics are entirely perceptual, what aspects of trade-earning deficiencies are "real"?
In what way do people need to be able to generate more than the current $500k+ per hour?
Elaborating requires discussing combative play styles (why you want to exclude them escapes me).
From a station-purchase-price perspective only, I can easily spend over 500k on ships in under 10 minutes if I'm involved in a large battle or border skirmish (one bombing rag3 costs 88k or something). If you add in player-valuated items, that cost could skyrocket depending on where said battle is happening.
While I do have plenty of credits to not care, if I was in a position of needing to manage my funds I would definitely not participate in selling goods to stations for credits as there are plenty of other much more profitable ways to earn credits through the sale of player-valuated items/services.
From a station-purchase-price perspective only, I can easily spend over 500k on ships in under 10 minutes if I'm involved in a large battle or border skirmish (one bombing rag3 costs 88k or something). If you add in player-valuated items, that cost could skyrocket depending on where said battle is happening.
While I do have plenty of credits to not care, if I was in a position of needing to manage my funds I would definitely not participate in selling goods to stations for credits as there are plenty of other much more profitable ways to earn credits through the sale of player-valuated items/services.
Elaborating requires discussing combative play styles (why you want to exclude them escapes me).
I was talking about generating revenue through combative play styles. A bunch of people started to go off onto bounties and all kinds of other things. I don't think that's so important to discuss.. here.
I'm not saying you can't talk about the costs of combat, as that's the very model I outlined above.
From a station-purchase-price perspective only, I can easily spend over 500k on ships in under 10 minutes if I'm involved in a large battle or border skirmish (one bombing rag3 costs 88k or something).
Right, but.. so what, exactly? We're already looking at peaks of $5M/run, and averages over $500k/run, so how instantaneously should you be able to re-generate that, and why?
If you add in player-valuated items, that cost could skyrocket depending on where said battle is happening.
But, I'm not adding that in, because those items are over-valued by the player-base. So, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm saying their costs should not be considered "Real".
While I do have plenty of credits to not care, if I was in a position of needing to manage my funds I would definitely not participate in selling goods to stations for credits as there are plenty of other much more profitable ways to earn credits through the sale of player-valuated items/services.
No, you think you could do that, because the player assessment of value is inflated. But, if the source of credits (which fundamentally comes from the economy) is reduced, then sooner or later the player-base will be forced to re-evaluate their perceived value of items/services.
So, again, going back to my question:
Given that P2P / player-constructed economics are entirely perceptual, what aspects of trade-earning deficiencies are "real"?
In what way do people need to be able to generate more than the current $500k+ per hour?
I was talking about generating revenue through combative play styles. A bunch of people started to go off onto bounties and all kinds of other things. I don't think that's so important to discuss.. here.
I'm not saying you can't talk about the costs of combat, as that's the very model I outlined above.
From a station-purchase-price perspective only, I can easily spend over 500k on ships in under 10 minutes if I'm involved in a large battle or border skirmish (one bombing rag3 costs 88k or something).
Right, but.. so what, exactly? We're already looking at peaks of $5M/run, and averages over $500k/run, so how instantaneously should you be able to re-generate that, and why?
If you add in player-valuated items, that cost could skyrocket depending on where said battle is happening.
But, I'm not adding that in, because those items are over-valued by the player-base. So, for the purposes of this discussion, I'm saying their costs should not be considered "Real".
While I do have plenty of credits to not care, if I was in a position of needing to manage my funds I would definitely not participate in selling goods to stations for credits as there are plenty of other much more profitable ways to earn credits through the sale of player-valuated items/services.
No, you think you could do that, because the player assessment of value is inflated. But, if the source of credits (which fundamentally comes from the economy) is reduced, then sooner or later the player-base will be forced to re-evaluate their perceived value of items/services.
So, again, going back to my question:
Given that P2P / player-constructed economics are entirely perceptual, what aspects of trade-earning deficiencies are "real"?
In what way do people need to be able to generate more than the current $500k+ per hour?
Incarnate wrote: Regardless, at this point, it would be helpful to come up with a more robust model for how things should actually work.
Well fine we will park the discussion on combat - but the robust model you seek needs to always factor in a price for security.
Long and short of it is this - we need sample data to do any sort of modelling. And not TGFT's data, we need some range of pricing database extracts for each commodity and their station of manufacture so we can do modelling. Comparing this data to the average price of things, including a pricing assumption on capships or anything else, based on inputs.
If we aren't basing suggestions of existing data, its really just hot air - which is where we are at right now. Roflor & Co: "feels like i'm not making enough per hour", Incarnate: "feels like player overvaluing of player made commoditites... man!" etc. etc.
We use the existing data to build a quick model of trading between systems and give a relative price increase or decrease where appropriate. We can also weigh in on adjustments to pricing based on existing desirable items, including capital ship parts.
I have some experience here, in 2012 I founded the TRI guild after producing my capship and created this post with accompanying spreadsheet pricing up the parts based on some robust assumptions having just completed the build. I landed on 3.9bil as a market value for a trident which wouldn't need to be adjusted because I based my pricing on only haulage rather than the docking/undocking that had to be done at that time (since removed).
Similiar valuing of trade routes can be done if you have the data to form a basis for the analysis. So if we are to give meaningful feedback on the economy please consider publishing some of the datasets that are the foundation of the current economy for comment.
Well fine we will park the discussion on combat - but the robust model you seek needs to always factor in a price for security.
Long and short of it is this - we need sample data to do any sort of modelling. And not TGFT's data, we need some range of pricing database extracts for each commodity and their station of manufacture so we can do modelling. Comparing this data to the average price of things, including a pricing assumption on capships or anything else, based on inputs.
If we aren't basing suggestions of existing data, its really just hot air - which is where we are at right now. Roflor & Co: "feels like i'm not making enough per hour", Incarnate: "feels like player overvaluing of player made commoditites... man!" etc. etc.
We use the existing data to build a quick model of trading between systems and give a relative price increase or decrease where appropriate. We can also weigh in on adjustments to pricing based on existing desirable items, including capital ship parts.
I have some experience here, in 2012 I founded the TRI guild after producing my capship and created this post with accompanying spreadsheet pricing up the parts based on some robust assumptions having just completed the build. I landed on 3.9bil as a market value for a trident which wouldn't need to be adjusted because I based my pricing on only haulage rather than the docking/undocking that had to be done at that time (since removed).
Similiar valuing of trade routes can be done if you have the data to form a basis for the analysis. So if we are to give meaningful feedback on the economy please consider publishing some of the datasets that are the foundation of the current economy for comment.
We use the existing data to build a quick model of trading between systems and give a relative price increase or decrease where appropriate. We can also weigh in on adjustments to pricing based on existing desirable items, including capital ship parts.
I'm not really sure why we would want to do that..? It sounds like you want to re-model the economy based around the perceived values of player-constructed items. Why is that desirable?
I'm not really sure why we would want to do that..? It sounds like you want to re-model the economy based around the perceived values of player-constructed items. Why is that desirable?
No Incarnate - I am not on the perceived value bandwagon here - the capital ship thing is just an example that it's easy to make more sensible assumptions around the value of things rather than throw the *dr evil face* 'SEVERAL BILLION CREDITS' card into the mix.
I want to build a new model of trades based on the current pricing to first highlight your point about what are the peak 'per hour' rates. Then have a baseline to do additional analysis to make a case for one of three scenarios:
(1) the current price ranges / profits per hour are appropriate, as against the existing cost of things present in the universe (like ships) and other assumptions, like how long before you need to go back to trading from combat (which I maintain should be zero time - it should be possible to stay combative and make a profit forever);
(2) the current profitability of trade routes is inappropriate as compared to the existing costs of things, and either the things need to have a price adjustment or the profits per hour do (in the proccess, myth-busting some of the hot air around not being able to make money; or
(3) the current costs of things are inappropriate as compared to trade routes, for instance in circumstances where we can demonstrate the economic model really doesn't need to change, but there is a disparity between the prices of ships or other things that is desirable to correct.
Capship prices I think are not really relevant to the discussion, but since I've done the work there we can roll it into any analysis for the sake of doing so.
I want to build a new model of trades based on the current pricing to first highlight your point about what are the peak 'per hour' rates. Then have a baseline to do additional analysis to make a case for one of three scenarios:
(1) the current price ranges / profits per hour are appropriate, as against the existing cost of things present in the universe (like ships) and other assumptions, like how long before you need to go back to trading from combat (which I maintain should be zero time - it should be possible to stay combative and make a profit forever);
(2) the current profitability of trade routes is inappropriate as compared to the existing costs of things, and either the things need to have a price adjustment or the profits per hour do (in the proccess, myth-busting some of the hot air around not being able to make money; or
(3) the current costs of things are inappropriate as compared to trade routes, for instance in circumstances where we can demonstrate the economic model really doesn't need to change, but there is a disparity between the prices of ships or other things that is desirable to correct.
Capship prices I think are not really relevant to the discussion, but since I've done the work there we can roll it into any analysis for the sake of doing so.
[I wrote this at the same time as TRS's response above, it was not in response to his post]
Parsing through large quantities of economy data doesn't answer the fundamental question I asked to Greenwall, which is "why is the current trade income valuation not enough"?
That has nothing to do with spreadsheets of data about relative costs, it's subjective, perceptual question of "how much time must I invest, to do the stuff that I want to do"?
That's the actual question that I'm trying to get to, here, or get people to confront, because it's what's important. It's relatively easy to build larger economic models based around an underpinning like that.
But, I don't think people have seriously confronted themselves on that issue at all, yet, which is why I keep raising the question.
Parsing through large quantities of economy data doesn't answer the fundamental question I asked to Greenwall, which is "why is the current trade income valuation not enough"?
That has nothing to do with spreadsheets of data about relative costs, it's subjective, perceptual question of "how much time must I invest, to do the stuff that I want to do"?
That's the actual question that I'm trying to get to, here, or get people to confront, because it's what's important. It's relatively easy to build larger economic models based around an underpinning like that.
But, I don't think people have seriously confronted themselves on that issue at all, yet, which is why I keep raising the question.
"how much time must I invest, to do the stuff that I want to do"?
Seriously that's an easy one - it's a game - you shouldnt have to 'invest' any time doing the stuff you don't want to do. Your money should go up as you play successfully your chosen path and down as you play unsuccessfully. You shouldn't have to 'invest' in time trading just so you can shoot things.
Success is easy to define also. In combat, you get blown up more often than you blow others up. In trading, you beat others to the profitable trade, rather than have others beat you to it.
Seriously that's an easy one - it's a game - you shouldnt have to 'invest' any time doing the stuff you don't want to do. Your money should go up as you play successfully your chosen path and down as you play unsuccessfully. You shouldn't have to 'invest' in time trading just so you can shoot things.
Success is easy to define also. In combat, you get blown up more often than you blow others up. In trading, you beat others to the profitable trade, rather than have others beat you to it.
[Again, written at the same time, not a response to the above post]
I want to build a new model of trades based on the current pricing to first highlight your point about what are the peak 'per hour' rates.
Okay, but wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just come up with some example spending models? Because then everything else can easily come out of that.. be it "myth deflating" or "trade value adjusting".
The spending-side stuff is completely public and well understood by the player base. So, what are the spending cases? Greenwall started to go there, before he backed off. It's that core perceptual discussion that I think has the most value.
You could churn through all the game-economic data you wanted, but you still won't convince people they "shouldn't make more money" if you can't begin by examining how they intend to directly spend the money in the game-economy..
I want to build a new model of trades based on the current pricing to first highlight your point about what are the peak 'per hour' rates.
Okay, but wouldn't it be a lot simpler to just come up with some example spending models? Because then everything else can easily come out of that.. be it "myth deflating" or "trade value adjusting".
The spending-side stuff is completely public and well understood by the player base. So, what are the spending cases? Greenwall started to go there, before he backed off. It's that core perceptual discussion that I think has the most value.
You could churn through all the game-economic data you wanted, but you still won't convince people they "shouldn't make more money" if you can't begin by examining how they intend to directly spend the money in the game-economy..
You shouldn't have to 'invest' in time trading just so you can shoot things.
So, first of all, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to generate revenue through shooting things, sufficient to continue shooting things.
But, I am saying that conceptual revenue has to tie back to some fundamental need. In actual economics, it's based around things like food and shelter. But, we don't have that kind of fundamental dependence in this universe, so instead spending is tied to.. other things.
There should be some starting point in the discussion that we can look at and say "I am not making enough!" or "I am making too much!". That is generally based on spending habits.
I used the conflict-spending example above, because it was the "old system", and because it was Greenwall's example as well.
So, first of all, I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to generate revenue through shooting things, sufficient to continue shooting things.
But, I am saying that conceptual revenue has to tie back to some fundamental need. In actual economics, it's based around things like food and shelter. But, we don't have that kind of fundamental dependence in this universe, so instead spending is tied to.. other things.
There should be some starting point in the discussion that we can look at and say "I am not making enough!" or "I am making too much!". That is generally based on spending habits.
I used the conflict-spending example above, because it was the "old system", and because it was Greenwall's example as well.
Yeah sure, but I warn you it won't be a crowd pleaser. One of VO's most notorious combatants making fancy data to tell people they already earn enough because 'look how cheap everything is!'. It should have some sort of revenue-side component to it.
As for not having 'food' and 'shelter' maybe we should revisit that - we should have desirable content that has cost-over-time implications - but again - not a crowd pleaser without revenue evaluation.
Yeah sure, but I warn you it won't be a crowd pleaser. One of VO's most notorious combatants making fancy data to tell people they already earn enough because 'look how cheap everything is!'. It should have some sort of revenue-side component to it.
Well, respectfully, we probably won't base everything off of whatever you produce anyway :). But it's a data point, and a useful one if it's at least based on some non-subjective concept.
We can then discuss if.. revenue generation should be a multiple, or the relative value of the time tradeoff and so on, but it gives the conversation some kind of grounding in something.
Revenue-side is easy to change, relatively speaking, if one can start at some reasonably fixed atomic point (like "how much game-sold stuff costs"), and build from there.
Well, respectfully, we probably won't base everything off of whatever you produce anyway :). But it's a data point, and a useful one if it's at least based on some non-subjective concept.
We can then discuss if.. revenue generation should be a multiple, or the relative value of the time tradeoff and so on, but it gives the conversation some kind of grounding in something.
Revenue-side is easy to change, relatively speaking, if one can start at some reasonably fixed atomic point (like "how much game-sold stuff costs"), and build from there.
Adding information of trading routes in some easy-to-understand way would go a long way to demystifying trading for many pilots. As things are now, it is difficult to base reasonable profit margins on how much you spend because there are many pilots that aren't aware of the potential profit or lack thereof out there.
I think adding this would go a long way on many fronts, and make this conversation much easier to have for a significantly larger pool of pilots.
I think adding this would go a long way on many fronts, and make this conversation much easier to have for a significantly larger pool of pilots.
I have some questions relating to this.
From what I understand with the Latos economy, each station uses X amount of a given commodity, and the price the station will pay for that commodity goes up. At some point (time or price? I don't know) a convoy is dispatched to deliver replacement commodities. If for some reason the goods don't get through, then the price continues to rise.
If I have that right, the only thing that needs to be changed to increase or decrease the profitability of a given trade route is the trigger point for dispatching a replenishment convoy.
Do I have that correct?
If so maybe other systems should be migrated over to the Latos model, With the trigger points adjusted as seems fitting.
From what I understand with the Latos economy, each station uses X amount of a given commodity, and the price the station will pay for that commodity goes up. At some point (time or price? I don't know) a convoy is dispatched to deliver replacement commodities. If for some reason the goods don't get through, then the price continues to rise.
If I have that right, the only thing that needs to be changed to increase or decrease the profitability of a given trade route is the trigger point for dispatching a replenishment convoy.
Do I have that correct?
If so maybe other systems should be migrated over to the Latos model, With the trigger points adjusted as seems fitting.
Ok here are rough some high-end combat spending cases:
-High participant station battle (bombing with a rag3, mostly): easily 2m per hour
-PvP fighter battles with top tier ships and station-purchasable weaponry (assuming people don't employ standard death-avoidance tactics): 300k per hour
-PvP fighter/capship battles (assuming person is using their capship and loses it once): 1m per hour
NOT taken into account in the above numbers:
-hauling/travel time to move combat assets into place
-hauling price to move combat assets into place via 3rd party (i.e. from nation space to Latos)
-ultra top tier gear price (either NPC drops or player manufacturing)
____________________________________________________
@incarnate
I understand the desire to get an idea of costs with any player-valued items removed because of their supposed "over inflated" prices. But I'm curious what your plan is to deal with that alleged inflation. I can't really imagine a scenario in which you reduce the "over inflated" prices of P2P trade that doesn't involve zapping away all the old wealth. Because so long as there are people with deep pockets willing to pay huge prices, the prices will remain high. As a player of considerable old wealth I openly admit I do not like that idea.
That, and I don't agree that a lot of player-valuated prices are overly inflated.
For instance, I would never entertain the idea of using my trident to haul goods halfway across the universe for less than 2m one way. I would also not entertain the idea of selling someone a queen gat for less than 5m. I would not even begin to consider selling a levi aggregator for less than 35m, even if it took me less than an hour to get it. I think by and large, most player-valuated prices are within an acceptable range given the time/experience/skill necessary to produce the items.
So, even if the trade routes were adjusted to better suit the "real" costs I outlined above, players are always going to aspire to purchase (and use) the more expensive "player-valuated" items.
-High participant station battle (bombing with a rag3, mostly): easily 2m per hour
-PvP fighter battles with top tier ships and station-purchasable weaponry (assuming people don't employ standard death-avoidance tactics): 300k per hour
-PvP fighter/capship battles (assuming person is using their capship and loses it once): 1m per hour
NOT taken into account in the above numbers:
-hauling/travel time to move combat assets into place
-hauling price to move combat assets into place via 3rd party (i.e. from nation space to Latos)
-ultra top tier gear price (either NPC drops or player manufacturing)
____________________________________________________
@incarnate
I understand the desire to get an idea of costs with any player-valued items removed because of their supposed "over inflated" prices. But I'm curious what your plan is to deal with that alleged inflation. I can't really imagine a scenario in which you reduce the "over inflated" prices of P2P trade that doesn't involve zapping away all the old wealth. Because so long as there are people with deep pockets willing to pay huge prices, the prices will remain high. As a player of considerable old wealth I openly admit I do not like that idea.
That, and I don't agree that a lot of player-valuated prices are overly inflated.
For instance, I would never entertain the idea of using my trident to haul goods halfway across the universe for less than 2m one way. I would also not entertain the idea of selling someone a queen gat for less than 5m. I would not even begin to consider selling a levi aggregator for less than 35m, even if it took me less than an hour to get it. I think by and large, most player-valuated prices are within an acceptable range given the time/experience/skill necessary to produce the items.
So, even if the trade routes were adjusted to better suit the "real" costs I outlined above, players are always going to aspire to purchase (and use) the more expensive "player-valuated" items.
Ok here are rough some high-end combat spending cases:
Okay, and I appreciate the feedback cases, those are interesting. But, again, I don't see why any of those are problematic with the existing trade income levels? Any more than the first one you mentioned above.
The scales you reference aren't anything new, and people were happily burning similar amounts of cash to do combat back before the inflationary static trade routes. So, why is it bad now?
(NOTE: In actuality, it's easier to make money now, since there are still some high-value semi-static routes, like Corvus Holodisks, as well as weapon trading, which wasn't possible back in the day).
That, and I don't agree that a lot of player-valuated prices are overly inflated.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But, none of your "for instances" are particularly meaningful, they're all just "feelings".
If I wanted to sell you a 1989 Toyota Tercel, and you showed up and I said it was $100M, you would think I was insane. I don't get to price things based on how I "feel" (and successfully engage in commerce), the rest of the people (the "market") have to also agree.
The ability of the player-created content to be saleable to players is based on their purchasing power. If you just want to sell to a handful of other super-rich vets, then more power to you. But once we start actual marketing, the quantities of new people are likely to hilariously outnumber the vets; then the new generation will just make their own stuff, and price it more sanely, and you won't be able to sell goods anymore.. without reducing your prices.
I'm just trying to get the game-side economy to a more robust and fun place, so we can port the parameters over to the Latos system (and use it more broadly), and make and the whole economy more scalable.
My old static economy cannot handle an influx of new people "at significant scale", because Demand rates are not self-adjusting to player concurrency or trade activity. I always intended to add that if we needed it, but at this point I'd rather just go fully-dynamic.
The player-to-player economy is, thankfully, not really my problem.. it will adjust with changing realities.
As always, I'm open to doing other things, or approaching things in different ways. But particularly with regards to feedback about the economy, I need something fairly concrete to work with.
Okay, and I appreciate the feedback cases, those are interesting. But, again, I don't see why any of those are problematic with the existing trade income levels? Any more than the first one you mentioned above.
The scales you reference aren't anything new, and people were happily burning similar amounts of cash to do combat back before the inflationary static trade routes. So, why is it bad now?
(NOTE: In actuality, it's easier to make money now, since there are still some high-value semi-static routes, like Corvus Holodisks, as well as weapon trading, which wasn't possible back in the day).
That, and I don't agree that a lot of player-valuated prices are overly inflated.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But, none of your "for instances" are particularly meaningful, they're all just "feelings".
If I wanted to sell you a 1989 Toyota Tercel, and you showed up and I said it was $100M, you would think I was insane. I don't get to price things based on how I "feel" (and successfully engage in commerce), the rest of the people (the "market") have to also agree.
The ability of the player-created content to be saleable to players is based on their purchasing power. If you just want to sell to a handful of other super-rich vets, then more power to you. But once we start actual marketing, the quantities of new people are likely to hilariously outnumber the vets; then the new generation will just make their own stuff, and price it more sanely, and you won't be able to sell goods anymore.. without reducing your prices.
I'm just trying to get the game-side economy to a more robust and fun place, so we can port the parameters over to the Latos system (and use it more broadly), and make and the whole economy more scalable.
My old static economy cannot handle an influx of new people "at significant scale", because Demand rates are not self-adjusting to player concurrency or trade activity. I always intended to add that if we needed it, but at this point I'd rather just go fully-dynamic.
The player-to-player economy is, thankfully, not really my problem.. it will adjust with changing realities.
As always, I'm open to doing other things, or approaching things in different ways. But particularly with regards to feedback about the economy, I need something fairly concrete to work with.
To answer where I spent my billions: I bought most of a goli for about 700m, many tu mines at 20m a piece, many milanar data aggregators at between 15-35 M each, and I regularly pay multiple pirate guilds to not shoot my xcs or capships some of them 5m a day others 300k-1m a day it all adds up over time. I own over 500 moth xc as well which are not cheap ships. So basically P2P trade for manu items or drops and saftey is the bulk of it. I have also died 2,755 times and had to replace my ship and cargo /addons which also adds up.
A couple other points:
Our plugin isn't magic and it requires that people have stuff in their inventory and dock at stations where the stuff is. Frankly with many folks not playing and many others not having the correct stuff stored or not visiting all the stations regularly our data gets pretty stale quickly and we actually are often not aware of the the best trade routes "right now". It takes me several hours to make the the rounds to all the stations (like 112 of them) docking at each one, and I only have the stuff I have found to be profitable stored so I very well could be missing things that are actually better, and after the 5 or 6 hours it takes to dock all over, things could have been sold to the 1st stations I visited making the data inaccurate. Like I said before it takes a good bit of work. ( not even to mention how long it takes to load and deliver 2 or 3 price moths to all the stations . . .) So while people may say we know all the good routes all the time it simply is not true and it takes constant effort to uncover profitable trades.
I still believe (the more I consider it) that what I said at the end of my last post in this thread that a good way to go would be to have a system built into the game that when you look at (mouse over) things for sale, including weapons, it will tell you the best buy and sell prices for that item in all the stations that are listed in the sensor log (in the stations tab) that you have visited since you logged in. This would be available to everyone but would require the player to put in some work to obtain the info. After considering for a bit I think this is the most fair way to go. This makes the pirates put in some work to find out where they have a good chance of intercepting traders. As well as was stated earlier there will always be lazy/irresponsible traders who tank the living crap out of everything in sight, and there isn't much we can do to change that. At least if they have to fly around searching out stuff they may either be to lazy to put in the work or at least it would slow them down from ruining the routes for everyone.
The idea that combat should pay the same as trade doesn't seem right at all to me. Should combat pilots be able to earn enough to buy their combat ships and weapons by only doing combat? Absolutely!! However if they want to earn more they should have to jump in a risky trading ship with a large hold and be subject to the danger of running into players they have been jerks to and facing those player's Vendetta. This isn't a class system it is reaping the rewards of your chosen RP.
"A fast-tanking route would tank quickly. But it would probably be more profitable than what you outline, as well."
Okay that is cool with me as well.
Incarnate clearly has put a lot if thought into all of this and after all I have enjoyed and played this game more than any other that I have ever played, and I started my gaming career with Sopwith back in 1986. I am totally willing to try out whatever system he gives us and adapt. I can be confident that if things really aren't working in the new system we can make new suggestions here and all work together to make it better.
if this means making less than what I am accustomed to then so be it. Maybe inflation is out of control and maybe I am not in a position to fairly judge that because of the way I have been used to playing and the interactions I have had that may skew my viewpoint.
A couple other points:
Our plugin isn't magic and it requires that people have stuff in their inventory and dock at stations where the stuff is. Frankly with many folks not playing and many others not having the correct stuff stored or not visiting all the stations regularly our data gets pretty stale quickly and we actually are often not aware of the the best trade routes "right now". It takes me several hours to make the the rounds to all the stations (like 112 of them) docking at each one, and I only have the stuff I have found to be profitable stored so I very well could be missing things that are actually better, and after the 5 or 6 hours it takes to dock all over, things could have been sold to the 1st stations I visited making the data inaccurate. Like I said before it takes a good bit of work. ( not even to mention how long it takes to load and deliver 2 or 3 price moths to all the stations . . .) So while people may say we know all the good routes all the time it simply is not true and it takes constant effort to uncover profitable trades.
I still believe (the more I consider it) that what I said at the end of my last post in this thread that a good way to go would be to have a system built into the game that when you look at (mouse over) things for sale, including weapons, it will tell you the best buy and sell prices for that item in all the stations that are listed in the sensor log (in the stations tab) that you have visited since you logged in. This would be available to everyone but would require the player to put in some work to obtain the info. After considering for a bit I think this is the most fair way to go. This makes the pirates put in some work to find out where they have a good chance of intercepting traders. As well as was stated earlier there will always be lazy/irresponsible traders who tank the living crap out of everything in sight, and there isn't much we can do to change that. At least if they have to fly around searching out stuff they may either be to lazy to put in the work or at least it would slow them down from ruining the routes for everyone.
The idea that combat should pay the same as trade doesn't seem right at all to me. Should combat pilots be able to earn enough to buy their combat ships and weapons by only doing combat? Absolutely!! However if they want to earn more they should have to jump in a risky trading ship with a large hold and be subject to the danger of running into players they have been jerks to and facing those player's Vendetta. This isn't a class system it is reaping the rewards of your chosen RP.
"A fast-tanking route would tank quickly. But it would probably be more profitable than what you outline, as well."
Okay that is cool with me as well.
Incarnate clearly has put a lot if thought into all of this and after all I have enjoyed and played this game more than any other that I have ever played, and I started my gaming career with Sopwith back in 1986. I am totally willing to try out whatever system he gives us and adapt. I can be confident that if things really aren't working in the new system we can make new suggestions here and all work together to make it better.
if this means making less than what I am accustomed to then so be it. Maybe inflation is out of control and maybe I am not in a position to fairly judge that because of the way I have been used to playing and the interactions I have had that may skew my viewpoint.