Forums » Suggestions
If both sides of the conflict are just earning 'credits over time' for participation in PvP without any sort of winners or losers, you lose the greater context and thus the meaning that each PvP engagement has within the broader conflict.
Wow, you.. really don't understand what I'm saying at all. Or what I've been saying, all along, since that first thread on General.
Okay, I'll try this again..
Having a model for generalized design of game rewards can be very helpful as informative hinting, in determinig what the scale of rewards should be, across large-scale game design.
That is the topic of this thread, which is literally called "Most Combatant Scenarios Pay Too Little".
I keep trying to get you to submit a MODEL for a rewards-based system. The existence of a model doesn't eliminate winning or losing from the equation. I'm not claiming that losers should magically be paid per-unit-time. I'm saying that value can be determined per-unit-time as an underpinning of rewards. Other factors can still be included as well, obviously, like relative ship / equipment losses and things like that.
But constructing some kind of defensible model is core to designing a context across which a number of cohesive gameplay systems may operate.
It's important to understand that the future of VO is far more complex than you and Greenwall envision, from a PvP standpoint or otherwise.
This is why I keep trying to push you towards a model, that might be useful beyond your own small set of cases. I have a lot bigger picture at play here, and I'm trying to make your work more relevant.
But a "model" is not the same as an "opinion", like "5-30 million per hour, because I said so". That's not any more useful than the "Billions!@#!" from the trade thread. A model looks at expenses and use-cases and constitutes some kind of generalized algorithm. It's imperfect, but it provides a reasonable starting point of a discussion of "normalization" of revenue, based on the time invested by the end user.
Again, this does not eliminate the impact of whether the user "wins" a given encounter.. it can be reasonably assumed that people only accrue benefits through winning. Similarly, if you fly out and attack bots, and keep exploding without killing any, I'm not sure why you would make money from that scenario? "Winning at Gameplay" is a reasonable fundamental assumption.
Lastly, try not to be trapped by your assumptions. People see the game as it has been for some time, and assume that that's "all its going to be". But VO was designed as a "staged" concept, by necessity. The Trade-vs-Combat scenario, whether you personally like it or not, was intentionally designed, and was a reasonably balanced system prior to the static trade-route problems. I don't pretend that everyone loved it, nor is that the point, because that's a subjective discussion, like whether someone prefers Chess or Checkers.
But, it was the game as it was intended to be, at that point in its existence, due to the resource limitations I had at the time. But times are changing, we've made more obviously fundamental changes in 2020 than any since 2004, even if their full implications and scale aren't yet revealed.
I'm sure you have lots of interesting ideas of combat scenarios, and how much you think they should be worth, and if that's all you want to write about.. well.. that's fine. Be my guest.
But, don't be surprised if I ship something a lot larger and more complex than the scenarios you're describing. So, I'm just trying to get you to do something more generic, that might have broader ramifications.
And, you're right, I can try and reverse-engineer some kind of model or algorithm out of your numbers. But, it'd be more useful if the players came up with something themselves, and understood what a model is intended to be, it would make these discussions more grounded. Instead of just "random opinions of how much gameplay should pay".
The questions should instead be "Why should Y gameplay pay X?", and then formulate that question in a way that provides an answer to most scenarios, and not just a single case.
Wow, you.. really don't understand what I'm saying at all. Or what I've been saying, all along, since that first thread on General.
Okay, I'll try this again..
Having a model for generalized design of game rewards can be very helpful as informative hinting, in determinig what the scale of rewards should be, across large-scale game design.
That is the topic of this thread, which is literally called "Most Combatant Scenarios Pay Too Little".
I keep trying to get you to submit a MODEL for a rewards-based system. The existence of a model doesn't eliminate winning or losing from the equation. I'm not claiming that losers should magically be paid per-unit-time. I'm saying that value can be determined per-unit-time as an underpinning of rewards. Other factors can still be included as well, obviously, like relative ship / equipment losses and things like that.
But constructing some kind of defensible model is core to designing a context across which a number of cohesive gameplay systems may operate.
It's important to understand that the future of VO is far more complex than you and Greenwall envision, from a PvP standpoint or otherwise.
This is why I keep trying to push you towards a model, that might be useful beyond your own small set of cases. I have a lot bigger picture at play here, and I'm trying to make your work more relevant.
But a "model" is not the same as an "opinion", like "5-30 million per hour, because I said so". That's not any more useful than the "Billions!@#!" from the trade thread. A model looks at expenses and use-cases and constitutes some kind of generalized algorithm. It's imperfect, but it provides a reasonable starting point of a discussion of "normalization" of revenue, based on the time invested by the end user.
Again, this does not eliminate the impact of whether the user "wins" a given encounter.. it can be reasonably assumed that people only accrue benefits through winning. Similarly, if you fly out and attack bots, and keep exploding without killing any, I'm not sure why you would make money from that scenario? "Winning at Gameplay" is a reasonable fundamental assumption.
Lastly, try not to be trapped by your assumptions. People see the game as it has been for some time, and assume that that's "all its going to be". But VO was designed as a "staged" concept, by necessity. The Trade-vs-Combat scenario, whether you personally like it or not, was intentionally designed, and was a reasonably balanced system prior to the static trade-route problems. I don't pretend that everyone loved it, nor is that the point, because that's a subjective discussion, like whether someone prefers Chess or Checkers.
But, it was the game as it was intended to be, at that point in its existence, due to the resource limitations I had at the time. But times are changing, we've made more obviously fundamental changes in 2020 than any since 2004, even if their full implications and scale aren't yet revealed.
I'm sure you have lots of interesting ideas of combat scenarios, and how much you think they should be worth, and if that's all you want to write about.. well.. that's fine. Be my guest.
But, don't be surprised if I ship something a lot larger and more complex than the scenarios you're describing. So, I'm just trying to get you to do something more generic, that might have broader ramifications.
And, you're right, I can try and reverse-engineer some kind of model or algorithm out of your numbers. But, it'd be more useful if the players came up with something themselves, and understood what a model is intended to be, it would make these discussions more grounded. Instead of just "random opinions of how much gameplay should pay".
The questions should instead be "Why should Y gameplay pay X?", and then formulate that question in a way that provides an answer to most scenarios, and not just a single case.
I'm hopeful I can get in the ballpark to stimulate helpful discussion:
An automatic bounty system in which factions pay a bounty to those pilots who are in good standing with the faction for destroying pilots who are in bad standing - good standing with a competing or opposite faction.
This could be as (relatively) simple as bounties paid out from the pilot's highest faction standing, or a more complex multi-faction system.
The payout could be based on the destroyed pilot's standing with the paying faction, the opposed faction, or both. Also the cost of any repairs and ammo replenishment within a certain time limit around the kill. It could also consider the combat levels and equipment of the destroyed pilot relative to those of the victorious pilot. I like TRS's "kill streak" idea for bonuses.
There should be diminishing returns for multiple kills of the same pilot, to reduce the temptation to misuse the system of otherwise reward killing the same player an excessive number of times.
An automatic bounty system in which factions pay a bounty to those pilots who are in good standing with the faction for destroying pilots who are in bad standing - good standing with a competing or opposite faction.
This could be as (relatively) simple as bounties paid out from the pilot's highest faction standing, or a more complex multi-faction system.
The payout could be based on the destroyed pilot's standing with the paying faction, the opposed faction, or both. Also the cost of any repairs and ammo replenishment within a certain time limit around the kill. It could also consider the combat levels and equipment of the destroyed pilot relative to those of the victorious pilot. I like TRS's "kill streak" idea for bonuses.
There should be diminishing returns for multiple kills of the same pilot, to reduce the temptation to misuse the system of otherwise reward killing the same player an excessive number of times.
Make rewards revolve around a % cost of the enemy's loadout.
Scenarios revolving around PvE:
-> Deneb: There's already some credits rewarded for killing enemy ships, however, it's too less(2-4k iirc?). Rewards could scale with ships(Vulture - X1/Prom - Capital ships), as a % of the ship cost. (These are individual kills/assists, not "casualties").
-> Blockades: There's little to no reward in clearing these, as they are mostly easy to bypass unless you are in a slow moth. Whenever there's a blockade, any person affiliated with a nation's military could be rewarded with credits for killing enemy ships a part of the blockade. Apart from scaling with ships, these payouts could also increase over time as blockades remain uncleared.
-> Hive: Criticals/Centrals pay decent in terms of drops so I don't really feel there's a need for adjustments here. These are also abundant in XP rewards.
I'm not sure how to make a reward system for clearing Hive without NPC assistance. These are not very easy without a capital ship, so maybe they could have a higher than normal drop rates for Neural nodules, SSS etc.
-> Unrats: These used to be okay in terms of frequency of FFSA/FCP drops from the dent. However, with the new freemium model, those are likely to devalue as more people have access to manufacturing. I haven't seen major trends that way but it's expected as the game grows.
Unrats are also very difficult to kill without capital ships. Clearing just one side of the system becomes pretty expensive, with little to no rewards if you don't have the capability to go after the dent. There should be payout for individual kills as well, scaling with ship size and time uncleared.
Scenarios revolving around PvP:
These are not as easy to model. The only justifiable payment system I can think of, apart from existing systems, is paying people to eliminate players of opposing factions.
-> Nation war(Itani v Serco): Players affiliated to a nation's military could be compensated for engaging and killing players from the enemy faction. These follow the same % ship cost model, with the extra step of taking into consideration the enemy's license as well(To prevent newbie farming). Killing someone with a lower license scales down your final pay by the license difference, and vice-versa.
-> Rewarding pirate hunting is not as easy, as there's no way for the game to determine whether a player is a pirate.
-> I don't see why consensual PvP should be rewarded, unless as part of an event.
The reason I have gone with this kind of model(%ship loadout cost) because 1) they(ships) are a base necessity to play the game, and 2) are a statically priced commodity.
All notions of "Trading should pay x millions" or "Deneb should pay y millions" revolve around prices of commodities arbitrarily decided by the player base, such as manufactured stuff, or Hive drops. These prices are very erratic, and not a reliable way to determine what the game should actually be paying.
All arguments for this topic are based on not relying on trading to buy ships for your desired activity(PvE/PvP). Clearly, ships and weapons are what matter to a player not interested in the non-combat aspect of the game. So it makes sense that rewards are based around ships.
This also allows the devs to use their telemetry to calculate the value of the % used in these scenarios, instead of hardcoding values for rewards.
Scenarios revolving around PvE:
-> Deneb: There's already some credits rewarded for killing enemy ships, however, it's too less(2-4k iirc?). Rewards could scale with ships(Vulture - X1/Prom - Capital ships), as a % of the ship cost. (These are individual kills/assists, not "casualties").
-> Blockades: There's little to no reward in clearing these, as they are mostly easy to bypass unless you are in a slow moth. Whenever there's a blockade, any person affiliated with a nation's military could be rewarded with credits for killing enemy ships a part of the blockade. Apart from scaling with ships, these payouts could also increase over time as blockades remain uncleared.
-> Hive: Criticals/Centrals pay decent in terms of drops so I don't really feel there's a need for adjustments here. These are also abundant in XP rewards.
I'm not sure how to make a reward system for clearing Hive without NPC assistance. These are not very easy without a capital ship, so maybe they could have a higher than normal drop rates for Neural nodules, SSS etc.
-> Unrats: These used to be okay in terms of frequency of FFSA/FCP drops from the dent. However, with the new freemium model, those are likely to devalue as more people have access to manufacturing. I haven't seen major trends that way but it's expected as the game grows.
Unrats are also very difficult to kill without capital ships. Clearing just one side of the system becomes pretty expensive, with little to no rewards if you don't have the capability to go after the dent. There should be payout for individual kills as well, scaling with ship size and time uncleared.
Scenarios revolving around PvP:
These are not as easy to model. The only justifiable payment system I can think of, apart from existing systems, is paying people to eliminate players of opposing factions.
-> Nation war(Itani v Serco): Players affiliated to a nation's military could be compensated for engaging and killing players from the enemy faction. These follow the same % ship cost model, with the extra step of taking into consideration the enemy's license as well(To prevent newbie farming). Killing someone with a lower license scales down your final pay by the license difference, and vice-versa.
-> Rewarding pirate hunting is not as easy, as there's no way for the game to determine whether a player is a pirate.
-> I don't see why consensual PvP should be rewarded, unless as part of an event.
The reason I have gone with this kind of model(%ship loadout cost) because 1) they(ships) are a base necessity to play the game, and 2) are a statically priced commodity.
All notions of "Trading should pay x millions" or "Deneb should pay y millions" revolve around prices of commodities arbitrarily decided by the player base, such as manufactured stuff, or Hive drops. These prices are very erratic, and not a reliable way to determine what the game should actually be paying.
All arguments for this topic are based on not relying on trading to buy ships for your desired activity(PvE/PvP). Clearly, ships and weapons are what matter to a player not interested in the non-combat aspect of the game. So it makes sense that rewards are based around ships.
This also allows the devs to use their telemetry to calculate the value of the % used in these scenarios, instead of hardcoding values for rewards.
" Deneb: There's already some credits rewarded for killing enemy ships, however, it's too less(2-4k iirc?)."
It is 5k per kill
It is 5k per kill
There should be diminishing returns for multiple kills of the same pilot, to reduce the temptation to misuse the system of otherwise reward killing the same player an excessive number of times.
Any kind of diminishing returns for repeated killings is a bad idea. The problem it tries to address (exploitation) should be solved in a way that doesn't suppress PvP gameplay. All PvP rewards should *encourage* PvP gameplay.
"Why should Y gameplay pay X?"
We cannot arrive at anything other than an arbitrary number as an answer since you (incarnate) want to exclude the most valuable items/services in the game from the equation. The closest we can get to answering this question is that it should be equitable to profit made by trading, which is currently WAY higher in most circumstances.
Any kind of diminishing returns for repeated killings is a bad idea. The problem it tries to address (exploitation) should be solved in a way that doesn't suppress PvP gameplay. All PvP rewards should *encourage* PvP gameplay.
"Why should Y gameplay pay X?"
We cannot arrive at anything other than an arbitrary number as an answer since you (incarnate) want to exclude the most valuable items/services in the game from the equation. The closest we can get to answering this question is that it should be equitable to profit made by trading, which is currently WAY higher in most circumstances.
We cannot arrive at anything other than an arbitrary number as an answer since you (incarnate) want to exclude the most valuable items/services in the game from the equation.
No, I'm just saying you have to use items that are priced by the actual game, and not by someone's random perception. That's why it's a baseline, and I also mentioned it was imperfect. Being imperfect is still usable, as long as one understands the limitations, and the advantage of it being repeatable.
See, part of the point of doing this by a model, is that you can rapidly adjust the entire game later, based on other factors changing in an empirically measured way (such as, through analytics). For instance, fluctuations in time or credits spent to do X or Y. If you begin with some reasonable set of fixed input/output criteria as a basis, you can more easily modify the entire game on the fly at a later point.
Lastly, "your" numbers using player-created perceptual pricing are not less "arbitrary", they're more-so. Especially because player-prices are much more likely to fluctuate than the actual game-defined values.
No, I'm just saying you have to use items that are priced by the actual game, and not by someone's random perception. That's why it's a baseline, and I also mentioned it was imperfect. Being imperfect is still usable, as long as one understands the limitations, and the advantage of it being repeatable.
See, part of the point of doing this by a model, is that you can rapidly adjust the entire game later, based on other factors changing in an empirically measured way (such as, through analytics). For instance, fluctuations in time or credits spent to do X or Y. If you begin with some reasonable set of fixed input/output criteria as a basis, you can more easily modify the entire game on the fly at a later point.
Lastly, "your" numbers using player-created perceptual pricing are not less "arbitrary", they're more-so. Especially because player-prices are much more likely to fluctuate than the actual game-defined values.
The effort to explain why arriving at a model is important is super appreciated. The way its articulated could still be a little clearer - but we are making progress nonetheless.
It seems we are on the right track, but are missing some of the key variables for the model. The model appears to require the following variables:
1. Scenario - what are the parameters of the situation, what's the activity and what conditions are required to be met for activation of the reward
2. Costs - what is the average cost of the 'basket of goods' (aka. reference to CPI) that players purchase to engage in this activity per hour
3. Rewards - assuming the activity is engaged in succesfully for most of the hour, how much revenue is generated in that hour. What events trigger a reward and how many events should players expect to experience in an hour of successful play
Profit is then its normal Costs - Rewards (Revenue), and you arrive at your total profit per hour figure.
Can we please have some guidance on whether suggestions should take this overall structure?
If so, we presently have plenty of Scenarios to work from, but in this thread we are missing the Costs and Rewards in most suggestions - so we can work with that. If not, then you need to reduce your description of a model to be more specific than we need a 'generalised algorithm'. What variables does the algorithm have?
As an overaching comment, the main problem I've had so far is effectively what Greenwall points out, which is that what's the point bringing in costs related to current pricing when rewards for trading are so ridiculous by comparison. But as you point out it can factored into the model - so that's what we will do.
Incarnate also wrote: But, don't be surprised if I ship something a lot larger and more complex than the scenarios you're describing.
Delighted. I will be too busy being gleefully delighted to be surprised. I promise. It's just I'm coming up on 8 years as a backer of Star Citizen and they promised something a lot larger and more complex - so you will forgive my skepticism. Whatever your ideas of what is 'larger and complex' are, you're going to struggle to convince me they are more complex than Chris Roberts' wack-a-doo scope creep of a game.
I would rather look at contributing to incremental changes at this stage, since you actually deliver them.
It seems we are on the right track, but are missing some of the key variables for the model. The model appears to require the following variables:
1. Scenario - what are the parameters of the situation, what's the activity and what conditions are required to be met for activation of the reward
2. Costs - what is the average cost of the 'basket of goods' (aka. reference to CPI) that players purchase to engage in this activity per hour
3. Rewards - assuming the activity is engaged in succesfully for most of the hour, how much revenue is generated in that hour. What events trigger a reward and how many events should players expect to experience in an hour of successful play
Profit is then its normal Costs - Rewards (Revenue), and you arrive at your total profit per hour figure.
Can we please have some guidance on whether suggestions should take this overall structure?
If so, we presently have plenty of Scenarios to work from, but in this thread we are missing the Costs and Rewards in most suggestions - so we can work with that. If not, then you need to reduce your description of a model to be more specific than we need a 'generalised algorithm'. What variables does the algorithm have?
As an overaching comment, the main problem I've had so far is effectively what Greenwall points out, which is that what's the point bringing in costs related to current pricing when rewards for trading are so ridiculous by comparison. But as you point out it can factored into the model - so that's what we will do.
Incarnate also wrote: But, don't be surprised if I ship something a lot larger and more complex than the scenarios you're describing.
Delighted. I will be too busy being gleefully delighted to be surprised. I promise. It's just I'm coming up on 8 years as a backer of Star Citizen and they promised something a lot larger and more complex - so you will forgive my skepticism. Whatever your ideas of what is 'larger and complex' are, you're going to struggle to convince me they are more complex than Chris Roberts' wack-a-doo scope creep of a game.
I would rather look at contributing to incremental changes at this stage, since you actually deliver them.
No, I'm just saying you have to use items that are priced by the actual game, and not by someone's random perception.
..."your" numbers using player-created perceptual pricing are not less "arbitrary", they're more-so. Especially because player-prices are much more likely to fluctuate than the actual game-defined values.
Player valuation/pricing (at least, numbers you might find in a shop, or in common "street" pricing when it comes to capship parts) are nothing close to "random perception" or "arbitrary". It may be inflated due to an abundance of "old money" in game atm, they may be somewhat dynamic given supply/demand, but it's definitely *not* random or arbitrary. Prices are set because people will pay them, and people will pay them because, for the most part, it seems like a reasonable price given the skills and time involved in procurement under the current gameplay.
See, part of the point of doing this by a model, is that you can rapidly adjust the entire game later, based on other factors changing in an empirically measured way (such as, through analytics). For instance, fluctuations in time or credits spent to do X or Y. If you begin with some reasonable set of fixed input/output criteria as a basis, you can more easily modify the entire game on the fly at a later point.
I think everyone understands the idea of a model that can be then later scaled/modified more easily. And I understand the apprehension on your part to include player-valuated items in the consideration for this "model", given that they can vary in price for reasons outside of the game's control.
The problem is that you cannot make progress in the game (as a combatant) unless you are able to pay for player-valuated items. They are in far too much abundance and lend far too much of an advantage to be ignored in a model such that you seek. And since "making progress" is basically what the "time" part of your model seeks to define -- i.e. how much is 1 hour of gameplay worth, after the losses are taken into account -- it cannot be defined if you ignore player-valuated items/prices. 1 hour (or whatever time unit you want to use) of gameplay shouldn't be defined solely by how much does it cost to pay for station bought items to sustain X activity; if it was, progress in the game would grind to a halt.
Consider that any journey-level PvP or PvE combatant is going to want access to the following exclusively player-procured items whenever possible to be competent:
Itani
IHDPC or UC
Corvus Widowmaker
Lenbs
Serco
IHDPC or UC
Lenbs or Hive Gats
UIT
IHDPC or UC
If they do deneb, or station battles, they are going to want to want access to avalons.
If they do station battles or large group PvP battles and have a capship, they are going to want various manufactured turrets as well as TUs.
TRS's 3-point clarification above gets closer, but the rewards section is what I have a problem with. One cannot non-arbitrarily determine what these rewards should be without factoring in the things people want/need to spend their money on.
At the very least PvP/PvE could (should) be made equal in rewards-per-hour with trading...so even it's some arbitrary number like 2 million per hour, at least combatants wouldn't have to jump into their Behemoths and start trading after a battle (they could have an equitable PvX path to earn the same amount of credits).
..."your" numbers using player-created perceptual pricing are not less "arbitrary", they're more-so. Especially because player-prices are much more likely to fluctuate than the actual game-defined values.
Player valuation/pricing (at least, numbers you might find in a shop, or in common "street" pricing when it comes to capship parts) are nothing close to "random perception" or "arbitrary". It may be inflated due to an abundance of "old money" in game atm, they may be somewhat dynamic given supply/demand, but it's definitely *not* random or arbitrary. Prices are set because people will pay them, and people will pay them because, for the most part, it seems like a reasonable price given the skills and time involved in procurement under the current gameplay.
See, part of the point of doing this by a model, is that you can rapidly adjust the entire game later, based on other factors changing in an empirically measured way (such as, through analytics). For instance, fluctuations in time or credits spent to do X or Y. If you begin with some reasonable set of fixed input/output criteria as a basis, you can more easily modify the entire game on the fly at a later point.
I think everyone understands the idea of a model that can be then later scaled/modified more easily. And I understand the apprehension on your part to include player-valuated items in the consideration for this "model", given that they can vary in price for reasons outside of the game's control.
The problem is that you cannot make progress in the game (as a combatant) unless you are able to pay for player-valuated items. They are in far too much abundance and lend far too much of an advantage to be ignored in a model such that you seek. And since "making progress" is basically what the "time" part of your model seeks to define -- i.e. how much is 1 hour of gameplay worth, after the losses are taken into account -- it cannot be defined if you ignore player-valuated items/prices. 1 hour (or whatever time unit you want to use) of gameplay shouldn't be defined solely by how much does it cost to pay for station bought items to sustain X activity; if it was, progress in the game would grind to a halt.
Consider that any journey-level PvP or PvE combatant is going to want access to the following exclusively player-procured items whenever possible to be competent:
Itani
IHDPC or UC
Corvus Widowmaker
Lenbs
Serco
IHDPC or UC
Lenbs or Hive Gats
UIT
IHDPC or UC
If they do deneb, or station battles, they are going to want to want access to avalons.
If they do station battles or large group PvP battles and have a capship, they are going to want various manufactured turrets as well as TUs.
TRS's 3-point clarification above gets closer, but the rewards section is what I have a problem with. One cannot non-arbitrarily determine what these rewards should be without factoring in the things people want/need to spend their money on.
At the very least PvP/PvE could (should) be made equal in rewards-per-hour with trading...so even it's some arbitrary number like 2 million per hour, at least combatants wouldn't have to jump into their Behemoths and start trading after a battle (they could have an equitable PvX path to earn the same amount of credits).
I have an idea that might help solve the issue of the subjective valuation of some items, specifically crafted items and hive drops. Have the stations buy the crap at some reasonable pricing. We can argue all day about what is reasonable, however I do also have an idea of how the developers could determine what reasonable is, at least as a starting point.
The average time to haul all the regular purchasable commodities to build X widget can be reasonably estimated. The data gathering the developers have been doing should be able to give them a picture of how long it takes to acquire the hive drop items for the average player discarding the top and bottom standard deviation. I suspect the top 5 percent of hive drop farmers manage 10 times the average rate, so I'm trying to consider an influx of noobs at some point down the line. Also average operational cost of acquisition (repairs, reloads, replacement ships) for the above mentioned 'average player' should be determinable.
All combined it should be possible to figure out what it costs in credits and time to create a given item. This could be used to come up with a reasonable price for hive drops or at least a good starting point. It does require a number for how many credits an hour of time is worth. I think Incarnate is going to have to just make a judgement call on that. My guess would be around 1.5 mill/hour for the average player.
The 'reasonableness' of the set price can be determined by looking at what percentage of the total number of new drops are sold to stations with the price being adjusted up or down until it reaches maybe 30% (10%?, 50%? dunno) in a month.
The average time to haul all the regular purchasable commodities to build X widget can be reasonably estimated. The data gathering the developers have been doing should be able to give them a picture of how long it takes to acquire the hive drop items for the average player discarding the top and bottom standard deviation. I suspect the top 5 percent of hive drop farmers manage 10 times the average rate, so I'm trying to consider an influx of noobs at some point down the line. Also average operational cost of acquisition (repairs, reloads, replacement ships) for the above mentioned 'average player' should be determinable.
All combined it should be possible to figure out what it costs in credits and time to create a given item. This could be used to come up with a reasonable price for hive drops or at least a good starting point. It does require a number for how many credits an hour of time is worth. I think Incarnate is going to have to just make a judgement call on that. My guess would be around 1.5 mill/hour for the average player.
The 'reasonableness' of the set price can be determined by looking at what percentage of the total number of new drops are sold to stations with the price being adjusted up or down until it reaches maybe 30% (10%?, 50%? dunno) in a month.
Yes LNH exactly. It's easy to come up with a base value for how much the player manufactured items should sell for. Did I mention that was already done in this post with accompanying spreadsheet?.
It's been long overdue for capship parts to have a station purchase value, why not start there and move on to all of greenwall's items. That way we can start to get a picture of costs at all tiers.
It's been long overdue for capship parts to have a station purchase value, why not start there and move on to all of greenwall's items. That way we can start to get a picture of costs at all tiers.
Yes LNH exactly. It's easy to come up with a base value for how much the player manufactured items should sell for. Did I mention that was already done in this post with accompanying spreadsheet?.
Umm, except your most-recent suggested valuation, in this thread, was "within the range of 5 - 30mil credits per hour". Which is a bit different from LNH's ballpark of 1.5 million, or the similar ballpark that came out of the Trading thread.
So you "agree" within a factor of.. up to 20 or so.
It's been long overdue for capship parts to have a station purchase value, why not start there and move on to all of greenwall's items. That way we can start to get a picture of costs at all tiers.
I've never been enthusiastic about capship parts having some kind of statically-defined station purchase value (even periodically modified). It runs counter to the whole idea of a player-based economy. I would much rather invest my time in creating systems for players to post items for sale, and allow the economics of user-created content to work itself out.
Which is basically part of the underlying point of why I won't include it in the calculation of base-value derived from PvP, PvE or Trading.
Also average operational cost of acquisition (repairs, reloads, replacement ships) for the above mentioned 'average player' should be determinable.
LNH's point is about pricing player-created content, but his goal is to calculate based on "reasonable player averages", which I think is commendable. The problem here is that.. none of you represent the average, or anything remotely close to it. And the "average" player rarely engages with end-game player-created content, of extreme perceived value.
The problem is that you cannot make progress in the game (as a combatant) unless you are able to pay for player-valuated items.
I'm never, ever going to agree with that. It's part of the hyper-elite perspective problem you have, greenwall. The notion that someone cannot progress meaningfully in PvE, without LENBs or Windowmakers is completely silly.
I would rather look at contributing to incremental changes at this stage, since you actually deliver them.
Look, I do empathize with the reasons for people's skepticism, be it from Chris Roberts, or my own lengthy history of development-optimism followed by (relative) failure.
It just doesn't really matter, here. "Suggestions" starts from a place of "Believe what Incarnate says, because he's working on things that are not yet revealed". If you want your contributions to have value, you have to just listen to me, and take me at my word. Otherwise.. you end up minimizing the value of what you're trying to put forth, and wasting both of our time.
1. Scenario - what are the parameters of the situation, what's the activity and what conditions are required to be met for activation of the reward
2. Costs - what is the average cost of the 'basket of goods' (aka. reference to CPI) that players purchase to engage in this activity per hour
3. Rewards - assuming the activity is engaged in succesfully for most of the hour, how much revenue is generated in that hour. What events trigger a reward and how many events should players expect to experience in an hour of successful play
Profit is then its normal Costs - Rewards (Revenue), and you arrive at your total profit per hour figure.
Can we please have some guidance on whether suggestions should take this overall structure?
Sure, that's fine, it's infinitely more-useful anyway.
Umm, except your most-recent suggested valuation, in this thread, was "within the range of 5 - 30mil credits per hour". Which is a bit different from LNH's ballpark of 1.5 million, or the similar ballpark that came out of the Trading thread.
So you "agree" within a factor of.. up to 20 or so.
It's been long overdue for capship parts to have a station purchase value, why not start there and move on to all of greenwall's items. That way we can start to get a picture of costs at all tiers.
I've never been enthusiastic about capship parts having some kind of statically-defined station purchase value (even periodically modified). It runs counter to the whole idea of a player-based economy. I would much rather invest my time in creating systems for players to post items for sale, and allow the economics of user-created content to work itself out.
Which is basically part of the underlying point of why I won't include it in the calculation of base-value derived from PvP, PvE or Trading.
Also average operational cost of acquisition (repairs, reloads, replacement ships) for the above mentioned 'average player' should be determinable.
LNH's point is about pricing player-created content, but his goal is to calculate based on "reasonable player averages", which I think is commendable. The problem here is that.. none of you represent the average, or anything remotely close to it. And the "average" player rarely engages with end-game player-created content, of extreme perceived value.
The problem is that you cannot make progress in the game (as a combatant) unless you are able to pay for player-valuated items.
I'm never, ever going to agree with that. It's part of the hyper-elite perspective problem you have, greenwall. The notion that someone cannot progress meaningfully in PvE, without LENBs or Windowmakers is completely silly.
I would rather look at contributing to incremental changes at this stage, since you actually deliver them.
Look, I do empathize with the reasons for people's skepticism, be it from Chris Roberts, or my own lengthy history of development-optimism followed by (relative) failure.
It just doesn't really matter, here. "Suggestions" starts from a place of "Believe what Incarnate says, because he's working on things that are not yet revealed". If you want your contributions to have value, you have to just listen to me, and take me at my word. Otherwise.. you end up minimizing the value of what you're trying to put forth, and wasting both of our time.
1. Scenario - what are the parameters of the situation, what's the activity and what conditions are required to be met for activation of the reward
2. Costs - what is the average cost of the 'basket of goods' (aka. reference to CPI) that players purchase to engage in this activity per hour
3. Rewards - assuming the activity is engaged in succesfully for most of the hour, how much revenue is generated in that hour. What events trigger a reward and how many events should players expect to experience in an hour of successful play
Profit is then its normal Costs - Rewards (Revenue), and you arrive at your total profit per hour figure.
Can we please have some guidance on whether suggestions should take this overall structure?
Sure, that's fine, it's infinitely more-useful anyway.
So you "agree" within a factor of.. up to 20 or so.
No I agree with the bulk of the suggestion. I didn't intend to endorse the figure. What I do agree with LNH on is that 1.5mil per hour would be reasonable for an average player in a world where old money didn't exist.
Because of old money, my view is that 5 - 30 mil should be the average, and that should be accompanied by a price increase in most or all ships, weapons and goods. That way when old money plays, buys ships etc, they are reducing their stockpile of old money and newer players can compete if they are being successful.
There are other ways to deal with old money (hard reset!) but this one fits your 'thou shalt not lose player data' commandment.
Okay well thanks for confirming the variables of the model. Back soon with more here, just a bit more playtesting to do.
No I agree with the bulk of the suggestion. I didn't intend to endorse the figure. What I do agree with LNH on is that 1.5mil per hour would be reasonable for an average player in a world where old money didn't exist.
Because of old money, my view is that 5 - 30 mil should be the average, and that should be accompanied by a price increase in most or all ships, weapons and goods. That way when old money plays, buys ships etc, they are reducing their stockpile of old money and newer players can compete if they are being successful.
There are other ways to deal with old money (hard reset!) but this one fits your 'thou shalt not lose player data' commandment.
Okay well thanks for confirming the variables of the model. Back soon with more here, just a bit more playtesting to do.
Perhaps I should have been more verbose in my description of what I meant by "average player". I only meant to include those who interact with that later game content regularly, not ALL players.
As for dealing with 'old money', I personally don't see it as a long term problem large enough to be worth distorting the whole system for. Sure some vets can afford to simply pay others to gather up everything they need to build the newest capship as soon as it's released. I am probably not even close to that rich, but I don't see it as a problem. I see an opportunity. Pirates get to steal all kinds of stuff, and newer players get to make friends and cash trundling stuff hither and yon.
As for dealing with 'old money', I personally don't see it as a long term problem large enough to be worth distorting the whole system for. Sure some vets can afford to simply pay others to gather up everything they need to build the newest capship as soon as it's released. I am probably not even close to that rich, but I don't see it as a problem. I see an opportunity. Pirates get to steal all kinds of stuff, and newer players get to make friends and cash trundling stuff hither and yon.
The notion that someone cannot progress meaningfully in PvE, without LENBs or Windowmakers is completely silly.
PvE is only half of the average combatant’s gameplay, and certainly much less than half of an experienced combatant’s gameplay.
PvE is only half of the average combatant’s gameplay, and certainly much less than half of an experienced combatant’s gameplay.
At elite player combat level the weight difference of something like a Hive Posi vs AAP on a light ship, or the speed differences or slight damage advantages that the top tier weapons have - it makes a meaningful impact.
I personally am in a position where I now only fly using these hive drops or player manufactured items (I think all my ships have IDHCP now also). I guess I don't expect them to factor in too much into the reward side of things, but I would still expect to make a very high credit figure per hour in circumstances where there are opportunities to kill very high value targets and where your death count is low.
That is possible if you fly well and use these items - I mean it's enough of an advantage that good pilots can comfortably defeat average pilots on a consistent basis.
But if your plan is that you go out in your ~200k ship (value incl. equip) and you kill three to six pilots in decent ships and take a risk and then one of them gets a good flare combo off - you're not making money if you can only make 1.5mil per hour on average even if you are 6/1 K/D. And basically when you are that good, you should make money provided you do so in a situation where it makes sense for you to be paid (like Itani/Serco battles).
Currently you have to be mega rich to go and casually fight in B8 with hiveposis and be prepared to take a risk because if you lose it the value is low. It would be good to see the rewards stack up and justify these higher level items being used more often. Just not in B8 though - B8 is kind of a substitute for an actual meaningful combat scenario. Instead players should be drawn to the place where the fighting happens, as it used to be in Deneb Border wars.
Anyway this is a great thread - lets start pulling together the scenarios in the format and just see how much of an impact player items are going to have. I feel like if we get a playtestable beta set of combat scenarios where payments are made then we will be able to come back with some more robust arguments about why player constructables or hive drops should factor in.
I personally am in a position where I now only fly using these hive drops or player manufactured items (I think all my ships have IDHCP now also). I guess I don't expect them to factor in too much into the reward side of things, but I would still expect to make a very high credit figure per hour in circumstances where there are opportunities to kill very high value targets and where your death count is low.
That is possible if you fly well and use these items - I mean it's enough of an advantage that good pilots can comfortably defeat average pilots on a consistent basis.
But if your plan is that you go out in your ~200k ship (value incl. equip) and you kill three to six pilots in decent ships and take a risk and then one of them gets a good flare combo off - you're not making money if you can only make 1.5mil per hour on average even if you are 6/1 K/D. And basically when you are that good, you should make money provided you do so in a situation where it makes sense for you to be paid (like Itani/Serco battles).
Currently you have to be mega rich to go and casually fight in B8 with hiveposis and be prepared to take a risk because if you lose it the value is low. It would be good to see the rewards stack up and justify these higher level items being used more often. Just not in B8 though - B8 is kind of a substitute for an actual meaningful combat scenario. Instead players should be drawn to the place where the fighting happens, as it used to be in Deneb Border wars.
Anyway this is a great thread - lets start pulling together the scenarios in the format and just see how much of an impact player items are going to have. I feel like if we get a playtestable beta set of combat scenarios where payments are made then we will be able to come back with some more robust arguments about why player constructables or hive drops should factor in.
I have listed out some scenarios, and a model to be used as a quantifier for rewards, any comments Inc?
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/36688?page=3#418675
Assigning a value to goods based on time and ship costs doesn't necessarily work for hive drops, or even some manu components. Something like a Data aggregator doesn't require a lot of time(relatively), but you do need to be skilled. You also don't take into account the practical value of the drop. An aggy is way more useful than something like a Queen matrix. Players know this, which is why it's a lot more expensive than a queen matrix, even when accounting for the levi respawn time.
Something like SSS is very easy to farm in bulk, so if the game only accounted for the time it took to farm it without considering its value to the player, it would hugely underestimate it's price.
Since some manu components depend on these hive drops, the game would end up under/over estimating their prices.
Prices of manu components also depend on the utility of capital ships, these are a lot likely to change with the introduction of more content.
IMO prices of this stuff should be left to the player market. Rewards from different activities should only account for stuff you can buy directly from the game. Everything else is late-game content.
It would be interesting to see some form of inflation in the game for static goods, maybe it could counter the "old-money" issue? As average player wealth grows, so should the prices of goods(and rewards). It wouldn't be too effective against someone with a few billion credits, but it wouldn't give the average returning player a huge advantage over people just starting out.
https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/36688?page=3#418675
Assigning a value to goods based on time and ship costs doesn't necessarily work for hive drops, or even some manu components. Something like a Data aggregator doesn't require a lot of time(relatively), but you do need to be skilled. You also don't take into account the practical value of the drop. An aggy is way more useful than something like a Queen matrix. Players know this, which is why it's a lot more expensive than a queen matrix, even when accounting for the levi respawn time.
Something like SSS is very easy to farm in bulk, so if the game only accounted for the time it took to farm it without considering its value to the player, it would hugely underestimate it's price.
Since some manu components depend on these hive drops, the game would end up under/over estimating their prices.
Prices of manu components also depend on the utility of capital ships, these are a lot likely to change with the introduction of more content.
IMO prices of this stuff should be left to the player market. Rewards from different activities should only account for stuff you can buy directly from the game. Everything else is late-game content.
It would be interesting to see some form of inflation in the game for static goods, maybe it could counter the "old-money" issue? As average player wealth grows, so should the prices of goods(and rewards). It wouldn't be too effective against someone with a few billion credits, but it wouldn't give the average returning player a huge advantage over people just starting out.
none of you represent the average, or anything remotely close to it. And the "average" player rarely engages with end-game player-created content, of extreme perceived value.
@incarnate
Shouldn't you endeavor to set a more opportune/tempting path for average players to be more attracted to engaging/pursuing end(late)-game player-created (/procured) content? Yes, many of us players advocating for this are of the "elite" tier, but we are not advocating ourselves. We are advocating for the too-many times we've seen players leave the game (or leave the gameplay style, at least) because of their inability to finance their game progress with only combatant style gameplay.
In any event, I feel like there's a lot of specifics being lobbed at ambiguous questions in this thread. The OP was simply a request to make combatant gameplay (more) self-sustainable, compared to trading. This suggestion was obviously made with the understanding of how the game functions now. To which, you more more less responded:
It's important to understand that the future of VO is far more complex than you and Greenwall envision, from a PvP standpoint or otherwise.
This is why I keep trying to push you towards a model, that might be useful beyond your own small set of cases. I have a lot bigger picture at play here, and I'm trying to make your work more relevant.
Which then begs the question of whether or not you think the OP is even worthwhile? Do you envision a game where combatants can make enough profit to self-sustain and progress? At best it seems you support developing a model from which rewards can be scaled...which is not the same thing as supporting the OP. If that's true, I feel like this discussion is pretty futile in pursuant to the suggestion. In pursuance of your own secret purposes I can see how a model might be helpful (if only since there seems to be an absence of a model currently).
In other words it would be pretty disheartening to go through the trouble of analyzing all the combat scenarios, determining some model, and then still have to jump into a Behemoth to do some trade runs because ultimately, you didn't agree with the OP or because you had some other grand master plan that made VO even more complex and, ultimately, disincentivized combatant-only gameplay pursuit.
@incarnate
Shouldn't you endeavor to set a more opportune/tempting path for average players to be more attracted to engaging/pursuing end(late)-game player-created (/procured) content? Yes, many of us players advocating for this are of the "elite" tier, but we are not advocating ourselves. We are advocating for the too-many times we've seen players leave the game (or leave the gameplay style, at least) because of their inability to finance their game progress with only combatant style gameplay.
In any event, I feel like there's a lot of specifics being lobbed at ambiguous questions in this thread. The OP was simply a request to make combatant gameplay (more) self-sustainable, compared to trading. This suggestion was obviously made with the understanding of how the game functions now. To which, you more more less responded:
It's important to understand that the future of VO is far more complex than you and Greenwall envision, from a PvP standpoint or otherwise.
This is why I keep trying to push you towards a model, that might be useful beyond your own small set of cases. I have a lot bigger picture at play here, and I'm trying to make your work more relevant.
Which then begs the question of whether or not you think the OP is even worthwhile? Do you envision a game where combatants can make enough profit to self-sustain and progress? At best it seems you support developing a model from which rewards can be scaled...which is not the same thing as supporting the OP. If that's true, I feel like this discussion is pretty futile in pursuant to the suggestion. In pursuance of your own secret purposes I can see how a model might be helpful (if only since there seems to be an absence of a model currently).
In other words it would be pretty disheartening to go through the trouble of analyzing all the combat scenarios, determining some model, and then still have to jump into a Behemoth to do some trade runs because ultimately, you didn't agree with the OP or because you had some other grand master plan that made VO even more complex and, ultimately, disincentivized combatant-only gameplay pursuit.
Shouldn't you endeavor to set a more opportune/tempting path for average players to be more attracted to engaging/pursuing end(late)-game player-created (/procured) content? Yes, many of us players advocating for this are of the "elite" tier, but we are not advocating ourselves. We are advocating for the too-many times we've seen players leave the game (or leave the gameplay style, at least) because of their inability to finance their game progress with only combatant style gameplay.
Your entire argument is based on the notion that your player-based prices aren't going to come crashing down.
I've told you my predictions, you disagree and choose not to believe me. My track record is pretty strong on behavioural predictions, a lot better than it's been on development-time predictions, but.. suit yourself?
But let's not pretend this is about me "not wanting to reward player progress", it's about the factor-of-X difference in using wildly inflated player-economy numbers, while in the process of actively changing and fixing the economy.
I also wrote in my last post that this is a place (Suggestions) where starting with "Believe what Incarnate says" is pretty important. Even if I thought revealing "everything about everything" was always a great idea, it's logistically infeasible. There's no way I could manage to dump all of that, and respond and clarify everything. The time-burn just on relatively simple topics is huge.
In other words it would be pretty disheartening to go through the trouble of analyzing all the combat scenarios, determining some model, and then still have to jump into a Behemoth to do some trade runs because ultimately, you didn't agree with the OP or because you had some other grand master plan that made VO even more complex and, ultimately, disincentivized combatant-only gameplay pursuit.
I already answered this, in this very thread. I wrote:
That's not really how this works. You're welcome to provide thoughts and feedback and ideas, I am seeking input from the player base. Sometimes I use that input directly, like the recent Deneb threads were largely implemented exactly as Suggested.
But, there are no guarantees. It's my decision and responsibility, and I have more data and insight than you do.
This entire forum is about an opportunity to influence development. I appreciate this all takes time (certainly a lot of time on my part, engaging and soliciting feedback), but looking for some kind of "take it or leave it" committment here is the wrong expectation.
Basically, we keep coming back to the same circular argument, where someone says "But it will take effort for us to give you (data|model|system), will you give us some certainty that you will use it???", to which I have to honestly answer "No, I will never make such a guarantee."
I value and appreciate everyone's time, make no mistake. But there's an element of "this is Suggestions, either deal with the heat, or avoid the kitchen". The opportunity is to influence development. That word is important.
You can't ever "know", because I don't even know, best-case. I make decisions based on the north-star of my own perceptions and gameplay goals, informed by what data becomes available to me, which evolves over time.
You and I have disagreed about many different things, for some years, and I have no idea what your perspective will be on any final end-product. What I consider a "reasonable balance" you may consider to be an "abandonment of combatant-only gameplay pursuit". I certainly hope not, but I'm going to do whatever I think is best.
I will say that if I had some actual intent that ran completely counter to what you were suggesting, I would say so, bluntly. But, I think you know that. When people say "Hey, we want a non-realtime version of the game" or whatever fundamental difference, I'll happily say "No, that isn't VO".
This topic isn't like that, I think there's value to hearing player input, and influencing the outcome. But player's need to understand that infuence is not the same as "I get what I want", nor does it mean I'm promising anything specific.. ever.
Your entire argument is based on the notion that your player-based prices aren't going to come crashing down.
I've told you my predictions, you disagree and choose not to believe me. My track record is pretty strong on behavioural predictions, a lot better than it's been on development-time predictions, but.. suit yourself?
But let's not pretend this is about me "not wanting to reward player progress", it's about the factor-of-X difference in using wildly inflated player-economy numbers, while in the process of actively changing and fixing the economy.
I also wrote in my last post that this is a place (Suggestions) where starting with "Believe what Incarnate says" is pretty important. Even if I thought revealing "everything about everything" was always a great idea, it's logistically infeasible. There's no way I could manage to dump all of that, and respond and clarify everything. The time-burn just on relatively simple topics is huge.
In other words it would be pretty disheartening to go through the trouble of analyzing all the combat scenarios, determining some model, and then still have to jump into a Behemoth to do some trade runs because ultimately, you didn't agree with the OP or because you had some other grand master plan that made VO even more complex and, ultimately, disincentivized combatant-only gameplay pursuit.
I already answered this, in this very thread. I wrote:
That's not really how this works. You're welcome to provide thoughts and feedback and ideas, I am seeking input from the player base. Sometimes I use that input directly, like the recent Deneb threads were largely implemented exactly as Suggested.
But, there are no guarantees. It's my decision and responsibility, and I have more data and insight than you do.
This entire forum is about an opportunity to influence development. I appreciate this all takes time (certainly a lot of time on my part, engaging and soliciting feedback), but looking for some kind of "take it or leave it" committment here is the wrong expectation.
Basically, we keep coming back to the same circular argument, where someone says "But it will take effort for us to give you (data|model|system), will you give us some certainty that you will use it???", to which I have to honestly answer "No, I will never make such a guarantee."
I value and appreciate everyone's time, make no mistake. But there's an element of "this is Suggestions, either deal with the heat, or avoid the kitchen". The opportunity is to influence development. That word is important.
You can't ever "know", because I don't even know, best-case. I make decisions based on the north-star of my own perceptions and gameplay goals, informed by what data becomes available to me, which evolves over time.
You and I have disagreed about many different things, for some years, and I have no idea what your perspective will be on any final end-product. What I consider a "reasonable balance" you may consider to be an "abandonment of combatant-only gameplay pursuit". I certainly hope not, but I'm going to do whatever I think is best.
I will say that if I had some actual intent that ran completely counter to what you were suggesting, I would say so, bluntly. But, I think you know that. When people say "Hey, we want a non-realtime version of the game" or whatever fundamental difference, I'll happily say "No, that isn't VO".
This topic isn't like that, I think there's value to hearing player input, and influencing the outcome. But player's need to understand that infuence is not the same as "I get what I want", nor does it mean I'm promising anything specific.. ever.
Well you do also happily say you will support/implement certain ideas when you feel that way, so I guess that’s all I need to know here. All good, hope you get that model you are looking for.