Forums » Suggestions
Hmmmm, I spent most of this morning coming up with arguments for something that is allready in the game, just not apparent, namely that all items should be made up of varying numbers of other, less complex items. Damn you a1k0n. :)
Tho, working from that, as far as a basic economic system goes;
IF everything in the game is made up out of other items in the game, all the way back down to ore..
&
Since each station has a list of what it sells, that means that each station SHOULD, with a fairly simple subroutine, be able to determine what parts it needs to buy to create those items.
&
Each item also has a baseline value range associated with it.
--
THEN, how about these as some basic economic rules.
1 For any cargo that a station sells, the price range is adjusted down 25%.
2 For any cargo that a station buys, the price range is adjusted up 25%.
3 For any cargo that does not appear on either list, the price remains "normal".
4 For every cargo unit that a station sells, The demand for the items used to make that cargo will increase; the demand for the cargo itself will also increase.
5 For every cargo unit that is sold to a station, the demand for the items that can be made from that cargo will decrease; the demand for the cargo itself will also decrease.
--
Using the above rules;
In trade chain A-B-C-D
-going through 1-2-3-4
If the trade route 2-3 becomes overused,
- at 2 the the Buy price of Item B will increase to maximum.
-- Because the price of B has increased to maximum at 2,
- - the price that A sells for has also increased to maximum at 2,
- - so the profit on trade route 1-2 goes up as the profit on 2-3 goes down.
- at 3 the sell price of item C will decrease to minimum.
-- because the price that C sells for has decreased to minimum at 3
- - The profit on trade route 3-4 also increases as the profit on 2-3 goes down.
If there are then no actual limits to how much can be bought or sold,(dont make supply itself limited, merely adjust the profitability depending on how much the item(s) in question have been traded) there will always be profit to be made somewhere in the chain. (or outside of it for that matter, if the price of C is at minimum, it will sell for a modest profit at anyplace that doesnt sell it, even if that place doesnt buy it either)
since the top layer has nowhere that Demands it specifically, and demand is increased by players buying those items, (ships/weapons/etc) they might need to have an artificially higher rate of demand to keep the economy balanced. (perhaps a function of how many players are online would deterimine the rate at which those items are used by NPC's to keep the top end of the chain profitable?)
Since the bottom layer of the economy is ore, and with mining ore has an unlimited supply, as long as the top layer cant stagnate, there is no real danger of trade drying up.
There is no real worry about everyone having millions of credits in vendetta since equipment availible is determined by the license levels and reputation (and hopefully by missions completed in the future). although if profit is always there for those who take a minute to look for it then the profit margins could be reduced so that no item can generate more than a 50% return on investment just to add some time to the process.
This post ended up somewhat lengthy, sorry about that. Anyway the ideas in here are an extension and a revision of some of my other thoughts/ideas on this subject. The main point in retrospect seems to be that tying the sell price of items at a station to the number of component parts that have been delivered would (i think) eliminate most of the economy troubles we have, as long as we arent worried about preventing all players from getting millions of credits.
EDIT: some spelling changes were made, and a few things reworded slightly for coherency above.
Incidentally its when the total number of credits in game has a set maximum, that the elite few who manage to get millions become a problem.
Tho, working from that, as far as a basic economic system goes;
IF everything in the game is made up out of other items in the game, all the way back down to ore..
&
Since each station has a list of what it sells, that means that each station SHOULD, with a fairly simple subroutine, be able to determine what parts it needs to buy to create those items.
&
Each item also has a baseline value range associated with it.
--
THEN, how about these as some basic economic rules.
1 For any cargo that a station sells, the price range is adjusted down 25%.
2 For any cargo that a station buys, the price range is adjusted up 25%.
3 For any cargo that does not appear on either list, the price remains "normal".
4 For every cargo unit that a station sells, The demand for the items used to make that cargo will increase; the demand for the cargo itself will also increase.
5 For every cargo unit that is sold to a station, the demand for the items that can be made from that cargo will decrease; the demand for the cargo itself will also decrease.
--
Using the above rules;
In trade chain A-B-C-D
-going through 1-2-3-4
If the trade route 2-3 becomes overused,
- at 2 the the Buy price of Item B will increase to maximum.
-- Because the price of B has increased to maximum at 2,
- - the price that A sells for has also increased to maximum at 2,
- - so the profit on trade route 1-2 goes up as the profit on 2-3 goes down.
- at 3 the sell price of item C will decrease to minimum.
-- because the price that C sells for has decreased to minimum at 3
- - The profit on trade route 3-4 also increases as the profit on 2-3 goes down.
If there are then no actual limits to how much can be bought or sold,(dont make supply itself limited, merely adjust the profitability depending on how much the item(s) in question have been traded) there will always be profit to be made somewhere in the chain. (or outside of it for that matter, if the price of C is at minimum, it will sell for a modest profit at anyplace that doesnt sell it, even if that place doesnt buy it either)
since the top layer has nowhere that Demands it specifically, and demand is increased by players buying those items, (ships/weapons/etc) they might need to have an artificially higher rate of demand to keep the economy balanced. (perhaps a function of how many players are online would deterimine the rate at which those items are used by NPC's to keep the top end of the chain profitable?)
Since the bottom layer of the economy is ore, and with mining ore has an unlimited supply, as long as the top layer cant stagnate, there is no real danger of trade drying up.
There is no real worry about everyone having millions of credits in vendetta since equipment availible is determined by the license levels and reputation (and hopefully by missions completed in the future). although if profit is always there for those who take a minute to look for it then the profit margins could be reduced so that no item can generate more than a 50% return on investment just to add some time to the process.
This post ended up somewhat lengthy, sorry about that. Anyway the ideas in here are an extension and a revision of some of my other thoughts/ideas on this subject. The main point in retrospect seems to be that tying the sell price of items at a station to the number of component parts that have been delivered would (i think) eliminate most of the economy troubles we have, as long as we arent worried about preventing all players from getting millions of credits.
EDIT: some spelling changes were made, and a few things reworded slightly for coherency above.
Incidentally its when the total number of credits in game has a set maximum, that the elite few who manage to get millions become a problem.
If everything is made of ore that has to be mined, then we got a scarce economy again.
"If everything is made of ore that has to be mined, then we got a scarce economy again."
False: asteroids will not permanently lose their ore (once they "cool down" you can continue to extract from them), and we won't have to assume that players absolutely have to do all the mining.
The heating/cooling effect could give a baseline "total ore extraction possible from the universe per second" which can be translated back into credits and will outweigh the "total demand rise in the universe" as translated back into credits.
Plus we can still use the min/max pricing. The "everything is made out of ore" concept is just the rationale for pricing and availability. So it's really a scarce economy that never runs out of anything.
Spellcast, that is along the lines I was thinking. I'm still worried about adjusting selling prices (I haven't looked too closely though) but as long as they only go down and not up we're not at any risk of stagnation.
False: asteroids will not permanently lose their ore (once they "cool down" you can continue to extract from them), and we won't have to assume that players absolutely have to do all the mining.
The heating/cooling effect could give a baseline "total ore extraction possible from the universe per second" which can be translated back into credits and will outweigh the "total demand rise in the universe" as translated back into credits.
Plus we can still use the min/max pricing. The "everything is made out of ore" concept is just the rationale for pricing and availability. So it's really a scarce economy that never runs out of anything.
Spellcast, that is along the lines I was thinking. I'm still worried about adjusting selling prices (I haven't looked too closely though) but as long as they only go down and not up we're not at any risk of stagnation.
For argument's sake, let me point out that the Vendetta economy as it stands is entirely based on serverside algorithms, and no matter how you change the algorithms to model and mimic the real world, it will still, at some level, ring false. Now I'm all for changing the algorithms to make them more realistic, but up to a certain point of complexity (where to draw the line is up to the Devs).
However, there is an alternative solution which is: give the means of raw goods extraction, and basic&complex manufacturing to PCs; so some PCs are miners, some refine ore, some make basic goods, some make ship components, some make weapons components, some make ships, and some transport the necessary goods from PC to PC. If the current algorithms for NPC station commerce aren't to radically altered, once the PC commerce comes into gear there will be two levels of economy; the PC dynamic economy, and the NPC, more static one. This gives new players the opportunity to get used to the idea of trade in the Vendetta universe, while giving the veterans the challenge of a full-swing supply/demand economy.
However, there is an alternative solution which is: give the means of raw goods extraction, and basic&complex manufacturing to PCs; so some PCs are miners, some refine ore, some make basic goods, some make ship components, some make weapons components, some make ships, and some transport the necessary goods from PC to PC. If the current algorithms for NPC station commerce aren't to radically altered, once the PC commerce comes into gear there will be two levels of economy; the PC dynamic economy, and the NPC, more static one. This gives new players the opportunity to get used to the idea of trade in the Vendetta universe, while giving the veterans the challenge of a full-swing supply/demand economy.
While we wait for the New system, there is an element that seems to have been oversighted (can I say that? I am Norwegian :p). It appears to me that items prices and XP values are not balanced according to volume. The prices of course will regulate themselves in the New system, but all large items consistantly yield lower XP per volume than the small items.
XP is infact part of the economy too.
XP is infact part of the economy too.
--Spellcast, that is along the lines I was thinking. I'm still worried about adjusting selling prices (I haven't looked too closely though) but as long as they only go down and not up we're not at any risk of stagnation.--
Even if the selling price goes back up as you buy an item, as long as that price increase is also linked directly to the prices of the component parts, there is no chance of stagnation. As more of a unit are purchased, the demand for the items used to make it goes up accordingly. The profit just moves back down the chain.
Rhapsody - a player driven economy is all well and good, and when guilds and such can own stations in the future, I'm certain that we will get one. (is it still 6 months a1k0n? or has the estimate been pushed back)
A player driven economy requires too many items that we just dont have right now. Everything I suggested can be done with game components that we allready have.
Even if the selling price goes back up as you buy an item, as long as that price increase is also linked directly to the prices of the component parts, there is no chance of stagnation. As more of a unit are purchased, the demand for the items used to make it goes up accordingly. The profit just moves back down the chain.
Rhapsody - a player driven economy is all well and good, and when guilds and such can own stations in the future, I'm certain that we will get one. (is it still 6 months a1k0n? or has the estimate been pushed back)
A player driven economy requires too many items that we just dont have right now. Everything I suggested can be done with game components that we allready have.
This entire post is somewhat offtopic. If you're interested in the economics debate, just ignore it.
"kriss: Thanks for your advice. When you are finished telling me how much nicer of a person your are than me, let me know."
You're putting words in my mouth/keyboard here. I was telling you to drop the attitude. If you percieve that as a 'holier than thou', sorry, not my problem. If you're rather trying some bad rhetorics (which would be my guess), don't. It's neither amusing, productive nor interesting.
"I think you would have learned abit more by trying to answer my questions than you would by trying to correct my manners, but that is just me."
I disagree. The questions, not to mention the answers, were either quite irrelevant in the discussion about responsive economics or based upon false assumptions (you're the only one referring to a *strictly* player driven economy as far as I can tell)
So yeah, that's just you. If I wished to learn something about game design generics - which is where you were at - I'm afraid there's far better sources than your posts (even though it is kind of cute when you paraphrase Jung) Arrogance and ignorance doesn't mix well.
If you feel a need to further dreg through those five questions, I'd be happy to do so either a) on IRC or b) in a thread where that wouldn't be offtopic.
"kriss: Thanks for your advice. When you are finished telling me how much nicer of a person your are than me, let me know."
You're putting words in my mouth/keyboard here. I was telling you to drop the attitude. If you percieve that as a 'holier than thou', sorry, not my problem. If you're rather trying some bad rhetorics (which would be my guess), don't. It's neither amusing, productive nor interesting.
"I think you would have learned abit more by trying to answer my questions than you would by trying to correct my manners, but that is just me."
I disagree. The questions, not to mention the answers, were either quite irrelevant in the discussion about responsive economics or based upon false assumptions (you're the only one referring to a *strictly* player driven economy as far as I can tell)
So yeah, that's just you. If I wished to learn something about game design generics - which is where you were at - I'm afraid there's far better sources than your posts (even though it is kind of cute when you paraphrase Jung) Arrogance and ignorance doesn't mix well.
If you feel a need to further dreg through those five questions, I'd be happy to do so either a) on IRC or b) in a thread where that wouldn't be offtopic.
"Everything in game is made of ore"... Well, I think there are several exceptions. There's food. There's organic something or the other (and while they can be synthesised from carbonic ore... The food is still not made from ore).
I would think that the line should read "Everything inorganic is made from ore". In thre future, perhaps the game would need a destinction between things of organic nature, and inorganic one.
It also might tie with them transport convoys and the like. I mean like, one of the places why this feels fake, is that there is not much real destinction between planets, and stations and the like.
Take a look at 'cargo item list' even in Elite1. (Not to mention FE). There are much more things then metals, alloys, and stuff made from them. There are 'agricultural robots' or somesuch. That are of course inorganic. And could integrate into the chains as 'side-things' (sorry for not being to eloquent with that).
You mine ore A. The ore A is made into refined ore B, which is made into alloy C, which is maid into detail D, which is made into a bot E. (Or something. Throw out steps as wanted). The bot E is demanded by agricultural planets, to make Food X. Which is demanded by everyone else who doesn't grow food of their own in sufficient quantities.
Or maybe they do, but it is bland standard stuff that comes out of 'Life support system' or somesuch. And normal food is sort of luxury item of the low end.
I guess that the above text is qualified to be called silly nitpicking. Sorry, I had a sleepless night.
I would think that the line should read "Everything inorganic is made from ore". In thre future, perhaps the game would need a destinction between things of organic nature, and inorganic one.
It also might tie with them transport convoys and the like. I mean like, one of the places why this feels fake, is that there is not much real destinction between planets, and stations and the like.
Take a look at 'cargo item list' even in Elite1. (Not to mention FE). There are much more things then metals, alloys, and stuff made from them. There are 'agricultural robots' or somesuch. That are of course inorganic. And could integrate into the chains as 'side-things' (sorry for not being to eloquent with that).
You mine ore A. The ore A is made into refined ore B, which is made into alloy C, which is maid into detail D, which is made into a bot E. (Or something. Throw out steps as wanted). The bot E is demanded by agricultural planets, to make Food X. Which is demanded by everyone else who doesn't grow food of their own in sufficient quantities.
Or maybe they do, but it is bland standard stuff that comes out of 'Life support system' or somesuch. And normal food is sort of luxury item of the low end.
I guess that the above text is qualified to be called silly nitpicking. Sorry, I had a sleepless night.
I'll try to solve every problem that was brought up so far.
1. It was stated NPC use up to much supplies if there were to many of them.
Every station will have a maximum number of NPC it can hold. The game developers have control of how many stations there are per sector. As more players come into the game, they will have to create more sectors. This keeps a balance between NPC and PC.
2. It was stated the Veteran players would become to rich because they know the trade routes and new players would be poor and not want to play this game.
An economy where prices can fluctuate reasonably would prevent this
If the prices remained the same, everybody would know the routes and would fight for them to be the only one using those routes. The only way noob and vets can play on a somewhat equal level is if the best trade routes change.
3. It was also stated that a demand economy would be to hard to predict and would make the game no longer fun. Also that’s the reason a real economy have people looking at it, examining it trying to fix it.
This is where the news comes in. It will announce what is need and where. Of course, everybody wants to make money so they will follow that. It can also be argued that people that kind of information will cause some problems. To start, the
veterens can act quicker to that information then the noobies. This is why the information you are given should be affected by your faction standings. There is no reason why a territory that you are an enemy to will give you there weaknesses. That is why the type of information given needs to have rating of how high your faction standings need to be so you can receive it. This will allow veterans to only take up good deals in their territory.
4. Someone stated that there would not be enough supply flow and cause inflation.
The developers can assign an efficiency value of resources used based on the current prices. They can assign average
price they want this to stay at. As the actual price of what goes above the price they set for a product, the efficiency of the
resources used to make it will go up. If the actual price goes down the efficiency drops
Lets say it takes 10 ores to make a metal unit and it takes 5 metal units to make a certain ships hull. If price the
developers want it to fluctuate around is 500 credits and the actual price is 500 credits when there are 50 of those ships
in stock. If it drops to 25 ships then it will only take 5 ores for that station to make 1 metal unit (The reason for this
is because the NPC population sees how much of a shortage there is and starts to save the scraps they normally through out).
The new ship price would be 1000 credits. This will help the supply of ships to rise back up to 50. Also this station
would pay more money for ores. This principle of higher efficiency counter acting the a to high or to low price will be
applied on all levels of the economy, not just ores. The game designer will have to study the actual buy and sale rate to
find the actual numbers.
5. It was stated that having to many different types of stations would cause to much complication in the economy.
It will. Which is why every station should be able to do use ores, build ships and everything else. However, each station will have its only advantages like it does now. It was also stated that how a station could repair a ship at 1% hull integrity that it cannot not even build. Easy, spaceships have owner’s manuals to so a station can just follow the instructions off of that.
6. It was stated that stations near asteroid fields would receive all the ore and other stations would not.
This is were trading mission will take place. Players that completed trading missions with more success will be able to carry more resources on trading missions. Also each station can have its own NPC trader. This will further balance things out. This also opens up opportunities to more guarding trade ships missions. These types of missions availability will be determined by the current supply and demand needs.
7. It was stated that what if someone decides to block people from entering station to crash that territories economy. (which makes for a great mission).
That territory and its allies can show a mission to liberate that area, which will cause huge faction standings increase in proportion to how well trade is being blocked.
8. Also it was suggested that there needs to be a system place the improves faction standing for if you supply them with resources.
This can be done the same way the beginner and advance combat mission are done. For every X amount of resources you brink in, you faction standing will be improved by this Y much. Your will receive a bonus if you bring this into this station.
The economy also has problems with the infinite amount of metal and other resources at the asteroids. Asteroids could be treated like resource batteries. They only hold X amount and it regenerates at Y amount a second. This will cause players to travel to different locations for resources. It would also be nice if a depleted area would actually look clear and an over abundant area have loaded asteroids every 500m. The rate this regenerates at will also have to be determined.
9. There have also been questions on the best way to implement player owned stations.
This would similar to how stations run know. Player can set a price that fluctuates with the economy. Also there station advantages are determined by what they research in science. Also, if the want to be able to make a new ship, they would have to save up money to buy a license to sell that ship. Of course the free items license don’t cost anything, the resources required to build them is nothing and the time it takes to build it is nothing. The station would buy coal and use solar cell for there power needs. Buy metal for their metal needs. Tax their population for the credit needs. There would have to be daily maintenance cost. Stations would have to have all components needed.
Hydroponics Bays for food (This uses up labor, energy, water, space units, and credits).
Living quarters for the population (This uses up energy, space, food, luxury goods). This produces credits.
Factories ( This uses up metal, space, labor, energy) they produce whatever they produce.
Research Labs (This uses up credits, space, energy, labor, and metal) increases efficiency, gives you station new technologies to use. Ex. Solar Cells. There efficiency could also be improved.
Player owned station will be kept in check by the computer controlled stations
Please tell me if you see any flaws in this.
1. It was stated NPC use up to much supplies if there were to many of them.
Every station will have a maximum number of NPC it can hold. The game developers have control of how many stations there are per sector. As more players come into the game, they will have to create more sectors. This keeps a balance between NPC and PC.
2. It was stated the Veteran players would become to rich because they know the trade routes and new players would be poor and not want to play this game.
An economy where prices can fluctuate reasonably would prevent this
If the prices remained the same, everybody would know the routes and would fight for them to be the only one using those routes. The only way noob and vets can play on a somewhat equal level is if the best trade routes change.
3. It was also stated that a demand economy would be to hard to predict and would make the game no longer fun. Also that’s the reason a real economy have people looking at it, examining it trying to fix it.
This is where the news comes in. It will announce what is need and where. Of course, everybody wants to make money so they will follow that. It can also be argued that people that kind of information will cause some problems. To start, the
veterens can act quicker to that information then the noobies. This is why the information you are given should be affected by your faction standings. There is no reason why a territory that you are an enemy to will give you there weaknesses. That is why the type of information given needs to have rating of how high your faction standings need to be so you can receive it. This will allow veterans to only take up good deals in their territory.
4. Someone stated that there would not be enough supply flow and cause inflation.
The developers can assign an efficiency value of resources used based on the current prices. They can assign average
price they want this to stay at. As the actual price of what goes above the price they set for a product, the efficiency of the
resources used to make it will go up. If the actual price goes down the efficiency drops
Lets say it takes 10 ores to make a metal unit and it takes 5 metal units to make a certain ships hull. If price the
developers want it to fluctuate around is 500 credits and the actual price is 500 credits when there are 50 of those ships
in stock. If it drops to 25 ships then it will only take 5 ores for that station to make 1 metal unit (The reason for this
is because the NPC population sees how much of a shortage there is and starts to save the scraps they normally through out).
The new ship price would be 1000 credits. This will help the supply of ships to rise back up to 50. Also this station
would pay more money for ores. This principle of higher efficiency counter acting the a to high or to low price will be
applied on all levels of the economy, not just ores. The game designer will have to study the actual buy and sale rate to
find the actual numbers.
5. It was stated that having to many different types of stations would cause to much complication in the economy.
It will. Which is why every station should be able to do use ores, build ships and everything else. However, each station will have its only advantages like it does now. It was also stated that how a station could repair a ship at 1% hull integrity that it cannot not even build. Easy, spaceships have owner’s manuals to so a station can just follow the instructions off of that.
6. It was stated that stations near asteroid fields would receive all the ore and other stations would not.
This is were trading mission will take place. Players that completed trading missions with more success will be able to carry more resources on trading missions. Also each station can have its own NPC trader. This will further balance things out. This also opens up opportunities to more guarding trade ships missions. These types of missions availability will be determined by the current supply and demand needs.
7. It was stated that what if someone decides to block people from entering station to crash that territories economy. (which makes for a great mission).
That territory and its allies can show a mission to liberate that area, which will cause huge faction standings increase in proportion to how well trade is being blocked.
8. Also it was suggested that there needs to be a system place the improves faction standing for if you supply them with resources.
This can be done the same way the beginner and advance combat mission are done. For every X amount of resources you brink in, you faction standing will be improved by this Y much. Your will receive a bonus if you bring this into this station.
The economy also has problems with the infinite amount of metal and other resources at the asteroids. Asteroids could be treated like resource batteries. They only hold X amount and it regenerates at Y amount a second. This will cause players to travel to different locations for resources. It would also be nice if a depleted area would actually look clear and an over abundant area have loaded asteroids every 500m. The rate this regenerates at will also have to be determined.
9. There have also been questions on the best way to implement player owned stations.
This would similar to how stations run know. Player can set a price that fluctuates with the economy. Also there station advantages are determined by what they research in science. Also, if the want to be able to make a new ship, they would have to save up money to buy a license to sell that ship. Of course the free items license don’t cost anything, the resources required to build them is nothing and the time it takes to build it is nothing. The station would buy coal and use solar cell for there power needs. Buy metal for their metal needs. Tax their population for the credit needs. There would have to be daily maintenance cost. Stations would have to have all components needed.
Hydroponics Bays for food (This uses up labor, energy, water, space units, and credits).
Living quarters for the population (This uses up energy, space, food, luxury goods). This produces credits.
Factories ( This uses up metal, space, labor, energy) they produce whatever they produce.
Research Labs (This uses up credits, space, energy, labor, and metal) increases efficiency, gives you station new technologies to use. Ex. Solar Cells. There efficiency could also be improved.
Player owned station will be kept in check by the computer controlled stations
Please tell me if you see any flaws in this.
First, I have not the energy to reply to all the posts on this topic.
I do want to mention that it was rather late when I posted, and my wording may have been unclear in some places. I will attempt to go through the various posts and try to clear up any obvious misinterpretations that occurred. I might later also try to re-explain my idea, but I'm too tired right now.
Celebrim: please stop making false assumptions about what's being said, and please don't misquote me again. It's really quite rude.
The main quote people have made mention of is this:
"ANYTHING else is flat out fake. No other word for it, it's fake, and fake is boring as hell."
However, that is out of context, and thus invalid, because it's in reference to something else. Here's the full quote, and my explanation of what I meant, precisely, in my 5:00AM speech:
"The problem thus far is that the economic system used in VO is that it is no at all responsive to the game community. The only way true demand can be created is to establish a link between the expenditure of things like ships lost in combat and the like, and the economy and process of moving things about.
ANYTHING else is flat out fake. No other word for it, it's fake, and fake is boring as hell."
Currently, the entire trade system is not at all reactive to player activity. The sell price of items drop if you sell them too frequently at the same station, but that's hardly 'reactive'. The distribution of items is random and makes no sense, there's no real variation in station inventories, and the presence of unique or even rare ships/weapons/trade items is token at best.
I'd like to see an economic system that does the following:
-Makes the inventories of different stations actually vary.
-Provides a sensible reason for why the different stations sell what they do.
-Establishes a system of supply and demand, wherein each type of station supplies things, demands others, and ignores(or even outlaws) yet others.
-Creates a system where stations that demand things will gradually pay more for them as supplies dwindle, and where stations that produce things gradually charge less if nobody buys for a prolonged period of time.
-Station supplies of all sorts of items should decline gradually. This can either be with 1:1 fidelity with the fictional crew of that station, plus NPC activity, or it can be a 'slush decline' which sort of guesses what the average rate of expenditure will be for the station in question, and makes supplies dwindle at that rate, or something else entirely.
-Reacts to NPC trading. In other words, NPCs piloting different ships would have set, sets of, or variable trade routes that they would traverse. The NPCs would carry real cargo, and would sell it to stations demanding it, thus slowly equalizing supply/demand imbalances. Depending on the way the system was tuned, I was thinking NPC traders would, for the most part, do set trade routes, and only go out of their way when the demand for an item at a nearby station reached a particularly high threshold, thus giving players the chance to capitalize on the chance for profit.
-Provides sensible infrastructure for ship/weapon production. In other words, I think that trade items required to build ships and weapons should be available, and should have an impact on the ship/weapon market. The best idea I've had thus far along those lines is to actually make ships and weapons 'trade items' in their own right. In other words, have stations that produce ships/weapons demand ship/weapon components, which they'd pay better and better prices for as supply 'dwindled', and even have it so that you could sell a ship for more at a station it wasn't produced at than one where it was.
-Has a workable, sensible(hopefully somewhat realistic) supply model. I don't like systems with infinite supply at all levels. There are several options, all of which have advantages and disadvantages.
First is unlimited supply with set cost. In other words, a station would always have items it produces available, and would always sell them for the same amount, or close to the same amount.
Second is unlimited supply with variable cost, wherein the cost of each item a station produces changes depending on how 'stocked' the station is with the items demanded, on which production of that item depends.
Third and fourth are limited supply with set and variable prices, respectively. Very similar to the first and second, save that when the stock of any item the station needs for their production reaches 0, that item is no available for sale. Hopefully, with the presence of NPCs and publicized trading info, no station would ever reach 0, since the potential profit would reach a great level before that actually happened, but I do like having that hard limit imposed. It has interesting strategic implications.
Now, there are some obvious questions about how inflation would be combatted; in other words, how items wouldn't be so expensive, by the end of the supply chain, that they cost more than any one person could earn by trading. There are several solutions:
One could go with a set-price supply model, wherein trade items always COST the same, regardless of what you can sell them for, or at least never cost above a certain threshold, and enforce this sort of limitation all the way up to the ship/weapon level, that being the highest rung of the trade ladder, so that everyone could always be assured they won't go bankrupt buying ships.
Alternately, one could make it so players can get enough money outside of trade that they could afford ships and weapons, etc. This on its own is a very BAD idea, since it basically makes trading pointless. I just wanted to mention it because it's so terrible an idea I don't want anyone else suggesting it. It is worth mentioning, however, that forcing EVERYONE to trade to be able to afford to fight is sort of bad, since that ruins the "do what you wish" ideal that this game espouses, so there should be good ways to make money outside of trading.
The best idea, in my opinion, is to make it so that each station's produced items cost less proportionately than the items that station buys to make them. The explanation for this would be that each unit of item needed actually is enough to make several of each produced item. For example, let's say you go to a station, buy 10 'weapons components' at 500c apiece, and take them to a station which produces weapons. This station would buy the weapons components for, say, 1000c. However, it sells the weapons it makes from them for only 500c apiece. The reason the station can do this and not go bankrupt is that it's actually making 4 weapons from each unit of weapons components, and thus for each 10 weapons components it gets, it can make 40 actual weapons. Since the station's making multiple weapons for each component unit it gets, it can charge less for them than it paid for the component unit, and still make a profit.
As well as making it easier to make money, this would make it so a limited-supply model would be more practical, since people wouldn't constantly have to supply bases with components all the way up the supply chain just to be able to buy ships.
I'm not outlining everything in my head, mostly because I am not good at explaining things 'all at once' like this. If anyone thinks my idea has flaws, or wants to offer suggestions, or wants clarafication on just what the hell I'm talking about, I'm in #vendetta on irc.slashnet.org (server and channel posted for anyone not aware of the info).
A1k0n: I did not mean to suggest that a level playing field was bad. I merely meant to establish that it WAS level, because the objections I have heard to such a suggestion in the past were based on the idea that the playing field somehow WASN'T level, and that high ranking players would exploit that.
I also in no way meant to suggest that this be implimented all at once, nor that it be entirely player driven. A completely player driven economy is, in my opinion, madness to attempt at this time. Maybe after the REST of VO is hammered out, and we have our player stations, cap ships, and other cool goodies, thought could be given to making the economy completely player driven. Not now.
Starfisher: I like the way you've worded your post, and I'd like to talk to you on IRC at some point to see if we can collaborate a bit on our respective ideas, which seem pretty similar.
Edit: okay, done fixing things for now, though I may not be noticing all sorts of flaws with my explanation.
I do want to mention that it was rather late when I posted, and my wording may have been unclear in some places. I will attempt to go through the various posts and try to clear up any obvious misinterpretations that occurred. I might later also try to re-explain my idea, but I'm too tired right now.
Celebrim: please stop making false assumptions about what's being said, and please don't misquote me again. It's really quite rude.
The main quote people have made mention of is this:
"ANYTHING else is flat out fake. No other word for it, it's fake, and fake is boring as hell."
However, that is out of context, and thus invalid, because it's in reference to something else. Here's the full quote, and my explanation of what I meant, precisely, in my 5:00AM speech:
"The problem thus far is that the economic system used in VO is that it is no at all responsive to the game community. The only way true demand can be created is to establish a link between the expenditure of things like ships lost in combat and the like, and the economy and process of moving things about.
ANYTHING else is flat out fake. No other word for it, it's fake, and fake is boring as hell."
Currently, the entire trade system is not at all reactive to player activity. The sell price of items drop if you sell them too frequently at the same station, but that's hardly 'reactive'. The distribution of items is random and makes no sense, there's no real variation in station inventories, and the presence of unique or even rare ships/weapons/trade items is token at best.
I'd like to see an economic system that does the following:
-Makes the inventories of different stations actually vary.
-Provides a sensible reason for why the different stations sell what they do.
-Establishes a system of supply and demand, wherein each type of station supplies things, demands others, and ignores(or even outlaws) yet others.
-Creates a system where stations that demand things will gradually pay more for them as supplies dwindle, and where stations that produce things gradually charge less if nobody buys for a prolonged period of time.
-Station supplies of all sorts of items should decline gradually. This can either be with 1:1 fidelity with the fictional crew of that station, plus NPC activity, or it can be a 'slush decline' which sort of guesses what the average rate of expenditure will be for the station in question, and makes supplies dwindle at that rate, or something else entirely.
-Reacts to NPC trading. In other words, NPCs piloting different ships would have set, sets of, or variable trade routes that they would traverse. The NPCs would carry real cargo, and would sell it to stations demanding it, thus slowly equalizing supply/demand imbalances. Depending on the way the system was tuned, I was thinking NPC traders would, for the most part, do set trade routes, and only go out of their way when the demand for an item at a nearby station reached a particularly high threshold, thus giving players the chance to capitalize on the chance for profit.
-Provides sensible infrastructure for ship/weapon production. In other words, I think that trade items required to build ships and weapons should be available, and should have an impact on the ship/weapon market. The best idea I've had thus far along those lines is to actually make ships and weapons 'trade items' in their own right. In other words, have stations that produce ships/weapons demand ship/weapon components, which they'd pay better and better prices for as supply 'dwindled', and even have it so that you could sell a ship for more at a station it wasn't produced at than one where it was.
-Has a workable, sensible(hopefully somewhat realistic) supply model. I don't like systems with infinite supply at all levels. There are several options, all of which have advantages and disadvantages.
First is unlimited supply with set cost. In other words, a station would always have items it produces available, and would always sell them for the same amount, or close to the same amount.
Second is unlimited supply with variable cost, wherein the cost of each item a station produces changes depending on how 'stocked' the station is with the items demanded, on which production of that item depends.
Third and fourth are limited supply with set and variable prices, respectively. Very similar to the first and second, save that when the stock of any item the station needs for their production reaches 0, that item is no available for sale. Hopefully, with the presence of NPCs and publicized trading info, no station would ever reach 0, since the potential profit would reach a great level before that actually happened, but I do like having that hard limit imposed. It has interesting strategic implications.
Now, there are some obvious questions about how inflation would be combatted; in other words, how items wouldn't be so expensive, by the end of the supply chain, that they cost more than any one person could earn by trading. There are several solutions:
One could go with a set-price supply model, wherein trade items always COST the same, regardless of what you can sell them for, or at least never cost above a certain threshold, and enforce this sort of limitation all the way up to the ship/weapon level, that being the highest rung of the trade ladder, so that everyone could always be assured they won't go bankrupt buying ships.
Alternately, one could make it so players can get enough money outside of trade that they could afford ships and weapons, etc. This on its own is a very BAD idea, since it basically makes trading pointless. I just wanted to mention it because it's so terrible an idea I don't want anyone else suggesting it. It is worth mentioning, however, that forcing EVERYONE to trade to be able to afford to fight is sort of bad, since that ruins the "do what you wish" ideal that this game espouses, so there should be good ways to make money outside of trading.
The best idea, in my opinion, is to make it so that each station's produced items cost less proportionately than the items that station buys to make them. The explanation for this would be that each unit of item needed actually is enough to make several of each produced item. For example, let's say you go to a station, buy 10 'weapons components' at 500c apiece, and take them to a station which produces weapons. This station would buy the weapons components for, say, 1000c. However, it sells the weapons it makes from them for only 500c apiece. The reason the station can do this and not go bankrupt is that it's actually making 4 weapons from each unit of weapons components, and thus for each 10 weapons components it gets, it can make 40 actual weapons. Since the station's making multiple weapons for each component unit it gets, it can charge less for them than it paid for the component unit, and still make a profit.
As well as making it easier to make money, this would make it so a limited-supply model would be more practical, since people wouldn't constantly have to supply bases with components all the way up the supply chain just to be able to buy ships.
I'm not outlining everything in my head, mostly because I am not good at explaining things 'all at once' like this. If anyone thinks my idea has flaws, or wants to offer suggestions, or wants clarafication on just what the hell I'm talking about, I'm in #vendetta on irc.slashnet.org (server and channel posted for anyone not aware of the info).
A1k0n: I did not mean to suggest that a level playing field was bad. I merely meant to establish that it WAS level, because the objections I have heard to such a suggestion in the past were based on the idea that the playing field somehow WASN'T level, and that high ranking players would exploit that.
I also in no way meant to suggest that this be implimented all at once, nor that it be entirely player driven. A completely player driven economy is, in my opinion, madness to attempt at this time. Maybe after the REST of VO is hammered out, and we have our player stations, cap ships, and other cool goodies, thought could be given to making the economy completely player driven. Not now.
Starfisher: I like the way you've worded your post, and I'd like to talk to you on IRC at some point to see if we can collaborate a bit on our respective ideas, which seem pretty similar.
Edit: okay, done fixing things for now, though I may not be noticing all sorts of flaws with my explanation.
I agree that a more dynamic market mechanic is warranted, but remember that for every level of 'freedom' you implement into it, you also increase the complexity by an order of magnitude (or a lot anyway). At a certain point the server performance will suffer.
I have a few suggestions to add
If the markets begin to vary their inventory, and a more dynamic economy is developed we should also be able to make price inquiries remotely, or too much dumb luck will decide if you are successful at trading or not. Perhaps we should even be able to place an order (an order cancellation insurance policy would have to be paid immediately, and the order would expire after a certain time. 15 minutes or so).
Also, stockpiling should be limited in the sense that when the buyers warehouses are full they will not buy anymore.
Perhaps players should pay a fee per volume to store items over a certain amount. You could argue that space is cheap in a space sim, but you still need to be certain that your wares are there when you come back to get them. Actually, storage could be a product in itself ...
There is no reason why a player should not be able to sell items remotely also. In otherwords, if he has stockpiled a huge batch on the other side of the universe he should be able to dump it from where he is located.
When will players be able to trade (unakwardly) with eachother? Could I give a character access to my storage within limits or must we be in the same station?
Regards,
Othmaar, Freespacer Commander
I have a few suggestions to add
If the markets begin to vary their inventory, and a more dynamic economy is developed we should also be able to make price inquiries remotely, or too much dumb luck will decide if you are successful at trading or not. Perhaps we should even be able to place an order (an order cancellation insurance policy would have to be paid immediately, and the order would expire after a certain time. 15 minutes or so).
Also, stockpiling should be limited in the sense that when the buyers warehouses are full they will not buy anymore.
Perhaps players should pay a fee per volume to store items over a certain amount. You could argue that space is cheap in a space sim, but you still need to be certain that your wares are there when you come back to get them. Actually, storage could be a product in itself ...
There is no reason why a player should not be able to sell items remotely also. In otherwords, if he has stockpiled a huge batch on the other side of the universe he should be able to dump it from where he is located.
When will players be able to trade (unakwardly) with eachother? Could I give a character access to my storage within limits or must we be in the same station?
Regards,
Othmaar, Freespacer Commander
Othmaar, the devs are making it so the ingame news system will publish pricing data, especially stations with a shortage, and thus willing to pay high prices, so luck or research will be a lot less of a factor, if any.
Soltis: I have no intention of getting in a flame contest with you. There are plenty of geo-political websites where I can get in flame fests if thats what I want.
Your responce is however a mass of contridictions.
First, I haven't 'misquoted' you. You claim that I have quoted you out of context, but I have not misquoted you. Nor do I think I have distorted what you said. I was well aware of the context of the statement, but the context does not make the claim any less contridictory. Even if you are only talking about 'fake' demand, your claim is still overly broad and offered without attempt at proof. For one thing, when you go into the specifics of what you want to see happen when you are perfectly happy to suggest all sorts of simulated demand.
"I also in no way meant to suggest that this be implimented all at once, nor that it be entirely player driven. A completely player driven economy is, in my opinion, madness to attempt at this time."
Well good. But anything less than an economy in which supply and demand are driven by real buying and selling is faked to some degree.
"Currently, the entire trade system is not at all reactive to player activity. The sell price of items drop if you sell them too frequently at the same station, but that's hardly 'reactive'."
I disagree. The current system may not be as reactive as you would like, but it is reactive. It can't be both 'a little reactive' and 'not at all reactive'. And its worth noting that later in your post you go ahead and suggest making the trading system, well, unreactive.
"One could go with a set-price supply model, wherein trade items always COST the same, regardless of what you can sell them for, or at least never cost above a certain threshold, and enforce this sort of limitation all the way up to the ship/weapon level, that being the highest rung of the trade ladder, so that everyone could always be assured they won't go bankrupt buying ships."
Gee, I guess you decided that there might be a point to faking the economy and being unreactive after all.
"Alternately, one could make it so players can get enough money outside of trade that they could afford ships and weapons, etc. This on its own is a very BAD idea, since it basically makes trading pointless. I just wanted to mention it because it's so terrible an idea I don't want anyone else suggesting it."
Ok, so why do you suggest it in the very next sentence?
"It is worth mentioning, however, that forcing EVERYONE to trade to be able to afford to fight is sort of bad, since that ruins the "do what you wish" ideal that this game espouses, so there should be good ways to make money outside of trading."
Look, either a player "can't" make enough money to afford ships unless they trade, or else they can somewhat. You can't have both. If there are good ways to make money outside of trading, then at least some skilled pilots will be able to afford ships without trading. In which case, we've implemented that 'BAD', 'terrible' idea you've encouraged no one else to suggest. Even if most players could earn enough money to keep themselves in ships without trading, that wouldn't make trading pointless. Traders may want excess money in order to become patrons, paying for other pilots ships in return for protection and authority, or we may add various sorts of prestige content into the game which can only be afforded if you are a very successful trader (or even a group of successful traders) - for example capital ships or your own station. So no, trading need not ever be 'pointless' even when it isn't necessary.
I could go through your posts like this line by line and point out all the inconsistancies, but what would be the point. I'm not interested in making you look bad or in getting into a flamefest with you or anyone else. All I want is for you to stop throwing your adjectives around, making such absolute claims about relative ideas, and writing with a little more clarity. The very fact that you are willing to put so much thought into the game means you are likely to have valuable suggestions, but you really need to focus on one idea at a time and work out its implications. For each of the things you'd like to see in the game, you could write a single post every bit as long as the long one you just wrote just explaining how it might be implemented and what the tradeoffs in implementing it are.
And there are tradeoffs. For instance, the supply chain idea you want to see implemented is a completely independent of the reactive economy ideas you have. The devs could implement one or the other, both, or neither. One of the problems with a supply chain is that it will increase the 'nuisance factor' in trading. On average, you will have to go further in order to find someone willing to buy your cargo. Long trips make for more tedium. Needing to know which stations buy and sell what increases the mental overhead needed to figure out where to go. That might have the positive side of making trading more challenging, but anything that makes the game more challenging just makes it frustrating for people who aren't interested in that aspect of the game. You need to keep in mind that even if your ideas are good, you are advocating that players be made to jump through tedious, frustrating, hoops. You better have a better explanation for why this is a good thing than 'I said so.'
I was arguing against wasting time implementing a dynamic economy over a year ago. Read my post from last November. What I don't want to see is people get all enamored with the idea of implementing supply chains and such as if thats just going to magically make the game more fun, then come next November when people are still frustrated with the economy after all the work the devs put into it the devs say 'Well, we made a good run at it, but we couldn't figure out how to make the players happy and so that's it for Vendetta.' In short, my position is that what you are demanding isn't going to make you as happy as you think it will.
Your responce is however a mass of contridictions.
First, I haven't 'misquoted' you. You claim that I have quoted you out of context, but I have not misquoted you. Nor do I think I have distorted what you said. I was well aware of the context of the statement, but the context does not make the claim any less contridictory. Even if you are only talking about 'fake' demand, your claim is still overly broad and offered without attempt at proof. For one thing, when you go into the specifics of what you want to see happen when you are perfectly happy to suggest all sorts of simulated demand.
"I also in no way meant to suggest that this be implimented all at once, nor that it be entirely player driven. A completely player driven economy is, in my opinion, madness to attempt at this time."
Well good. But anything less than an economy in which supply and demand are driven by real buying and selling is faked to some degree.
"Currently, the entire trade system is not at all reactive to player activity. The sell price of items drop if you sell them too frequently at the same station, but that's hardly 'reactive'."
I disagree. The current system may not be as reactive as you would like, but it is reactive. It can't be both 'a little reactive' and 'not at all reactive'. And its worth noting that later in your post you go ahead and suggest making the trading system, well, unreactive.
"One could go with a set-price supply model, wherein trade items always COST the same, regardless of what you can sell them for, or at least never cost above a certain threshold, and enforce this sort of limitation all the way up to the ship/weapon level, that being the highest rung of the trade ladder, so that everyone could always be assured they won't go bankrupt buying ships."
Gee, I guess you decided that there might be a point to faking the economy and being unreactive after all.
"Alternately, one could make it so players can get enough money outside of trade that they could afford ships and weapons, etc. This on its own is a very BAD idea, since it basically makes trading pointless. I just wanted to mention it because it's so terrible an idea I don't want anyone else suggesting it."
Ok, so why do you suggest it in the very next sentence?
"It is worth mentioning, however, that forcing EVERYONE to trade to be able to afford to fight is sort of bad, since that ruins the "do what you wish" ideal that this game espouses, so there should be good ways to make money outside of trading."
Look, either a player "can't" make enough money to afford ships unless they trade, or else they can somewhat. You can't have both. If there are good ways to make money outside of trading, then at least some skilled pilots will be able to afford ships without trading. In which case, we've implemented that 'BAD', 'terrible' idea you've encouraged no one else to suggest. Even if most players could earn enough money to keep themselves in ships without trading, that wouldn't make trading pointless. Traders may want excess money in order to become patrons, paying for other pilots ships in return for protection and authority, or we may add various sorts of prestige content into the game which can only be afforded if you are a very successful trader (or even a group of successful traders) - for example capital ships or your own station. So no, trading need not ever be 'pointless' even when it isn't necessary.
I could go through your posts like this line by line and point out all the inconsistancies, but what would be the point. I'm not interested in making you look bad or in getting into a flamefest with you or anyone else. All I want is for you to stop throwing your adjectives around, making such absolute claims about relative ideas, and writing with a little more clarity. The very fact that you are willing to put so much thought into the game means you are likely to have valuable suggestions, but you really need to focus on one idea at a time and work out its implications. For each of the things you'd like to see in the game, you could write a single post every bit as long as the long one you just wrote just explaining how it might be implemented and what the tradeoffs in implementing it are.
And there are tradeoffs. For instance, the supply chain idea you want to see implemented is a completely independent of the reactive economy ideas you have. The devs could implement one or the other, both, or neither. One of the problems with a supply chain is that it will increase the 'nuisance factor' in trading. On average, you will have to go further in order to find someone willing to buy your cargo. Long trips make for more tedium. Needing to know which stations buy and sell what increases the mental overhead needed to figure out where to go. That might have the positive side of making trading more challenging, but anything that makes the game more challenging just makes it frustrating for people who aren't interested in that aspect of the game. You need to keep in mind that even if your ideas are good, you are advocating that players be made to jump through tedious, frustrating, hoops. You better have a better explanation for why this is a good thing than 'I said so.'
I was arguing against wasting time implementing a dynamic economy over a year ago. Read my post from last November. What I don't want to see is people get all enamored with the idea of implementing supply chains and such as if thats just going to magically make the game more fun, then come next November when people are still frustrated with the economy after all the work the devs put into it the devs say 'Well, we made a good run at it, but we couldn't figure out how to make the players happy and so that's it for Vendetta.' In short, my position is that what you are demanding isn't going to make you as happy as you think it will.
hmm.
Something I've been toying with in my head is an artificial "cap" on trade.
ie, a stations demand for A is fulfilled, and will slowly deplete its stores (by either selling things made of A, or consuming A, or just selling more A to others ) however, instead of just setting a price thats below sales point, simply have the station refuse the cargo?
Ie. I bring too much Ferric ore down to Sedina L2, then it will stop accepting more ferric ore, until it once more reaches a "need more" threshold. As it reaches this threshold, the cargo is once again profitable, and quite well so.
however... this allows storage-swamping where you bring 10 000 cargo units to a station and wait for them to want the item again.. which once more only favours the super-traders. :-/
Something I've been toying with in my head is an artificial "cap" on trade.
ie, a stations demand for A is fulfilled, and will slowly deplete its stores (by either selling things made of A, or consuming A, or just selling more A to others ) however, instead of just setting a price thats below sales point, simply have the station refuse the cargo?
Ie. I bring too much Ferric ore down to Sedina L2, then it will stop accepting more ferric ore, until it once more reaches a "need more" threshold. As it reaches this threshold, the cargo is once again profitable, and quite well so.
however... this allows storage-swamping where you bring 10 000 cargo units to a station and wait for them to want the item again.. which once more only favours the super-traders. :-/
Celebrim: I've read your post. I am amazed that you can claim to not want an argument when you keep doing what you're doing. I'm going to go through your post line by line, and 'call it as I see it'.
"First, I haven't 'misquoted' you. You claim that I have quoted you out of context, but I have not misquoted you. Nor do I think I have distorted what you said."
Too bad, you have in fact done so, several times at this point.
"I was well aware of the context of the statement, but the context does not make the claim any less contridictory."
If you twist a statement, you can make it disagree with whatever you want. If you have trouble understanding what a statement means, don't respond until you have requested clarafication.
"Even if you are only talking about 'fake' demand, your claim is still overly broad and offered without attempt at proof."
Proof of what nature?
"For one thing, when you go into the specifics of what you want to see happen when you are perfectly happy to suggest all sorts of simulated demand."
You are assuming here that I have stated that ANY nature of simplification or artificiality is bad. While I stated that a purely arbitrary system is fake and thus bad, I did not say that an acceptable system could not necessarily be simplified or include some manner of virtualized supply/demand generation.
>"I also in no way meant to suggest that this be implimented all at once, nor that it be entirely player driven. A completely >player driven economy is, in my opinion, madness to attempt at this time."
"Well good. But anything less than an economy in which supply and demand are driven by real buying and selling is faked to some degree."
See my above statement about the difference between a completely fake system and one that includes artificial motive forces as a means to make said system logistically possible, or in some manner superior to one with 1:1 fidelity.
>"Currently, the entire trade system is not at all reactive to player activity. The sell price of items drop if you sell them too >frequently at the same station, but that's hardly 'reactive'."
"I disagree. The current system may not be as reactive as you would like, but it is reactive. It can't be both 'a little reactive' and 'not at all reactive'. And its worth noting that later in your post you go ahead and suggest making the trading system, well, unreactive."
The system is about as reactive as a corpse right now. While it does move if you kick it hard enough, it's possessed of no dynamicism of its own.
>"One could go with a set-price supply model, wherein trade items always COST the same, regardless of what you can sell >them for, or at least never cost above a certain threshold, and enforce this sort of limitation all the way up to the ship/weapon >level, that being the highest rung of the trade ladder, so that everyone could always be assured they won't go bankrupt >buying ships."
"Gee, I guess you decided that there might be a point to faking the economy and being unreactive after all."
So the best you could do in responding to what I said was to try and, in a very unhelpful manner, point out a perceived contradiction. This is not a helpful sentence at all. The only thing you have done is blatantly attempted to nettle me, without saying ANYTHING constructive. Awfully strange behavior for someone who's "not interested in making [me] look bad or in getting into a flamefest with [me] or anyone else."
>"Alternately, one could make it so players can get enough money outside of trade that they could afford ships and weapons, >etc. This on its own is a very BAD idea, since it basically makes trading pointless. I just wanted to mention it because it's so >terrible an idea I don't want anyone else suggesting it."
"Ok, so why do you suggest it in the very next sentence?"
You must really be trying to misunderstand this. Did the whole phrase, "This on its own" escape your vaunted intellect? If it did, please try to understand that what I meant is that such a measure instituted on its own would not address the fact that trade might potentially not profitable, and simply offer an alternative. In other words, if trade were unprofitable because of inflation, it would not help to simply create a non-trade way to make money without addressing that trade, itself, was broken. However, adding this as a suppliment by which people who do not enjoy trade could make money would actually add variety to the game.
>"It is worth mentioning, however, that forcing EVERYONE to trade to be able to afford to fight is sort of bad, since that >ruins the "do what you wish" ideal that this game espouses, so there should be good ways to make money outside of >trading."
"Look, either a player "can't" make enough money to afford ships unless they trade, or else they can somewhat. You can't have both."
I really don't get what you're angling at here.
"If there are good ways to make money outside of trading, then at least some skilled pilots will be able to afford ships without trading."
Yes, which would mean that the supplimental means mentioned above would be in effect, and thus would allow people to make money without forcing them to trade.
"In which case, we've implemented that 'BAD', 'terrible' idea you've encouraged no one else to suggest."
See my explanation of what I actually said above. If it still doesn't make sense, read it again.
"Even if most players could earn enough money to keep themselves in ships without trading, that wouldn't make trading pointless."
No. What would make trading pointless was the hypothetical situation where trading had been unbalanced to the point where trade itself was not profitable, and thus trading would not be a viable play style.
"Traders may want excess money in order to become patrons, paying for other pilots ships in return for protection and authority, or we may add various sorts of prestige content into the game which can only be afforded if you are a very successful trader (or even a group of successful traders) - for example capital ships or your own station. So no, trading need not ever be 'pointless' even when it isn't necessary."
You are operating here on the assumption that I had somehow stated that having ways to make money without trading was a bad thing, which is by no means what I intended, as stated above. Again, if my explanation of what I meant is not sufficient, ask for elucidation before assuming I don't know what I am talking about.
"I could go through your posts like this line by line and point out all the inconsistancies, but what would be the point."
Depends. What was the point you hoped to make by adding this sentence? For someone who hopes not to get in a flame fest, you sure throw a lot of condescending, derisive, unnecessary commentary around.
"I'm not interested in making you look bad or in getting into a flamefest with you or anyone else."
Then don't make assumptions about what people mean. Don't introduce rhetoric which serves no purpose. Don't use overly narrow interpretations of what people mean as a way to attack their statements individually without actually addressing what they were trying to say.
"All I want is for you to stop throwing your adjectives around, making such absolute claims about relative ideas, and writing with a little more clarity."
If I was told I needed to explain my meaning, without being attacked by someone by this statement admits they're not sure what I meant, I'd be glad to elaborate.
"The very fact that you are willing to put so much thought into the game means you are likely to have valuable suggestions, but you really need to focus on one idea at a time and work out its implications."
I have, a great deal more than you give me credit for. If you want to discuss said implications with me, talk to me on IRC.
"For each of the things you'd like to see in the game, you could write a single post every bit as long as the long one you just wrote just explaining how it might be implemented and what the tradeoffs in implementing it are."
Okay, I'll take that advice, though it would help to have people to discuss the various ideas with, and with whom to collaborate.
"And there are tradeoffs. For instance, the supply chain idea you want to see implemented is a completely independent of the reactive economy ideas you have."
They could be implimented separately, yes. However, the presence of one implies the other, and having both is more logical.
"The devs could implement one or the other, both, or neither. One of the problems with a supply chain is that it will increase the 'nuisance factor' in trading. On average, you will have to go further in order to find someone willing to buy your cargo. Long trips make for more tedium."
That really is a huge assumption to make. Depending on implimentation, the nuisance factor could stay the same, rise, or fall.
"Needing to know which stations buy and sell what increases the mental overhead needed to figure out where to go. That might have the positive side of making trading more challenging, but anything that makes the game more challenging just makes it frustrating for people who aren't interested in that aspect of the game."
If there are other ways to make money, as mentioned above, they would not need to worry about it. Besides, what mental overhead? With the news system telling people just which stations need what items, all you need to do is find a place that sells them, and then set the requisite course in your nav. Something else I want to see implimented is a way to browse station inventory/pricing remotely.
"You need to keep in mind that even if your ideas are good, you are advocating that players be made to jump through tedious, frustrating, hoops. You better have a better explanation for why this is a good thing than 'I said so.'"
You again make huge, sweeping assumptions about a lot of things I have said.
"I was arguing against wasting time implementing a dynamic economy over a year ago. Read my post from last November. What I don't want to see is people get all enamored with the idea of implementing supply chains and such as if thats just going to magically make the game more fun, then come next November when people are still frustrated with the economy after all the work the devs put into it the devs say 'Well, we made a good run at it, but we couldn't figure out how to make the players happy and so that's it for Vendetta.' In short, my position is that what you are demanding isn't going to make you as happy as you think it will."
You now are making huge, sweeping assumptions about ME. If you really don't want an argument on your hands, try being more open minded.
"First, I haven't 'misquoted' you. You claim that I have quoted you out of context, but I have not misquoted you. Nor do I think I have distorted what you said."
Too bad, you have in fact done so, several times at this point.
"I was well aware of the context of the statement, but the context does not make the claim any less contridictory."
If you twist a statement, you can make it disagree with whatever you want. If you have trouble understanding what a statement means, don't respond until you have requested clarafication.
"Even if you are only talking about 'fake' demand, your claim is still overly broad and offered without attempt at proof."
Proof of what nature?
"For one thing, when you go into the specifics of what you want to see happen when you are perfectly happy to suggest all sorts of simulated demand."
You are assuming here that I have stated that ANY nature of simplification or artificiality is bad. While I stated that a purely arbitrary system is fake and thus bad, I did not say that an acceptable system could not necessarily be simplified or include some manner of virtualized supply/demand generation.
>"I also in no way meant to suggest that this be implimented all at once, nor that it be entirely player driven. A completely >player driven economy is, in my opinion, madness to attempt at this time."
"Well good. But anything less than an economy in which supply and demand are driven by real buying and selling is faked to some degree."
See my above statement about the difference between a completely fake system and one that includes artificial motive forces as a means to make said system logistically possible, or in some manner superior to one with 1:1 fidelity.
>"Currently, the entire trade system is not at all reactive to player activity. The sell price of items drop if you sell them too >frequently at the same station, but that's hardly 'reactive'."
"I disagree. The current system may not be as reactive as you would like, but it is reactive. It can't be both 'a little reactive' and 'not at all reactive'. And its worth noting that later in your post you go ahead and suggest making the trading system, well, unreactive."
The system is about as reactive as a corpse right now. While it does move if you kick it hard enough, it's possessed of no dynamicism of its own.
>"One could go with a set-price supply model, wherein trade items always COST the same, regardless of what you can sell >them for, or at least never cost above a certain threshold, and enforce this sort of limitation all the way up to the ship/weapon >level, that being the highest rung of the trade ladder, so that everyone could always be assured they won't go bankrupt >buying ships."
"Gee, I guess you decided that there might be a point to faking the economy and being unreactive after all."
So the best you could do in responding to what I said was to try and, in a very unhelpful manner, point out a perceived contradiction. This is not a helpful sentence at all. The only thing you have done is blatantly attempted to nettle me, without saying ANYTHING constructive. Awfully strange behavior for someone who's "not interested in making [me] look bad or in getting into a flamefest with [me] or anyone else."
>"Alternately, one could make it so players can get enough money outside of trade that they could afford ships and weapons, >etc. This on its own is a very BAD idea, since it basically makes trading pointless. I just wanted to mention it because it's so >terrible an idea I don't want anyone else suggesting it."
"Ok, so why do you suggest it in the very next sentence?"
You must really be trying to misunderstand this. Did the whole phrase, "This on its own" escape your vaunted intellect? If it did, please try to understand that what I meant is that such a measure instituted on its own would not address the fact that trade might potentially not profitable, and simply offer an alternative. In other words, if trade were unprofitable because of inflation, it would not help to simply create a non-trade way to make money without addressing that trade, itself, was broken. However, adding this as a suppliment by which people who do not enjoy trade could make money would actually add variety to the game.
>"It is worth mentioning, however, that forcing EVERYONE to trade to be able to afford to fight is sort of bad, since that >ruins the "do what you wish" ideal that this game espouses, so there should be good ways to make money outside of >trading."
"Look, either a player "can't" make enough money to afford ships unless they trade, or else they can somewhat. You can't have both."
I really don't get what you're angling at here.
"If there are good ways to make money outside of trading, then at least some skilled pilots will be able to afford ships without trading."
Yes, which would mean that the supplimental means mentioned above would be in effect, and thus would allow people to make money without forcing them to trade.
"In which case, we've implemented that 'BAD', 'terrible' idea you've encouraged no one else to suggest."
See my explanation of what I actually said above. If it still doesn't make sense, read it again.
"Even if most players could earn enough money to keep themselves in ships without trading, that wouldn't make trading pointless."
No. What would make trading pointless was the hypothetical situation where trading had been unbalanced to the point where trade itself was not profitable, and thus trading would not be a viable play style.
"Traders may want excess money in order to become patrons, paying for other pilots ships in return for protection and authority, or we may add various sorts of prestige content into the game which can only be afforded if you are a very successful trader (or even a group of successful traders) - for example capital ships or your own station. So no, trading need not ever be 'pointless' even when it isn't necessary."
You are operating here on the assumption that I had somehow stated that having ways to make money without trading was a bad thing, which is by no means what I intended, as stated above. Again, if my explanation of what I meant is not sufficient, ask for elucidation before assuming I don't know what I am talking about.
"I could go through your posts like this line by line and point out all the inconsistancies, but what would be the point."
Depends. What was the point you hoped to make by adding this sentence? For someone who hopes not to get in a flame fest, you sure throw a lot of condescending, derisive, unnecessary commentary around.
"I'm not interested in making you look bad or in getting into a flamefest with you or anyone else."
Then don't make assumptions about what people mean. Don't introduce rhetoric which serves no purpose. Don't use overly narrow interpretations of what people mean as a way to attack their statements individually without actually addressing what they were trying to say.
"All I want is for you to stop throwing your adjectives around, making such absolute claims about relative ideas, and writing with a little more clarity."
If I was told I needed to explain my meaning, without being attacked by someone by this statement admits they're not sure what I meant, I'd be glad to elaborate.
"The very fact that you are willing to put so much thought into the game means you are likely to have valuable suggestions, but you really need to focus on one idea at a time and work out its implications."
I have, a great deal more than you give me credit for. If you want to discuss said implications with me, talk to me on IRC.
"For each of the things you'd like to see in the game, you could write a single post every bit as long as the long one you just wrote just explaining how it might be implemented and what the tradeoffs in implementing it are."
Okay, I'll take that advice, though it would help to have people to discuss the various ideas with, and with whom to collaborate.
"And there are tradeoffs. For instance, the supply chain idea you want to see implemented is a completely independent of the reactive economy ideas you have."
They could be implimented separately, yes. However, the presence of one implies the other, and having both is more logical.
"The devs could implement one or the other, both, or neither. One of the problems with a supply chain is that it will increase the 'nuisance factor' in trading. On average, you will have to go further in order to find someone willing to buy your cargo. Long trips make for more tedium."
That really is a huge assumption to make. Depending on implimentation, the nuisance factor could stay the same, rise, or fall.
"Needing to know which stations buy and sell what increases the mental overhead needed to figure out where to go. That might have the positive side of making trading more challenging, but anything that makes the game more challenging just makes it frustrating for people who aren't interested in that aspect of the game."
If there are other ways to make money, as mentioned above, they would not need to worry about it. Besides, what mental overhead? With the news system telling people just which stations need what items, all you need to do is find a place that sells them, and then set the requisite course in your nav. Something else I want to see implimented is a way to browse station inventory/pricing remotely.
"You need to keep in mind that even if your ideas are good, you are advocating that players be made to jump through tedious, frustrating, hoops. You better have a better explanation for why this is a good thing than 'I said so.'"
You again make huge, sweeping assumptions about a lot of things I have said.
"I was arguing against wasting time implementing a dynamic economy over a year ago. Read my post from last November. What I don't want to see is people get all enamored with the idea of implementing supply chains and such as if thats just going to magically make the game more fun, then come next November when people are still frustrated with the economy after all the work the devs put into it the devs say 'Well, we made a good run at it, but we couldn't figure out how to make the players happy and so that's it for Vendetta.' In short, my position is that what you are demanding isn't going to make you as happy as you think it will."
You now are making huge, sweeping assumptions about ME. If you really don't want an argument on your hands, try being more open minded.
Eek. Such a long and interesting thread. Wish I could say I read every word, but with all the sparks flying, I had to skim to the end.
What I haven't seen suggested yet is a dual economy. Have a more artificial baseline economy to help newbs get on their feet. Have artificial supply/demand models only a little more complex than the current system.
Then have a very dynamic, player-driven economy for mining, refining, manufacturing, and everything else eventually. The two economies could coexist, but it would be easier if player-player business transactions were possible. This would allow players to manufacture potentially more useful widgets, weapons, maybe even ships.
Of course without player-player business, it would be very hard to separate the two economies. Ie. refining player has to buy station ore, which came from Thin Air Mining Co. It would better if something allowed players to buy and sell to each other.
Maybe a "market" tab. A player that wants something puts up the item request, the buying price, and the cash. Another player comes along, sees that request, and either sells their item or goes and mines it, etc. Kind of like a backwards E-bay system.
Maybe make it part of the news system, so you could see the requests from other stations, but you'd have to go to the particular station to make the transaction.
Putting the cash up front ensures that nobody gets cheated, since the transaction is ultimately handled by the station.
**Edit: The buying/selling prices could even be capped at min/max prices. Call it "Fair Trading Laws" and maybe these laws wouldn't apply far away from governments (ie. gray space).
Bad idea?
What I haven't seen suggested yet is a dual economy. Have a more artificial baseline economy to help newbs get on their feet. Have artificial supply/demand models only a little more complex than the current system.
Then have a very dynamic, player-driven economy for mining, refining, manufacturing, and everything else eventually. The two economies could coexist, but it would be easier if player-player business transactions were possible. This would allow players to manufacture potentially more useful widgets, weapons, maybe even ships.
Of course without player-player business, it would be very hard to separate the two economies. Ie. refining player has to buy station ore, which came from Thin Air Mining Co. It would better if something allowed players to buy and sell to each other.
Maybe a "market" tab. A player that wants something puts up the item request, the buying price, and the cash. Another player comes along, sees that request, and either sells their item or goes and mines it, etc. Kind of like a backwards E-bay system.
Maybe make it part of the news system, so you could see the requests from other stations, but you'd have to go to the particular station to make the transaction.
Putting the cash up front ensures that nobody gets cheated, since the transaction is ultimately handled by the station.
**Edit: The buying/selling prices could even be capped at min/max prices. Call it "Fair Trading Laws" and maybe these laws wouldn't apply far away from governments (ie. gray space).
Bad idea?
Why cap it?
If someone wants to pay 1000c/cu for ferric ore, let them!
I wish I had an asbestous web-browser that would filter out all the flames. This thread would be alot better if I did.
If someone wants to pay 1000c/cu for ferric ore, let them!
I wish I had an asbestous web-browser that would filter out all the flames. This thread would be alot better if I did.
It might prevent cartels and price gouging (basically people ganging up to artificially increase prices, preventing competition), but I don't know if it would be necessary - depends on the community.
The market thing could work the other way, too. You have a custom-made item, so you put a buying price on it and someone comes by and buys it from the market. You go back, and the station gives you the cash (minus a transaction fee).
The market thing could work the other way, too. You have a custom-made item, so you put a buying price on it and someone comes by and buys it from the market. You go back, and the station gives you the cash (minus a transaction fee).
I think there's one particular part of the dynamic economy that's been overlooked thus far, at least in this discussion: Entropy.
The most compelling reason, from a dramathurgical viewpoint, is to provide a possibility for the rest of the game to react to what's happening in the world. The only obvious common denominator is the economy. By making it somewhat player dynamic, it makes for a non-obvious - and if you've got all the cards, fitting - impact on the world.
The definition of 'somewhat' is key. Very little is actually required - mainly some way for NPC entities to have a supply and demand of goods, some means of transporting it and detailed stats of how well it goes - from there on, it leaves the area of economy. If a market simulation or some minimalistic approach is a good thing, I'll leave to the wolves.
In essence, my theory is that the economy is the seed from which story happens (that, I think most would agree to). A detailed economy isn't as far as I can tell a neccessity, but one which actually has a bearing on the universe, is. Exactly how much bearing it needs to have on the players is more of an 'how enjoyable is the game to play from a usage point of view' rather than a dramathurgical one.
The most compelling reason, from a dramathurgical viewpoint, is to provide a possibility for the rest of the game to react to what's happening in the world. The only obvious common denominator is the economy. By making it somewhat player dynamic, it makes for a non-obvious - and if you've got all the cards, fitting - impact on the world.
The definition of 'somewhat' is key. Very little is actually required - mainly some way for NPC entities to have a supply and demand of goods, some means of transporting it and detailed stats of how well it goes - from there on, it leaves the area of economy. If a market simulation or some minimalistic approach is a good thing, I'll leave to the wolves.
In essence, my theory is that the economy is the seed from which story happens (that, I think most would agree to). A detailed economy isn't as far as I can tell a neccessity, but one which actually has a bearing on the universe, is. Exactly how much bearing it needs to have on the players is more of an 'how enjoyable is the game to play from a usage point of view' rather than a dramathurgical one.
Wow. Ok. That's a.. great big thread (I skimmed it, I'll re-read tomorrow when it's not 4am here). Anyway, for starters, I think it might be good to explain the basics of why I made a couple of choices about how our economy works:
The "Demand" concept (Demand rises over Time, is reduced by item supply) was a really simple way to implement a quasi-dynamic economy that could be affected by player behaviour, without creating so many variables that it would be a balancing nightmare. We added that.. over a year ago, I guess. The design ideas go back much further.
The basis of the simplistic Demand economy, in the long run, was to build and trigger other gameplay events from this relatively simple system. NPCs would carry common items between larger stations based on a conceptual map of population density in the universe. Stations would auto-create NewsPosts and Trading Missions when their demand reached a certain point, requesting additional supplies from PC traders (worst-case, triggering NPC traders), their panic and offers of payment increasing as the Demand would scale. This would then fit into the framework of inter-corporation warfare, piracy, and other mission and non-mission driven player-vs-NPC (and PvP) interaction that could affect change in the universe. If players blockaded a certain station on behalf of a rival faction, Demand there would rise and they would scream for supplies, offering rewards to other PCs who could run the blockades, or potentially capitulating to the demands of their rivals and progressing some small aspect of the storyline in faction-driven context. Lots of possibilities for interesting gameplay creation within this framework.
This was the concept, a very simple economy with a lot of other gameplay built on top of it. One piece of a much larger interconnected puzzle. Unfortunately, a year and some later, we have only the most simplistic of NPC traders and are only now looking at getting the News System and other basic tenets introduced in the game. This is just a recap of Where We Were Supposed To Go (much of which is still viable, and our intended general direction).
As for Where We Are, we only have the basic Demand driven economy, which has no larger impact on the availability of items at stations, etc. As Andy outlined, we do distribute items throughout the universe based on a "manufacturing" and "resource" driven mechanism (of Waylon's) that we intend to improve and make into a more visible gameplay construct, so people can at least get some idea of what's going on, where, and why.
This is probably the single biggest flaw with the existing trading system.. there's absolutely no communication at all, as far as what routes may or may not be more lucrative, and no concept of what's going on in the greater galaxy from an economic standpoint. We hope to address this with the News System and some other things.. but anyway, that digresses from the fundamental economy discussion.
Basically, the more variables you introduce into any economic mechanism, the vastly more difficult it becomes to balance (lots of previous examples of this in other games, who had hideous difficulties in balancing their economies). I went with the "Keep It Simple" approach on the basis that we can optionally add in more complexity as we move forward.. create a dynamic impact from player-mined ore, trigger the availability of items in stations based on the influx of trade goods, etc.. this is all stuff we Can Add. It's Neat, but I don't think it's necessarily as important as some of the other gameplay I outlined above, which requires no changes to the demand system at all.
Economic balance is incredibly important, because it's part of what makes things Fun. If you can't afford anything, that's no Fun. If all the items in all the stations look pretty much the same, and there's little or no idea of where you should be taking items to trade (both existing flaws) that's not much Fun either. However, both of those issues can be solved without adding any Supply complexity to the economy. A more truly complex economy does not necessarily make for a more Fun economy, and they can easily spiral out of whack into a scary unbalanced mess.
One other issue that is apparent.. if the user becomes rich, what the hell is the point? Well, in a balanced system, it's relatively difficult to become rich (at one point our old 3.x.x era Test universe was pretty well balanced, and this was true).. but also, in a system that provides a more accurate reflection of reality, there should be items that mandate a level of fiscal accumulation. It has always been my intention that this would take the form of those larger scale ships and equipment, commanding higher prices and offering more possibilities to those who could afford them.. well beyond what we have now. Freighters and cap ships, expensive gear and various other gameplay options (subfactions, stock market, etc). Without that content, it's somewhat pointless to be rich in our universe right now, aside from the relative financial independence.
Anyway, this was just meant to be a short clarification recap of old history and things that we know are wrong.. which ended up being a bit rambly. I hope it's of some use. I'm going to sleep now, but I'll re-read everything tomorrow and post further responses as required.
The "Demand" concept (Demand rises over Time, is reduced by item supply) was a really simple way to implement a quasi-dynamic economy that could be affected by player behaviour, without creating so many variables that it would be a balancing nightmare. We added that.. over a year ago, I guess. The design ideas go back much further.
The basis of the simplistic Demand economy, in the long run, was to build and trigger other gameplay events from this relatively simple system. NPCs would carry common items between larger stations based on a conceptual map of population density in the universe. Stations would auto-create NewsPosts and Trading Missions when their demand reached a certain point, requesting additional supplies from PC traders (worst-case, triggering NPC traders), their panic and offers of payment increasing as the Demand would scale. This would then fit into the framework of inter-corporation warfare, piracy, and other mission and non-mission driven player-vs-NPC (and PvP) interaction that could affect change in the universe. If players blockaded a certain station on behalf of a rival faction, Demand there would rise and they would scream for supplies, offering rewards to other PCs who could run the blockades, or potentially capitulating to the demands of their rivals and progressing some small aspect of the storyline in faction-driven context. Lots of possibilities for interesting gameplay creation within this framework.
This was the concept, a very simple economy with a lot of other gameplay built on top of it. One piece of a much larger interconnected puzzle. Unfortunately, a year and some later, we have only the most simplistic of NPC traders and are only now looking at getting the News System and other basic tenets introduced in the game. This is just a recap of Where We Were Supposed To Go (much of which is still viable, and our intended general direction).
As for Where We Are, we only have the basic Demand driven economy, which has no larger impact on the availability of items at stations, etc. As Andy outlined, we do distribute items throughout the universe based on a "manufacturing" and "resource" driven mechanism (of Waylon's) that we intend to improve and make into a more visible gameplay construct, so people can at least get some idea of what's going on, where, and why.
This is probably the single biggest flaw with the existing trading system.. there's absolutely no communication at all, as far as what routes may or may not be more lucrative, and no concept of what's going on in the greater galaxy from an economic standpoint. We hope to address this with the News System and some other things.. but anyway, that digresses from the fundamental economy discussion.
Basically, the more variables you introduce into any economic mechanism, the vastly more difficult it becomes to balance (lots of previous examples of this in other games, who had hideous difficulties in balancing their economies). I went with the "Keep It Simple" approach on the basis that we can optionally add in more complexity as we move forward.. create a dynamic impact from player-mined ore, trigger the availability of items in stations based on the influx of trade goods, etc.. this is all stuff we Can Add. It's Neat, but I don't think it's necessarily as important as some of the other gameplay I outlined above, which requires no changes to the demand system at all.
Economic balance is incredibly important, because it's part of what makes things Fun. If you can't afford anything, that's no Fun. If all the items in all the stations look pretty much the same, and there's little or no idea of where you should be taking items to trade (both existing flaws) that's not much Fun either. However, both of those issues can be solved without adding any Supply complexity to the economy. A more truly complex economy does not necessarily make for a more Fun economy, and they can easily spiral out of whack into a scary unbalanced mess.
One other issue that is apparent.. if the user becomes rich, what the hell is the point? Well, in a balanced system, it's relatively difficult to become rich (at one point our old 3.x.x era Test universe was pretty well balanced, and this was true).. but also, in a system that provides a more accurate reflection of reality, there should be items that mandate a level of fiscal accumulation. It has always been my intention that this would take the form of those larger scale ships and equipment, commanding higher prices and offering more possibilities to those who could afford them.. well beyond what we have now. Freighters and cap ships, expensive gear and various other gameplay options (subfactions, stock market, etc). Without that content, it's somewhat pointless to be rich in our universe right now, aside from the relative financial independence.
Anyway, this was just meant to be a short clarification recap of old history and things that we know are wrong.. which ended up being a bit rambly. I hope it's of some use. I'm going to sleep now, but I'll re-read everything tomorrow and post further responses as required.