Forums » Suggestions
Soltis, I just have one question for you and it's a question that Celebrim has been asking indirectly. He continues to ask for proof of your assertions, but perhaps I can clarify a little more.
You make the statement that anything fake is boring and that the current system is fake. But the fact remains that any system that is implemented will be fake to some degree.
So on to the question, why would a dynamic system add any more fun to the player?
You make the statement that anything fake is boring and that the current system is fake. But the fact remains that any system that is implemented will be fake to some degree.
So on to the question, why would a dynamic system add any more fun to the player?
Okay, that's a question I can respect, but can only answer as I understand it, and how it applies to me.
First is the immersion factor. If I'm moving stuff around which I can identify as being directly pertinent to, or at least identifiably related to my wellbeing as a player, it makes the world I'm in a lot more real for me. Right now, the system is basically composed of 'move useless junk around'. I can't do anything with the items save sell them. They don't affect prices of other items, they aren't needed by other places to manufacture other items, and _I_ can't do anything with them myself.
Part of the idea I'd like to see would eventually be to have items that are not only trade items, but can be used by players as actual useful items, or as components to make useful items.
I'm trying to angle at an economy where the term 'trade item' is meaningless, because everything has both monetary and intrinsic value, or at least the great majority of things. It would be fine to have supplimental items, such as entertainment goods, food, luxury goods, etc. included, but having the economy CONSIST of these things is not okay in my book.
There are two ways an item can be useful, aside from purely being a means to get money. First is as a means to garner advantage, by either insuring one's faction remains supplied and can maintain a war effort or normal operation, as the case may be; and second is by being directly useful. I want a system that impliments both these things, eventually(long, long term goal), so that the different paths of play will have meaning which is derived from something intrinsic to the system.
I'd like to be able to, say, work out a station that needs X weapon, and then be able to either buy that weapon elsewhere and resell it there, or buy the components and make it, then sell it, and make somewhat higher profit at the cost of more work on my part. This would greatly entrench me IN the world of VO, instead of floating ON it.
The other aspect, the reactivity, is basically a highly idealized, trimmed down, simplified economy, wherein I think the motivation for all sorts of player-made "missions" and political intrigue would be possible. It would be really cool to have player enforced trade embargoes, with player-driven black markets, and even player-driven skirmishes over trade routes and the like. There are artificial aspects of it, sure, and there are plenty of ways it doesn't resemble a real economy, but in the ways that matter - in the realm of reactivity and dynamicism, which intrinsically matter to me as a player, it would be much more alive than what we have now.
Now what Incarnate outlined isn't quite what I had in mind, but I won't argue the subject, since he has a lot better an idea what is possible, and practical, and the devs have their own preferences and vision. Mostly what I want is *something* that is more reactive and better than what exists now, and that, in addition to containing items that are intrinsically useful in their own right, will allow player-driven dynamicism not necessarily dependent on, though possibly incorporating set 'missions' as they exist now.
I want to stress that I have been up a very long time, and that I may alternately make no sense, disagree with myself(in words, if not if in intended meaning), or come across as a raving lunatic. If so, anyone who wishes to debate my words with me is requested to please make sure there is clarity on what I meant before jumping down my throat.
First is the immersion factor. If I'm moving stuff around which I can identify as being directly pertinent to, or at least identifiably related to my wellbeing as a player, it makes the world I'm in a lot more real for me. Right now, the system is basically composed of 'move useless junk around'. I can't do anything with the items save sell them. They don't affect prices of other items, they aren't needed by other places to manufacture other items, and _I_ can't do anything with them myself.
Part of the idea I'd like to see would eventually be to have items that are not only trade items, but can be used by players as actual useful items, or as components to make useful items.
I'm trying to angle at an economy where the term 'trade item' is meaningless, because everything has both monetary and intrinsic value, or at least the great majority of things. It would be fine to have supplimental items, such as entertainment goods, food, luxury goods, etc. included, but having the economy CONSIST of these things is not okay in my book.
There are two ways an item can be useful, aside from purely being a means to get money. First is as a means to garner advantage, by either insuring one's faction remains supplied and can maintain a war effort or normal operation, as the case may be; and second is by being directly useful. I want a system that impliments both these things, eventually(long, long term goal), so that the different paths of play will have meaning which is derived from something intrinsic to the system.
I'd like to be able to, say, work out a station that needs X weapon, and then be able to either buy that weapon elsewhere and resell it there, or buy the components and make it, then sell it, and make somewhat higher profit at the cost of more work on my part. This would greatly entrench me IN the world of VO, instead of floating ON it.
The other aspect, the reactivity, is basically a highly idealized, trimmed down, simplified economy, wherein I think the motivation for all sorts of player-made "missions" and political intrigue would be possible. It would be really cool to have player enforced trade embargoes, with player-driven black markets, and even player-driven skirmishes over trade routes and the like. There are artificial aspects of it, sure, and there are plenty of ways it doesn't resemble a real economy, but in the ways that matter - in the realm of reactivity and dynamicism, which intrinsically matter to me as a player, it would be much more alive than what we have now.
Now what Incarnate outlined isn't quite what I had in mind, but I won't argue the subject, since he has a lot better an idea what is possible, and practical, and the devs have their own preferences and vision. Mostly what I want is *something* that is more reactive and better than what exists now, and that, in addition to containing items that are intrinsically useful in their own right, will allow player-driven dynamicism not necessarily dependent on, though possibly incorporating set 'missions' as they exist now.
I want to stress that I have been up a very long time, and that I may alternately make no sense, disagree with myself(in words, if not if in intended meaning), or come across as a raving lunatic. If so, anyone who wishes to debate my words with me is requested to please make sure there is clarity on what I meant before jumping down my throat.
"So on to the question, why would a dynamic system add any more fun to the player?"
My answer to this question is very simple.
It doesn't.
But since some people aren't going to see that as self-evident, I'll add a longer version.
As long as you are talking about a dynamic economy that reacts to player actions, the dyanamic economy really isn't any more fun than a static economy.
All the other stuff - manufacturing, blockades, black markets, supply chains, economic missions, and so forth - can exist completely independently of a dynamic economy, and it is a mistake to confuse the two. One doesn't need or imply the other. Quite obviously, you could implement a really great dynamic economy, but have not implemented manufacturing, supply chains, and a complex mission structure. Less obviously, but certainly true, you could build up manufacturing, blockades, contraband, smuggling, mining, supply chains, and a complex mission structure without a dynamic economy. Would a dynamic economy help? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether developing it more fully gets in the way of adding on all those more substantial gameplay features.
IMO, the main point of a dynamic economy is that it encourages player's to explore and vary thier play experience because it gaurantees that over time thier will never be one best answer to the question 'How do I make money?'. To that extent, the dynamic economy is already complex enough to do its basic job.
A more complex dynamic economy might have a secondary benifit in increasing the interest of some other game feature, but I don't see dynamic economies in and of themselves as significantly increasing game play and a player's enjoyment factor at all. Nor do I see anyone's shopping lists of game play features as critically hinging on the economies ability to scale prices with increasing or decreasing supply and demand.
My answer to this question is very simple.
It doesn't.
But since some people aren't going to see that as self-evident, I'll add a longer version.
As long as you are talking about a dynamic economy that reacts to player actions, the dyanamic economy really isn't any more fun than a static economy.
All the other stuff - manufacturing, blockades, black markets, supply chains, economic missions, and so forth - can exist completely independently of a dynamic economy, and it is a mistake to confuse the two. One doesn't need or imply the other. Quite obviously, you could implement a really great dynamic economy, but have not implemented manufacturing, supply chains, and a complex mission structure. Less obviously, but certainly true, you could build up manufacturing, blockades, contraband, smuggling, mining, supply chains, and a complex mission structure without a dynamic economy. Would a dynamic economy help? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether developing it more fully gets in the way of adding on all those more substantial gameplay features.
IMO, the main point of a dynamic economy is that it encourages player's to explore and vary thier play experience because it gaurantees that over time thier will never be one best answer to the question 'How do I make money?'. To that extent, the dynamic economy is already complex enough to do its basic job.
A more complex dynamic economy might have a secondary benifit in increasing the interest of some other game feature, but I don't see dynamic economies in and of themselves as significantly increasing game play and a player's enjoyment factor at all. Nor do I see anyone's shopping lists of game play features as critically hinging on the economies ability to scale prices with increasing or decreasing supply and demand.
Celebrim, your post doesn't address some aspects of this issue I'd like to discuss. Do you ever get on IRC? I'd like to talk to you on there if you don't mind.
*pulls out fire extinguisher*
The economy doesn't *have* to be dynamic to be immersive.
With an infinite supply and an infinite demand, it simplifies things. Whether this makes the game more accessible or less challenging is the half-full/half-empty argument, its the same thing. I guess the main issue is not whether the economy needs to be dynamic to add realism, but whether the realism would make the game any more fun... so I guess I agree with Celebrim, mostly, although his caustic tone doesn't exactly help in a suggestions thread... whoops. *sprays self*
Crafting, if its based on items with limited supply, *will* become elitist. Many of you will have seen games with crafting systems in, where the items are in short supply, the top players with the higher craft skills buy them in bulk at high prices, and newer players can't get a look-in.
This doesn't mean that an abundance in the trade of X or the lack of a trade in Y shouldn't affect the game universe in some way, like making stations offer missions to bring the widgets there in bulk or deliver vast amounts of ore in convoys for ample reward, this is a lot easier than actually having to perfectly balance and fully automate supply/demand, buy/sell prices and the like, and to be honest I don't think the majority of the playerbase will be into finding out the intricacies of any such *fully* dynamic economy.
And if it's not PERFECTLY balanced should it be implemented, well, all hell will break loose. Slowly maybe, but it will... and then the people who worked the system to their advantage will whine whenever changes are suggested, the people who didn't will whine when no changes are made, and people will whine whine and whine like they've never whined before.
Yet we could use more economy-based missions. Not fully dynamic.
*whiiiine*
[Fix the prom!]
The economy doesn't *have* to be dynamic to be immersive.
With an infinite supply and an infinite demand, it simplifies things. Whether this makes the game more accessible or less challenging is the half-full/half-empty argument, its the same thing. I guess the main issue is not whether the economy needs to be dynamic to add realism, but whether the realism would make the game any more fun... so I guess I agree with Celebrim, mostly, although his caustic tone doesn't exactly help in a suggestions thread... whoops. *sprays self*
Crafting, if its based on items with limited supply, *will* become elitist. Many of you will have seen games with crafting systems in, where the items are in short supply, the top players with the higher craft skills buy them in bulk at high prices, and newer players can't get a look-in.
This doesn't mean that an abundance in the trade of X or the lack of a trade in Y shouldn't affect the game universe in some way, like making stations offer missions to bring the widgets there in bulk or deliver vast amounts of ore in convoys for ample reward, this is a lot easier than actually having to perfectly balance and fully automate supply/demand, buy/sell prices and the like, and to be honest I don't think the majority of the playerbase will be into finding out the intricacies of any such *fully* dynamic economy.
And if it's not PERFECTLY balanced should it be implemented, well, all hell will break loose. Slowly maybe, but it will... and then the people who worked the system to their advantage will whine whenever changes are suggested, the people who didn't will whine when no changes are made, and people will whine whine and whine like they've never whined before.
Yet we could use more economy-based missions. Not fully dynamic.
*whiiiine*
[Fix the prom!]
Going back to my first post, I saw a flaw. To fix this, The price rises faster then the number of ore to make the ship shrinks. (The reason the number of ores it take to build a ship is shrinking is because the colonist are seeing how much of a scarcity there is and they are conserving ore more. Also the price to buy one ship will be determined by the average selling price of each ship.
ex. If ship A was make when the resources where scarce and it cost 700 gil. Also if ship B was made when resources where abundent and it cost 500 gil. Then the ship would both be sold for 600 gil.
By letting the price resources are bought for rise faster then the resources needed are shrinking, then station would make more profit to make ships when resources are more abundent. This is additional motivation for higher resources coming into a station.
ex.
If there is going to be a price increase percent of 20
If ship A to 50 ores to build when resources were averagly abundant and it cost 500 gil. When only half the amount of raw material are available, it take only 25 mineral to make and the ship would cost 600 gil. If there was no profit made in this case. The price stations pay for ores went from 10 to 24.
The numbers will have to be worked out.
ex. If ship A was make when the resources where scarce and it cost 700 gil. Also if ship B was made when resources where abundent and it cost 500 gil. Then the ship would both be sold for 600 gil.
By letting the price resources are bought for rise faster then the resources needed are shrinking, then station would make more profit to make ships when resources are more abundent. This is additional motivation for higher resources coming into a station.
ex.
If there is going to be a price increase percent of 20
If ship A to 50 ores to build when resources were averagly abundant and it cost 500 gil. When only half the amount of raw material are available, it take only 25 mineral to make and the ship would cost 600 gil. If there was no profit made in this case. The price stations pay for ores went from 10 to 24.
The numbers will have to be worked out.
Credits, not gil. This is NOT Final Fantasy.
Credits, Gil, Gold, Gp, Euros ... it's all Zenny to me!
Worship the Zenny.
However, it does annoy me when people can't bother to use the correct unit.
However, it does annoy me when people can't bother to use the correct unit.
fellows, ladies, gentleman, can we not have it both ways?
much as in the real world. we have different countries with different levels of socialism, democracy, price controls, price supports, free trade, tarrifs, and so forth.
some countries have more socialism and welfare. some countries have less. some have more economic freedom, some have barely any rules at all, and some are extremely strict.
just compare and contrast for yourself the USA, Korea, Japan, the EU, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, China, and so forth. You can see the variation in ecomonomic and political systems leads to different experiences for the people. Compare them through history as well. Sure we had a 'free economy' in the US in the late 1800s, early 1900s. And that is why we had a depression, and that is why we invented the FDIC (guarantees your bank accounts to $100,000), the SEC (securities and exchange comission, which prevents stock fraud, stock scams, etc), and other banking regulations and corporate and stock-market regulations to make sure that the depression doesnt happen again.
Is it not possible to have this in Vendetta? The stable economies of the main worlds, Itan, Sol II, Dau, and their satellites, they can remain with the current stable economies, like anchors almost. They have stable prices for items, with price caps, free busses for newbies, no docking fees, decent trade missions, relatively decent pay for asteroid mining, and other features that make the players in these systems live in a relatively stable world, where they wont get crushed by super monoopolies or massive inflation.
But perhaps some of the pirate systems, or the systems that will be created with the 'exploration' addon, can experiment with a more 'free economy' with actual supply and demand? With more relaxed rules about price caps, and so forth?
What do you think?
much as in the real world. we have different countries with different levels of socialism, democracy, price controls, price supports, free trade, tarrifs, and so forth.
some countries have more socialism and welfare. some countries have less. some have more economic freedom, some have barely any rules at all, and some are extremely strict.
just compare and contrast for yourself the USA, Korea, Japan, the EU, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, China, and so forth. You can see the variation in ecomonomic and political systems leads to different experiences for the people. Compare them through history as well. Sure we had a 'free economy' in the US in the late 1800s, early 1900s. And that is why we had a depression, and that is why we invented the FDIC (guarantees your bank accounts to $100,000), the SEC (securities and exchange comission, which prevents stock fraud, stock scams, etc), and other banking regulations and corporate and stock-market regulations to make sure that the depression doesnt happen again.
Is it not possible to have this in Vendetta? The stable economies of the main worlds, Itan, Sol II, Dau, and their satellites, they can remain with the current stable economies, like anchors almost. They have stable prices for items, with price caps, free busses for newbies, no docking fees, decent trade missions, relatively decent pay for asteroid mining, and other features that make the players in these systems live in a relatively stable world, where they wont get crushed by super monoopolies or massive inflation.
But perhaps some of the pirate systems, or the systems that will be created with the 'exploration' addon, can experiment with a more 'free economy' with actual supply and demand? With more relaxed rules about price caps, and so forth?
What do you think?
Your proposal has merit.
Would you care to elaborate in more depth exactly how this would work, and how the various systems would interact?
Would you care to elaborate in more depth exactly how this would work, and how the various systems would interact?
simulation of a dynamic economy... Only in a research lab but not in VO.
1. You have to develop the apropriate algorythms for an dynamic economy and thats really deep deep in the field of economic math. Believe me.
2. If and only IF you succeed implementing a dynamic economy most players wont be able anymore to "play" within. It is difficult enough in real world economy to do business with only a 3 point deal (you, seller, buyer). Trading in a dynamic simulated system like VO would be more complex and most of all players (including me) dont want to work but to play.
My suggestion:
1. Divert the VO economy as suggested above (UIT, Serco, Itani etc).
2. NOT Dynamic but static. The Devs can fine tune a static system or even interact if needed (in case of special galactic developments).
ciph
1. You have to develop the apropriate algorythms for an dynamic economy and thats really deep deep in the field of economic math. Believe me.
2. If and only IF you succeed implementing a dynamic economy most players wont be able anymore to "play" within. It is difficult enough in real world economy to do business with only a 3 point deal (you, seller, buyer). Trading in a dynamic simulated system like VO would be more complex and most of all players (including me) dont want to work but to play.
My suggestion:
1. Divert the VO economy as suggested above (UIT, Serco, Itani etc).
2. NOT Dynamic but static. The Devs can fine tune a static system or even interact if needed (in case of special galactic developments).
ciph
Ciph, I'm not talking about an emulated economic system; that, as you said, is very deep into economic theory that nobody has any real understanding of even in the real world.
What I'm talking about is a rules-based, reactive economic system that would be intrinsically dynamic based on the ramafications of those rules.
Simple rulesets can lead to mind-bogglingly complex behavior, as evidenced by Game of Life experiments and other related phenomenae.
What I'm talking about is a rules-based, reactive economic system that would be intrinsically dynamic based on the ramafications of those rules.
Simple rulesets can lead to mind-bogglingly complex behavior, as evidenced by Game of Life experiments and other related phenomenae.
My idea was just to 'firewall' off the 'free market section' of the galaxy from the 'stable section' of the galaxy. Just have a massive border between the two, and border guard stations, where there are massive import tarrifs, quotas, and restrictions, to protect the 'stable space' economy.
Of course I intend the 'free market section' to be one contiguous geographic area, and the 'stable section' to be another contiguous geographic area. The stable section would be most of the existing galaxy. The free market section could start in some of pirate space, and also include some of the new systems discovered during 'exploration'.
A problem with this is that the free market section might become too attractive, leading everyone to abandon the stable section of the galaxy... but maybe the game gods could introduce artificial 'bust' cycles to the free market section... or they could adopt some 'free market section' policies into the stable section.
Of course I intend the 'free market section' to be one contiguous geographic area, and the 'stable section' to be another contiguous geographic area. The stable section would be most of the existing galaxy. The free market section could start in some of pirate space, and also include some of the new systems discovered during 'exploration'.
A problem with this is that the free market section might become too attractive, leading everyone to abandon the stable section of the galaxy... but maybe the game gods could introduce artificial 'bust' cycles to the free market section... or they could adopt some 'free market section' policies into the stable section.
Soltis, I agree completely.
"My suggestion:
1. Divert the VO economy as suggested above (UIT, Serco, Itani etc).
2. NOT Dynamic but static. The Devs can fine tune a static system or even interact if needed (in case of special galactic developments)."
and
"What I'm talking about is a rules-based, reactive economic system that would be intrinsically dynamic based on the ramafications of those rules." [quote Soltis]
The static part are the rules, that can be ajusted i.e. to transferred mass of goods, numbers of players trading goods or even to a long term game-story.
"My suggestion:
1. Divert the VO economy as suggested above (UIT, Serco, Itani etc).
2. NOT Dynamic but static. The Devs can fine tune a static system or even interact if needed (in case of special galactic developments)."
and
"What I'm talking about is a rules-based, reactive economic system that would be intrinsically dynamic based on the ramafications of those rules." [quote Soltis]
The static part are the rules, that can be ajusted i.e. to transferred mass of goods, numbers of players trading goods or even to a long term game-story.
The rules need to stay the same, at least for the most part, but the values derived(item availability, prices, etc) need to react to player activity.