recent posts recent posts - RSS

4 hours ago
Topic:
Rough Idea About Competition And Challanges

Surgicus
Surgicus
Posts: 3
Let me develop this further and turn it a bit on its head: the Sol system could radically be trapped in a loop (or at least your HQ being forced on a groundhog's based turns amount), with accelerated time or whatever, then you get a subscription and a code to use a wormhole or portal to escape and move your HQ to a different system or sector where time evolves continuously and where you may expand your aspirations and strategies, until your subscription time runs out and get brought back to Sol.(perhaps with the HQ level and credits set before you subscribed) .. .. yeah now that is even a better idea, no ? It would allow new players to learn and enjoy the game quicker, and if they wish to stay they could move away where there is no resetting, no count down happening, with their HQ at its set level (say minimum level 4-5) and enough accumulated credits if they played well.
edited by Surgicus on 9/18/2018
8 hours ago
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System

LunaMoth
LunaMoth
Posts: 45
Skratti wrote:
Can you elaborate how the exchange can be setup in the interface? Should I click on a goods asset (for example basic metal), and then choose "Trade 1:1 for basic rare woods"? Everyone then could accept this? What if I want to select multiple things that I would accept in exchange?
I think it would be much easier if my teammate transferres his stuff down on the same spot and marks it as "for sale" (perhaps "for everyone" or "my guild"), and then just buys my stuff. That way, I can choose what kind of resource and in what amount I want to buy goods myself.
There is a possible downside to this that I didn't realize until now: this new feature would create a very simple way of trading goods, and might make the contract trading obsolet. And it's not always good to add features to a game that simplify the game.

It can be as simple as a contract except you don't use credits. It can be as complicated as a structure with trade ratios set by a person.
13 hours ago
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System

Skratti
Skratti
Posts: 20
Can you elaborate how the exchange can be setup in the interface? Should I click on a goods asset (for example basic metal), and then choose "Trade 1:1 for basic rare woods"? Everyone then could accept this? What if I want to select multiple things that I would accept in exchange?
I think it would be much easier if my teammate transferres his stuff down on the same spot and marks it as "for sale" (perhaps "for everyone" or "my guild"), and then just buys my stuff. That way, I can choose what kind of resource and in what amount I want to buy goods myself.
There is a possible downside to this that I didn't realize until now: this new feature would create a very simple way of trading goods, and might make the contract trading obsolet. And it's not always good to add features to a game that simplify the game.
19 hours ago
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System

LunaMoth
LunaMoth
Posts: 45
Harkon wrote:
Selling products for another product is clumsy, unpractical and people would use it very rarely so its pointless to implement something like that. Chance that someone would need your product for another specific product with so many goods in the game is very small aka nonexistent.


Well that's your opinion. I can see it being very useful by utilizing research points. Guild members can focus on specific resources or components and trade with each other more effectively than the current system. With the resources they obtain at cheaper production cost, they can make components and products for cheaper, or they can afford to make more of it. All this from something as simple as having the opportunity to trade a good for a good.

And I don't mean 1 good for 1 good. I just mean the option to trade a good for a good, whether 20 water for 40 basic chemicals, 10000 basic materials for 10000 basic polymer, 500 exotic metals for 500 advanced electronics, or whatever.
edited by LunaMoth on 9/17/2018
23 hours ago
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System

Harkon
Harkon
Posts: 4
Selling products for another product is clumsy, unpractical and people would use it very rarely so its pointless to implement something like that. Chance that someone would need your product for another specific product with so many goods in the game is very small aka nonexistent.
1 days ago
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System

LunaMoth
LunaMoth
Posts: 45
Wreith42 wrote:
you don't have to use credits for trades now.
setting the price to 0 works fine.

If you're talking about a separate contract system where the contract creator selects both a commodity to get rid of and a commodity to receive in exchange, I doubt that will happen any time soon.
The in-place selling Dr. Dread is talking about will essentially just get rid of the shipping requirement that all contracts have now.

Setting the price to zero is still using credits and requires two separate contracts.
1 days ago
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System

Wreith42
Wreith42
Posts: 55
you don't have to use credits for trades now.
setting the price to 0 works fine.

If you're talking about a separate contract system where the contract creator selects both a commodity to get rid of and a commodity to receive in exchange, I doubt that will happen any time soon.
The in-place selling Dr. Dread is talking about will essentially just get rid of the shipping requirement that all contracts have now.
1 days ago
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System

LunaMoth
LunaMoth
Posts: 45
Doctor Dread wrote:
One of the "What should we work on next" poll options is to make it so you can simply go to a stack of product and declare it for sale with a price and then anyone can click on it to buy it. No transports needed. The contracts will be there for formal deliveries and persistent trades. Its something I want to add soon after Guild Bank because it shouldn't be that difficult

I wanted to emphasize trading goods without credits for this feature; i.e., trading water for basic chemicals.
1 days ago
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System

Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1381
Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1381
Topic: Goods Exchange Contracts/System
One of the "What should we work on next" poll options is to make it so you can simply go to a stack of product and declare it for sale with a price and then anyone can click on it to buy it. No transports needed. The contracts will be there for formal deliveries and persistent trades. Its something I want to add soon after Guild Bank because it shouldn't be that difficult
3 days ago
Topic:
Goods Exchange Contracts/System

LunaMoth
LunaMoth
Posts: 45
I think it would be a nice addition to the game if people could trade goods instead of needing to use credits as a middleman. For example, say I produce water and want to trade it for basic chemicals. In the current setup, I need to set a contract to sell my water and then buy basic chemicals. Then both parties need to fill up their trucks/transports and dump them back down. It seems like a bit of a hassle.

It could tie into that auction house/contractless trade idea.
edited by LunaMoth on 9/14/2018
4 days ago
Topic:
Cities, markets, politics

Iyurrr
Iyurrr
Posts: 2
Fixed.
edited by Iyurrr on 9/14/2018
4 days ago
Topic:
Cities, markets, politics

DjitamOpiat
DjitamOpiat
Posts: 7
Aside from the minimal contrast of your colour choice for your message, which made it a bit hard to read, i really like the suggestions you are making.
5 days ago
Topic:
Cities, markets, politics

Iyurrr
Iyurrr
Posts: 2
I had some thoughts before, but recent fixes (city growth bug) have pushed me to write this post and to share my ideas. They're mostly touches cities and political scopes, with some ingoings to economics.

I've seen some information, where political prestige was announced. I'm greeting this idea, but I think it has to be extended a bit and tied with existing city system. What I meaned, now all this political titles have no real impact on your gameplay, just humble ability to enact some votes, to "play" politics virtually. I'm glad, that players are able to cover political side of the game by themselves (see Moon Charter debates and previous wars) but it's not enough in long-term prospects. That is also reflecting the recent fixes to city growth mechanics. DrDread pointed at there was a bug which might lead to a single-city case in the whole galaxy, disbalancing the gameplay. So, cities have to be hardly capped to 100M with a certain changes to growth mechanics. I understand that worries and have nothing against them, but there could be more elegant and flexible approach, being solving not only this issue, but adding new edges to the game. It's natural, that some regions could have their trade superhubs, they are formed considering their location, logistics and active players around. There is a good example in EVE online, the Jita System, enormous superhub, attracting thousands of players from entire galaxy. I understand, that the scales, players' number and concepts are absolutely incomparable, but there is still a reason in such hubs. They reflect real economical situation across the galaxy, contribute to goods' exchange and help new players to accumulate their capitals slightly easier before they're ready to move somewhere else.

What I want to suggest. Besides prestige and it's features, political titles might affect cities' size, growth and trade. For example, cities with elected mayors could receive additional cap bonus (i.e., +5%, +10%, +15%... etc) due to the mayor title. We can make an assumption that cities with established administration attracts more people, they're better managed then cities without any elected governors and so on. The higher title is, the bigger bonus city could receive, so in this case it's really natural to extend political system to sector scale (now it ends on system lord). In this case, such trade hubs could be a sweet and valuable point for players and entire guilds, being very profitable (spaceports, taxes, etc) and causing a lot of political tensions. At the same time, achieving such status has to require a lot of efforts - you have to obtain Sector Lord title (from 3 elected star lords, I guess, following the existing mechanics? or a bit strict requirements) which is really hard in current realities.

The second - mayors have to have an option to ban/allow buy/sell actions within their cities for different products. There are several approaches, how players develop their cities and this will significantly help them to implement their own ways - i.e. city could be free and open or with regulated economics, disallowing other player to, say, buy specific products. Probably, they have to be vote-based, to lower the power of mayor.

Imo, those features could really improve the gameplay onto next level.
I hope I was able to explain my thoughts, thanks.
edited by Iyurrr on 9/13/2018
edited by Iyurrr on 9/13/2018
edited by Iyurrr on 9/13/2018
edited by Iyurrr on 9/14/2018
5 days ago
Topic:
Rough Idea About Competition And Challanges

Surgicus
Surgicus
Posts: 3
my suggestion revolves around setting up a sector where time is distorted, with a groundhog day effect of some sort (the suggested round based, reset subject of this thread) - so where each given number of turns all is reset, meaning all structures and military assets in the area disappear, HQ's remain yet the credits would be reset to the line when moved there. The other anomaly would be that production, construction, and upgrades there happen at an accelerate pace - also already proposed above (sorry I prepared this writing over a week or two ago). So, what this place would bring is an accelerate ground for new players to learn the game in a more interesting manner, and for more experienced players to go there for a somewhat more exciting time, to look for some action. Units from all around the galaxy can be send there (through a wormhole or other portal) but it is a one way ticket, everything entering that zone can't come out anymore (HQ's can be relocated though, as these are only officially main central office buildings - but moving them around needs to be conditional, as one could swap it to the normal ticking universe to make some considerable amount of credits and then come back with a fortune and spend it on military or economically to crush the rest .. or it could be a secondary HQ like an HQ ACP that would only be working or allowed in the anomaly zone).
edited by Surgicus on 9/13/2018
5 days ago
Topic:
What is the best & comfortable business model?

LunaMoth
LunaMoth
Posts: 45
Constantly tweaking things it until it is satisfactory doesn't seem like an effective way to do things. I think focus should be placed on that other forum "What should we work on next?" We can revisit "balance" later with a more effective overhaul of the system rather than a tweak and seeing what happens. Lay down the limits (probably storage limits) and then work from there.

For example, you might have a maximum limit on total credits a guild bank can have.
Then based on that you can set a limit to the total credits an individual corporation can possibly have.
Based on that, you can set a hard limit on the amount of credits a single corporation can earn in a single turn; perhaps to limit an individual corporation's military size to some limit.
From that you can set prices for products and scale (not necessarily linearly) logistics accordingly so it becomes more and more impossible to reach that upper limit no matter what bonuses are present.
edited by LunaMoth on 9/12/2018
5 days ago
Topic:
What is the best & comfortable business model?

Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1381
If you can be profitable at 600% log pen its really on me to balance the mechanics. Back in the day the production was a lot different. Everything had the same value of 100 but the component and end product factories would be producing 25 and 50 units a turn at level 1. That made the game a different beast because when you scaled up production you were making 6000 units per turn and a whole planet might not have that much volume. Giving the different tiers different values I think causes some problems even though it solved others.. Raw mats aren't worth trading compared to end products which are 5x as valuable..

There also might be a little too much snowballing of production cost bonuses now. You get your cost reduction on the raw mats then you get it again on components and then again on the end product in addition to it already being profitable to produce mats into comps into end products with no bonus. There's also the problem of not enough players feeding enough demand

Its all difficult to balance without running real world simulation. What I might need today is a lowering of the volume across the board which would fore prices down even with a scare player base. I also think that the way demand rises and stays high for a long time before the population falls still makes for a cyclic boom bust.
6 days ago
Topic:
Bug/Inconsistency with Unit Repairs

Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1381
Doctor Dread
Doctor Dread
Administrator
Posts: 1381
Topic: Bug/Inconsistency with Unit Repairs
I haven't checked yet but I think you always get your 1% then a bonus of up to 5% more for level 10 at a appropriate base. It always costs the same. You are under repair or not but how much you repair is based on whether you are at a Shipyard or base for ships or ground units
6 days ago
Topic:
What is the best & comfortable business model?

CptCommanche
CptCommanche
Posts: 45
"I understand the maths of your proposal Boldor but let me ask this - do you think it would make the game more or less interesting?"


Well at this point, probably less interesting and would either drive people away from the game, or at the very least cause some great anger. I was just pointing out that the effect might be closer to what was intended.


Now personally I don't have an issue with it. Whats hard is that everyone has gotten accustomed to the game being played at a certain level and in a certain way. From what I understand from Dr. Dread, he has said the game was meant to go into the millions, not billions. I don't think corps were intended to have a 2.6 million military power, or be able to be profitable at over 600% log pen. But now players have a taste of it, and won't ever want to go back.

So anyway, no, probably not a helpful suggestion. I think it would have made it more interesting IF players hadn't been allowed to attain the levels they are at in the first place. We would have held different expectations and assumptions. Can't really go back from that.
6 days ago
Topic:
What is the best & comfortable business model?

1yur
1yur
Posts: 9
There are still a lot of places where demand is more than 200. The next question is volumes though.
6 days ago
Topic:
Bug/Inconsistency with Unit Repairs

LunaMoth
LunaMoth
Posts: 45
Ships appear to repair 6% with a level 10 Shipyard. So it is probably the case for the Military Base and therefore, the repairs don't stack--as it should be.




Powered by Jitbit Forum 8.3.8.0 © 2006-2013 Jitbit Software