Taziar

So new graphics and such is nice.  But let me cut to the point.  Market clutter solution was no solution.  It was a delaying tactic at best.   Why not compact and place any ship left there for longer than 90 days and shove it in their market inventory so they can come and get it.  
 
This won't effect active players, but dead accounts will clean up the trash.  
 
 

"The right approach to set such a price would be to evaluate how much time it takes to recoup your investment by selling the products that the schematics allow to produce. It should be a few months so that the investment is a real commitment and it makes sense to plan for it."
 
Yea, no.  Grind for money to buy a schematic then use that schematic for MONTHS to break even?  Nope.  Not my idea of fun.  I want to build and craft and enjoy all the systems implemented in the game. 
 
Further, schematics do not protect the economy they just delay the inevitable.  They are only an initial cost, not an incremental expense which means the market will eventually be flooded with people owning them as a subset of players grind their way to wealth.  The reality is, no video game is going to have an actual functioning economy.  Partly because it is too complex and requires numerous motivators only the real world provides for most people, but mostly because functioning economies SUCK.  Why?  Because for every industrial giant like Rockefeller, you have 100,000 low-level peons swinging a pickaxe.  People expect to be special in video games.  The CEO, not the janitor.  You cannot have an economy filled with CEOs, but you cannot have an enjoyable game when most people are stuck playing janitors (or in this case, miners).  This game is doomed to a VERY niche audience.
 
(If you really want to keep parts from flooding the market you would be better off with a licensing system which incurs a reoccurring cost.  Still not what I want in a game, however.)

"The right approach to set such a price would be to evaluate how much time it takes to recoup your investment by selling the products that the schematics allow to produce. It should be a few months so that the investment is a real commitment and it makes sense to plan for it."
 
Yea, no.  Grind for money to buy a schematic then use that schematic for MONTHS to break even?  Nope.  Not my idea of fun.  I want to build and craft and enjoy all the systems implemented in the game. 
 
Further, schematics do not protect the economy they just delay the inevitable.  They are only an initial cost, not an incremental expense which means the market will eventually be flooded with people owning them as a subset of players grind their way to wealth.  The reality is, no video game is going to have an actual functioning economy.  Partly because it is too complex and requires numerous motivators only the real world provides for most people, but mostly because functioning economies SUCK.  Why?  Because for every industrial giant like Rockefeller, you have 100,000 low-level peons swinging a pickaxe.  People expect to be special in video games.  The CEO, not the janitor.  You cannot have an economy filled with CEOs, but you cannot have an enjoyable game when most people are stuck playing janitors (or in this case, miners).  This game is doomed to a VERY niche audience.
 
(If you really want to keep parts from flooding the market you would be better off with a licensing system which incurs a reoccurring cost.  Still not what I want in a game, however.)

"The right approach to set such a price would be to evaluate how much time it takes to recoup your investment by selling the products that the schematics allow to produce. It should be a few months so that the investment is a real commitment and it makes sense to plan for it."
 
Yea, no.  Grind for money to buy a schematic then use that schematic for MONTHS to break even?  Nope.  Not my idea of fun.  I want to build and craft and enjoy all the systems implemented in the game. 
 
Further, schematics do not protect the economy they just delay the inevitable.  They are only an initial cost, not an incremental expense which means the market will eventually be flooded with people owning them as a subset of players grind their way to wealth.  The reality is, no video game is going to have an actual functioning economy.  Partly because it is too complex and requires numerous motivators only the real world provides for most people, but mostly because functioning economies SUCK.  Why?  Because for every industrial giant like Rockefeller, you have 100,000 low-level peons swinging a pickaxe.  People expect to be special in video games.  The CEO, not the janitor.  You cannot have an economy filled with CEOs, but you cannot have an enjoyable game when most people are stuck playing janitors (or in this case, miners).  This game is doomed to a VERY niche audience.
 
(If you really want to keep parts from flooding the market you would be better off with a licensing system which incurs a reoccurring cost.  Still not what I want in a game, however.)

"The right approach to set such a price would be to evaluate how much time it takes to recoup your investment by selling the products that the schematics allow to produce. It should be a few months so that the investment is a real commitment and it makes sense to plan for it."
 
Yea, no.  Grind for money to buy a schematic then use that schematic for MONTHS to break even?  Nope.  Not my idea of fun.  I want to build and craft and enjoy all the systems implemented in the game. 
 
Further, schematics do not protect the economy they just delay the inevitable.  They are only an initial cost, not an incremental expense which means the market will eventually be flooded with people owning them as a subset of players grind their way to wealth.  The reality is, no video game is going to have an actual functioning economy.  Partly because it is too complex and requires numerous motivators only the real world provides for most people, but mostly because functioning economies SUCK.  Why?  Because for every industrial giant like Rockefeller, you have 100,000 low-level peons swinging a pickaxe.  People expect to be special in video games.  The CEO, not the janitor.  You cannot have an economy filled with CEOs, but you cannot have an enjoyable game when most people are stuck playing janitors (or in this case, miners).  This game is doomed to a VERY niche audience.
 
(If you really want to keep parts from flooding the market you would be better off with a licensing system which incurs a reoccurring cost.  Still not what I want in a game, however.)

"The right approach to set such a price would be to evaluate how much time it takes to recoup your investment by selling the products that the schematics allow to produce. It should be a few months so that the investment is a real commitment and it makes sense to plan for it."
 
Yea, no.  Grind for money to buy a schematic then use that schematic for MONTHS to break even?  Nope.  Not my idea of fun.  I want to build and craft and enjoy all the systems implemented in the game. 
 
Further, schematics do not protect the economy they just delay the inevitable.  They are only an initial cost, not an incremental expense which means the market will eventually be flooded with people owning them as a subset of players grind their way to wealth.  The reality is, no video game is going to have an actual functioning economy.  Partly because it is too complex and requires numerous motivators only the real world provides for most people, but mostly because functioning economies SUCK.  Why?  Because for every industrial giant like Rockefeller, you have 100,000 low-level peons swinging a pickaxe.  People expect to be special in video games.  The CEO, not the janitor.  You cannot have an economy filled with CEOs, but you cannot have an enjoyable game when most people are stuck playing janitors (or in this case, miners).  This game is doomed to a VERY niche audience.
 
(If you really want to keep parts from flooding the market you would be better off with a licensing system which incurs a reoccurring cost.  Still not what I want in a game, however.)