Jump to content

Lord_Void

Alpha Team Vanguard
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1439

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Lord_Void

    (Discontinued)

    in Idea Box

    Posted

    1 hour ago, DrKrieger said:

    I was pretty lucky and came into some money during the crowdfunding stage but id always planned to go gold. Its like people have said before, you just need to make a few changes in your spending habits for a short while. Even the most basic of savings will be enough.

     

    i don't see why no PVP in the pr-alpha is a problem either. the game seems to be more than just a PVP game, id go as far as to say its not the main focus of the game so not having PVP right away isn't that surprising too me

    Exactly. Pre-alpha will serve more as a test of the underlying technology.

    Will ALPHA (not pre) servers be up 24/7?

    in General Discussions

    Posted

    Yeah this is just for pre-alpha with the one day a week thing. They may open it up a few more times during the week depending on how things go during the testing, but until alpha comes out they will probably just be doing one - two days a week. Even in Alpha, the servers will probably not be on all the time. I predict they will be on a lot more during alpha (let's say something like 3-4 days a week, and probably in loner stretches of 24-48 hours) but that is really just a guess. They have to rent their servers for the time being, so any time they have them on it is costing them money (and not just in power and upkeep). This means that unless they are gaining from having it on, they want to keep them off as much as possible. Once we get to Beta we will probably start seeing them do a few weeks on at a time. 

    The Economy

    in The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly

    Posted

    2 hours ago, NanoDot said:

    If the economy "ceases to function", it's not because the markets are broken, it's because the game's economic model is fundamentally borked.

    The game's economic model is always in flux due to updates, unforeseen interactions between systems, or even just things that seemed to work in the short term may fail. Even in the real world, when the economy breaks down it doesn't mean that economics itself doesn't work, it means that things need to be adjusted. Likewise in the game things need to be adjusted over time to make sure they stay on the right track.

     

    2 hours ago, NanoDot said:

    My assertion is correct, CCP does not constantly interfere in player markets by seeding fake buy and sell orders. Those articles confirm that.

    Ahh but they do! There are quite a few NPC merchants throughout the game that buy or sell all sorts of things from trade goods to blueprints to ships/other items. There may not be buy and sell orders for every item, but conversion rates allow them to set indirect price floors and ceilings for many items. Likewise with insurance rates, that may not seem like a "buy order" but it sort of is. If the difference between the premium and payout is higher than the market price of the ship, people will "sell" the ships to the game by insuring it and then exploding it. This in turn carries over to the materials that make the ships and from there onto the other things that can be produced from those materials. Don't make the mistake of thinking that because it isn't a plainly visible system that it doesn't exist. 

     

    2 hours ago, NanoDot said:

    CCP interferes in game play only when there is a "broken" mechanic, which is sometimes an unfortunate side-effect of introducing new game features. But notice how they interfere: they change resource distributions, they adjust recipes, they change tax rates, etc. They DON"T simply try to cap market prices, they correct the imbalances that caused the market bubble. Fix the game and the market will fix itself. They adjust the tools and features, which is the correct way of addressing the problem. THAT's why EVE's economy works.

    Gameplay and the economy are inherently linked. Manipulating one IS manipulating the other. And yes, they don't just declare price controls, they influence it in subtle and indirect ways. NQ won't have these options since they don't have the same tools available to CCP. Refer to my original statement: "It's going to be very interesting trying to balance the economy, especially when NQ have given themselves very few means to influence things once the game goes live." You are saying the same thing I am

    The Economy

    in The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly

    Posted

    7 hours ago, NanoDot said:

    If one giant alliance starts crushing all opposition and dominating the game, should NQ step in and limit their power, so that things don't get too "destabilized" ?

    That is not a market destabilization. That is just normal gameplay. You are thinking too small. No, a market destabilization is when the entire currency system becomes worthless, it's when there is a shortage of goods so severe that no one can build any new ships, it's when the entire economy shuts down and ceases to function. To put it in real world terms, it's when you are walking down the street with a wheelbarrow full of cash so that you can buy a loaf of bread and some one mugs you, dumps the cash and steals the wheelbarrow. Those are the things the devs need to prevent.

     

    7 hours ago, NanoDot said:

    Yet EVE's economy has never failed or ceased to function. Quite the opposite, in fact, it has thrived. CCP does not constantly interfere in the markets to "regulate" prices by seeding fake buy and sell orders.

    Oh? EVE has never failed? CCP has never interfered? That's funny. You should tell that joke to the team of economists that oversee and regulate EVE's market:

    https://www.fastcompany.com/3024392/meet-the-alan-greenspan-of-virtual-currency-in-eve-online

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-videogames-economist-life/virtual-world-hires-real-economist-idUSN0925619220070816

    The reason EVE has "never failed" is because when the economy starts to form a bubble or go into hyper-inflation or otherwise begin to destabilize, CCP has the forethought to quietly intervene, using multiple tools for manipulation including changing resource distribution, item recipes, subtly seeding the market, adjusting currency sinks and faucets like insurance rates, market taxes and industry fees, or offering deals on PLEX in order to increase supply.

    7 hours ago, NanoDot said:

    Throughout EVE's history, there have been many instances of one or other resource spiking in price. Whenever that happens, the player base inevitably steps up to increase supply until the price spike smooths out again.

    Yes there have, but when it goes past a certain point CCP steps in and helps to deflate or raise the prices. That is, as you say, "part of the EVE meta".

     

    If we want this game to succeed, NQ has to be able to adjust the market enough to keep it from going into the extreme failure zones. Should there be fluctuations and allow for minor 'crisies'? Sure, that's what makes it fun. But if things get too far out of hand people will leave in droves. 

    The Economy

    in The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly

    Posted

    In my view, my idea would allow for less interference because the system would be essentially self regulating.

     

    1 hour ago, NanoDot said:

    It's surprising how many people will vigorously defend FFA-PVP in combat, but will quite happily allow market-PVP to be regulated by the devs, lol

    Priorities, I guess...

     

    That's not aimed at you specifically, it's a view that's expressed by many in this thread and in your recycling thread too.

    I see your point, but I think the key thing is balance. Combat is not totally free for all since there are a number of systems that affect it like safe zones, RDMS tags, shield generators (with possible timers), and territory controls. Sure none of that will let you entirely escape combat but it will allow you to properly manage your risk when used properly. When people want to add more restrictions on that I think they are pushing it more into the realm of stifling content. On the flip side when people want to lift a bunch of restrictions on combat I think it pushes it more in the direction of chaos. There needs to be balance between order and chaos and I think the combat mechanics they have in mind are currently pretty well balanced, so I am against major pushes in either direction. 

     

    The economy on the other hand is out of balance as they currently envision it (in my opinion). It tends to far towards chaos. As fun as perfect freedom sounds it will result in financial crashes, large scale market failures (like monopolies) or other adverse affects. This might be fun for a few people but for most people it would be annoying/unbearable. Specifically, they need to be able to manage the monetary policy of the game to prevent rampant inflation/deflation. They also need to be able to ensure their is ample circulation of resources so that the game doesn't seize up from the lack of some rare material. How they currently plan to control this, I don't know and that is why I'm worried. The economic model currently envisioned does not provide adequate means for people to control their risk.

     

    No one wants NQ tightly regulating the market and controlling the prices, but they need to be able to oversee things as a whole and make sure the system doesn't get destabilized. They need to prevent the system from swinging to far to the extreme. You may think having the entire economy fail and cease to function sounds fun, but it's not. 

    The Economy

    in The Gameplay Mechanics Assembly

    Posted

    35 minutes ago, NanoDot said:

    That is my concern too, specially seeing as that "influence" will consist of competing with players in the resource market.

     

    AFAIK, NQ will generate "fake" resource buy orders for resources. Those buy orders will effectively set the floor price for resources. They will also remove resources from the game, in exchange for Quanta.

     

    So NQ will be directly meddling in the "player-driven economy", because if you want to place a resource buy order, you'll have to beat NQ's price, regardless of supply and demand.

    Yeah, I mean some meddling is fine in order to avoid huge market crashes or basic goods getting super expensive. I had what I thought was a good idea on how to handle this a little while back: 

     

×
×
  • Create New...