Jump to content

DU Demeter Economics


Xennial

Recommended Posts

Basic economics of the tiles at bot ore prices means tile owners only effectively keep 30-60% of the ore mined assuming the rest is used to pay the tax (depending on talents optimal setup etc). At least at T1. This will dramatically reduce the general ore used most likely here is why:

 

NQ either needs to reduce the tax or make it progressive based on ore level found in tile. The latter makes more sense, and provides some value in owning 'cheaper' land. Otherwise most won't find the hassle of mining their tiles worthwhile. Some would say this is fine they can buy their ore from the market. Sure, except the only other money generation is now missions especially for newer players, a gameplay loop that few enjoy.

 

Net-net I think this updates apparent goal to cause deflation will work, just not in the intended way. It will exacerbate the wealth gap as the flat tax favors the already established player whom has the means to find and setup on profitable clusters using alt's or whatnot to maximize production on them. These established players also have the means to more effectively get asteroid resources and setup on far flung planets. This will run off newer/casual players who feel chained down in their game experience thus reducing demand. That will cause oversupply on the market thus pushing prices down, which will eventually disincentives established player from producing or playing.  

 

Some would say this is a normal eventuality and to some degree they would be correct even if for example we wiped. However, before this update any newb could go mine up whatever T1 ore they wanted even on Alioth and get on with exploring the building / industry side of the game. Those players are effectively hard locked into a power curve where they have to either #1 run missions for the AI, or #2 sacrifice a lot of the yield to paying taxes. Add to this they will likely be setting up on sub optimal hexes with the first movers having snatched most high production tiles puts them even further behind. 

 

I think a lot of the negative aspects of this update could be mitigated by adjusting the way taxes are handled. Have some baseline tax like 150k/week to clear out people who don't play thats fine.

 

Choose an option.

A: Scale tile tax rate with ore amount contained in the tile. Aim to normalize yield via value. Have a crap tile? Thats fine, it will cost a lot less to mine / run industry on. Have a great tile, thats fine too you pay a premium for the resources.

 

B: Have a system where beyond the basic tile tax of like 150k, each machine that is running on the tile takes quanta per hour running cost. This would apply to industry and miners. These would draw hourly from the tile 'wallet'. This option would actually be better a deflating excess currency and apply a higher tax to more expansive players. Apply this to system to space cores as well.

 

Either option.

Remove the charges / calibration mini-game, it was a better idea on paper, in practice it's a forced log-in annoyance to most. Your limiting the number of miners a player can run solo sure (without alts), but goal should not be strangle ore production. Ore is the only thing that enables people to play the game, if you strangle it's production rather then letting people who choose to invest the time and effort to setup a mining empire all you do is make people do less in game and eventually leave. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Xennial said:

Have some baseline tax like 150k/week to clear out people who don't play thats fine.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I still don't see the need to punish inactive players.

 

If this was a free-2-play game then sure, you need to clear out inactive players. But as long as you are paying a subscription, then you are by definition active.

So reward people for frequent logins and incentivize them to play more. But don't start punishing people for not playing "enough". That will only create animosity for the game and increase the chance of players leaving permanently and canceling the subscription.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I still don't see the need to punish inactive players.

 

If this was a free-2-play game then sure, you need to clear out inactive players. But as long as you are paying a subscription, then you are by definition active.

So reward people for frequent logins and incentivize them to play more. But don't start punishing people for not playing "enough". That will only create animosity for the game and increase the chance of players leaving permanently and canceling the subscription.

 

Only issue with no fee is then people will just buy up endless tiles they don't have to pay to maintain at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, CptLoRes said:

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I still don't see the need to punish inactive players.

 

If this was a free-2-play game then sure, you need to clear out inactive players. But as long as you are paying a subscription, then you are by definition active.

So reward people for frequent logins and incentivize them to play more. But don't start punishing people for not playing "enough". That will only create animosity for the game and increase the chance of players leaving permanently and canceling the subscription.

The problem with that is, that the majority of players and alts isnt paying subscription right now, so they can never log in again and still be viewed as active by your definition.

 

However, i fundally disagree with all suggested "improvements" in this topic. Taxing industry for running or cores itself? A definite no-go, it would basically be this games excecution. Introduce a non-repairable industry wear with a system to automatically replace disabled units if you want to introduce a continous expenditour for crafters. That would at least give more possibilities in DUs economy. Taxes are nearly always a bad and lazy design choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, vylqun said:

The problem with that is, that the majority of players and alts isnt paying subscription right now, so they can never log in again and still be viewed as active by your definition.

That problem is solved when the game is officially released, and backers will have to start burning through DAC's to stay active. I.e it was already a solved problem before tax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could just add a power supply mechanism (which has been suggested before add nauseum). It's weird how everything just magically works.

Not only would this add to the realism, and limit how much you can support before you add more generating capacity, you could tie in the reactor fuel to use some "catalyst" that is only sold by our AI overlord: As in, you can craft your own fuel, but you need this "special" add on.

 

Basic reactors could run on standard fuel, but you can only have so many. 

You want a full on power plant to support your mega factory/strip-mining operation? Pay up!

That would drain some quanta from the economy, and introduce something new for a change.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Xennial said:

Basic economics of the tiles at bot ore prices means tile owners only effectively keep 30-60% of the ore mined assuming the rest is used to pay the tax (depending on talents optimal setup etc). 

 

Assuming they do nothing else to make any income, they just log in, do miners and log out.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Xennial said:

 

Pretty sure we have been calling for an energy system since Beta started. It would be vital to ship balance , industry balance, etc etc etc

But would also require some work to make. And sadly that is a pattern you will see often, where NQ has a tendency to select sub optimal solutions because of the fact that they require the least amount of work. And the current tax system and mining bots are a prime example of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realise that balance is a thing people to limit the games mechanics to try and make things fair / a level playing field for all people who play weather they are long term, casual or new players. However, I am not fond of introducing costs to everything, especially since I enjoy making ships and trying the mechanics out.

 

I especially like to discover how to do things instead of read a ready made guide and simply do it the way it is done. So having some freedoms I think is better.

 

I also like the idea that large groups of people can make mega projects happen for PVP or whim or fun (or combination).

 

I guess my point is maybe these or any costs should be less for solo players, that is to mean every players person tiles (probably just HQ tiles and maybe a few bonus tiles but more expensive that HQ tiles). This would simply allow the game to keep its Space Engineer aspect, where you can go and get resources and make your personal ship(s) for the play style you enjoy. While the Corp / PVP side would be balanced by the costs of maintaining much larger industry and armada sized fleets.

 

I am sure NQ already know what they are going to do anyway but I thought I would say my piece so it has the possibility of being considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...