Jump to content

Idea box - "realistic" way to disengage/eliminate need for collateral for player made hauling missions


Pelorios
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Ok, so finished products weigh less than materials, so that is one good reason why it makes sense to build in situ, which however makes hauling all the more important.

 

For example if you had a secondary territory with decent T1 concentration, you would spend less fuel hauling locally-made Frames, to your main base, than hauling the raw ore to build them at main base. Coz the equivalent ore to build them weighs a lot more than the Frames.

 

But player driven hauling market has always been hampered by collateral. 

 

Regardless of how generous you would be in rewarding a haul, if the haul involves 100 million quanta worth of product, you would need 100 mil quanta collateral from the hauler to make sure he doesn't keep it for himself, or just deny you of it regardless if he can use it (for those extra-evil inclined or even truthfully accidents do happen)

 

Now a haul that takes 15 mins and rewards even 10mil, which is a good price (just making up numbers here), always seems not as great if you have to put up 100mil to earn the 10mil. 

 

It means new players, that might have the capability but not the cash, won't be able come up through the game, using such emergent-pve/mission stuff. Coz nobody has 100mil that early on. 

 

Which means more work for game designers, to make sure newbs earn some other way, i.e pre-worked/designed missions/ content.

 

So what if there was a way to disengage collateral, so that it doesn't matter, it's not needed, while still, making it believable in how it's done? I.e. not lose from immersion.

 

Enter quantum entanglement, which is, after all, accepted science "fiction" :)

 

So the idea is, that spooky action at a distance basically instantly connects stuff that are far away. But you have to get them there to start with, both from the source.

 

Therethree: instead of hauling actual cargo, the cargo is quantum entangled. It stays as it is, and also makes a pair. 'Alice' which stays at the source, and 'Bob' which is getting hauled. We don't eliminate the need for hauling mass/volume, Alice and Bob weigh and take up the same space as the actual cargo would. 

 

Once Bob arrives at the destination, we now have our entangled pair at a distance and then apply the actual cargo to it, so that it disappears from source and appears at destination. This is done by the owner and only the owner, once Bob is delivered.

 

 Therefour: if hauler runs away or loses Bob in transit, the cargo is still safe at source. Alice doesn't get used by the owner to insta-transfer the cargo. 

 

 Therefive: Collateral becomes a matter of taste/ preference - can be associated with the cost of making Alice and Bob, but is no longer needed to insure against loss of goods. (It gets disentangled from the hauling process by using quantum entanglement :) )

 

Theresix : Game developers are happy coz they don't have to make up that much more made-up content for players to earn money.

 

Thereseven: players are happy, coz even if you lose it all, you can always get back on the saddle quickly coz u no longer need to have collateral to earn from hauls.

 

In terms of game mechanics we already have things like packages (not sure only done the two tutorial missions of hauling and they didn't have any) so there is not much tweeking needed. 

 

A 'package' becomes a quantised state. Let's not call it a 'quackage', maybe a questate, whatever. 

[ You can call it a quackage if you like, after all, a ducks call is kinda unique in the sense that it's resilient to echoes, practically gave rise to the myth that "a ducks call does not echo", so this lends to the unique pairing idea]

 

 Cargo remains at source. Owner creates the two quackages, Alice and Bob. Alice is 'tied' to cargo. Bob is 'tied' to Alice.

 

Then, once contractor is happy Bob has arrived at destination by contractee/hauler, the owner activates Alice. Alice connects with Bob and cargo connected to Alice instantly gets transferred to Bob's location, in place of Bob.

 

So in terms of storage we do need the extra stuff, albeit temporary, but we do need it.

 

 If you want to move 100 tons you need to be able to store another 200 tons, coz to start with you create Alice and Bob which are quantised states which look feel taste etc i.e. weigh and take up as much space as the offending erhmm desired to be hauled cargo.

 

Thereeight: The end of the beginning:) Go forth and prosper!

 

Disclaimer: Although this particular eyed deer is mine, all mine, my precious, if anyone wants to use it in this game or another, as is, in part, or modified, you can do so with no requirement of credit or recognition for me myself and I, therenine, this idea is herewith not mine anymore. 

 

WTCOOO

 

 

 

Edited by Pelorios
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Eric, the Pirate, gets nothing when they board and take the hauler and its cargo hold of quantum foam. There's no risk whatsoever to the consigner/consignee of loss of the items. Seems a bit cosy.

 

Might work if the hauler is constrained to remain in safespace for the mechanic to continue functioning; if you need lore, you're probably relying on some aspect of Aphelia's capabilities to maintain the connection (could even tax, for more quanta-sink). Having "collateral-not-required" haulage contracts within safespace would still serve the purpose of giving cash-poor haulers a "leg up" by letting them do their work (and having a tax might be an incentive to move out into danger-space where the shipping fees are all yours to keep).

 

There's even scope for privately/Org-owned ("end game" Tier - hideously expensive and hard-to-build) "quantum maintenance" beacons that might allow some consignees to create destinations or routes which can take advantage of the entanglement to remove both the need for collateral and the incentive for pirates to prey on ships travelling between such locations, where the owners of the beacons agree to link them (more tax/cost-imposition opportunities). Such locations in danger-space would then be (additionally) valuable, providing incentive to contest over them and defend them. It ties in with the "built by the players" tagline, too. Which we certainly need more of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't mind if this idea stays in safespace. 

1 hour ago, Kezzle said:

Having "collateral-not-required" haulage contracts within safespace would still serve the purpose of giving cash-poor haulers a "leg up" by letting them do their work

Well this is exactly what I am aiming for. A way for new or broke veteran players to earn cash. The more you earn the more you spend. Making fighting costly ends up with no fighting at all. If I can make money hauling easily, I am more prone to risk it, i.e risk losing ships. [The opposite happened in EvE. Fighting is too costly. ]

 

As you said there are generally other ways to tax or give money. 

 

But the way suggested, just frees everyone up from collateral need.  It's disengaged from hauling and becomes optional.

 

As for Eric the Pirate, indeed, I feel for him. it's not nice to eliminate the point of pirating.

 

Off the top of my head, the contractor still wants his goods delivered, so Eric can easily extort the contractor. Call him up and say if you want the  cargo delivered on time, it's now gonna cost you extra. Even without that extra, the original hauler that was supposed to deliver, will not get paid, as it's paid on delivery, so Eric can earn that as the original hauler failed. 

 

Sure, the owner/contractor could brush Eric off and say I don't care, I let Alice expire or destroy it which destroys Bob that Eric has, and I will make another one and try again.

 

But the route  has become more risky, coz Eric is around  and the owner knows that, so he will not be able to find haulers to deliver his Bob's .For a hauler, it's always worse to lose the ship than the cargo collateral or not.

 

And pirating always has organisation behind. It's the threat that makes u a formidable foe, not the action. 

 

And really it can be made that Eric can loot the ship for parts. If that is the case, it's free stuff anyway. You pirate, you win the ship, why get greedy? And since bigger cargoes require bigger ships, the bigger the contract the bigger your loot.

 

Anyway as I said, what's on offer, is a way to disassociate collateral from hauling. What you would do with it, make entangling the cargo as expensive as collateral or tax something is entirely up to the blessed provider.

 

ps: even in EvE parlance "the Veld must flow" (really ripped off Frank Herbert's Dune, but anyway) this no need for collateral does support this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's early days anyway. Hopefully DU will learn from EvEs mistakes. 

 

E.g. the ridicule of people having 10 alts to mine, which CCP frowned upon but was only too happy to receive the extra subscriptions. If you degrade ( to put it politely) the game like that, it's never going to amount to anything.

 

EvE never really grew This was partly  because of single shard limitations (at least at the time) but also because it wasn't really much of a game design in terms of gameplay but even design.

 

[ Like, regardless of the clone and capsule abstraction, it is really hard to put a scale on things in EvE. Like ok it's a bigger ship but what is the scale? Where is the cockpit, how big is it? Things like that disengage you. Not to mention getting ganked in "safe-space" and CCP hiding behind "emerging" behaviour and concord response times. Bull-shit. ]

 

Blizzards Wow broke all records and still going strong. In WoW you created an alt to try a different class, not to rule Azeroth or mine more or, be better at PvP.

 

This is not the case in DU of course, there are no classes, but it does seem that DU has the most potential than any other space mmo. 

 

 

Edited by Pelorios
Spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Kezzle said:

There's even scope for privately/Org-owned ("end game" Tier - hideously expensive and hard-to-build) "quantum maintenance" beacons that might allow some consignees to create destinations or routes which can take advantage of the entanglement to remove both the need for collateral and the incentive for pirates to prey on ships travelling between such locations, where the owners of the beacons agree to link them (more tax/cost-imposition opportunities). Such locations in danger-space would then be (additionally) valuable, providing incentive to contest over them and defend them. It ties in with the "built by the players" tagline, too. Which we certainly need more of.

This is interesting. And it makes sense. I've only been in the game less than  a month but it does seem the most expensive and difficult to make/get item is a warp beacon.

 

I have seen some YouTube videos of PvP and I appreciate the call from the developers to engage more in PvP activities. Again if it's easy to make money people will risk more. But besides that I have also noticed there is information regarding space travel lanes, or is it only on the custom Huds like ArchhHud.

 

Which makes sense. There are natural lanes which are the shortest-paths, lines, connecting planets which someone could prey upon.

 

At some stage we  might even get warp disruptors although I am not sure it's needed. Fighting is more risky and exciting near a planet coz it is a sort obstacle . How low can you afford to go in atmosphere to escape, things like that maybe.

 

But also as I have noticed that gunner seats are provided, again I would warn against forcing players to co-operate, although honestly I am eager to ride shotgun. [Was actually offered it but we never got around to it. Nice guy gave me a cool ship and helped me out experience the game, yeah got some quanta too, but didn't go too crazy, coz the point is to get some help getting there, not buy it all. So I did make the parts to make a ship, coz I wanted to know what's involved how long it takes, issues, etc. ]

 

Again this is what happened in EvE with forcing co-operation. They made it so that e.g.  you cannot have both a mining boost ship that can also mine. You cannot create a cynosual field (jump portal) and also be the one that uses it. End result: people create alts.

 

In DU, especially in a game that offers such versatility with LUA, people will find a way around it.

 

Let them work together because they want to, not because they are forced by the "rules" of the game. Working in teams is  always better. No need to force it. If they want to solo it, let them. 

DU does generally seem ok in that, but at the end of the day putting limits will always create alts. Like if you limit territories that someone can own, you get a tendency for alts. And the objective is not to win the game. The objective is to experience it, have fun doing stuff. At the end of the day, it's a game. By definition a construct to help learn something about the world (e.g. coal+iron= steel), about other people, and about yourself at a lower cost than actually doing these things in real life. If you go for game that is real, like life-replacement, you fail. There is a difference between 'real' and 'realistic'.

 

And it's such a dumb-fire reasoning, you would scratch your head how so many MMOs still don't get it: if dying is expensive people won't risk it, they won't play. Dying in a game is bad enough as it is. It's a failure. What more do you want out of a game death? Cash through subscriptions or cash for goods like how EvE swore it would never do but ended up doing?

 

 

 

 

Edited by Pelorios
Added something in the end
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The collateral could be a loan of some sort.  So you can take the mission and so long as you deliver the cargo you are fine, but if you fail the mission then you go negative (assuming you don't have 100mil) and there are restrictions on what you can do until you pay it back.

 

Would work for safe zone hauling where there aren't many reasons for not delivering.  For the PvP zone then I think this sort of thing comes under 'do not fly what you can't afford to lose'.  If the collateral is more than you have then get richer before hauling through the PvP zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen lending in an MMO before.

 

Usually the collateral is paid upfront and the fee at the end. So you would need a borrowing facility. 

 

Sure you can do it, and a player could borrow quanta and pay interest against it, but at some point a person may borrow so much that just the interest is so big that is forced to quit the character and restart. In the end it will not change much. In a game.

 

In the real world borrowing/lending is a way to facilitate growth. You can do that in other ways in a game, but sure you could add borrowing and lending in it.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...