One of the real problems is that Disco is not what we would call "Closed Economy" in the sense that credits do not circulate in the system. Instead the credits themselves are generated by player activity, while the only tradeoff is ingame time and even that is not always true- e.g. forum sig making. Sadly, the only way said money is removed from the system to avoid stagnation is either lost in charwipes, deleted in sanctions or by selling ships to vendors.
Though I suppose the question is whether or not it is even possible or, even more importantly, worth having a closed economy in Disco.
--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------
(11-26-2014, 04:50 PM)sindroms Wrote: Though I suppose the question is whether or not it is even possible or, even more importantly, worth having a closed economy in Disco.
I really don't see how an open economy would work on this game. But I do agree that we need a new money sink. Perhaps raising cost the PoB supplies, however that really wouldn't solve the current credit glut.
If there was a way to limit cashflow, as Vogel suggested, we'd see more focused activity.
People would grind on LN corp transports to get their LN dreads and so on and so forth.
Perhaps a flat tax on all transactions between different ID's and assign different values to encourage different behaviour? I.E. a tax of 10 percent from Liberty corps -> Liberty Navy, but a 50 percent tax on all transactions between Rheinland Corps and Liberty Navy and so on and so forth?
--------------
PSA: If you have been having stutter/FPS lag on Disco where it does not run as smoothly as other games, please look at the fix here: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...pid2306502
----------
(11-25-2014, 02:19 PM)Alley Wrote: I'm adding lockboxes in the next patch. 90% chance to get 1$ and 10% chance you get 1 discocoin. You need 100 discocoins to get one of the new ships. Each lockbox cost 10$.
Joke aside, we could add other currencies, but it would be all handled through flhook. Question being: do we need it?
no we dont >.>
i think the only problem some vets have is that they see a noob with a cap and see them act all lolzy and then rage quit over it.
Funny enough.... most of these vets had in their past acted the same way.
I owned a LABC once... i went to manhatten and parked it right on top of a station's pointy antena thing facing it downwards so it was vertical.....
and then went AFK for a while or chilled in RP wondering if anyone would notice
(11-26-2014, 04:41 PM)Thunderer Wrote: improve your ethics
... I'm not entirely sure how I'm supposed to take this. In the end it's moot to say I need to "advertise" because at the end of the day I'm a "nobody" around here, so my voice means absolutely nothing to the majority in the first place. But improve my ethics? My posting bluntly and without reservation after years of being mocked for having new ideas to help save this place is a character flaw?
Quote:And please change that signature. It makes you look like one of those "I just want to see the world burn" blokes, combined with your ways of communication.
No, see, by rights I should like to see this place burn down after how I've seen people treated because of it, but here I am, still offering suggestions for improvement. I'll change that signature after I no longer get responses like yours, where some subjective notion of my tone is held to be more important than literally everything else I've said, including why I've said it. There were people who used excuses like that to shut me down back when I was the most obsequious doormat this side of the western hemisphere. If you think I'm going to willingly return to that lowly behavior only to get identical responses, think again.
How about you start with explaining where and how my propositions are "more sound than not," rather than passing over that without further ado and slandering me personally?
For instance:
- You argue that trading should be "shorter," specifically to allow "everyone online to fly a warship of some kind." If you wanted that, then why not log into a PVP server where you can /respawn directly into a battleship in all of 5 seconds? Why should there be trading at all if your sole objective is to translate it into warships? And after all of the possible warships are bought, what then? Are you not left precisely where we are right now?
- You argue that there is "nothing to explore." You point out that there are numerous tools removing the mystique and secrecy of some things, and I can give you some credit for that, but do consider the following:
A) Discovery has been adding systems like mad to the point where we have more systems than we have players online. This is a common complaint and makes the very notion of expansion for the sake of new discoveries a questionable goal even before FL Companion and the Wiki step in.
B) Space is huge. Even after pulling up a wiki page telling you what grid holds a pirate base in the middle of a nebula, you do realize that unless you're within a reduced scanner range, you'll never see it? The vast majority of players, new ones especially, never even touched the original single-player campaign. How can you expect them to find bases like the Rogue station in the Badlands? If they never know such places exist, what rewarding experience is actually provided? Flying through dead space in search patterns for literally hours on end sounds a lot less fun than even silently power-trading at that rate. And please don't say "because the mod is named Discovery," because that would be absurdly lame.
Personally I find the current mechanic of having a standard, civilian-ish starting system map very useful, give or take some locations that are questionable additions. It sets the stage in a believable way, revealing just enough to get people started but not enough to let a fresh Starflea sprint to the nearest jumphole and end up in the Omicrons.
Okay? Now your turn.
Quote:If there was a way to limit cashflow... People would grind on LN corp transports to get their LN dreads and so on and so forth... a flat tax on all transactions between different ID's and assign different values to encourage different behaviour?
Thanks for taking note of what I said, but let me put on the "advertiser hat" for a second and point out how this goes down:
-> "Limit cashflow? OMG STUPID!!!1"
It's not just about limiting cash flow, but changing the value of cash flows. And by "value" I don't mean numbers, but the theoretical value (enjoyment, feeling of reward, feeling of progress, accomplishment, etc.) that comes with it. Creating limitations without balancing rewards (such as some kind of faction-oriented structure that creates a rudimentary economy and a reason to continually generate money), will only draw ire.
Currently there is a "rat race" where you take any money from any location, shove it into a totally separate character, and buy XYZ ships and weapons until you run out of ships and weapons. Said ships and weapons are ultimately balanced against each other with very minor differences, so they're not functionally different, and eventually you run out of them anyway. This is the "finish line," and it devalues everything leading up to it because then people stop playing: What else is there to accomplish? Folks squeeze as much as they can from small group roleplaying and the like, but that crutch was worn apart years ago. So now what?
Changing how and where you can get money is only one part of the puzzle. Again I refer to that post I made: How can you control it in such a way that makes sense? How can you balance factions, independents, and truly independent freelance pilots? How can you prevent abuse using the currently open-ended /draw and /sendcash systems that would allow an enemy to abuse your own protection? And why does money matter at all if there's a finish line for the rat race?
Automating the system based on IDs, IFFs and even faction tags is a start. But then you'll run into issues like "how much tax is too much?" Or "should we allow them to exchange money to enemies at all?" Not to mention, "If money doesn't matter, does either its sources or destinations matter?" At some point I might draft a full document outlining my specific suggestions on this one, but it's looking to be an unwise use of time. It's a lot simpler to just point out how things dead-end, because the "value" is totally pent up in having a huge stable of ships that ultimately collect dust.
Quote:I really don't see how an open economy would work on this game. But I do agree that we need a new money sink. Perhaps raising cost the PoB supplies, however that really wouldn't solve the current credit glut.
Now I ask the humble viewer to take this example to heart. And no offense, Captain_Nemo, but do look at what you're saying here:
-> Reject the idea of some money recycling offhand and entirely.
Why? No explanation given. And, what's more, no direct retort to theories proposed, not only right here but in every other topic where it has been brought up. Why?
-> Create a new money sink, like increasing costs of (already bloated) POB upkeep.
Is this not the same exact thing that's been going on for years? Is that a solution? No, no it's not: It's just the status quo all over again. So why is it proposed as something different?
Look. I get it. People are afraid of changes. There are entrenched interests here that are used to the way things are and ultimately don't want a single, fundamental thing adjusted. And while the majority says absolutely nothing about ideas to the contrary, the most vocal ones openly scoff and attack myself and others for proposing them.
And that's why, for the hundredth time, I'm going back to basics:
- Whose voices should be listened to when it comes to development? And Why? Just who exactly is this game for, and how does it benefit them? Without answers to these questions, there is no way to purposefully design anything at all, everything being rendered a fluke if it's ever successful.
- What is the objective of the game's design? Because if it's to remain exactly as it is, then I will bow out and let it run the predictable course that it is currently taking. And that's a matter of fact: Even in the best case scenario, where Discovery was absolutely brilliant from day one, it's gotten stale, and the ride is slowing down. But if the objective is to keep going, to keep innovating, to keep the game alive even in the face of competition like Star Citizen, then why is the status quo being adhered to so rigidly?
- And lastly, What excuse is there to not test different ideas? Especially in a separate (but public) server where the original server data is untouched and just waiting to be picked back up?
I dare anybody to answer that last one without insulting my intelligence.
Posts: 3,110
Threads: 96
Joined: May 2012
Staff roles: Balance Dev
(11-27-2014, 04:09 AM)Vogel Wrote: - And lastly, What excuse is there to not test different ideas? Especially in a separate (but public) server where the original server data is untouched and just waiting to be picked back up?
I dare anybody to answer that last one without insulting my intelligence.
Time restraints. Testing numerous ideas takes a great deal of time, which unfortunately the development team tends to be very short on.
I'll throw one back at you for entertainment purposes: what excuse is there for someone like you to randomly distribute your ideas across these forums, rather than make them reality (and then test them on a different, public server to test their feasibility)?
That is not to say that I disagree with what I think (I only really skimmed the posts in this thread) your sentiment is, namely that we need some way to actually make credits meaningful and thus provide incentive to keep acquiring them even as an 'ancient' veteran.