My opinion on why the game has constantly been losing players

[Karlotta]

I can't tell what the ultimate solution would be, and I don't want to sit down and figure something out*,

*we have Karlotta for that

Yes we do. Bless me.

Funny that. I replied to that thread five months ago to tell you why that doesn't work. Pretty much killed the thread. I'd love to hear your rebuttal, but I haven't.

I'm sorry, I may have intended to reply later and then forgot about it when I moved on to other projects. I'll reply to the post there after this one.

Your graphs and the explanations given do not follow from each other because your underlying assumptions are incomplete and easy to circumvent. Your proposal just cuts content without giving anything in return.

My proposal doesn't cut any content , just a few jump hole connections while rerouting others. "In return" for the removed connection, a connection that allows for farther (and thereby faster) travel across Sirius along "highways" is given, while making two systems that are intended to be emptied for the benefit of the "highway" systems and connections.

Network routing is essentially a pricing issue, not a connectivity issue. Data packages (players, in this case) go out of their way to avoid bottlenecks, because they're pricey, and with every node (base) being agnostic in terms of being an entry or exit point for a trade route, there's no telling exactly where players will be at any given point, meaning they'll be just as randomly distributed as they are now. Some nodes having a higher connectivity than others does not translate into higher chances of encounters, just in higher changes of repetitive most optimal paths. But without any reason to linger in a location, there is never going to be the build-up of traffic that leads to encounters, as statistically everyone remains just as likely to pass by each other as before.

It seems to me you're applying a datapackage networking analogy that is based on always choosing the fastest path, where traffic in nodes are slowed down the more the node is active, and therefore active nodes are avoided. This isn't a good analogy because 1: traffic isn't really slowed down by active "data packets". The fastest path remains the fastest path here, only the risk of piracy increases with higher activity in one "node" 2: The aim here is not only faster travel. The aim is also to give less options for travel altogether, reducing the number of possible routes and thereby make certain routes more attractive, so players choose them more.

If you want to increase the chance of encounters, you actually have to concentrate node density, not edge density. Which basically translates to: put 50% of commodity points of sales in ~2% of the systems, without increasing the amount of dockable bases, and spread the other 50% among 98% of the systems. Then adjust commodities and prices to have a directional flow from low density areas ("rural production" aka mining in Freelancer) to high density areas, while labour intensive commodities (consumer goods) flow between densely populated areas only. For example: a hauler flying between New Berlin and New Tokyo should always incur an opportunity goods for selling their goods in the Sigmas, rather than being guaranteed an equal credits/second rate regardless of where they go. Ideally, doing all this, when in the most profitable areas, it should have to take a hauler several minutes of queuing behind other players and/or NPC's before they get to land, with the queuing happening in about 2% of the map where the highest profits area. That's an actual bottleneck giving pirates targets to raid, and house police targets to protect.

First of all, this is more than a trade issue. It's an issue of every kind of travel that goes from A to B.

Second, if you use a program like Freelancer companion, you'll see that profits are already balanced in the way you describe. What this alone does not do, however, is concentrate players along the same routes. You have to reduce the number of possible routes to do that. What longer profitable routes also do not do (rather the opposite), is increase the chance of encounters. Simply imagine 5 traders going back and forth a short route vs a longer one. They'll meet each other (or a pirate sitting somewhere on the route) less frequently along the long route.

Also your idea about piracy in queue locations conflicts with several realities of discovery. There is no queuing at bases before players dock, there are quick dock point. Bases are also well defended against pirates, and the best place for piracy is a lane or mining field far from dock or defense opportunities for the victims.

Your proposal of just increasing edge connectivity density does nothing when players can bypass each other just as well as before, since edge capacity is basically unlimited in Freelancer.

What do you mean with "increasing edge connectivity"? I'm actually reducing the number of connections between systems.

It is node capacity that is limited and which should be focused on. Systems are not nodes, just a collection of edges. Traders just going past each other and going "Hai, bye!" is not an engaging encounter.

What do you mean with "node capacity"?

I'm not only focusing traders, I'm focusing everyone who travels. The aim is not to get more traders to say hi to each other, the aim is to make everyone's routes more predictable and limited, so players can find each other more easily, be it friend or foe.

I really have the impression you're applying a network theory which isnt really applicable here, because it's based on wrong or over-simplified assumptions that don't match Freelancer gameplay.

To illustrate, have a picture of where economic activity is located in the US:

Your map has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. I'm not trying to build a realistic economy on a continent with unlimited travel connections between two points.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)