Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => Suggestions => Topic started by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 15, 2019, 06:32:19 AM

Title: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 15, 2019, 06:32:19 AM
After playing the game for enough time to get a hang of it, and after trying some non faction mods I have to say I have mixed feelings about the game. Most of them stem from the games lacking economy.

In the words of another user that thinks Starsector is a combat game: you're not supposed to use the open market to trade. (Deshara - in another thread discussing the economy and high tariffs) Well, if that's true then f%&^ me.

Here's the thing, this game either wants to be a military space combat simulator, in which case the dev should probably have another look at games like Nexus the Jupiter Incident and Freespace 1&2 and actually eliminate the current economical simulation from the game and make us just space mercs, or it wants to be an open world 2D space sandbox game, in which case the economy needs to be revamped.

The problem with the first suggestion is that making this just a combat game will actually alienate more people then it will bring it - and is probably not what the dev wants since this game is quite a few years old by now and that would have happened a long time ago - while the second suggestion is easier said then done.

The reason why improving the economy is hard is the reason why we have 30% universal tarrifs in the game, just moving stuff from point A to point B repeatably can be tedious and boring... and the alternatives are... well, there are no easy alternatives, in EVE Online there's an entire group of people like Deshara that go out of their way to make life miserable for people who want to trade or mine, and look at trading and mining down like some sort of grind. In games like Elite: Dangerous things are a little better, but that's mostly because of how large the galaxy is. In games like EV Nova, NAEV, Endless sky and the like the problem was never solved, and in games like the X series the problem was solved so well it became the main attractor for people playing that game series: why waste time in a fighter, or a miner or a simple freighter when you can actual run a bona fide mining or trade empire?

So, how can the problem be solved for SS? well, either the economy gets removed as it stands and we become exclusively mercenaries only making money from contracts and never being able to do any trading, or trading as it stands gets revamped in such a way as to both indicate it's only profitable on the relatively small scale and that we don't want to keep doing it mid to late game. The game tries to do this with a heavy handed 30% universal tariff that makes anyone that known anything about economy and tariffs look at the games economy as if they were looking at modern art.

My suggestions to achieve this effect of "trade is profitable but only on the really small scale, try smuggling and privateering instead" are as follows:

1.
Situation a: a planets supply of a good equals it's demand - universal tariff for both buying and selling on the open market of 5%

2. Situation b: a planet has higher supply of a certain good then demand: - if the player buys on that market there is no tariff
                                                                                                                          - if the player sells on that market there is a 10% tariff for every 100/200 units that planet has a surplus of

3. Situation c: a planet has a higher demand for a good then it produces locally: - if the player buys on that market he gets a 10% tariff on his transactions for every 100/200 units the planet has a deficit of
                                                                                                                                     - if the players sells on that planet there is no tariff

4. Indifferent of the above situation, every world will have a maximum and minimum price for every good, sometime related to the market price of the good, say 50% of average price as minimum, say x2/3 times of average as maximum. If the price falls bellow that because of high volume sold by PC on market, or goes above that because of high demand and low supply then the government starts adding punitive tariffs to disincentive selling at those prices. Say 10% for every 1% under the planetary minimum and 10% for every 1% over the planetary maximum.

5.
AI cores can't be sold on the open market AND are confiscated automatically if you enter the military market with one in your hold - assuming the market belongs to anyone that doesn't allow the free trade of AI cores.

6. You can no longer buy weapons, marines and military blueprints on the open market - you might be able to buy a tank in the US, in the real world, but they're an exception, military grade weaponry isn't something that's usually sold on the open market. these things should only be available on the Black Market and the Military Market.

7. You can no longer buy military vessels on the open ships market. I don't know about the dev, but as far as I know buying an aircraft carrier tends to not be something you can do indifferent of the amount of money you have. Also, you should not be able to buy carriers and capital ships from the Black Market - I know weapons smuggling is a thing, but some of those Capital ships are space station sized. Maybe they could be available on the Black Market of a Pirate station, but otherwise they really, really shouldn't be for sale. If your space ship is so large you can see it with the naked eye from the planet orbiting then you probably shouldn't be able to sell it on the black market.

8. You shouldn't be able to access the black market if you accessed port with your transponder on. The main problem with trade apologists on this forum is that they use the Black Market as a substitute and claim there is no problem with that. Either the open market goes, or it's made at least as useful as the black market. Also, remember how I described all those protectionist schemes before? if tariffs don't apply to the black market that means the price on the black market can be a lot lower or higher then on the open market. A good way to incentivize people to go from the open market to the black market would be if in the tutorial we were given our first procurement mission from the pirates who would tell us planets put punitive tariffs on goods when they're in a pinch and that they need certain goods only we can get for them from Ancyra and that we will only be making money on this mission if we buy from Ancyra's Black Market. Also, that we should have our transponder off when entering port, the port authorities are tired, overworked and under payed, they usually look away in such cases, patrolling fleets usually don't so we should be careful. - two birds, one stone. New players are both taught trade isn't profitable above a certain point and that smuggling can be a lot more profitable.

9. Blueprints, if we buy them we always pay tariffs since everybody wants them, we never pay tariffs if we sells them for the same reason. Alternatively there is always a flat tariff on blueprints because they're a luxury good. But that would mean the game should add an always on tariff for certain other good that are considered luxuries. (not a bad idea but that would make implementing this a lot more difficult)

10. Missions need to change, procurement missions should be limited to just the stuff you can get in a few nearby planets. Indifferent of the size of your fleet, you should never, ever get a procurement mission that asks you to buy all the stock every planet in a 30ly radius has to offer. Similarly, the game needs a few cargo delivery mission. I have x units of cargo that needs to be delivered to A type of missions. These can be a cargo space dependent, can be as large as we can handle and most importantly, can be a fun way to make us explore the map. Especially fi pirates are informed of us being basically a cargo fleet and coming for us. Unlike the pirate bounties that move us around the map, these are a lot more welcoming to new players and if at larger sized pirate raids become a fact of life the player can still be pushed into combat, just not as much as the current 30% universal tariff is.

11.
This one is relating to both the previous and to large fleet management in general. The way fleets work right not is... problematic. In the real world you'd never see an aircraft carrier group ever be accompanied by a massive oil tanker for fuel. Why? because if that was to be damaged the entire fleet would end up stranded. So, why not have certain pirate attacks were if we have civilian ships with us and we are the ones being attacked the civilian ships are automatically "deployed" and deployed in the center of the battle field while our fleet and the pirate fleet start at the edges of the map. This way we'd have to  willingly chose to use civilian ships, hell, maybe make it so the really lucrative procurement and transport contracts are only available for for fleets that are mostly civilian, or are so large you need civilian ships to be able to fulfill them but if you have civilian ships you risk getting attacked by pirated and loosing the cargo.

IF the above were to be implemented I think the game would be better. On the one hand the player would be forced to experience the intricate and entertaining combat system the game has to offer, on the other trade and smuggling would both be made more interesting and in depth.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: bobucles on October 15, 2019, 10:25:57 AM
The only big mistake in the economy system is calling tariffs legal and black market illegal. If tariffs were more explicitly the act of bribing your way to avoid inspection, it would make more sense to know when to pay up and when to dodge it, and it would explain why the tax is so high.

Keep in mind there is also an additional ~5% tax on trade, which you can see when buying an item costs slightly more than selling it.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 15, 2019, 10:35:27 AM
The only big mistake in the economy system is calling tariffs legal and black market illegal. If tariffs were more explicitly the act of bribing your way to avoid inspection, it would make more sense to know when to pay up and when to dodge it, and it would explain why the tax is so high.

Keep in mind there is also an additional ~5% tax on trade, which you can see when buying an item costs slightly more than selling it.

Bribes you would pay to acces the market or the port, not on a per transaction basis. As for that ~5%, I don't think that's a tax as much as your typical gamified shopkeep that always buys cheaper then he sells... unless you're in an RPG with personality, speech, mercantilism or the like where you can convince them to sell cheaper then 1 unit of currency and buy trash for all their gold.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Goumindong on October 15, 2019, 10:43:33 AM
As an economist the current situation makes sense and i do not understand any* of your proposed solutions.

Quote
Similarly, the game needs a few cargo delivery mission. I have x units of cargo that needs to be delivered to A type of missions. These can be a cargo space dependent, can be as large as we can handle and most importantly, can be a fun way to make us explore the map.

This already exists. You can find these missions in the bar

*ok i might understand them, they just arent cromulent, you will have to excuse the slight hyperbole.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Thaago on October 15, 2019, 11:03:23 AM
Quote
...My suggestions to achieve this effect of "trade is profitable but only on the really small scale, try smuggling and privateering instead" are as follows:...

Wait, isn't this already the case? Smuggling/privateering are profitable on the large scale, and we already have a mechanic where oversupply/undersupply causes a limited number of good to be buyable/sellable at vastly increase costs, for good profit.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 15, 2019, 11:06:45 AM
As an economist the current situation makes sense and i do not understand any* of your proposed solutions.

Quote
Similarly, the game needs a few cargo delivery mission. I have x units of cargo that needs to be delivered to A type of missions. These can be a cargo space dependent, can be as large as we can handle and most importantly, can be a fun way to make us explore the map.

This already exists. You can find these missions in the bar

*ok i might understand them, they just aren't cromulent, you will have to excuse the slight hyperbole.

If 30% universal tariffs make sense to you I don't want to know where you got your degree from. Though, do tell why you think they aren't legitimate solutions.

Also, just my luck I never got any such mission then... no, wait, now that you mention it I did get a few such missions and I had to turn them down because they weren't profitable at the time. Oops.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: SCC on October 15, 2019, 12:27:48 PM
Trading can be viable, but it has to be based on one of two things: risk or opportunity. For the first one... There's hardly anything going for that and I hope Alex will make trading more of a "the bad guys come to you, instead of the other way round" style of gameplay, with the game tracking the player and sending pirates or his faction's enemies after him, if he's a profitable legitimate smuggler, or have normal factions pursue you for smuggling, maybe even with some special multi-faction force, if you're making a lot of money that way. But alas.
Opportunity is present in the game, and it comes in the form of smuggling legal goods for profit, smuggling illegal goods for huge profit, killing trade fleets and selling their goods at their destination and trade missions. The last one is really simplistic, so much that I don't really consider it actual trading and more being space DHL. The former technically also include some risk, but the punishment for smuggling is comically low, so much that it's not an issue at all, unless they confiscate your contraband. In the case of killing trade fleets, with transponder off, the punishment is manageable.
Basic mechanics are all there, the sector just has to react to you trading in some way that makes it less boring. By sending enemies at you.

The issue with making trading really appealing is that you need to spend loads of effort on it, when you don't even know if it's going to end up working out. Alex decided that, instead of making a risky move of making brilliant mechanics for everything, he settled on making exceptional combat and having the entire game revolve around it. A boring, but safe move.
I made a thread complaining about resources (https://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16634.0) some time ago, and the idea of gating resources behind (station commander) reputation might interest you.

8. You shouldn't be able to access the black market if you accessed port with your transponder on. The main problem with trade apologists on this forum is that they use the Black Market as a substitute and claim there is no problem with that. Either the open market goes, or it's made at least as useful as the black market. Also, remember how I described all those protectionist schemes before? if tariffs don't apply to the black market that means the price on the black market can be a lot lower or higher then on the open market.
Black market can be better than open market, if there are some significant risks to using it... But there aren't.

9. Blueprints, if we buy them we always pay tariffs since everybody wants them, we never pay tariffs if we sells them for the same reason. Alternatively there is always a flat tariff on blueprints because they're a luxury good. But that would mean the game should add an always on tariff for certain other good that are considered luxuries. (not a bad idea but that would make implementing this a lot more difficult)
I think that it should outright be impossible to sell a blueprint, just like you sell lemonade. Blueprints should only be sellable through unreliable bar events that require you to discern the seedy from the trustworthy (unless you purposefully want to sell them to pirates). What they would reliably do, though, is send some other party after you. Perhaps to buy the blueprint, perhaps to point you to someone who will, or perhaps to fight you for it. Currently, they are handed out like candies.
It's not really relevant to the topic, I just don't quite have the right place to put it on forum...
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 15, 2019, 01:33:44 PM
Opportunity is present in the game, and it comes in the form of smuggling legal goods for profit, smuggling illegal goods for huge profit, killing trade fleets and selling their goods at their destination and trade missions.

The issue with making trading really appealing is that you need to spend loads of effort on it, when you don't even know if it's going to end up working out. Alex decided that, instead of making a risky move of making brilliant mechanics for everything, he settled on making exceptional combat and having the entire game revolve around it.

1. all those things have to do with either the the black market, piracy, or privateering for another power. They don't deal with the core issue being discuses here, that the PC can't legally interact with the legal economy in any meaningful way. Saying that there are other ways to make money doesn't solve the problem that the open market is fundamentally and intentionally might I add broken with the express purpose of discouraging trading. If I can suport a massive military fleet that can take out the fleets protecting several capital worlds then maybe, just maybe me not being able to create and support a massive trading fleet when we know for a fact such trading fleets exists and are regular is just bad game design. At least it's bad game design for as long as we can acquire supertankers and freighters.

2. as I've already stated, if Alex's intention is to just turn this into a combat game he should just go ahead and do that, it would be more honest then to string along anybody interested in more. All he has to do is make it just missions or play Nexus the Jupiter incident to see how to do a military only space game and then just eliminate the open market and all civilian ships and planetary resources from the players control and purview. Make the game either be just missions or make us just be mercs living contract to contract in an open world sandbox. No more trading, no more pseudo economy. But again, that's clearly not what he intends this game to be, otherwise we'd already be playing nexus in 2D. I'm not saying this game should just be Patrician  or the Guild in space either, we have the X series for that, especially now that X4 is out. But if your best argument for the current economic system is that it's ok because we can smuggle and pirate our selves to profit? well, that's not an argument for the open market, now is it? that's an argument for the black market and for playing as a pirate, not one for trade and the open market. And that's what my post is about. (As well as several other posts I've read before I wrote mine)

As I've already stated, apologists for the current system keep bringing the black market up as some sort of solution. It's not. You are literally using the black market like you would use the normal market in any other game. And you've grown so used to using it you don't even realize what the problem is. Your literal answer to "the economy is broken" is "the black market economy works just fine". Imagine is someone was talking about a hybrid car and said the engine was broken and you replied with "the battery works just fine". That's what you and other people that keep bringing up the black market are doing.

The black market shouldn't be the main market of the game, it should be a paralel market to the normal market, it should offer a completely different set of opportunities and challenges then the regular market does, it doesn't. The regular market is gimped by a 30% universal tariff so you end up using the black market instead because, as many apologists have said in multiple other threads "you're not supposed to make money on the open market". That is simply not acceptable in a game that has any kind of economic simulation as part of the core gameplay loop - thus my repeated mentioning of the potential elimination of the current "open market" system from the game. Nobody uses it because it would be a loosing proposition to do so. The Black market has basically no penalties and cost to it's use once you learn how to approach it. The player economy in game revolves around the black market just because the open market is artificially gimped. Under these conditions I truly do not see a reason for why we as the player should even have the option to interact with the open market? Leave the trade fleets in game, just remove the freighters and the Prometheus tanker from our stores.

That's why two of the points in my original post revolved around the military market and the black market, if one makes the black market a hassle to engage with on bigger planets, and if one removes weapons and military hull ships from the civilian market then even apologists like you would end up seeing how bad the open market is. The only reason you don't think the open market is broken is because you don't use it. The only reason you don't use it is because it's broken and that's something you learn in your first hour with the game. Worst is the fact the open market is intentionally broken.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Megas on October 15, 2019, 01:59:27 PM
Quote
Leave the trade fleets in game, just remove the freighters and the Prometheus tanker from our stores.
As long as most ships that are not tankers have terrible fuel capacity, I need Prometheus to support my endgame war fleet if it makes long distance trips.

Similarly, I want freighters either for looting (salvage and/or chain-battling max-size fleets can produce a lot of loot) or bringing resources to my colonies (or a new colony to build).

P.S.  I also want Prometheus if I want to sat bomb worlds to death!  Sat bombing is fun.  No kill like overkill!
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Mordodrukow on October 15, 2019, 02:08:15 PM
Alex's intention is to make a core game. And around that people can build whatever economical (or anything else) mods thay want.

Also need to mention: for some reason most people, who suggest something, think that realism = good gameplay. It is not always correct.

Real problem in economics: we have a lot of money to waste in a lategame. But think about that: will it make game more interesting if we will reduce profit from colonies? Harder - yes. More interesting - dont think so... We will just have to spend more time grinding money. The game will become more boring. It is not MMO, you know...

Another problem: there is no real decisions to make. It is always clear how to get what you need. Almost zero situations when "to do" vs "not to do that" is a real choice. Look at colony management screen, for example. Is it hard to decide, what buildings to place on the planet? Y, sometimes it matters, in which order you build everything. But even in those situations the difference is too small. Now compare it to other sandboxes like Factorio or Terraria of Minecraft. People make mechanisms from in-game stuff. People write guides about game mechanics and how to optimise things.

Thats the definition of good gameplay: if your decisions define your effectiveness a lot - then it is good game. Easy to learn, hard to master. And you care about tariffs...
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Goumindong on October 15, 2019, 02:47:21 PM
As an economist the current situation makes sense and i do not understand any* of your proposed solutions.

Quote
Similarly, the game needs a few cargo delivery mission. I have x units of cargo that needs to be delivered to A type of missions. These can be a cargo space dependent, can be as large as we can handle and most importantly, can be a fun way to make us explore the map.

This already exists. You can find these missions in the bar

*ok i might understand them, they just aren't cromulent, you will have to excuse the slight hyperbole.

If 30% universal tariffs make sense to you I don't want to know where you got your degree from. Though, do tell why you think they aren't legitimate solutions.

Also, just my luck I never got any such mission then... no, wait, now that you mention it I did get a few such missions and I had to turn them down because they weren't profitable at the time. Oops.

Like.. mercantilism was a thing so that checks out. And and so are VATs... in fact high sales taxes are quite common and would probably be more common in space as it would become increasingly difficult to tax via income or capital taxes on people who may not have an easily understood or defined affiliation.

Not that any of that matters since its a game construct to produce a desired incentive structure and such structure definitely makes sense.

Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 15, 2019, 03:35:57 PM
@Mages I think the Prometheus should go for the same reason most aircraft carrier battle groups in real life don't have petrol supertankers in their supply fleet. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. You have multiple smaller tankers at enough of a distance from one another and from the main battle group so as too keep them safe from an attack. The Prometheus is realistic as a ship that would exist in game, unrealistic as a ship a fleet would ever make use of.

@Mordodrukow Realism doesn't equal good game play, but having a game mechanic intentionally crippled is also frustrating game play. That's why I repeat again, the trading economy needs to be fixed, or just removed. Except it's needed in colony management and setting up so it can't. As it stands it's way too predominant and visible to just be ignored, and yet it's too crippled by tariffs to be of any real use. Which is why everybody keeps bringing up the black market as if that's a solution, when all that it is is bad game design.

You want to complain about a lot of money in late game? that's not a complain about the economy, that's a complain about the late game. SS is a game and as such it's a power fantasy. Late game you can afford to make a fleet that's impossibly strong. You, an independent party that can't even make a trade fleet successful have successfully build, and are successfully maintaining, a fleet so powerful you can "clear" out any one system in the game at a time. Reducing profits won't make the game more interesting, removing your ability to maintain a death fleet won't make the game more "fun", but both those things might make the late game more engaging. You don't want to feel like you're grinding, and you don't want to feel like there is anything you can't achieve in game. But those two things do tend to lead you to being a typical RPG max level hero that can single shot anything that moves.

Also, I find it funny that you complain about games like Minecraft and Factorio (don't have enough experience with Terraria to comment on that one) having emergent gameplay while Starsector is somewhat lacking in that department; while at the same time berating me for wanting the games economy to allow for a more engaging and complex trading system. Alex saw the simple trading model one finds in games like Escape Velocity and it's many clones and decided they were too simple, boring and non-engaging. His solution though was to hit the player with a hammer every time they tried any type of legal trade. Sorry, I've played way too many games with good, engaging trade simulations to be anything but put off by his attempt to fix the problem. As long as the open market is in game, and as long as tariffs remain the way they are there will be people complaining about the depth of the economical simulation in game. Alex is dangling trading in front of us in the form of the open market, and he's then chastising us for even daring to consider it as a viable option in the form of universal 30% tariffs. So yes, yes I care about tariffs.

@Goumindong Firstly, Alex decided to use the ward tariff and not tax. Sales taxes and VAT aren't tariffs. I know this and you know this so let's not pretend that's any sort of a valid argument. You might be an economist and I just a lowly certified accountant but we both know what a tariff is and what it bloody well isn't. Secondly, even if that were the case, we'd be talking double taxation, made worse by the fact that in many cases the planet we buy stuff from is likely to be part of the same greater sector power as the one we sell our good to. And thirdly, they are called tariffs and are applied universally, even to goods a planet desperately needs. How many planets need to reach 0 stability and go "barbarous" before the other worlds learn that it's a bad idea to have a flat 30% tariff on all imported food when your people are starving?

That being said, I am from Europe, here final prices do tend to include VAT and any other tax applicable, while in the US they don't. At least when I bought his game the tax wasn't part of the 15$ price. But even then, here in Europe were we do use VAT there is the secondary problem of  VAT being collected at every stage of the chain and refunded to everybody but the end seller. So, if anything we should get our 30% back.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Mordodrukow on October 15, 2019, 04:04:04 PM
Sorry, i have no good english skill to precisely explain what i mean.
Quote
You want to complain about a lot of money in late game? that's not a complain about the economy, that's a complain about the late game. SS is a game and as such it's a power fantasy. Late game you can afford to make a fleet that's impossibly strong. You, an independent party that can't even make a trade fleet successful have successfully build, and are successfully maintaining, a fleet so powerful you can "clear" out any one system in the game at a time. Reducing profits won't make the game more interesting, removing your ability to maintain a death fleet won't make the game more "fun", but both those things might make the late game more engaging. You don't want to feel like you're grinding, and you don't want to feel like there is anything you can't achieve in game. But those two things do tend to lead you to being a typical RPG max level hero that can single shot anything that moves.
I dont wanna say i dont like grinding. I wanna say, that you cant easily declare it bad or good. Or, if you can, there are other people, who has different opinion. More to say, sometimes one's opinion can change time to time. My point was: if you wanna grindy and engaging game - you use mod, which can provide it. If you dont - you play the game as it is.

My other point was: you have some suggestions, but for me (excuse me, if i get your suggestions wrong) it looks like a lot of changes for backend (in developing terms) and little impact for the frontend. I guess, even if its good, nobody will do that.

And the third point: trading is viable option, when prices are affected by war (and you can have influence over this). But yea, this mechanics is not that deep.
Quote
Also, I find it funny that you complain about games like Minecraft and Factorio (don't have enough experience with Terraria to comment on that one) having emergent gameplay while Starsector is somewhat lacking in that department; while at the same time berating me for wanting the games economy to allow for a more engaging and complex trading system.
As was said in the third point: you can perform some actions to get profit from trades. If you dont like that, can you describe, what decisions do you want to make to be satisfied by trading system? Watching graphs and analyzing market, then investing money to get more money? Or what? I mean: look at this:
Quote
5. AI cores can't be sold on the open market AND are confiscated automatically if you enter the military market with one in your hold - assuming the market belongs to anyone that doesn't allow the free trade of AI cores.
How can this make any positive gameplay changes? Your AIs will be confiscated, so, you will need to keep em in a safe place before going to the shop. Is it realistic? May be. Is it good for gameplay? Not at all. It is automatic action you need to do, you dont make any decisions here. So, it is just useless.

I dont wanna say, your suggestions are useless and have no rational grain. I like managers and Excel-chart-simulators too (lol, my best D&D campaign was when we turn the game in economic simulator). I just trying to help you to see the situation from different sides.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: bobucles on October 15, 2019, 04:04:30 PM
I'll say it again. The only real issue here is caused by the game lore, not the mechanics. The lore creates an intuitive conflict between what players expect from normal play, and how the rules shape normal play.

The main meat of the game lies in its combat. If you aren't getting in fights, you are missing the most engaging content in Starsector. Black market trade implicitly draws the player into conflict. It is profitable because it's meant to be attractive, and it's meant to draw players into various forms of conflict so they can enjoy the game's battles. You can still manage to avoid combat with black market trade, but it is far more tricky and certainly not free from risk.

Tariffs do the exact opposite. The primary reason to pay a tariff is to avoid conflict. There are legitimate reasons to avoid combat, but the player is never meant to wander the galaxy completely battle-free. What good is a space combat game if the player never gets into space combat? The issue is that a tariff is not a tax meant to destroy normal trade. Tariff trade was never normal to begin with. It is a premium that the player pays to AVOID battle, and is not meant to be a sustainable solution. The only real mistake here is calling it a tariff.

Fix the player expectations by calling the tariff a bribe. The market mechanics don't change, but suddenly the conflicts are resolved. Players won't get suddenly surprised when bribing every trade deal kills their profits. They'll be looking for ways to avoid paying the bribe instead, and get naturally drawn into the anticipated conflicts of ticking off local port authorities.  ;)
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Goumindong on October 15, 2019, 04:50:17 PM
Firstly, Alex decided to use the ward tariff and not tax. Sales taxes and VAT aren't tariffs. I know this and you know this so let's not pretend that's any sort of a valid argument. You might be an economist and I just a lowly certified accountant but we both know what a tariff is and what it bloody well isn't

A tariff is a tax (or a flat import/export fee) on imported or exported goods. So... its a tariff? Since the captain of a space fleet isnt a domestic trade partner it would apply just fine?

Economists have loads of different terms for taxes so i can understand why this coud be confusing. But like... not only do we not really care what you call things this is an appropriate term.

Quote
Secondly, even if that were the case, we'd be talking double taxation, made worse by the fact that in many cases the planet we buy stuff from is likely to be part of the same greater sector power as the one we sell our good to
no it would not be. Double taxation occurs as a result of overlapping income and sales/capital taxes. And double taxation is not a thing that is a problem, structurally*.

*its not ideal but this is only because simple tax structures are more ideal. Complicated tax structures are usually a result of illegitimatish avoidance activity.

Quote
That being said, I am from Europe, here final prices do tend to include VAT and any other tax applicable, while in the US they don't. At least when I bought his game the tax wasn't part of the 15$ price. But even then, here in Europe were we do use VAT there is the secondary problem of  VAT being collected at every stage of the chain and refunded to everybody but the end seller
but youre the end buyer/seller. If you got a refund there would be no tax!
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Megas on October 15, 2019, 04:52:00 PM
@Mages I think the Prometheus should go for the same reason most aircraft carrier battle groups in real life don't have petrol supertankers in their supply fleet. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. You have multiple smaller tankers at enough of a distance from one another and from the main battle group so as too keep them safe from an attack. The Prometheus is realistic as a ship that would exist in game, unrealistic as a ship a fleet would ever make use of.
If all fuel did in the game was be gasoline for spaceships, then sure.  But, in Starsector, fuel can also be used as air-to-ground strategic nukes against a planet.  If player wants to wipe the likes of Chichomoztoc off the map, he will need lots of fuel for multiple sat bombings.  In Starsector, fuel is both space gasoline and nuclear bombs put together, and a supertanker doubles as a strategic bomber.

Related, pleasure cruise liners (i.e., Starliner) are generally the most efficient marine transports when player wants to bring thousands of them to raid planets.  Raiding ships like Valkyrie and Colossus 3 bring a few hundred marines and their Ground Support Packages adds another +100.  Okay for minor leagues like pirates bases and New Maxios, but not enough for large faction capital worlds like Sindria, Kazeron, or Chichomoztoc.  Even an Onslaught or Legion (with Efficiency Overhaul) can double as a raiding ship if player can haul the resources to support them and not lose them in battle.

Fleet cap might prevent multiple small tankers and/or other haulers from being a useful option.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 15, 2019, 05:00:20 PM
Fix the player expectations by calling the tariff a bribe. The market mechanics don't change, but suddenly the conflicts are resolved. Players won't get suddenly surprised when bribing every trade deal kills their profits. They'll be looking for ways to avoid paying the bribe instead, and get naturally drawn into the anticipated conflicts of ticking off local port authorities.  ;)

I have two points of contention here. Firstly, that his is a space combat game. I see this as an open world sandbox game with exploration, combat and trading/smuggling mechanics - and soon colonization (I don't think it's worth talking about that mechanic yet). I see Freespace, Homeworld and Nexus as space combat games. And secondly,I take umbrage at the bribe renaming thing, that's also not how bribes work. And a universal 30% bribe is probably the only thing more ridiculous then a 30% universal tariff. Calling it a sales tax would be better, but that would only eliminate the logical inconsistency in regards to the mechanics being called tariffs.

The real problem comes from the fact that the open market system has no depth and as such would end up as a move x units from point A to point B and y units from point B to point A which would indeed risk getting repetitive and boring. Ok, it has some depth, just not enough for that not to happen sooner or later. Personally I'm partial to SCC's suggestion of having pirates attack our merchant convoys should we chose to go that way. Go freighter and tanker only and get wiped by pirates.

@Mordodrukow, I agree with your first part. As for the AI cores, look, if you go to the military market you are probably going through tougher checks then if you were going to the regular open market. The open market if probably just a computer terminal, the military market would probably need some papers and would probably do periodic checks. Ok, maybe automatically is a bit too harsh, but you should probably have to pass the same check you would have if a patrol stopped you, and without the right to resist or attack them afterwords since you're already in port. Hell, without even the right to turn away since that would be even more suspicious. If you get caught with contraband out in space it gets confiscated but nobody checks you or your ships when you buys stuff from the military market, or worse when you sell stuff there?

@Megas ... technically true, but still, it's... you know what? no. I'm blaming the fact that nobody uses nukes on that. we shouldn't have to make our own WMD's, this is supposed to ne a high tec SF world, they should have WMD's for sale at the local grocery store. It sells right about everything else.

As for the Starliner... I refuse to even engage, if tariffs annoy me, the Starliner class outright angers me. Then again, SF authors have no sense of scale, why should Alex be any different?
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Mordodrukow on October 15, 2019, 05:29:21 PM
Man, checks are made automatically, it is not about gameplay. Gameplay is when i m playing Age of Empires and choose between building more spearmans and rushing to the next age (rough example). And you are talking about realism. Who needs realism? I have enough realism outside of my room. In game i wanna be able to perform rocket jumps or burn enemy's buildings down, by shooting arrows (hello, Warcraft 2).

More to say: it is much easier to "invent" some realism-based gameplay, because you have examples in real life. Making game, which has nothing to do with realism is way harder, but way better, if you did well.

On the other hand: basic logics and market laws. All in the world aims toward balance, regardless of whether it's realistic game or not. Good math imitation will balance itself. If you will change something - there will be another points of equilibrium. It will not be worse or better. It will be just different. The problem is: it is not MMO like EVE, or at least Time Zero. And there is no neural network to replace thousands of players. So, dont demand miracles from it.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Goumindong on October 15, 2019, 05:34:23 PM
Fuel is anti-matter fuel. Its already super WMD. No need for nukes
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Histidine on October 16, 2019, 04:52:07 AM
Quick comments on the specific proposals in the OP:

- 1-3: No tariff for buying from a surplus or selling into a deficit would be nice, if nothing else, to fix the case where tariffs eat all the margins even on surplus/deficit trading.
Adding a tariff for the reverse direction isn't strictly needed, since the prices would make it unfavorable anyway (but isn't wrong either).

- 6+7: Most ship weapons (anything with tier >0 in the weapon defs CSV) already don't appear on open market. It would be desirable to apply a degree of such restriction for ships, too.
That said, I'd advise against a complete removal of ship weapons or excessive restrictions on combat ship availability in the open market, especially if combined with a no-transponder rule for black markets. It'd mean a trader/explorer has little or no way to purchase escorts or self-defense weapons, without tying themselves to a specific faction or having to sneak around for black market access.

- 5: No. Taking high-value items out of the player inventory without a prompt and/or giving them a chance to do something about it is bad. Doing it without an explanation of how the authorities would even find out about the items makes it worse.
(As for selling AI cores on the open market: that's already forbidden at markets where the faction bans it)
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 16, 2019, 07:04:11 AM
On the other hand: basic logics and market laws. All in the world aims toward balance, regardless of whether it's realistic game or not. Good math imitation will balance itself. If you will change something - there will be another points of equilibrium. It will not be worse or better. It will be just different. The problem is: it is not MMO like EVE, or at least Time Zero. And there is no neural network to replace thousands of players. So, dont demand miracles from it.

Have you even played Starsector? the game already has a basic market simulation that balances itself out. No need for server farms and neural networks. The only thing the game doesn't have is a way for the player to interact with the open market in a meaningful and legal way.

You're comment reminded me of another post I read in a related thread on here about tariffs. The poster was claiming that what we as the player do when it comes to trade is the equivalent of filling out car's trunk and then going to another country and selling the content. He was wrong. We can attack convoys and see exactly what ship composition they have. We can acquire said ships on the open market. We can man and supply said ships. The only thing that we as the player can't do is make a profit on the open market. Why? because Alex was lazy and when he realized just faring cargo from one location to another could turn into a grind and be boring he just slapped a universal 30% tariff on all open market transactions to disincentive us from trading.

Similar to how Mass Effect isn't just an FPS game, so too Starsector isn't just a combat game. We know there is an open market. We can see prices go up as we buy ever increasing units of cargo. We can see prices go down as we sell ever increasing units of cargo. We can see trade fleets move across the map. We can attack said trade fleets and see exactly what kind of ships they're made off. We can reclaim some such ships and we can buy such ships from the open market. For all intents and purpose Starsector has an inbuilt trading system that self corrects and a trade minigame the player is designed to play with. And then Alex realized that like every single other space game with a trading system that came before, the trading system in Starsector can be abused by just faring goods between just two places so he slapped a 30% tariff on all transactions to disincentive us from interacting with the system in the first place. AND because the black market was already there players just moved to the black market like nothing happened.

Trade is broken in this game. Making money isn't. TRADE IS. This is one thing most people don't want to admit on here. We say trade they counter we smugling, we say trade they counter with missions, we say trade they counter with piracy, we say trade they counter with bounties to make money. The game has a trade mechanic that has been intentionally gimped so as to disincentive it's usage.

@Histidine I actually added the idea of punitive tariffs for when prices go to low or too high so as to disincentive players from trading too much and from making trade too profitable. Basically, I took into account Alex's initial objection in regards to trading, faring cargo between two points in boring and repetitive, but trading onto itself can be fun and entertaining - there are entire games built around the idea of trade after all. (some even set in space) When a game tries to do too much we end up with No man's ... Spore, when a game tries to do too much we end up with Spore. With the exception of the first stage that to my knowledge only has one counterpart in Flow, all other stages have had multiple games set in just that one stage that outclass spore in every way. I don't think Starsectors trade system should compete with Elite, X, The Guild or The Patrician series, but Alex can give us at least the same level of trade as Port Royale, Sid Mayers Pirates or the old EV games. And considering going to economy.json and editing the "defaultTariff":0.3, to "defaultTariff":0.0, is all it takes to make trade as engaging as it was in those latter games... That's why I made the proposals I have, I don't just want the artificial limit on trade removed, I can do that myself, I apreciate Alex and agree with the thoughts behind tariffs. Trade can be boring, if all you do is hold the mouse bottom to get to your next location it is boring, I just don't agree with his solution, at all.

As for AI, the way I see it, If I buy weapons I'm probably going with the ship inside a military base/hangar to get the ship retrofitted, the chance of having an AI core found under such conditions should be grater then 0%. Maybe not 100%, but still, greater then 0%, similarly for other illegal goods like organs and drugs maybe... even if they're high value, think of it as the relative of a patrol inspection. They're not actually inspecting my hold, but if the people retrofitting my ship happen to stumble over a few crates of illegal narcotics, or organs, or ai cores... 
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Mordodrukow on October 16, 2019, 07:21:17 AM
Quote
the game already has a basic market simulation that balances itself out.
"Kinda..."

So, basically you dont like 30% tariff, you can fix it, but you wanna occupy other's time instead, complaining about things which are fine for 99% players. Great...
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 16, 2019, 07:28:46 AM
Quote
the game already has a basic market simulation that balances itself out.
"Kinda..."

So, basically you dont like 30% tariff, you can fix it, but you wanna occupy other's time instead, complaining about things which are fine for 99% players. Great...

Modding the game isn't fixing it, it's modding the game. And yes, this is a post made in the suggestion section of the oficial SS forum, I have a problem with a core mechanics found in game and I offered a suggestion to fix it. If you don't like the suggestion, say so, but if you don't like me pointing out the problem in the first place because 99% of players are ok with it, then that's your problem.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: bobucles on October 16, 2019, 07:54:52 AM
Quote
Trade is broken
I dunno about that. I can make millions off the market just fine. It's by no means an excellent or optimal play style, but there is good money to be had if you play the cards right. The profit does taper off, but at that point you're better off making your own market.

The game takes place in a post-collapse society, with a bunch of antagonizing factions who all hate each other. The sector is unstable and "safe comfy trade" is something that simply doesn't exist. You can't rake in millions on trade while staying 100% outside all the local sector drama, and that's exactly as intended. The moment you introduce pure safe comfy infinite trade money, the whole point of the sector being unstable and dangerous becomes moot.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 16, 2019, 08:30:51 AM
Quote
Trade is broken
I dunno about that. I can make millions off the market just fine. It's by no means an excellent or optimal play style, but there is good money to be had if you play the cards right. The profit does taper off, but at that point you're better off making your own market.

My claim is that Trade is broken, your is that it's not because you can make money. Ok, let's put that to the test, are we talking trade as in you buy good on one open market and sell them on another? or are we talking trade missions? because that's more related to the RPG side of SS then to the trading side. or smuggling? because again, that's a form of trade but not the trade referenced here. or piracy (destroying trade convoys)? Because up till this point I've only see one other person on the forums claim trade was doable, and they said it took them around two in game years to make 2 million credits with just legal trading. Pretty much everybody else points you towards missions, bounties, smuggling and piracy(ie attacking known trade convoys, causing artificial scarcity and profiting) All of which are profitable, significantly more so then the tariff gimped trade we get in game.

Quote
The game takes place in a post-collapse society, with a bunch of antagonizing factions who all hate each other. The sector is unstable and "safe comfy trade" is something that simply doesn't exist. You can't rake in millions on trade while staying 100% outside all the local sector drama, and that's exactly as intended. The moment you introduce pure safe comfy infinite trade money, the whole point of the sector being unstable and dangerous becomes moot.

It is MY understanding that the game takes place not just in the wake of the collapse of society but two centuries after it: http://fractalsoftworks.com/2017/08/16/a-true-and-accurate-history-of-the-persean-sector/

I'm sorry but if that blog post is still acurate and true then your excuse is nothing more than another point in the SF authors have no sense of scale column for Alex. They might not have gates any longer, but they still have FTL travel and communication. Even in the wake of two AI wars civilizations would have either collapsed as a result of the lack of resources to support terraformin project or it would have continued to thrive. And since we can established multiple colonies ourselves... yeah, that's not really a valid excuse.

If you want to claim the sector is in a state of cold war, sure, I'll buy that, but 200 years after collapse? Especially since Tri-Tachyon seems to actually be one of those big corporations that used to have patents over all the blueprints.... Let's just focus on trade in this thread, let's not bring in the schlock that serves as lore.

That being said, as I've already said before in this thread, I agree with SCC's suggestion regarding pirates raiding us if we try to make large scale trades. Hell, have them always raid us if we try to make just a civilian hulls fleet made just for trade.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Megas on October 16, 2019, 11:20:18 AM
Lore does not make sense with current gameplay, with Pirates being the immortal zombie horde while all factions except the player's are cowardly civilians waiting for the zombie pirates to devour all of their worlds.  In other words, the true hegemony of the sector are the pirates and everyone else are minor backstabbing civilians waiting to die.  Only the player can temporarily stop the pirates, and the civilians thank the player by sending expeditions much bigger than their normal defense fleets.  (Why don't they send expeditions at the pirates, pathers, or other hostile factions?)

If pirates were this aggressive before the player starts, there should be no AI wars and no major faction politics because pirates would have eaten everything within a few dozen years after the Collapse.  In other words, sector death.

I would not want more raids.  The game already sends more than enough invaders to try to burn my colonies to the ground.  Only the pirates invade more than the player, and the others often have inadequate defenses that the player needs to defend them or watch some of them decivilize years later.  I want to play exploration or empire expansion, not play super-cop 24/7 because no one else can.

Maybe once player can order hunter-killer NPC fleets to automate some of the space cop duties (#1 and #2 eliminate those pirate bases, #3 eliminates that pather base, #4 intercepts that expedition from Diktat, #5-9 get sent to sat bomb all of the factions' capital worlds as punishment for never-ending expeditions), then maybe more raids can be fine.  NPCs can be sent to deal with the problem while player can look for more planets to colonize or loot from or do plot important things like find the Red Planet.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: bobucles on October 16, 2019, 03:01:29 PM
Quote
If you want to claim the sector is in a state of cold war, sure, I'll buy that, but 200 years after collapse?
Your link showed that the sector was shaken by not one but two AI wars. The main game starts just a few years after the end of the second AI war. That's not enough time to forget old grudges. The sector is still in a highly volatile state, filled with vast lost ruins, poor intel outside the core worlds and space wrecks just sitting around for the grabbing. Heck, the great lobster empire is barely old enough to drink. It's not unfair to call the sector a mess. A messy sector is ripe for privateering, seedy trade deals and piracy.

I'm still not seeing the point of why there needs to be perfectly safe, fast, and profitable trade routes. They just wouldn't exist in the sector's current state. The type of space captain that hopes to pay the bills needs to look beyond the norm, glossing over vague details like legality or proper trade channels. Once again, it's about setting up a game lore where doing these "illegal" things is actually the norm and the weirdoes are the ones clawing over their tarrif-only hard mode.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: DatonKallandor on October 16, 2019, 05:41:58 PM
The only thing the game doesn't have is a way for the player to interact with the open market in a meaningful and legal way.

Nonsense. Players can and do interact with the open market in a meaningful and legal way all the time.
If you mean that non-shortage or mission based legal open market trade isn't profitable - then yes. Intentionally so. And it makes perfect sense both in terms of fluff (the player is a small-time nobody and the economy is designed by the big players to keep small-time nobodies out) and in terms of game design (standard legal trade is boring as *** and if it's profitable anyway people will do it even if it's boring as ***). For people that do want to play "trader" there is a variety of legal and illegal ways to do that while still making a profit - they just all require you to actually engage with mechanics.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 16, 2019, 11:43:55 PM
@bobucles True, the sector would still be volatile. True, the sector would have a problem with trust. True, the sector would be weary, tired and in the midst of a sector wide reconstruction. But that's not the original argument you originally made, now is it?

@DatonKallandor BS mate, B effing S. I have mentioned that trade is intentionally broken several times already, and I have mentioned what I think about that game design wide. (hint: I think it's BAD game design) As for your "we are nobodies" claim, I read that before in a different thread on the topic but I didn't preempt that argument here so allow me to address it. By late game we own the largest, most well armed, most dangerous fleet in game. We also can have over half a dozen colonies to our name. By late game we aren't just some no named nobody, we are a minor power. Similar to how the game already reacts to us playing with the market so there is no excuse that Alex is a mostly one man band that doesn't have the resources CCP has for their EVE online; or how the fact that we can acquire, man and supply a fleet of comparable size to the in game AI trade fleets indicates we are not hauling cargo in our trunk and hope to make a profit as some have stated in other thread on the trade and tariffs topic; so too your argument crumbles in front of what the game actually is. The ONLY reason trade is not profitable is because Alex was lazy the day he realized as a game designer that going from point A to point B and back again wasn't fun and decided to just cripple the legal trading system by adding a 30% universal tariff in place of making it more engaging. TRADE IS BROKEN, it's broken by design, but it is still broken.

And just so you realize what I mean: http://fractalsoftworks.com/2019/07/08/skills-and-story-points/ Here Alex shows that he can be competent and considerate when designing the game, he shows that as a game designer he can see the potential pitfalls of his decisions and anticipate the players actions. No such considerations were given to the tariff solution. Tariffs are a patchwork solution thrown on top of a working trade system that was too easy to abuse. Players can abuse the system? then make the system itself useless in game - bad game design. Trade is broken, intentionally so, but it its still broken.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: DatonKallandor on October 17, 2019, 06:17:03 AM
I still can't figure out what you're even trying to say. You want open legal standard trade to be profitable? That's bad game design, pure and simple.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Megas on October 17, 2019, 06:23:50 AM
By late game we own the largest, most well armed, most dangerous fleet in game. We also can have over half a dozen colonies to our name. By late game we aren't just some no named nobody, we are a minor power.
I would say major power.  After about twenty years, player can have multiple size 8 worlds, more than Hegemony.  Player with max colony skills or plenty of alpha cores can have an empire as least as big as Hegemony or League.

The factions treat the player like a small fry they can push around, but end up bullying a dragon bigger than them.  If it wasn't for pirates, I would destroy all of core worlds to make them stop their endless invasions permanently.  Destroying their capital worlds is easier than destroying three max size expedition fleets without battlestation support.

I still can't figure out what you're even trying to say. You want open legal standard trade to be profitable? That's bad game design, pure and simple.
Is it any different than using only Black Market?  Many players just do it with transponder on and do not care about patrol scans.  Even toggling transponder to avoid suspicion is not too hard.

Open Market can be removed from the game and the only meaningful change is what to do with Commerce industry for your colonies.  Make as well make Open Market a player-only market for colonies with Commerce.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Erebe on October 17, 2019, 07:11:13 AM
I read the whole posts, an interesting subject, i can say, with good and bad idea, and pretty relevant consern. But, doesn't Alex stop working on the economy system for the time being because he don't know how much time and ressources it would take an that he want to work on others aspects of the game before re-doing the economy, again for the 4th time ?
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 17, 2019, 07:43:02 AM
I still can't figure out what you're even trying to say. You want open legal standard trade to be profitable? That's bad game design, pure and simple.

My point is that the Open market needs to either be made functional or removed. That's my point. There is literally no reason to have the open market, or to be able to buy civil hull freighters if we can't do profitable legal trade. Either the open markets are made actually usable, in a manner like the one I have described or Alex just removes them from the game.

Currently you see there is trade, you see there are civilian hull freighters, you can acquire said freighters, you can make a trade fleet indistinguishable from an AI controlled fleet and you see that prices react to you buying and selling on the open market. The only reason you can't meaningfully and legally interact with a system that is already in game is because of the tariffs. Alex spend a lot of time on making this system and when he realized it could be easily abused and that the abuse would turn the the game into a grindy and not at all fun slog he gimped the system via tariffs.

Alex spend a lot of time making a trade system reminiscent of the one in games like the Escape Velocity series and it's clones. One far more complex than EV Nova's. Then he realized it could be made unenjoyable and made it so the player is disincentivized from using it. As long as the system stays in the game there will be people like me complaining about the tariffs because we see what the system actually is and how it's being artificially gimped. Keeping the system in game whilst artificially gimping it is what's bad game design. Not removing the system if he can't find a way to make it fun is bad game design. Even just removing the tariffs is better game design then the present system. Especially since every time this problem is brought up people keep bringing up the bloody black market as if that's anything more than a substitution.

I'm sorry, but it's not that hard to grasp. Starsector has a working trade economy the player was meant to interact with. That economy was then artificially crippled so as to stop the player from interacting with it. The player isn't dumb, he sees the economy is there and asks himself the obvious question: why can't I make a profit trading? All the elements are there, so why not? the answer: because Alex doesn't want you to. A meta answer is not an answer, that's just bad game design. Alex needs to either find a way to make legal trading fun and hard to exploit or he needs to remove the very idea from the game.

IT's just a simple Chekhov's gun scenario. The players sees the trade economy, the player wants to participate in it, the player realizes he's now allowed to. The player finds out why - because the dev nerfed it to uselessness, the player complains about it. Remove it from the game and you remove the loaded gun from your first act.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: bobucles on October 17, 2019, 08:47:26 AM
Quote
My point is that the Open market needs to either be made functional or removed
But the open market is functional. You can buy items, and sell items, and there are valid tradeoffs between open market trade vs. black market trade. You may not like the particular list of pros/cons but they are there.

The open market however is not profitable and that is perfectly okay. The game is under no obligation to provide unlimited safe trade, and it wouldn't be very fun anyway. Several sources of trade profit still exist, from space missions to bar missions to black markets and illegal goods. They make money, you can successfully grow from them, and the risks are manageable. The only real complaint about it is "it's not legal waaah". Yeah? So what? It's not a space capitalism game, it's a spaceships-blowing-up-spaceships game. Solve your trade disputes by blowing something up.

Don't go rejecting what is already there, and claim that nothing exists.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Q8 on October 17, 2019, 09:40:23 AM
I still can't figure out what you're even trying to say. You want open legal standard trade to be profitable? That's bad game design, pure and simple.
Ofc you dont. Even he himself doesnt know what he is talking about...
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 17, 2019, 09:51:17 AM
I still can't figure out what you're even trying to say. You want open legal standard trade to be profitable? That's bad game design, pure and simple.
Ofc you dont. Even he himself doesnt know what he is talking about...

I want one of two tings:
1. either for the open market to be removed in favor of the exclusive use of the military and black markets or
2. for the open market to allow profitable trade - and I have left several suggestions to that effect in my OP.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Goumindong on October 17, 2019, 10:41:49 AM
I still can't figure out what you're even trying to say. You want open legal standard trade to be profitable? That's bad game design, pure and simple.
Ofc you dont. Even he himself doesnt know what he is talking about...

I want one of two tings:
1. either for the open market to be removed in favor of the exclusive use of the military and black markets or
2. for the open market to allow profitable trade - and I have left several suggestions to that effect in my OP.

Why?  Without the open market any trade would force reputation loss and/or require you to stealth in to every port you wanted to meaninfully interact with. It would significantly hamper the ability of players to interact with the core gameplay cycle of combat and exploration.

If the open market allows profitable trade(and lets be clear profitable trade already exists even with the tariffs) at stable point then there exists a perverse incentive to not interact with the core gameplay cycle

Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Megas on October 17, 2019, 10:49:49 AM
Thinking about Open Market, I trade there for...
1) Buying early-game hullmods (like Efficiency Overhaul)
2) Buying provisions (like supplies and fuel) I need now, and I cannot get them (or enough) at Black Market
3) Selling blueprints (because I do not want to upgrade pirates' fleets by selling them at Black Market)
4) Selling nanoforge (at industry world, so I can steal it back along with blueprints)

I sell most loot at Black Market, and buy most from either Black Market or Colony Resources.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Goumindong on October 17, 2019, 11:03:03 AM
I also buy on the open market when i am hauling around AI cores or other illegal goods which don't make sense for me to offload right there so as not to produce a scan that might get them confiscated.

And to intentionally increase reputation
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Mordodrukow on October 17, 2019, 11:25:51 AM
I m always sellin items and buing supplies and fuel on the open market. And the only things i v ever bought on the black market were ships. Cause sometimes it is possible to find something good there.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: DatonKallandor on October 17, 2019, 12:03:19 PM
I want one of two tings:
1. either for the open market to be removed in favor of the exclusive use of the military and black markets or
2. for the open market to allow profitable trade - and I have left several suggestions to that effect in my OP.

So you want to either remove a perfectly functional part of the game or put in a piece of bad design that's already been explicitly rejected for good reason. Gotcha.

I'm assuming you mean standard open market trade here, because if you are genuinely insisting you can't make a profit trading on the open market, you are, quite simply, factually wrong. You simply need to exploit shortages and excesses to do it (assuming you want both sides of the transaction to happen on the open market - selling goods acquired elsewhere is even more profitable obviously). Which is the whole point of the tariffs.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Megas on October 17, 2019, 12:28:50 PM
I also buy on the open market when i am hauling around AI cores or other illegal goods which don't make sense for me to offload right there so as not to produce a scan that might get them confiscated.
Makes sense.  I have done that before too.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 18, 2019, 12:51:34 AM
You know what? I give up. It's pointless trying to debate people that refuse to understand something as simple as Chekhov's gun. It's utterly meaningless to have a dialogue with most of you when you don't have arguments that can't be refuted, you only have talking point you keep regurgitating indifferent of how many times they are refuted. It's sad to see the community around the game be so dogmatic, but if that's how it is, then that's how it is.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Q8 on October 18, 2019, 02:35:18 AM
Ouh, its so good u wrote that, because now i can be an SOB back at you, and nobody will hold that against me.

I still can't figure out what you're even trying to say. You want open legal standard trade to be profitable? That's bad game design, pure and simple.
Ofc you dont. Even he himself doesnt know what he is talking about...

I want one of two tings:
1. either for the open market to be removed in favor of the exclusive use of the military and black markets or
2. for the open market to allow profitable trade - and I have left several suggestions to that effect in my OP.
No, you didnt. Your suggestions are all garbage. This is not how u suggest changes to the working systems. You have to realize, that what ure asking for, is not a point blank change to an item of code, like nerf a gun, or make a ship faster, or make AI consider turning on the shields when an opponent is in [range + blink range] if the opponent can blink. Those changes would be such, that you wouldnt need opposable thumbs to implement them. That means, that the idea is more important than the implementation. You on the other hand, are trying to make a change to the system itself. This is not the same thing. You cant just write... (quoted from the top post):
1. Situation a: a planets supply of a good equals it's demand - universal tariff for both buying and selling on the open market of 5%

2. Situation b: a planet has higher supply of a certain good then demand: - if the player buys on that market there is no tariff
                                                                                                                          - if the player sells on that market there is a 10% tariff for every 100/200 units that planet has a surplus of

3. Situation c: a planet has a higher demand for a good then it produces locally: - if the player buys on that market he gets a 10% tariff on his transactions for every 100/200 units the planet has a deficit of
                                                                                                                                     - if the players sells on that planet there is no tariff
...and think to yourslef "ka-ching! jobes done!"
This, what you are doing, is basically the same as me coming to you and telling u to paint me The Lady Of Shalott, but blond. What do you think? can u do that for me? Youve seen the picture, didnt you?
...Ofc you cant. Because the idea is not important. The implementation is.

Im gonna give you one more example. How to write a proper suggestion.

Here we go. Lets say, i dont like how the prices work. So i think to myself, that in reality, supply and demand are not really the main thing that goes into the price, value of the currency is. So, my idea would be, to make a different currency for every planet, based on import/export value. That would create a system, that is deep enough for an average player, not to see the bottom(witch would help him keep the immersion running), but shallow enough for the coder, not to grow old while programming the system.
What i suggest is:
1.Create a constant value for the main currency (credits), something like primo$ = 1 = const;
2.Create base values of goods in primo$'s, like 1fuel = 25primo$ (this point is already in the game, i write it only to be clear)
3.Create a new variable for every colony, that will represent the planets currency price, something like planetA$ = primo$;
4.Create a loop (month long for example) with planetA$ = planetA$ * V  where V = export(planetA)/import(planetA). That wouldnt be too hard to code, since import and export values are already in the game.
5.Multiply all the prices by planetA$ value.
and 6.Play around with V. Cap it abit maybe, smooth it alittle, etc.
All that would, in few easy steps, add abit of life into the existing system(that is at this moment really easy to seethrou, ergo, boring and immersionbreaking)

Okay, i think i made my point.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 18, 2019, 06:29:34 AM
Ouh, its so good u wrote that, because now i can be an SOB back at you, and nobody will hold that against me.

I still can't figure out what you're even trying to say. You want open legal standard trade to be profitable? That's bad game design, pure and simple.
Ofc you dont. Even he himself doesnt know what he is talking about...

I want one of two tings:
1. either for the open market to be removed in favor of the exclusive use of the military and black markets or
2. for the open market to allow profitable trade - and I have left several suggestions to that effect in my OP.
No, you didnt. Your suggestions are all garbage. This is not how u suggest changes to the working systems. You have to realize, that what ure asking for, is not a point blank change to an item of code, like nerf a gun, or make a ship faster, or make AI consider turning on the shields when an opponent is in [range + blink range] if the opponent can blink. Those changes would be such, that you wouldnt need opposable thumbs to implement them. That means, that the idea is more important than the implementation. You on the other hand, are trying to make a change to the system itself. This is not the same thing. You cant just write... (quoted from the top post):
1. Situation a: a planets supply of a good equals it's demand - universal tariff for both buying and selling on the open market of 5%

2. Situation b: a planet has higher supply of a certain good then demand: - if the player buys on that market there is no tariff
                                                                                                                          - if the player sells on that market there is a 10% tariff for every 100/200 units that planet has a surplus of

3. Situation c: a planet has a higher demand for a good then it produces locally: - if the player buys on that market he gets a 10% tariff on his transactions for every 100/200 units the planet has a deficit of
                                                                                                                                     - if the players sells on that planet there is no tariff
...and think to yourslef "ka-ching! jobes done!"
This, what you are doing, is basically the same as me coming to you and telling u to paint me The Lady Of Shalott, but blond. What do you think? can u do that for me? Youve seen the picture, didnt you?
...Ofc you cant. Because the idea is not important. The implementation is.

Im gonna give you one more example. How to write a proper suggestion.

Here we go. Lets say, i dont like how the prices work. So i think to myself, that in reality, supply and demand are not really the main thing that goes into the price, value of the currency is. So, my idea would be, to make a different currency for every planet, based on import/export value. That would create a system, that is deep enough for an average player, not to see the bottom(witch would help him keep the immersion running), but shallow enough for the coder, not to grow old while programming the system.
What i suggest is:
1.Create a constant value for the main currency (credits), something like primo$ = 1 = const;
2.Create base values of goods in primo$'s, like 1fuel = 25primo$ (this point is already in the game, i write it only to be clear)
3.Create a new variable for every colony, that will represent the planets currency price, something like planetA$ = primo$;
4.Create a loop (month long for example) with planetA$ = planetA$ * V  where V = export(planetA)/import(planetA). That wouldnt be too hard to code, since import and export values are already in the game.
5.Multiply all the prices by planetA$ value.
and 6.Play around with V. Cap it abit maybe, smooth it alittle, etc.
All that would, in few easy steps, add abit of life into the existing system(that is at this moment really easy to seethrou, ergo, boring and immersionbreaking)

Okay, i think i made my point.

Just for you I'm making an exception and making just one more comment. You learned all that since you wrote this (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16611.0) a month ago?
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Mr. Nobody on October 18, 2019, 07:12:36 AM
I don't get the issue, really.
The open market is perfectly fine, you use it to not lose reputation, for money there's the black market and procurement missions, or you can go just get a commission and make money that way, or make a colony.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Goumindong on October 18, 2019, 11:49:09 AM
You know what? I give up. It's pointless trying to debate people that refuse to understand something as simple as Chekhov's gun.

I am sorry. We are now talking about the dramatic structure of a visual play wherein an object is placed so as to be important later despite looking like it was a piece of set dressing? (Or maybe shown to be important so it could come back later?)

I dont understand what this has to do with the core gameplay cycle of a video game that doesnt have a predefined story. The Open Market isnt a plot point that were going to come back to later and surprise the audience with. Its a tool for the progression of the core gameplay cycle.

The core gameplay cycle in Starsector is

1) choosing which fights to take or to not take and navigating in a way that achieves this
2) fighting
3) upgrading your fleet so you can fight bigger and badder things

Trading profitably on the open market (which, to be clear, you can already do*) circumvents the first and second aspect of the core gameplay cycle by negating the need to make a choice and so negating the need to navigate. You then skip right to 3 for upgrading your fleet. This catapults you to lategame and skips the majority of the game. That is bad.

*you just have to interact with the dynamic elements which increase the probability that youre going to have to nagivate.

Its true that this doesnt have to be the gameplay cycle. But it is. The game is not Space Patrician. It never was intended to be.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Alex on October 18, 2019, 11:59:44 AM
Alex spend a lot of time on making this system and when he realized it could be easily abused and that the abuse would turn the the game into a grindy and not at all fun slog he gimped the system via tariffs.

Just a real quick note here that tariffs and "open market trade isn't generally profitable (and never as profitable) as black market trade" was in the design - and a core, intentional feature of the design - since the very first version of the economy.

The open market is still useful for buying stuff you need or selling salvage etc without attracting suspicion/negatively affecting your reputation. And, as mentioned, it can be used for profit situationally. Generally, though, the whole thing is meant to make you look at black market trade, which leads to more interesting gameplay because it creates conflict.

Also, if there was no open market, the first question would be "why can't I trade legally?". Having the open market is a way of, essentially, answering that question. It's not that you can't, it's just that you often won't want to.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 18, 2019, 12:55:59 PM
Alex spend a lot of time on making this system and when he realized it could be easily abused and that the abuse would turn the the game into a grindy and not at all fun slog he gimped the system via tariffs.

Just a real quick note here that tariffs and "open market trade isn't generally profitable (and never as profitable) as black market trade" was in the design - and a core, intentional feature of the design - since the very first version of the economy.

The open market is still useful for buying stuff you need or selling salvage etc without attracting suspicion/negatively affecting your reputation. And, as mentioned, it can be used for profit situationally. Generally, though, the whole thing is meant to make you look at black market trade, which leads to more interesting gameplay because it creates conflict.

Also, if there was no open market, the first question would be "why can't I trade legally?". Having the open market is a way of, essentially, answering that question. It's not that you can't, it's just that you often won't want to.

...so, in place of as asking "why can't we trade legally?" we're left wondering "why can't we make a profit trading legally?". "Great" game design. Sorry if I come a little bit snarky but since I'm not the first person to point out the idiocy of tariffs I think you already know that.

Might I suggest you either:
1. rename tariffs to sales tax (there's already enough apologists here claiming that's what they are, might as well make them wright)
2. maybe consider having a different "tax" for every polity in game?
or
1. remove the open market
2. remove the ability to acquire civilian freight ships from the ships markets
3. ensure that if we recover, from destroyed trade fleets, civilian freighters they're always mothballed and can't be brought online
4. ensure that the only starts the vanilla game has to offer are either as a smuggler or as a mercenary. Difficultly can very based on fleet size, but the backgrounds don't need to.

That way the answer to the question you anticipated we'd ask is simple: this isn't a space trading game, it's a game about smuggling, piracy, privateering and being a mercenary - with all that that entails. And preempts the: but if you remove the tariffs this is literally just like the trading system in Sid Meiers Pirates or Escape Velocity Nova counter people like me will have.

Explaining colonies will be difficult, but it won't be any worse then the broken by design legal trading system we have now. Plus, it makes more sense to fence the goods we get from raiding a trade fleet on the black market of a  world that needs them then to just apar out of "nowhere" and sell exactly the good a planet needs at the exact volume that planet needs on the open market.

Also, sorry, for assuming you had simply made a more complex version of the trade system one can find in old games like EV NOVA and then gimped it. It's clear to me now that the gimping was in the original design. Still bad design, just from a completely different point of view. You find trade itself boring but felt obliged to put it in to preempt people inquiring about it, that being said: It's your *** game. IF you aren't interested in trade then don't fuckign have it in. If building a trade empire in X doesn't make you moist, if playing Truck Driver doesn't get you hard then, you know? maybe don't make a game that from the surface looks like something that would appeal that that demographic. The parts you like about the game are already good enough, no need to tack on a system you don't actually want, or like, to appease potential customers that wont something different then you do. The game is still in alpha, it's not too late to change things and strip things that you think aren't working. IF the only reason you have the legal trade system in game is because you don't want people to ask about it then grow a pair, strip it out and make it clear smuggling is the closest thing we're ever getting to trading in your game.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Mr. Nobody on October 18, 2019, 01:03:56 PM
Alex, can we have Salt as a trade resource? Harvested from ancient data caches of course.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Q8 on October 18, 2019, 01:06:50 PM
[...]

Just for you I'm making an exception and making just one more comment. You learned all that since you wrote this (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=16611.0) a month ago?
O.o? The hell does that has to do with anyt... whatever.
I honestly think you should calm down.


Alex, can we have Salt as a trade resource? Harvested from ancient data caches of course.
What? you want to be able to harvest Angelina from data cashes? the hell? didnt she cut of her boobs?
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Thaago on October 18, 2019, 03:52:34 PM
Salt from troll tantrums being included in the game would be the worst! I cannot imgine any possible gam3 d3sign that could be that bad!1! Old games that I played in my formative years that had completely different focuses didn't include troll sweat salt so if this one does than its obviously a **s**@#$**!!**muppet**!1996**#%casserole**s@^&** game! Maybe if troll sweat were renamed humanoid derived sodium chloride it would be ok because then it would match my preconceptions. Anyone who disagrees is a **#@^$&%(@genderedinsult#*@&^!*muffin!
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Histidine on October 18, 2019, 06:52:18 PM
In an attempt to restore some productiveness to the thread:

Just a real quick note here that tariffs and "open market trade isn't generally profitable (and never as profitable) as black market trade" was in the design - and a core, intentional feature of the design - since the very first version of the economy.

The open market is still useful for buying stuff you need or selling salvage etc without attracting suspicion/negatively affecting your reputation. And, as mentioned, it can be used for profit situationally. Generally, though, the whole thing is meant to make you look at black market trade, which leads to more interesting gameplay because it creates conflict.
Tariffs smaller than the current 30% (Nexerelin uses 18% normally, 9% for free ports) would still fulfill this goal, while not rendering open trade unprofitable even in cases where the design says it should be, such as cases where the the loss to tariffs exceeds surplus/deficit price effects (with 30% tariffs on both ends, you need an 85.7% markup to break even).

If combined with reduced price volatility (since huge price differences are no longer needed to make disruption event trading profitable), this would also fix smuggling being excessively profitable.

It would also throw a bone to non-traders, especially newbies who don't know they're 'meant' to use the black market, when buying things they need and selling vendor trash on the open market.

EDIT: Also, good points have been made (here and elsewhere) about open market and black market overlapping too much in their niches, such that black market ends up being 'open market, but better'. Right now black market is broadly open market minus the tariffs and with better gear selection and occasional rep losses; if they were more differentiated, the choices involved would be clearer.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Alex on October 18, 2019, 07:16:36 PM
I could see definitely adjusting the tariffs, yeah. I think I've actually already reduced the price volatility a bit in the dev build.

I think what I want to do at some point is have another look at the possible disruptions etc; it feels like there could be more done here content-wise. Food shortage type events, etc... plus right now the trade volumes aren't, imo, high enough - e.g. a shortage of food might only bring profit on 1000 units of it. Delivery missions do fill most of the gap - they're essentially "trade for a profit", just handled a bit differently - but just more variety might be nice.

But, well, more content *almost everywhere* would be good, so we'll see how it goes :)
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: bobucles on October 18, 2019, 07:34:12 PM
The amount of profit available from illegal items is pretty good, and and Ludd marine profits are absolutely wild. You can definitely make good money off of them and even walk away with a few capital ships. I don't see much value in trading medium tier goods like transplutonics, but they are fantastic when offered as mission targets. Crew are very fickle for trade, if you end up paying their monthly salary it kills the already small profit potential. I don't even think there are crew transport missions?

Low tier stuff like metals/food/organics are almost never worth trading. The individual profit per item is too low (cargo space isn't free!), and the severity of demand is WAY too low. It struggles to be worth the effort with pure black market trade, and the missions suffer from scaling very steeply on cargo space. Cargo trade does reach diminishing returns with fleet size, and it's a big chunk of upkeep to always keep 4000 empty cargo for a random food mission. I'd probably have to see a demand for 1000 food or 2000 ore before planning a manual trade run, at least compared to a demand of 200+ illegal goods.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Mordodrukow on October 18, 2019, 09:53:23 PM
I guess, it would be good if one, who wants profitable trading will have to buy freighters instead of battle ships. I mean: A LOT. As been mentioned above, cargo space is not free. Your fleet spends money every day and every month and every light year, so, basically your profit is negative. With 3-4 cargo ships it will be barely over 0. With 15 - profitable. And ofc it wil demand a player to make some math.

Bad thing here: it is not that hard for player to perform, cause the world is too soft. Almost nobody wants to kill you, and if one does - you can escape the hard fights and pretty easily destroy those, who runs fast.

Also, about softness. May be you, Alex, need to change reputation system instead of tariffs. It looks a little bit idiotic when you killing a baby, then removing 20 cats from the trees and helping few grannies to pass the road and bam: your reputation is 0 again.

I mean smuggling must be punished a lot harder, so Open market could became more interesting option.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Q8 on October 18, 2019, 10:04:00 PM
I for one, dont know/think if thats even important.
If i can make chairs for 5$/h and tables for 10$/h, im basically always making tables.
But in a game? does anybody ever sat infront of the screen, and tough to himself, well, i would go and hunt for that bounty there, but that exploration mission is more profitable, so i guess im doing that!? anybody?
Do you people really think, that to make "trade" more... hmm... useful? used more often? whats the word... valid? ... you have to make it more profitable?
...I dont know man... i dont know.
Especially since ingame time is not important at all.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: intrinsic_parity on October 18, 2019, 10:11:10 PM
My experience attempting to trade has been similar: low value goods just never make enough profit to be worthwhile, even with very extreme price events: 400% profit on food is like 50 credits per unit or something, equivalent to a ~10% profit on heavy armaments. Smuggling things like marines, drugs and heavy armaments tends to work out much better, but also heavily incentivizes smuggling since those good are illegal anyway. I think volatility is fine for low value items, but it becomes an issue with high value stuff. Perhaps varying levels of volatility for different commodities would help.

My experience with price events is that they are bit too unreliable to depend on for trade. Maybe either having more trade convoys to attack, or better information on where/when they will be traveling would help make that feel more reliable. I would like it if I could consistently decide to cause a shortage of a certain good. Right now it more feels like I randomly stumble on a trade convoy, rather than intentionally chase them. I also could just be bad at it. Another idea is to have conveys be guaranteed/more likely to spawn when the player is in a system.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Lucky33 on October 18, 2019, 10:58:37 PM
Open market is the retail. You want to buy in bulk in the retail for reselling and be profitable? Get real.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 19, 2019, 01:34:28 AM
I could see definitely adjusting the tariffs, yeah. I think I've actually already reduced the price volatility a bit in the dev build.

I think what I want to do at some point is have another look at the possible disruptions etc; it feels like there could be more done here content-wise. Food shortage type events, etc... plus right now the trade volumes aren't, imo, high enough - e.g. a shortage of food might only bring profit on 1000 units of it. Delivery missions do fill most of the gap - they're essentially "trade for a profit", just handled a bit differently - but just more variety might be nice.

But, well, more content *almost everywhere* would be good, so we'll see how it goes :)

Just remove the open market from the game already. If open, legal and profitable trading isn't what you want in game then don't bother with it.

Also, delivery mission are trade for a profit the same way a fetch quest is trade for profit. This reminds me of The Elder Scrolls 3 Morrowind where you get several fetch quests from multiple NPCs. One in particular is extremely egregious because you can literally buy what she requests from the NPC doing the requesting.

EDIT. and when I say remove it I don't mean that in a mean spirited kind of way. This (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/Starsector) is Starsector TV Tropes page. Wile I might have only acquired the game as a result of Seth's and Mandalore's videos, even as far back as 2015 (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=VideoGame.Starsector&more=t) when that page was originally made people thought of Starsector as a trading game. True, a trading/exploration/space combat game, but a trading game nonetheless. If that wasn't your intent then removing trading seems like a better idea. Just looking at this thread it is clear this was never meant to be a trading game and most people here seem to take umbrage with actually making trading viable enough to warrant such a descriptor. But as long as the open markets are there that is one of the first things people will think of when they open your game for the first time.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: SCC on October 19, 2019, 04:24:57 AM
Making Starsector a trade game doesn't mean changing the game so that trade is profitable, if it's boring. Or, perhaps, it wouldn't be a good trading game, and what's the point of aiming for mediocrity? I have already said that, since something on the scale of X series isn't happening, instead it should be made dangerous via what we already have: combat. Have open market trading be safer initially, but leading to pirates and your enemies coming after you. Have black market trading be riskier by requiring more stealth and have a higher risk of the faction you're harming coming after you. Have advanced resources be gated behind faction reputation, commander reputation or some random quests. If this was done, open and black markets would become more distinct, too: trade for lower margins and fight only pirates (for a time), or smuggle for loads of dosh at high risk. Currently, smuggling is nearly as safe as normal trading.

I think what I want to do at some point is have another look at the possible disruptions etc; it feels like there could be more done here content-wise. Food shortage type events, etc... plus right now the trade volumes aren't, imo, high enough - e.g. a shortage of food might only bring profit on 1000 units of it.
If only the economy was actually non-linear, so that shortages on bigger colonies actually required more resources to be satisfied, instead of being non-linear only when it's inconvenient to the player...
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: bobucles on October 19, 2019, 06:04:23 AM
Quote
Trade is impossible!
Trade is quite possible
Quote
How are we meant to survive in the cold darkness of space without trade?!
Just trade, ya dork
Quote
Pull the plug! No one should have to suffer the broken hopes and dreams of being a trader!
How did this thread end up with 4 pages?
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 19, 2019, 06:13:59 AM
How did this thread end up with 4 pages?

With geeks like you protesting too much about any possible change to the current trade system. Also, here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU2QX8o5IO8) is an interesting video in suport of SCC's position to make trade more dangerous if it stays in the game - which I no longer think it should.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: DatonKallandor on October 20, 2019, 04:35:12 AM
With geeks like you protesting too much about any possible change to the current trade system. Also, here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU2QX8o5IO8) is an interesting video in suport of SCC's position to make trade more dangerous if it stays in the game - which I no longer think it should.

Oh boy, maybe don't try to support your points with videos about a known scam/nightmarish hellhole of "game design".

Tariffs smaller than the current 30% (Nexerelin uses 18% normally, 9% for free ports) would still fulfill this goal, while not rendering open trade unprofitable even in cases where the design says it should be, such as cases where the the loss to tariffs exceeds surplus/deficit price effects (with 30% tariffs on both ends, you need an 85.7% markup to break even).

If combined with reduced price volatility (since huge price differences are no longer needed to make disruption event trading profitable), this would also fix smuggling being excessively profitable.

It would also throw a bone to non-traders, especially newbies who don't know they're 'meant' to use the black market, when buying things they need and selling vendor trash on the open market.

But that's exactly what the tariffs are supposed to avoid. You are not supposed to be profitable in cases where there isn't a shortage/excess situation on the open market, and reducing the value of smuggling is making the actually intended version of trade less good. You are proposing making boring trade more profitable while making interesting trade less profitable.

For the "newbies". You know what lesson that will teach them? To trade on the open market. Exactly what the design is supposed to not do.

How is this thread even still open?
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Mordodrukow on October 20, 2019, 07:06:46 AM
In Space Rangers there were some settings when you start new game. One of them was "price volatility".

May be just add a setting to change tariffs here to calm down the vampire guy?
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: AlucardNoirsFolly on October 20, 2019, 09:41:18 AM
With geeks like you protesting too much about any possible change to the current trade system. Also, here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU2QX8o5IO8) is an interesting video in suport of SCC's position to make trade more dangerous if it stays in the game - which I no longer think it should.

Oh boy, maybe don't try to support your points with videos about a known scam/nightmarish hellhole of "game design".


Firstly, I'm not supporting my point, I'm supporting SCC.s. Secondly, while you're most likely right the reason the guy in the video gives for enjoying trading is exactly what SCC wants in Starsector to spice legal trading should it be made profitable. He enjoys trading in Star Citizen because of the inherent risk associated with trading, especially high value trading.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Mr. Nobody on October 20, 2019, 09:53:33 AM
especially high value trading.

You mean like smuggling?
Or procurement missions?
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Q8 on October 20, 2019, 10:31:57 AM
@Histidine
Dude, if u think that 18% and 9% tariffs are better, then play Nexerelin. Whats the problem?

This whole topic went over the cuckoo's nest on the page one.
...Tariffs are fine.
If i want to offload crap looted from wherever without reputation hit, i sell it for whatever on the first dock i anchor.
If i want to earn, i sell on the black market, and take a hit to the reputation.
And if i want both, i go dark and work it, witch is not easy, without the sensors perk. Or i go and sell to pirates, that is easier, but may upgrade their ***.
...Tarifs are fine.
Lowering tariffs will only make the game shorter, and the game is short enough as it is. Short to the point, that Alex prolonged it by upping the prices on buildings himself, just for that reason... ye, I better stop here, before ill go into another rant about building prices....
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: FooF on October 20, 2019, 03:30:15 PM
@Alex

I've never quite understood why there isn't granularity when it comes to tariffs. Why is it a monolithic 30% across all factions? It would seem like this would be an opportunity to create faction diversity raising/lowering tariff amounts due to faction doctrine, affinity/reputation with a faction, etc. For example, what if Tri-Tach routinely had better open market offerings but the highest tariffs among the factions but the Luddic Church had the lowest tariffs but, generally speaking, didn't sell much of value? Or do you feel people would just find the most efficient route and it would undermine the whole idea?

Likewise, your own colonies could have adjustable tariffs that affect market accessibility. If you lower tariffs, you gain accessibility at the expense of profits and vice versa. I'm not sure if that just becomes a wash in the end (or if the economy would support cornering a particular commodity and then raising prices) but it seems like an avenue of meaningful choice.
Title: Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
Post by: Goumindong on October 20, 2019, 09:19:06 PM
I've never quite understood why there isn't granularity when it comes to tariffs. Why is it a monolithic 30% across all factions?

Because it removes knowledge barriers to trading and produces a consistent and easily transferable way to read prices. No extra UI is necessary etc.

Plus granularity of tariffs doesnt do anything except make some trade routes more profitable in a predictable way and produce bias for open market salvage sales. Neither of which has a lot of value for the core gameplay cycle