Fractal Softworks Forum

Starsector => General Discussion => Blog Posts => Topic started by: Alex on March 02, 2014, 09:13:39 AM

Title: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 02, 2014, 09:13:39 AM
Blog post here (http://fractalsoftworks.com/2014/03/02/on-trade-design/).
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: FloW on March 02, 2014, 09:30:08 AM
You liar, that's not cool.

That's pretty awesome. Turning trading into more than just "find most profitable route, trade until new, more profitable route is found, rinse, repeat" is great. Can't wait for the next post.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 02, 2014, 09:34:00 AM
You liar, that's not cool.

Yeah, absolutely not cool. That wasn't an intentional pun, in the other thread (http://fractalsoftworks.com/forum/index.php?topic=7790.msg129878#msg129878). Not my fault the speculation got so out of hand! Though I have to admit, it was fun to watch :)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Thaago on March 02, 2014, 09:55:22 AM
Nice! My 2 cents: it absolutely makes sense for there to be a lack of profitable trade routes (race to the bottom, etc) if there is enough shipping in an area. If there's not enough shipping, then imbalances should pop up. Those could be made by an event (pirates preying on shipping, industrial accident...) or possibly by the player (kill all the competition, then run the routes yourself).

I'm very excited to see what you and David have been coming up with for systems and stories - I'm thinking the atmosphere of the game is going to start changing. :)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Sundog on March 02, 2014, 10:03:00 AM
I approve. :)
A lot of trading games would benefit enormously from a trading system closer to what you've described than what they have.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Megas on March 02, 2014, 10:15:34 AM
Trading in many other games is simply "buy low, sell high" - very basic.  Hopefully this will not get too complicated to work with, or get in the way of combat.

In any case, trading is something to do when my units are too weak to fight stuff.  Once my units can fight anything, commerce is only good for getting shinies that cannot be won from combat or acquired any other way.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Cycerin on March 02, 2014, 10:25:53 AM
Excellent. This will really liven up the Sector. I love the idea of being on the ball and looking for opportunities to make a profit, or looking for people trying to make a profit and making a profit off preying on them. Or even making a profit off escorting OTHER traders trying to make a profit... Profit.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: joe130794 on March 02, 2014, 10:39:26 AM
how will the update affect our current saves? i saved up 4 million which i would hate to lose.
and is there any update on more ships and factions?
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: FasterThanSleepyfish on March 02, 2014, 10:49:40 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/B1sA1Tm.jpg)

Quote
Alex: January 19, 2014, 10:28:30 PM
"I'm going to have to be a bit economical with my reply -  :-X"
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: MShadowy on March 02, 2014, 11:02:18 AM
Ah, awesome.  This is gonna be incredibly neat.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, this blog post seems to imply that planets may also be getting some vital statistics so they're more than just scenery, which is pretty cool.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: lStealtherl on March 02, 2014, 11:11:46 AM
I assume there will be abit of credit nerf for killing other fleets?

EDIT: Nvm, forgot fleets would be scattered throughout other systems once implemented.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Doom101 on March 02, 2014, 12:06:45 PM
Heres a question, will there be multiple ways to handle an event that DON'T involve a monetary profit?

I know you mentioned that if a player has ill will towards a planet they could potentially blockade to stop all supplies coming in, but other than selling mass quantities of food to starving people can we just give them food? I know in a former blog post ( or somewhere) you had mentioned Morality and how that would affect how people see you. But then this might be saying too much of the future.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: HELMUT on March 02, 2014, 12:08:06 PM
I didn't expected trade to be like that. This version of trade that Alex show us is actually seems more like a quest system than a trading system. Random quest appears, choose whether or not you want to do it, the quest involve basic "Get things, give them to dude, get money".
For some reasons i expected a more 4X mechanic. Player faction set an automated trading route to get resources, other factions can interact with the routes and influence your faction (pirate raid, Hegemony blockade...), you can choose to defend or attacks trades routes to influence the game.

I'm not saying it is bad by any mean, it will be probably very important for the implementation of the rest of the eventual missions mechanics. But to me it's not "real" trading.

But as Alex said, trading would be quickly boring. Some mods already feature a similar mechanic and while being a freighter captain can get you some safe money, it's not as interesting as blowing up stuffs. Maybe later on (or with mods) we'll be able to set AI trading routes that you will manage, not necessarily as a captain but more as a company director, Starsector Tycoon style.

Not sure if this will be the direction Alex want his game to go though. Starsector seems to be more of a SPAZ's like rather than a 4X or a RTS.

Anyway, i'm looking forward for this neat update.

Edit: BTW, what are your opinion of the cargo items? I can easily recognize resource minerals, weapons on the right and maybe foodstuffs for the middle green/yellow packages but what are the other ones?
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: CedricO on March 02, 2014, 12:11:56 PM
Sounds absolutely amazing. But im still looking forward to having my own planet in the future. :P hopefully it will be difficult to "own" one, and even more difficult to maintain more then one. But thats just my personal hope for this game. That said, this whole post made me excited for this game once again. :)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 02, 2014, 12:29:38 PM
Nice! My 2 cents: it absolutely makes sense for there to be a lack of profitable trade routes (race to the bottom, etc) if there is enough shipping in an area. If there's not enough shipping, then imbalances should pop up. Those could be made by an event (pirates preying on shipping, industrial accident...) or possibly by the player (kill all the competition, then run the routes yourself).

Yep, we're on the same page here.

I'm very excited to see what you and David have been coming up with for systems and stories - I'm thinking the atmosphere of the game is going to start changing. :)

Just from seeing what David's come up with, it's definitely moving in that direction.


In any case, trading is something to do when my units are too weak to fight stuff.  Once my units can fight anything, commerce is only good for getting shinies that cannot be won from combat or acquired any other way.

That's one way to play it, sure. I could also see someone that prefers trade/industry/etc as a matter of playstyle.

Heres a question, will there be multiple ways to handle an event that DON'T involve a monetary profit?

I know you mentioned that if a player has ill will towards a planet they could potentially blockade to stop all supplies coming in, but other than selling mass quantities of food to starving people can we just give them food? I know in a former blog post ( or somewhere) you had mentioned Morality and how that would affect how people see you. But then this might be saying too much of the future.

Depends on the event. Naturally, events in the next release will be more trade-focused, but the system should be flexible enough to handle much more than that.

I didn't expected trade to be like that. This version of trade that Alex show us is actually seems more like a quest system than a trading system. Random quest appears, choose whether or not you want to do it, the quest involve basic "Get things, give them to dude, get money".

Sort of, though I hate calling it a "quest". I think the resemblance is mostly superficial. I mean, you can boil anything down to that, right? Including current combat.

The difference, for me, is that a quest is something that requires active participation from the player and has a scripted way for how it's supposed to go. An event will resolve itself without player interference, and an ideal event has multiple ways for the player to take advantage of a specific opportunity.

That said, you probably *could* get along by taking advantage of these in the most basic/obvious way. Need to see just how it actually plays out!

For some reasons i expected a more 4X mechanic. Player faction set an automated trading route to get resources, other factions can interact with the routes and influence your faction (pirate raid, Hegemony blockade...), you can choose to defend or attacks trades routes to influence the game.

I'm not saying it is bad by any mean, it will be probably very important for the implementation of the rest of the eventual missions mechanics. But to me it's not "real" trading.

But as Alex said, trading would be quickly boring. Some mods already feature a similar mechanic and while being a freighter captain can get you some safe money, it's not as interesting as blowing up stuffs. Maybe later on (or with mods) we'll be able to set AI trading routes that you will manage, not necessarily as a captain but more as a company director, Starsector Tycoon style.

Not sure if this will be the direction Alex want his game to go though. Starsector seems to be more of a SPAZ's like rather than a 4X or a RTS.

I think what you're talking about here falls more under "outposts and industry" rather than the scope trade for the next update. For example, an automated way to make a profit from a "race to the bottom" trade route could work just fine, as long as it doesn't require direct participation from the player. I am keeping an eye on how a player-controlled outpost would fit into the economy, though it's far too early to actually talk about that in any detail.

In short, what you're talking about 1) sounds good and 2) is precisely the sort of stuff that, I think, can be built on top of this foundation. Whether that's exactly how it ends up, well... need to get this portion done first, and then take a good look at everything.


I approve. :)
A lot of trading games would benefit enormously from a trading system closer to what you've described than what they have.
Sounds absolutely amazing. But im still looking forward to having my own planet in the future. :P hopefully it will be difficult to "own" one, and even more difficult to maintain more then one. But thats just my personal hope for this game. That said, this whole post made me excited for this game once again. :)

Thanks, guys :)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Sabaton on March 02, 2014, 12:54:02 PM
 Will this system extend to ships? For example X system was hit badly by a pirate raid and needs ships asap, but only the type of ships it can properly maintain? Like backwater systems preferring some Lashers instead of an Aurora?
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Ishman on March 02, 2014, 01:08:34 PM
One thing I'd like to see would be a UI tab dedicated to trade and those things that fall within it (and some skills of course to complement it (also would like to see being able to expand the functionality of non-critical UI elements for giving more information)).

That is, something to track last known prices of objects everywhere and sort into lists, have a 'subordinate' create trade routes from that data (based on last known/time you visited so it could be totally wrong for more flavor :3 ) and other ways to keep track of money and how it's being used - especially as this will be essential once you implement the more simulated aspects of industrial production requiring precursor goods to make the screws that hold the robot together that makes your widgets that let people poop in space. Also need to be able to figure out who else is making parts and pieces inside that Vertical monopoly so you can dissuade them from impinging on your profits (kill them dead).

So er, more an Economics tab... but come on, I enjoy Spreadsheet Online for a reason.

Can't wait for the point we're talking about a SigInt tab for information \o/
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Doogie on March 02, 2014, 01:14:30 PM
IIRC, there is an Android (maybe IOS too?) game called Star Traders RPG that has a mechanic like this in a glorious fashion. Perhaps you could check it out and take some ideas from that, as I think that being a space trader in that game is ridiculously fun. The game is turn-based and text-based (albeit with pictures and cute graphics)

Here's a basic description.
Spoiler
There are around a dozen different types of goods you can buy/sell at different worlds with dynamic prices. Three of which (weapons, artifacts, electronics) you have to have a trade permit from a respective in-game faction in order to carry, to which also brings in the prospect of smuggling (patrol ships will subject you to searches). Every so often, one of the many worlds will have a surplus or shortage of a certain resource, and that will affect both prices and production of that world and faction. You can find out about these either by witnessing them personally, or hearing a rumor via the in-game bar on each planet. Naturally, this brings the potential to make massive profit, or end up with a bunch of useless cargo if the shortage ends before you get there.
Implementing this in real time would be an amazing game mechanic.
[close]
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 02, 2014, 01:18:43 PM
Excellent. This will really liven up the Sector. I love the idea of being on the ball and looking for opportunities to make a profit, or looking for people trying to make a profit and making a profit off preying on them. Or even making a profit off escorting OTHER traders trying to make a profit... Profit.

Yeah, there are some vague ramblings about "protection money" in a design doc somewhere. Nothing concrete at this point, though.

how will the update affect our current saves? i saved up 4 million which i would hate to lose.
and is there any update on more ships and factions?

I can pretty much promise current saves won't work. Sorry! That's just how it goes, new features generally mean save files won't be compatible.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, this blog post seems to imply that planets may also be getting some vital statistics so they're more than just scenery, which is pretty cool.

Yep.

One thing I'd like to see would be a UI tab dedicated to trade and those things that fall within it (and some skills of course to complement it (also would like to see being able to expand the functionality of non-critical UI elements for giving more information)).

That is, something to track last known prices of objects everywhere and sort into lists, have a 'subordinate' create trade routes from that data (based on last known/time you visited so it could be totally wrong for more flavor :3 ) and other ways to keep track of money and how it's being used - especially as this will be essential once you implement the more simulated aspects of industrial production requiring precursor goods to make the screws that hold the robot together that makes your widgets that let people poop in space. Also need to be able to figure out who else is making parts and pieces inside that Vertical monopoly so you can dissuade them from impinging on your profits (kill them dead).

So er, more an Economics tab... but come on, I enjoy Spreadsheet Online for a reason.

You know, that's precisely the sort of thing that having trade become profitable due to events reduces the need for - it's either profitable because of an ongoing event (in which case you have the details attached to the event), or it's not. That said, there'll be ways to get insights into the economy and how it's working (to figure out who to "kill dead" for optimal results, etc), but I feel that having a tab where you can sort through last known prices of everything, everywhere is digging far too deep.

Can't wait for the point we're talking about a SigInt tab for information \o/

The new "information gathering" tab is called "Intel" at the moment :)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Ordanen on March 02, 2014, 01:21:18 PM
'' but I feel that having a tab where you can sort through last known prices of everything, everywhere is digging far too deep.''

Having the known min/max prices of goods shown at planets would be a godsent though. Memorizing all the information is a pain in some games.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 02, 2014, 01:25:59 PM
Will this system extend to ships? For example X system was hit badly by a pirate raid and needs ships asap, but only the type of ships it can properly maintain? Like backwater systems preferring some Lashers instead of an Aurora?

Ships are more complicated, since blueprints are also involved in their production (and likely in the production of weapons, to some degree.) Still thinking through just how that works in the context of the economy. Clearly, don't want a backwater ending up with a fleet of expensive ships for no good reason, but just why that doesn't happen is TBD.

IIRC, there is an Android (maybe IOS too?) game called Star Traders RPG that has a mechanic like this in a glorious fashion. Perhaps you could check it out and take some ideas from that, as I think that being a space trader in that game is ridiculously fun. The game is turn-based and text-based (albeit with pictures and cute graphics)

Here's a basic description.
Spoiler
There are around a dozen different types of goods you can buy/sell at different worlds with dynamic prices. Three of which (weapons, artifacts, electronics) you have to have a trade permit from a respective in-game faction in order to carry, to which also brings in the prospect of smuggling (patrol ships will subject you to searches). Every so often, one of the many worlds will have a surplus or shortage of a certain resource, and that will affect both prices and production of that world and faction. You can find out about these either by witnessing them personally, or hearing a rumor via the in-game bar on each planet. Naturally, this brings the potential to make massive profit, or end up with a bunch of useless cargo if the shortage ends before you get there.
Implementing this in real time would be an amazing game mechanic.
[close]

Hmm, interesting - yeah, sounds like some of the same ideas. I actually kind of don't want to take a closer look at it - want to keep the thought process (relatively) uncontaminated, if that makes any sense.


Having the known min/max prices of goods shown at planets would be a godsent though. Memorizing all the information is a pain in some games.

Right, for sure - you need to know "is this a good deal here, right now?" But that's needed at the point where you're buying - i.e. the trade screen.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Debido on March 02, 2014, 01:33:13 PM
So what stops you from continually blockading and hoarding precious trade good X for later profit. Does the trade event ramp up the AI trader fleet protection until it's an SDF escorting a lone mule?
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 02, 2014, 01:41:39 PM
So what stops you from continually blockading and hoarding precious trade good X for later profit. Does the trade event ramp up the AI trader fleet protection until it's an SDF escorting a lone mule?

That'd be silly :)

No, the event would just end naturally after a few weeks. One of the underlying assumptions the economic system makes is that not everything that happens is directly represented in the game. A blockade won't ever be complete, for example - stuff will get through. The fleets that do get spawned are more like a representative sample of everything that's going on. As such, what happens to them might have a disproportionately large effect (since they have, let's call it, "narrative importance"), but it won't ever be the whole picture.

Trying to get all the necessary shipping to happen via fleets actually represented in-game would be ... impractical.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Debido on March 02, 2014, 02:08:55 PM
Mmm, yes I can see how It would become impractical eventually, as well as keeping all that data in memory. That said, the label on the tin suggested we could be the perpetrator of the event rather than reacting to a random timer the event of a station or planet running out of supplies.

"Cripple core world supply lines to cause chaos and create easy prey for piracy or bolster the rule of law and try to reverse the sector’s descent into anarchy"

I'm not sure if it's been answered yet, but can our actions cause the event to occur? Can I for instance stop the Oxygen trader getting through the planet, thereby denying breathing air and causing mass death.

Or maybe you supply aphrodisiacs to the planet and 9 months later there is a sudden population boom therefore requiring more food/oxygen.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Gothars on March 02, 2014, 02:34:04 PM
That sounds really great - not like a system that allows you to be a trader, but like one that allows you to be extraordinaire mercantile genius trader! Which should be way more fun :)
I'm so happy if I don't have to write down a thousand different prices of a thousand different things on a thousand little slips of paper - I've done that too often, I never want to do that again.

I'm a little skeptical how a regular, grinding type of trade should be viable for automated outpost affairs and at the same time not for the player. Either you can make no benefit, then an automated system can't make one either, or you can. Maybe it's just the existence of a far better alternative approach that removes "normal" trading from the viable options for the player controlled fleet?


By the way, the picture of the Atlas with the planets in the backdrop rocks! The trade goods icons look good too, although I can't identify most of them yet. (Best Guess: Rocks - infernium - autofacs - household goods - food - water - luxury items - weapons)


Quote
I was thinking of doing that here, but the post is already getting pretty long, so I’ll hold off on that.

What in the world gave you the idea a blogpost could ever be too long? ;D

Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: kazi on March 02, 2014, 02:35:42 PM
AAAHAHHA you have no idea how I excited I am about this blog post!!!! (I was like "I really hope Alex decides to trade instead of more combat stuff...")

I really, really like the event style trading idea.

A few idea I had on its implementation:
-Have multiple tiers of commodities: basic "building-block" items, processed "manufactured items," and extremely rare items that have to be found/mined by the player (would give you an incentive to launch expeditions to go and find these things).

-If you find a deposit of something super valuable that isn't being exploited yet, you can sell its location to a friendly faction if you don't feel like mining it yourself (and they might set up an operation there to mine it later).

-Certain factions and worlds would always pay a premium on certain rare/hard to find items. These items would appear relatively infrequently and you would obtain them either through piracy or going around and actively looking for them at different stations. Say one planet is actively trying to prevent its terraforming efforts from backsliding (a state it will be in for a very long time). It would always pay a premium on life forms used for terraforming or something like that.

-Player and AI owned stations would either produce "building-block" items at a slow rate or process "building-blocks" into more high quality goods. The processing plants would require you to constantly feed them raw materials in order to build things. You could set up an AI controlled trade route (that gets raided by pirates) to transfer raw materials from your other stations to the processing plant. For instance, one station might mine infernium, and then your AI controlled freighter fleets would take that to your refinery that makes fuel. You could then tell another AI freighter to look for the highest price in the nearest X systems and sell your fuel there. The profit margin on this would be pretty low, but it would give you a small, steady trickle of income and make you feel like you're running a business empire.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 02, 2014, 02:52:58 PM
Mmm, yes I can see how It would become impractical eventually, as well as keeping all that data in memory. That said, the label on the tin suggested we could be the perpetrator of the event rather than reacting to a random timer the event of a station or planet running out of supplies.

"Cripple core world supply lines to cause chaos and create easy prey for piracy or bolster the rule of law and try to reverse the sector’s descent into anarchy"

I'm not sure if it's been answered yet, but can our actions cause the event to occur? Can I for instance stop the Oxygen trader getting through the planet, thereby denying breathing air and causing mass death.

Or maybe you supply aphrodisiacs to the planet and 9 months later there is a sudden population boom therefore requiring more food/oxygen.

Well, seeing how the implementation for most of that doesn't actually exist yet, the answer is a resounding "maybe" across the board :)

In general, I think you're coming up with a very specific interpretation of a rather high-level statement. Not to say your interpretation is wrong or right, but mining the stuff on the front page for low-level details (i.e. whether supply lines can be disrupted through interacting with existing events vs creating new events, and exactly what "supply lines" even means in the context of that statement) isn't going to yield useful results.

Letting the player influence how things go in the Sector is a good thing, and firmly remains a design goal. The sum total of how that's accomplished is another question.

Edit: besides, not everything that happens and has an impact has to have an event associated with it. A large part of having events is letting the player know what's going on elsewhere; the player is already aware of the things they did. Though it might be nice to see those pop up in news reports here and there, for different reasons.

I'm so happy if I don't have to write down a thousand different prices of a thousand different things on a thousand little slips of paper - I've done that too often, I never want to do that again.

Me neither.


I'm a little skeptical how a regular, grinding type of trade should be viable for automated outpost affairs and at the same time not for the player. Either you can make no benefit, then an automated system can't make one either, or you can. Maybe it's just the existence of a far better alternative approach that removes "normal" trading from the viable options for the player controlled fleet?

There are some possibilities here, but it's definitely not something that's been thought all the way through. Good thing outposts aren't in the next update :)

(As an example: a successful outpost might produce stuff on a scale that's drastically different than the scale you could ship on, even with a dedicated freighter fleet, allowing you to make some volume deals. Not to say that's why/how, just a thought. Another possibility is that events still drive the profits from automated outpost trade, but it happens automatically and somewhat behind the scenes. Yet another possibility is that trade isn't profitable due to tariffs on both ends of the transaction, and eliminating the tariffs on one end - the one you control - is enough to make it work. Lots of options here, I think.)

By the way, the picture of the Atlas with the planets in the backdrop rocks! The trade goods icons look good too, although I can't identify most of them yet. (Best Guess: Rocks - infernium - autofacs - household goods - food - water - luxury items - weapons)

Yeah, loving that picture myself. (I'm allowed to say that because I obviously had nothing to do with drawing it.)

Pretty good guesses on the commodities: got 4 out the 8.

Quote
I was thinking of doing that here, but the post is already getting pretty long, so I’ll hold off on that.

What in the world gave you the idea a blogpost could ever be too long? ;D

Ha! Mainly my desire to get some coding done.


@kazi: Cool stuff! I'm going to plead "implementation details, too early" in not commenting on the specifics, but yeah, neat ideas. Some already talked about internally :)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Cycerin on March 02, 2014, 03:59:05 PM
I like that little drawing a lot too. Such a friendly, harmless fleet. (Dram, Atlas, Mercury?)

I wonder what's the biggest change in the story since David took over the lore rudders. Looking forward to finding out.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Gothars on March 02, 2014, 04:07:03 PM
A more general question, Alex: Can you estimate how much of your dev time is spent on conceptualizing/design, and how much is the actual programming/implementation? I can't help to notice that by now you came up with a whole bunch of pretty unique, intricate game mechanics of which I had never heard before. I wonder if you maybe spent much more time thinking about what you're doing than it is the case in the average game production.


Oh, and on the news reports: Will they be objective, reliable reports or will they be colored by faction politics? What I want to know is basically if they are going to be "just" an UI element or another game mechanic, a battlefield of information.


And I have to mention how great this whole thing could work in conjunction with the boarding system: Intercepting  freighters just before they reach their target and boarding them to maximize the amount of the currently "hot" resource you get in your greedy claws - that's a real good motivation to attempt a now oh so risky boarding maneuver!
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Sonlirain on March 02, 2014, 04:21:18 PM
While i like the ideas of events that shape the sector (and let you earn thick wads of cash) i still think trading should be profitable... at least usually.
BUT
there will be a lot of competotors in safer sectors with a lot of hegemony presence so the earnings will be miserable when you take fuel and ship maitenance costs into account.

However the less hegemony (and more pirate) activity the less traders work in a sector and colonies there are constantly in need of certain wares they pay at a premium for.

Of course you could bring a well armed fleet there and trade without worrying about pirates... till they decide to gang up.
Or the planet there is too small or underdeveloped to generate enough trade goods for your atlas and three escort onslaughts to be profitable when taking maitenance costs into account.

And what if yor fleets become their sole suplier of food or other comodity they NEED? Maybe you could literally seize control of the planet by being their sole supplier in a pirate infested sector... and what if you become the unoficial "police" in that sector that clears out pirates and collects *taxes* from passing traders?

This way you could also differenciate the trader fleet compositions in systems depending on their "safety levels" with solitary Buffalos flying around in safe ones Mules/Hounds in mildly dangerouns ones and infrequently a fleet of Tarsus/Atlas class ships escorted by Hegemony Cruisers/Destroyers in the most dangerous sectors the hegemony has some interest in shipping large ammounts of freight in and out.

This way a player that wants to focus on trading gets something to do between (semi) random disasters (that let him earn thick wads of cash if he plays the cards right).
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Doom101 on March 02, 2014, 04:43:23 PM
-snip-
However the less hegemony (and more pirate) activity the less traders work in a sector and colonies there are constantly in need of certain wares they pay at a premium for.

This way you could also differenciate the trader fleet compositions in systems depending on their "safety levels" with solitary Buffalos flying around in safe ones Mules/Hounds in mildly dangerouns ones and infrequently a fleet of Tarsus/Atlas class ships escorted by Hegemony Cruisers/Destroyers in the most dangerous sectors the hegemony has some interest in shipping large ammounts of freight in and out.

This way a player that wants to focus on trading gets something to do between (semi) random disasters (that let him earn thick wads of cash if he plays the cards right).

You know what would be awesome if that last part about relatively unprotected fleets in really safe areas goes in?

instead of playing the bounty hunter who kills all the pirates, or the trader who runs whole economies, being the boldest pirate in the sector that sets up shop right in the heart of the hegemony and makes all those unprotected buffalos and other freighters fear for their lives. for a fast frigate fleet it'd be like taking candy from a baby, delicious money flavored candy. ( especially at a high NAV level with that and hullmods most frigates can sustain a 14 or 16 burn level while not even in hyper space)  Although i imagine being the only hostile target in a system filled with hegemony patrols and defense fleets might get very hectic very fast when suddenly everyone wants you dead.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Sonlirain on March 02, 2014, 04:54:09 PM
You know what would be awesome if that last part about relatively unprotected fleets in really safe areas goes in?

instead of playing the bounty hunter who kills all the pirates, or the trader who runs whole economies, being the boldest pirate in the sector that sets up shop right in the heart of the hegemony and makes all those unprotected buffalos and other freighters fear for their lives. for a fast frigate fleet it'd be like taking candy from a baby, delicious money flavored candy. ( especially at a high NAV level with that and hullmods most frigates can sustain a 14 or 16 burn level while not even in hyper space)  Although i imagine being the only hostile target in a system filled with hegemony patrols and defense fleets might get very hectic very fast when suddenly everyone wants you dead.

A pirate would need a safe place to "set up shop" after all he needs supplies to keep his ship working.
However the safer sectors don't have any pirate outsposts or rival factions in them so if you make its inhabitants hate you... well you have nowhere to buy supplies from and will have to leave sooner than later (assuming you can't scavenge all required materials off wrecked buffalos).
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: David on March 02, 2014, 05:06:56 PM
I wonder what's the biggest change in the story since David took over the lore rudders. Looking forward to finding out.

In general terms I *think* Ivaylo had more of a Warhammer 40k/Dune-ish angle on things, some kind of 'operatic scifi' maybe (I guess that's "space opera", but the meaning has mutated, expanded, and been reinterpreted a bit), though I can't say for sure because I'm not Ivaylo nor do I know Warhammer 40k in any depth - while I'm more ... um, I'd have to write you a list of sf books. Which is a great idea for a blog post actually! (And I recall that the manual for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri had a reading list in the back, which was awesome.)

But some of my favourite SF authors (right now) are probably Iain M. Banks (may he RIP), Alastair Reynolds, maybe Ken Macleod which probably tells you something if you're familiar with their work. May be forgetting some; growing up I used to read all sorts of stuff from my mom's science fiction collection, which was huge. Probably read most of the "years best SF" collections edited by Gardner Dozois for example; tons of Bear, Brin, Niven, Heinlein, LeGuin, KSR, etc. I'll go into more detail in a hypothetical blog post. History is also a big source of material, making parallels to historical events & etc. 

Bewarned I can ramble on about this for quite some time.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Mattk50 on March 02, 2014, 05:26:41 PM
Im a little worried about the... validity of the trade system. if it is *only* random events creating trade opportunities, there is a large problem. Additionally, some profit should be possible even without these events, so you have something to scrounge if you really need to.

What i mean is, all these fleets of traders roaming around, if a certain station has a pirate infestation at a certain point in its orbit maybe, that prevents any traders from getting to that station, during that period prices should rise due to lack of traders visiting and prices could go up.

I agree with the assessment that from your blog post, it sounds like trading will be nothing more than a thing you get a popup quest for every now and then and do, rather than a real profession that makes buying an atlas fleet worth it. It could just be from the blog's presentation rather than your actual intentions though.

Edit: additionally, if im not a trader getting trader event popups could get very annoying. it did in evochron mercenary and that was only for distress calls.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 02, 2014, 05:41:22 PM
A more general question, Alex: Can you estimate how much of your dev time is spent on conceptualizing/design, and how much is the actual programming/implementation? I can't help to notice that by now you came up with a whole bunch of pretty unique, intricate game mechanics of which I had never heard before. I wonder if you maybe spent much more time thinking about what you're doing than it is the case in the average game production.

Ah, thanks :) I'm pretty sure even the stuff I think is new/unique isn't; with very few exceptions - and speaking generally, not just about Starsector - it's all been done before. That's not a bad thing, though; there's plenty of room to put things together in interesting combinations, or just to try to execute something better than it's been done before.

To answer your question, it's really hard to estimate, and beyond that, I have no idea what "average" is. To make things even more confusing, a lot of what one might classify as "design" is the result of a lot of iteration, so how would you even count the time spent, you know, creating the five prior versions of one thing or another, until it finally felt right, or close to it? A good example is the command UI - look where it started out vs where it's at now, and then consider there were a few extra iterations along the way that never saw the light of day :)

Oh, and on the news reports: Will they be objective, reliable reports or will they be colored by faction politics? What I want to know is basically if they are going to be "just" an UI element or another game mechanic, a battlefield of information.

Very much leaning towards the latter, tempered by not making things much too complicated.

And I have to mention how great this whole thing could work in conjunction with the boarding system: Intercepting  freighters just before they reach their target and boarding them to maximize the amount of the currently "hot" resource you get in your greedy claws - that's a real good motivation to attempt a now oh so risky boarding maneuver!

Hmm, yeah. Hadn't considered that, but that's pretty neat and "free".


While i like the ideas of events that shape the sector (and let you earn thick wads of cash) i still think trading should be profitable... at least usually.
BUT
there will be a lot of competotors in safer sectors with a lot of hegemony presence so the earnings will be miserable when you take fuel and ship maitenance costs into account.

However the less hegemony (and more pirate) activity the less traders work in a sector and colonies there are constantly in need of certain wares they pay at a premium for.

Of course you could bring a well armed fleet there and trade without worrying about pirates... till they decide to gang up.
Or the planet there is too small or underdeveloped to generate enough trade goods for your atlas and three escort onslaughts to be profitable when taking maitenance costs into account.

I get what you're saying - that sounds good on paper. But as much as it seems like it could work, I'm pretty sure that there'd be some cases where a safe, easy route was also profitable. With players being really good at spotting that sort of thing, it wouldn't matter if the system works 99% of the time. They'd be doing the 1% thing because it's optimal. Trying to get that sort of "organic" system to work 100% of the time is like herding cats, not going to happen.

Then, you also create the need for the player to be aware of prices of everything, everywhere. With the "no profit except for extraordinary circumstances" approach, the price of food who-knows-where generally *doesn't matter*, and that's a really good thing.

I should say that there's one case where I'd like something like regular trade to be profitable - shipping exotic, luxury goods. The idea there is that they bring in more profit further away from their world of origin, so design-wise, you're guaranteed that it's going to be a very long trip. Then, if the trip itself is difficult enough (having to refuel/resupply on the way, maybe pirates specifically hunting you since they know you carry high-value stuff, etc), it could work without becoming repetitive. Really need to see it in action, though, and it might need even more star systems than the next release will have to work properly.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Cycerin on March 02, 2014, 05:53:02 PM
I wonder what's the biggest change in the story since David took over the lore rudders. Looking forward to finding out.

In general terms I *think* Ivaylo had more of a Warhammer 40k/Dune-ish angle on things, some kind of 'operatic scifi' maybe (I guess that's "space opera", but the meaning has mutated, expanded, and been reinterpreted a bit), though I can't say for sure because I'm not Ivaylo nor do I know Warhammer 40k in any depth - while I'm more ... um, I'd have to write you a list of sf books. Which is a great idea for a blog post actually! (And I recall that the manual for Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri had a reading list in the back, which was awesome.)

But some of my favourite SF authors (right now) are probably Iain M. Banks (may he RIP), Alastair Reynolds, maybe Ken Macleod which probably tells you something if you're familiar with their work. May be forgetting some; growing up I used to read all sorts of stuff from my mom's science fiction collection, which was huge. Probably read most of the "years best SF" collections edited by Gardner Dozois for example; tons of Bear, Brin, Niven, Heinlein, LeGuin, KSR, etc. I'll go into more detail in a hypothetical blog post. History is also a big source of material, making parallels to historical events & etc.  

Bewarned I can ramble on about this for quite some time.

Cool. Yeah, I got that vibe too. Especially the Warhammer/Dune stuff with a "past age of glory and sin" that can never be relived by Humanity.

Those writers... all the greats, practically. I'm very much inspired by Banks, Brin, Niven and etc. myself. I also really like old, pulpy sci-fi, like Cordwainer Smith.. he might have popped up in those old anthologies, I can imagine. From what I can pick up on, it seems like the vibe is now less of a.. post-technological setting, and more of a standard dystopia, where everything is in a slow decline, and those who have power end up reigning over the rest?
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Sonlirain on March 02, 2014, 06:18:36 PM
I should say that there's one case where I'd like something like regular trade to be profitable - shipping exotic, luxury goods. The idea there is that they bring in more profit further away from their world of origin, so design-wise, you're guaranteed that it's going to be a very long trip. Then, if the trip itself is difficult enough (having to refuel/resupply on the way, maybe pirates specifically hunting you since they know you carry high-value stuff, etc), it could work without becoming repetitive. Really need to see it in action, though, and it might need even more star systems than the next release will have to work properly.
I agree. I think it would be cool if there were 4 luxury goods (maybe faction specific?) each made in one of the 4 corners of the sector (not literally but close) that would require a fairly long trek.
Also form a pure traders perspective its infinitely better than having to prey on RNG events since those while fun are definitely not a reliable form of income.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Verrius on March 02, 2014, 08:04:46 PM
I very much like what I read.

In fact, from the moment I finished the first paragraph, in my mind I pictured a scenario of myself sitting at a table, with an officer telling me about some juicy information about a far off planet in need of resources.

I like the move towards that versus the "standard" trading. In reality, the buy-low-sell-high trading system doesn't actually make much sense; Most of the time, that sort of thing is handled behind closed doors, with businesses and corporations working with specific suppliers. I can see it work for less civilized worlds, but for mega-corporations, I can't imagine they'd operate like normal space games do, except in of course very unusual circumstances like these events.
 
Not that that sort of trading shouldn't be at least potentially viable. But in reality, I can't see it being such a way to get rich easy like most games. Trading would generally work more like getting employed for freight work or mercenary contracting.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Mattk50 on March 02, 2014, 09:07:50 PM
I should say that there's one case where I'd like something like regular trade to be profitable - shipping exotic, luxury goods. The idea there is that they bring in more profit further away from their world of origin, so design-wise, you're guaranteed that it's going to be a very long trip. Then, if the trip itself is difficult enough (having to refuel/resupply on the way, maybe pirates specifically hunting you since they know you carry high-value stuff, etc), it could work without becoming repetitive. Really need to see it in action, though, and it might need even more star systems than the next release will have to work properly.
I agree. I think it would be cool if there were 4 luxury goods (maybe faction specific?) each made in one of the 4 corners of the sector (not literally but close) that would require a fairly long trek.
Also form a pure traders perspective its infinitely better than having to prey on RNG events since those while fun are definitely not a reliable form of income.

I hope the luxury goods are intended to be traded in large enough quantities for making it worthwhile for traders to invest in freighters
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Gothars on March 03, 2014, 03:17:40 AM
how would you even count the time spent, you know, creating the five prior versions of one thing or another, until it finally felt right, or close to it?

I would classify that as externalized thinking :)


Oh, and on the news reports: Will they be objective, reliable reports or will they be colored by faction politics? What I want to know is basically if they are going to be "just" an UI element or another game mechanic, a battlefield of information.
Very much leaning towards the latter, tempered by not making things much too complicated.

Great! If it goes so far that I could weaken a faction by preventing them from getting certain information, while supplying them to their competition... Shadow Broker playthrough here I come ;D

And I have to mention how great this whole thing could work in conjunction with the boarding system: Intercepting  freighters just before they reach their target and boarding them to maximize the amount of the currently "hot" resource you get in your greedy claws - that's a real good motivation to attempt a now oh so risky boarding maneuver!

Hmm, yeah. Hadn't considered that, but that's pretty neat and "free".

Related to that, it would be ...good for my conscience to be able to play as a pirate who is not all about killing and blowing things up. Meaning, ships should be able to surrender, or at least surrender the content of their storage compartment if threatened by sufficient force.



I should say that there's one case where I'd like something like regular trade to be profitable - shipping exotic, luxury goods.
I agree. I think it would be cool if there were 4 luxury goods (maybe faction specific?) each made in one of the 4 corners of the sector (not literally but close) that would require a fairly long trek.

Or luxury goods could just be one type of trade good with a suffix about its origin. I'm hauling "Luxury goods from Corvus IV".
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Histidine on March 03, 2014, 05:50:12 AM
Wait, does this mean we can't play the utterly amoral speculator who buys out 80% of a system's much-needed resources with his superior credit balance then drip-feeds it back in at extortionary prices?
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: xenoargh on March 03, 2014, 10:02:19 AM
Wait, does this mean we can't play the utterly amoral speculator who buys out 80% of a system's much-needed resources with his superior credit balance then drip-feeds it back in at extortionary prices?
No, you can do that behavior, too; simply dump vast quantities of Resource X into the Neutral Station and wait for opportunity to come knocking. 

In the end, that's probably the most efficient way to earn money under the system as proposed.

Anyhow, my $0.02:

1.  I like the general idea of the proposed "trade" system, in the sense that it gets rid of the really boring parts and gets rid of the icky green-eyeshades stuff. 

I also like the luxury-goods thing, which is basically how I re-implemented trade in Mount and Blade: Warband.  It offers players a way to do steady runs with steady returns and a moderate profit.

2.  It seems like, from a programming POV, that developing a system where bounties are made available on certain parties, giving players combat challenges they could undertake for fun and profit, would be pretty easy to tie to such an event-based system.  You've got the event system there; all you then need is the bounty targets and a method where the player gets paid upon completion, which is straightforward.

3.  The only issue I see with this is that, for it to really work well and feel like much of a challenge, smaller fleets need to attack the player; the way that it works right now, where they're very risk-averse, seems like it might not create a lot of challenge, if the player stays in good relations with everybody but the Pirates.

Another way to handle this is by having such activities be the first official mechanic that (finally) effects reputation in a dynamic way.  So you might bring much-needed Fertilizer to a Tri-Tachyon facility, which makes them happier with you but is looked upon with skepticism by the Hegemony (slight negative rep. per unit moved) and might be considered a criminal action by a third party (significant negative rep. per unit moved), putting the player on their hit-list.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Obscure on March 03, 2014, 10:17:02 AM
Much of this looks to be very interesting, and i'm very excited.

One thing I would like to comment on is an issue I have had with many other games with trade mechanics. that is visibility of the economy.

what do I mean by that? I mean that I'm hoping for a system here where it will be easy to see the profitable trades. perhaps some indicator of demand when you are looking to trade goods. i agree that having a repetitive buy here, sell here at a profit would be very boring, and having to find the opportunities out there would be a great was of keeping it very interesting, but i would be concerned if the process was too opaque. i hope we will be able to see these deals and make use of them the instant we start playing!
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Thana on March 03, 2014, 10:26:27 AM
Well, this certainly sounds like a system that ought to make trading more interesting than hopping back and forth between planets, dodging pirates. And I like the idea of its implications going beyond just the trading subsystem.

And I'm really excited to see that whole new areas of gameplay are going to be opening up in the next update. I, at least, have been waiting for something like this for quite some time now!  :)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Trylobot on March 03, 2014, 11:33:11 AM
Wish I had some useful information to give you Alex regarding your post, but all I can say is, "Agree." Can't wait to play around with it.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 03, 2014, 03:17:47 PM
Also form a pure traders perspective its infinitely better than having to prey on RNG events since those while fun are definitely not a reliable form of income.

That really depends on how frequent those events are, whether certain events are more likely to happen in certain areas, whether something the player does can raise the odds, whether they can get some advance notice an event is going to happen, etc.


I like the move towards that versus the "standard" trading. In reality, the buy-low-sell-high trading system doesn't actually make much sense; Most of the time, that sort of thing is handled behind closed doors, with businesses and corporations working with specific suppliers. I can see it work for less civilized worlds, but for mega-corporations, I can't imagine they'd operate like normal space games do, except in of course very unusual circumstances like these events.
 
Not that that sort of trading shouldn't be at least potentially viable. But in reality, I can't see it being such a way to get rich easy like most games. Trading would generally work more like getting employed for freight work or mercenary contracting.

Yeah, that's very much how I'm thinking about it. All the easy stuff is going to get snapped by be people on the inside track, and even out of those, only a few at the top will make serious profits.

I hope the luxury goods are intended to be traded in large enough quantities for making it worthwhile for traders to invest in freighters

Maybe. We'll have to see; the thing that's going to determine how well luxury goods trade works is whether a long trek can be made interesting and varied enough to not be repetitive. I do like the idea of hauling a ton of stuff across the Sector on an Atlas, though, since that seems to have a lot of potential for mishaps along the way.


Wait, does this mean we can't play the utterly amoral speculator who buys out 80% of a system's much-needed resources with his superior credit balance then drip-feeds it back in at extortionary prices?
No, you can do that behavior, too; simply dump vast quantities of Resource X into the Neutral Station and wait for opportunity to come knocking. 

In the end, that's probably the most efficient way to earn money under the system as proposed.

What neutral station? Actually, it'll probably be around for the next release, but I wouldn't count on that sticking around forever.

Also: buying 80% of a system's much-needed resources is going to cost a LOT of money, more than selling it back would gain you. And they're not going to sell you their last supplies etc. You can probably still find a way to set things up well for yourself, but if "buy stuff, sell it back" actually netted any profit at all, that'd be a broken system.


3.  The only issue I see with this is that, for it to really work well and feel like much of a challenge, smaller fleets need to attack the player; the way that it works right now, where they're very risk-averse, seems like it might not create a lot of challenge, if the player stays in good relations with everybody but the Pirates.

Yeah, the way the Sector is right now - even with the new star systems David is adding - I'm not sure it'll be big enough to let luxury goods trade work how it should. But it might. There are also some REDACTED ideas about making travel through non-hostile territory hazardous.


Another way to handle this is by having such activities be the first official mechanic that (finally) effects reputation in a dynamic way.  So you might bring much-needed Fertilizer to a Tri-Tachyon facility, which makes them happier with you but is looked upon with skepticism by the Hegemony (slight negative rep. per unit moved) and might be considered a criminal action by a third party (significant negative rep. per unit moved), putting the player on their hit-list.

Something like that is actually under consideration. The details might be tricky, though. Wouldn't want permanent hostility with the Hegemony because you sold 1 unit of hand weapons to Tri Tachyon 3 cycles ago.


One thing I would like to comment on is an issue I have had with many other games with trade mechanics. that is visibility of the economy.

what do I mean by that? I mean that I'm hoping for a system here where it will be easy to see the profitable trades. perhaps some indicator of demand when you are looking to trade goods. i agree that having a repetitive buy here, sell here at a profit would be very boring, and having to find the opportunities out there would be a great was of keeping it very interesting, but i would be concerned if the process was too opaque. i hope we will be able to see these deals and make use of them the instant we start playing!

Right, totally agree. Which is why I'm working on the system for getting information to the player first.


Well, this certainly sounds like a system that ought to make trading more interesting than hopping back and forth between planets, dodging pirates. And I like the idea of its implications going beyond just the trading subsystem.

And I'm really excited to see that whole new areas of gameplay are going to be opening up in the next update. I, at least, have been waiting for something like this for quite some time now!  :)

Wish I had some useful information to give you Alex regarding your post, but all I can say is, "Agree." Can't wait to play around with it.

Thanks, guys - I'm looking forward to seeing it in action myself :)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Gothars on March 03, 2014, 03:52:11 PM
Any thoughts on goods with an expiration date? I could imagine that it might be interesting for luxury goods if you had a timer on the delivery, and after it has run down their value starts to decrease. That could be because you have actually perishable goods, but they could also fall victim to the changing fashion, which is quite volatile for most anything considered luxurious.
In combination with the more-distance-more-profit mechanic that would also give incentive to use fast trading fleets over slow and capacious ones. You can carry more items in slow fleets, but you can't reach the highest paying markets before their value starts to decrease.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Cycerin on March 03, 2014, 03:54:35 PM
Will the new systems added actually begin to involve "Core Worlds" and whatnot? Corvus has always been the nexus of the Starsector campaign, is that going to change now?
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 03, 2014, 04:03:17 PM
Any thoughts on goods with an expiration date? I could imagine that it might be interesting for luxury goods if you had a timer on the delivery, and after it has run down their value starts to decrease. That could be because you have actually perishable goods,

Seems like it'd be too complicated to manage. Say you buy 10 units of perishables, and then 10 more a day later, etc. Would be a mess.

... but they could also fall victim to the changing fashion, which is quite volatile for most anything considered luxurious.
In combination with the more-distance-more-profit mechanic that would also give incentive to use fast trading fleets over slow and capacious ones. You can carry more items in slow fleets, but you can't reach the highest paying markets before their value starts to decrease.

That sounds like a good candidate for an event. "The changing tastes of the elite on world X blah blah blah". You don't actually need perishables for that to work - the time pressure is provided by the event: you've got to get to market before conspicuous consumption of Volturnian Lobster falls out of fashion.


Will the new systems added actually begin to involve "Core Worlds" and whatnot? Corvus has always been the nexus of the Starsector campaign, is that going to change now?

Without getting into too much detail, it might turn out that some of the planets in Corvus have been "core worlds" all along, or at least populated. I don't know if the term "core world" can really apply to a small, hardscrabble population trying to eke out a living on the edge of disaster. Right now, there's a more continuous spectrum between "outpost" and "core world", instead of it being a binary distinction, but we'll see how that pans out.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: ciago92 on March 03, 2014, 04:09:05 PM

Something like that is actually under consideration. The details might be tricky, though. Wouldn't want permanent hostility with the Hegemony because you sold 1 unit of hand weapons to Tri Tachyon 3 cycles ago.


Counterpoint: you attacked the TT 3 cycles ago, can you now sell them hand weapons to get them off your back?

ie Diplomacy now has a sliding scale of more than {1,0,-1}={friendly, neutral, hostile}? Where you get better prices if you're higher in the friendly but they don't immediately come after you if you're slightly negative? something like poor prices through -10, then hostile below -10? where lots of sales to opposing faction is like -3 but attacking a fleet is -20 or something? details to be balanced of course
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 03, 2014, 04:11:02 PM
Well, yes. That's what I mean by "tricky", getting the details of that sort of thing right :)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Cosmitz on March 03, 2014, 04:48:42 PM
I don't know if anyone mentioned, but Alex, you might want to play Star Traders RPG on Android. It has a system almost exactly word for word what you're trying to do. They call them rumors instead of news, and you get them by visiting bars and either getting some of the free tips or paying for better ones. Some are useful, some are just yipp-yapper. They go from trade info like shortages or surplus to notices of cheaper equipment and notes of extra piracy going on in an area. You can also do normal trade without relying on rumors but it's a lot less profitable.

Thing is these rumors also affect NPCs, traders rush to fill the same shortage you are trying, the ones in the faster ships guarantee profit, but not a lot of it, while huge slow freighters will definitely bring in the money, but if the shortage ends, they end up with stuff they might sell at brake-even or loss. A surplus/shortage planet will also be more heavily pirate-camped than a non-event one.

Actually, in total retrospect, you REALLY should play it. The way everything is done, from factions wars and such, trade embargoes to fuel usage and how different cargos on your ship gave you bonuses to some actions... i'd love to see similar in StarSector.

LE: Link for conveniance, search for non-elite for the free demo: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.corytrese.games.startraderselite&hl=en
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: xenoargh on March 03, 2014, 04:51:20 PM
Quote
What neutral station? Actually, it'll probably be around for the next release, but I wouldn't count on that sticking around forever.
I eliminated it from Vacuum and most people weren't all that unhappy to see it go, but that's because there aren't any serious issues with choice anxiety in the mod, other than "what pew-pew shall I use to blow things away with".

I think that the concept of off-board storage is super-important in RPGs where scarcity of things to buy / loot is a given; if there's nowhere to put that Ion Cannon you've looted and don't want to sell, it can create a bit of choice anxiety for players and that's generally not a good thing.  

I mainly skirted that issue in Vacuum by making sure that there was very little choice anxiety- pretty much anything you want, you can find it- but if I rein in the amount of goods available, then it's going to promptly rear its head again.  Anyhow, just my $0.02 on that; choice anxiety is always present in a RPG to one extent or another but this is one of the kinds that is usually more trouble than it's worth.

Quote
Also: buying 80% of a system's much-needed resources is going to cost a LOT of money, more than selling it back would gain you. And they're not going to sell you their last supplies etc. You can probably still find a way to set things up well for yourself, but if "buy stuff, sell it back" actually netted any profit at all, that'd be a broken system.
First off, I think we have a bit of confusion here; I'm not actually saying that cornering markets will be profitable or useful.  I think that's one thing that this system won't really allow for or it'll be pretty pointless, in terms of reward.
 
Sitting on the kinds of resources that will suddenly become quite valuable during Events, on the other hand, rather than wasting one's time trying to find a supply of said resource, buying it and then heading to the Event, all within the time limit... that is quite attractive as a strategy, under the system as proposed.  

However, by the time players can afford to sit on things in sufficient amounts that they can make money that way, they're doing pretty well... and if some of these things are perishable (which I think is a great idea, and it covers food, clothing, electronics and a lot of other things), that keeps it from being too easy or mega-profitable.

---------------------------------

On the relationship thing; I think it should matter, but I agree it's not simple; that said, there are ways to make it matter while telling the player what's going to happen diplomatically:

Spoiler
Tri-Tachyon Space Bazaar 'Dollar King' Blockaded by Hegemony Military

The "Dollar King" Space Bazaar in the Shale Nebula system of Hiawatha is being blockaded by the local Hegemony forces as part of an anti-piracy campaign.  Hegemony sources indicate that the "Dollar King" has been a favorite re-supply and money-laundering spot for local pirates, a charge Tri-Tachyon officials have firmly denied.  Until this crisis is over, the station's supplies of Food, Oxygen, and Military Circuitry are dwindling quickly.

Local Pirate "Red-Hand" George has said that his "brotherhood" will be attempting to smuggle goods into the station in defiance of Hegemony actions "to save this station's inhabitants from Hegemony tyranny", but has stated that "my boys will make all the deliveries; if you want to help out the station, bring the goods to us for proper processing.  People crossing the Hegemony line without our permission will be treated as hostile".

The Independent Merchant's Association has stated that it is neutral in this dispute, but will not be delivering to the area until it is resolved.

This action is not likely to result in war between the Hegemony and the Tri-Tachyon Corporation, according to sources within both camps, but it has raised the level of tension between them.  Meanwhile, the local Hegemony commander has stated that 'we will be confiscating Military Circuitry shipments and prosecuting smugglers attempting to do so with maximum force to restore order, but Food and Oxygen supplies are a low priority of our enforcement efforts'.

-----------------------------------------

Here we have:

1.  Another local Station owned by an enemy of the Hegemony offering to buy up these Supplies, at a profitable but lower price point, which will raise rep with both them and the Station effected by the Event a small amount per unit delivered.  Bucking them to sell direct to Tri-Tach will lower reputation, however.

2.  A Faction declaring its neutrality to the Event.  You cannot irk the Indies here by selling to either party.

3.  A graduated response from the Hegemony; selling the high-priority items to the Station will result in far more Reputation hit than the low-priority items.

4.  Selling to the Tri-Tachyons should result in better reputation with them but lowered relations with the Pirates, while selling to the Pirates will gain less profit but won't increase reputation with Tri-Tach.

Yeah, it's complicated-ish to implement, but it's a lot cooler than "planet X needs Rice Cakes", lol, even if a lot of it is repetitive, which it's inevitably going to be, simply because it's layered and presents players with meaningful choices, even if we leave out the possibility of helping the Hegemony enforce the blockade.

One of the things that comes out of this theoretical is that if anything but "disaster aid" type scenarios are in place, the AI fleets should be "scanning" the player's cargo if they can get close enough and acting appropriately.  Actual reputation hit should be based on activity rather than action, however; if the player has good reputation with a Faction but is carrying a proscribed resource to an Event, they might even be given the chance to bribe their way out of encounters.

Lastly, the worry about "being on bad side of Hegemony because of something done at the beginning of the game" is probably a bit over-blown; for one thing, the player can help out Hegemony later, if they haven't made them utterly hostile, fixing the reputation, and all of it should scale with units moved; i.e., a starting player can't move the bar with this stuff very far, unlike engaging in combat, which should always have pretty strong effects.  

I think a lot of the issue there is that the "anything below zero Reputation is totally hostile" system needs to get fleshed out; it really should have more gray area, where players can do things like bribe people or agree to surrender their cargos or whatnot to avoid violence.
[close]
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: harperrb on March 03, 2014, 05:44:35 PM
I know its still conceptual, but for clarity, is the intent:

A. that 'events' are the catalyst- A generated chance occurrence based on conditions that produce a change in the environment (AKA Ship Malfunctions). EVENT: Pirate Blockade - There is a 12% chance that local raiders spawn in a system, when it occurs, the planet gains the status "famished" and prices for food increase by 200%; if GatherInformation[PLAYER STAT(>= LEVEL(10))], they are notified

or

B. that 'events' are the result - Existing information produced based on activities, displayed to the player based on their GatherInformation stat. A pirate fleet leaves Pirate Base Alpha, in System Gamma, arrives at a Hegemony Planet Beta, in System Delta, existing traders are unable to land, food stores run low, prices increase; meanwhile the player in system Charlie has GatherInformation >= LEVEL (11), is notified of the Event: a Hegemony trader announces that he was run off by pirates orbiting Planet Beta in the Delta System.

tltr: So are events the catalyst or the result.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Flare on March 03, 2014, 07:19:12 PM
- I'm not too sure about trade being relegated to being random quests.

-If the principles of race to the bottom are in effect, will there be many more traders and freighters running around than there are now?
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Obscure on March 03, 2014, 07:53:22 PM
Here's something else I have thought about!

what about commissioned shipping? being paid to haul cargo that isn't technically yours? I'm not sure if that falls within the purvue of the economy system, or even the scope of your game, but I always though it would be great to have a contract-based shipping element.

perhaps this would fall under a faction based job or mission, and may not be planned for the economy updates, but it's something I thought about.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 03, 2014, 07:58:31 PM
@Cosmitz: Yeah, this came up a couple of posts back. It's nice to get a high-level idea that someone did something similar and it worked out well, but the last thing I want to do is pore over the details and copy it.

@xenoargh: You know, that's more or less just what some of the more nuanced events in the design doc look like. It's definitely more ambitious, and besides, I just wanted to talk about something simpler in the blog post - both for clarity and to avoid over-hyping something before actually trying it.



I know its still conceptual, but for clarity, is the intent:

A. that 'events' are the catalyst- A generated chance occurrence based on conditions that produce a change in the environment (AKA Ship Malfunctions). EVENT: Pirate Blockade - There is a 12% chance that local raiders spawn in a system, when it occurs, the planet gains the status "famished" and prices for food increase by 200%; if GatherInformation[PLAYER STAT(>= LEVEL(10))], they are notified

or

B. that 'events' are the result - Existing information produced based on activities, displayed to the player based on their GatherInformation stat. A pirate fleet leaves Pirate Base Alpha, in System Gamma, arrives at a Hegemony Planet Beta, in System Delta, existing traders are unable to land, food stores run low, prices increase; meanwhile the player in system Charlie has GatherInformation >= LEVEL (11), is notified of the Event: a Hegemony trader announces that he was run off by pirates orbiting Planet Beta in the Delta System.

tltr: So are events the catalyst or the result.

It's both, though mostly A. It's A) in that events have some built-in consequences and a (possibly quite varied "script" that I don't want to call a script for that reason). But it's also B) in that there's no reason why events couldn't be triggered by existing conditions. For example, a planet that's had consistent (but slight) shortfalls in food supply might be more likely to suffer a serious event-based shortage.




- I'm not too sure about trade being relegated to being random quests.

This came up a few posts back; I don't think quests are a good analogy. It's similar on the surface, but that's really reducing it too much.


-If the principles of race to the bottom are in effect, will there be many more traders and freighters running around than there are now?

The two aren't directly related. As I mentioned a few posts back, the economy simulation mostly goes on behind the scenes. That said, there's a good possibility that freighter fleets you do see will be doing something sensible (i.e. shipping food from a world that produces it to a world that needs it), rather than something more or less random (i.e. more supplies to Sindria, its economic situation be damned.) Stuff that happens to these "representative" fleets could well propagate back into the simulation. It's just that they're not *actually* driving the economy, that wouldn't work out well. All other considerations aside (and there are many) you'd need an insane number of fleets.


what about commissioned shipping? being paid to haul cargo that isn't technically yours? I'm not sure if that falls within the purvue of the economy system, or even the scope of your game, but I always though it would be great to have a contract-based shipping element.

perhaps this would fall under a faction based job or mission, and may not be planned for the economy updates, but it's something I thought about.

Yeah - it's a neat idea, but, like you said, doesn't quite fall under the same umbrella.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Thaago on March 03, 2014, 08:40:29 PM
Quote
What neutral station? Actually, it'll probably be around for the next release, but I wouldn't count on that sticking around forever.
I eliminated it from Vacuum and most people weren't all that unhappy to see it go, but that's because there aren't any serious issues with choice anxiety in the mod, other than "what pew-pew shall I use to blow things away with".

I think that the concept of off-board storage is super-important in RPGs where scarcity of things to buy / loot is a given; if there's nowhere to put that Ion Cannon you've looted and don't want to sell, it can create a bit of choice anxiety for players and that's generally not a good thing.  

I mainly skirted that issue in Vacuum by making sure that there was very little choice anxiety- pretty much anything you want, you can find it- but if I rein in the amount of goods available, then it's going to promptly rear its head again.  Anyhow, just my $0.02 on that; choice anxiety is always present in a RPG to one extent or another but this is one of the kinds that is usually more trouble than it's worth.
...

I would like to see this be one of the first things that outposts allow: storing your stuff. Hollowing out an asteroid, painting it black, and stuffing it full of loot would actually be a really good way of hiding things in space (As Douglas Adams points out, space is unbelievably big). And a lot easier than building a 'mini-colony' that produces goods. Just don't tell anyone where it is...
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Steven Shi on March 03, 2014, 09:19:52 PM
One of the best trading game I remember was Gazillionaire about 2 decades ago. It was buy-low-sell-high at its most basic but there was enough side mechanics and random encounters to keep the game from being boring.

Trading doesn't have to be boring as long as it is done well.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Flare on March 03, 2014, 09:56:36 PM
I would like to see this be one of the first things that outposts allow: storing your stuff. Hollowing out an asteroid, painting it black, and stuffing it full of loot would actually be a really good way of hiding things in space (As Douglas Adams points out, space is unbelievably big). And a lot easier than building a 'mini-colony' that produces goods. Just don't tell anyone where it is...

I think painting an asteroid black in space might back fire on you. It might absorb much more sunlight increasing its heat signature, and including the fact that its hollow so the heat has less matter to distribute itself to, it might produce a noticeable heat signature. Leaving it looking the way it is on the outside is probably the safer thing to do.

Or if you're going for something fancy, you can always hide a base with phase inside of a large solar object, like a moon no one particularly cares about or comes close to all that often with expensive scientific equipment.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Doogie on March 03, 2014, 11:36:48 PM
@Cosmitz: Yeah, this came up a couple of posts back. It's nice to get a high-level idea that someone did something similar and it worked out well, but the last thing I want to do is pore over the details and copy it.

The game itself is text and turn based, so I think the actual logistics of how to implement these ideas into the real time Starsector would a good degree of ingenuity. Overall I think you should check it out (and maybe just play the game because its fun and a nice way to relax) and get some sort of idea of how to go with this trade system.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Lcu on March 04, 2014, 12:53:20 AM
This means there shall be more worlds for Hegemony and Tri-Tachyon, and more variables for pirate fleets.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Obscure on March 04, 2014, 10:00:36 AM
This means there shall be more worlds for Hegemony and Tri-Tachyon, and more variables for pirate fleets.

aw man, I would love to see a pirate AI that made fleets prowl shipping lanes based on supply/demand data.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 05, 2014, 08:10:31 PM
Im a little worried about the... validity of the trade system. if it is *only* random events creating trade opportunities, there is a large problem. Additionally, some profit should be possible even without these events, so you have something to scrounge if you really need to.

What i mean is, all these fleets of traders roaming around, if a certain station has a pirate infestation at a certain point in its orbit maybe, that prevents any traders from getting to that station, during that period prices should rise due to lack of traders visiting and prices could go up.

I agree with the assessment that from your blog post, it sounds like trading will be nothing more than a thing you get a popup quest for every now and then and do, rather than a real profession that makes buying an atlas fleet worth it. It could just be from the blog's presentation rather than your actual intentions though.

Edit: additionally, if im not a trader getting trader event popups could get very annoying. it did in evochron mercenary and that was only for distress calls.

Was just looking through the comments and realized I totally missed this one; sorry about that!

I'm not sure why trade being event based would be a problem; you're saying it's because you need to be able to scrounge something up if you need to but... why is *that* necessary? In a nutshell, I see making money from standard trade as a bad thing because it encourages safe, boring trade runs. You might say that responding to an event isn't any better, but the difference (hopefully) is that you can do more interesting things to set yourself up to respond to an event effectively (such as, say, cultivating connections to get the information early, or even acting to create the necessary conditions for an event to occur), and then the actual "trade run" is the culmination of that work and planning, rather than being the actual work.

An Atlas fleet might be just the sort of thing you can use to really cash in on an event you took pains to predict/cause, while a faster fleet might be able to be more reactive, but wouldn't have the cargo space to really capitalize.

As far as the UI, popups would indeed be annoying. The idea is that you get messages (in the lower left corner, that widget is being reworked), and you can click on them to get additional information if you're interested. Otherwise, they can just be ignored.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Megas on March 06, 2014, 05:43:19 AM
If profitable trading can come only from pop-up quest events, it does not sound like something worth bothering.

I will just stick to killing and looting everything that moves, and conquering NPCs' assets if possible.

Quote from: Alex
An Atlas fleet might be just the sort of thing you can use to really cash in on an event you took pains to predict/cause, while a faster fleet might be able to be more reactive, but wouldn't have the cargo space to really capitalize.
Right now, player needs Atlas fleet just to loot equal-sized opponents (bad in standard, worse in Exerelin), and being forced to use multiple Atlas ships (and Oxen and/or Navigation 10 to speed them up) for optimal play, which is a significant drain on Logistics, is obnoxious and not fun.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: PCCL on March 06, 2014, 11:18:18 AM
I do believe the profitability of attacking armed fleets would be toned down a bit for balance after a proper economy is in
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Gothars on March 06, 2014, 11:37:57 AM
I hope so, it's ridiculously high atm.



I will just stick to killing and looting everything that moves, and conquering NPCs' assets if possible.

If I get this right, Events will be something to look out for even if you have no inclination to trade. Intercepting supply convoys, breaking a blockade or looting a colony in distress are other ways to use them.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: icepick37 on March 06, 2014, 12:26:55 PM
Yeah it's more a system to let you know where the current action is. Which is nice. In theory it'll make the place feel more alive instead of just being a list of places with static boring attributes, things will be constantly changing.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Sonlirain on March 06, 2014, 03:52:05 PM
I'm not sure why trade being event based would be a problem; you're saying it's because you need to be able to scrounge something up if you need to but... why is *that* necessary? In a nutshell, I see making money from standard trade as a bad thing because it encourages safe, boring trade runs. You might say that responding to an event isn't any better, but the difference (hopefully) is that you can do more interesting things to set yourself up to respond to an event effectively (such as, say, cultivating connections to get the information early, or even acting to create the necessary conditions for an event to occur), and then the actual "trade run" is the culmination of that work and planning, rather than being the actual work.

There is a thing you overlook alex. There are players who simply LOVE doing spreadsheet style trading. Look at the X series and its fanbase... a giant part of the game is about trade and creating/shipping goods.
While you might think that simply going from A to B is boring ther ARE people who like doing just that so instead of discouraging people from commerce at every corner you should instead encourage people to do something else.

Flatspace 1 and 2 are great examples. The trade system is VERY bland and basic in both games (every station imports one class of goods and exports another and if you buy good x at a station selling it and sell it at a station that imports it you will ALWAYS make a profit no matter what) but... the game has also a LOT of missions you could do for money be it capturing criminals and delivering them to the police station or delivering some ornate statue to a faraway station.

So unless you REALLY wanted to buy a battlecruiser or carrier with a full squadron of fighters (largest ships in the game that cost unrealistic ammounts of money) you never had to faff around trade at all... ever.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Gothars on March 06, 2014, 04:11:33 PM
So the only good thing about trade in that game is that you don't have to do it? oO

But as you said, there are already plenty games that do spreadsheet trading, so I think it's great that we are getting something new here.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: xenoargh on March 06, 2014, 05:05:53 PM
Quote
the game has also a LOT of missions you could do for money be it capturing criminals and delivering them to the police station or delivering some ornate statue to a faraway station
This is what keeps people playing, mainly; it's like the difference between a Cardamine run in Freelancer, which was very profitable, very hazardous and very lengthy, and being able to stack up credits taking care of local bandit problems. 

Granted, I think it would be cool if something like the Cardamine run existed, but making it happen, given the design of Hyperspace, would be hard.  If Hyperspace was a series of zones and required more than one hop, and if you could get "intercepted" when making Hyperspace jumps, it might work.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Sonlirain on March 06, 2014, 05:34:28 PM
So the only good thing about trade in that game is that you don't have to do it? oO

But as you said, there are already plenty games that do spreadsheet trading, so I think it's great that we are getting something new here.
Well yeah trade in flatspace was just dull as hell. Pretty much a textbook example of how to not do trading as it was totally undynamic so if you found one station selling and one buying then all you EVER did as a trader was just going back and forth between them. There was no looking for trade routes supply/demand (aside of literally random price fluctuations that were too small to matter anyway because if you bought someting from an exporter and sell it to an importer you WILL make profit) or production chains at all.

Now Alex wants to tie trade with events. And that's a great idea but making trade unprofitable EVERYWHERE else pretty much removes one playstyle and throws it out of the window.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: ciago92 on March 06, 2014, 06:55:18 PM
So the only good thing about trade in that game is that you don't have to do it? oO

But as you said, there are already plenty games that do spreadsheet trading, so I think it's great that we are getting something new here.
Well yeah trade in flatspace was just dull as hell. Pretty much a textbook example of how to not do trading as it was totally undynamic so if you found one station selling and one buying then all you EVER did as a trader was just going back and forth between them. There was no looking for trade routes supply/demand (aside of literally random price fluctuations that were too small to matter anyway because if you bought someting from an exporter and sell it to an importer you WILL make profit) or production chains at all.

Now Alex wants to tie trade with events. And that's a great idea but making trade unprofitable EVERYWHERE else pretty much removes one playstyle and throws it out of the window.

I think what Alex wants traders to do (and feel to step in and say I'm wrong Alex) is instead of just flying around delivering goods (which isn't that realistic, see the whole discussion about companies having arranged deals) is keep an ear to the ground for unusual needs, and then step in and fill them. I don't think it's removing the playstyle so much as focusing it. I'm sure it'll be balanced so that if you want to do that and invest the points properly you'll still be pretty busy hearing rumors and getting tips and acting on them
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Sundog on March 06, 2014, 07:44:50 PM
I agree caigo92. None of us has a better idea of what Alex envisions for trading than Alex does, so if he thinks he can make event driven trading work it's kinda silly to say otherwise. I think I might see where Sonlirain is coming from though. Exploiting opportunities is all well and good until those opportunities dry up, in which case a player with a fleet full of freighters and tugs might as well just hold down shift until an appropriate event pops up. That might be an issue, but it wouldn't break trading.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Gothars on March 07, 2014, 01:57:23 AM
Exploiting opportunities is all well and good until those opportunities dry up, in which case a player with a fleet full of freighters and tugs might as well just hold down shift until an appropriate event pops up. That might be an issue, but it wouldn't break trading.

Well, if the average time between events is < the average time needed to resolve an event, there should be no problem. In fact, Alex plans to actually limit the information we get about events, so I would assume there will be several of them happening simultaneuosly, of which you have to choose one to interact with. Of course getting information abut an event is part of the challenge as well, that's probably what a trader spents his time on between actual runs.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: ciago92 on March 07, 2014, 05:41:27 AM
Exploiting opportunities is all well and good until those opportunities dry up, in which case a player with a fleet full of freighters and tugs might as well just hold down shift until an appropriate event pops up. That might be an issue, but it wouldn't break trading.

Well, if the average time between events is < the average time needed to resolve an event, there should be no problem. In fact, Alex plans to actually limit the information we get about events, so I would assume there will be several of them happening simultaneuosly, of which you have to choose one to interact with. Of course getting information abut an event is part of the challenge as well, that's probably what a trader spents his time on between actual runs.

I'm figuring on the several events at once thing as well, and I would assume at least some of the perks from the industry tree would have to do with getting information quicker or getting more precise information
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on March 07, 2014, 12:13:35 PM
If profitable trading can come only from pop-up quest events, it does not sound like something worth bothering.

I will just stick to killing and looting everything that moves, and conquering NPCs' assets if possible.

Quote from: Alex
An Atlas fleet might be just the sort of thing you can use to really cash in on an event you took pains to predict/cause, while a faster fleet might be able to be more reactive, but wouldn't have the cargo space to really capitalize.
Right now, player needs Atlas fleet just to loot equal-sized opponents (bad in standard, worse in Exerelin), and being forced to use multiple Atlas ships (and Oxen and/or Navigation 10 to speed them up) for optimal play, which is a significant drain on Logistics, is obnoxious and not fun.
I have to agree with Megas here. I think the main reason why people wanted trade is that they wanted another source of income incase of "death spiral" situations. Trade has almost always been the low risk, low reward non combat income choice for people starting out or restarting. (IE got blown up and have very little money) But in this situation the risk is higher, the reward is unknown and the source of income isn't always there, relies on the RNG AND could involve combat from the looks of it.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: xenoargh on March 07, 2014, 12:19:08 PM
Well, both you and Megas are missing a couple of things that seem obvious from here.

1.  Balance changes to the amount of loot you get after battles is almost inevitable at some point.  Right now it's ridiculous Monty Haul levels of loot.

2.  Balance changes to how much that loot is worth, too.  The cost of Supplies is pretty key here.

In short, I kind of expect piracy to be a lot less profitable, when all things are said and done, balance-wise, so that Events are typically worth doing.  The way it works now is just not representative of where balance will shift as other things start coming into the game.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Megas on March 07, 2014, 01:13:13 PM
Quote
I think the main reason why people wanted trade is that they wanted another source of income incase of "death spiral" situations. Trade has almost always been the low risk, low reward non combat income choice for people starting out or restarting.
Also for those who care less about low-level twitch-fighting and care more about high-level corporate management.  For example, one player just wants to blast ships like in an arcade shump, while another wants to abstract away all combat and focus on building up and running a (virtual) business.

Trading from random events only seems unreliable (at first glance).  It feels like player needs a fleet of freighters ready at any moment.  I do not like fleet of freighters, especially Atlas, being required at almost all times for optimal play.

@ Xenoargh:  Hopefully sooner than later.  I get the feeling that feature implementation and bug fixing have priority over game balance.  Loot was common enough to require an Atlas fleet in 0.6, and loot was increased even more in 0.6.2.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Sundog on March 07, 2014, 01:17:58 PM
@Gothers, ciago92: Ok. I can see how timing things so the duration of events overlap properly could make down-time for traders a non-issue.

@Midnight Kitsune: In addition to xenoargh's points; I don't get the impression that Alex is interested in low-risk, low-reward means of progression, and I wouldn't blame him. Repeatedly doing a simple task for little gain is what many people call grinding.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on March 07, 2014, 09:31:11 PM
One thing I want to know is how trading is going to be balanced against piracy? The reason WHY piracy is so profitable is because of that little brown box that has an 80 to 1 ratio of sell price to cargo space. AND because everyone needs them, everyone will have them AND they are completely granular! (IE if you find a 3000 credit sell price/ 30 cargo space item and you only have 25, you can't take it without going over the normal limit, thus losing that money. BUT if it was 30 supplies, you can take 25 and only lose a little bit.) And unless there is an update to change it, supplies will ALWAYS be the same price AND profitable if you pirate
And the line for balancing this on is gonna be a razor's edge. Cut the price too much and supplies end up being as worthless as they were in .54.1 which removes a "limiter" on the pirates.  Increase the usage rates and you hurt the trades more than the pirates. Decrease the drop rates and you will, at best, make "non freighter" small fleets pointless to fight and at worse make the starting game have an even HIGHER

Also, why bother having a "normal" trade system in if all you are going to do is make it an unprofitable trap for new players? And yes, I truly feel as this is a newbie trap. Most people think of the trade system as the newbie option which they can use to get themselves situated and use to the game a bit. And it might just end up turning them off completely from the trade system and becoming a full time pirate, thus basically making it worthless to them.
And even if they DO learn, they are STILL bound by what the RNG throws at them. Pirate and/or enemy faction presence could end up making their trading run worthless if they can't get to the station. And of course, the event might very well end before you get there too and with the trade system unprofitable unless under the influence, this means that you just took a major hit to your account. And once this is all over, whether you failed or succeeded, you still have expenses like supplies, repairs, more or better ships, and other trade items.

Also, will these events give exp points? If they don't then it is just one more reason to be a pirate as you will need to fight anyways to get more levels in order to boost your industry levels.
And speaking of levels, will they be getting rebalanced? Will the soft cap be moved upwards? Will there be an increase in what you get per level?

So TL;DR:
The way of the pirate pros:
-Is mostly self sustaining once you get started (you earn plenty of supplies to sustain your fleet, thus you don't have to spend money on them and that money can be put towards upgrading your ship or weapons)
-Is mostly free from the will of the RNG
-Events are optional and can be skipped if they are unprofitable
-Much faster and much more rewarding job that can end up upgrading your ship for "free"
-Much more choice in skills and aptitude what to take come character level up
-Get to blow ships up (The BIGGEST pro here!)

Cons:
-Death Spiral

The way of the trader pros:
-Can mostly avoid combat

Cons:
Subject to the will of the RNG
-If you get pulled into combat and you are a pure trader, you have a much higher chance of losing
-Normal trading is a newbie trap and could potentially put off new players from the trade system
-Less money and more time spent
-Money is used in more places, thus slowing the upgrade process and can even result in a similar "death spiral" situation (no money to buy trade items and only have one ship
-Since this isn't a "quest," most likely the only reward will be money, meaning that combat WILL be needed to level up industry
-Events are basically required
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Thaago on March 08, 2014, 12:16:36 AM
...
Also, why bother having a "normal" trade system in if all you are going to do is make it an unprofitable trap for new players? And yes, I truly feel as this is a newbie trap.
...
-Death Spiral
...
-Since this isn't a "quest," most likely the only reward will be money, meaning that combat WILL be needed to level up industry
...

The reason the normal trade system exists is to be influenced by events. Or for you to screw with by hunting the regular freighters. Or for you to sell your pirated loot :P. And don't forget the luxury goods as well, which hopefully will be a more interesting implementation of 'ship a to b' than usual.

The death spiral is mostly a myth. Yes it takes a little time to get used to the system, but once you do its easy to not death spiral.

I also hope that the experience for industry is separate from the combat experience: its always bugged me a bit that you get better at selling things by killing bandits (then again maybe people are afraid of you? I dunno). I don't think its going to happen though, because it would require a rework of how the skills are laid out/the entire leveling system. :P

This new trade system kind of reminds me of how the crew of Firefly got by - looking for opportunities, making deals with shady sorts... they certainly didn't have a cake trade run to go back and forth on. Then again their ship was unarmed and constantly falling apart due to lack of funds for repairs... (CR problems anyone?)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Gothars on March 08, 2014, 01:48:43 AM
There are also some REDACTED ideas about making travel through non-hostile territory hazardous.
This new trade system kind of reminds me of how the crew of Firefly got by - looking for opportunities, making deals with shady sorts... they certainly didn't have a cake trade run to go back and forth on. Then again their ship was unarmed and constantly falling apart due to lack of funds for repairs... (CR problems anyone?)


Mh, I wouldn't mind it at all if some of the hazards of space travel were of technological nature. Especially early on, while your tech skills are low and you fly an old rust bucket, maybe something just gives and you have no hope but to be rescued. You know, Firefly's "Out of Gas"-episode.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Megas on March 08, 2014, 06:12:32 AM
Quote
The way of the pirate pros:
The biggest one for me not yet mentioned - XP and levels!  I want to reach level 50+ for power!

P.S.
Quote
And speaking of levels, will they be getting rebalanced? Will the soft cap be moved upwards? Will there be an increase in what you get per level?
This is why I anticipate Industry with dread, if it gets must-have skills akin to Fleet Logistics.  Level 40 is roughly my soft cap in standard 0.6.2, but my preferred level is higher.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: ciago92 on March 08, 2014, 07:29:31 AM
There are also some REDACTED ideas about making travel through non-hostile territory hazardous.
This new trade system kind of reminds me of how the crew of Firefly got by - looking for opportunities, making deals with shady sorts... they certainly didn't have a cake trade run to go back and forth on. Then again their ship was unarmed and constantly falling apart due to lack of funds for repairs... (CR problems anyone?)


Mh, I wouldn't mind it at all if some of the hazards of space travel were of technological nature. Especially early on, while your tech skills are low and you fly an old rust bucket, maybe something just gives and you have no hope but to be rescued. You know, Firefly's "Out of Gas"-episode.

As intriguing as I find the idea, I cannot see any semblance of fun in the suggestion :-\ it's just taking control away from the player and forcing them to rely on the lucky chance that a good person rescues them rather than pirates or someone they're hostile with
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: xenoargh on March 08, 2014, 12:40:16 PM
@Midnight Kitsune:  Without going blog-length about this, I will just say that all of that's solvable. 

A bit of rebal on how profitable piracy is, XP rewards for Events (which, like I've said before, are just a few breaths away from actual Missions, in terms of gamecode structure), etc., can give players two different paths to take that are both worth doing. 

There's nothing wrong with XP for Events; you've just delivered the life-saving drugs to a world on the brink of extinction while heroically dodging pirates and all that, with the possibility of a Gotcha battle as you deliver the goods to keep things interesting.  If Events are handled well, then you're going to deserve some XP, because it was risky, involved making real choices and took enough time to be like a side-quest.

The way I imagine it, combat / piracy will gain more XP but less money than Events and vice versa.  So if you're grinding credits, you're doing all the Events you can (and, if you are up for it, doing combat where opportunity knocks) but if you're grinding XP, you're probably engaging in combat.

At some point, there probably needs to be structures in place that negatively reward killing everybody indiscriminately as well, like bounty hunters being sent directly after you, etc.  I really think that the life of the Pirate should be pretty exciting, in that sense.

Quote
As intriguing as I find the idea, I cannot see any semblance of fun in the suggestion :-\ it's just taking control away from the player and forcing them to rely on the lucky chance that a good person rescues them rather than pirates or someone they're hostile with
Actually, the "ran out of gas" mechanic in EV was a lot more fun than the current "ran out of gas" mechanic in SS. 

Slowly drifting to a star (and may the gods never let that happen to ye more than a few hundred units from a system, it can take a couple of minutes) where you may just get eaten by a huge fleet you can't fight along the way is a lot more boring and helpless-feeling than using your "emergency broadcast system" and attracting a friendly, if pricey, helper.

Quote
The death spiral is mostly a myth. Yes it takes a little time to get used to the system, but once you do its easy to not death spiral.
Wait, no.  Last update was mainly about CR rebal and a whole in-game tutorial system, just to fix the problems with 0.6, yo.  Note the complete lack of flamey posts these days about this stuff; it got fixed.

Lessons need to be learned there; creating situations where newbs will get Very Dead Very Early should get avoided in the design.  The difficulty ramp is a big deal.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: xenoargh on March 08, 2014, 01:01:12 PM
Oh, and!

UI Stuff

Alex, you're going to have a tab in the UI we can go to that just shows the current Events, right? 

If we highlight an Event, will it do nice UI stuff like highlight the destination(s) so that newbies know where to go?  I think that's important. 

Heck, it'd be really nice if newbies could call up the Hyperspace map even when they aren't in Hyperspace, too; that's a fairly-small UI project that could go a long way, especially if they could call that up, click on a destination System, see the System in that view, click on their final destination, and have their fleet's autopilot do like the AI's does, pathfinding-wise.

Structurally:

Are Events going to get their own completion Dialog?  Or get tied into existing Dialogs?  I'd prefer the former, honestly; I think it'll be much more flexible and it won't break mods.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Mattk50 on March 08, 2014, 01:49:16 PM
Im a little worried about the... validity of the trade system. if it is *only* random events creating trade opportunities, there is a large problem. Additionally, some profit should be possible even without these events, so you have something to scrounge if you really need to.

What i mean is, all these fleets of traders roaming around, if a certain station has a pirate infestation at a certain point in its orbit maybe, that prevents any traders from getting to that station, during that period prices should rise due to lack of traders visiting and prices could go up.

I agree with the assessment that from your blog post, it sounds like trading will be nothing more than a thing you get a popup quest for every now and then and do, rather than a real profession that makes buying an atlas fleet worth it. It could just be from the blog's presentation rather than your actual intentions though.

Edit: additionally, if im not a trader getting trader event popups could get very annoying. it did in evochron mercenary and that was only for distress calls.

Was just looking through the comments and realized I totally missed this one; sorry about that!

I'm not sure why trade being event based would be a problem; you're saying it's because you need to be able to scrounge something up if you need to but... why is *that* necessary? In a nutshell, I see making money from standard trade as a bad thing because it encourages safe, boring trade runs. You might say that responding to an event isn't any better, but the difference (hopefully) is that you can do more interesting things to set yourself up to respond to an event effectively (such as, say, cultivating connections to get the information early, or even acting to create the necessary conditions for an event to occur), and then the actual "trade run" is the culmination of that work and planning, rather than being the actual work.

An Atlas fleet might be just the sort of thing you can use to really cash in on an event you took pains to predict/cause, while a faster fleet might be able to be more reactive, but wouldn't have the cargo space to really capitalize.

As far as the UI, popups would indeed be annoying. The idea is that you get messages (in the lower left corner, that widget is being reworked), and you can click on them to get additional information if you're interested. Otherwise, they can just be ignored.
I think that ability to scrounge if you need to is neccasarry because currently, especially for new players, doing anything at all can be difficult without a straight winning streak vs very small hostile fleets. This streak is even harder to accomplish considering that they are actually new players who are still learning combat. Anyone who gets wiped out gets shot back down to one frigate, and if they didnt save, no money. there has to be something for people to do in these situations other than just gamble on finding enough lone enemy frigates to kill before their supply cost outweighs the gain.

and the main issue with it is that you cant become a "trader" you're just at most some guy who has an atlas sitting in storage for these random events that pop up once in awhile. I feel like it could be more, especially if there were outside factors you could use to manipulate prices such as deciding to blockade a certain outpost or a source of materials, or shooting down rival trade fleets.

In mount and blade, a game with a similar sandbox overworld, trade was somewhat nebulously presented to the player, but the way it worked is an interesting example. Every town had a certain amount of prosperity determined by the facilities built within, how much surplus it had, and how many traders would come to it. Now, traders would only trade with prosperous towns, creating a feedback loop. The differences in prices of goods between towns became legitimate, because towns with serious bandit infestation problems in the surroundings would pay much more. This scales the risk with the reward for trading: there isn't a force on the player to necessarily find the absolute safest route because the profit won't be worth his time. If the player risks being spotted by a party of bandits, he may have to defend himself. If he outmaneuvers them, he gets away.

You mentioned this in the blog, that you feel like it doesnt make sense for players to want to avoid combat in certain situations... but this is exactly what players who want to be a full time trader are about. Players who like to be traders in games laugh at the idea of "i will trade when a popup tells me i can", because its rediculous. Though, typically most of the fun is finding when a trade can be profitable and figuring out the system, if empire building or the main story is the focus and there are no gaping loopholes in the trade system, it shouldnt be something that people feel forced to do


BTW, thanks for interacting with your community to the degree you do. Its really quite incredible, many devs like to insulate themselves from most suggestions and any criticisms, and i think there's something lost when that happens.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: mendonca on March 08, 2014, 02:30:02 PM
I'm not convinced the intention is for 'random' events dealt with by 'pop-ups' - i.e. the sort of thing that happened in Transport Tycoon for subsidised routes. They were good to get on the back of, for mad profit, but as far as I could ever tell - pretty much random - or if they weren't, they were far enough removed from the actions of the player - or the visible behaviour of each world - to be effectively random.

The challenge for Alex will be to make 'events' appear congruent with the actions within and around the systems so that the player can get to either predict or attempt to influence the various variables that make things happen.

I could be wrong of course, but it sounds to me like this is the sort of thing that is being aimed for - events aimed to be more like specific things that REFLECT the state of a system, which are necessarily granular so that the player has a chance of identifying and interacting with these things - but are not necessarily determined on the basis of a roll of a d6, or having a certain number active at any time.

On the safe trade route thing - I spent about a third to two thirds of my youth running robots from Barnard's Star to Sol, and sending Luxury good back - all in order to save for the next biggest ship so that I could make more money to buy the next biggest ship (Frontier: Elite 2). That game, for all its wonder, was in some ways (and with the benefit of hindsight) dreadfully boring.

I for one am excited to see where you take your thoughts, and your game, as always.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Hari Seldon on March 08, 2014, 03:32:39 PM
Could you talk a bit about Trade scale?  The "large Atlas convoys" mentioned in the Atlas description makes it seem like you can't fix a food shortage on a core world even if you max your fleet out with Atlases.  You would need multiple fleets?  You would need to encourage or protect other convoys too?
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Megas on March 08, 2014, 05:06:24 PM
Quote
At some point, there probably needs to be structures in place that negatively reward killing everybody indiscriminately as well, like bounty hunters being sent directly after you, etc.  I really think that the life of the Pirate should be pretty exciting, in that sense.
To that, I say "more XP and loot!", much like the Tarman zombie (from Return of the Living Dead) exclaiming "More brains!"

Hopefully, finished Starsector will let me accumulate enough power to carve out my own faction that can fight and eliminate all other factions, a bit like what Exerelin does.  In such a situation, everyone becomes an enemy, eventually.  NPCs are meant to be used until they become an obstacle, then they become a source of amusement.  (I got Starsector mostly for shmup combat.)  I will trade during early game if I can when my forces are too weak to fight, as a means to make my forces strong.  Once my forces can fight, the real fun begins...
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Midnight Kitsune on March 09, 2014, 01:49:08 AM
-snip-
Matt here took the words right out of my mouth. While most vets here can beat the initial hurdle relatively easy, most newbies won't as they won't have the information that we do and in war, intel is power.

And I would also like to thank Alex for his involvement in the community!
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Gothars on March 09, 2014, 03:11:15 AM
Anyone who gets wiped out gets shot back down to one frigate, and if they didnt save, no money. there has to be something for people to do in these situations other than just gamble on finding enough lone enemy frigates to kill before their supply cost outweighs the gain.


Well, this all comes back to "doing something boring until you can afford to do something fun". I'm just really glad that Alex is attempting to change that to "doing something fun until you can do more and other fun stuff". There will be very local events by the way, I'd imagine that they are suitable to be exploited by a single ship.

I tried being a merchant in M&B btw, was bored the moment I saw that the ideal trade routes were already mapped out by others on the net.



Players who like to be traders in games laugh at the idea of "i will trade when a popup tells me i can", because its rediculous.

There will be no pop-ups! Who ever said there would be pop-ups?
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 09, 2014, 10:42:59 AM
I'm figuring on the several events at once thing as well, and I would assume at least some of the perks from the industry tree would have to do with getting information quicker or getting more precise information

Yeah, that's pretty likely.

Alex, you're going to have a tab in the UI we can go to that just shows the current Events, right? 

There's a new tab (provisionally called "Intel") that shows all the recent news. Which includes events and other things.

If we highlight an Event, will it do nice UI stuff like highlight the destination(s) so that newbies know where to go?  I think that's important. 

There's a little sector minimap right next to the detail for a news report that shows your fleet's location and the system where whatever it is happened.

Heck, it'd be really nice if newbies could call up the Hyperspace map even when they aren't in Hyperspace, too; that's a fairly-small UI project that could go a long way, especially if they could call that up, click on a destination System, see the System in that view, click on their final destination, and have their fleet's autopilot do like the AI's does, pathfinding-wise.

Hm, maybe. It might seem like a good idea now, but maybe not later when there are more things going on in hyperspace.

Are Events going to get their own completion Dialog?  Or get tied into existing Dialogs?  I'd prefer the former, honestly; I think it'll be much more flexible and it won't break mods.

I don't imagine they'd get a "Dialog" at all. You'll find out that an event is over through the news.


I think that ability to scrounge if you need to is neccasarry because currently, especially for new players, doing anything at all can be difficult without a straight winning streak vs very small hostile fleets. This streak is even harder to accomplish considering that they are actually new players who are still learning combat. Anyone who gets wiped out gets shot back down to one frigate, and if they didnt save, no money. there has to be something for people to do in these situations other than just gamble on finding enough lone enemy frigates to kill before their supply cost outweighs the gain.

It's a valid point about new players, but, a counter-point: the "event" system could actually make it much easier for someone getting started. Part of the early difficulty is in figuring out what to do; profitable trade routes don't help if you don't know about them. One open route that you know about, due to news about something happening, is worth 10 routes you'd have to try to go all Excel on to figure out.

There are also some REDACTED ideas about making early-game combat more new-player-friendly in a way that makes in-fiction sense. But it's REDACTED.

and the main issue with it is that you cant become a "trader" you're just at most some guy who has an atlas sitting in storage for these random events that pop up once in awhile. I feel like it could be more, especially if there were outside factors you could use to manipulate prices such as deciding to blockade a certain outpost or a source of materials, or shooting down rival trade fleets.

... and it all depends on the pacing, too. That's going to be a challenge to get right, no doubt, but I think you're looking at it in terms of things happening very rarely. I think it'll end up rather on the side of "something's going on all the time". There's also the potential for "exotic goods" trading runs being the default thing you do as a trader.


In mount and blade, a game with a similar sandbox overworld, trade was somewhat nebulously presented to the player, but the way it worked is an interesting example. Every town had a certain amount of prosperity determined by the facilities built within, how much surplus it had, and how many traders would come to it. Now, traders would only trade with prosperous towns, creating a feedback loop. The differences in prices of goods between towns became legitimate, because towns with serious bandit infestation problems in the surroundings would pay much more. This scales the risk with the reward for trading: there isn't a force on the player to necessarily find the absolute safest route because the profit won't be worth his time. If the player risks being spotted by a party of bandits, he may have to defend himself. If he outmaneuvers them, he gets away.

That sounds good on paper, but one of the problems is that the player will almost always be able to outmaneuver the AI, so this "risk" is largely imaginary. The campaign movement systems in M&B and Starsector are pretty similar in this regard. Might need to adjust the mechanics aronud this... also, I'm thinking that the risks may become more legitimate on longer runs (hence, taking "exotic goods" from one end of the Sector to the other). Imagine if there was a profitable run from Corvus to the Hidden Pirate Base - would the pirate presense around the gas giant present a *real* problem? Well, it might, for some fleet comps, but not for others. And then you'd be back to "no risk". My point is that trying to balance normal trade with risk from other fleets is difficult. The player will get around the risk, and the system will break down.


The challenge for Alex will be to make 'events' appear congruent with the actions within and around the systems so that the player can get to either predict or attempt to influence the various variables that make things happen.

I could be wrong of course, but it sounds to me like this is the sort of thing that is being aimed for - events aimed to be more like specific things that REFLECT the state of a system, which are necessarily granular so that the player has a chance of identifying and interacting with these things - but are not necessarily determined on the basis of a roll of a d6, or having a certain number active at any time.

Very much this. To some extent, events will also drive things, but it's important to make them, as you say, congruent with/reflecting whatever is actually going on. Making stuff granular to present to the player is a large part of it, too - how would you find out about the off-screen goings-on otherwise?


Could you talk a bit about Trade scale?  The "large Atlas convoys" mentioned in the Atlas description makes it seem like you can't fix a food shortage on a core world even if you max your fleet out with Atlases.  You would need multiple fleets?  You would need to encourage or protect other convoys too?

Liberties will be taken with scale if necessary, to make events "work". Not to a point where stuff won't make sense (a single Hound loaded with onions isn't going to save a core world from famine), but an Atlas might. After all, you don't know exactly how bad the shortage was, etc.


BTW, thanks for interacting with your community to the degree you do. Its really quite incredible, many devs like to insulate themselves from most suggestions and any criticisms, and i think there's something lost when that happens.
And I would also like to thank Alex for his involvement in the community!

Thanks guys! I appreciate all your feedback and the discussions that spawn are generally very productive. I think our community is great ;)


I tried being a merchant in M&B btw, was bored the moment I saw that the ideal trade routes were already mapped out by others on the net.

I'm pretty sure I've spent quite some time poring over that very same forum post with the trade routes.


... alright, back to actually making this stuff happen :)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: xenoargh on March 09, 2014, 12:01:21 PM
Quote
I don't imagine they'd get a "Dialog" at all. You'll find out that an event is over through the news.
Oh; I figured you'd get a Pat On The Back for delivering those Antivirals to the world that had been struck by the Phage Plague or whatnot, or a nasty message from Tri-Tachyon after helping to deliver those Universal Weapons Kits to a Shrine of Ludd :)

Anyhow, just a thought; it helps make things special for the player and provide motivation and all that.  But I'll be happy enough if it just doesn't break everything to the point where I have to rebuild Vacuum a fourth time, lol :)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Bribe Guntails on March 10, 2014, 05:39:20 PM
Woo new content!

Will you be making station inventory stocking more limited and realistic during this phase of development?
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Alex on March 11, 2014, 12:25:28 PM
Quote
I don't imagine they'd get a "Dialog" at all. You'll find out that an event is over through the news.
Oh; I figured you'd get a Pat On The Back for delivering those Antivirals to the world that had been struck by the Phage Plague or whatnot, or a nasty message from Tri-Tachyon after helping to deliver those Universal Weapons Kits to a Shrine of Ludd :)

Anyhow, just a thought; it helps make things special for the player and provide motivation and all that.  But I'll be happy enough if it just doesn't break everything to the point where I have to rebuild Vacuum a fourth time, lol :)

Ah, yeah - that's a possibility. I was thinking more in terms of what happens when an event you weren't involved in whatsoever ends.

Will you be making station inventory stocking more limited and realistic during this phase of development?

To some degree. Weapons don't quite fall under the umbrella of the economy, so those will likely be as before, but commodity stocks should be based on actual market data.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Sonlirain on March 11, 2014, 01:03:55 PM
I'm still not really sold on "event only proftable trading" altho i can understand it not wanting to make dumb economy like:
This is a ore mine. they buy food and sell minerals.
This is an industrial planet they buy food/ore and sell goods.
This is a farming world they buy goods and sell food.
This is a hive world they buy goods and food.

Altho if making a trade system irks you tnen maybe... Transport Tycoon IN SPACE!
Simply put if your relations with a planet are good enough you can get "freight" missions that require the transporation of a certain ammount of goods provided by the planet to another planet (connected with a trade route).
You can do those missions manually or delegate some of your ships to do the freight running for you and with time (and planetary reations) you might get a contract to deliver goods at a regular basis you can (and should) delegate ships to because doing so manually would be a bore. Also cowardly officers that might become availble in the future would be the PERFECT ones for the job.
Over time you freight empire would span several planets and bed things wold happen if you decided to stop transporting goods for some reason.

This way we get some "trading" a logical trade system and a relatively safe source of credits in case of unforseen things happening to your fleet.
Of course said credits would not be great considering you're not the actual trader but do the footwork for ACTUAL traders.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Obscure on March 12, 2014, 09:58:50 AM

Altho if making a trade system irks you tnen maybe... Transport Tycoon IN SPACE!
Simply put if your relations with a planet are good enough you can get "freight" missions that require the transporation of a certain ammount of goods provided by the planet to another planet (connected with a trade route).
You can do those missions manually or delegate some of your ships to do the freight running for you and with time (and planetary reations) you might get a contract to deliver goods at a regular basis you can (and should) delegate ships to because doing so manually would be a bore. Also cowardly officers that might become availble in the future would be the PERFECT ones for the job.
Over time you freight empire would span several planets and bed things wold happen if you decided to stop transporting goods for some reason.

This way we get some "trading" a logical trade system and a relatively safe source of credits in case of unforseen things happening to your fleet.
Of course said credits would not be great considering you're not the actual trader but do the footwork for ACTUAL traders.

mm, earlier in this post I mentioned the possibility of such a feature, but Alex agreed that it doesn't quite fit with the scope of this part of the game. I like the idea of shipping for other entities for a lesser but fixed profit, but having an established economy will be necessary first, and it would be silly to not be able to buy and sell wares in an economy directly.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: NanoMatter on March 12, 2014, 03:02:35 PM
This seems interesting, wonder if I could turn a system into socialism... The Domino Effect. Lol another coldwar
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Bob McBobbyton on March 16, 2014, 11:23:55 AM
Yay! The starsector universe is expanding. ::)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Obscure on March 17, 2014, 10:02:14 AM
Hey, I'm not sure if this was mentioned, but I have to ask:

Are we going to be able to build autonomous fleets soon? I love the idea of directing trade fleets to pick up goods from one system and ship them to another without manually flying them yourself!

sonlirain mentioned this in passing when he was asking about freight missions, but I think this would be a great feature either way!
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Goumindong on March 17, 2014, 10:46:30 AM
I'm not sure why trade being event based would be a problem; you're saying it's because you need to be able to scrounge something up if you need to but... why is *that* necessary? In a nutshell, I see making money from standard trade as a bad thing because it encourages safe, boring trade runs. You might say that responding to an event isn't any better, but the difference (hopefully) is that you can do more interesting things to set yourself up to respond to an event effectively (such as, say, cultivating connections to get the information early, or even acting to create the necessary conditions for an event to occur), and then the actual "trade run" is the culmination of that work and planning, rather than being the actual work.

There is a thing you overlook alex. There are players who simply LOVE doing spreadsheet style trading. Look at the X series and its fanbase... a giant part of the game is about trade and creating/shipping goods.
While you might think that simply going from A to B is boring ther ARE people who like doing just that so instead of discouraging people from commerce at every corner you should instead encourage people to do something else.


Well lets be clear. The hold of the X series is not trading, its empire creation and industry. The "spreadsheet style trading" in X isn't really trading, its production. When trading in X people generally buy a freighter and automate it. This is because, well, trading is boring.

Industry has hold because people like seeing what they built and its permanence. Being the actual space trucker doesn't have much hold. The real hold is more the resources over which you have power.

Functionally, trade and industry have to do two things in order to be a valuable game mechanic. If they aren't doing these things then they're distracting from the core gameplay (which is, primarily in my view, space combat and exploration)

1) Give impetus for player action

2) Enables player action

Basically if i am building an empire, then defending and expanding the empire are my impetus for action and my reward is the continued income (larger fleets, more power, what not)

My ideal "trade" system isn't really a trade system, but an "empire system". That is; the player is his own faction and has his own stations and his own ships which do all the things that other factions do. The rest of the economy, directly visible to the player can operate entirely statically (in fact it probably should, to make starting over easier) and with no profit. Who cares if NPC traders are moving between worlds making no profit, they're NPC's, they don't have to follow the normal rules, they are there for me to shoot or aid, not to wonder about whether or not they have utility functions and properly evaluate the costs and benefits of each action.

An empire system also makes a lot more sense with respect to the logistics of the game. It gives a good mechanic for fleet size restrictions**, it produces supplies and fuel which determine the maximum range of your fleets. It gives you things to do even if you've made everyone mad at you.

The structure of this is actually really simple. As an empire you have a certain amount of production capability per planet/station, from which you can make ships, from which you can make supplies/fuel, from which you can produce more infrastructure*, and from which you can produce trade goods. If you have a "trade fleet" they will sell trade goods to the nearest station at the static market price so long as they make it there. The "profit" you get is simply the difference between how you value your production capability versus the price of the good. [Aside: while a large abstraction this is probably closer to economically "right" than near any other system]

This provides impetus and enables players actions. A more complicated system would tie in relations to other factions based on how easy it was to raid your ships and how profitable it was to stop trade versus taking over the production capacity of the planet (versus the risks involved in the fight). An even more complicated system would involve limiting information, so that if a trade convoy went missing in deep space/local space but no one was around to see it happen/report back you won't know who took your stuff. (this similarly makes pirates more interesting as they try to hide themselves as traders while also being combat capable enough to take down a convoy when no one is looking)

But it is, in no way, a real "trade" system. Because flying to places without some sort of strong impetus (like story) tends to be pretty boring.

*Within a limit

**Generally the individual performance/fleet size/ship effectiveness performance tradoffs are not ideal. Better tradeoff systems  have the tradeoffs within sections so that players have a choice of which types of ship performance advantages they have, a tradeoff of which types of fleets they work best with(So, think "command advantages"), and and in which aspect their flagship is strong . This makes things generally easier to balance while also feeling better for the player.

It's a valid point about new players, but, a counter-point: the "event" system could actually make it much easier for someone getting started. Part of the early difficulty is in figuring out what to do; profitable trade routes don't help if you don't know about them. One open route that you know about, due to news about something happening, is worth 10 routes you'd have to try to go all Excel on to figure out.

There are also some REDACTED ideas about making early-game combat more new-player-friendly in a way that makes in-fiction sense. But it's REDACTED.

A free floating idea. Mercenary work. You sign up for some number of days, receive a salary and you and your ship become part of a mercenary fleet. You have no command/control of the mercenary fleet, you consume none of your own resource, all you do is control your own ship in the event of a fight (with a conditional mechanic which says that retreating while over 50% hull and 50% CR means contract failure).
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: JP161 on March 19, 2014, 04:17:33 PM
Se let me get this straight;
Trading in Starsector is done via events that stay active for a (short?) period of time, but there should be several around at any time to pick from?
 - Are these commodities picked from planets or stations just as you now would buy a new gun or a ship?
 - Are some places better for them than others or are the differences mostly about the size of the colony (core world producing more stuff than fringe one) or something else?
 - Are you intended to do something like:
1) Hear about an event happening over at planet Z that makes the left kneecap of a dancing robot profitable if sold there
2) Figure out where this particular kneecap is produced
3) Have enough capacity to carry enough to really make some profit in addition to having the speed to get there
4) Hope no-one else has bought it empty or pay through the roof for whatever they have left once you get there
5) Find another place if the last one was indeed emptied
6) Then beat the competition to said planet or end up with cargo hold full with kneecaps for dancing robots that are now worth less than you purchased them for because the base purchase price is always higher than the price others are willing to pay?
If so, it doesn't honestly sound too appealing to me. I do hope there's something very basic I'm missing here.

And yes, there are people out there who do like trading. The pure 'buy cheap, sell expensive' -experience. But if it's final that that kind of trading isn't going to be in Starsector proper, I can live with that. :)

As for the 'getting paid for delivering cargo for certain planet/corporation/faction/whathaveyou'; that sounds like a fine addition to the game along with the event-driven trading. Even if the majority of the bulk trading of onions is done by corporations or something that the player doesn't even see, it shouldn't eliminate such a huge opportunity for trading in the game!

Could even consider it as a good way to get into it without having to resort to the planet a -> planet b -> planet c -> planet a routine. There's tons of trading happening all the time in the universe behind the curtains.

Now just like the events, one corporation (or faction or planet etc.) gets hit hard by something similar to the events or just gets really lucky or something, tons of possibilities;
 - Competition sabotaged their ships and the only way they can stay in business is to call for outsider help
 - Company got a REALLY good deal on some big batch of coconuts but they simply don't have enough capacity to ferry them to the coconut-hungry dancing robots that refuse to dance without them
Anything goes, really. Especially since it's among several WORLDS. Tons and tons of trading and corporations there.

Anyway, in addition to the event system, (maybe under the industry tree as a skill?) have a list of currently available freight orders for the the player to accept the one (more than one?) that suits his current ability to complete.

Granted, it's not too different from the events but it is less catastrophic and more .. errr, let's say "sustainable" and it might help keep the 'regular trading' feeling in. Rewards could be based on the amount of goods you can carry, be it a single Hound, fleet of them or a big ol' Atlas. Of course, that's in addition to such things as distance and how dangerous the route is etc., you know, the usual.

Basically something that isn't quite so random as these events seems to be (to the uneducated) and does give a moderate profit without being easily optimized into "planet a -> b -> c -> a" routine.

Suppose these could be considered missions or ...quests... more so than events, at any rate.

Btw, how is the new player experience intended for Starscape proper? One frigate and of ya go?

Thinking that having a real mission-like interface could help out starting players to get off the ground. Be they newbies or just someone who got their fleet blown to smithereens.

Something along the lines of 'guard the caravan' in Fallout 2. To be part of a bigger caravan and being able to tackle some easy kills for some exp, maybe loot and pay, depending on how successful the run was.

Well, whatever you end up doing, this game is tons of fun. Really good stuff, wish more of those games that claim to be finished could raise up to the same level where Starsector already is!
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: xenoargh on March 19, 2014, 04:21:06 PM
Quote
coconut-hungry dancing robots that refuse to dance without them
I... man, that almost makes me want to make an Event system prototype. 

Just to make that image.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Doogie on March 19, 2014, 05:15:50 PM
-snip-

You know that nothing is finalized, right?
He's really only presenting the basic premise of where this game will go next.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Flare on March 19, 2014, 05:56:51 PM
I think he knows. No need to be defensive.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: JP161 on March 19, 2014, 06:11:28 PM
-snip-

You know that nothing is finalized, right?
He's really only presenting the basic premise of where this game will go next.
Indeed, what would be a better time to bring these things up than when things are still in motion! ;)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: chaincat on March 21, 2014, 11:19:29 PM
to think this game has been in development for nearly 4 years now. It's pretty awesome how far this game has come from it's early stages that was a simple system of fight loot sell buy better stuff repeat to now character development and management of your fleet and now an actual economy. I just love watching this game grow and blossom into hopefully something amazing
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: xenoargh on March 22, 2014, 12:24:06 PM
Yeah, me too.  I can't wait to see the next installment of this saga; having this new system in place is going to be a really big step forwards :)
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Gothars on March 22, 2014, 12:57:16 PM
Agreed. It will be the first big mechanic outside the combat system. As such it will be indicative of if Alex' ability to carry over his design skill from combat to other aspects of the game. How great of a game can Starsector become? I'm very hopeful.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Muchoman798 on March 22, 2014, 07:19:53 PM
Agreed. It will be the first big mechanic outside the combat system. As such it will be indicative of if Alex' ability to carry over his design skill from combat to other aspects of the game. How great of a game can Starsector become? I'm very hopeful.

The campaign system isn't entirely combat related. Mostly, as of right now, but not wholly. I do agree that it'll be the first big thing almost completely unrelated to combat, and that it will show how much better this game can become. Which is a lot of pressure on one update. If it doesn't go well, however, I imagine Alex will fix it until he's satisfied.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Steven Shi on March 28, 2014, 07:34:03 AM
New version shall be released on Fri, April 11th 2014. How do I know this?

Simple. I have two MBA assignments due the Monday after.
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: ciago92 on March 28, 2014, 08:17:10 PM
New version shall be released on Fri, April 11th 2014. How do I know this?

Simple. I have two MBA assignments due the Monday after.
idk, that seems soon. more likely right before finals
Title: Re: On Trade Design
Post by: Lolpingu on April 11, 2014, 04:13:17 PM
To add on to the "The player can be informed of an event before it occurs" endeavor, the player could be able to deliberately force an event to occur through the manipulation of various conditions. For example, a civilized planet may have a stable economy and trade routes, but if the player blockades the planet and starts to intercept the trade routes, the planet's economy should begin to suffer, which is the actual event. You can then arrange for a deal with a trading company that will trade with that planet while you continue intercepting any other trading company's ships - as a result, the trading company you made a deal with will make more money, and you get a nice share. Or, you could attempt to spark a war between two factions by attacking one faction's ships with ships of the other faction (as to how a faction is identified, perhaps digital signatures that identify ships as faction X or Y that can be manipulated and used for deception through the use of specialized hardware) - the war being the actual event - and when a faction is at war, it should buy supplies, ships and weapons at higher prices (to fuel the military campaign), which is an opportunity for the player to cash in big time.
If the player actually attains enough power, he can actually start pulling the strings on an entire star system.
All suggestions aside though, Alex is a genius - I'm more than confident that he'll deliver :)