Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: Hostile Activity (09/01/22)

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AlucardNoirsFolly

Pages: [1] 2
1
General Discussion / Re: BMT question
« on: April 29, 2020, 11:09:56 AM »
Thanks for replying. I'm guessing you had to also put in on there?

And yes. HoMM3 is the best HoMM. 21 years later, and 4 more Heroes direct sequels, and it's still the best. In a way it's sad really. Sadder still I can't play it on linux without some serious risk to my set up. But hey, Starsector works just fine on linux. Might give it another few playthroughs.  :) When life gives you lemons and whatnot.

2
General Discussion / BMT question
« on: April 29, 2020, 01:52:52 AM »
So I tried playing heroes 3 on linux using VCMI... turns out the last official release of VCMI is 3 to 4 years old and has a /home erasing bug in it. I lost everything. Including the file I had my Starsecotr key. Fortunately I never erased the BMT email I got and I recovered my key. That being said here comes the question: What's with the Product ID and Password thing? the game is easy to dl from the Starsector site, all it needs is the key. What are the product id and password for?

3
Suggestions / Re: Tariff mechanic discussion
« on: January 30, 2020, 12:11:36 PM »

I understand the need for the black market.  That is a perfectly good use of a "risk/reward" system that RPG mechanics should be built around.  Black market should stay in place as is and should always be more profitable, at a higher risk.   However, the fact that the black market is almost considered the "norm" means there is a strong bias toward it.  Primarily because of the steep tariff.   That or the risks of using the black market are not enough.   In either case, it feels like the black market is is too good not to use.  It even contains much better equipment most of the time!   

The tariff is a good way to rebalance this.  Creating a better risk/reward system for normal trading through a dynamic tariff would be one way of doing that.

Almost? hehe, no. It is the norm. Go to any other thread discussing the topic of tariffs and you'll soon discover that the vast, vast majority of players no in fact consider it the norm. It's only weirdos like us that don't think it should be the norm.

As for dinamic tariffs... yeah, again, just go read the previous threads on the topic of tariffs and the ingame economy. That has been proposed again, and again, and again for literal years.

4
Suggestions / Re: Tariff mechanic discussion
« on: January 30, 2020, 08:36:30 AM »
Guys, don't bother. This exact issue has been cropping up every few months on here and no suggestion have ever been taken under advisement.  To quote a reply Alex gave me when I opened my own thread on the topic last year:

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

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

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

5
It would be stupidly boring to make ''grab a crapload of items from point A then sell it at point B'' profitable. There are trading games for that.

Congrats, it's not every day I see somebody dismantle their own argument.

6
Not going to happen, Alex said the tariffs were intended to be that high. He dislikes trading and only put it in game because he thought that if he didn't people would complain, but since he dislikes trading he added those idiotic universal 30% tariffs to make sure we won't even bother trying to trade.

7
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 20, 2019, 09:41:18 AM »
With geeks like you protesting too much about any possible change to the current trade system. Also, here is an interesting video in suport of SCC's position to make trade more dangerous if it stays in the game - which I no longer think it should.

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


Firstly, I'm not supporting my point, I'm supporting SCC.s. Secondly, while you're most likely right the reason the guy in the video gives for enjoying trading is exactly what SCC wants in Starsector to spice legal trading should it be made profitable. He enjoys trading in Star Citizen because of the inherent risk associated with trading, especially high value trading.

8
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 19, 2019, 06:13:59 AM »
How did this thread end up with 4 pages?

With geeks like you protesting too much about any possible change to the current trade system. Also, here is an interesting video in suport of SCC's position to make trade more dangerous if it stays in the game - which I no longer think it should.

9
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 19, 2019, 01:34:28 AM »
I could see definitely adjusting the tariffs, yeah. I think I've actually already reduced the price volatility a bit in the dev build.

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

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

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

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

EDIT. and when I say remove it I don't mean that in a mean spirited kind of way. This is Starsector TV Tropes page. Wile I might have only acquired the game as a result of Seth's and Mandalore's videos, even as far back as 2015 when that page was originally made people thought of Starsector as a trading game. True, a trading/exploration/space combat game, but a trading game nonetheless. If that wasn't your intent then removing trading seems like a better idea. Just looking at this thread it is clear this was never meant to be a trading game and most people here seem to take umbrage with actually making trading viable enough to warrant such a descriptor. But as long as the open markets are there that is one of the first things people will think of when they open your game for the first time.

10
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 18, 2019, 12:55:59 PM »
Alex spend a lot of time on making this system and when he realized it could be easily abused and that the abuse would turn the the game into a grindy and not at all fun slog he gimped the system via tariffs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, sorry, for assuming you had simply made a more complex version of the trade system one can find in old games like EV NOVA and then gimped it. It's clear to me now that the gimping was in the original design. Still bad design, just from a completely different point of view. You find trade itself boring but felt obliged to put it in to preempt people inquiring about it, that being said: It's your *** game. IF you aren't interested in trade then don't fuckign have it in. If building a trade empire in X doesn't make you moist, if playing Truck Driver doesn't get you hard then, you know? maybe don't make a game that from the surface looks like something that would appeal that that demographic. The parts you like about the game are already good enough, no need to tack on a system you don't actually want, or like, to appease potential customers that wont something different then you do. The game is still in alpha, it's not too late to change things and strip things that you think aren't working. IF the only reason you have the legal trade system in game is because you don't want people to ask about it then grow a pair, strip it out and make it clear smuggling is the closest thing we're ever getting to trading in your game.

11
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 18, 2019, 06:29:34 AM »
Ouh, its so good u wrote that, because now i can be an SOB back at you, and nobody will hold that against me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, i think i made my point.

Just for you I'm making an exception and making just one more comment. You learned all that since you wrote this a month ago?

12
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 18, 2019, 12:51:34 AM »
You know what? I give up. It's pointless trying to debate people that refuse to understand something as simple as Chekhov's gun. It's utterly meaningless to have a dialogue with most of you when you don't have arguments that can't be refuted, you only have talking point you keep regurgitating indifferent of how many times they are refuted. It's sad to see the community around the game be so dogmatic, but if that's how it is, then that's how it is.

13
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 17, 2019, 09:51:17 AM »
I still can't figure out what you're even trying to say. You want open legal standard trade to be profitable? That's bad game design, pure and simple.
Ofc you dont. Even he himself doesnt know what he is talking about...

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

14
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 17, 2019, 07:43:02 AM »
I still can't figure out what you're even trying to say. You want open legal standard trade to be profitable? That's bad game design, pure and simple.

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

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

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

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

IT's just a simple Chekhov's gun scenario. The players sees the trade economy, the player wants to participate in it, the player realizes he's now allowed to. The player finds out why - because the dev nerfed it to uselessness, the player complains about it. Remove it from the game and you remove the loaded gun from your first act.

15
Suggestions / Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 16, 2019, 11:43:55 PM »
@bobucles True, the sector would still be volatile. True, the sector would have a problem with trust. True, the sector would be weary, tired and in the midst of a sector wide reconstruction. But that's not the original argument you originally made, now is it?

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

And just so you realize what I mean: http://fractalsoftworks.com/2019/07/08/skills-and-story-points/ Here Alex shows that he can be competent and considerate when designing the game, he shows that as a game designer he can see the potential pitfalls of his decisions and anticipate the players actions. No such considerations were given to the tariff solution. Tariffs are a patchwork solution thrown on top of a working trade system that was too easy to abuse. Players can abuse the system? then make the system itself useless in game - bad game design. Trade is broken, intentionally so, but it its still broken.

Pages: [1] 2