Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5

Author Topic: Yet another economy suggestion (long)  (Read 7234 times)

AlucardNoirsFolly

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« on: October 15, 2019, 06:32:19 AM »

After playing the game for enough time to get a hang of it, and after trying some non faction mods I have to say I have mixed feelings about the game. Most of them stem from the games lacking economy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IF the above were to be implemented I think the game would be better. On the one hand the player would be forced to experience the intricate and entertaining combat system the game has to offer, on the other trade and smuggling would both be made more interesting and in depth.
Logged

bobucles

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2019, 10:25:57 AM »

The only big mistake in the economy system is calling tariffs legal and black market illegal. If tariffs were more explicitly the act of bribing your way to avoid inspection, it would make more sense to know when to pay up and when to dodge it, and it would explain why the tax is so high.

Keep in mind there is also an additional ~5% tax on trade, which you can see when buying an item costs slightly more than selling it.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 10:27:45 AM by bobucles »
Logged

AlucardNoirsFolly

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2019, 10:35:27 AM »

The only big mistake in the economy system is calling tariffs legal and black market illegal. If tariffs were more explicitly the act of bribing your way to avoid inspection, it would make more sense to know when to pay up and when to dodge it, and it would explain why the tax is so high.

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

Bribes you would pay to acces the market or the port, not on a per transaction basis. As for that ~5%, I don't think that's a tax as much as your typical gamified shopkeep that always buys cheaper then he sells... unless you're in an RPG with personality, speech, mercantilism or the like where you can convince them to sell cheaper then 1 unit of currency and buy trash for all their gold.
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1896
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #3 on: October 15, 2019, 10:43:33 AM »

As an economist the current situation makes sense and i do not understand any* of your proposed solutions.

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

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

*ok i might understand them, they just arent cromulent, you will have to excuse the slight hyperbole.
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7211
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2019, 11:03:23 AM »

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

Wait, isn't this already the case? Smuggling/privateering are profitable on the large scale, and we already have a mechanic where oversupply/undersupply causes a limited number of good to be buyable/sellable at vastly increase costs, for good profit.
Logged

AlucardNoirsFolly

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2019, 11:06:45 AM »

As an economist the current situation makes sense and i do not understand any* of your proposed solutions.

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

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

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

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

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

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4142
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2019, 12:27:48 PM »

Trading can be viable, but it has to be based on one of two things: risk or opportunity. For the first one... There's hardly anything going for that and I hope Alex will make trading more of a "the bad guys come to you, instead of the other way round" style of gameplay, with the game tracking the player and sending pirates or his faction's enemies after him, if he's a profitable legitimate smuggler, or have normal factions pursue you for smuggling, maybe even with some special multi-faction force, if you're making a lot of money that way. But alas.
Opportunity is present in the game, and it comes in the form of smuggling legal goods for profit, smuggling illegal goods for huge profit, killing trade fleets and selling their goods at their destination and trade missions. The last one is really simplistic, so much that I don't really consider it actual trading and more being space DHL. The former technically also include some risk, but the punishment for smuggling is comically low, so much that it's not an issue at all, unless they confiscate your contraband. In the case of killing trade fleets, with transponder off, the punishment is manageable.
Basic mechanics are all there, the sector just has to react to you trading in some way that makes it less boring. By sending enemies at you.

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

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

9. Blueprints, if we buy them we always pay tariffs since everybody wants them, we never pay tariffs if we sells them for the same reason. Alternatively there is always a flat tariff on blueprints because they're a luxury good. But that would mean the game should add an always on tariff for certain other good that are considered luxuries. (not a bad idea but that would make implementing this a lot more difficult)
I think that it should outright be impossible to sell a blueprint, just like you sell lemonade. Blueprints should only be sellable through unreliable bar events that require you to discern the seedy from the trustworthy (unless you purposefully want to sell them to pirates). What they would reliably do, though, is send some other party after you. Perhaps to buy the blueprint, perhaps to point you to someone who will, or perhaps to fight you for it. Currently, they are handed out like candies.
It's not really relevant to the topic, I just don't quite have the right place to put it on forum...

AlucardNoirsFolly

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2019, 01:33:44 PM »

Opportunity is present in the game, and it comes in the form of smuggling legal goods for profit, smuggling illegal goods for huge profit, killing trade fleets and selling their goods at their destination and trade missions.

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

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

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

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

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

That's why two of the points in my original post revolved around the military market and the black market, if one makes the black market a hassle to engage with on bigger planets, and if one removes weapons and military hull ships from the civilian market then even apologists like you would end up seeing how bad the open market is. The only reason you don't think the open market is broken is because you don't use it. The only reason you don't use it is because it's broken and that's something you learn in your first hour with the game. Worst is the fact the open market is intentionally broken.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12156
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2019, 01:59:27 PM »

Quote
Leave the trade fleets in game, just remove the freighters and the Prometheus tanker from our stores.
As long as most ships that are not tankers have terrible fuel capacity, I need Prometheus to support my endgame war fleet if it makes long distance trips.

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

P.S.  I also want Prometheus if I want to sat bomb worlds to death!  Sat bombing is fun.  No kill like overkill!
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 02:01:01 PM by Megas »
Logged

Mordodrukow

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2019, 02:08:15 PM »

Alex's intention is to make a core game. And around that people can build whatever economical (or anything else) mods thay want.

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

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

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

Thats the definition of good gameplay: if your decisions define your effectiveness a lot - then it is good game. Easy to learn, hard to master. And you care about tariffs...
Logged
Spoiler
[close]

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1896
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2019, 02:47:21 PM »

As an economist the current situation makes sense and i do not understand any* of your proposed solutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Logged

AlucardNoirsFolly

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 25
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2019, 03:35:57 PM »

@Mages I think the Prometheus should go for the same reason most aircraft carrier battle groups in real life don't have petrol supertankers in their supply fleet. You don't put all your eggs in one basket. You have multiple smaller tankers at enough of a distance from one another and from the main battle group so as too keep them safe from an attack. The Prometheus is realistic as a ship that would exist in game, unrealistic as a ship a fleet would ever make use of.

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

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

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

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

That being said, I am from Europe, here final prices do tend to include VAT and any other tax applicable, while in the US they don't. At least when I bought his game the tax wasn't part of the 15$ price. But even then, here in Europe were we do use VAT there is the secondary problem of  VAT being collected at every stage of the chain and refunded to everybody but the end seller. So, if anything we should get our 30% back.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 03:37:43 PM by AlucardNoirsFolly »
Logged

Mordodrukow

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2019, 04:04:04 PM »

Sorry, i have no good english skill to precisely explain what i mean.
Quote
You want to complain about a lot of money in late game? that's not a complain about the economy, that's a complain about the late game. SS is a game and as such it's a power fantasy. Late game you can afford to make a fleet that's impossibly strong. You, an independent party that can't even make a trade fleet successful have successfully build, and are successfully maintaining, a fleet so powerful you can "clear" out any one system in the game at a time. Reducing profits won't make the game more interesting, removing your ability to maintain a death fleet won't make the game more "fun", but both those things might make the late game more engaging. You don't want to feel like you're grinding, and you don't want to feel like there is anything you can't achieve in game. But those two things do tend to lead you to being a typical RPG max level hero that can single shot anything that moves.
I dont wanna say i dont like grinding. I wanna say, that you cant easily declare it bad or good. Or, if you can, there are other people, who has different opinion. More to say, sometimes one's opinion can change time to time. My point was: if you wanna grindy and engaging game - you use mod, which can provide it. If you dont - you play the game as it is.

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

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

I dont wanna say, your suggestions are useless and have no rational grain. I like managers and Excel-chart-simulators too (lol, my best D&D campaign was when we turn the game in economic simulator). I just trying to help you to see the situation from different sides.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 04:05:39 PM by Mordodrukow »
Logged
Spoiler
[close]

bobucles

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2019, 04:04:30 PM »

I'll say it again. The only real issue here is caused by the game lore, not the mechanics. The lore creates an intuitive conflict between what players expect from normal play, and how the rules shape normal play.

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

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

Fix the player expectations by calling the tariff a bribe. The market mechanics don't change, but suddenly the conflicts are resolved. Players won't get suddenly surprised when bribing every trade deal kills their profits. They'll be looking for ways to avoid paying the bribe instead, and get naturally drawn into the anticipated conflicts of ticking off local port authorities.  ;)
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 04:17:04 PM by bobucles »
Logged

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1896
    • View Profile
Re: Yet another economy suggestion (long)
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2019, 04:50:17 PM »

Firstly, Alex decided to use the ward tariff and not tax. Sales taxes and VAT aren't tariffs. I know this and you know this so let's not pretend that's any sort of a valid argument. You might be an economist and I just a lowly certified accountant but we both know what a tariff is and what it bloody well isn't

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

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

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

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

Quote
That being said, I am from Europe, here final prices do tend to include VAT and any other tax applicable, while in the US they don't. At least when I bought his game the tax wasn't part of the 15$ price. But even then, here in Europe were we do use VAT there is the secondary problem of  VAT being collected at every stage of the chain and refunded to everybody but the end seller
but youre the end buyer/seller. If you got a refund there would be no tax!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5