Manual:Docking

[lee]

Well, I've done something on Manual:Docking. What do you think about it?

http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/wiki/Manual:Docking

BTW, how can I get screenshots with docking indicators on them?

[hellcatv]

quite helpful

to get screenshots with dokcing indicators:
linux (load up gimp and capture screenshot that way)
windows hit printscrn then load up paint.exe and hit cntrl-v (paste)
mac hit apple-shift-3 I think... or something like that

[Guest]

Just for reference:
FAQ:Playing -> How do I make screenshots in Vegastrike?

[Silverain]

Lee

Good work!

I did some minor edits, plus a rearrangement for logic purposes, and removed the old version - yours is better.

Silverain

[lee]

Silverain, thanks, it looks quite nice now I'll see if I can make some other screenshots that are more suitable.

I've put something under [0], but jackS doesn't like it for some reason. I think we should agree about where to put such things:

There's a category in the Database called 'Planets and Homeworlds'[1] and a planetary description under Terminology[2]. I would opt for putting planetary descriptions under Database:Planettypes:[Planettype] and starbase descriptions under Database: Basetypes:[Basetype] and have links to there from 'Planets and Homeworlds'. For the sake of consistency, we might need Database:Homeworlds:[Homeworld] then.

There's still 'Planet types' and 'Base types' proposed for the Manual. Maybe some link(s) to the database should get into the Manual, at appropriate places, just to let the readers know that there's more info to be had on these topics.

Anyway, I refrained from moving further pages --- we should first agree onto something; otherwise we will end up in messing up the documentation


[0]: http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/wiki/ ... ntor_Class
[1]: http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/wiki/ ... Homeworlds
[2]: http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/wiki/Terminology:Mars

[pontiac]

I would vote for a Planettype:<typename> namespace as we did with neatly everything else:
Planettypes -> Planettype:<name>
(where every page is classified into the category [[Category:Planets and Homeworlds]] ... which originally was only meant for specifiy planets like earth/mars/homeworld of the races/etc..., but hey )

Examples of The stuff currently in the wiki and its namespace (mind the sinular/plural):

• Cargo -> Cargo:<cargoname>
• Terminology -> Terminology:<general term to be descibed>
• Vessels & Installations -> Vessel:<name> and Installation:<name>
• Upgrades -> Upgrade:<name>
• Weapons -> Weapon:<name>
• etc...

Where Database is the overall summary page for all this pages.

Concerning the description of the planet types i think JackS has alot to say here

Maybe i should put this once finished into the manual of style?

Pontiac

[pontiac]

Concerning the homeworld section:
We do not have enough homeworld descriptions to justify an extra Homeworlds section (yet). Thus they are in the Terminology section right now (whith is also meant for a general reference to things in other categories (like an index to the single entries).
(not to be confused with "Database".. which is an index to the other sections).

And as far as i know Mars isn't a homeworld to any know species in the Vegastrike universe (i may be wrong though).

Once we have more descriptions (if they are really that numerous) we can create a asectionon like this:
Homeworlds -> Homeworld:<name>


Pontiac

PS: This is of course only my opinion and not law burned into stone
This is what the Talk pages and the forum are for.

[lee]

Hm, my idea was only that there should be something on planettypes and basetypes to give hints for what goods to trade on which type of planet/base. The hints given shouldn't be too detailed for not to become spoilers. Some additional description like there is on Mars or on Trantor Class is nice --- I'm somehow missing those 'Marausian shrew cotlets', 'deadly edible rodents' and the moths within the game

Anyway, the economy appears to be in a somewhat odd state so that it takes quite some time to find out how to make money. That had lead me to look up about it in the Wiki, but to no avail. Some examples:


What do they do on a mining base with landscaping equipment? There's obviously no landscape on the base or on the asteroids to make use of it. And they won't need 'pre fab buildings' because they live within the base.

How comes that Trantor Class planets try importing manufactured goods at very low prices while one might expect them to manufacture them there and to export them, being the industrial worlds they are? The only things they export are ground equipment and, eventually, mining supplies. On the other hand, mining bases and eventually other planets that appear to have no use for them export small numbers of protocol droids, if I recall it right. Where do the droids come from? --- Besides, if you ask Asimov, Trantor is definitely a planet that exclusively produces administration and needs at least 20 systems to supply from But administration cannot be traded with (letting aside protocol droids which could be visited in a sanctuary only) Later on, it exports metal and imports some food and gadgets, but only after The Mule had taken over the Foundation and even the former core worlds of the Empire were broken down ...

Who produces and exports Entertainment? Prices on it are about all the same anywhere, so it's rather useless for trade. I'd expect mining bases and tropical planets to import it and Trantors to export it.

On trading bases, you can only sell things because everything is too expensive for buying.

Oceanic planets produce food in quantities requiring an Ox to carry it to the Trantors, but other cargo types are to be had in very small quantities only.

Diamonds, Rubies and Radioactivities are a waste of money to trade with.

Agricultural planets won't import hydroponics because it's more reasonable to grow the food on their fields. Hydroponics would be needed on Trantors (ask Asimov) and bases.


Trade comes down to trade the small quantities of supplies and maybe metals, the larger quantities of compressed gasses and very large quantities of food. I guess that economy is a thing being worked on, and if we're going to make descriptions of planets and bases, we would get involved with economy, and some background story. That might put some importance to the descriptions, and they will have to do with how the game is to be played.

Hm, I'm a bit confused about it

[Silverain]

The Economy is under development/rebalance.

The first key at the moment is getting a set of commodities that are fully agreeable, then we can build trade relationships between destinations.

I've been working with JackS, PeteyG and others on this for a while now - hence the jumble under the wiki database cargo .

We will be trying for a logical layout of trade routes so that everything has varied value, and everything is of trade use. Also trying to reduce/avoid episodes of indifference between cargo i.e. what difference does it make transporting rubies or emeralds? They are both precious stones with similar use. Diamonds have other uses though. So as an example changing commodies to precious stones, diamonds etc. These are being considered.

[lee]

The first key at the moment is getting a set of commodities that are fully agreeable, then we can build trade relationships between destinations.

Oh, I thought that had already been worked out. The only thing that made me wonder yet is that Petroleum is under crude fuels rather than refined ones. Petroleum is almost the same as Diesel; I could even run my truck on it

We will be trying for a logical layout of trade routes so that everything has varied value, and everything is of trade use.

Does that mean 'binding' goods to kinds of places that export and import them, i. e. like mining bases exporting raw ores to industrialized planets and factories, as one would expect? Or are these trade routes planned to go across several systems?

Also trying to reduce/avoid episodes of indifference between cargo i.e. what difference does it make transporting rubies or emeralds? They are both precious stones with similar use. Diamonds have other uses though. So as an example changing commodies to precious stones, diamonds etc. These are being considered.

Hm, emeralds are green and rubies are red I wouldn't reduce the range of cargo types but extend it and have some indifference throughout the range. I. e., at some time rubies may be in high demand on a factory because a nearby pleasure planet randomly favours them while at another time, it would be fashionable there to wear things made of gold and diamonds.

Do you remember how trading precious stones was with Elite? You had to know their prices, buy them cheap and carry them around for quite some time until you could find a place to sell them, and then, that was very rewarding. A great advantage was that they didn't need much cargo space.

With too few cargo types that reliably generate revenues if you only buy and sell them at the usual places, making money becomes very boring. That is what I'm currently doing in the game, going back and forth between a Trantor Class, an Oceanic and a Bio Diverse on a Plowshare as quick as possible to make money as quickly as possible.

I've been trying to use an Ox for it, but the Ox is unusable because the Turrets don't work and it moves so sluggish that it is very painful to fly.

I dropped the Ox and am now trying to equip a Franklin, but apparently it won't become a decent ship because it can take only very small reactors. Thus, I returned to the website to find out what to do. I don't want to sell it, these Franklins are very expensive ...

[Silverain]

<Note: all comments are the opinion of the author. They are subject to review, confirmation or deletion under the auspice of the Ministry of Information>

Oh, I thought that had already been worked out. The only thing that made me wonder yet is that Petroleum is under crude fuels rather than refined ones. Petroleum is almost the same as Diesel; I could even run my truck on it

Well, we did have something in the old wiki, then JackS came along and threw everything up in the air again with the view to make them more VS universe aligned. Also, we have both current (or, old) and new (read: proposed) commodities in the wiki at the moment, and this will be so until we have a finalised a new list.

We will be trying for a logical layout of trade routes so that everything has varied value, and everything is of trade use.

Does that mean 'binding' goods to kinds of places that export and import them, i. e. like mining bases exporting raw ores to industrialized planets and factories, as one would expect? Or are these trade routes planned to go across several systems?

Yes, my primary thought is binding to places e.g. mining base exports raw ores, and ONLY purchases items that contribute to it (mining equipment, food, entertainment for workers etc - no requirement for agricultural equipment, so it doesn't offer to buy). Trade routes over systems is more of a system and universe design item, rather than commodity trade item. That would be where hand crafted systems comes into play.

Also trying to reduce/avoid episodes of indifference between cargo i.e. what difference does it make transporting rubies or emeralds? They are both precious stones with similar use. Diamonds have other uses though. So as an example changing commodies to precious stones, diamonds etc. These are being considered.

Hm, emeralds are green and rubies are red I wouldn't reduce the range of cargo types but extend it and have some indifference throughout the range. I. e., at some time rubies may be in high demand on a factory because a nearby pleasure planet randomly favours them while at another time, it would be fashionable there to wear things made of gold and diamonds.

<opinion>
I don't have a problem with many commodities, as long as we have reasoning for it. I personally dislike (for example) having diesel and petroleum as commodities. Why? Well, there's virtually no difference. They are both used as refined fuels for the same situations: either power source for agricultural machinery (although diesel is primary here), or as fuel for personal transport. They are interchangable. Hence, I would rather see a commodity 'refined fuels', or 'hydrocarbons'. Then come up with alternative fuels such as Fusion, A-M and so on.

Do you remember how trading precious stones was with Elite? You had to know their prices, buy them cheap and carry them around for quite some time until you could find a place to sell them, and then, that was very rewarding. A great advantage was that they didn't need much cargo space.

Um, no. That was 20 odd years ago for me! Repeating my point above though, this is again system design, carrying commodity x around until you found a base to offload them. Still, the type of base (e.g. pleasure, commercial, industrial) is the key point I'm focused on, not how often you would encounter one as we travel around.

Vague remembrance of Elite was that you carried precious stones around until you found a planet type (being the required political and production type) that you knew wanted your cargo - hence my thoughts on type.

With too few cargo types that reliably generate revenues if you only buy and sell them at the usual places, making money becomes very boring. That is what I'm currently doing in the game, going back and forth between a Trantor Class, an Oceanic and a Bio Diverse on a Plowshare as quick as possible to make money as quickly as possible.

You do raise a valid point and it is something to bear in mind while we rebalance the economy. You mention 'few cargo types that reliably generate revenues'. My thought is that ALL cargos can reliably generate revenues, you just have to find the appropriate target destination. A cargo will have a primary source, maybe some secondary sources, and a primary destination, with maybe some secondary destinations. But is shouldn't be available everywhere, or sellable everywhere. E.g. living in a city, I can't just pop down to the local motor dealer and pick up some farm equipment...

We do need some logical structure. For those who aren't of the mercantile bent, what you're doing is all they want - a quick trade/money making route. The secret lies in having cargos limited in where you buy cheap and sell expensive, not in limiting numbers of cargo. BUT, cargo numbers still need to have a limitation, because if there are too many, people will re-concentrate on the known few, and not explore trading options.

[lee]

> Also, we have both current (or, old) and new (read: proposed)
> commodities in the wiki at the moment, and this will be so until we
> have a finalised a new list.

Well, I don't want to interfere with that

> Yes, my primary thought is binding to places e.g. mining base
> exports raw ores

Hm, unless there would be the overkill of a full economy, that's
probably the best way to do it.

> They are interchangable. Hence, I would rather see a commodity
> 'refined fuels', or 'hydrocarbons'. Then come up with alternative
> fuels such as Fusion, A-M and so on.

In that all these things are cargo, they are interchangeable. You
would end up with only two types of cargo: contraband and other

The reasoning for having a couple of fuels, like Diesel and Petroleum,
can be, for example, their different usage. Even though I could run my
truck on Petroleum (besides, it would be much cheaper, but illegal),
it won't do it good on the long run. Thus, I need Diesel for my truck
--- or SVO, if I do some modifications, but that's not yet in the
cargo list --- and Petroleum which is for heating purposes, for
cooking and for lamps. I could also use Diesel for cooking and for
lamps, but it would burn more sooty and thus wouldn't work as
well. But since I've a parking heater in my truck, I actually use
Diesel for heating sometimes --- I could use Petroleum or heating oil
for the parking heater, but that would require a seperate tank.

With the same reasoning, there would be Diamonds, Rubies and
Emeralds. All of them can be used as decorations, but Diamonds are
also used in cutting tools in the industry while Rubies and Emeralds
are, afaik, not (or not so much). Emeralds and Rubies might be used in
Laser Beams and such, and those weapons with Rubies make the read
beams while those with Emeralds make the green ones

These things are just not as interchangeable as they might technically
seem.

> Still, the type of base (e.g. pleasure, commercial, industrial) is
> the key point I'm focused on, not how often you would encounter one
> as we travel around.

Hm, btw, what's the reasoning for having different types of bases?

If there were only two types of cargo and only one type of bases,
prices could be overall randomized. This would have the advantage that
you could not reliably make money out of combining cargo types with
base types. I'm not sure, but one might argue that it is just too easy
to make money in VS. But, you need to, as otherwise it won't be so
much fun.

> Vague remembrance of Elite was that you carried precious stones
> around until you found a planet type (being the required political
> and production type) that you knew wanted your cargo - hence my
> thoughts on type.

Yes, the point is that you had to carry the cargo around for quite
some time. If we had something like that in VS, players would be more
encouraged to use all of the available cargo types and to move around
across a large number of locations to trade. As it is now, they
concentrate on a very few locations, preferably within the same
system, and on the very few cargo types worthwhile to trade between
these --- usually two --- locations.

> My thought is that ALL cargos can reliably generate revenues, you
> just have to find the appropriate target destination. A cargo will
> have a primary source, maybe some secondary sources, and a primary
> destination, with maybe some secondary destinations.

Hmmm. I would say that finding sources and their destinations is too
easy, but that's not exactly helpful. But if there is, for example, a
source of Food in a system and a destination for it, maybe the prices
of Food should be made so that there's not much to gain in trading
it. The reasoning is that a nearby source of a cargo would lead to
quite level prices both at the source of that cargo and at the nearby
destinations because it is traded very much. There would be people
living insystem going between source and destination as their everyday
job.

With current prices, these people could afford buying a new ship or
two each month, and they would certainly have local regulations to
prevent others from arbitrary popping in and out of their system to
take away their income. They would certainly have some kind of militia
to enforce such regulations ... And that would be desirable, because a
steady supply of goods is a neccessity. Otherwise, there would be
frequent news reports about Arid planets or Mining bases being
evacuated and left to take by anybody who wants them because the
inhabitants are starving from a lack of water or food.

Trade done by players would require going from system to system to
deliver the goods unavailable insystem. But they would have to do it
on a large scale with an Ox, because only mass trading would generate
sufficient income.

> We do need some logical structure. For those who aren't of the
> mercantile bent, what you're doing is all they want - a quick
> trade/money making route.

That's true, but I'd think that one would not need to be addicted to
trade if trade were more exciting and dangerous It's only
challenges now are to find out which goods to trade because things are
not set up yet as one would expect and having the patience to go back
and forth between suitable locations, within the same system. But if
insystem trade wouldn't generate so much money and if there were more
dangerous, but more rewarding, trade routes to go across several systems --- somewhat like
it is taking missions --- trade would be more exciting and still be a
very good way to make money.

For those who wouldn't want to bother with making money, there could
be a starting game in which they get a fifty million credits or so to
start with.

> The secret lies in having cargos limited in where you buy cheap and
> sell expensive, not in limiting numbers of cargo.

But you cannot effectively limit that unless you care for it in
hand-crafted sectors. And then, if you do so, it would appear
reasonable that bases are being built during the game to take
advantage of the available goods, like mining bases in systems that
have a local food supply. Refineries would follow the mining bases to
refine the ores they produce ...

> BUT, cargo numbers still need to have a limitation, because if there
> are too many, people will re-concentrate on the known few, and not
> explore trading options.

Well, you can as well say that for the available ships. I wonder what
most players do, but I think most of them go along with a very few
ship types only. At the beginning, they want something to make money
with, and that's a Plowshare and eventually an Ox (if the Ox were more
useable). With sufficient money, they'll need something more suited
for combat, and that's the Goddard. I'm far away from having tried all
ship types, but I think the Goddard is up to everything you should
need, and it's simply so much fun to fly with that you don't want
anything else seriously. And I think it's ok that way, because I won't
like having to own a large fleet of ships to choose from for a
particular task each time. Some specialisation would be nice, though,
like having to use very small but therefore undetectable ships for
spying purposes and maybe exceptionally fast ones to do time critical
missions, but not too much of it. But, when you think of it, the
Goddard goes a maximum of 355331 or so in combat mode, and that's more
than fast enough to outrun anybody who detects your contraband cargo
or so I didn't reach that speed yet, but it's fun. Flying capships is another thing, but there should be some use to it then, like conducting an operation to take over a system or so ...

Anyway, players would have to explore trading options if it were less
easy to make so much money with it, and there would have to be a longer list of cargo types to allow for that.

PS: Maybe that's an idea already there: What about making locations so that they produce only one or two cargos within their category, like a Mining base producing only Diamonds and Rubies? Another mining base would produce only Gold and Silver, and planets making Food would only make one or two kinds of it. Then players could trade those cargo types across systems which are not available insystem, while prices of local goods are leveled. Players would be able to buy local goods at good prices, i. e. even Gold and Silver on an Oceanic planet at a slightly higher price than on the Mining base in the same system. Then, the influence should stretch out across nearby systems, and if one goes 5 systems to sell the Gold, he would get more money for it than selling it in the neighbouring system.

It would appear reasonable to me that a mining base happens to be at asteroids containing only a certain type of Raw material and that planets specialize on certain types of food. How would they, for example, grow large amounts of Grains on Oceanic planets? They would rather import it and export only Sea food.

Maybe even the auto-building tool could handle it that way.

And it gives very good reasoning to have many cargo types that appear technically interchangeable

[Silverain]

With the same reasoning, there would be Diamonds, Rubies and
Emeralds. All of them can be used as decorations, but Diamonds are
also used in cutting tools in the industry while Rubies and Emeralds
are, afaik, not (or not so much). Emeralds and Rubies might be used in
Laser Beams and such, and those weapons with Rubies make the read
beams while those with Emeralds make the green ones

These things are just not as interchangeable as they might technically
seem.

Mmm, one of my original proposals was to have cargo: Precious Gemstones (basically, rubies, emeralds, sapphires etc), but a separate cargo: Diamonds - precisely because the various gemstones have similar uses (jewelry, laser tech), but diamonds have additional uses. Therefore, holding to my thought of reducing similar types (individual stone types to 'Precious Gems', but retaining Diamonds for different trading).

Hm, btw, what's the reasoning for having different types of bases?

1. Probably legacy from other games like Privateer and suchlike.
2. (MOI to correct if necessary) On planets, you would have initially settled planets such as agricultural (low population, high area available for agriculture), and desert/lava types (low population, high area available for mining & resources). As population grows, their nature changes: agricultural -> commercial and desert/lava -> industrial planets. Mining bases are there to extract minerals from asteroids, various base types for their respective purposes.

If there were only two types of cargo and only one type of bases,
prices could be overall randomized. This would have the advantage that
you could not reliably make money out of combining cargo types with
base types. I'm not sure, but one might argue that it is just too easy
to make money in VS. But, you need to, as otherwise it won't be so
much fun.

Sorry, I don't follow. Could you provide an example of what you mean?

Yes, the point is that you had to carry the cargo around for quite
some time. If we had something like that in VS, players would be more
encouraged to use all of the available cargo types and to move around
across a large number of locations to trade. As it is now, they
concentrate on a very few locations, preferably within the same
system, and on the very few cargo types worthwhile to trade between
these --- usually two --- locations.

Defacto we do have this, but we have destination bases within easy reach, and we have unlimited jumping to destination systems. If we could only jump (say 2 systems for a reach of 3 - start, intermediate, destination) a limited distance, and destination types are limited (your best destination for mining base minerals is a refinery located 6 systems away), this would create what you mention.

From what I remember with Elite, I usually carried cargos that I could sell at the next destination (Lave agricultural for e.g.), or I intended for the nearest agricultural I could reach quickly (whether in one 7.0 L/Y jump or more).

Hmmm. I would say that finding sources and their destinations is too
easy, but that's not exactly helpful. But if there is, for example, a
source of Food in a system and a destination for it, maybe the prices
of Food should be made so that there's not much to gain in trading
it. The reasoning is that a nearby source of a cargo would lead to
quite level prices both at the source of that cargo and at the nearby
destinations because it is traded very much. There would be people
living insystem going between source and destination as their everyday
job.

"finding sources and their destinations is too easy" - but this is what the mercantile community in RL do to make money - and considering the sheer volume of business occuring every day...

But, your point on being too easy to deliver (insystem source and destination), then yes, this is where my thoughts are caught. In my economy mod proposal, I attempted to get around this point, but this is something the dynamic universe would need to solve.

With current prices, these people could afford buying a new ship or
two each month, and they would certainly have local regulations to
prevent others from arbitrary popping in and out of their system to
take away their income. They would certainly have some kind of militia
to enforce such regulations ... And that would be desirable, because a
steady supply of goods is a neccessity. Otherwise, there would be
frequent news reports about Arid planets or Mining bases being
evacuated and left to take by anybody who wants them because the
inhabitants are starving from a lack of water or food.

Err, why not have news stories of planets about to be evacuated because of lack of food - generates cargo missions and/or inflates price of food for you to deliver. Of course, there might be a timed limitation representing other deliveries of food to the starving destination.

That's true, but I'd think that one would not need to be addicted to
trade if trade were more exciting and dangerous It's only
challenges now are to find out which goods to trade because things are
not set up yet as one would expect and having the patience to go back
and forth between suitable locations, within the same system. But if
insystem trade wouldn't generate so much money and if there were more
dangerous, but more rewarding, trade routes to go across several systems --- somewhat like it is taking missions --- trade would be more exciting and still be a very good way to make money.

This is where rebalance testing would be required, to work out the right balance between reward and effort.

Anyway, players would have to explore trading options if it were less
easy to make so much money with it, and there would have to be a longer list of cargo types to allow for that.

Not necessarily, just not as much profit per cargo type sold. Elite only had a limited selection of cargo, but you only made a small profit on each type. So when you had enough to buy your next upgrade - it was a milestone. You were constantly on the lookout for good trade opportunities just to make the next upgrade more quickly.

PS: Maybe that's an idea already there: What about making locations so that they produce only one or two cargos within their category, like a Mining base producing only Diamonds and Rubies? Another mining base would produce only Gold and Silver, and planets making Food would only make one or two kinds of it. Then players could trade those cargo types across systems which are not available insystem, while prices of local goods are leveled. Players would be able to buy local goods at good prices, i. e. even Gold and Silver on an Oceanic planet at a slightly higher price than on the Mining base in the same system. Then, the influence should stretch out across nearby systems, and if one goes 5 systems to sell the Gold, he would get more money for it than selling it in the neighbouring system.

This was a point I too had thought of, and I agree. I had thought of it as bases have a range of goods produced with a random chance they have produced it. While not quite what you recommend, I was keeping in mind the sheer volume of star systems and bases in VS universe, and the problem of keeping track of what's there. I have no problem, though, that for example a mining base is currently producing base metal ores (common), but occasionally gets a strike of precious metals (gold, platinum etc), or rarer still radioactive metals or rare earths. So you can rely on such bases to have basic ores (100%), but only (50%) chance of precious and (20%) radioactives. The randomness represents ore veins being found (make random check), and veins ending (lose random check). This avoids having a continually extending chart/reference that records base e in system y produces cargo m in t quantity (although we could do that if we were willing to have our save files bloat out accordingly).

And of course, the rarer items (low probability of occuring) are the ones that have high value and high variability.

Example
Base Ores common price of 5 with variation of 2 each way. Always occur (100%), but profit margin is small except in bulk (your thought).
Precious Ores common price of 50 with variation of 10 each way occuring 50% of the time.
Radioactives common price of 200 with variation of 50 each way occuring 20% of the time.
Further, you regulate the volume of cargo (Base in the 1000's, precious in 100's and radioactives in 10's or somesuch).

It would appear reasonable to me that a mining base happens to be at asteroids containing only a certain type of Raw material and that planets specialize on certain types of food. How would they, for example, grow large amounts of Grains on Oceanic planets? They would rather import it and export only Sea food.

If you look at my proposal, I was trying to factor this in. I would limit production types to the type of base i.e. Oceanic produces water, seafood, alkaline metals (derived from seaplants), but doesn't produce grains etc - which are produced by a bio-diverse planet.

[lee]

> Mmm, one of my original proposals was to have cargo: Precious
> Gemstones (basically, rubies, emeralds, sapphires etc), but a
> separate cargo: Diamonds - precisely because the various gemstones
> have similar uses (jewelry, laser tech), but diamonds have
> additional uses. Therefore, holding to my thought of reducing
> similar types (individual stone types to 'Precious Gems', but
> retaining Diamonds for different trading).

Well, this would lead to inconsistencies, as Diamonds go under
Precious Gemstones as well as under Jewelery or Industrial Gems --- or
they would appear in all three categories.

My idea would be to either have a reasonable number of categories to
allow for a great variety of cargo types while eventually not being
strictly in putting cargo types into categories [1] --- or to limit the
cargo types to a total of 24 or so, i. e. a screenfull, with no
categories at all.


[1] That means you can very well have Diamonds as Industrial Gems and
as Jewelery and as Raw Material, but you still should not have
Petroleum as Crude Fuel because you only get it from refining Crude
Fuel (unless you somehow artificially produce it, but then it still
wouldn't fit under Crude Fuels). It also means that you could have,
for example, Steaks and Liver in the Food categorie and also Meats:
Steaks and Liver would be kind of luxurious food of especially
delicious kind, but they could also be had within Meats which is the
bulk of it, maybe of lower quality. One could also argue that Meats
should be a category ... That would be against the idea of keeping the
number of cargo types low, but it would allow for a greater variety in
the particularity of locations that produce this or that in order to
make trade more demanding and interesting.


[different types of bases]
> 1. Probably legacy from other games like Privateer and suchlike.
> 2. (MOI to correct if necessary) On planets, you would have
> initially

Hm, I thought the reason for having different types of bases is to
make the game more interesting. There more there is to explore in a VR
world and the more detailed it is, the more interesting it is.

> Sorry, I don't follow. Could you provide an example of what you
> mean?

Well, that one was only rethorically following the thought of reducing
the variety of cargo types and locations to trade them to a minum,
rather than to be taken serious. Imagine that there were only two
types of cargo, Contraband and Other. You won't need different types
of locations to trade them. But you could, for example, assign
Contraband a value in the range of 1000--2000 and Other a value of
5--100.

Then, for each location to trade the cargo, just randomize a price
within its range and maybe do that anew every now and then to keep the
prices changing, and you're done with economy: When the trade
locations are all the same and the prices of the two available cargo
types are randomized, you cannot make money reliably but have to carry
your cargo around until you happen to find a place to sell it.

You could even extend the idea to use only one type of cargo instead
of two ...

That would be easy, but boring

> Defacto we do have this, but we have destination bases within easy
> reach, and we have unlimited jumping to destination systems. If we
> could only jump (say 2 systems for a reach of 3 - start,
> intermediate, destination) a limited distance, and destination types
> are limited (your best destination for mining base minerals is a
> refinery located 6 systems away), this would create what you
> mention.

Hm? What we have is an easy way of making money because it can be done
by trading a handfull of cargo types between two or three locations
that are close together (i. e. within the same system). It is not
significantly more rewarding to trade between locations that are far
away from each other or to trade other cargo types.

And, maybe the most important thing to it, we do not need to do any
kind of exploration to find out where to trade and what to trade once
we know that it is most profitable to trade Food, Natural Products and
eventually Gasses from Oceanic or Bio Diverse to Trantor Class planets
on the one way and some types of Supplies on the other. And we can do
that indefinitely, especially if we leave the game and return later,
because the stocks on the locations involved are reset each time we
load a game.

Once we know this, trading becomes boring.

But --- that is what I intended to mention --- I think that is too
easy, too boring, too reliable, too predictable. Trading should be
more of a challenge and become all the more rewarding the more one
takes that challenge. I'd think that making little money by simple
insystem-trading is ok, maybe even needfully when starting a new game
to give players a save start. But the big money should only be to get
by trading across many systems, by ongoing travel all about the
universe.

That is the way it was in Elite. It was the spirit of Elite that the
universe is indefinitely huge and that you could indefinitely explore
it and, especially in Frontier, explore the different types of
ships. And it was hard to make money to buy upgrades and ships. VS is
totally missing that; the universe in VS feels very small, though it
takes ages to get to somewhere, and you're always limited to using the
Jump Points. It's too much influenced by Privateer in that.

Besides, thinking of it, Elite Frontier has really been underestimated
at its time ... It came on a single 720kB floppy as a file of about
350kB only, but had so much to offer, and things were very well
balanched. It was a genious piece of software, but never recognized as
that.

> "finding sources and their destinations is too easy" - but this is
> what the mercantile community in RL do to make money - and
> considering the sheer volume of business occuring every day...

That doesn't mean that it's easy in RL. If it were that easy, all of
us would already have made a couple of millions in RL from doing some
trade. Truck drivers don't get rich in RL, neither do we.

> In my economy mod proposal, I attempted to get around this point,
> but this is something the dynamic universe would need to solve.

How did you attempt that? I need to check out the proposal, tomorrow
or so.

> Err, why not have news stories of planets about to be evacuated
> because of lack of food - generates cargo missions and/or inflates
> price of food for you to deliver. Of course, there might be a timed
> limitation representing other deliveries of food to the starving
> destination.

I'm not sure of how much attention players pay to the News --- I don't
do it much in VS and never did it much in Elite or Privateer. You had
to do in Terminus though, but it didn't mean much as the story always
had the same outcome regardless of what you did (unless I miss
something --- I'm really curious if there can be another outcome, but
I never found out). But it was interesting to watch the news from the
views of different factions --- they were designed very well, and it
was very impressive to see how the same events could be described
differently but still somehow truely and to find how much you can be
influenced by that. After that, you try to never trust any source of
news and always keep in mind that things can be seen much different
--- it was really very educating in that.

Anyway, players would want to take over the evacuated bases,
eventually hire some Merchants to bring in some food or bring it in
themselfes with their Oxs ... That should be implemented then

And it would make trade more interesting because you would get shot at
by the local militia when trying do trade across systems ... Then, the
trade ships would need to be improved to deal with that.

> This is where rebalance testing would be required, to work out the
> right balance between reward and effort.

Hm, balance testing is needed anyway once economy is being set
up. Even the ship prices seem somewhat odd, considering the price of
an Ox, for example. That's also somewhat true for the missions.

> So when you had enough to buy your next upgrade - it was a
> milestone. You were constantly on the lookout for good trade
> opportunities just to make the next upgrade more quickly.

That's what I mean! But it didn't --- at least not in Frontier ---
only come from making only small profit per cargo type. In Frontier,
you could make quite some money by trading, but the ships and upgrades
were balanced in a way that made larger ships much more expensive to
run, though you could make more money with them. The balance was so
that you needed quite some effort to get rich, and you could only get
rich after you went through the greater effort to get a fairly large
ship and to equip it very well, and you could only do it with some
luck. The progress was quite slow, but steady, and it kept things
interesting. VS is totally unbalanced in that sense.

> I had thought of it as bases have a range of goods produced with a
> random chance they have produced it.
> [...]
> This avoids having a continually extending chart/reference that
> records base e in system y produces cargo m in t quantity (although
> we could do that if we were willing to have our save files bloat out
> accordingly).

Hmm ... I wouldn't want to randomize things too much because the idea
is to get to some steadyness of production. Steadyness means that base
e in system y does produce cargo m in t quantity for quite some time,
and that given, the price of cargo m throughout system y is leveled to
a difference of maybe 0.1 percent. Throughout the neighbouring
systems, prices would change maybe 2--5 percent per 'level of
remoteness'. 'Level of remoteness' means 'Jump Points away', thus in
system x, 5 jumps away from y, the price of m can be about 10--25%
higher.

Since this would work out throughout all the universe, there may be
another mining base 2 jumps away from x but 7 jumps away from y, and
if it produces the same cargo m, the lower price would be set for
m. Some method would be needed to go through all production places,
eventually several times, until all the prices are minimized, during
the gameplay.

These things would have to be in the save files for the sake of
steadyness. Different production places would have to be considered
differently: Grains, for example, can be harvested only at certain
times within a year, but Gold can be extracted from asteroids
steadily.

Another thing to be considered would be the availability of cargo
types. If m is available in large amounts at some place, that should
lower the prices at that place and therefore at the places around it
--- low availability would likewise increase the prices.

This would take care of player actions automatically. To have
responsiveness to player actions, actions like docking somewhere could
be used as a measurement of time so that things like changing the
production type at mining bases could be linked to it.

I'd say it would be worthwhile to think it out further, but there
would be problems with it, like the inflational production of cargo
over time --- but that could be overcome by implementing ressource
usage. And what we would need to make it work would be a very few key
variables we could tweak to get reasonable results. Then, NPCs should
be made responsive to economy ...

Hmm, I didn't want to come up with a full working model of economy,
but things just lead to it --- and it would be the most interesting
way to implement it.

As for numbers, how many cargo types and trade locations do we have?
Assuming 200 cargo types and, hm, about 1000 trade locations
throughout the game, there would be 200000 numbers to calculate. The
game has probably about half an hour or an hour to go through that at
runtime, so it shouldn't be a problem.

But what about multiplayer games?

> Example

How are you going to balance that and to make it responsive to actual
trade actions?

> Further, you regulate the volume of cargo

Hm, what about ships like the Mule or the Ox with their large cargo
space? If somebody buys all of the available Food in some sector, it
would be deserted after some time. With my model, Food prices would
get very high. Thus, we would have to make it so that more cargo of
type T is produced if the prices for T do exceptionally rise. It's
even evident that more T would be produced because there's more money
to be made with it ...

> Oceanic produces water, seafood, alkaline metals (derived from
> seaplants), but doesn't produce grains etc - which are produced by a
> bio-diverse planet.

That's a good way to do it My addition would be to switch
production on Oceanics between water, seafood and alkaline metals from
time to time so that only one of the three is produced in noticeable
numbers and only very little of the others. Hmm, maybe we can have it
as simple as that:


+ assign production types to locations (already done?)
+ assign base prices to cargo types (already done)
+ assign cargo types to three categories of availability: sparse, normal,
abundant
+ set up production factors PF for the categories of availability: 10,
40, and 80 for the categories, respectively
+ have a factor FP of productiveness, either global or sector wide or
system wide; let's assume global for this example
+ have max. limits PS for production steadyness

+ initially set locations to produce one of their possible cargos;
that is time mark 0

+ Do continously {
+ set locations to produce one of their possible cargos by using
randomization of the chance that the current production type
actually changes, but force a change if the the last change is
more than PS time units ago
+ produce cargo of current production type in numbers of PF*FP per
time unit
+ set cargo prices depending on base prices and on the availability
as described above
+ check cargo prices for being 100% or more above base price; if
there's such a cargo type, produce
( (percentage above base price) - 90)*PF/10*FP
+ increase time mark by one
+ increase production time steadyness counter of locations by one
}


This would keep the number of variables to consider for fine tuning
small. Time units don't neccessesarily need to be of the same length
each; they can be minutes, seconds, hours, but also time between
player-docking events or anything else happening more or less regular
during runtime.

Unless players could suddenly move across several systems, we could
limit the considering of remoteness to maybe 10--15 systems around the
player.

Something to simulate cargo usage is needed because it would otherwise
pile up indefinitely --- maybe take away some randomized percentage of
each cargo type from each location each round, depending on categories
of availability.

What do you think about it?