Defining a new economic system for future versions

Talk among developers, and propose and discuss general development planning/tackling/etc... feature in this forum.
Post Reply
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by travists »

Siddis, I understand what you are saying, I think. However, Simulating convoys through multiple systems (unless already included) adds a bit too much complication and data points. Whereas, simulating their net effect (base A has an export rate of X, base B has an import rate of Y, but X and Y are not always the same due to loss in transit) is very direct mathematically without overload. That is not to say that every so often the cross-linked traffic/exchange setup can't trigger a much-needed resupply. The outcome of which then changes stockpiles, costs, and every thing else it trickles down to. Rather than thinking of physical convoys, think of a more abstracted flow of material with a rate and chance of successfully reaching its end point. I would like to see your itemized list for what to simulate, then we can see what overlaps, what is in one or the other, etc. Get someone else onboard with a third list, and we can further refine it!
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by travists »

Hey, I had a thought. One of the sticking points seemes to be do we:

A: Simulate the galactic economy in general?
B: Simulate the local economy in fine?
C: Balance the two, possibly bogging dow the sim?
D: Abandon a dynamic economy alltogether?

So, I think there is a way to set up a poll. Can one be set up in a less obscure place than this specific thread to get a wider view? That direction alone will help to define what details and how much is needed.
safemode
Developer
Developer
Posts: 2150
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by safemode »

With current gpu's being programmable for arithmetic and parallel general purpose computing and cpu's having multiple cores, simulating a decent economic model doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. It should be something that operates in it's own thread alongside the game and on a completely independent clock cycle. Buying and selling from the units in the game could occur in slots that get proper locks/unlocks to keep everything sane but the majority of the economic modelling would have to be done out-of-game as it involves things the game just can't simulate graphically.

Maybe after initialization the dynamic news can modify an economic value here and there but otherwise economic rules control the economic thread and the buying and selling of goods by units in-game can have a much larger influence in the economic thread than what goes on in it on it's own as we could assume that if a simulated ship is trading something then lots of ships we dont see will (we just make the in-game ship first).

The economic thread can't poll the game, so that removes any large scale delays and the economic thread gets a lower priority than the game. We only need to lock the economic thread when reading data from it when a ship is at a station trading. The price of goods could even change while in base on a fixed interval, kind of like real-time stock prices, although it would be driven only by economic rules (so only tiny fluctuations) as the game is pretty much paused when a player is in a base so dynamic news can't modify anything.

So basically, rather than a fixed stock of goods and such that get shuffled around, we have a rule for each type of good (produced, mined, etc) and allow the rule to dictate quantity of such good available and the game-play artificially magnifies the effect of any trading done in-game but the time period of this effect is temporary and once ended, the rules start from the new base and begin to function like normal again.

The absolute number doesn't matters, so maintaining the correct amount of goods shifted from A to B is not important. Just maintaining the correct amount removed from A is, as we can explain any discrepency with what's added to B as other ships not simulated trading as well.

Now on a system scale i think we can control how trade is done by in-game features already in place. Make unfriendly bases not trade with you at all, or trade at much higher prices. Price doesn't have to be something the economic thread even has to care about. All the economic thread needs to deal with is quantities of goods and the rules it has, price would never need to factor in. The game itself could generate a price given what it reads from the economic thread and other factors in-game.

On a galactic scale we once again have to simulate out of game how systems would interact. Maybe dynamic news can signal a change in ownership of a system and this causes a function in the economic thread to increase how often trading is updated amongst bases in that system (how often the functions that deplete and replenish goods on a base run) or decrease it. So say, there is a andolian system surrounded by other andolian systems on all jump points (4). Then the Rlaan take over 3 of the systems. Well since they are enemies, the dynamic news would indicate a decrease in trade updates for that system so that trade seems to occur slower in-game. Bases can be depleted of goods for a while before getting more. This mimics reality pretty decently i think and doesn't require deep scanning the game or anything.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by travists »

Two things, safemode. One, we don't all have latest generation video cards and quad core processors with 4GB of memory. In about five years or so it may not be an issue, but now, while technically possible, is a bit demanding. Two, it is much simpler to structure it as a reoccurring price calculation than a constant simulation. Think more actual market and not so much a commodities and futures exchange. There are no absolute numbers as far as I am concerned. Goods are being produced and consumed all of the time.

You said that the news isn't important (big scale), I see it as more of an interrelationship. The rules stay the same, but some news items change the values. Also, some values trigger news items.

I see where you are going, but I think it is stretching. To do that level of simulation any justice it would be like running two iterations of VS concurrently.

It looks like 2 for in-depth simulation, and 2 for simple mathematical modeling. Need more votes!
safemode
Developer
Developer
Posts: 2150
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by safemode »

well, I dont think it would need quad cores and new gpu's but that having smp is pretty much expected when you are running a new game. VS has never been intended to work on low end hardware. It doesn't scale down nearly that well. So expecting something that can run two threads at full cpu is not a stretch. However, VS rarely uses 100% cpu single threaded, and the economics thread wouldn't be nearly that straining.

I really wouldn't see it so much as two vs's as vs and a sub-function that runs completely independent of VS. Inside it, you would have the objects relating to the economies of every base in each system loaded and simulated in-game and then objects relating to overall system economies of surrounding systems. Only so far as what VS simulates on any level. Then a database file that it writes and stores these economic objects when no longer needed and loads new data from when necessary.

I'm perceiving this model to be quite lightweight. There would be no need to poll the VS game and the VS game sets prices on-demand and the economic functions dont need to know anything about the game's politics or etc. Dynamic news can hit it up with a couple of methods that can modify trade-rate and/or cause a momentary surplus/shortage of a good and units will interact by adding and removing goods. That's it.

I think all the fun aspects of a dynamic economy dont occur in the economy part, but in what the game does with the economy. VS can then be coded to utilize the economy to decide ship quantities / aggressive strategies etc. So the game makes the economy seem way more realistic than it needs to be by basing decisions on it more. The real magic bullet is the rate-change method available to dynamic universe to affect how often trade is done on a planet.

You can effectively destroy trade in a system (blockade) by realistic means of owning all access to it. And it would function realistically. likewise you can boost trade by removing hinderances to your system. The economy doesn't care if you do this by owning systems around you yourself or placing friendly systems there. Dynamic news already knows when a system ownership is changed and calls the appropriate method (increase/decrease trade rate).
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by klauss »

safemode wrote:well, I dont think it would need quad cores and new gpu's but that having smp is pretty much expected when you are running a new game. VS has never been intended to work on low end hardware. It doesn't scale down nearly that well. So expecting something that can run two threads at full cpu is not a stretch. However, VS rarely uses 100% cpu single threaded, and the economics thread wouldn't be nearly that straining.
The big problem I see: VS is thoroughly thread-unsafe.

Creating a thread from anywhere that accesses any kind of game data (even read-only) would imply an enormous amount of work to make sure it is thread-safe.

I can see however how we could move some economics calculations to secondary threads, but those threads must not access any kind of VS API that accesses any kind of game data. Ie: it's tricky. And in your proposed simulation method, impossible. Because you propose using game data and actually loading systems and simulating them, which can't be done thread-safe without a lot of work atm.

I know, it would be great to make VS thread-safe, but adding it as a prerequisite to economic improvements would delay the improvements too much IMO.

Numerical simulation, on the other hand, amounts to merely massaging numbers. A pile of numbers can be amassed in the main thread, sent to the "processing" thread for simulation, and then fetched back at synchronization points without ever touching shared game data (and thus risking thread-unsafe operations).

Furthermore, I challenge your assumption that economic modelling doesn't need to know about prices. I doubt any kind of economic simulation can get away with that.
safemode wrote:Dynamic news can hit it up with a couple of methods that can modify trade-rate and/or cause a momentary surplus/shortage of a good and units will interact by adding and removing goods. That's it.
Furthermore, we're aiming for a model where politics and outside events (news) have permanent, believable effects. Rather than a stable base state that fluctuates with "momentary surplus/shortage", we want a really dynamic system that can win or loose battles.

I don't see how treating news/events as "momentary modifiers" can achieve those goals. News communicate a change in the state of things, state that must be an integral factor in any economic model - just MHO.
safemode wrote:I think all the fun aspects of a dynamic economy dont occur in the economy part, but in what the game does with the economy. VS can then be coded to utilize the economy to decide ship quantities / aggressive strategies etc.
Exactly.
safemode wrote:You can effectively destroy trade in a system (blockade) by realistic means of owning all access to it. And it would function realistically. likewise you can boost trade by removing hinderances to your system. The economy doesn't care if you do this by owning systems around you yourself or placing friendly systems there. Dynamic news already knows when a system ownership is changed and calls the appropriate method (increase/decrease trade rate).
All of which can be modelled by the numerical approach.

And, IMO, more straightforwardly than the "detailled" approach.

For the power of mathematics is the power of abstraction, the removal of details that don't matter from a problem to get a lean & mean equation that does what is needed and nothing else.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by travists »

@safemode
I've got a dual core 3 or 4 ghz (I'm at work now), w/ a 256MB graphics card. Very solid computer when I got it in '06. Handles most things quite well, even handles VS 5.0 without a hitch. The present SVN causes problems (dumping me, low frame rates, can't use shaders) If these are truly code problems, then fine. On the other hand, if it is that my computer isn't up to snuff, and you want to add more high end simulation, the potential audience is reduced to serious gamers.

It is critical that the game responds to the generalities in the economy.
functions don’t need to know anything about the game's politics or etc. Dynamic news can hit it up with a couple of methods that can modify trade-rate and/or cause a momentary surplus/shortage of a good and units will interact by adding and removing goods. That's it.
Trade rate change, yes. Surplus/shortage, yes. I'd add production rate change. The functions need to know about politics, but only is it easier or harder to move goods.

I'm a merchant, my self, got a plowshare (well loaded) half of what I need to get a mule in the bank. So, obviously I like the economy. However I see bases as simple data points.
The more I think of it, what you and I are proposing are not that far apart. Both use a database. Both appear to be more concerned with shipment rates than the shipments themselves. The one big difference is how frequently the numbers are crunched. Did you see my list? Did you see, and understand, my possible implementation? Do you have a list?

@klauss
As you said, implementation is premature. Yet, here we are talking about just that. Told you guys I was reopening a can of worms! We need more voices!
safemode
Developer
Developer
Posts: 2150
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by safemode »

An economic model that doesn't care about detail because there are an untold number of hidden influences doesn't need to care about price. A momentum model based on various functions that can control rate of production/use of material and goods would do the same without having any of the complexity of having to poll VS for any data.

Dynamic News then would modify this momentum as the game needed but in a very generic way that had no real fine-grained control over how the economic thread handled it. Most of the realistic effects of trade would be handled by modifying the rate of these functions running for a given base. The lower the rate, the more effect the in-game trading has and the more substantial those action are and last. Price doesn't even factor in to the functions, as the functions dont care about other bases in any linked way. They dont poll eachother, they dont communicate. They operate on various generic functions that alter their item levels unless acted upon by in-game units or dynamic news. This is perfectly believable from a player perspective since you can't possibly render and simulate the BILLIONS of units that would have to exist that would be responsible for trading cargo amongst bases and worlds.

Cost would be generated by VS on-demand. Looking at the relationship with the base and the player and supply/demand, a price can be generated. Perfectly reasonable factors that would dictate price. The underlying economic functions that deal with it all dont have to care about price because none of the polling and grepping around is being done. And this is realistic because we aren't simulating everything. If we were, then we would need to maintain constant polling on all bases that are simulated. This is not the case however.

So i would suggest the opposite of what would be intuitive. For a dynamic and inter-connected economy, the best way to simulate it is by not being inter-connected at all. Do not try to simulate what you know you cannot, and unless you plan on simulating every means of trade in-game, then you dont need to integrate everything into some inter-communication api to do things right.


The economy doesn't need to know about jack all about VS. It really doesn't. VS needs to know about VS and VS needs to respond to the economy when appropriate. Politics and all that jazz, all it does to the economy is modify certain aspects. So VS calls a function to reduce trade rate, or increase trade rate or decimate the levels of a certain good or slow the rate or increase the rate of a good's production. That's it. Everything else needed from the economy can go on in VS proper and every aspect of an economy can be gleamed from what VS reads from the economic state of a given base and any others it wants to grep. The economy itself doesn't care.

I guess what i'm saying is that the economy is two level here. The backend, which does all the grunt work is basically like an independent library that VS calls functions to in order to modify. The frontend to the economy is generated on the fly for the player and to a much lesser extent, the mission scripts. The frontend of the economy gives you prices, and combined with dynamic news, allows the player to see the reasons behind trade fluctuations and price changes. All of which the backend reflects because dynamic news modifies the backend as events occur (though only in the very limited ways it can).

I'm sure this isn't coming across the right way because all previous discussions have been about connecting everything together and maintaining a list of inter-connected inventories and such, but I'm throwing all that out with this suggestion. No interconnectivity. no polling for lists every cycle. And in the end, you get the same reactive economy at a fraction of the cost .
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by klauss »

travists wrote:@klauss
As you said, implementation is premature. Yet, here we are talking about just that. Told you guys I was reopening a can of worms! We need more voices!
I was thinking the exact same thing while responding to safemode's post :P

But... well... he brought it up :P

Joking.

But truly, I think, feature-wise, we're all quite on the same wavelength.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by klauss »

safemode wrote:Cost would be generated by VS on-demand. Looking at the relationship with the base and the player and supply/demand, a price can be generated. Perfectly reasonable factors that would dictate price. The underlying economic functions that deal with it all dont have to care about price because none of the polling and grepping around is being done. And this is realistic because we aren't simulating everything. If we were, then we would need to maintain constant polling on all bases that are simulated. This is not the case however.
Leaving aside the fact that I'm having trouble following you (ie: how this all relates to an... executable model... formulas and algorithms), leaving that aside, you're putting yourself in a position where you have no control over a very critical aspect of game balance: prices, trading profitability, potential for economic growth.

As much as we'd like to simulate a quasi-realistic model, we'll be even more interested in keeping the model in check, the game balanced, so the player can't neither become billionaire without effort nor is forced into poverty because of lack of opportunities.

And all that requires direct access to prices and trade routes for modders.

I'm saying, we're forgetting (and I sense your model, safemode, is far more vulnerable to this problem) the fact that modders will want to tweak the system (nerf it). Just to keep the gameplay balanced.

We must provide the means for that.
safemode wrote:The economy doesn't need to know about jack all about VS. It really doesn't. VS needs to know about VS and VS needs to respond to the economy when appropriate. Politics and all that jazz, all it does to the economy is modify certain aspects. So VS calls a function to reduce trade rate, or increase trade rate or decimate the levels of a certain good or slow the rate or increase the rate of a good's production. That's it. Everything else needed from the economy can go on in VS proper and every aspect of an economy can be gleamed from what VS reads from the economic state of a given base and any others it wants to grep. The economy itself doesn't care.
But then everything happening on the economy is explicitly scripted.
You have no emergent behavior.

I don't know... it's a way, but I favor simple mechanics that interact to give rise to emergent behavior - behavior far more complex than specifically stated in code or in the rules. It feels more... alive.
safemode wrote:I'm sure this isn't coming across the right way because all previous discussions have been about connecting everything together and maintaining a list of inter-connected inventories and such, but I'm throwing all that out with this suggestion. No interconnectivity. no polling for lists every cycle. And in the end, you get the same reactive economy at a fraction of the cost .
With a fraction of the complexity*.

Or did I miss something?

* as in, the system will behave simply - as scripted
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by travists »

safemode wrote:An economic model that doesn't care about detail because there are an untold number of hidden influences doesn't need to care about price. A momentum model based on various functions that can control rate of production/use of material and goods would do the same without having any of the complexity of having to poll VS for any data.
...

This is perfectly believable from a player perspective since you can't possibly render and simulate the BILLIONS of units that would have to exist that would be responsible for trading cargo amongst bases and worlds.

Cost would be generated by VS on-demand. Looking at the relationship with the base and the player and supply/demand, a price can be generated. Perfectly reasonable factors that would dictate price. The underlying economic functions that deal with it all dont have to care about price because none of the polling and grepping around is being done. And this is realistic because we aren't simulating everything. If we were, then we would need to maintain constant polling on all bases that are simulated. This is not the case however.
...
I do not see how the price of iron ore has now effect on the price of a car, which is what you are saying. Cars need steel, steel needs iron, and iron needs ore.

Nor do I care what has been previously discussed about simulating the ships. Both the what and the how of the present discussion (at least what I propose and klauss seems to largely agree with) is based on numerically represented flow. The traffic is just an in-game manifestation of that flow, not necessarily anywhere near the actual number of ships needed to match that flow.

Cost is generated when polled, though polling is not needed ever second. Cost is determined by what it takes to produce it and the supply/demand modifies that price.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by klauss »

travists wrote:The traffic is just an in-game manifestation of that flow, not necessarily anywhere near the actual number of ships needed to match that flow.
Let me remind everyone present in this discussion that VS already maintains a similar "numerically represented flow" across the entire galaxy.

VS simulates (in full, with units and such) only a handful of systems. The rest is simulated numerically, with "virtual battles" modifying the "reserves" of ships in a system, and merchants flowing (numerically) from one place to the other.

So VS is no stranger to the technique of statistical simulation.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by travists »

If I understand this correctly, from a purely practical standpoint, a dynamic economy would best be served by another layer of flow?
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by klauss »

Yep, I don't think the current simulation does much with merchants.

So the "new layer of flow" would do something more interesting with merchants.

Edit: just take a look at modules/dynamic_battle.py

I can't link to the SVN browser, it seems to be down :(
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by travists »

I was thinking "is there an economists with a background in statistical modeling, and a knowledge of programming?" Then did a google search for open source economic modeling software. Came up with this: http://superuser.com/questions/50923/do ... ware-exist
safemode
Developer
Developer
Posts: 2150
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by safemode »

I dont see how you can attempt to create a system where one good is dependent on another manufactured good in any realistic manner. If you try to get too tedious, the shortcomings become magnified and there will be way more things wrong with such a system than right. The complexity of describing relationships between goods becomes insane. Not only do you have to be aware of everything traded but you have to then describe your best guess of what your good depends on and then the game has to play with these dependency trees every time the economic code is cycled. It's a lot of calculation for very little effect, and an effect that is no more realistic than the vast majority of other solutions.

The thing is, it's _very_very_ unlikely such micro-economics is going to play any significant role in the obviously macro-economic role that VS lives in. At no level in VS does the player see a micro-economic system. The only time we should care about dependencies is when a raw material or manufactured good reaches 0. Dynamic news can handle such instances by inflating prices of any goods scripted in various categories above that. But a good would never be 0 for long. Even a total blockade would see some fluctuations. And the player doesn't experience ships being built or bases being built in-game ever, so the effect on ship generation is invisible.

I just think some ideas here are getting hung up on micro-economic models and fail to see how useless a lot of the monitoring of specific numbers of items are in such a massively macro-economic pan-global economy and to a lesser extent inter-system . The fact of the matter is, we're trying to shoe horn the importance of trading via 1 player in a universe that is far from empty in a game where the player is always a pilot, not a CEO of a corporation controlling an armada. Perhaps pretending this is a privateer universe where there are hardly any ships out on the frontier is the problem. This is not privateer. You are not alone in space, and you are but one tiny ship (even if you control a big one) and have no hope of really ever changing the economic balance of an entire planet by moving some ore around.

Maybe the role of the player needs to be modified such that rather than being a trader, privateering (which would realistically never really make you a millionair at all in the universe), there are real realistic special purpose courier missions and needs between bases. Normal transport wont work for these because they are on specific schedules and these items need to be shipped on entirely different timetables.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
safemode
Developer
Developer
Posts: 2150
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by safemode »

Then you no longer have to look at things as if you are altering the macro-economic state of entire planets and bases with a few units and some kludges. You are only dealing with the few items that need couriers to transport off-schedule. All "privateer" type units in the game would compete with you for these high profit and often high risk trade jobs. The whole aspect of the game where we buy and sell stuff like a stock market could be scrapped and left for mods to utilize. it's all python anyway and doesn't have to do with anything in VS proper or the engine.

OR

Instead you have a black market you can buy and sell either stolen or found items for money or other items. These are realistic micro-markets that can behave the way the privateer-esque mentality wants. No need to bother with all the BS of leveraging macroeconomic models, we're talking very small scale trade systems of very few items (very rare).

Either situation can be integrated into the gameplay in such a way that actions taken have a lasting effect on the campaign.


edit: I like the black market idea better actually (and every base would have one realistically) as we could re-use much of what has already been written and drawn and just modify the scope of things and it's integration with campaigns and missions. Then much of what actually happens with supply and demand on the level of a player makes sense.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by klauss »

safemode wrote:I just think some ideas here are getting hung up on micro-economic models and fail to see how useless a lot of the monitoring of specific numbers of items are in such a massively macro-economic pan-global economy and to a lesser extent inter-system . The fact of the matter is, we're trying to shoe horn the importance of trading via 1 player in a universe that is far from empty in a game where the player is always a pilot, not a CEO of a corporation controlling an armada. Perhaps pretending this is a privateer universe where there are hardly any ships out on the frontier is the problem. This is not privateer. You are not alone in space, and you are but one tiny ship (even if you control a big one) and have no hope of really ever changing the economic balance of an entire planet by moving some ore around.
So, your solution is to leave it as it is.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by travists »

I too like the addition of black market goods. The availability, and therefore cost, would be much more dynamic. There is no tedium in what I suggest. Resource good A is required by product B and accounts for X% of the final cost. Then let things shake out where they will. Each base has consumption and production values. The overall effect is what the game is most concerned about, but the player can seize upon spot differences.

Let's take a real life example. In the U.S. auto prices can vary greatly. Based in large part due to proximity to a production or import locations. The savings to be gained by buying where it is low can almost pay for flying out and driving the car back. What I am hearing is like saying that no one with a job that lets them do such travel would never notice the price difference! If transportation factors are included, if you stay on a micro scale, you see little price difference. If you move between sectors, the prices swing greatly. At present, there is much profit to be had shipping cargo intra-system. There is also little incentive to do intersystem shipping, because it doesn’t mater if the closest food source is 100,000 KM away or several systems and a days travel away. The price for that food is basically the same for a given base type. If I take your meaning safemode, the entire galaxy is just one big city with no price difference at all?
Deus Siddis
Elite
Elite
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Aug 04, 2007 3:42 pm

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by Deus Siddis »

safemode wrote:The fact of the matter is, we're trying to shoe horn the importance of trading via 1 player in a universe that is far from empty in a game where the player is always a pilot, not a CEO of a corporation controlling an armada. Perhaps pretending this is a privateer universe where there are hardly any ships out on the frontier is the problem. This is not privateer. You are not alone in space, and you are but one tiny ship (even if you control a big one) and have no hope of really ever changing the economic balance of an entire planet by moving some ore around.
Then maybe we should plan on changing this.

We can have fewer AI ships around; how does it improve game play or realism having so many around anyway? Ships everywhere choking your SPEC drive and obscuring your radar screens. Things weren't like this before v0.5.

The player actually can already control an armada, but making the "UI" for doing this more intuitive would make it more obvious. And then eventually allow player station ownership.
klauss wrote: Yep, I don't think the current simulation does much with merchants.

So the "new layer of flow" would do something more interesting with merchants.
What about non-military colonies, btw? Does the simulation deal with an asteroid mine or agricultural world that's nearby to the player?
klauss
Elite
Elite
Posts: 7243
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 2:40 pm
Location: LS87, Buenos Aires, República Argentina

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by klauss »

safemode wrote:Instead you have a black market you can buy and sell either stolen or found items for money or other items. These are realistic micro-markets that can behave the way the privateer-esque mentality wants. No need to bother with all the BS of leveraging macroeconomic models, we're talking very small scale trade systems of very few items (very rare).

Either situation can be integrated into the gameplay in such a way that actions taken have a lasting effect on the campaign.


edit: I like the black market idea better actually (and every base would have one realistically) as we could re-use much of what has already been written and drawn and just modify the scope of things and it's integration with campaigns and missions. Then much of what actually happens with supply and demand on the level of a player makes sense.

I like the black market idea (in addition to the stock exchange thing).

But the problem with the black market isn't that it has to be added - it doesn't, we already have contraband, we only would have to make it more "part of the game".

The problem is that right now carrying contraband is way too risky. Patrols are either everywhere or completely unpredictable, there's no way to survey patrol routes, and they can scan you across vast distances, damaging your relation instantly. In fact, they shoot at you, which is also insane, you could render the cargo. There's absolutely no support for contraband-dealing players in any level, not just economy.

So, the trouble with the black market is that it's an all-spanning task. Which is not to say that volunteers contributing patches wouldn't be welcome - on the contrary, since I believe black market dynamics would enrich the game immensely.

But I'd still like the stock market economy to be dynamic.

So it can respond to political changes (which happen both scripted and randomly according to dynamic battles).

So it can influence military campaigns and news.

So even stock goods are dynamic, and gone is that feeling of stagnation when you realize prizes are uniform all over the place, and the only variations you see are random fluctuations without any depth.

And so trade lanes can be inferred and proper traffic placed in a system when you jump into it.

And so hot spots are identified and patrols can be added there, instead of randomly.

In essence, stock markets, though probably not all that important for direct trade by the player, matter in many indirect levels.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by travists »

I alwase wondered about the contraband items. Shoulden't a cargo scaner be a sensor addon, with a limited range? (It would be great if you can buy one too!) I'm all for reducing the number of ships as well. Hundreds of ships per system at any given time? Around major ports maybe, but not as a general rule. But yeah, a player even with an Ox is likely to only acount for 1% or so of the traid volume most bases see. I still say where the dynamic economy would realy shine is in a MMOG setting. One player may not be able to blockade a system or otherwise affect the economy, but a dozen? Maybe even higher mercs to help out and have nearly a hundred? IN multiplayer it takes less simulation too. anyway.....
safemode
Developer
Developer
Posts: 2150
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by safemode »

My solution wasn't to leave it as is. but re-purpose the market to be soley black market. Stop trading ore and raw materials that would obviously need to be traded on quantities far in excess of what meager ships can haul and make any money on (you would need hundreds and hundreds of ships to satisfy planetary needs ....and a constant supply of ships for stations and such).

Basically, cull the goods available, revamp the artwork a bit to make it appear more on the down low and create items that are all either contra-band or stolen/shady items of use (like ship upgrades and such)

Also, way more courier missions. I would think this would be very common in space at this time. Large transport ships are likely not going to ship personal items very efficiently and securely :)

I dont think a stock market type setup is realistically doable at the scale the player is playing at. It's really a useless complication to the gameplay.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
safemode
Developer
Developer
Posts: 2150
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 1:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Contact:

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by safemode »

The idea of a blockade has always been a favorite of mine. And we could code that functionality without changing pretty much anything. But the problem is what does a blockade of a planet or base or system actually do? We dont build ships at shipyards. We dont see civil unrest on the planet's surface or any sort of diplomatic dealings ala the Civ games. There is no distinction between the importance of one base to the next in the overall gist of things currently.

So maybe before coding a blockade, you would have to make things the factions do depend on specific bases. Then a blockade can have a real effect. For instance, if i destroy a communications relay belonging to faction A, then faction A should no longer be able to get data across that system. So attacking ships that are cut off due to that station being gone would not effect relations, would not garner backup or assuming nobody happened by, would go un-noticed by the faction when you meet up with them in some other system.

Also, we have no way of building bases/stations. Which is kind of important because unless we are talking a fast paced campaign mode only, then if we make destroying and taking out bases important then there should be a way to come back from that given time. Currently that doesn't happen.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
travists
Expert Mercenary
Expert Mercenary
Posts: 893
Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 11:43 pm
Location: Sol III North American Continent

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by travists »

safemode wrote:My solution wasn't to leave it as is. but re-purpose the market to be soley black market. Stop trading ore and raw materials that would obviously need to be traded on quantities far in excess of what meager ships can haul and make any money on (you would need hundreds and hundreds of ships to satisfy planetary needs ....and a constant supply of ships for stations and such).

Basically, cull the goods available, revamp the artwork a bit to make it appear more on the down low and create items that are all either contra-band or stolen/shady items of use (like ship upgrades and such)
So, have the import/export rates of such things close to demand, and let the player decide if the profit is worth it. The way I see it, the best profit to be had would be out of the way stations. The kind that if one contracted shipment is missed, its a bid deal.
Also, way more courier missions. I would think this would be very common in space at this time. Large transport ships are likely not going to ship personal items very efficiently and securely :)
Agreed
I dont think a stock market type setup is realistically doable at the scale the player is playing at. It's really a useless complication to the gameplay.
As a major supplier, no. Just filling in the margins. Besides, there are dozens if not hundreds of ships per day. Not all simulated, and not all at one time, but there none the less!
The idea of a blockade has always been a favorite of mine. And we could code that functionality without changing pretty much anything. But the problem is what does a blockade of a planet or base or system actually do? We dont build ships at shipyards. We dont see civil unrest on the planet's surface or any sort of diplomatic dealings ala the Civ games. There is no distinction between the importance of one base to the next in the overall gist of things currently.
You would see the effects, if you traded in food. That is the beauty of a supply/demand market simulation, clamping down on a supply while leaving the demand alone makes the price go up. Building ships at shipyards is a good next step!
So maybe before coding a blockade, you would have to make things the factions do depend on specific bases. Then a blockade can have a real effect. For instance, if i destroy a communications relay belonging to faction A, then faction A should no longer be able to get data across that system. So attacking ships that are cut off due to that station being gone would not effect relations, would not garner backup or assuming nobody happened by, would go un-noticed by the faction when you meet up with them in some other system.
I like this idea!
Also, we have no way of building bases/stations. Which is kind of important because unless we are talking a fast paced campaign mode only, then if we make destroying and taking out bases important then there should be a way to come back from that given time. Currently that doesn't happen.
Agreed, but it would likely take a year or more to build a base of any size.
Post Reply