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
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... +10 to blockades.

In fact, supporting blockades was the whole idea of the economic model. A way to feed strategic models with extra information, economic information.

Then we'd add political information.

And so on and so on...

Still, step 1, which is feasible, is modelling economy as price fluctuation and availability. As for shipyards, remember, travists alwas proposed (from the beginning) of including ships in this economic model. So you can't buy ships if there aren't any parts to build them, and some stations (ie: all except shipyards) wouldn't build them, they'd only re-sell them.

So starve any shipyard of resources, and you hinder ship production in the entire area. Which will affect the strategic situation of an entire faction.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
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 »

except then you change the whole layout of the game too. Now, all ships are already created. new ones dont come into being so much as flightgroups are just moved around.

But i think the main problem with trying to model shipyards is that any realistic shipyard in the current VS universe would look like a mass production plant, churning out ships like they were cars. How do we show that ship production is down or cut off without having to constantly put ships in the system ? Do we attach a new "size" attribute to factions that the user can monitor ? What about factions that are not well centralized? Who loses out when a shipyard stops building ships? Is there a faction treasury?

VS is big time huge scale but what we want to see is big time huge effects that the player can be significantly accountable for. These are entirely contradictory on almost any possible level. If you want to make the player able to affect things like economy and entire factions then you need to scale things down massively. You need to make space almost everywhere a very sparse frontier where getting anything is difficult. A universe with massive numbers of people and huge mega corporations spanning multiple systems and well established massive colonies and stations all over would _not_ be affected by any single points of failure even if a player managed to find one (which is highly unlikely).

It's just my opinion but I see the scope of influence the player has as inversely proportional the more advanced and large the civilizations are in game. Aside from being put on special missions in some campaign and becoming some Ace who single handidly destroys the death star, 1 guy trading goods or commandeering a station would be nothing to a multi-system spanning faction that has huge space stations and thousands of ships necessary to keep such a civilization going.

I think the layout of the VS universe needs to be re-thought. Factions != species or civilizations, yet some do correspond to this. We need to make home systems for the various species that are urbanized with high tech stuff. But then the vast majority of systems will be the wild wild west. Small tiny stations and very much like the kind of stuff you saw in Firefly. This way we can explain the level of technology while also being able to realistically give the player a chance to be someone who can change things, and an explanation of why those changes matter so much in such a huge universe of such advanced technology.
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:except then you change the whole layout of the game too. Now, all ships are already created. new ones dont come into being so much as flightgroups are just moved around.
I think you're wrong.

Take a look at the dynamic_blah modules, they do "create" flightgroups.
safemode wrote:But i think the main problem with trying to model shipyards is that any realistic shipyard in the current VS universe would look like a mass production plant, churning out ships like they were cars. How do we show that ship production is down or cut off without having to constantly put ships in the system ? Do we attach a new "size" attribute to factions that the user can monitor ? What about factions that are not well centralized? Who loses out when a shipyard stops building ships? Is there a faction treasury?
I don't get your drift.
safemode wrote:VS is big time huge scale but what we want to see is big time huge effects that the player can be significantly accountable for. These are entirely contradictory on almost any possible level. If you want to make the player able to affect things like economy and entire factions then you need to scale things down massively.
No, usually the player is semi-passive spectator, and I'm ok with that. But currently, even when the dynamic massive war that goes on in the background changes most things (usually near the frontier), the economy pays no attention. And that's plain wrong.

In order for the player to even dent galactic economy, he'd have to play some part of a scripted campaign that does something really out of the ordinary.

Which could happen - but only if the dynamic part of the engine responds to that.
safemode wrote:You need to make space almost everywhere a very sparse frontier where getting anything is difficult. A universe with massive numbers of people and huge mega corporations spanning multiple systems and well established massive colonies and stations all over would _not_ be affected by any single points of failure even if a player managed to find one (which is highly unlikely).
...
I think the layout of the VS universe needs to be re-thought. Factions != species or civilizations, yet some do correspond to this. We need to make home systems for the various species that are urbanized with high tech stuff. But then the vast majority of systems will be the wild wild west. Small tiny stations and very much like the kind of stuff you saw in Firefly. This way we can explain the level of technology while also being able to realistically give the player a chance to be someone who can change things, and an explanation of why those changes matter so much in such a huge universe of such advanced technology.
Again, I wasn't touting for that, but I really would have no problem with adding fringe worlds to the game. Core systems would be as massively populated as they are today, and fringe ones would not, making the player actions in those much more significant.

That would be ok.
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
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 economy not reflecting dynamic war is more of a bug with dynamic war than with the economy. Dynamic war should be able to dive into and directly modify any non-player aspect of the game as it sees fit. At least the way things are currently done it should, as there are no alternative means for it to modify things.

And as for the shipyard comment. What i was saying was that shipyards would have such a huge stock of ships in addition to factions and the local system and planets that stopping production would have little to no effect on the number of active and available ships for some time. Even if the shipyard had little stock on hand, there would be so many already in existence and so many other shipyards that blockading one would be useless for the player unless he planned on keeping it blockaded for months.

The only time a blockade like that would matter is if it was in a fringe system, ships were scarce and/or the shipyard was the only place certain ships were built and they were immediately in need of them.

I guess it's a matter of do we want a heavily populated universe and all that entails or do we want a sparse universe and all that entails. The privateer lifestyle and going out and making a name for yourself and having decent influence on a small scale works on the latter, but not the former. The former would be more action packed and fast paced with a very well written campaign setup (both could benefit from that), but in terms of free-play, you wont get anywhere in a massive populated universe by yourself, and you almost never would be able to rise to lead any sizeable group that could do so either in any reasonable amount of time.

free-play requires fringe dynamics and sparse resources and population. Any freeplay in something like what we currently have can't be real free play and would have to have constant manipulation by some invisible campaign that gives the player special chance events that put him in situations that give him an edge.
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:the economy not reflecting dynamic war is more of a bug with dynamic war than with the economy. Dynamic war should be able to dive into and directly modify any non-player aspect of the game as it sees fit. At least the way things are currently done it should, as there are no alternative means for it to modify things.
Those are two possible designs:
  • As you say, upon doing its thing, dynamic war pushes changes into the economy
  • Or, as I say, the economy polls the state of affairs from dynamic war
My point in favor of my design is that if both the economy polls dynamic war and dynamic war polls the economy, a (desirable) feedback loop would result in far greater complexity than what was explicitly coded.

It's a way to get complex behavior out of simple rules.

Say, transport cost is influenced by hostilities, demand for military stock (which is high priority and must be satisfied even in detriment of other demands) modifies availability. Similarly, availability and transport cost (and ability) influence supply lines, and the chance of success of military campaigns. If the economy is overtaxed and supply lines can't be kept functional (say, because there's not enough supporting infrastructure), the system would react without an explicit rule, where as your design (pushing) would require an explicit rule for the case.
safemode wrote:And as for the shipyard comment. What i was saying was that shipyards would have such a huge stock of ships in addition to factions and the local system and planets that stopping production would have little to no effect on the number of active and available ships for some time. Even if the shipyard had little stock on hand, there would be so many already in existence and so many other shipyards that blockading one would be useless for the player unless he planned on keeping it blockaded for months.
Ok, but remember, the objective of dynamic economy isn't solely to react to the player. It's also so that it reacts to the random conditions set by the dynamic war subsystem. And that subsystem does have the ability to blockade a system for long enough to matter.
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 »

klauss wrote:
safemode wrote:And as for the shipyard comment. What i was saying was that shipyards would have such a huge stock of ships in addition to factions and the local system and planets that stopping production would have little to no effect on the number of active and available ships for some time. Even if the shipyard had little stock on hand, there would be so many already in existence and so many other shipyards that blockading one would be useless for the player unless he planned on keeping it blockaded for months.
Ok, but remember, the objective of dynamic economy isn't solely to react to the player. It's also so that it reacts to the random conditions set by the dynamic war subsystem. And that subsystem does have the ability to blockade a system for long enough to matter.
I see little ability for the economy to react to the player, but rather the other way around. Sure, if the player stumbles upon a better trade route than the computer's calculated ones the AI routes may start running that one, but the player is just part of the flow. A box in a container on a train you might say. It’s still a dynamic economy, just way larger than any one person can generally turn around. A group on the other hand… This defiantly needs to be done when multi-player gets fully running!
safemode wrote: I guess it's a matter of do we want a heavily populated universe and all that entails or do we want a sparse universe and all that entails. The privateer lifestyle and going out and making a name for yourself and having decent influence on a small scale works on the latter, but not the former. The former would be more action packed and fast paced with a very well written campaign setup (both could benefit from that), but in terms of free-play, you wont get anywhere in a massive populated universe by yourself, and you almost never would be able to rise to lead any sizeable group that could do so either in any reasonable amount of time.
I believe you also said something about heavily populated core systems and sparsely populated fringes. This makes excellent sense! The greatest profit and risk is on the frontier. You could also be a true privateer and run missions for one of the government factions on the front lines. OR, you could just be content to run diplomatic packages and tourists around the settled parts of the galaxy. Player should probably start out halfway between the frontier and the core.
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: If you want to make the player able to affect things like economy and entire factions then you need to scale things down massively. You need to make space almost everywhere a very sparse frontier where getting anything is difficult.
+1
greenfreedom10
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:06 am
Location: Lost in an adventure

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by greenfreedom10 »

Just a few comments from an interested player.

In order for planets to be populated and stations to exist, there have to be lots of people. If the population is big, then it is difficult for a single person (the player) to make a significant affect on the economy. It would feel weird to me if in game I could affect the universal economy. And I like to play as a spectator; managing the universe would be tedious.

Player-owned stations sounds like a peculiar addition to an exploration game like VegaStrike. Again, I don't want to manage anything but my ship and cargo.

Different populations/economies in core/fringe systems would be great. There could even be some completely uninhabited systems out further. Of course, it has to be evident to the player somehow where he/she is relative to the core, otherwise the differences would not be appreciated. Maybe some of the core systems would be policed well enough to be safe for new players (instead of affecting AI ships according to credits earned, or however that is).

@safemode: Why stop trading raw materials? Just because I can't move enough to supply a planet doesn't mean that there might not be another hundred traders out there hauling the same thing. And what about supplying specialized stations with raw materials necessary for their particular industry?

It is interesting reading the discussion about how a better dynamic economy would work. The VegaStrike universe is so enormous that I couldn't begin to know how to generate reasonable figures for use in-game. If something does get changed, I hope it can be a method that uses a deceptively simple process of mathematical interaction that is versatile enough to be affected by war or special missions/stations/planets.
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 »

greenfreedom10 wrote:Different populations/economies in core/fringe systems would be great. There could even be some completely uninhabited systems out further. Of course, it has to be evident to the player somehow where he/she is relative to the core, otherwise the differences would not be appreciated. Maybe some of the core systems would be policed well enough to be safe for new players (instead of affecting AI ships according to credits earned, or however that is).
Welcome aboard! I like your idea about uninhabited systems. I also see, if you go the rout of an explorer, encountering systems whose natives have just developed SPEC and don't even have jump drives yet. Such would have large material reserves as yet and a large demand for high tech items. I also totally agree that well traveled systems should be safe.
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 regardless of how things end up. I think everyone pretty much agrees that the only way for the privateer means of playing the game is in a "frontier-esque" environment. We can't realistically model that job in a crowded type of system. Too many big players in there dealing with quantities that dwarf anything a single person can muster.

Also, i think we all agree that a courier offers an excellent alternative to privateer without having to go military. This would be excellent in both "core-type" systems and "frontier-type". There will always be a high demand for as-needed transportation of either people or special goods that one may not want to wait for scheduled transport vessels or want to dip below the radar of the authorities. We do this somewhat in-game already, but i think it should be touted much louder as a viable means of living way more than privateer or explorer.

Also, we all pretty much agree that dynamic universe needs a more direct influence over goods available and be able to calculate significant changes in trading caused by changes in the balance of power amongst systems and factions.

Other than that, the main aspects of contention are how to deal with stock-type trading and to a more behind-the-scenes kind of way, how to deal with the actual numbers of goods.
Ed Sweetman endorses this message.
greenfreedom10
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:06 am
Location: Lost in an adventure

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by greenfreedom10 »

safemode wrote:I think everyone pretty much agrees that the only way for the privateer means of playing the game is in a "frontier-esque" environment. We can't realistically model that job in a crowded type of system. Too many big players in there dealing with quantities that dwarf anything a single person can muster.
Yeah, the privateer could spend more time on the fringe, but might go to the core when trading or buying upgrades.

Having crowded (noticeably so, at least near stations and jump points) core systems and lightly populated fringe systems seems to me like a simple way of making the game feel more dynamic.

And yes, courier is a good idea.
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 must concure, the basics of What and population seem to be comming together. I would like a mix of dense and sparce, but we'll have to see what is practical.
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 »

Alright!

With 100% agreement on the generics...

...anyone wants to summarize the goals then?

And wikify them?
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
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, right now we do have dense and sparse systems. They are just randomly distributed. The universe is randomly generated for the most part. That's good. But what we should do is generate a random universe, then populate it non-randomly, because that's how it would be done in reality. Some means of picking core systems for each species and some factions and then sparse outward.
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 »

Well, I'm thinking some core systems should be hard-coded. Sol for example. If Ralian (sp) and Area have cannon homeworlds, then those too would be hardcoded. The splinter groups have random cores then there is an algarithem to diminish population through jump-points down to zero. Just how random is the universe? What digging I've done it looks like jumppoints are largely static. Any thoughts on how much a jump point dimminishes population density? 5% seemes reasonable, 20 jumps from several billion on the homeworld to basicly nothing. There is a caviot though. This conflict has been going on for some time, so the front lines would have a higher pop than the distance from core would otherwise dictate. This due to all sides building up forces.
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 wish i had a lot more time to get back in to VS. I never really play games but i like helping code them and i like all the backstory and such. Anyways, my schedule still hasn't improved enough for me to put any real time into things yet. I haven't even compiled anything in months.

Anyway, like previously mentioned. We need to get the wiki started up outlining what everyone agrees on and move from there. Just remember, the focus is on creating a dynamic economy that works with the dynamic universe function of VS. Any extra ideas need to be pushed to the back burner.

I think eventually we'll see that work is going to be divided into two sections. Reworking dynamic Universe and some other already existing scripts to work more closely with economic information and new code created to bring more life into the economic state of the game.

The first group needs to identify what dynamic universe can do to create and react to economic state information and then convey that to the user in a useful way (such as news, missions, and changes in NP unit actions). They must also create a means for utilizing changes in game-state to directly modify economic data as needed.

The second group creates new scripts that govern changes in economic data caused by trading and by commands from dynamic universe. They also have to determine how these scripts and/or routines will be executed. The second group also creates any new mission that may take advantage of any brand new functions of the new code.

What we all dont agree on are the specifics involved with those two and how they come together.
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 »

Well, if I find the time I may as well try to write something up in the wiki.

ATM, though, I have a backlog of tickets to resolve, and very little time, so if anyone can get started it would be great. Post links here so everyone involved in this thread can take a peek :)
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 don't know wiki, but I worked up the start of an article.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
breese
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by breese »

klauss wrote:I can't link to the SVN browser, it seems to be down :(
Sourceforge has been under attack, so several of its services has been temporarily disabled. The SVN browser will be enabled again next week.
breese
Bounty Hunter
Bounty Hunter
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by breese »

safemode wrote:Some means of picking core systems for each species and some factions and then sparse outward.
Heat conduction perhaps?
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 »

breese wrote:
safemode wrote:Some means of picking core systems for each species and some factions and then sparse outward.
Heat conduction perhaps?
Exactly what I had in mind
Oíd mortales, el grito sagrado...
Call me "Menes, lord of Cats"
Wing Commander Universe
charlieg
Elite Mercenary
Elite Mercenary
Posts: 1329
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2003 11:51 pm
Location: Manchester, UK
Contact:

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by charlieg »

It also needs to take into account system resources and inhabitable planets, no? Would that not drive a lot of expansion by space travel capable species?
Free Gamer - free software games compendium and commentary!
FreeGameDev forum - open source game development community
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 »

Indeed it would. No habitable planets = low pop based mostly on stations. Presance/absance of astroids = likelyhood of miningbases. Gasmines likely located in nebulie...
greenfreedom10
Hunter
Hunter
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:06 am
Location: Lost in an adventure

Re: Defining a new economic system for future versions

Post by greenfreedom10 »

So much seems to be interdependent. I like the idea of an underlaying database and simulation thread (not necessarily in the programming sense) and all based entirely on deceptively simple math. Basically, after the initial universe creation, the systems' dynamics are managed by numbers. These numbers/profiles change based on the profile of the same system or others nearby. VegaStrike responds to those profiles when spawning ships and minor objects in a system. Each faction also has a profile that affects the simulation (like a faction being reclusive or requiring more minerals).

Something like what follows, except in greater detail.

When generating the universe:
  1. Dynamically create the system structure of the universe (how systems are connected by jump points)
  2. In each system, add various types of stars, planets, and other natural objects based on likelihood of each
  3. Assign core system for each faction; if we assume that a core system is where a faction originates then each requires no more than a single habitable planet
  4. Assign factions of other systems; consider core systems of factions
  5. Populate the universe (numbers for each faction); consider faction, core systems, habitable planets, then maybe the existence of asteroids
  6. Add stations; consider faction, population, and distance from mines and habitable planets
  7. Add mines; consider faction, population, and existence of asteroids
  8. Assign policing; consider faction, stations, and population
During simulation:
  • Adjust factions: consider current state (prefer not to change) and factions of stations/planets
  • Adjust populations: consider system faction, core systems, habitable planets, existence of asteroids etc., and a random inclination toward change
  • Add/remove stations: consider current state, faction, population, and distance from mines and habitable planets
  • Add/remove mine stations; consider current state, faction, population and existence of asteroids
  • Remove asteriods; consider current state and existence of mine stations
  • Adjust policing; consider current state, faction, stations, and population
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 »

Database is what I was seeing all along.
greenfreedom10 wrote: During simulation:
  • Adjust factions: consider current state (prefer not to change) and factions of stations/planets
Yes, regardless if it is an inanimate object or a whole civilisation, things generaly need an outside force to change.
[*]Adjust populations: consider system faction, core systems, habitable planets, existence of asteroids etc., and a random inclination toward change
I would think that it would take some rather large economic changes to affect the population to the point that consumption/production would be altered (what is actualy being simulated the pop being implied) Note I am not saying that this is not valid, just to be triggerd big changes would have to happen.
[*]Add/remove stations: consider current state, faction, population, and distance from mines and habitable planets
[*]Add/remove mine stations; consider current state, faction, population and existence of asteroids
Stations of any size might be too costly to dissasemble, they'd just be abandonded. Perfect for pirates or other unsavories to co-opt!
[*]Remove asteriods; consider current state and existence of mine stations
Yes, provided that the "decay" time for astroids with a mining base is rather long. The astroid belt in Sol is beleved, at minimum, to have enough mineral wealth to supply dozens of Earth's for hundreds of years. Given that the time needed to travel form one end of a belt to another in VS is miniutes insted of years, a single processing facility may harvest from much of a systems belt.
[*]Adjust policing; consider current state, faction, stations, and population[/list]
I would add to policing: attack probibility.
In adition I would add the flip side:
  • Adjust pirate attacks; consider policing and trade wealth on a route
Post Reply