The idea isn't bad. I suggest however to update the map again since they made again the Alaska -> Minor connection. It's also interesting the Omicron Major system that it can be a good point to do "Quick jump" to very distant Sirius systems useful for Nomad raids. Plus more the travel (in case of trade routes) is hard, more the reward should be great and it's good if you make more long travels.
(07-11-2018, 08:33 PM)Batavia Wrote: [ -> ]Traders always, always, always take the less risky option because predictable continuity delivers better, more consistent results than high risk taking. Haulers operate repetitively, doing the same thing over and over again. They don't do risk-reward analysis on the basis of a single trip...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Really?
Really now?
Oh, my little innocent youngling, th'art woefully-underestimating the power of capitalism to emphasize profits over safety.
(07-13-2018, 02:08 PM)Mr.Fabulous Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2018, 08:33 PM)Batavia Wrote: [ -> ]Traders always, always, always take the less risky option because predictable continuity delivers better, more consistent results than high risk taking. Haulers operate repetitively, doing the same thing over and over again. They don't do risk-reward analysis on the basis of a single trip...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Really?
Really now?
Oh, my little innocent youngling, th'art woefully-underestimating the power of capitalism to emphasize profits over safety.
The Molly paid for your education, did they?
Yes, really. Long term profits are more important than short term ones. High risks threaten profit because a trip going wrong sets a trader back more (both in terms of cargo
AND time) than the loss incurred from a slightly lower profit margin. If anything, you're the one underestimating how predictability and consistency create greater profits in the long rung. Risk taking is the exception, not the norm, and only occurs in growth markets which have not yet found equilibrium. Mature markets are highly risk-averse and monopolistic precisely because there's a single best way of doing things. Freelancer does not have growth markets. Hauling has no feedback effects on Sirian markets or companies. POB's can have an effect but only for very brief moments. Freelancer's markets are overwhelmingly risk-averse mature markets. Dead ships don't pay.
Now off to Cambridge with you. You'll have a better time finding some easy to impress self-styled anti-establishment wannabe-revolutionairies there.
From what I've seen people don't tend to go for the most profitable option, but rather the fastest one. People will make less money when they reach their destination but they will reach it faster.
(07-13-2018, 02:49 PM)Laz Wrote: [ -> ]From what I've seen people don't tend to go for the most profitable option, but rather the fastest one. People will make less money when they reach their destination but they will reach it faster.
That supports what I said. Chances of getting paid weighed against chances of getting caught. The longer the trip, the bigger the risk of getting shot and not getting paid, incurring a loss. It's the same kind of risk-aversion.
(Also, really long and repetitive routes aren't a lot of fun.)
Smugglers existed when the profit of an illegal commodity was worth the risk of being caught by the police or pirated.
then it seems smuggling died out and what was left was ores and other lawful goods.
it just isnt as worth it anymore.
i now cba to lose money to police and multiple pirates so i take the lawful routes, police over hunt the pirates now days so it's safer for traders.
Not to say that lawful trading was better. It was MADE better by the nerfing of such smuggler routes.
(07-16-2018, 01:59 AM)Batavia Wrote: [ -> ]Oh look, it's another Karlotta thread about the same thing. I see you still don't understand why your proposal wouldn't work. Your previous thread went quiet, so let's make a new one huh?
I stopped answering the thread for several reasons, chief among them being that it's already served its purpose of getting the right people to think and talk about the topic, and from the looks of the last patch notes devs have started considering this course of action (or they already did before and only mentioned it now).
The reason I made the poll thread was because someone else made a poll thread without taking the 3rd alternative into account. But if you insist, I'll take the time to explain (again) what you're missing, even if you seem to be more interested in putting your greater knowledge of network problems not related to the way discovery actually works on display.
(07-10-2018, 07:52 PM)Batavia Wrote: [ -> ]If three routes individually facilitate 1% of traffic, cutting two of them still makes the third one have only 3% of traffic, which is a negligible increase. Players would not notice the difference. Your error lies in comparing only the three routes to each other, rather than comparing them globally to all routes. In reality, you wouldn't even get triple the traffic because previous destinations are no longer valid. That's what's meant by "cutting content".
Thank you for finally posting your "maths".
What you've missed is that I'm not only cutting 2 routes for the benefit of one and thereby potentially tripling traffic on one, but I'm intending to cut a lot more, thereby achieving a larger overall effect.
The second thing is that the proposal also involves making certain routes quicker (and therefore more attractive) by creating 1-jump routes where there used to be only two-or-more jump routes.
The third thing you're missing is that I'm not aiming at maximum effect the way you are. I'm aiming at maximum effect/deveffort ratio.
For example, even if I manage to raise encounters only 10-30% (by cutting more much than 2 routes as well as making other routes more attractive by making them faster than they used to be), and your complete economy overhaul manages to raise them by 30-90%, my way still 1: It takes (much) less than 5% of the dev work that your complete economy overhaul would take and 2: Nobody is going to do your complete economy overhaul anyway and 3: Your premises are based on wrong assumptions, such as traders always taking the safest route and 4: Even if they did what you said, removing the choice of routes would do more to increase encounters than leaving more routes hoping the economy creates more encounters although traders put safety over fastest route (with which you've pretty much contradicted yourself).
But please, go ahead and tell us more about networks and use as much latin and technical terms as you can, then call us ignorant and whiny. Or better yet, tell it to the dev who is responsible for the economy (which is not the topic of this thread). I'm sure you two will have a great time.
(07-14-2018, 09:51 PM)hubjump Wrote: [ -> ]Smugglers existed when the profit of an illegal commodity was worth the risk of being caught by the police or pirated.
then it seems smuggling died out and what was left was ores and other lawful goods.
it just isnt as worth it anymore.
i now cba to lose money to police and multiple pirates so i take the lawful routes, police over hunt the pirates now days so it's safer for traders.
Not to say that lawful trading was better. It was MADE better by the nerfing of such smuggler routes.
The problem you describe is a bit caused by the same thing that also made Mining, POBs, and Events have too many adverse effects in addition to the good ones they brought:
Through an understandable and human behavior, the people who made those 3 things measured the success of it by how many players engaged in the thing they created. But they should have put positive effect on overall gameplay (including all other aspects) over the popularity of the thing they created.
Hopefully the new leadership will not brush this aside again without giving any proper reasoning for doing so.
(bump)
Dont get your hope up, if anything politic teach as, that is names change, but shadow gowerment still rule, all we see is ocasional dust in our ays, by the time we rub it out, it is to late to figure out what the hell just happened lol .