+- Discovery Gaming Community (https://discoverygc.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Discovery General (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discovery RP 24/7 General Discussions (https://discoverygc.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=23)
+--- Thread: The Economy of Loss (/showthread.php?tid=75372)
The Economy of Loss - Laerethe - 02-23-2012
Quite simply, it would lead to bomber raids just to screw cap owners over.
5 Bombers, at say 15m each(with a SNAC) is 75. Say they take down three/four caps, that's 500-750m+ in damages.
Risk < Reward
It would ruin all capital ship roleplay; no more would we see fleets, because most don't have the, ahem, 'capital' to be able to support them.
That's just a military view; expensive transports are a whole new matter. If you have a load of ore, you still lose millions; the extra is unnecessary, in my opinion.
The game is supposed to be enjoyable, and adding such factors would eliminate much of that. Same as you play FPS because they're fun, but you wouldn't want to be on that crappy situation in real life. Its not supposed to be realistic.
It would be a minority vote.
The Economy of Loss - McNeo - 02-23-2012
' Wrote:It would just be bad all-around. Think about it. If we institute a "death means death" policy, and your ship doesn't get replaced on death, it might be good roleplay, it might be more realistic, and it just might result in 90% of the playerbase moving to a server where that does not happen.
Because the environment has fostered a casual RP, rather than a hardcore RP setting.
It also has to be said that as caps would be much riskier to fly than snubs, they would also become quite a bit more useful. As I said, numbers can be changed quite easily. In fact, I said it three posts eariler, if you'll allow me to quote myself:
Quote:Each part of the economy can be changed to reflect the increased risk of actual death on death. It's as simple as changing a batch of numbers (I would vastly increase trade revenues and lower prices of most ships for example). What these arguments show is the failure by people to consider that along with an introduction of loss on death, a lot of other changes would happen as well.
And yes, as ships and equipment are parts of the economy, they do count. Not only their price either.
The main problem with such a system from my point of view is what Roberto Cofresi said, but perma-death is being explored in other commercial games as well. We'll have to wait to see if it becomes a success as a business model.
The Economy of Loss - Aingar - 02-23-2012
Quote:The dev team, especially Cannon, are interested in creating some "money sinks". Events that cost the player money in some form or another where they cannot then make that money back[...].
Maybe something along the lines of losing a set% of the ship/wallet worth of credits?
Snubs will still be relatively cheap to maintain, given that players rarely stash cash on them, and transports won't have this nasty "just keel mah, pirat" attitude, also caps will have to be deployed in a bit less "krieg" fashion, unless the owner has too much cash on his hands, that is.
The Economy of Loss - Chase - 02-23-2012
' Wrote:You say that it would encourage people not to fight at all unless they were guaranteed victory? This is how people fight, how they will always fight.To this I simply say, untrue. Entirely untrue. I'm more than happy to dive headfirst into a group of enemies that I wouldn't dream of trying to engage if I knew I'd lose my ship.
A. Because I can do it all again tomorrow without grinding on a trader.
B. Because I can die gloriously and it will be fun for all of those involved.
' Wrote:Remember, every game in existence has a winner and a loser.Yes, and most of those games, by losing your are not punished by having the hours you spent on gaining an inch of ground smashed into oblivion because of a rotten circumstance. With many of the games I can think of, death means you die; it also means that you go back to a previous save point without much loss. The death mechanic in Disco now is exactly that, you have loss but you return to your save point and continue playing.
Even in the most impossible games back in the day that DID punish you for dying/losing often had a mechanic called lives, where you could die 2 or 3 times and still continue where you left off. After which there was indeed a game over.
I understand the old "game over" nostalgia but it just doesn't work in the way that Disco is run.
The Economy of Loss - McNeo - 02-23-2012
What you say proves an untruth actually proves the point I'm making, which is that you act in the way you do because the environment fosters it. This environment is different from the one that faces everybody in reality, and unrepresentative of anything that calls itself "roleplaying". That and, people complain about ganking, even when they supposedly lose nothing now.
Look at any conflict, or even some periods of absence of conflicts, and you'll find that nation states don't play to take part, they play to win. The reason we had the Cold War as opposed to Nuclear War is because both sides were convinced that, if they engaged in open warfare, nobody would win.
Humans don't fight fairly. We don't even accumulate wealth fairly. Fairness is diametrically opposed to dominant world economic policy, and their military policy as well. If you wish to be a champion of fairness, it will be you alone against the world, the rich people who profit off unfairness, and the poor people who have no choice.
It really depends what game you play as to the degree of punishment you receive for loss. To be honest with you, I lost the hours I spent gaining inches of ground as the Empire of Japan against the USSR and Nationalist China because of the rotten circumstance of the USA declaring war on me (Hearts of Iron 3). Suffice to say, the price I paid is less than the price paid by the men and women who died in that real conflict, but I still lost a fair chunk of time.
Human behaviour is a consideration that must be taken into account if you want to construct a game that emulates itself on real principles and needs to be believable. This requires that real systems are taken into account when designing virtual systems, in order to stimulate the same kind of behaviours. Without the system, and without the behaviour, you can't hope to call whatever it is you've created believable in any sense of the word. Belief is founded on principles we understand to be real, and any kind of fiction is always bound to these principles.
The Economy of Loss - Dratai - 02-23-2012
Clearly, someone needs to read discworld.
Example of fiction at some of its most unrestricted.
And yet it works. Fancy that.
The Economy of Loss - Govedo13 - 02-23-2012
' Wrote:As it happens, I am in favour of some penalties, minor ones though they may be, such as having your hull and weapons massively damaged upon respawn, requiring you to repair everything. This may seem like a lot to lower level players, but it does reasonably balance out overall in the sense that lower level players generally won't have expensive equipment or ships anyway. All the stuff they do have would cost quite a bit to repair, but only compared to their level.I cannot agree more- if the ship is perma dead we would loose the constant flow of new players around.
For example, a starting character at level 25 with a standard ship/weapon loadout for his level dying might have a repair bill of say 50-100k, whereas a player at level 60 with a fully kitted out VHF would have a repair bill in the millions. Not too crippling, but still a penalty for dying nonetheless. It is possible the devs may consider implementing something along these lines in future (the game does need some more economy credit sinks to drain cash out of the economy for starters), but for now it remains a very distant possibility.
And they are needed to keep the server active.
Good example:
I found some trader that refused to pay me fine as pirate and shoot down his turrets- he pmed me later that after selling the cargo and buying new turrets he still got 8 m profit.
So I would propose to make the equipment more fragile and 10 times more expensive, combine this with simple 5% fine of the ship vendor worth- so there would be no more empty traders that say lol kill me I does not care.
I proposed the same 3 years ago but as it seems nobody cares.
Making money in 4.86 is even more easy then in 4.85- you could make billion per week with active trading- since I make 30-100m per week with pirating, I imagine what could be with trader. It would make the game interesting, really interesting.
The Economy of Loss - Ursus - 02-23-2012
' Wrote:After respawning however, I noticed that the server had provided me with a new bumblebee. I hadn't even lost the weapons or other fittings equipped previous to my destruction. The only thing missing was my 1800 units of Rice ' not a huge loss ' barely a loss at all.It's a different universe with different rules. Learn the way that universe works. RL stuff is a crutch.
And that's the problem.
I feel that if a game is being utilized in the role playing experience, it should at least attempt to reflect a believable alternate reality.
Welcome to the game
The Economy of Loss - McNeo - 02-23-2012
' Wrote:Clearly, someone needs to read discworld.
Example of fiction at some of its most unrestricted.
And yet it works. Fancy that.
Clearly, it has it's basis in the real world, as does every other work of fiction in existence. The Mote in God's Eye, the City Who Fought etc.
For a start, it involves people, elephants and turtles, which all, shockingly, actually exist.
The Economy of Loss - aerelm - 02-23-2012
If you actually are supporting the loss of ship and equipment every time the ship explodes, maybe you should do a simple math:
- A fully equipped Cap8 battleship costs about 1.4 billions
- A regular trade route in a 5k transport has an average profit of 30 millions per hour.
- So if you do a 1400 / 30, you'll see it takes ~47 hours of trading to remake that money
  (Which, in the proposed system is only if you don't get blown up or pirated.)
- For a player who has only 2 hours a day free time to play freelancer, you'd also need a 47 / 2
The above quick math simply means someone will have to trade for nearly one month to afford the one death on their battleship. Where's the fun in that?
Edit: Plus, if you want to play with such a hardcore RP, you can always delete the ship manually every time you die then remake it from scratch and we'll see how long you'll last on the server before ragequittin or gettin banned cause of losing your cool the next time you get blown up.