Architect Archive
Thread: something to note concerning money economy
lisasdarren wrote:
Cost of mining Power @75% concentration is 0.05 to 0.1 cpu (depending on PE) avg 0.075
Allow powerbrokers a 100% profit - Power sells for 0.15 cpu
Cost of mining resources using bought power is 0.25 cpu
Allow 100% profit for Grind and 300% profit for quality, cost of resources is:
- Grind - 0.5 cpu
- Quality - 1 cpu
Cafa wrote:
I'll pay you 10 million credits on the server of your choice if you can come to Tempest right now and find ONE spot on the server that will fit 40 BER 13 minerals at 75% on grind ore, not the JTL stuff that defies normal rules.
This is a poor example, it is impossible to glean everything at optimal conditions and the modelhas been proven false time and time again for the 0.25 cpu figure. The game and world just isn't that perfect. My opinion.
Fivo Asia
Oops.. actually i used 50% for the non-power calculations for exactly that reason.. finding a 50% ore is easy enough and 50% anything else is simple, i've edited my original post.
On another note, these are hardly optimal conditions, thats why i used the figures i did use, to allow that realism in there.
Message Edited by lisasdarren on 11-15-2004 06:15 PM
lisasdarren wrote:
One important point though, we don't need a reduction in maintainance costs, these are already low, ...
lisasdarren wrote:
...
Cost of mining Power @75% concentration is 0.05 to 0.1 cpu (depending on PE) avg 0.075
Allow powerbrokers a 100% profit - Power sells for 0.15 cpu
...
The cost of mining power is pretty cheap on a cpu basis. However, power brokers will never sell power at 0.15 cpu.
To determine the cost that power brokers will sell at I'dlook at the net profit per lot rather than the profit per unit. The limiting factor for mining is usually the number of lots. So to maximize profit you want to maximize profit per lot.
lisasdarren wrote:
I am not saying these are the prices we should be selling at, the profit for 5 days of 8 fusions mining rads in these figures is 45k, probably rather light for the two trips to the location of the resource and the time surveying for it (compared to current mission payouts, though it might be more reasonable after the combat balance when it may take more than 5 minutes to travel to and take out a 10k lair). Rather this is a reasonable proof that the system is inflated as it stands.
Message Edited by lisasdarren on 11-15-2004 06:15 PM
Agreed. People don't want to put the work into getting the "perceived" necessary purchases to do their favorite activity. For the most part, I sell my Architect deeds for 5.5 cpu. I consider that a very fair price when cloths (non-BE) sell for 10 to 30 cpu, weapons for 10 to 500 cpu, and who knows with armor.
Where I disagree with SOE is that missions should be available up to level 200 for anyone. That would solve any issues, IMO. Someone chooses a level 200 mission and dies over and over, guess they're learning a lesson. Mission levels are the real gate here and they're ridiculous.
Fivo Asia
Cafa wrote:
Where I disagree with SOE is that missions should be available up to level 200 for anyone. That would solve any issues, IMO. Someone chooses a level 200 mission and dies over and over, guess they're learning a lesson. Mission levels are the real gate here and they're ridiculous.
Fivo Asia
I'll agree with this once the combat upgrade is completed, until then people can run missions that "should" be to difficult for them, but are not. This brings in too many credits per head and has inflated the economy. The reason that mission terminals cap is, at least in part, that those are the highest missions you should be able to solo and therefore you will have no logical reason to attempt a higher one alone.
Once these do actually become the highest level solo missions then let people take whatever missions they like and die from it, fine by me, but until then the control on money flowing into the economy is well overdue and needed.Alternativly theycould to increase the basic costs of maintanance (for everything), travel and the bazaar limit and give new players more starting money, a complete economic re-balance from the ground up, and that may be a better option, but is it realistic in terms of developer time?
example, i get a group of 5 and we each get 2x20k missions, the most each can get is 4k per mission which equals 40k, same as the missions would pay if you did them solo.
get 2x40k missions that i know i cant solo, find 5 people to do the same, but dont actually group, everyone ends up with 80k, even though we shouldnt really be able to finish those missions.
it would happen that way if it was changed to that system, people will always find a way around the system.
You put in npc sold iteams to set the level of prices. So, if you want to compete in the market you will need to craft better stuff then you can get from the npc's, and sometimes you will need to make things cheaper so they will sell.
(for example from a npc: 50% composite armor could sell for 1000 credits a piece, while 60% could selll for 2000, this would force crafters to sell 70% at a greatly reduced price. Also, the things that are the same stats no matter who makes them, like houses. The npcs could sell small houses for 6000 credits, and let the players determine the price for the larger ones, and you may have to sell small houses for 5k instead of 30k. Now, would this means bad business for crafters? Don't know, depends on who sets the price of the npc stuff)
OK, so you all dont freak out, I made these prices up, and one should not judge how good this idea is because they are off a bit
You will never get a stable economy with players, it will never happen. just a thought...
Message Edited by Cigny123 on 11-16-2004 11:08 AM
Message Edited by Cigny123 on 11-16-2004 11:08 AM
Message Edited by Cigny123 on 11-16-2004 11:09 AM