Business And Economy Archive
Thread: Proposal for New Structure Ranch, and Economic and Game Benefits
Sure its a stretch. Not only would people buy creature resources at market rates to stock up on more than they can harvest in a ranch, but I'd bet that they'd get the price back up to the 100's to 4 times that when it came to good stuff. It's a silly premise to say that hunting would be superfluous.
Ledao wrote:
It isn't a stretch at all to say that if creature resources could be extracted like chemicals, minerals, and flora the scout and ranger classes would be largely superfluous.
Sorry, I kinda beat you to having the title you want. :-)
<---- Check the guild name
BleuDestiny wrote:
[...]
I'm reading alot of these replies and thinking, "they don't understand, they're not trying to understand." I'm reading alot of these replies and saying, "they don't get it."
It's a good idea that would have good impact on the game, for good reasons. It's funny that some people don't take the time to see what someone else is saying, or to challenge what they dont understand, to gain more understanding. Rather than view something from a narrow perspective, at least start out by saying, "this person is trying to accomplish something, what is it? This person thinks this is a good idea, why do they think that?" When you can say, "ah I see what they're saying, but I'm still concerned by this consequence or that, and I don't see that covered or addressed," then fine, say that...
[...]
Message Edited by BleuDestiny on 01-27-2005 11:20 AM
Phaelyn wrote:
Again, I am basing my contentions based on my experience on the Server I play on. Valcyn may have developed along differing lines than Radiant. Another example: We have a 6 month out of shift resource selling at 285cpu, while you say yours are at 6. Different economies, different reactions.
Ledao wrote:
As youshould be able tosee, then, there isn't anything likewhat you seem to mean by"price disparity". Avian meat prices are higher than Carnivore or Herbivore meat prices because the yields are lower, because birds aren't any fun to hunt, and because they don't drop any loot.
Yes, there should be a differential from one resource type to another, but that isn't what I meant by price disparity. Perhaps my terminology cause the problem - for that i apologize. What I meant is in toto - Hunters do not set the prices. Crafters set the prices. You refer to other things aside from base reasoning to show why hunters don't go for Avian meats. Factors like "fun and no loot" may apply to those only wishing to hunt for fun or prizes, but for those seeking an economic response to their actions, IE a payday.Many people will seek to make profit over fun IF their eventual goal is to make money.
Saying that people will only hunt a lower yield animal for a payour 3 to 4 times higher than a high yield animal is, IMO, a misnomer. People will hunt whatever is the higher paying resource *assuming* that the payoff is remotely close to normalized. For instance: If Avian meat harvests for 15 from each corpse, and the hunter gathers from 100 animals, they yield 1500 of the resource. But, they can hunt Herbivore meat Y for the same duration at 30 harvested.. However since Herbivore is also harder to kill, they only harvest from 80 animals, for a yield of 2400. Resource X, at the inflated prices on *MY* server go for 250cpu, so that would be 375k Credits. Resource Y, since not ashard to get a higher yield caps at around 75cpu, which would equal 180k Credits. Can you see how, at least on *my* server, there is a massive price disparity? Contention: If common sensed were used here, Avian would be worth only @ twice the cost of Herbivore meat, making essentially a 150cpu cap. And at that price, the hunter STILL makes more for Avian than Herbivore. Yes, Avian should cost more cpu than a carnivore or a herbivore due to a lot of factors. But assuming they MUST outbid every other crafter to get as much as they can is what drives all the costs up across the board.
The economy is a system, wherein all of the different ways for a combat character to make money relate to each other. In November of 2003, for instance, yes we could pay 50 or 60 cpu for Avian meat and expect everyone on the server to be out there harvesting it for us, because at that point we weren't competing with the chefs or bio-engineers -- if the armorsmiths weren't buying hide, we were the only game in town. That is just no longer the case...
And, to your final comment, actually my costs are not dramatically different today than they were in November '03. They might actually be lower, in fact, since at that point extractable resources were much harder to come by -- and if they had been out of spawn for a couple of months they were vastly more expensive than they are now. My server went through a time when Dolovite iron was scarce and expensive, another time when our only decent Class 4 petro was 100+ cpu, and so on and so forth. Now, due to the remarkable ease of extracting huge quantities of things, we have best-ever resources 6 months out of spawn selling for under 6 cpu.
Note that this post is in direct answer to BleuDestiny criticism of my post.
BleuDestiny wrote:
I don't recall in the communication trying to impact the "fun" of the game, other than maybe the fun in communicating with people who are challenged to communicate and stay on point. Look back to the stated pros and cons in the thread. Focus.
BWVictorious wrote:
Whats fun about that?
Next time you quote, quote at least the significant part.
I asked what the fun if you simply harvest the materials. You arent playing the game, you dont even need to be logged in. This means that you can stay one week away and then have loads of resources for the craft and then stay another week away while your vendor sells them.
The hunting and gathering of resources is part of the game and for most its the best part. It involves getting a group to go hunting, provides comunication among players and for many its the starting point for the entire game. I was introduced to hunting by veteran players and used it to level up quickly while harvesting resources for credits. It enabled me to become a CH very quick which allowed me to have pets protecting me while I did some other stuff. I myself have personally lead not less than 20 newbies on a hunt and I have played this game for almost 3 months. These newbies got their XP and initial credits from the resources, plus they made contact with veteran players who are willing to help them. Because of this whenever I log on I get quite a few tells asking me what am I going to do and if I want to go hunt whatever.
THIS is fun, this is being a part of the comunity. If you make organic resource gathering another mind numbing action like plain harvesting then you take a great part of the players interaction. How many times have you seen a group heading out to plant harvesters and gaining lots of xpand having fun while doing it? Maybe a group following a surveyor and maybe some fun and xp clearing out the surrounding lairs but that is it. Of course if they are selling the harvested resources there will be some credits there.
Again, you mention that organic resources harvesters are rulling the market. This might be in your server but as mentioned, in Tempest the marked is rulled by the crafters who offer a certain amount of cpu for a certain resource. Sometimes they fight among themselves for more resources but Never did I see a hunter asking them to raise the price or else he wont gather the resources.
You talk about comunication, butI fear you have not read any of the previous posts.
I read it all, but I don't find anything that invalidates the value that this structure would bring to the economy. Here's some for ya...
BWVictorious wrote:
You talk about comunication, butI fear you have not read any of the previous posts.
Message Edited by BleuDestiny on 02-01-2005 10:44 AM
RamondChappell wrote:
I don't have time to express all of my thoughts on the subject here, but I do have a question for BleuDestiny. Why haven't you responded to Ledao's post, which has pretty much poked holes throughout your reasoning for doing this?
I did, its a few up the ladder here... the assumptions are false and overexaggerated. There are no holes, its a valid structure that would improve the game economy by providing balance where currently there is none. Price fairly, or find that you have little buyers. If someone on the server is a billionaire and can continue to offer hunters 400cpu for meat because SOE can't control a perfect economy overall in a game, gee that's not hard to figure, then provide balance through alternatives, so that if that yahoo offers 400cpu and the rest of us want to price fairly on the input and output sides of crafting, then we can pass, let all the hunters go 400cpu, and we'll make do with the structures. If the hunters want to do whats right by the game, and many of them ignore the 400cpu yahoo's offer cause they want the immersive side of the game to improve, and want to build community relationships between hunters and crafters, good for them, we'll pay fair prices.
In addition to completely exaggerating potential impacts from adding the structure to an absurd level, others have already responded to this person... whomever's alt it is, Ledao, er, I mean Raymond.
Message Edited by BleuDestiny on 01-28-2005 09:13 AM
BleuDestiny wrote:
In addition to completely exaggerating potential impacts from adding the structure to an absurd level, others have already responded to this person... whomever's alt it is, Ledao, er, I mean Raymond.
Y'know, when I wrote that, I thought you might figure I was his alt, but I'm not. I am an alt to a poster who has far more posts than he does. It's quite easy to tell that we're different people if you look at our writing styles, but that is neither here nor there.
So far in this thread, you have yet to defend your proposal with something other than "you don't understand" or "you're exaggerating." You're proposal is flawed on numerous levels, but because you don't want to be wrong, you won't accept it. There are none so blind as he who will not see.
While thinking about the game over my lunch break, I figured something out. To play this game on most levels, I need to get buffed. I don't want to have to wait 20mins in Coronet to do it, and I don't have a guildie that can do it for me. If I don't get buffed, I really can't play this game on any high levels and I sure can't PvP. That is game breaking. Not only that, but it's gating off content, which will drive people directly out of the game. This game needs a revitalization and the devs know that. They just can't see how to do it, so I came up with a little idea. It's a new structure (you have to forgive me because I'm not so good at HTML and Firefox doesn't give you all the fun GUI options that MSIE does).
Structure Name: Enhancement Facility
Size: 2 lots
Type: Medical Facility
Schematic: A single buffpack for each stat
Inputs: Maintenance (like all other medical facilities)
Outpusts: Buffs
Features:
*Distributes Buffs to entering player
*Provides buffs for those who are not doctors nor have one available
*Provides means for player to make income, through the public access of Enhancement Facility
*Provides economic balance through alternative of paying a lower cost for buffs, so that patrons are not compelled to pay 15k per set even though buffs were 5k a set
previously and only cost an average of 1.22k per buff to create
*Breaks the monopoly held by doctors by allowing combat classes to self buff and introducing choices to the supply chain
*Provides economic activity to Architects
*Provides more economic activity for doctors in the form of buff volume sold
*Provides economic stimulation by decreasing idle time spent waiting in a buff line
*Provides population dispersion decreasing lag in cities such as Coronet
The output would simply be the buffs. It could be for the duration of the set OR until maintenance ran out. Either way would be a bonanza for the players. Alternatively, you could make it not a facility at all and convert it to a droid which would need batteries to operate. In fact, that's better because it would provide an economic stimulus to both the droid engineer and artisan professions!
Sure, you could still go to a doctor if you wanted. Doctors wouldn't be too hurt because they could still get money from healing people.
If this went through, every doctor would be up in arms about it because, as it currently is, buffing is the dominant source of income for doctors. What you're proposing is the exact same thing for scouts and rangers (notice how your proposal would affect two classes, and mine would only affect one).
Ledao made a good point that I thought of in the fact that meat is a limiting factor for a lot of doctors. Without that limiting factor, there would be nothing stopping them from making enough buffs to last for the rest of the game duration. I stopped crafting a long time ago, but I do know that I have more than enough resources, save the meat, to make 10k buffsets.
Because you don't seem to understand this either, the Rangers and Scouts are not setting the prices for meat. The market is. The market regulates itself. A couple of weeks ago on Gorath, Lok Herb meat spawned that was rather good. The first doc I saw offered 40cpu for it. Then it went to 45cpu. Then it went to 60. Then it finally climbed up to 80cpu BECAUSE A DOCTOR OFFERED THAT. That, my friend, is market balance.
One other thing, you keep referring to this "monopoly" that hunters have over gathering. Why? Do they have a monopoly over creature gathering (which can be done by anyone with novice scout to master ranger) moreso than doctors have over buffing (which can only be done at a certain doctor level)?
(editted to correct a name)
Message Edited by RamondChappell on 01-28-2005 11:29 AM
BleuDestiny wrote:
RamondChappell wrote:
BleuDestiny wrote:
In addition to completely exaggerating potential impacts from adding the structure to an absurd level, others have already responded to this person... whomever's alt it is, Ledao, er, I mean Raymond.
So far in this thread, you have yet to defend your proposal with something other than "you don't understand" or "you're exaggerating." You're proposal is flawed on numerous levels, but because you don't want to be wrong, you won't accept it. There are none so blind as he who will not see.I'm not afraid of being wrong, my goal is not for me to be right, its to remedy significant issues with the game for everyone's benefit, the game needs it. if I acted as you'd describe, I wouldn't be very successful in my career, and that's not the case, I could go on at length about my training and credentials in interpersonal communication and listening skills, but that's personal and off topic. Thanks for the personal assessment, now look in the mirror and apply your statements to yourself.
My proposal stands on its own two feet, it's specific, and it's accurate. It's a potential solution. Perhaps not the only solution, or even the best solution, but it is a genuin attempt to remedy a significant situation. When people reply to this solution with misinformation or exaggerations, I will call them on it. I'm not alone there, and usually around here peeps are not alone when presented with misinformation and exaggerations. I respond to points, I also call it out when people are not being constructive.
So back to the topic at hand, constructively, I still have a valid proposal on the table, and feel free to comment as you like of course, and to propose as an alternative that we create dispensors for buffs may be your idea of a valid proposal, but it is a narrow one in that it does not address the chef items, the armor, the weapons, and all the other crafted items that rely on creature resources at the crafter level, so I await enlightenment to your follow up to close those gaps, so that we can all move closer to the outrageous issue of paying 20,000,000 to 40,000,000 for a 100k stack of creature resources
Message Edited by BleuDestiny on 01-28-2005 12:59 PM
I would say that I am amazed that, out of all of the post that was written, you would latch onto and address me saying that you don't want to be wrong. I would say that, but looking at your post history in this thread, that seems to be the pattern. You want a constructive discussion of your proposal, it's been given. It has also been summarily ignored by the proposer. I will reiterate, so that none can say that I came here with personal attacks and nothing else.
The proposal, as it stands, will eliminate the market for creature resources that the rangers currently are the suppliers of. It will eliminate the primary market that the rangers participate in and thus, eliminate the primary means of income for rangers/scouts. This has been said multiple times, yet it has been called an exaggeration, so we will look at the numbers.
Currently, the way the proposal is set up, you are calling for Ranches to have BER rates equivalent to normal harvestors, so we'll put that at 13. We'll put the Ranch "concentration" at 80%, which is the minimum most people will settle for (although I have taken up to 97%). That would provide 624 units of meat per hour. With 10 ranches, that would be 6240 units per hour. If this was avian meat, there would be no way a master ranger could keep up at that rate. That is a simple matter of supply. Secondly, with the cost being comparable to harvestors, that would be an approximate cost per unit of .32 credits per unit, provided that you are able to get cereal at the same rate and power at a lower one (which you can easily).
Now, it has been stated that rangers and scouts will not be cut out of the market, but why would a ranger provide meat, hide, or bone at a comparable rate when it is not cost effective. At BEST, a ranger can average 14 meat per harvest on average avian, 15 creatures per lair. With the time invested to do that, his yield would be 210 units of meat. To keep up with this ranch, he would have to do 3 lairs per hour which, although not much, does not cover the cost of his time in doing it, nor things like vehicle maintenance or weapon wear and tear. Using foods or droids to increase the harvest rate would not be done because that is also, NOT COST EFFECTIVE.
The proposal does stand on it's own too feet, but it does not stand up to even the smallest amount of scrutiny. It's specific, but in its specifics, the flaws are exposed. It is a potential solution in form, but it's not practical and it clearly does cut the rangers/scouts out of the creature resource market as a primary income. It destablizes the market in the fact that it will create a financial boom to armorsmiths, architects, chefs and doctors, who as it stand, need no financial help and places rangers and scouts at a substantial and crippling financial loss. Short of the ability to make camps (which have been virtually been rendered useless), throw traps (which if you've been a ranger, you know most are useless), and use camoflouge (which I'll admit can be helpful on adventure planets). With this proposal, ranger becomes only useful for tracking and to a lesser extent, camo and scouts would be totally useless.
Not just that, but you have now rendered a chef food useless due to the lack of demand.
Your proposal does far more damage to the game than it remedies. I can appreciate wanting the best in the game that there is, but this proposal is not nearly the best way to do it. I EAGERLY awaint your justification on your proposal now.
RamondChappell wrote:
I would say that I am amazed that, out of all of the post that was written, you would latch onto and address me saying that you don't want to be wrong.
He/she seemed to respond to everyone, not just this one, and seems to be consistent in responding to points made on topic.
I would say that, but looking at your post history in this thread, that seems to be the pattern. You want a constructive discussion of your proposal, it's been given. It has also been summarily ignored by the proposer.
Dont see the same thing you do. You're full of accusations and get off topic from A to Z
The proposal, as it stands, will eliminate the market for creature resources that the rangers currently are the suppliers of. It will eliminate the primary market that the rangers participate in and thus, eliminate the primary means of income for rangers/scouts.
No it wouldn't.
Currently, the way the proposal is set up, you are calling for Ranches to have BER rates equivalent to normal harvestors, so we'll put that at 13. We'll put the Ranch "concentration" at 80%, which is the minimum most people will settle for (although I have taken up to 97%). That would provide 624 units of meat per hour. With 10 ranches, that would be 6240 units per hour. If this was avian meat, there would be no way a master ranger could keep up at that rate. That is a simple matter of supply. Secondly, with the cost being comparable to harvestors, that would be an approximate cost per unit of .32 credits per unit, provided that you are able to get cereal at the same rate and power at a lower one (which you can easily).
Hunters dont have to keep up, just have to sell at a reasonable rate to add to the amounts that the crafters haveALSO harvested. It's not an Either/Or proposition.Seems to be about choices, and options. I agree too with the statement made that no matter how much creature resources were produced through a structure, crafters would ALSO purchase from hunters, especially on good spawns, and that on really good spawns, the hunters would still probably get 300cpu.
Now, it has been stated that rangers and scouts will not be cut out of the market, but why would a ranger provide meat, hide, or bone at a comparable rate when it is not cost effective. At BEST, a ranger can average 14 meat per harvest on average avian, 15 creatures per lair. With the time invested to do that, his yield would be 210 units of meat. To keep up with this ranch, he would have to do 3 lairs per hour which, although not much, does not cover the cost of his time in doing it, nor things like vehicle maintenance or weapon wear and tear. Using foods or droids to increase the harvest rate would not be done because that is also, NOT COST EFFECTIVE.
Hunters have missions they can do to double up on the earnings, from missions plus what they sell of the resources. I don't recall anyone saying that creature resources would have to be sold at 2 cpu like radioactive. But somewhere between 300cpu and 10cpu might be a good economic alternative.
The proposal does stand on it's own too feet, but it does not stand up to even the smallest amount of scrutiny. It's specific, but in its specifics, the flaws are exposed. It is a potential solution in form, but it's not practical and it clearly does cut the rangers/scouts out of the creature resource market as a primary income. It destablizes the market in the fact that it will create a financial boom to armorsmiths, architects, chefs and doctors, who as it stand, need no financial help and places rangers and scouts at a substantial and crippling financial loss. Short of the ability to make camps (which have been virtually been rendered useless), throw traps (which if you've been a ranger, you know most are useless), and use camoflouge (which I'll admit can be helpful on adventure planets). With this proposal, ranger becomes only useful for tracking and to a lesser extent, camo and scouts would be totally useless.
Not just that, but you have now rendered a chef food useless due to the lack of demand.
Here's a good example of all the points made, just off base and over the top. How do you respond to #### like this?
Your proposal does far more damage to the game than it remedies. I can appreciate wanting the best in the game that there is, but this proposal is not nearly the best way to do it. I EAGERLY awaint your justification on your proposal now.
What are you waiting for, you haven't said anything meaningful. The topic makes sense to me, it may not be the best, and it will probably never happen, but its good to see good ideas coming to the table. I'm not sure what you're doing here constructively. Seems like alot of personal attacks more than anything else.
LOL it looks like a bunch of flamers trying to derail a good idea by flooding personal attacks and saying things like "this will elimate scout" blah blah nonsense. It might be taken a little more seriously if people would say things like, "it would impact player's scouting ability more than we would like." But peeps got to go to unreasonable extremes and cry that the sky is falling when someone comes up with an idea. No wonder you're all told "you're wrong," when you deal in extremes.
Phaelyn wrote:
You know Bleu, despite several of us saying we have seen your logic, but also see the drawbacks - You continue to state that we are wrong, and you are right. OK, it's a discussion with several viewpoints, and this is to be expected. I (and many others) heartily believe the structure would eliminate the need for Hunting, removing a level of immersion from the game..