Jump To Lightspeed Archive
Thread: Re:
EntropyNut
Tue Aug 19, 2003 2:59 pm
#53
In a perfect SWG world:
1) There would be no bazaar terminals at this point - the economy is rolling now.
2) Players would be allowed to set up vendors in certain "bazaar" zones within the city. There would still be rent fees due, but this would allow us to shop within the city limits instead of seeking out the vendor in the middle of the swamp.
Mowab
Ahazi
Tarquinius
Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:41 am
#54
Nothing wrong with that DoppleX... but then again you aren't complaining that the GBay limit be rasied to 3k 
The topic poster wants all of the benefit of "being on the map" without having to work toward it.
Tarquinius
Wed Aug 20, 2003 12:42 am
#55
What I wouldn't give for an edit button...
Should read:
"Nothing wrong with that DoppleX... but then again you aren't complaining that the GBay limit be rasied to > 3k "
JustJimBridger
Wed Aug 20, 2003 4:59 am
#56
BobaBorg,
Great an oppotunity for a rational conversation. For the purpose of this conversation can we agree to keep personalities out of it, they just get in the way (Feel free to start another thread and expound on JustJim is an ignorant jerk. I don't mind, you are entitiled to your opinion).
I was tempted to refute the reply point by point but realised that doing so would make for a long a laborious post. So let's get to the point I am trying to make. The 3000cr is irrelevant and does not achieve it's intended purpose.
Just what is the intended purpose of the limit?
1. To give artisans and the artisan derived professions protection from competition by non-artisans? I don't thing so for the mere fact is that we don't need it (I'm working on becomming a gunsmith). By and large we are they only people in the game who can make things on a large scale. In essence we drive the economy, so why have a limit to protect a group that doesn't need protecting?
2. To protect masters from comptetion by novices? Such competition is inevitable and unavoidable. Every master was once a novice and as a novice had to compete against existing master in order to acheive maste in their own right. Why have a protective limit where protection is futile on the face of it.
3. To force people to get a vendor? No force is necesary. If one is seriously crafting, one needs a house (for storage if nothing else). Getting a vendor just requires Biz 3 and there is no addition cost to acquire the vendor (I know, I just got one). The convenience of being able to place my items for sale from the security of my house more than justifies 8cr/day maintenance fee.
4. By some mystical process, it makes the bazzar easier to use. If the bazzar is difficult to use then it is difficult to use. Having or not having a limit has no implact on its usability - programmesr and code do!
5. It protects the economy. Ah Hah! Eureka! Finally a valid economic reason. BogaBorg, you are correct when you point out that the economy is a closed economy and due to it's small size, fragile. I suspect that the original intent of the limit was to protect the economy from a very, very valid danger, inflation (Dev's Q, Holocron, Vass etc feel free to confirm). If the reason for the limit is gaurd against inflation, it fails miserably.
Why does the limit fail to guard against inflation? Because it is, to put it simply, ineffective. It is easily circumvented. If you have 400 units of material that you think is worth 4000cr, what do you do. Put it up on the bazzar as 2 200 unit lots priced at 2000cr. Find a face to face trade. Sell it to a vendor for 4000cr. Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) was correct. Price is determined by supply and demand. Comptetion is a mechanism whereby the market attains equilibrium.
What to do then? The economy needs a mechanism to control inflation and a bazzar limit is probably a marginal mechanism for this at best.
The answer, Do what all of the economists (Keynes, Friedmann , Greenspan etc) agree we should do, control the money supply. The mechanism's for this are alredy in place. Worried about infaltion decrease the rewards for mission (incrementaly please. A 60% reduction in mission prices all at once gets people upset and after all we agree we have a fragile economy). Increase the fees. Worried about deflation do the opposite.
OMG! JJ! Why have you put us through all of this? For those fellow gamers who have stuck with this so far - you deserve a badge for persistance and we finally get to the real reason for this post (if you think it is laborius to read, try writing it). I'm trying to make a point with the developers and game designers.
There are a number of places where the game design attempts to FORCE players to act in a certain way. The bazzar limit is a particular good example of this. It does not acheive its goal allit does is irritate a segment of the player population.
Force is not a particularly good or effective game mechanism. The guys at GDW (Game Designer's Workshop) had particularly good advice for game and dungeon masters in the original RPGs (anybody remember D&D or Travelers? I do) Don't try to force your players to do things. It was good advice in 1980 and it is good advice today.
That's all folks. I appreciate anybody who has stuck all the way with this post.
Happy and fun gaming to all.
Great an oppotunity for a rational conversation. For the purpose of this conversation can we agree to keep personalities out of it, they just get in the way (Feel free to start another thread and expound on JustJim is an ignorant jerk. I don't mind, you are entitiled to your opinion).
I was tempted to refute the reply point by point but realised that doing so would make for a long a laborious post. So let's get to the point I am trying to make. The 3000cr is irrelevant and does not achieve it's intended purpose.
Just what is the intended purpose of the limit?
1. To give artisans and the artisan derived professions protection from competition by non-artisans? I don't thing so for the mere fact is that we don't need it (I'm working on becomming a gunsmith). By and large we are they only people in the game who can make things on a large scale. In essence we drive the economy, so why have a limit to protect a group that doesn't need protecting?
2. To protect masters from comptetion by novices? Such competition is inevitable and unavoidable. Every master was once a novice and as a novice had to compete against existing master in order to acheive maste in their own right. Why have a protective limit where protection is futile on the face of it.
3. To force people to get a vendor? No force is necesary. If one is seriously crafting, one needs a house (for storage if nothing else). Getting a vendor just requires Biz 3 and there is no addition cost to acquire the vendor (I know, I just got one). The convenience of being able to place my items for sale from the security of my house more than justifies 8cr/day maintenance fee.
4. By some mystical process, it makes the bazzar easier to use. If the bazzar is difficult to use then it is difficult to use. Having or not having a limit has no implact on its usability - programmesr and code do!
5. It protects the economy. Ah Hah! Eureka! Finally a valid economic reason. BogaBorg, you are correct when you point out that the economy is a closed economy and due to it's small size, fragile. I suspect that the original intent of the limit was to protect the economy from a very, very valid danger, inflation (Dev's Q, Holocron, Vass etc feel free to confirm). If the reason for the limit is gaurd against inflation, it fails miserably.
Why does the limit fail to guard against inflation? Because it is, to put it simply, ineffective. It is easily circumvented. If you have 400 units of material that you think is worth 4000cr, what do you do. Put it up on the bazzar as 2 200 unit lots priced at 2000cr. Find a face to face trade. Sell it to a vendor for 4000cr. Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations) was correct. Price is determined by supply and demand. Comptetion is a mechanism whereby the market attains equilibrium.
What to do then? The economy needs a mechanism to control inflation and a bazzar limit is probably a marginal mechanism for this at best.
The answer, Do what all of the economists (Keynes, Friedmann , Greenspan etc) agree we should do, control the money supply. The mechanism's for this are alredy in place. Worried about infaltion decrease the rewards for mission (incrementaly please. A 60% reduction in mission prices all at once gets people upset and after all we agree we have a fragile economy). Increase the fees. Worried about deflation do the opposite.
OMG! JJ! Why have you put us through all of this? For those fellow gamers who have stuck with this so far - you deserve a badge for persistance and we finally get to the real reason for this post (if you think it is laborius to read, try writing it). I'm trying to make a point with the developers and game designers.
There are a number of places where the game design attempts to FORCE players to act in a certain way. The bazzar limit is a particular good example of this. It does not acheive its goal allit does is irritate a segment of the player population.
Force is not a particularly good or effective game mechanism. The guys at GDW (Game Designer's Workshop) had particularly good advice for game and dungeon masters in the original RPGs (anybody remember D&D or Travelers? I do) Don't try to force your players to do things. It was good advice in 1980 and it is good advice today.
That's all folks. I appreciate anybody who has stuck all the way with this post.
Happy and fun gaming to all.
Sindorry
Thu Aug 21, 2003 9:55 pm
#57
Umm yeah they were supposed to have changed it so we can call anytime anywhere a few days ago. You should read the dev post.
falllacy
Thu Aug 21, 2003 9:59 pm
#58
whats dumb is that outposts are not considered cities. Because you cant call your pet in an outpost. You have to go inside one of the buildings.
Sindorry
Thu Aug 21, 2003 10:32 pm
#61
Bug it then cause the devs post said that change is already in live
Zer0xChan
Thu Aug 21, 2003 10:34 pm
#62
Even before they changed it I could call them from anywhere, heh.
GlargTheKelfn
Thu Aug 21, 2003 11:28 pm
#63
i still can't call pets on tat. but that's where my declared residence is. everywhere else, im good...
Aginor1
Thu Aug 21, 2003 11:47 pm
#64
yup i can't either, and yes it is pretty annoying. i hate having to make camp just to call out a pet, very stupid rule.