Making gold, Missions V Trading

[victor]

Just now, shaeberle84 said:

The Problem:

Missions and trading rewards are fixed right now, that is the problem.

The easy fix:

Missions give the exact same amount of money, no matter whether there is 1 guy doing a mission around a town or whether therer are 100 guys doing missions around a town. If mission rewards are based on supply and demand, they will get lower the more people do missions. For example every town generates missions day on day one for 100% rewards. If they are being done, the town generates 50 more missions the next day with only 80% rewards etc. If the missions are not met, they are postet the next day for 120% rewards.

Then, suddenly, trade becomes more attractive if missions people think missions are more rewarding. They do more missions and mission rewards go down to a point where trading becomes more attractive.

The system balances itself out, to the point where missions and trading becomes similarly attractive when comparing rewards and risk.

Futher benefits:

With mission rewards depending on supply and demand: If missions are more profitable in remote ports and less profitable in safe zones and highly populated areas, we get more people out there, who are more likely to do PVP.

Other side of the coin:

Similarly the profits from trading are more or less fixed right now. I have posted this multiple times already. If a town has a need for a trading good and this need is not met, the price should increase by, say 10-20%, the next day until profits are so large that traders supply the good.

To balance supply and demand, the production of trading goods should also be more flexible: if port-produced trading goods are not bought, prices should go down, but also supply. If trading goods are sold out every day, prices should increase, but also supply. This is a simple supply curve (Economics 101).

Summary:
Making mission rewards and trading profits follow supply and demand will results in an equilibrium, which benefits all, especially the @admins, who do not have to constantly react to these kind of topics and change mission rewards every two weeks. =)

No, it will result in an empy PVP server.

If this is the solution, better raising gold PVP rewards.

[victor]

Just now, rediii said:

And thats where you are wrong and sweden proves it for months on end.

Because from the info you give me sweden is conquering ports with pve ships for months now. (ofcourse not with fir fir tho)

c'mon, do not fiddle with words, it's clear that PVP - in my speech - is understood as OS pvp. In RvR white/white is good.

Edited November 23, 2017 by victor

[victor]

Just now, rediii said:

RvR is also pvp

Atleast I do OW pvp in these ships aswell

Alone? With the same mods you use in RvR? Mmmmmmm

Edited November 23, 2017 by victor

[victor]

Just now, rediii said:

I like teak teak for that.

Anyway you ask why pve ships sell better. I tell you its the meta and is also used for pvp. Also OW (fleet) pvp. Its just a more flexible ship than fir fir and liveoak(which is basically just shit and used by noobs) Nothing more.

Well, it seems - then - that the misunderstanding was due to the fact that - in answering me - you did not pick up also the part where I said that I sell ships with modules included. So - basically and to be more precise - according to me a white/white connie (fitted with +armor mods, so slow) is basically a PVE ship (that i sell with ease) while a white/white (or teak/white or teak/teak) connie with + speed + turn is a PVP ship (that I struggle much more in selling at good prices).

Edited November 23, 2017 by victor

[Archaos]

2 hours ago, rediii said:

PvP playere have no way in making money.

A general session of a pvp player : Look 1 hour for pvp. If you find a battle its a high possibility that its a gank or you havr to run away. But lets say its a good battle.

In the risky case that you win the battle you then made around 500k gold (in case you sink a 5th rate) 

With all the risk involved losing your ship you make a small amount of gold. Then you have to get new repairs.

Session of a pve player ... make 1 million in 1 fleetmission and get repairs and upgrades which can be worth a lot more. Without a big risk if you are used to pve

I did mention how PvP can make money by selling their PvP marks. I did a PvP battle 1v1 against a Connie the other day and got 11 PvP marks, I hear those marks can sell for around 100k each, so that is 1.1million for sinking a single ship. You cannot say that the PvP marks reward is not enough as I know from experience that raiders who hunt trade ships seldom bother taking the ship as they gain more from sinking it and its cargo than trying to take it to port. Over the last couple of weeks I have been intercepted 4 times on trade runs each time losing a Indiaman to a pirate and on every occasion he has sunk it after boarding, its not even as though he takes the cargo as most times the cargo has been heavy and he would not have had much space in his Connie to take much. Agreed proper PvP carries more risks than trader bashing but still the reward of PvP marks can generate good income if sold (issue probably is that most regular PvP'ers save their PvP marks to buy special upgrades rather than sell them).

Within a couple of days of PvP marks being introduced there were people sailing in the pirate fit LGV which costs 150 PvP marks, thats worth 15 million at the 100k per mark rate. If you can get that many PvP marks in a few days then you are making more than the average trader.

I also was agreeing with the OP that PvE mission rewards should be reduced as there is little risk and they also get drops of mods and books which they can sell for money.

A general session for a trader, spend 15 ~ 20 minutes checking round for good trades that will return a good profit, possibly have to sail 30 minutes to the port to buy the goods, load up and sail to your destination, probably another 30~40 minutes all the time risking being attacked. If you are successful you probably at best make around 1.5 million profit if you are running 3 Indiamen and if you are unlucky at worst you lose your 3 ships and all your cargo, probably setting you back 3~4 million. So for a time vs reward I do not see much difference between PvP and trading.

So overall the PvE method is the safest way to make money and maybe that should be reduced to bring the risk/reward profile more in line with PvP or trading.

[shaeberle84]

2 hours ago, victor said:

No, it will result in an empy PVP server.

If this is the solution, better raising gold PVP rewards.

Please elaborate instead of saying "no".

[victor]

7 minutes ago, shaeberle84 said:

Please elaborate instead of saying "no".

Sorry for appearing rude, but it's a concept that I repeated a lot of times in several threads.

When Devs put into the game features that actually reduced the rewards or the freedom for carebears, it happened that - in a few weeks - the playerbase of PVP EU fell down to really low numbers (thus affecting also the gameplay of PVPers).

After the mega summer patch, PVE mission paid very low rewards and there were no safe zone ... and, BAM, the server begun bleeding players a a very fast pace.

Now, your proposal basically will give the carebears the following option: either you got paid off poorly for a mission or you have to go in unsafe waters.

I fear this situation is very similar to the one that occurred with the mega summer patch.

I hope I explained enough.

[shaeberle84]

9 minutes ago, victor said:

Sorry for appearing rude, but it's a concept that I repeated a lot of times in several threads.

When Devs put into the game features that actually reduced the rewards or the freedom for carebears, it happened that - in a few weeks - the playerbase of PVP EU fell down to really low numbers (thus affecting also the gameplay of PVPers).

After the mega summer patch, PVE mission paid very low rewards and there were no safe zone ... and, BAM, the server begun bleeding players a a very fast pace.

Now, your proposal basically will give the carebears the following option: either you got paid off poorly for a mission or you have to go in unsafe waters.

I fear this situation is very similar to the one that occurred with the mega summer patch.

I hope I explained enough.

I see your point.

What if rewards were generally higher, so that losing a ship does not matter that much anymore for the carebears?

Edit:

But you are in line with the gereral idea of balancing rewards through flexible prices and the forces of supply and demand?

Edited November 23, 2017 by shaeberle84

[victor]

36 minutes ago, shaeberle84 said:

I see your point.

What if rewards were generally higher, so that losing a ship does not matter that much anymore for the carebears?

Edit:

But you are in line with the gereral idea of balancing rewards through flexible prices and the forces of supply and demand?

Higher rewards for everybody generally imply inflation risk, that will hit new players (so, after a sale that put in the game a lot of newbies it could be a risky path).

My general position is that now that PVE rewards (Missions, fleet farming, trade and crafting) are more or the less OK, so - if the majority of PVPers actually think that PVP rewards are too low - I would rather just enhanche PVP gold or combat mark rewards.

[shaeberle84]

53 minutes ago, victor said:

Higher rewards for everybody generally imply inflation risk, that will hit new players (so, after a sale that put in the game a lot of newbies it could be a risky path).

My general position is that now that PVE rewards (Missions, fleet farming, trade and crafting) are more or the less OK, so - if the majority of PVPers actually think that PVP rewards are too low - I would rather just enhanche PVP gold or combat mark rewards.

So I agree with you that the rewards between PVE and PVP should be rebalanced in another way than what I have proposed.

However, we strongle disagree, and I am not alone, to say that the different PVE rewards are not balanced and that there should be design changes to rebalance these.

Finally, I am not sure whether inflation hurts especially newbies, since a lot of items they need are not affected by inflation. For instance, NPC produced ships and medium cannons cost the same, no mather how high the PVE rewards are.

Newbies are hurt since more experienced players can earn higher PVE rewards and "ruin" the player-based economy, meaning that player-produced ships and cannons and refits/modules/books are more expensive and cannot be bought by new players.

However, I do not think that any new player or even the average RvR player does need all the best items. Port battles or fights are mostly lost because of other reasons than purely better ships.

[Farrago]

If active, successful PVPers bring their PVP marks or those exclusive mods purchasable with those marks to the marketplace, their money problems might be solved.

And as a reminder, while Tumbado, Mort, some other high traffic ports might have those things for sale, there are corners of the map such as Dutch lands that rarely see marks or rare mods for sale.

[Fargo]

14 minutes ago, victor said:

After the mega summer patch, PVE mission paid very low rewards and there were no safe zone ... and, BAM, the server begun bleeding players a a very fast pace.

Whats youre problem with the summer patch/wipe?! Youre obviously reperesenting extreme PvE views, purely cherrypicking whatever fits your picture to justify youre position. We saw this in multiple threads now. You cannot say that a specific change caused anything while several changes happened, and its very unlikey that youre right when you cant even provide proper logic. 

Current numbers are nearly as low as prewipe again with insane rewards and safezones, even after a sale. How explain this?! What we can say is that something is not essential when the game is working without it. NA worked without safe zones already, and with way less rewards. Why ignore?! How do you explain that people dont happily sink each other outside the safe zones while assets lost all value again?! For comparison, to drag 1mio gold out of the game someone needs to sink 3-4 bucentaures or 7-9 5th rates. 

How is economy supposed to work in your oppinion?! What do you think why every other game takes care of inflation, even games without a serious economy like WoW, WoWs or WoT?!

[victor]

12 hours ago, Fargo said:

Whats youre problem with the summer patch/wipe?! Youre obviously reperesenting extreme PvE views, purely cherrypicking whatever fits your picture to justify youre position. We saw this in multiple threads now. You cannot say that a specific change caused anything while several changes happened, and its very unlikey that youre right when you cant even provide proper logic. 

Current numbers are nearly as low as prewipe again with insane rewards and safezones, even after a sale. How explain this?! What we can say is that something is not essential when the game is working without it. NA worked without safe zones already, and with way less rewards. Why ignore?! How do you explain that people dont happily sink each other outside the safe zones while assets lost all value again?! For comparison, to drag 1mio gold out of the game someone needs to sink 3-4 bucentaures or 7-9 5th rates. 

How is economy supposed to work in your oppinion?! What do you think why every other game takes care of inflation, even games without a serious economy like WoW, WoWs or WoT?!

Sure?

After summer mega patch in PVP EU - if I recall correctly - we were barely 250 players in EU prime time. Now we are about 500.

Anyways my problem is just one: that games with a low playerbase sooner or later close their servers.That games with a low palyerbase cannot sustain any actually working player driven economy (do you really fear inflation in a game with 500 players?). That games with a low playerbase do not grant enough chances of open world PVP.

I do not represent extreme PVE views, rather I am just aware of the the fact that also in MMO with open world PVP, PVPers are usually less then the half of PVErs and are PVE players produce the resources that PVPers consume or prey on (so, before spreading opinions here, I suggest you to go and see the statistics of EVE online that Jodgi posted not long ago in another thread).

So - just to summarize - if you (and some other fellows of the "burn the carebear" community) think that this game - just to please the will of some OS PVPers of ganking people around their homeland - could bear the risk of  getting back to 200 players (and survive long), you are doing it very wrong.

And this,  besides the fact that it sufficient to take a look at combat news channel to realize that - at least in PVP EU - the ACUTAL SKILLED PVPers (that, what's strange, do not whine about safe zones) are still able to sink a lot of people both around capital cities and elsewhere. So I start thinking that a lot of this "no safe zones" forum whiners are just trader brigs raiders in failfitted fir/fir speed ships (which - basically - even though it may be called PVP is far easier than doing a mission against IA saling ships of your same level)!

Edited November 24, 2017 by victor

[Yngvarr]

33 minutes ago, victor said:

Youre obviously reperesenting extreme PvE views, purely cherrypicking whatever fits your picture to justify youre position.

As if PVP players are absolutely innocent of the same...

If you focus on PVP or PVE your view as to what needs to change will always be biased towards what will benefit you.

To have a balanced opinion, your time should be equally spent on PVP and PVE.

 

There is no absolute truth, it will always be ever so slightly tinted by the person that tells it.

Edited November 24, 2017 by Yngvarr

[victor]

17 minutes ago, rediii said:

Didnt reqd the rest. But we were not 250 AFTER the patch we were 1000 or a bit more after the megapatch primetime EU

If you did not read the rest you could not understand that I mean not right after the patch, but some weeks later when the patch had been extensively tested by the players.

Edited November 24, 2017 by victor

[victor]

2 minutes ago, rediii said:

We have the lowest eu primetime numbers right now. A few weeks later it was 600 or so players

I remember differently.

Anyway here are the offiical data (cumulative): mega patch was released (if I recall correctly) in June, so look at July and August. As well it seems also that in the last 30 days we had slightly more players than in October.

http://steamcharts.com/app/311310

Edited November 24, 2017 by victor

[Hammy]

Also another annoying feature when it comes to trading is there only seems to be one way trades to be down. For example take something from a random port to a capital port sell for profit then return with empty ships, I wish this could change, delivery missions should be picking something up at one port taking it to another, once you get there pick up another delivery missions and away you go again. Not find the stuff needed and bring it to that port!!