Independent Players?

[Grim DeGrim]

My goods. My sale. My price. And it's different for different people based on reputation & loyalty.

At least, i'd like that flexibility.

Seperate thread for economic discussion.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/4589-economy-merchant-sales-tiered-based-pricing/?p=89128#entry89128

[Magnum]

Seperate thread for economic discussion.

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/4589-economy-merchant-sales-tiered-based-pricing/?p=89128#entry89128

 

I'm not sure economic concerns are a "separate" issue - even despots like George III and Napoleon didn't have bottomless purses. I pretty sure that a major factor in any navy choosing the ships it did was overall cost, cost vs. performance, cost to loose (upon the enemy) and cost to lose.

 

Trafalgar had a tremendous "cost" to Britain, but it was devastating to Napoleon's plans, so it was a cost well spent, and it changed history.

[Grim DeGrim]

*shrugs* they're seperate from, or at least only a part of, the overall "concerns" herein. Put into the appropriate forum section.

[SueMyChin]

That's assuming that NPCs carry huge wealth sir.

 

I was thinking more about the lack of risk taking one NPC after another rather than the reward of a one-off jackpot. If they can hit NPCs without any fear of taking damage then they'll do it over and over and they'll make money. Even if the NPC players are the most modest of prizes, the smallest ships are still going to be worth a few bob, without even taking cargo into account.

 

I would happily limit the size of NPC ships, I mean no NPC 'rated' ships sound good to me personally but then if we're to look at the escort system, how much worth will it be if you're sailing a large indiaman and all they assign to your escort is a couple of NPC cutters?

 

...and we're still punishing players who prefer PVE combat simply because some would prefer not to fight them..? Hardly seems fair.

 

If you enable a system that requires entry into PvP prone areas to increase the reward rate, then yes, while those who may remain in safer areas can happily and quietly gain wealth, they'll do so at a very reduced pace compared to those who get out into more dangerous areas.

 

NPCs should provide far lower income than players.  NPC ships, I think, should be small brigs or cutters, with cargo and value that is quite small.  Players should be the ones running larger ships, Indiamen full of valuable cargo, etc. The way to amassing serious wealth should be in large scale, PvP enabled cargo carrying, and Privateering/Navy Attack/Defense of that cargo trade.  There should be a PvE game, but it should be on a far smaller reward scale than PvP.

 

I agree with this entirely but I would imagine that if the open world economy is player driven, the risk of running pirate infested waters, where few venture to go would be far larger. It's an organic supply & demand trade-off rather than an artificially enforced one. Do I think there should be enforced rates for different areas though? Probably not. I just think it punishes some in favour of others tastes and detracts a little from the 'open' part of an open world

 

If we have designated non-NPC areas, then the types of ships NPCs sail and their typical cargo would be found on the nearby 'markets' in far fewer numbers compared to areas where NPCs are found, often captured and sold. This would reduce the reward for NPC prizes organically and mean that any PVP success would reward the extra risks taken. Basically, what you put forward above without any imposed rates and without directly singling out players with a preference for non-PVP combat.

 

It would also give players who prefer NPC combat over PVP somewhere to play and players with a PVP preference somewhere to stay clear of.

 

We could then have it so it's impossible to tell if a passing ship or member of an escort is NPC or a player (as well as hiding a players name) until you're within a certain distance (within hail) of him. Which I really think would improve game-play.

Edited March 21, 2015 by SueMyChin