Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Bleedingthrough
Raptor Navy
56
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 09:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
In the coming patch CCP will implement some intrinsic game mechanics that will modulate the player driven economy.
For instance, CCP TUXFORD on cost scaling formula: GÇ£The more manufacturing you do in a system, the more the cost of manufacturing in that system is.GÇ¥
I got to admit, I do not understand much about real economics but this seems like a weird decision to me: IsnGÇÖt the opposite true for real world economics? To me it seems as if concentrating knowledge at one spot (take Silicon Valley for instance) generates synergies which greatly increase the quality of products that can be developed and the efficiency at which they can be produced.
I would bet that CCP justifies this decision based on a real world model. Can someone explain this?
|
sloany
House Of Serenity. Taylor Swift Empire
10
|
Posted - 2014.07.18 10:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
I don't think they're trying to model real world economics and industry but rather make industry costs dynamic to encourage people moving their operations on a monthly basis...
Dev Blog wrote: This index is then used in conjunction with job value to create a base cost. (For those of you who want to do the actual math, we suggest taking a read of this devblog.)
Job value is based on the item or blueprint that represents the primary output of the job. For manufacturing, this is the value of the inputs required to build that output item, so for pretty much all build jobs it's the value of the job's input.
This is a bit silly too and in no way reflects real world economics or industry. This is only going to drive up in game inflation, since manufacturers are essentially paying for the input materials twice.
- Firstly from acquiring/purchasing from market
- Secondly from the job cost (dev blog).
You have to wonder how much thought they put into this and their reasoning why. |
Ealon Musque
Veldspar Industries Brave Collective
2
|
Posted - 2014.07.19 19:25:00 -
[3] - Quote
sloany wrote:Dev Blog wrote:This index is then used in conjunction with job value to create a base cost. (For those of you who want to do the actual math, we suggest taking a read of this devblog.)
Job value is based on the item or blueprint that represents the primary output of the job. For manufacturing, this is the value of the inputs required to build that output item, so for pretty much all build jobs it's the value of the job's input.
This is a bit silly too and in no way reflects real world economics or industry.
Wrong. In RL industry there are several costs that correspond to the value of the inputs. For instance, insurance premiums and Value Added Taxes (VAT). Others will also have a rough correlation with the value of the inputs. Furthermore, pricing often times happens by a percentage markup on the inputs. As an approximation in a computer game, I cannot see anything wrong with using the value of the inputs as the driver for the costs of turning those inputs into finished product. You could of course make a more advanced model, to factor in that some products need more space or energy, or are more labor intensive, but what would that really add to the game? |
Kireitsugu Secheh
Les chips electriques
7
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 06:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
The real spaceships industry market is doing fine. Don't involve it in here please.
Now the latest patch was not about making the industry real. It was made so industrial people won't rely on pos anymore. So CCP will be able to change the POS code somehow.
What makes something complicated to change is how it is made but also the number of people using it.
|
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
2207
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 10:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
So you say they will fix POSes when nobody will be using them anymore? By this logic null entities should drop sov this second :)
BTW: I'm not arguing with you, I just find this twisted logic to be quite amusing :) Eve Online Overview Wizard: Forum thread Homepage
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3543
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 12:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
The more industry there is in a system, the more expensive it is.
You're paying for workers. The more competition there is, the more said workers can shop around for better pay. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
2211
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 14:42:00 -
[7] - Quote
And yet gazzillions of poor frakkers die every day in explosions we so much love to cause and watch. Somebody needs to tell them about free job market :) Eve Online Overview Wizard: Forum thread Homepage
|
Kireitsugu Secheh
Les chips electriques
7
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 17:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:So you say they will fix POSes when nobody will be using them anymore? By this logic null entities should drop sov this second :)
BTW: I'm not arguing with you, I just find this twisted logic to be quite amusing :)
Nah. Indy people will still need POS to do T3 stuff.
But yes, in nullsec, you wont bother about setting a pos except for moon goo, bridges and sov. And supers.
Caps will be mass produced in low now.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
158
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 20:03:00 -
[9] - Quote
Bleedingthrough wrote:To me it seems as if concentrating knowledge at one spot (take Silicon Valley for instance) generates synergies which greatly increase the quality of products that can be developed and the efficiency at which they can be produced. Improved quality and efficiency is represented by the new "Teams" mechanic. Mind you, if EvE were like the real world, the teams would flock to where there was the most work, not the other way around, but I still think it's an interesting mechanic.
Regarding the scaling job costs, just look at the cost of living in Silicon Valley and tell me that concentrating science and industry all in one place doesn't drive costs up. As a counter-example, why have US auto manufacturers taken to opening new plants in rural areas outside of traditional manufacturing centers? Cheaper labor. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
158
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 20:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Kireitsugu Secheh wrote:Nah. Indy people will still need POS to do T3 stuff. Not to mention ore compression and better mineral refines than NPC stations. Between these two roles and the changes to tower anchoring limits, I see a big boom in the hisec POS market in spite of pure research POSes becoming less viable. Reading Comprehension: a skill so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I want to create content, not become content. |
|
Ginger Barbarella
1950
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 20:54:00 -
[11] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:The more industry there is in a system, the more expensive it is.
You're paying for workers. The more competition there is, the more said workers can shop around for better pay.
I'm wondering what CCP is modeling this idea off of, because it isn't real world workforce economics. Social utopia? Rose-colored-glasses optimism? "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac |
voetius
BITB Support Services
247
|
Posted - 2014.07.21 21:06:00 -
[12] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:The more industry there is in a system, the more expensive it is.
You're paying for workers. The more competition there is, the more said workers can shop around for better pay. I'm wondering what CCP is modeling this idea off of, because it isn't real world workforce economics. Social utopia? Rose-colored-glasses optimism?
Good point. Macroeconomic models usually assume that workers have full mobility in changing jobs but this never happens in real life due to factors such as but not limited to :
retraining new skills takes time
being rooted in a particular place due to social or family connections
cost of relocating (sometimes met by the employer but more usually for the highest paid staff, not "workers")
Personally I think it's more to do with spreading people out to create a more interesting "landscape", that coincidently reduces server load. |
Bleedingthrough
Raptor Navy
56
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 08:45:00 -
[13] - Quote
Just need to say this: I really love how CCP works with their community. Never seen anything like that in any other game. That is one aspect about eve amongst many others that makes this game so great.
On topic: Fozzie explained the logic/vision of the new changes in the wh-subforum. Since that is related to the questions raised in this thread I am going to share it with you:
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok let's sit down and have a chat about the design behind the industry cost scaling in Crius. Obviously there's some confusion. For one thing, the primary goal behind the cost scaling has nothing to do with sinking ISK from the economy (ISK supply growth has remained well within a healthy range both before and after Crius). First, I'm gonna link CCP Greyscale's recent dev blog on the principles behind the industry changes, as it's valuable reading. Go ahead and take a quick look. Back? Ok excellent. So there are two major philosophical goals in EVE-Online game design that are important for understanding where the cost scaling came from: - We want as many areas of the game as possible to contain interesting and meaningful choices, so that players know that their actions matter and that their mastery and clever decision making is rewarded.
- In general, soft barriers are better than hard barriers. This is why the office bidding system provides better gameplay than the old industry slot system, for instance.
With these goals in mind, we knew coming into the planning for our Industry revamp that removing the hard capped slot limits was going to be a very valuable change. Hard caps on slots scale poorly as the game population grows over time, rely on values dictated by us instead of reacting to player behavior organically, and create the frustrating situation where sometimes the game tells you that you simply can't do the kind of industry you want right now. A soft cap would instead allow players to choose whatever cost level is acceptable to them, based on their other goals and motivations. Hard caps break the first goal as well. When a player is choosing where to engage in an industrial activity, it's a much more interesting choice to have multiple nuanced factors to consider (such as cost scaling and team availability) than to simply put their job into the nearest open slot. If we had simply removed the slot limits with no other changes, the optimal gameplay choices would have almost always have been to engage all of EVE's industry within one starbase in Jita. This would obviously have represented a reduction in the number of interesting choices available to industrial players. The primary goal of the Crius cost scaling is to provide an incentive for players to spread out their industrial operations instead of building everything in one system. When combined with other factors that incentivise concentration (such as the sharing of teams and proximity to trade hubs) this gives players an interesting and evolving set of choices. The upshot for Wormhole dwellers is that every installation in the game has at least some level of operating cost under the new system, and that the lower per-system population of Wormholes means that these costs will generally be much lower in Wormholes than in most other areas of space. As most of you have probably realized, the cost scaling was implemented primarily for gameplay and balance reasons, not strictly for role-playing purposes. Within the fictional universe of EVE Online, these isk charges represent the collective costs of maintaining and operating industrial facilities (including the costs of paying the staff of these facilities). They do not represent a government tax, so those of you who are opposed on principle to paying fictional taxes to fictional governments can rest easy. It is true that the fact that some other areas of the game (such as starships) do not require upkeep costs and this represents an inconsistency, but adding upkeep costs to ships would not be a beneficial change to the gameplay of EVE at this time. As in any video game a certain level of suspension of disbelief is required to help smooth over these sorts of inconsistencies between the realism of the fictional universe and the requirements of a fun and interesting gameplay experience. Hopefully this has been at least somewhat helpful in communicating what our goals were with the Crius cost scaling changes, and if you have any more questions feel free to ask.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |