Author Topic: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe  (Read 2866 times)

Offline PhilRoi

  • Jr. Member Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Quote
Trade Post for gifting money between players (Bridger).
   -Also or alternatively, set a threshold above which part (or all) of your income goes to the other player(s), aside from the 300,000 standard? (Admiral)

both of the above are easy to implement and would work.  Back in my old Total Annilhilation gaming days it used the latter method.  No construction required.  players just entered text into chat to turn the feature on and set the threshold for shareing.   worked well.  really all it does is turn the players resource piles into one collective pile.   (Not a bad idea for a game option in the lobby to just allow players to share a common resource pool.  more on that below!). what typically happens then is one player focuses purely on defense and resourcing while the other player goes on the offensive.  which I think is a valid game play tactic for those who are into that sort of strategy.

Gifting resources is the more typical way of doing it found in RTS's. It's super easy to code, and handy! which is why it is so commonly done. nothing wrong with that.   I think that its implementations effects are pretty well understood.  however, In most RTS's there is a diplomacy component that AI:wars just handles differently.  There is no reason for one player to withhold something or barter with his resources since all the players sink or swim together.  Reality is in this game that players will all share pretty freely.  so for AI wars this implementation simply becomes a more hands on version of the automatic implementation above.

Bottom line is i don't see a huge difference in gameplay in either an automatic(threshold based)  or gifting based sharing of resources other then the micromanagement of gifting method.

can I suggest a 3rd option? one with some tangible game play effects?


create 2 kinds of trade posts.  one for metal and crystal respectively. (think of it as an ATM for resources)
have them slowly "fill" up to a preset maximum say 10000 of the resource.
but give them a "build queue" like filling effect.  turn them on and they slowly(build) package the resource for sharing (automatic deposits).  so over time the trade post fills up and there is a matching drain on resources.   Whenever a player needs a resource  they can click on the appropriate Trade center and click a button to make a withdrawal.(added to the production Queue but never recycled!)   When they do so all the Trade centers of that resource are as equally emptied as possible(equal deductions made on all posts with resources remaining till amount needed is covered.) and given to the player requesting funds.  The Trade commission takes a small Percentage commission on top of the resources transferred.  Resource Centers would also have a small return on resources invested in Trading Posts.

What does this do?
-allows players to share but not too freely, this makes it possible but puts a brake on the process.  avoiding the "effectively common resources" effect you see often in automatic threshold and most gifting systems.  It limits some resource thrashing as players find themselves passing the same resource to each other since they are both over their threshold and below their storage limit in automatic threshold systems. which can be distracting because it's harder to know how much you have since your total is in constant flux.

- having automatic deposits on a timer (build queue, different "ships"= different investment rates)  can allow the player to determine how fast they want to invest in the co-op.  It also puts a clear limit on how often they can get a sizable withdrawal.  since the reserves will take time to build up again.

-Trading Posts can be targeted by the AI and destroyed during raids.  This adds an element of limited risk involved in sharing resources.  A Trade post that is destroyed looses all the resources in it.

-Avoids inconveniencing the majority of players by having lots of players have to click to send resources to someone (like a gift system).  only the player in need has to spend time requesting it.

-also of benefit is the ability to "bank" resources beyond the 300,000 limit.  They become a reserve to draw on when needed.

-potential dividends on invested resources...  small periodic payouts. say 10% hourly? would be an extra 1000 of the resource every game hour and it would take 10 hours to equal the 10k invested. (you could do a simple bonus to resource production, but my gut says that isn't the way to go.)  or to make it even more lucrative,  payout the dividend to all players based on the total of ALL the resources deposited by ALL players.  The more i think about it the more i like this option.  you get a dividend based not only on your own contribution but the contributions of all players which is more "scratch each others back" in it's feel.  The gift that keeps on giving....  but not like the clap!

-The commission lost is also a balancing factor to keep it from becoming excessively abused and become effectively a common resource system.   We already have converters to convert crystal directly to metal and vice versa.  but the loss percentage is 50% for that avenue.  over time this is HUGE.  the commission here should be smaller then that, say 6.25%?  just to discourage excessive abuse.   but there is also the material lost in construction to consider and that penalty is a real balance....   Converters you start with and in the short term an effective way to manage a short resource.  trade posts are a more long term solution.  they require research, say 500 Kn., cheap, but still a cost for all players who want in on the resourcing co-op, so a total loss of 4000Kn that would be spent on other things in an 8 player game.  This is in addition to construction costs , and a greater security need due to potential loss of stored resources due to AI action.

-if a player was limited to say 4 trade stations of one type and 10,000 resources per station and all players in an 8 player game built them,  that's a pool of 300,000 (320,000-6.25% commission) of any 1 resource that can be called on by 1 player at a time.

i still think Shared Economy is a neat idea for a game play option in the lobby.  Even in that game mode Trade Posts would be of value due to the ability to "bank and invest" resources for a future need.  I also see someone has suggested shared units.  turn them both on to play the same side in all ways just with 2 home worlds!  which would really require some co-operative play...

i've tried to sculpt the suggestion so that the mechanics of implementation are simple or can be adapted from existing code (build queue for automatic deposits and withdrawls). I know it isn't a super easy/quick thing to code,  but I think its a much better result in terms of game play value then other solutions that turn the economies into a shared one for all intents and purposes.  With this solution players can invest in the common good, help each other out if needed, and maybe make a little extra on the side which all promotes the war effort.

humbly submitted for your consideration and suggestions to better balance it.

edit:  perhaps having the trading post pay dividends in the other type of resource makes some sense.  if you have a ton of crystal saved up it means you probably need metal....  dunno.  this is a tough one.

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2009, 11:02:14 am »
Quote
Trade Post for gifting money between players (Bridger).
   -Also or alternatively, set a threshold above which part (or all) of your income goes to the other player(s), aside from the 300,000 standard? (Admiral)

both of the above are easy to implement and would work.  Back in my old Total Annilhilation gaming days it used the latter method.  No construction required.  players just entered text into chat to turn the feature on and set the threshold for shareing.   worked well.

Yeah, a lot of other RTS games have this directly in the interface, often in the Escape/F10 menu.  I've seen a few with them in the market or trading posts, though, and I wanted to do that here because it limits the number of interface buttons (which are already quite plentiful).  That was my main logic there.

really all it does is turn the players resource piles into one collective pile.(Not a bad idea for a game option in the lobby to just allow players to share a common resource pool.  more on that below!). what typically happens then is one player focuses purely on defense and resourcing while the other player goes on the offensive.  which I think is a valid game play tactic for those who are into that sort of strategy.

Yeah, I think that's a really cool suggestion, actually.  Added to my future DLC list.  Also already on that list is an option to let multiple players share one civ, which would basically let them share control of the same units, etc.  But I think there's validity to both approaches, so I'll put them both on the list.  Personally I think I would be more interested in playing with it the way you suggest, but I know other players that would prefer the other.

Gifting resources is the more typical way of doing it found in RTS's. It's super easy to code, and handy! which is why it is so commonly done. nothing wrong with that.   I think that its implementations effects are pretty well understood.  however, In most RTS's there is a diplomacy component that AI:wars just handles differently.  There is no reason for one player to withhold something or barter with his resources since all the players sink or swim together.  Reality is in this game that players will all share pretty freely.  so for AI wars this implementation simply becomes a more hands on version of the automatic implementation above.

Yes, this is true -- there's no diplomacy here.  My main reason for having a one-shot gifting option would be so that players can just give one-time aid to an ally that needs something.  That's fairly simple, and it's an easy way to pool resources for something like, say, an armored missile.

Bottom line is i don't see a huge difference in gameplay in either an automatic(threshold based)  or gifting based sharing of resources other then the micromanagement of gifting method.

The main difference is that the ongoing sharing is just something to help a weaker player out in general, or a player that is in a bad position, whereas the one-time thing is something for quickly massing resources in one player for some reason.

can I suggest a 3rd option? one with some tangible game play effects?

Always welcome. :)

create 2 kinds of trade posts.  one for metal and crystal respectively. (think of it as an ATM for resources)
have them slowly "fill" up to a preset maximum say 10000 of the resource.
but give them a "build queue" like filling effect.  turn them on and they slowly(build) package the resource for sharing (automatic deposits).  so over time the trade post fills up and there is a matching drain on resources.   Whenever a player needs a resource  they can click on the appropriate Trade center and click a button to make a withdrawal.(added to the production Queue but never recycled!)   When they do so all the Trade centers of that resource are as equally emptied as possible(equal deductions made on all posts with resources remaining till amount needed is covered.) and given to the player requesting funds.  The Trade commission takes a small Percentage commission on top of the resources transferred.  Resource Centers would also have a small return on resources invested in Trading Posts.

What does this do?
-allows players to share but not too freely, this makes it possible but puts a brake on the process.  avoiding the "effectively common resources" effect you see often in automatic threshold and most gifting systems.  It limits some resource thrashing as players find themselves passing the same resource to each other since they are both over their threshold and below their storage limit in automatic threshold systems. which can be distracting because it's harder to know how much you have since your total is in constant flux.

- having automatic deposits on a timer (build queue, different "ships"= different investment rates)  can allow the player to determine how fast they want to invest in the co-op.  It also puts a clear limit on how often they can get a sizable withdrawal.  since the reserves will take time to build up again.

-Trading Posts can be targeted by the AI and destroyed during raids.  This adds an element of limited risk involved in sharing resources.  A Trade post that is destroyed looses all the resources in it.

-Avoids inconveniencing the majority of players by having lots of players have to click to send resources to someone (like a gift system).  only the player in need has to spend time requesting it.

-also of benefit is the ability to "bank" resources beyond the 300,000 limit.  They become a reserve to draw on when needed.

Wow, that's really cool!  I think this is really unique, and is much stronger than the other options.  The more I think about this, the more I like it.

-potential dividends on invested resources...  small periodic payouts. say 10% hourly? would be an extra 1000 of the resource every game hour and it would take 10 hours to equal the 10k invested. (you could do a simple bonus to resource production, but my gut says that isn't the way to go.)  or to make it even more lucrative,  payout the dividend to all players based on the total of ALL the resources deposited by ALL players.  The more i think about it the more i like this option.  you get a dividend based not only on your own contribution but the contributions of all players which is more "scratch each others back" in it's feel.  The gift that keeps on giving....  but not like the clap!

Haha, wow, that's pretty cool -- investment strategies in a military RTS game. :)  I really like this aspect, too, actually.  I think it adds an interesting dimension to the economy, especially in multiplayer but even in single player too...

-The commission lost is also a balancing factor to keep it from becoming excessively abused and become effectively a common resource system.   We already have converters to convert crystal directly to metal and vice versa.  but the loss percentage is 50% for that avenue.  over time this is HUGE.  the commission here should be smaller then that, say 6.25%?  just to discourage excessive abuse.   but there is also the material lost in construction to consider and that penalty is a real balance....   Converters you start with and in the short term an effective way to manage a short resource.  trade posts are a more long term solution.  they require research, say 500 Kn., cheap, but still a cost for all players who want in on the resourcing co-op, so a total loss of 4000Kn that would be spent on other things in an 8 player game.  This is in addition to construction costs , and a greater security need due to potential loss of stored resources due to AI action.

Totally with you on all that.  Very cool.

-if a player was limited to say 4 trade stations of one type and 10,000 resources per station and all players in an 8 player game built them,  that's a pool of 300,000 (320,000-6.25% commission) of any 1 resource that can be called on by 1 player at a time.

I think these numbers are quite solid.  You've really thought this through incredibly well. :)

i still think Shared Economy is a neat idea for a game play option in the lobby.  Even in that game mode Trade Posts would be of value due to the ability to "bank and invest" resources for a future need.  I also see someone has suggested shared units.  turn them both on to play the same side in all ways just with 2 home worlds!  which would really require some co-operative play...

Yep, exactly on both counts.  Still with you.

i've tried to sculpt the suggestion so that the mechanics of implementation are simple or can be adapted from existing code (build queue for automatic deposits and withdrawls). I know it isn't a super easy/quick thing to code,  but I think its a much better result in terms of game play value then other solutions that turn the economies into a shared one for all intents and purposes.  With this solution players can invest in the common good, help each other out if needed, and maybe make a little extra on the side which all promotes the war effort.

Totally with you on all of it -- you did a really great job there.  I'm prepared to call this the new design for this feature, discarding all the prior ones.  If other players also have suggestions in this vein, let me know, but I'm pretty well sold on this one.

humbly submitted for your consideration and suggestions to better balance it.

No need for humbleness, this was awesome.  I'm not seeing any need for rebalancing in this at the moment, at least nothing that occurs to me now, but perhaps some shifts may come about after implementation or when other players weigh in.  But, to me, this looks really solid.

edit:  perhaps having the trading post pay dividends in the other type of resource makes some sense.  if you have a ton of crystal saved up it means you probably need metal....  dunno.  this is a tough one.

This is a good point, but I think that also it is trying to solve too many problems at once.  I'd stick with the dividends in the same resource for now, and then see what happens and what other ideas crop up as this goes.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline PhilRoi

  • Jr. Member Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2009, 11:41:31 am »
cool,  board game design used to be a hobby of mine.  For a good long stretch there we only only played a game once,  if we played it again we were busy tweaking and modifying the game.  2D games were made 3D, etc.   So thinking in terms of game mechanics and overall gameplay is somethiing i am used to.  also have a smidgen of coding (c++ and BASIC) under my belt, just enough to avoid suggesting something totally unreasonable in terms of having to mash code.

glad to hear you liked it.   I hope i was clear enough to let you figure out how to do some of the underplaying mechanics....

also i have a feeling you would enjoy the article herehttp://www.costik.com/nowords.html
there are 2 versions of the article.   they both are excellent reads.   the newer version is slightly more polished.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2009, 11:50:10 am by PhilRoi »

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2009, 11:48:25 am »
cool,  board game design used to be a hobby of mine.  For a good long stretch there we only only played a game once,  if we played it again we were busy tweaking and modifying the game.  2D games were made 3D, etc.   So thinking in terms of game mechanics and overall gameplay is somethiing i am used to.  also have a smidgen of coding (c++ and BASIC) under my belt, just enough to avoid suggesting something totally unreasonable in terms of having to mash code.

Awesome -- that experience you have really comes through here. :)

I'm also quite into board games, although I tend to do less tweaking on most of them (though I did make a somewhat popular variant for Descent: Journeys in the Dark).  Most of my design energies go into my own games on the PC. :)

glad to hear you liked it.   I hope i was clear enough to let you figure out how to do some of the underplaying mechanics....

Oh yeah, I think it was quite clear -- the underlying mechanics are actually pretty straightfoward.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline PhilRoi

  • Jr. Member Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2009, 11:51:19 am »
also i have a feeling you would enjoy the article here http://www.costik.com/nowords.html
there are 2 versions of the article.   they both are excellent reads.   the newer version is slightly more polished.

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2009, 12:48:01 pm »
also i have a feeling you would enjoy the article here http://www.costik.com/nowords.html
there are 2 versions of the article.   they both are excellent reads.   the newer version is slightly more polished.


Very cool, thanks for the link!
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Admiral

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 547
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2009, 02:01:18 pm »
Totally with you on all of it -- you did a really great job there.

Yay Phil!

I'm prepared to call this the new design for this feature, discarding all the prior ones.  If other players also have suggestions in this vein, let me know, but I'm pretty well sold on this one.

(Now I have to go back and read his in-depth design? Can I take my cheer back?) :)

Cheers!

Offline Admiral

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 547
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2009, 02:27:59 pm »
Interesting ideas. My thoughts:

Trade centers should have a quick button at the bottom (like constructors, etc.) for fast withdrawls.

Have upgrades that increase the storage for each one, but maybe have the filling slow down as it gets closer to max capacity? Have them fill up more slowly when the player's regular reserve (the one that is now max 300,000) is low vs. high? (Cut-off around 50,000-100,000?)

How many of these could we build? Just 4 seems too few. 10,000 each is also too little; you need way more than that to build some of the big ticket items.

Love the dividends. I'd compound more frequently than hourly, though. Minutely would probably be fine.

Cheers!

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2009, 02:33:08 pm »
Trade centers should have a quick button at the bottom (like constructors, etc.) for fast withdrawls.

Great point, I definitely think they are worthy of the quick-button.

Have upgrades that increase the storage for each one, but maybe have the filling slow down as it gets closer to max capacity? Have them fill up more slowly when the player's regular reserve (the one that is now max 300,000) is low vs. high? (Cut-off around 50,000-100,000?)

This could be an interesting second line for this feature.  I'd start with just the basics first (no upgrades) and then see.  As far as the income rate goes, I think I would suggest making these pause-able rather than having them scale based on the players' stored amounts.  It just gives a bit more control to the players.

How many of these could we build? Just 4 seems too few. 10,000 each is also too little; you need way more than that to build some of the big ticket items.

I think those numbers are good, actually.  This is meant to be a minor augmentation to the game, more major in terms of multiplayer, rather than something that completely changes the game mechanics.  But, I don't know, being able to build more probably wouldn't hurt anything.  I could always start them out without a ship cap, like manufactories are.  I like the 10,000 each aspect, partly because that way you have less to lose if one is destroyed.

Love the dividends. I'd compound more frequently than hourly, though. Minutely would probably be fine.

That's a good point about the compounding.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline PhilRoi

  • Jr. Member Mark II
  • **
  • Posts: 78
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2009, 07:57:40 pm »
your basic interface would look a lot like a shipyard.   The level I ships would be deposits and you can repeat that construction.   The build time for all deposits would be the same,  but the costs would increase to give you an increasing deposit rate.  the LVL II ships would represent the withdrawals,  and there would be a few different set amounts to take out all with a 1 sec transaction (Build) time.  one would of course be a give me it all button!  By using a build queue you can select and scale as you need/want and of course it is pause-able just like ship constructors.

something to keep in mind is that you don't just withdraw from your own Trade posts.  Withdrawals are taken from all Trade Posts of all players!  so the more humans you have in the game the more funding exists that you have access to!   I suspect that in a multiplayer game these will pretty much become a guaranteed purchase.  Being able to share resources is a huge benefit.  the dividends are there to sweeten the pot just a little bit and give you a smaller but still tangible benefit in single player.  but in multiplayer they are going to be way more useful.....

I picked 4 as a limit because then with a full game of 8 players you can completely fill a 300,000 resource meter.  without grabbing too much if you empty it all into your pocket.   True,  we don't really ever see full 8 player games.  so yes it may make more sense to double it to 8 buildings of each type then you can get a max fill-up with only 4 players in the game. 80,000 in a single player game is still plenty respectable. more less.. thats a simple thing to adjust when implemented and play tested.

Since this is also used to trade resources between players,  the reality is it will probably get emptied several times over the course of a game.  and this really is one of its primary purposes.

the interest compounding rate/frequency can be adjusted but i deliberately picked out numbers so that it really takes a sizable length of time to recover the costs of investment. 10-12 hours of game time.  but after that then your getting free money. :D   yes, alot can happen in that length of time!   make it too fast and the pie gets too sweet, make it too slow and no one wants to play.   its a balancing act.  also keep in mind that I as human player one don't just get Dividends on my own deposits...

originally I was thinking in terms of the dividends automatically paying out to the player, but I suppose you could also just have it auto-deposit into the players Trade posts.   That however gets a little complicated in terms of having to code a way to figure out exactly which trade post has space to take a deposit...  :/    better to just put it out there as a payment of active "cash" and let the player choose to re-deposit it.

I get dividends on what everyone deposits.  say the dividend rate is 10% paid hourly and you and I and x4000 are all playing a game.   you and i both have 1000 crystal deposited for a total of 2000 crystal in the co-op.  at a 10% dividend rate we both get 200 crystal payments into our pockets every time dividends come up.   an hour later you and I have both deposited an additional 1000 crystal and x4000 has finally gotten into the co-op and deposited 1000 crystal himself.  now my 2000, your 2000 and and x4000's 1000 means there is 5000 crystal in the co-op and we are all getting 500 crystal dividends.   at first you say...  that is not fair!  we put more in why does he get the same payout!?!?  well remember that the game is co-operative and we want to help him out!  so shhhh,  be glad for the bonus money going into the economy!   in 2 game hours with this system we have added 1900 crystal to the economy.   dosen't sound like much does it.   well if those same 3 players have all maxed out there 4 crystal trade posts.  thats 120000 crystal.  thats 12,000 crystal every hour to EACH of us.  in single player as designed now it will take 10-12 hours(depending on construction costs) to get a full return on investment.   with 2 players it will happen much much sooner do the the compounding of the dividends payed out.  but that is the nature of a trade network,  you'll do better business the more people there are to participate....

reality is that the numbers may not seem that impressive,  but i think over time, considering the costs of investment?   that the trading posts will add quite a bit to the economy.   perhaps not right away, but it will increase the player economy and do so WITHOUT aggravating the AI!  don't think you want to forget that is also a benefit.

I'm thinking the dividend rate might need a little tweaking...  I'll have to run some numbers.  perhaps balancing it for a 10 hour return on investment is too long....  have to think about that.

yes it is inherently biased for multiplayer. but even in a single player game it will be of a smaller but still tangible benefit.   perhaps there is some way to scale the build limit based on number of players?   or is that a can of worms we don't want to open?


Offline Admiral

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 547
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2009, 08:17:47 pm »
Compounding is magic. I'd definitely say dividends should be placed into the pot.

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that although deposits should stop at 10,000 (or whatever), dividends (compounded and reinvested) should allow that to go beyond that limit, to an unlimited cap.

That would be real financial wizardry. Oh wait, this is hard SF. Never mind, then!

Cheers!

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2009, 09:22:48 pm »
your basic interface would look a lot like a shipyard.   The level I ships would be deposits and you can repeat that construction.   The build time for all deposits would be the same,  but the costs would increase to give you an increasing deposit rate.  the LVL II ships would represent the withdrawals,  and there would be a few different set amounts to take out all with a 1 sec transaction (Build) time.  one would of course be a give me it all button!  By using a build queue you can select and scale as you need/want and of course it is pause-able just like ship constructors.

This would be very complex for me to code, just because I'd have to duplicate and then slightly alter a lot of existing code, which I don't think is a very effective way to handle this.  My intent was to have a popup GDI window (like the chat window, or settings) come up when you selected these.  Then you can just enter the rate you want in a number box, hit return, and have done with it.  I'll probably have a button for bringing up that window, which otherwise just shows the current set value, and then also the pause button.  Keeps it simple for everyone, I think.

something to keep in mind is that you don't just withdraw from your own Trade posts.  Withdrawals are taken from all Trade Posts of all players!  so the more humans you have in the game the more funding exists that you have access to!   I suspect that in a multiplayer game these will pretty much become a guaranteed purchase.  Being able to share resources is a huge benefit.  the dividends are there to sweeten the pot just a little bit and give you a smaller but still tangible benefit in single player.  but in multiplayer they are going to be way more useful.....

Yep, I caught that -- I think that will work quite well, too.

I picked 4 as a limit because then with a full game of 8 players you can completely fill a 300,000 resource meter.  without grabbing too much if you empty it all into your pocket.   True,  we don't really ever see full 8 player games.  so yes it may make more sense to double it to 8 buildings of each type then you can get a max fill-up with only 4 players in the game. 80,000 in a single player game is still plenty respectable. more less.. thats a simple thing to adjust when implemented and play tested.

Yep, I knew why you picked that amount.  Most games seem to be 1-4 players, though, so I imagine it should be balanced for somewhere in the 1-2 player range.  Like other ship caps do, these can always scale downward in the larger multiplayer games.

Since this is also used to trade resources between players,  the reality is it will probably get emptied several times over the course of a game.  and this really is one of its primary purposes.

the interest compounding rate/frequency can be adjusted but i deliberately picked out numbers so that it really takes a sizable length of time to recover the costs of investment. 10-12 hours of game time.  but after that then your getting free money. :D   yes, alot can happen in that length of time!   make it too fast and the pie gets too sweet, make it too slow and no one wants to play.   its a balancing act.  also keep in mind that I as human player one don't just get Dividends on my own deposits...

I'd imagine that players would want something ongoing and small -- so a lower interest rate, compounded more frequently, could give the same effect as the longer timespan while making people still feel like they are gaining a little something...

originally I was thinking in terms of the dividends automatically paying out to the player, but I suppose you could also just have it auto-deposit into the players Trade posts.   That however gets a little complicated in terms of having to code a way to figure out exactly which trade post has space to take a deposit...  :/    better to just put it out there as a payment of active "cash" and let the player choose to re-deposit it.

Hahaha, automatic reinvestment of dividends.  That's great, we'll have to see if e-trade will let us use their logo. ;)

I think that you're right about just doing cash payouts, though, it would be simpler in many respects for players.

I'm thinking the dividend rate might need a little tweaking...  I'll have to run some numbers.  perhaps balancing it for a 10 hour return on investment is too long....  have to think about that.

I would balance it out for more like 5 hours, I think, and I would adjust the compounding time and interest rate down by a factor of 10, perhaps.  So just give a 1% dividend, compounded every 6 minutes (given your original example), or something along those lines.  Players tend to be too impatient to want to wait for something that will take an hour or more to show any progress.  Compounding more frequently will also have the side benefit of preventing them from monkeying around with it right near the hour mark -- putting in a large amount of resources, then withdrawing it shortly after, or something.  Not that we are really discussing letting them put in large sums at once, but if they adjust the trickle rate really high for the last 10 minutes of the hour, or something along those lines, that would be a potential way to game the system.

yes it is inherently biased for multiplayer. but even in a single player game it will be of a smaller but still tangible benefit.   perhaps there is some way to scale the build limit based on number of players?   or is that a can of worms we don't want to open?

Yep, all ship caps actually scale by the number of players, so that's not a big concern.  But thanks for checking. :)
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2009, 09:24:17 pm »
Compounding is magic. I'd definitely say dividends should be placed into the pot.

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that although deposits should stop at 10,000 (or whatever), dividends (compounded and reinvested) should allow that to go beyond that limit, to an unlimited cap.

That would be real financial wizardry. Oh wait, this is hard SF. Never mind, then!

My thought is that putting the dividends back out into regular player pockets would be simpler for most players to understand, and then of course they could just adjust up their inflow rate for the trade posts if they are wanting to "reinvest" the dividends semi-indirectly.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!

Offline Admiral

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 547
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2009, 11:04:15 pm »
Compounding is magic. I'd definitely say dividends should be placed into the pot.

In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that although deposits should stop at 10,000 (or whatever), dividends (compounded and reinvested) should allow that to go beyond that limit, to an unlimited cap.

That would be real financial wizardry. Oh wait, this is hard SF. Never mind, then!

My thought is that putting the dividends back out into regular player pockets would be simpler for most players to understand, and then of course they could just adjust up their inflow rate for the trade posts if they are wanting to "reinvest" the dividends semi-indirectly.

How about the "dividends can grow the inventory beyond the deposit cap" thought?

Cheers!

Offline x4000

  • Chris McElligott Park, Arcen Founder and Lead Dev
  • Arcen Staff
  • Zenith Council Member Mark III
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,651
Re: trading post option #3? submitted for shotgunning down! hehehe
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2009, 11:09:23 pm »
How about the "dividends can grow the inventory beyond the deposit cap" thought?

Oh yeah, sorry -- I meant to address that.  With that one, I just don't see the point of a cap if you can over-invest in that sort of fashion.  If we want that style of investment, I'd prefer to just to not have a ship cap on the number of these trading posts that can be built, or a very high cap, or something like that.  Right now in the game, when a cap is in place it is a hard rule (well, the only exception is parasites, but there's just no other good way to handle that that I know of -- all of the other ship caps, and most notably resource caps, are hard boundaries). 

I like to be as simple and as consistent with stuff like that as I can be -- so that hopefully players can understand the basics of this new feature in a few seconds at a glance in the middle of a heated game.  So that makes me lean away from something that violates user expectations, like a cap that is only sometimes a cap, in favor of just raising that cap via some other mechanism.  I hope that makes sense, but I'm always open to hearing other sides; I've certainly been swayed by compelling arguments on a number of other features, but right now I'm just not feeling this one.
Have ideas or bug reports for one of our games?  Mantis for Suggestions and Bug Reports. Thanks for helping to make our games better!