The **UPDATED** solution you may want

Feedback
21

I guess - isn’t there enough incentive to make higher tier goods already, to obtain the goods that require the higher-tier goods? Why do we need more incentive?

Also I don’t want noise in the markets - I want signals (e.g., signal to noise ratio).

Of course I’m not in the economic school that thinks more trading is always better; I think it needs to be the right kind of trading, not just trade volume for the sake of trade volume.

An interesting discussion to be sure though. I just think it’s odd to single out this particular recipe set. And I could even personally benefit from higher yields, so I’m not just complaining about “the other” :smiley:

22

Ship building and RFabs is about all I know of about the products we use from those tiers. But I could be wrong, there’s probably more. But I would like to see it to become a good size by having our higher tier goods help the lower tier more. I’n new so please tell me your thoughts on my thoughts here. We know there isn’t enough incentive because we can look at total pop counts. TECH/ENG/SCI is very low in population. I think thinking about it economically vs a game development stand point is important here. I’d guess there are signals for us to increase low tier product output because of the lack of liquidity in those markets. I don’t necessarily know if there are signals that we need to increase the lower tier outputs, but I do know there are game development points that we should integrate these higher tiers into low tiers. I know nothing about any market, so anyone with information on them would be appreciated to share here. Just my 2 cents

1 Like
23

That’s only true if the world was compressed into a single point. The extraction rate of raw materials and distance between them alter these ratios negatively by wasting DW in the production chain through fuel and spaceship opportunity cost. This enables unlucky star systems in having some productive use.

Having different recipes could be a good thing if there was randomness in the production chain. Asteroid mining might do it by giving players random amounts of ores, flooding a particular production chain and improving its DW ratio.

Another way would be if we had another dimension to experts. For example, you get to choose between plastic or liquid processing on top of agriculture and extraction.

That said, I agree in the current system, once you solve your location’s supply chain, you never need to tweak it so it’s definitely noise.

2 Likes
24

Currently there are only two reasons to produce most higher tier goods - either to make ships, or to sell to specific high tier MMs.

Creating a demand at tier 1 for higher tier goods, i.e. creating demand from beginner players, would mean that there was suddenly a massive market for those goods, which would generate an incentive for advanced players to move up to higher building tiers to make them.

This would not only give players more to do in the mid game, but it also better mirrors how economies in real life work. The simplest agriculture creates food that everybody wants to buy. But the most sophisticated manufacturing chains for high tech devices such as smartphones - they also create things that everybody wants to buy.

3 Likes
25

So… prestige items? The danger in making high-tier goods improve efficiency of low-tier goods is that it’s too easy in this game to diversify. Sure advanced technology is something everyone wants to buy, but it’s not something that is required for living like agriculture. And if you look at agriculture, there are reasons why small family farms are disappearing: they are getting priced out of most markets by the high-capital corporate farms. Sure there are niche markets for “family organic farms” but those goods cost far more than the mass-market foods.

So maybe in conjunction with these recipes they should add branding - that is, you can buy from specific companies at different prices, not just the best bid/ask. This way you can advertise “we don’t use any of that crazy fertilizer - only the purest food from Pure Foods!” and charge a premium for it.

This would also provide more real diversity, instead of a marketplace where everything is literally fungible; you can’t even distinguish between RAT made with NUT versus that made with VEG, which is unfortunate for those people with nut allergies.

26

‘It just makes sense.’
PFE and SOI currently suffer from false affordance. Affordance meaning what the environment invites the player to do, and False Affordance being when that invitation is a dead end. PFE and SOI invite the player into thinking that they will have an impact in boosting agricultural output because that’s what the gut reaction to soil and fertilizer is, but when they can’t directly be input, the invitation is shown to be false. In this context, having the solution be to let SOI and PFE boost agricultural output in some way just makes sense.

Something I haven’t come across yet is if the devs have a formal stance on buildings in bases that take inputs but output a buff instead of materials. Soft of like a PAR but at a base scale and outputting a different effect. You could have an agriculture ‘Terraformer’ (TF) building that takes in PFE and SOI and outputs some local fertility modifier. If you want to make it more or less impactful, just set a certain min/max, like only works on planets with a natural fertility lower than 0 and only modifies it up X amount. If you want to make it more meaningful to newer players/tier 1 producers vs veterans, you could make them limited in terms of how much output they modify and introduce tiers. So for a massive farming operation with 1000 tons a day of output, you’d need way to many TF1s to be feasible (a TF3 or whatever would work just fine though and require as inputs the tier 3 equivalent of PFE and SOI), but for a starting farmer, a TF1 implemented right as their production meets the cap on the TF1 gives a nice bump to their production two or three steps into the game. That shot of capital right when they may be starting to flounder financially or losing a clear direction on what to do next might open doors previously closed and inspire a little further activity/learning before COLIQing or leaving PrUn.

Once the door is open to these types of infrastructure buff buildings, the possibilities are basically endless in terms of how granular their effects can be (Buff to Manufacturing vs a buff to Plastic Materials production.) and what overlaps to create similar to the PIO/SET dual habitation buildings. Though that may actually be an argument against including them.

I think restrictions like the ones mentioned above may solve the concerns Ficks mentioned about unbalancing things while still allowing for the logically sound desire to have PFE and SOI boost ag output.

27

TyG, I think your suggestion of having buffs from buildings is more unbalancing than the tier 2+ ingredient recipes. If there was a high tier building that boosted output of all other buildings, then advanced players really would have a significant advantage over beginners, since beginners wouldn’t be able to afford that building yet. The key with the enhanced recipes idea is that everyone is on a level playing field, since the ingredients will be freely traded on the market, and the price will be [waves hands in economics] close to the cost of making them yourself.

Actually, I think that adding these recipes would help with this problem. Currently, if I’m an advanced player, I can build some FRM and SME and produce the same things as the starting packages. If the proposed alt recipes were introduced, then everybody else would start using them, and I’d have to use them too in order to stay competitive. But now I need SOI and SEN inputs too. Where would those come from? It gets to a point where it’s not feasible for me to source my own BRM and N and SIO - there are too many different inputs now - I have to start buying some of them from the market. Which means someone out there is specializing in producing those in turn, instead of having their own FRM and SME.

These additional recipies incentivise specialization, rather than diversification.

3 Likes
28

You’ve seen the prices relative to cost of production, yes?

That said, you guys are familiar with the gold rush, yes? The people that got rich from that weren’t the ones finding gold. The ones that got rich were the ones that sold the prospectors shovels, housing, etc. So if you are the supplier of SOI, PFE, etc, you are going to gain more than those that have the more efficient farms.

This is what the “unbalancing” is - the producers of the “required inputs” will control the markets, all with the advertising message “but it makes your FRM so much more efficient!” So the advanced corps already have FRM or SME or whatever, and will have the advantage of capital needed to keep running the ones they have efficiently with the added benefit of making the “boosting” reagents too because they can afford to set that up, further enhancing their capital engine.

Of course all this is speculation, because human behavior is not deterministic. I don’t think anyone can say exactly what will happen.

29

Yes! This is actually a key piece of the argument. One of the objections to these enhanced recipes is that the advanced players will hoard the SOI and PFE for themselves to boost their own production, and beginner players will be disadvantaged.

But as you have identified - the economic incentive is to sell those ingredients on the market instead of competing to make the farming products. So nobody is disadvantaged - beginner players get increased production, and advanced players get something else to do besides compete directly with the beginners.

Except we’ve seen what happens with FLX and PG - when the universe started up, the most advanced players raced to be the first to supply those goods to the market, and in the final equilibrium everyone is using them to get more efficient production.

Basically any argument against adding more of these kinds of recipes is an argument that the game would be improved if we removed the FLX and PG recipes for metals and DW.

(Note to devs: Please do not remove the FLX and PG recipes for metals and DW.)

3 Likes
30

After more thinking - I feel that this proposal sounds like regulatory capture: “Hey devs, change the rules so that this particular activity gives me a short-term advantage.” Sure long term the advantages will “average out” but having that first-mover advantage is a real thing.

It sounds like a meta-effort to address an issue of “I want to sell X but nobody’s buying” or “I want to have Y without making it myself, and nobody’s selling.” Not everything in the game has the same supply and demand, nor should it. Do people really need “incentive” to produce a particular thing? What happened to trying to find the things that are in demand and make those? So it feels odd to particularly single out this particular production chain.

If there was a more broad proposal, that was not focused on just a particular production chain, it would not feel as… conniving.

31

Would a solution be to combine the output capping I mentioned above (A Terraformer that takes up X space only modifies the efficiency of 1 ton of crop output on a farm that outputs 1000 tons.), the generalized restrictions on how strong the buff is, and a new tier based restriction on the input output relationship these buildings have? Basically saying that a tier 2 buff building only buffs tier 2 outputs. Implementing such a restriction immediately confines buff buildings to the early stages of whatever tier they belong to. Ideally a TF would be a little smaller and a little cheaper than a FRM.

Has the idea of a ‘dispoable’ building been explored? Basically the condition degrades extremely quickly and they cannot be repaired, eventually you exhaust the usefulness and demolish it, recoup whatever materials you can from a TF at 18% condition and either build a new one or use the space for something more diverse.

32

Seems similar to luxury consumables, except it consumes space. Its value would follow a quadratic curve with the more focused you are, the better its effect. Like COF, you’re improving the construction materials and consumables ratios while leaving inputs and taxes the same.

It’s not newbie friendly because they only have 1 building that would benefit. Profitability threshold would require a full base, which means they will never be able to compete.

COF has the advantage of having a linear effect because its consumption scales linearly with production.

34

Comparing a real life market scenario full of so many interconnected, changing, and different parts is inaccurate to do. The concept you’re talking about is entirely dependent on how much the % increase would be, the cost to the supplier, the price they’re selling at. So guessing what would happen with those metrics using our markets info is appropriate. Not saying it would be the same as the gold rush. For instance, I think a major factor would be that our GDP of our game is probably a little unhealthier than the real life. Smaller definitely yes, but health would be dependent on demand. take that with a grain of salt. just my two cents. I’m spitting bullshit right now.

35

I just used SOI/PFE because I produced it. I should of done a better job of making it seem like a broad suggestion. It is a broad suggestion and focused on helping the game as whole. It doesn’t have to be SOI/PFE.

1 Like
36

If I’m reading you right, then I think this is where the output cap comes into place. Yes experienced players have 10 buildings that can benefit from the disposable building, but the disposable building is only powerful enough to impact 1 building’s output. In this way there might be a slight bending to the curve as experienced players leverage things like experts to output more per building, but they’d need too many buff buildings and too much space to make plopping a disposable terraformer down for each of their farms a good strategy.

For the profitability threshold to make sense, since it’s a disposable building, it can have a much lower building cost, but takes up enough space that intermediate and experienced users might need to think about how to fit it in even if it makes sense production-wise, but a newer player has plenty of untapped space. As a player transitions out of the beginning stages of their current tier, the terraformer becomes a harder and harder decision as more opportunities to branch into producing higher tiers (and building their disposable buildings) are presented.

The comparison to luxury consumables that consume space is a spooky good analogy.

37

I only thought about this for a few minutes, but I really like your idea. It enters high tier goods as a natural demand into the recipes and it prevents the rich from getting a huge benefit. But I do think the only demand for these buildings would be from new players or people who want small production. We could also make a building where it needs a consumption that exponentially gets bigger the more pop you get.

Each solution offers different disctinctions. Your solution I believe would only help the newer players. I don’t think the rich would have incentive to build. The other solution would help everyone.

1 Like
38

This thread seems to have gone off the rails slightly. It seems that instead of some straightforward additional recipes with higher tier ingredients, you are now proposing an extra building that:

  • Instead of producing anything itself, it gives a buff to other buildings.
  • It degrades really fast.
  • It can’t be repaired, but can be demolished and rebuilt (which is equivalent to repairing, by the way).
  • It uses higher tier materials in its construction (?)
  • In order to limit the bonus that it gives to advanced players, it only buffs one other building (??)

I have to ask - why would anyone build this crazy thing instead of building a second FRM? :yum:

1 Like
39

For what I understand it would be cheaper than a second FRM. But take up more space. I don’t think it has gone off the rails. The use of recipes was just a tool to have high tier products be used naturally and to create a natural demand.

40

Just plumbing the depths and seeing what sticks. I like the recipe route too and will refer back to my previous thoughts about false affordance, and say that you and Thos’s conversation on the topic was very enlightening. I agree with Thos that the proposal should be broadened out into a general feature request with a focus in the remaining thread on finding more places where false affordance arises to lend credence. And I agree with you that the incentives push for availability not hoarding and that things should (I’m with Thos on the non-deterministic thing) work out the way you describe.

But to digress, porque no las dos?

When you lay out all the logic for what the buff buildings are designed to do, it can look pretty sprawling, but once it’s condensed into the building itself I think it’d look a lot cleaner.

I agree the demo’ing and rebuilding it is equivalent, what if it can’t be demo’d? That way building it is a commitment until it’s expired.

Another thing I’ve been mulling around, what if it’s just two lines of buildings, Buff Buildings 1-X however many tiers there are. Then the active recipe takes in what building it’s buffing and what higher tier resources it needs. And the pop based Buff Buildings Negotiator mentioned for those same tiers with the same recipe solution.

Use flavor text to sell the suspension of disbelief for its oddities.

Limiting the modifier to 1 is just to illustrate how it benefits the starters over the kingpins, place the cap at whatever seems reasonable for a starting farmers curve. The use case I envision is if I plan to diversify away from what ever building it’s buffing for a while. If I’m at the max FRMs that make sense for me, I can immediately start building up to pivot to my next goal, or I can sidetrack into a buff building, delay my goal, and then once it’s done, speed towards my goal and reap some additional benefit in the time I have left by pivoting the buff buildings recipe to my recently completed thing. Ideally the curve works out to be lower than the non-buff curve, but also less linear near the end, catching up and surpassing. This way those resources get to be used in a new way.

Building Example:

BUILDING: EFFICIENCY MONITORING STATION 1 (BUI:EM1)
EM1 EFFICIENCY MONITORING STATION
A disposable facility capable to augmenting the output of a chosen building. Cannot be repaired or demolished, Condition degrades very quickly.
Workforces - Pioneers 50, Settlers 30
Expertise - –
Area Cost - 50 (More less?)
Building Cost - 2-BSE, 2-BBH, 1-BDE, 50-MCG, etc.
Products - FRM-A, X-SOI, X-PFE => FRM-A +X% Current Recipe Output (Xh Ym)
(And on down the list for these recipes)

41

I’m always happy to see people making suggestions for this game, but I’m afraid I still think there are a number of flaws in this proposal.

  • The building requires pioneers/settlers - so it isn’t cheaper in terms of RAT/DW than a regular production building. It may even be more expensive.
  • Demolishing a production building and constructing a different one in its place is already quite easy, so the ability to “pivot” from buffing one building to another isn’t especially powerful. In your example - just build an extra FRM and have it running until you want to retool your base - then replace it.
  • The area that a building uses is tied to its MCG cost (or other foundation material). So having a building that is cheap to build but takes up a large area goes against the existing game design.
  • One advantage of the alt recipe idea is that if for some reason you can’t get hold of the tier 2+ ingredient, you can fall back to the original recipe and continue production. With this buff building you require the tier 2+ ingredient at all times, otherwise it is useless. This is definitely a disadvantage for a beginner who relies on the market for those inputs.
  • Unless the buff boosts production of another building by at least 100%, it really won’t be worth having. But 100% seems way too much.

The general idea of an “efficiency monitoring station” that provides some kind of benefit is definitely good though, I like the flavour. I just think the concept needs a bit of work.

1 Like