|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
howard sanchez
Conspiratus Immortalis
448
   |
Posted - 2012.12.14 17:30:00 -
[1] - Quote
What are some of the key mechanics and game structures that will provide for a balancable vibrant economy in dust/eve?
How important do you consider the economic gameplay in Dust?
|
howard sanchez
Conspiratus Immortalis
448
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 17:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
I feel that DUST, with its organic connection to the what is arguably the gaming industry's most complex and evolved economic system - Eve, has the potential to take competitive simulation to a whole new level.
If success in Dust can be achieved as much through profit as is possible in ccp's perennial product then the potential for long term market growth and longetivity will be ensured.
I would suggest a strong consideration for the sandbox style solutions that Eve exemplifies. For example, regarding the issue of Dust corps being extensively funded by eve corps: I feel it advisable for CCP to provide a negotiable and moderately binding contract and bidding system by which various competitors can vie for isk payouts for missions or tasks. Keep it free-form enough to allow creative financial negotiations but not restrictive to the point of 'economy on rails'.
I like the game concept of being a self-reliant, economically profitable mercanary. I want to make myself profitable first, then contribute to the profit of my corporation while always having the ability to strike at my opponents' bottom line.
I get the adrenaline rushing excitement of the FPS genre. This is my first and I get it. But don't miss this opportunity to design a deep complex strategery-laden economic system that doesn't detract from; nay- enhances, the fast furious chaotic gun game. |
howard sanchez
Conspiratus Immortalis
448
|
Posted - 2012.12.14 18:58:00 -
[3] - Quote
Maken, forgive me not quoting your full post, you make some excellent points.
What I would like to interject is a thought that your reply made occur to me.
You stated that a prototype load-out costs an individual merc roughly the same in isk that an individual privateer spends just on a low priced set of weapons on a ship...not even the cost of defensive, propulsion or accessory modules let alone the price of the ship.
But a battle currently takes place between, say four-sixteen players on a team. If we total the cost of a full teams' load outs, vehicles, installations dropped during the fight...now we are talking about a relatively similar isk level.
The reason I am making this reply is to point out what might be ccp's intended level of isk equivalence between the games.
That's really the puzzle I am working on...how do you balance and thence competively exploit, the isk equation.
I want the equation to balance, or at least lean suggestively towards a balance-able equilibrium. I feel this is a prerequisite to a deeply competitive economics game.
So I will start thinking of isk values, less at the individual merc's levels and slightly more at the level of what it costs a corporation to field a team and complete the mission.
I mean, that's what this is really about, right? How much would the Gallente Federation pay compared to the Caldari State ( fill in protagonist/antagonist entity names as needed) in order for Zion to hold these three planets for the next week...thereby allowing the highest bidder the advantage in flipping or holding the system in which said planets reside.
There must be some level of isk equivalence or this whole concept is for nought.
First to discover the solution to the equation and exploit it gets an edge in the Bigger game...the one after the gun game. |
|
|
| |
|