Reselling animals intended or not?

[Swjosdotschka]

I agree completely that the sliders are a pain. But they are better than nothing.

As far as updating the market: that's a necessary evil. Unfortunately.



Who gets to, among the player base, define what's 'fair'? In this case what is or isn't 'fair' is subjective and it is in the eyes of the beholder. Meaning, what you think is 'fair' others can and have the right to disagree. For example, who is it 'fair' to to under sell animals to? If all the animals are sold at discount prices then it becomes more difficult and time consuming for everyone to generate cc's. It also makes the franchise mode less challenging. Is that 'fair'?

If you put the time and effort in to breed animals that have high gene stats why should the breeder be forced to sell those animals at discount prices? Why don't they deserve to sell their animals for more than animals that have 0 fertility or immunity? Isn't the point of the game, especially the franchise mode, to breed animals with the highest stats possible and to sell their offspring for a profit? If you take that away then you ruin the game, JMO.

I know "fair" is subjective, but honestly. we had not one day in the beta the problem where underpricing animals and ruining the market that way was ever the problem. Always the opposite. Players who had to re-start their franchise almost had no chance to get into the game at all, because the prices exploded. Not until there were (for a short while) enough cash animals. But players bought "cheap" Frontier animals to resell them for more CC and nothing could be done about that. That has nothing to do with a breeder not getting enough for it's work.

Some players, me included, see franchise as a work-together-for-conservation project. As far as I know that was the idea behind it by Frontier. It turnend out to be pure capitalism in the end. And if players like me decide to play the game the way it was IMO intended, and other players buy our Frontier-priced animals to re-sell them for more. then yes, I use the subjective term "not fair".

 

[B4DD4WG]

Maybe they should put a sale cap in place, depending on the animal?

 

[MaximusSC]

I know "fair" is subjective, but honestly. we had not one day in the beta the problem where underpricing animals and ruining the market that way was ever the problem. Always the opposite. Players who had to re-start their franchise almost had no chance to get into the game at all, because the prices exploded. Not until there were (for a short while) enough cash animals. But players bought "cheap" Frontier animals to resell them for more CC and nothing could be done about that. That has nothing to do with a breeder not getting enough for it's work.

Some players, me included, see franchise as a work-together-for-conservation project. As far as I know that was the idea behind it by Frontier. It turnend out to be pure capitalism in the end. And if players like me decide to play the game the way it was IMO intended, and other players buy our Frontier-priced animals to re-sell them for more. then yes, I use the subjective term "not fair".

Personally I had to restart my franchise (not just my zoo) four times during the beta. The first time was simply because the game was new and I did things too fast and too quickly. I wasn't sure how everything worked. My second and third franchises I restarted because certain bugs and issues I couldn't get rid of without restarting the franchises. The fourth franchise I restarted because an update prevented me from accessing it altogether. That was the most frustrating restart as it was the best franchise I had going of the four. In none of the restarts did I experience an inability to acquire animals. So forgive me for not agreeing that animals have been impossible to obtain. My experiences speak otherwise. If your experience was different then I respect that and I feel badly for you. My expectation is that when the game is released on November 5 there will be plenty of animals available a varying prices so you will be able to run your franchise the way you see fit. If someone happens to buy one of your animals at the price you set and resells that animal at a higher price you lost nothing and no harm is done to you. If they set the price too high then no one will buy the animal from them and they are stuck with it anyway.

Now, onto the OP's question. I have found what I believe answers the question. The following has been stated by Frontier staff:

Developer Journal: Franchise Mode


Jim:
Trading animals with other players is great for expanding your zoo and can be used as a great source of income too. When you list your animal you’ll be able to set its price in Conservation Credits, so if you want a fast sale you can set it below the market average. The price you set for your animal will depend on a few factors: the species of animal, its age, and more importantly its genetics. If you have an animal with great genetics, then you can charge top dollar for an animal!

We can, therefore, take that to mean that yes it is intended, or permissible for a better word, to allow players to buy and resell animals even at higher prices.

 

[MaximusSC]

Maybe they should put a sale cap in place, depending on the animal?

As best as I can tell there is a cap of 10,000 cc's on all animals.

 

[B4DD4WG]

As best as I can tell there is a cap of 10,000 cc's on all animals.

But..is that really a cap, or just as high as it goes...lol

 

[MaximusSC]

But..is that really a cap, or just as high as it goes...lol

It can't go higher as far as I know so it's the same as a cap.

 

[B4DD4WG]

It can't go higher as far as I know so it's the same as a cap.

I was thinking anything with the word "common" in their name, have a cap of say 500cp. And, so on, depending on the animal. The default "limit" isnt what I was thinking..lol

 

[MaximusSC]

I was thinking anything with the word "common" in their name, have a cap of say 500cp. And, so on, depending on the animal. The default "limit" isnt what I was thinking..lol

I understood what you were saying. You mean that an gold level elephant that has 100 in every gene could go to the max 10,000 cc's. Whereas, an Ostrich or a Lemur, even with similar stats, should have a max amount of say 5,000 cc's, as an example. I could live with something like that.

 

[B4DD4WG]

I understood what you were saying. You mean that an gold level elephant that has 100 in every gene could go to the max 10,000 cc's. Whereas, an Ostrich or a Lemur, even with similar stats, should have a max amount of say 5,000 cc's, as an example. I could live with something like that.

5k for a 100% Common Ostrich seems a bit much still, thats half of cost of a 100% Elephant..lol But, other than the amounts, yeah. Cap the sales, and you cant have a run away market where every sale is at 10kCC..lol There should be but a couple animals that could reach the default highest amount.

 

[MaximusSC]

5k for a 100% Common Ostrich seems a bit much still, thats half of cost of a 100% Elephant..lol But, other than the amounts, yeah. Cap the sales, and you cant have a run away market where every sale is at 10kCC..lol There should be but a couple animals that could reach the default highest amount.

For the sake of the discussion I just threw a random number for the example. I wasn't setting the number in stone. Other things would need to be considered when determining what should be an acceptable max for the animals. For one example, the more rare the animal is the higher the max might be. Another thing to consider might be how often an animal can breed and litter size (I know not every animals offspring is called a 'litter').

 

[B4DD4WG]

For the sake of the discussion I just threw a random number for the example. I wasn't setting the number in stone. Other things would need to be considered when determining what should be an acceptable max for the animals. For one example, the more rare the animal is the higher the max might be. Another thing to consider might be how often an animal can breed and litter size (I know not every animals offspring is called a 'litter').

Yes..I do believe this could be "the answer". Though, Im sure some, capitalists, may not like the idea..lol

 

[MaximusSC]

Yes..I do believe this could be "the answer". Though, Im sure some, capitalists, may not like the idea..lol

It's one possible solution for sure. And unfortunately it is quite the task to appease everyone.

To add to the idea it might even be considerable to have the max fluctuate based upon how many animals of the species there are in the game.

 

[Swjosdotschka]

It's really a definition thing if no harm is done to player that sell for fair prices just to have other players re-sell them for much more. While it doesn't hurt me financially speaking, it ruins my fun in the franchise, it disrespects me and my way of playing and it's morally questioning when you see franchise as working together for conservation.

As I said, if some players see no problem in behaving that anti-social, Multi-Player is not for me. I will not just shrug and support that gameplay style. So either something is done about it (e.g. cooling down phase for re-selling animals) or I opt out to be part of it. I play online games that are similar. Thankfully, I have direct contact there with the players and if I want to support someone with a good headstart for good work, I can without being afraid that someone else spits on my idea of a community and workig together to achieve something. Because, boi, is it a good feeling to work together.

I was hoping Planet Zoo can give me similar things. But it either needs regulation or a share with friends option.

 

[B4DD4WG]

A steady set amount would be fine i think. Plus, less coding. And, less people get upset that "if they would have just wait a minute, the max price would have raised"..lol

 

[B4DD4WG]

either needs regulation or a share with friends option.

Either or both. Im in favor of regulating the prices.

 

[MaximusSC]

It's really a definition thing if no harm is done to player that sell for fair prices just to have other players re-sell them for much more. While it doesn't hurt me financially speaking, it ruins my fun in the franchise, it disrespects me and my way of playing and it's morally questioning when you see franchise as working together for conservation.

As I said, if some players see no problem in behaving that anti-social, Multi-Player is not for me. I will not just shrug and support that gameplay style. So either something is done about it (e.g. cooling down phase for re-selling animals) or I opt out to be part of it. I play online games that are similar. Thankfully, I have direct contact there with the players and if I want to support someone with a good headstart for good work, I can without being afraid that someone else spits on my idea of a community and workig together to achieve something. Because, boi, is it a good feeling to work together.

I was hoping Planet Zoo can give me similar things. But it either needs regulation or a share with friends option.

It may hurt one's pride or feelings but that's only because they might worry about it. Which they are entitled to feel. However, there still is no 'real' harm done to anyone whatsoever. It doesn't even affect their game nor their play style. They can still play the game however they choose to play it. But criticizing others and restricting others play styles is more harmful to them.

"Anti-social"?? It's not like people can communicate with anyone else within the game. There really is no 'social' activity occurring when they buy someone's animal whether they resell it or not. There, not as far as I know, is not even a way for players to check up on that animal after they sold it. At most we might get a history of the animal through the family tree. Even then I believe it will only be while we own said animal. I could be wrong on that last sentence though.

As far as 'conservation' goes we're talking about virtual animals. In this virtual world when you breed animals and you release them to the wild, in the name of 'conservation', you earn conservation credits. Just not as many as you earn by selling the animals in the market (most of the time). We can only use our imaginations in regards to what happens to those virtual animals when we release them into the wild. Do we choose to believe they live a long life and have no harm come to them or do we consider real world possibilities and imagine that that warthog that we just released was eaten by a lion or snagged by a poacher?

A steady set amount would be fine i think. Plus, less coding. And, less people get upset that "if they would have just wait a minute, the max price would have raised"..lol

True.

 

[holliday50]

All Frontier has to do to keep prices in check is keep a steady supply of animals from "Frontier Zoo" on the market at reasonable prices. This way, people have to price their own animals accordingly, or they never sell them.

This sort of thing is done by other games with player markets. Take MLB The Show baseball game, for example. They can reduce the market prices of certain cards by making similar cards available to the player that can be earned for free.

I am a little concerned about Frontier's lack of experience in this area though, and think the balance of the Animal Market will be interesting to watch in the coming weeks after launch. I certainly don't think it was tested well enough in the Beta and we have no idea how many players will actually choose to participate in the Franchise mode, provided that there will be Sandbox & Offline modes available. If Franchise is not hitting on all cylinders on launch day, I fear it will be quickly abandoned by players for modes where they have more control. There needs to be plenty of animals available for players to get started, for one. I had over 100 hours in the beta and still missed out on several species for lack of supply on the market. That can not be the experience of new players come launch day, because they will have other options available to them where they can immediately have these animals available.

 

[bamber]

we don't know at the moment how cash and credits were supposed to work.

Frontier may plan in the game by ensuring a supply of animals to the cash and credits market - but that may not have proved how the player market worked so if they set supply as low as possible we have to rely on a player generated market only so Frontier can see how that works

it worked quite well for me is is saw some cheap animal going for 100CC I had no interest in anything above 150 why should I be? I wanted to make selling as easy as possible I dropped the selling price by 10% to help with a quick sale fairly easy an logical -though I must say in the first few day looking forward to non beta player buying my 250CC peafowl that are 10 year old with 0 rating

It wil Very quickly balance out Frontier now how to make a market to work - Elite has an active market and they have got that balance nicely at the moment an no doubt we will see flu epidemics in our zebra which will raise the prices short term

 

[Cocolori]

Couple of things to weigh in on here. 1. At least 2 of the mechanics to earn conservation credits were disabled for the beta e.g. cross franchise goals and the 'send your avatar to visit another zoo' option so that might make life more doable

2. I'm ok with some tweaks but I'm a little concerned about the calls for mechanisms to gift or trade with specific people. I get why people might want this but I would worry this would exclude more people than the issue of the open market pricing does. I personally don't like games where cliques develop or where I can't really get a fair shot without joining x person's discord. I wouldn't want a scenario where no melanistic animals were sold online because people kept them back to give to friends for example. If that's the way they go then I'm ok with it but I think it's actually more likely to exclude new players down the line.

 

[Sirithiliel]

All Frontier has to do to keep prices in check is keep a steady supply of animals from "Frontier Zoo" on the market at reasonable prices. This way, people have to price their own animals accordingly, or they never sell them.

the problem with that is that those people buy those cheaper animals so that they can keep the price high, and resell the animals at the same higher price they prefer it to be at

which is why i suggested a cooldown for selling. If they can't immediately offload those cheaply bought animals for a higher profit, and have to house and take care of them for a few in game years, it will prevent them reselling them as fast to keep prices high