Solution for balancing the credit economy after countless exploits

[Father Cool]

And by "early", do you mean "1984"? Being able to go pretty quickly to the biggest ship if you know how has been part of the series from the start. (For that matter, there's been complaints about the balance of the payment system in Elite Dangerous since before 1.0)

Elite I: you couldn't change ships, but an absolutely fully-equipped Cobra III would cost about 35,000 credits. Once you'd got going with a large cargo bay and a bit of reserve cash, you could make about 1000 credits profit on each trade run. So you could get the maximum ship in maybe 50 (fairly safe) trips.

Back in those days no-one did because we didn't have the internet to read up on all the tips and tricks for fast progress, of course, but it was very possible.

FE2/FFE: A Panther Clipper plus equipment might set you back 3.5 million credits. Doing completely safe high-profit runs between Barnards Star and Sol - and trading up to the next largest ship frequently - it didn't take long at all to get this sort of money. You could make over 1000 credits per tonne profit on cargo if you took advantage of the frequent "X needed" missions, so you only needed to haul 3500 tonnes or so.

Well I wasn't referring to the original Elite par se. I consider Elite Dangerous a new opportunity to do something great.

My issue is that credits could have been a legitimate progress yard stick where as you progressed up the credit ladder then 'eventually' the larger ships would become available where larger trade runs or mining hauls would make money earning easier and thus a gradual progression of earnings would be scaleable to work done in game. It should take a long time to work your way to each ship, forcing you to take logical steps from one ship to another. Now people just do a bit of high pay work and basically jump from sidewinder to anaconder in a day or two. This would be fine if the anaconder actually opened fresh gameplay that lesser ships were missing out on so that the game had legs (as in going distance not space legs!). As it is there is basically a galaxy full of top class ships and multibillionaires. It is what it is and credits are no longer anything to judge anything else against, which is a shame I think, if for no other reason than you miss out on the ship progression, trying out lesser ships for the hell of it after the fact(because you're loaded and went straight into an anaconda) is not as meaningful as trying them out because its a necessity to do so.

Its a bit like saving up for years for a sports car verses finding a suitcase of cash with a billion in it where you can only spend it on cars. You buy the best straight off and the whole car buying/driving experience suffers for it.

The game is now at a point where something else has to provide the incentives and consequences because money doesn't any more.

 

[fuub]

This would be equivalent of slashing everyone's credit balance by a factor of 10. I don't think I have to explain how that would be a terrible "solution" to anything.



So instead of saving up, people would just invest their money immediately into ships, guns and modules, to liquidate whenever needed. Rebuy cost? No point in keeping money for rebuy cost, because when you take a break and come back a few months later, you'd be flying without rebuy again; instead just keep a stockpile of ships worth enough to cover that, since you can liquidate them if your ship gets destroyed.

Nice point, which could be solved if every item you buy loses value with time, at the same proportion of inflation, so if you sell a one month ship /module whatever you get much more money than selling a one year ship/module.

Basically fd had to define a weekly inflation for costs and rewards and deflation for property value and with time the massive exploits would be gone and credits would make sense again in the game.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

To be honest, the problem is that the money exploits have been going on for so long that many players are almost considering them to be the new norm. Players are now considering 50+ million per hour to be acceptable, while originally getting 20 million an hour was considered to be a veritable goldmine and reaching double figures of millions in a Cutter wasn't bad going. Because of this shift in player perception, whatever is actually done needs to be gradual as otherwise there will be a major player backlash as they have having their stuff devalued.

Thing is, a lot of the big earning methods - in the 50 million range - have been around for a while.

Looking at the ones I mention above:
- 2 of them are passenger-based and have worked pretty much unchanged since 2.2 (about 18 months)
- 1 of them is cargo-based and has worked since Frontier increased cargo mission payouts in 2.2.03 (about 13 months)
- 1 of them uses mining tools which have been available since 1.3 (about 2.5 years)

I think based on that we can conclude that that's an earning level which Frontier wants to be available (while 200 million or more an hour appears not to be)


Or, put another way - all those saying that 50 million an hour is way too high for a "if you optimise your activities for earnings" level ... what should the max earnings per hour be? ... and what would the benefits of setting them at that level be?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Basically fd had to define a weekly inflation and deflation and with time the massive exploits would be gone and credits would make sense again in the game.

Except, if you deflate assets too, anyone who takes a break from the game and comes back finds that they have - effectively - half their assets gone. Not only have they not been making any money while playing something else, but what they had is much reduced too.

Not every commander has the sort of massive surplus assets where "take away 90% of them" will make no difference to their game. Inflation or revaluation of the credit or whatever is an extremely blunt tool that punishes those with minimal assets while having virtually no effect on those with maximal assets - which seems rather the opposite of what you're actually wanting to do?

 

[fuub]

Except, if you deflate assets too, anyone who takes a break from the game and comes back finds that they have - effectively - half their assets gone. Not only have they not been making any money while playing something else, but what they had is much reduced too.

Not every commander has the sort of massive surplus assets where "take away 90% of them" will make no difference to their game. Inflation or revaluation of the credit or whatever is an extremely blunt tool that punishes those with minimal assets while having virtually no effect on those with maximal assets - which seems rather the opposite of what you're actually wanting to do?

The returning player would still have all his assets so it wouldnt actually lose anything, and if he wants more assets he needs to get some credits to be able to afford them, isnt that the actual purpose of credits instead of making huge fortunes with exploits that last forever?

 

[RamirezKurita]

So instead of saving up, people would just invest their money immediately into ships, guns and modules, to liquidate whenever needed. Rebuy cost? No point in keeping money for rebuy cost, because when you take a break and come back a few months later, you'd be flying without rebuy again; instead just keep a stockpile of ships worth enough to cover that, since you can liquidate them if your ship gets destroyed.

The whole method of buying things for storage to counter inflation could potentially be an exploit to get around inflation, but FD could just as easily get around such an issue by adding in storage costs for assets. Balancing storage costs against inflation could actually be a great mechanic, particularly if different things inflate in cost at different rates depending on the state of the galaxy (so increased amounts of conflict lets weapons hold their value, famine lets food hold it's value etc), so that smart players with good reserves could pretty much break even. More mechanics are always nice to see if they can be integrated properly with the rest of the game, so that some player groups might try to steer the bubble into particular states for economic reasons. Although, playing around with storage mechanics is quite risky business as we don't really want to punish players for taking a sabbatical, so some kind of balance would have to be reached between storage for a few bits and pieces for personal reasons and players hoarding stuff for economic reasons.

Going down to losing rebuy wouldn't be much of an issue unless players literally leave the game for years at a time. I was envisaging inflation rates in the region of 1% per week, so even after a year of inactivity the rebuy cost would only increase by 67.8%. Even 2 years would produce a 181% increase in prices, so someone with a few rebuys worth of credits spare would be able to leave the game a while and return safely. The whole point of using compounding interest rather than an executioner's axe would be to have gradual but significant change, as an average of 1% inflation would produce a mere 29.5% increase in 6 months but a colossal 1229% in 5 years (as I said, long-term plan to undo the damage from exploits). If done properly, players who actually play the game would barely notice while those exploited billions stashed away would be steadily devalued. If players losing rebuy during a sabbatical could become a real issue, they could add in the ability to prebuy a few insurance rebuys, possibly with the cost increasing with every rebuy after the first on a given ship.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The returning player would still have all his assets so it wouldnt actually lose anything, and if he wants more assets he needs to get some credits to be able to afford them,

If you affect asset values by inflation, you end up with the silly situation that:

CMDR A:
- owns an Anaconda and a Cobra
- sells the Anaconda, buys a FDL
- takes a 6 month break
- owns a Cobra and FDL

CMDR B:
- owns an Anaconda and a Cobra
- takes a 6 month break
- can't sell the Anaconda to buy an FDL because the FDL now costs more than their Anaconda

Why should it matter where in the process they took the break?

Another problem with affecting asset values with inflation.
CMDR A:
- buys a Cutter in 3302 when they first came out, at 1 billion credits

CMDR B:
- buys the game in 3305 after significant inflation, buys a Cutter at 100 billion credits

CMDR C:
- buys a super-engineered FDL and blows up CMDRs A and B.

CMDR A pays 50 million rebuy, which with inflation is basically pocket change.
CMDR B pays 5 billion rebuy, which is a substantial amount even after inflation.

All you're doing by introducing inflation is benefiting players who've been around for ages and constantly play over new players and those who take breaks. That's not a way to maintain a player base.

isnt that the actual purpose of credits instead of making huge fortunes with exploits that last forever?

Sure, but what's a huge fortune?

I have total assets of just over 2 billion credits. For me, that's a Python, a FDL, a few smaller ships, and about a billion in cash that will basically provide rebuys for all those ships forever. So, from my point of view, I have a huge fortune and can take all sorts of risks, not need to worry about earning money again (I think the last time I did something for the money rather than faction rep or to test a theory out would be almost a year ago)

Another commander in exactly the same total assets position, but additionally owning an A-rated Cutter, would have barely enough spare cash for two rebuys on said Cutter. They would not have a huge fortune, and need to earn a fair bit more money to keep that ship running. For them to be in the same security as me with regards to rebuys, they'd need over 10 billion credits in spare cash.

Until and unless ... and I think there are much higher priorities ... Frontier balance the relative costs of ships so that they roughly resemble their relative capabilities, there is no hope of having any sort of "balanced" credit economy.

 

[Father Cool]

Thats the issue with being mega rich though. There are no more risks and thus the game becomes less fun.

Having to decide on everything whether the risk is worth the reward makes things worth doing. Otherwise you just do everything you want and feel less enjoyment from the experience once its done.

I have no solutions at present because I feel that the credit situation is so broken it can never be fixed short of a reboot for everyone and a complete rework of the whole economy system.

We now need to control play value based other commodities rather than cash.

 

[Van R Flyheight]

FD just have to rise credits rewards and costs by x10.

Imagine that an anaconda now costs 1.5 billion, but missions now reward 10 million instead of 1million, as bounties etc, every reward x10 and every cost x10. As also the rebuy cost X10

The ships before the "Big inflation" could be flagged as legacy, and selling them would return the previous payed prices.


It would balance out the game again, and people that exploited the game hard would not be much more op than people that didn't, almost like a fair economy reset.



I'm ignoring not logical arguments of not worrying about other peoples credit in a multiplayer game with pvp and some of the progression and the rebuys WITH CREDITS.

Hi exploit free player here. Yeah sure I love the idea of an Anaconda costing my entire bank balance that I spent 700 hours to build up.

I've read some stinkers but this truly might be the worst. Feature request incoming: negative rep button reserved just for this thread.

 

[PiLhEaD]

I believe that players who put in more time should have more credits, and I really couldn't care less how many credits any other player has as it makes zero difference to me and how I play the game. So I think this is a 'solution' for a problem that doesn't exist.

Thats the issue with being mega rich though. There are no more risks and thus the game becomes less fun.

I don't feel the same as you. I have built up over time a decent 'bank balance' and I still enjoy the game in the same way as I did at the start.

 

[Van R Flyheight]

It really just means that anyone who didn't use exploits till now will be starting with enough cash for an Eagle while players that did might have to B rate their Anaconda

 

[Father Cool]

I believe that players who put in more time should have more credits, and I really couldn't care less how many credits any other player has as it makes zero difference to me and how I play the game. So I think this is a 'solution' for a problem that doesn't exist.



I don't feel the same as you. I have built up over time a decent 'bank balance' and I still enjoy the game in the same way as I did at the start.

Then my hat off to you sir.

I guess it depends on how you play though. Which doesn't mean there is a right or wrong.

I really enjoyed the hardship and toil back at release. I loved having to plot massive PITA courses to stations that ended up as a massive adventure because I had a 5 ly jump range. I loved my first trip out to Maia in a 11ly cobra. Everything felt like an adventure.

I also love love loved the robigo smuggling runs. I never exploited it with board flips etc but the high payed smuggling runs that were there was exciting gameplay with risk trying to avoid scans or else your previous hours of work were for nought. Great stuff.

I personally think that we need more of that but without the exploit factor.

 

[Father Cool]

The issue is though you get paid in credits. When you have 10 billion why bother doing anything to pay the bills!!

 

[fuub]

Then my hat off to you sir.

I guess it depends on how you play though. Which doesn't mean there is a right or wrong.

I really enjoyed the hardship and toil back at release. I loved having to plot massive PITA courses to stations that ended up as a massive adventure because I had a 5 ly jump range. I loved my first trip out to Maia in a 11ly cobra. Everything felt like an adventure.

I also love love loved the robigo smuggling runs. I never exploited it with board flips etc but the high payed smuggling runs that were there was exciting gameplay with risk trying to avoid scans or else your previous hours of work were for nought. Great stuff.

I personally think that we need more of that but without the exploit factor.

Yeah you think like every normal player, you only find these kind of idi...players in ed that dont need rewards to have fun and in a pvp game other players credits are not important etc nonsense etc. Just ignore them and keep up the intelligent game design discussion

 

[Mohrgan]

This whole thing is just a case of envy getting wrapped up in sanctimonious justification. If you aren't rich, like myself, you'll get murdered by a solution to knee cap those that are. All of those filthy credits are available to everyone. Just fly your ship to the newest get rich scheme and dig in. Otherwise, stop fretting over someone elses bank account.

 

[Father Cool]

On the contrary. I only have 200 mil in assets and I already feel too rich!

 

[Chrystoph]

FD just have to rise credits rewards and costs by x10.

Imagine that an anaconda now costs 1.5 billion, but missions now reward 10 million instead of 1million, as bounties etc, every reward x10 and every cost x10. As also the rebuy cost X10

The ships before the "Big inflation" could be flagged as legacy, and selling them would return the previous payed prices.


It would balance out the game again, and people that exploited the game hard would not be much more op than people that didn't, almost like a fair economy reset.



I'm ignoring not logical arguments of not worrying about other peoples credit in a multiplayer game with pvp and some of the progression and the rebuys WITH CREDITS.

Thus making the newer players even more vulnerable to the salt mining crowd because they are now not only starting later, but will have a material penalty of a progression ladder that is out of scale with the people most likely to kill them "for lulz".

I cannot think of a better plan for drving off new players, and that doesn't even consider the fact that your "plan" breaks mining, trading, and exploration by making their payouts even less effective than before.

 

[Sylveria]

Don't worry, after 3.0 gets deployed the new C&P rebuys will balance this all out within months, anyway.

That 3 or 4 billion reserve they thought they had will only last so long, and ultimately they'll be resorting to PvE missions again for more credits.

Then we'll see lots of whine about how PvPer's are being absolutely forced to play as others want them to instead of "blazing their own trail" and all that. (which is ironic, considering the "consensual PvP in Open" clause they sling about at will)

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Don't worry, after 3.0 gets deployed the new C&P rebuys will balance this all out within months, anyway.

What new C&P rebuys?

As far as I can see in beta:
- bounties are a bit higher for murder, but...
- you still only have to pay the rebuys and bounties if you die
- the ATRs will not make you die or even do that much to prevent crimes being committed
- the practical effects of having a "hot" ship are pretty minimal with very minor exceptions if killing is the aim (they are quite a bit more serious for pirates, smugglers, and the like)
- players can do their PvE earnings in a clean ship without even needing to clean the "hot" PvP ship and its bounties
- oh, and engineering gets a further set of buffs in both time needed and power, so ships will be even more invincible than before

Don't misunderstand - I think it's definitely a better C&P system than the current one, with the potential for some interesting criminal gameplay in future - but I can't see it having much effect on PvP of any sort, and certainly not causing people to lose money overall.

(Plus all PvPers have been PvEing since the start anyway because it's basically impossible to make money off PvP and they had to buy their existing ships somehow... so no change there either)

 

[Sylveria]

What new C&P rebuys?

Don't misunderstand - I think it's definitely a better C&P system than the current one, with the potential for some interesting criminal gameplay in future - but I can't see it having much effect on PvP of any sort, and certainly not causing people to lose money overall.

(Plus all PvPers have been PvEing since the start anyway because it's basically impossible to make money off PvP and they had to buy their existing ships somehow... so no change there either)

1) Increased costs, sorry should have been a bit more specific
2) Agreed that it needs more focus on the notoriety system rather than simply increasing credit sinks- an expanded professions system would help with this, rather everything just being an optional "activity" one might engage in from time to time.
3) Never said they haven't, but with increased costs it makes it more of a necessity, yes?

Don't get me wrong- I'm not a "hater" of PvP. I've PvP'ed aplenty in many different games. I just don't agree that the current implementation of COD arcade shooter in ED is what we need, and is why C&P is being addressed in this regard. (not as an "expansion of professions") I'd love to see more meaning being given to PvP game play rather than just pew-pew watch ships explode nonsense. (which if I wanted that, there's always EVE Online)