I would like to Discuss the Economy and how we the player have Zero effect on it!

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

set spawning clearly wasn't the intended design

I do not see where this assumption comes from, AFAIK there has been no official word from Egosoft on what the "intended design" was on this score.

Set spawning is a perfectly valid approach to replenishing lost ships in an NPC faction fleet. The main issue with such spawning is ensuring an intended game balance on that score. If the focus is the economy, then the spawning logic should reflect attempts to maintain a working economy.

We know that the AI can lose LOTS of ships due to roaming Ks/Is in Albion sectors and making the NPC factions require monetary resources to build/repair/reequip would most likely result in the economy coming to an unfeasibly recoverable standstill at some point because every built NPC ship would result in money being removed from the economy and the only "unrestricted" source of money would be from the player (which is not a good situation IMO).

The player has an infinite source of cash in the form of missions and inventory salvage while the AI would not have an unrestricted source of funds (resource collection/generation does not count) if some people have their way (or so it would appear). If you make mission rewards dependent on the economy then eventually the game would not be worth playing. Limit salvage opportunities and similar problems would occur.

In short, rather than introducing defacto cash resource limits for the NPC factions their spawning rates should probably just be rebalanced if deemed necessary.

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

making the NPC factions require monetary resources to build/repair/reequip would most likely result in the economy coming to an unfeasibly recoverable standstill at some point because every built NPC ship would result in money being removed from the economy and the only "unrestricted" source of money would be from the player.

I do not see where this assumption comes from, NPCs in Albion and OL have planetary populations that could be generating credits for factions if it really mattered. DV's economy is intentionally broken already and the other systems are not reliant on it so not a big deal how the NPCs [d]evolve there.

[Slashman]

I do not see where this assumption comes from, NPCs in Albion and OL have planetary populations that could be generating credits for factions if it really mattered. DV's economy is intentionally broken already and the other systems are not reliant on it so not a big deal how the NPCs [d]evolve there.

Interestingly, this is what Limit Theory is doing. Making the planetary colonies the source for generating things 'out of thin air' so to speak. They generate AI entities, low level goods, cash, and possibly small ships.

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

That is interesting, I'm looking forward to trying Limit Theory in the end.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

@sparky: It is not an assumption... At least some people are asking to avoid NPC corporations producing ships/resources out of thin air thus it precludes the concept of money/resources coming from anywhere but the economy. If we allow an imaginary external source of income/resources that is not dependent on the economy then they are still going to be effectively pulling ships/resources out of thin air (at least from the players perspective).

It could be argued that the existing implementation is modelling exactly what you are talking about - an external (possibly planetary based) source of ships/resources for the spawned entities.

[SteveMill]

My feeling is that it's completely unrealistic to expect a working economy. what is not unrealistic is to expect a reasonably convincing working illusion that maintains that illusion through the interactions the player has with it.

Under no circumstances should it act like a jammed sewer until the player comes along and pokes it with a big stick.

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

@sparky: It is not an assumption... At least some people are asking to avoid NPC corporations producing ships/resources out of thin air thus it precludes the concept of money/resources coming from anywhere but the economy. If we allow an imaginary external source of income/resources that is not dependent on the economy then they are still going to be effectively pulling ships/resources out of thin air (at least from the players perspective).

It could be argued that the existing implementation is modelling exactly what you are talking about - an external (possibly planetary based) source of ships/resources for the spawned entities.

Of course it was an assumption. You stated that "the only "unrestricted" source of money would be from the player" but that is only one possible outcome of an implementation of wallets and build replacements from money and resources.

There is a gulf of possibilities between perma-spawning ware-filled ships (now) and having everything earned and made in space. Such as for example, money or resources being spawned to a faction at a particular rate.

Similarly, your underlying premise that the player would have "an infinite source of cash in the form of missions and inventory salvage" are also assumptions since the former is derived from factions (who are being discussed as having limited funds) and the latter requires traders to be left with no apparent limit to the funds.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

@sparky: The player's access to effectively infinite sources of cash is a fact of the current game, no ifs/buts/maybes about it.

Some (very vocal) people want to be able to wipe out other factions either militarily or economically which is what has ultimately lead to the debate of how the NPCs should source replacement vessels (and perhaps some resources). If you want to wipe out a faction then you need to be able to permanently destroy their capability to build/rebuild ships/stations which ultimately means that they can not have an unlimited and untouchable source of resources (i.e. credits or ships) from outside the economy.

It is not true that the player has zero effect on the economy, but it is true that the player can not easily side-line other factions and replace them as the main supplier of given wares in a given sector. Some seem to think that changing the ship spawning logic is the key to making this easier, but I wholeheartedly and without reservation disagree with this premise (for numerous reasons).

X-Rebirth has an economy that is driven by supply and demand but the economy is effectively split into 3 main economic areas with minimal NPC faction trading between them IME. The status of the economic segregation is understandable from a Lore perspective but that does not help the fact that if there was more NPC faction inter-system trading there would probably be a few less issues with the economies overall.

In a plot game, the PMC hostility to certain factions (and general plot flow) makes the trans-Jump Gate trading awkward but in a free play game things should be less problematic.

IMO the current state of ship spawning is (in general) fine and I would argue that if you want to engage in system/sector/zone domination exercises that it is the purview of mods and not the vanilla game... c/f the X-Trilogy Vanilla v. Modded games.

The minimal trans-Jump Gate NPC trading actually means the player can exploit this limitation to make profits for themselves once they have a sufficient network of trade agents. Most of my in-game trading profits come from trans jump gate trading opportunities (mostly between AL and OL).

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

@sparky: The player's access to effectively infinite sources of cash is a fact of the current game, no ifs/buts/maybes about it.

This has the appearance of a rebuttal but since it simply states a fact about the present that doesn't address the point I made about the rigidity of your earlier statements, I will presume for now that you accept that your assumptions were incorrect.

If you want to wipe out a faction then you need to be able to permanently destroy their capability to build/rebuild ships/stations which ultimately means that they can not have an unlimited and untouchable source of resources (i.e. credits or ships) from outside the economy.

It's incorrect to suggest that unlimited credits could be enough since we can can suppress or camp shipyards now and potentially kil them in the potential future under discussion.

[pref]

Some (very vocal) people want to be able to wipe out other factions either militarily or economically which is what has ultimately lead to the debate of how the NPCs should source replacement vessels (and perhaps some resources). If you want to wipe out a faction then you need to be able to permanently destroy their capability to build/rebuild ships/stations which ultimately means that they can not have an unlimited and untouchable source of resources (i.e. credits or ships) from outside the economy.

If they stop regenerating once their last station is destroyed it works fine. Don't see why that would be impossible.

Anyway, this econonomy currently needs some 'divine' help, or auto regenration, as it's too small. Losing a single station or several trade ships can have too big an impact. The real solution is to increase the scale so that loosing a couple of stations has no real effect on the global picture. Still then some amount of help would probably needed to keep the factions going even in unexpected scenarios.

As long as the game cannot afford to loose a few stations there will be massive amount of cheats needed.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

@Sparky: I have not contradicted nor adjusted my viewpoint, I have not made any assumptions just provided clarification for the basis of my point of view.

It is incorrect to suggest that limiting the credits would actually result in the desired outcome, in fact it would most likely make things worse not better as I explained in my earlier post.

I stand by my original statement that the game is not broken with the spawning mechanics as they stand. I strongly believe changing them to be dependent on the economy is a BAD IDEA for the vanilla game as it will only explicitly benefit one particular play style at the risk of damaging the experience for others.

As it currently stands, the player can and does have an effect on the economy however marginal it may be.

[spankahontis]

Player has a lot of influence over the economy...
Its simply hilarious to watch the same people who abuse boarding for easy money, as they cry about their Economy being completly broken...
While my non-broken 2.00 savegame had no problems at all - trading was the only way of making money I used and I could get any ware I wanted, as everything was producing as it should.

To add to that, I had a corrupted Savegame where all the Ship Part Factories in Albion stopped producing Pod Gens and Fusion Reactors which caused a massive shortage of the 2 for factories that needed them.

Shipyards grind to a halt as they needed over 5000+ Fusion Reactors.
Annoying but building my own Factory to make these made me tons of money.

Point is, where were these spawning Freighters with the Fusion Reactors the OP metioned?
Cause the Lot in 5 Ways was the only factory making Fusion Reactors at the time as the Corrupted save did away with the rest of production. (This was the version before 2.5 though.)
Yet the demand was massive.

Personally to the OP, stopping Factories that play the heart of the economy (Building Factories) was to be eradicated, there would be no way to build them and the economy would collapse.
So if there is a way to avoid the use of spawning to keep the game running, let's hear it?

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

It is incorrect to suggest that limiting the credits would actually result in the desired outcome, in fact it would most likely make things worse not better as I explained in my earlier post.

Presumably you are just talking randomly rather than putting words into my mouth.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

@Sparky: Lets not get personal on this. The point being argued is whether the current spawning logic is fit for purpose, arguably it is despite some protests to the contrary.

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

I think it is an interesting discussion, which benefits from clarity where inaccurate statements are presented in factual terms. It does the topic, or your point of view, no favours to claim statements that have been demonstrated as inaccurate are accurate. Long posts don't change that. That isn't making it personal, its just observations. I've no personal interest in whether you are capable of conceeding points or have different dictionary definitions for words like 'asssumption'.

[Earth Ultimatum IV.]

No, limiting factions to budgets would indeed have a negative impact on the game.
The AI would not handle something like that, your economy would stop within a few hours. If not minutes.


Gameplay > realism

[Mackan]

I am unsure as to why the conclusion has been reached that if the AI did not "rely" on spawning in wares and ships, they would have to be dependant on a monetary system (The AI having unlimited funds/not being bound by money is common practice, since yes, it would not work otherwise). Explain to me the train of thought here, have I misunderstood? Or have we abandoned the original point to argue a straw man instead?

What I think it boils down to is, why should the player care to play the game if the game does not care about its own fundamental rules, and makes no effort to hide it? Especially if the entire point is to intermingle with the game.

Spawning ships and stations worked better in X3 than XR for the illusion since ship and station production was not resource bound. So the illusion would go: that ship/station appeared out of nowhere because something clearly had the money to pay for it. We can't possibly know since we don't have access to the AI's supposed bank accounts, so we can safely allow ourselves some suspension of disbelief. But when the cheating happens right before our eyes, for example if ships and stations would appear even when we can clearly see there were no resources available, then it becomes much harder to accept the illusion.

The illusion needs to be dressed up better, or the game needs to work the way it pretends it does.

I will accept and agree that we might disagree on the direction the game should take/should have taken, and that fundamental gameplay changes might be better left to modding. The discussion however is still important, as new and interesting points might be brought up as a result as long as we don't delve into cherry picking and fallacies.

[Sparky Sparkycorp]

Well put. The topic of improving believability is something I've been wondering about. How do spawned ships appear in order that the players have noticed? Appearing out of nowhere in space away from infrastructure? Known from reviewing the code? If the former, that could be improved by llimiting spawns to jump beacons and highways. That way the player probably couldn't see in-game evidence of spawning.

[Sam L.R. Griffiths]

@Mackan: The point is that with real expanding economies costs go up and money gets devalued as time goes on. This is generally a natural consequence of money leaking out of the system (wars, natural disasters, and general increases in population) and the system having to compensate for the losses (and changes in circumstances) in order to keep it going. If these adjustments did not happen then the situation would be unsustainable in effect (eventually all trading would cease - at least using that economy system).

X-games do not model a true economy, but it does model a simple supply and demand idealistic capitalist trading economy with ware prices being used as a kind of bias/weighting factor for the AI to decide were it should buy from. It is a relatively simplistic model of an economy that has been used quite effectively in the X-Trilogy games and has been kept for X-Rebirth.

As it stands, stations can not be totally destroyed and personally I hope it stays that way for X-Rebirth (for numerous reasons) thus it would be next to impossible to model "decreasing income" to the point that some would want it (i.e. to enable destruction of a faction). Thus to be able to support faction destruction their financial assets would need to be fixed numbers. In combat, the AI throws expensive resources around like water and engages in combat to the death without consideration for the financial implications on the controlling faction. This makes for a big financial leak for the economy if faction assets were tied to fixed numbers then the AI factions would eventually run out of money and cease trading all together.

Pre-release, Egosoft talked about a future feature of factions being able to take control of Zones from each other. Once such a feature is implemented it would give a solid basis for modelling variable income based on faction influence and could lead to the ability to destroy (or at least contain) major factions that engage in this. How the same "influence related income" could be modelled for minor factions that do not engage in zone control shenanigans would be another problem.

The point being that to do what some would like would require substantial changes to the way things work and given the zone control exchange has not yet been implemented such discussions are (IMO) premature.

If the player wants to be able to marginalise certain factions through trade (more easily than is currently possible) then they need a mechanism to encourage the AI factions to trade with them in preference to anyone else for the same goods. That means the player would notionally need to be able to (perhaps manually) adjust the discounts/commissions (applied to AI faction traders) for their stations (perhaps on a per faction and/or per station basis).

[Sandalpocalypse]

I do not see where this assumption comes from, AFAIK there has been no official word from Egosoft on what the "intended design" was on this score.

Set spawning is a perfectly valid approach to replenishing lost ships in an NPC faction fleet. The main issue with such spawning is ensuring an intended game balance on that score. If the focus is the economy, then the spawning logic should reflect attempts to maintain a working economy.

One of the talking points for X Rebirth was how every ship would be purchased, and the economy would be fully dynamic in that way. So that was the intended design that fell by the wayside @ release for probably a lot of reasons.

Ultimately, factions purchasing ships/drones/munitions furthers the economy by creating a well of demand that can never truely be emptied.

++Just because ships get purchased doesnt mean factions can run out of money. There's a lot of ways to implement it.