Resource pricing and game economy

Distant Worlds is a vast, pausable real-time, 4X space strategy game which models a "living galaxy" with incredible options for replayability and customizability. Experience the full depth and detail of large turn-based strategy games, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game. Now greatly enhanced with the new Universe release, which includes all four previous releases as well as the new Universe expansion!

Moderators: elliotg, Icemania

User avatar
feelotraveller
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:08 am

Resource pricing and game economy

Post by feelotraveller »

This thread is an ideas response to the problem raised in the My empire earns too much money thread.

The scope of the problem is that although money availability can be interestingly set at the beginning of the game with the current settings after the early game it becomes too readily available. One way to offset this is through raising costs and maintenance through increasing resource prices. The major problem with this is that it can effect struggling empires as much as dominating ones.

A three part solution to cope with this:

1) Introduce an inflation rate for the base minimum and maximum strategic resource prices. This would lead to an increase to build and maintenance costs across the galaxy. Effects all players by the amount of resources they have invested in ships/bases and increments build costs over time. Hits ship/base heavy empires harder.

A slider for this could be very useful. Players wanting things as they are now could turn inflation to zero. People wanting an exhilarating challenge could see how high they can turn up inflation and still beat the game before price rises bankrupt their empire.

This could also be applied to luxury resources but I have not considered the ramifications.

2) Apply a modification to the base prices according to the number of colonies an empire has. Once an empire has more colonies than galactic average, plus a certain amount, they have their resource costs raised by this excess. The mechanics of this would need careful consideration and gameplay testing. Idea would be to have a zone of neutrality around the galactic average where modifier is x1. Outside of this costs would be increased for large empires and decreased for small empires.

Too rapid expansion (in terms of galactic rates) would be penalised. The dominant empire(s) pay more, struggling empires less.

This may need adjustment for different numbers of empires in startup game and/or scaling for size of galaxy.

3) Apply discounts and penalties to each resource price for numbers of sources controlled by the empire. Number of mines needed scales with number of colonieis. This provides the player some control over their internal resource prices and forces the consideration of acquistion of more sources of each resource. The number required would vary with different resources - more steel mines would be needed to make a difference than dilithium mines given their relative usage. Having extra steel mines would only reduce empire steel prices and only (potentially) down to the base galactic price. On the other hand a struggling empire lacking sufficient steel mines would have their empire price increased to the galactice price at a maximum.

Ideally this mechanism would use the actual mining capacity of each resource (% of resource availability mulitiplied by extraction rate, considering extraction cap, summed over all sources empire wide). I suspect this is too code/cpu intensive (although perhaps could be used if these values were stored and updated every time a mine is added/subtracted or the mining rate varies from bonues or technology). The simplified version used above uses the count of each resource already listed in the expansion planner.
Sithuk
Posts: 431
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 4:18 pm

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by Sithuk »

2) Apply a modification to the base prices according to the number of colonies an empire has.

Consider changing to the population of an empire rather than the number of colonies. Few larger pop colonies will be a stronger empire than multiple tiny pop colonies.
User avatar
feelotraveller
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:08 am

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by feelotraveller »

I considered this.  Reasons not to go this way include:
- Players starting with harsher homeworld settings than the computer will get bonuses
-Players starting with better homeworld settings than the computer will get penalties
-Colony spam (not including independent/lost colonies) would not be penalised at all, at least initially, since population gain = zero.
 
The first two points are decisive in my opinion.  Further it would be nice to promote a turtling strategic possibility of having a couple, or few, large colonies.  I don't think anyone plays this way now.
 
User avatar
Theluin
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 12:51 pm
Location: Europe, Terra

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by Theluin »

I do [;)]

I never spam colonies as it requires too much micro managment at once. (Ordering 20 troops per colony, building a spaceport and defensive base, assigning defence fleets and so on for 20 colonies gained in 15 minutes is way too time consuming [Tried once, never again [:D]])
WiZz
Posts: 536
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:28 pm
Location: Ukraine

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by WiZz »

I don't understand, why propose some improvements, which totally illogical, artificial or hard to implement?

1) Inflation. Idea is good, but mechanism of economics in DW is not so complex and developed for this feature.
2) Honestly, don't understand this proposition. Just listen - expansion for large empire is more difficult than small empires. Nothing strange?
3) Agree, but I think, this is difficult to implement.

What are my propositions?
1) First of all, remove huge bonuses for money which provided by leaders/governors. Or just make them very rare.
2) Greatly raise prices for every new technology component. After couple of years reduce it, because industry set up their production.
3) Set development costs for new founded colonies. It is good implemented in Sword of the stars. This feature really slows expansion. When colony becomes enough developed this cost = 0.
4) Set payments for serving ground facilities.
5) Set hire price for ground troops on some governments (Republic/Democracy).
6) Set salaries for all characters.
7) Set payments for intelligence missions.

User avatar
Jeeves
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2010 9:37 pm
Location: Arlington TN U.S.A
Contact:

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by Jeeves »

If you have so much cash that you feel wealthy, then give large gifts to the AI empires until you are poor. Simplest solution of all. You can spend your first 20 million doing crash research on the technologies, which gets you all tech in 15-20 years or so. On another topic, somewhat related, people talk about trillion dollar game economies. There ain't no such a critter. A trillion is a million million, and the most economy I ever had was several thousand k credits, which is millions rather than trillions. That was with 100 colonies...

Lonnie Courtney Clay
Live long and prosper!

Lonnie Courtney Clay
User avatar
ASHBERY76
Posts: 2079
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 8:00 am
Location: England

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by ASHBERY76 »

ORIGINAL: WiZz
What are my propositions?
1) First of all, remove huge bonuses for money which provided by leaders/governors. Or just make them very rare.
2) Greatly raise prices for every new technology component. After couple of years reduce it, because industry set up their production.
3) Set development costs for new founded colonies. It is good implemented in Sword of the stars. This feature really slows expansion. When colony becomes enough developed this cost = 0.
4) Set payments for serving ground facilities.
5) Set hire price for ground troops on some governments (Republic/Diplomacy).
6) Set salaries for all characters.
7) Set payments for intelligence missions.

I agree completely with this and it would not be hard to implement.
User avatar
Fishers of Men
Posts: 329
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2010 2:05 pm
Location: Fishers, IN USA

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by Fishers of Men »

MoO2 had annual salaries for many of its characters. But my main concern still is the resourse system and the lack of real conflict over control of strategic resourses. I do like many things that WiZz has proposed, though. It would be fairly easy to implement but would take a lot of testing to make sure it worked right and was balanced.
Old............but very fast
User avatar
feelotraveller
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:08 am

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by feelotraveller »

I can't agree with WiZz's suggestions not because they are bad suggestions in themselves but because they will make the game too easy by further nobbling the computer players since they will bear the same costs.   In fact given the character balances smaller empires would be hit proportionately harder.  Players money stocks may be reduced but the disadvantage of the computer players will be bigger than ever.
 
(By the way Rome found it very difficult to expand after a certain period... as have nearly all very large empires.  But I propose it mainly as a game mechanic since it is 'invariably' [;)] the human player who becomes the biggest empire by mid to late game.)
WiZz
Posts: 536
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:28 pm
Location: Ukraine

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by WiZz »

Example with Rome is wrong, because it expanded by conquests, not by colonization.
they will make the game too easy by further nobbling the computer players since they will bear the same costs.

If I set very hard AI all this costs for AI would be significantly reduced.
User avatar
BTJ
Posts: 47
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 2:40 pm

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by BTJ »

ORIGINAL: feelotraveller

I can't agree with WiZz's suggestions not because they are bad suggestions in themselves but because they will make the game too easy by further nobbling the computer players since they will bear the same costs.   [...]

But isn't it that the AI empires also swim in money but are not able to use it constructively? From what I've read numerous times, the AI does not profit from being given more money.

I think we must carefully differentiate between the two issues of a) a (perceived) too low difficulty (i.e. "incapability" of the AI) and b) the economy issue.
Making newly researched components more expensive, i.e. increasing costs and maintenance costs linearly with their "punching power" is one solution. Exapnsion and big empires must also come with costs, i.e. there will be a "break even" where further expansion does not do any good. How do you (human players) react to this suggestion? I believe this is a general problem of 4x games.

Now, the other challenge is to make the AI more competitive. I believe it would be no problem to implement some of the changes here, if the AI would be able to exploit its resources better.
Shuul
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:48 am

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by Shuul »

Wizz is totally right!!!! Devs, please, take a look at his propositions, thanks[:)]
radwyn
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:07 pm

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by radwyn »

I certainly don't feel like I have to much money
User avatar
Arcatus
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:34 pm

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by Arcatus »

As mentioned previously; Higher tech's should be significantly more expensive, both in credits and resources.

A.I is fine, it is at least as clever as the AI in any other 4x game I've played, but a human player will make designs that outperforms all of the AI designs, so there is where some improvements should be made.

Get the AI to make better ships, and the game will be more difficult...
User avatar
feelotraveller
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:08 am

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by feelotraveller »

ORIGINAL: WiZz

Example with Rome is wrong, because it expanded by conquests, not by colonization.
they will make the game too easy by further nobbling the computer players since they will bear the same costs.

If I set very hard AI all this costs for AI would be significantly reduced.


Okay name me one earth civilization which went on expanding? There is not one. Once they get to a certain size, historically, further expansion does not happen whether through conquest or colonisation. I don't understand how you can expect a different outcome in space. In the game colony spam happens as much (or more, especially early on) by conquest.

I agree that the computer player behaviour sorely needs improving and that it is a separate matter to the economic surpluses of human players. What I am wary of is any proposed solution for the latter making the former worse.
hEad
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 5:00 am

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by hEad »


Okay name me one earth civilization which went on expanding? There is not one. Once they get to a certain size, historically, further expansion does not happen whether through conquest or colonisation. I don't understand how you can expect a different outcome in space. In the game colony spam happens as much (or more, especially early on) by conquest.

I agree that the computer player behaviour sorely needs improving and that it is a separate matter to the economic surpluses of human players. What I am wary of is any proposed solution for the latter making the former worse.

I think you will find that expansion is checked more by politics than logistics and economics...

The game just needs more resource and gold sinks - come mid/late game there are just too much of both galaxy wide. An easy fix would be to introduce greater resource consumption by colonies, both luxury and strategic. By limiting the flood of resources, their prices would inflate naturally whcih would lead to cost increases.
WiZz
Posts: 536
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:28 pm
Location: Ukraine

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by WiZz »

ORIGINAL: feelotraveller
Okay name me one earth civilization which went on expanding? There is not one. Once they get to a certain size, historically, further expansion does not happen whether through conquest or colonisation. I don't understand how you can expect a different outcome in space. In the game colony spam happens as much (or more, especially early on) by conquest.

In case DW we can't take for example human civilization, galaxy is bigger than Earth greatly.
But I can say 1 example colonization without limitation in our history. This is reclaiming of Syberia and Alaska by Russian colonists and traders. Not weak empire settled big part of whole continent.
User avatar
Arcatus
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:34 pm

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by Arcatus »

Idea for money sink: Unique race techs can be purchased from Ancient Guardians
WiZz
Posts: 536
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 1:28 pm
Location: Ukraine

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by WiZz »

And we will lose one last difference between races.
User avatar
feelotraveller
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:08 am

RE: Resource pricing and game economy

Post by feelotraveller »

ORIGINAL: WiZz

In case DW we can't take for example human civilization, galaxy is bigger than Earth greatly.
But I can say 1 example colonization without limitation in our history. This is reclaiming of Syberia and Alaska by Russian colonists and traders. Not weak empire settled big part of whole continent.

If you go back to my original parethentical comment, you will find that I am more concerned about gameplay than historical accuracy. The historical comments come as surprise that you would find it harder for a large empire to expand. So much so that you seemed to think my proposal 'strange', or perhaps 'artificial' or 'illogical'. I was merely pointing out that in terms of empires as we have known them there is nothing strange, illogical or artifical going on, except maybe in your thinking.

In terms of gameplay, as others have already mentioned, it has been a recurrent problem of the 4x genre of how to deal with the snowballing expansion rates of players. I would like Legends to do something in this regard because although the early game is interesting by mid game I am tempted (and sometimes give in) to put everything on auto and let the computer achieve my victory for me. There is by then too much of everything and it is all far too easy - money and resources are particularly of note in this 'too much'.

Oh, by the way, the Soviet Union stopped expanding quite some time ago. Your example is preposterous.
Post Reply

Return to “Distant Worlds 1 Series”