Merits of low sell prices

[Deathmonger]

maybe, although then people don't have to make as many decisions and we'll probably end up with a lot of the same ship

 

I've heard Arnk say that too, but I don't get it at all. You'd get more experimentation, more decisions, and therefore more configurations. People would equip their ships for whatever they felt like doing at the time (thorring, running, tanking, etc.), which leads to counters. I would argue that the current expensive item sale costs tend to drive everyone to the same generic optimally-balanced configs. E.g. every warbird last round had either a sig gun or a sig sublight, and pretty much the same everything else.

 

It also favors rich players, who are less pained about the financial losses from selling items, over casual ones.

 

I'd like to see more wacky experiments, like lancs with omega, tokamak sharks, etc. that you never see anymore because of this emphasis on making decisions irreversible due to the costs. The latter adds -10 fun and paradoxically drives everyone to the same optimal configs.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Deathmonger

[»D1st0rt]

I was making a comparison between setting buy/sell the same and using hspoints.

 

It's all really a moot point if nobody signs up

[kid]

it would be rather difficult to balance all of those things with HSPoints

 

 

honestly i'd say let anyone build any ship they want, but no alien techs.

[Acer]

It should be HS points, You get something like 150k points if the items are going to cost the same. Have the players make there ships from that and nothing more, Also are both Javelins and Warbirds allowed? Or is it just one.

[Dr Brain]

maybe, although then people don't have to make as many decisions and we'll probably end up with a lot of the same ship

 

I've heard Arnk say that too, but I don't get it at all. You'd get more experimentation, more decisions, and therefore more configurations. People would equip their ships for whatever they felt like doing at the time (thorring, running, tanking, etc.), which leads to counters. I would argue that the current expensive item sale costs tend to drive everyone to the same generic optimally-balanced configs. E.g. every warbird last round had either a sig gun or a sig sublight, and pretty much the same everything else.

 

It also favors rich players, who are less pained about the financial losses from selling items, over casual ones.

 

I'd like to see more wacky experiments, like lancs with omega, tokamak sharks, etc. that you never see anymore because of this emphasis on making decisions irreversible due to the costs. The latter adds -10 fun and paradoxically drives everyone to the same optimal configs.

 

I tend to agree with you. Limiting the number of choices means you're going to do what everyone else has already done, and pick the "good" layout, rather than trying new things. On the other hand, allowing things like antideath to sell for the full price also isn't a good idea. The new hscore3 gives a bit of a compromise: it will allow you to save items you've already bought, and move them around between your ships. It will also allow you to trade the items to other players. My hope is that we'll get some eBay-style bots in the game. So if you buy a shredder and decide you don't like it on your warbird, you can either move it to your spider, save it for later, or sell it on the black--I mean, bot--market.

[Samapico]

And you can have several instances of the same item? Limited to 8 or more if you want eBay-style bots?

Introducing changes in market prices, depending on the number of items of that kind on the market, etc. could be nice. You could even have limited number of each items in the main store (?buy), with periodic restocks or something.

Would add a whole new dimension to HS

[Dr Brain]

There wouldn't be a limit as to how many items you can store (limited to how much you can buy, of course). You could have 100 shredders.

 

I've pondered the idea of variable ?buy prices, but I think it's better left to the user bots. I do plan on having inventories and restocking phases for the zone stores, though. So antideath might restock once every 3 days, but point defense might restock every few hours.

[Emit]

I smell a monopoly and economic inflation.

[Acer]

There wouldn't be a limit as to how many items you can store (limited to how much you can buy, of course). You could have 100 shredders.

 

I've pondered the idea of variable ?buy prices, but I think it's better left to the user bots. I do plan on having inventories and restocking phases for the zone stores, though. So antideath might restock once every 3 days, but point defense might restock every few hours.

I really like Hscore3 then. That'd be awesome if one day we'll be seeing this stuff happening in pub. You also make it sound so fun! Can't wait.

[CDB-Man]

There wouldn't be a limit as to how many items you can store (limited to how much you can buy, of course). You could have 100 shredders.

 

I've pondered the idea of variable ?buy prices, but I think it's better left to the user bots. I do plan on having inventories and restocking phases for the zone stores, though. So antideath might restock once every 3 days, but point defense might restock every few hours.

 

Limited supplies of everything? But eventually, people will still be able to get everything, correct? Just a matter of who gets it first. This reminds me of Pokemon cards. Do i want a Charmeleon (pulse laser) or wait for a Charizard (Sharppinger)?

 

 

I smell a monopoly and economic inflation.

 

I call dibs on 16 TW keys. Ill sell them all for 1mil each