In depth look at economy and crafting and why it's failing.

[GoNi]

Well, what i guess i would define as a gambling print is a print that when you go to make the product, you know before you make it that it wont make any ped, and your hopes are to hit globals or hof big....

The prints that are not gambling prints are ones that you make because you plan on selling for a profit.

Loot is dynamic, not gambling. Since when do you go to a casino and get 90% returns over the long run?

Well why should crafting be different to hunting/mining ?

Hunters need Globals/HoF or rar item to break even or profit.
Miners need Globals/HoF or rar ore/enmatter to break even or profit.
Crafters need Globals/HoF or rar BPs to break even or profit

There is no BP that grants a profit.

 

[Spinage]

While I agree with your ideas, and think it would be nice, the game would have to be restarted from a fresh slate.

If we switched tomorrow to the new crafting trees, we would have an almost instantaneous economy crash. You envisage:

Crafter sells (L) @ X% to [Miner/Hunter]
[Miner/Hunter] uses (L) to acquire resources
Crafter buys resources @ Y% from [Miner/Hunter]

This is fine - and relative to the level of resources we can put the % at current prices (X = 105% Y = 110%) or, we could put those % inflated prices: X = 200% Y = 220%.

Now, what actually happens is:

Crafter sells (L) @ 200% to [Miner/Hunter](L)
[Miner/Hunter](L) uses (L) to acquire resources
[Miner/Hunter](unL) uses (unL) to acquire resources
Crafter buys resources @ 220% from [Miner/Hunter]

The issue becomes, an unL using player is totally dominant in this system. The greater the resource value, the greater the economic performance gap between the two weapon types L and unL - if the resource is directly linked to the manufacture of the item.

(This, incidentally, is why miners are "winning" the current system - the majority (unamped) are crafting-independent and therefore are selling into the system but not buying back out).

What would happen fairly quickly in your system would be that no-one would buy the (L) weapons - you would be better off using a TT weapon as an (unL) solution (or buying an unL weapon).

Thus, the economy would crash back down, to the exact same starting point we have now - fixing nothing, but causing a further issue in that gambler crafters would be inputting less PED to the overall PE system, as ease-to-craft is reduced.

This is all true. Well said.

The system should reward people with ULTRA rare Unl Items, of course, but not the base UnL items. In general, the concept of Unl Items being less efficient than (L) items is a good one, but they only really apply this to Armour in any effective way, and it should apply to all UnL items. Instead some of the most efficient items in the game are Unl and this is an issue.

I don't have the data Mindark have, but surely they should be able to work out a system where item return is not 90%, but a range from (hypothetically) 85-95% depending on equipment: where (L) items are more effficient in general except for super rare (unl) versions of those items.

(L) items should help increase turnover and it should be up to the player to work out whether the increased turnover outweights the reduced roi (after variance). This system is currently mining working model. It needs to transfer across all professions. It's frustrating to see that after years and years this still just isn't happening. New blue prints come out with the same issues. It's a bit annoying to see and I wish Mindark would just up their game in regards to this. It's so important.

 

[Spinage]

Sorry to continually double post, I just find it hard to respond to many people in one thread (I get sidetracked a lot).

Whitenut: again you missed the key point:

This is not about creating a static market. If everybody crafts yes, that does create less demand for output, but you ignore that it creates more demand for input.

Then people move to do that instead because its more profitable. This creates more demand for crafting output, whilst reducing need for input, so people move to crafting again.

This is a dynamic system, not a static system: people can do multiple things or choose to do nothing. This way a smart player can time his actions correctly and profit, where as a player with less thought will lose, a player that just stands crafting the same BP all month because it was profitable one week, will lose. A player that constantly switches BPs and sometimes professions: will win.

Other point is that some of us grind on various items, consuming mining resources (of which I am having trouble acquiring) to generate residue at my own risk. From my perspective, we have a shortage of miners.

This is just a failure of the crafting trees. Too much focus on mining resources, not enough on hunting resources. Residue shouldn't be divided into categories, there should be a standard residue that can be used across the board. Animal residue is used in too few final products whilst metal/energy are used in nearly all.

 

[KijkkiJikki]

Well why should crafting be different to hunting/mining ?

Hunters need Globals/HoF or rar item to break even or profit.
Miners need Globals/HoF or rar ore/enmatter to break even or profit.
Crafters need Globals/HoF or rar BPs to break even or profit

There is no BP that grants a profit.

I only craft stuff I can use or sell. And on average I sell at a profit.

 

[Neil Stockton]

There is no BP that grants a profit.

There are lots of BPs that guarantee profit.

There are also lots of miners who can profit even without HOFs and globals (on MU of course).

 

[whiteknut]

Good morning ppl in this thread

As after work i wasnt able to post anymore but was actually PLAYING the game i wasnt able to respond to OP and few others of his supporters. I ll try to respond to your posts now, sadly i see non of you have been able to answer my questions in my posts so i will list them again. You remember avoiding question is not making your opinion any stronger.

Xreme Insano - you have confused "easy to craft" with "easy to profit", most of crafters go for "Easy to craft", i never said profiting is easy and i am strongly against profiting being easy (like OP and you seem to want). Why? Because if profiting is easy, then no one profits.


Spinage - i will quote you with quotation marks because it is too confusing to use QUOTE /QUOTE on my work laptop when answering multiple posters. So here we go:

"This is not about creating a static market. If everybody crafts yes, that does create less demand for output, but you ignore that it creates more demand for input.

Then people move to do that instead because its more profitable. This creates more demand for crafting output, whilst reducing need for input, so people move to crafting again.

This is a dynamic system, not a static system: people can do multiple things or choose to do nothing. This way a smart player can time his actions correctly and profit, where as a player with less thought will lose, a player that just stands crafting the same BP all month because it was profitable one week, will lose. A player that constantly switches BPs and sometimes professions: will win.
"

1. paragraph - More demand for input = same tt value of input just higher markup? Why is that good for item crafters or anyone beside component crafters? For miners it is bad, as their ores wont be sold as fast, for end users it is also bad, as crafting items they need now take more time and money, so end price will be higher.

2. paragraph - I am also preacher of dynamic system and i am quite certain long time traders know a lot about dynamic system as it their livelihood. You claim that with your idea smart players could time their actions correctly and profit, but what is stopping them now? It Works EXACTLY like this already. During mob migrations, certain components used for crafting high DPS guns skyrocket, easy way to profit even for everyone. Right now, if you change professions; bps; areas; mobs at right time you will profit.
Want some examples of how this system already Works without your recommendations?
1.December 2013 - Holiday Jellyworms were spawning and dropping 2 coats and 2 hats per 30minutes, there were not many hunters there, so at nights you probably ended up with 8-10 coats with 5 hour run (depending if someone else was also running through), this meant you could get 1000ped loot in 5 hours while spending roughly 800ped on ammo and you still had the regular 90% of the loot. Why was it profitable? Because not many ppl were doing it and it gave the hunters higher chance of looting the coats.

2.Calypso Bone Samples dropping from small mobs - when it first was introduced anyone with little dedication could double triple their hunting loot by selling the Bone samples for super high markup. not possible anymore because everyone has used their bonesamples (they cant be used twice)

3.Crafting standard dampers, Basic filters - in numerous times in Entropia universe history it has been profitable to just click low lvl components on quality, to loot as much as possible residue. The residue price was so high that you easily profited.

4.Crafting apises after one of the rare ingredients started dropping like crazy, the price to craft went down, while the apis price was still high.

5.Crafting vehicle components during the boom of the vehicles, they were easy to craft and sold for very nice price because everyone was crafting vehicles.






I hope you are seeing now, that what you want to achieve is already achieved, you just havent been smart enough, there are thousands of examples of every different professions being easy money if done correctly.

Why i prefer current situation to your recommendation? Because when items are closer to tt, they are tt´ed more and money cycles much faster, more money cycled, more money for MA and more fun for us. Your idea would more steps in the chain, which is giving more money to MA but less fun to player. More fun is better than less fun. Component crafting is already done mostly by skilling up ppl who agree to lose a bit to gain skills which will help them to craft rare items later and profit if done rightly.

To make it easy to see, you recommend more links in the chain, lets go crazy lets let it be 9 links before end user.
So 100tt x 90% x 90% .... x 90% = 38,7% So every item should have markup of atleast 300%.
While at current 81% should only be bit over 120% to be worth doing.
In your version : less TT ingame for players and more markup
In my version: More TT ingame and less markup

You can debate which is better, but most of the players surely prefer their items having higher solid ped tt value, just incase the dynamic system screws the markup which would cause the 300% markup to drop to pretty much tt price.

Keep away from the self balancing economy which is running strong. Dont forget MA only covers for TT value.

2.

 

[Spinage]

I will firstly quickly address your ill-concealed jibes about "supporters" and "PLAYING" the game. I do play the game, I choose not to reveal my in game name because I prefer anonymity because of threads exactly like this. I am much more analytical when posting in the forum as this entertains me (maybe I am weird, I like this type of discussion.).

Fwiw, I have played this game for 6~ years now, I know you have made several comments about me playing for a few months, which I opted to ignore. I profit. I don't deposit. I do this through mostly uncreative tried and tested ways that stay the same for years at a time (mining, mostly, and as you said opportunist moments, like that time I made 4k ped in 2 days on the release of blazar fragments.)

The problem with this is, besides opportune moments, the game is stilted and has no appeal for new players and the more exciting aspects of this game generally create unreasonable losses for a game - I argue the USP of this game is the economy, and this is not optimized for a healthy experience at all levels of play across a diverse range of activities.

This thread was meant to be a good natured hypothetical look at an alternative model, as the current one does not work for ALL levels of play and there are tons of bad and useless items in the game. This thread is not an argument with yourself where I have "supporters" and you have "supporters". It's a completely hypothetical situation, and you already swayed me away from 100% components, I am a reasonable person, but I still think my basic concept is correct.

Let me make this REALLY simple for you:

The ammount of stuff that is TT'd in this game is staggering. The ammount of crafters in this game is excessively low. This is because crafting IS not penetrable for an average player (as mentioned several times above, low level BPs are mostly useless, with the few good ones having low volume - the only one with decent volume at an affordable price for an average player is Basic Sheet Metal and I believe this is not profitable .. at the moment anyway).

This creates an awkward system where total resources used<total resources produced by a lot, and furthermore, the majority of the few resources that do have an adequate demand are gathered from mining, not an equal distribution. This is simply poor game design. This doesn't even touch on the monopoly of good blueprints and the investments they require.

Now as I said, I profit. Do I have fun playing anymore? No. Not really, I just do it in the hope that there will be a boom of new players one day, and so as I said, I generally go away for longer periods now and come back dismayed.

Good morning ppl in this thread
To make it easy to see, you recommend more links in the chain, lets go crazy lets let it be 9 links before end user.
So 100tt x 90% x 90% .... x 90% = 38,7% So every item should have markup of atleast 300%.
While at current 81% should only be bit over 120% to be worth doing.
In your version : less TT ingame for players and more markup
In my version: More TT ingame and less markup

You can debate which is better, but most of the players surely prefer their items having higher solid ped tt value, just incase the dynamic system screws the markup which would cause the 300% markup to drop to pretty much tt price.
.

This is actually the crux of the argument.

I will try to highlight the bits you are missing:

Current system

Player X is an average player, he hunts.
Player X TT return = 90%. Player X makes virtually no markup on the majority of his items and either stores or TT's 50% of his loot (realistically.. more).

45% of his loot finds it way into the auction, some of which does not sell. Lets say 40% of his loot ends up in a crafters hands. Most of the time, about 50% of the 90% the crafters loot will also be TT'd. Residue will be stacked and sold, some products will be sold.

So at the end of that chain: 10% of initial hunters loot went to MA, 45% to the TT machine, 40% to a crafter, who gave 10% of that to MA, leaving 36% in total crafted loot, 50% of which is TTable.

So just 18% of the original TT makes it into usable, salable items whilst 63% makes it into a TT machine.

Result

When an average player TT's something, they are effectively recycling it: it has an expected value of 90% because often they will just use it on an in game activity.

So effectively Mindark are taking 10% of the original TT and 10% of the 63% that finds its way to a TT machine

My point here is that just becuase something is not used in a crafting train, doesn't mean it isn't depreciating, it STILL has a 90% expected return whatever it is used in.

Your low markup, more TT used by players theory only works in a 100% return system. Because as it is, low markup still results in less TT usable for players.

A different system

A lower ammount of TTable items = a higher markup.

So although yes, you are correct, each layer of the chain results in a 90% TT return, each player has a genuine opportunity to recover some of that loss through markup. The same total TT would be in the system, but it will be being used over a wider spread of activities. The aim would be to make crafting more accessible and hunting eventually more worthwhile.

The main point here is that when somebody sells something for markup, or buys something for markup, the markup retains 100% of it's value, it is just transferred to another player. There is no depreciation in selling items to a player, but there is in selling things to a TT machine.

The general aim of the balance team should be to make hunting/mining/crafting equally rewarding, accessible and entertaining. At the moment, hunting wins in entertainment and accessibility, mining wins in accessibility and reward and crafting loses in just about all 3: except for a very select few (but i talk about average players).

Appeal to the masses and gain.. masses. Player base needs to increase for the survival of this game and that includes for the survival of the currently successful players.


Edit: An important note to clarify here is that I do NOT think profiting should be easy, for exactly the reason you stated. But profiting should be possible across all levels in a range of activities. More new players and more sales volumes make this achievable. You get more sales volumes by decreasing the ammount of items TT'd (The volume is there: its just not being traded). You get more players by having a more accessible and rewarding game.

 

[whiteknut]

Why do you have two avatars? "Steven Steven Coward" and "Steven Spinage Coward"
The Steven Steven Coward of you is crafting components, but the other one is hidden profile on entropialife...

You speak about Changing market for better but have two accounts?


Sorry didnt read your last post, as it doesnt say anything about where do the missing tt value come back to players (0.9*0,9*0,9.. etc)

K had time now to respond you:

I will firstly quickly address your ill-concealed jibes about "supporters" and "PLAYING" the game. I do play the game, I choose not to reveal my in game name because I prefer anonymity because of threads exactly like this. I am much more analytical when posting in the forum as this entertains me (maybe I am weird, I like this type of discussion.).

Fwiw, I have played this game for 6~ years now, I know you have made several comments about me playing for a few months, which I opted to ignore. I profit. I don't deposit. I do this through mostly uncreative tried and tested ways that stay the same for years at a time (mining, mostly, and as you said opportunist moments, like that time I made 4k ped in 2 days on the release of blazar fragments.)

The problem with this is, besides opportune moments, the game is stilted and has no appeal for new players and the more exciting aspects of this game generally create unreasonable losses for a game - I argue the USP of this game is the economy, and this is not optimized for a healthy experience at all levels of play across a diverse range of activities.

This thread was meant to be a good natured hypothetical look at an alternative model, as the current one does not work for ALL levels of play and there are tons of bad and useless items in the game. This thread is not an argument with yourself where I have "supporters" and you have "supporters". It's a completely hypothetical situation, and you already swayed me away from 100% components, I am a reasonable person, but I still think my basic concept is correct.

Let me make this REALLY simple for you:

The ammount of stuff that is TT'd in this game is staggering. The ammount of crafters in this game is excessively low. This is because crafting IS not penetrable for an average player (as mentioned several times above, low level BPs are mostly useless, with the few good ones having low volume - the only one with decent volume at an affordable price for an average player is Basic Sheet Metal and I believe this is not profitable .. at the moment anyway).

This creates an awkward system where total resources used<total resources produced by a lot, and furthermore, the majority of the few resources that do have an adequate demand are gathered from mining, not an equal distribution. This is simply poor game design. This doesn't even touch on the monopoly of good blueprints and the investments they require.

Now as I said, I profit. Do I have fun playing anymore? No. Not really, I just do it in the hope that there will be a boom of new players one day, and so as I said, I generally go away for longer periods now and come back dismayed.




This is actually the crux of the argument.

I will try to highlight the bits you are missing:

Current system

Player X is an average player, he hunts.
Player X TT return = 90%. Player X makes virtually no markup on the majority of his items and either stores or TT's 50% of his loot (realistically.. more).

45% of his loot finds it way into the auction, some of which does not sell. Lets say 40% of his loot ends up in a crafters hands. Most of the time, about 50% of the 90% the crafters loot will also be TT'd. Residue will be stacked and sold, some products will be sold.

So at the end of that chain: 10% of initial hunters loot went to MA, 45% to the TT machine, 40% to a crafter, who gave 10% of that to MA, leaving 36% in total crafted loot, 50% of which is TTable.

So just 18% of the original TT makes it into usable, salable items whilst 63% makes it into a TT machine.

Result

When an average player TT's something, they are effectively recycling it: it has an expected value of 90% because often they will just use it on an in game activity.

So effectively Mindark are taking 10% of the original TT and 10% of the 63% that finds its way to a TT machine

My point here is that just becuase something is not used in a crafting train, doesn't mean it isn't depreciating, it STILL has a 90% expected return whatever it is used in.

Your low markup, more TT used by players theory only works in a 100% return system. Because as it is, low markup still results in less TT usable for players.

A different system

A lower ammount of TTable items = a higher markup.

So although yes, you are correct, each layer of the chain results in a 90% TT return, each player has a genuine opportunity to recover some of that loss through markup. The same total TT would be in the system, but it will be being used over a wider spread of activities. The aim would be to make crafting more accessible and hunting eventually more worthwhile.

The main point here is that when somebody sells something for markup, or buys something for markup, the markup retains 100% of it's value, it is just transferred to another player. There is no depreciation in selling items to a player, but there is in selling things to a TT machine.

The general aim of the balance team should be to make hunting/mining/crafting equally rewarding, accessible and entertaining. At the moment, hunting wins in entertainment and accessibility, mining wins in accessibility and reward and crafting loses in just about all 3: except for a very select few (but i talk about average players).

Appeal to the masses and gain.. masses. Player base needs to increase for the survival of this game and that includes for the survival of the currently successful players.


Edit: An important note to clarify here is that I do NOT think profiting should be easy, for exactly the reason you stated. But profiting should be possible across all levels in a range of activities. More new players and more sales volumes make this achievable. You get more sales volumes by decreasing the ammount of items TT'd (The volume is there: its just not being traded). You get more players by having a more accessible and rewarding game.

I have never said that you played for few months i can see you had forum account since 2008.
About your calculations why are you avoiding the fact that with that many chain links the TT is lowered by 10% for several times which leads to LESS tt to regular players and more Markup to one specific link in the chain. looking at your accounts it is clear that atleast ONE account you use is just component crafting account, so thats why you probably recommend it. BTW have you been online lately, go check auction and component prices.. it is crazy.. basic wires 140% etc..

An important note to clarify here is that I do NOT think profiting should be easy, for exactly the reason you stated. But profiting should be possible across all levels in a range of activities.

It is possible right now, so thread should be closed now? because no real reason to do what you say should be done. Also btw, in your title of the thread you claim that economy is failing, why is that? For me the economy is not failing (economy that did survice the big market crash in real life is qutie strong economy imho)

 

[Colbey Kal]

You're forgetting about time. In Real Life time is the ultimate limiting factor of production. It takes some human's time to dig ore out of the ground, some time to refine it, some time to ship it, some time to process the end product, some time to stock it on Walmart's shelves.

In EU, time gets screwy. (This is also ignoring the potential of macro-bots)

Most of the hunters are effectively paying to spend their time gathering resources. This is the opposite of real life..... if hunting was (easily) 100% free there would be many more players, more hours spent hunting, and practically no MU. In mining people buy Amps, which effectively only multiply their hourly productivity. Even with level 13's there is still an absolute constraint on the possible hours / player, which could be thought of as the fundamental reason why intelligent mining is still profitable. The same is true with sweating, one avatar can sweat, at a max, 24 hours per day. With crafting, time is not a substantial factor. One Avatar could produce more of any item needed than the global monthly demand with one night of auto clicking. This is why low level components like Basic Sheet Metal were actually profitable before the auto-produce toggle was introduced. There was a real humsn person clicking their mouse for hours at time while watching TV.

There are still things that can be produced at a slight profit, but that's due to inefficiencies in the market. Like unique / rare BP, or being aware of changing demand & supply due to events or human nature. If you changed the crafting formula the fundamental time factor wouldn't be changed and pretty soon we would end up right where we are now - practically unlimited time spent clicking BPs to make things with a practically limited consumption.

 

[GoNi]

With crafting, time is not a substantial factor. One Avatar could produce more of any item needed than the global monthly demand with one night of auto clicking. This is why low level components like Basic Sheet Metal were actually profitable before the auto-produce toggle was introduced. There was a real humsn person clicking their mouse for hours at time while watching TV.

Well befor MA decided to introduce auto crafting, many many well known crafters, did use autoclicker to craft all night long AFK.
So nothing changed.
Beside Basic Sheet Metall there are some other component BPs that can be crafted at profit, or at least break even, check actual component prices.
Not that bad for newcomers aswell, LVL 1-4 components are easy to craft even with nearly no skill.

We all have been beginners, we all had to learn the way of crafting.
Some gave up, others still craft.
Many things changed over time.

Remember when there was seperated tools for ore and enmatter (I prefered old system, but I am not unable to adjust)
New weapons came, many many new BPs even completely new books.

I remeber time, there was no vehicles, there was no enhancers, there was no textures (many new options)
Beside that I remeber time, there was no Weapon BP-Book II, No component BP book II and no other planets offering hundrets other BPs to craft.

A crafter just has to learn, what to craft, where to craft, how many to craft to make his way in EU.

System doesn´t need a change.

Only thing I personally would changed is:
For every component you can craft there should be at least ONE unlimited BP that uses this component.
There are still components that are not used for anything, other could be used, but only with some rar L BPs.
Thats only fail in economy I can see MA could solve. Anything else is regulated by supply and demand, which is 100% up to players.

 

[Spinage]

Why do you have two avatars? "Steven Steven Coward" and "Steven Spinage Coward"

You speak about Changing market for better but have two accounts?

False.

It is possible right now, so thread should be closed now? because no real reason to do what you say should be done. Also btw, in your title of the thread you claim that economy is failing, why is that? For me the economy is not failing (economy that did survice the big market crash in real life is qutie strong economy imho)

Why would a thread be closed for looking at something hypothetically. I have explained countless times the reason would be to improve player experience across the board and volume of sales, which in my opinion would make it a more interesting game, economically, for newer players as the game's usp is its economy. This should result in more people sticking to the game = bigger player base. If that isn't reason enough(and it is): It is also just generally better design to have items have a real purpose.


As an aside: basic wires are terrible to craft because their sales volume is too small. The MU does make it a reasonable click, in theory: not really a profit though, and then the actual product doesn't sell very well, despite MU, because it is used in tiny proportions: for example, the level 1 finder amp uses it as 1.6% of its total cost per click, using raw mining materials and survey probes for the rest of the cost.

You seem to think the economy is fine because aspects of it work. I fail to see how you cannot see it is a poorly designed system.

I guess the real issue here is: you think the current system is fine. You are entitled to that opinion. I on the other hand think this game needs a massive shift towards accessibility and transparency, otherwise all the money they are spending on marketing is wasted. Until I see a boom in new players, I will keep this opinion.

I think we have come to a head here on this debate and there is no reason for me and you to continue discussing with one another; as far as I can see we are both repeating ourselves and certain aspects of what I have said seem to not be being absorbed by you at all.

 

[Spinage]

Only thing I personally would changed is:
For every component you can craft there should be at least ONE unlimited BP that uses this component.
There are still components that are not used for anything, other could be used, but only with some rar L BPs.
Thats only fail in economy I can see MA could solve. Anything else is regulated by supply and demand, which is 100% up to players.

I do agree with this. Well said.

Only thing I slightly disagree with is supply and demand being regulated by players: if a BP tree has end products using just 1-2% components in a click, that blue print is already predetermining less demand for components (in much the same way as components not having an UL BP at all to be used in). All items need a real use, which is down to game design, not just supply and demand.

Components are the easiest way to use the most resources, as each component used exponentially increases the amount of base resources needed. That's why I am inclined to think that component crafting trees need to be balanced.

 

[KijkkiJikki]

Until I see a boom in new players, I will keep this opinion.

People often say the game is stagnant or dying, because of EntropiaLife stats or older players choosing to move on, or there is the seasonal sell off. But if you believe the people who are actually in a position to know (PPs and MA), EU is actually in a period of sustained growth and that has been the case for at least 12 months.

This is why Arkadia has recently been permitted to release new shops for sale. (from 22 up to 30).

Of course they might be lying. That's a judgement call everyone needs to make.

I will also assert from personal experience that it's very possible for the thoughtful player to consistently profit in EU, but just as in real life a source of capital is extremely important. Bootstrapping from 0 peds to profit is always going to be a problem. And of course, in the long term, one player's profits is going to come from other players' losses, because that's just the nature of the EU economy.

I think its great that people put forward ideas on how to improve the economy or the game because god knows there is plenty of room for improvement, but I think the game doesn't need to be saved. And some problems aren't actually problems at all.

I'm a bit dubious on the proposal in the OP. If I understand it, the suggestion is to effectively add several rounds of crafting before we end up with a final product. We see that with some items already. My concern is that there would be a significant impact on the cost to craft and, for the weapons I make, that would end up with a pricing point that was well past the threshold when a weapon becomes uneco. So that leads to a few possible outcomes:

• I set price to a level that is eco for the hunter but I lose money - that's clearly not sustainable
• I set price to preserve my profit margin, demand for a now uneco weapon plummets
• A new low standard for what is "eco" is accepted, hunter TT returns drop accordingly.

I don't think any of these outcomes are good for me or the economy.

Regards,
KikkiJikki

 

[sawachika]

Spinage,

I think another good point of view that you can analyze things from is with the blueprints from Planet Arkadia.

http://www.entropiawiki.com/Chart.aspx?chart=Blueprint

From there....do another of your chart flow thingy once again and then cross check with KijkkiJikki. (He's a fairly prominent crafter of Arkadian weapons.)

Ask him his point of view with regards to the crafting of those weapons. What's his trouble with the gathering of those stuff he needs to craft the final end product (because most of the high end weapons seems to require quite a number of resources to craft)....his markup woes and the difficulty in selling of the crafted items and stuff like that.

Why? Because Arkadian item blueprints kindda semi-follows what your trying to advocate...but to a lesser degree. Some of its items requires both mining and hunting resources....some requires some additional crafted components....and others are mostly mining and crafted components.

It would give a more solid foundation to see things from, in my opinion. (As to whether its feasible to go full crafted components, one third of all three professions' resources or something in between.)

Just my two pecs.

 

[KijkkiJikki]

I will add, in defense of OP proposal, that things are tough for the dedicated component crafter on Arkadia. There just isn't the consistent demand for their outputs, apart from residue. I tend to craft my own components. Now if I needed shitloads more components then I would probably have to buy off others owing to lack of time. I use a wide range of components and simply don't have time to make a massive volume of them. So in that sense it would help a particular segment of the user-base.

Rather than add yet another post I will now go onto a different issue. In modern item bps, you will generally find at least one ingredient that is relatively uncommon. MA adjust the availability of that ingredient to dynamically regulate the availability and cost-to-make of the item, preventing one super eco gun from dominating the market (as we saw with arkadian weapons before the great nerfing of a year or so ago). Examples would be halix tails, frakite, blood moss (?). I think it would be difficult for components to fill this role.

 

[whiteknut]

False

It is not false, or care to share which account of those two is not yours?
Steven Steven Coward that i can clearly tell is yours, or Steven Spinage Coward - which would mean someone mixed your avatar name with your forum name...

You have posted too much information on forums to keep your avatar a secret, not very hard to do the 1+1 if you have provided the facts in the past.

UPDATE: You deleted screenshot from your gallery that was there yesterday showing your ingame name (one of the names mentioned earlier) so if you are telling the truth why hide the facts ?

Spinage has two avatars : Steven Steven Coward and Steven Spinage Coward.

 

[whiteknut]

As an aside: basic wires are terrible to craft because their sales volume is too small. The MU does make it a reasonable click, in theory: not really a profit though, and then the actual product doesn't sell very well, despite MU, because it is used in tiny proportions: for example, the level 1 finder amp uses it as 1.6% of its total cost per click, using raw mining materials and survey probes for the rest of the cost.

You seem to think the economy is fine because aspects of it work. I fail to see how you cannot see it is a poorly designed system.

I guess the real issue here is: you think the current system is fine. You are entitled to that opinion. I on the other hand think this game needs a massive shift towards accessibility and transparency, otherwise all the money they are spending on marketing is wasted. Until I see a boom in new players, I will keep this opinion.

I think we have come to a head here on this debate and there is no reason for me and you to continue discussing with one another; as far as I can see we are both repeating ourselves and certain aspects of what I have said seem to not be being absorbed by you at all.

You were talking earlier about being dynamic. now be dynamic and craft wires i dont know about the small volumes but i managed to sell over 200ped tt yesterday in big bulks (not 1ped bulks at 200% markup). Jester d-4 blueprint uses it, but that you dont know for some reason although you are super agent secret player who plays a lot but doesnt show up on entropialife.com tracker (i manually searched main Chat window logs for your both avatars, only Steven Steven Coward has any globals there, maybe wasnt online while you got with the ohter, might just be.)
To click 50clicks of d-4 you need quite a lot Basic wire.

Until i see this game running i keep my opinion, as it clearly is doing something right. Only problem is lack of new players, but believe most of them want to shoot mobs and mine treasures rather than sit 24/7 in front of computer cliking few pec filters.

I am absorbing everything you are saying and replying, thats how discussion works. Because i know a lot about ingame economy i think all the players cant contribute as much as i am.

I am also reading their opinions and clearly most of them find problems with certain aspects of your theory. Surely some agree with some parts of your theory, but still i am waiting for answer, at what moment players get back the tt value they deposit. You cant withdraw markup.


Please tell me in what part of the "spinage economy" the peds return to the hunter? Hunter goes hunting buys 100tt gun for 144% and ammo 100ped, spends 244ped on run and gets back 180ped. 40ped of it is ammo, 140ped is different materials with 1-20 ped tt value. Hunter would need to sell the mats at about 150% to break even. It is impossible.

Ok price of mats rises also, now hunter manages to sell his mats at 150% to component crafters who change it to components and have now 126ped of components that they need to sell at around 170% to break even. Now add new weapon crafter, and now the new hunter who now has to pay 250% for the gun.

It is never ending cycle with TT always decreasing. But we already have UL items ingame which are more eco than L weapons. So what would happen? Crafting would die (as i said in my first post in this thread).

I know it is already system like this, but everyone covers for their own losseses and not for component crafters profits.

I have already proved many parts of you claims wrong, what is still left?
You said it is hard to profit with knowledge - i showed everyone can profit, from noobs to ubers.
You said big markups will help out the community with the long chains - i showed that more links in the chain, more money directly to MA and less money back to player.
I asked why you have two avatars, you decide to keep it a secret and delete a Picture from gallery.

 

[Spinage]

Spinage has two avatars : Steven Steven Coward and Steven Spinage Coward.

I simply don't, sorry. I don't even believe the second avatar exists. Does not come up in Player Registry (can you

The Screenshot I deleted didn't contain my avatar name. But thanks for noticing that I deleted a screenshot, lol - I deleted this screen shot by request by the way.... Not that it's any of your business really.

You are kind of detracting from this post now, suffice to say I do not have two accounts.

Spinage,

I think another good point of view that you can analyze things from is with the blueprints from Planet Arkadia.


Arkadian item blueprints kindda semi-follows what your trying to advocate...but to a lesser degree. Some of its items requires both mining and hunting resources....some requires some additional crafted components....and others are mostly mining and crafted components.

It would give a more solid foundation to see things from, in my opinion. (As to whether its feasible to go full crafted components, one third of all three professions' resources or something in between.)

Just my two pecs.

I will look into this further. I do spend far less time than I should looking at other planets economy, just because they are so much smaller than Calypso's. Sounds interesting though.

I think something in between seems smartest, I think the only thing I am 100% certain of is that currently there isn't enough and specifically too much mining resources relative to hunting resources used.

I'm a bit dubious on the proposal in the OP. If I understand it, the suggestion is to effectively add several rounds of crafting before we end up with a final product. We see that with some items already. My concern is that there would be a significant impact on the cost to craft and, for the weapons I make, that would end up with a pricing point that was well past the threshold when a weapon becomes uneco. So that leads to a few possible outcomes:

• I set price to a level that is eco for the hunter but I lose money - that's clearly not sustainable
• I set price to preserve my profit margin, demand for a now uneco weapon plummets
• A new low standard for what is "eco" is accepted, hunter TT returns drop accordingly.

I don't think any of these outcomes are good for me or the economy.

Regards,
KikkiJikki

Hi Kikki, thanks for your thoughts. I think the conversation sidetracked quite a bit, my original intended suggestion was to use more components in the crafting of final products. I then sort of went a bit OTT and said 100% crafted components: i've said several times since this is probably not a good idea.

I think at the moment it's safe to say, "more than what is used now" would be beneficial. This doesn't necessarily mean adding too many layers, if any. Mainly it just means increasing the ratio of components used in the final BP, and more components made using hunting materials used in both mining and hunting gear (the same way raw mining materials are used in both). These are my main points that I think have gotten lost in my long posts.

I think having a more expensive gun is worth having potential to sell your loot for reasonable prices/volume. Especially considering the eco of a gun is not completely damaged by markup, due to amps and ammo burn. Some guns could be 900% MU and it doesn't effect their ECO too much! (Chikara oni-roku E.L.M is an example of this - no I am not advocating 900% MU weapons, but I just want to point out how design wise, it can actually work!)

People often say the game is stagnant or dying, because of EntropiaLife stats or older players choosing to move on, or there is the seasonal sell off. But if you believe the people who are actually in a position to know (PPs and MA), EU is actually in a period of sustained growth and that has been the case for at least 12 months.

I do not believe the game is dying, I just believe it could grow a lot faster if they focused more on making certain things accessible.. CLD revenue graphs show the game is at least maintaining a steady playerbase/turnover and yes, slowly increasing. But it doesn't detract from the fact that the game is still mostly empty and the economy isn't optimal. I should really have researched more about Arcadia BP trees, but it sounds like steps in the right direction there: shame the economy is so much smaller and so we can't really make direct comparisons.

 

[whiteknut]

I simply don't, sorry. I don't even believe the second avatar exists. Does not come up in Player Registry (can you

The Screenshot I deleted didn't contain my avatar name. But thanks for noticing that I deleted a screenshot, lol - I deleted this screen shot by request by the way.... Not that it's any of your business really.

You are kind of detracting from this post now, suffice to say I do not have two accounts.


.

So you are only Steven Steven Coward?
Steven Spinage Coward exists very much, it is hidden profile on entropialife.com and hidden on player registry.
I think you should contact support to let them close this Steven Spinage Coward account, as it is clearly impersonating you.

 

[Spinage]

You were talking earlier about being dynamic. now be dynamic and craft wires i dont know about the small volumes but i managed to sell over 200ped tt yesterday in big bulks (not 1ped bulks at 200% markup). Jester d-4 blueprint uses it, but that you dont know for some reason although you are super agent secret player who plays a lot but doesnt show up on entropialife.com tracker (i manually searched main Chat window logs for your both avatars, only Steven Steven Coward has any globals there, maybe wasnt online while you got with the ohter, might just be.)
To click 50clicks of d-4 you need quite a lot Basic wire.

I do not believe I stated anywhere that I didn't know D-4 needs basic wire - I mean I don't know every BP off by heart, but I obviously check entropedia: what I stated was it has low volume: I do not even need to do anything but right click and press market value for that... 371Ped daily volume is small. Things like Duruliam have 55kped a day. Besides basic wire isn't a profitable BP anyway (I dont know why you think it is tbh, the avg output MU is~120% and input MU is 110%~. It's close, but it's not profit. You could break even at a push with clever selling and buying)

I am also reading their opinions and clearly most of them find problems with certain aspects of your theory. Surely some agree with some parts of your theory, but still i am waiting for answer, at what moment players get back the tt value they deposit. You cant withdraw markup.

Be clear: there is no theory coming from me at all. I am doing nothing by analyzing stats and numbers: this is not called theory. The only thing that could be considered theory is when I say it would increase the playerbase, everything else is just maths.

To answer that: the player gets the TT value back when they sell the markup to another player.

Please tell me in what part of the "spinage economy" the peds return to the hunter? Hunter goes hunting buys 100tt gun for 144% and ammo 100ped, spends 244ped on run and gets back 180ped. 40ped of it is ammo, 140ped is different materials with 1-20 ped tt value. Hunter would need to sell the mats at about 150% to break even. It is impossible.

I do not know which gun uses ammo at a 1:1 ratio of decay, but that would be a very bad (L) design gun indeed. Obviously it's specific to the exact gun, but usually it's around 20x the ammo usage per gun decay (obviously varies). Meaning your 100 ped gun that you bought for 144 ped would actually last you 2000 ped of ammo, and you spent 44ped mark up on 2000ped TT input. (thats about 2%). This would mean the hunter would need to sell his loot for about 113% Av MU to cover his TT loss and MU input.

I have already proved many parts of you claims wrong, what is still left?

I do not believe you have proved anything to be honest. I believe you have just metaphorically shouted at me and somehow my suggestion has offended you. I am sorry if this is true. I did not set out with any intention to offend anybody, I set out to analyse a set of numbers and I found that there was issues with the design of crafting. Obviously I am human and I probably have made some mistakes with my thinking, but based on maths alone, I find it hard to believe there is no merit in what I originally said.

The system, as is, is clearly far, far from perfect: MA made a game 10 years ago as a small company and people have invested in it, which makes it difficult to change. I do wonder what they would change if they could start again, and with that in mind, I wonder what really would be the long term disadvantage of making such changes without starting again. I am aware that this will never happen, but it's interesting - to me, to think about.

 

[whiteknut]

Game wasnt made 10years ago. You are still either double avatar or in best case anonymous poster who wants to talk about something he doesnt know. Basic Wires markup is lot higher, check cheapest on auction and last sold. Very easily profitable, IF NOT overdone, surely if you and Steven Spinage Coward both start crafting the price might drop.

Theory, idea, hypothesis.. whatever you name it, it is not how it is or should be.

And the best part of your post:

To answer that: the player gets the TT value back when they sell the markup to another player.

You do understand it the situation right now, but if mindark removes 10-30% more tt in just on cycle then ppl need to deposit 10-30% to play the same amount.

Each link gives mindark 10%, more links LESS peds changing hands.
It is like pyramid scheme you are describing, everyone wins until prices are going up... but one moment someone wants to täke out the money and the pyramid comes falling down.

 

[Spinage]

Game wasnt made 10years ago. You are still either double avatar or in best case anonymous poster who wants to talk about something he doesnt know. Basic Wires markup is lot higher, check cheapest on auction and last sold. Very easily profitable, IF NOT overdone, surely if you and Steven Spinage Coward both start crafting the price might drop.

sorry, I did not include beta: I didn't play beta, the point still stands.

Basic wires MU is higher, but again you prove you do not have the greatest grasp of maths with your discussion on MU.
Basic wires is just a fraction, not even HALF of what you produce when you craft basic wires. The AVERAGE output MU is around 120% considering residue: hope this clears things up for you.

Theory, idea, hypothesis.. whatever you name it, it is not how it is or should be.

It is none of these, it is an analysis with a suggestion. None of these things apply. It is not a "theory": its a look at how things physically are, described through maths: this is analysis, its completely different man.

You do understand it the situation right now, but if mindark removes 10-30% more tt in just on cycle then ppl need to deposit 10-30% to play the same amount.

Each link gives mindark 10%, more links LESS peds changing hands.
It is like pyramid scheme you are describing, everyone wins until prices are going up... but one moment someone wants to täke out the money and the pyramid comes falling down.

[/quote]

At the moment, the same pyramid scheme happens when people TT their unsuable products and go and repeat the same activity. The only difference would be that instead of repeating the same activity, somebody else would be doing a different activity and paying you MU for it.

Also: simply adding more crafted components to final product BPs wouldn't add any further stages of crafting, which may be easier for you to think about - although not necessarily better.


Now sorry, I have work to get to and although you have raised some great points, you have mostly just misunderstood the maths over and over again and been quite rude about it. If you go over this discussion again you will see you question me about things I've answered, OVER and OVER again. Please, this is no insult: stop interrogating me if you can't understand the basic maths.

 

[whiteknut]

.


Now sorry, I have work to get to and although you have raised some great points, you have mostly just misunderstood the maths over and over again and been quite rude about it. If you go over this discussion again you will see you question me about things I've answered, OVER and OVER again. Please, this is no insult: stop interrogating me if you can't understand the basic maths.

lol. Basic math. 0.81<0,729.
I am talking about peds that can be withdrawn you are speaking about markup that cant be withdrawn, less ped ingame, less peds to be withdrawn.

To make it easy ppl depo 1mil ped use it to mine and craft once and have 0.81 mil ped tt left.
Now ppl want to withdraw no matter what markup this product have they cant withdraw more than 0.81mil.

In your case with more links in the chain 0.729mil is available to withdraw.

Yeah sure some ppl can withdraw but in the end ppl will lose.

It is really simple math, and i know i am not uber secret agent like you who has secret account(s) to study and know the economy. I have only one little trader crafter avatar

 

[Spinage]

lol. Basic math. 0.81<0,729.
I am talking about peds that can be withdrawn you are speaking about markup that cant be withdrawn, less ped ingame, less peds to be withdrawn.

To make it easy ppl depo 1mil ped use it to mine and craft once and have 0.81 mil ped tt left.
Now ppl want to withdraw no matter what markup this product have they cant withdraw more than 0.81mil.

In your case with more links in the chain 0.729mil is available to withdraw.

Yeah sure some ppl can withdraw but in the end ppl will lose.

It is really simple math, and i know i am not uber secret agent like you who has secret account(s) to study and know the economy. I have only one little trader crafter avatar

This is getting silly and I have not the time or patience to repeat it so frequently for your benefit. Not everybody can grasps numbers easily, and you have demonstrated over several posts an inability to keep up, and further, just been blatantly rude and not even acknowledged my corrections: when you make arguments like TT gun 100 + 100 ammo and 40 ped markup, and I correct it to a more realistic 40 per 2100, and you just skim over it: dont even acknowledge it and continue to act as if your point still stands: I have nothing to gain in this discussion.


I make points based on maths and facts, I can quite frankly not be arsed with half assed arguments with incorrect numbers that I have to keep pulling you up on, only for you to ignore and then a few posts later bring up the SAME argument i already explained is wrong! I give up. You either do not have the capacity to understand how items with no markup getting TT'd to hunt again is the same as using them to craft - tt wise, or are just being ignorant.

Please, just leave it now. I am sufficiently satisfied that you will bring nothing more worthwhile to this, though I fully expect a frustratingly circular response from you: which I will now ignore.

 

[whiteknut]

This is getting silly and I have not the time or patience to repeat it so frequently for your benefit. Not everybody can grasps numbers easily, and you have demonstrated over several posts an inability to keep up, and further, just been blatantly rude and not even acknowledged my corrections: when you make arguments like TT gun 100 + 100 ammo and 40 ped markup, and I correct it to a more realistic 40 per 2100, and you just skim over it: dont even acknowledge it and continue to act as if your point still stands: I have nothing to gain in this discussion.


I make points based on maths and facts, I can quite frankly not be arsed with half assed arguments with incorrect numbers that I have to keep pulling you up on, only for you to ignore and then a few posts later bring up the SAME argument i already explained is wrong! I give up. You either do not have the capacity to understand how items with no markup getting TT'd to hunt again is the same as using them to craft - tt wise, or are just being ignorant.

Please, just leave it now. I am sufficiently satisfied that you will bring nothing more worthwhile to this, though I fully expect a frustratingly circular response from you: which I will now ignore.

You surely must have missed my point, that % keeps rising after each full chain. It can be 2% or 20% it is still unsustinable. I have brought many "made up number" examples, so it would be easier to understand. I am not talking about specific gun i am talking about the system.

Btw did you report the Steven Spinage Coward? Do it or he can ruin your good name

 

[KijkkiJikki]

I think the conversation sidetracked quite a bit, my original intended suggestion was to use more components in the crafting of final products. I then sort of went a bit OTT and said 100% crafted components: i've said several times since this is probably not a good idea.

I think at the moment it's safe to say, "more than what is used now" would be beneficial. This doesn't necessarily mean adding too many layers, if any. Mainly it just means increasing the ratio of components used in the final BP, and more components made using hunting materials used in both mining and hunting gear (the same way raw mining materials are used in both). These are my main points that I think have gotten lost in my long posts.

I need to address this in terms of my own experience which necessarily has an Arkadian focus. The situation for Caly weapons and components may differ.

The cost to craft currently used components in my crafted gear is generally significantly higher (in terms of MU) than most of the raw hunted or looted resources that I use. If crafted components were to comprise a significantly higher proportion of the TT value of the ingredients, then my cost to craft must inevitably increase. For example if I have a cost to craft of 50 ped TT per click with 10TT of the ingredient costing 200% and 40TT costing 120% then my MU cost per click is 68 Ped. If I move to new situation where 40TT of the ingredients cost 200% and 10TT cost 120% then my MU cost per click is 92Ped, around a 35% increase in cost per click. And that's without trying to look at the net impact on the cost of raw resources owing a to greater focus on component crafting.
Given that I need to do 2 to 3 clicks per success, and the likely TT value of weapon with that sort of cost (say 300TT) then I am looking at an increase of say 20% of TT in the MU price of the final item, just to maintain my current margin.

That's a problem. Yes these are hypothetical numbers but I hope you see why I would be a little worried about significant changes.

I think having a more expensive gun is worth having potential to sell your loot for reasonable prices/volume. Especially considering the eco of a gun is not completely damaged by markup, due to amps and ammo burn. Some guns could be 900% MU and it doesn't effect their ECO too much! (Chikara oni-roku E.L.M is an example of this - no I am not advocating 900% MU weapons, but I just want to point out how design wise, it can actually work!)

I guess the question is whether the person buying the more expensive gun is the person able to sell higher MU loot.And don't forget that my crafted weapons need to compete with commonly looted weapons in terms of value for money, so there isn't a lot of room to move.

The impact of MU on eco (as measured by dpp) depends on the ratio of decay to ammo use per click. For the herman series weapons to not be adversely impacted by increase MU you would need to fundamentally redesign the weapons so than the balance between decay and ammo use is adjusted. Alternatively the PPs could issue a new series of weapons with associated bps. I'm holding a few 10k's ped worth of bps so I am not terribly enthusiastic about the idea. It's happened before (I have an apis bp) and it could happen again but I'm not in favour.

Regards,
KikkiJikki

 

[Spinage]

I need to address this in terms of my own experience which necessarily has an Arkadian focus. The situation for Caly weapons and components may differ.

The cost to craft currently used components in my crafted gear is generally significantly higher (in terms of MU) than most of the raw hunted or looted resources that I use. If crafted components were to comprise a significantly higher proportion of the TT value of the ingredients, then my cost to craft must inevitably increase. For example if I have a cost to craft of 50 ped TT per click with 10TT of the ingredient costing 200% and 40TT costing 120% then my MU cost per click is 68 Ped. If I move to new situation where 40TT of the ingredients cost 200% and 10TT cost 120% then my MU cost per click is 92Ped, around a 35% increase in cost per click. And that's without trying to look at the net impact on the cost of raw resources owing a to greater focus on component crafting.
Given that I need to do 2 to 3 clicks per success, and the likely TT value of weapon with that sort of cost (say 300TT) then I am looking at an increase of say 20% of TT in the MU price of the final item, just to maintain my current margin.

That's a problem. Yes these are hypothetical numbers but I hope you see why I would be a little worried about significant changes.




I guess the question is whether the person buying the more expensive gun is the person able to sell higher MU loot.And don't forget that my crafted weapons need to compete with commonly looted weapons in terms of value for money, so there isn't a lot of room to move.

The impact of MU on eco (as measured by dpp) depends on the ratio of decay to ammo use per click. For the herman series weapons to not be adversely impacted by increase MU you would need to fundamentally redesign the weapons so than the balance between decay and ammo use is adjusted. Alternatively the PPs could issue a new series of weapons with associated bps. I'm holding a few 10k's ped worth of bps so I am not terribly enthusiastic about the idea. It's happened before (I have an apis bp) and it could happen again but I'm not in favour.

Regards,
KikkiJikki

Did you ever craft weapons on Caly before moving to Arkadia?

What system would you say is more sucessful? (obviously trying to factor in that there is less volume on Arkadia because there are less people).

Does the residue use not significantly offset the cost of the final product? Similar to the concept with decay vs ammo, the cost per click of a weapon is much smaller than it's max TT and the residue used offsets the input MU by a lot (on a product with 115% for exmaple and the residue is 105%, you have a guaranteed +10% on all residue used). With quantity crafting it is my understanding that the cost per click is the average TT of the successful product before residue, so the residue used is usually much more important than the cost of the click. (within reason).

 

[KijkkiJikki]

Did you ever craft weapons on Caly before moving to Arkadia?

What system would you say is more sucessful? (obviously trying to factor in that there is less volume on Arkadia because there are less people).

Does the residue use not significantly offset the cost of the final product? Similar to the concept with decay vs ammo, the cost per click of a weapon is much smaller than it's max TT and the residue used offsets the input MU by a lot (on a product with 115% for exmaple and the residue is 105%, you have a guaranteed +10% on all residue used). With quantity crafting it is my understanding that the cost per click is the average TT of the successful product before residue, so the residue used is usually much more important than the cost of the click. (within reason).

The cost per click is the TT+MU of all ingredients. Final cost, is the total ingredients used +MU plus residueTT+MU.

The impact of residue is not relevant to the impact of an increase in MU of input ingredients. In the example I gave, the MU cost of the ingredients increased by 24 ped per click. At an arbitrary 2.5 clicks per success (some would say that is a little optimistic), the increase in average cost of input incrediants per success is around 60 ped. If I am not going to absorb that cost I need to increase my end price by 60 ped. That's an increase of approximately 20% of weapon max TT for a typical weapon of that size. Topping up the final weapon TT with residue doesn't mitigate the need to recover an extra 60 ped from the customer.

 

[Neil Stockton]

I tried following this thread but it just became too confusing. I think there may be some fundamental issues that are being misunderstood in this thread. As KikkiJikki pointed out, the more levels there are in crafting, the more resources consumed and the higher the cost of the final crafted product. So, say you're crafting x component and it takes 2 materials that are 110% each. The final component won't cost you 110% to make, it'll cost more like 130% or 140% for that component. So creating lots of component layers to items, yes it increases the economic activity required to produce the item, but it also decreases the usefulness of the item due to high final MU.

Also, you have to remember most miners aren't content with selling materials to break even, as hunters are (most crafters are content to sell at a loss btw). Miners put in the boring hours, they require profit to motivate them. You can't arbitrarily lower ore prices... if ore prices fall then people stop mining pretty quickly and it balances the ore prices, the only thing that drops average ore prices is when mining is more "fun", ie. more frequent globals, but MA hasn't been doing much of that lately.

 

[Wally]

Just my

EU is an environment with finite resources (peds).
Ped inputs are made by players and usually are considered "loses"
Ped exits are made also by players and by MA
MA never loses, otherwise EU is gone.
Ped exit by player dimishes the "ingame resources" and are considered as "profits"

Any process in this game has a percetange of succes from profit perspective.
If all processes win, then the product is greater than the finite resources at any time. MA (game master) adjusts down the variables, otherwise they go bankrupt.
If all processes lose, then the product is smaller than the finite resources at any time. MA (game master) adjusts up the variables otherwise players will be unhappy.

The general hypotesys "all must be profitable" is a wrong start. If result is constant there has to be + and - for each process.

There has to be resources to go in TT in order to assure the bankroll of players. If a player has no TT to fund his actions and his invetory is full of non-TT items than he stops to wait for market to transform his non-TT items into TT to continue his actions -> gaps in production.
If you have more than one gap in the mechanism then there is the probability that at one point in time the whole mechanism will block.

On the other hand, you have to make use of all game resources, and to make as many succesfull process trains as possible.

In conclusion:
1. There have to be both profit and loss, there is no other way
2. There have to be more succesfull processes trains, all resources in EU need a proper and logical use
3. There have to be TT items to have an immediate value on them and to fund actions
4. Adding to much complexity on existing complex gameplay will add more chance for the whole mechanism to fail.

Yours, Wally