Thought is basic in it's premise, every once in a while (i.e rarely .5% of the time) a random system might find itself with a specialized trade good, a unique export that may come into demand. (specialty wines, unusual gems, pan-galactic gargle blasters, puppies)

Will add more as this thought develops, but the idea as it is, well it's enough to start a bit of dialogue.

Not sure how to work this out, but I support the idea.

Basically something rare that is only in this one sector that causes AI to set up and possibly fight over the resource.

I would love to see two factions constantly at war over a sector just to get the goods.

That would be very cool. I kind of like it too. I think 0.5% is a little low, though. Seeing people war over a system with Joshite would be exciting, actually, especially if the resource in question is one that's extremely lucrative at most planets.

I wouldn't get hung up on specific numbers with a suggestion. Just think "rare".
Which number will make sense depends on a lot of stuff we cannot know.

Good point. If everything is fair as far as player vs NPC, everything should balance out anyway, for the most part.

I really like the dynamics this would bring, though Josh would have to be careful not to make these systems the focal point of the game, but rather a side option. It seems like it could become a "King of the Hill" scenario if it was too extreme.

This is definitely part of the plan The way I envisioned it is from planetary colonies perspective. Since planet colonies are "low-LOD" processes (i.e., not everything needs to make perfect sense), I figured I would use them to introduce some arbitrary commodities just to liven up trade. As you said, stuff like food, beverages, luxury goods, etc.

JoshParnell wrote:This is definitely part of the plan The way I envisioned it is from planetary colonies perspective. Since planet colonies are "low-LOD" processes (i.e., not everything needs to make perfect sense), I figured I would use them to introduce some arbitrary commodities just to liven up trade. As you said, stuff like food, beverages, luxury goods, etc.

Have you tried Vitrium Ale? It's Invigorating! Fresh supplies in daily from Pawihog station!

Though... would it be possible to also have arbitrary commodity production and manufacturing facilities that require real resources? It would be interesting to see an NPC convert and/or sell its perfectly fine fleet of warships to get the capital for entering the lucrative spiceberry soda trade with full orbital as well as planetary manufacturing facilities and supply/distribution chains.

I hope to see not just randomly-generated goods, but rare, unpredictable, widespread and brief spikes in demand for such goods as fad items.

If you can detect such events when they happen, and quickly produce (and deliver) a supply equivalent to a significant percentage of the demand, you could reap a windfall profit.

Just the chance of something like that happening is enough for some gamers to choose to play a game for many, many hours. (Read John Hopson's superb short article on Behavioral Game Design, including in particular "variable ratio scheduling," if you're interested in seeing how the sausage is really made.)

Flatfingers wrote: Just the chance of something like that happening is enough for some gamers to choose to play a game for many, many hours. (Read John Hopson's superb short article on Behavioral Game Design, including in particular "variable ratio scheduling," if you're interested in seeing how the sausage is really made.)

I strongly, strongly disapprove of things like this. They exploit compulsory behavior, essentially turning the player into a mindless slave to statistics and probability. Fun goes out the window, replaced by uninteresting, sometimes even tedious gameplay - but it exploits our inner nature, and it's harder for us to leave. "Maybe the next shipment" or "I just need one more to complete this set" - phrases you should never, ever hear one of your gamers utter.

Replacing fun with the prospect of being enslaved to probability (or worse, set collecting) isn't something I'd like to see in Limit Theory at all.

Talvieno wrote:

Flatfingers wrote: Just the chance of something like that happening is enough for some gamers to choose to play a game for many, many hours. (Read John Hopson's superb short article on Behavioral Game Design, including in particular "variable ratio scheduling," if you're interested in seeing how the sausage is really made.)

I strongly, strongly disapprove of things like this. They exploit compulsory behavior, essentially turning the player into a mindless slave to statistics and probability. Fun goes out the window, replaced by uninteresting, sometimes even tedious gameplay - but it exploits our inner nature, and it's harder for us to leave. "Maybe the next shipment" or "I just need one more to complete this set" - phrases you should never, ever hear one of your gamers utter.

Replacing fun with the prospect of being enslaved to probability (or worse, set collecting) isn't something I'd like to see in Limit Theory at all.

It's a tool. Like any tool, it can be valuable when used appropriately, but it can also be abused.

I believe that numerous developers of Facebook and mobile games have started with a conscious plan to deploy a variable ratio schedule in some meaningless game form. And I'd sign on to a condemnation of that; I do think it's abusive and gives other games a bad name.

But I would not agree with a blanket denunciation of variable ratio scheduling. As long as it's not the sole point of a game, it's one tool among several for helping make gameplay more enjoyable to some kinds of gamers. Used responsibly -- just like any other tool -- it's one more way to help make games more fun for more people, and that's not a bad thing.

I also have zero fear that Josh would apply such a psychological effect in LT irresponsibly.

*applauds* Well said, sir, well said. I was actually thinking of certain Facebook games (among other things) when I replied.

And yes, Facebook is doing to games what Stephanie Meyer (and others before her) did to literature - exploit certain psychological elements. I don't think Josh would use it irresponsibly, either, and to date there's been no mention of item collecting, achievements, or anything else like that, which I'm glad of... but still, it's a slippery slope. I've seen too many good games go to the dogs because the developers couldn't control their urges to control the player's urges, and I very much don't want to see that happen to Limit Theory. So long as it's not a central gameplay element - i.e. you can play just as successfully without having to use it - I'm perfectly fine with it. Gamers will always choose the most profitable route, morality be damned, and to offer them something like "you can earn money faster by sitting here and farming instead of actually playing" just doesn't seem right to me at all.

Flatfingers wrote:I hope to see not just randomly-generated goods, but rare, unpredictable, widespread and brief spikes in demand for such goods as fad items.

If you can detect such events when they happen, and quickly produce (and deliver) a supply equivalent to a significant percentage of the demand, you could reap a windfall profit.

Just the chance of something like that happening is enough for some gamers to choose to play a game for many, many hours. (Read John Hopson's superb short article on Behavioral Game Design, including in particular "variable ratio scheduling," if you're interested in seeing how the sausage is really made.)

Completely agree and expect to see this Again, it's something that I envision us sneaking into the blackboxes of colonies. Viritium Robes suddenly become the pinnacle of Celadonian fashion and such

This sort of thing was very much what I wanted to see happen with the "commodity classes" notion and the idea of "novelty preference." Except rather than it being rare, it would be the way of things. Regular trade routes would be sources of small but reliable profits - the big wins would be had by finding the "next big thing". And also, the big losses would be made by getting your timing wrong and buying at the top of the bubble and having to shift your cargo hold full of last-season's goods at a heavy loss.

One of the advantages is that a great deal of variation between a dynamic, churning economy and a more pedestrian and conservative one can be achieved by adjusting two variables. The speed of "mutation" in planetary economies - that is, the rate at which they generate new variations of commodities within classes - and the degree to which novelty preference plays a role in planetary decision making. With planets being heavy sources of black box supply and demand, this can create huge changes in how NPCs trade without having to adjust anything about the NPCs themselves.

McDuff wrote:Regular trade routes would be sources of small but reliable profits - the big wins would be had by finding the "next big thing".

You might like to check out Starsector, which is aiming for something similar with its "Events" system:

The main problem is caused by having easily repeatable trade runs, so let’s just take care of it at that level. The economy will work in such a way as to make most (if not all) trade runs unprofitable by default.

Why does this make narrative sense? There’s a race-to-the-bottom in the profit margins for safely shipping rocks, and that’s before you factor in faction-affiliated cargo fleets that don’t even have to operate at a profit. Frankly, if you think about it, it *wouldn’t* make sense for easy profit to be available for shipping food or some such, under normal circumstances. Not of the magnitude the player would be interested in.

The way for the player to make a profit in trading, then, is to take advantage of extraordinary circumstances – a short window of opportunity that they can exploit in various ways.

-- On Trade Design

McDuff wrote:With planets being heavy sources of black box supply and demand, this can create huge changes in how NPCs trade without having to adjust anything about the NPCs themselves.

Which is precisely how it should be. NPCs should behave rationally, and if you want NPCs to behave in a particular way, you adapt the game mechanics themselves in a plausible way to achieve that result.