[Jonboy]

The length of the auction can be whatever the GMs want. Remember there's a buy-out option available too, for quick sales.

Originally Posted by Tim

I agree, charging storage/day isn't going to fix the issue, tho the time limits goes a long way toward it. two thoughts there.. what happens at the end of the auction (assuming nobody bids)

There are issues with 'working space.' Pilots need to put stuff down and pick stuff up.

In Jumpgate Classic, if u wanted to make 500 duelists at the CP you could dump 500 units of optics (iirc) on the station, and then go get 500 CPUs and 500 RAM, and swap mats with the station stock so you had 166 of each mat and go and use the CP, to get 166 Duelists. Then buy more mats off the station (that you'd previously dumped), to get more duelists, and repeat, until you had 500 duelists. In my proposed system there would be no station stock (although you could use the auction house, by setting a large price per unit, which you'd get back by selling to yourself). There is no working-space to hold the mats while you made the duelists.

If you put something up for auction and it doesn't sell, the item should stay on the station. But where? again there would need to be a working space for it. I wouldn't want to limit the amount of stuff you can sell, but equally, I don't want it to magically fly thru space either. I'd need working-space.

If you buy something off the auction, it'd have to stay on the station until it was collected. But where? same problem.

Any suggestions welcomed .

[Tim]

Insurance could be based on market averages, and could then function in the manner being proposed in all those insurance-discussion threads. (insurance is a function of when/what portion to pay for ship damage.. the base cost of said ship could easily be established regardless of what method is used to create/distribute stuff).

As to the NPC, I hear what you are saying. I'm thinking that just because they are around, filling up space and making it look busy, they don't actually need to _do_ anything.. perhaps maintain a basic stock level.

Said level could be adjusted as needed by GM's or Optis (maybe). But maybe they would only get the bare minimum.. faction-only equip, and barely enough to fly. The haulers would be necessary to keep high levels of high-en equipment going, just as the PVPr's would be necessary to keep equipment worth money. Take away either side, and you are certainly right, the game is bad.

But i think we all agree that if player numbers tank (again) then the game is in a bad place. The goal with this is to keep them _from_ tanking, not jump the gun and assume they already have.

[Tim]

I'm not sure what you mean by working space. You mean like player-reserved storage space? Or would it be a general space, and whoever uses it first gets it?

Also, when something 'goes to the station', does the auctioning player get money for it, or does it re-auction itself?

[Jonboy]

Originally Posted by Eraser55

I dont think such economy can work in the Jumpgate Evolution I imagine.

I'm not 100% sure myself. But it's still what I would try and put in.

Originally Posted by Eraser55

NPC witch are already announced, will not be able to preform the tasks they were meant to. Players will have to do everything and even more then in Jumpgate TRI.

What has been announced for the NPCs? I really doubt they are supposed to take the place of players. As I said, the hauling game in Jumpgate Classic is a pretty major part. Is that going to be taken away?

Originally Posted by Eraser55

if the players numbers drop, then we are back in the hellhole we are in now. no equip no fun.

The market would drive the economy, most needed equipment would be the most profitable. TRI could still encourage favourable economic movement with missions. In the farming economy, production was not favoured, as that's not where the profit was. But yeah, if players can't meet need, there's a prob.

Originally Posted by Eraser55

Insurance will have to go away. As the prices are controlled by the market, insurance would not be possible to exist as it is now. It would require the complexity of the Real life insurance to make any sense and not be abused.

It wouldn't have to go away. In its current form it's not very realistic, as it's very much supported by TRI. but yeah. i see that there is a problem.

[dahalb]

There have been some releases that elude to what the NPC's are capable of. NPC AI has been designed to fill gaps afaik. This means that there will be haulers, miners, pirates, military etc. IIRC NPC's will be tied to player numbers. Low players = more NPC's and vice versa. They are there to "help" not replace.

The economy left solely in the players hands could become hellish. Having said that, i agree that more player involvement is needed. The stations still need a purpose tho and some production should be left there. So i think the balance lies in having an underwriting by the GM's but having the economy based more on supply/demand. Matter farming was a problem however, matter farming was and is part of a market economy. Creating a temporary/artificial demand in one place by, in this case stripping, then supplying that demand at the inflated price. Valid or not, its how markets move. There were some measures put in place to improve the way the economy ran however i don't think they went far enough.

For mine, in order for there to be incentive to mine/haul, then stations must also be able to refine and produce. TRI or whomever the station owner is must be able to make a profit as well. So a maximum price should be set for stations with the auction house the only mechanism to sell above this. This way in times of real crisis, miners will be more inclined to do what they do as they can make some really good money from the player base however farming is no longer the money tree it used to be. As for a minimum, if there is a flood on the market then the stations would either stop buying, or pay 1 credit or some such for excess stocks.

Tied into all of this is equipment. At the end of the day, Jumpgate Classic had no real economics behind equipment. It was basically a set price. This is where things started to fall down IMO. If everyone is buying IJ's then they should have a corresponding increase in price because demand is high.

For the pure PvPers out there, if a military system does exist, then their equipment should be subsidised. Not all equipment tho, only that equipment sanctioned by their factional government and only a percentage of it.

As for the rest of the player base, insurance would still exist. Not in its current form however. Insurance costs should be born once per death. Create docking, refuelling fees etc and make ppl actually buy ammunition. Things like fuel cells and ammunition then become more important all adding to the need for miners and haulers.

These are just some of my ideas. Please pick them apart.

Happy flying

[Wild_Bill]

I like some of your points. Insurance per death, not per launch. Docking fees; fees for repair, refuel and rearm all make sense; as do needing armor, ammo and fuel cells on station to do the R/R/R. All make good sense to me. Tying in demand to supply for equipment makes sense as well. As you say, a market driven economy does allow the possibility of farming. I'm still in favor of the market approach. Use MT combat missions for attacking the farming convoys or Pirate missions. Then generate counter-missions to protect the factionalist haulers in the convoys. Could be some really good enertainment for everyone. Or the mythical "Escort" missions. Hehehehe good fun for all! Good profit runs too.

Then again, if the pricing at the production station was related to the sale of said production, AND prices could go up much more rapidly than in the "farming days of old" it might give us the Market economy minus the farming aspect. Market lag was what drove the farm. Buying up 500u of something should drive up the price of the remainder, thus reducing the profit motive in the farm itself. Add in an actual "need" or "demand" for the product at the buying or receiving station and you have another counter-balance to the farm trick. As I remember, it took several hours to "cook a farm". Don't quote me on this as I never did a farm, I merely took advantage of some of those that did.

I never have understood the logic of the 6 minute "market cycle" for production or anything else, but if the same cycle is retained for whatever reason, the price should be updated at least every 6 minutes. If the price reflected the percentage purchased (say, 100u purchased within a cycle triggers a price increase), the farm would quickly deflate and tens-of-millions-of-credit runs would not be possible. SO player A buys 99 units of matter converters (yeah, I know that's not what they're called now). If another player buys even 1u more within the cycle, the price of the remaining matcons goes up. This keeps multiple buyers from "cooking" a farm by buying less than the trigger amount (whatever that is set at).

If you've got 1000u of something and that catalog hasn't been reduced in 60 cycles (or whatever number of cycles chosen), it makes sense the price would gradually drop to some universal low price (minimum production costs). If it is produced at that station, all production of that item would stop whenever the quota amount has been reached and the number stays there for x number of cycles. If usage is more than 100u per cycle, then the price goes up in steps to some universal maximum price. POS's could sell it at any price, but no one's likely to sell stuff for less than it costs (well, miners perhaps to get rid of unwanted surpluses of low value ore) and if you set the price too high, no one will buy it.

I'm no Duodecimal, but this makes sense to me.

[Jonboy]

Originally Posted by dahalb

Matter farming was a problem however, matter farming was and is part of a market economy. Creating a temporary/artificial demand in one place by, in this case stripping, then supplying that demand at the inflated price. Valid or not, its how markets move.

I'm too tired to respond to your whole thread, but i'll just address this one point. Matter farming, or any other type of farming was not a part of a market economy, in the way it was in Jumpgate Classic. Jumpgate Classic's market EMULATED a market economy using a simple AI with some restrictions. But it was an INCREDIBLY simple emulation. People exploited the flaws in the emulation. That's not how markets move. Markets do move, and people do strip and create artificial demand, but there's no AI to exploit.

In my version, you'd be able to strip, and move markets, and create artificial demand. But the value of the goods would be detemined by the players. You'd be exploiting people, not an AI, and people can react to exploitation :P. Is that good or bad?

[dahalb]

I don't disagree Jonboy. Your point is a valid one, mine just differs slightly. I completely agree that we need to have more influence but not total influence. I agree with what WB said - limit the exploitability. With more rapid price variation, "farming" as it used to be becomes moot. However, the inherent danger in that is that ppl can sit on a single station and farm. To counter this, taxes are involved. Every purchase currently has a tax associated with it that could continue. The thing we forget is that there are also thriving economies on the planets too. We just don't see it. This is where the AI and GM's come into it.

The other thing i think i forgot to mention was price variation between production centres and consumers. Obviously, production centres would have the lowest "lower limit" and a minimal "upper limit". Consumers would have the highest "Upper limit" and start at a middle "lower limit". Those stations that are neither would have near enough to a set price range somewhere in the middle. When galaxy wide supply is low, these holding station prices would increase slightly and when there is a glut they would be lower. This allows for movement of commodities within zones rather than across the entire galaxy. That way cooperatives can be used. Those pilots who wish to fly the entire galaxy can do so (at their peril) those that have a coop setup with another squad can split that work between them.

There will always be exploits. Beta will take care of some of them. Others will be fixed live. Its the major ones we need to worry about. So long as which ever idea(s) is taken on board covers those gaping holes then we can all figure out how it works and work with it.

[JoCool]

It looks like most participants of this discussion think about the Jumpgate Classic market system and then build upon that. This is wrong.

Here's why:

To truly renovate a system that has flaws or is broken you will need to close your eyes, forget and search a completely new one. That means, invent a new system or take one up that works and is certainly great, like EVE's which is close to the real market.

If you want to slice an orange you will take the knife which has been invented thousands of years ago. People still copy knives today, why not EVE's economy?

[Tim]

Well, not for nothing, but i won't use a the knife invented thousands of years ago.. mine will have composite handles, forged metal, full tang construction, probably some laser etching of somebody's logo, scalloped edges, and probably be honed on a diamond steel.

Plus, the orange will have a ton of hormones and pesticides all over it. mmmmmm.

Things _do_ change and grow as they get older.. the jumpgate economy wasn't garbage; it was actually a great start. The next evolution, however, could fix some of it's weak points by allowing greater player influence.

Or maybe not.. greater influence means easier exploits. What do i know?

[Wild_Bill]

Sorry JoCool, Jumpgate Classic economy is the only one I have any familiarity with (sure as hell don't understand RL economy!). I don't know how they do it in EvE, or WoW or anywhere else that's a MMO etc. Feel free to enlighten me.