[Ambrosius]

Originally Posted by Karash

...but even ND knows if they kept the economy the game wouldn't stand on its feet with thousands of players.

Actually, the econ would probably work much better on a "no-safe-zone" shard if there were thousands of player provided it was the right balance of consumers (i.e. PvPers) and miner/manufacturers (probably something like 70%/30% IMO).

Having a "safe zone" shard, though, pretty much requires major econ changes. I assume they would have to create some kind of false consumption to make it work -- otherwise there would be oversupply in short order and little to no profit to be made.

[Wild_Bill]

Disagree Ambro. If there is sufficient AI activity to cause ship loss on the PvE shard I believe comsumption should be adequate. Fighting off AI flux or pirates would use up some ships, as would mining accidents ('roids destructively blowing up while being mined), crashing into the roids by folks new to mining, ship loss to exploration activity (flying into unknown roids clusters, collision damage inside nebulas or storms, flux encounters) etc. Done right there should be sufficient consumption without artificial shortages. Even at that, if done right (sent attacks?) some artificial shortages could be effectively RP'd.

If there are moving roid fields in Jumpgate Evolution we would have more opportunity for ship loss. Fixed roid positions are nice for regular mining and much more easily programmed I suppose, but think about flying through a moving asteroid belt prospecting and mining. Or having to suddenly avoid a collision with rogue roid. Exploring a nebula or dark cloud in space would offer many opportunities for crashing into hidden objects or sudden ambush attack by flux or pirate.

I agree that PvP would be the primary consumption, but even on the PvE supposedly there will be PvP, it will just be consentual (squad warefare/duels) or in unreg (which is a form of consent I suppose). If there is sufficient content in unreg and a RP reason to go there (profit & glory!), then getting willing victims into unreg should be no problem.

[vorlon31]

Originally Posted by Ambrosius

Actually, the econ would probably work much better on a "no-safe-zone" shard if there were thousands of player provided it was the right balance of consumers (i.e. PvPers) and miner/manufacturers (probably something like 70%/30% IMO).

Having a "safe zone" shard, though, pretty much requires major econ changes. I assume they would have to create some kind of false consumption to make it work -- otherwise there would be oversupply in short order and little to no profit to be made.

PVP'rs dont have the wholesale monopoly on going boom though. And with a flexible/scalable AI, one that has friendlies/foes and aliens and responds to threats, calls for back up, alters or breaks formations etc etc Id imagine that on any server the AI induced death toll is going to rocket

But for now though we have no idea how big the economy is going to be and I guess the best two options for it will be; Massively interwoven galactic markets with production over here needed to make items way over ---------------> there and back and forth. Or 'local' (factional or sectoral even) stand alone markets with exotics, rare and short supply items only being the source of trade.

I think Id prefer the later.

[netburnr]

Originally Posted by Wild_Bill

If there are moving roid fields in Jumpgate Evolution we would have more opportunity for ship loss. Fixed roid positions are nice for regular mining and much more easily programmed I suppose, but think about flying through a moving asteroid belt prospecting and mining. Or having to suddenly avoid a collision with rogue roid.

I'm pretty sure it was said this will not happen both for technological reason, and because of gameplay issues. Something along the line of being really hard to follow a roid when full, and problems with collision with other objects.

[Ambrosius]

Originally Posted by Wild_Bill

Disagree Ambro. If there is sufficient AI activity to cause ship loss on the PvE shard I believe comsumption should be adequate.

It would be hard to believe that on a non-PvP shard -- with LOTS of people primarily interested in econ/producing -- that PvE deaths alone would be enough consumption. But only time will tell.

[ELPIRATA]

Well, Ambro, we dont know if FC/ND will be better than a better AI (instead of dumb AI) Conflux and Pirates (I think we can say that there will be AI pirates).

ELP

[Jonboy]

Originally Posted by Ambrosius

It would be hard to believe that on a non-PvP shard -- with LOTS of people primarily interested in econ/producing -- that PvE deaths alone would be enough consumption. But only time will tell.

PvE death won't be the only death on the consensual-only shard. There will be PvP, but it will be consensual.

[Jump]

Originally Posted by Jonboy

PvE death won't be the only death on the consensual-only shard. There will be PvP, but it will be consensual.

Which means there won't be any.

[Tim]

Originally Posted by Jump

Which means there won't be any.

Perhaps, but then, if that is the way so many folks want it, then what's the harm? There'll still be a non-consent server for the folks who want it that way.

[Jump]

Originally Posted by Tim

Perhaps, but then, if that is the way so many folks want it, then what's the harm? There'll still be a non-consent server for the folks who want it that way.

The harm is that it will not be fun. It sounds fun, but in the end, it's not. And the so called PVP server will be too extreme in the opposite direction.

Balance = fun. Danger = fun. Flying around for no real purpose = there are other games to play.

[dailatron]

Originally Posted by Jump

Which means there won't be any.

Do you seriously believe all PvP is non consensual ?. If you do then you do not have a very good understanding of PvP.

CIV ripping is the only non consensual PvP there is, and many have different views of consensual. Hell there are a couple on this forum that cried like babys when they got killed in claimed or unreg sectors and still argue against safe zones me thinks just to seem cool in front of others..