Should SB devs wipe economy prior to 1.0?

[x-kent]

Adding "3 zeros to everything" and in an attempt to make "everything people have accumulated not matter anymore" would essentially be like wiping their credits away anyway due to massive reduction in buying power per credit this would cause. Why not just take the simple route and directly address the issue and perform a economic wipe (keeping BPs) instead of a half-measure that maintains and injects massive deflation into a distorted economy most of us are agreeing is a problem in the first place?

I am not saying it is the best solution but that what usually happens when companies are kind of committed to "no wipe" and don't want to upset players. They do this trick that has almost the same affect(sometimes slowly sometimes fast).

Of course any wipe has no meaning if the tools to build a normal economy are not there at that time. But if you have implemented the tools, tested them and just need a "refresh"(and this always include dropping some earlier whales) this kind of softwipe is usually the way to go.

 

[Bobroy]

The problem right now is there is nothing worthwhile doing for most people, those who want solid pvp are playing other games, those who want to bank money are strip mining SZ and those who want to build ships are spending most of their time in SSC.

I feel that a wipe is inevitable and required at some point yes, but I also feel that FB can drive people to experience more in the game right now than SZ mining en masse by adjusting vendor prices for close ores. Make Z4 and Z5 ores a lot more worthwhile to farm by increasing vendor price significantly and reduce the price of Z1 ores by a fair amount on the vendor to drive down SZ strip mining. Ultimately though the game needs more content, I fear that with the delays a lot of people who were initially hyped for the game simply may not ever return

 

[Vanidar]

I am not saying it is the best solution but that what usually happens when companies are kind of committed to "no wipe" and don't want to upset players. They do this trick that has almost the same affect(sometimes slowly sometimes fast).

Of course any wipe has no meaning if the tools to build a normal economy are not there at that time. But if you have implemented the tools, tested them and just need a "refresh"(and this always include dropping some earlier whales) this kind of softwipe is usually the way to go.

I was under the impression they made no such unconditional commitment. Players will get upset no matter what as we've seen time and time again after *any* gameplay decision is made -- the important part is understanding the motivation behind the gameplay decision and the reasons for the anger. If it's just people don't want to lose their in-game stuff they've accrued during alpha/beta in a very incomplete eco/gameplay loop vs. a gameplay decision to make it more fair for everyone on 1.0, I'd say that's a pretty clear win for a wipe. A wipe will be avoided if possible, but if it's practical and makes sense I believe there's no quote saying that's off the table.

But if we can't have a wipe before release, I disagree that flooding the market with credits, your "softwipe", is better than just leaving everything alone. I'd prefer the existing distorted market over the distorted market with a limited-time credit flood on top of it.

The problem right now is there is nothing worthwhile doing for most people, those who want solid pvp are playing other games, those who want to bank money are strip mining SZ and those who want to build ships are spending most of their time in SSC.

I feel that a wipe is inevitable and required at some point yes, but I also feel that FB can drive people to experience more in the game right now than SZ mining en masse by adjusting vendor prices for close ores. Make Z4 and Z5 ores a lot more worthwhile to farm by increasing vendor price significantly and reduce the price of Z1 ores by a fair amount on the vendor to drive down SZ strip mining. Ultimately though the game needs more content, I fear that with the delays a lot of people who were initially hyped for the game simply may not ever return

Not sure about inflating or tinkering with vendor prices for Z4/Z5 ore, but charodium being inside the safe zone is bonkers to me. Chard should really be Z2 as a mid-tier military ore. Safe zone mining should be a bastium/vokarium kind of thing. If anything, they could increase the quantity of Z3/Z4/Z5 ore required in common parts to try to create more demand per ship. Of course, that won't really matter until they make a conscious effort to motivate economic sinks, probably via regular ship destruction. In a perfect world, ships should be getting blown up at about the same rate they are being created across the playerbase. I think we all know it's not unrealistic right now to say its a minimum of 20:1 ship instances created/spawned to ships destroyed for a multitude of reasons. These are the knobs they'll have to look at turning -- other games have lots of tools to analyze exactly these things and subtle tricks to influence these stats. I really hope that's a priority on FB's internal list if that's not already being tracked.

 

[XenoCow]

Don't forget about the final item on the roadmap. "A new way forward"

Could it be that it is not necessary to wipe anything so long as new opportunities are open in fresh areas for new players? There could be the old world where EA started and the new world where new players may join.

Maybe travel between them would require the new world to build a gate to the old and vice versa. This way the new players would have time to develop before mixing the players.

 

[Vanidar]

Don't forget about the final item on the roadmap. "A new way forward"

Could it be that it is not necessary to wipe anything so long as new opportunities are open in fresh areas for new players? There could be the old world where EA started and the new world where new players may join.

Maybe travel between them would require the new world to build a gate to the old and vice versa. This way the new players would have time to develop before mixing the players.

Origin is already extremely safe and, seems to me, purpose-built for new players. Having another whole new area for new players seems a bit redundant. What needs to happen is we need to provide incentives for the droves of vets in 500 cargo miners with 20 mining lasers to leave Origin more often so that it can open up more opportunities for the newer players. If there is a completely new area distinct from the existing systems, I'd argue that it should be an area that reduces safezone effectiveness and frequency so that we have a bit more options on the slider where people can elect to choose their preferred risk environment.

With your gate idea, once they are linked, what happens to new players that join a week or two in? 3 months in? "New players" are going to continuously show up.

Again, the issue is not simply that alpha/beta players are ahead time-wise, it's that they've had an opportunity to stockpile cash at the highest rate in the game with zero risk via origin SZ mining, especially at the beginning of EA. There is no balance to this mining because further out ores aren't worth much and have terrible ROI relative to SZ. In a balanced risk/reward environment that will (read: should) be in place long before 1.0, new players will not be able to be anywhere near as efficient with their time making cash. Allowing us to keep the credits stockpiled by taking advantage of an unfinished game loop the devs themselves have acknowledged is nowhere close to being done is fundamentally unfair to those trying to bootstrap in the release environment.

 

[XenoCow]

Origin is already extremely safe and, seems to me, purpose-built for new players. Having another whole new area for new players seems a bit redundant. What needs to happen is we need to provide incentives for the droves of vets in 500 cargo miners with 20 mining lasers to leave Origin more often so that it can open up more opportunities for the newer players.

I agree.

With your gate idea, once they are linked, what happens to new players that join a week or two in? 3 months in? "New players" are going to continuously show up.

You have a very good point. I appreciate that you are looking to find the root of the problem rather than a band-aid like I suggested.

Again, the issue is not simply that alpha/beta players are ahead time-wise, it's that they've had an opportunity to stockpile cash at the highest rate in the game with zero risk via origin SZ mining, especially at the beginning of EA.

I'm curious to see how capital ships and stations that can collect and refine gasses will behave as resource sinks. I hope that they will provide enough reward that wealthy players will invest in them to lessen their liquid assets, giving resources better value for new players. Additionally, if I'm not mistaken, capital ships will require some pretty rare materials (so probably not accessible in the safe zone). We'll see. I look forard to seeing the avenues for big spending.

 

[CalenLoki]

IMO wipes are not the way to go.
The game is in constant development, and 1.0 will not stop balance changes. Which means there will always be new players crying about being underdogs for vets. So a single time event wouldn't serve it's purpose in the long run.

Instead of wipes, I'd go for a continuous system that discourage hoarding. Something that gradually devaluate stored assets. Players wouldn't be angered with a slow changes as much as with one brutal blow to their possessions.
I.e:

1: Limit free safe zone storage. That includes ore, components, tools, ships (total volume).
When you store more than allowed, you start paying proportional fee.
Now vets will have to move their assets outside SZ, which will increase the chance of loosing them. And increase reason to wage wars, as there's more to win.

2: Inflation. Gradually increase tutorial income, ore price floor, SSC fees, shop prices, ect.
Few % per week would gradually devaluate all the stored capital, and encourage storing it in resources (outside SZ).

3: Introduce new mechanics or balance changes that shift meta from time to time. That would make hoarded ships less and less optimal with time, giving new players the chance to jump straight into new meta. That one requires more dev attention, but is inevitable anyway. And again - those changes should be gradual, to avoid making ship obsolete or crippled overnight.

 

[Vanidar]

IMO wipes are not the way to go.
The game is in constant development, and 1.0 will not stop balance changes. Which means there will always be new players crying about being underdogs for vets. So a single time event wouldn't serve it's purpose in the long run.

Instead of wipes, I'd go for a continuous system that discourage hoarding. Something that gradually devaluate stored assets. Players wouldn't be angered with a slow changes as much as with one brutal blow to their possessions.
I.e:

1: Limit free safe zone storage. That includes ore, components, tools, ships (total volume).
When you store more than allowed, you start paying proportional fee.
Now vets will have to move their assets outside SZ, which will increase the chance of loosing them. And increase reason to wage wars, as there's more to win.

2: Inflation. Gradually increase tutorial income, ore price floor, SSC fees, shop prices, ect.
Few % per week would gradually devaluate all the stored capital, and encourage storing it in resources (outside SZ).

3: Introduce new mechanics or balance changes that shift meta from time to time. That would make hoarded ships less and less optimal with time, giving new players the chance to jump straight into new meta. That one requires more dev attention, but is inevitable anyway. And again - those changes should be gradual, to avoid making ship obsolete or crippled overnight.

I agree wipes plural is not the way to go if you can help it, but in this case a singular wipe may be justified at release. There is a massive difference between "balance changes" of a post 1.0 environment and the changes from early alpha to 1.0. Most players constantly remind everyone and the devs themselves continue to say that the game is very unfinished. You equating balance changes after 1.0 to the complete game-changing features incoming and openly abusable state of the game right now is disingenuous. So, yes, a single wipe at 1.0 would do plenty in the long run.

I like your idea on limiting free safe zone storage. Doesn't really seem like a downside there. Unlimited anything is kind of cheesy to me anyway. Maybe have player stations also have some upkeep to them?

Intentionally injecting inflation into the economy over time, to me, seems like a bad idea. Let the economy regulate itself after it is in a fully developed state after 1.0. After enough time, left unchecked, a one-way and non-reversible steady inflation would see a stack of bastium worth 10mil. That's just insane.

New metas will naturally spring up over time when devs implement things after 1.0. This is expected and I think only very minorly addresses this issue specifically, unless these updates have an emphasis on trying to marginalize/nerd existing ships, which to me seems very unlikely.

 

[CalenLoki]

There is a massive difference between "balance changes" of a post 1.0 environment and the changes from early alpha to 1.0.

Here we disagree. Devs stated their intention to keep developing the game after 1.0, just at slower and more careful pace (less features and more polishing). But it will be gradual process, not hard transition.
Same could be applied to all mentioned methods of discouraging hoarding. They could be more drastic now (i.e. 5% inflation per week) and milder over time (1% close to full release)

Already end of closed alpha showed us how approaching wipe affects player population: everyone (except SSC hermits) stopped playing, knowing that all they'll do will be soon wiped.

Maybe have player stations also have some upkeep to them?

Player stations (outside of SZ) have a natural upkeep: you need to defend them, repair after battles, refuel generators, ect. Those inside SZ should just count into the basic limits.
Monetary upkeep is not an option - so far all the money sinks and sources were strictly tied to dev stations. Money can be exchanged anywhere, but created and destroyed only at Origins. And IMO that should stay.
Upkeep could be some kind of fuel used to preserve ownership of the station, and to keep the offline protection up. I.e. it could chug exorium proportionally to stored assets. But is it really needed?

After enough time, left unchecked, a one-way and non-reversible steady inflation would see a stack of bastium worth 10mil. That's just insane.

Numbers are just numbers. You add k/m/g to the end, and zeros are not a problem any more. Or just make devaluation from time to time.

Alternatively you could just evaporate % of money from time to time (call bank fee, or something).
And/or allow spawning credits in physical form: money chips. That would allow having more money than bank limit, or allow avoiding bank fees (when kept outside of SZ)

There need to be some system that discourage hoarding excess money in absolutely safe environment.

 

[Cavilier210]

We have a lack of money creation... How does having yet another money sink help that?

 

[CalenLoki]

That's a good point - we have large deflation now.
But I think most of the money that get removed from game is due to SSC fee - something that will largely disappear once we get blueprint casting on player stations.

Let's just keep it as a possible suggestion when/if that trend inverts.

 

[Womble]

The Safe Zone should probably have all the ores needed for T1 stuff. Including Charodium. That's sitting at a 'natural' price, not "hovering just above the NPC buyprice", and is the way the PvP-averse can make enough money to buy the things that aren't available in the safe zone, because people out there getting the Danger Zone ores still need all the basics.

I couldn't care less about an economy wipe, if the devs think it's necessary, once 1.0 drops. So long as the asteroids all get respawned so we're starting again in a "plentiful" environment, not one that's "half-mined-out". I do think it may well be necessary, if it's as far away as I believe it might be. If it's not a wipe, it'll need a total refactor.

 

[Ketosis]

Don't forget the Chinese got banned. So this economy now might be the way it originally would have been without the exploiters, but are we used to the exploited economy still? If players can get rich by mining the safe zone then that is their right in my opinion, the early bird gets the worm.

 

[Molchane]

I think a 1.0 wipe will be needed to bring in the players to make this game alive, if they are looking at this game and finding out that everyone playing from EA is keeping their millions (maybe billions at that point) + all of their ships and on top of that they aren't getting the insane money making opportunities that we had it'll really drive away prospective new players. I'm not advocating for frequent wipes just agreeing that a full wipe for release which should have all the features we're waiting for will be needed to fill out the game.

 

[ChaosRifle]

a 'soft" wipe for full release should be a thing. Shake up where companies stand and give everyone a fresh look at the start of the game now that it is complete. By soft, I mean companies and memberships stay, friends stay, the ONLY things wiped is assets, like bank/storage/stations deleted/capitals deleted. You get to keep your friendslist, and your company setup. perhaps stats for CV dont get wiped too. Just an asset wipe, BP's can stay too.

 

[Cavilier210]

I would argue deleting stations will put everyone back where they are right now and not wanting to put in the time. Players are making the infrastructure and making the groundwork. If you want to alienate all of them, then keep pushing for wipes.

WIpes do nothing but cater to those who haven't even bothered to put in the time. I wouldn't wipe a thing. Established players and groups are in a better place to help new people than anyone else, with materials and teaching. No one wants to grind everything out... again. Some of us for the third time.

 

[Vanidar]

I would argue deleting stations will put everyone back where they are right now and not wanting to put in the time. Players are making the infrastructure and making the groundwork. If you want to alienate all of them, then keep pushing for wipes.

WIpes do nothing but cater to those who haven't even bothered to put in the time. I wouldn't wipe a thing. Established players and groups are in a better place to help new people than anyone else, with materials and teaching. No one wants to grind everything out... again. Some of us for the third time.

"Wipes do nothing but cater to those who haven't even bothered to put in the time". Spoken like someone that favors their in-game EA alpha pixels over a fair 1.0 launch. There have been a lot of good arguments here as to why a wipe may or may not be necessary. Why not consider those and have some reasonable discussion about why they may be incorrect instead of saying something that basically implies everyone pushing for one is lazy?

No one wants to alienate anyone. No need to threaten. I haven't seen one argument saying that X group or Y group shouldn't have a place in the game or isn't important. It's not like we're sitting here having a pvp-griefer bashing party.

FYI -- plenty of people would have loved the opportunity to take your spot in the CA and happily "paid the price" of having to regrind a second time.

 

[Cavilier210]

You need to get off your high horse Vanidar. I don't have the time or desire to play word games with someone out to paint people as selfish.

I earned my spot in alpha, I paid for EA gladly. I'm not going to swallow some gimmick of yours under the guise of your screwed up idea of fairness. According you your reasons we should just wipe the game every few months because "oh no, the fairness for new players, reeee". Get over yourself.

 

[Molchane]

I would argue deleting stations will put everyone back where they are right now and not wanting to put in the time. Players are making the infrastructure and making the groundwork. If you want to alienate all of them, then keep pushing for wipes.

WIpes do nothing but cater to those who haven't even bothered to put in the time. I wouldn't wipe a thing. Established players and groups are in a better place to help new people than anyone else, with materials and teaching. No one wants to grind everything out... again. Some of us for the third time.

You gotta think about it long term for the game, right now the population keeps going down last time I looked we've got like 2k players per day and if we get lucky and the game releases in like a year (random unlikely guesss) what's the pop going to look like then? If there's no wipe and a new player has to come in and go against what we've built up in a year how would they ever compete? You're talking about how losing infrastructure and groundwork would hurt but if it hurts so much why would anyone want to come into the game a year late? Not everyone is interested in playing an EA game and that's good, people who aren't willing to put up with the bugs and problems and try to give good feedback should absolutely wait for a full release but they should not be punished.

I earned my spot in alpha, I paid for EA gladly. I'm not going to swallow some gimmick of yours under the guise of your screwed up idea of fairness. According you your reasons we should just wipe the game every few months because "oh no, the fairness for new players, reeee". Get over yourself.

Unless I missed something I'm pretty sure we've only been talking about a 1.0 full release wipe when most new players would join. I don't think we'll really know if a semi-frequent wipe would be something that works for this game after release until then.

 

[DankHoneyOil]

You gotta think about it long term for the game, right now the population keeps going down last time I looked we've got like 2k players per day and if we get lucky and the game releases in like a year (random unlikely guesss) what's the pop going to look like then? If there's no wipe and a new player has to come in and go against what we've built up in a year how would they ever compete? You're talking about how losing infrastructure and groundwork would hurt but if it hurts so much why would anyone want to come into the game a year late? Not everyone is interested in playing an EA game and that's good, people who aren't willing to put up with the bugs and problems and try to give good feedback should absolutely wait for a full release but they should not be punished.



Unless I missed something I'm pretty sure we've only been talking about a 1.0 full release wipe when most new players would join. I don't think we'll really know if a semi-frequent wipe would be something that works for this game after release until then.

I think you are missing the point of the person you are responding to.

So what happens 1 year after 1.0 is released and you've wiped for 1.0. Now do we keep wiping a year later because new players are going to be behind people who started at 1.0? What if there are pretty big changes for 1.5, do we wipe to keep it "fair"? These are the questions you've been asked but your reply is ignoring.

You said it yourself, only 2k of us are playing.. So in 1 year or whatever an actually release comes out. Do you think us 2k people and the things we have are really going to affect much against the number of people who hopefully would be showing up for a full release? -this one here is my own question for you.

I don't think wiping will accomplish what you want it to "fair playing field". I think it just resets things but people who play more will always be ahead of others, in big ways.

When I say you I don't mean you specifically just chain you are responding to.