This topic contains 29 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Thrax 7 years, 6 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #34912

    BOY
    Participant

    I like the idea of limiting the amount available for purchase. Why not limit the amount available per round, rather than in the game. That way you don’t end up in a situation where poeple buy up the good stuff, then just leave half way through, or arive to find that thier favorite is all gone.

    Ok, about the current system
    @gcamp wrote:

    When a player buys a weapon –
    – a list of other weapons in the same price bracket is chosen.
    – the cost of the weapons in the this bracket falls by money spent/no weapons in bracket
    – the cost ot the weapon bought rises by money spent/no weapons in bracket

    so…. NEW PRICE = PRICE +/- $$SPENT/#WEPS ???

    so this must mean total increase and decrease are equal, with the decrease spread equally amongst all the weapons included? (If that is not the case, then prices would always bottom out, as there would always be several equal decreases to only one increase.)
    THis explains the max price increase… otherwise some prices might reach zero, and they would be stuck there.

    This also presents another possible problem. And could it be why weapons get stuck in price? Lets say all weapons in a set are bought an equal number of times, since rise of price is based only a weapons own price, wouldn’t the expensive weapons STILL increase in price and cheap ones fall in price?

    Would it be possible to slow this affect by using the average price of the weapons in the bracket rather than the price of the actual weapon?

    ie…. NEW PRICE = PRICE +/- [2*AVG_COST – PRICE]*xx%
    (where xx% is the freemarketfactor (say 0 to 10% ??)

    Price jumps for cheaper weapons would then be more than the expensive ones.

    I cannot think of how, I need an economist, but would it be possible to allow the average total price of weapons in the bracket to somehow increase without getting the prices out of control?

    More thoughts
    @gcamp wrote:

    (bracket) Accessories are choosen that are
    1) of the same type (e.g. weapon, defense)
    2) Cost less than the person currently has (less than they have at time of purchase, or less than what they began with at begining of buy clock?)
    3) Cost more than 30% of the bought weapon
    4) Cost less than 175% of the bought weapon

    1,3, and 4 seem reasonable, but #2 seems to be a troublemaker in either case. Firstly, 3 and 4 already limit the size of the bracket. Assuming this free market is supposed be on the basis of competition between weapons, then ability to lower a price to what the consumer can afford is essential. Also doesn’t this help expensive wepaons get stuck at a higher price? it would seem this might even put the poor players at a further disadvantage by preventing the popular weapons from being in their range.

    /////// IMHO the way to fix stuck prices is to have an xml tag which sets a max, min, or exclude to each item for the free market. IF an item reaches a price that is 175% larger than any other prices it then basically has its own bracket. By default, both decrease and increase should apply to it and the price would could go no higher than 175% of the next lowest weapon. /////////

    @gcamp wrote:

    Bundle size is not accounted for. As buying the weapon is not an option if you cannot buy a whole bundle. But perhaps the price should change based on the bundle size.

    I really am not sure if accounting for Bundle size is that important to the market… I think that if the bundle sizes are right, then they would naturally fit the free market just fine. The problem is in a case where you have a large bundle size of cheap weapons. TO fix this, lower bundle sizes should be the fix. Take Nukes vs baby rollers, they’re close in price, but a baby roller is much much cheaper per shot. Since there are 12-15 shots in a standard round, the largest bundle sizes should really be in units around 5 to 6.

    #34913

    cbx550f
    Participant

    Sorry – I didn’t read all of the obove post by Boy yet – I started to , then went to look at the code to get a better understanding. Not sure if I did. lol

    I found this, at line 192:

    if (accessory->getPrice() getScore().getMoney()

    There are other conditions after this to decide whether or not to add a weapon to the “list to be adjusted”, but as the above will not allow weapons that are worth more than what the player has left to be adjusted, might that be a big cause of prices climbing but not falling?

    going to look more…. just wanted to post before I got distracted by something and forgot 😉

    cbx

    Edit: I see that Boy mentioned the same thing in his above post… well, I found it a different way. 😉

    #34914

    BOY
    Participant

    a big *BUMP*

    #34915

    Guardian Angel
    Participant

    I don’t like the idea of limiting the amount of available weapon on sale during the round.
    How is it to be implemented? Basing on who clicked first? Not really in the spirit of scorched…

    But I like the idea of free market where players can earn money using the difference of prices. It would be some real economy, quite better than existing way of thoughtless earning money on interest.
    If it depends on amounts of what players buy, good point is that it will require to pay attention to other players, to analyse and to predict – so there is a real economy in the game.

    But the obvious darkside is that groups of players would likely create plots to manipulate the market.

    Another idea is to make weapons randomly available from time to time, some rounds you can buy a weapon, some you can’t.

    Or this can be made depending on the total amount of items bought in previous round. For example, there is a limit of 6 for funky, and if more were sold, then for one round it is like “shop is awaiting supplies” – no funkies on sale.
    There can be even a limit for second coming round. For example it is 10 for funkies.

    So if in round 8 they buy over 10 funkies, then funkies are not available both in 9 and 10.
    If they buy less 10 but more 6, funkies are not available in 9 but appear again in 10.
    If they buy less 6, so in round 9 everyone still has chance to buy them as many as they wish.
    But again, if over six, then no funkies in round 10.

    #34916

    Deathbal
    Participant

    Why not make it so prices drop per round when that particular item is not bought?

    Say Frogs have a range of $7500-$15000. Price is currently at 15k. Then no one buys Frogs next round. For every item bought that was not a Frog, take off 50 bucks. So if 10 players buy 10 items, and none were Frogs, Frog price would drop to $14,500 for next round.

    #34917

    Thrax
    Participant

    @deathbal wrote:

    Why not make it so prices drop per round when that
    particular item is not bought?

    Say Frogs have a range of $7500-$15000. Price is currently at 15k. Then
    no one buys Frogs next round. For every item bought that was not a Frog,
    take off 50 bucks. So if 10 players buy 10 items, and none were Frogs,
    Frog price would drop to $14,500 for next round.

    That already happens to a point. Free-Market effect works both ways.
    Abused items increase, and neglected one’s reduce.
    The only reason you don’t notice much effect is due to the
    built-in upper and lower % limits.
    Prices can only climb to 1.5X the original price,
    and not get lower than 0.75X the original price.

    this is the reason your funkies are only 18k, instead of climbing to a
    balanced level that will stop them from being overused. And why un-used
    items like Default-mod lasers don’t drop any further than 6000, even
    though noone buys them.

    Unlocking the limits a little further (max 5x, min .25x) would let prices
    float to more effective ranges, inviting players to use variety instead of
    having Funky-Bombs be the “Weapon of choice” for all Main server players.

    edit: also looked deeper to see what ways it matched the similar items to adjust.
    It compares by items with similar prices, not all weapons in general.
    if it were to apply to all accessories, it might also let the prices of fuel
    and chutes drop on occasion, as they are no-where near the funky’s
    price-range.

    #34918

    Deathbal
    Participant

    I was only giving a quick example of how one might get the market to move more often. You say items that are ignored go down, but I rarely see much movement in that direction. Because someone can buy 20 funkies and the price goes up. But you can’t NOT buy 20 funkies in order for it to go down the same.

    So what you are basically saying is, Funkies are 12k, can go as high as 18k or as low as 9k? And it is the same way with all items. I don’t think that is a bad system. I simply think there should be a way to make the prices drop as quickly as they rise.

    I don’t think setting it to 5x is the answer either. Maybe 2.5x, or just enough that it would be less desireable. But you still need to incorperate a system that allows the price to fluctuate. How often are DH’s bought? 1 here and there, in rounds 9 or 10 or on an open flat map. I still see them at 30k.

    BTW, Funkies should probably start out at 18k standard and go from there.

    #34919

    imported_gcamp
    Participant

    Ok, I’ve removed the accessory must cost less than you have limit.

    I’ve also added a new attribute on all accessories called “freemarketlimits”. This is an integer number > 100. This is the percentage difference allowed for this accessory to move.

    e.g. 100% means accessory cannot move in price
    150% means accessory price can grow and shrink by 150%

    #34920

    Thrax
    Participant

    @gcamp wrote:

    Ok, I’ve removed the accessory must cost less than you have limit.

    I’ve also added a new attribute on all accessories called “freemarketlimits”. This is an integer number > 100. This is the percentage difference allowed for this accessory to move.

    e.g. 100% means accessory cannot move in price
    150% means accessory price can grow and shrink by 150%

    Crazy! 😀 I like it.

    better put a 500% limit on those Funkys..

    Also lets us drop the chute’s back to reasonable and lock them.

    #34921

    Deathbal
    Participant

    @gcamp wrote:

    Ok, I’ve removed the accessory must cost less than you have limit.

    I’ve also added a new attribute on all accessories called “freemarketlimits”. This is an integer number > 100. This is the percentage difference allowed for this accessory to move.

    e.g. 100% means accessory cannot move in price
    150% means accessory price can grow and shrink by 150%

    I take this to mean if something is priced at 10k it’s max would be 15k. I’d like to see it set at 200% or even 250% for all damage causing weapons. Just for the simple reason of causing people to buy other weapons from time to time. Until price drops. The only drawback to that is, prices cannot drop 200% or they’ll be free 🙂

    #34922

    Thrax
    Participant

    @deathbal wrote:

    @gcamp wrote:

    Ok, I’ve removed the accessory must cost less than you have limit.

    I’ve also added a new attribute on all accessories
    called “freemarketlimits”. This is an integer number > 100.
    This is the percentage difference allowed for this accessory to move.

    e.g. 100% means accessory cannot move in price
    150% means accessory price can grow and shrink by 150%

    I take this to mean if something is priced at 10k it’s max would be 15k.
    I’d like to see it set at 200% or even 250% for all damage causing
    weapons. Just for the simple reason of causing people to buy other
    weapons from time to time. Until price drops. The only drawback to
    that is, prices cannot drop 200% or they’ll be free 🙂

    hmm.. that take’s a bit of a closer look then.

    I see in the cpp file that “limit” is applied to both upper and lower..
    if it were only applied to the upper, and lower was left at the original
    level, it would be safe.

    #34923

    imported_gcamp
    Participant

    Surely we need prices to drop by the same to accomodate the increase in the other prices.

    #34924

    Thrax
    Participant

    @gcamp wrote:

    Surely we need prices to drop by the same to accomodate the increase in the other prices.

    True. but as we’ve seen with time, most items go up a lot first then drop
    as others are bought. Any backward sliding costs will be handled.. and
    then they will rise as they are popular again.

    it will still prevent items like chutes from climbing to obscene.. if you
    set it to 100% but allow them to drop if the capacity permits; only to
    rise back to 100% again and no further.

    the upper-limits are definately more important; The lowers’ are rarely reached.

    #34925

    imported_gcamp
    Participant

    @thrax wrote:

    @gcamp wrote:

    the upper-limits are definately more important; The lowers’ are rarely reached.

    So then by the same argument, does it matter if it also sets the lower limit as well 🙂

    Not that I mind adding a seperate lower limit, if that’s what people want.

    #34926

    Thrax
    Participant

    @gcamp wrote:

    @thrax wrote:

    the upper-limits are definately more important; The lowers’ are rarely reached.

    So then by the same argument, does it matter if it also sets the lower limit as well 🙂
    Not that I mind adding a seperate lower limit, if that’s what people want.

    no, yer right.. as long as it’s got room for limits beyond existing, and
    won’t explode in our faces when we try silly numbers. 😀

    eg. 250% funkies would max at price x 2.50 (30000) and min at price / 2.50(4800).
    If it ever reaches that low on mains, i’ll eat my first-born. 😈

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 31 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.