Offworld Trading Company
Fundamental Critiques and Suggestions for the Game
Let me preface this by saying I was once an avid PC gamer in the 90’s and early 00’s. In the past 10 years I have played primarily console games; however, the lack of meaningful strategy games on console has made me return to PC in an effort to find a game that Offworld Trading Company’s description and promise fits perfectly. I have extensively played Civilization III and Civilization IV – both of which are excellent games attesting to the competence, capability, inspiration, and giftedness of Soren Johnson as a game designer, and his teams in bringing those designs to fruition. The below critiques and suggestions are meant purely to transform this game from what it currently is to what I would like to play and what I feel the designers and other developers at Mohawk Games and Stardock Games want and intend it to be.
Note: In the following discussions my use of the term 'auto-sell' means the auto-sell of all and/or specific incoming resources, not resources already in storage, unless specifically stated otherwise. (Important Note: you can still, at current market prices, manually buy and store more of a given resource and sell stored resources - the auto-sell of incoming resources does not eliminate this important facet of gameplay) Also, my use of 'auto-supply' or 'auto-buy' means the auto-buy of necessary resources only when the output is profitable at current market prices, again, unless specifically stated otherwise.
1.The benefits of allowing auto-sell and having it be the default state for all resource types.
Speculation (i.e., a transaction that has risk of losing all or most of the initial outlay in expectation of substantial gains) is currently the default mode of operation of the markets in Offworld Trading Company. Without auto-sell being the default option for all resource types, the inevitable outcome is inventory buildup (due to a player being unable to constantly sell their items while dealing with other items in the game) and the risk that the price of a good will drop enough to render the sale of the accumulated goods at a loss rather than a profit. The profits displayed in the game windows are calculated at current market rates. This is useless if the default option is inventory accumulation, for which a price drop could lead to a loss rather than the displayed profit. Furthermore, the auto-sale of incoming resources would allow for a less volatile market price and a much more stable and accurate reflection of current supply and demand, thus allowing for easier and more effective short-, mid-, and long-term economic planning.
As stated above, my belief is that auto-sell should be the default option for all items, thus preventing speculation from being the default state of the game; however, by also providing a toggle switch option to turn auto-sell off/on for specific resources, the speculation risk it entails becomes a possible beneficial strategy due to the potential gains from the sale of accumulated assets which have experienced a rise in price, and the potential market manipulation (see: surplus, and resulting decrease in price) made possible by flooding the market with a glut of accumulated goods.
Also, another important improvement would be for storage to be required to accumulate resources. The HQ could hold a limited amount of resources, and, like with power and the Energy Vault, a special storage structure should be required to store further amounts of any given resource (Note: the structure could hold a certain number of any resource type and any combination thereof. [i.e., There doesn’t need to be a specific structure for each resource type.]). Since each storage structure should hold only a limited amount of resources, more would have to be built to allow further accumulation, thus causing the player to need to manage the benefits of storage (and hence speculation) versus other uses of the tiles in question.
In short: I don’t want my entire game time to be consumed by manually and constantly clicking ‘sell’ for potentially 20 different items just to avoid the risks of speculation, not to mention just to fulfill a basic game mechanic.
2. The benefits of auto-supply as the default state for processing structures - with the state being smart enough to not buy resources when the output is currently selling at a loss.
This prevents the annoying necessity of manually buying items for potentially dozens of different buildings just to avoid the frightening possibility of going bankrupt if left unchecked as the current game design proposes. As I further explain in my third point below, it reduces micromanagement in the game and allows the player to focus on what I believe the designers feel is the true purpose of the game.
Note 1: an important flaw of the current game design is that even when auto-supply is disabled, a processing structure could still produce a loss if a supply structure is producing the processing structure's input at a sufficient loss. There is currently nothing in place to prevent this from being assumed solely by looking at the processing structure, and the only way is to constantly check your supply chain. Having things automatically not be produced and the buildings shutting off if not profitable would eliminate this further micromanagement task. It follows that the building should turn back on automatically once the resource becomes profitable again.
Note 2: a combination of point one (i.e., auto-sell) and point two (i.e., modified auto-supply) being implemented would also result in the elimination of the problem that arises when buying a product from the market for use by a building for which input is not being produced by one's self - and then thinking it should be sold along with everything else (since no distinction is made from other resources) - when constantly manually selling things, thus causing a lack of input resources for the structure in question. This is a type of ‘circular’ problem.
3. Microeconomics (i.e., micromanaging) vs. Macroeconomics (i.e. strategy)
Implementing the above suggestions/features would change the game from being micromanagement focused to a macro-strategic economic competition focused game. The prime motivation for eliminating the micromanagement is to allow the player to focus on the effects of efficiency research, patents, specialty buildings, black market manipulation - and last but not least, the higher level (and in my opinion more fun) strategy of managing opportunity costs.
a) Opportunity Cost
Opportunity cost is defined as ’The cost of choosing to use resources for one purpose measured by the sacrifice of the next best alternative for using those resources.’ As a simple example, the production of water may be producing a reasonable profit, and it’s use as an input for a hydroponic farm is also returning a further substantial profit; however, if water’s use as an input for an electrolysis plant gives a higher profit than the hydroponic farm, it is only reasonable to destroy (assuming all claimable tiles are in use, thus creating scarcity of tiles) the hydroponic farm and replace it with an electrolysis plant. The opportunity cost of running a hydroponic farm in said situation is the sacrifice of the higher profit from the electrolysis plant. One can see how complex this can become when considering the number of possible input/output chains, including those with multiple inputs and outputs, combined with constantly fluctuating prices in the game. It is impossible to focus on the incredibly fun aspects of maximizing profits via optimizing for opportunity costs in this and other situations when micromanaging all the other elements described in my previous points, and to some extent, my upcoming points below.
4. User Interface and Information Display Suggestions
a) Have a more noticeable and perhaps quicker ping of green or red when the price of an item increases or decreases.
The game does correctly account for the effects of surpluses and shortages and does not have them reversed as I state below - my apologies.
b ) Surplus versus shortage
One of the things in the game that triggers a pet peeve of mine is when the game displays ‘surplus’ as portending a coming rise in prices, and a ‘shortage’ as a decline in prices. This is exactly opposite of what is taught in economics textbooks. A surplus occurs when the current market price is too high and thus creates too much supply and not enough demand. The correction is to decrease the price until supply matches demand; Conversely, a shortage occurs when the market price is too low and thus creates too much demand and not enough supply. The correction is to increase the price until demand matches supply.
In short: A surplus results in a decrease in price while a shortage results in an increase of prices. The game reverses these basic economic concepts (i.e., currently, in-game, a surplus causes a rise in market price while a shortage causes a decrease in market price).
c) Display of costs, profit, and loss in the screen that appears when hovering over a structure
Upon playing the game for the first time, I believed (perhaps quite naively) that as long as the +/- $‘x’ value listed in the lower right corner of the screen that appears when hovering over a structure was positive, I was making a profit off the item/structure in question. I assumed that the +/- $‘x’ took into consideration all the costs and revenues associated with the sale of the item at current market prices; however, upon my fourth play through it dawned on me that this number, while factoring the various costs of resource inputs, failed to include the cost of the power (and potentially fuel) required for the building to operate. Yes, the screen does show the cost of power and fuel, but it does not automatically factor these in when calculating the (what I believe is intended to be) current profit displayed in the bottom right corner of said screen. With the current setup, a player might believe their high iron mine is profitable even at a market price of $1 for a unit of iron when in fact highly fluctuating power and fuel costs will likely make it unprofitable at that price, in which case the building should display the actual associated loss rather than a perhaps misleading profit. The processing buildings include the market price of the resource inputs while factoring the profit of the building – power and transport fuel costs, being another input, should also be included in the calculation of profitability for every building. *This reduces micromanagement by eliminating the need for me to constantly do mental math to manually factor in the price of power/fuel inputs*
In short – include the costs of all input resources, including power and fuel, in the final calculation of net profit or loss for a building.
d) Further refinements to user interface for profit/loss determination
Note: This is closely related to point 4.c)
Previously in this post I spoke of opportunity cost and its management in-game. Currently the only way to evaluate opportunity cost is to hover over a particular building type, perform the necessary manual mental calculations to include power and fuel costs in the profitability of the item, and then compare this to the structure which represents the next best use of the input in question (again, manually doing power/fuel cost adjustments for that structure). To do this comparison, one must (again) hover over an already-existing structure of the type in question, or hover over its building construction icon which gives a summary of said information.
To alleviate this (further) micromanagement annoyance, there should be a quickly accessible screen that concisely summarizes the current profit and loss of all building types normalized to a certain standard. For instance, instead of listing the profit and loss of a default hydroponic farm based on 0.65 units of output, the P/L should be calculated for one unit of output since that is what the market price reflects and that is how it is sold. This should also be how the P/L for the screen which appears when hovering over a building is calculated.
If the hover-over screen displays power input cost, fuel input cost, and output price, it should also include a P/L term normalized to one unit, which, if further hovered over, gives one P/L amount adjusted for the actual output amount of the building and another P/L amount that is normalized to one unit – the sub-screen would then disappear once no longer hovered over.
e) Further quickly accessible screens to simplify micromanagement and tedious tasks
Another quickly accessible screen should list all your buildings by type, and if clicked, take you to the map location instantly. This would be useful on large/huge maps or to manage sprawling economic complexes. This would eliminate having to click the HQ, determine the color of said building, and trace it to its origin. Relating to the previous point [i.e., 4.d)], this screen could also display the P/L of each building.
I’m sure there are many other ‘summary’ screens that players might suggest.
In closing, this game is incredible as it stands. I have enjoyed every minute of the time I have spent playing it; however, I have not played it long enough to delve into its every intricacy. The above suggestions are based on what I consider a somewhat cursory (though I’ve played 5 hours so far) examination of the game. I hope to later provide even more detailed input about balancing variables, pacing, and gameplay mechanics; however, the above suggestions would serve to transform the game into an even more amazing product that is more readily accessible, more easily playable - without sacrificing depth of play, fun, and rewarding (and with a lesser emphasis on micromanagement! ).
Also, I apologize for my lack of brevity. I appreciate anyone who read this post in its entirety and did not simply post ‘wall-of-text’ as a response.
Thank you.
-TerranWarrior
It seems you don't understand some of the mechanics. For example, power and fuel go into debt. Debt is not negative money. You also seem to be unfamiliar with some events, such as surpluses and shortages. Shortages indeed do raise the price of a good.
A few reactions to your comments:
1) One thing that might help you is using CTRL+SHIFT+DOWN to sell all your resources and save a whole lot of clicks. Obviously it still wouldn't be as convenient as an auto-sell feature since you'd need to do it repeatedly, but it'll help if you haven't come across it yet. On a more substantive note, while it is true that you'll often want to sell resources down immediately as they come in to avoid the risk of prices dropping, there are just as many instances where you'll want to have stockpiles available to hedge against the risk of prices rising. In particular, saving for upgrades, offworld markets, and patents are things you'll see players make a point of doing. There is, of course, plenty of money to be made off of speculating on prices as well since, with experience, seeing or creating circumstances where prices will rise is very doable. Basically, an auto-sell feature would be useful in some respects, but I don't think it's fundamentally necessary and having it on for everything by default probably sends the wrong message to less-experienced players.
2) You're right that you almost never want to produce at a loss based on true market prices and, for that reason, auto-supply's current behavior can be seen as just a layer of tedious micromanagement. As you've mentioned, though, current market prices don't represent true values due to stockpiles, so there will be cases where producing at a loss makes sense. Producing at a loss when you have a monopoly (or near-monopoly) on a raw resource and a stockpile of it is the clearest example, as you'd want to keep the raw resource price high to prevent others from competing in those markets and you'd actually be making money from the manufacturing. Perhaps making auto-supply "smart" by default would be correct, with an extra button allowing you to tell buildings to continue to produce at a loss, though I do wonder if there might be technical drawbacks from this approach.
3) My reservations about your observations aside, I do understand how overwhelming it can be for players to stay on top of all the necessary information. Even after nearly 600 hours of play, I still will miss important details all the time and I still don't have a great sense of what to do when. I mostly just worry about how many tactical maneuvering might be removed by simplifying systems and it's also worth wondering how useful further simplifications are when many players dismiss the game as too simple at a glance because a lot of strategic implications of the relatively simple systems aren't immediately obvious.
4b) Your explanations of shortages and surpluses are correct and are indeed what the game uses (i.e. prices drop when surpluses hit and rise when shortages hit).
c) Power and fuel are displayed separately for two reasons: they generally accrue to debt rather than being a cash cost and they can be replaced by other inputs due to patents. The first reason is more important as you'll often want to treat cash and debt differently, with cash being more important, especially in the early-game.
d) The main issue with this is that adjacency bonuses can be very variable and affect efficiency. If you're choosing between buildings for a specific spot that would make adjacency equal for all relevant choices, then sure, normalized prices will help, but otherwise that sort of screen could be very misleading. Moreover, you don't necessarily want to just build the most profitable buildings in the moment anyway, as you'll want to try to anticipate how market pressures will affect the input and output prices. To that end, a single comparison screen, even without other issues, could emphasize the wrong ideas.
e) A summary screen for all your buildings could be useful, though you do want most of your production (resource extraction and possibly power being the main exceptions) connected to your HQ generally, which reduces the amount of buildings you'd need to track down.
Blues basically covers what I would have to say on this topic, I just wanted to chime in to reinforce his assertions (I also have hundreds of hours of experience in OTC). I will say I once argued in favor of an auto-sell button for any/all resources instead of just power, and I still think I like the idea. However I don't think that, or shutting buildings off that are "unprofitable" should be the default state.
I also really want to drive home this point that all new players fail to understand. Having $2,000 cash and $2,000 debt is better than having $0 of both. Cash is not the same as debt, and all calculations in the game separate the things for a reason.
To Jaiwera’s first reply:
I was incorrect about the game's reversal of surplus and shortage. Thanks for pointing this out.
Assuming all other things are held equal and constant (<- I can't emphasize this enough in the following analysis), a price of $ ‘x’ for one unit of steel when the value of ‘power’+’fuel’ per unit exceeds $‘x’ ($'x' in game accounts for the cost of the iron input) results in a situation where your debt as a result of this specific action increases to no end - even with the sale of the item, which is compounded by a decline in its price [I realize I slightly breached the 'Assuming all other things are held equal and constant' caveat {which is necessary for the meaningful establishment of economic relationships}, with my preceding statement about the price declining; however, the analysis holds true even without the price declining]. Add the effect of interest and you only further compound your trouble. Just because an input item is financed via debt doesn’t mean it isn’t factored into the profitability of an item. And I do realize debt is not negative money; however, if it is not used to produce a positive return on investment then it is not being utilized correctly. (As an aside to Zultar327, I agree with your statement about debt made in your first reply; however, again, it is only true if the debt is being utilized correctly.)
To Offworld_Blues first reply:
I am sure with having played the game only now 10 hours versus your 600+ hours, there are certainly many intricacies I have not observed and cannot accurately comment on; however, it is my belief that my concerns and criticisms are all the more important given that they are noticeable even upon a short duration of play by a self-proclaimed newbie. Also, I want to make the point that someone who has played the game so long with the current mechanics in place may not be able to see eye to eye with the changes suggested by a new player – likewise I may not see eye-to-eye with that person and their greater experience with current game mechanics.
1. I am aware of the shortcut CRTL+SHIFT+DOWN and that it sells all of your resources; however, it does not wholly or accurately solve the situation I described in section 1 and 2 of my original post regarding auto-selling and auto-buying and the confluence between the two. In section 1 of my original post I do address the strategy of speculation and hedging and how it can be done relatively easily and more reliably by being able to toggle on or off the auto-selling of incoming specific resources (you can still, at current market prices, manually buy and store more of a given resource and sell stored resources - I am not advocating the elimination of this feature). Whether auto-selling should be on or off by default is a decision for the game designers I guess. We have both stated our opposite preferences for the feature, leading me to think it should be something included in the options screen. Returning to hedging, in section 1 paragraph 3 I address storage, which should also be a game-required part of any hedging strategy.
Also, having auto-sell (and auto-buy only if profitable) on by default makes the game more accessible to players. After playing for a while and getting a feel for the game's mechanics, players can then delve into the game's more advanced topics. This will allow for a less off-putting initial reception of the game.
Also of note is that there is a locked toggle switch already in place for the auto-selling of power, and it is ‘on’ by default [and yes I realize this must only become unlocked upon the construction of an Energy Vault or researching the associated patent - whatever the current build requires. Pardon my inexperience with the specifics.]. Also note that the Energy Vault is limited in how much it can hold. Imagine how much micromanagement would be added to the game for both beginners and veterans alike if one had to manually sell power as well. (On top of all the other resources as it stands – the number of clicks and time that could be used for other purposes in-game is staggering at best, and mind-blowing at worst.); however, the toggle switch is there for anyone like you who believes the opposite state might be preferable. Implementing this for every resource would be very simple and reduce micromanagement immensely while allowing for both of our preferences.
2. I do mostly agree with the statements you made in part 2 of your post. It seems to me that the best way to implement/modify one’s approach to our concerns is to be able to set default states on a player’s options screen, with the in-game option to modify the specifics of certain arrangements to your liking. (Each player could have their own individual default settings for multiplayer, thus suiting their preferences. The adjustment of these default settings before playing would be just another layer of strategy.)
Update: Sorry for not initially fully understanding your point while I wrote the below paragraph. I do now comprehend how your described instance of producing at a loss is desirable given the circumstances you described. Again, my apologies.
As a note, I believe that if you have a true entire monopoly on a resource that not producing at all would be preferable to producing at a loss and piling on debt (Unless, as you mention, the processed output resource is profitable even when factoring in the loss associated with the input). The other players will drive the price up on their own if you withhold sufficient supply, thus making unprofitability unlikely in the first place.
I don’t believe that allowing greater player choice necessarily needs to result in a complication or degradation of the game experience.
3.There is a lot within your and my section 3 posts that we can agree to disagree about. I think this is an area for the game designers to address according to the feedback of players, especially in such situations when players’ opinions stand in stark contrast to one another as ours do here – and, again, this is amplified given a newbie's views versus a veteran; however, I do enjoy a debate and respect your views.
My only comment is that I don’t feel like I am arguing for an overall simplification of game mechanics and systems. I feel my arguments offer an optimization of the game mechanics and turn the game into something I could play for 600+ hours. Implementing these various things as options and thus giving players what they specifically want can only help the game’s success. I don't believe they remove or (over)simplify tactical maneuvering from its current state, nor do they detract from the game's strategic considerations - in fact I feel they enhance strategic gameplay. I believe my ideas would actually make the game less tedious and allow for greater concentration on the more critical strategic layer of gameplay. After all, this is a game falling into the real-time strategy genre, not real-time tactics - or micromanagement for that matter.
The only two default changes I would stand by until the sun doesn’t shine is implementation of automatic selling with toggle switches for all resources and the auto-supply of structures unless they are unprofitable. Your advanced strategies would still be possible by changing the defaults and specific settings.
4.b ) I stand corrected on this point. Thank you for pointing out my error.
4.c) I believe the power and fuel input (or whatever resources are used to represent these concepts given the potential changes from patents) should be listed separately on screen and am not arguing otherwise. I simply wish they were factored into an absolute per item profit/loss term that is displayed in the same box that appears when a production tile is hovered over. (Note: please refer to my original post for a detailed description of my original concept.)
4.d) If you are considering the needs of buildings in specific places I don't feel you would be using the summary screen I describe in my original post anyway. My envisioned screen is meant to facilitate the more simplified analysis and optimization of opportunity costs. I will say that having current normalized output prices for all structures in a window beside the current market prices screen displayed by default on the left-hand side of the user interface would help the planning for anticipated price changes, not hinder it. I guess this is an area where the game designers will have to make a decision as to what the best approach would be.
4.e) I agree with what you say but would like to point out that an expansive HQ specifically reduces the penalty for placement of buildings further from your HQ and thus seems to support the creation of the type of screen which I describe.
As a genuine suggestion to Mohawk Games, receiving the input of a credentialed economist (and, importantly, one who realizes and understands the desired complexity level of the game) with regard to the game's mechanics and implementation of its economy may be a profitable venture.
This is not unprecedented, as CCP Games (the developers of EVE Online) has hired a full-time economist to help analyze, understand, and improve the implementation of the game's complex player-driven economy.
Thank you
*
I'm all for giving the player more options in regards to auto selling buying, and other automated things so long as it doesn't necessarily make things more complicated for the player who wants none of that. As it is the learning curve for the game is fairly steep already.
I believe ctrl or ctrl shift click sells all of one specific resource, this is particularly useful when you want to sell all profitable resources but not the cheap resources which you have stockpiled.
To Cubit32's first reply:
It is certainly nice to find common ground with another player who sees the benefits of auto-selling and auto-buying upon the game's mechanics and overall 'feel'. I don't believe their implementation would make the game more complicated; in fact, I feel quite the opposite regarding the changes, as they give the game an (optional) layer of "simplicity" which allows a player to focus on strategy rather than repetitive micromanagement-related tasks, as mentioned in my original and subsequent posts.
Just like SHIFT+CTRL+DOWN doesn't adequately solve my concerns regarding inventory accumulation, a CTRL+SHIFT+CLICK option doesn't alleviate the problems much better. From my perspective, the very existence of these shortcuts is (perhaps) a half-step toward the designers realizing the need for auto-selling, but not being willing to implement it for some fear of fundamentally changing game mechanics. I suggest releasing a beta with these options (intelligent auto-buy and auto-sell) available and make changes according to further player feedback - don't knock it until you've tried it my friend.
I have also read the original rules proposed for the game by Soren Johnson as detailed on this website:
http://www.mohawkgames.com/2014/06/16/offworld-rules/
He describes the game as taking place in real-time but being divided by turns with the clock governing those turns proceeding at a set pace. This seems to be a mixing of RTS and 4X rules (perhaps the term for this game should be RT3X since 'Extermination' is not possible - just kidding ). As the game stands, I must personally slow the game down to snail to perform all the necessary actions for maximum optimization of my economy. I also find myself pausing the game at times to further analyze the situation. This is more fitting of a turn-based-strategy game than a real-time-strategy game. My suggestions in previous posts would eliminate the level of micromanagement that might be appropriate or doable in a TBS game and push the pendulum more toward RTS without breaking the unique (and good) overall feel and balance of the game.
(Note: I am no longer a teenager with as much time to spend on games as I once had. Nor am I one to consume Red-Bull or Monster to enhance my alertness and reflexes. In fact, I don't like the emphasis of reflexes in gaming in general - but I digress. I am not attempting to disparage gamers of the above described type, however, and respect their ability to more quickly manage things.)
-Thank you
TerranWarrior
Good to have an economist playing, I think.
I like the idea of an auto sell button for resources produced. but not as the default state. It [would] add a layer of price control in a given market. I could see it as a simple addition of an "auto sell" button up with the Cash/Debt that opens a simple drop down like the Hacker array. Additionally, I believe it would be a mechanic that helps new players take a load off while they learn, veteran players will use it to win.
I think adding a storage building will create more problems than its worth. Off the top, it sounds like a logical necessity. However, I believe that there would be no real added value to game play. Will claims (the most important resource) be adjusted? What happens when you max out the storage? If you want to destroy the storage, do you have to sell everything first? Keeping track of everything that a storage building would require is probably a headache the devs do not want at this stage.
In the end... buy low, sell high, and have fun.
Personally I'd rather that the game gradually trade resources over time, at a rate up to 10 units/s. For example, when a player sells 100 units, the game will automatically slow-sell that resource until 100 units are sold and vica versa. It seems unrealistic that you can instantly trade huge amounts of resources. Generally I'm all for any features that turn the game away from reflexes and toward wit.
I'm not sure the devs are going to make any more major changes at this point because we're getting closer and closer to what I think is the game's release.
To MantisStyle:
I like your ideas regarding the implementation of the auto-sell mechanic and your pondering of ideas relating to storage. I hadn't thought it out so thoroughly and now see how it may in fact needlessly complicate the game - I am still unable to envision how large a warehouse the HQ would need to potentially hold 9,999 units of every resource in the game, however. I bet companies around the world would love to get their hands on that level of compression. Also, its tool as a balancing factor and cost imposition upon the strategies of speculation, hoarding, and non-Hacker Array related manipulation of prices shouldn't be totally dismissed.
It is indeed about fun, which in the end I hope everyone is able to have in abundance.
To Cubit32:Your suggestions about gradual selling of resources overtime is a step in the right direction, but in and of itself may complicate gameplay more than auto-sell being implemented wholesale as an option for the player. I would also like to hear more input from long-time players about my intelligent auto-buy/supply idea versus the bankruptcy warning given in the current build when turning it on without said intelligence.
As stated above, MantisStyle is correct that in the end the game is all about fun. Perhaps I am blinded by my own views and am trying to make the game more complicated. I don't however believe I am and would hope that after paying $19.99 (Steam Chinese New Year Sale) for Early Access, - even late in the beta process - my ideas will be given fair and timely consideration. After all, the purpose of the Early Access program is not just to identify specific bugs and balance issues (we are not being paid to be the game testers), but to allow players to comment on broader design principles and enable the developers to implement the best blend of their original vision and those from the players' various perspectives. (I believe it was Brad Wardell, Founder and CEO of Stardock who, in the announcement video for Ashes of the Singularity, himself said that "we believe players know more about the game than the designers do" and goes on to emphasize the importance of their feedback loop with players. I am not myself presumptuous enough to believe we know more than Soren Johnson and his team [I did praise him and his teams for their earlier work in my original post], but it does give additional perspective about Stardock's intentions for the Early Access Program.)
Here's to hoping a build will be released with what the designer's feel are the best of my suggestions being implemented as options at the very least, even if not the default state of the game. I feel players may be pleasantly surprised once they were to get their hands on such features.
Without at least intelligent auto-buy and auto-sell being implemented I don't see how I will be able to play this game for the amount of time it deserves, nor will I be fully pleased with my $19.99 outlay made upon reading the initial description of the game on its website. I simply don't have time even in a 30-minute round for the sheer number of clicks this game requires as it currently stands. It does in fact have so much potential, and I'm not saying it is a bad game; however, as it stands, the opportunity cost of playing it is too great given other uses of my limited gaming time.
Also, as a long-time player and critic of games, I don't feel the initial reviews will display the receptivity the designers desire given the current high learning curve (which a better tutorial and/or manual would help address) and intense micromanagement of the game. I know certain players will dismiss reviews insofar as they enjoy the games themselves - which is fine - but the reviews will definitely influence the commercial success of the game and whether further expansion packs are produced for said players to enjoy.
Also as a brief comment, I would like to discuss the topic of the feasibility of my suggestions being implemented this late in the beta process.
As someone with a not insignificant experience with C,C++,Java, and -x86 MASM (though nowhere near that of an experienced game programmer), I can say that with the logic and toggle switch art already in place for the auto-selling of the power resource, extending it to all other resources optionally or by default should be a relatively simple endeavor, especially with the emphasis on code reusability, malleability, and accessibility in today's world versus the procedural world I grew up in when object-oriented programming was just becoming accepted into the mainstream.
Nor should the implementation of intelligent auto-buy be a Herculean effort given the logic and toggle switch already in place for auto-buy, which simply excludes the 'only if profitable' caveat.
Implementing my 'storage of resources' idea may however be difficult at this stage, given the inherent game balancing issues and additional art/animation it would entail.
The creation of a better tutorial and a .pdf manual should be a clear-cut process at the top of any priority list, even with the lessening of the learning curve as I argue.
I will leave the possibility/feasibility of implementing my other suggestions for the development team as I feel I cannot accurately comment on them.
I'm not trying to promote my own post, but after playing a short game - and winning - today, I made an interesting observation regarding Auto-Sell.
On the after-game summary screens, which I realize may be a work in progress, if one chooses 'Resources' and looks at the 'Auto-Sold' column, not only is 'Power' listed, but there is a cell for every other resource and a 'Total' as well. I also realize this may be an inevitable result of the table's proper structuring; however, it is interesting to see that the game has another small facet supporting the Auto-Sell point I realize I've been zealously concerned with. Add this to the toggle switch logic and art already in place for the Auto-Sell of 'Power' as I mentioned in my previous reply, and its implementation across the board becomes all the more simple.
It appears the Resource screen is just begging for the feature.
As much as I'd like to get behind reducing micro and APM, I don't believe that enabling auto-sell is a good decision. The timing of selling is very important, especially in a 1v1 environment where the cumulative effects of proper timing leads to winning or losing.
Auto-selling enabled by defaults leads to new players unknowingly making mistakes.
Using alunimum, for example, theres 3 early game cases.
Both players mine aluminum --> It's a race to sell because its over produced, so auto sell would be beneficial. Not too difficult to hover and mash the sell button when necessary. Later game, there are usually going to be larger profit opportunities available to worry about this situation.
1 player mines aluminum --> Player should generally sit on aluminum until the other player starts mining. This lets the other player drive up the resource cost by spending more money, maximizing the mining players profit. Auto-sell would subvert this strategy leading to a benefit for the more experienced player.
Neither Player mines --> pre-buying while its cheaper is preferable.
So... what do you do auto-selling AI wise? The reason why experienced players crush the AI in this game is they recognize the ebbs and flows of resources over time. The over time is is very important because its not about maximizing your cash at the present, its about maximizing the cash when you need it. Sometimes selling immediately is the right choice. Sometimes waiting for the other player to do something is. The right decision varies based on the player actions. So, would the quality of life improvements for a new player be worth having the potential consequences? I'd say no as I view the number of situations where autoselling to be beneficial to be few compared to when its not, and I don't believe its simply a matter of coding a smart/intelligent AI to do so.
It's been a while so I might remember wrong, but going back to Sorens AI discussions/podcasts, the challenge was to make the AI fair to play against. It's ultimately a numbers game, so making the AI min-max cashflow/profit wasn't the challenge. Rather making it fair to even play against. The same issue would exist for smart auto-selling and where do you draw the line. Maybe it would work better since the player would be guiding the macro economy? The risk is making it too effective that theres no point micro-managing anything, or too weak that its too detrimental to new players.
To indczn1:
I'm unfortunately squeezed for time at the current moment and don't have the amount necessary to give your insightful strategies the analysis they deserve before I make any in-depth comments (from a newbie's perspective). I will probably add to (but not otherwise modify) this post in the morning once my time is less scare, so please don't be a stranger.
**
Good morning.
The section I mentioned above as possibly adding:
I understand your strategies related to mining, and I can't wait to add them to my list of economic maneuverings. I would just like to point out for those who may not have read my original post or subsequent replies that the auto-sell interface wouldn't be like the one currently displayed for power without the Energy Vault patent having been researched (where no manual buy/sell is possible). Given that it only applies to incoming resources, there would still be the buy/sell buttons and the inventory amount listed, thus enabling the manual buying/selling of resources and accumulation/dispersal of inventories at specific prices and times to remain possible. Auto-sell of incoming resources would be optional via toggle switches. The entire range of strategies which players believe will be hampered or eliminated and are thus used as arguments against my proposal would still be possible under this arrangement, micromanagement would be reduced, and additional strategies no one will think of until getting their hands on the update will also be made possible. (Regarding concerns about balancing and re-engineering the AI to handle any unforeseen or unintended consequences of this change, I realize it may be difficult. As I said in my feasibility reply, I don't feel comfortable discussing this because I lack the required knowledge level surrounding AI programming; however, I have confidence in this team and am sure there are ninja programmers available who could delve in and enjoy doing the necessary work before the release window arrives. And of course the Founders and us Early Access beta testers would love to give our feedback to enhance the experience.)
My initial thoughts concern the first two sentences of this particular statement. I will also include the remaining sentences so as to avoid distorting peoples views regarding the matter:
"The right decision varies based on the player actions. So, would the quality of life improvements for a new player be worth having the potential consequences?"
I'd say no as I view the number of situations where autoselling to be beneficial to be few compared to when its not, and I don't believe its simply a matter of coding a smart/intelligent AI to do so.
Is the accessibility of the game for new players who have been members of neither the Founders' Vault nor the Early Access program and have spent very little time with the game less important than their immediately needing to be concerned about beating experienced players? If this game is to be something more than a niche product in today's market, players need to find it approachable within a short time-frame. (Once implemented, my ideas won't appear as complex or needlessly complicating as I perhaps make them sound - as mentioned before, an improved tutorial that effectively introduces these things would help matters immensely.)
We could debate until entropy takes us all about whether auto-sell should be on by default or not (a simple solution would be to have it in the game's options menu before starting a game as described previously), but I ardently believe that the option to turn it on or off by default and modify it in-game via toggle switches for specific resources (the UI of which is well described by MantisStyle in his first response) is the best approach - no disrespect for your opinions intended. If players are so experienced, then the addition of optionality will need not affect them - in fact they will discover even more advanced strategies via its use. Having it assist newcomers by minimizing the smashing of the sell button and preventing them from leaving for another game until they discover the intricacies of your and others' described strategies can only be a good thing. (Note: Once ready they will benefit from the same strategies veterans discover using the auto-sell optionality I underlined.)
The learning curve will be reduced without sacrificing the depth of play your strategies effectively demonstrate. Accessibility and approachability will both be enhanced. Veteran players will utilize it to their liking and advantage, and, when ready, so will graduated newbies on their way to CEO. Life (and OTWC) is not a zero-sum game. One person's gain is not necessarily another one's loss. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Lets expand the pie.
Been wanting this for forever, just figured people already struggle with understanding the game as it is, and likely couldn't handle any additional complications.
Slow sell will kill a lot of interesting plays, like dynamite + Steel hoard, most Network Viruses, and forcing swaps.
Just another quick idea players might find useful:
I mentioned the below initially in section 4 of my original post and include it here to prevent needless scrolling:
" e) Further quickly accessible screens to simplify micromanagement and tedious tasks
Another quickly accessible screen should list all your buildings by type, and if clicked, take you to the map location instantly. This would be useful on large/huge maps or to manage sprawling economic complexes. This would eliminate having to click the HQ, determine the color of said building, and trace it to its origin. Relating to the previous point [i.e., 4.d)], this screen could also display the P/L of each building. "
I noticed today that when one hovers over the +/- value of net resource flow beside the buy/sell buttons, a drop-down display of the net effect of each type of building on the final value is listed. Instead of what I mentioned above regarding a summary screen, why not allow the drop-down to display all the buildings and their contributions individually, then highlight an item in green or red depending on sign when hovered over, and be taken instantly to that building when clicked? Or perhaps the best implementation would be a button on the current drop-down that could restructure the menu to the itemized list if desired.
Sorry if this post is becoming less about fundamentals and more about specifics - I will solely shoulder the blame; however, as in this reply, I am still trying to make things relate to the topics in the original post and our discussions since.
Unless you're doing it wrong or are a scientific player (or have teleportation late game) all of your regular buildings should be next to your HQ which negates the need for this (excluding special buildings which may be next to the colony).
Adding a profit and loss statement is of minimal value in my opinion because it only gives you P/L at a particular point. Before you deconstruct buildings you need to analyze other HQ's and production and assess the game situation. Your farms that are losing money may just be a result of someone trying to drive you out of the market and buy up water. If you use a P&L to make that determination you're making the wrong decision and analyzing the immediate market instead of the future market. Most of the time it's better to turn your farms off rather than tearing them down because of the high build cost associated with glass early on.
I appreciate that you took the time to make the suggestions but I'm not really in agreement.
To blackmagic1:
All valid points. I do feel it would be an interesting exercise to compare in the long-run over the course of several games with the same player whether the auto-sell option would result in overall higher profits than players selling the resources manually at the time they best feel will result in the maximum profits.
This could be implemented as an experiment quite simply by having the computer auto-sell all resources in the background (with auto-supply taking place only while the building is currently profitable) while keeping track of the results and leaving the player to their own devices with current game mechanics in place. I don't have time to think about all the particulars and variables and various ways the results might be skewed one way or the other, but assuming factors could all be reasonably controlled for it seems like a lesson in statistics and psychology I would enjoy observing.
As myself and others have noted, speculation is at the core of what this game's market as implemented represents. I detailed the potential benefits of speculation and how it can be implemented while making the market prices in the game more stable in my original post. The sheer amount of information in even a microcosm of a market economy is so vast that it is nigh impossible to predict, outside of isolated and specific situations (except perhaps the inflation of the US Dollar), whether a rise in price may occur and evaluate the amount of risk that waiting for the opportunity may entail. With the game set at a normal pace with 8-players, and the multitude of resources and opportunity costs, it is impossible to account for or comprehend all the possible situations where instead a significant loss will occur even while said situations are under the player's direct observation. Micromanagement and high APM for basic mechanics distract the player even more.
Also of note is the fact that you don't recoup any of the costs of production until the sale of the item is completed. You are investing dollars in your product that can't be used for other purposes (yet another layer of opportunity costs) until you sell the item. Taking the risk of the return on such a large investment being negative is a bold move for anyone to take. Companies do not hold enormous inventories of items specifically because they won't recoup their costs - nor will they make up for the cost of forgoing other beneficial uses of the item's cost (as the game is concerned, black market tactics, patents, efficiency research, stock buyouts) - until the item is sold (it is in fact often preferable to sell at a slight loss and free up part of your cost of investment for other profitable uses than to take the risks associated with waiting for prices to increase - part of the reasoning behind retailers' sales - the reasoning is one thing, the psychology is a whole different animal.), nor do they want to take the risk of those items' prices falling significantly below the point of profitability. Just try day-trading for a few hours and see how raw speculation turns out.
I do however hope to play the game more to better understand all the situations where waiting to sell is preferable, because, like others have said, it's just a game and its economy doesn't always correlate with the real world.
One last interesting observation is that the debt in-game accrues 5% interest everyday. Financing a $20,000 car at such rates would result in your debt doubling in 15 days - before you would even make your first payment. A 5% APR is based on compounding taking place at set intervals throughout a whole year. I hope the game has a debtor's prison structure handy. (I'm just kidding about the debtor's prison structure and don't really see the need to change the mechanic as the games will be over before 15 Martian days anyway, and players would hopefully not let their debt spiral to such proportions. Everyone previously pointing out to me that debt is not negative money may want to take a closer look at the game mechanic however. Ahh the joys of compounding.)
I believe I saw Soren Johnson mention in a reply to one of our posts that the next beta release would be out this week. I also learned that a livestream from Mohawk Games is available on Thursdays via Twitch. I hope to be able to watch it and learn more about the team and game. Before the flow of discussion passes to the new build and the Thursday show later this week, I would like to give one final (I hope) all-encompassing explanation and example as to why my idea for the game is in my view superior to the current version. I am not trying to be arrogant or condescending with that statement. I realize I have a lot to learn and thank everyone for helping to refine my arguments, point out my errors, and provide situations and examples I hadn't thought of myself.
As other people have given me specific examples of why accumulation or withholding of resources is a viable and/or preferable strategy versus the auto-selling of resources, I would like to provide my own example - taking my arguments in their purest form and showing why the transformation I envisioned in my initial (and first ) post has the potential to change the game to everyone's benefit.
I want to mention again that default state of auto-sell will be available to change via the options screen. I will assume it is on by default for all players in this scenario. Toggle switches will not be available to turn on or off the auto-selling of specific resources (I realize we have had a somewhat intense debate about the toggle switches, and they may in fact enhance the gameplay - I'll defer that to Soren and his team;however, to illustrate my best example I need to have them unavailable. This will also enhance the contrast between the current build where they are not available and my vision with them not being able to alter the default state of constant auto-selling of resources incoming from production.) The current left-hand screen will remain as stands but include a term similar to Power for all resources showing the current income or loss at market price given the player's current total production or purchase of resources in the game. The screen remaining as stands will include the +/- and inventory amount display, enabling players to buy and accumulate resources in a somehow limited amount at current market prices and sell those resources at the current market price in at most 100 unit increments - with perhaps a tiny cool down period between clicks. (Note: SHIFT+CTRL+DOWN and SHIFT+CTRL+CLICK will still be available to facilitate flooding the market; however, this price manipulation is currently meant to be possible via hacker arrays, so my inclusion of this ability with significantly nerfed storage of resources and lack of other associated costs - except the inherent opportunity cost and the risk of a significant price decline and the associated net loss - is done only with great reservation.)
Let's begin:
As in stated within an earlier reply, this scenario will make use of the 'assuming all other things are equal' tool used in all economics to properly establish principles and analyze the effects of a defined number and group of variables upon a given situation.
We will first consider one resource whose demand is constant and supply is influenced by one player. The cost per unit of output is held constant.
My analysis depends on looking at a dataset whose creation is enabled by the relative price stability auto-selling would bring (at least in comparison to the game's current state).
Cost: Units: Price: Total Revenue: Profit:
$3 3 $15 $45 $42
$5 5 $10 $50 $45
$7 7 $5 $35 $28
Assuming the units are sold at market price when produced, and the increased production with it's corresponding increase in supply decreases market prices linearly, neither pursuing the highest price, nor the greatest number of units produced gives the desired result of maximum profit. As bolded, this point occurs at a particular combination of units and price in the middle of the spectrum. This example illustrates that increasing supply may increase profits (i.e., the move from 3 to 5 units) and increasing supply may also decrease profits (i.e., the change from 5 units to 7 units as shown above). Conversely, the move from 7 units to 5 units illustrates that decreasing supply may increase profits and finally, the move from 5 units to 3 units shows that decreasing supply may decrease profits. It all depends on where one is on the line created when plotting the points.
Eliminating the micromanagement as my situation allows gives the player more time to analyze these situations in-game. A player will see only the current amount produced, and the current market price. The goal is to find the combination of units of output per unit of time and at a given market price which maximizes profit. In-game this would perhaps be done by shutting down or destroying a hydroponics farm to see whether the associated decrease in supply would lead to a market price combined with a lower output amount that will provide a higher profit than the current arrangement. It could also entail the construction or turning on of an additional hydroponics farm to see whether an increase in supply would lead to the ideal combination of units and price resulting in higher profit. This may seem like a tedious affair at odds with the game as it stands, but this is inherently what managing supply and demand is about. A similar table can be made keeping everything else the same except allowing demand to change while holding supply constant. Does the increase of demand for Food at the time an HQ upgrade is needed increase or decrease the profit from Food?
Extending these simple principles to the entire range of situations where supply and demand both vary, input costs are not held constant, and stable prices are disrupted by speculators flooding the market and hackers creating shortages and surpluses and so on, so forth, does not change the underlying implications of my previous example. Real life attests to this. Constant auto-selling of resources allows for more stable prices. This and my other features give the player time to find the ideal point where maximum profit is possible. The point's position is often surprising, and discovering all the unique situations that create and influence the point's position in a game with so much potential like Offworld Trading Company could entertain players for years without them needing to push a single buy/sell button.
Finding the that ideal point in life and OWTC is generally a process of trial and error narrowing in on the correct point of units output times price.
Even with the game as implemented, all of the above still occurs, and although difficult in the current design, its management and optimization is necessary to maximize profits; however, doing so is much easier and more fun with the more stable prices and less 'sell-button-smashing' that auto-selling would enable. And I bet you would still have plenty of - if not more - time to pull all the most devious black market and price manipulation tricks in the book.
END
I greatly appreciate all who have read this post and stuck with it to the end. I hope the designers have gained insight from the best of my ideas and implement them the best they can given their limited time. Your work has already provided me hours of entertainment, both in game and interacting with a great community of beta testers.
Thanks to everyone who responded. I will likely move on from this post and look forward to the upcoming new build and the Mohawk Games livestream on Thursday.
Until we meet again,
I have to say I have a very hard time understanding what you write, the font isn't helping me, the paragraphs seem too far apart and I don't understand if you have a precise suggestion in mind that devs could work with if they wanted to. Me not understanding probably is because I'm more used to practical examples whereas you give no suggestions to how what you're talking about may look like in a particular 1v1 or FFA match.
I think you're trying to apply real world concepts too directly to the game which I think people already enjoy and would feel alienated from if it changed by as much as you suggest.
Anyway, I don't feel there is at all too much micromanagement in the game, not very much if at all. Big free for alls are more difficult, but I think that that is more a problem of telling the difference between things you should and shouldn't pay attention to.
Thanks for your feedback. I should have been less wordy and more concise. I apologize. I did go back and reduce the font size and spacing between paragraphs. I realize most people have already read the post and this won't be much help, but at least it might assist any newcomers.
My previous reply is much easier to describe and understand with graphs, as a picture is worth a thousand words, but then again it may have been even more offputing.
As for a specific 1v1 example, try creating a multiplayer game with each player creating a medium level of constant demand for power through the construction of a handful power consuming structures.
Then have one player build power plants at what they feel is the optimum level.
The current consumption amount (+ or -) and current revenue or expense given the current market price will be listed in the power window on the left hand side of the screen.
Have the player who is providing the power shut off, construct, or destroy power plants (or otherwise redesign thier power supply) - at a rate that allows the market price to adjust accordingly - until they have narrowed in on the ideal combination of units of output times current market price that leads to the maximum profit.
It is difficult to reach the exact ideal amount of power since the power will be added or removed in relatively large or small amounts with no middle ground attainable. (i.e., it's not very granular)
I believe this is the best way to get a feel for the ideas I described in my previous reply and might help understand them if they were applied to all resources at once.
I guess I could always mod the game and see how players respond.
I probably won't be replying to this post again. Sorry for it's length, the spacing and font issues, and that it's difficult to understand. I hope readers got at least a few meaningful ideas from it however.
Seeing as my background is in economics as well I understood everything you said. I also still don't agree.
The suggestion is trading what you feel is a laborious process of clicking to sell resources to a process of clicking to turn on and off buildings or destroying them and see the price effects on supply and demand. You're trading one click for another only the process you're describing costs money to do. Turning on and off power or destroying power plants to optimize your HQ profit turns the game into an operations management supply chain optimization exercise which sounds inherently less fun in my opinion. Sometimes you just want to make money and reign down EMPs on that jerk that took the better spot until you buy him and take his stuff.
If anything my one takeaway from what you said is that I would be ok with an "auto sell" button on every resource that you could toggle on and off similar to what DeathTacticus suggested in his 21+ suggestions the other day. But not by default and not on the options menu before the game. It would need to be done the same way that the auto sell button is for power. You would also need some sort of indicator on the main screen (say a glowing button) to show that auto sell is on for a particular resource. This would solve the boring process of clicking the button over and over when you know you want to sell food to get to that next upgrade. I could get behind that aspect.
Give the game some more time and I think you might change your mind on how it plays. I've been around since beta 3 and Mohawk has done an amazing job with this game as it feels pretty close to ready as it is.
So much for me not responding . It sure is fun talking to you guys on the forums. I didn't mean my comment to sound like I would never be back as some might have interpreted it. My experience on the forums makes my spending $19.99 on the game even more enjoyable. As I said, the game does have a great community.
I would gladly work all day as a mouse-clicker laborer if someone paid me enough to make up for other beneficial uses of my time. If I could automate the process and be paid the same amount of money that would be even better.
Thinking about it, I do understand that given my ideas, the game's clicks would be transferred from clicking the sell button repeatedly to 'constant' supply chain optimization as blackmagic1 said; however, I don't feel it would require the same level of constant attention that clicking the sell button repeatedly requires. It may also be less fun - it's hard to know without having tried it. (Given how I enjoy interesting comparisons, the total number of clicks and time used toward the micromanagement of each vision of the game versus other uses would be intriguing.) Finally, you argue against my idea because it involves a cost to perform. Compare that cost to the person who produced 2000 units of water at a then largely consistent $100/unit profit but didn't have the time to sell them consistently. See whether you get the same reaction from them to a sudden non-hacker array (which can be given a stick of dynamite) induced halving of the price of water just when they need to sell versus the comparatively small cost of turning off/on or destroying/constructing a building.
Also, I do intend to keep playing the game and getting a better feel for things. In fact, I played another round on 2/15 and can see how much attention is required just to manage my idea with one resource - Power (though I'm not sure that it is more than the attention that would be needed to manually sell power not just 'constantly', but also consistently). I also better understand why keeping buildings near the HQ is advantageous as blackmagic1 suggested in reply #19, and how it helps me keep track of all my buildings more easily. The cycle HQ and toggle lines hotkeys also help in that regard.
In further compromise and agreement with blackmagic1, I could get behind the use of toggle switches for the auto-selling of resources, and it probably is the better idea. I just wanted to remove the option in order to more easily highlight my purest vision for the game as I described.
I know it would be impossible to implement at this time and would fundamentally disrupt the game, but perhaps the addition of another resource or two like Power with the inherent auto-sell state would satisfy and balance both my and others' tastes.
After reading my novel, I hope the designers may be able to get some insight into how other new players might react to the game and can use my feedback to enhance the experience for newcomers.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
