Itemshop & ( Non-Trade) Economy.

Have a cool idea for Starfall Online? Any suggestions on how to make the game better? Let us know!
amunari
Deck Supervisor
Deck Supervisor
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:48 pm

Itemshop & ( Non-Trade) Economy.

Postby amunari » Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:51 am

Hello guys, here is some feedback on the Item shop and Progression system.

In the industry we have key metrics / data that all developers should be aware of (by the point especially, but may not be). Important data like
  1. 83% of players are casual, Playing less then 10 hours a week.
  2. 17% of players are hardcore, playing more then 15 hours a week.
  3. 46% of players do not engage in pvp combat (in any form)
  4. Roughly 53% of players will engage in PvP Combat. 0.8% Of the population likes "hardcore" loss where as the rest are against it (like diablo 2 Item dropping)
  5. The industry has over the years tailored matches down to "15 minute" maximum timers.
These things are important to be aware of because they
  • Invalidate Unlimited Round Survival mode
  • Suggest that survival mode should have significantly less time between waves
  • Suggest that 1v1, 2v2 and potentially 3v3+ should be significantly faster then currently are.
  • Suggest that combat Matches (1v1 etc) should be faster, and more punishing for mistakes (making it harder to come back from).
  • Suggest that combat movement speeds need to be increased to reduce game time
  • Suggest that income rates should be significantly higher for either (or both) base income and expansion income
  • Suggests that "discovery conquest / Sector battle" requires a significantly smaller map
This being said lets talk about the progression system a little then how they tie into each other
If all types of Game play (combat, Survival, harvesting, discovery) offer different aspects of income (IE Suvival has the most Experience for example) then you force players who pvp to do PvE (or the other way around). For this reason i feel a split between equal income rates is the best. While there is no metric data (that i can present with credible research) to prove this, as a player i saw this in many games in the past.

Code: Select all

It's important to understand which of the two it will be because it players a heavy role in the issue of the itemshop. having all of the Expressive forms equally rewarding allows players allows us to easily influence the economy as designers (because changing the base cost of the items will not/should not require any further modification from the income rates. This makes balancing the game significantly easier in terms of progression, and makes the optimization of income via the item shop much easier to manage.
With that being said lets assume that all aspects of game play are rewarding equally to a 15 minute play session with the following:
  • 1 trade run (discovery) offers 10,000 credits and 10,000 reputation, and 50,000 experience for 15 minutes
  • 1 combat match offers 10,000 credits and reputation, and 50,000 experience for 15 minutes
  • 1 Survival match offers 10,000 credits and reputation, and 50,000 experience for 15 minutes
  • 1 Pirate, Patrol, Freighter encounter (discovery) offers 3,350 credits and reputation, and 16,600 Experience for 5 minutes (or 1 match)
  • 1 Sovereignty battle offers 10,000 credits and reputation, and 50,000 experience for 15 minutes
if the above is true then we have an equation for calculation of income.
This means that a player will obtain 2 basic booster packs, and 2 faction booster packs every 15 minutes. (assuming you make the change that i requested to make faction boosters cost reputation)
I don't know what your projected progression rates should be but with the current system (with above changes) seems to be around where it should be. I would even advocate for reducing the values by 50%. In general League of legends offers a level every 45-60 minutes.

We should talk about the crafting system shortly. As i feel a crafting system would massively influence the above progression speed, which could be deadly/fatal to the game and potentially the company. If you insist on putting a crafting system it, my recommendation is for you is to

- Apply the above changes
- Reduce the above values by 50%
- Use the crafting system to speed up the progression to a level where players are not complaining about "grind".


regards,
Anari

techmarine5
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:27 am

Re: Itemshop & ( Non-Trade) Economy.

Postby techmarine5 » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:04 pm

I would disagree, as the purpose of a game is to have interaction between players. You don't want to make it impossible to come back from a mistake, but you also want a mistake to be meaningful. I also feel like the game is plenty fast as is, as making it faster would take away from the strategy, and make a mistake, or a slightly slow internet connection, impossible to recover from. Either way, it allows for a much more satisfying and interactive game by allowing people to actually have games that go back and forth by their successes and mistakes.
We may not be able to predict the future, but we can certainly create it.

amunari
Deck Supervisor
Deck Supervisor
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:48 pm

Re: Itemshop & ( Non-Trade) Economy.

Postby amunari » Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm

I would disagree with this.

Where the hook of players is, is not on "grid". "griding" systems in the industry (Especially in the western world) are being extensively rejected, and overly done systems. For some reason the developers here are getting lazy because of bad metrics (where the orient is providing data that says extensive grinding is good, is in fact due to the economic issues in these countries and jobs involving the industry (like "gold farmers" who are playing for hours on end).

Thus, If we look at the two diametrically opposed data sources, and investigate the reasons b ehind them we learn the industry's player base in general is starting to take up arms against extensive grinding systems.

Additionally, "Customization" is immensely addictive. It's a positive experience that people desperately want to engage in on a normal bases. Some great examples of this are in games like Guild wars 2, where you can alter your armors color, and metrics show the insane amount of customization a single player does to his armor a day (On average changing it 4 times a day).

In star fall, the game could capitalize on this point which is proven through countless games and metrics (data), that the better road to take in starfall is not extensive grinding, is to engage the creative aspects of the player base to find and try new builds.This can only be done with access to significant amounts of modules.

Buying the Faction related items with faction boosters will in no way hurt the game, it may (or Will) even improve on it. Think of it like this..

How many players will get mad if they have to grind a week for 1 new item to be added to their mix?
How likely would a player quit of the above (grinding a week for 1 item) is true?
How likely would you retain a player with 10 modules, vs a player with 20 modules?

I think if you dwell on this for some time you will learn that more modules means more playing, Which is a great direction for the game, and is the solution to a major problem in freemium (or free to play) Games (Player retention rates).

narfi
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:40 pm

Re: Itemshop & ( Non-Trade) Economy.

Postby narfi » Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:31 pm

it is very important to keep the grind at an acceptable level that is for sure. But a Faction system/war system does have to have some grind to make it meaningful. But we have to wait a while befor we can realy judge it. Once all the features are working and we get a test with the real values we can judge how good or bad the grind feels.
But a game doesnt need to be tailored to ur 15 minute rule to be succesful. Just take a look at the Moba genre, rarely do i see meaningful matches (championship etc) that last less then 30 minutes. And still its one of the most popular genre right now.
Especially the discovery mode and the bigger 5vs5 matches for the stations would feel stupid if they would be build to last only 15 minutes.

amunari
Deck Supervisor
Deck Supervisor
Posts: 14
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2016 9:48 pm

Re: Itemshop & ( Non-Trade) Economy.

Postby amunari » Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:38 pm

we're not talking about making grid for the faction system perse, we're talking about making the "general booster" have more of its "content" inside of "faction boosters". Actually, i really dislike "general boosters", i'd much rather have "Beam" "Shield" Etc, but i know this will make acquiring the goons to fast (unless you limit it with higher resource points).

It's a bit tricky, But i think that you should have higher chance to acquire items in general, and faster chance to acquire what you want from faction boosters, which cost slightly more. If that makes sense to you.

Basically what i am saying is If general has all module slots in it, then the following conditions must be true

- Eclipse (Beam Weapon+ Shields+ships in booster)
- Federation (Weapon+Armor+ Ship in booster)
- Deprived (Weapon+Regenerative Armor + Ships in booster)
- General Contains all of the above, but at a reduced rate to acquire the item you want (due only to the fact there is more items in the pool).

narfi
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:40 pm

Re: Itemshop & ( Non-Trade) Economy.

Postby narfi » Fri Dec 09, 2016 5:29 pm

i do understand where u wanna go with this, but im not sure if we should focus this much on eclipse = beam weapons in boosters etc.
I know the faction leans towards those, but i think theres plenty of other ways to play it aswell.
i think that the current faction booster with only ships is actually pretty good for a new players to expand there fleet But i agree that the general booster is a bad option to get weapons etc.
Adding packs especially for Beam weapons etc is indeed a bit to much.
But Maybe they could add a Weapon booster and a Equiq/Armor etc. booster for the same price as the faction boosters To give players a better chance at getting what they look for the most.

techmarine5
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 12:27 am

Re: Itemshop & ( Non-Trade) Economy.

Postby techmarine5 » Mon Dec 12, 2016 9:40 am

I like the idea of having weapon and equipment/armor boosters, but I would like to see a better use for faction points. I think that buying faction boosters with faction points would give more meaning to them, as to me they felt rather useless is the last test.(I might just not have found a use for them, as the only things I could buy with them that I knew of was colonies, and planets I was already had colonies on them.
We may not be able to predict the future, but we can certainly create it.

narfi
Ensign
Ensign
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 5:40 pm

Re: Itemshop & ( Non-Trade) Economy.

Postby narfi » Mon Dec 12, 2016 5:24 pm

yes i agree, faction reputation should have more use, either for the faction boosters or maybe the motherships themself could sell some more stuff in there shop.
Then again, we are playing with the boosted values for the test, we dont know how "rare" or Valueable faction reputation will be with the real values.


Return to “Features and Suggestions”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron