Trading Missions

[george moromisato]

Thanks, everyone, for posting feedback to the thread about re-stocking stations (http://www.neurohack.com/transcendence/ ... .php?t=712).

I've decided not to implement re-stocking for 0.98, but I can see some cases in the future where re-stocking might be useful.

Instead, I believe it might be more fun to implement trading missions. I'm in the middle of implementing the following:

1. A new corporate station (appearing in the earliest systems) that has a list of "trade missions" that the player can undertake.

2. Each trade mission is a random variation on one of the following:

2a. Station S offers X credits for Y number of Z.
2b. Station S will sell Y number of Z for X credits.

3. The player can choose which mission to take.

4. If the player takes a mission, she has a certain amount of time to go to the station and complete the transaction.

5. For 0.98, the missions will be restricted to the current system, but conceivably it might be possible in the future to have trade missions that span multiple systems.

Now here are a few things for you all to ponder:

A. What do you think?

B. What if the player needs to pay some amount of money to take a mission (i.e., the player pays for the right to buy the contract)? Otherwise there is no penalty for taking a mission and not completing it.

C. What if the player can only take one mission at a time (for 0.98)? Are there any really compelling reasons for a player to take multiple missions at the same time?

D. What kind of algorithm do we need to generate random missions?

E. Can you think of other kinds of trade missions?

[OddBob]

Hmm, interesting.

B. What if the player needs to pay some amount of money to take a mission (i.e., the player pays for the right to buy the contract)? Otherwise there is no penalty for taking a mission and not completing it.

C. What if the player can only take one mission at a time (for 0.9Cool? Are there any really compelling reasons for a player to take multiple missions at the same time?

I don't think there should be a penalty, or limit. The player still has to go pick up the items and find somewhere to sell them.

Also: does it even need to be mission based? Can we just generate the items/needs and then inform the player of them at the trade station? Then it would be kind of like checking out the stocks/classifieds for good deals: they exist whether you decide to take them or not. Perhaps the player pays a fee to access the list.
It has the added benefit of an observant player noticing the price difference and getting the deal even if they haven't been to the trade station and paid the fee.

Will this trade station have a commodity exchange (at normal prices)?
and will this service be available in later systems as well, perhaps at trading posts?

[Betelgeuse]

What would be interesting in my eyes is the station can pay you for cargo runs. ie go to random in system station and pick up x ore and return with it. We will pay you for the ore after the fact depending on the speed of delivery.
That way you can use existing stations (just substitute whatever the station has) as trading routes.

OddBob's commodities exchange station would be fun too. Pick up something when it goes on sale and sell things when they will pay more. (what they offer and what they want changes over time) This way you can have the restocking station without the balance problem (it would be harder to find a buyer).

edit: a detailed example of a trading mission

You go to the trading station and ask for a mission. It looks through the friendly stations and picks 3 reactive armor from the armor dealer (never more than your ship can carry). The amount they will pay for the armor is the cost of the armor * (average time it should take / time taken) in this case it is 150 * (50/45). That way fast people would get more money.

[Sponge]

A. I think it's a great idea that might add an alternate play style. One question. though. Will station A give you a mission to deliver cargo to station B, or is your mission to deliver the cargo anywhere? The first would make more sense, to be honest. Betel also brings up a good idea with more of a "get items and bring them here" method, but I think I prefer your method.

B. I should think that the player would have to pay something like 20% of the run's pay as almost an "insurance" policy for the station. Or buying the contract-- whichever. If you decide to add a time limit, it should provide MORE than enough time, especially if you have to pay for the contract.

C. I honestly don't see any benefit for having more than one cargo mission open at once.

D. I'm not really sure. Perhaps station A could be an ore station, and station B could be a fortress in need of repairs. In that case, it would be a simple matter of generating a random ore type and an amount that could fit in a player's remaining cargo space. A price could be generated depending on the type of ore being delivered (or any other item, if you don't want to use ore).

E. Not so much trade missions, but what if you had a sort of trader "rank." By this I mean, what if the more missions you completed, the better the ore (or something else) the station would trust you to transport, and therefore the more money you could make.

I also think there should be a little more to this... Perhaps as you work through the ranks, you become more popular and start being "bothered" on your runs. I think this would be a good place to add pirates that try to dock with your ship and remove some of your cargo if you can't destroy them in time. It makes sense, and it would prevent it from being the same thing over and over again.

I also think you should consider making the harder missions (that is, if you make missions get harder) be multi-system. It would make for a more entertaining minigame.

[Betelgeuse]

a few more thoughts

these missions are about making money so having a charge doesn't make much sence. You already need to buy the stuff anyway.

these missions should be able to be quit. You shouldn't get more missions from the same station if you quit but you should always be free to quit.

Missions should not be guided. You need to explore and find your seller or buyer not just follow the waypoints.

A few ships that attack you would be fine but remember these trading missions are to get away from the kill loot cycle.

Charity missions, you can have charity missions (ie food to a station) That can raise what people think of you in the commonwealth. (ie better deals at stations or free fuel if really low)

Multiple missions at a time would be great. Remember time is one of the greatest factor in making money with trading so linked missions (buy from station a sell to station b and buy from station b and sell to station c) would be a better way to make money even if the profit isn't as great as a single mission.

[Burzmali]

Why the panic to add static stuff to the game? The player is on a mission to reach the galactic core, so why should the spend ages trading in a handful of systems? Would people rather farming stations instead of wrecks?

As I see it, trading missions should be rare but rewarding. Why would you trust a nobody like the player with your precious cargo? It must be either too hot for normal carriers to handle it, or too urgent. If you get more than 4 cargo missions in a game, you've gotten too many.

Let's face it, this game is designed to be a journey into progressively harder systems. If you make it possible to earn the credits to buy the best equipment the moment you find it, the game balance is ruined. Trying to be all things to all people is a fool's errand, just look at the game designer who must not be named.

As to George's points

A. What do you think?

See above. Summary, good but in moderation.

B. What if the player needs to pay some amount of money to take a mission (i.e., the player pays for the right to buy the contract)? Otherwise there is no penalty for taking a mission and not completing it.

Assuming that the customer is footing the bill for the goods, the player could be asked to pay a deposit on the goods to offset the loss the customer will sustain if you run or are destroyed. Of course, if you are a member in good standing in the Korlov Shipping Group, they will post the bond (but take offense if you ditch the mission).

C. What if the player can only take one mission at a time (for 0.98)? Are there any really compelling reasons for a player to take multiple missions at the same time?

Not really. Not of the same type at least.

D. What kind of algorithm do we need to generate random missions?

Here is my take:

Step 1: Determine mission parameters
Catagory: "standard" or "timed"
Opposition: "none", "pirate" or "police"
Cargo type: "regular", "food", "meds" or "illegal"
Step 2: Determine the Target Station
Chosen by distance
Step 3: Set Transit time if applicable
Step 4: Set ambushes if applicable
Step 5: Determine reward per above factors and system level

E. Can you think of other kinds of trade missions?

Aside from the standard fedex mission, you could have protection and assassination missions come from the same mission giver. Mix in a few unique missions and most people will be happy.

[Betelgeuse]

I think the game balance is important but I think the problem comes from that the kill loot cycle is so profitable. Millions of credits are available for the taking from it with little risk. The other ways of making money are far overshadowed by it. I would like for it to be much less profitable to just kill and loot all the time.

[Burzmali]

Then intact weapons should be less common, and a ship's cargo shouldn't be immune to damage when the ship is destroyed. If you think that looting and selling is too profitable, fix that problem, don't introduce a new one.

[Betelgeuse]

well fixing that problem would just make people farm for longer periods of time and that isn't solving anything. Yes the game is about going into tougher and tougher systems but there is little incentive to do so without the best stuff from the current system.
The late game suffers alot due to the player having the best stuff and all there is to do is kill and loot. Earlier in the game there are lots more options on what to do and that is more fun for me.
As you point out this isn't a space shooter we need elements in the game that are separate from the space shooting part of the game not focus on that aspect even more.

To tell the truth I could care less about the galactic core. I feel it is a cheesy thing tacked on so the player can have a goal. I think the game is about exploring and doing the best with what you can get.

[Sponge]

As of right now, you have one option. Go to the galactic core. I think a little variety is perfect. It gets away from the kill, loot cycle we have now, and gets into a new way of making money.

[Burzmali]

So the solution to people farming wrecks is to let them farm stations... that's depressing.

This game is:

1. Linear
2. Level-based
3. Non-persistent

This game is a decent roguelike, don't turn it into a crappy elite knockoff.

[Betelgeuse]

Well it gives people options. I would love to hear other options to the farming problem.
I don't want this game to be so linear and level based. Many rogue-like games do have levels but they are not the focus of them. Some have strategies be more important or some focus on getting good items. (such as transcendence) The problem is that there is one way of doing everything atm (the kill loot cycle) I know that there are limitations when using a real time system but that doesn't mean we should just boil the game down to one action over and over.

[Sponge]

I agree with you (burz) on two counts, but I don't thing that this game is very linear at all. We may have linear progression, but at no point do you actually "level up." You go forward and back into different systems, fight new battles, but things from everywhere. I see linear as being more of a "once you go through here, you don't go back," or even a "do this quest and then this one and then this one to win." Trans. has no such limitations. I've never played Elite, and neither has George, so I'm just thinking that this would be a great way to make the game more of a choice thing. I'm fairly sure someone already said this, I think Betel, but what if you didn't want to go to the Galactic Core? You could start up an empire elsewhere or something. I don't know, but the Galactic Core story is so weak right now that there is only two options. Make that particular part of the game optional, or build up the story. For the game to continue in its current track, you'd only have to build up the story. However, you can get more choice in the gameplay if you could elect to do some other major thread other than the core.

Cargo missions would be optional. If you'd rather zip from system to system without looking back, go ahead. But I feel that adding new elements will only make the game even more replayable.

[Burzmali]

I'm fairly sure someone already said this, I think Betel, but what if you didn't want to go to the Galactic Core?

That's like playing Super Mario Brothers and saying that you don't want to save the princess, and then complaining that the time limit prevents you from farming goombas and buying a castle.

[OddBob]

I like trading in a non-misison form because it then becomes a thing you discover and can take advantage of once, rather than a thing you take advantage of tediously and repeatedly at no risk.

For me, requestable 'trade missions' are sort of like a "free money" button (which takes only some time to press). Three's no risk (well, you could die in a random pirate attack, but that risk is there anyway) and you can't fail the mission.

To clarify, this is how I see trade missions as proposed in the original post: You request a trade mission, and are informed of a station that needs goods of X type. This is fairly alright, as you will then have to search for the item.

OR you are informed that station is offering goods of X type cheap. Now all you have to do is go across the system and pick up your free money.

This has the bad side effects of Korolev missions (farming) without the risk (freighters die and you get blacklisted/can't attempt another mission).
Farmign is alright is it's risky and acceptable if extremely time consuming (you can never stop that one without infringing on the player)

Now, the other thing is that if the player is trading Elite fashion (the same route/s over and over again), they are not advancing to the core.
There are two ways to fix this:
Easy way: Trade missions are not mission based. Occasionally a station will
1. suffer a shortage. This is a fancy way of saying they will pay more for a certain item.
2. have a surplus. They will sell a certain item cheaply.

The player is not informed of these events unless they either know what the price should be and see that it is different (requires experience) OR check the listings at a trade station (this service really doesn't need it's own station, if it was offered at commodity exchanges I think it would be fine): they'd see something like:

Laser Armada in Eridani has a sale on/surplus of of laser arrays
St. K's Hotel in St. Katharines currently is in need of ice water

and then if the player chooses he can try and track down the item and station before the situation ends (it's assumed somone else gets there before you if you wait too long).

Hard way: A gate network is implemented where the location of the Heretic system is secret (and random). The player will by necessity wander around to find it, possibly passing the same systems many times. While the player is in human space, and running from one end to another, why not make a few credits to support themself? Someone's got to pay the fuel bill.