Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nikitian]

If it cost 4 tokens, then yes, you do.

Well, that kinda throws a kink in the works I'd say.

I just contacted him on that. It's terrible, and it's essentially against what he wanted to accomplish.

[AoshimaMichio]

So I did that thing in armory where I added new section called Armors. ((Armors are something that are subject to thickness testing in regards to personal protection efficiency.))

Purpose of this was to collect all armors under one title, instead of having them scattered within Aux systems and Misc section. To make them easier to find. Battlesuits, assaultsuits and automanip projectors do not count as armor since they have too much other uses, and AoW is more weapon than armor.

I talked with Nik about this in IRC earlier and I figured to go ahead with it without waiting.

[Radio Controlled]

If it cost 4 tokens, then yes, you do.

Well, that kinda throws a kink in the works I'd say.

I just contacted him on that. It's terrible, and it's essentially against what he wanted to accomplish.

Any news on this front?

[Nikitian]

Got a pm, confusing as usual, currently clarifying it further.

All in all, it appears the chief problem is with 1-token items, because .25 of 1 token rounded up is 1 token, which is gaming the system and disliked by Piecewise; it appears that the rule is in effect for more expensive items, but that is still slightly muddy.

[Hapah]

Got a pm, confusing as usual, currently clarifying it further.

All in all, it appears the chief problem is with 1-token items, because .25 of 1 token rounded up is 1 token, which is gaming the system and disliked by Piecewise; it appears that the rule is in effect for more expensive items, but that is still slightly muddy.

I assumed round up in relation to royalties meant that if a quarter was "X.5" or more tokens, it went up to X+1 tokens instead of staying at X. And that items where a quarter were "X.0001" or "X.4" or whatever tokens stayed at X tokens.

[Parisbre56]

Maybe it's better to not round up or down at all then? Keep the decimal in the "account" and "withdraw" a non-decimal amount whenever the player can and wants to?

[Nikitian]

Got a pm, confusing as usual, currently clarifying it further.

All in all, it appears the chief problem is with 1-token items, because .25 of 1 token rounded up is 1 token, which is gaming the system and disliked by Piecewise; it appears that the rule is in effect for more expensive items, but that is still slightly muddy.

I assumed round up in relation to royalties meant that if a quarter was "X.5" or more tokens, it went up to X+1 tokens instead of staying at X. And that items where a quarter were "X.0001" or "X.4" or whatever tokens stayed at X tokens.

It could be seen that way (although I'd describe that as simply 'rounding', because mathematica uses rounding that way by default), except Piecewise originally said that "we'll even round them up for you", so I'd assume it meant anything at X.Y (where Y>0) going to X+1, be Y=.4, .0001 or whatnot.

Maybe it's better to not round up or down at all then? Keep the decimal in the "account" and "withdraw" a non-decimal amount whenever the player can and wants to?

Could be, and would be quite 'fair' in a way, but it doesn't quite do what Piecewise apparently wanted this system to do - force Tinkerers make cheaper items by design. That's what relies on the whole "round it all the way up" thing, going straight up from the lowest kinds of fractions. Even just regular rounding (if Y>=.5 then X+1, otherwise X) wouldn't achieve the desired effect.

[Parisbre56]

You can't have your pie and eat it too.

Either we have a system where everyone gets paid a set percentage of the price of the item with no rounding, where we have the problem that people might try to make items more expensive so they can get more money. But it might also lead to self-balancing in regards to usefulness, since items too expensive for their usefulness will never be bought. Essentially a capitalist approach, let the markets self-regulate.

Or we have a system where everyone gets paid a certain amount rounded up regardless of the price of the item, which might lead to exploits like the maker of a 1 token item buying it hundreds of times from the armoury and then selling it back or using it to make better guns that he sells to others for greater profit. On the other hand, piecewise is unlikely to allow an exploit like that.

Or we can have a system where there is a limit, where people get normal (decimal) returns for 1 token items and rounded up for all other sales (or some other variation of this), but this has the problem of removing the motivation for making items cost less than 2 tokens (or whichever price you use as limit).

If you want to go really complicated, you could make some sort of function where profit(low price)=high and profit(medium price)=medium and profit(high price)=low or something like that, which would make it more profitable in the long run to make useful low price items instead of useful high price items. But that would probably be a bit too complicated.

Each system has problems and there will always be problems with this entire concept, like for example bribing, that can lead to token inflation. There's no perfect system. Either way, we'll just have to trust piecewise's whackamole-based brand of balancing to deter people seeking to exploit the system. It's just a question of which benefits you prefer and which system you find less bad.

[Nikitian]

Sorry, I must be really missing your point. (Yes, I agree with most of what you said.)

The point of "round it all up" system with is that it does not reward for more expensive items within the same rounding range, thus making - by the same "invisible hand of the market"-laws, which sorta work, sorta not, - it more profitable to try and get them cheaper within the same rounding range. However, in edge cases (where it is exactly divisible by chosen range number, in our case 4), the designer might want to add a token more, to get in the next category - however, with a a dividing number this large, it might actually be more profitable to still try and go a token down, gaining a greater amount of buyers - e.g., pricing an item at 3-token, rather 5-token level, for example.
Of course, this is an imperfect system, but one that has its merits. Plus it was introduced by Piecewise, so guess it has the additional upside of being to GM's liking.

On 1 token compensation for 1 token item: Here, I believe it could very easily be solved by an exception, or just Nyars coming down with his bat upon the cheater. However, more than that, Piecewise apparently finds the idea itself that whole 1 token of 1 token revenue goes to the tinkerer - as such, he introduced an additional rule, one that I'm trying to clarify.

Finally, on bribing: it can happen, but I think that we already loan tokens without expecting any profit. As such, any profit would only be the icing on the cake and, if anything, would liven up the inter-character economy.

[Parisbre56]

I didn't have a point. I was merely listing multiple choices and stating that they were all flawed, meaning that searching for a perfect system is not worth it. So it is merely a case of choosing which one you like the most. It was more directed to piecewise talking about exploits and less to you. Because there will always be exploits or cases where the system might not act as efficiently as another. So he might as well go with the first system, perhaps plugging a few holes to ensure there will be no problems.

I dunno, I'm a bit tired, maybe I'm not making sense.

[Kriellya]

The main issue with the 'round it all up' is, exactly as you said, it drives things to the cheapest price in the range. This isn't necessarily what we want. It will probably result in people arguing down the price to those points without compromising on their designs, something we already do that drives PW insane.

The main advantage of the fractional-payout is that it rewards all prices in the same way. People can make their designs more expensive, but more expensive items are harder to buy.

If we want to keep prices generally cheaper, then what we may want is a capped payout in some way. There are a few ways we could cap the system. The one that actively drives prices lower (than a certain value) would be a cap per-sale. The idea is that you get 25% of the item or, say, 5 tokens, whichever is less. So, if you make a 16 token item, you get 4 per sale. If you make an item of 20 tokens or more, you get 5 per sale, no matter the price of the item. This drives people to avoid designing items that are significantly above the 20 token price point, as it makes the item harder to buy and doesn't get them any additional reward.

So in order to answer any of this, we need to know what exactly the functions of the system are (something we may need PW's input on, since it's his system)
Obviously, it's meant to reward tinkerers who design items the game needs and that players buy. But beyond that, does the system need to drive other behavior? Does it need to encourage them to make cheaper items, and how much cheaper? Does there need to be a cap on how much a player can earn, or how expensive a player item can be? Does it need to encourage particular price points? Etc. I don't really think these are questions anyone but PW (possibly with the council's help) can answer, since he's the one that needs to consider how he wants this aspect of his game to work.



Hint: The simplest is to not round. It has the fewest side effects

[Nikitian]

-snip-

Hint: The simplest is to not round. It has the fewest side effects

While I see your point, there is one very big problem with that idea. And that is:Good luck finding enough people to buy your item enough times for you to get away from fractions

Anyway, I think Piecewise has more or less settled on the question, but I am looking forward to the final clarified edition of this system. 

[Caellath]

Milnoplate is more like an existing thing cut down. I wouldn't mind receiving tokens in case they do come, but I think the payment system should be a bit less "I WANT A TOKEN FOR THAT PURCHASE" and more payment after/before each mission batch referent to purchases made in that period. It's less of a clutter and less obtuse in my opinion.

Things that are developed by a research team instead of the player are also a difficult point. Milno has several programs/upgrades in his suit, but a fair number were simply custom-built for him by the R&D development - he explained what he wanted, and in some cases paid a few tokens, which is similar to the case of the blaster pistol -, so would it be fair if he marketed them?

[Radio Controlled]

-snip-

Hint: The simplest is to not round. It has the fewest side effects

While I see your point, there is one very big problem with that idea. And that is:Good luck finding enough people to buy your item enough times for you to get away from fractions

Anyway, I think Piecewise has more or less settled on the question, but I am looking forward to the final clarified edition of this system. 

We've sold 3 blaster pistols now. Myabe I get a token once a fourth one is bought?

[Ozarck]

Hey. I've been working my way through missions 5 to 9b, to do the repairs needed. It's a lot of reading. I feel like I'm in school again.

Anyway. the link to the Mission 8 page seems broken. I need that page for teh edits. When I click the link, it sends me to a blank page without even the Wikia stuff at the top. can someone confirm or deny this? All hte other pages I have visited seem fine.

Wish me luck. 229 pages in this mission.