Arturius Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 By basic economy model I mean a system where the prices of equipment you sell change according to various circumstances. The simplest change would be for prices to drop when you sell for example 1000 alien alloys. It could also be possible to introduce certain events that would bump the prices of alien artifacts. It would allow some more thinking/fun in the struggle for keeping your balance positive. I also think that the starting Xenonauts equipment should have to be bought. Missiles and ballistic weapons could come in infinite supply, but they should not be free. What do you think about that? Please discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max_Caine Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 My questions to that would be in order "just how rare is this stuff anyway?" and "to who are Xenonauts selling alien gear to?". If you want to set up a supply/demand model, you have to consider that Xenonauts are effectively the only large-scale source of alien artefacts on the planet. Admittedly, various nation-states would probably try to shoot down and recover alien ships themselves, but it's the Xenonauts that have the skill, equipment and backing to make this a large-scale venture. Now, with Xenonauts holding an effective monopoly on alien artefacts, and alien artefacts being unreproducable on the planet (or so we are told in the research screens), they can charge what they damn well like on alien goods, regardless of how much they sell, as there is no-one else to go to - no effective competition. As to who they sell to, I suspect the market is a closed one on that as well - the backers of Xenonauts would expect to be given preferred status when it comes to alien artefacts, or they can refuse to back the project. Which Xenonauts would not like to see happen. That would probably be the only brake on Xenonauts charging out the yin-yang for alien artefacts - they can't afford to antagonise their backers. BUT, ignoring all that. From a gameplay perspective, it wouldn't matter a damn for me. If prices fluctuated then in order to get the best price for my goods, I would have to keep referring to the sell screen regularly - far more regularly than I do at the moment which is "when I need some damn money". It would not be enjoyable for me to have to keep a track of price trends to pounce on a good sale, so I would completely ignore it and just offload whenever I need cash. This (in my case) would sideline the sale of goods even more than it currently does, as a steep drop in price after I flood the alien alloys market because I want to manufacture my SuperSpanglyBlasterMkIII would force me to focus more on backer funding, and far less on playing the market. On the second point, I disagree. It's clear from the current alpha that human weapons play a much larger role (certainly throughout the early game) than with their functional equivalent in other Xcom-a-likes, and the manufacture of even lasers is a heavy drain on cash, manpower and time. Charging for ballistic weapons is an increased drain on resources that would otherwise be put into research and manufacturing - i.e. the things that are fun or result in fun things. On the grounds that I like more fun in my games than less fun, I vote that human weapons are free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 You can charge what you like, as long as you don't charge so much that the friendly nations become unwilling to pay for your equipment, troops, base, research and manufacturing teams (via funding) AND pay through the nose for the tech you recover. If as has been said alien alloys (to borrow the OP example) are so rare surely it would make sense that there are always more people willing to buy them? You could sell thousands of them to the American government then if they decide they don't need any more for a while sell to the NATO countries, then the Soviets, the Chinese, and so on. If things still get desperate set up a gift shop in Roswell. As for the starting gear being free, I think it makes sense. Allowing the starting weapons to be provided by the funding nations allows you to always be able to equip your squad, no matter how badly your funds are looking. If you start to charge for it then you would need to increase the amount of funds available as a balance. When you then stop using those weapons you would have more cash available than would otherwise be the case. The reasoning behind not allowing profits to be made from manufactured equipment (you will only be able to sell at a loss) is to make the player more reliant on the funding nations. I don't know how well penalising the player for selling multiple alien artifacts would tie in with that. It feels a little harsh to me but it could work with balancing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Safe-Keeper Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 As for the starting gear being free, I think it makes sense.Is that meant to be that way? Thought it was only for testing purposes. But yeah, I suppose it does make sense, both realism and gameplay-wise (not having to continouously buy new stuff to re-equip your troops).The reasoning behind not allowing profits to be made from manufactured equipment (you will only be able to sell at a loss) is to make the player more reliant on the funding nations.Agreed. We're supposed to be short on cash, and I like it that way. Never liked the "Laser Cannon industry" model so many relied on in the original X-Com game (build stuff, sell it for profit, use profits to build more, sell, repeat ad infinitum until you have so much money it's just ridiculous). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Targe Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 prices are way out of whack in the Alpha, an F-17 should not be the same price as the MiG. I think there should be price reductions on obsolete equipment, and F-17's should start out cheaper. Also, did a fighter jet really cost 250k in 1970? Can we have more realistic budgets and prices on things, based on a 1970's economic model? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzles Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 prices are way out of whack in the Alpha, an F-17 should not be the same price as the MiG. I think there should be price reductions on obsolete equipment, and F-17's should start out cheaper.Also, did a fighter jet really cost 250k in 1970? Can we have more realistic budgets and prices on things, based on a 1970's economic model? $250k is chump change for jets. Flyaway cost for the F16 in 1974 in the value of money at the time was over $3,000,000. A Phantom II had a cost of $2.4 million in 1965! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thothkins Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 Also, did a fighter jet really cost 250k in 1970? Can we have more realistic budgets and prices on things, based on a 1970's economic model While it's good to have that type of realism, there may be a point where it's unwieldy or affects balance. As there's not much to actually buy in the game as yet, I do agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAnKoEr Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 If you change the price of aircraft for realism, then you would have to change the prices in other areas. For example, with humanity on the line with the Xenonauts as the only hope, you would realistically would get more that 2,000,000 a month as funding. Currently I think the prices are balanced, even if they're not realistic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyRoT Posted May 21, 2012 Share Posted May 21, 2012 X-COM Apocalypse has this. As you sold more and more of a certain type of weapon to the market, the price would drop. I would end up hoarding a lot of items to dump them all at once at a good price I fully support this idea as it shouldn't be difficult to implement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 While it's good to have that type of realism, there may be a point where it's unwieldy or affects balance.As there's not much to actually buy in the game as yet, I do agree. I don't think there will be anything else to buy. You get free starting equipment, have to buy the starting vehicle and plane then everything else is manufactured. The prices are probably set low (in game background terms) because you don't get charged full price by your funding nations. The rest of the funding is therefore lower because it is just to cover running costs. They expect you to be using the cheap equipment and vehicles they are providing so don't see a need to throw huge amounts of money at you as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzles Posted May 22, 2012 Share Posted May 22, 2012 I don't think there will be anything else to buy.You get free starting equipment, have to buy the starting vehicle and plane then everything else is manufactured. The prices are probably set low (in game background terms) because you don't get charged full price by your funding nations. The rest of the funding is therefore lower because it is just to cover running costs. They expect you to be using the cheap equipment and vehicles they are providing so don't see a need to throw huge amounts of money at you as well. Arguably you could say you're getting the F17 for free. The $200k is the cost of buying the materials to bring it up to Xenonaut standards, only the work is done at the actual factory. The Mig, being supplied free but as an incomplete airframe (as per the Xenopedia entry), requires the 'nauts themselves to do the work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.