Financing the operation

[Gorlom]

not including it just means you forcing your opinion on others.

While including it forces your opinion onto others.

I haven't really gotten any indication that you have realized that you can edit the xml text files yourself to achieve the effect you want. Are you aware of this? Can you try it out yourself during the beta to see if it actually works without screwing it up like X-com did?

If you include it, my options as I see them would be to play a broken game or mod it and play a poorly balanced game.

or it can be left out and be left to modders that are really enthusiastic about the issue make a mod that works for them.

The way I see it the second option would make more people happy since that would let everyone play it the way they want without forcing anyone's opinion onto others.

Edited June 12, 2012 by Gorlom

[Leonatus]

While including it forces your opinion onto others.

I haven't really gotten any indication that you have realized that you can edit the xml text files yourself to achieve the effect you want. Are you aware of this? Can you try it out yourself during the beta to see if it actually works without screwing it up like X-com did?

If you include it, my options as I see them would be to play a broken game or mod it and play a poorly balanced game.

or it can be left out and be left to modders that are really enthusiastic about the issue make a mod that works for them.

The way I see it the second option would make more people happy since that would let everyone play it the way they want without forcing anyone's opinion onto others.

Really now? Including optional game content doesn't force anyone to anything. In games like this there are often ways to go about the game that could or couldn't be used, depending on the gamers preferences. In the old XCom there were certain pieces of equipment like the motion scanner oder incinerator ammo or even laser weapons (which one could avoid by hurrying on to plasma weapons). All these could be useful, but were hardly neccessary to beat the game. That's what optional means.

Same with production for profit. It could be used to good effect if you went for it but wasn't exactly a must have because there were other options to get money. Few people even knew about it back then. And yet, production for profit didn't wreck their gaming experience as it would with yours, apparently.

I'll skip answering your comment about changing the xml files. All of these comments apply to you just as well.

[Gorlom]

Including optional game content doesn't force anyone to anything.

It's hardly optional as the game will either be balanced around the fact that you can manufacture for profit or be horrible balanced. Your analogy is so ridiculously flawed that you are trolling me, unintentionally or not.

I'll skip answering your comment about changing the xml files. All of these comments apply to you just as well.

No, they don't. I'm not a numbers cruncher, you want to severely impact my gameplay experience by making it suit your playstyle. (Which by the way I don't think is possible without making it as poorly balanced as X-com was) The odd of anyone else fixing the problem that arise with adapting the game to your playstyle isn't likely to be modded out by someone else, while there seems to be at least a few numbercrunchers interested in production for profit. Removeing a mechanic that causes a problem is less interesting then adding an excluded mechanic.

PS. The tone of this argument is getting out of hand. Could we PLEASE agree to postpone this balancing discussion until it is actually relevant?

[Leonatus]

It's hardly optional as the game will either be balanced around the fact that you can manufacture for profit or be horrible balanced. Your analogy is so ridiculously flawed that you are trolling me, unintentionally or not.

Ah yes, the t-word. Why of course, people not agreeing with you must be trolling.

No, they don't. I'm not a numbers cruncher, you want to severely impact my gameplay experience by making it suit your playstyle. (Which by the way I don't think is possible without making it as poorly balanced as X-com was) The odd of anyone else fixing the problem that arise with adapting the game to your playstyle isn't likely to be modded out by someone else, while there seems to be at least a few numbercrunchers interested in production for profit. Removeing a mechanic that causes a problem is less interesting then adding an excluded mechanic.

So, you're not a numbers cruncher and thus the game should be tailored to your preferences while all the others can mod it to their needs. You do this quite a lot, don't you? Slamming down your opinion as fact and claiming that it's the way that everyone would like best? Surely they wouldn't know, what's best for them. Therefore everyone not agreeing with you is also going against the good of the entire game and all the players.

Just like you did in the 'fog of war' thread.

Not surprising really, I guess it's kind of hard to score a four digit postcount without being severely opinionated.

PS. The tone of this argument is getting out of hand. Could we PLEASE agree to postpone this balancing discussion until it is actually relevant?

How will postponing do any good? We're not argueing the finer points of adjusting monetary rewards for missions or looting. We're debating about the entirety of the 'production for profit' concept. Sure it's quite early to do so but it would be good to know if it's an option at all before trying to balance the other ways of money makeing.

Leo

[Gorlom]

Ah yes, the t-word. Why of course, people not agreeing with you must be trolling.

I apologize I didn't mean to say you were trolling me. I meant that that analogy was borderline trolling. The difference is almost negligible but it's a comment on how bad the analogy is rather than a dismissal of your entire point.

So, you're not a numbers cruncher and thus the game should be tailored to your preferences while all the others can mod it to their needs. You do this quite a lot, don't you? Slamming down your opinion as fact and claiming that it's the way that everyone would like best? Surely they wouldn't know, what's best for them. Therefore everyone not agreeing with you is also going against the good of the entire game and all the players.

Just like you did in the 'fog of war' thread.

Not really I want all doors to be open. There is a difference here where my preference doesn't actually close the door for your preference (it seems extremely likely to be modded in by people that deem it necessary, and probably would need a few different sets of balance versions), whereas your preference almost surely closes the door for my preference (unless I do it myself.. which I don't think I can do, since I would have no reference of what balanced gameplay would be like).

Not surprising really, I guess it's kind of hard to score a four digit postcount without being severely opinionated.

Yes, I am opinionated. I apologized for that statement in that thread. I did assume a lot there, mostly that they assumed realism = fun (see my signature as to why this isn't true in most cases) without really thinking it through...

There is ofc the possibility that they are Jagged Alliance fans or simply don't care about the atmosphere (Goldhawk is trying to set).

How will postponing do any good? We're not argueing the finer points of adjusting monetary rewards for missions or looting. We're debating about the entirety of the 'production for profit' concept. Sure it's quite early to do so but it would be good to know if it's an option at all before trying to balance the other ways of money makeing.

How will keeping this discussion going without having any proper reference do any good? Haven't you notice the tone in both our posts?

And in my opinion we ARE discussing the finer points of balancing and adjusting the ways of earning money. I've seen quite a few arguments (from others) about production for profit being needed to compensate for what boils down to bad balancing in X-com.

Seeing the intended economy in action is required to actually have this discussion. To be able to try production for profit is needed as well as quite a few of the examples provided has been ridiculously oversimplified. The only accurate exploring example was by Max_Cain I think.

Edited June 14, 2012 by Gorlom

[Max_Caine]

Someone say my name?

With the current-alpha figures, I looked at the issue of return-on-investment, an important issue that TMP brought up. If the player never makes back the money they put into setting up manufacturing, then there is no point in setting up manufacturing for the express purpose of producing trade goods. However, I had to make certain assumptions which require addressing. Therefore the example is limited in nature. But TMP’s point is a good one. Is it really worth putting the money into manufacturing? I propose to expand the limited nature of my previous treatment and incorporate all figures.

So, if we want manufacturing-for-profit to be an option, we have to consider the strategy behind it. Let’s say I want manufacturing to be an alternate revenue stream to looting ships or backer funding. Can I use the initial workshops that I have to generate this revenue stream? The answer, in general, will be no. Why not? Well, there is a much greater emphasis in Xenonauts on making the things you need. MiGs are required to take on Corvettes (they are your first interceptor that can use heavy missiles) – they have to be built. Players cannot loot plasma clips and plasma weaponry form the enemy to use himself, even when researched the player is required to make his own plasma guns and ammo. Lasers require clips which have to be made. Alienium missiles need to be manufactured. And so on, and so forth. Workshops will be quite busy producing the every-day goods that Xenonauts need.

Secondly, I should consider the size of the revenue stream that I want. As big as possible! Leonatus correctly identifies that without alternate revenue streams, the funding from the backers places a hard limit on what a player can do in a month. Therefore, I want an alternate revenue stream that will enable me to bust the cap off that hard limit. I want a manufacturing facility then – something that dedicates almost all the space to producing goods. This will give me a strong revenue stream that I can count on throughout the month.

What does it cost to set up a manufacturing facility?

1 workshop, at $200,000

1 living quarters, at $150,000

50 engineers, at $750,000

Per fully-staffed workshop, that’s $1,100,000

Initial base cost is $2,000,000. That gets me the command centre plus room to build. If I want 8 workshops, that’s $8,800,000 for all facilities and initial hiring cost. For a total of $10,800,000

Now, in my previous example, I showed (using laser pistols as the manufacturing example) that you needed a gross profit $9600 as break-even, and introduced a net profit of $400 (as at that point, the markup on a laser pistol was 50% of its manufacturing price!). Each fully-staffed workshop at a net profit of $400 producing laser pistols flat out had a net income of $35,000. So, multiply that by 8 and we have a net income of $280,000 a month.

It will take me 39 months, or over 3 game years to get back my investment in manufacturing. In comparison, looting a scout nets me the following:

1 power source at $50,000

200 alien alloys at $200,000

50 alienium at $250,000

Assorted alien weapons at a minimum of $90,000

Per scout, $590,000.

Or if the power source is destroyed, I get $290,000 in sales.

In general, I can afford to sell off the goods accrued from one scout a month.

With the examples presented, one scout out-sells 8 workshops. All that money I spent would be better off invested it in other projects that see earlier returns. The barriers to entry in the current alpha are too formidable.

[TheTuninator]

Gorlom is 100% right to say that including manufacturing for profit in the game will affect those who don't want it, as the game will indeed have to be balanced around the player's ability to manufacture for profit.

I for one am rather indifferent to it as I find the raiding style of play far more engaging and compelling, but at the very least being able to sell what you manufacture should be a simple mod tweak in order to facilitate it for those X-COM players who really want the feature.