PDA

View Full Version : Expanding financial world aspect?



ruuti0
01-25-2018, 10:10 PM
If I remember correctly from history lessons, stock market began to become more popular in 1800s.

1) I have been thinking for some time now that maybe they could add that aspect to 1800 also.


You could invest money to stock and get steady profit (dividends). There could be less risky and more risky shares. Some investments you could even lose totally. And different stocks would give different pay profit rate (dividend).



Some other financial ideas:

2) You could lend money to other players / NPCs and later get them back with higher profit.
Idea could be that longer payback time is, higher payback sum and percentage (interest rate) is.

3) Other investments to (smaller) non-stock companies or to inventions or to expeditions maybe?


This would generate whole new world of strategies how to play the game.



4) You could take wider range loan and each of them would have different interest rates (for example some bigger loans could have bigger interest rate etc.) This option was added later.


What you think? Is these ideas something that could be implemented to Anno (1800)?




EDIT:

* Obviously all stock market companies would be totally imaginery companies that you don't see anywhere in game expect in stock market. Otherwise you could exploit value of companies by making new factories etc.

* Obviously all shareholders ("people" that you sell or buy shares) in stock market would be also imaginery. I have been thinking that it wouldn't be even necessery to see their names. It would be enough just to know that you are buying or selling certain shares, what are risk percentages and what profit can you get.

Raydoovah
01-25-2018, 11:06 PM
If I remember correctly from history lessons, stock market began to become more popular in 1800s.

1) I have been thinking for some time now that maybe they could add that aspect to 1800 also.


You could invest money to stock and get steady profit (dividends). There could be less risky and more risky shares. Some investments you could even lose totally. And different stocks would give different pay profit rate (dividend).



Some other financial ideas:

2) You could lend money to other players / NPCs and later get them back with higher profit.
Idea could be that longer payback time is, higher payback sum and percentage (interest rate) is.

3) Other investments to (smaller) non-stock companies or to inventions or to expeditions maybe?


This would generate whole new world of strategies how to play the game.


What you think? Is these ideas something that could be implemented to Anno (1800)?

Option 1 - you could buy shares in islands and get a steady dividend in 2070. Or you could invest money with NPCs and either get a profit or.. lose some money.

2: That sounds like a mechanic you can exploit. Also the NPC's play in a way that they don't require money. Also in a way - this is covered by option A, kinda.

3: Expeditions already require an investment of resources.



Personally, I can hardly think of any ways to implement more "financial" stuff into the game that wasn't there already.
Also, I think that because the game would simplify all of this - it would just be a very non-inspiring gameplay mechanic. Like "click a button - maybe get moneys".
I'd rather prefer for the devs to spend time on stuff that's actually interactive.

ruuti0
01-26-2018, 02:50 AM
Option 1 - you could buy shares in islands and get a steady dividend in 2070. Or you could invest money with NPCs and either get a profit or.. lose some money.

2: That sounds like a mechanic you can exploit. Also the NPC's play in a way that they don't require money. Also in a way - this is covered by option A, kinda.

3: Expeditions already require an investment of resources.



Personally, I can hardly think of any ways to implement more "financial" stuff into the game that wasn't there already.
Also, I think that because the game would simplify all of this - it would just be a very non-inspiring gameplay mechanic. Like "click a button - maybe get moneys".
I'd rather prefer for the devs to spend time on stuff that's actually interactive.

1) I don't think that you got the point, I didn't mean anything like shares in islands like in 2070.
I meant stock market idea. Competely different thing, both have "shares" word, but they mean
different thing.

2) How you could exploit it? I can't figure anyway to exploit it if its done right.


3) Yes expedititions require resources but it is goods and I meant actual money.
And that you would get money back with interest.

You still would be able to expedititions with goods, but if you invest also money,
you could make profit also. It would be tactical decision if you want use money instantly to something else (like buildings) or invest it to expedition and get small profit later (of course "trip" should not be short in that case).



May I ask that why you don't want impletement more financial stuff?

Don't you like financial stuff that it already has or do you want just limit it to what is currently have?

You said that you would want devs to spend time on interactive thing, but if stock market isn't interactive, what is?



Of course game would simplify things because real stock market would be too complex to implement to game.

there could be options like (just one million possibles ways do it):

a) stock a, profit rate 5%, success rate 95% (small profit, small risk)

b) stock b, profit rate 50%, success rate 60% (high profit, high risk)

... and go on (just an example)


end result could divide like this (just again one of millions different possible examples):

a) you make 'maximum' profit 20% (max profit would depend on shares)
b) you make 10% (figure could change)
c) you make 5% (figure could change)
d) you don't make anything
e) you don't make anything and company that you invested made bankrupt




"click a button - maybe get moneys", thats how it work in real life also (stock trade)
in situation where you don't know what you are doing so I don't see here a problem.
And even in you know what you are doing in real stock markets, it still is "maybe get money"
, becauset there is always risks. Sometimes companies don't pay dividends and sometimes their value goes to free fall.


Best part: if you don't like financial staff, you still wouldn't have to do it like you wouldn't have to in earlier Anno versions either.
And they who would like to, would have it. In would be win win for both groups.

stylisticsagi
01-26-2018, 03:07 PM
I think there should be more uses for money in te game yes.
Some sort of stock marketing if done right it can be indeed a risky income boost but it should be about all to much money (and when it doesn't why bother?!).

The loans are an interesting idea.

the problem with the stock market is that you would buy stock so they would work for you, but this game is about you doing the work...
perhaps you can look into a game called offworld trading company that's all about stock prices and goods trading and such.

as for anno i think it would be to complex and to much off the grid to.
But more ways to spend your money would be something i can certainly agree on.

iruet
01-26-2018, 08:33 PM
the difficult thing about the stockmarket is that someone wins and someone looses that deal...

That is why I don't see this implementation happening

BTW, I would not want this feature simply cozz of my first line :)

ruuti0
01-26-2018, 11:00 PM
the difficult thing about the stockmarket is that someone wins and someone looses that deal...

That is why I don't see this implementation happening

BTW, I would not want this feature simply cozz of my first line :)

I am not sure did I get right what you mean.

Do you think that it is global for all players or did I understood wrong?

I didn't mean that kind of system, I just meant stock market that would be for one player.

Yes you can either win or lose, but I think it would be stupid if you would automatically win, what would be point then? You would only get free money basically without risk and stock markets don't work like that.

And if you would invest to low income, low risk companies, you would have really small risk to lose it, but you would also have (small) profit.

And if you don't idea investing to stock market, nobody would force you, you could play as well without doing it.

stylisticsagi
01-27-2018, 07:01 AM
Well shares like 2070 worked more or less like this.
You could buy shares in islands and those shares and their dividends increase in value when the island is developing.
What you couldn't do is sell those shares.

stockmarkets work like iruet said, one will win and another will lose you can't create money out of nothing (well in games you could but...).
The thing with stockmarket is also that shareholders are basicly betting on wich company (or player in this case) will win. But you will always go for yourself...

if you would buy stock from an opponent this would actually also mean you are going to give your opponent money and therefore power.
Why would you do that if you want to put your money in your own economy?!
And it makes sense if you don't have an economy like people in the real world but in the world of anno everybody has an economy or you are not playing...

ruuti0
01-27-2018, 11:42 AM
Well shares like 2070 worked more or less like this.
You could buy shares in islands and those shares and their dividends increase in value when the island is developing.
What you couldn't do is sell those shares.


I said that stock market shares and Anno 2070 shares are totally different things and they are.

You can't in real world buy shares about another nation or their islands, that is just fantasy
that have nothing to do with stock market, stock market is about companies.
Only things common those two things have word shares, but they mean different thing.
Like you yourself also said, you can't even sell shares in 2070.





stockmarkets work like iruet said, one will win and another will lose you can't create money out of nothing (well in games you could but...).
The thing with stockmarket is also that shareholders are basicly betting on wich company (or player in this case) will win. But you will always go for yourself...


Thats the idea, what idea would be in stock market where everybody would win automatically without any risk?

And what you mean with that you can't create money out of nothing? Of course you can't, but there won't be situation like that.
Stock market doesn't generate money from nothing and even in situation where you would lose all your money in stock market,
you still would get money from taxes and selling goods.

Of course you will go for yourself, in real stock market also.

If we had stock market in game, it would be investing in companies, not in another players.

Later idea just make no sense at all, because there will be only one winner in Anno.






if you would buy stock from an opponent this would actually also mean you are going to give your opponent money and therefore power.
Why would you do that if you want to put your money in your own economy?!
And it makes sense if you don't have an economy like people in the real world but in the world of anno everybody has an economy or you are not playing...

If we still talk about stock market, nobody force you buy from opponent, stock market would be full of shareholders (I don't know how many there were in 1800s but probably at least hundred of thousands, in game those all could be unknown) who you could buy from.
If you meant that only NPCs and players would be in stock market, you misunderstood idea big time.
You even wouldn't have to invest to stock market if you don't want to.

Everybody would take their own risks with stock market (if they want).

If you invest your money to stock market, it is away from something else like building warships or buildings.
Its your decision if you want do it. But if you success in stock market, you can have huge boost to your finance situation,
which can make risk worth of it.

"Why would you do that if you want to put your money in your own economy?!"

You still haven't realized how stock market work. If you put money to stock market, it is away from
something else in that moment, but if you get good profit from stock market and sell your
shares with big win, you can put A LOT OF more money to your own economy than you could without stock market.

It would make also perfect sense in Anno. Keep in mind that also real nations invest their wealth to stock markets.
There is no reason at all why it wouldn't work in Anno. Seems that here on forum all people don't understand
how stock market works (I have myself been investing to stock markets for years now), but I can give information
and correct wrong understandings of stock market.

Stock market isn't like lotto where most people lose. If you invest to low risk companies, you are very likely
going to do profit (getting dividends and you can sell your shares later too with profit). Thats why more and more people in real life too invest to stock market if they got money to do it. You don't have to be rich to do it, even regular normal working people can do it.
In game it would mean that all players could be doing profit from stock market same time, there is nothing that would forbit it.

stylisticsagi
01-27-2018, 03:06 PM
But if the game is all about companies then you are no longer the one who will place all tha factories (what do you think companies are?!).
The entire game would be around politics then and not around building a city and building your up your production lines.
As long as you do that yourself there will not be companies and if there are no companies there will not be a stock market.

iruet
01-27-2018, 03:49 PM
I know what a stockmarket is, I just don't see why this is needed....

I am obviously not interested, because I don't get your point! Indeed no-one forces you to use that market... But anno isn't a gamble game, it's a strategy game...

AgmasGold
01-27-2018, 04:09 PM
I also want to add that the stock system in 2070 was super exploitable. You could gain more income from the stocks you had based on the number of items (e.g. Effluent Pumps) that you had in your warehouse. Building a lot of the cheap modules from the laboratory basically gave you a huge boost to income.

stylisticsagi
01-27-2018, 05:06 PM
i was never aware of this exploit.
Nonetheless shares should provide an extra income, or wel options at least. perhaps some buildings like the calculater building from 1404(srr forgot the name) wich reduced maintenance cost can only be build if you have a minimum number of shares on that island or something like that.

the income boost made it more interesting to purchase shares whilst not really have the intention to do a hostile takeover.
perhaps more owned shares makes it easier to perform acts of sabotage against your population or industry.

ruuti0
01-27-2018, 05:11 PM
But if the game is all about companies then you are no longer the one who will place all tha factories (what do you think companies are?!).
The entire game would be around politics then and not around building a city and building your up your production lines.
As long as you do that yourself there will not be companies and if there are no companies there will not be a stock market.

You still haven't understood the idea right.

Game isn't all about companies (at least not about stock market companies), I haven't said that, and it most surely wouldn't be if there was stock market.


It would be still you who would build cities etc. and place factories. Those stock market companies would of course be totally imaginary companies. Any building or company name in the game wouldn't have anything to do with stock market companies. If they would, you could easily abuse market capitalization (basically value of company) by adding factories etc. Thats why those companies in stock market would be competely imaginary companies that you don't even see in game unless you watch stock market.

No, game wouldn't be about politics, actually nothing would be changed expect that you could get money from stock market or lose it there.

I hope you the idea right now. There was few misunderstandings in your texts.





I know what a stockmarket is, I just don't see why this is needed....

I am obviously not interested, because I don't get your point! Indeed no-one forces you to use that market... But anno isn't a gamble game, it's a strategy game...

Stock market isn't about gample (isn't in real life either), it is about strategic investment. And it would add many more strategies to play the game, thats why I introduced it.
If you didn't know, it is part of strategy for example if you think that "Do I invest now, and have now less money to use to my society and possibility later have more", or "I think enemy might attack soon, can't invest anything now, I have to immediately put all my resources (including money) to build warships etc. and so on, just one example of manys.






I also want to add that the stock system in 2070 was super exploitable. You could gain more income from the stocks you had based on the number of items (e.g. Effluent Pumps) that you had in your warehouse. Building a lot of the cheap modules from the laboratory basically gave you a huge boost to income.

I totally agree you here. The model of stock marget that I introduced would be competely different and it couldn't be exploited. You would know exact risk you are taking and how much you can get, there would be zero possibility for exploiting it.

stylisticsagi
01-27-2018, 05:56 PM
i'm going to agree to disagree here...

iruet
01-27-2018, 09:48 PM
i'm going to agree to disagree here...

Me too, I don't like this idea, especially if it is expoitable...

Raydoovah
02-04-2018, 02:50 PM
1) I don't think that you got the point, I didn't mean anything like shares in islands like in 2070.
I meant stock market idea. Competely different thing, both have "shares" word, but they mean
different thing.

2) How you could exploit it? I can't figure anyway to exploit it if its done right.


3) Yes expedititions require resources but it is goods and I meant actual money.
And that you would get money back with interest.

You still would be able to expedititions with goods, but if you invest also money,
you could make profit also. It would be tactical decision if you want use money instantly to something else (like buildings) or invest it to expedition and get small profit later (of course "trip" should not be short in that case).



May I ask that why you don't want impletement more financial stuff?

Don't you like financial stuff that it already has or do you want just limit it to what is currently have?

You said that you would want devs to spend time on interactive thing, but if stock market isn't interactive, what is?



Of course game would simplify things because real stock market would be too complex to implement to game.

there could be options like (just one million possibles ways do it):

a) stock a, profit rate 5%, success rate 95% (small profit, small risk)

b) stock b, profit rate 50%, success rate 60% (high profit, high risk)

... and go on (just an example)


end result could divide like this (just again one of millions different possible examples):

a) you make 'maximum' profit 20% (max profit would depend on shares)
b) you make 10% (figure could change)
c) you make 5% (figure could change)
d) you don't make anything
e) you don't make anything and company that you invested made bankrupt




"click a button - maybe get moneys", thats how it work in real life also (stock trade)
in situation where you don't know what you are doing so I don't see here a problem.
And even in you know what you are doing in real stock markets, it still is "maybe get money"
, becauset there is always risks. Sometimes companies don't pay dividends and sometimes their value goes to free fall.


Best part: if you don't like financial staff, you still wouldn't have to do it like you wouldn't have to in earlier Anno versions either.
And they who would like to, would have it. In would be win win for both groups.

I don't want more financial stuff because it will either be a gimmick or dilute the essence of the game. And if done as a gimmick it will not add anything fun to the game imo.

2: I was wrong. It's just a mechanic that would not give anything meaninful to the game. It will require the Ai to have gold, or if we limit to other players,. then it's a whole mechanic implemented for the only purpose of making players honest. Not worth it imo.


3: Stocks are cool, but again, this dilutes the essence of the game.


These are the questions that should be asked about any feature:
Is it something that would make the game more fun or deep?
Could the time be spent doing something else that would yield better returns?
Will this add complexity but not complicate things?
Is this what the game is about?

and some others that I rpolly missed

ruuti0
02-04-2018, 04:02 PM
I don't want more financial stuff because it will either be a gimmick or dilute the essence of the game. And if done as a gimmick it will not add anything fun to the game imo.

2: I was wrong. It's just a mechanic that would not give anything meaninful to the game. It will require the Ai to have gold, or if we limit to other players,. then it's a whole mechanic implemented for the only purpose of making players honest. Not worth it imo.


3: Stocks are cool, but again, this dilutes the essence of the game.


These are the questions that should be asked about any feature:
Is it something that would make the game more fun or deep?
Could the time be spent doing something else that would yield better returns?
Will this add complexity but not complicate things?
Is this what the game is about?

and some others that I rpolly missed


I understand that everybody won't like expanding finance aspect idea (or finance aspect itself) and I got what you mean with diluting the essence of the game, but you are forgotting something here.

Game mechanics wouldn't really change with my idea, because these features were already in Anno 2070. How they can dilute the essence of the game if they already were in 2070?


Few examples:

There are for example follow Finance options in 2070 (there are actually few more, but people surely get the point with these):

Investments, Research money, Stock trading, Take out a loan, Price dumping, Lobbying, Licence trading


Investments = Allow you invest money with Thorn Strindberg with the profit or loss charged on your balance sheet

Research money = Allow you invest money with Dr. Troki Bartok with the profit or loss charged on your balance sheet

Stock trading = Allow you invest money with Vadim Sokow with the profit or loss charged on your balance sheet


For example, if you Invest to Thorn Strindberg, it next ask how much and then what risk you are willing to take:

'Conservative', "Balanced", "Risky"


And for example you can take loan from Hiro Ebashi, you pay it back later with interest.

And so on.

In my honest opinion it would make game for fun and deep, because it add more strategies to play game and I like that.
And it add more different roads to go (more replay value).
It is also how real nations works when their leaders decide how to make as profitable society as possible.
Almost all nations do investing one way or another.

And like in 2070, you could just choose do you use them or not, nobody force you to do it, you can play game forever without ever touching that (deeper) financial stuff and those who like to experience deep financial part of game too can use them.

My idea would only expand idea that was already in game, it wouldn't change mechanics that already were there (expect that you could give loan to other NPCs / players which is just oppose to taking loan idea).

Raydoovah
02-04-2018, 04:26 PM
I understand that everybody won't like expanding finance aspect idea (or finance aspect itself) and I got what you mean with diluting the essence of the game, but you are forgotting something here.

Game mechanics wouldn't really change with my idea, because these features were already in Anno 2070. How they can dilute the essence of the game if they already were in 2070?


Few examples:

There are for example follow Finance options in 2070 (there are actually few more, but people surely get the point with these):

Investments, Research money, Stock trading, Take out a loan, Price dumping, Lobbying, Licence trading


Investments = Allow you invest money with Thorn Strindberg with the profit or loss charged on your balance sheet

Research money = Allow you invest money with Dr. Troki Bartok with the profit or loss charged on your balance sheet

Stock trading = Allow you invest money with Vadim Sokow with the profit or loss charged on your balance sheet


For example, if you Invest to Thorn Strindberg, it next ask how much and then what risk you are willing to take:

'Conservative', "Balanced", "Risky"


And for example you can take loan from Hiro Ebashi, you pay it back later with interest.

And so on.

In my honest opinion it would make game for fun and deep, because it add more strategies to play game and I like that.
And it add more different roads to go (more replay value).
It is also how real nations works when their leaders decide how to make as profitable society as possible.
Almost all nations do investing one way or another.


My idea would only expand idea that was already in game, it wouldn't change mechanics that already were there (expect that you could give loan to other NPCs / players which is just oppose to taking loan idea).

Here's the thing. These Anno 2070 mechanics are filler. They wanted to add some thematic interactions to NPC's (so they have 6) - they added them.

Getting loans from NPC's is easy to implement and improves the game . If taking out Loans was removed from the game - some people would notice it.

Giving loans to NPC's is a lot more complex, because that means that you cannot lose on the money, this requires NPCs to have actual money. Then the question is - how does the game determine that that the NPC needs the loan? Does he want aloan all the time? Etc.
What if i loan money to an NPC at the start of the game,. Then i'll just get free money, because I don't need all my money at the start ) While the NPC would lose.

The investments in 2070 were really simple and hardly added much to the game. If they weren't there - your game experience would not change at all.



What I would support is expanding on the "Investment" mechanic, so that you could invest money/ships/resources into something, and get money/resources/items/ships back. Something like a "exploratory expedition". But eh, we already have expeditions.

ruuti0
02-04-2018, 04:59 PM
"Here's the thing. These Anno 2070 mechanics are filler. They wanted to add some thematic interactions to NPC's (so they have 6) - they added them. "


I don't get your point here.

Investing is investing, you invest certain sum, you know risk level you take, simple as that.

What makes that thematic interaction? It is great idea in my opion, it could be taken further
and make even better. How it was in 2070 was great and really made new level of strategies to game.






Giving loans to NPC's is a lot more complex, because that means that you cannot lose on the money, this requires NPCs to have actual money. Then the question is - how does the game determine that that the NPC needs the loan? Does he want aloan all the time? Etc.
What if i loan money to an NPC at the start of the game,. Then i'll just get free money, because I don't need all my money at the start ) While the NPC would lose.


It doesn't require that NPC actually have money, it can be programmed just to give you back money after certain time gone with certain way. NPC could in theory have endlessly money, but it could still
be programmed to ask (and take) loan. Just like you can do trades with them or destroy their buildings, but they
still have endless resources, that doesn't stop you from interacting with them.

And I think there should be some kind of random time generator and based on that they would ask loan.
There of course should be some sort of minimum time between loans to make sure that they
doesn't ask loan many times in short window.

Remember that loaning money is away from doing something else with that money.

You could lose coming war (and game) if you too early give big loan(s), because then you could end up in situation where you cannot build enough warships etc.

That way giving loan is also risk, like investing, just little bit different kind of risk.
If there wasn't war risk in this game, then your point would be valid, then it would be just
free money without risk to your way, because you wouldn't have any hurry to build society (unless you have
chosen such game conditions that certain player win if he is first to achieve X thing,
then it would be risky again to loan money)





The investments in 2070 were really simple and hardly added much to the game. If they weren't there - your game experience would not change at all.



I disagree, maybe versus computer players they didn't bring difference, because you could win them
easily even on highest difficulty level even without touching financial stuff, but in skilled multiplayer games (where winning-losing marginals can be really small) they can make total difference between who win and loses. I also liked use those financial options in singleplayer mode vs NPCs. And my idea is to make that investing thing even better.






What I would support is expanding on the "Investment" mechanic, so that you could invest money/ships/resources into something, and get money/resources/items/ships back. Something like a "exploratory expedition". But eh, we already have expeditions.


I like that idea also. We have expedititons, but this would take them to next level and make them even better.

Raydoovah
02-04-2018, 05:19 PM
What makes that thematic interaction? It is great idea in my opion, it could be taken further
and make even better. How it was in 2070 was great and really made new level of strategies to game.



Thematic meaning something that fits the theme (grim future). And also adds an additional possible interaction with NPC's. The interface would feel emptier if all NPCs had only 5 interactions, imo.






It doesn't require that NPC actually have money, it can be programmed just to give you back money after certain time gone with certain way. NPC could in theory have endlessly money, but it could still
be programmed to ask (and take) loan. Just like you can do trades with them or destroy their buildings, but they
still have endless resources, that doesn't stop you from interacting with them.

And I think there should be some kind of random time generator and based on that they would ask loan.
There of course should be some sort of minimum time between loans to make sure that they
doesn't ask loan many times in short window.

And what's the point? If you have enough money to spare - you get more money without really risking anything. If you don't have enough money - you don't loan it out, or risk it.

Eh, I can see the idea, but I'm not sure if it adds something substantial.




I disagree, maybe versus computer players they didn't bring difference, because you could win them
easily even on highest difficulty level even without touching financial stuff, but in skilled multiplayer games they can make total difference between who win and loses. I also liked use those financial options in singleplayer mode vs NPCs. And my idea is to make that investing thing even better.


In MP vs Players it would give some effect,but I cannot say it's that big of an impact.

I liked the investment options as well, but I wouldn't say that it was really awesome and added much to the game. As I've said. If they weren't there - I wouldn't care.



What about tributes instead? If you're ahead -> NPCs can offer you money gifts. If you're behind - NPC's ask for money to not declare war. Like in 1404





I like that idea also. We have expedititons, but this would take them to next level and make them even better.



Imo it's the only way of making it actually interactive.

ruuti0
02-04-2018, 06:07 PM
And what's the point? If you have enough money to spare - you get more money without really risking anything. If you don't have enough money - you don't loan it out, or risk it.

Eh, I can see the idea, but I'm not sure if it adds something substantial.





How you determine if you have enough money to spare? That is first hard question.
In early game for example it is very unlikely that you got so much money that
you can lend money and still have everything you need.
You surely get more money later when he pays his loan, but thats not the point, the point is that
things that you can build less between that time. If opponent attack during that time
and he has used his resources to gather military stuff like warships, and you otherwise
played equally good, then you are underdog because he has more warships etc.
There is the risk.

And if he doesn't attack that time, profit you make with lending later can give you upper hand
in later attack.

In games where skill margins between players are small, these kind of things do make difference, I tell this from experience.







In MP vs Players it would give some effect,but I cannot say it's that big of an impact.

I liked the investment options as well, but I wouldn't say that it was really awesome and added much to the game. As I've said. If they weren't there - I wouldn't care.


What about tributes instead? If you're ahead -> NPCs can offer you money gifts. If you're behind - NPC's ask for money to not declare war. Like in 1404




Relatively (comparin to other things in game) it isn't that big of an impact, but in multiplayer
games where both players are very skilled, margins between winning and losing player are very small
and in that kind of circumstances it can be big impact. Again speaking from experience.

Tributes are good idea also, but only if they are done right. For example if NPC offer gifts,
can you still attack him? IF you can, whole idea goes out of window. There could be some
forced "can't attack time" that you would have to follow (unless you are attacked, but maybe it could go both way that neither of you could attack each others). Otherwise it would be just smart
always wait the gifts and then attack anyway. This (can't attack time) could be programmed to work between real players.

And do you mean that you can forever pay tribute to NPC to not attack you or is it what I like more kind of option that you could do only 1-2 times in certain time frame? Because if you could do it endlessly you could abuse/exploit it until you are stronger than your opponent NPCs.




Imo it's the only way of making it actually interactive.


Little bit off-topic but I like idea that you could get some special goods with expedititons that you cannot get/find from any of your sessions.
But can society be build on such goods that have to be get from expedititons, I doubt that. But they could bring some extra happiness to some upper level classes and they could be really expensive, which would give you nice profit when you sell them. They surely couldn't be anything like "you need this good to get society level X, or you need this good to stay on society level X".

stylisticsagi
02-05-2018, 11:53 AM
i think the forced diplomacy items from 1404 where very nice.
as for the gifts i think that when you give a gift to a player some sort of can't break trade or peace agreement for X amount of time is really in it's place, however i also think that unlike the forced diplomacy items, gifts should be accepted. If a player want to pay you for peace he can but you can still deny the gift, don't receive it but keep the war going.

also the other way around with npc's if they demand gold from you then you would also have some guerantees he does not break agreements for a period of time. This can have a big impact on wanting to pay or not.

But also the other way around should be possible. You can ask a player for money, but you can also ask a player for money and if he does not pay you will end agreements(and when he does he gets again a timer in wich you can't break agreements).

while for war and peace this is very obvious i think the game should also boost trading with other people much much more.
Trading with npc's has always been neccesary in anno games but i think the game should promote trading with players much more.

for example of 1404 if you traded with a npc he will eventually give you quite a large honour bonus wich was very valuable.
If you traded with an npc you only got a relation bonus wich was very invaluable.

The fact that npc's buy whatever **** you have is already a big boost.
i think if we compare to 1404 this honour bonus should only be something you get when trading with other players.
Another possible way is that npc's give you a far worse price for your goods then other players would.
In 1404 you got also a higher price when goods where traded in your warehouses. This is something wich must remain to insure people place alot of goods in their warehouse for sale and purchase. So we can create the big multiplayer trader anno is supposed to be.

iruet
02-05-2018, 12:27 PM
I think that letting the NPC get a loan would need the npc to have visual money as Rayd said... I think this feature would kill the game in some way, since NPC's can't cheat anymore then....

For me this is a no-go :)

ruuti0
02-05-2018, 06:10 PM
I think that letting the NPC get a loan would need the npc to have visual money as Rayd said... I think this feature would kill the game in some way, since NPC's can't cheat anymore then....

For me this is a no-go :)

I must admit that I don't understand your logic here. You can trade with NPCs, you can give them money and they can give you money without them having visual money.

But suddenly if its called loan where you give them money and take money, they somehow need visual money?

NPCs don't actually need money from trade, like they wouldn't need money from loan, but they could be programmed to ask loan also like they are programmed to do trade.

I also agree that visual money with NPC would be bad, but I don't see any reason why they should have visual money when it have worked before that they don't have it.

iruet
02-06-2018, 11:32 AM
Without the NPC having visuable money, this feature is listed as an exploit to me... And next to that... NPC's have to cheat... It's anno overall, NPC's cheat there :D

stylisticsagi
02-06-2018, 03:35 PM
If it's so much about loans why not interact with your population some more?

get loans from your people or give them loans.
They could easily make it so that if your citizens loan you money they get more demanding in thigns we can remember from 2070. And if you loan them money they would settle down altough they would have to ask for loans...

the dutch VOC worked more or less like this from 1600 up to 1800

ruuti0
02-06-2018, 03:40 PM
Without the NPC having visuable money, this feature is listed as an exploit to me... And next to that... NPC's have to cheat... It's anno overall, NPC's cheat there :D

I have to again disagree.

If you could endlessly give loan to NPCs whenever you wanted, then I could see that you can exploit this feature.

But in my idea they would randomly ask it, not very often and there always big delay after you get first loan offer, then it is something that happen seldom.

You surely get "easy" money, but profit won't be that big in loans (if it is made realisticly), it takes time you get it back with interests and when you give loan away, you lose that amount of money that you could otherwise spend to something else right away. It also give strategy to game that "do I want to spend my money now to my own society" or "do I want give loan and get more money later and I have less money to spend to my society now". When you are war (or that you think that in near future you will be) it is clearly smarter to focus bulding war-things right away, but if you are in peace and if you don't have hurry up for anything, it can be smart loan some money.

Yeah NPCs probably will always cheat in Anno series, but this loan thing actually only affect you (or other human players), not them. Same with trade, NPCs don't need to trade but they are programmed to do it and who trading actually affect? It is you again (or other human players).

ruuti0
02-06-2018, 03:46 PM
If it's so much about loans why not interact with your population some more?

get loans from your people or give them loans.
They could easily make it so that if your citizens loan you money they get more demanding in thigns we can remember from 2070. And if you loan them money they would settle down altough they would have to ask for loans...

the dutch VOC worked more or less like this from 1600 up to 1800

I wouldn't have problem with this either, but this sound bigger jump in game dynamics, because it would be jump from interacting with NPCs/other players to interacting with your own people. It could change current game dynamics big time, for example if your own people asked loan from you and what if example you have to delete their houses a lot in short time? Did you just delete a lot of future debt incomes and lost money that you borrowed? In beginning even making houses require "plenty" money (relatively wise speaking), is it sure that you have money to loan to your own people at that time?

To me at least it sound really weird that individual people of your nation would loan money to nation itself?

Usually nation leaders just raise taxes if they need more money from people of their nation, which is also option in Anno already.

stylisticsagi
02-06-2018, 03:59 PM
At the point you make the loan or not they would act like a quest giver and not be specified to certain houses so deleting them would not change anything.
And yeah usually nation leaders just raised taxes but this was more campany wise then nation wise to invets in your countries military and get a profit from it.
It are the first steps at advanced freedom in the western world because it was not something you had to do but those who wanted could invest in the voc or in this case, you.

and ps go your to your bank and ask them about obligations(that's litterly loaning money to your nation).
Individual people loaning money to their nation is absolutly not weird at all and is happening continiously since medievel ages perhaps even before and they are still doing it now.

ruuti0
02-06-2018, 05:07 PM
At the point you make the loan or not they would act like a quest giver and not be specified to certain houses so deleting them would not change anything.
And yeah usually nation leaders just raised taxes but this was more campany wise then nation wise to invets in your countries military and get a profit from it.
It are the first steps at advanced freedom in the western world because it was not something you had to do but those who wanted could invest in the voc or in this case, you.

and ps go your to your bank and ask them about obligations(that's litterly loaning money to your nation).
Individual people loaning money to their nation is absolutly not weird at all and is happening continiously since medievel ages perhaps even before and they are still doing it now.

I have always think that in Anno you are lonely leader of your country, and same time you decide
where people move, where buildings are build. I like to look it in bigger scale than just companies.


Yeah I know what obligations are and loaning money to nation, I just meant that it sound really weird that people in Anno would sunddendly start to give YOU loan, when its always been in Anno that they pay taxes and they pay them as much as you want them to pay and suddenly they are giving you loan.

But I like your idea (about loaning to own population if there is no exploit risk) also about expanding financial aspect of game. There are clearly a lot of room to do it and many good potential ideas.

There of course have to be careful, that system don't go too complex.
If all would happen what discussed, there have to be clear information how much you are getting money from different sources and how much is money going, so people can clearly plan their society's economy. Those things what we discussed could be optional
(like they were for example in anno 2070) so starting playing wouldn't get too confused at begin.

Another question is that do we need two different kind of loans(with this I mean loan where you take loan)
when we already have option take loan from other NPCs, is there need to have option also take loan from own people?

stylisticsagi
02-06-2018, 07:06 PM
For my part i don't need any suggestion in anno from this topicXD
i'm just trying to think with your suggestions and how you could implement it.
You never know wether the devs are looking and finding some usefull stuff being said by any of us.

iruet
02-08-2018, 11:35 AM
I still agree about this system, since it is exploitable if u manage to make a mod around it... For me this would kill the struggle of trying urself ^^

I prefer stylisticsagi's idea then... that u have to get loans from ur inhabitants, which would only be possible for the higher tier inhabitants, since they have the money to pay loans back ^^ :)

ruuti0
02-08-2018, 12:38 PM
I still agree about this system, since it is exploitable if u manage to make a mod around it... For me this would kill the struggle of trying urself ^^

I prefer stylisticsagi's idea then... that u have to get loans from ur inhabitants, which would only be possible for the higher tier inhabitants, since they have the money to pay loans back ^^ :)

First of all, my idea is not exploitable. I already explained it to you earlier. If you disagree, it would be also polite to argument ahow you could exploit it, because I don't see any way to exploit it.

Second if you manage do mod to game, you can exploit anything you want (including taking loans from inhabits idea), not just finance stuff and you can practically make stuff that even wasn't originally on game if you manage mod it.

We already can get loans from NPCs, why you would want get loan from your own inhabits too? Then you would just have double loan taking options on game, not a single new feature.

stylisticsagi
02-08-2018, 04:18 PM
You just said the prime reason why i am against mods ;).
Especially in game slike this there is no room for mods. The dev's will have to give us a complete game wich does not need modding.

p.s. npc's are not always part of the game, your inhabitants are. And i think it was good thing they did in anno 2070 by letting your meedle your population a bit in your affairs altough it can come in a more positive way as well.

ruuti0
02-08-2018, 05:54 PM
You just said the prime reason why i am against mods ;).
Especially in game slike this there is no room for mods. The dev's will have to give us a complete game wich does not need modding.

p.s. npc's are not always part of the game, your inhabitants are. And i think it was good thing they did in anno 2070 by letting your meedle your population a bit in your affairs altough it can come in a more positive way as well.

Why you would want play without NPCs when they bring so much to this game?

And if you meant in campaigns, isn't campaigns to train stuff and get new items. I don't know if loaning would be even needed in campaigns.


If inhabits are giving you loan, then amount of loan would naturally depend on size of your population. Otherwise it would really stupid if you could loan as much from 1 house than 500 houses.
And if it depend of size of your population, you can exploit size of debt by just making more houses just for bigger debt. And if you delete all your houses, you don't have anymore any inhabits and by that logic you wouldn't have to pay your debt back, because there isn't anybody to pay it back and you just got free money. That is another option exploit your idea.

I don't like this idea where you would be adding another loan taking option, when we already have it and current way worked so well.

I rather support ideas that add new features to game.


p.s: Some of early Anno versions where modded even though Ubisoft didn't officially support it, that is something that cannot be stopped

iruet
02-09-2018, 07:35 PM
Hmmm, it does not seem like u get my point, I feel like getting loans from a cheater is an exploit, or lending them money feels so too!

If the NPC's would have realtime money which they are limited too, the loan system will be loads better in my opinion

ruuti0
02-09-2018, 08:02 PM
Hmmm, it does not seem like u get my point, I feel like getting loans from a cheater is an exploit, or lending them money feels so too!

If the NPC's would have realtime money which they are limited too, the loan system will be loads better in my opinion

Thats not exploit, you have understood wrong what word exploit mean in games, its not anything like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploits

There you can find real meaning of word and I hope you now understand why there isn't any exploit in my idea.

Dawnreaver
02-10-2018, 02:09 AM
I rather support ideas that add new features to game.

Rather than adding to many new features its better to have a solid core game. A good counter example is, that there were land units for combat in 1602, 1503, 1701 and 1404, but they were scrapped in the future iterations because they created problems. Same could happen with any other option of the previous games. And if you wanted to play a more realistic economy based game, I'm sure there is plenty out there.

I'm sure the devs will look into adding features like that if there is a big enough player base that wants those features, but I would implement it as an expansion to be honest.



p.s: Some of early Anno versions where modded even though Ubisoft didn't officially support it, that is something that cannot be stopped

Actually yes you can stop it. In Anno 1404 Modding was detected and you couldn't earn achievements with your online profile anymore. In Anno 2205 you dind't even have a local profile anymore. Your progress is saved on the Uplay side, so its imaginable, that you simply cannot make any statistical progress with a modded version of the game.

iruet
02-10-2018, 11:40 AM
Thats not exploit, you have understood wrong what word exploit mean in games, its not anything like that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploits

There you can find real meaning of word and I hope you now understand why there isn't any exploit in my idea.

Different point of view... Exploit... cheating... all the same if ya ask me

AgmasGold
02-10-2018, 12:23 PM
The Unofficial Patch for Anno 1404 Venice was a mod that tweaked several gameplay features - and you could still earn achievements etc. But yeah, I'd forgotten that the other mods will disable achievements. Despite this though, they are still mods... even if they do break some features of the game. That is what ends up happening for games with unofficial mod support :) .

iruet
02-10-2018, 01:01 PM
The Unofficial Patch for Anno 1404 Venice was a mod that tweaked several gameplay features - and you could still earn achievements etc. But yeah, I'd forgotten that the other mods will disable achievements. Despite this though, they are still mods... even if they do break some features of the game. That is what ends up happening for games with unofficial mod support :) .

RIP :(

If there are mods, they should not demolish the game if ya ask me...

ruuti0
02-10-2018, 01:08 PM
Different point of view... Exploit... cheating... all the same if ya ask me

Its not different point of view, because exploit doesn't mean what you meant in your text.

I recommend that in future you use express yourself like: "I feel like it is cheating", because calling it as exploit is totally different thing.

ruuti0
02-10-2018, 02:19 PM
Rather than adding to many new features its better to have a solid core game. A good counter example is, that there were land units for combat in 1602, 1503, 1701 and 1404, but they were scrapped in the future iterations because they created problems. Same could happen with any other option of the previous games. And if you wanted to play a more realistic economy based game, I'm sure there is plenty out there.

I'm sure the devs will look into adding features like that if there is a big enough player base that wants those features, but I would implement it as an expansion to be honest.



Yes, but we do not know what problems old features could cause with new game (game engine, new game dynamics, new game features etc).
Only Ubisoft know that at this point.

Thats why what we can do is discuss how old features worked in our opinion, what we would want back or still have in 1800 and what new features we would like to see.

Dev don't know if there is a big enough player base who support those features that we talk here, because
active 1800 section writers represent probably of 0,01-0,001% of all future players who will buy Anno 1800,
so they can't know from that how big player base would want certain features that we talked only here at forum.

And there has only been two big votes that were in front page (as far as I remember now) and those votes were made by them, not by us.
I think best option is that they read what we write, and if they like it too, they can add it to game.

Of course I hope more community front page votes, but even then, they decide what they want to ask.







Actually yes you can stop it. In Anno 1404 Modding was detected and you couldn't earn achievements with your online profile anymore. In Anno 2205 you dind't even have a local profile anymore. Your progress is saved on the Uplay side, so its imaginable, that you simply cannot make any statistical progress with a modded version of the game.



No you can't stop it. They can make you stop getting achievements with your profile, but
they can't stop you using unofficial mods. Thats a different thing.

kikds
03-06-2018, 11:11 PM
I think it would be a cool feature but I do not want it to be a big or focused feaure. It should just be a one more thing to do not a free-money exploit.

Velerios1
03-07-2018, 07:06 PM
Excuse me for potential incoherencies with Your proposition, but I speak from the perspective of an "only classic" Anno player (1602-1404); thus can't tell how it worked in 2070.

The subideas which appeal to me are the mentioned loan and expedition-like investment systems- aspecially the former. It would fit the overall strategy feel that Anno provides; as the player does get an immediate cash boost (which can be used for important investments etc.), while also having this liability hanging over his economy- which eventually needs to be paid back somehow.

The one time investments; let's call them "researches" for the example's sake- a bit of a different story, in the sense that one would need to sacrifice some of the operational funds, with a view to having them spring into some measurable benefits; but I'd still call such an idea very strategy-friendly.

My only concern stems from the actual usefullness of the, quite controversial in the discussion so far, stock market idea. I do understand the reasoning behing the notion of such feature being implemented- but given the multiplicative nature of the interest rates I fear it'd end up as a gimmick in the most games, while potentially being a gamebreaking feature in multiplayer matches, or during the "min-maxing" type of gameplay. Let's imagine; again, just as an example- the game starts, everyone has 80000 gold. Two players decide to 'gamble' in the "risky" shares 50000 each, with 10% success, but 100% interest rate. Those can basically be any other numbers, but fitting the "high risk-high reward" archetype. One of them 'wins', while the other one does not. I'd imagine such a disadvantage in the very early game would mean game over during veterans' match. In the single player maps, it would probably even encourage resetting the map until achieving the desirable outcome.

Another story would be the "low risk-low reward" option- for example 95% success, 10% interest rate. During most stages of the game (until the economy grows up to be strong and healthy), the player tends to have a relatively small amount of operative money visible on his balance- meaning that such investment could be more destructive than it would be productive- by freezing the funds, for a marginal gain.

On the other hand though, such feature could be full of potential from strategical point of view in the very late game- when operating on some serious amounts of money, and being able to diversify risks- maybe allowing to gain a tremendous amount to buy out other player's islands, if such would be the case (?). However, in this case I can't tell if having such complicated financial system to watch over, on top of the economy that is the heart of Anno series, wouldn't be too much- and turn into the "excel sheet" type gameplay.

Overall, those are full of potential ideas, that would have to be balanced really carefully (aspecially in the case of stock market), but could prove really satisfying if done well.

ruuti0
06-04-2018, 09:18 PM
I think it would be a cool feature but I do not want it to be a big or focused feaure. It should just be a one more thing to do not a free-money exploit.

Thats my idea also that it would be just "small" part of game, like it was in Anno 2070, not the focuse of the game. Of course it should be done so that you can't exploit it, I already gave many ideas how you can do it that way.

Velerios1, I answer for you later.