Offworld Trading Company

[Mardoc]

Huh? Why is it wrong to operate a small farm and prevent someone from monopolizing a resource you require? You spend a small fraction of your production to invalidate their entire strategy.

[Bacchus]

Because you suffer more than the would-be monopolist. Let's say water is at $60 and someone is operating a diamond of four farms with double research into them. The complex produces food at the rate of (0.5 * 2.5 + 0.5 * 2.25) / 2 = 1.2 per unit of water, so is profitable as long as the food price is higher than $50. Now let's say someone is thinking about getting into food and has two tiles to spare, these would produce only 0.75 food per unit of water, so would require the food price to be $80 before this breaks even. The person who invested into food production can keep the price at $75 and stay profitable, and in fact this is what he probably will do, if anyone tries to compete with him on food. This should be enough to dissuade competition — the would-be competitor should know that even if the food price is currently at, say, $100 and steady, he has no reason to enter food, as the leading producer will win the eventual price war. Given that to build the farm you must spend resources, and then you would have to either keep running a loss-making operation, or spend resources again to replace your farms once the price drops, you are better off just buying the food at $100 and finding a niche of your own.

Also, note how big the difference is even comparing a 4-tile farm with only double research to a two-tile farm with no research. Once we are into the late game and players have blocks of 6 tiles and have completed research to the full, even three-tile competing operations become seriously weedy and shouldn't exist, except in goods where supply just can't keep up with the demand. The last point is an important caveat, actually, the industry leader has monopoly potential only on stable or declining markets (where the small competitors should be the first to shut down, until the price levels). If the market is growing, you don't really care that existing demand is being satisfied very efficiently, as you are going after the new demand, where you should be comparing your production efficiency with other players able to move into this market.

[Mardoc]

But why is it a loss-making operation? Instead of spending 100 for all the food you buy, you're spending 80 for the first bit and 75 for anything you purchase. It's not like you have a choice about buying food, the only question is whether you buy it directly from the market or indirectly through your farms.

And, on top, you're hurting a competitor, cutting his profits in half. Ultimately absolute position doesn't matter, only relative position.

[Bacchus]

But why is it a loss-making operation? Instead of spending 100 for all the food you buy, you're spending 80 for the first bit and 75 for anything you purchase. It's not like you have a choice about buying food, the only question is whether you buy it directly from the market or indirectly through your farms.

And, on top, you're hurting a competitor, cutting his profits in half. Ultimately absolute position doesn't matter, only relative position.

So, let's say the leader brings the price down to $75 after you build your farms and it stays there. You are now buying 1.3 units of water, worth $78 to make a unit of food. Already it would be easier to shut these farms down and buy the food directly, you are paying $3 per unit and some power for literally nothing.

As for hurting your competitor, it's true, somewhat. You just saved $25 on buying a unit of food, dedicating some resources and two claims to that venture. The leading food producer lost $25 on selling each unit of food, which in most cases is a smaller cost to him than the cost of resources and claims to you. But the guy who really won out of that interaction, is the third player, who kept buying food from the market as he did before, but now at $25 less.

[Sirian]

But the guy who really won out of that interaction, is the third player, who kept buying food from the market as he did before, but now at $25 less.

Of course. But isn't that the nature of competitive free-for-all gaming? Often the winner(s) are the ones who kept their heads down and let others weaken themselves in conflicts. Those who have a reputation as being strong players often draw multiple attacks and become the targets of coalitions of other players. The diplomatic meta-game is often more decisive to the final outcome than the tactical and even the strategic elements of gameplay.

Depending on your tastes, you can judge that as a plus or a minus. However, I do think it's worth noting that strategy games tend to have more players interested when the matches are 1v1 or two-teams, while shooters and other action games can often get away with the free-for-all, because mechanics like aim, movement, powerup acquisition, and strategic locations on the map can sometimes let a dominating player succeed vs all comers, where strategy games get panned for "OP/Unbalanced mechanics" if they permit any one side to fend off everybody else.

Offworld is notable in striding the line. Soren has managed to craft a free-for-all environment with less diplomatic metagaming than most other ffa strategy games, including Civ. But of course, it's impossible to escape something like Player C benefitting from Player B dropping the price on Player A's main commodity. There's a level of observational intensity to Offworld, where to succeed you need to keep an eye on a LOT of factors simultaneously, and make quick (as well as smart) decisions about what you observe. That kind of time-pressured multitasking isn't really my cup of tea, but some gamers thrive on it. I think more of Soren's customers for Offworld will come from the RTS community than from the TBS community, but that's just a guess.

Civ-style games, with large FFA contexts, can thrive in single players because the AI's can be coded to be contextual, to mimic what their factions would do in the portrayed situations, rather than being coded to play the game to win at all costs. This gives a "long odds" feel to the game situation that isn't quite as long as pretends to be, because the AI factions are limited in their strategic choices, while players are not. There is also an immersion/roleplaying factor that is missing from multiplayer versions of these games, where the opponents really are just playing to win.


- Sirian

[Sirian]

Offworld hit full release on Thursday.

The final product is well polished, looks and feels good, and plays smoothly. I've been having renewed fun with it now that all the bells and whistles are in place and all the polish has been applied.


- Sirian

[VoiceOfUnreason]

https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2016/...king-stock

[picklepikkl]

I watched some arumba07 videos and was left kind of scratching my head, but I'll be damned if the blog Penny Arcade linked to doesn't make me want to give the game another shot. Soren's explanation of the game design challenges along with how they were solved is very lucid and engaging.

[Sirian]

The multiplayer -- and single player done at MP speeds with no pausing enabled, such as the Daily challenges -- is pure RTS gaming, despite not having mobile units to manage. This part is not my main cup of tea, as RTS lies near the bottom on the list of my favorite genres.

The single player campaign has a fun 7-game progression where you get to choose from one of two or three real-mars maps and scenarios, as well as choosing from a randomized list of either single-mission or enduring perks, with success along the way netting you some extra money to spend on these perks. You get 8 CEOs to play with, and four have to be unlocked. Between this and the large number of Steam achievements, there are a lot of goals to pursue. Pause IS enabled here, so those seeking a more slow-paced experience can have it.

Although the RTS side is the game's bread and butter, the near-TBS style available in single player should reach an additional audience.

I can't think of a game that served both these tracks in one product. It's an interesting design that hits multiple niches not served by other games.


- Sirian

[picklepikkl]

It's interesting that you mention that; the hybrid RTS/TBS aspect of Paradox's grand strategy games is one of the things I really like about them.

I'm certainly way more interested now in Offworld Trading Company, but with Stellaris coming out next week, I don't really have bandwidth. I'm going to keep reading Soren's blog and catching streams where I can, though; I find myself very curious to watch the multiplayer mode.