RTS Offworld Trading Company - economic RTS from the designer of Civ 4

[Demo.Graph]

Yes, clearly a game about hedging and how stocks work would have been much more interesting than a game about using holograms to disguise a factory so your opponent wastes his massive EMP bomb on the wrong industry giving you a window to capitalize on a monopoly of a particular resource by funding a worker strike through the black market.

Yes. Quick google confirms.

Spoiler

"In the last 10 minutes of trading at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on Friday, September 13, someone got very lucky. That’s when he or she, or a group of people, sold short 120,000 “S&P e-minis”—electronically traded futures contracts linked to the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index—when the index was trading around 3010. The time was 3:50 p.m. in New York; it was nearing midnight in Tehran. A few hours later, drones attacked a large swath of Saudi Arabia’s oil infrastructure, choking off production in the country and sending oil prices soaring. By the time the CME next opened, for pretrading on Sunday night, the S&P index had fallen 30 points, giving that very fortunate trader, or traders, a quick $180 million profit."

Besides, no one ever funds worker strikes through the black market. That's what unions are for. Sadly, there're no unions in OTC. Actually, it has no labor relations besides the spell called "strike", no money functions besides spending, no capital market besides players' HP bars and no commodity markets besides timer-based "costs".

Try imagining OTC as a game about wizards throwing spells at each other in an astral realm. Rename nuke to astral rift, worker strike to slow, EMP to mass stun, mutiny to hypnotize, hologram to illusion, money to mana, black market to skill bar, factories to mage guilds, add some pictures of half-naked elven chicks... and nothing would change. Well, you'll be able to say that the game about hypnotized elven chicks is much more interesting than a game about hedging. And with this I'll agree. At least until my wife comes back.

 

[Citizen]

Besides, no one ever funds worker strikes through the black market. That's what unions are for. Sadly, there're no unions in OTC. Actually, it has no labor relations besides the spell called "strike", no money functions besides spending, no capital market besides players' HP bars and no commodity markets besides timer-based "costs".

Try imagining OTC as a game about wizards throwing spells at each other in an astral realm. Rename nuke to astral rift, worker strike to slow, EMP to mass stun, mutiny to hypnotize, hologram to illusion, money to mana, black market to skill bar, factories to mage guilds, add some pictures of half-naked elven chicks... and nothing would change. Well, you'll be able to say that the game about hypnotized elven chicks is much more interesting than a game about hedging. And with this I'll agree. At least until my wife comes back.

Games shouldn't be realistic. they should be gamey, fun and engaging. Are you the guy that whines about chess not realistically representing ancient warfare?

 

[Demo.Graph]

Are you the guy that whines about chess not realistically representing ancient warfare?

Of course not. But no one tried to sell me chess this way.

 

[Galdred]

Besides, no one ever funds worker strikes through the black market. That's what unions are for. Sadly, there're no unions in OTC. Actually, it has no labor relations besides the spell called "strike", no money functions besides spending, no capital market besides players' HP bars and no commodity markets besides timer-based "costs".

Try imagining OTC as a game about wizards throwing spells at each other in an astral realm. Rename nuke to astral rift, worker strike to slow, EMP to mass stun, mutiny to hypnotize, hologram to illusion, money to mana, black market to skill bar, factories to mage guilds, add some pictures of half-naked elven chicks... and nothing would change. Well, you'll be able to say that the game about hypnotized elven chicks is much more interesting than a game about hedging. And with this I'll agree. At least until my wife comes back.

Games shouldn't be realistic. they should be gamey, fun and engaging. Are you the guy that whines about chess not realistically representing ancient warfare?

The thing is that lack of realism can be immersion breaking for some.
Immersion is one of the key elements of RPG after all, which is partly what this forum is about.
Games perceived as simulations also lose a lot of their interest if they are not realistic.
Chess is an abstract strategy game, so that is a very different story.

I had to stop playing Fallout 3 after a NPC tried very hard to convince me that Bethesda writers were really not really interested in their setting.

 

[Damned Registrations]

The point of the game wasn't to realistically model a stock market, the point was to make a cool real time strategy boardgame about managing resource chains and monopolizing things. The fact that stocks go up and down is like 1% of the game. They do that in fucking age of empires for fucks sake.

To put it another way, which of these mechanics would you ditch in order to focus more on obscure stock trading mechanics:

Fuel/Energy costs for transport
Weather impacts on transport and energy generation
Terrain variation, both in terms of individual resources and varied biomes being predisposed to certain things (like water in lakebeds etc.)
Supply chains required to manufacture higher level goods
Patents on technological advantages
General efficiency boosts through investment
Colony growth variation based on resources being manufactured
Colony resource consumption based on the above
Auctions of random technologies, plots of land, or one off special favours
The various special favours like bombs, sabotage, piracy, prospecting, and so forth
Loans, debt, and credit rating system
I could probably do like 5 more bullet points.

 

[Chaosdwarft]

If only this game had been turned based, I really hate the fast pacing nature of it. I guess I was expecting something like M.U.L.E., each player takes a turn and you have a timer. Also there is no incentive to help the colony grow.

 

[Damned Registrations]

I just pause constantly while playing. Pretty sure you can lower the game speed too. Obviously you'll be left in the dust in multiplayer though.

There is a good incentive to help the colony grow: the colony creates demand for the things it consumes. So you want to grow the parts of the colony that demand thing you produce more of than your opponents. You can even throw people into debt spirals this way by creating more demand for water or oxygen than players can produce.

 

[Chaosdwarft]

[0QUOTE="Damned Registrations, post: 6367411, member: 7802"]I just pause constantly while playing. Pretty sure you can lower the game speed too. Obviously you'll be left in the dust in multiplayer though.

There is a good incentive to help the colony grow: the colony creates demand for the things it consumes. So you want to grow the parts of the colony that demand thing you produce more of than your opponents. You can even throw people into debt spirals this way by creating more demand for water or oxygen than players can produce.[/QUOTE]

Yeah my problem with speed is on MP.

Regarding the colony, I must have missed something, was this in the game release? I reinstalled it to see this and you are right! Also dam they patched a lot of stuff. I should give this game another honest try.

 

[Demo.Graph]

Damned Registrations, I guess you've replied mainly to me, so I feel I should reply as well.
First of all, I suspect that our thinking is completely different on this matter. Because I honestly can't agree to most of your statements. So I'll try to be brief.

I can't agree with this.

"the point was to make [a game] about managing resource chains"

Because the game has a very simple resource chain system. It has, like, two or three resource tiers. Compare it to Factorio or Settlers. Resources themselves differ mostly by pictures. Compare this to resources in Surviving mars (in earlier versions cement production building had different way of gathering resources from metal mine, rare earth is the only resource that could be converted into money and if you run out of food your colonists began to die - availability of different resources there leads to different game effects).

I can't agree with this.

"the point was to make [a game] about ... monopolizing things"

Because monopoly is represented very naively in OTC. In a so called "real life" monopoly almost never requires elimination of all competitors. It's also very rarely achieved by hostile acquisitions, the more common method being control of local administrations. Classical case is Standard Oil in US. At its height its market share was something around 60-90%. It hold and then lost its dominant position by aggressive lobbying. In OTC player has zero interaction with local authority - the colony serves as a resource sink and that's it.

"The fact that stocks go up and down is like 1% of the game."

This phrase I didn't understand at all. You win by "buying stocks" and their price does matter, because it's the only thing that blocks you from victory.
Actually you throw mana money at the opponents' health bar stocks until you win. And when you kill acquire one of them, you get dividends... achievement points, I guess?.. and repeat the process until only one player is left. I've used all those strikethroughs because, for example, if you've had really purchased another company you would've been able to, you know, own it. Like, use its buildings and resources, remake its assets, etc. In OTC you get some miserable trickle of cash instead and a zero control of your so-called possession.

To put it another way, which of these mechanics would you ditch in order to focus more on obscure stock trading mechanics:

I don't want to ditch any existing machanics. I would've liked them to be done in at least remotely believable fashion.

I think that in a current state OTC is a game about optimization of several utility functions. It's a nice abstract game in this regard. I'm bored by it, but it's my personal issue; I'm not going to tell people that they're getting wrong kind of fun.
My only substantial criticism of the game is that it's promoted as a game about modern capitalism, markets and western corporate culture (look at the language in tutorials). And OTC has completely wrong mechanics representing them. As I've said, "calling it a game about markets and/or modern capitalism is preposterous".

 

[Damned Registrations]

Because the game has a very simple resource chain system. It has, like, two or three resource tiers. Compare it to Factorio or Settlers. Resources themselves differ mostly by pictures. Compare this to resources in Surviving mars (in earlier versions cement production building had different way of gathering resources from metal mine, rare earth is the only resource that could be converted into money and if you run out of food your colonists began to die - availability of different resources there leads to different game effects).

I'm not going to go into everything you said, but I think characterizing it as a simple system isn't accurate. The thing about OTC is that the price of these resources is what drives the game, and you can manipulate those prices and live and die by them. You can sell things at a loss to cripple the profits of your enemies, or hoard them to drive up prices because you don't need fuel or oxygen or whatever and your enemies do. It's way more about fucking with your opponent's plans than it is about optimizing utility functions, and it tends to get incredibly chaotic as a result.

 

[blrrmmmff]

It would be interesting to create a more realistic game where you have to set up profit streams, and try to control politics with money, while trading stocks and commodities. With the option of debt markets as well. And the ability to quietly buy up a competitors debt (and then flood the market and then cheaply take control when their company is bankrupted). And stock markets with hostile take overs and ability to set up a cascade of companies to indirectly control a company through minority holdings. The concept of marginal costs with commodities, network effects with regards to logistics networks, natural monopolies (by high transportation costs, for example stone quarries). And trying to get inside information. And add in the option of sabotage to take supply of the market, which would cost you political goodwill if caught.

I think a lot of very interesting things can be done by making a more realistic economic trading game like this. It would become more complex though, and require more financial literacy to enjoy it.

 

[laclongquan]

Immersion is one of the key elements of RPG after all, which is partly what this forum is about.

Said you! We never make the mistake of thinking we are god of some far off realm, or chosen one, or promised hero.... We like to play games as such, sure, but we never think of ourselves as that for even one minute.

The ones who do either is undeveloped children (under 8, or precisely 13) or mental patients.

 

[Galdred]

Said you! We never make the mistake of thinking we are god of some far off realm, or chosen one, or promised hero.... We like to play games as such, sure, but we never think of ourselves as that for even one minute.

The ones who do either is undeveloped children (under 8, or precisely 13) or mental patients.

Where did I say that we thought of ourselves as the protagonist while we are playing?

You don't think of yourself as the protagonist in a movie or a book either, but lack of coherence and logic (for example plot holes) are still detrimental to the experience.

 

[laclongquan]

but lack of coherence and logic (for example plot holes) are still detrimental to the experience.

That was not the same thing as immershun~

 

[Chaosdwarft]

It would be interesting to create a more realistic game where you have to set up profit streams, and try to control politics with money, while trading stocks and commodities. With the option of debt markets as well. And the ability to quietly buy up a competitors debt (and then flood the market and then cheaply take control when their company is bankrupted). And stock markets with hostile take overs and ability to set up a cascade of companies to indirectly control a company through minority holdings. The concept of marginal costs with commodities, network effects with regards to logistics networks, natural monopolies (by high transportation costs, for example stone quarries). And trying to get inside information. And add in the option of sabotage to take supply of the market, which would cost you political goodwill if caught.

I think a lot of very interesting things can be done by making a more realistic economic trading game like this. It would become more complex though, and require more financial literacy to enjoy it.

Well my friend have you heard of Capitalism Lab? https://www.capitalismlab.com/

With it you can even become a good paternalistic tycoon like Renault.