Some of the Top things that pushed me out of FF

[ToorimaKun]

I don't believe anyone has enough information to make that kind of assessment. Though I'm open to hearing out how you come to this conclusion.

pretty much basing off firefall right now since that is all we can do

in firefall you could have had:
gathers (thumping groups)
crafters
explores (dealt with chosen dropping in and taking towers, dynamic events and finding rare veins for his/her guild)
questers (dealt with the constant push of the main chosen army taking and defending towns)
PVPers (battle arenas and esports)

a good economic model for firefall should have looked like so:
gathers thumped the base bulk resources used in most crafting
explores could have found RARE mats from events and the little chests that spawned randomly
questers would get the crystit from acord payments for defending/taking towns and for missions
the crafters would buy mats off of the gathers and explores to make gear that the questers would use

and PVPers are usually happy with ladder stats... not to mention to balance it the wouldn't be able to use the crafted gear any way.

*this is a very watered down version... you would want trade between each group of players*

 

[Torgue_Joey]

*this is a very watered down version... you would want trade between each group of players*

TRADE WHAT?
resource? pretty pointless, as we all gonna get resources from something (thumping, mining, reward, loot, scrapping...)
crafted gear? all player will be at a point where they can craft the modules and part themselves.

trading/sharing blueprints of customized omniframe and weapons where one can see what parts was used would make more sense

 

[Buster1013]

I don't understand people who say, that durability in Firefall (v0.7) was bad and every death was very painful. I have just looked at old screenshots and I can only have one conclusion - for replacing gear player needed only 5% of resources he got from rewards. From one event (tornado, incrusion, ARES missions, broken LGV, crashed thumper, chosen strike team, etc.) players got from 500-1500 resources (plus other rewards) and for single invasion over 8 0000 resources. During durability of one item set, player could get enough resources for 3+ sets and using low quality resources for progression. All that without using thumper.

People don't understand, that the main advantage of decay is no power creep. In typical MMORPG you have to grind gear from the beginning after each content-patch. After getting the best gear you have nothing to do (in PvE) until next content-patch. In Firefall (v0.7) after destroying item set, you could make another copy or make new one, that will better suits you (ex. slower servos for better weapon accuracy). You could have few months, year or even longer break and you don't lose any point of durability and your gear's power was still the same (horizontal progression).

Power creep needs huge amount of content, because most of old content is using only for leveling and doing low level instances is pointless. Without power creep, all new content is added to existed one and even the oldest events are playable. This makes game much cheaper to produce and maintain. What's more, game is easier to control, less buggy, better balanced, etc. On the other hand, it needs hard sinks and compatible resource and crafting system (this was the biggest mistake in Firefall).

 

[ToorimaKun]

TRADE WHAT?
resource? pretty pointless, as we all gonna get resources from something (thumping, mining, reward, loot, scrapping...)
crafted gear? all player will be at a point where they can craft the modules and part themselves.

and that is not a good economy model.

 

[Ronyn]

pretty much basing off firefall right now since that is all we can do

Again, interesting line of thinking but good or bad it may not even be applicable to Em-8ER's systems. We shall see.

I don't understand people who say, that durability in Firefall (v0.7) was bad and every death was very painful. I have just looked at old screenshots and I can only have one conclusion -.

There was a lot involved in firefall's 06 to 09 economic model. It went well beyond the simple question of acquiring enough resources in the time before something broke, as there were things like quality, constraints and availability to consider. I won't delve into the whole thing here, but I will say that there are many ways to create a durability system, even a perma-break system, without much of the aspects that version put into place. It is certainly ok to like the system as it was, I just want to make sure we are clear on what exactly was involved in it.

People don't understand, that the main advantage of decay is no power creep.

That is actually a rather common myth. It's mistaking the solution for one issue as the solution for another.
In other words, a game having some form of gear destruction does not guarantee that it won't have power creep. They solve two different problems. You see, the main purpose of gear destruction is to solve certain economic issues (to create a churning economy of faucets and sinks) where the main purpose of offering players increasingly better gear is to provide motivation for players to strive for better stuff or new experiences (the carrot). On that same note, power creep is not an effective method to solve economic problems (as evident by mmorpg's with power creep still falling prey to excessive inflation) and permanent gear loss is not an effective method of motivation for most players to keep playing.(players will not put in work simply to maintain or replace what they already have, they need another motivator such as better gear or some other form of new content.)

That is not to say I am championing power creep by any means, as I prefer more horizontal growth methods that will entice players by offering new experiences as opposed to simply higher numbers. At any rate it is simply not true that permanently breaking gear lessens the need for new content at a rapid rate.

Let me put it this way, think of any mmorpg out there. if you're tired of doing certain dungeons and ready to go play another game would you suddenly enjoy that dungeon again because the game decides your gear will break on occasion and the only way to replace it is to do that dungeon again? Or would you still go play some other game? Most would choose the latter. Alternatively, when the game get's some new zones or better gear most would consider coming back to check out the new stuff.

 

[avalon1k]

Everything from 1.0 onward.

 

[DARKB1KE]

I don't understand people who say, that durability in Firefall (v0.7) was bad and every death was very painful. I have just looked at old screenshots and I can only have one conclusion - for replacing gear player needed only 5% of resources he got from rewards. From one event (tornado, incrusion, ARES missions, broken LGV, crashed thumper, chosen strike team, etc.) players got from 500-1500 resources (plus other rewards) and for single invasion over 8 0000 resources. During durability of one item set, player could get enough resources for 3+ sets and using low quality resources for progression. All that without using thumper.

People don't understand, that the main advantage of decay is no power creep. In typical MMORPG you have to grind gear from the beginning after each content-patch. After getting the best gear you have nothing to do (in PvE) until next content-patch. In Firefall (v0.7) after destroying item set, you could make another copy or make new one, that will better suits you (ex. slower servos for better weapon accuracy). You could have few months, year or even longer break and you don't lose any point of durability and your gear's power was still the same (horizontal progression).

Power creep needs huge amount of content, because most of old content is using only for leveling and doing low level instances is pointless. Without power creep, all new content is added to existed one and even the oldest events are playable. This makes game much cheaper to produce and maintain. What's more, game is easier to control, less buggy, better balanced, etc. On the other hand, it needs hard sinks and compatible resource and crafting system (this was the biggest mistake in Firefall).

Nope. It was much higher durability costs than that. By simply playing the game you would lose income overall. You would lose entire pieces of gear. This is why you had a huge subset of the playerbase play in only stock gear.

 

[Buster1013]

... game having some form of gear destruction does not guarantee that it won't have power creep.

I should have written this more precise - by decay I meant decay in game with horizontal progression (it may have some constant vertical progression).
This kind of games must have sinks. If not, after few months everyone will have tons of useless and worthless resources. I don't know any better sink than repairing and decay. From that two solutions I definitely prefer permanent gear destruction. Why?

• with good market and garage system (auto-buy, auto-replace) it could be as simple as repair button,
• good and live economy (constant supply and demand),
• possibility to be a full-time crafter,
• it is the best tool to remove overpower gear from the game without direct intervention and players rage,
• [with constraints system] allow to make changes in gear without feeling of re-crafting whole gear.

At any rate it is simply not true that permanently breaking gear lessens the need for new content at a rapid rate.

In typical MMORPG most players skip low level instances (low exp, too much time for complete, low level rewards, hard to find party). It is easier and faster go to another zone and do higher level "kill X mobs". All that instances are wasted content. New patch must be new endgame zone with new endgame instances. In Firefall old content was mixed with new one and it was playable all the time, so no content was wasted. Horizontal games still need new content, but with higher quality than quantity.

About player motivation to play. Most MMOs force players to grind - it is the simplest goal that everyone understands. After reaching maximum level, most players leave the game until next big patch. They don't feel connection with game - it is another MMO, so they jumping between them.
Firefall achieved much more - players that were bound to game even when it was changed into crappy WoW-clone. What's more, players actively played Firefall, when it had very small content (few events, thumping, fighting with non-stop spawning Chosens). I still ask myself "Why have I left Firefall so late?" and I don't know the answer. Even after Firefall died, we still have hope, that Em-8ER will be reincarnation of original Firefall. This kind of bound is much better motivation than grind goals.

 

[HumanTrainingBot]

A Theoretical Resource Sink in EM-8ER​

Abstract: (tl;dr) A crafting/researching tax when players rent someone else's crafting slots at a construct similar to the molecular printer from Firefall.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------​

Since we're still on the topic of resource sinks, let's consider a resource currently overlooked in the discussion: time.

I am suggesting that time or the lack thereof be partially connected to the resources gained while playing.
Definition of resources:

Spoiler

Excluding premium currency, resources could be:

• the in-game currency - crystite, gold, silver, etc.
  
• or it could be resources gained through thumping/mining - gravel, iron, silicates, various minerals, gems, etc.
  
• or it could be resources gained by killing enemies - weapon pieces, semiconductors, servos, elastics, etc.
• or perhaps even energy. For example, a single 1 volt .01 amp battery as one unit of energy.

In an economic phrasing, capital.

This comes from an idea for crafting/researching:
Crafting/researching require resources (relevant to the job being performed) to complete the project. This is fairly standard and is not part of my point. If EM-8ER uses a crafting system similar to the molecular printer, then consider a system where players can rent the use of their printer to other players.

Details:
Two interpretations are immediately apparent:

1. Ability to craft more items at the same time.
   
2. Ability to craft the default number of items faster.

Both of these options could have further customizability by allowing the player providing the slot(s) to set an offer-expiration time, the maximum number of times a slot can be rented by anyone else before the offer expires (for example, one specific slot can be rented [user entered number] times and then the offer is no longer available and must be offered again by the player renting out his/her slots.), or a player only offering his/her slot(s) during certain real life time slots.

All slots being rented out would be unavailable to the person offering them until the offer expires or the object is built or research is complete. This means that the researching/building power is finite and defined by the number of active players and the number of those players that are willing to rent out their crafting slots.

Option 1:

Essentially, one player rents a crafting slot through an integrated marketplace of crafting slots.

Integrated Crafting Marketplace - the player does not need to leave the crafting menu interface to access the option to rent additional crafting slots.​

In this case, a player can have access to more than their default number of crafting slots for a price. The resource sink is some kind of lore-friendly version of a crafting tax or trade tax. For example, "The 10% tax goes to the increased processing power and/or transportation required to rout the purchaser's request and materials to the seller's crafting terminal and send the completed item or research back to the purchaser's terminal."

This would fit best thematically with a monetary resource cost rather than a mineral or item-based cost.​

Option 2:

This option allows a user to rent crafting slot(s) in order to speed up their own crafting.

One player rents the crafting slot(s) of another to decrease production or research time to 1/n th of the time, where n is thee number of terminals working on that item and the default of n=1 terminals. (the player without renting any terminals) The resource cost here would be the inefficiency of doing the task faster. Here, the explanation of the "tax" doesn't have to make as much sense, since (I assume) most people would naturally accept "pay more to do it faster" as the concept behind the explanation, whatever that explanation may be.​

In both of these examples, the person renting the crafting slot(s) pays more than the amount the person providing the slot(s) receives. Thus, with enough people doing this, a significant amount of resources could theoretically be removed from the game.

Assumptions:

Spoiler

This mechanic assumes the following:

1. Human greed. Humans are willing to pay to get what they want faster.
   
2. Supply and demand. A marketplace where prices are set by the people will naturally react to the suppliers (supply) and consumers (demand) to reach a natural balance point. If full control is given to the suppliers to say when and for how long their crafting slot(s) can be used, then the market will fluctuate depending on the number of slots and their availability at any given time and the price set by each player. (A theoretically healthy economy)
   
   If, however, the suppliers have no control over availability, then everyone is essentially selling the same thing and the price will fall to the lowest price offered by the suppliers. This will have two results: either 1) the system remains effective as a resource sink or 2) it does not, whether by removing too many resources or not removing enough. Overall, this approach almost requires a full-time economist to tweak the system. Thus, I am in favor of the previous, player-controlled option.
   
3. Ease of use. The assumption that the interface and mechanics will be easily understood, thus removing barriers to entry and thus lowering the learning curve.

Did I just write a mini thesis paper? I did not expect it to get this big.

 

[Ronyn]

Let me first clarify something. Item destruction is a broad term for the many ways in which items can be destroyed. Decay is a specific version of that, a way that items can loose durability and eventually be destroyed. This is an important distinction. It's the difference between the economic models in something like EVE online compared to SWG. In other words, not all item destruction systems use decay specifically. Going forward, I will continue to respond to your mentions of "decay" as though we are speaking about item destruction in general.

I should have written this more precise - by decay I meant decay in game with horizontal progression (it may have some constant vertical progression).

As I said, the primary purpose of item destruction (worn or carried items in particular) is it's economic value as a sink, that remains true whether the progression system is horizontal or vertical. (Technically, repairs can be effective enough sinks if made to be, full on destruction of the item is to ensure that it has to be re-created and/or re-bought. That goes beyond just a sink and into supply and demand)
As long as it is understood that the primary motivator's for play will come from things other than simply-replacing-the-gun-you-already-had we are on the same general page. As far as what variety of things actually do serve as effective motivation for players, that is honestly it's own long conversation. "better" and/or "new" things are the most obvious answers, but that is hardly a complete list.

This kind of games must have sinks. If not, after few months everyone will have tons of useless and worthless resources. I don't know any better sink than repairing and decay.

At no point has the argument been that Em-8Er doesn't need a sink. It has all been a question of what those sinks should be. With that established, keep in mind that Em-8ER puts more at the players finger tips than just the gear they wear and carry. Vehicles, bases and other group goals will serve as a heavy resource sink. That was an element that firefall barely touched on, and it makes a world of difference in how much of a sink worn gear actually has to be. On that note, once we start looking at things like bases being built and potentially destroyed, we open up a variety of new gameplay options that are for more capable of greatly altering moment to moment experiences in a way that players are likely to respond positively to.

To truly dig into a conversation about economic model requires a lot of specifics and nailing down how carious nuances would be handled. Is it possible to make a system where items permanently break but can then be replaced with a simple button press? Certainly, if it is built from the ground up for that very purpose. Does the need to replace items that brake offer a basis for constant supply and demand? Certainly, but only if the entire system is built to ensure that other things won't impede that process. Can an economic model be built in a way that a player can be a full time crafter? Potentially yes, but that would be assuming that kind of playstyle was even a goal of the game in question. As of yet, there has been no announcement that Em-8ER is intending to offer such a playstyle.

Let me address one thing in particular.

it is the best tool to remove overpower gear from the game without direct intervention and players rage,

That's another one of those myths about what item destruction does for a game. In terms of cause and effect, why would that be true? An item breaking isn't actually removing it's balance issues from the game. As long as players have the knowledge and the means (In other words the recipe and resources) to make the item in question, they will simply re-make the item as the old one breaks. To remove it, the devs have to either need the recipe or make the required resources unatainable. Besides, is there some reason to believe that players would respond any better to their OP item breaking than their OP item being nerfed in a patch? The result is the same.

In typical MMORPG most players skip low level instances (low exp, too much time for complete, low level rewards, hard to find party). It is easier and faster go to another zone and do higher level "kill X mobs". All that instances are wasted content. New patch must be new endgame zone with new endgame instances. In Firefall old content was mixed with new one and it was playable all the time, so no content was wasted. Horizontal games still need new content, but with higher quality than quantity.

That digresses away from the issue of economic model and delves into the complex discussion of horizontal verses vertical progression models. It also opens up the discussion about whether quality vs quanity makes any difference in terms of work load on a developer. I'd like to leave those issues for another conversation.

About player motivation to play. Most MMOs force players to grind - it is the simplest goal that everyone understands. After reaching maximum level, most players leave the game until next big patch. They don't feel connection with game - it is another MMO, so they jumping between them.
Firefall achieved much more - players that were bound to game even when it was changed into crappy WoW-clone. What's more, players actively played Firefall, when it had very small content (few events, thumping, fighting with non-stop spawning Chosens). I still ask myself "Why have I left Firefall so late?" and I don't know the answer. Even after Firefall died, we still have hope, that Em-8ER will be reincarnation of original Firefall. This kind of bound is much better motivation than grind goals.

I don't want to shortchange the depth of the conversation about why people stick with an mmo and why they don't. Beyond that, to nail down exactly what was at play that made firefall special and what it was that made it unable to reach and retain a player base size capable of creating a return on it's investment is one heck of a long and complex conversation. I am going to leave those lines of discussion alone for now. All I will say, is that different people stuck with it for different reasons.

 

[Wyntyr]

Good conversation all around. Thanks for the read!

With a repair system v/s a replacement system it will be interesting to see how this team will spread them out. I do wish we had seen some vehicular/base building or repairing systems back in FF...oh well...

 

[Silv3r Shadow]

I think there is a fun vs realism necesedy factor. As much as it is a nieche feature it's not a must have to begin with anyway, I myself didn't like spending the small amount of farmed CY into the currency filler.
Perhaps we can repair our THMPR instead, sounds more reasonable and proper hay?

Secondly, resources rarity vs grinding/farming.

After launch the highest quality mineable resource Uranium wasnt even rare at all, in fact, it was easy to acquire, you just had to farm it lots instead.
Prelaunch with the 16 or so different resources and their own individual 1-999 quality, this was good for rarity, but not quite achievable maybe have 20 quality levels instead but with the same 16 different resources instead. Not a low number like white, green, blue, purple and orange and not too extreme like 999

 

[Sn0wfIak3]

Item decay has always been tricky. There's a third alternative other than decay vs, repairs. Consumables.

The last idea i had was turning FF's perk system into an enchanted gem system. IMO, it could have worked. Ember is not FF but it shows the potential of a simple yet deep "consumables system".

(Firefall's perks were basically potions without decay)

Don't break the gear, break what powers it.

It's also the reason i think gems are the better middleman. Let's assume that gems can be refueled but overloading the gem causes it to break. Overloading causes temporary extra power for example. It's a difficult task but on that spectrum between breakage and fueling, there is a line where people would voluntarily choose to break their gems instead of refueling them.

 

[Ronyn]

Item decay has always been tricky. There's a third alternative other than decay vs, repairs. Consumables.

It is interesting to examine the various alternatives/methods that can be used. As I mentioned earlier, decay is only a certain form of item destruction. For example a game might have gear that never decay's from use or time, nor does it need repair but it will break completely upon death. Meaning you can have that gear forever if you never die, but if you die it's gone in an instant. That's item destruction, but it's not decay.
Consumables would be another form of item destruction. Because the items (whether mods/gems or guns/gear) still break. Though,as you elude to, it has a certain unique value because it's not the main gear but what powers it. I always did find it a solid idea (particularly the part about overloading the gems) that should be considered. Though it's worth noting that it does not inherently avert discoverability or availability issues. That would depend on what was involved in making a gem which in turn dictates how readily a player could replace a broken gem with an identical gem.

At any rate the below kind of touches on an important aspect of Em-8ER.

Perhaps we can repair our THMPR instead, sounds more reasonable and proper hay?

You're on the right general track there. In the full expression of Em-8ER there is much more at the players finger tips than just what they wear and carry. As opposed to firefall, where nearly all of the economic sinks were limited to just player gear. That limitation was a big part of the reason they put so much emphasis on the cycling of player gear in FF. Em-8ER is a different beast. The full expression of Em-8ER would have the vehicles, bases and larger group goals that will be huge sinks of their own. That puts us in a very different economic situation than Firefall. That in mind, we do not even need to try to create the same level of sinks from player gear as firefall sought to. In fact, we need to make sure that we don't. If too much of players resources were going in to just keeping our worn gear in good shape we wouldn't have enough resources left over to help build bases, call in vehicles, or pitch in to the group goals. We can't let all of those cool things go to waste because few players could afford them!

 

[Sn0wfIak3]

I always did find it a solid idea (particularly the part about overloading the gems) that should be considered. Though it's worth noting that it does not inherently avert discoverability or availability issues. That would depend on what was involved in making a gem which in turn dictates how readily a player could replace a broken gem with an identical gem.

Definitely,the trick would be to find a way to get people to WANT to use up their resources. The decay system was too draconian for most. Potions or enchantments go down easier.

Plus, who doesn't want to go super saiyan?

 

[Mahdi]

Ronyn, you are making the whole process more of a tease than impact of the current wait. So many questions I have on you and Snow's direction of conversation but all would be extremely premature. Ahhh the patience needed....

 

[HumanTrainingBot]

On a very similar note, I would like to bring up one of my favorite mods for Skyrim. Skyrim has the mechanic to enhance weapons to do more damage by using a grindstone or increase an armor piece's protection at a work table. The mod adds decay to the mix. Spend resources to improve your items, but the items will slowly "level down" as you use them. Armor and shields slowly degrade when hit, while weapons degrade when hitting an enemy.

Link if you want more detail.

 

[Torgue_Joey]

On a very similar note, I would like to bring up one of my favorite mods for Skyrim. Skyrim has the mechanic to enhance weapons to do more damage by using a grindstone or increase an armor piece's protection at a work table. The mod adds decay to the mix. Spend resources to improve your items, but the items will slowly "level down" as you use them. Armor and shields slowly degrade when hit, while weapons degrade when hitting an enemy.

Link if you want more detail.

I SEE NEXUS. I SLAM LIKE BUTTON.

Just like in oblivion. But since I'm no longer an "hardcore" gamer, i was also happy that they removed it in skyrim. I no longer have to waste time repairing 20 armor pieces and weapons.

But in general, that kind of degradation is how i imagine it would be in Ember.

 

[Buster1013]

In the full expression of Em-8ER there is much more at the players finger tips than just what they wear and carry. As opposed to firefall, where nearly all of the economic sinks were limited to just player gear. That limitation was a big part of the reason they put so much emphasis on the cycling of player gear in FF. Em-8ER is a different beast. The full expression of Em-8ER would have the vehicles, bases and larger group goals that will be huge sinks of their own. That puts us in a very different economic situation than Firefall. That in mind, we do not even need to try to create the same level of sinks from player gear as firefall sought to. In fact, we need to make sure that we don't. If too much of players resources were going in to just keeping our worn gear in good shape we wouldn't have enough resources left over to help build bases, call in vehicles, or pitch in to the group goals. We can't let all of those cool things go to waste because few players could afford them!

In theory, global resource sinks may be a good idea, but in real life, it will be very hard to do it. You assume, that players will give X% of theirs resources for global goals and using rest of them for crafting, repairing, etc. Players are greedy and don't want to share, unless they have a profit. I have never seen MMO, in which majority of players give away "their precious wealth" without a profit (that includes joining strong guild, etc.). Why should I give resources, when other players don't? They would have the same benefits from bases and vehicles as me.
The only scenario that would make sense to me is minimize gear factor (a few versions of each weapon/ability/armor). Players would give away resources for global goals, because accumulating them would have no sense. But you have to remember, that big group of players love their gear and all things connected to it (resources, abilities, etc.).
There are many good ideas and solutions, but we still don't know what kind of game will Em-8ER be. I think the safest way is to create game similar to Firefall v0.7 and then starting moving toward global goals. Red5 have tried revolution way and how they have ended?

 

[Ronyn]

In theory, global resource sinks may be a good idea, but in real life, it will be very hard to do it. You assume, that players will give X% of theirs resources for global goals and using rest of them for crafting, repairing, etc. Players are greedy and don't want to share, unless they have a profit. I have never seen MMO, in which majority of players give away "their precious wealth" without a profit (that includes joining strong guild, etc.). Why should I give resources, when other players don't? They would have the same benefits from bases and vehicles as me.
The only scenario that would make sense to me is minimize gear factor (a few versions of each weapon/ability/armor). Players would give away resources for global goals, because accumulating them would have no sense. But you have to remember, that big group of players love their gear and all things connected to it (resources, abilities, etc.). There are many good ideas and solutions,

Those many concerns, while valid in the general sense, all operate under the assumption that pitching in to group goals would have no direct and personal reward (immediate, persistent and/or long term) for each player who actually participates. As if pitching in and not pitching in offer the same end in ever way execpt expenditure. I believe we will do better than make that mistake. It is well known to us that players tend toward what benefits them, such a basic human trait will not be forgotten during the designing of any system.

Sidenote: I said group goals, not global goals. Group goal could be as small scale as what you and a couple friends do, where global goals would be more akin to a whole shard pushing for a certain purpose. Em-8ER may end up having both group and global goals, we shall see, still it's important to keep the distinction between the two.

but we still don't know what kind of game will Em-8ER be. I think the safest way is to create game similar to Firefall v0.7 and then starting moving toward global goals.

There is much still to be decided on in terms of Em-8ER's design, though there is quite a lot of it it's overall core direction set internally, to which only limited amounts of that are known publicly. For now I can only share bits and pieces here and there. Mostly, in this thread, I have just been talking about the nature and impact of economic model features in general. I will shed light on what I can.

For what it's worth, while I would certainly agree with learning from what went both wrong and right with every era of firefall (Around patch 7 did have some amazing stuff), I do not think starting suggestions from the overall economic design portion of patch 7 is particularly wise considering several points.
1: The patch 6-9 economic design was a very different direction from what Grummz originally intended for firefall's economy. Em-8ER's is meant to be more akin to firefalls original intended design and direction, not the way's that it drifted away from it.
2: As I mentioned before, Em-8ER is meant to have more to spend resources on than just carried/worn gear. If we put too much cost on worn/carried gear, it leaves little to nothing for the other stuff.
3: Something widely unknown about the design goals behind firefall's Patch 6 to 9's economic model, it was intentionally built to push (sometimes force) players to change their loadouts based on resource availability. High granularity in resources, waning resource availability and tight constraints all combined to make a system where replacing things to the exact same specifications was troublesome. That was not a byproduct of the system, that was part of the intent of it. It was in hopes the player would "try" a different load-out because their old load-out was either unavailable or tweaked in some way whether the player liked it or not.
With Em-8ER, we have no such intention. On the contrary, we prefer that if player's like the build they are using, we should not create economic systems meant to yank them from it. That very big difference in goal means there must be some very big differences in core design.

All that said, every person has their own path to discovery. If, for you, starting from what you know of patch 7 helps you find a system that does what we are looking to do...so be it.

Red5 have tried revolution way and how they have ended?

I am sorry, I do not follow what you are suggesting.