Forums » General
I see this response as a positive thing. Yes, different trade goods have different price falloff rates. A few of them are very high (luxury goods, a couple of the addons). Most of them are not. Posting a graph of one of the worst-case-scenarios is not a very meaningful picture of the game economy as a whole, as Taso noted. To put it in perspective, the demand falloff rate of Luxury Goods is more than thirty times greater than that of Synthetic Hydrocarbons.
What this means is that people at least have cause to notice the falloff rates.. before no one cared, they would simply tank the given route, take their profits and move on. Now the picture becomes more complex.. some goods are more advantageous to carry to more locations, or are more challenging to trade. I'm sure this will require some adjustment by traders (and by us tweaking things on the development side), but it's a positive change.
As far as the whole "trade routes back in the day used to bounce back faster".. outside of the 1-minute updates (turns out it was one minute, not five), there has been no change to the rate of route-tanking due to this most recent update. People are now simply *aware* that the route is tanking, instead of getting pure profit off of a full load of luxury goods. I bring this up mostly because there was a whole confused discussion the other day, on whether the new system made "economic warfare" (tanking of a nation's routes) more viable.. it doesn't, there is no change compared to last week.
Moving on, we do intend to further develop the economy. Per an analogy I made a week or two ago, this is another brushstroke, not the entire picture. At least now I have the option of creating high-profit routes through grayspace, without having them be excessively exploitable by mass-sales. Most of our routes may recover only over a period of days, but some of them can now recover in shorter periods.
Plus, the other suggestion, that we allow "levels" of demand to impact the price paid. For instance, if demand were on a 0-100 scale, that the "max" price would be paid for any goods between 90-100, or 95-100, or some such, and would begin their predetermined dropoff after that fact. I'm not against this, but be advised that it will only impact a small number of goods at the top of the threshold; not selling a thousand CU of something to get max profit. Only if the station has a massive "need" (based on a capacity model, as davejohn mentions) would large quantities be advantageous, perhaps at Capitols and the like.
Anyway, it's all a work in progress. At least now we can tweak and tune the trade routes and general trade system, without it being a total joke. It's far more possible to create a balanced system now than it was previously.
What this means is that people at least have cause to notice the falloff rates.. before no one cared, they would simply tank the given route, take their profits and move on. Now the picture becomes more complex.. some goods are more advantageous to carry to more locations, or are more challenging to trade. I'm sure this will require some adjustment by traders (and by us tweaking things on the development side), but it's a positive change.
As far as the whole "trade routes back in the day used to bounce back faster".. outside of the 1-minute updates (turns out it was one minute, not five), there has been no change to the rate of route-tanking due to this most recent update. People are now simply *aware* that the route is tanking, instead of getting pure profit off of a full load of luxury goods. I bring this up mostly because there was a whole confused discussion the other day, on whether the new system made "economic warfare" (tanking of a nation's routes) more viable.. it doesn't, there is no change compared to last week.
Moving on, we do intend to further develop the economy. Per an analogy I made a week or two ago, this is another brushstroke, not the entire picture. At least now I have the option of creating high-profit routes through grayspace, without having them be excessively exploitable by mass-sales. Most of our routes may recover only over a period of days, but some of them can now recover in shorter periods.
Plus, the other suggestion, that we allow "levels" of demand to impact the price paid. For instance, if demand were on a 0-100 scale, that the "max" price would be paid for any goods between 90-100, or 95-100, or some such, and would begin their predetermined dropoff after that fact. I'm not against this, but be advised that it will only impact a small number of goods at the top of the threshold; not selling a thousand CU of something to get max profit. Only if the station has a massive "need" (based on a capacity model, as davejohn mentions) would large quantities be advantageous, perhaps at Capitols and the like.
Anyway, it's all a work in progress. At least now we can tweak and tune the trade routes and general trade system, without it being a total joke. It's far more possible to create a balanced system now than it was previously.
This here is 10 cu's of heliocene sold in dau. The bottom curve is what the station menu shows, the top line is what you REALLY get when you sell. As you can see they do not match at all. Question I have is this. Is this a bug?
If the station is telling you that you're supposed to get less than what you actually do when you sell the item, I'm inclined to think something is wrong.
This is 37 ion blasters I just sold in dau. the exp curve is what the station told me I would have and the top line is what I GOT. It's a static price for this time on the old format being a weapon and all.
Also worth noting if I add something like 50,000 cus' in to sell it will tell me my profit is 0.1c
As I was saying the other day something here is just not adding up correctly. If I am to get what the station tells me then I can EASILY tank and entire nation in no time.
FYI YES one of my numbers is off on teh exp curve.
If that's the ion blaster MkI, and your graph is literally based on 37 of them, then the client-side demand prediction is doing something wrong. The per-unit drop on that item is quite small.
The actual demand and profits are all determined server-side, so it isn't possible actually tank anything.. any more than it ever was. But the client display may be off for some reason. I emailed Ray, we'll take a look at it this evening, and hopefully push out a patch.
Exactly where (what station) were you taking these measurements? Thanks.
The actual demand and profits are all determined server-side, so it isn't possible actually tank anything.. any more than it ever was. But the client display may be off for some reason. I emailed Ray, we'll take a look at it this evening, and hopefully push out a patch.
Exactly where (what station) were you taking these measurements? Thanks.
Ion Blasters
Aroan Executive (UIT Capitol) 1223681, sector 4780
Helio ore
Osteem Orbital (UIT Mining) 1222401, sector 4775
I also used other stations in dau as well. All seem to exhibit the same graph.
Aroan Executive (UIT Capitol) 1223681, sector 4780
Helio ore
Osteem Orbital (UIT Mining) 1222401, sector 4775
I also used other stations in dau as well. All seem to exhibit the same graph.
BlackNet: You don't have any weird plugins loaded, do you? I find it a little strange that you're seeing this massive falloff, while people like Death Fluffy are trading all day and not reporting anything like it.
What exact method are you using to achieve these results?
What exact method are you using to achieve these results?
Has anyone else seen any cases where the "perceived" price is very low, but the transaction actually gives you more funds that what is reported in advance?
Just found another one.
Dau sector 4713. with LCD's.
1 unit = 457 sell
10 unit = 4,543 sell
100 unit = 42,819 sell
200 unit = 79,818 sell
300 unit = 110,997 sell
400 unit = 136,356 sell
500 unit = 155,895 sell
600 unit = 172,495 sell
700 unit = 189,095 sell
800 unit = 205,695 sell
900 unit = 222,295 sell
1,000 unit = 238,895 sell
2,000 unit = 404,895 sell
3,000 unit = 570,895 sell
4,000 unit = 736,895 sell
5,000 unit = 902,895 sell
6,000 unit = 1,068,895 sell
7,000 unit = 1,234,895 sell
8,000 unit = 1,400,895 sell
9,000 unit = 1,566,,895 sell
10,000 unit = 1,732,895 sell
200,000 unit = 33,272,895 sell
----
Which yields this.
Which is way better than before.
Dau sector 4713. with LCD's.
1 unit = 457 sell
10 unit = 4,543 sell
100 unit = 42,819 sell
200 unit = 79,818 sell
300 unit = 110,997 sell
400 unit = 136,356 sell
500 unit = 155,895 sell
600 unit = 172,495 sell
700 unit = 189,095 sell
800 unit = 205,695 sell
900 unit = 222,295 sell
1,000 unit = 238,895 sell
2,000 unit = 404,895 sell
3,000 unit = 570,895 sell
4,000 unit = 736,895 sell
5,000 unit = 902,895 sell
6,000 unit = 1,068,895 sell
7,000 unit = 1,234,895 sell
8,000 unit = 1,400,895 sell
9,000 unit = 1,566,,895 sell
10,000 unit = 1,732,895 sell
200,000 unit = 33,272,895 sell
----
Which yields this.
Which is way better than before.
I wish I could help you out with this Inc, but the only trading I do is via missions to raise my tanked factions...
...Them turrets still should not be able to open fire upon me before I have contol of my ship though, I will quote you:
[11/03/08 21:35:41] [100] <Incarnate> yoda: well, it's not that hard either. we know where the player is :)
Seems the server knows where the player is, but the turrets don't :P
...Them turrets still should not be able to open fire upon me before I have contol of my ship though, I will quote you:
[11/03/08 21:35:41] [100] <Incarnate> yoda: well, it's not that hard either. we know where the player is :)
Seems the server knows where the player is, but the turrets don't :P
Blacknet: we need to focus on only those cases where there is a disparity between the predicted numbers in the client, and the actual amount you are paid for them.
Anything else is just likely a route with lower demand due to someone trading there recently. But situations where the client predicts one set of numbers, and the server gives you money reflecting another set.. that's probably a bug of some sort.
It would also be cool if you could back-up your customized client (copy it to another dir or some such) and then delete your VO install except for the updater, and re-run the updater (let it download everything). Just to eliminate any chance of your client having some strange additional PCC code or some such.
Anything else is just likely a route with lower demand due to someone trading there recently. But situations where the client predicts one set of numbers, and the server gives you money reflecting another set.. that's probably a bug of some sort.
It would also be cool if you could back-up your customized client (copy it to another dir or some such) and then delete your VO install except for the updater, and re-run the updater (let it download everything). Just to eliminate any chance of your client having some strange additional PCC code or some such.
How are you getting these numbers?
goods sell tab, click item, click sell, key in number, write it in excel, add next unit, repeat. Then add a new sheet, chart, choose data ranges and add titles.
So, is the number your profit or the actual total amount you'd get for selling X items? (or are they the same?)
This is fun to watch. Let's see where it goes.
That's way more work than I'd go to, wow.
The number in the graph is profit per CU. (sell/units) - buy because the sell modal window only shows total sell price.
Profit per cu and profit per Kg is the real key values for doing trade. Total sell price is basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It's one thing to haul an item that will net 1,000 credits that takes up 8 cu's (125 p/cu), much more profitable and desirable in a demand economy to haul a 1 cu item with a yield of 400 credits. Yes you can wait out for the big 2,000 c/cu items but as a new or low player you have to weight in the ROE (return on equity or how well your investment is doing, i.e. more bang for the buck or less bang for the buck)
Profit per Kg helps you trade in heavier items, i.e. weapons. The lower the number the more your ship is going to fly like molasses and the less money you will make. Overall not to helpful if you are using light weight items like trade goods (non-weapons)
In a sliding scale model you introduce beta values (beta is the sensitivity of an individual items returns vs the average return) which is what new traders SHOULD be looking at but currently can not (excluding use of plugins).
Profit per cu and profit per Kg is the real key values for doing trade. Total sell price is basically meaningless in the grand scheme of things. It's one thing to haul an item that will net 1,000 credits that takes up 8 cu's (125 p/cu), much more profitable and desirable in a demand economy to haul a 1 cu item with a yield of 400 credits. Yes you can wait out for the big 2,000 c/cu items but as a new or low player you have to weight in the ROE (return on equity or how well your investment is doing, i.e. more bang for the buck or less bang for the buck)
Profit per Kg helps you trade in heavier items, i.e. weapons. The lower the number the more your ship is going to fly like molasses and the less money you will make. Overall not to helpful if you are using light weight items like trade goods (non-weapons)
In a sliding scale model you introduce beta values (beta is the sensitivity of an individual items returns vs the average return) which is what new traders SHOULD be looking at but currently can not (excluding use of plugins).
I just tested this using 30 Ion Blasters at Aroan Executive, the same place that Blacknet got the erroneous data, using the same method (goods sell tab, click item, click sell, key in number).
The value given and what came up when I finally did sell were an exact match. Going item-by-item, it was completely linear. I'll try grabbing some other goods and see if I can find a discrepancy there, but it looks like it's probably on the client side, and only on blacknet's client at that.
EDIT: Tried it with a cheap bulk good and a few high-ends- I'm still getting agreement, aside from a one credit difference in the incurred loss for selling 20 Neural Nodules (had been listed as 585c, actual loss was 584c. Since we don't have fractional credits, I'm assuming this was due to a rounding error). It seems I cannot replicate this problem.
The value given and what came up when I finally did sell were an exact match. Going item-by-item, it was completely linear. I'll try grabbing some other goods and see if I can find a discrepancy there, but it looks like it's probably on the client side, and only on blacknet's client at that.
EDIT: Tried it with a cheap bulk good and a few high-ends- I'm still getting agreement, aside from a one credit difference in the incurred loss for selling 20 Neural Nodules (had been listed as 585c, actual loss was 584c. Since we don't have fractional credits, I'm assuming this was due to a rounding error). It seems I cannot replicate this problem.
IRS, yeah, I tested it too, yesterday, and could not reproduce it. At that time, blacknet couldn't reproduce it either. So, as I see it, there are two possibilities:
1) Something is wrong with blacknet's client (which is possible, since he's a PCC-Lua developer, hence my above suggestion about wiping out his client and re-downloading it from the updater).
or
2) There is a sporadic bug with the client not properly calculating the demand change per unit sold, and giving scarily inaccurate numbers. This is entirely possible, but as of yet, no one other than blacknet has reported anything like this. So, I'm open to hearing if such a problem exists.
For the moment, Ray and I are leaning towards 1), although the prospect of 2) is not at all impossible (just odd that no one else has reported it). So, if blacknet can reproduce the money-paid-vs-money-predicted issue with a completely stock/vanilla client (downloaded through the updater), that'll at least be a starting point.
1) Something is wrong with blacknet's client (which is possible, since he's a PCC-Lua developer, hence my above suggestion about wiping out his client and re-downloading it from the updater).
or
2) There is a sporadic bug with the client not properly calculating the demand change per unit sold, and giving scarily inaccurate numbers. This is entirely possible, but as of yet, no one other than blacknet has reported anything like this. So, I'm open to hearing if such a problem exists.
For the moment, Ray and I are leaning towards 1), although the prospect of 2) is not at all impossible (just odd that no one else has reported it). So, if blacknet can reproduce the money-paid-vs-money-predicted issue with a completely stock/vanilla client (downloaded through the updater), that'll at least be a starting point.
I seriously hope and wish 100% that it was a fluke on my side ONLY. The last graph was closer to correct as for what it should be. Am going to be doing more testing soon and post my results.