Forums » Suggestions
A tweak too far?
In update 1.8.254 the Devs announced "Adjustments to several weapon-based trade routes". At the time there was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction to this when several trade routes ceased giving huge profits however at the time there was still good money to be made, it was just a little harder than before.
Over time though I've noticed that weapons based trading is becoming increasingly less profitable. While there are no doubt still good routes out there they are becoming harder to find and the more common routes have dropped to the point where they are either no more profitable than other commodities or even not profitable at all. This has been a gradual decline and doesn't appear to be stopping.
Furthermore weapons prices are so volatile that in some cases when you check the price of a single weapon at a station it's the most profitable item to sell there but when you carry 30 there they can only be sold at a collective loss (checked today with 30 rail guns). This makes it very difficult to trade because you can't predict what will make a profit until after you've hauled stuff to the destination.
Now I fully appreciate that weapons trading may have been too easy/profitable in the past but now I think the changes have gone too far. My three main concerns are:
1) Price volatility is too high. It makes no sense to only be able to get a price for one item at a station but then for the price of a single load of the same item to drop from profit to loss only after you've acquired the full load. I can understand why there has to be volatility, to prevent someone stockpiling 1000s of items and then selling all in one go but there should be a buffer before the number of items being sold radically lowers the price. A price guarantee, in effect. A commitment from the purchasing station that if it will buy 1 of an item at a given price it will buy 200(cu) at that price and only lower the price for trades after the first 200(cu). This would allow traders to better manage their trading, prices can still drop because of activity by other traders but shouldn't change so much when you are the only trader operating on a route.
2) Weapons now often have only parity with much lighter commodities. Ships weighed down with weapons are much more difficult to maneuver and yet the current prices don't reflect that difficulty. Certainly there are things you can do to mitigate the risks when hauling heavy loads but the risks never go away entirely.
3) As is said frequently VO is a combat game. A lot of trade happens in order to finance players' combat activities. In some places the rate of earning money seems to have dropped to only a 25% of what it once was. This means that significantly more time has to be spent by combat orientated players on doing things that they aren't particularly interested in, thus making the game less attractive. Furthermore, established players have fortunes built up before these changes came into effect making it harder for newer players to compete.
My personal view is that while the Devs' change didn't have a terrible effect initially it is having an ongoing, increasingly negative effect on trade that will inevitably spill over into other aspects of the game. Therefore the Devs should examine the long term effects of the change and make adjustments to counter the ongoing decline in trade profitability/predictability. Failing that they should implement a price guarantee on a minimum volume of items sold at stations (200 items or 200 cu's worth of items).
Over time though I've noticed that weapons based trading is becoming increasingly less profitable. While there are no doubt still good routes out there they are becoming harder to find and the more common routes have dropped to the point where they are either no more profitable than other commodities or even not profitable at all. This has been a gradual decline and doesn't appear to be stopping.
Furthermore weapons prices are so volatile that in some cases when you check the price of a single weapon at a station it's the most profitable item to sell there but when you carry 30 there they can only be sold at a collective loss (checked today with 30 rail guns). This makes it very difficult to trade because you can't predict what will make a profit until after you've hauled stuff to the destination.
Now I fully appreciate that weapons trading may have been too easy/profitable in the past but now I think the changes have gone too far. My three main concerns are:
1) Price volatility is too high. It makes no sense to only be able to get a price for one item at a station but then for the price of a single load of the same item to drop from profit to loss only after you've acquired the full load. I can understand why there has to be volatility, to prevent someone stockpiling 1000s of items and then selling all in one go but there should be a buffer before the number of items being sold radically lowers the price. A price guarantee, in effect. A commitment from the purchasing station that if it will buy 1 of an item at a given price it will buy 200(cu) at that price and only lower the price for trades after the first 200(cu). This would allow traders to better manage their trading, prices can still drop because of activity by other traders but shouldn't change so much when you are the only trader operating on a route.
2) Weapons now often have only parity with much lighter commodities. Ships weighed down with weapons are much more difficult to maneuver and yet the current prices don't reflect that difficulty. Certainly there are things you can do to mitigate the risks when hauling heavy loads but the risks never go away entirely.
3) As is said frequently VO is a combat game. A lot of trade happens in order to finance players' combat activities. In some places the rate of earning money seems to have dropped to only a 25% of what it once was. This means that significantly more time has to be spent by combat orientated players on doing things that they aren't particularly interested in, thus making the game less attractive. Furthermore, established players have fortunes built up before these changes came into effect making it harder for newer players to compete.
My personal view is that while the Devs' change didn't have a terrible effect initially it is having an ongoing, increasingly negative effect on trade that will inevitably spill over into other aspects of the game. Therefore the Devs should examine the long term effects of the change and make adjustments to counter the ongoing decline in trade profitability/predictability. Failing that they should implement a price guarantee on a minimum volume of items sold at stations (200 items or 200 cu's worth of items).
This is a good thing, IMO. Here's what it means to the universe:
Credits are harder to get. Death becomes more meaningful. As people suppress the prices in the most common trade routes, people will have to choose between safe and lower profit or high risk and high reward.
Credits are harder to get. Death becomes more meaningful. As people suppress the prices in the most common trade routes, people will have to choose between safe and lower profit or high risk and high reward.
Yeah, this is becoming a serious problem. I had to spend an entire session (long one too) in Initros trying to find some profit, and I REALLY disliked that.
And Savet, yes that should be the way but the long distance routes are profiting less and less and the short distance ones aren't profiting at all, i.e., I take some AAPs from Arta Celesties (forgot it's spelling) and take it to Pyronis, whereas it used to be 0.6 mil of profit, it's now 0.2 mil of profit. I also made a round across systems where AAPs were in demand and all it showed was profit loss.
And Savet, yes that should be the way but the long distance routes are profiting less and less and the short distance ones aren't profiting at all, i.e., I take some AAPs from Arta Celesties (forgot it's spelling) and take it to Pyronis, whereas it used to be 0.6 mil of profit, it's now 0.2 mil of profit. I also made a round across systems where AAPs were in demand and all it showed was profit loss.
Savet,
Some established players (claim) to have 100s of ships stashed around the universe, and they're quality ships amounting to an investment of 10s of millions of credits. Maybe death is too cheap in VO but reducing the rate new players can establish themselves only penalises them. I you want to make death more expensive for everyone then the Devs should tax existing fortunes and reserves of purchasable ships, addons, and commodities according to how long they've played in relation to the time since the trade changes. Same for guild banks. As the rate of earning money from trade has probably dropped by 50% would long time established players be happy to give up 50% of their money and stockpiled ships?
Also, is death being cheap actually a problem anyway. Yes death is cheap but it also takes a long time to get any good at PvP. You know how many times you've killed me and many other players kill me frequently too. If death was more expensive then I couldn't afford all those losses and so not be able to fight. Or get so despondent about always losing and not having the money that I'd quit the game entirely. Certainly death has to have value but it seems to me if you want to learn to fight in VO you have to be prepared for die a dozen times a day for many days, often without ever winning a fight.
Some established players (claim) to have 100s of ships stashed around the universe, and they're quality ships amounting to an investment of 10s of millions of credits. Maybe death is too cheap in VO but reducing the rate new players can establish themselves only penalises them. I you want to make death more expensive for everyone then the Devs should tax existing fortunes and reserves of purchasable ships, addons, and commodities according to how long they've played in relation to the time since the trade changes. Same for guild banks. As the rate of earning money from trade has probably dropped by 50% would long time established players be happy to give up 50% of their money and stockpiled ships?
Also, is death being cheap actually a problem anyway. Yes death is cheap but it also takes a long time to get any good at PvP. You know how many times you've killed me and many other players kill me frequently too. If death was more expensive then I couldn't afford all those losses and so not be able to fight. Or get so despondent about always losing and not having the money that I'd quit the game entirely. Certainly death has to have value but it seems to me if you want to learn to fight in VO you have to be prepared for die a dozen times a day for many days, often without ever winning a fight.
I liked that update. I never understood why those two stations in Setalli wanted hundreds of cus of gatling turrets/cannons
I don't know where you're looking, but there are still plenty of quite profitable trades, easily profitable enough to get any newbie in a centaur on their way. 100s of ships stashed is not something everyone needs, nor are tens of millions of credits requisite to PvP. Dying a dozen times doesn't cost you more than a quarter million in a vulture MkIII with average equipment. This update was a small first step in fixing the economy.
Stockpiles are finite. Give it time and they become exhausted. As for funds, same thing. They're finite. It's not like the real world where you can buy a bunch of stock and then live off the interest. Wealth is not self-perpetuating in VO. Any time it is used, it must be replenished. Having a billion credits doesn't make it any easier to make an additional ten million after burning a bunch on a furball. Somebody who maintains a stockpile of 100 proms does just as much work (perhaps more) than somebody who does not, even if they established it in an easier time.
Sorry, but I cannot condone confiscating (or taxing) things that people already spent their time working toward. It is unfair that they had an easier time than you have, but it would be more unfair to take their reward away from them. Why? Because they already spent the time to achieve it. Nobody forces anybody to play VO, so if things change to be more difficult, people can opt out and spend their time some other way. When you change things retroactively, however, the people affected have no choice. They can't hit rewind and spend their time some other way.
And before you accuse me of being a self-interested vet, please be aware that I have few assets overall. Making that kind of change would impact my enemies far more than it would impact me.
Sorry, but I cannot condone confiscating (or taxing) things that people already spent their time working toward. It is unfair that they had an easier time than you have, but it would be more unfair to take their reward away from them. Why? Because they already spent the time to achieve it. Nobody forces anybody to play VO, so if things change to be more difficult, people can opt out and spend their time some other way. When you change things retroactively, however, the people affected have no choice. They can't hit rewind and spend their time some other way.
And before you accuse me of being a self-interested vet, please be aware that I have few assets overall. Making that kind of change would impact my enemies far more than it would impact me.
Pizzagood. I was not suggesting that they should be taxed, it was a devil's advocate comment.
Oh, derp :)
Regarding the high volatility in the sell prices, use my MaxProfit plugin to ensure you don't sell too many goods and end up taking a loss. You still have to fly to the station in question before you can see the falloff curve, though.
For example, if selling 1 would result in 1,600cr total profit, 2 is 2,800cr total profit, 3 is 3,600cr total profit, 4 is 4,000cr total profit, 5 is 4,000cr total profit, 6 is 3,800cr total profit, etc. then it would set the sell qty to 4.
I just made these example numbers up; they are for illustration purposes only and don't necessarily reflect actual pricing.
For example, if selling 1 would result in 1,600cr total profit, 2 is 2,800cr total profit, 3 is 3,600cr total profit, 4 is 4,000cr total profit, 5 is 4,000cr total profit, 6 is 3,800cr total profit, etc. then it would set the sell qty to 4.
I just made these example numbers up; they are for illustration purposes only and don't necessarily reflect actual pricing.
I have to disagree with you on every point Helena.
1) Price volatility probably shouldn't be a fixed value, but that is a limitation of the system at the moment. It represents fluctuations in demand. In either case, the more it fluctuates the more dynamic and adaptive a trader has to be to make a profit. It's a competition; it's not supposed to be straightforward.
2) Weight is not nor has ever been a risk factor in trade commodities and nor should it be. Distance and alignment of systems are the risk factors. On what basis can you say a higher risk is associated with cargo of a higher weight? Sadly most weapons trades still outstrip most multi system commodity trades on average. They should be nerfed further until the proper economy arrives. In-system weapons trades should make less than 1,000c PcuJ (Per cu per jump).
3) That is an issue with the lack of financial rewards and opportunities for combat, not with the economy. Yes I agree fighters should be able to make more than traders fighting if they are good enough and lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time; but it has nothing to do with weapon trades. On your second point about stockpiles; compete for what? Who cares if they have stockpiles or more credits. It doesn't mean anything in the meta-game and it might never.
I thoroughly disagree that weapon trades in a single system should give any substantial profit whatsoever.
The only recommendations we should be making to developers regarding the economy at this stage are to increase the buy prices of some of the more risky multi-system trades like corvus porn and sedina chocolates coming out of greyspace back to nation space. That way there is a proper risk/reward scenario for traders running trades from corvus to nation space and vice versa.
I doubt you will find many people at all willing to support an increase to single system trade profits. For as long as weapons are available at one station in every system, they should remain extremely unprofitable.
I should add, as a VPR you should see the clear need for multi system trades to be more profitable. Traders do not need protection in single system trades.
1) Price volatility probably shouldn't be a fixed value, but that is a limitation of the system at the moment. It represents fluctuations in demand. In either case, the more it fluctuates the more dynamic and adaptive a trader has to be to make a profit. It's a competition; it's not supposed to be straightforward.
2) Weight is not nor has ever been a risk factor in trade commodities and nor should it be. Distance and alignment of systems are the risk factors. On what basis can you say a higher risk is associated with cargo of a higher weight? Sadly most weapons trades still outstrip most multi system commodity trades on average. They should be nerfed further until the proper economy arrives. In-system weapons trades should make less than 1,000c PcuJ (Per cu per jump).
3) That is an issue with the lack of financial rewards and opportunities for combat, not with the economy. Yes I agree fighters should be able to make more than traders fighting if they are good enough and lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time; but it has nothing to do with weapon trades. On your second point about stockpiles; compete for what? Who cares if they have stockpiles or more credits. It doesn't mean anything in the meta-game and it might never.
I thoroughly disagree that weapon trades in a single system should give any substantial profit whatsoever.
The only recommendations we should be making to developers regarding the economy at this stage are to increase the buy prices of some of the more risky multi-system trades like corvus porn and sedina chocolates coming out of greyspace back to nation space. That way there is a proper risk/reward scenario for traders running trades from corvus to nation space and vice versa.
I doubt you will find many people at all willing to support an increase to single system trade profits. For as long as weapons are available at one station in every system, they should remain extremely unprofitable.
I should add, as a VPR you should see the clear need for multi system trades to be more profitable. Traders do not need protection in single system trades.
-1 ???
Wasn't really a suggestion, but it seems to me there is "plenty" of money to be made by trading weapons. Now I never seen the days where you could make hundreds of millions over a weekend, but I think it's too easy to make credits trading as it is now. I would love for credits to be harder to earn. This seems like a step in that direction so leave it in place. Maybe traders will stop trading to stations and start making money selling to players.
You would make quite a bit selling weapons to players. Not as much as 40 moth loads of Gauss IIIs, but charge more. Specially for weapons that take standing or limited access to get or make.
Ninjr must make some credits with UCs for example.
Not saying remove all profit from NPC weapon trades. Just saying I find the way it is now, quite nice. Seems closer to balanced, and if anything it should be made less profitable.
Wasn't really a suggestion, but it seems to me there is "plenty" of money to be made by trading weapons. Now I never seen the days where you could make hundreds of millions over a weekend, but I think it's too easy to make credits trading as it is now. I would love for credits to be harder to earn. This seems like a step in that direction so leave it in place. Maybe traders will stop trading to stations and start making money selling to players.
You would make quite a bit selling weapons to players. Not as much as 40 moth loads of Gauss IIIs, but charge more. Specially for weapons that take standing or limited access to get or make.
Ninjr must make some credits with UCs for example.
Not saying remove all profit from NPC weapon trades. Just saying I find the way it is now, quite nice. Seems closer to balanced, and if anything it should be made less profitable.
Another example, build everyones's dent parts. Sell them for high money. ETC ETC. There are ways to make plenty of credits. I am only 2 months old and I have more credits then I could use. I have a hard time believing that vet can't find a way to make some scratch.
-1
There's enough cash and still plenty of ways to make lots of cash without exploiting broken Gatling trade routes.
There's enough cash and still plenty of ways to make lots of cash without exploiting broken Gatling trade routes.