Forums » Suggestions
Slow tanking routes
There was a complaint in the general forums about static routes being gone, and other routes being tanked hard. I think that there can be a couple very slow tanking routes in existence, but they need a reason to be there.
My suggestion is that there be very slow tanking routes for weapons and some commodities, and ships to Deneb O-3 and Geira Rutilus O-4. Both these stations are barracks, so their focus is military based. Since the Itani and Serco are constantly at battling each other in Deneb, a constant stream of weapons and other items required to wage war is required.
Slow tanking routes to these stations would make sense.
My suggestion is that there be very slow tanking routes for weapons and some commodities, and ships to Deneb O-3 and Geira Rutilus O-4. Both these stations are barracks, so their focus is military based. Since the Itani and Serco are constantly at battling each other in Deneb, a constant stream of weapons and other items required to wage war is required.
Slow tanking routes to these stations would make sense.
+1 this, maybe the same from UIT to Odia, in order to arm all those NPC pirate fleets
Maybe the price drop rates could be partially dependent upon how many losses each side has suffered in the Deneb week. So if Serco are not losing many ships per day then they don't need so many weapons to make good their losses. If both sides are losing ships at a much higher then normal rate then they both want as many neutron 3's as they can lay hands on.
+1 to slower tanking routes, and to them making sense. Even being tied to how it is going in deneb sounds like a good idea as well.
-1 for it to always be in the same place.
Perhaps also have slow tanking routes appearing at stations that are near planets (or any other large population that would reasonably need a larger than normal supply of X), and also have the goods they desire supplied a few systems away.
We have stuff that is in limited supply already, Rare books, fine furniture, luxury goods, Synthetic diamonds, Synthetic gems, medical supplies, xirite alloy, Power regulators, Surveillance Equipment, scanner circuit boards, any of the items with a system or faction in the name like dau wine or xang xi advanced robotics axia posi etc, even Plasteel, the list goes on . . . have these things coming in demand several systems away and allow a large(r) number to be sold at good profit.
Having it fixed to one place makes it less fun and less satisfying to find and succeed at a given trade as a trader, and also makes it too easy for the pirates to just camp one or two places and more boring for them as well
-1 for it to always be in the same place.
Perhaps also have slow tanking routes appearing at stations that are near planets (or any other large population that would reasonably need a larger than normal supply of X), and also have the goods they desire supplied a few systems away.
We have stuff that is in limited supply already, Rare books, fine furniture, luxury goods, Synthetic diamonds, Synthetic gems, medical supplies, xirite alloy, Power regulators, Surveillance Equipment, scanner circuit boards, any of the items with a system or faction in the name like dau wine or xang xi advanced robotics axia posi etc, even Plasteel, the list goes on . . . have these things coming in demand several systems away and allow a large(r) number to be sold at good profit.
Having it fixed to one place makes it less fun and less satisfying to find and succeed at a given trade as a trader, and also makes it too easy for the pirates to just camp one or two places and more boring for them as well
So, First of all, Ecka just wrote this post on another thread, which includes:
I see no reason why a working dynamic economy should not generate some very high profit routes but they would by the very nature of it not be static. A demand driven economy should be made to generate some high profit routes with unusual commodities to a wider variety of stations alongside regular trade and mining to supply the daily needs of all stations.
The fun part would be for the skilled trader to identify those high profit routes and make money while they last. Of course it would be fun for the skilled pirate to identify the trader doing it and stop them.
Which is.. exactly what I'm trying to build.
Why would anyone want "slower tanking routes" instead of that? The OP here is for them to be fairly static in location as well.
Secondly, the notion of "slower tanking routes" only reflects how quickly they drop off, and not how profitable they are. I can certainly make slowing tanking routes everywhere that are not very profitable, but I don't think that would serve the purpose stated by the people who wanted to bring static routes back.
This was wrote I brought up the following in my first response on that thread:
1) How much should a person be able to generate from trading, per-unit-time, and why? What defensible model and reasoning is used to make a given calculation? For instance, in the old days it was basically how long someone had to trade before they could go back to shooting stuff again (basically ship replacement cost generated per time trading). But, we had less "dedicated" trade back then, we certainly didn't have moths and capital ships, things have changed and relative capabilities along with them (for better or worse).
Because what we're really talking about here is profits per unit time. If you have to fly around to 10 stations to get a decent price on your moth-load of widgets, because of the price drop per unit sold, then that takes time. If you want to sell the entire load at once, but the profit margin is low, then that yields low return.
If people have particular goals for profits-per-unit-time, then that's an interesting discussion (best held in a separate thread), and everything can be derived from that.. we can have slow-tanking lower-profit routes, we can have fast-tanking high-profit routes, they can be spread all over the place, etc.
I see no reason why a working dynamic economy should not generate some very high profit routes but they would by the very nature of it not be static. A demand driven economy should be made to generate some high profit routes with unusual commodities to a wider variety of stations alongside regular trade and mining to supply the daily needs of all stations.
The fun part would be for the skilled trader to identify those high profit routes and make money while they last. Of course it would be fun for the skilled pirate to identify the trader doing it and stop them.
Which is.. exactly what I'm trying to build.
Why would anyone want "slower tanking routes" instead of that? The OP here is for them to be fairly static in location as well.
Secondly, the notion of "slower tanking routes" only reflects how quickly they drop off, and not how profitable they are. I can certainly make slowing tanking routes everywhere that are not very profitable, but I don't think that would serve the purpose stated by the people who wanted to bring static routes back.
This was wrote I brought up the following in my first response on that thread:
1) How much should a person be able to generate from trading, per-unit-time, and why? What defensible model and reasoning is used to make a given calculation? For instance, in the old days it was basically how long someone had to trade before they could go back to shooting stuff again (basically ship replacement cost generated per time trading). But, we had less "dedicated" trade back then, we certainly didn't have moths and capital ships, things have changed and relative capabilities along with them (for better or worse).
Because what we're really talking about here is profits per unit time. If you have to fly around to 10 stations to get a decent price on your moth-load of widgets, because of the price drop per unit sold, then that takes time. If you want to sell the entire load at once, but the profit margin is low, then that yields low return.
If people have particular goals for profits-per-unit-time, then that's an interesting discussion (best held in a separate thread), and everything can be derived from that.. we can have slow-tanking lower-profit routes, we can have fast-tanking high-profit routes, they can be spread all over the place, etc.
I use to have 2 mill per hour as a goal when I was actively trading and usually got it with a lot of hustle.
1 mill per hour seems to be a better figure to shoot for so players don't get over burdens with fat stacks of cash....
1 mill per hour seems to be a better figure to shoot for so players don't get over burdens with fat stacks of cash....
To be clear I do want what Ecka suggests and if that is exactly what Incarnate is trying to create then I look forward using my price moths which I have pre-positioned all over space to find good routes.
Even so I still think it would make sense to have stations that would seem to have a higher population center to be able need a higher amount of stuff than ones that do not.
So if Edras G-11 or Pelatus O-15 use the same amount of stuff as like Itan J-11, Sol2 H-13, or Dau L-10. This would not really make sense to me. Places like these should "tank slower" or as was stated in the OP places where a lot of fighting happens would make sense to need more weapons.
Maybe the dynamic model already takes this into account, if so then cool, if not I am only suggesting that I think it would make sense if it did.
Either way I'll try and figure out how to make it work for me
Even so I still think it would make sense to have stations that would seem to have a higher population center to be able need a higher amount of stuff than ones that do not.
So if Edras G-11 or Pelatus O-15 use the same amount of stuff as like Itan J-11, Sol2 H-13, or Dau L-10. This would not really make sense to me. Places like these should "tank slower" or as was stated in the OP places where a lot of fighting happens would make sense to need more weapons.
Maybe the dynamic model already takes this into account, if so then cool, if not I am only suggesting that I think it would make sense if it did.
Either way I'll try and figure out how to make it work for me