Forums » Suggestions
Latos economy
I know prices change depending on stock but
I can buy 1unit of Denic ore for 769c
100 units cost 80370c
1000 units cost 1145700c
so the more you buy the more expensive it is
the exact opposite of a real economy
is it broken or intended
I can buy 1unit of Denic ore for 769c
100 units cost 80370c
1000 units cost 1145700c
so the more you buy the more expensive it is
the exact opposite of a real economy
is it broken or intended
Price is currently calculated based on quantity available. Prices go up with scarcity.
The price you get for purchasing in bulk is the same as the price you would buy purchasing one at a time.
I'm not saying the current model is ideal or anything, nor is it cast-in-stone, but it is functioning as intended. This was done a long time ago, and I don't remember all the thinking around it, but I believe it was a relatively simplistic solution for dealing with some problems at the time. Some kind of multi-tier model with bulk-purchase options might be interesting, or it might just be handled totally differently (like via the Mission system).
The "real economy" comparison is a bit simplistic. A station is not simply a "store" trying to sell you goods, it's also a full supply chain trying to manufacture goods, potentially using the very raw materials you're trying to buy. There is no "supply chain protection" at present, or separated inventories for what the station "might want to use" versus what's available for-sale.
If they (the station) runs out of some raw material or item, they then need to import it, which incurs a time cost.
Similarly, rural economies often have a community-driven pricing model, based on scarcity and service to the local region (purchase limits, for instance). Given the intention of stations to eventually be full-stack manufacturing facilities, it could behoove them to exert some downward pressure on running out of important goods and items, particularly if it means they can't manufacture major ships or other content.
Anyway, not a bug, but people are welcome to "Suggest" other models and concepts on the appropriate forum.
The price you get for purchasing in bulk is the same as the price you would buy purchasing one at a time.
I'm not saying the current model is ideal or anything, nor is it cast-in-stone, but it is functioning as intended. This was done a long time ago, and I don't remember all the thinking around it, but I believe it was a relatively simplistic solution for dealing with some problems at the time. Some kind of multi-tier model with bulk-purchase options might be interesting, or it might just be handled totally differently (like via the Mission system).
The "real economy" comparison is a bit simplistic. A station is not simply a "store" trying to sell you goods, it's also a full supply chain trying to manufacture goods, potentially using the very raw materials you're trying to buy. There is no "supply chain protection" at present, or separated inventories for what the station "might want to use" versus what's available for-sale.
If they (the station) runs out of some raw material or item, they then need to import it, which incurs a time cost.
Similarly, rural economies often have a community-driven pricing model, based on scarcity and service to the local region (purchase limits, for instance). Given the intention of stations to eventually be full-stack manufacturing facilities, it could behoove them to exert some downward pressure on running out of important goods and items, particularly if it means they can't manufacture major ships or other content.
Anyway, not a bug, but people are welcome to "Suggest" other models and concepts on the appropriate forum.
ok thanks for the reply
I suggest that if I buy x at y price the price should go up but only after I have completed my purchase
if someone can move this to sugestions that would be cool
I suggest that if I buy x at y price the price should go up but only after I have completed my purchase
if someone can move this to sugestions that would be cool
Maybe some kind of alternative to 'buy it right now' could be available to give better pricing on bulk orders.
You want 1000 Denic ore, you don't need it all this instant, so you place a time delayed will-call order for it, paying up front. Then in maybe 24 hours the items are automatically added to your station inventory. The price is better because you've given the merchant more time to obtain the goods at the best price they can get.
Such a setup has been seen in rural areas as Incarnate has mentioned. I've also seen it at some supply houses. They'd rather you not take ALL their stock at once, making them turn away other customers.
You want 1000 Denic ore, you don't need it all this instant, so you place a time delayed will-call order for it, paying up front. Then in maybe 24 hours the items are automatically added to your station inventory. The price is better because you've given the merchant more time to obtain the goods at the best price they can get.
Such a setup has been seen in rural areas as Incarnate has mentioned. I've also seen it at some supply houses. They'd rather you not take ALL their stock at once, making them turn away other customers.
The stations seem to set a limit of 1000 on even items they produce.
I think it should just be buffed by a factor of 10 up to 10,000.
This would solve a lot of the issues that makes trading in bulk with these stations suck, and at the same time unbreak the procurement missions that route you to latos, and then the cost of goods is more than the mission pays out.
I made a similar suggestion when Latos N-2 was 1st rolled out but I suppose bringing it up again can't hurt
I think it should just be buffed by a factor of 10 up to 10,000.
This would solve a lot of the issues that makes trading in bulk with these stations suck, and at the same time unbreak the procurement missions that route you to latos, and then the cost of goods is more than the mission pays out.
I made a similar suggestion when Latos N-2 was 1st rolled out but I suppose bringing it up again can't hurt
I suggest that if I buy x at y price the price should go up but only after I have completed my purchase
^
^
is that a +1 greenwall ?
Hell yes it’s a +1. In no place ever do you pay more for bulk purchases.
Hell yes it’s a +1. In no place ever do you pay more for bulk purchases.
Not everyone lives in an industrialized nation with robust just-in-time supply chains for retail.
Perhaps you heard that, say, toilet paper became difficult to purchase recently. That was a "new experience" for some people, in industrialized societies.
But, for someone who grew up on far-flung islands, this would be very familiar; supplies there might only arrive by boat once-per-month, and might be impacted by weather, breakdowns or other uncertainties.
Retailers in those locations are not interested in selling you "everything" at a discount. There's no upside for them, they can't just "supply twice as much" and generate increased revenue. They're always likely to sell out their entire inventory at whatever price they choose, so why should they make it cheaper for you?
The major Nation economy doesn't have any limitations or negative ramifications to buying in bulk, nor is it ever likely to. The major Nations represent the "industrialized source" for refined goods, they have basically "unlimited" supply.
But the Latos economy is intended for areas further out, grayspace and beyond. Places that need to manufacture their own goods based on the very contents they're selling.
They may literally need the goods they have to build other goods required for their survival. So, while there's a price-point where your bulk aquisition may be acceptable to them, that price-point is not likely to be lower than retail standard. Not unless they have a real overage or are trying to "get rid" of something.
In that case (a station with a supply overage) that's where Bulk options at discounts could actually appear (like I mentioned previously). But they're far more likely to be one-offs posted via the Mission system, than they are to be "baked" into the economic pricing model the way you guys are requesting.
Similarly, I mentioned we might look at a "multi-tiered" system more generally, that would have N price until Y inventory-level was hit, and then it would start to go up on a curve. "You want 200cu? Fine, that's 10c/cu, but after 200cu it goes up fast, because we only have 300cu and we also use those goods for making Centurions and mining drones."
That goal here has been to make the Latos economy as realistic as possible, wherein there is an actual manufacturing chain, at stations, for the vast majority of items available, and wherein deliveries have real ramifications for the individual stations.
I did say the "price by scarcity" curve was simplistic. But I also said it was not unrealistic.
Not everyone lives in an industrialized nation with robust just-in-time supply chains for retail.
Perhaps you heard that, say, toilet paper became difficult to purchase recently. That was a "new experience" for some people, in industrialized societies.
But, for someone who grew up on far-flung islands, this would be very familiar; supplies there might only arrive by boat once-per-month, and might be impacted by weather, breakdowns or other uncertainties.
Retailers in those locations are not interested in selling you "everything" at a discount. There's no upside for them, they can't just "supply twice as much" and generate increased revenue. They're always likely to sell out their entire inventory at whatever price they choose, so why should they make it cheaper for you?
The major Nation economy doesn't have any limitations or negative ramifications to buying in bulk, nor is it ever likely to. The major Nations represent the "industrialized source" for refined goods, they have basically "unlimited" supply.
But the Latos economy is intended for areas further out, grayspace and beyond. Places that need to manufacture their own goods based on the very contents they're selling.
They may literally need the goods they have to build other goods required for their survival. So, while there's a price-point where your bulk aquisition may be acceptable to them, that price-point is not likely to be lower than retail standard. Not unless they have a real overage or are trying to "get rid" of something.
In that case (a station with a supply overage) that's where Bulk options at discounts could actually appear (like I mentioned previously). But they're far more likely to be one-offs posted via the Mission system, than they are to be "baked" into the economic pricing model the way you guys are requesting.
Similarly, I mentioned we might look at a "multi-tiered" system more generally, that would have N price until Y inventory-level was hit, and then it would start to go up on a curve. "You want 200cu? Fine, that's 10c/cu, but after 200cu it goes up fast, because we only have 300cu and we also use those goods for making Centurions and mining drones."
That goal here has been to make the Latos economy as realistic as possible, wherein there is an actual manufacturing chain, at stations, for the vast majority of items available, and wherein deliveries have real ramifications for the individual stations.
I did say the "price by scarcity" curve was simplistic. But I also said it was not unrealistic.
I understand what you are saying but I fail to see why such an approach is good for the game. Imagine explaining to a newb the above information when they find themselves asking the same question as Drevent, lol.
I think limiting a maximum daily or weekly purchase quantity per character at a SET price (with an on screen explanation for the limit) makes a lot more sense and is a lot better than automatically raising the purchase price with rising quantities.
I think limiting a maximum daily or weekly purchase quantity per character at a SET price (with an on screen explanation for the limit) makes a lot more sense and is a lot better than automatically raising the purchase price with rising quantities.
Why not a message like Inc described... "You want 200cu?, Sure, but it'll cost more, for these reasons..."???
How do those reasons make for a better game? As we have heard many times before: real does not automatically equal fun.
In RL, Bulk Deals and Block Deals can have both positive and negative affects on stock purchases.
In general, purchasing large quantities of stock to the point where you are trading a measurable percentage of the company represented by the stock can be expected to affect the purchase price of the stock. I'd imagine this can have a similar effect with futures or commodities.
If I buy a large percentage of pork bellies, the price of bacon goes up. But, depending on with whom I do the transaction, my cost per belly could be more for a large transaction since this will account for some of the increase in price.
The fact that demand is up is apparent in my request to purchase an inordinately large amount. In cases like this, sellers are allowed to increase cost to cover overhead (shipping, storage, handling--which involves labor costs--and so on).
If the buyer of Denic has found a need for more than the station normally deals with, then it seems reasonable that there is overhead to cover. For the game, it'll help level the playing field between those traders that can't afford to deal with large quantities (or don't have the capital ship cargo space) and those that do.
Just the cost of doing business.
In general, purchasing large quantities of stock to the point where you are trading a measurable percentage of the company represented by the stock can be expected to affect the purchase price of the stock. I'd imagine this can have a similar effect with futures or commodities.
If I buy a large percentage of pork bellies, the price of bacon goes up. But, depending on with whom I do the transaction, my cost per belly could be more for a large transaction since this will account for some of the increase in price.
The fact that demand is up is apparent in my request to purchase an inordinately large amount. In cases like this, sellers are allowed to increase cost to cover overhead (shipping, storage, handling--which involves labor costs--and so on).
If the buyer of Denic has found a need for more than the station normally deals with, then it seems reasonable that there is overhead to cover. For the game, it'll help level the playing field between those traders that can't afford to deal with large quantities (or don't have the capital ship cargo space) and those that do.
Just the cost of doing business.
Is it fun either way, Greenwall? I think it makes a nice talking point, and I don't think that a NEW PLAYER need to fully understand how an economy works. There is a LOT in vendetta online; if they want to dive deep, they can, or they, like myself, can simply accept something just is the way it is.
Well to be honest, it isn't fun either way for me personally, Luxen. I couldn't care less if things go up in price. But for the game as a whole, a perspective under which every suggestion should be taken primarily, it seems unnecessarily confusing.
The idea that every item is sold at its cheapest rate starting at the lowest quantity and it's most expensive rate at the highest (or higher) quantities is ass backwards. Trying to argue otherwise with complex real-world examples is futile forum diarrhea. Thinking that this is a cool idea for the game is wrong. Not much more to say really.
The idea that every item is sold at its cheapest rate starting at the lowest quantity and it's most expensive rate at the highest (or higher) quantities is ass backwards. Trying to argue otherwise with complex real-world examples is futile forum diarrhea. Thinking that this is a cool idea for the game is wrong. Not much more to say really.
I understand what you are saying but I fail to see why such an approach is good for the game. Imagine explaining to a newb the above information when they find themselves asking the same question as Drevent, lol.
It's simple enough to explain. "This item is also valued by the station for internal manufacturing of other goods. Flat and Discounted bulk-priced goods are available in Nation Space stations."
But honestly "what will the newbies think of the grayspace bulk pricing??!@#" is not a big concern for me.
I've been working, for a very long time, on trying to deliver an economic system in which individual stations actually construct their own goods, and as a result have vulnerabilities to supply chain issues. That's the point. That's what lots of other people have asked for, regardless of whether you personally happen to be invested in that gameplay.
This is not some kind of "wacky backstory explanation window-dressing". I'm keeping it because the curve exerts a pressure to maintain inventory that's relatively easy for me to manage, and change the curve as I need to, as this economic system evolves to include more factors.
I don't claim that a scarcity-pricing curve is an ideal system, but it is fairly simple, for the moment.
I think limiting a maximum daily or weekly purchase quantity per character at a SET price (with an on screen explanation for the limit) makes a lot more sense and is a lot better than automatically raising the purchase price with rising quantities.
That would also limit the game, such that if someone had a great potential trade contract, where they needed a few additional cu to meet the contract amount, they could no longer make an optimal trade calculation to see if the increased price on a small quantity of items (to meet the contract reqs) would be worth the overall small drop in total trade profits.
Instead, they would just be hard-limited, "BZZRT - Sorry, you have hit your per-customer limit! Try again tomorrow!".
Somehow I don't see that as "a lot better". Call me crazy.
I mean, why would you choose that over the tiered system that I just mentioned yesterday, above? That has the same common-case result (fixed price for a given amount of inventory), and just applies a scarcity curve towards the end, if the station gets "low".
We could also do the tiered thing and just have it be a generalized cutoff for all sales, until the station had been replenished. But, I thought it might be more interesting to actually allow someone to deplete a station's inventory through sales and have that cause cascading availability changes (at least, initially, to see how that impacts things).
Obviously I can get into multiple types of station inventories and other factors, but I'm really trying to keep this simple for the moment, since we're still tying a lot other gameplay into it.
Overall, though, this thread seems to be a big pedantic waste of my time. I keep trying to explain stuff, but I'm not convinced the detractors are even reading anything I write, or meaningfully giving any thought beyond "I want what I want, and anything else is stupid".
It's simple enough to explain. "This item is also valued by the station for internal manufacturing of other goods. Flat and Discounted bulk-priced goods are available in Nation Space stations."
But honestly "what will the newbies think of the grayspace bulk pricing??!@#" is not a big concern for me.
I've been working, for a very long time, on trying to deliver an economic system in which individual stations actually construct their own goods, and as a result have vulnerabilities to supply chain issues. That's the point. That's what lots of other people have asked for, regardless of whether you personally happen to be invested in that gameplay.
This is not some kind of "wacky backstory explanation window-dressing". I'm keeping it because the curve exerts a pressure to maintain inventory that's relatively easy for me to manage, and change the curve as I need to, as this economic system evolves to include more factors.
I don't claim that a scarcity-pricing curve is an ideal system, but it is fairly simple, for the moment.
I think limiting a maximum daily or weekly purchase quantity per character at a SET price (with an on screen explanation for the limit) makes a lot more sense and is a lot better than automatically raising the purchase price with rising quantities.
That would also limit the game, such that if someone had a great potential trade contract, where they needed a few additional cu to meet the contract amount, they could no longer make an optimal trade calculation to see if the increased price on a small quantity of items (to meet the contract reqs) would be worth the overall small drop in total trade profits.
Instead, they would just be hard-limited, "BZZRT - Sorry, you have hit your per-customer limit! Try again tomorrow!".
Somehow I don't see that as "a lot better". Call me crazy.
I mean, why would you choose that over the tiered system that I just mentioned yesterday, above? That has the same common-case result (fixed price for a given amount of inventory), and just applies a scarcity curve towards the end, if the station gets "low".
We could also do the tiered thing and just have it be a generalized cutoff for all sales, until the station had been replenished. But, I thought it might be more interesting to actually allow someone to deplete a station's inventory through sales and have that cause cascading availability changes (at least, initially, to see how that impacts things).
Obviously I can get into multiple types of station inventories and other factors, but I'm really trying to keep this simple for the moment, since we're still tying a lot other gameplay into it.
Overall, though, this thread seems to be a big pedantic waste of my time. I keep trying to explain stuff, but I'm not convinced the detractors are even reading anything I write, or meaningfully giving any thought beyond "I want what I want, and anything else is stupid".
such that if someone had a great potential trade contract, where they needed a few additional cu to meet the contract amount, they could no longer make an optimal trade calculation to see if the increased price on a small quantity of items
1) Nobody has trade contracts so potentially "great" that 1 or 2 units is going to make an earth shattering difference in their ability to deliver. Limiting availability to set amounts creates opportunity for player markets, which is good for the game.
2) With the system as it stands, nobody can make "optimal trade calculations" at the stations in question because it's both counterintuitive AND you can't remotely ascertain the price increases.
A tiered system, wherein the price increases are laid out before hand, would be far better than the current system. But I still object to the general notion that ALL items in the "latos economy" are cheapest when purchased in the smallest quantities.
1) Nobody has trade contracts so potentially "great" that 1 or 2 units is going to make an earth shattering difference in their ability to deliver. Limiting availability to set amounts creates opportunity for player markets, which is good for the game.
2) With the system as it stands, nobody can make "optimal trade calculations" at the stations in question because it's both counterintuitive AND you can't remotely ascertain the price increases.
A tiered system, wherein the price increases are laid out before hand, would be far better than the current system. But I still object to the general notion that ALL items in the "latos economy" are cheapest when purchased in the smallest quantities.
Wow, no kidding. That's because we haven't added game-created trade contracts at all, as of yet, and certainly no simple calculator for determining route profits. Both are new features, relating to this whole "giant new economy / manufacturing / trading / galactic-expansion" thingie on which I've invested a large chunk of my life.
The trade-contract example would not require "1 or 2 units", it could be "100 or 200" or "1000 or 2000" units. The scale is irrelevant. If the contract was for 4000 units, and you had to buy 2000 from a station that gave you a terrible price over 1500 units, you might distribute that purchase over two stations. But if there weren't two stations that actually provided the item, with reasonable proximity / safety / whatever, maybe the reduced profits would be worthwhile.
Everything I wrote in my previous message is about next-generation goals and features that hinge on much of the work that we're doing. This feedback is no better than responding and saying "Yeah, but you can't blockade a station and have them stop building Centurions". Right. Super helpful.
Every major Suggestions conversation I've had with you, Greenwall, in at least the last year, seems to amount to you being annoyed at these dumb concrete towers I keep building near the river, and then I keep trying to show you a picture of a bridge going over them, and you're like "yeah, whatever, but there's no bridge now, and I hate these stupid concrete towers".
People need to bring to Suggestions a sense of optimism and hope and belief in our forward development. Lacking that, they cease to really be "suggestions", and devolve mostly into irrelevant whining that I quickly tune out, because I understand that what I'm doing is necessary to where we're going.
I'm still genuinely interested in feedback (there are always multiple paths to a given goal), but only if people listen to me about "why" and fully integrate that into their feedback, otherwise the whole conversation is a waste of time.
The trade-contract example would not require "1 or 2 units", it could be "100 or 200" or "1000 or 2000" units. The scale is irrelevant. If the contract was for 4000 units, and you had to buy 2000 from a station that gave you a terrible price over 1500 units, you might distribute that purchase over two stations. But if there weren't two stations that actually provided the item, with reasonable proximity / safety / whatever, maybe the reduced profits would be worthwhile.
Everything I wrote in my previous message is about next-generation goals and features that hinge on much of the work that we're doing. This feedback is no better than responding and saying "Yeah, but you can't blockade a station and have them stop building Centurions". Right. Super helpful.
Every major Suggestions conversation I've had with you, Greenwall, in at least the last year, seems to amount to you being annoyed at these dumb concrete towers I keep building near the river, and then I keep trying to show you a picture of a bridge going over them, and you're like "yeah, whatever, but there's no bridge now, and I hate these stupid concrete towers".
People need to bring to Suggestions a sense of optimism and hope and belief in our forward development. Lacking that, they cease to really be "suggestions", and devolve mostly into irrelevant whining that I quickly tune out, because I understand that what I'm doing is necessary to where we're going.
I'm still genuinely interested in feedback (there are always multiple paths to a given goal), but only if people listen to me about "why" and fully integrate that into their feedback, otherwise the whole conversation is a waste of time.