Maybe

Arggghhh...

I am glad that most of my cargo ships are without stuff at this moment... But would it be possible to inform the players upfront in the future...???

Please!!!!!

Dear Mica,

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that *all* the changes you make are made without informing upfront???

I have not been playing long, but untill now you haven't told anything in advance.
So, I am not really surprised at the reaction of the players involved.

Also, looking at the surprised reaction of those involved, this particulair change doesn't look like it has happened before, so your remark "Markets are not supposed to be static." is not consistent with the what actually happened.

And BTW normally markets should SLIDE a bit, not dropping with 16%.

Sjaak Zomer

Why not just say that from the start instead of the "maybe "

The Government being you

I think the reactions you see is a result of erm previously unannounced changes.

Gord

Stick to trading and let Harky do the fighting

We just need to adjust the prices a bit ... so stop having that many items on the market and concentrate on the stuff people sell yus

Gord

i thought the oversupply issue was being discussed elsewhere and would be incorporated into planetary sales?

Affecting an entire system - and presumably every trade good between those systems, not just the ones being oversupplied....they must have been supplying a LOT of goods!

Im surprised Yank and Falconia havent suffered the same way, given their trade significance.....

This is not a game rule change, this is simply GM moderation.

Players and the GM have been manipulating planetary markets through special actions for months, this is simply a natural progression (now I have some new excellent tools).

Must the GM inform players of the results of every special action in the game or the consequences of every NPC action in the game? Would you prefer players to submit their special actions a few months in advance and in public so that everyone can sort their end out prior to implementation?


Right, just to inform everybody - the GM will be doing some moderating for the foreseeable future

On another note, greater efforts will be made to inform players of real game mechanic changes. Hastily pointing out that we did mention the changes to accuracy and effeciency, and you do know that plagues will be coming in along with infrastructure (percentage contagion protection along similar lines to security)

Of course, you are assuming its just one system, and not the entire Outer Capellan

Gord

Could be....damn those wibbles!!

mark

That's a nice change

Is this a long term thing (like years), or just the foreseeable future?

Sorry, could resist

We sorta know they are coming, but it might be nicer to know WHEN they are coming. No nasty surprises please.

Gord

We (David and I) discussed it at the last meeting. The order has a few pros and cons. The primary con as we saw it was that it meant that big buyers could simply use blanket buys driving out the small trader or the specific trader.
To this end we thought about allowing it with some degree of 'cover charge' so that while the trader got the expected money, some small amount extra would be paid (bit like VAT). This would give the player wanting to be more specific an advantage.

We also looked at world purchase prices. It is normally the case that those with buying power pay less. Currently as population increases trade prices drop from 200% to around 100% of value. We were considering altering this so that the range starts around 400% or even 800% but drops to around 50% on planets with very large populations with respect to number of starports (5 million to 1).
Again this gives an advantage to starbases on developing worlds.

Another thought was to allow markets (not merchandsing) on outposts. This would then allow outposts to use resource complexes and sell the items directly from source.

Then I drank some stellar and we talked toot about compilers and social circle modelling and programming....

the VAT thing makes perfect sense. Very much in favour of that.

World purchase prices I'm not too sure about. Personally I'd rather that markets would have a smaller 'peak' demands than they do now.

Overall trade demand of world = 10,000mu

From that 500mu can be sold at 300% value per week.

Next 500mu might only get 220%...
and on and on untill perhaps 5000mu+ sold per week may only get 80% of the value.

The popluation vs # of starports thing... Mmm wouldnt more markets available to the natives (in terms of starports) actually reduce the good modifier?...

Would an 'race relations' modifier be possible?.... The FCN may get a good modifier selling goods on falconia, because its our homeworld. we may get a crap modifier selling on spritzer because the Kastorian natives there dont like us... etc.
Players could then use SA's and what not to affect their own affs (and other affs <g>) ratings.

Hi Mica,

I am going to be blunt.

What you said is crap. So, I said it.

People knew for months that the modifier was 12. And now suddenly its 10.
So somebody went into some piece of software and modified the number 12 into 10. Thats it. The fact that people are so surpised *should* make it clear to you, that it wasn't considered normal behaviour.

I have got an problem with program changes like this. Especially as it is a bit silly.

Lets get out of the game and back to earth a bit, shall we?? What you did was an modification on inter-planetary scale without an inter-planetary scale cause. And no, I don't fall for the line "it was an special action" or "I did it before". As far as I can understand Solo is an nice big system.. Lots of starbases and enough turnover going on to make it an worthwhile system. So I don't really get the fact that the population is suddenly going to pay some 20% less for out-of-system stuff. I am not talking about the fact that you changed it (altough there should be an real system behind it, so that people can adjust to it, or counteract) but more about the size of the change. The change is roughly comparable to an danish guy telling the french people that they should pay 20% less on all european stuff... And the silly part is that they did it.
So, if you don't mind. I do want an SA which would result that the production of arms get an reduction of 90%, or that all warships explodes or get 20% less efficient.... Sounds silly, but its just as silly as your modification.

If you think that there is an excess of import, which I doubt, as otherwise Starbases would not kept buying goods, you should make it sure that the software adjusted the purchase price slowly.

What you failed to understand, is that the SOLO-base owners expected an specific profit-margin on the goods they bought. In trade we call that an gross margin. No problem if the market get too much supply or something else.

But I do got an problem with this:

Why would the GM want to manipulate planetary markets?? Shouldn't you make it more realistic, making abuses less easier and less profitable?? That is in my book the job of the GM.

I know that it is a bit weird that a MU of wheat which travels from Venice to Solo gets more expensive then the same wheat that travels from Badlands to T.Tauri. But this *is* the current system. If you don't like it, okay. But then change the system, which was already requested months or maybe even an year ago.

Anyway, I will take an good peak whats happening with the game. I am now glad, that I didn't take up that offer to take over an starbase...

Dear Mica,

I got a nice name for the new outpost.

Lets call it an Trading Outpost.

Sjaak

I think he means *ALL* outposts
Besides, what you proposed was a hell of a lot more than just adding markets to outposts....

Dan

Well, to be honest.. I am happy with the idea.

I only hope that he gives people time to do some planning BEFORE he implements it
Should make things a lot easier for everyone.

LOL

Who said anything about it being implimented? I thought it was just a suggestion...

Just get a single TM for a single 1MU good for each periphery that you buy goods from.

It's about 4-5 standing orders max.

The problems will start if the price ever starts fluctuating on system-system dynamics, rather than periphery-periphey

Do you specifically know what has even changed? No, nobody does but me.

People 'knew that there was a periphery modifier', what they are no aware of is that this has now been indexed to be a specific system-system modifier that can and will be changed by the GM where and when he feels it is appropriate. This can be set in both directions so only trade is one direction is in affected. In fact, if you refer to earlier rants, raves and more gentlemanly debates, this is more than what was asked for.


I have tools that allow me to change variables to suit the game. These are tools to change variable, the game mechanics themselves do not change, there are no code changes. Therefore, if I feel that populations are being sold the same old toot from the same source, they will vote with their wallets and refuse to pay as much for stuff that is constantly coming from the same system.

Or to be blunt

If as a GM I feel that a 12x modifier for a single jump where normally it is 8x is too great, I will bloody well change it - are we clear on this! I am anything but an arbitrary GM

Thanks for the vote of confidence. You are indeed correct on all counts. There has been changes and no there has not been complaints.

It just goes to show, giving bonuses is often seen as perfectly acceptable moderation, reducing bonuses and/or giving penalties is seen as unacceptable core code changes.

I'm glad people like my proposal so much (he says modestly). Mica, regarding the pros and cons. As we discussed on the phone, the cons can easily be overcome, as you have also implied here, by having higher merhcandising values in small worlds.

e.g.
Cyprus may have a sell to local population multiplier of 1 and can sell 1000MUs per week, whereas Morea has a value of 4 and sell 100MUs per week. So whilst Cyprus maybe able to buy more, the colonies on Morea can always buy at a higher price as they can get more return and so are more profitable for the small trader. Thus these areas balance out and big buyers/sellers do not force the small ones out.

Indeed, if you add in the local mutliplier to the equation for the buy/sell prices, then live is really easy.

e.g
Cyprus buys things at 70% value and 0.7 times local multiplier
Morea buys things at 60% value and 0.65 times local multiplier
Assume 10x multiplier from Solo to Venice and an item with a local value in Solo of 1 stellar/MU

Cyprus buys 1000MU at 1x.7x10x.7=4.9 stellars per MU
Morea buys 100MU at 4x.6x10x.65=15.6 stellars per MU

So the small market is vastly superior even if you are only buying 100MUs of goods and he takes even more of the profit. Where's the problem? Indeed, looking at this example, the large Starbases would be in trouble!

The Starbase just sets multipliers for each system as well as the 2 areas above and how much of each type of item along with the maximum it will buy each week. Easy for all to work out, without hundreds of lines of buy/sell items etc.

Nik

Note that the DTR have not complained about this change, even if it effects us the most (and anyway I was the one ringing Mica saying that given our location we have a big trade advantage over other affiliations ).

Nik

Well you take what you get.

And factories was a nice added things to the idea, but not really needed. Knowing Mica it might be already implemented, but don't have an Outpost to check... :-)

But I am curious, as the sale will go to the native population you will only get the local value... I hope it can be turned off, otherwise you will end up with an small income from local trade but not income from big jump trade

I don't say that you haven't got the right to do so, its your game..

But what I say, that the game should allow people to adjust their trading habbits before things change radically. Normally the govenor of the base will gets complaints that the people get tired of seeing the same goods over and over again.

Please understand that I am not against changes, even if it costs stellars or profit, but I am against the way its implemented. I know that a good system is hard to write, and that manually intervention is needed, but you might give people tiem to adjust their trade habbits, before hitting them with an big loss.

You are not only affecting those who ship high quantity of the same goods to the same starbase over and over again... An starbase which they probably own also, so all the extra profit will be cashed in by the player producing the goods.
But you are also effecting the people who want to do an fair tradw buying form the public market into the public market.

I don't mind an slow change in price, because there is too much supply or people get bored with always the same newts over and over again.

An modifier change from 12 to 8 is a bit strong.. Going to 12 to 11.5 and next week to 11 would be more gentle, giving those who own the base time to change purchase prices And I agree that 12 for an single jump is a bit too high.

You see, I can be a nice guy...

Oh well, I need to get used to the fact that you never bother to tell people up front about future game changes... I was warned.

?
Markets have nothing to do with selling to location populations. This is done through merchandising complexes. Merchandising complexes and factories will never be operational by outposts.

What was stated was that outposts may be allowed to operate markets, i.e. they could buy and sell with other positions.

Thus a player could build an outpost in a remote area that had a fantastic resource and place this extracted unique on its market along with a range of useful items to buy, such as modules as it could not build them itself. In theory, this would allow the outpost to grow despite the lack of factories and deliveries by the owner.
The advantage here is that the player owning the outpost places the items on the sell market and the traders from other starbases arrive to buy the uniques and sell modules before returning to their own starbases. Then there is little need to have a gadzillion items on the market buy list. Alternatively a free-trader will buy the goodies anyway and then contact others in order to take the items of his hand.

In theory anyway.

More likely however, outposts will not sell, the items will be either stashed or hauled personally to other markets for the most profit and nothing will actually change.

Hi Mica,

Actually, I really really like the idea... It is almost what I was thinking about...
I did not even considered having the option of an Open Market on it, but an very very limited number of Merch Compleses to keep the basic costs a bit down.

Now, its the problem how can we make that happen without people going to abuse it... Its a nice idea...

Sjaak i think the idea behind this woulod be that you wouldn't be able to seel items bought via the market at these outposts.

Only sell stuff you resource. Well at least I hope this is the idea

Thanks Mica,

Any attempts to warn the players a bit before you decide to change the game will be appricated. Maybe something to add to the SSS??

Under the headline planned games-mechanic changes???

The outpost suggestion looks good. I think that if you refer to it on friday telling that it goes into effect something next week??

This is very true. Nobody who has made a big noise about this has even considered that the same mechanisms applied to reduce can also be used to give a beneficial modifier.

I personally think that this will enable trade to flourish even further. So insted of moaning about it, why not invest the energy in thinking up ways of manipulating your markets to give you better modifiers.

Basically what we have now is the abiltiy for markets to be manipulated, it won't be long before we all work out ways of manipulating these markets in a possitive direction.

Dave

Who is right now thinking of ways of using SA's on mass advertising pre-empting the arrival of certain trade good

P.S. Considering the master traders real life occupation, it's no surpirse that he likes the idea... Bloody capitolist

OK - to expand on this a bit further why not just add some variation to the prices paid when using a "Buy all Trade Goods" order? If there was a % chance of any purchase using this option costing +/-10% as the seller and buyer haggle for the best price. That way you offer fixed prices to buy certain goods and anything else is a rough one with whatever the trader can bargin for. If someone starts to sell you certain goods on a regular basis you just add it as a specific item to the market, removing the haggling element. This could also be a used in conjunction with the experience of trader captains.

Like the sound of that. Where there is a large population you have tofigure lots of competition driving proces down. Where you lose value per MU you gain in bulk sales.

Phew - that's teach me to go away for a couple of days! You're gobby shites the lot of you

I'm all in favour of reducing the stellars made by selling the same thing to the population much like we have when you over sell to a planetary population. It will force affiliations to trade with different planets and systems and should make affiliations aware of the costs ofthe rapid growth we see in the peripheries today (oh hell looks like I'm going to have to start trading and stop shooting at the IMP!).

I don't think what's in place now goes far enough though.

The modifiers should not be at the system level but at the planet level. Each planet should have a threshold for each unique in stellar terms.

Currently the modifer affects all uniques from a system. I'm sure some planets in Solo have never seen Istrian Mushrooms and I'm sure would love to buy some

EG for a world such as Eridani each unique no matter where from can only sell to a maximum of 20k stellars over a period of 6 months (maybe a year). If "oversold" the value starts to drop. Maybe this is a similar function to what is already in place to selling to local population.

The maxmum value must be a function of the population and the planet itself. eg large populations have larger thresholds than smaller populations. Mining starbases in the back end of nowhere crave luxuries and therefore have a higher relative threshold but this is hampered by the fact the demand is low as no-one wants to work in the boonies anyway.

What I'm proposing should be automated so the GM does not have to moderate it.

My thoughts anyway

Need beer!

Andy