Change of Market Api Transport Cost & Price Increment
-
I see two great ideas here-
1. Allow prices to go lower, particularly for energy (but there's no reason not to do it for other things as well).
2. Reduce the transfer fee by half, thus doubling the distance that things can be transferred.
This would not remove the regional model for the market, but would allow more people to engage in it with each other.
-
The "Regional Model" needs to be removed. It is a very Regressive Tax model on the New Player.
-
@XyzzyPrime let's try not to get political about this.
Focus on analysis from the game perspective and its mechanics.
-
I don't see any politics here. "Regressive Model" is a technical term used to describe taxes- Regressive models have more fees on the lower end of the monitary spectrum (new players), progressive taxes have more taxes on the high end (established players), and proportional taxes are evenly applied across the board. It's not always straight forward- even though sales tax is generally the same for everyone it's considered regressive because a higher portion of the income of poor people go to it than that of rich people, whereas excise tax is progressive since poor people are unlikely to buy the large things that trigger it.
The point that @XyzzyPrime is making is that from a game perspective the current fees and regionality of the market, combined with the fact that established players are in the center of the map and new players on the edges, means that new players are going to pay higher prices or higher fees in order to participate in the market- that, from a technical perspective, it's a regressive model.
-
Perfectly described @tedivm. I did not intend to inject Politics... just Economics. Which is entirely part of this game.
-
My apologies, I may have misinterpreted.
Although I must say, I am still not convinced of the logic that the current market favors the central players.
This may have been the case at one point, but it's already gone. Funny enough, the central players are now at a disadvantage. It is now more advantageous to be in the "circle" that surrounds the center. Somewhere at the border between the "civilized" world and the wild west.
I am now surrounded distance 20+ on all sides by well-established players which are exporting everything. I also don't really need anything so I export everything. All my worthwhile sales go to the map edges. Considering this it would be much better for me to have a presence closer to that area and therefore make myself more attractive to my primary customers.
Of course, if a large scale conflict hits, the entire analysis of the market we are doing now goes straight out the window.
At the same time, I strongly believe that removing the transaction tax is likely to disadvantage new players a heck of a lot more.
The strong central players in the game have the most efficient economies and highest storage capacities. If transaction tax is no longer distance dependent, they can leverage these 2 aspects to completely dominate the market. At least with this system as the map continuous to grow and develop you will have an increasing number of local monopolies.
-
@Atavus - I feel like every time this comes up you strawman the argument with a side conversation about removing the transaction tax. That isn't what the vast majority of us are talking about, and in fact most of us (myself included) agree with you that it shouldn't be removed.
What people are instead proposing is that it get changed. Seneschal proposed a miner change which was even graphed out, and this original thread suggestions that it be lowered specifically for energy.
-
I was referring to this:
> The "Regional Model" needs to be removed.
The only way to remove the regional model is to drop the energy cost of transactions.
Not sure what "miner change" you are referring to. The only proposal I see from Seneschal is a reduction in the transaction cost. I'm slightly in favor of that since it will enlarge the tradeable area for energy without removing the "regional model".
-
What do you guys think if we remove the energy cost for market transactions (not for regular terminal transactions) and introduce new transaction fee in credits based on distance?
-
The Distance calculation is the problem, not the Transaction Fee itself or what currency is used to pay it.
-
I think switching the fee to be in credits makes a lot of sense. It would make buying and selling energy a reasonable thing to do again, as people would just have to spend credits to get energy whereas now they just can't buy it if it's more than a certain distance away.
That being said I also think that the distance punishment should be reduced, perhaps even scaled with the world size.
-
I advocate for the "Distance Punishment" to be completely removed, not just reduced. There is no benefit in punishing (even in a reduced manner) any segment of the Players.
Also, if the Distance Punishment was removed, then "whereas now they just can't buy it if it's more than a certain distance away" would also be alleviated because it would not be based on Distance.
Please see my comments here:
In that comment, you will see the specific changes that I put forward to make the Market system better (IMHO).
