Notes on the Market and suggestions for improvement
-
Artem: (the dealer) will not pay any energy cost anymore
At first I'm really hesitant to move the cost of doing business to the offer, but I think this greatly simplifies the mechanics of trading.
When the dealer pays the transfer cost the true price of the product is abstracted away from the market. As well, the true price is constantly changing with the value of energy.
The only downside is that Terminals which are offering sell orders must hold a larger volume. This is the same cost as today's buy order dealers.
It might be that the formula change is less important than changing who pays the transfer fee.
XyzzyPrime: A penalty by another name (or calculation) still stinks.
But, is this true?
+1 Regional Model (Against Endgame Market Manipulation)
-
I really dislike this proposal. If anything it makes the problem we're complaining about worse, not better. This would make markets far more regional, and new players that are further away from established players (which tend to export lots of things) would be pretty much screwed by this.
We keep talking about game mechanic changes, but I really think the issue is simpler than we're making it out to be- just tweak the formula so there is a max transfer fee that is based on the world size so it'll adjust dynamically as it grows.
-
Yet another idea - change the transaction cost to the following formula:
energy_cost = resources_amount * (1 - Math.exp(-range / 30))It creates the following graph (dotted line - old, solid line - new):
Thus energy trade will never be negative, but less and less reasonable as the range increases.
-
OK ... let me ask this, @Artem ...
What makes it "fun" for a New Player to pay more and lose trades to a Regionally Advantaged Old Player?
I am drawing a conclusion that this Game, as IRL, is about keeping the poor players poor, while the Rich Players get Richer.
If Rich/Old Players have ANY advantage then that is what happens. The gap widens.
-
We're not going to remove the regionality factor, let's please stop this discussion. Logistics, geopolitics, geostrategy, local areas of influence are all important aspects of this game. If we were to remove market regionality, we would have to remove creeps' time to live, claim range limit and all other map related mechanics. It'd be more productive if you commented on the proposed ideas rather than repeatedly argued about your own.
-
"It'd be more productive if you commented on the proposed ideas rather than repeatedly argued about your own."
I could not have said it better myself.
-
> 1 - Math.exp(-range / 30)
This is a good proposal for softening the cost of global trade. It does not make really cheap regional trade markets and it doesn't encourage players to daisy-chain transfers to do distributed trade.
-
I'm also super happy with the new formula. I feel like it would solve a ton of problems.
-
+1 new formula - I think it addresses the primary concerns people have. The evolution of the market following the introduction of this new formula should be carefully monitored.
+1 regional markets
-1 XyzzyPrime for being unreasonable
-
I quite like the proposed equation. ~0,5 cost @ 25 range is a really sweet point to me,
As a random thought, what effect would making different tiers of boost / resource have different transfer costs be? Atm the t1 boosts, do not see much trading at all, even for new players. If they were to have lower transfer fees, or a wider transfer range, than t3 boosts, it may make them more palatable?
On the whole I really like the idea of regional markets, provided that each region has equal maturity (a regional market of only new players would sort of suck).
