Notes on the Market and suggestions for improvement
-
If people are struggling to use boosted creeps, then perhaps a new building that could store both energy and resources, and spawn creeps would help bridge that gap, and produce more resource usage.
If the objective it to create more depth to the market, then perhaps a leader board with some measure of orders posted could be used. The measure would need a bit of thought to avoid people puttting up orders that will never be used.
-
People aren't using a lot of resources currently because they can't bse used 24/7 reliably. This means there's very little gain in actually using the boosts apart from the occasional boosts.
Even with my large empire I can't even build 5 fully boosted builders 24/7. I use up all resources I gather, so there's no point in selling them. I occasionally sell surpluses to buy stuff that's lacking at that time.
The use of boosts is for "occasional" boosts only. Balancing what to build and what/when to use is extremely difficult, even if you got lots of minerals. I'd love to build big hauler creeps 24/7 and reducing CPU usage that way. It simply isn't feasible.
-
Excluding NPCs, there are currently orders on the market from 90 different users. According to the score board there are 1,818 players on the map right now, which means the market is being fully utilized by less than 5% of players.
But 312 players participated in fulfilling those orders in the last 10 days. It is 17% of all active players which seems to be quite fine ratio considering market coding difficulty and RCL 6 requirement.
-
That's a really disappointing reply. We've brought up a bunch of points, and pretty much every player agrees that the market is broken. It's very disappointing that you're just going to ignore us and put your head in the sand over this issue.
-
What makes you think that the market is broken if 17% of all players (including novices that have spawned today) are using it actively right now? You simply have wrong information, this is why you make wrong conclusions.
The market is very active and alive, we monitor it regularly.
-
I agree that there should be more ways to spend minerals and mineral compounds (and there will be), but this is not related to the transfer fee topic.
-
What makes me think the market is broken? How about all of the threads with players complaining about the market? Do a survey and see how many people are happy with the market and I'm pretty sure you'll find the number to be very small.
While 17% may be "using" the market (closing deals), only 5% of users are *driving* the market (putting up orders that others can use). As I pointed out (and you ignored) there are huge numbers of boosts that literally see no movement on the market at all. According to your own numbers 83% of users completely ignore the market. The one thing that most new players want- energy- is so cost prohibitive to send that they would literally lose energy when trying to buy it.
-
I think the energy send orders are a different issue (loosing energy when you try to buy some would constitute a bug for me).
I agree, that for new players trading is very expensive, since there aren't many people nearby, who are trading. I also agree that transfer cost are very high, the closest order i ever found on the market, was a NPC order at 15 range for my minerals and that is allready almost 100% transferCost.
I wouldn't base my judgement on perceived player percentages though, because how many people of those 83% are zombies or players with a very early code base? Judging from my surroundings and that i was top 200 in energy after 1 month of playing, I would say almost all of them, but I would hope the devs have better statistics on that.
-
Dear Tedivm,
I disagree with your assessment that the market is broken. Perhaps it can be optimized to increase its use, but the market has already been an excellent mechanic for a significant number of players, myself included.
The market has been invaluable in helping me deal with base mineral imbalance. In the recent conflict it was also essential in gaining access to certain minerals I had not stockpiled previously (XZH2O).
From what I can tell (don't have any fancy statistics), most people engaged in the market are using it in the same way. First, to handle mineral imbalances (export excess, import shortage). Second, to gain access to mineral compounds they may need due to a conflict (because either they didn't stockpile or don't have production capacity).
This means base minerals are actively traded all the time (obvious from volume trade) whilst high tier minerals are rarely traded since conflict is usually sporadic. For me this behavior makes sense and I don't see an easy way to increase the transaction volume of compound minerals.
Regarding the energy market, I don't particularly feel that this needs to be at the center of market system. Young players should be trading base minerals for XGH2O, not minerals for energy due to the transaction costs.
Lowering the transaction fee for transfers is probably not healthy for the community at large since it extends the range and trading power of the strong central players. It "globalizes" the market and will end up making it more uniform.
Just my 2 cents.
Kind regards,
Atavus
-
One minor addition to the discussion. I think key in understanding the scope of the market is having a more realistic estimate on the potential participants.
The 1.8k players on the map are largely irrelevant since the number is bloated by one room players or zombies. If you restrict the number of players to those with 2 rooms and a decent GCL investment per month (eg 5m), then the number drops sharply to around 500.
Probably not all 90 users you mention are in that group of 500 so we can assume 75 instead. The 312 players that Artem mentions are very likely to be part of the 500 since they are active traders, but let's assume 250.
That gives you 15% of players creating orders and 50% of players engaging in market trades. That's pretty good imho, far from calling the market useless.
-
Atavus, your experience on the market is going to be different than many others for one reason- you're in an area where the market is pretty well established. There are a lot of players in your area selling and buying, so the market is going to work better for you.
I also want to point that I never claimed the market was "useless", just that it could be a lot better and was broken in some ways. I brought up five specific points which are mostly being ignored here-
* New players face crappier market conditions than established players, further giving established players a non-skill-based advantage over new players.
* The lack of movement of anything that isn't either a base mineral or a tier three boost means that smaller players (the ones most likely to have only a subset of the available minerals) don't have a way to break into the higher level credit market (ie, they can't really sell XGH2O, and no one wants to by KH or KH20). Further, I think the fact that entire groups of boosts literally have zero orders being fulfilled is a sign that this isn't a healthy market.
* This is kind of an extension of the first issue, but alliances tend to trade a lot with each other even unintentionally due to alliances being clustered. As an example, I would not be surprised if many of the minerals you have bought or sold have gone to other SUN members more than random players.
* The incentive for programming doesn't match the gain for new players. Although the CPU usage has gone down a bit now that there are indexed order lookups it's still pretty intense for someone with maybe 40 cpu, and it's certainly still not very feasible for 10cpu players.
* Putting orders on the market is almost always a smarter move than fulfilling orders due to the energy cost.
I also want to clear up something that keeps being said without any real evidence- that a "global" market would benefit established players while squeezing out new ones. I don't buy this at all- new players are more likely to be selling minerals and older ones buying, which means in many ways the newer players would be at the advantage as they'd be able to reach more established players to sell too. Minerals are distributed randomly enough where it's difficult for a single player or alliance to get a monopoly on any, and if older players try to create a cartel to drive prices up they can always be undercut by the newer players. If we're going to keep touting this as a reason why small regional markets makes more sense I'd really like to see some reasons for why that's the case.
-
As is said in several ways, the Market should be fair for New and Old alike. Energy transfer fees should be the same regardless of distance. It equalizes Old and New players.
Also, the Market orders should be a Game object/array and NOT a call to return an array. This call again disenfranchises the New player because of the CPU limit per turn.
The current Market is currently very much a Regressive Tax model on the new player (or in other words, the poor player). In Screeps New = Poor. Poor in CPU per turn; Poor in harvesting Energy ability; Poor in Credits to make deals; Poor in Minerals to Gather and sell.
Changes should be made to Democratize the Market and make CPU costs as low as possible (by having the Market data available without CPU intensive calls). By fixing the Energy costs to a standard and not have better placed old players have an advantage.
Any advantage in this game should always be for the New Player, since they are the life-blood of the game. Without New Players starting and continuing the game, there will be an ineffective world and just the same few that continue to run their scripts.
-
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?
-
Presumably the buyer would always pay the fee?, otherwise setting sale prices would be awkward and it would be impossible for new players to get their first credits.
Would it work like this?:
(using an example cost of 0.01 credit per unit per room, which still seems too high for some resources eg: energy)
Alice creates buy order : 100 power for 1 credit each
Bob sees that order and sells 100 power to it from 5 rooms away, he receives : 100 * (1 - 0.01 * 5) credits
in the transaction Alice pays 100 credits, 95 of which go to Bob and 5 of which are sunk into the market.
or with sell orders:
Bob creates a sell order: 100 power for 0.95 credits each
Alice sees this order and buys 100 power from it from 5 rooms away, she pays 100 * (0.95 + 0.01 * 5) credits
That's the only way I can think of that a credit transaction fee could work, it would change market orders so that the cost is the same regardless of whether selling to a buy order or creating a sell order, (other than order creation fee), which would be a significant change compared to the current system where the order creator pays a credit fee and the order completer pays an energy fee.
pros:
unifies market transactions to using a single currency (credits) instead of the two currently used (credits and energy)
simplifies the market somewhat, since it would no longer be necessary to calculate the effective cost of a deal due to energy fees, can just calculate the actual cost
cons:
breaking change
neutral:
cost of transactions no longer tied to the value of energy.
makes cost of market transactions symmetrical.
side note:
an idea to allow a more global market while still applying some cost to it might be to have a power creeps special ability be to complete a market order with resources in their inventory, (since this would allow high level players to send a "trader" power creep towards the best price and pay lower fees at the cost of the cpu used to get the power creep there), they wouldn't be able to create orders just complete existing ones.
-
It would also depend on where the fees are taken from, is it from the player's current credits, or is it part of the transactional credits. People still need to get their initial credits.
There has also been talks of a building which takes some resource, and condenses it down to some form of RESOURCE_CONDENSED_* . It's a special building which condenses 1k of something down to 1 RESOURCE_CONDENSED_*.
This way the transfers could also be made cheaper.
-
The problem is not Credits or Energy. Energy is a good way to charge the "Transport Fee". And as @Dissi points out, what about players that do not have Credits? Leave it with Energy for the Fee ... just make it the same for all Distances.
The concept of a "Regional Market" is missing the fundamental fairness that all Players should feel. I know that I feel slighted because I am a new player and pay MORE for each transaction and also LOOSE the tiebreaker on who gets a transaction based on Distance. When you put those two factors together, the Game is making a statement that "New players are being put at a DISADVANTAGE BY DESIGN". I think/hope that was not intended by the Developers and is a bad message to be putting forth even accidentally.
The problem is using Distance as a metric for the Fee. Distance is a problem because it is a by-product of a player's relative "newness" to the game. You might say, "A New player can move." That would be short-sighted because to move closer to established players when new means to put yourself in greater threat of being attacked by other more established players.
An additional problem I have run across recently (as I experiment more with the Market) is that NPC terminals pay more if they are near to Old Players than that of New Players. Another Disadvantage put upon location and therefore the New Player. And again, because I am farther away, the Old Player beats me to the Sell/Buy because of the Distance Tie breaker AND gets to pay less for the transaction.
The Transaction Fee should just be based on the quantity of materials, NOT the distance.
I would be in favor of each category of Minerals being a different fee. The game could charge the first tier fee price for One Letter Minerals, then higher Fee for Two Mineral items, then more for Three and so on.
As with any game mechanic, they will be implemented and adjusted to foster an environment of "Fairness" to all players. The Market is a cool idea. It just needs adjustment now that more people have "tested" it and understand it better.
Here is my proposal to make Adjustments to the Market:
- The Transaction Fee will continue to be paid in Energy as is done now (no change).
- The Distance Calculation will be removed from the Transaction Fee calculation and just be based on Quantity.
- --> Optionally, decide if the "Heavier Molecules" are charged a higher Transaction Fee (as described above). This again would be the same for all players.
- The "Tie Breaker" for multiple same-tick transactions will be changed to use GCL Progress (total GCL Points) with the LOWEST winning (instead of Distance).
- Energy should be charged a substantially lower Transaction fee since it is, in essence, a "Zero Mineral" commodity.
-
@XyzzyPrime You do know that the world map "wraps" around the edges for transaction fees?
Technically speaking every player regardless of how new they are will find themselves in "effective" range of the same number of rooms. The only arguable difference is that the players in the center are more developed which makes the center have a higher concentration of active market players. However, this aspect is debatable.
The center may have a concentration of "active" market agents, but because those agents are developed they don't import resources, they only export. So the center doesn't actually trade internally meaning there's no distance benefit for being in the center. The only difference is that the developed players usually export finished minerals where the transaction cost is less relevant in reference to quantity while the new players usually trade in energy/base resources.
From a trade perspective, the best circumstance right now is to actually be a developed player on the map edge since that puts you closest to your "clients".
Once again, I don't think removing the influence of distance on market trading will have the result you expect. It won't make it fairer at all.
It's the same problem as in the real world. If there were no trade barriers and all trade was completely free, the well developed efficient economies of the world would dominate the market and drive the less competitive economies out of business. We see this happening in many free trade areas such as the EU.
If you remove the "regional model" and make the game market global, the only effect is that a few efficient economies (top players) will dominate the market. Top players have drastically lower production costs. They use fewer, cheaper creep parts and less CPU to "produce" more minerals. They will always be able to offer lower prices than the rest.
Excluding a global level conflict, if the market is global, it will be dominated exclusively by the top players. At least with this model, everyone has a decent chance of dominating his local market.
-
> The center may have a concentration of "active" market agents, but because those agents are developed they don't import resources, they only export.
This is simply not true. There are plenty of buy orders open in the center, and lots of players use the market to balance resources. It may be more true for your "region" (SUN does have a below average number of buy orders for an alliance) but it's not true for all of the "center" rooms. I suppose it also depends on how big you consider a region.
> From a trade perspective, the best circumstance right now is to actually be a developed player on the map edge since that puts you closest to your "clients".
This is assuming you're an established player. The new players *are* the "clients"
> It's the same problem as in the real world. If there were no trade barriers and all trade was completely free, the well developed efficient economies of the world would dominate the market and drive the less competitive economies out of business. We see this happening in many free trade areas such as the EU.
Didn't you say not to bring politics into this?
Joking aside, I think you're missing a huge point here. Having those developed efficient economies is exactly what the new players need. Until they are at GCL7 at a minimum they can not harvest enough stuff to create all their boosts, which means they have to buy them. They aren't trying to compete on the market in the same way players who have real economies are, they're trying to use the market to supplement the minerals they're missing so they can actually build stuff. This also isn't really peoples livelihoods, so if their profits aren't high enough it's not like they're going to "go out of business" or starve in the streets.
For those reasons the transaction fees suck. They make selling energy basically impossible since the only other people they can sell it too don't have enough credits to buy it. Selling minerals to other players without having to spend a ton of energy isn't possible because those players have sources that are closer to them or just throw up buy orders to bypass the fees.
>If you remove the "regional model" and make the game market global, the only effect is that a few efficient economies (top players) will dominate the market. Top players have drastically lower production costs. They use fewer, cheaper creep parts and less CPU to "produce" more minerals. They will always be able to offer lower prices than the rest.
They also have the highest demand for their own products. Most top players are focused first on their own XGH2O supplies and then on the market itself.
I do agree that removing the regional model completely would have some negative side effects, but I think in it's current form it is way too regional.
-
> I do agree that removing the regional model completely would have some negative side effects, but I think in it's current form it is way too regional.
Fully behind you on that one. Adjusting the transport costs to increase trading volume makes a lot of sense. The market is indeed "too regional" right now. I'm just not in favor of completely removing the transaction cost. I feel the problem we have right now is just about how big the tradeable area is.
-
@Atavus, Yes I understand that it wraps. Still a Regional Market which is BAD for New Players.
How will a few players "Dominate the Market"? If players have the same fees, then there will only be players that do more or less transactions. That is not dominating the market, it is giving the market liquidity. It would also make the Market prices more reflective of the costs to produce (energy, CPU, time, etc).
Now with the Distance Penalty, the transaction fee is more of a factor in the Net Cost of the Order than what it actually costs to produce it. Which is not a good market factor.
Another problem that is not being commented upon is the nature of NPC Orders in the Market. Based on the code, the NPC orders that are for the highest value are farther away from my location (specific example to the general problem). Therefore, they are cost prohibitive because of the Distance Penalty. Again, what is the thinking that Subsidies should go into a specific Region and not be available to everyone equally? The code in the Game is once more giving Old Players a benefit and therefore taking it away from New Players.
