Trade Fleets III: Return of the Upkeep
Brend
Fedor
Elmer
Gerben
Mercury
Chriz
Trade Fleets III: Return of the Upkeep
Brend » Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:48 pm
Some of us have observed that the current system of trade fleets does little to encourage long-term trade, as it is exceedingly cheap to switch complete trade fleets from one trade partner to another. I view this as an undesired effect, as it decouples the economy from politics, and makes it difficult to see political bonds backed by trade.
In the past weekend, Elmer and I have given the issue some though, and in a discussion with Chriz we came up with a new proposal: the permanent trade route. I will present the proposed changes, before giving some information on our design decisions, and the envisioned placement within the rules.
Set-up cost
Total cost: 2000
+ 300 
on both sides (so 4000 + 600 in total)
(= (2000 + 1500 mtcf ) * 2 / 600 
)
Upgrades
Total Cost: 100 for +200 , regardless of distance.
(= (500 mtcf ) / 200 )
This goes hand in hand with:
Calculations for comparison
These comparisons assume a 1500 amortized cost for the setup of a new OM zone, and sees 'initial' as 'with the same capacity as a trade route' (so it starts out with 600 
on the initial fleet cost).
Initial cost per capacity: 7.5 (= (1500 zone + 3000 mtcf ) / 600 )
Upgrade cost per capacity: 5 (= 500 mtcf / 100 )
The idea is that the new trade route has a high set-up cost, so it won't be used for incidental trades, but with its superior upgrade efficiency it is more profitable in the long run. We have added back to upkeep on normal trade fleets, because we feel that this greatly increases the decision of whether to create another trade fleet, or to invest in a permanent trade route.
We envision the trade routes as being placed between normal fleets and hyperspace lanes in the development schedule. Though it is possible for a large faction to pay for both ends of the construction (by sending and to the other world), this does not increase the smaller world's dependency upon the larger worlds. After all, if the larger world starts behaving like a big bully, demolishing their careful investment is only a turn report away.
With the current pricing, the Trade Route is more profitable (measured in / ) after 1.6 upgrades. However, this does not take into account the upkeep on normal trade fleets.by increasing the initial cost the trade routes could be pushed back into the development schedule.
The upkeep on normal trade fleets has a second benefit: instead of just creating new trade fleets to be dedicated support fleets for your military, the decision to pull trade fleets from active trades in case of war becomes more attractive. Of course, war-focused worlds could research technologies to remove upkeep from supply-line only fleets, so the upkeep balance of the pre-upkeep military rules can be achieved.
@Everyone: Clarification requests and Opinions please! (Esp. from those that like to calculate the impact of this)
@Elmer, @Chriz: Did I miss anything?
In the past weekend, Elmer and I have given the issue some though, and in a discussion with Chriz we came up with a new proposal: the permanent trade route. I will present the proposed changes, before giving some information on our design decisions, and the envisioned placement within the rules.
Trade Route
- A trade route goes from point to point
- The trade factor of the route is applied the same as for Fleets (i.e. to ship 1 good, you need trade factor )
- Hyperspace lane capacity is consumed by goods traded over a trade route
- A trade route is bidirectional, and the capacity is consumed regardless of direction (as if it were a holonet relay)
- Either of the sides can cancel a trade route without consent of the other side, effectively destroying all invested resources
Set-up cost
Total cost: 2000
+ 300 on both sides (so 4000 + 600 in total)- The trade route starts out with 600
- Constructing the trade route is a completion on the trade route
(= (2000 + 1500 mtcf ) * 2 / 600 )Upgrades
Total Cost: 100
for +200 , regardless of distance.- the upgrade is a completion on the trade route (i.e. The trade route can only be upgraded once per turn)
(= (500 mtcf ) / 200 )This goes hand in hand with:
Normal Trade Fleet
Changes:- Normal trade fleets will again require an upkeep: 15 /
- The 2 OM-support-less trade-fleets given during system construction are exempt from this upkeep, all other trade fleets require the upkeep
Calculations for comparison
These comparisons assume a 1500
amortized cost for the setup of a new OM zone, and sees 'initial' as 'with the same capacity as a trade route' (so it starts out with 600 on the initial fleet cost).Initial cost per capacity: 7.5
(= (1500 zone + 3000 mtcf ) / 600 )Upgrade cost per capacity: 5
(= 500 mtcf / 100 )The idea is that the new trade route has a high set-up cost, so it won't be used for incidental trades, but with its superior upgrade efficiency it is more profitable in the long run. We have added back to upkeep on normal trade fleets, because we feel that this greatly increases the decision of whether to create another trade fleet, or to invest in a permanent trade route.
We envision the trade routes as being placed between normal fleets and hyperspace lanes in the development schedule. Though it is possible for a large faction to pay for both ends of the construction (by sending
and to the other world), this does not increase the smaller world's dependency upon the larger worlds. After all, if the larger world starts behaving like a big bully, demolishing their careful investment is only a turn report away.With the current pricing, the Trade Route is more profitable (measured in
/ ) after 1.6 upgrades. However, this does not take into account the upkeep on normal trade fleets.by increasing the initial cost the trade routes could be pushed back into the development schedule.The upkeep on normal trade fleets has a second benefit: instead of just creating new trade fleets to be dedicated support fleets for your military, the decision to pull trade fleets from active trades in case of war becomes more attractive. Of course, war-focused worlds could research technologies to remove upkeep from supply-line only fleets, so the upkeep balance of the pre-upkeep military rules can be achieved.
@Everyone: Clarification requests and Opinions please! (Esp. from those that like to calculate the impact of this)
@Elmer, @Chriz: Did I miss anything?
Elmer » Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:53 pm
Noes, my faction just participated in a tech for more fleets, do they get more expensive with upkeep :P
I don't see anything missing.
I don't see anything missing.
Gerben » Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:44 pm
After taking a while to think it over, I like this idea. It should indeed help connect the economics and political parts of the game . The pricing seems to be right on the spot and it should indeed fit nicely between (regular) trade fleets and personal hyperspace lanes. While i'm a little reluctant as to the re-instigation of the trade fleet upkeep, I'm not against it as it is a good way balance the new with the old.
Mercury » Tue Jan 29, 2013 11:16 pm
-
Mercury - Storyteller
I will be honest, I am not sure about this proposal. I think it needs some sandpaper before we can work this in. Described below are some of the idea's I have on different aspects and a direction for a possible solution.
Vendor Lock-in
I don't like the way this proposal creates vendor lock-in. Once the trade route is established it will be cheaper to make the same deal with an established trade partner than it would be to make it with a new player, even if they offer the same trade. That means switching from an established partner to a new player is harder, which encourages established economies to deal with one another instead of allowing new players into the market.
Thinking on this, I realised was that the vendor lock-in is a very serious problem which threatens to undermine any effort to establish permanent trade-routes that are cheaper than trade fleets and can trade whatever you want. For this reason, I think a generic 'trade route' that allows a more efficient exchange of goods is the wrong angle here. A focus could instead be on a permanent flow of specific types and quantities of goods between two system.
Politics
I am not sure I like the idea of having one player destroy investments by another (even if they invested in it as well). This causes potential problems. I understand the desire for closer political ties through trade, but this is basically a nuclear option.
Instead, I would like to return part of the investment to the player when an agreement is ended. I do agree there should be a cost, but complete destruction is perhaps a bit much.
Capacity
The current basic lane capacity for all players is 10.000 - Naturally all players check every turn to make sure they don't go over this amount and indeed none of them do, but some are close, so they should think about investing in a higher lane quality.
It is currently unclear to me however how Trade Routes work with regards to capacity. Does it depend on the actual capacity of the trade route, or does it depend solely on the amount of goods actually transported? This needs clarification.
I am also not a big fan of introducing a fourth type of capacity - I don't think your proposal actually does this (its actually just), but to clarify this, I think the icon should be changed to the regular trade one.
Upkeep & Cost
I disagree with the proposed upkeep for trade fleets. Why would you require both an open market zone AND upkeep for a trade fleet? That doesn't seem fair, especially with the trade route not taking up a zone at all! The cost of maintaining a tradefleet is pushed up by this.
I think the cost aspect needs more work in general actually. Looking at your calculations of cost per capacity, the break even point is currently 1600 and 9500 , at which point trade routes are more efficient than trade fleets. But thats not calculating the upkeep cost and the opportunity cost of the zone, neither of which is required for the trade route! If you take those into account the break even point is closer to 800 at 7000 . That seems too low to me.
Alternative Proposal
Considering these options, I came up with an alternative proposal.
The current system of fleet trade would remain intact, completely unchanged.
However, a new technology will give the option to create a Shipping Company. (Estimated cost: 500 or perhaps provide this option without tech)
Shipping Corporations are identical to regular corporations, in cost to establish them, to specialize other zones, etc. They can be founded on Open Market Zones, where they double Open market capacity production - this capacity is specialised but operates normally, since capacity doesn't care if it is specialised or not so the effect in that is zero. Just like regular corporations, Shipping Corporations produce revenue: 10 for each zone and another 1 for each additional zone covered.
A second technology, dependent on the first, allows Shipping Companies to create Trade Routes (estimated cost 500-1000 but to be determined).
When you establish a specialized open market zone in a different system, you get the option to make a Trade Route from your system to that system and back. You can create a maximum of one Trade Route for every such zone and the route must be to that particular system. Thus, a Shipping Corporation can produce multiple Trade Routes. Establishing a Trade Route is free (except the cost of specialising the zone), but it requires that both you and the other player assign a Trade Fleet to the Trade Route (which cannot be of 0 size)
A Trade Route has a capacity equal to the SUM of the two assigned trade fleets, for EACH player. Thus, if both players add a fleet with 600, both players can ship 1200 goods, for a total of 2400 goods (of course distance is a factor). If one player adds a 300 fleet and the other adds a 900 fleet, the capacity is also 2400 goods for both players. The fleets assigned are not available to the player as they are locked in the Trade Route.
Trade Routes however have a special limitation: the goods they transport is fixed at creation time. Each player picks these when the route is established by mutual agreement and this cannot be changed afterwards.
Additionally, either player has the right to end the trade route. When this happens, one of the open market zones use to create the trade route loses its specialization. This is always the zone in the system of the player NOT controlling the Shipping Corporation. The fleets are returned to the player - they are not lost, but the resources spent to specialize the zone, and the additional tax income from the specialized zone for the Shipping Corporation player are removed. Additionally, since the fleets are now no longer a trade route, the capacity available will automatically be less than what it was.
The advantage of this system:
First of all, it requires no changes to the current system, nor any upkeep. The concept of a Shipping Company is clear and fits in the general system, only the specialized open market capacity is a tad weird and there are some additional methods of making trade.
Secondly, the entanglement in Trade Routes gives a clear advantage to both players (up to double trade capacity for the fleet!), and can be established even with small players trading small amounts while remaining beneficial. Thus, this is something smaller players can benefit from as well, though they will be dependent on the other player.
By locking in the exact products, you cannot use this as a permanent channel of better trade with another player, as new deals will never benefit from an established channel and since cancelling a trade route requires a new investment to re-specialize the zone (at a cost of 1000), you cannot willy-nilly change the deal, but still have the option to improve the route if trade significantly increases between partners.
It also fits in well with the regular way in which permanent trade routes are established nowadays, locking specific deals while allowing others to remain open.
Thoughts?
Vendor Lock-in
I don't like the way this proposal creates vendor lock-in. Once the trade route is established it will be cheaper to make the same deal with an established trade partner than it would be to make it with a new player, even if they offer the same trade. That means switching from an established partner to a new player is harder, which encourages established economies to deal with one another instead of allowing new players into the market.
Thinking on this, I realised was that the vendor lock-in is a very serious problem which threatens to undermine any effort to establish permanent trade-routes that are cheaper than trade fleets and can trade whatever you want. For this reason, I think a generic 'trade route' that allows a more efficient exchange of goods is the wrong angle here. A focus could instead be on a permanent flow of specific types and quantities of goods between two system.
Politics
I am not sure I like the idea of having one player destroy investments by another (even if they invested in it as well). This causes potential problems. I understand the desire for closer political ties through trade, but this is basically a nuclear option.
Instead, I would like to return part of the investment to the player when an agreement is ended. I do agree there should be a cost, but complete destruction is perhaps a bit much.
Capacity
The current basic lane capacity for all players is 10.000 - Naturally all players check every turn to make sure they don't go over this amount and indeed none of them do, but some are close, so they should think about investing in a higher lane quality.
It is currently unclear to me however how Trade Routes work with regards to capacity. Does it depend on the actual capacity of the trade route, or does it depend solely on the amount of goods actually transported? This needs clarification.
I am also not a big fan of introducing a fourth type of capacity - I don't think your proposal actually does this (its actually just
), but to clarify this, I think the icon should be changed to the regular trade one.Upkeep & Cost
I disagree with the proposed upkeep for trade fleets. Why would you require both an open market zone AND upkeep for a trade fleet? That doesn't seem fair, especially with the trade route not taking up a zone at all! The cost of maintaining a tradefleet is pushed up by this.
I think the cost aspect needs more work in general actually. Looking at your calculations of cost per capacity, the break even point is currently 1600
and 9500 , at which point trade routes are more efficient than trade fleets. But thats not calculating the upkeep cost and the opportunity cost of the zone, neither of which is required for the trade route! If you take those into account the break even point is closer to 800 at 7000 . That seems too low to me.Alternative Proposal
Considering these options, I came up with an alternative proposal.
The current system of fleet trade would remain intact, completely unchanged.
However, a new technology will give the option to create a Shipping Company. (Estimated cost: 500
or perhaps provide this option without tech)Shipping Corporations are identical to regular corporations, in cost to establish them, to specialize other zones, etc. They can be founded on Open Market Zones, where they double Open market capacity production - this capacity is specialised but operates normally, since capacity doesn't care if it is specialised or not so the effect in that is zero. Just like regular corporations, Shipping Corporations produce revenue: 10
for each zone and another 1 for each additional zone covered.A second technology, dependent on the first, allows Shipping Companies to create Trade Routes (estimated cost 500-1000
but to be determined).When you establish a specialized open market zone in a different system, you get the option to make a Trade Route from your system to that system and back. You can create a maximum of one Trade Route for every such zone and the route must be to that particular system. Thus, a Shipping Corporation can produce multiple Trade Routes. Establishing a Trade Route is free (except the cost of specialising the zone), but it requires that both you and the other player assign a Trade Fleet to the Trade Route (which cannot be of 0 size)
A Trade Route has a capacity equal to the SUM of the two assigned trade fleets, for EACH player. Thus, if both players add a fleet with 600
, both players can ship 1200 goods, for a total of 2400 goods (of course distance is a factor). If one player adds a 300 fleet and the other adds a 900 fleet, the capacity is also 2400 goods for both players. The fleets assigned are not available to the player as they are locked in the Trade Route.Trade Routes however have a special limitation: the goods they transport is fixed at creation time. Each player picks these when the route is established by mutual agreement and this cannot be changed afterwards.
Additionally, either player has the right to end the trade route. When this happens, one of the open market zones use to create the trade route loses its specialization. This is always the zone in the system of the player NOT controlling the Shipping Corporation. The fleets are returned to the player - they are not lost, but the resources spent to specialize the zone, and the additional tax income from the specialized zone for the Shipping Corporation player are removed. Additionally, since the fleets are now no longer a trade route, the capacity available will automatically be less than what it was.
The advantage of this system:
First of all, it requires no changes to the current system, nor any upkeep. The concept of a Shipping Company is clear and fits in the general system, only the specialized open market capacity is a tad weird and there are some additional methods of making trade.
Secondly, the entanglement in Trade Routes gives a clear advantage to both players (up to double trade capacity for the fleet!), and can be established even with small players trading small amounts while remaining beneficial. Thus, this is something smaller players can benefit from as well, though they will be dependent on the other player.
By locking in the exact products, you cannot use this as a permanent channel of better trade with another player, as new deals will never benefit from an established channel and since cancelling a trade route requires a new investment to re-specialize the zone (at a cost of 1000
), you cannot willy-nilly change the deal, but still have the option to improve the route if trade significantly increases between partners. It also fits in well with the regular way in which permanent trade routes are established nowadays, locking specific deals while allowing others to remain open.
Thoughts?
Brend » Wed Jan 30, 2013 1:01 am
You have a good point about the vendor lock-in and the 'nuclear' option.
I like the concept you propose very much, but I see some significant problems with it.
I assume that the 'locked in product' are sets of pairs of products and amounts? (example: {400
, 500 
} from A to B, and {850 
} from B to A). If I have the right of it, I foresee some problems with actually setting up the trade. Most players don't like to have enormous surpluses, as that is a waste of resources. However, if I enter an agreement to deliver {400 , 500 } I will first have to build some zones to actually make this amount of goods available. During this set-up of the industry I can't ship the stuff to my partner, as the trade route requires exact amounts. If I have a trade fleet to do this, there is no further need to invest, as I can already get my stuff over there.
(Counter argument: Of course, you can have a 'set-up' fleet. But this would mean that for every trade route I will have to create a new fleet, which would eat up a support slot from an Open Market zone. However, I do not feel this approach really allows me to take advantage of the more efficient trade route.)
The symmetrical nature of the trade routes is a second issue I see. This way, the efficiency of the trade route is directly related to the fact that me and my trade partner exchange goods one-on-one. If I don't do this, the upgrade efficiency is going way down. As I think we should not promote 1:1 trades, I think this is a serious issue. Next tot this, a lot of current trade (even long term ones) have a component on one side of the deal.
As both partners need to assign a trade fleet, each trade route will always take up two support slots. If my partner ships only a little amount of goods, and part of the deal is compensation in some other form, these trade routes aren't all that good.
You propose to use the normal corporation rules.
This is extremely prohibitive:
There are systems that don't even have Atmosphere I, so no trade routes to them. And though the doubled up is nice, I don't think it is worth giving up a high-yield zone to host an OM zone for the trade route.
This is especially true because both partners will have to assign a high-yield zone. The missed production output (I think this is called opportunity cost -- not sure though) will be rather high.
So, what I see right now: both me and my partner sacrifice a high-yield zone, there has to be at least 6000 invested (1 corp and 1 specialize), and this gives me at most an efficiency increase of factor 2. But as soon as the trade is not 1:1 anymore, the efficiency goes down. On top of this, I can only trade in set amounts of products and this system promotes trading goods one-on-one, instead of promoting interesting trade deals.
Unfortunately, I have no direct counterproposal right now. I do have some ideas though:
I like the concept you propose very much, but I see some significant problems with it.
Locked goods
I assume that the 'locked in product' are sets of pairs of products and amounts? (example: {400
, 500 } from A to B, and {850 } from B to A). If I have the right of it, I foresee some problems with actually setting up the trade. Most players don't like to have enormous surpluses, as that is a waste of resources. However, if I enter an agreement to deliver {400 , 500 } I will first have to build some zones to actually make this amount of goods available. During this set-up of the industry I can't ship the stuff to my partner, as the trade route requires exact amounts. If I have a trade fleet to do this, there is no further need to invest, as I can already get my stuff over there.(Counter argument: Of course, you can have a 'set-up' fleet. But this would mean that for every trade route I will have to create a new fleet, which would eat up a support slot from an Open Market zone. However, I do not feel this approach really allows me to take advantage of the more efficient trade route.)
Symmetrical routes
The symmetrical nature of the trade routes is a second issue I see. This way, the efficiency of the trade route is directly related to the fact that me and my trade partner exchange goods one-on-one. If I don't do this, the upgrade efficiency is going way down. As I think we should not promote 1:1 trades, I think this is a serious issue. Next tot this, a lot of current trade (even long term ones) have a
component on one side of the deal.As both partners need to assign a trade fleet, each trade route will always take up two support slots. If my partner ships only a little amount of goods, and part of the deal is compensation in some other form, these trade routes aren't all that good.
Corporation?!
You propose to use the normal corporation rules.
This is extremely prohibitive:
- Being able to create trade routes to your system (by having a corporate headquarters) increases the price of all future corporations (with +1000 as per the corporation rules)
- You can only set up trade routes if both you and your partner have (
+ Atmosphere I ) planets
There are systems that don't even have Atmosphere I, so no trade routes to them. And though the doubled up
is nice, I don't think it is worth giving up a high-yield zone to host an OM zone for the trade route.This is especially true because both partners will have to assign a high-yield zone. The missed production output (I think this is called opportunity cost -- not sure though) will be rather high.
Conclusion
So, what I see right now: both me and my partner sacrifice a high-yield zone, there has to be at least 6000
invested (1 corp and 1 specialize), and this gives me at most an efficiency increase of factor 2. But as soon as the trade is not 1:1 anymore, the efficiency goes down. On top of this, I can only trade in set amounts of products and this system promotes trading goods one-on-one, instead of promoting interesting trade deals.Unfortunately, I have no direct counterproposal right now. I do have some ideas though:
- Do not make it a corporation! This is very prohibitive, we should find a better way of doing this -- at least on the placement of zones thing; as it is rather brutal to exclude players from having trade routes because their system doesn't have an Eden world.
- Do not create symmetrical trades. Instead pool the from both assigned trade fleets and double it, so that non-symmetrical trades are supported without lack of efficiency
- Find a way to allow for set-up. Maybe allow a range of goods? I have no good plan for this, but I think we should find a fix.
Brend » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:03 am
Notes for clarity:
- I have no problem with a set-up cost of around 5000-7000 . It's just the fact that applying the normal corporation rules is very limiting (and I fail to see why someone with other corporations has to pay more set-up for trade routes)
- I can see why the locked goods would be good to prevent vendor lock-in.
- I have less problems with the locked goods than with the Corporation limitations and the symmetrical trade promotion.
- Our old proposal was intended to use hyperspace lanes as normal fleets did, though this was indeed a bit unclear.
Elmer » Wed Jan 30, 2013 3:04 pm
Getting back to the old proposal: I think the 'nuke button' can be solved by refunding parts of the investment. For example, the amount of spend in the link can be divided by 2 and spread over the two factions, this way the invested trade would not be destroyed, only the efficiency of that would be nullified. Another option is to send the back to the one who invested it.
The vendor lock-in can be prevented by fixing the trade pre-emptive. But instead of nuking the entire set-up after a trade change, I suggest a trade change just needs x amount of. 300 per side sounds nice, but is not based on anything and need some voodoo calculations. This prevents people from just changing the trade, but it is still possible to adjust the trades to the new needs of the players.
Mercury's new idea: Don't make it a corporation, but a tech or something. This prevents a lot of unwanted side-effects like the required atmosphere 1 and natural life. It also prevents players from forcing to move their zones if they want political ties trough trade.
The concept of setting up a 'something' (corporation, tech, upgrade, whatever), to increase a trade fleet from point to point sounds interesting. I would say do not make it a symmetrical trade. I think something like: (Both trade fleets) x 2 as, used as the players see fit. (If one player uses everything it is ok, if they spend it symmetrical, go ahead.) The other player can choose to spend a 0 tradefleet as well, I think. At the other hand, by assigning a fleet the relation has to be better, otherwise they wont do it. The amount of tradefleets needed this way is of smaller concern I think, as with the new tech it is relative easy to increase your cap of total tradefleets. For this way, I also propose a cost of x to change it. To allow new deals without having to set-up the whole thing again.
Overall, fixing what is allowed to trade is something I don't like within the rules, it will be a lot work to keep track of those deals I think.
Brainfart: maybe we can think of something what will cost tax to sent: example: To use 100 it cost 1 . I am not sure how and where this is useful though.
spend in the link can be divided by 2 and spread over the two factions, this way the invested trade would not be destroyed, only the efficiency of that would be nullified. Another option is to send the back to the one who invested it.The vendor lock-in can be prevented by fixing the trade pre-emptive. But instead of nuking the entire set-up after a trade change, I suggest a trade change just needs x amount of
. 300 per side sounds nice, but is not based on anything and need some voodoo calculations. This prevents people from just changing the trade, but it is still possible to adjust the trades to the new needs of the players.Mercury's new idea: Don't make it a corporation, but a tech or something. This prevents a lot of unwanted side-effects like the required atmosphere 1 and natural life. It also prevents players from forcing to move their zones if they want political ties trough trade.
The concept of setting up a 'something' (corporation, tech, upgrade, whatever), to increase a trade fleet from point to point sounds interesting. I would say do not make it a symmetrical trade. I think something like: (Both trade fleets) x 2 as
, used as the players see fit. (If one player uses everything it is ok, if they spend it symmetrical, go ahead.) The other player can choose to spend a 0 tradefleet as well, I think. At the other hand, by assigning a fleet the relation has to be better, otherwise they wont do it. The amount of tradefleets needed this way is of smaller concern I think, as with the new tech it is relative easy to increase your cap of total tradefleets. For this way, I also propose a cost of x to change it. To allow new deals without having to set-up the whole thing again. Overall, fixing what is allowed to trade is something I don't like within the rules, it will be a lot work to keep track of those deals I think.
Brainfart: maybe we can think of something what will cost tax to sent: example: To use 100
it cost 1 . I am not sure how and where this is useful though.
Mercury » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:35 pm
-
Mercury - Storyteller
Locked Goods
The intention is as you state, that both parties lock in the exact goods they transport.
Each Trade Route requires a fleet to be assigned. You can simply use an existing fleet of the appropriate capacity (or a little over) or choose to create a new one, as your preference may be. As technology currently allows you two fleets per Open Market Zone and two free ones, I do not think that is unreasonable.
However, this is would be a rule-change. As such, I think we should offer some sort of transitional option to existing players who have huge and established trade fleets because they never had the option to make Trade Routes before. Perhaps they will be allowed to transfer capacity between existing fleets or something?
Clarification on the Vendor Lock-In vs Locked Goods
Any method by which the movement of goods from player A to player B becomes in any way cheaper, less costly, easier, simpler or more efficient will always create a minimal level of vendor lock-in as described. It is mathematically impossible to change this.
With the original proposal, this additional advantage was on -all- trade between players A and B. This means a new player can never get a better deal.
However, with this proposal, new trade does not benefit from the additional advantage. Only the established trade. As players grow, they need more resources, and new players can compete with older players for these new orders, because they do not suffer from a competitive disadvantage in this.
If changes can be made to the trade route, then this encourages assigning an oversized trade-fleet to allow for additional future orders bringing back the vendor lock-in problem. Even if we do not allow empty slots to be occupied later, a trade of for example 1000 for 1000 could be made to get around this limitation, with the organics later being swapped for actually desired products.
Symmetric Routes
I think the Symmetric Routes point is a very valid one.
Alternative suggestion: Would this problem be lessened if instead of giving each party the sum of the total capacity, each players trade fleet capacity would be doubled for the Trade Route?
Thus, if both players add a fleet of 600 both would have a capacity of 1200 available, but if one player adds a 300 fleet and the other player would add a 900 fleet, the one player would double their capacity to 600 and the other player would double their capacity to 1800.
The total gain would be the same, but it would be distributed more fairly so to speak.
Corporation‽
The additional cost for future corporations is intentional. I think this is perfectly fair, as this corporation effectively allows you to double your fleet capacity, just as other corporations allow you to double your production capacity. The justification for the additional cost is the same as for starting multiple corporations: the more stuff you double, the more you pay.
That said, I overlooked the Type I atmosphere issue, which is a CRUCIAL oversight on my part that never should have happened! I cannot believe I missed that!
I would propose adding a third technology which allows the incorporation of non-type I atmosphere Open Market Zones as a resolution to this problem. Given this Corporation consists mostly of cargo haulers in hyperspace, I think that is very reasonable.
This removes the cost of high yield zones and lowers the opportunity cost on both sides!
Cost for new setup
I don't think allowing changes of trade routes for an amount of money makes sense - the new proposal already allows this for a cost of 1000, because the zone needs to be re-specialized. Additional alteration options seem superfluous.
tl;dr
Would these alterations make my proposal more acceptable?
The intention is as you state, that both parties lock in the exact goods they transport.
Each Trade Route requires a fleet to be assigned. You can simply use an existing fleet of the appropriate capacity (or a little over) or choose to create a new one, as your preference may be. As technology currently allows you two fleets per Open Market Zone and two free ones, I do not think that is unreasonable.
However, this is would be a rule-change. As such, I think we should offer some sort of transitional option to existing players who have huge and established trade fleets because they never had the option to make Trade Routes before. Perhaps they will be allowed to transfer capacity between existing fleets or something?
Clarification on the Vendor Lock-In vs Locked Goods
Any method by which the movement of goods from player A to player B becomes in any way cheaper, less costly, easier, simpler or more efficient will always create a minimal level of vendor lock-in as described. It is mathematically impossible to change this.
With the original proposal, this additional advantage was on -all- trade between players A and B. This means a new player can never get a better deal.
However, with this proposal, new trade does not benefit from the additional advantage. Only the established trade. As players grow, they need more resources, and new players can compete with older players for these new orders, because they do not suffer from a competitive disadvantage in this.
If changes can be made to the trade route, then this encourages assigning an oversized trade-fleet to allow for additional future orders bringing back the vendor lock-in problem. Even if we do not allow empty slots to be occupied later, a trade of for example 1000
for 1000 could be made to get around this limitation, with the organics later being swapped for actually desired products.Symmetric Routes
I think the Symmetric Routes point is a very valid one.
Alternative suggestion: Would this problem be lessened if instead of giving each party the sum of the total capacity, each players trade fleet capacity would be doubled for the Trade Route?
Thus, if both players add a fleet of 600
both would have a capacity of 1200 available, but if one player adds a 300 fleet and the other player would add a 900 fleet, the one player would double their capacity to 600 and the other player would double their capacity to 1800.The total gain would be the same, but it would be distributed more fairly so to speak.
Corporation‽
The additional cost for future corporations is intentional. I think this is perfectly fair, as this corporation effectively allows you to double your fleet capacity, just as other corporations allow you to double your production capacity. The justification for the additional cost is the same as for starting multiple corporations: the more stuff you double, the more you pay.
That said, I overlooked the Type I atmosphere issue, which is a CRUCIAL oversight on my part that never should have happened! I cannot believe I missed that!
I would propose adding a third technology which allows the incorporation of non-type I atmosphere Open Market Zones as a resolution to this problem. Given this Corporation consists mostly of cargo haulers in hyperspace, I think that is very reasonable.
This removes the cost of high yield zones and lowers the opportunity cost on both sides!
Cost for new setup
I don't think allowing changes of trade routes for an amount of money makes sense - the new proposal already allows this for a cost of 1000
, because the zone needs to be re-specialized. Additional alteration options seem superfluous.tl;dr
- New tech to remove Atmosphere I requirement for Shipping Corporation specialization solves issue of zone requirement
- Double both fleets instead of sharing total capacity to allow non 1:1 trade and break Route Symmetry
Would these alterations make my proposal more acceptable?
Fedor » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:26 pm
Limitations being as following:
3 techs need to be researched
A corporation has to be started
2 open market zones must be specialised
The goods and quantities that can be shipped over this are set at creation. Can anything below this be transported over it, or must those goods be transported over it from inception?
Both players must dedicate a trade fleet to this.
Given this:
I do not think I would use this for quite a long time.
If you want to ship these goods prior to the set up time, you would need to have a larger fleet that can already transport the goods necessary and is free before you transport You would not want to do it for that type of trade.
For highly asymmetric trades the other person would still need to commit a trade fleet, and this system would be unfavourable also.
If you want to compensate for growth you can try to mitigate the with an additional trade fleet, but you must have one freed up and you will have multiple trade fleets going to the same person. Though right now I already do this.
I do not think I would use this for quite a long time, as for 6000 tax + 3 tech's I can strengthen my trade fleets with another 1300 all purpose MTCF's. But that does not mean that this is not a good end game feature, and the proposed system might be good later on with trades that you want a very set amount of goods from.
I just see the cost of altering the trade to account for things like growth is very high. Being (1000 + whatever you can't trade in the turn it is being rebuilt, which given that such an investment is made for a trade, I would say this is a large amount. This is a feature to prevent vendor locking but I feel it makes the system unfavourable for use.
3 techs need to be researched
A corporation has to be started
2 open market zones must be specialised
The goods and quantities that can be shipped over this are set at creation. Can anything below this be transported over it, or must those goods be transported over it from inception?
Both players must dedicate a trade fleet to this.
Given this:
I do not think I would use this for quite a long time.
If you want to ship these goods prior to the set up time, you would need to have a larger fleet that can already transport the goods necessary and is free before you transport You would not want to do it for that type of trade.
For highly asymmetric trades the other person would still need to commit a trade fleet, and this system would be unfavourable also.
If you want to compensate for growth you can try to mitigate the with an additional trade fleet, but you must have one freed up and you will have multiple trade fleets going to the same person. Though right now I already do this.
I do not think I would use this for quite a long time, as for 6000 tax + 3 tech's I can strengthen my trade fleets with another 1300 all purpose MTCF's. But that does not mean that this is not a good end game feature, and the proposed system might be good later on with trades that you want a very set amount of goods from.
I just see the cost of altering the trade to account for things like growth is very high. Being (1000
+ whatever you can't trade in the turn it is being rebuilt, which given that such an investment is made for a trade, I would say this is a large amount. This is a feature to prevent vendor locking but I feel it makes the system unfavourable for use.
Brend » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:34 pm
((For those that couldn't puzzle it out: ‽ is the (X)HTML encoding for the interrobang: ‽))
This post in reply to Mercury's (Fedor posted at the same time).
On vendor locking (and explanation): agreed.
On symmetric route proposal: agreed.
On 'Corporation‽': Why does it still require a?
So, in principle I agree with your new proposal.
However, I have some nitpicking to do. First off, what about trades in which only a single partner needs the capacity (i.e. trade goods for tax, trade goods for political favours?) in this case, the partner that compensates in tax or favours still has to assign a trade fleet using up a fleet slot -- which is an expensive proposition.
Secondly, while I like having some technological barriers to this trade route concept, I would like to review the effects of these technologies. You propose the following techs:
I think no one is going to research this just to double their
. Especially since specializing zones in your own system with the Shipping Corporation is not really that great (it doesn't allow you to create a trade fleet...) So anyone interested in this is in it for the trade routes. In that case they will always research tech 1. and 2. as a package.
As no one has OM-zones on Atmosphere I worlds, the same argument could be used to collapse 1. and 3. However, I think that it is good design to keep restriction-removing technologies as distinct things.
Proposal One
So, to kill two birds with one stone, I propose to use the following set of technologies:
Proposal Two
On second thought. I don't really like the 'double your' effect. It is basically a waste to do anything that grows your open market capacity, as you don't really want to be using it anyway. Could we try to find a more enticing secondary benefit?
This post in reply to Mercury's (Fedor posted at the same time).
On vendor locking (and explanation): agreed.
On symmetric route proposal: agreed.
On 'Corporation‽': Why does it still require a
?So, in principle I agree with your new proposal.
However, I have some nitpicking to do. First off, what about trades in which only a single partner needs the capacity (i.e. trade goods for tax, trade goods for political favours?) in this case, the partner that compensates in tax or favours still has to assign a trade fleet using up a fleet slot -- which is an expensive proposition.
Secondly, while I like having some technological barriers to this trade route concept, I would like to review the effects of these technologies. You propose the following techs:
- Shipping Corporation Base Tech (500 / X1 ): This tech allows the specialization of Open Market zones, doubling their .
- Trade Route tech (500-1000 / X2 ; requires 1): This tech allows the set-up of a trade route as per the proposal.
- Shipping Corporation Decontstraining (Z3 / X3 ; requires 1): This tech allows the specialization of non-Atmosphere I zones for Shipping Corporations.
I think no one is going to research this just to double their
. Especially since specializing zones in your own system with the Shipping Corporation is not really that great (it doesn't allow you to create a trade fleet...) So anyone interested in this is in it for the trade routes. In that case they will always research tech 1. and 2. as a package.As no one has OM-zones on Atmosphere I worlds, the same argument could be used to collapse 1. and 3. However, I think that it is good design to keep restriction-removing technologies as distinct things.
Proposal One
So, to kill two birds with one stone, I propose to use the following set of technologies:
- Shipping Corporation Base Tech (1000-1500 / X1+X2 ): This tech allows the specialization of Open Market zones, doubling their . It also opens up the option of setting up trade routes as per the proposal.
- Shipping Corporation Decontstraining (Z3 / X3 ; requires a): This tech allows the specialization of non-Atmosphere I zones for Shipping Corporations.
- Shipping Corporation Directional Trade (Z4 / X4 ; requires a): This tech allows the set-up of trade routes that are unidirectional. The side not assigning a trade fleet has an effective capacity of 0 on the trade route.
Proposal Two
On second thought. I don't really like the 'double your
' effect. It is basically a waste to do anything that grows your open market capacity, as you don't really want to be using it anyway. Could we try to find a more enticing secondary benefit?
Fedor » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:44 pm
I agree to your first proposal.
On your second proposal, you could say that specialised open market zones generate more than 10, say 20 per specialised zone the specialisation on them would also be more volatile and likely to be removed so that might make sense.
On your second proposal, you could say that specialised open market zones generate more than 10
, say 20 per specialised zone the specialisation on them would also be more volatile and likely to be removed so that might make sense.
Mercury » Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:46 pm
-
Mercury - Storyteller
Brend wrote:On 'Corporation‽': Why does it still require a
We don't, I meant that to be gone as well.
Brend wrote:what about trades in which only a single partner needs the capacity (i.e. trade goods for tax, trade goods for political favours?)
I'm open to allowing a null-fleet assignment by one player, perhaps with a tech (as you later propose)
Brend wrote:So anyone interested in this is in it for the trade routes. In that case they will always research tech 1. and 2. as a package.
I'm also open to joining those into one tech.
I'm in favour of proposal 1. In the current model, I did not calculate any cost for the benefit of additional
. One option I considered was to give an income like the one from the zones based on the amount of goods shipped over the lane, but I think that would be hard to balance, so I'd rather try for the clean proposal 1 version. I think doubling your fleet capacity, even if requires some shuffling of fleets, is worth it.
Brend » Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:14 am
Mercury wrote:One option I considered was to give an income like the one from the zones based on the amount of goods shipped over the lane, but I think that would be hard to balance, so I'd rather try for the clean proposal 1 version. I think doubling your fleet capacity, even if requires some shuffling of fleets, is worth it.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here...
My 'Proposal One' and 'Proposal Two' are badly named. It was not intended as a choice between 'One' or 'Two'. The idea was that I propose we use my 'Proposal One' in favour of your techs. The 'Proposal Two' should have been named 'Additional Idea', and was intended as an afterthought, where I say that doubling my OM-capacity (which uses the
icon) is not at all interesting to most players.I gather from your post that the benefit of this increased OM-capacity was not calculated into the research cost. I think we should keep it that way.
Part of my reasoning on the doubtful use of doubled
is the following:[Assumption] Up till now, I have been working under the following assumption about your proposal: If I want a trade route between A (me) and B (the other), I need to have: a headquarters, and an Open Market Zone in their system which is specialized by my corp. I base this assumption on "When you establish a specialized open market zone in a different system, you get the option to make a Trade Route from your system to that system and back"
If my assumption is correct, I will only ever build a single OM-zone specialized with my Shipping Corporation. This means that normal 10
benefit for having multiple of your own specialization will most likely only be used on the headquarters. The normal corporation system is, of course, balanced with the idea that you have a lot of +10 royalties per zone, versus recombining in your own system without shipping cost for only +1 royalties for most zones.So, for a Shipping Corporation this balance is not correct, as I have basically zero benefit from specializing more than one zone in my own system! The only benefits I get is the doubled OM-capacity and +10
. Since OM-capacity is worth next to nothing in my opinion, all this gives me is a very very very long term investment that pays off in about 100 .Due to the fact that the Shipping Corp. doesn't really allow you the choice of 'build at home and ship' versus 'exchange zones' we might need to look into how the secondary benefits of this specific corporation type work out. After all, if you want a trade route, you are forced to accept the +1
royalty.Because of this, I propose to have remote zones also produce +10
. (While keeping the doubled OM-capacity; cause that is actually nice for small players :P)((This post was endorsed by Chriz and Fedor while I was writing it.))
Mercury » Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:48 am
-
Mercury - Storyteller
I am not opposed to giving +10 for all zones specialised by a Shipping Corporation.
I am considering the option of limiting either the number of +10 zones or the number of Trade Fleets by the number of specialized Open Market Zones in the home system however. This would also provide a purpose for specializing more than one Open Market Zone in your own system.
Thoughts?
for all zones specialised by a Shipping Corporation. I am considering the option of limiting either the number of +10
zones or the number of Trade Fleets by the number of specialized Open Market Zones in the home system however. This would also provide a purpose for specializing more than one Open Market Zone in your own system.Thoughts?
Brend » Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:56 am
There is already an implicit limit: Every corporation has a soft limit of 1 OM zone per trade partner. You could build a second OM zone, but this has a higher cost (cost of zone+cost of specialisation) than respecializing the old OM zone. There is little reason to have multiple OM zones in someone else's system, and even with +10 the invested 1000+ is only returned after 100+ ...
I'd rather not add additional constraints if they are not strictly necessary.
the invested 1000+ is only returned after 100+ ...I'd rather not add additional constraints if they are not strictly necessary.
Chriz » Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:55 am
I made a table of all the current open market zones: Open market zones
Since only about half the zones are in goldilocks and only a few have an atmosphere I agree that we should strip the atmosphere I and goldilocks prerequisite from the Shipping Corporation. If it does not require such expensive real-estate it will be more reasonably priced.
I agree that the 10 on each specialized zone with this Corporation should not be a problem. Even if somebody would specialize all his 100 own zones with this Corporation he would only earn 1000 . It is just a side benefit as it should be with the repaytime of 100 . We do not have to put any constrainst on this.
I guess we are sorta in agreement now and should start formalizing the technologies.
Since only about half the zones are in goldilocks and only a few have an atmosphere I agree that we should strip the atmosphere I and goldilocks prerequisite from the Shipping Corporation. If it does not require such expensive real-estate it will be more reasonably priced.
I agree that the 10
on each specialized zone with this Corporation should not be a problem. Even if somebody would specialize all his 100 own zones with this Corporation he would only earn 1000 . It is just a side benefit as it should be with the repaytime of 100 . We do not have to put any constrainst on this.I guess we are sorta in agreement now and should start formalizing the technologies.
Player of the Praetorian Empire
Brend » Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:41 pm
Mercury wrote:However, this is would be a rule-change. As such, I think we should offer some sort of transitional option to existing players who have huge and established trade fleets because they never had the option to make Trade Routes before. Perhaps they will be allowed to transfer capacity between existing fleets or something?
Chriz wrote:I guess we are sorta in agreement now and should start formalizing the technologies.
Yeah. About that: in my opinion introducing these new technologies is not a rules change worthy of invoking the 3rd meta rule. I say we just finish this up (until everyone is satisfied with the proposal), make the technologies, and let it loose.
Mercury » Thu Jan 31, 2013 7:18 pm
-
Mercury - Storyteller
Perhaps it would be wise to set up a wiki page with a preliminary draft based on what was discussed here?
Brend » Tue Feb 05, 2013 11:35 pm
Mercury wrote:Perhaps it would be wise to set up a wiki page with a preliminary draft based on what was discussed here?
I will do that this weekend.
Brend » Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:28 pm
Created a working page: Trade Route
Questions that jumped at me while writing it down:
Questions that jumped at me while writing it down:
- Is it mandatory to set up the trade route immediately after finishing the specialisation? I think having the set-up and the specialisation as distinct things isn't bad. It allows a world to commit to the trade, while the details are still being hashed out.
- I assumed that the Trade Fleet is not changed in any other way? That is: the only 'change' is the effectively doubled , and things like the route flown and what hyperspace lanes are used is till mutable after the route is set up?
- What happens if a system can't ship the set amount of goods? For example, if I commit to trade 400 , but I only have 300 (it can happen, if another trade lapses or if a power outage hits me...)?
Mercury » Sat Feb 09, 2013 2:57 pm
-
Mercury - Storyteller
Looks clear to me!
I have no trouble with this, however you cannot benefit from the Trade Route until the route is decided on and it cannot be changed without having to re-specialize.
The trade fleet is not altered, only its capacity is doubled for the purposes of that route. When the trade fleet is released it is otherwise unaffected.
Thus, you can upgrade your trade fleet, alter the route, improve hyperspace lanes, etc., anything that improves your fleet or the route goes. Any spare capacity generated goes to waste as the amount of goods transferred is locked in.
That said, if you have alterations in the route that forces you to use more capacity than previously (for example a destroyed hyperspace lane or a blockaded hex in the middle of your route), you can use the spare capacity to keep the trade route going.
Many reasons can cause you to be unable to fulfil your obligation in the trade route. For example, you might not have enough materials to deliver, you might be under a blockade or a hyperspace lane may have been destroyed, increasing the necessary capacity to meet the deal that was set with the available capacity.
When you are unable to meet your obligation, the trade route is destroyed and needs to be re-established. Thus, a blockade on your system can destroy one or more of your trade routes requiring that they be re-established.
I considered the option of pausing the trade route until you once again meet requirements, but I don't like the idea of making such exceptions - ending an impossible trade route seems simplest and motivates people to do their utmost to meet their trade obligations.
Thoughts?
Brend wrote:Is it mandatory to set up the trade route immediately after finishing the specialisation? I think having the set-up and the specialisation as distinct things isn't bad. It allows a world to commit to the trade, while the details are still being hashed out.
I have no trouble with this, however you cannot benefit from the Trade Route until the route is decided on and it cannot be changed without having to re-specialize.
Brend wrote:I assumed that the Trade Fleet is not changed in any other way? That is: the only 'change' is the effectively doubled
The trade fleet is not altered, only its capacity is doubled for the purposes of that route. When the trade fleet is released it is otherwise unaffected.
Thus, you can upgrade your trade fleet, alter the route, improve hyperspace lanes, etc., anything that improves your fleet or the route goes. Any spare capacity generated goes to waste as the amount of goods transferred is locked in.
That said, if you have alterations in the route that forces you to use more capacity than previously (for example a destroyed hyperspace lane or a blockaded hex in the middle of your route), you can use the spare capacity to keep the trade route going.
Brend wrote:What happens if a system can't ship the set amount of goods? For example, if I commit to trade 400
Many reasons can cause you to be unable to fulfil your obligation in the trade route. For example, you might not have enough materials to deliver, you might be under a blockade or a hyperspace lane may have been destroyed, increasing the necessary capacity to meet the deal that was set with the available capacity.
When you are unable to meet your obligation, the trade route is destroyed and needs to be re-established. Thus, a blockade on your system can destroy one or more of your trade routes requiring that they be re-established.
I considered the option of pausing the trade route until you once again meet requirements, but I don't like the idea of making such exceptions - ending an impossible trade route seems simplest and motivates people to do their utmost to meet their trade obligations.
Thoughts?
Brend » Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:10 pm
Mercury wrote:When you are unable to meet your obligation, the trade route is destroyed and needs to be re-established. Thus, a blockade on your system can destroy one or more of your trade routes requiring that they be re-established.
This seems unlogical in some situations if we assume that a trade route can't collapse by itself. If I'm being blockaded, I would ask my trade partners not to cancel the trade -- I will make it up later. Forcing my trade partner to immediately flushing 1000
seems harsh if he is willing to help me out O_oMercury wrote:I considered the option of pausing the trade route until you once again meet requirements, but I don't like the idea of making such exceptions - ending an impossible trade route seems simplest and motivates people to do their utmost to meet their trade obligations.
Less exceptions is more good.
Mercury » Sat Feb 09, 2013 3:25 pm
-
Mercury - Storyteller
I agree, but I'd rather not have an obscure situation option to say "we disable the trade route for a bit while its inconvenient and restart it later at no extra cost". Maybe I'm worrying too much on that though...
Fedor » Sat Feb 09, 2013 4:07 pm
I think it's acceptable to say that in all cases where you can't meet the trade agreement fully once it's initialised you can not use any part of it, as in no goods can be sent via the trade route. You could even make it so that you can also not use anything of that trade route for the next few .
.