Changes to Open Market
Mercury
Brend
Chriz
Gerben
RemcoSwenker
Freekjan
Changes to Open Market
Mercury » Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:30 am
-
Mercury - Storyteller
With a new tax scheme, the prices for the open market will need to be recalculated - this is simply a consequence of changing conditions. However, besides this, we want to make the open market more accessible by removing the requirement of using a trade fleet.
Instead of a trade fleet, the Open Market will be accessible through a commercial district (I'm open to a better name). A commercial district is a zone which produces trade capacity that can only be used to trade with the open market. This capacity can be used for both buying and selling at a rate of 1 capacity per item. It generates 100 capacity as a base, with all regular modifiers (upgrade, atmosphere, ocean, etc) applying.
This may not seem like a lot, but looking at the amount of trade actually happening with the open market, combined with the fact that it may now be easier to exchange goods for tax, I think this additional capacity would be more than enough.
What do people think?
Instead of a trade fleet, the Open Market will be accessible through a commercial district (I'm open to a better name). A commercial district is a zone which produces trade capacity that can only be used to trade with the open market. This capacity can be used for both buying and selling at a rate of 1 capacity per item. It generates 100 capacity as a base, with all regular modifiers (upgrade, atmosphere, ocean, etc) applying.
This may not seem like a lot, but looking at the amount of trade actually happening with the open market, combined with the fact that it may now be easier to exchange goods for tax, I think this additional capacity would be more than enough.
What do people think?
Veolian Commonwealth » Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:14 pm
-
Veolian Commonwealth - Faction
In vein with the other straight-forward zone names, I propose to use 'Open Market Zone'.
'District' gives me the impression of a smaller area than a 'Zone', so for me commercial district is more like a 1/40th of a zone.
The capacity sounds a bit at the low side of the spectrum. Even with the (probably more favourable) tax set-up I think that most players might require well over 200
of open market capacity (especially since both IN and OUT uses the same capacity). If you build a single zone, you generate 100+ new marketable items per turn. These spikes, while not lasting long, quickly using up all your Open Market capacity in the new system.
Althought I like the way the market zone keeps the abstract 'production point' scale the same, I think that each point of 'produced capacity' should count for more than 1. It would also be a shame if we all had to build a second zone because the first one gives only a 150 . At them moment, even a single tradefleet has more mandatory capacity.
I therefore propose to have the generated by the open market equal 2 times the zone output. (So for example, an Open Market Zone on a featureless moon with a total production of 100, would provide 200 ).
'District' gives me the impression of a smaller area than a 'Zone', so for me commercial district is more like a 1/40th of a zone.
The capacity sounds a bit at the low side of the spectrum. Even with the (probably more favourable) tax set-up I think that most players might require well over 200
of open market capacity (especially since both IN and OUT uses the same capacity). If you build a single zone, you generate 100+ new marketable items per turn. These spikes, while not lasting long, quickly using up all your Open Market capacity in the new system.Althought I like the way the market zone keeps the abstract 'production point' scale the same, I think that each point of 'produced capacity' should count for more than 1
. It would also be a shame if we all had to build a second zone because the first one gives only a 150 . At them moment, even a single tradefleet has more mandatory capacity.I therefore propose to have the
generated by the open market equal 2 times the zone output. (So for example, an Open Market Zone on a featureless moon with a total production of 100, would provide 200 ).
Praetorian Empire » Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:34 pm
-
Praetorian Empire - Faction
I agree with Brend that we should keep the name simple and straight forward.
If the open market zone would only provide for 1 per point it will probably not be enough. In that case i would probably just assign a trade fleet for it... Is this still possible to assign a trade fleet on the open market if you want extra capacity? In that case the 2 per point (as mentioned by Brend) should be enough.
If the open market zone would only provide for 1
per point it will probably not be enough. In that case i would probably just assign a trade fleet for it... Is this still possible to assign a trade fleet on the open market if you want extra capacity? In that case the 2 per point (as mentioned by Brend) should be enough.
Mercury » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:32 am
-
Mercury - Storyteller
Before I start on a calculation about the value of an open market zone, I want to put down some general points about the open market which are relevant when analysing.
First off, the open market is not meant to compete with regular trade. When choosing between trading with another player and trading with the open market, the other player should almost always have the better deal - the prices on the open market are set for this. The reason behind this is to encourage players to trade rather than simply to dump everything on the open market which requires less effort and doesn't want to negotiate.
Secondly, the new tax scheme will significantly change the dynamic of overproduction. Because any three products can be traded for tax, worst case you have two different products to dump on the open market. That means you have two different products on offer and you are happy with any of the other ten. That is not too difficult a position to be in. If you can't find anyone to make a trade of that type, you probably didn't choose your zones very carefully.
Thirdly, I do not believe one open market zone should be enough to suit every need - If one open market zone should be enough to cover everything, it makes more sense to just cut one rock out of the system building budget and make the open market free to trade as this is less complicated. There should be a reason to have more than one open market zone.
How do people feel about these three points?
First off, the open market is not meant to compete with regular trade. When choosing between trading with another player and trading with the open market, the other player should almost always have the better deal - the prices on the open market are set for this. The reason behind this is to encourage players to trade rather than simply to dump everything on the open market which requires less effort and doesn't want to negotiate.
Secondly, the new tax scheme will significantly change the dynamic of overproduction. Because any three products can be traded for tax, worst case you have two different products to dump on the open market. That means you have two different products on offer and you are happy with any of the other ten. That is not too difficult a position to be in. If you can't find anyone to make a trade of that type, you probably didn't choose your zones very carefully.
Thirdly, I do not believe one open market zone should be enough to suit every need - If one open market zone should be enough to cover everything, it makes more sense to just cut one rock out of the system building budget and make the open market free to trade as this is less complicated. There should be a reason to have more than one open market zone.
How do people feel about these three points?
Praetorian Empire » Sat Dec 24, 2011 1:01 pm
-
Praetorian Empire - Faction
I totally agree with first. This is not under discussion.
Second point is important, since you now assume that everybody is doing everything for tax sets. The problem is here that you always have some spare raw materials as well. Instead of dumping only 100
and 100 
for example you will probably have at least 50 
, 50 
and 50 
as well. This means you will need 350 capacity to start with. And this is still a lower bound for a developing system.
Still my question about assigning trade fleets to the open market is not answered, since this really matters in the calculations.
I am not sure what you are getting at with your third point. I agree that the market zone should not be an unlimited resource if it costs a zone. (Since it should not be dumped on a outer moon because it is unlimited anyway) Although if you give it only 1 per point a starting player will need at least 3 of those zones. Another option would be to just ignore the option of capacity or zones and make it for free, still i am in favor of the trade fleet or open market zone solution.
Second point is important, since you now assume that everybody is doing everything for tax sets. The problem is here that you always have some spare raw materials as well. Instead of dumping only 100
and 100 for example you will probably have at least 50 , 50 and 50 as well. This means you will need 350 capacity to start with. And this is still a lower bound for a developing system.Still my question about assigning trade fleets to the open market is not answered, since this really matters in the calculations.
I am not sure what you are getting at with your third point. I agree that the market zone should not be an unlimited resource if it costs a zone. (Since it should not be dumped on a outer moon because it is unlimited anyway) Although if you give it only 1
per point a starting player will need at least 3 of those zones. Another option would be to just ignore the option of capacity or zones and make it for free, still i am in favor of the trade fleet or open market zone solution.
Mercury » Sat Dec 24, 2011 8:58 pm
-
Mercury - Storyteller
To answer your question Chriz, I am open to allowing fleets to trade with the Open Market, but currently I would say that the open market is not accessible by ship, as that would place it in direct competition with trade between players.
I did not calculate the raw materials since their yield on the open market is so low that it will rarely be optimal to sell them. This is deliberate - players who focus only on producing raw materials soon become third world... uhm... worlds. To discourage this, I make it obviously suboptimal so that players will keep their industrial capacity up and not get trapped.
Now, on to the crucial calculation that I have been shamelessly putting off:
Calculation
Under regular circumstances, 6 regular raw materials zone on an unterraformed planet produce 600 raw materials, converted into 300 products of 3 types by three more zones. Total cost: 18.000
. Tax income per turn would be 100 . Time to earn a return on investment would be 180 turns.
Under more ideal circumstances, 24 raw material zones on fully terraformed planets produce 3600 raw materials, converted into 1800 products of 12 types by twelve more zones. Total cost: 36.000. Tax income per turn would be 1.350 . Time to earn a return on investment would be 27 turns.
Under regular circumstances, 2 raw material zones on an unterraformed planet produce 200 raw materials, converted into 100 products of a single type by a third zone. An open market zone subsequently sells these products. Total cost: 8.000. With an average price of about 0.15 / product, total income would be around 15 . Time to earn a return on investment would be 534 turns.
Under more ideal circumstances, 2 raw material zones on a fully terraformed planet would produce 300 raw materials, converted into 150 products of a single type by a third zone. An open market zone subsequently sells these products. Total cost: 4.000. With the same average price of about 0.15 / product, total income would be around 22.5 . Time to earn a return on investment would be 178 turns.
As a scientist, I can't ignore the data, nor can I refrain from publishing results that don't favour my own position. The fact of the matter is that under my current proposal, the Open Market zone is too weak. I do not believe it needs to be on par with regular zones, but the difference is significant and too big to be acceptable.
However, let me do the same calculation for a x10 capacity modifier for Open Market Zones
Under regular circumstances, 20 raw material zones on an unterraformed planet produce 2000 raw materials, converted into 1000 products of a single type by another 10 zones. An open market zone subsequently sells these products. Total cost: 62.000. With an average price of about 0.15 / product, total income would be around 150 . Time to earn a return on investment would be 414 turns.
Under more ideal circumstances, 20 raw material zones on a fully terraformed planet would produce 3000 raw materials, converted into 1500 products of a single type by another 10 zones. An open market zone subsequently sells these products. Total cost: 31.000. With the same average price of about 0.15 / product, total income would be around 225 . Time to earn a return on investment would be 138 turns.
Increasing the capacity of the Open Market Zone does not address the primary problem with the Open Market Zone at all. No matter how much capacity they have, they will never compete with a regular zone in terms of earned / invested. Even with unlimited capacity, the ROI is too low to make the zone profitable, let alone create the conditions in which one would want more than one Open Market Zone.
I believe we are asking the wrong question. The question should not be: "how much capacity should an Open Market Zone have?", but "how can we make an Open Market Zone interesting at all?".
Alternatives
If you need 350 capacity, that means under regular conditions you need roughly 2-3 Open Market Zones (depending on placement). I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to ask of a player that dumps such quantities on the open market.
I do not believe that a player should be able to dump their entire set of leftovers with a single open market zone. Thus, if players have an average leftover of 350 products and raw materials, why would it be a problem if this requires 2-3 Open Market Zones, rather than just one? I don't see a problem with this.
Rather, the problem is how can we make the Open Market Zone such that it is interesting to build?
My proposed solution, here for your review, is to have an Open Market Zone provide a base income. For example 15 / turn (no calculations were made to generate this number - it was guestimated using a random number generator).
Having multiple Open Market Zones would make you more independent. You have a base trade income you cannot lose, and you can dump extra goods to the open market if you cannot find a buyer. Conversely, if you build regular production capacity instead, you can trade with other players to get more income, but in turn you depend more upon others.
What do people think?
I did not calculate the raw materials since their yield on the open market is so low that it will rarely be optimal to sell them. This is deliberate - players who focus only on producing raw materials soon become third world... uhm... worlds. To discourage this, I make it obviously suboptimal so that players will keep their industrial capacity up and not get trapped.
Now, on to the crucial calculation that I have been shamelessly putting off:
Calculation
Under regular circumstances, 6 regular raw materials zone on an unterraformed planet produce 600 raw materials, converted into 300 products of 3 types by three more zones. Total cost: 18.000
. Tax income per turn would be 100 . Time to earn a return on investment would be 180 turns.Under more ideal circumstances, 24 raw material zones on fully terraformed planets produce 3600 raw materials, converted into 1800 products of 12 types by twelve more zones. Total cost: 36.000
. Tax income per turn would be 1.350 . Time to earn a return on investment would be 27 turns.Under regular circumstances, 2 raw material zones on an unterraformed planet produce 200 raw materials, converted into 100 products of a single type by a third zone. An open market zone subsequently sells these products. Total cost: 8.000
. With an average price of about 0.15 / product, total income would be around 15 . Time to earn a return on investment would be 534 turns.Under more ideal circumstances, 2 raw material zones on a fully terraformed planet would produce 300 raw materials, converted into 150 products of a single type by a third zone. An open market zone subsequently sells these products. Total cost: 4.000
. With the same average price of about 0.15 / product, total income would be around 22.5 . Time to earn a return on investment would be 178 turns.As a scientist, I can't ignore the data, nor can I refrain from publishing results that don't favour my own position. The fact of the matter is that under my current proposal, the Open Market zone is too weak. I do not believe it needs to be on par with regular zones, but the difference is significant and too big to be acceptable.
However, let me do the same calculation for a x10 capacity modifier for Open Market Zones
Under regular circumstances, 20 raw material zones on an unterraformed planet produce 2000 raw materials, converted into 1000 products of a single type by another 10 zones. An open market zone subsequently sells these products. Total cost: 62.000
. With an average price of about 0.15 / product, total income would be around 150 . Time to earn a return on investment would be 414 turns.Under more ideal circumstances, 20 raw material zones on a fully terraformed planet would produce 3000 raw materials, converted into 1500 products of a single type by another 10 zones. An open market zone subsequently sells these products. Total cost: 31.000
. With the same average price of about 0.15 / product, total income would be around 225 . Time to earn a return on investment would be 138 turns.Increasing the capacity of the Open Market Zone does not address the primary problem with the Open Market Zone at all. No matter how much capacity they have, they will never compete with a regular zone in terms of
earned / invested. Even with unlimited capacity, the ROI is too low to make the zone profitable, let alone create the conditions in which one would want more than one Open Market Zone.I believe we are asking the wrong question. The question should not be: "how much capacity should an Open Market Zone have?", but "how can we make an Open Market Zone interesting at all?".
Alternatives
If you need 350 capacity, that means under regular conditions you need roughly 2-3 Open Market Zones (depending on placement). I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to ask of a player that dumps such quantities on the open market.
I do not believe that a player should be able to dump their entire set of leftovers with a single open market zone. Thus, if players have an average leftover of 350 products and raw materials, why would it be a problem if this requires 2-3 Open Market Zones, rather than just one? I don't see a problem with this.
Rather, the problem is how can we make the Open Market Zone such that it is interesting to build?
My proposed solution, here for your review, is to have an Open Market Zone provide a base income. For example 15
/ turn (no calculations were made to generate this number - it was guestimated using a random number generator). Having multiple Open Market Zones would make you more independent. You have a base trade income you cannot lose, and you can dump extra goods to the open market if you cannot find a buyer. Conversely, if you build regular production capacity instead, you can trade with other players to get more income, but in turn you depend more upon others.
What do people think?
Veolian Commonwealth » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:21 pm
-
Veolian Commonwealth - Faction
Request for clarification: Is the base income on top of the normal 'profits' from the open market? (i.e., do you still get money for selling stuff -- I'm almost certain that this is the correct interpretation, but the text seems unclear to me.)
Another alternative is to disallow selling of raw materials to the open market. This will kill two birds with one stone: It lowers the required capacity, and it encourages the creation of secondary zones. (This leaves intact the option to buy raw materials from the open market though.) While the suggested alternative weakens the Open Market Zone even further, it does drop significantly in functional value.
A second alternative is to have the Open Market Zone include a small boost to the systems external trading capacity. This way, each open market zone will also make it easier to trade with parties other than the Open Market. The direction I'm thinking in is a small discount on fleet upkeep (for example, 5 per fleet less per Open Market zone after the first), or a direct increase in trading efficiency (for example, have every Open Market zone after the first act as a hyperspace lane with quality 2, and lane capacity equal to the generated open market capacity).
Althought the second alternative might entail more bookkeeping, I think it emphasizes the trade-off between selling goods on the Open Market and finding a trading partner that can use the goods. (Obviously the boost should not be big enough to draw people to building multiple Open Market zones just to get the external trades boost.)
Another alternative is to disallow selling of raw materials to the open market. This will kill two birds with one stone: It lowers the required capacity, and it encourages the creation of secondary zones. (This leaves intact the option to buy raw materials from the open market though.) While the suggested alternative weakens the Open Market Zone even further, it does drop significantly in functional value.
A second alternative is to have the Open Market Zone include a small boost to the systems external trading capacity. This way, each open market zone will also make it easier to trade with parties other than the Open Market. The direction I'm thinking in is a small discount on fleet upkeep (for example, 5
per fleet less per Open Market zone after the first), or a direct increase in trading efficiency (for example, have every Open Market zone after the first act as a hyperspace lane with quality 2, and lane capacity equal to the generated open market capacity).Althought the second alternative might entail more bookkeeping, I think it emphasizes the trade-off between selling goods on the Open Market and finding a trading partner that can use the goods. (Obviously the boost should not be big enough to draw people to building multiple Open Market zones just to get the external trades boost.)
Praetorian Empire » Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:47 pm
-
Praetorian Empire - Faction
I have mixed feelings on the disallowing of selling raw materials. It does save capacity but its another exception to the rules that makes little sense.
I like the second idea proposed by Brend, but it needs some work. The hyperspace idea looks nice, its creates a nice amount of extra bookkeeping that makes sure we have less time for roleplay. Oh wait...
Anyway in this case we should make sure it is simple. Although the 15 per turn is a boring bad idea it at least is a flat bonus. We should revise the trade route system to include this in an easy way. I guess we can combine this with the hyperspace lane topic.
I like the second idea proposed by Brend, but it needs some work. The hyperspace idea looks nice, its creates a nice amount of extra bookkeeping that makes sure we have less time for roleplay. Oh wait...
Anyway in this case we should make sure it is simple. Although the 15
per turn is a boring bad idea it at least is a flat bonus. We should revise the trade route system to include this in an easy way. I guess we can combine this with the hyperspace lane topic.
Veolian Commonwealth » Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:00 am
-
Veolian Commonwealth - Faction
I do not think the 15 is a 'boring bad idea'. In fact, I like it; flat fee -- simple, little bookkeeping involved.
is a 'boring bad idea'. In fact, I like it; flat fee -- simple, little bookkeeping involved.
Praetorian Empire » Sun Dec 25, 2011 12:08 am
-
Praetorian Empire - Faction
Yes, little bookkeeping is good. But i say no to the `money-Zone` idea.
Mercury » Sun Dec 25, 2011 1:48 am
-
Mercury - Storyteller
I really like the idea of doing something with player-to-player trade capacity, though this would require the zone not be named "Open Market Zone" as it would no longer be solely an open market endeavour. How about something along the lines of "Space Port Zone" or "Space Port" or some such? Space Ports are definitely Star Warsy!
We indeed might even hit off on the Hyperspace Lane issue at the same time, which would be awesome. Let me epibrate on this somewhat to see if I can make up something cool.
We indeed might even hit off on the Hyperspace Lane issue at the same time, which would be awesome. Let me epibrate on this somewhat to see if I can make up something cool.
Veolian Commonwealth » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:17 am
-
Veolian Commonwealth - Faction
This evening a discussion was held with 75% of the players and the 100% of the adminstrators in attendance.
For the record: We came up with the idea of having each Open Market Zone offer a reduction in upkeep cost for a single trade fleet. The reduction will be a flat fee somewhere between 15-25.
For the record: We came up with the idea of having each Open Market Zone offer a reduction in upkeep cost for a single trade fleet. The reduction will be a flat fee somewhere between 15-25
.
Praetorian Empire » Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:28 am
-
Praetorian Empire - Faction
As representative of the 25 % i am allowed to voice our opinion.
I like this idea. This solves the problem of upkeep on trade fleets completely. So this means the ratio will be 1?
I like this idea. This solves the problem of upkeep on trade fleets completely. So this means the
ratio will be 1?
Mercury » Fri Jan 20, 2012 8:47 pm
-
Mercury - Storyteller
After some careful calculation on this topic, I came up with some idea's.
In order for the Open Market Zone to be an economically viable option, it needs to have a total cost reduction of at least 25 per turn on the Fleet Maintenance Cost. Even then, regular zones are usually a better choice. (That's not a bad thing mind you)
Given that the cost of maintaining a fleet is currently 100 which can be reduced to 25 using the Gravitational Reducers and Freight Catalysts technologies, that effectively means an Open Market Zone would sponsor one or more fleets for any player with some investment in the game (i.e. with those two technologies).
I am inclined to streamline this somewhat. I am considering the following changes, and am interested in your opinions and idea's:
Since this raises the start-up cost of adding additional fleets, I might additionally simplify things by removing the existing start-up cost for a new fleet. Currently a new fleet starts with 200 capacity for 200
, while upgrades are 100 capacity for 100 . Instead, you would be able to buy fleets per 100, so you can start a fleet with 100 capacity for 100 , then upgrade as normal to 200 for another 100 , etc.
What do people think?
In order for the Open Market Zone to be an economically viable option, it needs to have a total cost reduction of at least 25
per turn on the Fleet Maintenance Cost. Even then, regular zones are usually a better choice. (That's not a bad thing mind you)Given that the cost of maintaining a fleet is currently 100
which can be reduced to 25 using the Gravitational Reducers and Freight Catalysts technologies, that effectively means an Open Market Zone would sponsor one or more fleets for any player with some investment in the game (i.e. with those two technologies).I am inclined to streamline this somewhat. I am considering the following changes, and am interested in your opinions and idea's:
- Each fleet beyond the first two requires you have an Open Market Zone. Thus, to have four fleets you must have at least 2 Open Market zones.
- Fleets no longer require upkeep cost.
- Each player would get a free Open Market Zone (including existing players) in addition to the standard 19 starting zones.
- The number of free supported fleets would be reduced from 3 to 2 (this is effectively negated by the free open market zone - everyone would still have 3 free fleets).
- The Gravitational Reducers and Freight Catalysts technologies become obsolete. Since everyone already has these technologies, the Status Quo is unchanged except for new players.
- There might be some small compensation for the investment made by players to develop the now obsolete technologies.
Since this raises the start-up cost of adding additional fleets, I might additionally simplify things by removing the existing start-up cost for a new fleet. Currently a new fleet starts with 200 capacity for 200
, while upgrades are 100 capacity for 100 . Instead, you would be able to buy fleets per 100, so you can start a fleet with 100 capacity for 100 , then upgrade as normal to 200 for another 100 , etc.What do people think?
Praetorian Empire » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:11 pm
-
Praetorian Empire - Faction
I would say why not 3 free fleets, but since you do need capacity to buy some stuff from the open market i see why its 2 free fleets and a free open market zone. This simplifies the upkeep, i like it.
Veolian Commonwealth » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:34 pm
-
Veolian Commonwealth - Faction
I don't relish the idea of requiring zones to support trade fleets. I have arguments for this as well:
As to the 'simplified upkeep':
And finally on to the techs: while I think that it is not really necessary to obsolete the technologies (they add some flavour to the game after all) I don't see any direct problems with it, trade fleet upkeep was rather high.
On the other hand, it is entirely unclear if everyone has these technologies (especially smaller NPCs), and we can just say that they are part of the 'starting package'. They can very well be a kind of welcome gift from the Union. I'm perfectly willing to have my faction give these technologies to all new players in their first turn -- that would also clear up the problem, while still keeping some of the original spirit of cooperation that was part of the development of these technologies; these techs are currently the largest PC-world-ran project.
- This couples two (in my opinion) unrelated mechanics. Currently the quality of your system plays nearly no role in how good you are in acquiring trade capacity. This change would require you to invest in zones to get a better trade position, which means that those zones are not actually increasing your production economy; only the amount of trading partners you can have.
- The startup cost of a new fleet, with only 100 , will be very high for (new) players. The costs would range from 1000 at a minimum, to 1500 on average, and a whopping 2500 (this is calculated as zone investment + 100 from the OM).
As to the 'simplified upkeep':
- First off, the upkeep is still there, as holonet relays still exist. So the upkeep bookkeeping does not become that much easier. While it is true that the bookkeeping for the trade fleets becomes very simple, I don't really see this as that much of an improvement. You don't change the number of trade fleets or open market zones all that often, and the wiki already allows you to set the upkeep of a trade fleet to 0, and the tax collector keeps track of your upkeep spendings. (We could even add a new Sponsor_ref field to allow players to set which Open Market Zone sponsors the trade fleet too make it crystal clear why the fleet is not paying upkeep.)
- Secondly, this takes away the option to not invest in a zone and still have an extra trade fleet. And while a fourth trade fleet is not that necessary, it is nice to have the option of taking up an extra fleet, and just paying the upkeep, or taking an extra fleet and investing in a zone to negate the upkeep. Reduction of options is not in the best interests of the game in this area in my opinion.
And finally on to the techs: while I think that it is not really necessary to obsolete the technologies (they add some flavour to the game after all) I don't see any direct problems with it, trade fleet upkeep was rather high.
On the other hand, it is entirely unclear if everyone has these technologies (especially smaller NPCs), and we can just say that they are part of the 'starting package'. They can very well be a kind of welcome gift from the Union. I'm perfectly willing to have my faction give these technologies to all new players in their first turn -- that would also clear up the problem, while still keeping some of the original spirit of cooperation that was part of the development of these technologies; these techs are currently the largest PC-world-ran project.
Praetorian Empire » Fri Jan 20, 2012 9:47 pm
-
Praetorian Empire - Faction
mm, i did not look at it like this. I agree with Brend now. The cost for getting an extra trade fleet is even higher then before. I agree that paying the upkeep cost for a fleet is a valid option. This option should not be removed.
Mercury » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:20 pm
-
Mercury - Storyteller
brend wrote:I don't relish the idea of requiring zones to support trade fleets. I have arguments for this as well:
- This couples two (in my opinion) unrelated mechanics. Currently the quality of your system plays nearly no role in how good you are in acquiring trade capacity. This change would require you to invest in zones to get a better trade position, which means that those zones are not actually increasing your production economy; only the amount of trading partners you can have.
- The startup cost of a new fleet, with only 100
There would be some trade-off in production vs trade options, but currently all players still have many zones open. Building zones is a secondary priority for many. That suggests the cost for such a trade-off is acceptable. It only becomes a problem for very veteran players (nobody is currently at that level).
The start-up cost in turn should not be too problematic - a new player has three fleets they can increase in size without requiring additional zones. At the moment, only one player even has a fourth fleet. There is nothing to suggest that new players would want a fourth fleet, especially if they have to pay 100
per turn, but even at 25 , it is still a big investment.brend wrote:As to the 'simplified upkeep':
- First off, the upkeep is still there, as holonet relays still exist. So the upkeep bookkeeping does not become that much easier. While it is true that the bookkeeping for the trade fleets becomes very simple, I don't really see this as that much of an improvement. You don't change the number of trade fleets or open market zones all that often, and the wiki already allows you to set the upkeep of a trade fleet to 0, and the tax collector keeps track of your upkeep spendings. (We could even add a new Sponsor_ref field to allow players to set which Open Market Zone sponsors the trade fleet too make it crystal clear why the fleet is not paying upkeep.)
- Secondly, this takes away the option to not invest in a zone and still have an extra trade fleet. And while a fourth trade fleet is not that necessary, it is nice to have the option of taking up an extra fleet, and just paying the upkeep, or taking an extra fleet and investing in a zone to negate the upkeep. Reduction of options is not in the best interests of the game in this area in my opinion.
I think simplicity of this is a virtue that is worth pursuing. Our setup is very complicated for new players, so streamlining the tedious area's would be advantageous. The fact that other things (holonet relays) are still complex doesn't change that in my humble opinion.
You could say you lose the option to have a fleet without investing in a zone, but you could also say you gain the option of having a zone support the cost of maintaining a fleet. In the end the number of options isn't changed, just the type of option. Given how many players have a fourth or fifth fleet, I do not think we are seriously altering relevant options people want to use. Why do you feel there is a need for additional options in the area of trade fleet numbers?
brend wrote:And finally on to the techs: while I think that it is not really necessary to obsolete the technologies (they add some flavour to the game after all) I don't see any direct problems with it, trade fleet upkeep was rather high.
On the other hand, it is entirely unclear if everyone has these technologies (especially smaller NPCs), and we can just say that they are part of the 'starting package'. They can very well be a kind of welcome gift from the Union. I'm perfectly willing to have my faction give these technologies to all new players in their first turn -- that would also clear up the problem, while still keeping some of the original spirit of cooperation that was part of the development of these technologies; these techs are currently the largest PC-world-ran project.
I understand some investment went into this, and I want to acknowledge that. But all players have the technology. If its part of a 'starting package', all players will continue to have it in the future. That means the listed upkeep cost (100
) in the rules is factually incorrect. This may lead to confusion.
Mercury » Fri Jan 20, 2012 10:27 pm
-
Mercury - Storyteller
Chriz wrote:mm, i did not look at it like this. I agree with Brend now. The cost for getting an extra trade fleet is even higher then before. I agree that paying the upkeep cost for a fleet is a valid option. This option should not be removed.
I understand this point of view. However, I also do not wish to create a system where the upkeep of a fleet is 25 and the open market zone reduces this by 25. This makes things needlessly complex to add an option that will be used very little.
Perhaps we need to look again at alternative options for the Open Market Zone instead?
Veolian Commonwealth » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:58 am
-
Veolian Commonwealth - Faction
Okay; this might become a monstrously long post. I apologize in advance. If you want to tl;dr this, skip to the yellow text.
For me, at least, building zones is a secondary priority, exactly because they are so expensive. While I agree that my situation is a little extreme (my single main planet is filled to the max, leaving only unterraformed rocks), the new tax system really makes you want for some extra production, as each product counts. And since the new tax system is here for only a single turn, I find it difficult to argue based on a read from the situation is it has developed under the old system.
Can't argue with that.
Indeed. Simplicity is a good thing. But I'm not sure whether the problem lies with the rules, or with the way the rules are currently presented. As far as I see it, the rules on upkeep aren't that difficult, they are just strewn out all over the place. And the fact that the first few fleets don't have upkeep does confuse the issue, so yeah, this could use some streamlining.
From my point of view this is a fallacy of reasoning: Assuming the upkeep is set at 25, with the proposed 25 reduction on upkeep / OM zone you actual gain an option: either a) pay the upkeep, or b) build an OM zone and have it support a fleet. With the proposed change you have only a single option: b) build an OM zone and have it support the fleet.
This actual removes an option, and alters a 'seriously relevant option': I feel there is a need for additional options because every trade fleet enables you to trade with only a single partner. So if you have three fleets, you are bound to at most three trading partners. The new tax system encourages open trade. We already have four players. So if a single new player joins, those of use that wish to trade should terminate a previous trade agreement -- this will not make people inclined to start trading with the new guy, as they surely have less to offer.
Secondly, trade fleets are used to supply parked defence fleets (which is a good thing, I find the relation between combat fleet and supply fleet rather elegant). So we would need to either: deassign one of the massive trade fleets to supply a defence fleet, or build a new zone... I'm already planning a fourth fleet (starting to build it this turn actually), and I know that Chriz was also looking into the option.
Agreed, the rules should clearly state the actual amount of upkeep.
New proposal:
As I see it, the following is going to fix all the issues I see with one fell swoop:
admin wrote:There would be some trade-off in production vs. trade options, but currently all players still have many zones open. Building zones is a secondary priority for many. That suggests the cost for such a trade-off is acceptable.
For me, at least, building zones is a secondary priority, exactly because they are so expensive. While I agree that my situation is a little extreme (my single main planet is filled to the max, leaving only unterraformed rocks), the new tax system really makes you want for some extra production, as each product counts. And since the new tax system is here for only a single turn, I find it difficult to argue based on a read from the situation is it has developed under the old system.
admin wrote:It only becomes a problem for very veteran players (nobody is currently at that level).
Can't argue with that.
admin wrote:I think simplicity of this is a virtue that is worth pursuing. Our setup is very complicated for new players, so streamlining the tedious area's would be advantageous. The fact that other things (holonet relays) are still complex doesn't change that in my humble opinion.
Indeed. Simplicity is a good thing. But I'm not sure whether the problem lies with the rules, or with the way the rules are currently presented. As far as I see it, the rules on upkeep aren't that difficult, they are just strewn out all over the place. And the fact that the first few fleets don't have upkeep does confuse the issue, so yeah, this could use some streamlining.
admin wrote:You could say you lose the option to have a fleet without investing in a zone, but you could also say you gain the option of having a zone support the cost of maintaining a fleet. In the end the number of options isn't changed, just the type of option. Given how many players have a fourth or fifth fleet, I do not think we are seriously altering relevant options people want to use. Why do you feel there is a need for additional options in the area of trade fleet numbers?
From my point of view this is a fallacy of reasoning: Assuming the upkeep is set at 25
, with the proposed 25 reduction on upkeep / OM zone you actual gain an option: either a) pay the upkeep, or b) build an OM zone and have it support a fleet. With the proposed change you have only a single option: b) build an OM zone and have it support the fleet.This actual removes an option, and alters a 'seriously relevant option': I feel there is a need for additional options because every trade fleet enables you to trade with only a single partner. So if you have three fleets, you are bound to at most three trading partners. The new tax system encourages open trade. We already have four players. So if a single new player joins, those of use that wish to trade should terminate a previous trade agreement -- this will not make people inclined to start trading with the new guy, as they surely have less to offer.
Secondly, trade fleets are used to supply parked defence fleets (which is a good thing, I find the relation between combat fleet and supply fleet rather elegant). So we would need to either: deassign one of the massive trade fleets to supply a defence fleet, or build a new zone... I'm already planning a fourth fleet (starting to build it this turn actually), and I know that Chriz was also looking into the option.
admin wrote:I understand some investment went into this, and I want to acknowledge that. But all players have the technology. If its part of a 'starting package', all players will continue to have it in the future. That means the listed upkeep cost (100
Agreed, the rules should clearly state the actual amount of upkeep.
New proposal:
admin wrote:I understand this point of view. However, I also do not wish to create a system where the upkeep of a fleet is 25 and the open market zone reduces this by 25. This makes things needlessly complex to add an option that will be used very little.
Perhaps we need to look again at alternative options for the Open Market Zone instead?
As I see it, the following is going to fix all the issues I see with one fell swoop:
- We apply the changes as proposed: fleets require an OM zone for support, upkeep for fleets is removed, and the techs are obsoleted.
- Instead of mucking the rules up with difficult trickery we create one (or both) of the following techs that enable current players to pay taxes of they like, and also fix the 'advanced economies need their zones' issue:
- Modularized Transshipment Machinery: Allows the use of additional Open Market Zone upgrade: Transshipment Bay. Each upgrade allows the zone to support an extra trade fleet.
- Commodity Distribution Nodes: Allows the payment of upkeep in lieu of a supporting Open Market Zone. The upkeep is set at 25 / trade fleet / turn.
Sundarian Federation » Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:09 am
-
Sundarian Federation - Faction
after reading up, through a huge wall of text 
, I think that i like this new proposal much better, and its surely an elegant fix for this issue. The fact that i have a fourth fleet in place does influence this a bit, as the investment of a second OM-zone requires a lot of tax, which with new taxsystem in play, would actually have a negative impact on my ability to trade.
Both suggestion for Technologies are nice, and i like the options they provide.
, I think that i like this new proposal much better, and its surely an elegant fix for this issue. The fact that i have a fourth fleet in place does influence this a bit, as the investment of a second OM-zone requires a lot of tax, which with new taxsystem in play, would actually have a negative impact on my ability to trade.Modularized Transshipment Machinery: Allows the use of additional Open Market Zone upgrade: Transshipment Bay. Each upgrade allows the zone to support an extra trade fleet.
Commodity Distribution Nodes: Allows the payment of upkeep in lieu of a supporting Open Market Zone. The upkeep is set at 25
Both suggestion for Technologies are nice, and i like the options they provide.
Mercury » Sat Jan 21, 2012 10:25 am
-
Mercury - Storyteller
I really like your new proposal. The Commodity Distribution Nodes adds an option for players who want additional options without messing up the streamlining of the rules - it allows advanced players advanced options without confusing the basics. I also think we can work out some good tech around the Modularized Transshipment Machinery.
What do others think?
What do others think?
Praetorian Empire » Sat Jan 21, 2012 1:53 pm
-
Praetorian Empire - Faction
I agree with the others that it is a nice solution for a complex problem that keeps the basic rules clean. How will the Modularized Transshipment Machinery work? Are you capable of upgrading your market zone once with this? Is this the replacement of the "normal" upgrade our is this on top of this?
Veolian Commonwealth » Sat Jan 21, 2012 2:06 pm
-
Veolian Commonwealth - Faction
@Chriz: We don't know yet. As admin said: "I also think we can work out some good tech around the Modularized Transshipment Machinery." So instead of asking loads of questions that, although they have to be answered, don't bring us any further: think up some ideas and post them