I think it is worthy to note that a bunch of people go out of their way to save on the 0,1% fee on the FX. So every fee on CX trading will deincentivise trading there even though it would be more psychological than monitarily. The flipping of wares is also adding a fair bit of (needed) trade volume.
And “value of the ask order” and “similar fees to storage in warehouse” doesn’t match. Minerals and ores usually have a value of a few dozen per ton while in software for example it can be millions per ton.
If it would be everytime you place a ask it would deincentivise trading as every trade would cut a piece out of your margin which incentivises vertical integration (as little trading as possible). And if it would be time based it would be the “hot potato” game lowstrife mentioned: everyone wants to sell fast and little stock is available on the market which reduces stability.
As a %basis, storing Ores and such (notwithstanding the variable cost of more WAR units), due to their high volume/weight requirements equates to about a 0.5% cost.
LST for example, you can store 180 / WAR, costing 100 NCC/wk. Selling at 160 currently, makes it equivalent fee of 0.34%/wk to store on the WAR vs free on the CX.
Therefore, the high-value, high-density, product should have a similar cost-to-market, is my point. Not on a per-week basis, but a per-order basis
Do you view providing liquidity to the markets as a bad thing? Sure, it provides competition against people who are placing orders, both bids and ask. But it provides better marginal prices for those who take liquidity.
Being able to more reliability execute orders, avoiding shortages, is the primary action I try to take with most of my liquidity providing activities. I’ve been pretty successful at being able to eliminate the “well there are no more TRU at any price I guess I’m fucked” situations for the markets that I quote. Comparing the price charts between CX’s for the same item shows this quite starkly
Is it profitable for me? Of course. But I hope it also provides a more pleasant trading experience for anyone trading in moria or antares, knowing that any given market will have a reliable person to buy or sell from at any time.
Someone needs to post the first order. And I think penalizing something which MUST happen is a bad gameplay mechanic.
Especially if you only penalize sellers, and not buyers. I would rather have flat trading fees (like we see in the FX market) if you want to start charging fees for player trade. But, again, SKLS raises a fair point that people will see that as an unusually outsized cost for their operations and it will have an outsized impact on player trade. Which IMO is a core gameplay mechanic. So while there is a world in which transaction fees can be implemented, we have to be very careful.
Exactly my point, the system for charging storage fees already exists, so flat trading fees is the logical parallel?
Especially if you only penalize sellers, and not buyers
The point here, is that buyers should be able to adapt and change their ‘Demand’ regardless of Supply, and the Sellers, already have their margin, and profit baked in (absent inflation) - the goods already exist.
You could do half the desired penalty on both sides of the market, but that would bring in ‘double taxation’ concerns.
A Bid, is a hypothetical, an Ask is already realised.
However, the price adjustment for basic materials will also have long-term effects, particularly regarding the two points you’ve already mentioned.
a) Everyone is affected—every production process requires RAT/DW, including the production of RAT/DW itself.
b) As players, we don’t know how often RAT/DW is purchased by the system via the market mechanism versus how much is actually sold by players.
c) Players with many bases might be able to absorb the 20% cost increase for longer, given their high levels of self-production or stockpiled reserves.
d) For players just starting out, I’m not sure if it’s even worth producing RAT/DW; it might make more sense to focus on mission contacts and simply accept the prices.
beatings will continue until food industries are developed.
Cost+ price should be 180 or so, but as long as people aren’t expanding RAT production, hyper inflation will continue. 10d ROI atm, among the best base plans available
It is just the markets reacting to hundreds of bases for basic materials missing. BSE will be way worse as it was waaaaay below value so basically nobody produced it.
We will know when the economic report drops in a few days. Will be the most important economic report the game has ever had.
Will give enormous insight to see if production has been adjusted to fill the gap, or not. If there has not been any meaningful adjustment to production yet for BSE\RAT, then yes things will continue.
Considering I haven’t seen substantial movements in carbon\iron\lst markets, I don’t think there has been substantial development.
I think the internal reserves are even higher there, and the materials are heavy goods; the impact on their pricing would come a bit later. LST is the foundation for many product lines.
The price increases have caused some of the ‘parked’ goods to disappear—a nice side effect. FF/SF prices would need to rise a bit more for that ‘gate thing’ to become useful.
