Commodity Exchanges - For a grounded future

Again, check what you wrote, and what molp wrote.

All I am pointing out is that you are ignoring this and turn their words around.

1 Like

First of all: @Bobemor thanks for putting so much effort into this, your feedback is much appreciated.

Your analysis of why we are moving the CX off-world is spot on. During the PC Gamer influx a year ago we have seen that the CX planets are very attractive to old and new players alike. We had to double the number of available plots on these planets and implement a purge algorithm for deserted bases to make room for the new players. This did solve the issue for the moment but it is not sustainable. We would rather have a system where new players start on a larger number of planets to prevent that kind of bottle-neck.

This is one of the points of your critique where I don’t have a definitive answer/solution yet. I agree that it makes the new player experience a bit harder and we have yet to come up with a solution for that. On the other hand, there are new players that started out on non-CX planets and seem to be doing fine.

I am currently looking into a warehouse like rentable storage system for the CX. We obviously need one in order for players to be able to work the markets and provision their orders. I don’t really see why there is a difference from having a large STO with inventory ready to trade from having a CX version of the WAR with inventory ready to trade. Why would this depend on a ship?

Sorry if I unfairly dismissed the idea, I didn’t want to be rude. If I remember correctly I dismissed the idea of full-blown CXs being able to be build by players. I still think that this would lead to a lot of low-volume brokers and boring gameplay. One would have to go through many CXs to find one broker that actually has listed a random, rare ship item for example. I strongly believe that it doesn’t matter how expensive these full-blown CX are, eventually we will have on in every system. So to keep it interesting we can’t have them.

But, we have never been opposed to modular CXs! I don’t remember exactly where it was (maybe a live stream) but we have talked about that idea in the past and didn’t dismiss it all, if I remember correctly. I really like your and prdgi’s ideas and I think it could work. It fits nicely into the internal discussions about space infrastructure we are currently having.

Your critique has been heard, but we will still have off-planet CXs for the next universe. We are conviced that it is a good idea and now is the time to try out how it works in the wild. This is not the last universe and if it turns out to be a very bad idea, we still can go back to planetary CXs and I will happily read your “told you so” posts. :wink:

4 Likes

Perhaps open this up to something that can be purchased, along with system and planetary naming rights? If it is appropriately priced, players will only buy a CX construction module if it would actually be a significant QOL improvement to do so. It could still require in game resources to build it and bring it online if deemed necessary for balance reasons.

For monetization I would really like to see more things like this where some people can pay, but everyone benefits. For example, in the current universe Esabab wanted to set up a new area in the north east and attract players to settle there. Giving players the ability to purchase and setup a CX, and buy naming rights to “put an area on the map” so to speak, would allow the game to grow organically with player backing, and without resorting to pay-to-win mechanics.

I think it’s really unfortunate that the current CX’s are pretty stale. You usually see large spreads in price, and low volume. Also it’s pretty easy to move the price with little stock. That’s why i suggest having one CX in the universe, placed on a plain planet with no resources but forgiving atmosphere/gravity/temperature in the middle of promitor-katoa-montem systems. New players without PRO license can still start on this planet, buy raw resources and sell finished products. Also on the CX hide ask/bid company names and merge same priced orders. This merging would only be a visual thing to be clear.

1 Like

Perhaps, the easiest way to implement these new, orbital CXs, is to have them orbit the Sun, and anyone in that system can access it. Instead of needing to fly a ship up there to deliver/collect whatever product they are buying/selling, the station will, for a fee, deliver/collect that product from your base. And it would take a standard 2 hours to do so. I picked 2 hours because it still takes time to move the freight, but it’s not so much time as to drive people away from the game. It’s a little pain, compared to a hurt that drives people from the game.

I would also like to see a storage per person implemented, so people can’t just use this as another warehouse. Each player will get X storage for free, while buying/selling on the CX, but after that, you will start to be charged a storage fee for excessive goods that you have on the market. This will stop people from just throwing up vast amounts of goods for ridiculous prices, just to free up their own warehouses. And it will force them to sell their products, and will force the prices down.

1 Like

@Gladi099 I put that in my quote, I didn’t ignore anything.

Molp: I still think that this would lead to a lot of low-volume brokers and boring gameplay.

Molp: Your critique has been heard, but we will still have off-planet CXs for the next universe. We are conviced that it is a good idea and now is the time to try out how it works in the wild. This is not the last universe and if it turns out to be a very bad idea, we still can go back to planetary CXs and I will happily read your “told you so” posts.

I called all of this, and Molp, it is a very bad idea, Bob clearly illustrated why it is.

@molp So here’s the question, what are you guys planning to do about the contracting system? Because that will be the only supplement to this broken idea until you come to your senses.

Firstly, thanks for taking the time to read everything I wrote! Hopefully you didn’t see it as a ‘Grr these players grumble about anything then write a really long post i have to read!’ and as a 'these players are interested in the game and want to talk about it!

I would argue these are perhaps exception that proves the rule. Though I’m not pretending there aren’t any. But I think it’s fair to say they are a minority. I definitely think it’s preferential to encourage players to spread out more though.

This would definitely be alleviated by rentable storage. But I think my point was that to use any of these products people still need to ship them. They’re not by people’s production lines. Rentable storage also has some potential issues, primarily how much will be available. Will it just be the equivalent of Starter base plots? Could of course be solved by infinite storage units.

I think Im and others perhaps, took you ‘dismissing’ (a bit hyperbolic by me) buildable CXs as all CXs, modular or not. I think you’re spot on that if we could build full CXs everywhere with no alternative we would. It’s also pretty fair to say that with unlimited time then every planet would have a CX at some point if possible. My solution would be to simply stop this. Maybe these modular CXs can only have 4 modules. Maybe they have to be a certain distance from another CX (personal favourite). Maybe we have to petition the devs to allow a new CX to be started. Maybe there’s a faction cap or cost to CXs. I think there’s ways and means to limit buildable CXs. I’m in full agreement that it would not be desirable to have 100s of empty CXs.

This is a very valid point, testing should be done. This is a big change and definitely needs testing, so let us test! I also hadn’t really considered what @Dirk_Diggler suggests that there may be 3+ great planets in a system. I think this could be a way in which I’m surprised by the need for an Off-World CX. Though I can’t imagine having the player base to support more than 1 of such a system, and it would be a major nerf to FTL… But that’s a different matter

I too will happily read any “told you so” posts from yourself/the dev team. I’m sure Nick will gladly produce such a take down :stuck_out_tongue:
(I won’t write any told you so posts no matter the outcome)

I’ll shoot some thoughts from Prdgi’s comment, because I like a lot of those thoughts, tomorrow

1 Like

I think the biggest issue is that the LM’s are not really good at high volume trading. It would be good to move fast-moving good such as fuel, RATS, DW and other essentials to a mini-exchange. Otherwise it gets cluttered up with basic need items.

3 Likes

[quote]This is a very valid point, testing should be done. This is a big change and definitely needs testing, so let us test! I also hadn’t really considered what @Dirk_Diggler suggests that there may be 3+ great planets in a system. I think this could be a way in which I’m surprised by the need for an Off-World CX. Though I can’t imagine having the player base to support more than 1 of such a system, and it would be a major nerf to FTL…
[/quote]

I would like to see systems with a few more “good” planets in it. It would allow for systems to be more developed, STL only ships would be great use in those systems. ( I would like basic system ships, with low cargo / speed , be available on technician level ) It would also be more realistic to try and colonize / utilise system planets before going further to other systems.

In such a way, system CX , instead of planetary CX would be more interesting. I like the idea of “specializing” systems and make some well developed clusters.

Also @molp : Would it be possible to create 2 simultaneous universes next round? One with CX’s in planetary orbits , one with CX’s orbitting stars ? It allows for more different testing, and it would give players more to do, especially in the starting months of a new universe.
It would also allow you ( dev’s ) to adjust things morer easily , because of the ‘double’ testing that will be done.