Solo players, market liquidity, and player count vs. tech tree size

I presume that if wages are introduced, which is a sink, there will be also automated buys simulating pops buying consumables with their wages. So the latter will be a faucet. Otherwise, if pops consume no food, water but only cash, the system would be unimmersive.

And if new faucets are introduced, the corporations can always concentrate on farming these faucets.

By the way, the idea that corps don’t need much cash therefore don’t keep much cash is completely wrong. It is true that cash is not of critical importance for vertically integrated corps. Still, large corps have a lot of cash. They are the major cash holders in the game actually. Vertically integrated corps are not isolated from the outer world. It’s just that they have the possibility to pick only the exchanges that are the most profitable to them, and cannot be forced into unfavorable trade as for instance the new players are.

I think many players (and perhaps the devs) don’t understand how large corporations work. Let me give an example. Before the release on Steam, our corp used to buy a lot of carbon on the CX. Then it was below 270 AIC/unit and it was not revenue per area efficient to produce it oneself. After the release this price skyrocketed and now it is above 450 AIC/u (in Antares area). How did the corp react to this change in price? 1)First of all corp members reacted at an individual level by building more incinerators. But being part of the corp gave them access to cheap basic prefabs, less then half of the CX price. At the same time the Bfab prices on the CX were almost at the MM sell. So the corp provided the possibility for cheap investment. 2)Then more recently we undertook a coordinated effort to dedicate a new planet (Nascent) to carbon production, with several corp members building bases there, constructing some infrastructure and getting the relevant COGC bonus. Now we as a corp are going to sell carbon on the CX and profit from the historically high prices.

So as a corp we are not isolated from the rest of the universe. We just outsource, so to say, the least profitable steps to the CX, and integrate in our operations the most profitable steps, even if these steps are something as basic as producing carbon, or for instance extracting hydrogen (which also went very high on the CX).

We already trade for money both internally and externally. However, we trade internally and externally with two completely different mind sets. For outer trades, we go for cash. We maximize our profit. Internally, we seek balance and stable prices. We moderate our margins, keep rare and difficult to acquire products in reserve for corpmates rather then selling them on the CX, and try to return the favors.

3 Likes

I have to agree that the sinks and faucets already exist, and especially that a cash requirement will not solve the core issue.

Cyborg’s comments about transaction costs are also very sharp.

Unless I’m missing something, there is no way to prevent abuse of the “infinite market maker” backing all futures contracts without manually logging abusers and banning them from using the system at all. That is the only way.

New players shouldn’t have access to the system, it should be PRO players only with 60 day account minimum. And at that point - the only reason why a futures contract should be invalid is if the person didn’t make the delivery deadline - or they just quit the game or something. Do you keep extending? Or do you just generate new items magically. This level of insurance is ripe for manipulation and every instance where it’s triggered will have to be investigated.

1 Like

It sounds like corporations are… barter clubs, or something, partly for the purpose of risk mitigation. I guess there is no real life analogy. I’m definitely not convinced they’re needed for anything (ex. ship production) but if they are, that doesn’t sound like a good thing for solo players. (I’m not suggesting that such “guild” like groups should not be in the game at all.)

Some dev staff have made it clear in a few places (including above) that they want to see players cooperating and using the markets (makes sense), but that seems to imply pushing against vertical integration. I admit VI is one of the things that draws my interest for some reason, so I don’t know how I feel about that.

I don’t have any strong opinion or suggestions, other than the feeling that there are a lot of lessons in the progress of being learned.

There are essentially two ways to undo big corporations, either removing LM and the private contracts all together, so that the CX is the only way to trade, or to push against vertical integration. Because corps just take the idea of vertical integration to a higher level. Instead of one player vertical integration, it’s cross-player vertical integration. Highly integrated corps effectively interact with the outer world as a single very large company, just managed by several players.

Now the dev’s idea that requiring cash will incentivize the players to trade more on the CX and in this way work against VI is very naive and wrong. Because both vertically integrated solo players and vertically integrated corps do actually have cash already. By interacting less with the CX they not only sell less, they also (and foremost) buy less. And they tend to buy less the products with unstable prices and supply or those with too high seller’s margins. So the net effect of VI on cash is positive. By vertical integration one gets more cash, not less, by massively cutting the unprofitable spending.

One reason that pushes towards vertical integration is the volatility of prices. In PrUn prices can be highly unstable, even for such basic stuff as drinking water. On Antares CX DW was stable around 50 AIC/u for several weeks, then gradually went up to 60 AIC/u, then jumped from 60 to 100 after a single large buy, and now, one day later it is at 90 AIC/u. This volatility is due to the small player base. A single large purchase, or a single large producer going on vacation and not connecting to PrUn for a couple of weeks can have a major impact on the market.

this can only be solved by having more players on the market.

1 Like

One thing that might be worth observing is that there has been organic use and centralisation of commodity exchange in EvE Online. At the beginning the devs even tried to decentralise it for performance reasons, to no avail. I think the reason many items in EvE are bought on the market board is that there are quite a lot of them and it’s rare that one single organisation produces everything that their members need. They produce and internally trade the major items, but all the small things incentivise buying on the exchange due to it not being worth the hassle of coordinating trades for it. I’m not entirely sure if that’s relevant for PrUn though. Still wanted to put it out here to see what other people think about this.

1 Like

@Kenionatus the reasons trade stations are so used in EVE are different: first of all, many different items require many different skills and rig. Not every player want to pause their “pew pew” skills to acquire production skills. Also, bases are expensive to maintain, both fuel wise and time wise. If you need to refuel your stations, you’re not mining or farming anomalies. Also, not everyone want to manage a station to produce something. Many, many players just want to explode things. We can say that EvE is a society way more similar to the real one where not everyone is a manufacturer.

2 Likes

I suspect this is not applicable to PU for one reason: shipping.

Shipping in EVE is free and almost instantaneous, at least when compared to PU. It becomes tough to reliably ship from null-sec to high-sec, that is true, but I assume those items behave the same way they do in PU, although likely to a lesser extent because it’s still much faster and cheaper.

The style of shipping is essentially the main differentiator here. If shipping were as easy in PU as it is in EVE, we would also see a lot more CX activity and probably more centralization around one single CX.

But easing up shipping is probably not the ideal solution to this because it also negates the differences between regions, which is a major aspect of the game and should stay as one imo.

1 Like

I think merging exchanges might work well at least as a stop gap. Most of the “problem” feel like lack of volume. I think it has some issues and breaks some of the fun associated with multiple currencies and distances between planets etc.

As I expand to a solid 2nd base it almost always makes sense to make stuff myself vs buying it due to price volatility and lack of resource availability. Producing things yourself reduces the risk of stalled product lines a lot. Even if it costs more.

1 Like

To combat supply interruptions or unacceptable prices why not stockpile what you need to mitigate the risk? This is how I would combat shortages if I didn’t want or couldn’t expand vertically (in conjunction with placing plenty of buy orders on CX to signal the market that there is unmet demand).

The main reasons to go vertical I can think of should be for better profit margin or for the fun of it; unless the shortages are more than just temporary, in which case CX orders should signal the market to fix the shortage problem.

1 Like

Large players do actually stockpile. But smaller players don’t have the capital for that. For instance they cannot afford to buy in advance 3 months of consumption of DW when the prices on CX are low.

Another issue is that there are not necessarily high enough volumes sold on the CX to constitute a significant stock. I consume about 50 units of carbon per day. On Antares CX there are sell orders for 1943 units, including those with extravagant prices. This is less than 40 days of consumption for me. And I am not the only large consumer in the area. So I can imagine that 1943 units of carbon is less than 10 days of aggregated consumption in Antares area. Maybe just a couple of days. Not nearly enough for large players to constitute their stocks of carbon from the CX. The solution maintain a high personal production of carbon. That’s what I do. I produce a lot of carbon, but not a single unit of it reaches the CX. It all goes further into my production chains.

Yes I see the capital problem for newer players for sure. Most of my ‘profit’ so far has gone into increasing that input buffer.

I can confirm, you need to stockpile a buffer on the cx as a “staging area” before you shove it to your bases.

This is just the CX. There is another 5-20 days on each planet.

1 Like

I really think that multiple currencies actually works fine, but I also think they should remove the paywall to use the currency exchange. This feature just hinder the trade between regions.

I like the idea of mulitple currencies in the game, but I do wonder if it’s well developed enough to have a useful purpose. Right now it mostly just seems to be an inconvenience.

I imagine it may start to gain meaning once conflict/war is added to the game (in the roadmap) assuming there are also inter-faction conflicts (which presumably could impact the value of a faction’s currency).

It’s not about development, it’s just that MMs equalize currencies around a 1:1 exchange rate. Any differences are due to convenience and thus minor.

Without MMs currencies would have much more differing prices. Regardless of conflict or whatever else is on the roadmap. The value of a currency is not only related to conflict (if it is at all).

1 Like

Yeah that’s part of what I mean, the feature could use some work. If it were a true market (you need to trade one currency for another from a player) it could get more interesting.

Missing the obvious solution here of having FX market makers