[RELEASE] Risk-based Economy

[cim]

This one was inspired by a conversation a while ago in which I noticed that the second-best trade route in Chart 1 (and one of the best in the entire game...) is only two jumps from Lave.

Risk-Based Economy makes dangerous systems more profitable, and safe systems less profitable. In general a trade route between two safe systems will be about half as profitable as a trade route between two dangerous systems with the same economies. "Multi-government" is used as the baseline for this, so this will make it a little more difficult to make money, especially in the early game.

Additionally, the trade goods exported by Industrial systems have been re-priced slightly, and the levels of profit for some have been made less guaranteed. This is partly to leave some room for price increases in Feudal and Anarchy systems, and partly to make the decision over which Industrial good to buy slightly more interesting.

Download Risk Based Economy 1.0 (requires Oolite 1.77 or higher)

[ZygoUgo]

Sounds grand! Is it compatible with with market observer?

[cim]

It should be, yes (and will give that sort of OXP a bit more to look at, too...). The only thing it's likely to be incompatible with is other OXPs which change market prices using the JS methods in 1.77 - commodity.plist changes are fine, as should be anything that only reads market prices.

[Diziet Sma]

The only thing it's likely to be incompatible with is other OXPs which change market prices using the JS methods in 1.77 - commodity.plist changes are fine, as should be anything that only reads market prices.

Given that that's a situation that's more likely to occur over time, would it possible to have some standardised method for ensuring compatibility?

(and this OXP is a very cool idea.. I'm looking forward to trying it out!)

[Diziet Sma]

In general a trade route between two safe systems will be about half as profitable as a trade route between two dangerous systems with the same economies.

What about safe-to-dangerous, and vice-versa?

[cim]

In general a trade route between two safe systems will be about half as profitable as a trade route between two dangerous systems with the same economies.

What about safe-to-dangerous, and vice-versa?

Probably about 3/4 as profitable.

would it possible to have some standardised method for ensuring compatibility?

Maybe, though I suspect the answer there is not to install multiple OXPs which all write to market prices.

[Wildeblood]

I suspect the answer there is not to install multiple OXPs which all write to market prices.

Allowing the prices to be fiddled from JS was never a good idea.

[Cody]

Interesting OXP, cim - I'm still working it out (and for some strange reason, my two favourite feudal systems have become very dangerous lately).

[CaptSolo]

Just added this OXP and find it very satisfactory. Thank you.

[Yah-Ta-Hey]

just added it and haven't really seen any changes yet but am expecting this to be a cool OXP
Thanks for your efforts.

[CaptSolo]

I've seen plenty of market changes. Luxuries, for example, are often less expensive than computers at poor to average industrial, unstable worlds. Like the box says, Risk-Based. Plenty of other changes and it all adds to a more realistic experience than the old status quo. Some items have become less profitable, like the alloy's one scoops after a battle. Another keeper from Cim the Magician!

[Phasted]

Risk-Based Economy makes dangerous systems more profitable, and safe systems less profitable.

I've included this idea in the latest versions of Real-life Economics... here's a code snippet from the determineMarket() function.

Code: Select all

  switch(s.government)
  {                                               
    case  0:  {this[eB] *= 1.75; break;}          //  In lawless systems, piracy has an effect comparable
    case  1:  {this[eB] *= 1.65; break;}          //  to protectionism, reducing the volume of trade and
    case  2:  {this[eB] *= 1.45; break;}          //  pushing the economy away from equilibrium...
    case  3:  {this[eB] *= 1.15; break;}
    case  4:  {this[eB] *= 1.05; break;}          //  ----------------------------------------------
    case  5:  {this[eB] *= 0.95; break;}
    case  6:  {this[eB] *= 0.85; break;}          //  Of course, in safer systems, the opposite is true...
    case  7:  {this[eB] *= 0.75;}
  }
  switch(s.techlevel)
  {                                               
    case  0:  {this[eB] *= 1.40; break;}          //  In low-tech systems, primative technology impedes 
    case  1:  {this[eB] *= 1.35; break;}          //  transactions, reducing the volume of trade and 
    case  2:  {this[eB] *= 1.30; break;}          //  pushing the economy away from equilibrium...
    case  3:  {this[eB] *= 1.25; break;}          
    case  4:  {this[eB] *= 1.20; break;}          //  ----------------------------------------------
    case  5:  {this[eB] *= 1.15; break;}          
    case  6:  {this[eB] *= 1.10; break;}          //  In high-tech systems, advanced technology 
    case  7:  {this[eB] *= 1.05; break;}          //  facilitates transactions, promoting trade...
    case  8:  {this[eB] *= 1.00; break;}          
    case  9:  {this[eB] *= 0.95; break;}          
    case 10:  {this[eB] *= 0.90; break;}          
    case 11:  {this[eB] *= 0.85; break;}          
    case 12:  {this[eB] *= 0.80; break;}          
    case 13:  {this[eB] *= 0.75; break;}          
    case 14:  {this[eB] *= 0.70; break;}          
    case 15:  {this[eB] *= 0.65; break;}          
    default:  {this[eB] *= 0.60;}
  }

[Redspear]

Belated thanks cim and Phasted.

I've been torn between these two oxps (assuming they'd clash in some way) so combining them is great news for me

[mossfoot]

Does this only affect main stations or adjust all stations in a system?

[cim]

All stations. The current release won't work very well with OXPs which keep secondary markets over save/load - or indeed the new core functionality of saving at secondary stations. I'm not sure whether to fix that or rethink a bit of how the OXP is implemented.