I apologise for the length of the post, but just putting a few thoughts forward about in-system trading. In my defence, I'm a geologist, not an economist
I tend to agree with the idea that in-system economics should be somewhat related, in the same way that (using Australian states as an example) RL economies are related.
In West Australia for example, the majority of pricing is relatively static for the main population centres of Perth and those close to Perth, as Perth is (generally) the main distribution centre for the rest of the state. Once you travel to the more extreme locations in the state, prices tend to increase for just about everything, probably as a function of distance from the main population centre. I know if I buy a chocolate bar in Perth it costs maybe 1-2 dollars, but if I go to my mine site in the far east of the state, the same bar costs 2-3 dollars – quite the markup. I expect that it is basically related to the cost of getting the chocolate bar to such a remote place - increased transport cost and the time to get it there. As they say, ‘Time is money’.
In the Ooniverse (although this is just a feeling I get, so I’ve no data to back it up), it seems that in multi-RH systems the more remote Rock Hermits sell their Minerals and Radioactives for a marginally better deal than those nearer the main planet, indicating the inconvenience of travelling to a RH to buy their goods. Selling basic goods to a RH therefore should have the same small premium (Food, Textiles, Machinery). In this way, general commodities sold to outlying stations should have the same relationship – Food sold to a station at a remote planet in a system should have a marginal markup, and perhaps the machinery being manufactured by the planet should be sold for a little less because of the inconvenience to travel out there and to transport stuff back to the main system hub.
IMO in-system prices should be related
in general. I say ‘in general’, because there should always be the ‘chance’ that an accident or natural disaster could mess with in-system economics for the short term, eg, the main refrigeration units on the outlying station have failed and the price of fresh food there just doubled or an earthquake just wrote off the planets main manufacturing precinct and they need more alloy to rebuild and you just happen to be in-system and available to take advantage of the price differential. There should be more marked price differentials for certain commodities in more specialised installations – RH, Casinos, Constores, Navy Behemoth, Pirate Dens, but in these cases as Spara suggests, restricted by amount – as a trader, you wouldn’t be conceited enough to believe you are the only pilot that would want to capitalise on such good deals.
Lastly, and again IMO, in-system price differential should be somewhat related to Govt Type, or perhaps an average of all the surrounding Govt Types. The more stable a system, the more stable the prices, the less stable, the greater differential, reflecting the general hazard of plying the Oolite space lanes. I sometimes wonder whether it’s worth visiting RHs in Anarchy as inevitably they end up staging areas for pirates and correspondingly ends up costing me more in repairs
Ultimately, I believe Oolite economics should drive the commander towards a roaming career, but you don’t want to take away the ability to make a career as an in-system or local-system trader (especially for a nOob or ‘Broke Adder’). I for one wouldn’t mind having a go at a Breakdown and RRS career, supplemented by in-system trading, but I’d hate to think that it was too easy.
. Anyway from game play perspective as an in-system trader I (and I emphasize I) think that risk and profit should somehow be connected (not in real life, in game). And in Oolite I (again I) think that distance brings risk as the possibility of encounters is greater. So simplistically I think that stations (especially static stations) with big price differences should be positioned farther away from each other than stations with similar prices.