Oolite Bulletins

I agree with all your remarks. I cannot judge graphics. This is a very subjective parameter. I tried to make a very objective classification. Price can be removed, I just did it and got a similar tree (slight differences but not much). What is interesting and nobody noted, is the parameter cluster analysis. The fact that price is not linked to the other parameters except speed and recharge rate indicated that (mainly in the oxp), the price is wrongly calculated: mostly grossly overpriced. What I did is to use symbolic regression, which is a very sophisticated algorithm, a bit similar to the classic regression but which can generalize any type of functions. It will recalculate the price function used in vanilla. I am not writing a paper so I left the computer ran for just 90 min. After, I used my own algorithm to chose the best equation (parcimony vs accuracy). Basically, I tried to get an equation with a sufficient accuracy but not too complex. This is the dodgy part. FYI, in a paper I recently published, we had 5 h of calculation time. The software is Eureqa of Cornell University v0.83

Here is this function, simplified, it uses only 4 variables and get a very good accuracy:

Price = 7935.8491*exp(Energyrechargerate)*Missileslots^(-0.74) + 48496.602*Manoeuvrability + 1831.4*Cargocapacity*sqrt(Manoeuvrability) -Manoeuvrability^6.78 - 154950

Some functions are more accurate but so complex that I didn't care to give them.
You can enter it in an excel spreadsheet and see what is the 'real' price of a ship. I did it but I won't publish this, I want to stay in good term with some very influent members of this august forum. According to this formula, some ships should even be given with cash... Once again I won't name them, I care for my life.

Having a calculated price will avoid these crazy prices in some oxp. One can add a "bonus" for the graphic, let say 10-20% extra price. Not more, to my opinion.
That was my contribution to the price debate.

If there is one direction I wouldn't want this debate to take, it is the 'correct pricing' issue. We had that before, it didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.

Whenever a formula is used to establish the 'correct' prices for ships purely from their stats, I am losing any interest in the whole thing very soon. Ship designers have a fundamental right to over- or underprice their creations. It is their choice, and no formula should be allowed to prescribe a price.

I was impatiently waiting for that type of reaction. No trolling from me.
Oxp authors have the right to price their ships, I agree.
Users have the right as well to know the real value of a ship.

This is fundamental right from the Intergalactic Mammaloid Consumers Association's charts written in 3124. The IMCA is obviously not including lobster, insect in its rank but human colonials, humanoids, feline and others. You can consult GOD (Galactic Ooniverse Directory) and call them.

The 'overpricing' of uber-ships is deliberate, to reflect their uber-ness. It has nothing to do with reason, logic, or being sensible.
It is the way the game and the OXP authors put a break on silly-fast, cheap ships appearing which would completely imbalance the game.

Makandal wrote:

I was impatiently waiting for that type of reaction. No trolling from me.
Oxp authors have the right to price their ships, I agree.
Users have the right as well to know the real value of a ship.

This is fundamental right from the Intergalactic Mammaloid Consumers Association's charts written in 3124. The IMCA is obviously not including lobster, insect in its rank but human colonials, humanoids, feline and others. You can consult GOD (Galactic Ooniverse Directory) and call them.

I think this is fair enough ... on the one hand, there's an abstract assessment of a "true" price based on comparison of data, like Makandal has produced here: on the other, there's the host of intangibles which, in real life (and even "real life", i.e. in the ooniverse) can distort prices hugely. Said intangibles usually revolve around marketing issues, such as the status which a buyer might imagine they gain because they're using the exclusive brand X instead of the cheap and nasty (but functionally identical) brand Y. There are clothing corporations, for example, who buy up the bulk output of some sweatshop or other, have their label sewn on to it and increase the selling price by an order of magnitude. Cheap shirt = cheap price. Identical cheap shirt with nasty little badge sewn on to it by some Third World child labourer = expensive designer gear.

Of course, there can be other ways of comparing hard data, and there may be other forms of hard data which are excluded for one reason or another (or which are not accessible outside the game). Things like "running costs" or "ease of maintenance" might come in to play, for example: paying a higher price up-front might save money in the long run, if expensive but well-crafted ship-model A ticks along for years with just the occasional buff and polish, whereas cheap but shoddily-built ship-model B requires constant cash injections to hold it together.

Commander McLane wrote:

If there is one direction I wouldn't want this debate to take, it is the 'correct pricing' issue. We had that before, it didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now.

Whenever a formula is used to establish the 'correct' prices for ships purely from their stats, I am losing any interest in the whole thing very soon. Ship designers have a fundamental right to over- or underprice their creations. It is their choice, and no formula should be allowed to prescribe a price.

Well, I would prefer that we know the 'correct' price. Some ships might cost more because:
a) they're thought to be elite (FDL)
b) they're prototypes or sth

Zireael wrote:

Well, I would prefer that we know the 'correct' price.

My whole point is that no such thing as a 'correct price' exists. Contra-factually pretending that it does can only lead to confusion and faux-debates.

Here's how I see it. The correct price is the price that the ship builder values the ship at. No question about that in my mind.
We can, however, use various formulae to calculate users' expected prices, based upon whatever criteria we choose. If we were a species which believed a ship was more valuable depending upon what proportion of its hull was the colour blue, we could do that. For them, the native Adder would be expected to cost considerably more than, say, an Anaconda, and they'd consider it a bargain. Most of us (probably) wouldn't calculate an expected price in that way - we'd take cargo, speed, energy etc. as more worthwhile factors. And taking those into account, I'd be interested in seeing how they all compare. All you need to do is enter all relevant statistics into a spreadsheet, construct your own formula, and away you go!

Mauiby de Fug wrote:

We can, however, use various formulae to calculate users' expected prices, based upon whatever criteria we choose. All you need to do is enter all relevant statistics into a spreadsheet, construct your own formula, and away you go!

Or a set of simultaneous equations using values from the OOLITE Reference Sheet with (speed/thrust) + (roll/pitch) + (cargo space) + (banks/charge) + (weapon mounts) = Base Price

Just convert those "H40"s and "P30"s to whatever works best - and when your new ship comes along with say "S40" you can estimate the price... just an idea.

I opened the Pandora box with this price story.
Do not forget the title of the thread. The original target was to find a classification for the ships of Oolite. You can create as many classifications as you want depending on your reference point. The equation of price was just a disgression on some very nice and innovative algorithms.

I would like to elevate a bit the debate above these commercial considerations.
If I classify human depending on their blood groups, it will lead to funny results, as the ABO system is existing with chimps. Consequently depending only on his/her blood group, one is more near genetically of a chimp group than of his neighbour.
This is why multivariate classifications are so powerful but they seem often counter-intuitive. Humans are basing their classes on 1, 2, maximum 3 parameters. I wanted to apply this logic to the ships of Oolite and the result of the tree is quite interesting, I think.
I am just reading the thread and noted someone talked about the Constrictor. Stats of the Constrictor on Wiki are incomplete and I really have no time to parse the plist to get all the ships stats.

Commander McLane wrote:

My whole point is that no such thing as a 'correct price' exists. Contra-factually pretending that it does can only lead to confusion and faux-debates.

But if the whole thing is contained within a game context, e.g. within the pages of What Starship? or a report by Makandal's Intergalactic Mammaloid Consumers' Association, then any resulting in-game confusion and debate are entirely proper, and add to the game-in-the-head. A Fer-de-Lance is hugely over-priced, by the statistics; what you're paying for is the megawalnut veneer and the aura of exclusivity. I mean, compare the reverberating clang when a Python's airlock bangs shut with the whisper-soft thunk you get when you tighten up your Ferdy: it's brute-force mechanical compared to hand-crafted perfection, and that's what you're paying for.

Disembodied wrote:

Commander McLane wrote:

My whole point is that no such thing as a 'correct price' exists. Contra-factually pretending that it does can only lead to confusion and faux-debates.

But if the whole thing is contained within a game context, e.g. within the pages of What Starship? or a report by Makandal's Intergalactic Mammaloid Consumers' Association, then any resulting in-game confusion and debate are entirely proper, and add to the game-in-the-head. A Fer-de-Lance is hugely over-priced, by the statistics; what you're paying for is the megawalnut veneer and the aura of exclusivity. I mean, compare the reverberating clang when a Python's airlock bangs shut with the whisper-soft thunk you get when you tighten up your Ferdy: it's brute-force mechanical compared to hand-crafted perfection, and that's what you're paying for.

Seconded entirely.

Disembodied wrote:

Commander McLane wrote:

My whole point is that no such thing as a 'correct price' exists. Contra-factually pretending that it does can only lead to confusion and faux-debates.

But if the whole thing is contained within a game context, e.g. within the pages of What Starship? or a report by Makandal's Intergalactic Mammaloid Consumers' Association, then any resulting in-game confusion and debate are entirely proper, and add to the game-in-the-head. A Fer-de-Lance is hugely over-priced, by the statistics; what you're paying for is the megawalnut veneer and the aura of exclusivity. I mean, compare the reverberating clang when a Python's airlock bangs shut with the whisper-soft thunk you get when you tighten up your Ferdy: it's brute-force mechanical compared to hand-crafted perfection, and that's what you're paying for.

I'm entirely with you here. I am happy that there are overpriced (and perhaps underpriced as well) ships even in the original set. I don't want their prices to be questioned or 'corrected'.

And I would not like if the commoonity would put pressure on a ship designer by saying: "your ship is so-and-so manoeuverable, has so-and-so much fire power, cargo space, etc., thus you have to price it exactly at so-and-so much credits, because that is its correct price". I absolutely don't want to go there, and my fear is that all talk about 'correct prices', and creating lists of 'correct prices' may more or less inevitably lead in that direction.

Commander McLane wrote:

I'm entirely with you here. I am happy that there are overpriced (and perhaps underpriced as well) ships even in the original set. I don't want their prices to be questioned or 'corrected'.

And I would not like if the commoonity would put pressure on a ship designer by saying: "your ship is so-and-so manoeuverable, has so-and-so much fire power, cargo space, etc., thus you have to price it exactly at so-and-so much credits, because that is its correct price". I absolutely don't want to go there, and my fear is that all talk about 'correct prices', and creating lists of 'correct prices' may more or less inevitably lead in that direction.

That's true, but I don't think there's much risk of that, to be honest! Putting our obsessive-compulsive behaviours with the game to one side, we're a pretty sensible bunch here. What would be useful though would be some sort of guide, so that ship designers can at least know whether they're maybe over- or under-pricing their work, and if so what sort of justification they might want to give for their decision.

There's always the possibility too of other factors being brought into play: the availability of a ship could (and probably should) affect its price, or at least be reflected in the price. And we've already got variable fuel costs for different types of ships: it's also not beyond the bounds of possibility that Oolite 2.0 might expand on this and make some ships cheap to buy but significantly expensive to fuel and service (or vice-versa) – this would also affect the price.

Disembodied wrote:

Putting our obsessive-compulsive behaviours with the game to one side, we're a pretty sensible bunch here.

No comment necessary

And we've already got variable fuel costs for different types of ships:

Oooooh I didn't know that, how is that working then?