Proposal for 1.82: support for economic changes

General discussion for players of Oolite.

Moderators: another_commander, winston

User avatar
cim
Quite Grand Sub-Admiral
Quite Grand Sub-Admiral
Posts: 4072
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Proposal for 1.82: support for economic changes

Post by cim »

spara wrote:
I know I can do it in marker_script, but then I would need to define other goods there too.
The first parameter of the market_script functions is an object containing the prices and quantities worked out using the standard algorithm (and possibly other applicable market scripts that come before yours in the sequence [1]). So if you want one good to have a fixed price, fix the price for that one, and return the original object unmodified for all others. A lot of market scripts may well return without modification in at least some circumstances.

[1] As documented, the order is:
  1. Basic trade-goods.plist definition
  2. Goods script, in the context of the system
  3. System script
  4. market_definition
  5. Goods script, in the context of the station
  6. Station script
User avatar
spara
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 2676
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:19 am
Location: Finland

Re: Proposal for 1.82: support for economic changes

Post by spara »

Then I have misunderstood. I thought that this (2.2):
If the station does not have a market script, the rules in its market_definition are applied.
means that the market_definition is bypassed.

So market_definition is read first and market_script after that. If they are present of course.

Thanks for clearing it, I'll keep on testing.
User avatar
Wildeblood
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 2286
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:07 am
Location: Western Australia

Re: Proposal for 1.82: support for economic changes

Post by Wildeblood »

spara wrote:
I've been fiddling with secondary market definitions quite a bit now and overall it's quite nice. To be able to set prices in relation to the system prices is very nice indeed.
It might be "very nice" but it's also completely bogus.
User avatar
spara
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 2676
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:19 am
Location: Finland

Re: Proposal for 1.82: support for economic changes

Post by spara »

Wildeblood wrote:
spara wrote:
I've been fiddling with secondary market definitions quite a bit now and overall it's quite nice. To be able to set prices in relation to the system prices is very nice indeed.
It might be "very nice" but it's also completely bogus.
Care to elaborate? I find it quite reasonable/convinient to to set a secondary station price in relation to the main station price. It makes much more sense than the previous method. The new system is also very flexible, it's totally possible to define a market to replicate the old behaviour as I have done in behemoth OXP.
User avatar
Wildeblood
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 2286
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:07 am
Location: Western Australia

Re: Proposal for 1.82: support for economic changes

Post by Wildeblood »

spara wrote:
I find it quite reasonable to to set a secondary station price in relation to the main station price.
Why would you think that reasonable?
spara wrote:
It makes much more sense than the previous method.
It makes no sense. Please explain the sense you perceive. Seriously, I would like you to explicate your personal theory of where prices come from that includes this spooky action at a distance. Without seeing it I can tell you it's wrong*, but I would like to see it anyway.

* Based not on my estimation of spara's intelligence, but my estimation of theories of pricing as a category. They're like perpetual motion machines - if you think you've invented one, you're wrong.
User avatar
spara
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 2676
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2012 4:19 am
Location: Finland

Re: Proposal for 1.82: support for economic changes

Post by spara »

Wildeblood wrote:
spara wrote:
I find it quite reasonable to to set a secondary station price in relation to the main station price.
Why would you think that reasonable?
spara wrote:
It makes much more sense than the previous method.
It makes no sense. Please explain the sense you perceive. Seriously, I would like you to explicate your personal theory of where prices come from that includes this spooky action at a distance. Without seeing it I can tell you it's wrong*, but I would like to see it anyway.

* Based not on my estimation of spara's intelligence, but my estimation of theories of pricing as a category. They're like perpetual motion machines - if you think you've invented one, you're wrong.
You are right of course. I have wasted way too much time in trying to think how things should be :roll: . 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.

I also think that from the game play perspective the possibility to set the capacity of the market greatly improves the game. Now the main market is the big market with 127 units of capacity per commodity and quite logically hermits are limited to 31, 15, 7 and 3 depending on the commodity.
User avatar
Fatleaf
Intergalactic Spam Assassin
Intergalactic Spam Assassin
Posts: 1988
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:11 am
Location: In analysis mode on Phaelon
Contact:

Re: Proposal for 1.82: support for economic changes

Post by Fatleaf »

spara wrote:
I have wasted way too much time in trying to think how things should be :roll:
No, no no, you haven't. Please continue. I for one really like and appreciate the time, ideas and effort you have invested into the game and community. Even if others, well, don't.
Find out about the early influences of Fatleaf here. Also his OXP's!
Holds the Ooniversal record for "Thread Necromancy"
User avatar
SteveKing
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 258
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:09 am
Location: DownUnder (W Aus)

Re: Proposal for 1.82: support for economic changes

Post by SteveKing »

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 :P

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.
SteveKing
(not quite the author)
User avatar
Venator Dha
---- E L I T E ----
---- E L I T E ----
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 11:26 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Proposal for 1.82: support for economic changes

Post by Venator Dha »

spara wrote:
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.
I agree with this, I do however think that high level economy and safe systems should mitigate the effects of distance, as the systems should already have in place good logistics that would level out the prices. So that better profits can be made in poorer, more dangerous systems. Intra-system trading however should not I believe be more profitable than inter-system trading, but should give the opportunity to make a little extra.
Taurus Driving through the galaxy since... .
Post Reply