Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Read OP.

I agree here, having a commodity market system in-place for raw materials and fuels makes a lot of sense, like it does in the real world. Reusing the same system and rules for things like ships/equipment is actually a technically/gameplay limitation, since unfortunately in eve there are no such things as brand, quality, consumer relations, advertising, brick and mortar or different region taxes. So they simply do thread spaceships like ore, maybe this can be changed some day, since i would really like this :p

Like i noted i have no problem with being pushed, if the price actually changes in a "meaningful" way. Now think again what will happen if u apply a 0.1% change every minute to a price and what is the result if u just add a 0.0001% change every minute :p Maybe now u can understand what this is all about?

Not everything in a game has to "solve a problem", but if u can have a Porsche, Crysler and a BMW, rather than only a grey box i choose the more diverse way. For me more diversity and choices = more fun and options to pick from, play with. I also think every producer would like to diversify himself from the competition, in some way. I really hope in the distant future we get something like actual physical shops and locations on those currently faceless stations and can actually buy advertising time on big screens and have real brand's! Um i want my "Andy's new Spaceships shop!" *dream*


PS: The gameplay limitation is: that adding a brand and quality system is not a easy task for a game, most games even struggle to implement a proper and working repair/usage system. The only game i know is Star Wars Galaxies, that actually added some physical shops and the finished end-product also did differ extremely between servers and regions, time.

I actually hoped it would be more the case of: more brain = more profit or more playing (not camping) = more profit.

Oki thats unfair since actually this is the case in eve compared to many other MMO's and also u can camp/grind mindlessly in other games too for maxed profit.
My point is that by changing the minimal change step, prices will fluctuate more often and make the whole system more dynamic and gameplay wise rewarding/challenging.



PS: This is still just a suggestion and i doubt any will come out of it, so ofc u don't have to agree with me, but i can still try to convince u :p

If you're going to suggest something that lowers the efficiency of one of the core components of the game, you'd better be able to point to an actual problem that the suggestion is trying to solve, otherwise you're just breaking things for no particular reason.

What you're suggesting doesn't change the number of choice or alter the diversity — in fact, if anything, it inhibits choice and diversity by restricting how people can behave on the market.

No, they'll fluctuate less often because traders will have to watch their margins much more closely and will thus have less incentive to follow along and try to find the equilibrium. It won't make it any more rewarding either, since you are cutting in on those margins and the challenge will be less than now since there is less movement in price and fewer available “rungs” on the price ladder. In some cases, that centrally controlled minimum step you enforce might even be smaller than the profit margin, meaning that price competition will cease entirely, thus creating a completely stale market until something else in the supply change has moved enough to make a difference.

Again: what you're asking for isn't used in this kind of trading because of the inefficiencies it creates. It's a lack of such inefficiencies that makes the market as dynamic and challenging as it is.

you are talking about how products will be different??
I thought you were about how people change prices for those products.

…but what you're suggesting makes absolutely no difference in that regard and what you're describing has absolutely nothing to do with the supposed problem.

Of course they can. Nothing of what you suggests alters what traders will do: they will try to get the trade. What you're doing is altering how well they can compete for that sale by removing options from them — they can no longer pick and choose what price they want to compete with because there is an artificial limit to how that price can be set. Removing options does not make anything more complex or dynamic, but rather does the opposite.

Oki i just did read some more real world market rules and can answer my own question :p

The reason is that real world orders can be much more complex and formulated like limit-orders, stop-orders, on-cancel-orders, Touched-Orders. Basically i can enter a much more complex rule-set to orders, so u don't actually have to play 0.01isk games the way u do in eve. The other reason simply seems to be that, changing a existent order is not this easy and uncomplicated than in eve. I even found some markets, where u need to cancel the old order if u want to replace it, this ofc includes some additional fees. So its much harder to play 0.01isk games in the real world or simply unneeded since u have more complex orders u can setup, so the advantage of being "served" first in the simple queue system eve uses, does not really exists in the real world.

So i'm not sure what to-do about it, since we would need more complex orders to get similar patterns than, which ofc would make the market system more complex. I still would like this, but i see that "normal" players don't want a virtual stock-exchange game :p

Um i did read more about orders and i really like this subtype of a conditional-order :)



I also like this one.



Even the most basic forms of Stop/Limit/Market-if-touched order's would eliminate the 0.01isk game completely, since its more about actually setting up clever and complex orders, than camping orders in the real world.


PS: So keep the old system, but give us more types of orders we can setup!