Market Discussions

So we just got another patch and a range of new items. This is all nice for the game, but there is a small old issue I would like to bring up again.

The limitation of market orders and contracts makes it practically impossible to seed new hubs without several tycoon trained characters.

If CCP wants Citadels and 3 Hub dominance to be only slightly reduced we really need to fix this old problem.

As things are it is only practically possible to go and fit a ship at one of the hubs. This means there is no alternative for players to fix without either personal, corporate or alliance internal stock and preset fittings stock. Ad hoc fitting locally is i practical terms impossible, the items are simply not seeded widely enough.

The main reason for this is that with the now borderline moronic limit on items you can have on retail as a trader makes it impossible to create new services, with resulting profits from local pilots lack of interest in going 15+ jumps to a main hub.


Without a fix to these things we will never get a more interesting dynamic difference in regions actual pricing. Currently is simple jita matching and Jita import exports only.

My suggestion would be to do something very similar to industry. Make broker fees and Contract fees a lot more expensive, and based on 90 days moving average valuation of the content. Then let the skills reduce these amounts accordingly. Remove the limitations entirely and base it all on added costs, and reduction to this from skill.

Similarly it would be really healthy for motivation if the industry fees on the index would be based on 90 days moving average and not some flat price fixing communism using base value.

I really hope this time CCP and the player base would support such a change, and removal of limitation, so Citadels wont end up another floating vanity and SOV item, and will actually be integrated into a much more complex and dynamic economic environment.

Yes and no.. The intention is to get the Traders attention, and hopefully the rellevant CCP dev. In the case of economics, I am sure it is more appropriate here, and will not risk flooding out from Foz dev related topics..

so would you be happy if CCP removed the limit on sell orders but kept it in place on buy orders?

That would ofc solve a lot of the problems for retail markets, but would still not help the general "resolution" of local markets (the number of completed orders and the incremental deifferences)..

It would def be a good first step, and maybe needed to slowly make people get used to a new dynamic.

I don't think comparing this to the industry slot limitation is valid, because the industry jobs limitation still remains. There isn't an equivalent limit to the number of market orders that can be placed simultaneously at one facility.

I fear that if you remove the 305 order cap, you remove a major limitation to a player's earning potential in a field that is already well known for it's high earnings. I'd be able to make more with one Tycoon alt than I can now make with 20 and my market earnings would no longer be held back by PLEX costs.

I think this would end badly.

It wouldn't be the first time.

But I have a hard time believing that I wouldn't unsub 15 of my Tycoons, ram all their orders into my 16th Tycoon, bank the same 40B a month from stocking local markets, skip paying 10B a month in PLEX costs and then expand from there using the unlimited orders.

To me it just looks like another gift to established rich traders.

I'd rather they spent the time fixing the mess they made of industry before they move on to breaking the market.

With the added free market competition prices would be much more fair and thus the huge profits would at least remain the same. Price finding would happen universally and holes in markets would be plugged by opportune market people, and the resources would be resold locally and shipped in and out according to needs. Sure profits may stay the same, but I doubt very much they would increase.. Especially considering non tycoons would have access to markets without investing in the skills, they would just take a bigger hit to margins locally. So no more hiked griefer prices, and local differences would develop to be mirrored directly in price at a much higher "resolution".. You would be able to analyse price graphs and say a lot more about population size historically and current composition of player types.

Also a decentralized system puts a whole different strain on trading, since its no longer HUB or DEAD markets.. So you could still use those many tycoons, especially if the standings still affects the brokers and see-saw would give different advantages and impact.

This, is very to the point. Futures really need to be introduced. They are now hidden in mailing lists, its bad for the public economy that is boosted by CCP. And let me sneak in a link to my comment on a forum thread about citadels and trade after EVE vegas, where I wondered if Citadels make a difference in private and public market orders and what that would accomplish.

I'm not sure why you are banging on about Marxism - maybe for comic effect

The hubs are the hubs - along with the internal pricing structures between them - because of the buyers not the sellers.

You could have infinite sell orders, and use it to seed whatever station you like, and all it would achieve is to create a new pattern within the internal pricing structures that lead to Jita 4-4. With the accompanying loss of opportunities for sellers able to identify and exploit opportunities.

If anything your idea would lead to a general flattening of prices and the 'dreaded' 'communism'.

I expected your reply - as you clearly find typing an adequate replacement for thinking.

CCP aren't setting the prices (excluding stuff like dairy products and tobacco)(and even that is marginal) - unless you are suggesting the 0.01 merchants are CCP, or the clear price differentials between trade hubs on highly traded commodities are created by CCP, etc - cos they clearly aren't

And there may have been historic issues for setting the restrictions as they are, but that does not get around the issue that restrictions create skill, and skill creates opportunity - hence why you suggestion has no merit.