ASC - T2 Discussion

Discussion of in-game politics. Please post "In character" in here, IE as in your game persona or character. This is not for discussion ABOUT the game or about politics in the game, but actual political debate.
no avatar
User

RAM

Rank

Commander

Commander
Posts

471

Joined

Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:36 am

ASC - T2 Discussion

Postby RAM » Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:55 pm

T2 is 2nd tier commodities. Those things that take raw materials to produce.

The UNCA has stated they are open to adding these items. Here is the price structure so far as a starting point for discussion

Image

Red shows drop in price. Green shows increase or adding to the amount that can be made by selling the T2 items.

What are your thoughts and suggestions as to pricing that should be recommended to the UNCA?
Ban cheese slicers. Make Apollo Sector grate again!
Fan Fiction from an old timer - RAM Memories
User avatar
User

davh62

Rank

Captain

Captain
Posts

1271

Joined

Tue Mar 17, 2015 8:40 pm

Location

UK

Re: ASC - T2 Discussion

Postby davh62 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 3:29 pm

I'm happy to accept your proposed price changes.
Last edited by davh62 on Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
FG Fighters Guild Founder
Senator of Ferrite-Senator of Prime-Senator of Barons Rest- Hater of rams speaking date stamp
User avatar
User

Loke

Rank

Lt Commander

Lt Commander
Posts

160

Joined

Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:39 pm

Re: ASC - T2 Discussion

Postby Loke » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:02 pm

"T2 discussion" but includes change for T1 prices to? What are we really supposed to discuss here?

I will support any form of T2 being added, if it does NOT also include suggested carbon price drop!
The suggested prices for T2 is too low for me to care about really, as production quantity possible is laughable low compared to T1. But I will still support it being added at any level.

Any suggestion including a devestating carbon price decrease as much as 125 (175 at 40%) is not possible in any way for me to support. It would remove the last profitable production for colonies. All other T1 are already close to worthless, so those doesnt really matter. This will happen because haulers will be less motivated to buy carbon for a reasonable price, and colonies will have to dump their price to sell it. It has been like this before, lets not go back to it. Currently it seems possible to sell carbon for up to 200 per ton, 250-300 if close to ceres.

Actually sewage is the most valuable item that doesnt require astroid mining. thats bad enough, lets not make this worse by killing carbon colonies and established trade routes and fleets.

/Senator Loke

Edit: It is dissapointing to see that the precident did not consider my suggestion of keeping a discussion that affects gameplay where it belongs, in the actual gameplay forum. Does the president not care about the voices of those not comfortable walking in these political halls?
Voting would ofc still be kept here.
Last edited by Loke on Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Callsign: Fraaggii or Loke
Senator Loke of Primo Spe, 8086, New Horizon, Skadi, Darkfield and Niu Heimar

Statistics for Nio and Tin prices: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3427
User avatar
User

Moneyman

Rank

Captain

Captain
Posts

679

Joined

Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:53 pm

Location

Massachusetts

Re: ASC - T2 Discussion

Postby Moneyman » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:09 pm

:mrgreen: I ignore anything but exotic prices in calculating ship module and ship barter prices in volume quantity purchases.

I rely on Moon's pricing for single item sales.

My change would be replacing 125% with 130% in my calculations ... still allowing profit for buyers ... my objective, overall.
User avatar
User

delfromanc

Rank

2nd Lieutenant

2nd Lieutenant
Posts

46

Joined

Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:13 pm

Location

Georgia, USA

Re: ASC - T2 Discussion

Postby delfromanc » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:26 pm

Not being a trader primarily I am still for the introduction of the T2 items into the LM market. However I would like to see the reasoning behind the change in the T1 pricing structure that has been provided.

Kind Regards
Delf Romanc
Senator of Magnum Australis, Terra Medianus, and Grubstake Bonanza
Romanc Mining Company
======================
M*&@#!$*
Just Keep Pounding away.
no avatar
User

RAM

Rank

Commander

Commander
Posts

471

Joined

Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:36 am

Re: ASC - T2 Discussion

Postby RAM » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:09 pm

delfromanc wrote:Not being a trader primarily I am still for the introduction of the T2 items into the LM market. However I would like to see the reasoning behind the change in the T1 pricing structure that has been provided.

Kind Regards
Delf Romanc
Senator of Magnum Australis, Terra Medianus, and Grubstake Bonanza


Thanks for asking. The concern is adding a lot of credits into the system, thus causing devaluation of currency. Our hopes are that with the addition of the T2 items, it will create a deeper economy with much more variations and options instead of just hauling carbon to market.

Loke wrote:Any suggestion including a devestating carbon price decrease as much as 125 (175 at 40%) is not possible in any way for me to support.


Feel free to make a suggestion and work to develop support for it. Again, these are starting places for discussion. I have always been concerned about the elevated carbon prices which have only seen one adjustment since colonies came on line. A free market would see carbon prices bottom out by now. I am posting these and asking for discussion and suggestions. I am not posting these and saying this will be it. I look forward to strong healthy debate and lots of ideas.

I do understand the need for some of the commodity price locking. We do need it for the overall health and engagement of the PC, new and old. We do have to be cautious when we are going to increase the credits that we can make buy as much as what we are suggesting to add. I would also love to see more balance so the other commodities are worth producing and using instead of carbon being 95% of the economy backbone. Yes, this means less for carbon, but if other commodities are increasing, we should see some uptick in trade. We also should see a much higher demand for T2 items to be hauled.

One also needs to remember that the prices being suggested will be a base. The price, as it does now, will fluctuate a bit still.
Ban cheese slicers. Make Apollo Sector grate again!
Fan Fiction from an old timer - RAM Memories
User avatar
User

Moneyman

Rank

Captain

Captain
Posts

679

Joined

Sun Jan 31, 2016 2:53 pm

Location

Massachusetts

Re: ASC - T2 Discussion

Postby Moneyman » Wed Sep 06, 2017 5:41 pm

RAM wrote: The concern is adding a lot of credits into the system


Come on, isn't this a little hollow considering that some players have a lot more than $1t in their UNCA account?

Horror of horrors. Tax UNCA accounts with more than $100b in the account? Would do wonders.

Being just shy of $300b in UNCA, I'd be paying taxes. Hmmmm.
User avatar
User

Loke

Rank

Lt Commander

Lt Commander
Posts

160

Joined

Mon Jun 30, 2014 7:39 pm

Re: ASC - T2 Discussion

Postby Loke » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:26 pm

Moneyman wrote:
RAM wrote: The concern is adding a lot of credits into the system


Come on, isn't this a little hollow


Its completely hollow, especialy since he doesnt take in consideration who or where he removes the profit. The suggested (RAM have posted it so many times now it most be considered a statement) drop of 125 will mostly hurt carbon producing colonies and trade fleets, not the haulers RAM wants to reduce profit from.

Let me explain. If you look at what needs to happen before you can collect UNCAs buy price, you can split that into 3 different professions. The first is building and running a colony, second there need to be a trade fleet to move the carbon from the colony to a convinient OSB and third you hva the hauler that takes the last jump to sell it at i9 markets. Currently the profit is split between these 3 professions and anyone can start a career where they want and make profit.

If price at UNCA drops with 125 the haulers will be less motivated and probably do other things for a while. Then carbon fills up at colonies and OSBs, flooding the market. Colonies and OSBs will compete on dropping sell price faster than eachother to compete over the decreased hauling capacity. Colony and OSB carbon prices are then so low that the haulers part of the profit is back to the same.
Image
It will take maybe up to month after the UNCA price drop, but then again haulers will get the same profit as before.

While colonies suffer a 80% drop in income, and trade to OSB suffers a 60% profit loss. The new prices after the drop is ofc an estimate, but it is exactly what happned after the last price change at UNCA. Haulers will get back to it as before, but it takes ages before the flooded carbon again gets a fair price at colonies.

The current prices in my example are completly realistic, and when you do a stock market search now its easy to see:
Image
Range: 888. Quantity: >10million (not counting small amounts available on the market when looking at price).

As you can see there arent much too cheap carbon on the market, and only the 2 in the red square are one jump away from i9, both at prime. There isnt even 1 big cheap carbon seller at MZ3 (quickest and most popular place to buy carbon for haulers), which is why I conclude that the market is not flooded with carbon as it has been before.

I have been keeping the carbon I produce at my colonies at a price of 200 for ages, to try and keep pushing the possible profit for colonies as high as possible, not always been able to sell it but from what I can see the situation has slowly been improving. This is a better way of reducing the too high profit of the haulers in my opinion (I do agree on that, just not the method of solving it). The project I am currently working on will take this even further, actually a lot further. But if UNCA drops carbon with 125 now it will crash before it gets going.

I have struggled through the last price drop, and a couple other incidents creating the same issue, when colonies no longer can get an income worth working for. My colonies were practically inactive for long periods, and I have dump more carbon into space than I care to count. So sorry if I come off to harsh, but I am not interested in struggling through this again. 125 drop means retirement for me and shut down of all my colonies, OSBs and trade fleet. :cry:


RAM wrote:Feel free to make a suggestion and work to develop support for it

I should make suggestion? Of what? :? I suggest nothing then, since I see no need for change. I dont see a lack of support on that, several questioned or were against the carbon price drop during your run for prez, and 2 questions in this thread already? Where is your support?

I really see no problem as is or big consequence of your claimed problems with current price. And I do try to see the bigger picture here and not only think about myself, which is difficult as the stakes are really high for me in this.
I could suggest a drop of 50 (70 at 40%), which would be tolerable to me. Anything higher is not. Could then do another drop of 50 later, avoiding the big drop at one time issue, reducing consequnces (I hope) by splitting the effect. This is really not the time for a big drop, you would know if you had followed carbon economy(not just the hauling part) for a long time.

RAM wrote:I do understand the need for some of the commodity price locking. We do need it for the overall health and engagement of the PC, new and old. We do have to be cautious when we are going to increase the credits that we can make buy as much as what we are suggesting to add. I would also love to see more balance so the other commodities are worth producing and using instead of carbon being 95% of the economy backbone. Yes, this means less for carbon, but if other commodities are increasing, we should see some uptick in trade. We also should see a much higher demand for T2 items to be hauled.

We are not increasing credits by adding T2, it will still take same time to haul, which is the limit of how much credits get pumped out by UNCA. Only thing that matters is the highest priced item we can make a lot of, and that would still be carbon. Nothing changes with adding for example graphene at 910, since the produced amounts will be low.
A carbon mine produces between 1000 and 1500 a day on good planets, graphene factorie is like 10 at OSB wtih good morale and enhancement. Beer and such need tertiari too. So no, T2 will not take over for T1 and increase credits, it only adds diversity.

/Senator Loke
Callsign: Fraaggii or Loke
Senator Loke of Primo Spe, 8086, New Horizon, Skadi, Darkfield and Niu Heimar

Statistics for Nio and Tin prices: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=3427
User avatar
User

Mooncrest

Rank

Commodore

Commodore
Posts

1476

Joined

Sat Nov 01, 2014 6:19 pm

Location

MIB Tyngbraneth, Miner's Paradise

Re: ASC - T2 Discussion

Postby Mooncrest » Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:41 pm

I am in favour of adding T2 products to the list of products purchased by the Inner 9 Starstations. The on cost profit margin of 30% seems to me to be an acceptable level of profit for manufacturers. However, there is no incentive for third party traders to purchase from the manufacturers and sell the products on. Perhaps, the price paid by the Starstations should be set at 160% and nor 130% of the material cost.

However, we should not forget that the mainstay of the economy should be trading with other Pilot's Stock Markets and not just dumping material and product at the Starstations.
Blake Mooncrest
Proprietor, Mooncrest Industries

Senator for Elfydd, Newydd Cymru, Otturet, Ceredigion, Llandysul and Llanrhystyd also for MrPC-16 and moper-10.
Mayor of all MI Facilities in the Miners Paradise system.
User avatar
User

davh62

Rank

Captain

Captain
Posts

1271

Joined

Tue Mar 17, 2015 8:40 pm

Location

UK

Re: ASC - T2 Discussion

Postby davh62 » Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:28 pm

I can see all arguments here. But lets be realistic. Most trading is done to LM's. It pays the most creds! It will always be this way with the very low player base that we have. Let us look at the bigger picture here. What we are trying to curb is easy, fast rush to end game. What I mean by that is something that I & many other vets have seen happen time & time again.

New players join & within 2-4 weeks have a top tier ship millions of credits & no incentive to play. BH STILL produces tens of millions of carb a day & much of it is 100 creds or below. Plenty of profit margin is still available. I see LM reductions as only part of the solution. I would even go so far as to decrease production yields of colonies. Lets face it we overproduce millions. Along with LM hauling caps.

Anyhow getting back to the presidents proposal. With T2 implemented any price reductions are effectively offset by greater hauling choices. Many of us have access stock of things like beer, wine & cigars. We will start to see these moving from WH to LM. All of you that have showed concern are not short of creds :D . I myself as the richest & biggest hauler to LM will see the biggest drop of income, but it's a necessity to help the longevity of those who as yet haven't purchased this amazing game.

Now I do expect a backlash from this post. Please feel free to vent. But as a RW multiple business owner I know that when stock is over produced prices need & have to fall. Many of you wanted more realistic economics, RAM's proposal is sound.
FG Fighters Guild Founder
Senator of Ferrite-Senator of Prime-Senator of Barons Rest- Hater of rams speaking date stamp
Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Powered by phpBB ® | Style by KomiDesign | Modified by Chris Valleriani