Delivery of specified goods has no effect on production rates

[Ian Doncaster]

Based on https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-reset-with-odysee.555443/page-5#post-8726527 we tested whether this behaviour was still present and measurable.

1) At Metztli, Vitto Orbital (Agricultural, 20000 population) drained Tea reserves to zero, then measured recovery rate in Boom state.

History of Tea at Vitto Orbital

cdb.sotl.org.uk

Result is slightly less than ten tonnes per hour of a 582t cap, or just under three days for a full recovery. This gives the baseline rate. Trade and traffic at this station is relatively low and there is no sign that the three goods mentioned as producing more Tea are routinely delivered.

2) Based on the goods listed in the post, following the full recovery of the Tea supply we then delivered large quantities of Pesticides, Crop Harvesters and Biowaste to Vitto Orbital - many thanks to everyone who helped load and unload the carrier for this test. Again, Vitto was only in Boom state throughout the test.

Pesticides: https://cdb.sotl.org.uk/stations/8/trade/122?minrange=3306-11-08&maxrange=3306-11-12

Crop Harvesters: https://cdb.sotl.org.uk/stations/8/trade/29?minrange=3306-11-08&maxrange=3306-11-12

Biowaste: https://cdb.sotl.org.uk/stations/8/trade/77?minrange=3306-11-08&maxrange=3306-11-12

Pesticide and Harvester demand were pushed below zero repeatedly. Biowaste demand regenerated too fast to practically do this with a small team, but around 6000t were delivered in approximately twelve hours, to a demand cap of around 7000t [1]. Confirming the control result, no deliveries of any of these goods other than the ones made for this experiment are visible.

During these deliveries, the Tea regeneration rate was observed: https://cdb.sotl.org.uk/stations/8/trade/19?minrange=3306-11-08&maxrange=3306-11-12
There was no immediate change, nor was there a change at the next tick (approximately 1700 hours) - the same regeneration rate of 9-10t/hour from the control test was observed.

3) Observations continued with a reduced frequency for the following days, with no visible increases or decreases in regeneration rate over this longer period.

4) Conclusion: delivery of plausible "precursor" goods no longer increases production, beyond the generic potential for trade to create a Boom state and increase most production rates by 70-80%.

This is consistent with the earlier results of simultaneously meeting all Demand requirements at the Damask Rose megaship, though of course the less interesting outcome.


[1] As the demand cap is dependent on state, it's unlikely that it is directly relevant. A large bubble agricultural can have a demand cap of multiple mega-tonnes for Biowaste, which even a CG-sized effort would be unlikely to get anywhere close to denting.

 

[Danieros]

Looks like they're going all out on just making the states magically multiply supply/demand and prices

With no effect in playing the trade game to move the supply/demand of the less profitable raw materials to have any effect stimulating the more profitable ones...

 

[Ian Doncaster]

True, though interesting for a few people as it would have been, I don't think it would ever have been more than a curiosity if it had worked.
- there are far too many trade goods already, a bit over 150 generally tradable or minable. I've played games which are literally about setting up complex trade and transportation networks that do perfectly well with about 30. Too much duplication, too many that either aren't useful or don't really fit into an industry chain (e.g. what should delivering Beer or Fish or Clothing or Domestic Appliances boost production of?) and indeed too few goods which we actually need in even greater quantities anyway
- bulk trade is already one of the lower-profit professions outside some state-driven edge cases, so anything that means you're having to trade the lower-profit goods within that probably actually means everyone goes and does something else instead.
- in a massively multiplayer environment, there's not a lot of incentive to be the one who hauls the cheap stuff so the expensive stuff gets produced, rather than the one who hauls the expensive stuff away at the end.

This sort of thing would need major changes to be useful:
- much lower default supply/demand caps and regeneration (for 1% the daily tonnage regeneration, and probably less). Even tiny Colonia only has a few stations which will seriously run out of any goods without a CG-sized effort
- substantial rebalancing of baseline supply/demand levels to even them out. Right now virtually every good is wildly imbalanced between the amount produced and the amount (that could be) consumed
- endpoint uses for goods in terms of expanding populations and station facilities semi-persistently (or reducing them if deliveries aren't made)
- much more clarity throughout about what needs to be delivered where (probably with factions heavily generating source missions for it) so we're not trying to run a management sim from the inside of a fighter jet
- about 90% of the bubble to be eaten by Thargoids so the player density is right

I think we're basically into "that's an entirely different game" territory by then, unfortunately. But maybe it's something that Frontier could incrementally creep up on - at least the state-based changes give the market some depth and dynamism, even if it's a bit unrealistic at times.

 

[Morbad]

Neither pleased nor surprised to see that Frontier is gradually removing even the pretense of an economy.

- in a massively multiplayer environment, there's not a lot of incentive to be the one who hauls the cheap stuff so the expensive stuff gets produced, rather than the one who hauls the expensive stuff away at the end.

It's not the MMO environment that's responsible for the lack of incentive to haul traditionally bulk goods, it's that everything is a bulk good, even the really expensive stuff.

I think we're basically into "that's an entirely different game" territory by then, unfortunately. But maybe it's something that Frontier could incrementally creep up on - at least the state-based changes give the market some depth and dynamism, even if it's a bit unrealistic at times.

We can only hope.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

It's not the MMO environment that's responsible for the lack of incentive to haul traditionally bulk goods, it's that everything is a bulk good, even the really expensive stuff.

Also true, and why the "drop tonnage regeneration to <1% of current" would have to be part of the reforms to make anything like this worthwhile.

 

[Sapyx]

Most of the "lower" and "middle" commodities are clear, obvious precursors to other commodities. Bauxite is aluminium ore, so you "should" be able to ship Bauxite to a Refinery planet, sell it, and pick up your resulting aluminium. Aluminium in turn is clearly needed to make Agricultural Machinery (among other things), so you "should" be able to take your aluminium to an Industrial planet, sell it and pick up your tractors. Take the tractors to an Agricultural planet and sell them, buy food, and take the food to the Mining economy to complete the circle.

I don't know for sure if it was FD's plan to ever implement such interconnectivity, but the linking of ores and metals (most metals have a corresponding ore) implies that someone in game design was at least considering it.

Too much duplication, too many that either aren't useful or don't really fit into an industry chain (e.g. what should delivering Beer or Fish or Clothing or Domestic Appliances boost production of?)
---

...endpoint uses for goods in terms of expanding populations and station facilities semi-persistently (or reducing them if deliveries aren't made)

Concur. Foods, "standard of living" supplies and "luxury goods" should drive population growth. You'd need a "balanced diet" for optimal growth rate, so that all the commodities need to be shipped, with bulk shipments of basic commodities and only small amounts of the luxury goods needed; a colony fed with just Tea and Coffee and nothing else shouldn't grow as fast.

I can see, however, the problem with putting population growth in the hands of players: population bombing as a BGS weapon. Not only causing unwanted growth in enemy systems (assuming population growth has some downsides, like decreased Security and Wealth), but presumably the existence of negative affects causing population shrinkage (War, Famine, Outbreak, etc). If positive growth was hard to do and negative growth easy, then the galactic population would collapse. If the other way around, then the galactic population would boom, far faster than what ought to be biologically possible.

Then there's the "problem" of where do all those extra people come from. This game is realtime, so we can't realistically expect to see daily-tick visible growth though birth rates alone. People added to one star system should logically be mostly coming from neighbouring star systems (or from the overpopulated core systems), but I can't see a way of doing that without actively tracking NPC movements, and keeping track of 7 trillion NPCs would be beyond the scope of any game.