Middle ground on materials broker and player trading...

Right, if we accept as true the following precepts:

1) FD is planning a materials broker kind of thing that will allow us to swap materials for other materials on some level (it is assumed). We don't know yet what formula this will use (for example, will I get one level 4 data for 1 level 4 metal? Or will I have to give more of what I don't need to get less of what I need?).

2) Player trading that could enable gold sellers and account theft and all that stuff that players fear, is not something that the game mechanics are ready for YET (I do hope it comes in the future though, after PP is dead and gone and the BGS is far more robust and commodity prices are player and market driven, anyway, I digress, that's not what this is about)...

We need to find a middle ground that doesn't introduce yet another robotic, zero player interaction system, when there is an opportunity here to promote player and playstyle synergy.

I cite a simple example, which is a drum many of you will have seen me banging in that huge thread about player trading. It;s a simple concept...

I don't like mining and prospecting. I'll do it to get what I need (and have done extensively), but that is not 'playing my way', that is forced gameplay by virtue of the fact that FD decided that to access all the engineers and to gather materials, you'd have to play EXTENSIVELY at all the playstyles, even those that you have no desire to do. I know there are lots of people that do not want to engage in combat in any way, shape or form, for example, and they should not be forced to. How are they supposed to unlock Lori Jameson for example? FD seem to accept that this was a contentious decision, evidenced by the suggested materials broker, so let's put that down as 'accepted', that there needs to be a way to collect all the materials you could need while 'playing your way'.

I DO like doing base runs (don't ask me why, judging by others feelings on the matter, I must be out of my tiny little mind) for data, and I'm aware of many people who find mining therapeutic and planetary prospecting adventurous fun in the SRV), while hating the random reward nature of base runs, as well as planetary approaches, etc.

Basically, every playstyle IS covered by players. So why should the miner discard tungsten he doesn't need, and why should I discard MEFs that I don't need, when we can trade with each other, and then both spend more time playing 'our way'? Why introduce a robot to do this, when it can be a really nice player interaction mechanic?

Here is my proposed implementation of this...

In stations determined by criteria of FDs choosing, a new menu item appears "Materials Trading". When this is clicked, you can choose if you want to create a trade, or browse current trade offers. If you click 'Create a trade', a form opens up and allows you to select a material from your cargo hold, a quantity, and what material you want in return, in what quantity. This can be arbitrarily chosen by players. For example, if I want 2 tungsten for each of my MEFs, that's my problem if nobody wants to do that. I might after a week of no takers have to say I want only 1.5 tungsten per CIF to get takers, or whatever.

When the trade is created, the materials are removed from your hold and held in escrow (to prevent you forgetting that you set up a trade offer, using the materials and then not being able to fulfill the order).

When you or another player clicks on 'Browse current trade offers', they can filter trades concerning the materials they want to buy or sell, and fulfil existing trade offers. For example, someone might see my offer of 5 CIF for 10 Tungsten, and say 'that works for me!', they click 'fulfill trade', they get the materials offered immediately and I get a message that my trade has been fulfilled (in game mail, or whatever), then I can go to the nearest station with Materials Trading and go pick up my materials.

Possible issues with this that wouldn't be issues if it was a robot with infinite stock of all materials (wouldn't that be a little immersion breaking anyway?)...

Q1) There may not be anybody offering what you want when you visit.
A1a) Create your own trade with materials that you don't currently need and be a bit patient, if it's a good trade someone will see it and go out farming in a way that they enjoy, to get you what you want, in order to get what you're offering.
A1b) Go farm the old fashioned way, get some extras and create a trade for something else you need, since you'll then be the only one offering that material, you can gouge people (ask for two of what you want, for example).

Q2) Some players may not be smart enough to create a fair trade, so their trades are never fufilled and they end up whining 'this thing is useless, nobody ever fulfills my trades'
A2a) Well, harsh as it sounds, ignorance really shouldn't be an excuse. Learn the values of materials and trade appropriately.
A2b) There could be a restriction where outrageously one-sided trades will either pop up a warning saying such at the time of posting, but allowing the player to continue if they want to (preferable in my opinion), or simply restrict people from creating very one-sided trades (not really ideal, if you think the market can bear it you should be able to ask whatever you want).

Q3) Offering CIFs for MEFs or vice versa (or any trade that involves trading two materials that come from the same or similar sources), will be hard to fulfill.
A3a) Yes, they will. I don't really have a suggestion for that, except perhaps consider offering a different material from a different gathering activity.
A3b) Or, no, they won't, because I do base runs only for CIF, others may do it only for MEF. So this would be a great opportunity for me (and the other) to convert the stuff I got I didn't want, into more stuff I wanted, making that farming run ultra effective.

I admit there may be other issues that I haven't considered (drop rates may need to be tweaked as it might suddenly become much easier to obtain some mats, and more difficult to obtain others, due to the fact that we are all mostly chasing the same 40 materials, and consider the other 75 or whatever largely useless, we ould have to see how that went.

Wouldn't this be preferable though, and more interactive than a robot that simply swaps mats? Welcome thoughts, criticisms, whatever. :)
 
The silence in here is VERY encouraging, because people tend to be vocal about what they don't like...

But no feedback at all? Nobody thinks this would be preferable to another robot?
 
Any player-to-player transfer system will be abused. Elite: Dangerous is a slow burn. If you want easy items, a BFG and boss fights, there's hundreds of other games to choose from. That's not Elite and I hope it never goes that way.

Frankly, if you can't be bothered to get it yourself, you bought the wrong game.

PS. There should be ways to find specific materials and commodities in game. Either through missions, or black markets or whatever.
 
Last edited:
Any player-to-player transfer system will be abused. Elite: Dangerous is a slow burn. If you want easy items, a BFG and boss fights, there's hundreds of other games to choose from. That's not Elite and I hope it never goes that way.

Frankly, if you can't be bothered to get it yourself, you bought the wrong game.

I don't follow. Where do I suggest I want an easy time? This is not about an easier time. An easier time is COMING whether you like it or not (you seem to be the one trying to dictate some alternative to what FD has already pledged to provide, materials broker is coming, I'm simply suggesting a tweak to the implementation).

You are aware there are people that don't want to do combat right? Don't you think they should have access to engineers and materials without doing so? I'm not one of them, so don't make this about me, cos it isn't.

I just want a more player interactive implementation of this materials broker thing.

Having said all that, I would be very interested (genuinely) to hear how you think it could be abused, so that I can take that into account and try to tweak the idea if necessary.

cheers!

P.S. It suddenly occurs to me, you didn't actually read my post did you? :) You just read the title. Go on, admit it, it's ok, I do it sometimes.
 
Last edited:
I'm opposed to player-player trades, but think a Contact with whom we can trade 1 material for another.....albeit for a certain exchange rate....is something I hope they will bring in soon.

That, & it would be nice if we can "call in a favour" to haggle with the factions over mission payouts-be it credits, commodities or materials.
 
I'm opposed to player-player trades, but think a Contact with whom we can trade 1 material for another.....albeit for a certain exchange rate....is something I hope they will bring in soon.

That, & it would be nice if we can "call in a favour" to haggle with the factions over mission payouts-be it credits, commodities or materials.

Can I ask you to explain why you are against player to player trades (via a third party, not face to face) of materials, but not player to bot? I can't see that there;s a difference except one helps other players and the other does not? Help me if I'm missing something, thanks.
 
Can I ask you to explain why you are against player to player trades (via a third party, not face to face) of materials, but not player to bot? I can't see that there;s a difference except one helps other players and the other does not? Help me if I'm missing something, thanks.

Because the former is open to exploitation, whereas the latter, IMHO, is not. That simple really. Also, we already have a pre-existing UI for exchanging materials and data.....in the form of the Science & Research Contact. This would make it relatively easy to implement such a brokerage system.
 
Given the time I'm seeing this at: Today, 4:58 AM... I don't think the Americans have woken up enough to respond to this...

2) Player trading that could enable gold sellers and account theft and all that stuff that players fear, is not something that the game mechanics are ready for YET (I do hope it comes in the future though, after PP is dead and gone and the BGS is far more robust and commodity prices are player and market driven, anyway, I digress, that's not what this is about)...

As I was saying in another thread, generally Gold Sellers love the F2P environments as they are left -- more often times than naught -- minimally to completely unchecked. Pay-to-Play environments may get the opportunistic players wanting to take advantage, but it won't be the deluge F2P sees on the day to day because they would have to pay first to get into the game before being able to work out the investment to becoming gold sellers.

When the trade is created, the materials are removed from your hold and held in escrow (to prevent you forgetting that you set up a trade offer, using the materials and then not being able to fulfill the order).

I snipped most of it, and will tell you right now I've seen this used similarly in another game and it can just as easily be exploited by the gold sellers even in Pay-to-Play Games. It will keep the fraud down to a minimum as you need to actually have the materials you're attempting to trade. But Gold Traders? Nope, they'll use it just as much as an honest trader would.

Wouldn't this be preferable though, and more interactive than a robot that simply swaps mats? Welcome thoughts, criticisms, whatever. :)

Doesn't matter to me if the system is go-between or if I'm trading directly with another human being. If I want it, the price is reasonable, and the transaction goes through -- I'm satisfied. Try to cheat me, and I guarantee you -- your life will become hell.
 
Because the former is open to exploitation, whereas the latter, IMHO, is not. That simple really. Also, we already have a pre-existing UI for exchanging materials and data.....in the form of the Science & Research Contact. This would make it relatively easy to implement such a brokerage system.

How is it open to exploitation? It's material for material? No credits, no gold, no commodities.

Please give me an example, because I have been very careful to avoid any possibility of that. I've been playing MMOs to a high level for many years, no need to willy measure, but I am a 'player', I understand very well gold sellers, and all the MMO scams. I also know code, I'm not great, but I have technical background, and I can't see how this could be abused any more than a bot could. I may well be missing something obvious, but I don't think so, so you'll have to point it out to me.
 
Last edited:
As I was saying in another thread, generally Gold Sellers love the F2P environments as they are left -- more often times than naught -- minimally to completely unchecked. Pay-to-Play environments may get the opportunistic players wanting to take advantage, but it won't be the deluge F2P sees on the day to day because they would have to pay first to get into the game before being able to work out the investment to becoming gold sellers.
Good point on the time zone. The UK folks are usually more vocal though, and this thread spent 6 hours in DD before getting moved here, no responses whatsoever.

I completely agree with you, but it's hard to find people in Elite who see it objectively, so I avoided saying anything else about that. I could give you 19 more reasons gold sellers wouldn't like elite, EVEN if player to player credit transactions were allowed, but that was another debate (if you want a link to a very passionate discussion about that, please just say the word).
 
Last edited:
I'm opposed to player-player trades, but think a Contact with whom we can trade 1 material for another.....albeit for a certain exchange rate....is something I hope they will bring in soon.

That, & it would be nice if we can "call in a favour" to haggle with the factions over mission payouts-be it credits, commodities or materials.

I'm not yet sold on player trading of materials and data either.

I've seen it suggested, though not confirmed, that Frontier are considering a materials broker. The key issue with this is how do you set the exchange rate. The OP's suggestion that exchange rates reflect real supply and demand seems the most sensible to me.

Players can easily game the system if you set exchange rates that don't reflect the availability of and the real value of different materials to the player. You risk getting to the point where SDC's Cracktrain 12.0 involves instructions on fitting a big ship for mining, to get lots of Nickel, which you take to a Broker to convert into Galvanising Alloys, which you convert into Shielding Sensors, which you convert into CIF. It will be clever and efficient and dull. Never run bases again, which is great unless you enjoy running bases and hate mining.

You avoid this if you use real supply and demand. Someone still has to acquire the CIF through normal methods: It can't be magicked from an infinite supply held by the broker. The broker's value of Nickel in comparison to CIF will reflect the real in game effort in collecting and utility value of the materials for the players: This makes exploiting exchange rate differentials much more difficult because you'd actually have to play the market rather than game the system. Knowing the real value of materials and data to the players would also help FD tune drop rates much more appropriately.

If we are going to have exchange of materials and data then some kind of market would be my preferred option. However, I'm not sure that FD is keen on player markets of any kind. If instead we were to be offered infinite supplies with centrally set exchange rates then I'd be dead against the idea.
 
I'm not yet sold on player trading of materials and data either.

I've seen it suggested, though not confirmed, that Frontier are considering a materials broker. The key issue with this is how do you set the exchange rate. The OP's suggestion that exchange rates reflect real supply and demand seems the most sensible to me.

Players can easily game the system if you set exchange rates that don't reflect the availability of and the real value of different materials to the player. You risk getting to the point where SDC's Cracktrain 12.0 involves instructions on fitting a big ship for mining, to get lots of Nickel, which you take to a Broker to convert into Galvanising Alloys, which you convert into Shielding Sensors, which you convert into CIF. It will be clever and efficient and dull. Never run bases again, which is great unless you enjoy running bases and hate mining.

You avoid this if you use real supply and demand. Someone still has to acquire the CIF through normal methods: It can't be magicked from an infinite supply held by the broker. The broker's value of Nickel in comparison to CIF will reflect the real in game effort in collecting and utility value of the materials for the players: This makes exploiting exchange rate differentials much more difficult because you'd actually have to play the market rather than game the system. Knowing the real value of materials and data to the players would also help FD tune drop rates much more appropriately.

If we are going to have exchange of materials and data then some kind of market would be my preferred option. However, I'm not sure that FD is keen on player markets of any kind. If instead we were to be offered infinite supplies with centrally set exchange rates then I'd be dead against the idea.

Well said, thanks for your input. The bot is going to be easier to abuse than the player driven system, or at least, more difficult to implement in a way that cannot be abused (can't give you more rep yet).

By the way, see the livestream with the release date of 2.4 and Thargoid lore with Sandro for the confirmation that this is coming, but not what form it will take.
 
Last edited:
I see two major issues with this (as much as I would like it to work):

1. Gold farmers. They could make a killing finding materials for the most popular mods, and then doing a swap in game for a worthless and easily grindable material + a bunch of real world cash.
2. The sheer amount of different materials available. There are close to 100 different materials, admittedly a large portion are useless, but there are still a considerable amount. Trading these, without a go-between currency like most other games use, will be a nightmare. There is a reason why every civilisation in the world has developed some form of currency to facilitate commerce.

Personally, I couldn't care less about gold farmers (no problem for me if others pay to get what they want as I don't PvP). I would also love to see a form of materials currency (engineering dollars?) implemented. I am, however, 100% sure that the devs are not keen on any of those things.
 
Well said, thanks for your input. The bot is going to be easier to abuse than the player driven system, or at least, more difficult to implement in a way that cannot be abused (can't give you more rep yet).

A bot cannot be abused. It can be poorly designed, or the various activities that give you materials can be poorly balanced, but that is all within the devs control to sort out. Aside from that there is no possibility of abuse.

If the devs can't be bothered to balance the activities that give you materials of different grades then that is a game design issue, not a bot exploit issue.

Edit: In fact I'd go so far as to say that an NPC broker would be a great tool for the devs to use to balance out the material gathering activities. If there is a large percentage of people only farming one material to the detriment of others they know they have got their balancing (either trade values or actual drop rates) wrong.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see Black markets become the areas where players can trade items through the bots you describe. If the prices are controlled by the BGS kinda thing and not player controlled then I'm for that.

As you the person talking about swapping large amounts of grindable stuff etc it already can happen that with with current commodities etc.
 
Bump cos it's a good time.

A bot cannot be abused. It can be poorly designed, or the various activities that give you materials can be poorly balanced, but that is all within the devs control to sort out. Aside from that there is no possibility of abuse.

If the devs can't be bothered to balance the activities that give you materials of different grades then that is a game design issue, not a bot exploit issue.

Edit: In fact I'd go so far as to say that an NPC broker would be a great tool for the devs to use to balance out the material gathering activities. If there is a large percentage of people only farming one material to the detriment of others they know they have got their balancing (either trade values or actual drop rates) wrong.

I'd say it's patently obvious that they've got the balance wrong when simultaneously the hardest material to farm and used in the most important recipes, is a grade THREE!!

I've actually come to the point where I believe BOTH are needed.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom