Notice Notice regarding supply and demand of high-end minerals

Who cares if you don't like it do something different, its all bull after all its a game "supply and demand" ha ha next joke get real its just another **** if your that ed off that try a different game there nothing like falling player numbers to get there attention. SHUT UP, SUCK IT UP or go forth and multiply.
 
The current bulk tax makes it difficult to determine how much you are actually going to receive per unit before arriving at the station with your cargo. To the point where we'll need 3rd party tools just to figure it out.

So why don't they make it so the demand is the maximum amount of cargo of a certain type any individual can sell at the given price to a station between server supply/demand updates? Then adjust the demand and price to reflect how they want the game to be played, eg. outposts have low demand but higher selling prices if they want small loads to be worth more per ton.

Keep it simple and transparent.
 
:ROFLMAO: :giggle::love::LOL::ROFLMAO::LOL: oh thanks for that, funniest thing ive read in ages . Why stop there tho? Why not get rid of this silly relentless engineering clickgrind and make engineering results RNG instead?! That sounds fantastic and I cant imagine any years of relentless complaining about that either 🥳
Point is to find an actual use for commodities such that players become and even bigger part of the economy, rather than leaving the BGS handle demand and supply. If you don't like the idea of having them used for engineering, that's fine. There are other possible uses.

On a side note, engineering being hard to do is a good thing. A highly engineered ship is endgame equipment. It's not meant to be easy to get. Problem is that for the most part, many has absolutely no role to play in engineering. Which means that making money earning activities such as mining more difficult doesn't make sense. Why set endgame difficulty on an activity that doesn't produce endgame content? As such, inflation occurs, because people just accrue money after they buy the ships they want. Diverting that money in engineering would solve some of those problems. I'm certain it would create some new problems too, which is why we're discussing things here (insert comment about how naive it is to think our discussions have much influence over FD's decisions).
 
That's because it gets exploited otherwise (selling one ton at a time). It wasn't there from the beginning, something happend to get it changed but I can't remember what it was.
But why even change the price based on how much you sell? The buyer needs those items. The longer they wait, the worse it is. If anything, they should give you a bonus for selling so much in one go. Maybe there's a very expensive production line sitting idle, costing incredible amounts of money, waiting for those items.
 
:ROFLMAO: :giggle::love::LOL::ROFLMAO::LOL: oh thanks for that, funniest thing ive read in ages . Why stop there tho? Why not get rid of this silly relentless engineering clickgrind and make engineering results RNG instead?! That sounds fantastic and I cant imagine any years of relentless complaining about that either 🥳

that was actually a thing back in the day. :ROFLMAO:

sadly, i can't dig up any of those juicy threads so you could have a good laugh. too old, i guess (the threads, not me!), or they didn't survive the forum revamp.
 
As of today, I am still getting 1.1M a ton for LTD in loads under 200T. It just takes a few minutes more to find a system with both the price and demand I need close enough to reach in a timely fashion. So far this change has only really slightly reduced what I can make an hour laser mining in a triple LTD hot spot. It just made it a bit more difficult and maybe requires I fly a bit further.
 
Final thing: give commodities an actual use for players! Until then, no one will have any need of buying or selling things other than cash. Why not make commodities needed for engineering? What if i actually needed materials available on the market to engineer something?

Urm.....they did? In Engineers V1.0?

That attempt didn't end well, and the commodities requirement was dropped.
 
Last edited:
But why even change the price based on how much you sell? The buyer needs those items. The longer they wait, the worse it is. If anything, they should give you a bonus for selling so much in one go. Maybe there's a very expensive production line sitting idle, costing incredible amounts of money, waiting for those items.
The idea of it is pretty sound - it's just the implementation has a major flaw. (Numbers in the following rounded off but reasonably plausible)

If you take a station which currently demands 100t of opals at 1 million/tonne, then - without the bulk tax - if you sell 100t of opals to it, you'll get 100 million credits.

If you sell 50t of opals, you'll get 50 million credits, and the price will drop to about 700,000/tonne. If you then go out and mine another 50t, you'll only get 35 million credits for that. So by selling in two loads, you've "lost" 15 million credits.

If you mine an opal at a time, and sell them, the price for the 100th one will be only 400,000/tonne, and your total income after selling 100t this way will be only 70 million credits.

The bulk tax is supposed to be levelling that out so whether you sell 100t at once or 1t 100 times, you get the 70 million credits. The problem is that what it should be doing is working out the price based on how much you're trying to sell, not on how much you're carrying.

At the moment if you sell 100t to one station you get 70 million credits, but if you sell 1t to 100 identical stations you get 100 million credits if you mine them 1t at a time, and probably about 85 million credits if you mine 100t and sell 1t at each station.

(It would probably need some sort of pricing graph inside the buy/sell interface to explain why you weren't getting 100x the sale price for the first 1t when you sold 100t, and if they're not going to add that I think getting rid of the bulk tax altogether would be the better option)
 

Deleted member 38366

D
...been wondering about the near future with the Bulk Trade Tax in mind...

What if...

Fleet Carriers in Mining or Exploration/Mining role return from Deep Space after long campaigns?
I'm assuming those will have profound Cargo Holds, which FC Operators will then have to unload to sell somewhere.

I'm envisioning myself for example using large Cargo Vessels to perform this task - resulting in several Batches of Ores going to the Market in large volume (>600t per trip).

With that in mind, the current Trade Tax would incur a severe penalty for doing so. Players (in order to maximize their Profit) would be better off making 2.5x the trips i.e. in a Python, which would be kind of a weird "Carrier Unload grind" as Players would be encouraged to limit the size of their sales Ship Cargo holds.
That'd be quite weird.

Dunno, if that scenario is realistic, then the Trade Tax (IMHO) would have one more reason to perish.
 
@FalconFly

Its going to be fun when PFC squads crash a station sale price in one run with all 12 players in medium+ ships in a squad unloading at the same time...
Instant jump travel to any selling station in 500Ly with a single jump... no moving those ships 1 at a time to the sale station for the squad...
Sale prices will be even worse as soon as a high sale station is found in the bubble all the mining PFC will jump to that system... and unload crashing the station price..
 

Deleted member 38366

D
@FalconFly

Its going to be fun when PFC squads crash a station sale price in one run with all 12 players in medium+ ships in a squad unloading at the same time...
Instant jump travel to any selling station in 500Ly with a single jump... no moving those ships 1 at a time to the sale station for the squad...
Sale prices will be even worse as soon as a high sale station is found in the bubble all the mining PFC will jump to that system... and unload crashing the station price..

It'll be the same as we already have, just happen quicker on-location indeed.
If any of their Players is feeding the EDDN, at least the changes will be visible just as fast.

For others, it'll be to move onto the next best Station then, similar to what we're witnessing today already if folks aren't happy with the actual remaining Demand levels.
(I take it smart folks already choose the 2nd to 4th place down the line, as these likely aren't hit as bad/quickly and those still offer a reliable 90+ percentage of the high-price region)
 
The bulk tax is supposed to be levelling that out so whether you sell 100t at once or 1t 100 times, you get the 70 million credits. The problem is that what it should be doing is working out the price based on how much you're trying to sell, not on how much you're carrying.
No market ever works like that. Nothing in any game, nothing in real life. Why would you need to even that out? Because people with huge ships make better money? Why shouldn't they? They invested time and money in that ship and then spent hours and hours filling it up. Why shouldn't they receive a better return for the extra effort?
Mining in small ships has advantages too (or it would have, if the economy was real and not ridiculously micromanaged). You find the place which buys at the highest price, you find a system near it to mine, you get in, get out. With a big ship, by the time you fill it up the demand might go away and you'd either sell at a lower price than expected or you have to jump several hundred light years to the current highest buyer. Big ships are more efficient, but carry more risk of falling victim to market volatility.
But all that implies the market actually responds to supply, which as far as I can tell it doesn't. This whole micromanaging is covering up for fundamental issues, and it's doing it badly. Which other space game has the most realistic and healthy economy? You know the one. How much time do you think the devs there spend micromanaging prices and market response?
 
No market ever works like that.
Yes, they do. Real-world stock and commodity markets display exactly this behaviour if you're selling (or buying) large quantities. (Except that the real-world equivalent "bulk tax" mostly depends on how much you're selling, not how much they think you have, which I've already said is the problem with how they've done it)

Imagine a set of "buy" orders waiting in the market - one person wants an Opal and is willing to pay 400k for it, another wants one at 700k, another really wants one and is willing to pay a million.

In a real market, if you come in to that situation with a hundred opals, the first buyer gets the first one at a million, and then you work your way down the list, getting less per opal as you go. You don't get to sell a hundred to the first buyer (who only wants one), and you don't get to sell the other 99 to the other buyers at a million each just because one person was willing to pay that for one of them.

In Elite Dangerous there's a simplification in that the buy orders (and the sell orders, if you're not dealing with mining-only goods) always neatly line up a tonne at a time in a linear fashion ... whereas in real life they'd be more blocky and uneven, and things like futures contracts and derivatives would try to even out some of that ... but it's not unreasonable for a game that's not really trying to be Spreadsheets and Stockbrokers.

Because people with huge ships make better money? Why shouldn't they? They invested time and money in that ship and then spent hours and hours filling it up. Why shouldn't they receive a better return for the extra effort?
This I agree with, and I'd be happy to see the bulk tax just go. Because of the exponential cost curves in Elite Dangerous, big ships already have a much higher "time to pay for themselves" than small ones, so it doesn't really need anything else.

But all that implies the market actually responds to supply, which as far as I can tell it doesn't.
The market responds pretty strongly to supply.

Each market has a baseline demand level for its imported goods (bigger markets are higher baseline, and therefore don't respond as quickly). If the actual demand is 100% of the baseline, you get full price.

As goods are sold to the market, actual demand reduces, and so does the price. The effect of this varies between goods, but at "minimal demand" getting about 40% of the maximum price is typical.

Actual demand will then recover over time back towards the baseline - representing the goods being used up within the economy. The rate this happens depends on the good - in general, the more fundamental cheaper goods get used up quicker, and the expensive luxuries get used up slower.

BGS states - representing underlying economic and political pressures - can adjust this, either by introducing new buyers, or making the existing ones take more or less of the good, or by shutting down so much of the economy that no-one wants to buy right now. This can both affect the short-term price (e.g. in Pirate Attack lots of people will buy weapons, pushing the price up temporarily) and what the demand looks like after the state is over (if the economy goes from wanting 100t a day for equilibrium to wanting 300t a day, but only 100t a day are being brough in, then when this goes back to 100t a day the demand level will be higher up)

This is true for pretty much every good already - the only "micromanagement" is that it now also applies to gems, which for some reason it didn't previously (and if it hadn't been for people really liking always being able to get full price for gems regardless of supply, could have gone in as a quiet bug fix and hardly anyone would have noticed).



So ... why haven't you noticed this?

1) It's only recently been enabled for the lucrative mined goods, and A-B trading hasn't been a particularly high-paying option for a very long time, so no-one has really focused on how it's already been working for (say) Non-Lethal Weapons or Coffee.

2) For most (not mining-only) trade goods (Palladium the only real exception, though anything above about 6000 credits average the effects are visible) the quantities demanded by stations are so large (and regenerate so quickly) that there are nowhere near enough traders in the game to seriously make a dent in the supply or demand levels, so they spend most of their time at full price.

Outside of a few niche cases, CGs are the only thing which can get enough people hauling the same thing at the same time in the same region to do anything noticeable to supply levels. (And CGs have demand pinned artifically high, of course, because when they didn't - years ago - the mass sales would very rapidly mean everyone was making a loss on their trades as the demand price plummeted)

3) Because of 1 and 2 the famous third party tools don't bother tracking prices over time or how they respond to demand, so neither they nor the in-game tools provide the graphs of historical price/supply/demand that would make this all obvious.

Essentially, the market is far too large for the player base, so player actions rarely have a noticeable effect on it. Making the market smaller would make it more exciting, prices more unpredictable, and actual knowledge of how it worked more valuable ... or, as it's called nowadays, "nerfed".
 
Yes, they do. Real-world stock and commodity markets display exactly this behaviour if you're selling (or buying) large quantities.
Nope. If we're talking about trading physical assets on a large scale, that is done with contracts. It's not like someone says "I want to buy N amount of things" and you show up with a cargo ship and sell them stuff. You have a pre agreed deal where you deliver N amount of stuff and they pay you X money. The ED market doesn't work like that, so you can't compare it with real world bulk trading. And the markets that work like the market in ED do not exhibit to behavior.

Imagine a set of "buy" orders waiting in the market - one person wants an Opal and is willing to pay 400k for it, another wants one at 700k, another really wants one and is willing to pay a million.
In that case you'd have multiple offers from each individual, not just one offer with the highest price. Another thing that never happens in real life.

The market responds pretty strongly to supply.
Except that 10 minutes later the demand refreshes like nothing happened. Why isn't the demand gone? Or if you say that they need a fresh batch of items, why aren't the prices different? It's very artificial.

Essentially, the market is far too large for the player base, so player actions rarely have a noticeable effect on it. Making the market smaller would make it more exciting, prices more unpredictable, and actual knowledge of how it worked more valuable ... or, as it's called nowadays, "nerfed".
That I would agree with. If the market exists because players trade some items and not others, and the market prices are driven by players (like in that other MMO I mentioned), then if the market prices suck, oh well, that's how the cookie crumbles. Find some other way of making money, one that no one has thought of. But if prices suck cause the devs are doing a bad job of faking an economy, that's just sad.

It's like real life. If you want to have a healthy economy you have to encourage trade so that people are willing to spend money. Forcing people to spend money and forcing the market to do what you want only ends in massive recession.
 
Except that 10 minutes later the demand refreshes like nothing happened. Why isn't the demand gone? Or if you say that they need a fresh batch of items, why aren't the prices different? It's very artificial.
Depends what and where you're trading. And yes, it's a bit simplified, but since it already has more complexity than most people are aware of, there's no point in it being much more detailed until people are making use of what there already is.

This is a couple of weeks of history of the Non-Lethal Weapons market at one station [1] - you can see the demand dropping as trades are made, and the price they pay for more NLWs also dropping at the same time. As NLWs are used up, the demand and price rise again.

This is a fairly small station, though, with a relatively low number of NLWs demanded, so the demand recovery rate is only about 2t in every 10 minute refresh. It took most of a day for the market to fully absorb that really big sale - and it would take over 4 days to recover if someone brought in a couple of full T-9s. But there are lots of goods and markets where the volumes are much higher, and a 10 minute refresh can stick another few hundred tonnes of demand in.

In practice, it's not even really noticeable here - there are only eight NLW sales over the two weeks, and only one of those occurs quickly enough that the market hasn't fully recovered from the previous sale, and then only just. So all this supply and demand activity is going on in the background, but no-one notices any actual effect on their prices.

With over 150 trade goods and about 60,000 markets, there are nowhere near enough traders to change that for most goods. A significant reduction in the total demand tonnage (about 475 billion tonnes) and in the rate at which met demand recovers would be needed to change that.

[1] There's a lot more data available if you want, but I've trimmed it to a date range where there's no BGS state changes going on to show the supply/demand effects more clearly.
 
Top Bottom