META DISCUSSION Please Improve the Profit Margin of Trade CGs

[OmegaPaladin]

When I started out in ED, I remember trade community goals being an excellent way to make money, often on commodities that are not usually traded. Usually, it would be the most profitable trade available for that commodity, occasionally becoming an incredible source of wealth. Since it changed regularly, it was more varied than most other money earning techniques. It also ensured CGs would attract lots of attention.

Recently, that has changed. Prices at hauling CGs are now significantly less than best price for the commodity requested. I checked Indium prices on Inara. Filtering for Large Pad stations in the bubble with recently updated prices in Inara does not list the CG system on the first page. With the most recent CG, I saw that prices for Cobalt was low enough that Aegis could buy stuff from us and resell it at a reasonable profit in a neighboring system. This may be thought to be a result of wartime necessity, but the CG descriptions do not mention this, using the same language about generous rewards.

While not every CG needs to be a money machine, it would be better if the rewards would be near or above a best case sale price for the commodity. This will encourage participation, increase the amount of viable trade routes, and provide more varied ways of making money. I think the types of goods requested are normally well arranged to have one or two higher profit items, and some cheaper items to make trade viable for newer commanders or when the big ticket items run low. The prices just need to be bumped up a bit.

 

[Darrack]

When I started out in ED, I remember trade community goals being an excellent way to make money, often on commodities that are not usually traded. Usually, it would be the most profitable trade available for that commodity, occasionally becoming an incredible source of wealth. Since it changed regularly, it was more varied than most other money earning techniques. It also ensured CGs would attract lots of attention.

Recently, that has changed. Prices at hauling CGs are now significantly less than best price for the commodity requested. I checked Indium prices on Inara. Filtering for Large Pad stations in the bubble with recently updated prices in Inara does not list the CG system on the first page. With the most recent CG, I saw that prices for Cobalt was low enough that Aegis could buy stuff from us and resell it at a reasonable profit in a neighboring system. This may be thought to be a result of wartime necessity, but the CG descriptions do not mention this, using the same language about generous rewards.

While not every CG needs to be a money machine, it would be better if the rewards would be near or above a best case sale price for the commodity. This will encourage participation, increase the amount of viable trade routes, and provide more varied ways of making money. I think the types of goods requested are normally well arranged to have one or two higher profit items, and some cheaper items to make trade viable for newer commanders or when the big ticket items run low. The prices just need to be bumped up a bit.

Completely agree, whilst nobody wants a repeat of those huge money makers

Spoiler: (nope not me)

i don't have the time these days to aim for those top 10/25% spots.
To drag me away from exploration and messing around with the flowers there needs to be an incentive.
Better payouts im sure get more folks involved, currently its probably still more profitable to spend the time mining than running trade CGs.
This is especially the case when im sure all these modules will be available to purchase afterwards, due to the ongoing narrative.

O7

 

[Neilski]

When I saw the first of the recent CGs to have pitiful profit margins, I assumed it was a slip-up. Not so sure any more. Bit of a strange thing to do, to cut the margins so far...

 

[Jack Winter]

I presume that since it makes shinies available in game, it doesn't need to make all that much profit.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

first - I thought credits were meaningless. Second - it is called "Community Goal" not "personal enrichment goal". It is the opportunity for the "community" to "work together" to "achieve a common goal". Third - this is just the second CG in recent times that doesn't allow you to make a boatload of money. It's not as if profit was a general problem of CGs.

 

[aRJay]

[Fogey mode:]
Back in the good old days, 6 or 7 years ago, there were trade CGs where you could make an actual loss on the deal not merely fail to make more enormous profits than average.

 

[Rebel Yell]

...and Black Markets!

 

[Darrack]

[Fogey mode:]
Back in the good old days, 6 or 7 years ago, there were trade CGs where you could make an actual loss on the deal not merely fail to make more enormous profits than average.

We still have those its called Fortification in PP!!

O7

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

Is this a good time to link to the four yorkshiremen sketch?

 

[SteveWW57]

Is this a good time to link to the four yorkshiremen sketch?

Yorkshireman reporting for duty here!

Steve (born in the North Riding of)

 

[Danieros]

Trade CGs usually have a price multiplier.

BGS faction states also have price multipliers, so it it isn't rare that they just end up higher than the trade CG. That means the trade CG won't necessarily offer the best price in the galaxy, which IMO should not happen. Yet, by looking at Inara data, it happens this week with every of the asked commodities:

Indium: 6429 cr/ton at the CG, versus 7252 elsewhere.
Gallium: 5723 cr/ton at the CG, versus 6424 elsewhere.
Polymers: 414 cr/ton at the CG, versus 9029 elsewhere.
Ceramic Composites: 457 cr/ton at the CG, versus 10302 elsewhere.

Polymers and Ceramic Composites were a part of the balance pass they did on a few commodities about 2 years before Odyssey release. Their multipliers for relevant states are very big, so the CG doesn't even come close.

I believe the standard for trade CGs should be using all the best multipliers available for that commodity, and throwing the extra trade CG multiplier on top of it. This would make at the very least the CG always offer the best prices for whatever it wants to purchase.

 

[Darrack]

Yorkshireman reporting for duty here!

Steve (born in the North Riding of)

Is it still true the 50p was invented to be able to get it out of a Yorkshiremans hands with a spanner?
Asking for a Mancunian friend

O7

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Up until this and the previous trade CG, the multiplier was 3x Galactic Average. For commodities like Polymers or Ceramic Composites which have extremely high multipliers, that wouldn't have exceeded the best possible ... but on most trade goods it was enough, and even for Polymers/Ceramics it'd at least beat State: None.

For the recent CGs it is/was 1.1x Galactic Average, which pretty much guarantees that even the relatively conventional trade goods will have their worst galactic price in the CG system.

Sure, money's not crucial for the majority of people who'd be taking part in a CG anyway, and CGs have never been (and rightly so) the most profitable activity as a general thing ... but equally just for the sake of the narrative "we need millions of tonnes of cargo in a real hurry, so we're paying far less than you could get anywhere else in the galaxy" doesn't make a lot of sense.

No-one's going to get massively rich at 3x (you'd still make far more per tonne on high-end conventional trade routes) but it'd at least suggest that the NPCs were taking it seriously.

 

[Rubbernuke]

This is where FD should have got creative, in that rewards were more than money + module.

Imagine the prize giving you elevated status in that superpower that allowed you greater access to materials (in that to begin with you are resticted in what you can buy), so the more you did the more access you unlock.

Then you'd have a reason to support a superpower, independents would not be so shiny and anarchy systems would offer everything at the cost of being dangerous places.

You could then also have indie based CGs that give temporary boosts to superpower like levels.

 

[SteveWW57]

Is it still true the 50p was invented to be able to get it out of a Yorkshiremans hands with a spanner?
Asking for a Mancunian friend

O7

They know nothing! Spanners work on 6 sided nuts/bolts, 50p pieces are a side short.

Oh, and we wus robbed at Bosworth!

Steve

 

[SteveWW57]

If a multiplier is used for commodity sales price, then the best profits will be from the higher value stuff. That is one reason why the Tritium CG was so good.

Steve

 

[Darrack]

Oh, and we wus robbed at Bosworth!

I blame the ref, it was never a Pen

O7

 

[aRJay]

Is it still true the 50p was invented to be able to get it out of a Yorkshiremans hands with a spanner?
Asking for a Mancunian friend

O7

Partially, the shape was but the reason they went to a coin was down to the old ten Bob notes ripping when anyone tried to get one of those loose.

 

[OmegaPaladin]

Up until this and the previous trade CG, the multiplier was 3x Galactic Average. For commodities like Polymers or Ceramic Composites which have extremely high multipliers, that wouldn't have exceeded the best possible ... but on most trade goods it was enough, and even for Polymers/Ceramics it'd at least beat State: None.

For the recent CGs it is/was 1.1x Galactic Average, which pretty much guarantees that even the relatively conventional trade goods will have their worst galactic price in the CG system.

Sure, money's not crucial for the majority of people who'd be taking part in a CG anyway, and CGs have never been (and rightly so) the most profitable activity as a general thing ... but equally just for the sake of the narrative "we need millions of tonnes of cargo in a real hurry, so we're paying far less than you could get anywhere else in the galaxy" doesn't make a lot of sense.

No-one's going to get massively rich at 3x (you'd still make far more per tonne on high-end conventional trade routes) but it'd at least suggest that the NPCs were taking it seriously.

Agreed. Though I earned a fair amount of cash when I was getting started as a new CMDR off of CGs. Rare Goods CGs are often good for new players since you can only haul a little at a time, and the profit is pretty high compared to the price.

first - I thought credits were meaningless. Second - it is called "Community Goal" not "personal enrichment goal". It is the opportunity for the "community" to "work together" to "achieve a common goal". Third - this is just the second CG in recent times that doesn't allow you to make a boatload of money. It's not as if profit was a general problem of CGs.

1) I tried to tell that to my fleet carrier crew, and they keep insisting on getting paid. Perhaps I need to word it better - any advice?
2) Incentives matter. Exobiology really took off once it was made more lucrative. Besides, this is one of the few times people will be buying stuff like Polymers, and I wouldn't want them to feel all left out while the silver, bauxite, and agronomic treatment get the attention.
3) I wanted to ask FDev to go back to the prior practice. If they were already planning to do so, excellent! If not, this shows that some people miss the higher multiplier.

This is where FD should have got creative, in that rewards were more than money + module.

Imagine the prize giving you elevated status in that superpower that allowed you greater access to materials (in that to begin with you are resticted in what you can buy), so the more you did the more access you unlock.

Then you'd have a reason to support a superpower, independents would not be so shiny and anarchy systems would offer everything at the cost of being dangerous places.

You could then also have indie based CGs that give temporary boosts to superpower like levels.

The closest we have seen are CGs that give permits to systems. Being able to receive reputation for a superpower would be pretty useful - and a lot better running a million courier missions for rank. You could also have engineers get unlocked.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Agreed. Though I earned a fair amount of cash when I was getting started as a new CMDR off of CGs. Rare Goods CGs are often good for new players since you can only haul a little at a time, and the profit is pretty high compared to the price.



1) I tried to tell that to my fleet carrier crew, and they keep insisting on getting paid. Perhaps I need to word it better - any advice?
2) Incentives matter. Exobiology really took off once it was made more lucrative. Besides, this is one of the few times people will be buying stuff like Polymers, and I wouldn't want them to feel all left out while the silver, bauxite, and agronomic treatment get the attention.
3) I wanted to ask FDev to go back to the prior practice. If they were already planning to do so, excellent! If not, this shows that some people miss the higher multiplier.



The closest we have seen are CGs that give permits to systems. Being able to receive reputation for a superpower would be pretty useful - and a lot better running a million courier missions for rank. You could also have engineers get unlocked.

It would mean that superpower rep = access to everything in that held space- so being chummy with one would unlock the top tier goods that bring in the money, at the expense of the other two. In turn this is meaningful beyond just rank / ships and brings context to what a superpower is (not to mention propping them up / ignoring them but with consequences). CGs could then give you a Netflix like pass to that level for a week or so.

You could have some real fun with gov types as well with this- for example dictatorships, where your rep decays twice as fast if you don't support deal leader, co-ops perhaps favouring spreading out your trade (and not just one thing) etc.