neither. tonnage and credit curve apply independently.And another thing
You present two graphs, cr/t vs g and t vs g.
Are these cumulative?
That is to say:
Sell approx 1x240t of 1100 cr/t = 1.5 (t vs g) + 2 (cr/t vs g) = 3.5 g
(Numbers chosen because of where the graph intersects values for g)
Or does one table supersede the other in the order of the higher (or lower) result only count?
Using the same numbers from above:
1100 cr/t = 2 g and 240t = 1.5 g therefore actual g = 2 or 1.5
I am reading this back and wondering if I am making any sense???
1. i don't think trading at a market not controlled by that faction can help ending famine. a) famine is an economic state, and any economy slider effect of bulk trading is bound to market controlling faction b) i think similar applies to the non-slider stated.Hi Goemon,
Another question has occurred to me. In your studies that produced your graph "tons of cargo v g" did you trade at, or close, to zero profit/loss when examining the effect of tonnage?
I am thinking in relation to trading out faction states like Famine for a faction that does not control the market and at the same time trying to minimize +/-g for the allied player faction that does control the market.
If tonnage with zero profit still causes +/-g then the ideal trade would be full loads not lots of 150t and to sell at a loss.
i haven't read the entire thread, but this seems to be an Odyssey only change. is that the case?as of odyssey update 10, this thread is outdated. see https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/update-10-odyssey-and-horizons.597956/#post-9713547
"Faction consequences from selling commodities are now based on satisfying available demand at the Commodity Market
You can now support a faction by buying commodities from it, based upon satisfying available supply at its Commodity Market
When buying and selling, it's generally more positive to a faction to satisfy a higher supply and demand (green 3-bar icon) than a lower (red 1-bar icon), and it's generally more positive to trade more expensive commodities than cheaper ones"
Some of the things in the BGS section would be extremely weird if Odyssey only and imply diverging state and influence levels between the two environments - I would expect it all applies to Horizons as well, and it was just misplaced slightly in the patch notes.i haven't read the entire thread, but this seems to be an Odyssey only change. is that the case?
a test could look like this:discussing the patchnotes in some chat and thinking about it...my gut feeling, which is wrong often, says this might be the case:
pre update:
influence effect of export: none
after update, per single commodity:
(galactic average - purchase price) x ("profit" per ton-sigmaoid-value) x (tonnage-sigmaoid-value) x supply-modiier
or, more readable:
(GA - P) x (T) x (L)
with GA= Galactic Average, P=Purchase Price
(GA - P) giving a non linear value on the "profit sigmaoid"
(T) a value on the tonnage sigmaoid,
(L) being a demand-and-supply modifier (which might be 2,5 at max)
influence effect of import per single commodity:
pre update:
(profit per ton-sigmaoid-value) x (tonnage-sigmaoid-value)
after update:
(P - GA) x (T) x (L)
with GA= Galactic Average, P=SELL Price
(P - GA) giving a non linear value on the "profit sigmaoid"
(T) a value on the tonnage sigmaoid,
(L) being a demand-and-supply modifier (which might be 2,5 at max)
beside the beauty treating import and export similar...
a) this would get rid of gaming the system with setting inlated proits via FC
b) matching all what is said in patch notes. as supply, demand and states effect the base price, high priced commodities will have more effect.
at least that would be what i would test if i were to test it (which i'm not in the next months)
Faction consequences from selling commodities are now based on satisfying available demand at the Commodity Market
You can now support a faction by buying commodities from it, based upon satisfying available supply at its Commodity Market
The foolproof way to do it would be to have the influence gain for supply only be realised when the cargo is sold, but that might be more tracking of individual barrels than they'd like.it wasn't clear to me how the system prevents just "dumping cargo" for smashing buy-influence gains
...we don't actually have a good model for what causes supply and demand to have the green or red icons.Patch Notes said:it's generally more positive to a faction to satisfy a higher supply and demand (green 3-bar icon) than a lower (red 1-bar icon)
Although i don't know exact figures, i thought it was just some arbitrary %high/ low watermark of the standard maximum for that commodity....we don't actually have a good model for what causes supply and demand to have the green or red icons.
Maybe I should research that next since I've got decent baseline data for it.
i actually thought that they implemented it similar to one of the fixes to the 1t trading exploit, where they implemented that trade actions are summed per instance (docking/?) per player.The foolproof way to do it would be to have the influence gain for supply only be realised when the cargo is sold, but that might be more tracking of individual barrels than they'd like.
to answer that question one would need to test the new "profit" sigma and the modiier for supply. but looking at the old profit curve: - 900 cr per ton creates ~75% of >2000 cptp. the question is whether you believe if the demand modiier between normal (no colour) and high (green) is +33%/1,33 ... i don't think that's unlikely. but it might be 1,25 as well ...Would I be better selling Gold or Indium, for inf/Eco?
I agree it's probably something like that, but what "standard maximum" means in this context is less clear - I've seen commodities at their local supply/demand cap fail to get Green, for example.Although i don't know exact figures, i thought it was just some arbitrary %high/ low watermark of the standard maximum for that commodity.
Eg an item with max 100k supply would be green til, say, 80k, and go red at 20k... while a 1k supply item does the same at 800 and 200.
... or something mechanically like that
And indeed, at this current station, pretty much every supply commodity is both at its cap and Red. Demand is more varied - mostly Green, except for core gems which are Red (and well below cap, of course)I agree it's probably something like that, but what "standard maximum" means in this context is less clear - I've seen commodities at their local supply/demand cap fail to get Green, for example.
This is the exact behavior I observed since long prior to the latest update. Red/Green markers are based on the current supply/demand vs the "normal" value in a "none" state/with no BGS states active.And indeed, at this current station, pretty much every supply commodity is both at its cap and Red. Demand is more varied - mostly Green, except for core gems which are Red (and well below cap, of course)
It looks like it's taken relative to the supply/demand cap in None state which was the bit I wasn't getting before. Station is in Investment+Expansion, both of which generally boost demand and cut supply, so the supply being Red and the demand being (mostly) Green makes sense.
With most goods except a very few spending most of their time at the cap, this means that the Green/Red condition is broadly going to be based on the active states.