Trading for Influence II (FC Update)
- Thread starter goemon
- Start date
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???
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???
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???
there is no formula from my side to calculate g of any given combination of tonnage and profit.
there are pointers for guesstimate, though:
if 2000 credit per ton profit (cptp) is 100%, than:
50 cptp: ~5%
150 cptp: ~33%
400 cptp: ~60%
750 cptp: ~80%
1000 cptp: ~90%
1500 cptp: ~98%
so, a 400 cptp trade of 150t should get you 60% of a 2000 cptp trade of 150t.
in practice it will be a rare case not to get at least 75-90% of the max gain by profit.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
i also think nobody is sure how that trade x to counter state z is actually implemented (and it is hard to test as we can't see something like state buckets).
2. the lowest profit per ton we have tested is 50 credit per ton profit.
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"
"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"
i haven't read the entire thread, but this seems to be an Odyssey only change. is that the case?
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.
The BGS is a server side entity and is the same across both versions of the game.
current thought, in case somebody feels inclined to run tests:
step 1: checking the profit/sell-pricesigmaoid
next tick (or other no traffic system):
- sell same tonnage with lower galactic average, same profit, same demand bracket
= compare effect. if galactic average has an effect, there should be a difference
step2: checking the demand effect
- sell 150+t of a commodity with some profit or delta between galactic average and sell-price (depending on step 1) and high demand bracket
next tick (or other no traffic system):
- sell 150+t of a commodity with same profit or delta between galactic average and sell-price (depending on step 1) and regular demand bracket
next tick (or other no traffic system):
- sell 150+t of a commodity with same profit or delta between galactic average and sell-price (depending on step 1) and low demand bracket
=compare effects. this should allow you to gauge demand effect.
step 3 +4: repeat steps 1 and 2 for exporting commodities by taking purchase price instead of sell price.
a test could look like this:
step 1: checking the profit/sell-pricesigmaoid
- take a no traffic system
- sell 150t+ of a commodity with high galactic average, some profit, some demand
next tick (or other no traffic system):
- sell same tonnage with lower galactic average, same profit, same demand bracket
= compare effect. if galactic average has an effect, there should be a difference
step2: checking the demand effect
- sell 150+t of a commodity with some profit or delta between galactic average and sell-price (depending on step 1) and high demand bracket
next tick (or other no traffic system):
- sell 150+t of a commodity with same profit or delta between galactic average and sell-price (depending on step 1) and regular demand bracket
next tick (or other no traffic system):
- sell 150+t of a commodity with same profit or delta between galactic average and sell-price (depending on step 1) and low demand bracket
=compare effects. this should allow you to gauge demand effect.
step 3 +4: repeat steps 1 and 2 for exporting commodities by taking purchase price instead of sell price.
So something not clear to me from the patch notes is this bit:
I'm going to assume the second sentence has copy-pasta mistakes but it talks about "Satisfying available supply"... it almost sounds like you need to fill demand before buying from supply. I'm certain that's not what it means... but @goemon , it wasn't clear to me how the system prevents just "dumping cargo" for smashing buy-influence gains... can you elaborate a bit more (and perhaps a bit dumbed down XD)
Questions I still have outstanding based on patch notes and such.
Would I be better selling Gold or Indium, for inf/Eco?
I'm going to assume the second sentence has copy-pasta mistakes but it talks about "Satisfying available supply"... it almost sounds like you need to fill demand before buying from supply. I'm certain that's not what it means... but @goemon , it wasn't clear to me how the system prevents just "dumping cargo" for smashing buy-influence gains... can you elaborate a bit more (and perhaps a bit dumbed down XD)
Questions I still have outstanding based on patch notes and such.
- Does the same rules apply to Black Market deals
- How does, if at all, selling for a loss or to non-demand items work? e.g how would selling mined gold to a high-supply gold extraction market work vs selling to low supply gold?
Would I be better selling Gold or Indium, for inf/Eco?
Last edited:
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.
Another thing which occurs to me...
...we don't actually have a good model for what causes supply and demand to have the green or red icons.Patch Notes said:
Maybe I should research that next since I've got decent baseline data for it.
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
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.
but i got word from a player i trust who went ahead testing the basic mechanic, and buying and than aterwards discarding cargo in and out of station instance created no influence effect. if that holds true (he is on horizon, so next test will be whether buying commodities has any effect in horizon), they might have implemented it similar to the changes which allowedonly counting mined commodities at mining cgs.
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 ...
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.
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.
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.