How can egosoft make autotrade better?

This forum is the ideal place for all discussion relating to X4. You will also find additional information from developers here.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

pref
Posts: 5589
Joined: Sat, 10. Nov 12, 17:55
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by pref » Sun, 7. Apr 19, 17:05

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 16:53
It is not entirely true now we have player owned ship yards and equipment docks. Even before that, a good portion of the wares would be used either in the operation or construction of stations. As it stands, the only wares that really do not have a direct use are space weed, space fuel, maja dust, and nividium. These four exceptions are seemingly just sinked by the economy in X4 - all other wares are a means to an end.
They do have a direct use, but player has not means to set up what gets used where and when.
That is my issue.
Docks/wharfs disabling sales for ship production resources effectively cancel out any possibility to use them as distribution centres, and claytronics is a pure end resource which also means no stations can buy it.
But just allowing these wares for open trade (same entity being able to sell and buy) is not enough, some scripts would be needed to have control over how they are moved across the universe.
Arguably, this would ideally be addressed by adding the ability to set preferred suppliers/customers for given wares at given stations thereby indicating to the manager that their traders should pick particular stations over all others for sales/purchases.
I don't like this idea as it needs a station so is less flexible, and excludes NPC stations from the logic - player should be able to help certain NPC entities without having their own production as well.
In the short term, adding the ability to auto-repeat a particular MORT/Ware-Exchange order would perhaps suffice (if less than ideal IMO).
Yes, i mean something like that but without some kind of cargo%/stock/price settings it would not make sense (or only launch trades with full cargo perhaps).
Also it lacks the option to involve several entities, so needs much more UI config then necessary for the functionality.

User avatar
Sam L.R. Griffiths
Posts: 10522
Joined: Fri, 12. Mar 04, 19:47
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Sam L.R. Griffiths » Sun, 7. Apr 19, 17:14

pref wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 17:05
Arguably, this would ideally be addressed by adding the ability to set preferred suppliers/customers for given wares at given stations thereby indicating to the manager that their traders should pick particular stations over all others for sales/purchases.
I don't like this idea as it needs a station so is less flexible, and excludes NPC stations from the logic - player should be able to help certain NPC entities without having their own production as well.
Not necessarily, if some of the other suggested improvements are done (e.g. allowing L/XL size ships to act as a mobile trade hub and allowing the player to configure any station to buy/sell any wares even if they do not produce/consume them also to allow the purchase of products and the sale of excess resources).

Also, who is to say that you can not set an NPC station as a preferred customer/supplier?
Lenna (aka [SRK] The_Rabbit)

"Understanding is a three edged sword... your side, their side... and the Truth!" - J.J. Sheriden, Babylon 5 S4E6 T28:55

"May god stand between you and harm in all the dark places you must walk." - Ancient Egyption Proverb

"When eating an elephant take one bite at a time" - Creighton Abrams

pref
Posts: 5589
Joined: Sat, 10. Nov 12, 17:55
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by pref » Sun, 7. Apr 19, 17:31

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 17:14
Not necessarily, if some of the other suggested improvements are done (e.g. allowing L/XL size ships to act as a mobile trade hub and allowing the player to configure any station to buy/sell any wares even if they do not produce/consume them also to allow the purchase of products and the sale of excess resources).
It could be fun having such ships, with more M docks, some L docks and less firepower then a carrier for ex. They could circle around suppliers while their subordinates would distribute the wares to the consumers if i get the idea right.
Then L docks would be important.

But just having a single ship trade script for that might be much more "in scope", less complicated to set up, and needs way less QA..
Also, who is to say that you can not set an NPC station as a preferred customer/supplier?
You cannot set any station config options if you don't own any of the stations. Delegating this task to stations would not allow such NPC-NPC trades for the player, which would be an important part of this imo.
We are talking about trading, having our own production should not be necessary at all.
And stations already have some more complex configuration which might get in conflict with such settings. And it's a strong requirement budget wise just to be able to trade with a goal that isn't just more profit.

User avatar
Sam L.R. Griffiths
Posts: 10522
Joined: Fri, 12. Mar 04, 19:47
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Sam L.R. Griffiths » Sun, 7. Apr 19, 17:44

pref wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 17:31
We are talking about trading, having our own production should not be necessary at all.
And it would not be, given the other supplemental ideas I have referred to.
pref wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 17:31
And stations already have some more complex configuration which might get in conflict with such settings.
Already covered with the trade logic for intermediate wares, should ultimately not be an issue.
pref wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 17:31
And it's a strong requirement budget wise just to be able to trade with a goal that isn't just more profit.
Ultimately, trading should never work at a loss regardless of the entities involved. Profit may not be the ultimate goal, but for any given trading entity be it the player, a player station, or something else it should still be a consideration. It would be unsustainable to operate at a loss for any prolonged period and on the whole it should not be necessary either.
Lenna (aka [SRK] The_Rabbit)

"Understanding is a three edged sword... your side, their side... and the Truth!" - J.J. Sheriden, Babylon 5 S4E6 T28:55

"May god stand between you and harm in all the dark places you must walk." - Ancient Egyption Proverb

"When eating an elephant take one bite at a time" - Creighton Abrams

pref
Posts: 5589
Joined: Sat, 10. Nov 12, 17:55
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by pref » Sun, 7. Apr 19, 21:41

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 17:44
Ultimately, trading should never work at a loss regardless of the entities involved. Profit may not be the ultimate goal, but for any given trading entity be it the player, a player station, or something else it should still be a consideration. It would be unsustainable to operate at a loss for any prolonged period and on the whole it should not be necessary either.
Yes, profit is important apart from some specific cases perhaps. But i really miss being able to achieve more specific goals on top of making profit.
Like starving one SY while keeping another one well supplied, stashing wares on an optimal price which i plan to use later, or stealing a ware's market (and even products relying on it) just for even more profit.

Linking economy to warfare can only really shine if player has the tools to affect the economy in greater detail then what ATs/station traders and a general ban on NPC traders can achieve right now.

User avatar
Sam L.R. Griffiths
Posts: 10522
Joined: Fri, 12. Mar 04, 19:47
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Sam L.R. Griffiths » Sun, 7. Apr 19, 22:11

pref wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 21:41
Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 17:44
Ultimately, trading should never work at a loss regardless of the entities involved. Profit may not be the ultimate goal, but for any given trading entity be it the player, a player station, or something else it should still be a consideration. It would be unsustainable to operate at a loss for any prolonged period and on the whole it should not be necessary either.
Yes, profit is important apart from some specific cases perhaps. But i really miss being able to achieve more specific goals on top of making profit.
Like starving one SY while keeping another one well supplied, stashing wares on an optimal price which i plan to use later, or stealing a ware's market (and even products relying on it) just for even more profit.

Linking economy to warfare can only really shine if player has the tools to affect the economy in greater detail then what ATs/station traders and a general ban on NPC traders can achieve right now.
If you want economic warfare, you can engage in it without the kinds of commands you have specifically asked for, plus introduction of such commands could also work against your goals as the AI could employ those commands to.

In X4, hacking and EMP scanning their stations are two of the tools at our disposal - as is hijacking station traders, planting mine fields, placing laser towers in inconvenient locations.

What is generally missing is the ability to set friend-or-foe settings explicitly either on a per entity or global basis. Such a setting could be used to either declare formal aggression against a given NPC faction or at least declare them as off-limits for trading.
Lenna (aka [SRK] The_Rabbit)

"Understanding is a three edged sword... your side, their side... and the Truth!" - J.J. Sheriden, Babylon 5 S4E6 T28:55

"May god stand between you and harm in all the dark places you must walk." - Ancient Egyption Proverb

"When eating an elephant take one bite at a time" - Creighton Abrams

pref
Posts: 5589
Joined: Sat, 10. Nov 12, 17:55
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by pref » Sun, 7. Apr 19, 23:35

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 22:11
Yes, profit is important apart from some specific cases perhaps. But i really miss being able to achieve more specific goals on top of making profit.
Like starving one SY while keeping another one well supplied, stashing wares on an optimal price which i plan to use later, or stealing a ware's market (and even products relying on it) just for even more profit.

Linking economy to warfare can only really shine if player has the tools to affect the economy in greater detail then what ATs/station traders and a general ban on NPC traders can achieve right now.
If you want economic warfare, you can engage in it without the kinds of commands you have specifically asked for, plus introduction of such commands could also work against your goals as the AI could employ those commands to.

In X4, hacking and EMP scanning their stations are two of the tools at our disposal - as is hijacking station traders, planting mine fields, placing laser towers in inconvenient locations.

What is generally missing is the ability to set friend-or-foe settings explicitly either on a per entity or global basis. Such a setting could be used to either declare formal aggression against a given NPC faction or at least declare them as off-limits for trading.
[/quote]

I am aware of these features, and they are not even close to what i'm talking about as it's just sabotaging trade and production - but i guess you know that as well.
Don't see how this is relevant regarding trade scripts.

pref
Posts: 5589
Joined: Sat, 10. Nov 12, 17:55
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by pref » Sun, 7. Apr 19, 23:35

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 22:11
If you want economic warfare, you can engage in it without the kinds of commands you have specifically asked for, plus introduction of such commands could also work against your goals as the AI could employ those commands to.

In X4, hacking and EMP scanning their stations are two of the tools at our disposal - as is hijacking station traders, planting mine fields, placing laser towers in inconvenient locations.

What is generally missing is the ability to set friend-or-foe settings explicitly either on a per entity or global basis. Such a setting could be used to either declare formal aggression against a given NPC faction or at least declare them as off-limits for trading.
I am aware of these features, and they are not even close to what i'm talking about as it's just sabotaging trade and production - but i guess you know that as well.
Don't see how this is relevant regarding trade scripts.

User avatar
Sam L.R. Griffiths
Posts: 10522
Joined: Fri, 12. Mar 04, 19:47
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Sam L.R. Griffiths » Sun, 7. Apr 19, 23:43

pref wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 23:35
Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 22:11
If you want economic warfare, you can engage in it without the kinds of commands you have specifically asked for, plus introduction of such commands could also work against your goals as the AI could employ those commands to.

In X4, hacking and EMP scanning their stations are two of the tools at our disposal - as is hijacking station traders, planting mine fields, placing laser towers in inconvenient locations.

What is generally missing is the ability to set friend-or-foe settings explicitly either on a per entity or global basis. Such a setting could be used to either declare formal aggression against a given NPC faction or at least declare them as off-limits for trading.
I am aware of these features, and they are not even close to what i'm talking about as it's just sabotaging trade and production - but i guess you know that as well.
Don't see how this is relevant regarding trade scripts.
You can still engage in trade wars, it is just the tools to do so have changed. I do not believe that the scripts you are asking for would change much in that regard.
Lenna (aka [SRK] The_Rabbit)

"Understanding is a three edged sword... your side, their side... and the Truth!" - J.J. Sheriden, Babylon 5 S4E6 T28:55

"May god stand between you and harm in all the dark places you must walk." - Ancient Egyption Proverb

"When eating an elephant take one bite at a time" - Creighton Abrams

pref
Posts: 5589
Joined: Sat, 10. Nov 12, 17:55
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by pref » Sun, 7. Apr 19, 23:52

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 23:43
You can still engage in trade wars, it is just the tools to do so have changed. I do not believe that the scripts you are asking for would change much in that regard.
Uhm.. you don't see the difference between a simple occasional sabotage and setting up specific trade routes? Nor the difference in their effects regarding the economy?
Ooookay then, let's just forget this discussion, again.

User avatar
Sam L.R. Griffiths
Posts: 10522
Joined: Fri, 12. Mar 04, 19:47
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Sam L.R. Griffiths » Mon, 8. Apr 19, 00:20

pref wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 23:52
Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 23:43
You can still engage in trade wars, it is just the tools to do so have changed. I do not believe that the scripts you are asking for would change much in that regard.
Uhm.. you don't see the difference between a simple occasional sabotage and setting up specific trade routes? Nor the difference in their effects regarding the economy?
Ooookay then, let's just forget this discussion, again.
The way the economy model and other things have changed with X4 makes the principle of establishing trade routes like you are proposing as a form of engaging in trade wars at least a bit moot and impractical.

You can still use price fixing at your stations, and massive station storage capacity, to absorb NPC wares and muscle in on their markets.
Lenna (aka [SRK] The_Rabbit)

"Understanding is a three edged sword... your side, their side... and the Truth!" - J.J. Sheriden, Babylon 5 S4E6 T28:55

"May god stand between you and harm in all the dark places you must walk." - Ancient Egyption Proverb

"When eating an elephant take one bite at a time" - Creighton Abrams

User avatar
Nafensoriel
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon, 3. May 10, 20:30
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Nafensoriel » Mon, 8. Apr 19, 05:20

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 14:36
Worthwhile investment is a relative and subjective term, there are no hard and fast rules that define it. In the context of X4 specifically, you have to consider the way the overall economy is balanced and how profit from specific activities maps on to that.

In order for the economy model in X4 to be stable, the "penny packet" trades (as you put it) are the only viable option for the mainstream automated trades due to various factors. Bulk trading in X4 is too biased in favour of the trader and without major changes to the underlying economy model making bulk trades the norm would be a disaster due to the way prices are automatically balanced overall. In order to avoid the issues, bulk trades would need to be more expensive per unit than the smaller trades and the price management would need to be coupled to ware production/acquisition prices rather than based purely on stock levels as it currently is. Something I can not seen happening nor being universally popular.
In video games it's not as subjective. Due to providing entertainment, the rate of return must be high enough to keep the user engaged. While yes this is different per user it is very hard to justify how small scale trading is in X4 compared to any other model of game-related trade mechanics or even X3. We can argue about this one for days though so let's just agree that profit exists but it is still poor ROI.

You are incorrect in how penny packet trades keep the economy flowing. Trade in an infinate resource world has to be cyclic. Your issue with price is backwards. Large trades and bulk transfers need to be cheaper. Ideally if you go to buy 55k m3 of a good it should get a discount if it was purchased at once. Wholesale pricing logic doesnt disappear just because its a game.

By having 250k m3 of storage per good you statistically have a very low likelihood of any single good being priced at any level beyond its median. We are targeting 4x the maximum m3 movement here for a reason. In a functional economy without gaps or overages, you will see at most 2 ships hauling goods from that location at any given time. Exceptions would only exist when something interrupted that supply. Then the extra goods end up being a reserve to keep the economy flowing(at a higher cost) until the AI can self-correct. Pricing in X4 already adjusts based on volume. Watch the trades AIs make. Stations median out until interuption. The current issue is without that trade buffer an interupt is a hard stop vs a cost increase.
Do you want ships to cost more to a new player or do you want them to be unable to buy a ship at all?

As to price right now there is no price. You get the cheapest possible price for the majority of goods. Depending on RNGesus certain goods become outliers and things like engine parts are limited by really dumb m3 size and production limits.
In my current playthrough when I look around the universe I can find 1 station in 10 with goods below the 7500 average trader deficit. This is because the single truck system is physically stuttering the economy. No trade needs to ever happen beyond that magic 7500m3 medium hull trade number. By forcing those traders to sell at a hub you force those stations to actually PRODUCE goods. This means the TOTAL efficiency of the economy will INCREASE as factories will have fewer instances of production stoppage. From a design perspective, it also makes budget sense since you already wasted how many tens of thousands of dollars building s and L freighters that simply don't need to exist with the current AI. They actually cause problems as it stands right now by contributing to factory stoppage.
If I pulled the average trade price margin for all trade interactions by all AI ships I would bet money it's under 20%. For your fear to be valid a system would need to produce everything all the time. Even with how the universe is currently generated you would have a brief period of crazy profits followed by normalization and margins determined mostly by distance and production speed. Kinda how, you know, an economy should work.

Example:
Right now say we have a good that has a max spread of 1 to 10cr. It averages purchase at 1-4 due to its short(2-4m) production cycle. The good sells for an average of 6-8. With a small movement of medium-sized ships, this cycle will repeat indefinitely.

With a restricted trade hub..
The producer is still going to purchase at around 1-4cr a trade since it is universally working as it is now. The good is either passed locally for exactly the same profit ROI as current so a small time trader can insert themselves cheaply into a low-end ROI market. The main trade hub will, however, Will cycle between... surprise surprise.. 6-8. Why? Outgoing freight won't trade at a loss. It's going to maintain the same logic. The central hub and larger cargo just ensure the price scale doesn't shift so fast as to make it non-profitable after one trade. It also engineers a situation where whenever a 55k m3 hull moves that good the system automatically refreshes a profitable trade route that will take several s/m ships to correct. The stations keep producing. They might even have situations where they DON'T sell for a few minutes longer than normal due to running down their stockpile. This means the goods at the trade station from OTHER systems is now profitable to move out and maintain production.
The forced movement of large amounts of good between hubs ensures this cyclical price point system continues as long as goods are consumed. Small trades cannot eat this value and keep margins consistent for longer.
Remember it takes two to three trips for an M class to move goods at the same speed as an L class ship. It takes 18 times as many movements for a small ship. By forcing a 30-55k movement from a 250k storage you are ensuring a 125k m3 resource movement to replace the traded goods. THIS is buffering. It is why WAREHOUSES exist.

No part of my changes will break the economy. What they DO do is specifically FORCE the economy to happen SLOWER and MORE CONSISTENTLY. It also installs a built-in CONTROL for random station loss during AI wars.

In fact.. after doing some fake runs you don't even need multi trading of wares. Just ship class limits and a storage trade hub. It will take longer to balance the goods movement but it will balance.
-------------------------------------
Separating this to address the concept that stations cannot operate for a loss. Historically this isn't remotely accurate. History is full of cases where one industry operates at a loss to support another industry that operates at a profit. For wartime economies like the factions in X4 there are MOUNTAINS of examples of this where things like aluminium, steel, and shipbuilding happened at a functional loss but net gain due to other aspects of the economy. The only reason this doesn't fully make sense in X4 is the stations are all considered independent wherein the above examples there was usually a degree of corporation or tax reimbursement involved.
-------------------------------------
Also as to prefs point. Hub/train style trading is practically built for economic raiding style gameplay. Since you are engineering situations where large amount of goods have to move regularly taking out a large ship WILL cause galaxy prices to rise. This is the "step one of economic warefare" for a game like X4. It is also adding in those "trade routes" you mentioned are not possible and couldnt possible cause galaxy wide price movement.
"A Tradition is only as good as it's ability to change." Nael

User avatar
Sam L.R. Griffiths
Posts: 10522
Joined: Fri, 12. Mar 04, 19:47
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Sam L.R. Griffiths » Mon, 8. Apr 19, 09:13

Nafensoriel wrote:
Mon, 8. Apr 19, 05:20
Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:
Sun, 7. Apr 19, 14:36
Worthwhile investment is a relative and subjective term, there are no hard and fast rules that define it. In the context of X4 specifically, you have to consider the way the overall economy is balanced and how profit from specific activities maps on to that.

In order for the economy model in X4 to be stable, the "penny packet" trades (as you put it) are the only viable option for the mainstream automated trades due to various factors. Bulk trading in X4 is too biased in favour of the trader and without major changes to the underlying economy model making bulk trades the norm would be a disaster due to the way prices are automatically balanced overall. In order to avoid the issues, bulk trades would need to be more expensive per unit than the smaller trades and the price management would need to be coupled to ware production/acquisition prices rather than based purely on stock levels as it currently is. Something I can not seen happening nor being universally popular.
In video games it's not as subjective. Due to providing entertainment, the rate of return must be high enough to keep the user engaged. While yes this is different per user it is very hard to justify how small scale trading is in X4 compared to any other model of game-related trade mechanics or even X3. We can argue about this one for days though so let's just agree that profit exists but it is still poor ROI.
The actual ROI is notionally infinite or until the trader is destroyed/retired. The rate of ROI is not that unreasonable in most cases, a lot depends on the universe state and where the trader is operating but that is not unusual for the X-games in general.
Nafensoriel wrote:
Mon, 8. Apr 19, 05:20
You are incorrect in how penny packet trades keep the economy flowing. Trade in an infinate resource world has to be cyclic. Your issue with price is backwards. Large trades and bulk transfers need to be cheaper. Ideally if you go to buy 55k m3 of a good it should get a discount if it was purchased at once. Wholesale pricing logic doesnt disappear just because its a game.
You seemingly fail to understand the economy model of X4.

The concept of discounted wholesale pricing logic is flawed in the context of X4 - in the real world there are on-going costs related to storage, in X4 those costs are not present. The point I am making is that in order to avoid stations operating at a loss the ware auto-pricing logic should take into account numerous factors and ensure they recoup their costs of production. The current logic of basing ware pricing purely on stock levels is inherently flawed.

As for resources being infinite, that is not entirely true for X4 since we do not have mining stations like we did in X1-X3. The asteroids in general do regenerate but they are still limited in quantity at any given time and it is possible to deplete an area for at least a time. It is also false reasoning to consider them a free resource since the stations notionally either have to pay for the resources (from NPCs) or have their resources locked down and run enough of the stations own miners. Even then, that only applies to producing the first level processed goods, beyond that the available goods are limited by various factors.
Nafensoriel wrote:
Mon, 8. Apr 19, 05:20
By having 250k m3 of storage per good you statistically have a very low likelihood of any single good being priced at any level beyond its median. We are targeting 4x the maximum m3 movement here for a reason. In a functional economy without gaps or overages, you will see at most 2 ships hauling goods from that location at any given time. Exceptions would only exist when something interrupted that supply. Then the extra goods end up being a reserve to keep the economy flowing(at a higher cost) until the AI can self-correct. Pricing in X4 already adjusts based on volume. Watch the trades AIs make. Stations median out until interuption. The current issue is without that trade buffer an interupt is a hard stop vs a cost increase.
Do you want ships to cost more to a new player or do you want them to be unable to buy a ship at all?
You are ignoring numerous factors regarding how the economy works and auto-trading is not the only way to generate income. As I have already pointed out in this post, the concept of pricing wares purely based on percentile of storage is inherently flawed, it is a nice simple model but it does not allow stations to price their wares based on acquisition cost and thus can result in the associated station running at a loss. Having built quite a few stations myself I have seen at least one case of this happening. As a result of that occurrence, I have adopted a fixed pricing strategy for ALL my stations and that has guaranteed the stations in question not operating at a loss regardless of stock levels.

Unlike the real world, there is not a concept of infinite inflation either - all wares are banded in terms of pricing but the nature of those bands is that it is possible for factories to operate at a loss which makes little sense in terms of being the normal state of affairs and end result of trying to push trading towards bulk trading would ultimately end up with that happening.
Nafensoriel wrote:
Mon, 8. Apr 19, 05:20
As to price right now there is no price. You get the cheapest possible price for the majority of goods. Depending on RNGesus certain goods become outliers and things like engine parts are limited by really dumb m3 size and production limits.
In my current playthrough when I look around the universe I can find 1 station in 10 with goods below the 7500 average trader deficit. This is because the single truck system is physically stuttering the economy. No trade needs to ever happen beyond that magic 7500m3 medium hull trade number. By forcing those traders to sell at a hub you force those stations to actually PRODUCE goods. This means the TOTAL efficiency of the economy will INCREASE as factories will have fewer instances of production stoppage. From a design perspective, it also makes budget sense since you already wasted how many tens of thousands of dollars building s and L freighters that simply don't need to exist with the current AI. They actually cause problems as it stands right now by contributing to factory stoppage.
If I pulled the average trade price margin for all trade interactions by all AI ships I would bet money it's under 20%. For your fear to be valid a system would need to produce everything all the time. Even with how the universe is currently generated you would have a brief period of crazy profits followed by normalization and margins determined mostly by distance and production speed. Kinda how, you know, an economy should work.
Alot depends on numerous factors but the biggest problem in my current universe state is actually lack of supply for certain goods - this is more to do with demand outstripping supply than factory stoppages and in new games the supply/demand balance is seemingly randomised thus an individual's experience will vary from playthrough to playthrough. However, in V2.0 Egosoft apparently deliberately nerfed/tweaked the economy balance slightly in order to reward the more intelligent in-game business decisions and seemingly make things a bit harder in some ways.
https://forum.egosoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=4848384#p4848384 wrote:Improved balancing of ware prices and production profitability to emphasize smart business decisions.
I started my playthrough with V1.0 and possibly due to my universal fixed pricing strategy and perhaps other build decisions I have not noticed these changes that were apparently made by Egosoft.

Overall, your idea to promote a boom-and-bust based economy is inherently flawed and IMO should not be facilitated by automated means like you seem to think it should. X4 is not JUST about trading using ships, it is also about building and operating stations and that is where the flaws in your reasoning start to show.
Lenna (aka [SRK] The_Rabbit)

"Understanding is a three edged sword... your side, their side... and the Truth!" - J.J. Sheriden, Babylon 5 S4E6 T28:55

"May god stand between you and harm in all the dark places you must walk." - Ancient Egyption Proverb

"When eating an elephant take one bite at a time" - Creighton Abrams

EmperorDragon
Posts: 380
Joined: Sat, 13. Apr 13, 14:45
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by EmperorDragon » Mon, 8. Apr 19, 11:20

Well, it may not be directly related to the topic but, it will help a lot if we could edit the ware lists of station subordinate autotraders without the station manager resetting the ware list after each trade. This will help especially for large complexes where traders only need to transport specific wares.

Being able to set cargo limits will also help (for normal autotraders as well as station subordinate traders) i.e. traders will not transport a ware unless it can load a specified amount. For example, you set the minimum cargo amount for hull parts at 500, traders will not load hull parts unless they can load 500 or more. This will help avoid cases where a Sonra transports 1 energy cell across 3 sectors.
“To be the first to enter the cosmos, to engage, single-handed, in an unprecedented duel with nature - could one dream of anything more?” - Yuri Gagarin

pref
Posts: 5589
Joined: Sat, 10. Nov 12, 17:55
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by pref » Mon, 8. Apr 19, 11:50

EmperorDragon wrote:
Mon, 8. Apr 19, 11:20
Being able to set cargo limits will also help (for normal autotraders as well as station subordinate traders) i.e. traders will not transport a ware unless it can load a specified amount. For example, you set the minimum cargo amount for hull parts at 500, traders will not load hull parts unless they can load 500 or more. This will help avoid cases where a Sonra transports 1 energy cell across 3 sectors.
Yeah, that together with a more detailed list for trade partners (race/sector/specific factory) could go a long way to be able to control what happens to our wares, and would allow for better income as well.

EmperorDragon
Posts: 380
Joined: Sat, 13. Apr 13, 14:45
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by EmperorDragon » Mon, 8. Apr 19, 15:17

pref wrote:
Mon, 8. Apr 19, 11:50
Yeah, that together with a more detailed list for trade partners (race/sector/specific factory) could go a long way to be able to control what happens to our wares, and would allow for better income as well.
A perfect example where this would have been very helpful was during the buildup leading to my war with the PAR. My autotraders kept on trading with and supplying PAR factories when I would've preferred my traders only to trade with specific HOP factories. This means that I actually bolstered my enemy's (PAR) economy shortly before war broke out whilst the HOP (my allies) struggled to keep up.

PAR still fell, but it would've been more logical if I could have set up my traders to supply HOP factories only, even if it meant less profitsss.

EDIT: It will also help keep my "agricultural" couriers away from ARG stations and getting busted all the time. They should trade with HAT and SCA stations only, preferably ones in unclaimed sectors. It would be great if I could set them up as such.
“To be the first to enter the cosmos, to engage, single-handed, in an unprecedented duel with nature - could one dream of anything more?” - Yuri Gagarin

User avatar
Nafensoriel
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon, 3. May 10, 20:30
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Nafensoriel » Mon, 8. Apr 19, 20:17

The actual ROI is notionally infinite or until the trader is destroyed/retired. The rate of ROI is not that unreasonable in most cases, a lot depends on the universe state and where the trader is operating but that is not unusual for the X-games in general.
Game not real life. Your concept of infinite is flawed when you consider as a game the system has to consider player time and engagement. If you make it they won't use it unless its fun or satisfies a need that is fun. ROI is thus Investment+engagement/time. Again we are not going to agree on this. I doubt our focus in our entertainment is the same.

You seemingly fail to understand the economy model of X4.

The concept of discounted wholesale pricing logic is flawed in the context of X4 - in the real world there are on-going costs related to storage, in X4 those costs are not present. The point I am making is that in order to avoid stations operating at a loss the ware auto-pricing logic should take into account numerous factors and ensure they recoup their costs of production. The current logic of basing ware pricing purely on stock levels is inherently flawed.

As for resources being infinite, that is not entirely true for X4 since we do not have mining stations like we did in X1-X3. The asteroids in general do regenerate but they are still limited in quantity at any given time and it is possible to deplete an area for at least a time. It is also false reasoning to consider them a free resource since the stations notionally either have to pay for the resources (from NPCs) or have their resources locked down and run enough of the stations own miners. Even then, that only applies to producing the first level processed goods, beyond that the available goods are limited by various factors.
This has no validity in reality.
Costs of storage do not factor into the logic of segregation and the dynamics of how a warehouse functions. Nor do they factor into discounts for large volume purchases. If you really think a scalar discount for large volume purchases is impossible or damaging to a game like X4 you need to go back to economics 101. This is especially impactful considering almost no production module in X4 trades at a loss. Ever. It is fundamentally incorrect to assume "trade at a loss" is a factor as well.
If my endpoint silicon wafers trade at a loss but the resources are freely generated infinite and I mined them... have I traded for a loss or just less profit?

Infinite resources apply to all source. Mission money is infinate. Ship recovery from derelict is infinite. Asteroids are infinite. "Enemy", as in things to shoot at, are infinite. There are so many faucets into the economy the only limiting factor is an arbitrary limitation on certain goods for producing higher tire aspects of the economy. As long as ANY OF THOSE ELEMENTS exist in the universe technically it is recoverable by these infinite resource means.
You are ignoring numerous factors regarding how the economy works and auto-trading is not the only way to generate income. As I have already pointed out in this post, the concept of pricing wares purely based on percentile of storage is inherently flawed, it is a nice simple model but it does not allow stations to price their wares based on acquisition cost and thus can result in the associated station running at a loss. Having built quite a few stations myself I have seen at least one case of this happening. As a result of that occurrence, I have adopted a fixed pricing strategy for ALL my stations and that has guaranteed the stations in question not operating at a loss regardless of stock levels.

Unlike the real world, there is not a concept of infinite inflation either - all wares are banded in terms of pricing but the nature of those bands is that it is possible for factories to operate at a loss which makes little sense in terms of being the normal state of affairs and end result of trying to push trading towards bulk trading would ultimately end up with that happening.
Again categorically wrong.
I, nor my suggestions, care about the other aspects of the economy because we are not attempting to create a new economy. Those suggestions are not even changing the way the current economy works. Functionally all they are doing is applying built-in m3 movement limitations ALREADY BUILT INTO THE GAME to ensure more significant price swings happen that ALREADY HAPPEN to lesser degrees. In other words from an economic back end, nothing changes. Want to test it out yourself? Make a station that has the storage capacity I suggest. Do no other changes. Once it fills to median loads you'll notice something absolutely fantastic! It behaves just like every other form of storage in the game! The difference is its price only shifts every 25000m3 vs every 3000m3. The "simple" model used by x4/x3 is sufficient for this. Your problem with it is you think it's going to stagnate. Yes, it will.. but if you have enough volume moving that doesn't matter to the endpoint user because frankly most of them won't notice.

Additionally to address factories trading at a loss...
Water does... but its source is infinite. So it isn't a loss.
Antimater cells do... but its source is infinite. So it isn't a loss.
Graphene does... but its source is infinite...
Refined metals...
Silicon wafers...
SUperfluid coolent...

Notice the pattern? As long as a station is supplied.. it cannot operate for a loss unless it buys infinite resources. I know personally for a water factory to make a profit it must maintain ice above 30% storage. Is this stupid? Yes. Is it broken? No.
It's part of that whole wish of mine to redo the entire production m3 budget and time thing.
What a storage hub and trade segregation do in the short term is capitalized on where the current system works and ensure goods can be buffered against AI tomfoolery. A movement of 40-50k m3 will cause price shifts.. which will shift goods.. which will cause profit potential for everyone(even if the ai doesn't give a fig about it). Consider it a well thought out bandaid to a problem unlikely to ever get fixed by egosoft themselves.
Alot depends on numerous factors but the biggest problem in my current universe state is actually lack of supply for certain goods
Engine parts and the like have consumers out the cthulhu tuchus and single supply points. Just increasing supply won't exactly help when the m3 to move those goods is so small. I personally think the parts required for new ships is a bit.. nuts shall we say for a good that produces every 15 minutes and cant fill an L freighter inside of 3 hours. This is especially nuts considering the ships that get blown up require 15 minutes or production per ship minimum in most cases. I, unfortunately, can't consider such statistical outliers because of how mind-bogglingly absurd they are.
Fair note as well... I haven't had much headway into 2.0 as I'm currently restricted to my laptop and it thinks Rimworld is "hard™" to run. I can boot x4 on it but it turns into a welders furnace and burns down the plant. Any changes beyond the patch notes I'm missing here?

Hell bluntly if they just let us directly order our staff what to trade and where 90% of this entire argument would be moot. The asinine shotgun we have to deal with now is annoying.
"A Tradition is only as good as it's ability to change." Nael

User avatar
Sam L.R. Griffiths
Posts: 10522
Joined: Fri, 12. Mar 04, 19:47
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Sam L.R. Griffiths » Tue, 9. Apr 19, 09:12

EmperorDragon wrote:
Mon, 8. Apr 19, 11:20
Well, it may not be directly related to the topic but, it will help a lot if we could edit the ware lists of station subordinate autotraders without the station manager resetting the ware list after each trade. This will help especially for large complexes where traders only need to transport specific wares.
At least in Vanilla v2.21, we currently can not alter the wares lists of station subordinates at all. The setting is greyed out and the manager seemingly configures it on a per ship basis as they see fit. At least IME. That being said, I have already suggested something along these lines and agree in principle.
EmperorDragon wrote:
Mon, 8. Apr 19, 11:20
Being able to set cargo limits will also help (for normal autotraders as well as station subordinate traders) i.e. traders will not transport a ware unless it can load a specified amount. For example, you set the minimum cargo amount for hull parts at 500, traders will not load hull parts unless they can load 500 or more. This will help avoid cases where a Sonra transports 1 energy cell across 3 sectors.
I am not convinced setting ware transfer limits would actually help matters though, the freighter as auto-trader/station-trader concern is a complex one with multiple related issues and concerns. Arguably, freighters (and other L/XL vessels used for automated trading) need a different solution to the current available options. Simply setting minimum trading-quantity/cargo amounts is a fundamentally flawed proposition for various reasons, most of which I believe I have already outlined in my post debunking the desire for boom-and-bust/bulk-focused trading.
Last edited by Sam L.R. Griffiths on Tue, 9. Apr 19, 23:02, edited 1 time in total.
Lenna (aka [SRK] The_Rabbit)

"Understanding is a three edged sword... your side, their side... and the Truth!" - J.J. Sheriden, Babylon 5 S4E6 T28:55

"May god stand between you and harm in all the dark places you must walk." - Ancient Egyption Proverb

"When eating an elephant take one bite at a time" - Creighton Abrams

User avatar
Sam L.R. Griffiths
Posts: 10522
Joined: Fri, 12. Mar 04, 19:47
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Sam L.R. Griffiths » Tue, 9. Apr 19, 23:01

Nafensoriel wrote:
Mon, 8. Apr 19, 20:17
/snip
Even warehouses in the real world operate like businesses with costs associated with storing stuff. There are also shelf-life issues with a lot of products in the real world and while in some cases this can be mitigated with special storage conditions it is not always feasible or economic to do so. In the specific context of real world support supply chains it is a delicate balancing act between maintaining sufficient quantities of goods and procuring goods on demand a lot depends on expected through put of the spares, service level agreements, procurement timescales, and the risk of the supplier(s) being not able to provide the relevant goods when needed. In the specific context of real world supply chains, similar concerns come into play. In the context of ware houses that supply goods in bulk at discounted rates, even the discounted rates are going to be earning them profit.

Ever wonder why prices in general keep going up over the years in the real world? It is in general because everyone needs to make a profit and even storage of wares costs money, some of the proverbial leeches in the world economy make money by capitalising on so called "fire sales" which normally happen when a business closes for financial sustainability reasons of one sort or another. These leeches then buy up the goods at rock bottom prices from such places (perhaps below the nominal going rate) and then sell it on after tagging on their own profit margin. This is not the only way of obtaining goods and being able to sell them at discounted rates but pretty much all of them are not intended to operate at a loss.

In the specific context of X4, such discount practices do not fit with the overall economy model. You want to make the major profits then the only way you are going to do so is by investing in production facilities and managing them appropriately. Leave things to the AI and without appropriate planning such facilities are likely to run at a loss due to the automated pricing strategy being at least a little too simplistic and not giving due consideration to manufacturing/production costs.
Nafensoriel wrote:
Mon, 8. Apr 19, 20:17
Hell bluntly if they just let us directly order our staff what to trade and where 90% of this entire argument would be moot. The asinine shotgun we have to deal with now is annoying.
With free lance auto-traders, we have that control. With our own stations, that is what we have managers for and why we are also able to build self-sustaining complexes. The key point is knowing what to build and where to build it. The focus in X4 is more on the stations than it is on the traders and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Being able to set up bespoke trade routes is a nicety not a necessity. In X2, bespoke trade routes were essential to successful operation of a successful production line. In the X3 games, it became less important due to the establishment of the concept of complexes but due to mining station considerations it was still a factor unless you wanted to micro-manage things. With X4, that level of management is on the most part unnecessary due to the new approach to complexes and mining in general.

Overall though, the concept of auto-traders in X4 has been relegated to a second fiddle option. While in X2/X3 it was probably one of the main focus areas of the game, the same can not be said of X4. It's focus is clearly more on the construction aspect as given away really by it's title - X4: Foundations.
Lenna (aka [SRK] The_Rabbit)

"Understanding is a three edged sword... your side, their side... and the Truth!" - J.J. Sheriden, Babylon 5 S4E6 T28:55

"May god stand between you and harm in all the dark places you must walk." - Ancient Egyption Proverb

"When eating an elephant take one bite at a time" - Creighton Abrams

User avatar
Nafensoriel
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon, 3. May 10, 20:30
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Nafensoriel » Wed, 10. Apr 19, 00:51

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote:
Tue, 9. Apr 19, 23:01
/snipsnip
The way a warehouse function is not related to profit. The size of a warehouse is related to profit and how fast the goods are required to move. The logic for why a warehouse exists is rarely directly for profit. The segregation of why and how a train line is used vs a truck line is not related to profit.

The purpose for a warehouse is, as I've said before, buffering, freight mixing, and transhipment.
To define Buffering: Without warehouses, producers would have to store goods. For most applications in X4 and in real life this is "bad™". Why? Well, let's pick on how dry goods for most North American grocery stores work. Typically you have 3 types of goods. Goods that can be delivered daily, goods that can be delivered weekly, and goods that can only be delivered monthly or seasonally. In X4 terms think of these like water, hull parts, and engine parts respectively.
Without a warehouse, the instant a local surge of sales occurs for any reason such as BBQ season or, in X4s case a surge of shipbuilding, engine parts is impossible to "deliver" at any speed that would satisfy demand quickly or efficiently unless you happen to be right next to the factory. Most places in X4 are not in this category. In real life, the BBQs themselves would be the limiting factor due to the reality that you have the option of slowly producing your inventory over a year in a small but efficient factory.. or you have to produce them rapidly over a very small window at a price premium. Which do you think most real-world companies choose to do?

So what do they do? Even if it technically costs more money to store the product than immediately ship it in bulk the OVERALL efficiency of the slower year-round production is prefered AND cheaper. Warehouses buffer goods needed in bursts for specific applications.

They also buffer applications of goods like paper products. In X4 lets call them "hull parts" since they are about as widely used. Do you want to get goods from 12 different outlets or would you prefer ordering from one stop shop for all your business and commercial sales needs? Warehouses in these cases cause a median price cycle which keeps prices in multiple far-reaching locations similar provided it can maintain stock efficiently over time. Sudden surges can cause price movements but it requires a surge far higher than a local event like a natural disaster. (no we aren't going to argue about war or disaster profiteers. we are talking yearly price medians)
------------
Prices actually fluctuate far more up and down than you think. The more years in your dataset the more you will see a positive trend. If you narrow that to yearly you will find it cycles even as it makes that slow march upwards.
Example. Meat in Canada is 15% cheaper this year. Guess what any sane economist is going to know will happen in 3 years? Meat will start to rise as people migrate to the cheaper option to feed their families. Capitalism will always have a natural trade cycle.

What you think is a cost in warehouses actually isn't. Inflation is a FAR more complex subject. Goods and currency increase mainly due to demand push and population growth. The more a good exists and the greater its impact on someones lives the more people who don't have that good want that good. That is the primary increase you will see. The cost increases for warehouses are mostly neutral and have been for the last 50 years. While they do get more expensive to run over time that is mostly due to the WORKERS themselves getting more expensive... which is again part of that demand push inflation effect. Even automation costs haven't really impacted the warehouse world anywhere near as much as you think. The long term savings actually end up making them more efficient since machines really don't have a demand push(yet).

----------------
Ok boring parts over lets address this point:
In the specific context of X4, such discount practices do not fit with the overall economy model. You want to make the major profits then the only way you are going to do so is by investing in production facilities and managing them appropriately. Leave things to the AI and without appropriate planning such facilities are likely to run at a loss due to the automated pricing strategy being at least a little too simplistic and not giving due consideration to manufacturing/production costs.
The economy of X4 is "stuttering" not "cycling". All trades happen within a very narrow band that typically keeps prices near their lowest points for almost every single trade. In the X4 trade world basically no trader ever even attempts to buy a good from a factory that isn't full. Exceptions exist yes but for the majority of the time, this is true.

A discount of 5% for goods trades over 35,000m3 would cause no current production station in X4 to lose money excepting of course the resource tier at the bottom which already loses money. Just for a horror fact for you... Most stations would still be profitable at MINIMUM PRICE SETTINGS if you gave a 30% discount for sales over 35,000m3. Now you can see why I really REALLY want to tweak production eh?
The TLDR is it would only enhance player trades(or AI if you wanted them to trade like this too) and have precisely ZERO impact on the overall economy as it currently stands. It would most certainly not cause any sort of economic collapse or harm.

Honestly, if you wanted to make the price scheme actually interesting a simple random time period scalar adjustment would be interesting and low cost. It would certainly force people to diversify goods and pay attention to the market if they really wanted to trade(even station trade). (Just so we stay on the same page I mean a system which selects its current range within a larger range. IE Quantum tubs have a price range of 150. Right now that's between 225 and 375. If that range remained 150 but would randomly slide up or down a price range of 175 and 425 once a "year" it would certainly allow for losses to occur!.. and great proffitssss.. :D)

---
On an offside discussion, I actually agree with you for the most part that the mogel point of view should be centric on stations. I still think a bit of trade segregation paired with some production tweaks would drastically help the economy in the long run though. Allowing the player to build routes isn't against the foundation model. If you consider a decentralized production style it makes very good sense. What about the player who wishes to mine in sector X and produce in sector Y? The tools are.. lacking. You can make it work but it would be nice to have the option since this is the foundation of a players world.. not a structured sandbox required to be played a single way.
"A Tradition is only as good as it's ability to change." Nael

Post Reply

Return to “X4: Foundations”