ryleyra

Well, now I find the manufacturing cost, and mainly the refining cost, DOES make up the difference. And if refining costs are higher, that may explain why I'm seeing refines ores selling for higher. This may be an intentional change, on live you actually lost money if you refined ores, although you gained Trade XP. This way you increase your income from vendoring ores, as well as earning the XP. As for ripping ores and using them to make components, I found the cost came out very close to vendor cost, but a little higher, somewhere around 30 credits. So again, either manufacturing costs on live were lower than they are now, or non-ammo components were severely underpriced. I am pretty sure I did an analysis back in the day, but I have no manufacturing costs for components recorded (only items) so I can't be sure. The bigger exploit I worried about (and didn't mention as I wasn't sure it would be the case) was refining the ores and selling them for more than the component cost. But again, the refining cost covers that, and while the refined ores are worth more, they aren't worth THAT much more. Between refined ores being worth more and components being worth more, my previous comparisons go out the window, so I'm going back to a more neutral stance. It does seem inconsistent that ammo itself cannot be dismantled, but the components to make it can. There is definately a value in supplying a need when the drop tables are broken, however. Dismantle costs are extremely low relative to manufacture and refine costs, I suppose they could be raised. But the issue is still getting ores into the hands of those who use them, from those that mine them. That has to be efficient enough to compete with ripping and alts, or nothing will make any difference.

[quote name='Crichton' timestamp='1314499805' post='45311'] NOTE: the net7 DB holds the data on who builds what item. If you are unable to get the ores then you need to wait for he devs to make them more plentiful or find a work-around like every other player (purchase or loot comps that can be ripped to make what you need made). [/quote] Did you not just say (in the component ripping thread) that making the players wait on a miner in the Market channel when none was around was bad? If an auction house made those ores available, you would not need to wait, you could pick them up immediately. You would also not need to rip comps in order to buy those ores. I disagree that the ores are not available. Yes, rare, hard to find ores are not available. That's what makes them rare and hard to find. But common, conveniently easy to find ores are available, but they are vendored. Because that is all they are worth. They're available, and they're used in components, but they're not traded because it's not worth the hassle.

[quote name='Mattsacre' timestamp='1314514713' post='45322'] 1.Why would a builder take a ammo comp, rip it, and rebuild it to make ammmo? The odds of not makeing 200% ammo is near 0, I.E. why would a builder build ammo comp to 200% just to get superior ammo if it wasn't 200% and he couldnt stand that..then by more comp and build again and sell the 100% ammo.[/quote] This is the main reason why I think the ripping of ores from components isn't a problem. You still haven't made it impossible to JUST USE THE COMPONENTS. Where the issue lies, I think, is in ripping ores from an ammo component TO MAKE SOME OTHER AMMO COMPONENT. One that can't be bought from the vendor. That honestly wasn't what I was talking about. [quote]2.You say that they might "exploit" ripping ores from ammo comp, have it refined then sell the comp for less than vendor? So you pay to buy the comp, then you pay terminal to rip it (and possibly lose some ore), then turn over to miner to refine it..thus they pay terminal price to refine it, then turn back to builder and they pay terminal price to manufacture comp. Thats 1..2..3..4 PAYS to get the comp (factoring in loss to rips remember). I'm quit confiden if you add all thise fees that the vendor price for a comp will not exceed builders TOTAL cost of manufaturing comp.[/quote] No, they don't have to sell the comp, they can just build something out of it. That item then costs some three times less than if you bought the component used to make the item. My research is starting to indicate that refined ores can be sold back to the vendor for about 1.5 to 2 times what it costs to refine them. Although this could depend on the level of ore and individual type of ore. It seems to vary somehow depending on the ore. I haven't yet figured it out. [quote]3.The ores in ammo comps are most often 1 or more levels lower than the comp ripped, I.E most L9 ammo comps rip to L6-8 ores, please factor that into the mix also..the cost of a L9 comp,ripped,refined,rebuilt to new comp....oh and dont forget,, refining multiples..it takes 3 or 5 of something raw to make 1 refined, so thats 5xL9 ammo comps bought, 5x ammo comp ripped (don't forget losses), a refined down to 1[/quote] This may also be new to the emulator. Most low level ammo comps, at least on live, were made of a single type of ore. That is, you could rip a specific comp to get those specific ores from it. If there is a random selection of ores in the comps in the emulator, then there would certainly be waste involved, unless you could happen to find a comp that exactly match the ores you want. (Unlikely if it is truly random) [quote]So a "exploit" I think you may have not thought the entire process through and associated costs(s) and losses. I must insist builders rip for ores for expedience, NOT cost, they get the ores "on demand" for their build, rather than spam the market channel for 2 hr. in a possibly vain attempt of aquiring lower cost ore. Remember, if the builder is building for profit and not as favor, they WILL pass the costs on, so that "exploit" isn't the builder its the customer "exploiting". [/quote] I don't care who benefits from the "exploit", I am merely pointing out where 2+2=5. If Ammo comps are the same price they were on live, and other comps are 3 times the price they were on live, and the devs based the live prices on the relative value of raw ores to refined ores, then there is an inconsistency. If this is intentional because the devs want to encourage trade of refined ores to help mining, but keep the costs of ammo down for the warrior classes, that's perfectly fine. As long as all factors are considered.

I may actually be wrong about Ore prices matching. I was doing some checking and found some oddities in the price of refined ores. I suspect, though, that it's a simple case of there was no information to go on, and so it all had to be made up from scratch.

I had recorded a large number of prices on items back in the day when I played this game, and have always assumed the devs here got a list of all of those items and their prices and employed it in their emulator. However, I find on double checking it that the values are not the same, at least for the handful of level 1-4 items that I checked. Components, I found, were about 3-4 times higher in price than on live, which should definately impact the sale price of those items. Weapons seemed to be about 1.5 times higher, although this started lower at level 1, and went higher as the level went up. Reactors were really strange, the two I priced, the Pluton and Callipus, were about the same price, but the Callipus was more expensive on live, and the Pluton more expensive here. EDIT: Ore prices are not the same as live. Trade Routes are, for the most part the same as live. (Those that aren't new routes, anyway) Now, I suppose it is possible that during the lifetime of E&B, the prices were changed, and I just didn't notice. The devs may also have not had a list of the equipment prices, like they might have with the ores and trade goods (perhaps they went from lists compiled by players) and thus they made them up. As long as the prices are consistent with each other, I don't mind. And I don't have enough data collected to completely reproduce the prices on live anyway. I suppose I am just bringing this up to make sure that this is known, by both the players and the devs, and to be sure what the strategy is in the "new" pricing. I'd be happy to supply my notes if the devs would like to try and "tweak" it a little closer to live. Oh, and of course I know faction would make a difference, but it should have been constant, and it wasn't. And it certainly would not compensate for the difference on components. There may be another factor I may have forgotten, if anyone knows what it might be, please let me know.

[quote name='Dragoncove' timestamp='1314382732' post='45265'] I need to double check, but I think I calculated that component ripped ores are worth about 9.5 times the vendor price. That does include the terminal cost, though, so that would increase it. However, the Trader has to take the time to buy the components, and perform the dismantle, and there is a chance of failure. On live, the price that was often quoted was 10 times the vendor price. Of course "vendor price" often depended on faction, and so your vendor price might not be mine. [/quote] I just found out something that adds a new factor to this, and that is the price of Components right now is NOT the same as on live. In fact, it is much higher, around 3 to 4 times higher, for levels 1 through 4. Now, it is possible that this drops to be closer to live for the higher level components, but this means that for low level components, the cost to the miner to rip ores from components is MUCH higher than it was on live. The vendor price to buy ores has not changed, though, so the ratio between ore price and component price is a lot higher than 9.5. It's probably more like 30 times. So a builder can save a LOT of money by buying ores from a miner and building components with it. And miners can probably ask for 15 to 20 times the vendor price of those ores. I don't know if it is intended for it to go live like this. But it is certainly going to effect the market, the price of built items is going to be much higher. I haven't checked if the terminal prices have changes, but the builders will need more money to build items if they're going to buy components. The prices of items are subtly different too, although weapons only average about 1.5 times higher, and other systems it seems to come out as a wash. Some are higher and some are lower. [edit] On going back and checking over it, I find that ammo components, unlike equipment components, appear to be priced about the same. There was about a 15% difference from my recorded prices, but that could easily be due to faction. So it does appear that if you go on ammo components, the value of ore does appear to be about 9.5 the vendor price. Honestly speaking, this revelation has changed my mind. Maybe it is a good idea to remove the ability to rip ores, but ONLY from ammo components. After all, you cannot rip ammo to make their components. The ability to rip refined ore from non-ammo components should remain. However, it seems to me an exploit that you can rip ore, get a miner to refine it, and then build components that are cheaper than those from the vendor. Because of the possibility that a bug or oversight could still cause the supply of an ammo ore to dry up, leaving builders unable to produce the ammo, maybe it would be a better solution to simply increase the terminal cost to rip ammo components. Leave normal components as they are, but increase the price to rip an ammo component by twice its buy price. This would price its "internal ore" competitively with other components, and again allow miners to charge up to 15-30 times the vendor cost without coming close to the cost of ripping ore. Alternately, require the purchase of a Terminal Override, which can raise the cost even more. Or even, require the trader to purchase a drop from the Market.

[quote name='Tyran' timestamp='1314416214' post='45280'] Nobody said the scout is too weak at combat. I don't make posts with vague insinuations. If something is crap it will be said.[/quote] That's good, because from what I have heard it is the opposite, when it comes to combat. [quote]That being said the scout is underpowered in other ways. Navigate and afterburn are basically the same skill, which goes to show how imaginative it's development has been:lol:. It has nothing over the PS or JE. The speed advantage it is supposed to have is negated by the JE's wormhole. In it's entirity, the Scout is a poorly designed class with no real upsides, yet.[/quote] Again, that is not what I have heard. As for Navigate and Afterburn, one is passive and the other active, so Afterburn has a greater effect, and their effects (I presume) stack. Also, Afterburn has more of an effect on non-warp speed with less skill point investment. I notice that both of you are talking about speed as if warp and non-warp are interchangable. As if the ability to get around the sectors faster helps you in combat. [quote] What the f... [/quote] Clearly you don't think Hull Patch is useful. Otherwise you would not have "facepalmed" it.

[quote name='BrixunMortar' timestamp='1314417315' post='45282'] i'm against the change at all to be fair. what's wrong with asking for the ores in market and offering a price and if someone wishes to fulfill your order they go and mine it? i honestly believe that the implementation of an auction house will ruin the game! no-one "pays a sucbscription" here and most have a je to wh with! a je mines so this just seems like a reason to allow pleasure miners to make money and then get builds from everyone else for free as it is at the moment! sales can be done in the market channel! sorry but it's just my opinion![/quote] Well, first of all, if everyone is "doing it for free" as you say, then there's no market. Besides, this is a stress test, and the main reason those who don't ask for money do that is because they know their character and their credits could be wiped at any time. On live it will be a totally different story. The same goes for players having alts that can mine or wh for them. I suggest you actually go onto the market and ask for some players to mine for the ammo for some of your low level characters. See for yourself how open the other players are to that suggestion. There's nothing wrong with miners mining "for pleasure", but most of them would like to make a profit if they could. [quote]p.s as far as using the auction house as storage - silly plan! if u can set ur own price then u set way higher than anyone will buy for and ppl can store stuff in there with no real chance of selling it! bad BAD idea! [/quote] That's why the auction house only allows a limited number of sales from the same person. If the person chooses to use his 20 slots to hold items, fine, but he's got far more space in the Vault. Besides, that is the way auction houses are used by some players in MMOs, and the only inconvenience is to the devs who have to provide that extra storage space. As I said, though, they already provide more than 20 storage slots to each player, so it can't put too much extra strain on the database.

[quote name='Terrell' timestamp='1314400543' post='45274']If you're a Scout your options are to kite the mob until it's dead, or fire upon the mob, lure him away, break off combat and rush to the rock. I think if they had L7 Illusion, they'd have an avoid combat option, like the Sentinel & JE and they'd have options equal to the other two explorers. [/quote] I do like the Illusion suggestion. The issue as I see it is that Hack, the Scout's mezz power, doesn't work on organics, which are most likely to be found in ore fields. The Scout would be better off with Biorepression, but it doesn't get it. In fact, the reason Biorepression was introduced in the first place is that Hack is limited in scope. Mind you, an Enforcer doesn't really care if he takes on ships in preference to biologicals, but the Scout does. At least Hack can be used on Red Dragons et al., but it's very rare you will find a field that doesn't have BOTH. (Which I'm guessing is why you would intend for your Illusion to work on both)

[quote name='Fallhammer' timestamp='1314395383' post='45269'] Would it be possible to just have the trade window function between two people regardless of the distance between them. But maybe add a delay on the items transfered actually being delivered into each persons inventory based on the distance, to simulate the shipping time. [/quote] Well, as I said in the other thread, I don't think it's the travel time that is the problem. You could let players trade from anywhere in the galaxy and I don't think it would change anything. And while it might be nice from a convenience standpoint, it's pretty much a standard in MMOs that if you want to trade, you have to go to the same location. When you get down to it, the advantages that an auction house brings to an MMO are these: 1) You can trade with players even if they are not online at the same time as you. 2) You can trade with players even if they are not in the same area as you, although you both have to have been in the same area, or one of the areas in which there is an auction house, at some time. Just not at the same time. 3) Items put up for sale are stored in the auction house from the moment they are put up for sale until they are sold. This takes them out of your inventory, without requiring someone else to add it to their inventory before it is needed. 4) This additional inventory is shared among all players. All players can see what is in the auction house, even if it is not in their own Vault, or if they don't intend to buy it right away. 5) You can see all items up for sale by players listed in a central place, without having to ask them what they have. 6) You can (usually) see a record of either the prices of other items put up for sale, or a record of recent transactions, to help you decide what you should ask or pay for a given item. 7) You can buy items when you need them, without waiting for them to be gathered/built. The gathering of the resources can take place prior to you deciding you want them. 8) It is easier for low level and inexperienced players to contribute to the economy. 9) A transfer of money from high level to low level players is facilitated, to make levelling easier.

[quote name='Tyran' timestamp='1314345601' post='45247'] Don't be so sure as critical targeting is like...pretty damn huge.[/quote] Granted. I had just noticed that upgrading the Scout to 4/5 gave it the same weapon slots as the Sentinel, but obviously overreacted to that comparison. If the Scout is underpowered, then it's underpowered. Is that what you two are saying? That the Scout is too weak in combat, and cannot compete with the other classes? [quote]This obsession with hull patch... [/quote] So, remove Hull Patch and replace it with Power Down. I don't like the idea, but you seem to.

In the "remove ripping of ores from components" thread, the dev Rolo mentioned that they may be able to set up a roving NPC vendor outside of a station. Since the discussion then turned to auction houses in general, and a number of people have posted that to suggest an auction house, not noticing the dev post, I thought I would start a new thread. This can serve as a record that at least one dev IS considering the option, and as a place for us to post different suggestions for how this auction might work. I thought I would start with my own suggestions, of course, which will include Rolo's. (Hopefully he will not mind if I flesh it out a little and suggest some ideas of my own for how it would work) But I do have a number of ideas, some of which I saw suggested on the boards back in the days when the game was live. Note also that Rolo did not say that this could be implemented easily or quickly, likely it would not be implemented for a long time. I DO think that it would be best if such a system was available before the game goes "live", but let's cross that bridge when we come to it, eh? 1) A "Middleman" roving vendor This vendor would be essentially an NPC that would buy items from the player, for a small fee, and then add the item to his inventory for sale, at a price set by the player. Since the player would set his price, it would not be fixed, but could include as much markup as the player felt he could get away with. Low prices could be bought up by speculators and "turned over" at a price closer to the established market price. So this would be a true auction house, with prices determined by supply and demand. [url=https://forum.enb-emulator.com/index.php?/topic/5490-remove-ripping-of-ores-from-components/page__view__findpost__p__45061]Rolo's suggestion is here, if you'd like to see his original wording.[/url] Personally, I would think that the player would have to have a limited number of slots that he can add to the NPC's inventory, say 5 or 10. This is to prevent one player from flooding the vendor with so many items that no one can find the useful items in the list. If the list uses the normal vendor interface, though, I would expect that it could be sorted by either name or price. While a limit of 20 might seem more reasonable, there will likely be multiple vendors, as below, so I think 5 EACH would be sufficient. The devs might be able to set the limit for a player globally, allowing him to post no more than 20 sales anywhere, but I am trying to make this as simple as possible. When items sell, he will have to come back to the NPC to withdraw his money and free up the slot. If the item doesn't sell, he can withdraw it and either post another item, or repost that one at a lower price. Of course, an "item" can be a stack of items, as with ore, but I'm guessing that it would have to be a stack of the same item. (You couldn't put up a sale for multiple items, each would have to take up their own slot) To prevent one vendor from becoming overcrowded with items, in addition to the limited slots, there would probably need to be several vendors, each specializing in his own types of items and level. In other words, like the station vendors, you would have separate "Middleman" vendors for ore, components, weapons, and ship systems (shields, reactors and engines) with a separate vendor for each level. These could all be scattered around Net-7, but more likely would be spread out among the various sectors. Net-7 could specialize in the first three levels, with the higher levels spread out into the higher level areas. I honestly don't know why these can't be put in a station, but I'm not a dev, so I'll trust there is a reason. An NPC inside Net-7 could draw the player's attention to the wandering NPCs, though, and let him know to look for them. He could also point out where the higher level vendors are, so there wouldn't have to be NPCs in those stations. It may also not be possible for the price to be set by the player. If necessary, a fixed price system would be better than nothing, but of course the players would have to go to the Market channel for non-fixed pricing. The Net-7 NPC could mention this, if necessary. Likely, a fixed price system would cut down the vendors to just ore, components and ammo, the components and ammo could be priced at 200%, with players having to go to the Market Channel for components or ammo that is rare or out of stock. Since each item would still be sold separately, not stacked with similar items, it would be up to the seller whether he would only vendor his low quality stuff and hold on to the 200% for sale to the Market. 2) Add an incrementing "Inventory" to the ore and component vendors (adding an ore vendor) While this suggestion may not be possible given the way the game works, I thought I would add it as a potential solution that came up in live, when an ore vendor was added to buy and sell ores. While this allowed miners to get more money for the ores they sold, they no longer could set a markup higher than the fixed price, and so this was removed. However, the idea would have worked if the vendors kept an inventory of the ores they bought, and sold only that amount to the builders. The idea is that while the vendor would list all available ores of a given level, there would be a "counter" assigned to each, and as an ore or stack of ore was sold to the vendor the counter would increment. When a buyer bought an ore or stack of ores, the counter would decrement. If the counter ever reached zero, no more ore could be bought from that slot, it would have to be "refilled" by a miner. This would control the price of the item, if the counter on a given ore is very low, that ore is in high demand and may bring a higher price on the Market Channel. If it is zero, it will DEFINATELY bring a higher price on the Market Channel. If it is very high, then demand for that ore is low, and the miner can avoid mining it, while looking for ores for which the counter is low. The vendor will offer at least 8.75 times the "vendor price" for that ore (7 times the base price, to speak a language the devs understand ) and possibly as high as 10 times. This will be competitive with ripping ores from components, and allow common ores to be sold for much more than just vendoring them. The counter will have a maximum, however, say 1000, and after that the miners will be forced to vendor it. (Or the vendor will just pay the standard vendor price without incrementing the counter) Builders can pay either the 8.75 that the miners were paid, or perhaps a small markup to serve as a credit sink. The advantage to this system is that miners will get their money for ores immediately, without having to put them up for sale and wait for a buyer. The disadvantage, of course, is that a player may sell to the vendor, seeing that there is a demand for it, without realizing he can get much more on the Market. However, speculators can keep an eye on the vendors, and buy up any "lowballs" for sale back to the Market. As with the Middleman suggestion, speculation is possible, although not quite as easy as with a true auction system. The vendoring of components brings up a complication, as unlike the Middleman suggestion above, if we are to use the existing component vendors, they do not record quality. Quality will have to be either standardized (in the vendor only taking 200% components) or eliminated. (in that the vendor discards all quality difference) I have two suggestions: The first is simply to have the vendor accept player crafted components (of the proper level, of course) and add two to the "counter", while paying the builder twice the component cost. So in essense the 200% component is split into 2 100% components. As with the suggestion above, it would be up to the seller to choose to use his "failures", which are not 200%, to "part out" to the vendor. He can then hold his 200% components for the Market, or just put them on the vendor if he wants to be altruistic, without effecting the Market. (200% components will still be worth as much, since bought components are always 100%) My alternative is to have an option on the manufacturing terminal, like the Terminal Override. Perhaps it could simply be a checkbox on the interface. The result of this option would be that the terminal will force the component (or even a normal item) to be 100%. However, the manufacturing cost is severely reduced or eliminated. The Component vendors would then only take these 100% components. My thought is actually to provide a Terminal Override that can be bought from the store. When you use it to create a component, it PAYS YOU BACK for the purchase, as well as a bonus to say, reimburse you for half the vendor cost of the component. (So it'll help cover your ore costs as well as manufacturing) If you use the Override to craft a weapon or other equipment, though, it doesn't give you any money back, but you then have an item you can give someone to analyze, without having to go through the upgrade/dismantle process. This could work with the checkbox, too, but I want it to cost a little extra so it's about the same risk. (Perhaps the 100% downgrade could work automatically on components, but have a chance of failure otherwise) I forgot to mention, this would not eliminate the component vendors. If they are empty, they will simply generate a component, like always. But this will allow an inventory of components to be added by the players which could then be bought. The idea would be for some of the money that the builders put into buying components be reimbursed to the miners. The Terminal Override idea above could be an incentive to do that, or the builders could just build a component for the money they will get for putting it on the vendor. The point is that if something goes wrong and there is not enough ore to build a component, the system doesn't break down. 3) Full Auction System Of course, this is unlikely to be possible with the way the game works, but I thought I would go ahead and post it since it would be a good idea to just keep in consideration. Or just for later discussion. There are essentially two types of auction houses in other MMOs, the first and most common simply lets a player put up a item for sale, at a listed price. The money is then immediately transferred at the moment of sale to the player when a buyer purchases the item. The seller is usually limited to a certain number of slots (usually because this requires some sort of database system) but he gets the money and the slot is freed the moment the item is bought. There is usually a posting fee, but this is sometimes often reimbursed at the time of sale, and a percentage sales fee is applied instead. In other words, if the item sells there is a sales fee and if it is posted and withdrawn, the fee is less. As long as many items are listed for sale, it is easy to set a competitive price that is either similar or lower than the majority of other asking prices. The other system is for a player to make a bid for items he would like to buy, and a seller provides it. If there is no buyer, the seller can post his item in hopes that someone will bid for it later. I've only seen this in City of Heroes, and it was implemented as a "double blind" system, where the buyer and seller had to guess at what the other would bid. Previous transactions were displayed to help them decide on this value, but it was a lot harder to determine what the competitive pricing was, and even harder to figure out what would be needed to buy an item immediately. Usually, a system like this is implemented separately from the game, and transfers the items and money in and out of the game database. This could be written as a web application, which would be simple, but would also likely not be secure. It's also very likely that Earth and Beyond does not even implement an interface for transfer of items to and from an auction interface. I'm sure if it did, one would have been implemented by now. 4) Mail/Delayed Trade System While this isn't really an auction system, I think I will mention it simply because it may be the only way to do this. One issue with the Market is that it does not allow players to trade who are not on at the same time. It also does not allow players to store items while they are waiting to transfer them from one player to another. It might be possible to expand the Trade interface so that a player can leave half of a Trade transaction for another player as a mail message. That player can then "answer" the message with an item or credits to trade in return. The original player can then "confirm" that message. This honestly would be more useful for alt trading, but players could either meet in the Market channel to arrange a trade, then the supplier could go gather or build the resources. When the supplies are ready, he can mail them to the buyer even if he has logged out. He can then answer the trade at his leisure, confirm it and get his money. In a live game, clearly this would be an issue for several reasons. This first is the potential for trade between alts. The second is that it could allow players to bypass the restriction that players must be in the same place to trade. On the other hand, this COULD be a way of implementing the "Middleman" idea, the players could go to the Middleman and set up a Trade Window, which the buyer would then "complete" at a later time. This adds a fourth step to the process, though, as the seller must make sure the buyer is paying what he requested and confirm the order, at which time the buyer has to come back AGAIN and claim his purchased item. If the seller can somehow specify what the buyer must put in the credits field, he wouldn't have to confirm that it is correct.

[quote name='Overtkill' timestamp='1314380450' post='45264'] Would it be possible institute a system similar to Eve, where a builder can put what ores he wants into a market system at whatever price he is willing to pay? Thus miner 49er's could look at that whether the builder is online or not, and still get the guy his ores?[/quote] It looks like a dev has suggested this is possible, but in a very limited form. It would have to be outside in space, that is, an NPC ship, and it wouldn't have a filtering system. Likely what you would end up with is an auction ship for ore, one for components, another for weapons and systems, likely separated by level, too. Basically, like the vendors, but they take items you post up to them at the price you give them. [quote]Either that, or work on something along side the Net-7 DB that would have the same purpose? That way we could also track what is always in demand and look for those ores. This way also would negate any client limitations. [/quote] I've thought about that, but I'm not sure the client could support trade via a web site. The application would basically have to turn the item over to another application (the web page) to hold it, and then it would be transferred back into the application for the buyer to pick up. It might be managed via the drop system, but sounds really complicated. Plus, it most likely would be exploitable. [quote]On this subject, my vote is to keep the ability to strip ores from comps in place. If you think about what a builder already has to pay to do this between buying the comp to strip and the actual strip, he's paying a mint for higher level comps that contain the rarer ores. Thanks for reading.... -Overt [/quote] I need to double check, but I think I calculated that component ripped ores are worth about 9.5 times the vendor price. That does include the terminal cost, though, so that would increase it. However, the Trader has to take the time to buy the components, and perform the dismantle, and there is a chance of failure. On live, the price that was often quoted was 10 times the vendor price. Of course "vendor price" often depended on faction, and so your vendor price might not be mine. If you're actually going to compete with vendor price on ammo, the ores need to be even lower than that, maybe 4.5 times the vendor. That's to cover the Trader's cost in generating the ammo, and the components. Of course, 200% ammo is worth more than vendor ammo, so probably if you priced it out, the total cost (if you paid 10 times the vendor cost for the ore) would be double for the ammo. (Which makes sense for 200% quality) Since as I mentioned that old Ore Vendor asked 8.75 times for the ore, it was a LITTLE better than ripping it from components, but it only covered the first three levels of ore anyway.

Let me add a little more detail: What we have here is a conflict between two profit strategies. The primary profit strategy on the Market Channel is low volume, high profit per sale. The inventory of items is kept low, the supply of each kept low, and a large markup is placed on each item. As the item is sold, the markup pays for the amount of time that it takes the item to get sold, and so you have a constant profit over time. The other strategy, though, is high volume, low profit per sale. Obviously, this is an extremely successful strategy, it is the idea behind every supermarket and fast food franchise. The inventory of items is HIGH, and you keep a large supply, with a very low markup on each to encourage sale. As long as demand meets the supply, your sales volume is high, and thus even though the individual sales are low profit, your profit over time matches the profit above. The Market Channel cannot handle this strategy because 1) it cannot handle the traffic, 2) it cannot store the inventory until it gets sold, 3) it cannot support a low markup without a larger volume of suppliers. As long as only high level miners are supplying the Market, only high level ores can be sold. And as long as the miners are using the same strategy to sell rare ores and common ores, they have to use the same markup. An auction house allows the second strategy to be used in an MMO. It does not PREVENT the first strategy from being used, there is ALWAYS the option to go to a global channel in an MMO to make low volume sales at extremely high markup. I think it should be understood, though, that the capability of the builders to rip components for ores is intended to support the high volume, low markup trade. This allows the builders to competitively price their sales of low level and common items to the players, providing a service to new players and making levelling easier for the whole community. If the builders were required to reimburse miners for gathering these high volume, low profit ores, they would be have to pass the markup to their customers. It is better, in fact, for the LOW LEVEL miners to sell the ores that they have to mine anyway, in order to produce the goods that the LOW LEVEL customers need. Let the high level miners mine what they are already mining. Which is why, really, the auction house is meant to benefit the low level miners, rather than the builders.

[quote name='Tyran' timestamp='1314348068' post='45254'] The travel time is not a problem if there is no other way. Just look at PM equipment, you cannot buy 200% equipment from the vendor so you will make time to seek out builders.[/quote] I'm not talking about travel time. I'm talking about the time to get a response from the market. Response time is adequate for ship's systems, because you only need a new system every 18 levels. Ammo is so commonly needed, though, that you are required to stock up on a large amount of ammo so you don't keep going back to the Market. All of that ammo takes up space. In addition, the supply is too limited. There are only a limited number of players on at any given time. And all of those players have limited space as well. So you are required to ask for only those popular items that builders are likely to have. If you make a request for an unusual item, meaning one that is not the "absolute best" according to player consensus, then it will take longer to get a response from a builder that is willing and able to build that item, and likely he will have to gather the components and other supplies needed to build it. This does not even count low level equipment, for which the components are not commonly kept in the Vault either. And since these components are not being stored, they are not being built, which means the ores needed to build them are not being bought. Thus there is no demand since the Market is unable to keep up with it. Yes, the ores used to build common components COULD be sold on the Market. But there would be no where to put them. [quote]Also, time spent away from mining will naturally be factored into the asking price. Self regulating system ftw... [/quote] Typically it is not time spent away from mining which factors into the price of ores, but the time spent away from mining OTHER ORES. In order to make your time competitive, you must price common and low level ores the same as high level and rare ores. Which prices your common ores right out of the market. I can assure you that if I go onto the Market Channel, and request 10 Iron Ore, Sand, and Hydrogen, I will be laughed out of the channel. Or at the least, I will be asked what I need them for, and redirected to the New Players channel, for players more likely to have mined that ore. NO ONE will have it, and it will be the very rare player that would actually be kind enough to go out and mine it for me, just because he wants to help another player. And if I continue to ask for this on a daily basis, the Market Channel WILL begin to question my actions. Maybe not to the point of accusing me of trolling, but eventually I will simply be ignored.

[quote name='Knix' timestamp='1314347765' post='45252'] This could be easily solved by showing how much of an ore the vendor has. I don't know how easy it would be to show that in the client. Perhaps the field usually showing how much you yourself has could be hacked to show how large a supply the vendor has instead. You could even adjust the price according to how large of a supply the vendor has. He could pay more/charge more for ores in low supply. [/quote] Yep, that would be my suggestion. A true auction house would be more flexible, though, and it looks like, more likely.

I'm moving this from the Power Down thread, as I'm not going to derail it any further. [quote name='Terrell' timestamp='1314305467' post='45230'] I didn't say a Scout couldn't take a mob of his own level, all 3 explorers can, with the right setup & tactics, take mobs a little bit over their CL. It just takes a while for the Scout & JE, and time spent fighting, is time not spent mining. Why would the time involved in clearing a mob out before mining, be a bigger issue for the PE than the Scout? The JE might think that, as might the Scout, but for the PE that doesn't make sense. [/quote] Well, first of all, at max level the Sentinel's weapon advantage over the Scout goes away. Based on your statement that the max is 4/5, I'm going to assume the Scout uses the same progression as the Tradesman, which means at level 75 and again at 135 the Scout catches up with the Sentinel, and the other races' warrior classes pull ahead. (The Sentinel pulls ahead again at 100, and the Explorer is falling behind at the same levels, so you might actually say they're varying from the steady one slot per two levels rhythm of the Trader) In order to clear out a MOB, the PE has to close with it, unless he chooses to mount missiles. (Which will take skill points away from his other abilities) He is also slower than the Scout, and will take longer to get close enough to engage it at projectile range. When the Scout sees a MOB that is threatening his ability to mine, he can target and begin firing at it immediately, without even being required to move from his mining spot. Given that at max level a Scout will have the same number of slots as a Sentinel, the ONLY advantage the Sentinel will have is greater shield strength. And a lot of that shield strength wouldn't be needed for the Scout, as he can engage the MOB before it can even fire back at him. This applies to Hull Patch, too, if the Scout can get far enough away from the MOB and kite it so that he is not hit that often, then his Hull Patch will not be interrupted. The only disadvantage of this, of course, is that it's going to take time. When I played a Sentinel, I found it more productive to simply ignore guards, and react only when they aggroed on me. The Scout will require a little more foresight and preparation, which will slow him down. However, with a larger hold he will be able to stay out in the field longer, making fewer trips back to unload/reload. I honestly considered it a good idea back in live for the Scout to get Power Down, once it was released, since it would be appropriate. I even considered that the Scout could actually go to the Progen to learn the skill, since Hyperia and the Progen were on good terms. That was before any mention of the Scout getting Hull Patch, though. And I would MUCH rather have Hull Patch than either Cloak or Power Down, thank you. [quote]Terrans are all about the money. How much of an advantage the Scout has in space depends on how much ammo they need compared to the Sentinel. The JE, unless he's running PLs doesn't have to carry any. All explorers can also use beams if they really need the space, and don't think they'll need to do any serious combat. [/quote] The Scout shouldn't take up more space with ammo than the Sentinel, and assuming he does have more cargo space, he should then have more left over. But the Scout has the option of leveling beams if he wants to, as a secondary weapon that will not take up ammo, and which he can use once he "pulls" a foe with a missile. If a Sentinel wants to do the same, he must take up the ammo space for both projectiles and missiles. Unless he wants to go with beams and missiles, which leaves the Sentinel stuck at level 8 for his weapons. Obviously that's not a popular choice. (Although I honestly did consider it, just to be different) [quote]I agree the Exploration part of the game is in need of greater development. I think the same for trade. [/quote] Well, trade is coming along, and I think a few tweaks could make it nice. Explore I'm not sure about. I'd like to implement some really complex ideas, but I'm not sure we can do that in the limitations of not doing anything really drastic to somebody else's copyrighted code. Is it really so bad to be the worst miner, though? The other classes cannot mine AT ALL. The Jenquai Seeker isn't going to be as good a trader as the Terran Trader, and isn't going to be as good at tanking as the Progen Privateer. (Heck, the Terran won't be as good as a team tank. Be serious) And while the Defender's stealth and assassin tactics make it a match for the Enforcer and Warrior, it is NOT as good at direct head to head combat. There are plenty of players who, either because they don't like the strategy, or just out of spite, consider Defenders to be the "weakest". I honestly chose the Scout over the Sentinel and even the Enforcer because I'm interested in finding out just what its strengths actually ARE. I will say that my take on the Enforcer is that it SHOULD be stealthy, it should have a relatively small signature (being a small ship...) and comparitively speaking the Sentinel should be much louder and not suited for "scouting". If the devs have created a situation that contradicts this due to their addition of loot they should correct this. But I will note that Power Down ONLY reduces the Sentinel's signature when it is active, and shields or not, it renders the Sentinel TOTALLY inactive and unable to either fight or mine. So under those circumstances, yes the Sentinel should have a low signature and be hard to detect. But a recon craft should not have to "power down" to be hard to detect.

[quote name='Terrell' timestamp='1314301732' post='45224'] Scout has fight or flight as it's only options[/quote] The Scout can also clear the MOB BEFORE mining. The Sentinel may choose not to do this because of the time involved. A Sentinel typically has more than enough firepower to handle a MOB, just because the Scout doesn't have as much doesn't mean he can't take on a field guardian of his level... [quote] The biggest advantages that the Scout has over the Sentinel is that he can make more profit due to Negotiate 5, and isn't as tight on cargo space. [/quote] This applies to mining as well as trade, the Scout can hold more ore before going back to vendor it, and can make more money off of it. I'm not arguing, though, that the Scout is the worst at mining. It would be nice if there were exploration missions for which it was better suited, like scouting and infiltration, but unfortunately there is no such system implemented. So "Explorers" are judged by how well they mine, which honestly kind of bugs me.

On the topic (following my own advice ) here's three tips I wrote down some time ago about Power Down. This pretty much lets you know how I use it. 1) The best time to use Power Down is when something aggroes on you, but before it closes to attack. Warp away from the threat, and when it is just about to go out of your scan range, stop and Power Down. Check and see if the enemy is still flashing red/yellow, and if it is, power up and Power Down again immediately. Repeat this until the foe either stops flashing, or he gets in range, at which time you might as well make your escape. 2) If Power Down is high enough level, you may be able to Power Down in combat, when you are down to about half shields. If the foe is de-aggroed, then you can sit and wait for your shields and reactor to recharge and power back up to attack. If not, though, the don't try for a second attempt, power back up immediately and run for it. 3) While mining, it can be useful to warp into a field and immediately Power Down. Cycle through the asteroids looking for one you want to mine. Power up, warp to it, mine it, and power down again. While you are vulnerable to attack while mining, foes will not aggro while while you are powered down, even if they're on top of you. (Amusingly enough, they will de-buff you if in range, so you'll know you're in danger if they do this) Just wait it out until they move along, then jump to the next asteroid. Mind you, all of the above was written based on behavior on live, and it may be quite different here. If Power Down doesn't randomly shed aggro then the first two techniques aren't going to work. You may still be able to keep from getting aggro by Powering Down before the foe spots you, though. I also don't clarify the issue of whether shields drop or not. I would think that if they don't, I would have said that you could keep trying to throw off aggro, but I can't be sure. So I'll still need to check. I noticed someone here mentioning he used it in combat, but then that was when he was teamed with someone else who could take the aggro.

One thing I can add is that the Scout is not finished yet, it is still underdevelopment, while the Explorer underwent two years of live play and balancing. So such things as the Explorer having Shield Leech and the Scout having no such direct damage skill may not always be true. Particularly if it turns out that the Scout does not have the firepower to survive while mining. Apparently the Scout has already had a combat upgrade because testing proved it to be too weak. Nothing says it can't happen again. And quit saying a Scout can't compete with a Sentinel for firepower. Of COURSE a Scout can't compete with a Sentinel for firepower, the Sentinel is a PROGEN. That's like saying the Defender can't compete with the Enforcer for Trade... This thread really should get back to the subject, or a new thread started on the Scout.

[quote name='barachius' timestamp='1314296787' post='45219'] After my experience trying to round up the ores for 1 component, I think forcing people to always go to the miners to build components would kill crafting as a whole. It took me 3 hours to round up 2 ores (not 2 kinds of ores, 2 ores total LOL) to make anathor galaxy mounts for my ruby disrupter.[/quote] I assume you mean on the Market, not by going out with an alt and mining. Although maybe you do. Keep in mind, though, what I said before. The idea of an auction house/vendor isn't just that the product is available, but that it is stored when needed. Some other miner ALREADY mined that ore three hours ago, and put it up on the auction house for you to buy. It's available to you right now. This could be true of the Market Channel, if miners actually bothered to store the ore you want and sell it. But if it is not valuable enough to complete with the ores that are valuable, then they will not. There's not enough space in your Vault to store EVERYTHING you ever mine. [quote]IE having a vendor who sells ores for quadruple the price that ores get bought for. [/quote] This was tried in live, albeit buying and selling at the same price. The problem is that the vendor has an infinite supply, no matter how many miners sell to him. So while it solves the problem of miners having to make do with the small change they get from vendoring ores, it doesn't do anything to GET those ores into the hands of the builders. The builders are using ore generated by the vendor, instead. To make matters worse, the miners don't even KNOW what is valuable. So they don't have the option of going to a particular field to search for an ore than they have seen a shortage of. They just mine whatever and get exactly the same profit for it. While the builders can markup their items as much as the market will let them get away with. [quote]Not everyone likes mining just like not everyone likes building stuff because its such a pain, and i know of a lot of people who pretty much only build ammo.[/quote] Actually, I don't think this is a problem. Keep in mind that while not everyone likes to mine, there ARE plenty of people who like mining, and they tend to mine LOTS of ores. These are all vendored because it's not worth the time to trade them. But not because they aren't valuable, but because it's not worth taking time away from mining to SELL them on the Market. You don't stop mining just to sell a few Iron Ore for 10 credits apiece to some Trader who wants to build some level 1 ammo, unless you're doing it out of the goodness of your heart. The problem isn't that it is a problem for builders to have to go to miners. The problem isn't that there isn't enough supply of ores. The problem is that the MARKET CHANNEL can't handle the traffic. It is too slow, too limited, and too cumbersome. An Auction House works for MMOs because it allows high volume traffic of goods from one player to another with minimal time invested for either buyer or seller, allowing them both to quickly return to gathering and building resources.

[quote name='Knix' timestamp='1314258515' post='45207'] Ok, I see your point now... Both types of vendors would be useful. If I had to choose though, personally I would still rather have the vendor that gives me credits up front when I sell him something that others can buy than being able to set my own price and have to go back for the money... [/quote] Well, since a dev said the auction idea might be possible, but didn't mention about the "increment ores sold to the vendor" idea, it's possible the former idea is easier to implement than the latter with the current state of the game engine. Or even, the idea to sell for a fixed price couldn't be implemented at all. Just making a vendor that sells and buys ore for the same price won't work, that was tried on live, and the problem is the supply isn't tied to the demand. Yes, the miners get more money than if they just vendor it, but there's no way for them to know how valuable the ore really is. Unless the rare ores are just left off the vendors, at which time you just end up limiting the trade to those ores. An auction, at least, gives you the option to put the ores up for a really low price, (but higher than vendoring it) which can then be "turned over" by a speculator who buys your ores and resells them.

I will say that certainly the Warrior is the strongest Combat class in the game. The Privateer, probably comes very close to that, though. Low weapons, but strong shields, so depending on what his secondary skills are, he's probably very close to the Warrior in what he can take. The other two warriors and the Sentinel comes next. The Sentinel is effectively as well armed as the Defender and Enforcer. He's only got slightly less weapon slots at the very highest level. So the Progen get the top two slots, and one of the next three as well. That leaves the Trader, the Scout, the Seeker and the Explorer. The Trader is clearly better in combat than the Explorer, he hasn't got much by way of weapons, but he's a tank. The Seeker at least has the advantage over the Explorer in that he can heal himself, but since he doesn't get missiles (I never really expected them to, but kinda hoped...) it's arguable whether he's better than the Scout. He's clearly not better than the Trader. So the question is where the Scout fits, down there with the Explorer, at which time we've kind of got the Trader sitting there in the midpoint alone, or up with the Trader, at which time the Seeker would be down at the low end of combat ability with the Explorer.

[quote name='Terrell' timestamp='1314225797' post='45175'] If you're under heavy attack, being able to engage your warp engines a few seconds faster may mean the difference between escape and needing a jumpstart. That's why I see Navigate as a running away skill.[/quote] I think what I was trying to say is that the utility of the power as a running away skill is minor compared to things like Fold Space and Afterburn, which will actually GET you away faster. Granted, though, a quick jump to warp can be the best way to escape from danger. [quote]If power down drops your shields, then yeah, that would be a problem. It might not be a good idea to do that when you're under attack. Does it reduce your shields to zero, or just stop recharge? Shields usually don't recharge during combat, at least not if you're taking damage. [/quote] Honestly, you're making me question whether they do or not. I suppose I would have to check in game. I want to say they drop though. The idea that shields and reactor recharge at high levels of Power Down is that they DON'T normally. So when you power back up, your shields and reactor are back to full, instead of having to run even further away. Having your shields up while powered down and having them recharge as well, well, I would think it would work that way. And as you said, you shouldn't regenerate shields if you are taking hits anyway. [quote]The Scout does have an advantage in that ML users do not have to face their target.[/quote] The Scout also has Hull Patch, as I said. I will need to check whether the Scout has the same weapon slots as an Explorer, or somewhere between an Explorer and a Trader. I see the Scout as something like the Jenquai Defender, though. It's not as heavily armed as a Warrior or even an Enforcer, but he's designed specifically for being small, fast and light, lightly armed and shielded, but built for singling out foes and taking them out one by one. And unlike the Defender, who has to strike at point blank range like an assassin, the Scout is kiting at a distance, like an archer. He should take less damage because mostly what his foes will be hitting him with will be missiles. (Or goo spit, as the organics tend to shoot ) If a Scout is as weak in combat as a Jenquai Explorer, I will be VERY disappointed in the class. We already have a Jenquai Explorer, we don't need another one.

[quote name='Terrell' timestamp='1314141717' post='45131'] I'd say that Afterburn and Navigate are escape skills, though Afterburn is dual use in kiting and keeping your distance. For Jenquai Cloak & Fold Space have both offensive & defensive uses, while Navigate could be called the "running away skill". I don't really see an offensive use for Powerdown. I don't think it should be just for going afk, so I do think there should be a pretty good chance of fooling the mob and making him go away. [/quote] Navigate? The skill that increases your warp speed? Granted, it may effect thrust speed, my days of studiously learning every single minor detail about this game are long gone, and my memory is really rusty. I don't know if there is an online knowledge base that can list the individual skills and their effects for me. Still, I'm pretty sure the main advantage of Navigate is to cut down time on Trade Runs. It's useful to Explorers, as well, to allow them to faster cover sectors and earn Explore XP. But to escape from MOBs? The only thing I can think of that applies is the time it takes to go into warp. Which I believe Navigate effects. But once you are IN warp, it doesn't matter if your speed is 2000 or 6000, you are pretty much OUT of combat... I have to say the same thing about shields. Yes, the difference in shielding is marginal. But it is not your shields, but how well they can hold up while you get away. And yes, I thought Power Down dropped your shields. I forgot the upper levels left them up. (The reason why I always engaged warp before using Power Down) Compared to the Jenquai ability to Fold Space, and the thrust speed of the Scout, the Sentinel really does not have the capability to escape from combat so readily. And the Jenquai and Sentinel need to be close to the foe before engaging him in combat. The Scout has the option to engage the foe, decide that he's outclassed, and move on before the MOB can even get close to him. Now, if you think that the Scout doesn't have enough options to reduce its signature, that's fine. That's the devs' fault for introducing a device without taking into consideration classes that weren't in the game. Or maybe they did, all the Scouts' options for reducing his signature reduce his speed, which reduce his ability to evade MOBs. Which again, if the Scout were to have a power that reduces his speed but cuts his signature, I wouldn't be against that. But I wonder if it would be worth the trade.