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

Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4933
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Imperial Good »

nickolaiproblem wrote: Mon, 1. Apr 19, 02:27 Okay but how would make sure that its not "cheaty" or more so how do balance the game.
Obviously it only knows stations which you have trade offer details for...

Next to that, what is there to balance with it? Its not like expert auto trading will be even 1/10 of your income once you get a Warf going.
Right now I am using tatertrader and its good but the biggest problem is that I can just sit on my ass and count credits rather than being active with my game.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Auto trading earns practically no money compared with operating ones own Warf and Shipyard. To give an idea, my Warf is making me well over 100M credits per hour and it is heavily bottlenecked and nowhere near self sufficient. It is currently sitting with 4-5 Odysseus orders, each likely worth 20M or more.

If anything auto trading needs to be heavily buffed. Auto mining earns credits a lot faster than auto trading and operating Warfs is orders of magnitude better than that. That said even a 4 star requirement for expert trading will mean you will only have 2-4 expert traders by 50 hour mark or so. Hence seems perfectly balanced to me, if not still too weak.
Regular wages for NPC crew would add to the challenge, so that it is not simply a matter of printing money. You would have to consider whether the particular autotrade assignment is worth it. For profitable items, the profots will easily exceed the wages. For unprofitable items, or worse, sitting around idly, you could be losing money.
Crew needs actual purposes then. Since currently nothing stops one operating all trade ships and mining ships with skeleton crew. Also what happens if the owner cannot afford wages? I think that is why they are avoiding the touching the subject.

Also most goods are very profitable since 2.00 changes.
Other ways to make it better, ability to assign a home base when choosing buy and sell distance. Make it so that pilot skill level is not a limit on how many sectors the trader can traverse, but rather how much time the trade ship needs to take to find a good trade. Low skilled pilots can travel just as far as higher skilled pilots, but they take longer to find those trade deals. Lower skilled pilots would cost less in wages.
This is counter productive to gameplay since it will result in a lot of topics complaining about how traders sit around doing nothing like back in 1.00.
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 »

nickolaiproblem wrote: Mon, 1. Apr 19, 12:28
Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote: Mon, 1. Apr 19, 08:41...
Do your autotraders actually follow your orders because mine don't seem to.
I don't know what you are getting at here - autotraders are set and forget and trade only in the wares you tell them to. Not exactly sure what you are expecting. For station based traders, you have no control over what they trade in - that is for the assigned manager to work out.
nickolaiproblem wrote: Mon, 1. Apr 19, 12:28I would also like to see the jump option back up to 30 as well.
I am not convinced that would achieve anything of value, the universe size is small enough that the current sector range maximum should allow them to trade from one side of the current universe to the other.

There are some generic order execution bugs that apply to a variety of circumstances but that has little or nothing to do with how good or bad the current autotrade logic is.
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
nickolaiproblem
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon, 5. Nov 18, 23:12
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by nickolaiproblem »

Imperial Good wrote: Mon, 1. Apr 19, 16:18
nickolaiproblem wrote: Mon, 1. Apr 19, 02:27 Okay but how would make sure that its not "cheaty" or more so how do balance the game.
Obviously it only knows stations which you have trade offer details for...

Next to that, what is there to balance with it? Its not like expert auto trading will be even 1/10 of your income once you get a Warf going.
Right now I am using tatertrader and its good but the biggest problem is that I can just sit on my ass and count credits rather than being active with my game.
You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Auto trading earns practically no money compared with operating ones own Warf and Shipyard. To give an idea, my Warf is making me well over 100M credits per hour and it is heavily bottlenecked and nowhere near self sufficient. It is currently sitting with 4-5 Odysseus orders, each likely worth 20M or more.

If anything auto trading needs to be heavily buffed. Auto mining earns credits a lot faster than auto trading and operating Warfs is orders of magnitude better than that. That said even a 4 star requirement for expert trading will mean you will only have 2-4 expert traders by 50 hour mark or so. Hence seems perfectly balanced to me, if not still too weak.
Regular wages for NPC crew would add to the challenge, so that it is not simply a matter of printing money. You would have to consider whether the particular autotrade assignment is worth it. For profitable items, the profots will easily exceed the wages. For unprofitable items, or worse, sitting around idly, you could be losing money.
Crew needs actual purposes then. Since currently nothing stops one operating all trade ships and mining ships with skeleton crew. Also what happens if the owner cannot afford wages? I think that is why they are avoiding the touching the subject.

Also most goods are very profitable since 2.00 changes.
Other ways to make it better, ability to assign a home base when choosing buy and sell distance. Make it so that pilot skill level is not a limit on how many sectors the trader can traverse, but rather how much time the trade ship needs to take to find a good trade. Low skilled pilots can travel just as far as higher skilled pilots, but they take longer to find those trade deals. Lower skilled pilots would cost less in wages.
This is counter productive to gameplay since it will result in a lot of topics complaining about how traders sit around doing nothing like back in 1.00.
How would you specially "Buff" auto trader
nickolaiproblem
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon, 5. Nov 18, 23:12
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by nickolaiproblem »

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote: Mon, 1. Apr 19, 21:36
nickolaiproblem wrote: Mon, 1. Apr 19, 12:28
Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote: Mon, 1. Apr 19, 08:41...
Do your autotraders actually follow your orders because mine don't seem to.
I don't know what you are getting at here - autotraders are set and forget and trade only in the wares you tell them to. Not exactly sure what you are expecting. For station based traders, you have no control over what they trade in - that is for the assigned manager to work out.
nickolaiproblem wrote: Mon, 1. Apr 19, 12:28I would also like to see the jump option back up to 30 as well.
I am not convinced that would achieve anything of value, the universe size is small enough that the current sector range maximum should allow them to trade from one side of the current universe to the other.

There are some generic order execution bugs that apply to a variety of circumstances but that has little or nothing to do with how good or bad the current autotrade logic is.
Thats the thing though it worked better at least for me when it was at 30 jumps it worked perfectly fine when it nerfed to only 5 it barely works.
User avatar
Nafensoriel
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon, 3. May 10, 20:30
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Nafensoriel »

"Logistics" in space kinda make autotrading a brilliant savant... or an absolute idiot. It is difficult to get an in-between without forcibly defining a terrain and the obstacles it represents.

For X to really get autotrading to work well they would have to establish a supply chain. On planet earth it goes something like Manufacturer > Truck/Train > Transload(sea/air)(optional) > Truck/Endpoint consumer/ Distribution center

With X4 you really only have one "truck" and it makes things actually more complicated not less.

If a sector was required to send all goods to an equipment/Trade dock FIRST and then have those goods get transloaded into ships which could then go to OTHER trade distribution hubs you would define TRUCK from TRAIN logistics. Then the inefficiencies of the larger hulls would be drastically reduced as they would ALWAYS be hauling at high capacity in very simple routes with very simple thinking.

IE my "ideal world" autotrader would be divided into 3 classes.
Type 1: Local
\\Can't Jump(spin it that the jumpgates have special needs for higher mass that won't fit in small ships)
\\Fast and relatively high manoeuvrability compared to XL

Type 2: Mass Movers(highway)
\\Can jump
\\Will only be able to quickly trade goods with specialized docks
\\Have absurd cargo

Type 3: Specialist
\\Sized as XL
\\Inefficient compared to XL in an industrialized system
\\Efficient in transferring goods to non-specialized stations/ships
((This is defined as being able to pull ore from miners or supply construction ships as a "mobile dock" to ensure the loss of a trade hub doesn't absolutely cripple an economy)

This means you can break autotrader into local 1 order rapid trades where positioning of factories might give you a price advantage due to turnaround time and you can have a separate autotrader which can shift multiple commodities and be balanced by having plenty of time to do that between docks. Size and speed would no longer be a major obstacle in going XL/L over M. Not having a distribution centre just guts any hope of having a trader work without being absurdly OP.
"A Tradition is only as good as it's ability to change." Nael
nickolaiproblem
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon, 5. Nov 18, 23:12
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by nickolaiproblem »

Nafensoriel wrote: Tue, 2. Apr 19, 02:35 "Logistics" in space kinda make autotrading a brilliant savant... or an absolute idiot. It is difficult to get an in-between without forcibly defining a terrain and the obstacles it represents.

For X to really get autotrading to work well they would have to establish a supply chain. On planet earth it goes something like Manufacturer > Truck/Train > Transload(sea/air)(optional) > Truck/Endpoint consumer/ Distribution center

With X4 you really only have one "truck" and it makes things actually more complicated not less.

If a sector was required to send all goods to an equipment/Trade dock FIRST and then have those goods get transloaded into ships which could then go to OTHER trade distribution hubs you would define TRUCK from TRAIN logistics. Then the inefficiencies of the larger hulls would be drastically reduced as they would ALWAYS be hauling at high capacity in very simple routes with very simple thinking.

IE my "ideal world" autotrader would be divided into 3 classes.
Type 1: Local
\\Can't Jump(spin it that the jumpgates have special needs for higher mass that won't fit in small ships)
\\Fast and relatively high manoeuvrability compared to XL

Type 2: Mass Movers(highway)
\\Can jump
\\Will only be able to quickly trade goods with specialized docks
\\Have absurd cargo

Type 3: Specialist
\\Sized as XL
\\Inefficient compared to XL in an industrialized system
\\Efficient in transferring goods to non-specialized stations/ships
((This is defined as being able to pull ore from miners or supply construction ships as a "mobile dock" to ensure the loss of a trade hub doesn't absolutely cripple an economy)

This means you can break autotrader into local 1 order rapid trades where positioning of factories might give you a price advantage due to turnaround time and you can have a separate autotrader which can shift multiple commodities and be balanced by having plenty of time to do that between docks. Size and speed would no longer be a major obstacle in going XL/L over M. Not having a distribution centre just guts any hope of having a trader work without being absurdly OP.
So would this type 1 be sector or local just be confined to in sector trades basically. Also are type 3 effectively be like semi trucks or would they be like mobile trading docks? Could you expand upon type 2's absurd cargo and specialized docks I'm intrested in seeing what your ideas on that are. Lastly would devs have create new distribution centers or could they use existing trade hubs?
User avatar
Nafensoriel
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon, 3. May 10, 20:30
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Nafensoriel »

nickolaiproblem wrote: Tue, 2. Apr 19, 03:01 So would this type 1 be sector or local just be confined to in sector trades basically. Also are type 3 effectively be like semi trucks or would they be like mobile trading docks? Could you expand upon type 2's absurd cargo and specialized docks I'm intrested in seeing what your ideas on that are. Lastly would devs have create new distribution centers or could they use existing trade hubs?
In that example, a Type 1 would be a truck similar to a local delivery from a warehouse/Distribution Center. It would exist locally and be sector limited. It actually makes more sense that you would have a form of "local only" trader just because EVERYTHING involving logistics is in cutting costs to the absolute minimum for every kilogram of freight moved.

Type 2 would be a rail/air type transport. Large amounts cargo but limited places to pull or place said cargo from. You could easily reuse the trade and equipment docks for hubs. To get a decent efficiency though you would have to either A significantly increase storage of the dock or you would have to allow these ships to "autopilot dock" very quickly to these docks and only these docks. An X4 DCs only requirement is a place for big ships to dock and a large storage buffer to allow for swings in price as goods come and go.

Dividing these two just prevents tail chasing. If you have a local trader able to jump to the next system you suddenly have "mad rush" syndrome. If you limit "local" and "global" you allow progression with highly competitive local markets that have much lower start-up costs to the player that can then transition into high volume mass trades. If you could blind the economy a little and make each faction spread out their production a little bit more you could easily create a situation where the high volume trades would turn into opportunities for sudden surges of profits or even situations where a little bit of "piracy" could cripple a sector for the short term. It would also encourage players to build SMART focused factories vs giant spew everything megacomplexes. You'd actually have a choice between megaplex for safety and diversified for profits.

Type 3 ideally would be similar to how a fast combat support ship works or a ship's tender. A ship designed from the ground up to support other ships away from the port and underway. In real life, these can be barely bigger than an ocean-going speedboat or as large as a cruise ship.
This is a fast combat support ship example. /fixed link
Since egosoft has already talked about "resupply" ships this is an ideal place for them that doesn't make them obsolete by carriers and the like.
Such a ship could be as examples:
1] Mining focused and have cargo drones to "collect" the take from several M/S miners and act as an XL transport for a factory. It would also allow you to "base" a support wing of fighters utilizing preexisting scripts so no extra horsepower required game wise.
2] Act as a temporary trade dock for those wanting to RP pirate "mobile" foundations or just to speed up the building in a remote sector.
3] Act as a "tramp" freighter which can move to a sector.. Collect goods.. and then move to another remote sector as a means of profit generation. Ideally, this type of thing would be 30 jumps+ vs 5 for standard traders. The slower nature of the ship would be offset by its utility.
"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 »

nickolaiproblem wrote: Mon, 1. Apr 19, 23:51
Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote: Mon, 1. Apr 19, 21:36 ...
Thats the thing though it worked better at least for me when it was at 30 jumps it worked perfectly fine when it nerfed to only 5 it barely works.
You will have to define "barely works" since that could mean a variety of things and there is nothing in what you have said to date that points at sector range being at fault.

In the latest patches, pilot ability/skill level has seemingly started to be applied properly to both commands and formations. Previously, it was at least a little inconsistent in the way it has been applied. Case in point, I have a pilot who's pilot rating is 3+ but their morale is low resulting in a less than 3 actual rating. This means that while the pilot in question was at one point up to the task of running the Autotrade command BUT they stopped running the command and idled with a sub-3 overall rating. These cases (pilots assigned a command they are no longer able to run) should ideally be flagged to the player through the player logs at the very least. At the moment the reporting does not seem to happen and the order gets stuck in a seemingly endless idle loop rather than cancelling the order and alerting the player.

In the absence of any details (I have not read the entire thread), such a circumstance could be occuring in your case. It might be irritating if this occurs, but if the cancelling/reporting is implemented then that would address my only real complaint about the underlying implementation. Personally, I would rather not have the morale mechanic at all but it is what it is.
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
Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4933
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Imperial Good »

nickolaiproblem wrote: Mon, 1. Apr 19, 23:49 How would you specially "Buff" auto trader
I already mentioned in a previous reply. Similar to mining make 3 different auto trade modes.

0 Star: Import/Export
3 Star: Sector Auto Trade
4 Star: Universal Auto Trade

Import/Export allows a trade to import and/or export a single product from the anchored sector. This is like current auto trade except limited to just 1 ware. This solves the 3 star captain problem with the current auto trade since for some sectors with clear under or over supply this will suffice until then.

Sector Auto Trade is what we have now as auto trade. Import and/or export a list of wares. Possibly an additional sector range over currently.

Universal Auto Trade operates completely different from the current auto trade. Potential future routes get resolved in advance while the ship is executing trades, so as to allow much more complex and resource intensive planning, and the resolved routes are orientated around where the ship will end up. When a trade would not fully use the storage of the ship, try to combine wares for multiple destinations along the route. General idea is to minimize the amount of time/distance spent with free storage. Could also do basic time cost optimization to avoid sending a L trader across the universe rather than just 1-2 sectors to make only 10% more from the trade. Station auto traders should exhibit this to some extent if a manager, and possibly the trader, is skilled enough.
freedom4135
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed, 8. Jul 09, 22:04
x3tc

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by freedom4135 »

I just wish that there was a " Trade For " option for the build storage. Tired of baby sitting my freighters that im trying to get to trade with the build storage only.
nickolaiproblem
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon, 5. Nov 18, 23:12
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by nickolaiproblem »

Nafensoriel wrote: Tue, 2. Apr 19, 06:07
nickolaiproblem wrote: Tue, 2. Apr 19, 03:01 So would this type 1 be sector or local just be confined to in sector trades basically. Also are type 3 effectively be like semi trucks or would they be like mobile trading docks? Could you expand upon type 2's absurd cargo and specialized docks I'm intrested in seeing what your ideas on that are. Lastly would devs have create new distribution centers or could they use existing trade hubs?
In that example, a Type 1 would be a truck similar to a local delivery from a warehouse/Distribution Center. It would exist locally and be sector limited. It actually makes more sense that you would have a form of "local only" trader just because EVERYTHING involving logistics is in cutting costs to the absolute minimum for every kilogram of freight moved.

Type 2 would be a rail/air type transport. Large amounts cargo but limited places to pull or place said cargo from. You could easily reuse the trade and equipment docks for hubs. To get a decent efficiency though you would have to either A significantly increase storage of the dock or you would have to allow these ships to "autopilot dock" very quickly to these docks and only these docks. An X4 DCs only requirement is a place for big ships to dock and a large storage buffer to allow for swings in price as goods come and go.

Dividing these two just prevents tail chasing. If you have a local trader able to jump to the next system you suddenly have "mad rush" syndrome. If you limit "local" and "global" you allow progression with highly competitive local markets that have much lower start-up costs to the player that can then transition into high volume mass trades. If you could blind the economy a little and make each faction spread out their production a little bit more you could easily create a situation where the high volume trades would turn into opportunities for sudden surges of profits or even situations where a little bit of "piracy" could cripple a sector for the short term. It would also encourage players to build SMART focused factories vs giant spew everything megacomplexes. You'd actually have a choice between megaplex for safety and diversified for profits.

Type 3 ideally would be similar to how a fast combat support ship works or a ship's tender. A ship designed from the ground up to support other ships away from the port and underway. In real life, these can be barely bigger than an ocean-going speedboat or as large as a cruise ship.
This is a fast combat support ship example. /fixed link
Since egosoft has already talked about "resupply" ships this is an ideal place for them that doesn't make them obsolete by carriers and the like.
Such a ship could be as examples:
1] Mining focused and have cargo drones to "collect" the take from several M/S miners and act as an XL transport for a factory. It would also allow you to "base" a support wing of fighters utilizing preexisting scripts so no extra horsepower required game wise.
2] Act as a temporary trade dock for those wanting to RP pirate "mobile" foundations or just to speed up the building in a remote sector.
3] Act as a "tramp" freighter which can move to a sector.. Collect goods.. and then move to another remote sector as a means of profit generation. Ideally, this type of thing would be 30 jumps+ vs 5 for standard traders. The slower nature of the ship would be offset by its utility.

I really like the idea of this being able to create a actually dynamic world and shipping empire. Would how many jumps would a type 2 vessel have?
nickolaiproblem
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon, 5. Nov 18, 23:12
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by nickolaiproblem »

freedom4135 wrote: Tue, 2. Apr 19, 10:09 I just wish that there was a " Trade For " option for the build storage. Tired of baby sitting my freighters that im trying to get to trade with the build storage only.
I perhaps for station building you automatically add the wares your missing to shopping list and then have one traders go out and get it.
User avatar
Nafensoriel
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon, 3. May 10, 20:30
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Nafensoriel »

Imperial Good wrote: Tue, 2. Apr 19, 08:57 0 Star: Import/Export
3 Star: Sector Auto Trade
4 Star: Universal Auto Trade
The problem with this hierarchy is that you can apply it to any size freighter. This means an XL/L ship is always going to be fighting S/M and losing every single time. For code purposes, unless you have the receiving port know it has x amount of goods incoming all it takes is one S trader to screw over a slower trader. Toss in 5 or 6 S class ships doing the same thing and by the time the L ship gets there the docks full and the script breaks or repeats in an endless loop of failure. I
If you do "remote contact" the dock and hold the inventory space its NOT a live economy. You will rapidly run into situations where auto traders trade in pennies or factories are endlessly waiting for goods that never show up.
Without segregation of these types of trading, AutoTrader will always favour speed over cargo capacity.

@nickolaiproblem
"Rail"(type2) freighters would have an unlimited range as they are operating in a narrow scope. They cannot dock outside a hub so a range limit actually impacts them negatively.
"A Tradition is only as good as it's ability to change." Nael
nickolaiproblem
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon, 5. Nov 18, 23:12
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by nickolaiproblem »

Nafensoriel wrote: Wed, 3. Apr 19, 01:59
Imperial Good wrote: Tue, 2. Apr 19, 08:57 0 Star: Import/Export
3 Star: Sector Auto Trade
4 Star: Universal Auto Trade
The problem with this hierarchy is that you can apply it to any size freighter. This means an XL/L ship is always going to be fighting S/M and losing every single time. For code purposes, unless you have the receiving port know it has x amount of goods incoming all it takes is one S trader to screw over a slower trader. Toss in 5 or 6 S class ships doing the same thing and by the time the L ship gets there the docks full and the script breaks or repeats in an endless loop of failure. I
If you do "remote contact" the dock and hold the inventory space its NOT a live economy. You will rapidly run into situations where auto traders trade in pennies or factories are endlessly waiting for goods that never show up.
Without segregation of these types of trading, AutoTrader will always favour speed over cargo capacity.

@nickolaiproblem
"Rail"(type2) freighters would have an unlimited range as they are operating in a narrow scope. They cannot dock outside a hub so a range limit actually impacts them negatively.

I seriously hope egosoft considers implementing your idea or at least some modder makes it because this a really really great idea. If this thread dies please post this idea at some point on the forum.
Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4933
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Imperial Good »

Nafensoriel wrote: Wed, 3. Apr 19, 01:59 The problem with this hierarchy is that you can apply it to any size freighter. This means an XL/L ship is always going to be fighting S/M and losing every single time. For code purposes, unless you have the receiving port know it has x amount of goods incoming all it takes is one S trader to screw over a slower trader. Toss in 5 or 6 S class ships doing the same thing and by the time the L ship gets there the docks full and the script breaks or repeats in an endless loop of failure. I
If you do "remote contact" the dock and hold the inventory space its NOT a live economy. You will rapidly run into situations where auto traders trade in pennies or factories are endlessly waiting for goods that never show up.
Without segregation of these types of trading, AutoTrader will always favour speed over cargo capacity.

@nickolaiproblem
"Rail"(type2) freighters would have an unlimited range as they are operating in a narrow scope. They cannot dock outside a hub so a range limit actually impacts them negatively.
Which is why it makes the multi step trade route in advance, like it does currently. Hence an L ship will not lose out to S and M ships since it will be reserving both the buying and sales of wares in advance and hence removing them as selections for S and M ships.

In case people were not aware, once a ship is given a trade order to buy product that product is removed from sale using the ware reservation system. Same applies to stations buying wares, with the buy orders being removed as ships reserve sales to them. The buy/sell price even updates instantly based on this. Ware reservation only breaks if the order logic of the station is updated while ware reservations still exist on the station, eg as the result of a new module being finished or a save/load cycle. After an order logic update the station may cancel ware reservations and hence break existing trades. If this is encountered the ship needs to find a new buyer for the ware or cancel the sales.

Currently auto trade does a simple 1 buy 1 sell order pattern. This is not very efficient as it can be hard to get full loads of wares for larger trade ships as well as can waste a lot of time flying around with empty holds. Universal trade could queue up multiple buy and sell orders at the same time, queued in such a way to optimized time spent with a full cargo hold as well as reduce travel distance in the long term. As the orders are executed new ones may be appended, keeping the ship constantly busy and trying to keep the ship holds as full as possible.

Obviously order queue length would be limited so as to keep ware reservation times reasonable, for example it might only queue enough orders that it is not recycling space used before in the planned trip more than twice. There could even be a very rough ETA, needed anyway for time based optimization, which can be made to not exceed 30 or 60 minutes. In worst cases stations could even look at this ETA and cancel/refuse orders that would have an unreasonable ETA for them to produce efficiently, possibly this could even be a game feature with more mechanics to it.
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 »

Nafensoriel wrote: Wed, 3. Apr 19, 01:59If you do "remote contact" the dock and hold the inventory space its NOT a live economy.
Not true, this is exactly how the X-Rebirth/X4 trading system works in essence - based on both incoming and outgoing order reservations. You can cue up multiple orders between different stations.

If the associated ship gets destroyed or the order gets cancelled then the reserved inventory/space becomes available again.

As far as I am aware, the only direct cancelling of trades is effectively from the ship responsible for said trade - gazumping of trades is essentially not implemented. IMO this is one of the major benefits to the new trading model in X-Rebirth/X4 and should not be changed.

As for this not being a "live economy" that is utter nonsense.

In the context of the autotraders, I have found there is currently little point in assigning ships bigger than a Transporter since the extra space is rarely if ever used - even larger transporters can end up with lots of unused space.

IMO the auto-trader mechanic it self should probably remain on the most part unchanged, the ONLY change I would add would be to add something akin to a trade manager that could operate from a freighter/carrier/destroyer/miner with multiple smaller vessels that operate trades to and from it - buying wares below a maximum threshold and selling above a minimum threshold. If the larger ship finds a good deal, it could also sell/buy wares directly itself but the subordinate trade fleet may be able to do things more efficiently. This would notionally work in a near identical way to the current intermediate wares mechanics with the player able to leave the ware pricing either completely automated or perhaps specify their own fixed thresholds.
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
nickolaiproblem
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon, 5. Nov 18, 23:12
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by nickolaiproblem »

Imperial Good wrote: Wed, 3. Apr 19, 19:05
Nafensoriel wrote: Wed, 3. Apr 19, 01:59 The problem with this hierarchy is that you can apply it to any size freighter. This means an XL/L ship is always going to be fighting S/M and losing every single time. For code purposes, unless you have the receiving port know it has x amount of goods incoming all it takes is one S trader to screw over a slower trader. Toss in 5 or 6 S class ships doing the same thing and by the time the L ship gets there the docks full and the script breaks or repeats in an endless loop of failure. I
If you do "remote contact" the dock and hold the inventory space its NOT a live economy. You will rapidly run into situations where auto traders trade in pennies or factories are endlessly waiting for goods that never show up.
Without segregation of these types of trading, AutoTrader will always favour speed over cargo capacity.

@nickolaiproblem
"Rail"(type2) freighters would have an unlimited range as they are operating in a narrow scope. They cannot dock outside a hub so a range limit actually impacts them negatively.
Which is why it makes the multi step trade route in advance, like it does currently. Hence an L ship will not lose out to S and M ships since it will be reserving both the buying and sales of wares in advance and hence removing them as selections for S and M ships.

In case people were not aware, once a ship is given a trade order to buy product that product is removed from sale using the ware reservation system. Same applies to stations buying wares, with the buy orders being removed as ships reserve sales to them. The buy/sell price even updates instantly based on this. Ware reservation only breaks if the order logic of the station is updated while ware reservations still exist on the station, eg as the result of a new module being finished or a save/load cycle. After an order logic update the station may cancel ware reservations and hence break existing trades. If this is encountered the ship needs to find a new buyer for the ware or cancel the sales.

Currently auto trade does a simple 1 buy 1 sell order pattern. This is not very efficient as it can be hard to get full loads of wares for larger trade ships as well as can waste a lot of time flying around with empty holds. Universal trade could queue up multiple buy and sell orders at the same time, queued in such a way to optimized time spent with a full cargo hold as well as reduce travel distance in the long term. As the orders are executed new ones may be appended, keeping the ship constantly busy and trying to keep the ship holds as full as possible.

Obviously order queue length would be limited so as to keep ware reservation times reasonable, for example it might only queue enough orders that it is not recycling space used before in the planned trip more than twice. There could even be a very rough ETA, needed anyway for time based optimization, which can be made to not exceed 30 or 60 minutes. In worst cases stations could even look at this ETA and cancel/refuse orders that would have an unreasonable ETA for them to produce efficiently, possibly this could even be a game feature with more mechanics to it.
So if I have this correct what you wanna see is better queuing of orders and a updated eta system.
nickolaiproblem
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon, 5. Nov 18, 23:12
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by nickolaiproblem »

Roger L.S. Griffiths wrote: Wed, 3. Apr 19, 21:58
Nafensoriel wrote: Wed, 3. Apr 19, 01:59If you do "remote contact" the dock and hold the inventory space its NOT a live economy.
Not true, this is exactly how the X-Rebirth/X4 trading system works in essence - based on both incoming and outgoing order reservations. You can cue up multiple orders between different stations.

If the associated ship gets destroyed or the order gets cancelled then the reserved inventory/space becomes available again.

As far as I am aware, the only direct cancelling of trades is effectively from the ship responsible for said trade - gazumping of trades is essentially not implemented. IMO this is one of the major benefits to the new trading model in X-Rebirth/X4 and should not be changed.

As for this not being a "live economy" that is utter nonsense.

In the context of the autotraders, I have found there is currently little point in assigning ships bigger than a Transporter since the extra space is rarely if ever used - even larger transporters can end up with lots of unused space.

IMO the auto-trader mechanic it self should probably remain on the most part unchanged, the ONLY change I would add would be to add something akin to a trade manager that could operate from a freighter/carrier/destroyer/miner with multiple smaller vessels that operate trades to and from it - buying wares below a maximum threshold and selling above a minimum threshold. If the larger ship finds a good deal, it could also sell/buy wares directly itself but the subordinate trade fleet may be able to do things more efficiently. This would notionally work in a near identical way to the current intermediate wares mechanics with the player able to leave the ware pricing either completely automated or perhaps specify their own fixed thresholds.
Trade manager kinda like rebirth?
User avatar
Nafensoriel
Posts: 486
Joined: Mon, 3. May 10, 20:30
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Nafensoriel »

Reservations do not a live economy make unless they are part of a greater system. By reserving you force the economy to work at whatever speed that ship currently is operating at(I wont even discuss how lazy "warping" freighters are). This means ANY failure or delay in that ship's movements causes a stutter or flat out pause. While it's a great trick to fake a logistics chain it's not required nor is it very efficient.
The X4 economy is freeport visually. It is not an internalized logistical chain like we currently have. It's more like a premodern barter economy with credit in structure. As no dock refuses a trader and the player(and their underlings) can trade at any station at any time for any reason baring combat status. A reservation is a direct restriction on the economy. The current scripts also do not take into account distance efficiency. If a trader 5 jumps away gets the reservation the system doesn't care that it could have been filled locally far faster in my observations. If we were talking about reservations for XL sized ships in situations engineered to cater to xl size loads then the situation would be different.



As Roger pointed out large ships are pointless because of the small volume currently requested in trades. This is exactly the issue with having the same script deal with local and global trading. You will never achieve volume moves unless you create an economy that ALLOWs and REQUIRES volume movement. The current X4 economy is comparable to trying to supply every big box store in America across 50 states with TRUCKs only for the ENTIRE logistical chain. That is stunningly terrible and prone to all sorts of problems.
Even considering multiple reservations is asinine. So what that it calculates 3 trades before it performs one? All that is is waste. Trying to calculate the entire trade universe at once will universally trend to small packet trading.

The system must be segregated to allow large hulls to exist in a meaningful capacity. Without segregation, the current autotrade script will bluntly never work properly in this economy without magic sinks or being tuned to overperforming. There isn't enough movement and there isn't enough risk beyond ship destruction to the economy. Realistically consider it for a minute. Have you ever seen a logistics simulation game that didn't use tiered transport? Why on earth would you think one tier alone would work in a flat space game? Hell HOW many trade scripts were created for x3? All of them either entered the realm of stupidly overpowered or segregated the shipping tasks.
"A Tradition is only as good as it's ability to change." Nael
Imperial Good
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 4933
Joined: Fri, 21. Dec 18, 18:23
x4

Re: How can egosoft make autotrade better?

Post by Imperial Good »

Nafensoriel wrote: Thu, 4. Apr 19, 05:10 Reservations do not a live economy make unless they are part of a greater system. By reserving you force the economy to work at whatever speed that ship currently is operating at(I wont even discuss how lazy "warping" freighters are). This means ANY failure or delay in that ship's movements causes a stutter or flat out pause. While it's a great trick to fake a logistics chain it's not required nor is it very efficient.
The X4 economy is freeport visually. It is not an internalized logistical chain like we currently have. It's more like a premodern barter economy with credit in structure. As no dock refuses a trader and the player(and their underlings) can trade at any station at any time for any reason baring combat status. A reservation is a direct restriction on the economy. The current scripts also do not take into account distance efficiency. If a trader 5 jumps away gets the reservation the system doesn't care that it could have been filled locally far faster in my observations. If we were talking about reservations for XL sized ships in situations engineered to cater to xl size loads then the situation would be different.



As Roger pointed out large ships are pointless because of the small volume currently requested in trades. This is exactly the issue with having the same script deal with local and global trading. You will never achieve volume moves unless you create an economy that ALLOWs and REQUIRES volume movement. The current X4 economy is comparable to trying to supply every big box store in America across 50 states with TRUCKs only for the ENTIRE logistical chain. That is stunningly terrible and prone to all sorts of problems.
Even considering multiple reservations is asinine. So what that it calculates 3 trades before it performs one? All that is is waste. Trying to calculate the entire trade universe at once will universally trend to small packet trading.

The system must be segregated to allow large hulls to exist in a meaningful capacity. Without segregation, the current autotrade script will bluntly never work properly in this economy without magic sinks or being tuned to overperforming. There isn't enough movement and there isn't enough risk beyond ship destruction to the economy. Realistically consider it for a minute. Have you ever seen a logistics simulation game that didn't use tiered transport? Why on earth would you think one tier alone would work in a flat space game? Hell HOW many trade scripts were created for x3? All of them either entered the realm of stupidly overpowered or segregated the shipping tasks.
Large traders are not as useless as one would think since trade transactions with NPC stations are at the current spot price no matter how much or little you order in a single transaction. Since large trading ships make large transactions you can get good rates on such transaction and so make the most of current offers. It is extremely easy to manually control a large transport and make it operate very efficiently, assuming the player has not saturated all trade offers in the universe. A single trade can make several hundred thousand or even near a million depending on the product.

The problem is the current auto trader mechanics do not factor in that L and XL ships travel through gates much slower than S and M ships. It also does not factor in the hull capacity of a ship. It even does not factor in the usage pattern of wares.

Maybe universal trader is not the solution, after all long distances is bad for profitability. A better solution might be to offer various flavours of trade behaviour which the player can use to customize play styles and adapt to different economic patterns

One way to use a L transport for products with small buy amounts is as a huge mobile storage. A single buy order is made for a large volume of such ware at a very good price. Then multiple small sale orders can be made from the large storage volume at good prices. The ship can idle around holding on to the ware waiting for good offers to appear. It can also slowly roam around within a range, visiting various sectors and depleting all good buy orders of the ware in each sector as it goes. When low on product and there are no immediately decent buy orders available she ship can use this normally idle or roaming time to restock its held ware. Potentially ships could reserve storage for many different types of ware in different proportions at the same time, allowing many trades to happen per visit of a station. Wares where this trade pattern is good are foods, medicine and energy cells since each are used in small amounts by individual stations but entire sectors have large demand of such wares. A single L freighter could keep many sectors supplied like this and operate reasonably efficiently as a result. Assigned S traders could even be made to ferry smaller or single ware orders to and from the L transport to avoid it having to waste time docking. Since the L freighter is full of wares which will eventually be sold it is being used efficiently, and even moves those wares in bulk efficiently between sectors. This could be called "auto distribute" or something of the sorts.

Another way to efficiently use L transports is for bulky large volume wares that are moved in a chain. An example of such a trade is Silicon Wafers -> Microchips. Microchip factories need Silicon Wafers which are bulky and produce Microchips which are also bulky. Both of these also have good mark up and can make nearly a million profit each hop with some L transport ships. Current auto trade logic does not allow this to happen automatically due to limitations of being to/from a single anchor sector. Additionally a single destination might not be good enough to consume a full load of Microchips. Some kind of trade logic is needed to exploit such situations efficiently.

When a player is operating both S/M and L ships, one could run into the problem that the S/M ships start competing with the L ships since they are faster and so disrupt the profitability of the L ships. In this case there could be an option for the S/M ships to prioritize orders that are more suitable for their size. Hence S/M ships might leave large orders of Microchips and Silicon Wafers alone but instead work on fulfilling food, energy cells, or other low volume high value trades. Of course one can currently remove/add specific trade wares to the ships achieve this, however such logic is needed for station subordinates and potentially works well with some products like Microchips where some factories order little amounts (drone components) while others require lots (advanced electronics, claytronics).

A limit with the current auto trade behaviour is it is anchored to/from a single sector. A single sector might not produce enough demand or supply for a trader to operate very efficiently. Being able to anchor a trader to many sectors to check for import/export could reduce idle time or allow it to find better trade deals which more efficiently use storage. Using this approach even an L trader within a 2-3 sector radius should constantly find some deal to fully exploit its large ware volumes capacity.

Return to “X4: Foundations”