Artisan Archive

I'm an Artisan and don't put resources on the market too often.

Icreated a little mining formula that I will post here for your feedback. The formula takes into account the
quality of the resource andthe concentration of the resource.
I think mining from a lower density location should be rewarded since it takes more time and this formula does just that.

Here goes :

1. Take the top three traits of the resource and get the average (top1+top2+top3/3).
Example : 866

2. Make a note of the concentration of the spot where you mined the stuff
Example : 70% concentration

3. Now calculate the cost per unit :
866*(1.3- (70/100))/100 = 5.2

866 is the quality
1.3 is just a value that I picked to change the output based on the concentration.
70 is the concentration.

4. Your cost per unit works out to 5.2, rounded.

Here's an example of the difference in price between three types of copper mined from a 70% location vs. an 80% location.

Name Top1Top2Top3% SampledAverageUnitsCredits per unitPrice
Veskio 954 886 759 70 866100 5.2 520
Trimanof994 991 945 70977 1005.9590
Uba 697 544 505 70 582 100 3.5 350

Veskio 954 886 75980 866 100 4.3 430
Trimanof994 991 94580 977100 4.9 490
Uba697 544 50580 582 100 2.9 290

Important : This is for manual sampling only. I did not take into account harvester costs etc.

---

Zarghanon wrote:

I think mining from a lower density location should be rewarded since it takes more time and this formula does just that.

---

What do you mean here? How should sampling from a lower area be rewarded? Are you saying I should charge more for my resources if I was dumb enough to spend twice as much time gathering them as I had to? I hope i'm missing something, because that wouldn't make any sense.

Regardless, I suppose it's a good idea to have something to base your prices on. But one problem with your method is that averaging the top three qualities is useless. For example, if I'm looking to make armor, I'm either going to use a metal with a high malleability (for more flexible armor) or a highImpact Resistance (for tougher armor). Add that to overall quality and the third highest stat is likely to be irrelevant.

Other things I make only look for one quality, with the other aspects not mattering. So if I need fiberplast with good quality, I'm not going to pay more than I did yesterdayfor the new type that's outjust because it also has better unit toughness or whatever. You can only base the value of the item on what it's used for.

I'm saying that you should charge more per unit that you mined from a lower density location since it took you longer to sample for it. This applies to rarer minerals such as gemstonewhich in general cannot be foundwith higher than 45-50% density. (At least on my planet and I have survey IV)

I know that the top three qualities might not be the ones you are looking for, it's merely an attempt to put some sort of value to the item other than using Overall Quality. The formula is meant for miners to have a fixed starting point by which they can price their items.

Let the market decide. Put them on in small enough quantities that you can bid up to 10 credits per unit (At this point, that means keep them in units of 300). People can then bid. I put 1000 steel on the auction, and learned the hard way that you max out at 3000. Luckily I worked out a deal with someone and sold them at 5000.

Mike

AKA

Oka Higre
President, HigreCorp

I have simlar system but I also add in the distance between the sampling site and selling point. This takes into account using shuttles or Space Travel.

Dave

Some resources cannot be found at 90%. For example the best ore I've Ever seen is 61%. I'm an Novice Architect so you can believe I'm constantly looking for lowgrade and carbonate ore. A factory uses 7400 Low-grade ore and 500 Carbonate Ore. A small house uses 2400 ore.

The first problem I see with this formula is the first calculation:

"1. Take the top three traits of the resource and get the average (top1+top2+top3/3)."

Many of the schematic forumlas rely on quality. Some rely on single attributes. Value of the resource is more dependant on the useability. A metalwith 1000conductivity and quality (and everything else 1) will sell better than a metal with1000 conductivity and malleability (and everything else 1). They have the same value by your formula,but conductivity/quality is a formula that weaponsmiths see often in ranged weapons. That makes this combination more valuable.

The second problem I see is the density calculation:

"2. Make a note of the concentration of the spot where you mined the stuff"

People who find a 90% spot are going to mine like nuts and reap the benefits. If you're mining at a 10% spot, and adjust your price, you're not going to sell your resources if those 90% people are selling theirs. You just can't compete with their volume.

Price is based on supply and demand, not raw properties and where you happen to find them.

Personally, I would never pay more than 1c per resource unit unless the resource is rare... like Extrusive Ore can be at times. Wander all over the galaxy, and if the best that's available is 40%, then and only then does it make sense to charge more for that resource. Rare resources will fetch a price.I believe thatcommon resources will eventually lose value once people figure out that they're just not worth paying the price when they can setup a bunch of harvesters and gather them faster than they can earn the credits to buy them.