Devblog – Market Changes

Rhivre 2020-02-24

February 24—CCP released a devblog covering some major market changes coming on March 10. There are a lot of changes incoming, so head over and read the devblog here while this post gives you the highlights.

To give you the TL:DR before diving into details, here is the breakdown of what is going on:

  • 0.01isking is going away, to be replaced by 4 significant-figuring (no catchy name for this yet)
  • Introduction of a Relisting Fee
  • Removal of Margin trading, meaning full escrow has to be fronted when placing orders
  • 0% broker fee structures are going away, to be replaced by 1% fees (half of which goes to the owner, making structure minimum fee to the owner 0.5%)

No more 0.01ISK

Much bemoaned over the years, 0.01ing is no more. Instead orders will have to be entered, and updated, in increments of 4 significant figures.

Four significant what nows? Ok, so, what this means in practice is (to use a nice big round number):

Say I want to buy a nice shiny Providence, in the region of 1B ISK. At the moment, I can put in whatever value I like as the initial buy price, with decimal places.  So, currently I can put in a price of 1,002,098,348.56. Under the new system it needs to be rounded to four significant figures.  This means if I put in 1,000,000,010 it rounds it down to 1b. If I put in 1,000,900,100 it rounds it down to 1b. My options are, 1,000,000,000 or 1,001,000,000.

When I update this order, it updates in 1m increments as well.

What about smaller value items, say, PLEX. PLEX with a market price of say, 3,367,499.33 would be changed to 3,367,000 and would be able to be increased in 1k increments.

A 10k order would be increased in increments of 10.  You get the idea.

Relisting Fee

If we stick with my shiny Providence order, I have set the price at 1b, and want to update it.  Currently this will cost me 100 ISK usually to update. Under the incoming system, there is a whole new formula for updating:

Fee = max(0, BR (P2 – P1)) + (1 – RD) BR * P2

This is a whole lot of maths that I am not going to get into at this time of night, but, in my 1b Providence order, what it means is that to change it from 1b to 1,001,000,000 in Jita costs me around 8m ISK.

So a 1m increase in price cost me 8m ISK. (It cost me 2.6m ISK in a structure).  A 70m price increase cost me 11m ISK, so it is better to do the big jumps in price to get more return for your increase.

There are full worked examples of this in the devblog.

About Margin Trading

The margin trading skill is going away. This is the skill that was allegedly only used for margin scams.  It allowed you to only need to put 25% of the total amount of an order up front.

It is being replaced by Advanced Broker Relations skill, which reduces the cost of relisting by 50% at level 0 and 75% at level 5.  This means that you should get your Margin Trading to V before the change, and also that you will now have to put up the entire amount of the buy order when placing an order.

Structure Broker Fees

Currently there is no SCC (Secure Commerce Commission) component in broker fees in a structure, meaning that 0% broker fee structures exist.  The patch on March 10 will introduce a minimum 1% broker fee in structures. However, 50% of this 1% fee will go to the owner, and 50% to the SCC (aka an ISK Sink). This means in practical terms, structure owners can set a minimum fee of 0.5% by leaving the broker fee as the default.

The update fees for an order also go 50% to the structure owner and 50% to the SCC as of current testing on SiSi.

Whatever you think of these changes, they will have an impact on the market, especially on high volume items. The changes are on SiSi, so hop over and give them a try, and give feedback in the devblog thread.

Let your voice be heard! Submit your own article to Imperium News here!

Would you like to join the Imperium News staff? Find out how!

Comments

  • Simon Chui

    I don’t agree with the relisting fee, I think it’ll significantly impede the functioning of the market. Changing prices is effectively haggling, how different buyers and sellers negotiate with each other to arrive at a market price. Putting a big cost on that makes the market slower to respond to changes in supply and demand. Prices will be more ‘sticky’ because people won’t want to relist as much.

    February 25, 2020 at 12:47 AM
    • Caleb Ayrania Simon Chui

      Adding real actual bids and not patty cake queuing might mean exactly the opposite in due time. This is the kinda feature that EVE has been missing since launch. 0.01 bidding has stagnated markets and locked prices, thus removing volatility and removing the “loss condition”. The price for modification is a bit harsh, but its function is most likely thought to be a proper balance for incentivising proper stack size (market depth) queues. The size of the stack in the market depth will be in the “right” order depending on whether its a sellers or buyers market, and deep undercutting will no longer need the seller or buyer to follow suit if their stack size is positioned correctly. I am expecting a lot of people to make mistakes in this new normal, but adapting and learning how this more realistic market works will benefit market traders and the ecosystem in general.

      February 25, 2020 at 9:24 AM
  • Caleb Ayrania

    These changes are all fundamentally well intended, and they will have a good effect on the gameplay of actual market trade. That said there are a few details that I personally think should be tweaked a bit better and more fairly.

    The prices are all a little bit too high for my taste. I think that might be helped a bit by increasing the effect of the skill deduction to 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% and 95%. Even though that sounds high as the shown examples point out it really is worth adding a more impacting skill to this design.

    The market depth and speed of trade may slow down some, and to counter this and retain the buyer market floors, I would suggest CCP increase the number of orders and contracts per skill, and/or add a tier of skill on top of this for high dedicated traders. Currently these are forced to scale using alts and in general that solution is a design by CCP that just milks and cannibalizes on the player base. This is true in all the fields alt account scaling is used imho. Yes it helps CCPs profit, but it does so at the cost of playability of the game.

    Losing the margin trading skill is good for solving the scam issues, but it seriously decreases the buyer orders market, and potentially tanks the amount of “value” in ISK in the markets. To counter this I would really like to see CCP make a contract type that works as an actual collateralized loan. This does not need to be fancy, the main features are already in the game seen in courier contracts, it will just need a few tweaks to be an actual loan contract, and then CCP needs to make sure we can get it into an interface UI that has proper sorting mechanics. I would consider putting such a feature into the new network UI. Thus slowly using that to transplant our old contract systems onto a new and improved UI.

    Overall I am happy that CCP finally got around to looking at these things, and I hope they continue to give small QoL and UI upgrades to market related gameplay. Just like in real life even though most people never bother thinking about it its the underlying foundation of our economy that greases the engine of civilization.

    February 25, 2020 at 9:59 AM
  • Bertram Renning

    The most terrifying thing to me is that CCP just sent shock-wave in the market with the mineral changes.

    But everything was fine because they are monitoring the effect it has on the economy.

    By implementing new fundamental change on how the market works it becomes impossible to deduce anything on the data monitored.

    For example : if the goal was to shrink mineral reserved and that ccp observed those reserved do not move, is it because the mineral change do not work as expected or is it because the market change prevent moving big volume on the market … There is no way to tell.

    I find that very scary that CCP is willing to blindly change the fundamental of the economy without any backup plan even possible :/

    February 25, 2020 at 10:01 AM
    • Caleb Ayrania Bertram Renning

      This is very true. The roll out makes it a mess to figure out what the data points are showing. So I guess they will have to use guess work, as have been the case most throughout EVE history. Personally I do suspect they are gonna get lucky on this one, since the changes are fundamentally well grounded. Also they still have the option to tweak the knobs of these things individually later for targetted data gathering.

      February 25, 2020 at 2:34 PM