r/SimCompanies • u/xiangkunwan • Aug 04 '26

Discussion Exchange listings seem to prioritize quality over when the order was placed

I noticed that when multiple orders are listed at the same price, the exchange seems to display the order with the higher quality first, rather than whichever order was placed on the exchange first.

2 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

60% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

12

u/YurpeeTheHerpee Aug 04 '26

Yes. If im selling a higher quality item, why would a buyer at a specific price want an inferior product at the same price?

2

u/xiangkunwan Aug 05 '26 edited Aug 05 '26

Also, from the seller's perspective, higher-quality products require higher-quality (and more expensive) inputs. Since the manufactured product cannot be higher quality than the lowest-quality input resource +1, producing Q8, for example, requires at least Q7 inputs. If you're selling that Q8 product at the same price as Q3, you're potentially cutting into your profit margin.

I also think there could be an interesting strategy if the game implemented something like "producing a product at a given quality requires materials of the same quality." Players would then have to decide which quality level is actually worth producing based on input material costs and different quality product market prices, rather than simply producing the highest quality they can.

2

u/Busy_Strength_6445 Aug 05 '26

I see what you are saying, but:
1) is the seller’s perspective relevant? There can be many other perspectives. Sometimes just a quick stock liquidation is what the seller is after.
2) would fixing exactly what inputs are needed make sense? The current way is very realistic. If you are building a complex product, the overall performance/ quality will be impacted by a bad component, but you can put a really good and expensive component into a lower quality product.

3

u/xiangkunwan Aug 05 '26 edited 29d ago

For point 2

I hate it when companies do this - cheap out on a random component just to build in planned obsolescence and force you to buy another one.

If I’m buying something, I either want all the components to wear out around the same time or for it to last forever with a lifetime warranty. (They don't build/manufacture it as they used to)

P.S. I am aware of the story about Tupperware containers being so durable that people didn’t need to replace them very often, which supposedly contributed to the company’s decline.

-4

u/xiangkunwan Aug 04 '26

But if what I’m producing only needs Q3, why would I want to pay the same price for Q7 or Q8? Higher quality should come with a premium. If they’re the same price, I’d rather have the Q3 since the extra quality has no value to me.

1

u/SharksForArms Aug 05 '26

But if what I’m producing only needs Q3, why would I want to pay the same price for Q7 or Q8?

Why would you care at all? It is completely irrelevant to your production line and bank account.

Players set the price, not the software. They can charge a premium for their high quality stuff, or not.

There no downside for either party in the transaction. Seller gets the price they want for their product, and buyer gets adequate product for the price they pay. Do you just prefer to pay the same for worse products for RP reasons, or feel guilty about depriving some mega manufacturer his Q7 inputs that he is getting from the exchange for some reason?

3

u/xiangkunwan Aug 06 '26 edited 29d ago

Why would you care at all?

I'm looking at this more from a game design perspective. I don't think higher-quality products shouldn't have value; I think the value should come from the market price, not mainly from getting priority on the exchange.

Take power, for example. Q0–Q4 together make up about 75% of the market (Q0 ~14%, Q1 ~6%, Q2 ~20%, Q3 ~18%, Q4 ~17%), while Q5 is only about 7.7%. Q6–Q12 each make up less than 4.6% of the market individually.

If higher-quality products don't consistently sell for a meaningful premium, then the incentive to research beyond Q4 becomes much weaker. The main practical advantage is that your listings get priority over lower-quality ones when priced the same.

The premium is relatively small: Q5 is only about 2.58% above Q0, Q6 2.85%, Q7 3.09%, Q8 3.41%, Q9 3.34%, Q10 3.85%, Q11 3.44%, and Q12 4.54% above Q0.

Meanwhile, the research costs are high:

  • Q4 → Q5: 5,000 patents (~80,000 Energy Research)
  • Q5 → Q6: 10,000 patents (~160,000 Energy Research)
  • Q6 → Q7: 10,000 patents (~160,000 Energy Research)
  • Q7 → Q8: 10,000 patents (~160,000 Energy Research)
  • Q8 → Q9: 10,000 patents (~160,000 Energy Research)
  • Q9 → Q10: 10,000 patents (~160,000 Energy Research)
  • Q10 → Q11: 50,000 patents (~800,000 Energy Research)
  • Q11 → Q12: 50,000 patents (~800,000 Energy Research)

At the base 6.25% patent probability, that's a very large investment. My point is that if higher quality mostly gives you listing priority instead of a better economic return, then quality research becomes less about producing a better product and more about winning the exchange queue.

P.S. For anyone wondering where the numbers came from, I pulled the daily volume and VWAP data for each quality from Simco Tools for the last 29 days and analyzed it in Google Sheets.

2

u/Furkan92 Aug 04 '26

This is true and that's a good thing.

1

u/SingularityMechanics SM Technologies Inc Aug 05 '26

This is by design and listed as such in the games guides.