open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked Dominion market analysis : sky's the limit on technetium (long term)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (56)

Author Topic

Claire Voyant
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:32:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Julian Koll
As i heard this argument a few times, i still disagree. Lets use current market prices and calculate 150m a month for the pos fuel (half a big one, number might be slightly off). So you get a 0% return on the pt technite reaction with a price of 5650 isk, anything below that, shut down the pos and buy of market.

Fair enough, you would have to be an idiot to buy Platinum (Pt) and Technetium (Tc) off the market to make Platinum Technite at current prices, but that simply means that prices are in flux and they haven't properly adjusted. Perhaps the people selling Pt-Tc are mining their own Pt and Tc and have no idea what the raw materials are selling for on the market. Perhaps they are people dumping their stock at what seems like good prices.

Obviously the market is going through a transition right now and you are going to find anomalies, but the point is that over the long-term, prices of advanced materials will reflect the cost of raw materials, and prices of intermediate materials will either follow in step, or if they get out of line they will correct eventually.

Julian Koll
The Kollektive
Posted - 2009.11.10 19:36:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Claire Voyant
...mining their own...


sounds awefully familiar, doesnt it. But enough of me trying to raise the price in pt technite.

Turiel Demon
Minmatar
Celtic industries
Posted - 2009.11.10 23:47:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Turiel Demon
Can anyone explain to me the anemic performance of tungsten carbide compared to the other carbides?

I'm not really that surprised tungsten carbide isn't going sky-high just yet since platinum hasn't spiked that hard, but what I am surprised is that fernite carbide is going up like mad ; if anything, it should be the other way around.
Oh well, I guess the fernite carbide market, being the lowest-volume one out of the four is the one reacting fastest to the stock shortages...




Quoting from last page, something went crazy on fernite carbide today, was stable at 128 for a couple of days, now in the space of an afternoon it jumped up to 185. I'm sure there were a few tens of millions of units on the market before that level... I guess it has something to do with the normally sedate 400 level of Scandium goign to 3000/unit Shocked

Triladir
Gallente
Invictus Australis
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2009.11.11 01:00:00 - [124]
 

Agreed - and vanadium's fruity too - it's up to 2k a unit now...

Natasha Nikolaev
Posted - 2009.11.11 02:31:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Well, I wouldn't exactly call it "killing its chances" (since I still think it will also go up anyway), just, you know, noticeably less profit than you probably hoped for Neutral




What are your estimates for chrom given the new data?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.11.11 03:52:00 - [126]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 11/11/2009 04:11:22

Originally by: Natasha Nikolaev
What are your estimates for chrom given the new data?

Pretty much the same thoughts about it as for those mentioned about cadmium in post 108 (less/no alchemy use but heavily increased armor plates usage) - chromium is still more important than cadmium (since it's in ALL armor plates via sylramic fibers, not just in one type of plate), so that line of thought goes double there. I mean, heck, it's very likely to be about just as scarce as dysprosium and promethium in Dominion, that's got to count for something, no ?
Overall, if I'd have to give a number, I'd say somewhere around 5k a piece when things settle down as a bare minimum, I guess... could be slightly less than that (not likely) or noticeably more though (depending on a lot of other factors outside player control and/or knowledge), but 5k seems like a reasonably conservative estimate.
Bottom line, it will almost certainly go higher than it is right now... how much higher (and how long it will take to get there), now that's all up for debate.

Tagami Wasp
Caldari
Sarz'na Khumatari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2009.11.11 04:50:00 - [127]
 

Hmm, is vanadium low or high atm?

Triladir
Gallente
Invictus Australis
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2009.11.11 05:08:00 - [128]
 

She's normally hovering about 900pu - shot up to 2k pu and has settled in now at 1300pu...

The theory-crafter's are manipulating the market I think...

I have a hot tip that plates will use a LOAD of Atmospheric gases after the Dominion patch Razz

Tesal
Posted - 2009.11.11 05:12:00 - [129]
 

Lots of tears about Sov changes. Could mean a lot of POS being taken down. Could be a moon mining bottleneck over multiple materials with fits and starts as stockpiles are consumed. I suspect the most valuable moons will continue to be mined without a problem. Depends on what happens with POS.

Triladir
Gallente
Invictus Australis
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2009.11.11 07:22:00 - [130]
 

The way I see it is that some minerals will bounce about a bit... The timeline will be...

* Sov towers will get taken down,
* They'll be a glut of large towers and POS fuel and product,
* The minerals will crash,
* Then, as less raw minerals get produced and sold, the prices for moon
goo will rise,
* People will then go, hey, I can make a fortune of mining 'x'...
* Small and Medium POSes (to maximise profits) will spring up,
* The prices for moon goo will drop as the amount of moon goo rises
* People will then start blowing up said towers at some point, some
T2 ships will be lost here and there.
* The price for minerals, will rise and fall until they reach
equilibrium...

And the cycle continues... Razz




Julian Koll
The Kollektive
Posted - 2009.11.11 12:33:00 - [131]
 

So, i had another look at the simple reaction and did some math.
I used buy order price for raw materials
I used sell order price for intermediate materials
I assumed 150m / month POS fuel for using the capacity of half a large POS.

The Results are as follows:

negative ROI:

Sulfuric Acid
Silicon Diborite
Ceramic Powder
Carbon Polymers
Rolled Tungsten
Pt Technite

ROI between 0% and 20%:

Hexite
Vanadium Hafnite
Prometium
Hyperflurite

ROI above 20%:

Crystallite Alloy
Fernite
Titanium Chromide
Caesarium Cadmide
Solerium
Ferrofluid
Dysporite
Neo Mercurite
Fluxed Condensates

This however does just take current market values, not their development, into regard.


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.11.11 22:25:00 - [132]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 11/11/2009 22:55:24

_

Before I went to sleep yesterday I got some extra moon-scan data overview (somewhat confidential so don't ask) from three regions, out of which two were from the "low coverage" areas on dotlan.
Now, if that data was accurate (I don't have any reason to believe otherwise, but you never know), then guess what - ZERO technetium moons in all three of those regions from slightly over 10k listed-as-scanned moons (there were some moons not added to the scan database, so it COULD be theoretically possible some of those were intentionally hidden - or it could be they had nothing on them at all, you can never know).

Here's the breakdown... sums over those three regions...

material : dotlan / new data / difference
dysprosium : 22 / 21 / -1
promethium : 31 / 31 / 0
neodymium : 42 / 51 / 9
thulium : 20 / 31 / 11
technetium : 0 / 0 / 0
mercury : 39 / 44 / 5
hafnium : 8 / 8 / 0
caesium : 19 / 31 / 12
platinum : 54 / 136 / 82
chromium : 40 / 116 / 76
cadmium : 25 / 44 / 19
vanadium : 32 / 84 / 52
scandium : 5 / 9 / 4
tungsten : 5 / 16 / 11
cobalt : 360 / 963 / 603
titanium : 3 / 9 / 6

Basically, the new data reports one less dysprosium moon, no new promethium moons, a few extra neodymium moons, plenty of extra platinum/chromium/vanadium (not so much extra cadmium though) and a TRUCKLOAD of extra cobalt.


If I was to include the new/adjusted moon data over (you can simply manually enter the new numbers over existing moon numbers in the 3b sheet):

material : before / new
dysprosium : 135 / 134
promethium : 179 / 179
neodymium : 195 / 204
thulium : 123 / 134
technetium : 230 / 230
mercury : 349 / 354
hafnium : 473 / 473
caesium : 246 / 258
platinum : 887 / 969
chromium : 735 / 811
cadmium : 713 / 732
vanadium : 602 / 654
scandium : 1381 / 1385
tungsten : 1863 / 1874
cobalt : 2429 / 3032
titanium : 965 / 971


Or if you prefer to just copy-paste the column, here's the copy-pasteable numbers including adjusted "junk moonpoo" estimates, here's the column you should copy-paste in v3b's moon count column below:
134
179
204
134
230
354
473
258
969
811
732
654
1385
1874
3032
971
9000
9000
9000
9000


Or, alternatively, you can re-download the whole "v3c" spreadsheet (6+ MB zipped) if you can't be bothered to copy-paste a few numbers Twisted Evil
http://dl.eve-files.com/media/0911/T2stuff_Dominion_2_afterDom_v3c_Office2007.zip (Linkage)

I'll bet some additional titanium moons do exist in othe regions, but then again the same could go for technetium and maybe even platinum... since all of it seems to be heavily region-biased.
At this point, sadly, the moon counts are at best a "guesstimate".
Using the current moon count data, we get the next usability numbers (sorted by percent of max potential production after alchemy potential tweaks):

technetium 100.00%
neodymium 69.43%
platinum 62.91%
chromium 55.41%
dysprosium 50.92%
promethium 47.77%
mercury 46.54%
cadmium 36.48%
vanadium 28.05%
titanium 18.83%
hafnium 18.14%
caesium 12.40%
evaporite deposits 8.65%
silicates 8.47%
tungsten 7.27%
scandium 7.05%
thulium 5.99%
cobalt 5.18%
atmospheric gasses 3.00%
hydrocarbons 2.82%


We would need 102 extra "equivalent" unreported technetium moons (44.35% extra compared to reported numbers) for technetium to be "on par" with neodymium post-Dominion (or if you go by game-wide numbers, about 430 extra).

We would need 211 extra "equivalent" unreported technetium moons (91.74% extra compared to reported numbers) for technetium to be "on par" with dysprosium post-Dominion (or, for game-wide numbers, about 670 extra).

Turiel Demon
Minmatar
Celtic industries
Posted - 2009.11.11 23:55:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: Akita T


technetium 100.00%
neodymium 69.43%
platinum 62.91%
chromium 55.41%
dysprosium 50.92%
promethium 47.77%
mercury 46.54%
cadmium 36.48%
vanadium 28.05%
titanium 18.83%
hafnium 18.14%
caesium 12.40%
evaporite deposits 8.65%
silicates 8.47%
tungsten 7.27%
scandium 7.05%
thulium 5.99%
cobalt 5.18%
atmospheric gasses 3.00%
hydrocarbons 2.82%






I think it's probably fair to say that the % under-reporting of Technetium would be roughly equal to other similar low-value moons.

Anyways, the way this pans out is Plat and Neo drop a little bit, while chromium rises significantly from the previous estimate.

Would it be fair to instead of just adding the unreported moons to the list to take the ratio (or maybe average ratio) of reported vs unreported in these regions and apply that to the total number of moons? Right now we're just adjusting for one large under-reporting, but it might be better to attempt to adjust for the under-reporting trend now that we've got an example of how much the report differs from reality - assuming the new numbers are accurate.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.11.12 00:13:00 - [134]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 12/11/2009 00:24:04
_

The sheet is already calculating things based on the assumption the rest of the moons follows a similar ratio to what was already reported.

I listed below the underreporting percentages needed for on-par-rarity, alongside "equivalent" underreporting amounts (assuming similar coverage in the rest of space but reversed rarity ratios) and absolute underreported amounts (game-wide in uncovered areas).
_

To repeat what was said above in different words:

* we have (at least) 230 reported technetium moons in the covered area (a bit over HALF of valid "mineable" space) - that much we are completely sure about

* we would need around 100 non-reported moons in that same covered area (or extra compared to current ratios in unreported areas) for technetium to be as rare as neodymium... or, in other words, about 430 extra moons in uncovered/unreported areas (which make up less than half of the remaining galaxy)

* same comparison style but this time vs dysprosium (which will no longer be the main bottleneck for sure, but quite underused instead) and you'd have to have 210/670 instead of the 100/430 mentioned directly above for "rarity parity".


Not very encouraging if you ask me - do you really think less than one third /quarter of the technetium moons were reported but roughly more than half of the dysp/prom/neod ones ?Laughing

Julian Koll
The Kollektive
Posted - 2009.11.12 01:01:00 - [135]
 

Edited by: Julian Koll on 12/11/2009 01:01:03
To return to my quest of raising stuff that i am invested in:

Taking POS fuel into account the following Technetium Products perform with buy order price of raw materials:

PT. Technite: -15.92% ROI
Fullerides: -35.63% ROI
Nanotransistors: 1.40% ROI

So my conclusion for speculating on a rising TC price is, buy the products.

Claire Voyant
Posted - 2009.11.12 01:33:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Julian Koll
To return to my quest of raising stuff that i am invested in:

Taking POS fuel into account the following Technetium Products perform with buy order price of raw materials:

PT. Technite: -15.92% ROI
Fullerides: -35.63% ROI
Nanotransistors: 1.40% ROI

So my conclusion for speculating on a rising TC price is, buy the products.



Nanotransistors are tricky because they use other high-ends that might go down in price, but the other two are pretty much pure Technetium plays that haven't quite caught up the Technetium itself.

Caveat: I am not invested in them because I'm not so sure of the "OMG Technetium" fever on this thread, and because I mostly missed out on the fun already.

Turiel Demon
Minmatar
Celtic industries
Posted - 2009.11.12 02:19:00 - [137]
 

Yeah I suppose you're right, ah well, let's hope CCP doesn't change anything so we can watch Tech skyrocket... though I'd still have liked it if Chromium were to be more valuable Razz

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.11.12 02:38:00 - [138]
 

Well, it might still be fourth most valuable Laughing

Letifer Deus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2009.11.12 04:17:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Well, it might still be fourth most valuable Laughing



As long as fourth most valuable is a lot more valuable than what I bought it at, I'll live. Very Happy

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.11.12 09:43:00 - [140]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 12/11/2009 09:45:08
_

Following regions previously with low coverage areas that are now confirmed (at much better coverage) as having either zero or just very, very small amounts of technetium-bearing moons :

* Delve (Blood Raiders )
* Detorid (Angels)
* The Kalevala Expanse (Rogue Drones)
* Omist (Angels)
* Period Basis (Blood Raiders)
* Scalding Pass (Angels)


Previously known high coverage areas but with very little or no technetium :

* Esoteria (Sanshas)
* Feythabolis (Angels)
* Fountain (Serpentis)
* Immensea (Angels)
* Impass (Angels)
* Paragon Soul (Sanshas)
* Querious (Blood Raiders)


Regions known to have reasonable to high counts of technetium moons :

* Venal (Guristas - 74)
* Vale of the Silent (Guristas - 30 or more, probably 40 tops)
* Pure Blind (Guristas - 34)
* Deklein (Guristas - 29)
* Geminate (Guristas - 13 or more, but unlikely above 20)
* Black Rise (Caldari lowsec - 17)

That leaves only Tribute, Branch and Tenal as places where relevant quantities of technetium moons MIGHT be available.
So the situation actually looks (if it was even at all possible) WORSE than the previous estimates : there's absolutely no chance in hell you can scrounge up even the initially estimated 200-some additional technetium moons out of those.
The technetium shortage will be nastier than previously imagined.
Only one word : OUCH.

Verite Rendition
Caldari
F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
Posted - 2009.11.12 11:51:00 - [141]
 

Edited by: Verite Rendition on 12/11/2009 11:51:45
Originally by: Akita T

Only one word : OUCH.
As a resident of the North, only one word; Ka-ching!Very Happy

On a more serious note, I would be significantly surprised if the number of Technetium moons differed from the rest of the R32s by +/- 15%.

Turiel Demon
Minmatar
Celtic industries
Posted - 2009.11.12 18:25:00 - [142]
 

Edited by: Turiel Demon on 12/11/2009 18:37:27
The 9K Tech bubble just burst, buys back down to ~6.1k and sells to 8K.

EDIT: and Fernite Carbide which had seen a very big manipulation a few days ago has predictably crashed on its way down, to 100/80

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.11.13 00:23:00 - [143]
 


Originally by: Turiel Demon
The 9K Tech bubble just burst, buys back down to ~6.1k and sells to 8K.

Considering the *true* demand is not there yet (it will only start to come shortly after the patch deployment, and take a while to stabilize), and as not everybody is aware a MD forum even exists (well, not actively anyway, hehe), that was to be expected.
Prices will no doubt continue a rise/fall cycle that will be repeated at least twice by the time Dominion hits (more and more desperate "late adopter" speculators buying up stocks from people mining technetium, then a horde of technetium miners dumping extra stocks on the market unsure of where the prices will go and trying to take advantage of current price levels, unsure if they'd last), and then do the same a couple of times after Dominion hits, as people "get greedy" against each-other while wearing down their pre-existing stockpiles (the more you hold on to it the more expensive it becomes, but there's a point where you just go "well, this looks like enough cash, I need it fast anyway, and I have no idea how high this might go before CCP comes in and tweaks the numbers again").

_

The only real question is "how long before CCP intervenes?"

* they could do it on SiSi one of the next patches, and this could be the second most likely scenario (so no wonder people are playing "chicken" with the prices : with each-other, and against CCP at the same time)

* they could do it silently between the last SiSi patch and the actual deployment (a bit of a nasty move, to use a mild word here... not completely out of character for CCP though - still, it WOULD be very fun to watch its effects, I'd have to agree)

* they could do it as soon as they notice technetium prices start reaching prices that are "too close for comfort" in the, oh, say, 50k range or thereabouts (estimated to happen a couple of months after the patch) - that's probably the least likely scenario, since CCP takes months to respond to a problem requiring a simple typo correction, let alone something as vital as that... if they haven't done it before the patch, we'll probably have to wait until the next patch for any kind of solution

* they could talk about it when technetium becomes the dominant material and starts overshadowing the former promethium/dysprosium price levels (getting close to 200k per unit) ; then they'll most likely make us wait for some expansion which supposedly fixes that by, say, adding (pre-nerfed) minute traces of high-price moon minerals in comet mining ; then we'll have to wait until they are convinced those changes don't have the effect that they claimed/hoped it would have before they try again by either tweaking amounts or trying some completely different way of adjusting it all ; meanwhile, it will probably be by the winter of 2010 a reasonable solution is reached, and technetium speculators will be drowning in ISK by then and no longer care (I'd like to think this is the most likely scenario, but that would probably be wishful thinking.... right ? hehe)

* they might as well be rolling two D20 daily and only change something about T2 build ratios if they hit double 13s or something like that - beieving that to be the way CCP does things doesn't sound TOO far-fetched right now after looking at other changes they're making in Dominion

Sophie Daigneau
CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society
Posted - 2009.11.13 01:19:00 - [144]
 

Having built one of the first jump freighters, I can tell you they were changing the build materials on those only a few days before deployment. It will be no different with the moon material rebalance.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.11.13 10:20:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: Sophie Daigneau
Having built one of the first jump freighters, I can tell you they were changing the build materials on those only a few days before deployment. It will be no different with the moon material rebalance.

I certainly do hope they do that (even if I'm sadly suspecting all my warnings have been like talking to a brick wall) - while it wouldn't be bad to make a truckload of ISK patch-day-trading, it would suck to live in a world where 0.0 is even more screwed up than it is today due to even more valuable "bil ISK per month" moons (especially since they would be mostly clustered in the north).

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2009.11.13 11:24:00 - [146]
 

Well, I would hope CCP won't change anything at the currenty SISI numbers and that those numbers go live to TQ.

Why?

Because it would be a great experiement in market theory. It also will add a lot of possibilites for speculations. And it opens up wide doors for unbalances. Unbalances are good in my opinion - they create turbulances and interesting opportunities and gameplay.

If it turns out that the inbalances are to big, CCP can always adjust numbers, even between the expansions.



Now a really big thanks to Akita T for all the work in compiling the numbers, the analysis and all the work :-) Though I don't agree with Akita often, the presented stuff here still is a lot of work and earns respect and thanks.

Eisonar
Posted - 2009.11.13 12:01:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Sophie Daigneau
Having built one of the first jump freighters, I can tell you they were changing the build materials on those only a few days before deployment. It will be no different with the moon material rebalance.

I certainly do hope they do that (even if I'm sadly suspecting all my warnings have been like talking to a brick wall) - while it wouldn't be bad to make a truckload of ISK patch-day-trading, it would suck to live in a world where 0.0 is even more screwed up than it is today due to even more valuable "bil ISK per month" moons (especially since they would be mostly clustered in the north).



Shhhhhh :P

Let 'em change it a week or two after the patch

Tiberizzle
Posted - 2009.11.13 17:09:00 - [148]
 

Edited by: Tiberizzle on 13/11/2009 17:15:10
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Sophie Daigneau
Having built one of the first jump freighters, I can tell you they were changing the build materials on those only a few days before deployment. It will be no different with the moon material rebalance.

I certainly do hope they do that (even if I'm sadly suspecting all my warnings have been like talking to a brick wall) - while it wouldn't be bad to make a truckload of ISK patch-day-trading, it would suck to live in a world where 0.0 is even more screwed up than it is today due to even more valuable "bil ISK per month" moons (especially since they would be mostly clustered in the north).



imo, 0.0 sucks because it's less profitable than Empire activities (trading, L4 running). Overpriced moon minerals are one of the few good reasons to bother with 0.0, and nerfing moon minerals just means that 0.0 receives less attention. Juggling the high value minerals around disrupts the political equilibrium, giving newer alliances a chance to ninja a slice of the pie without ruining the work they've done to bring people to 0.0. They don't have to fix it permanently, they just have to shake it up until the next patch.

What's the down side of the new mineral balance? Plus, I want a fat sack of ISK post patch, so let's quit agitating for profit nerfs kthx

Turiel Demon
Minmatar
Celtic industries
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:19:00 - [149]
 


Larkonis TrassIer
State Breast Inspectorate
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:35:00 - [150]
 

Originally by: Turiel Demon
Ours is not to reason why...

by my estimate about 12b worth of Tech just disappeared off the market, the ceiling is gone...


Move along, nothin to see here.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (56)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only