open All Channels
seplocked Science and Industry
blankseplocked Mineral Prices and WTF is going on.
 
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 (10)

Author Topic

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.02.15 17:20:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Akita T

We already have that, at least in a partial form. It's called platinum insurance on ships Twisted Evil



Of course, I had already thought about that when I posted the suggestion. However, platinum insurance on ships doesn't really help the builder unless he is the one that blows the ships up. I suppose the question of whether plat insurance on ships is a better idea than outright buy orders depends on your goal for the situation - whether you are wanting to encourage PVP (insurance) or set a minimum on the market (buy orders).

It seems that with the more ships/modules which have buy orders set up, the more refined the price per mineral actually becomes. Right now with only insurance (effectively buy orders), the minerals can vary widely as long as the sum doesn't fall less than insurance cost. Adding in ammo as a constraint might make Nox more expensive than Megacyte, for example.

(I think it is Nox and Trit that go into missiles? Meh. You get the picture).

-Liang

SaneBlade
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2010.02.15 17:23:00 - [62]
 

Edited by: SaneBlade on 15/02/2010 17:26:29
Dominion.

It's basically that simple. Now you can continuously find ABC ores even in Providence.

CCP, it's time to remove T1 loot from L4 missions or 0.0 mining will become worthless.

Drone regions are mostly deserted places and numbers living there are really low. Potential mineral flow from Drone Regions is massive.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.02.15 17:28:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: SaneBlade
Dominion.

It's basically that simple. Now you can continuously find ABC ores even in Providence.

CCP, it's time to remove T1 loot from L4 missions or 0.0 mining will become worthless.


I find it highly amusing that you lay the blame at miners by way of Dominion and then say that missions should be nerfed to fix it. What makes you think that miners would not continue crashing their own market?

-Liang

SaneBlade
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2010.02.15 17:34:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: SaneBlade
Dominion.

It's basically that simple. Now you can continuously find ABC ores even in Providence.

CCP, it's time to remove T1 loot from L4 missions or 0.0 mining will become worthless.


I find it highly amusing that you lay the blame at miners by way of Dominion and then say that missions should be nerfed to fix it. What makes you think that miners would not continue crashing their own market?

-Liang
No.

You fail to understand that now ABC ores are widely available where people actually live in nullsec space. They have been mining there already, now they just focus on high ends. Wich is perfectly normal habit.

Problem is that CCP did unholy rage and hasn't done anything for lvl4 mission loot mineral flow.

All the time systems are getting upgraded and high ends will get larger and larger mineral flow from 0.0 regions.

Dominions main message was 'more people into 0.0' and when high ends go down like this, the rewards aren't high enough to actually move into 0.0 space.

Without insuranse, tritanium in this state of 0.0 wars would probably be under 1 isk per unit..

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.02.15 17:50:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: SaneBlade

You fail to understand that now ABC ores are widely available where people actually live in nullsec space. They have been mining there already, now they just focus on high ends. Wich is perfectly normal habit.



Yes, I absolutely and perfectly understand that.

Quote:
Problem is that CCP did unholy rage and hasn't done anything for lvl4 mission loot mineral flow.


I don't see why that's problematic in the face of low ends getting *massive* highsec roids and high ends becoming arbitrarily available in 0.0. If anything, mission runner loot most likely plays a very tiny role in today's mineral market.

Quote:

Without insuranse, tritanium in this state of 0.0 wars would probably be under 1 isk per unit..


And given sufficient time (not very long) most likely so would the high ends. While that's really attractive to a PVPer (free ships woot!), it's probably not so hot for the mineral market.

-Liang

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.02.15 18:02:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: GIDGET GLAM
Market forces need to prevail ie consumer driven demand. Perhaps simplistically my suggestion to resolve this is either:

1) Decrease loot drops in missions / ratting. Not radically just say 25% less than now.

2) Increase the mid / high end mineral requirements to build ships, t2 components, and other modules that do not drop in missions. Again nothing radical say and extra 10% - 20% on the mid / high end ore required to build a blue print.

The intent of both these suggestions is to decrease supply on all minerals by reducing the loot drops while increaseing the rate of consumption associated with mid and high ends on equipment that does not drop as loot. Supply / demand prcie equiliberium should shift in favour of miners of all minerals lows and a larger increase in mid and high end minerals.



What caused the imbalance that is currently causing prices to drop? Less demand or more supply? Obviously, more supply. Once upon a time prices were set by the rarity of ABC rocks in 0.0.

Now due to wormhole and system upgrades, there are far more rocks. More people can mine for more hours.... but they want the same profit per hour as they had before.

Your solution is what? Reduce the income of missioners and ratters? Sorry, but the mass amount of new rocks would quickly swamp any reduction from loot. Or, require more components? This would drive up the price of the completed items, driving down demand and undoing any adjustment.


The answer is sooooo obvious, but no one that mines ABCs wants to see it.... let the market work. Let prices fall to the point the people stop doing it and equalibrium is restored.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.02.15 18:08:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren

I find it highly amusing that you lay the blame at miners by way of Dominion and then say that missions should be nerfed to fix it. What makes you think that miners would not continue crashing their own market?

-Liang


EXACTLY!!!!! Removing meta 0 loot may be a drop in the bucket compared the the amount of new minerals being added by system upgrades.

AND, miners used to be able to make huge per hour cash, but number of miners and number of hours were limited because of mineral limits. Now, more people can mine a lot more hours (which is what CCP says it wants... more miners x more hours = more accounts). But somehow, these miners don't expect the profit per hour to drop? Please.

#1 rule of Eve: Rare = expensive.

Contra-positive: less rare = less expensive.

gttwo
Posted - 2010.02.15 18:36:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: gttwo

my dig against PLEXs and NPC ore buying

edit:grammar and spelling


you saying PLEX are fine.



You're right. It's not a perfect analogy at all. It's about 2 for 3, as I said. CCP skirts around the edges of RMT. The whole (buying ISK thing comes down to trading time/money, depending on which is more valuable to you, for isk).

CCP does it with PLEX. That is, they enable players to trade their time/money for another players ISK.

NPC buy orders for ore/mins skirt this in a similar way. A player could pour time into the game (via macro[s] or not) and trade it in for ISK on trees.

This seems like a step backwards to me. In a big, big way.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.02.15 20:00:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: gttwo

You're right. It's not a perfect analogy at all. It's about 2 for 3, as I said. CCP skirts around the edges of RMT. The whole (buying ISK thing comes down to trading time/money, depending on which is more valuable to you, for isk). ... CCP does it with PLEX. That is, they enable players to trade their time/money for another players ISK. ... This seems like a step backwards to me. In a big, big way.



PLEX is far far far far far far and away the lesser of the two evils - and I think time as PROVEN that RMT WILL happen - and the effects on the game are extremely poor every time. I think CCP has taken an extremely level headed response to it and harnessed the power so that its at worst a zero sum impact on the game. They're literally light years ahead of the nearest competition in what has proven for the MMO market to be a fairly intractable problem.

Quote:
NPC buy orders for ore/mins skirt this in a similar way. A player could pour time into the game (via macro[s] or not) and trade it in for ISK on trees. ... This seems like a step backwards to me. In a big, big way.


Hmmmm.... I don't know that I buy that. I definitely see that its not a solid solution - but neither is letting players drive the mineral market into the ground (because that IS what will happen). Honestly I don't see anything wrong with NPC buy orders - because its not as though it is terribly hard to have an ISK printing machine already. Even in highsec.

-Liang

davet517
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.02.15 20:25:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: davet517 on 15/02/2010 20:26:37


It appears to me that the issue is on both the supply and demand side since Dominion.

On the one hand you do have more minerals being produced, but on the other hand you have an increasing reluctance on the part of major powers to fight all-out wars. Many of them have huge isk balances right now, but not nearly the passive income that they used to have to replenish it.

I'm not at all convinced that some of the quick and spectacular collapses that we've seen recently weren't at least somewhat orchestrated to keep huge wallets that couldn't easily be rebuilt intact.

From my perspective running a small alliance, there are sufficient mechanisms in the game to make it self-balancing. I'm already seeing a reluctance on the part of many of my members to mine when they can make more running anomolies with less effort (you con't have to haul/refine/sell). If prices continue to decline I expect that trend will continue until the market finds equilibrium.

It's a short term issue, and only a severe issue for those who are completely specialized in mining and T1 building and can't easily switch to doing something else.

Fanatic Row
Posted - 2010.02.15 20:30:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Messori de'Animis
It was in the CSM notes sometime back that 40% of minerals came for modules, 50% from ores, and 10% (or less) from drone alloys. Just look at the main way Capitals, and Super-Capitals are built. 800mm AC's are built with minerals mined in high-sec then jumped out to 0.0 melted and turned into ships.
You seem to be under the impression that modules that were build from minerals, then turned into minerals again, figure in those numbers as minerals from modules.

That's not the case. I you mine something from a rock, it comes from mining. No matter what happens to it later on. You can build, reprocess, build, reprocess ad nauseam.

And if something is spawned by a loot table on a rat, then reprocessed, it comes from modules.


Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.02.15 20:44:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Fanatic Row
You seem to be under the impression that modules that were build from minerals, then turned into minerals again, figure in those numbers as minerals from modules.

That's not the case. I you mine something from a rock, it comes from mining. No matter what happens to it later on. You can build, reprocess, build, reprocess ad nauseam.

And if something is spawned by a loot table on a rat, then reprocessed, it comes from modules.




The source of that was actually rather ambiguous and there is every indication that you're wrong (for example, morphite was included in the minerals that came from mission loot, and drone compounds were separate. So T2 modules MUST have been refined and attributed to missions). Which is to say that each refine/reprocess almost certainly counted separately.

This means, we could (and most likely did) see things like this happen:
- T1 module drop in mission
- Sold on market for cheap
- Reprocessed
- Built into something else and shipped somewhere else
- Reprocessed and shipped to 0.0
- Reprocessed and turned into a Dread

So the scheme used to calculate "reprocessing" mineral production would count the same T1 module as having been generated 3 times.

- Ore mined
- Refined
- Turned into a module and sold on market
- Reprocessed and turned into another module
- Shipped to 0.0 and reprocessed

Now we have 1 item's worth of mined minerals actually turning into 2 reprocessing. (for 2/3rds of the total minerals coming from "reprocessing"!)

And remember: we know that the scheme would do that because it included morphite in what was produced and specifically excluded all the sources from missions that you can possibly get morphite. Really, it seems miraculous that only 40% of the minerals came from modules with a scheme like this! What's the "real" answer for the initial source of minerals? Well, we know FOR SURE that it was more mining then and is way way more towards mining now with huge trit roids in empire and a superabundance of ABC in 0.0/WH space.

-Liang

Fracturebear
Posted - 2010.02.15 22:22:00 - [73]
 

I guess removing asteroids from belts works, Insurance fruad is almost not worth it today.

but until it is no longer profitable I will continue to sell to CCP Insurance NPC buy orders at a rate of around 25 B isk worth of minerals a day (and I am doubling my rate every 2-3 weeks :P )

Miney Prospector
Maximum Yarrage
Posted - 2010.02.16 01:38:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Welcome to TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO !
Linkage (http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=579110&page=3#77)
...



I'm glad I wasn't the only one thinking this.

Persepoli
Posted - 2010.02.16 06:01:00 - [75]
 

Edited by: Persepoli on 16/02/2010 06:05:12
Mine in 0.0? perish the thought Shocked.

I now rat haven anomalies in my carrier and scoop the loot into the 20km2 of corp hanger on my ship. From the bounties I get doing the havens (not sanctums as you spend all your time trapsing around at 80m/s trying to collect all the loot) I make 30m+ per hour...AND...after 5 or 6 havens of looting and salvaging (more often less), my cargo is full. I then take that back to the refinery station via cyno bridge and refine the lot. With good skills I'd make another 20m from mins per hour.

I now have a hanger full of mins which I then turn into BS' at less than what it costs empire folks to build. I jump them down to an empire spot using my alt, fly them to someone in high sec and offload them at prices that make the gankers buy them. Razz

Now add to this the fact that in my corp alone, there are at least a dozen doing this everyday, we have turned from being net importers of mins into 0.0 into being net exporters. Laughing

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2010.02.16 13:14:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Carniflex
All the doom and gloom is not going to happen as mineral basket prices are kept up by the insurance fraud. So no - mining is not dying. If zyd and mega crash then others go up and mining as profession flowers on. What you will propably end up with is trit + pyerite being only 10-20% less profitable per hour than zyd+mega. That is not death of mining as profession.


It may not be the death of mining as a profession, but it is very damaging to high-end mining activities, and is certainly the death of any sort of sec-status related game balance.

There are actually two problems here that are interacting:

1) Overall over-production of minerals
2) Direct linkage between the earning potential of mining and the type of minerals yielded

Now, in an economy where problem 1 existed but problem 2 didn't, the insurance fraud mineral basket would have a far more benign effect than we are actually seeing. In fact, I would argue that because of the effects problem 2 is having, we cannot actually be sure how much overall over-production exists.

So, problem 2. This arises from the composition of the sec-status dependant roids. If you want high-end 0.0 mining content, you have no choice but to mine things that yield mostly Zyd and Mega. The market can jump up and down waving it's arms sending "mine something else!!!" price signals, but miners aren't going to care because there is no option to mine anything else for a similar earning potential. The price signals have to get to the point where mining for trit and pyerite is vasty, unbalancingly profitable compared to every other high-sec activity, and mining for zyd and mega is completely pointless compared to all other 0.0 activities, before the price signals are sufficient to change miners behaviour.

Now, you are right in that the market has technically fixed the problem of the mineral supply mix in this situation. But it is not a fix that would be good for the game as a whole.

In essence, the current composition and distribution of ores has an implicit assumption about the distribution of miners between sec status bands. Anytime the actual distribution varies from this implicit assumption, mineral prices will move to correct that distribution. However, these price movements will occur in such a way as to distort the risk/reward balance between sec status bands, and act in direct opposition to the stated goal of encouraging more people into 0.0 space.

The only real solution to this is to re-work the ore compositions and distributions. There needs to be an option to mine for trit in 0.0 that yields the same income per hour for the miner as mining the ABC roids sat next to it. There needs to be an option to mine for zyd&mega in high-sec that yields the same income per hour as the Veldspar and Scordite sat next to it.

Once you do that, the composition of mineral production no longer depends on the distribution of miners in the game world, and price movements can no longer distort the relative incomes of the different sec status bands.

This will, of course, do nothing to address problem 1. This will still be limited by insurance fraud. However, by resolving problem 2, mineral prices will remain balanced by the market relative to each other even while the effects of insurance fraud apply a basket price floor.

The problems of NPC loot (both in direct production of minerals and the reduction of demand for minerals by being a substitute good) do need addressing. But until the issue of ore distribution is resolved, any tweaking of NPC loot or other mineral sources will simply move the threshold at which this problem appears, it will not resolve the underlying issue.

Lord Helghast
Posted - 2010.02.16 14:08:00 - [77]
 

Well if their gonna quadruple or whatever tha mount of available ABC's via the upgrades and wormholes, perhaps they shud have thought about increasing the requirement for manufacturing as well.

If they gonna artificially inflate the availability, they shud also have artificially countered that with an increase to demand (BP requirements)

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.02.16 15:16:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 16/02/2010 15:18:23
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Dr. Gu­mundsson
.... We do not participate in that market, it's a completely player-driven market. That makes it even more interesting, to see how effective and efficient a market it is. It has all the same laws that any market has in real life. From what I've seen so far, I find it very interesting to see how effective the market is, and I'm looking forward to seeing how other markets compare to this one.

I underlined the interesting part.

And I painted the other untrue part red.... They DO, through insurance, participate HEAVILY in the market by guaranteeing a minimum price, using endless government money.

For the part you underline, that is wrong too. I find nowhere in RL where a government props up production with unlimited amounts of cash (appearing by magic) without any form of control with how much is produced. The EU is the closest example (agriculture), and it is heavily controlled (and still a horrible mess).

The good Dr. might be a good economist, but he has not been in the business of virtual worlds for very long, and it shows.
Originally by: Liang Nuren
....that equilibrium can only happen when there is a scarcity of resources - but as noted above there is no scarcity of resources. There's a constant supply of minerals and no REAL way to remove them from the market.

And the reason for that abundance is that there is a guaranteed (high) minimum price. If the price floor was removed (with prices then dropping fast), and 'accidental' acquisition of minerals (ie. loot) were curtailed, then a lot less people would produce them, thus produce the scarcity you ask for....

Unfortunately, the 'government' money keeps people producing still more minerals, thus first filling up the minerals market, then converting the excess to ISK, and thus cause ISK to become 'worth' less (as there's more and more of it). In short, BOTH of those resource pools are being harmed by excessive mineral production. If there were no convertion, only one would be affected, and would correct itself as prices dropped.

Cheeba Don
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.02.16 15:23:00 - [79]
 

For anyone who has played this game for a long time will know, the joy of eve is the ups and downs of the markets and the cries on the forums they provoke.

For all those complaining here - why don't you drop any unused ISK you have on zydrine and megacyte? Prices are at lows and prices will rebound in the long term.

Stop whining, start making money.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.02.16 17:38:00 - [80]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

And I painted the other untrue part red.... They DO, through insurance, participate HEAVILY in the market by guaranteeing a minimum price, using endless government money.



I'm not sure that CCP is manipulating the market so much as establishing a (GOOD) boundary for it.

Quote:

For the part you underline, that is wrong too. I find nowhere in RL where a government props up production with unlimited amounts of cash (appearing by magic) without any form of control with how much is produced. The EU is the closest example (agriculture), and it is heavily controlled (and still a horrible mess).



The funny thing about it is that national governments (esp of the bigger nations) do have effectively unlimited income that they can throw towards a 'problem'. Consider agricultural subsidies in the US - even compared to the massive size of the market the subsidies are effectively unlimited.

I would also point out that the government having "unlimited subsidy funds" and "tossing cash into the market" should cause inflation - yet Eve has been going through an extremely long peroid of deflation. Even through the low mineral price era we're in right now there's only very slight inflation [according to the last econ devblog].

Quote:
The good Dr. might be a good economist, but he has not been in the business of virtual worlds for very long, and it shows.


Odd, but I really think he has a better handle on the eve economy and more/better information than you or I do.


Quote:

And the reason for that abundance is that there is a guaranteed (high) minimum price. If the price floor was removed (with prices then dropping fast), and 'accidental' acquisition of minerals (ie. loot) were curtailed, then a lot less people would produce them, thus produce the scarcity you ask for....



You are aware that the mineral market WILL absolutely tank if they remove any price boundaries - and the end result of this is that mining will only be "profitable" for people that don't value their time... such as the very limited number of macro miners. On the bright side then we would be able to arbitrarily ban anyone caught mining. Laughing

Quote:

Unfortunately, the 'government' money keeps people producing still more minerals, thus first filling up the minerals market, then converting the excess to ISK, and thus cause ISK to become 'worth' less (as there's more and more of it). In short, BOTH of those resource pools are being harmed by excessive mineral production. If there were no convertion, only one would be affected, and would correct itself as prices dropped.



Maybe you should take a look at the whole of ISK faucets against the whole of ISK drains. Insurance is hardly the worst offender. You are also aware that the game CANNOT function without ISK faucets right? IMO, inflation is not a significant problem in Eve right now... so all of your complaining is somewhat baseless.

-Liang

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.02.16 17:50:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Cheeba Don

For all those complaining here - why don't you drop any unused ISK you have on zydrine and megacyte? Prices are at lows and prices will rebound in the long term.



I dunno - it seems up in the air at this point, right? Under normal circumstances, I would agree... but I don't know if I agree in the face of new mechanics and mineral sources. Only time will truly tell.

-Liang

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2010.02.16 18:58:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Lord Helghast
Well if their gonna quadruple or whatever tha mount of available ABC's via the upgrades and wormholes, perhaps they shud have thought about increasing the requirement for manufacturing as well.

If they gonna artificially inflate the availability, they shud also have artificially countered that with an increase to demand (BP requirements)


That would only be a sticking-plaster over the problem. While you could put huge amounts of effort to re-do mineral compositions to reflect the new supply mix, your efforts would be rendered pointless as soon as the distribution of miners (and thus the supply mix) shifts again.

The problem isn't the mix of minerals being demanded by the market. The problem is that supply cannot efficiently adjust in response to market signals to supply the mix of minerals being demanded.

Originally by: Kerfira
Unfortunately, the 'government' money keeps people producing still more minerals, thus first filling up the minerals market, then converting the excess to ISK, and thus cause ISK to become 'worth' less (as there's more and more of it). In short, BOTH of those resource pools are being harmed by excessive mineral production. If there were no convertion, only one would be affected, and would correct itself as prices dropped.


Actually not quite true. Removing insurance as a sink for excessive mineral production would indeed cause a drop in mineral prices and a corrective reduction in supply. However, that would leave a significant amount of player labour looking for another money-making outlet.

At this point, pretty much the only "unlimited" profession left is mission running, so this is where the majority of that labour will end up. At which point you get the isk flowing into the game anyway through bounties and mission rewards.

Nuthyn
Posted - 2010.02.16 19:14:00 - [83]
 

Maybe they are selling for such a high price because of Hulkageddon as predicted???

Get insurance. No risk for suicide (oh yeah, and in real life... suicide = No Money for committing suicide). Destroy a ship with no guns.

You are awesome and so skilled. What a great PVPer you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sarcasm.


Just a thought.

insanebe
Caldari
draketrain
Posted - 2010.02.16 19:40:00 - [84]
 

Problem too many minerals
my
solution
take it as you will,

= make roids spawn less
=rats don't drop loot( should just be salvageable wrecks)
= rogue drone alloys are used in manufacturing not refinable junk)
=0.0 sov holding alliances can't bring cap ships ( including freighters into hi sec, low is ok)


result
= hi sec has empty belts ( alot of empty belts)
= low sec has lots of full belts with mining corps trying to profit ( competition/danger = increase in price)
= solo miners use grav sites
= ratting /npc'ing does not contribute to mineral prices
= increase activity in low sec due to 0.0 alliance activity in these stations



Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.02.16 19:51:00 - [85]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 16/02/2010 20:05:13
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I'm not sure that CCP is manipulating the market so much as establishing a (GOOD) boundary for it.

When that boundary is essentially killing the free-flowing mineral market by encouraging overproduction locking the price tightly to the boundary, I fail to see why this is 'good'....

The free market in EVE used to be a selling point...
Originally by: Liang Nuren
....Consider agricultural subsidies in the US - even compared to the massive size of the market the subsidies are effectively unlimited.

Ehhh.... No..... Why is most major economies right now struggling with a debt burden they have little chance of paying back? What do you think will happen at the time the Chinese stop buying US T-bills? Think the US will have money for farm subsidies then? (or anything else for that matter)
Originally by: Liang Nuren
I would also point out that the government having "unlimited subsidy funds" and "tossing cash into the market" should cause inflation - yet Eve has been going through an extremely long peroid of deflation.

You're missing one very important difference, one of the things making EVE != RL...

The resources in EVE (minerals in this case) are COMPLETELY limitless, and can be acquired at no cost. You don't need to buy land, you don't need to buy food, you don't need to buy fuel for your tractor etc. Once you've bought your production vehicle, they're free.
This is not the case in RL, which HAS limits (lots of them). Those limits are what enables inflation to happen, but it can NOT happen in EVE when there are more minerals for sale than people want to use.
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: Kerfira
The good Dr. might be a good economist, but he has not been in the business of virtual worlds for very long, and it shows.

Odd, but I really think he has a better handle on the eve economy and more/better information than you or I do.

Better information, yes. A better handle? No, not if he claims the ingame economy is like the RL one.... There are similarities, but they function in very different ways.
Originally by: Liang Nuren
You are aware that the mineral market WILL absolutely tank if they remove any price boundaries - and the end result of this is that mining will only be "profitable" for people that don't value their time... such as the very limited number of macro miners. On the bright side then we would be able to arbitrarily ban anyone caught mining. Laughing

I see no problem in the mineral market tanking, and would actually welcome it as this would take a lot of the production out, breaking the current locked market.
You're also wrong on the MM's. If ANYONE in EVE value their time, they do!
Originally by: Liang Nuren
...You are also aware that the game CANNOT function without ISK faucets right? IMO, inflation is not a significant problem in Eve right now... so all of your complaining is somewhat baseless.

Of c. it can't function without ISK faucets.... The problem here however is that the game provides a way to convert one resource (minerals) into another (ISK). By doing so, it destroys the free flow of the mineral market, AND introduce an extra ISK faucet which is not needed. If there were no conversion possibility, they'd balance each other out.

Minerals would have the price they deserved, and flow freely determined by supply and demand.

As for inflation, as described above, it is not very applicable (if at all) in a game world with unlimited resources. It can simply not happen when resource production has a (high) money-convertion rate because people will continue to produce more resources than can be used.

You do not understand an ingame economy as well as you think you do. You compare it way to much to RL, and they're actually very different....

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.02.16 20:05:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Kerfira
Unfortunately, the 'government' money keeps people producing still more minerals, thus first filling up the minerals market, then converting the excess to ISK, and thus cause ISK to become 'worth' less (as there's more and more of it). In short, BOTH of those resource pools are being harmed by excessive mineral production. If there were no convertion, only one would be affected, and would correct itself as prices dropped.

Actually not quite true. Removing insurance as a sink for excessive mineral production would indeed cause a drop in mineral prices and a corrective reduction in supply. However, that would leave a significant amount of player labour looking for another money-making outlet.

At this point, pretty much the only "unlimited" profession left is mission running, so this is where the majority of that labour will end up. At which point you get the isk flowing into the game anyway through bounties and mission rewards.

My point was not that an extra ISK faucet was created, but that the game facilitates conversion between one resource and another. That the GAME facilitates this means that the PLAYER driven market is disabled. I personally see that the more things are player driven, the better the game is and the more options it offers to its players.

What you describe would be a far BETTER situation than what we have today. If players CHOSE between making minerals and doing missions, the mineral and ISK influx would find a natural balance as players changed what they did.

Minerals go up in price, less players mission and more players mine. This means more minerals and less ISK, leading to dropping mineral prices and so on.....

This would be a LIVING free market, finding its own natural state. In contrast, we have todays market that is totally locked (very little variation) against a fixed (high) price floor that encourages people to keep pumping minerals into an already oversupplied market.

The T2 market, the T3 market, and the rig market works well without any limits on it. They flow freely, and this enables people to enjoy playing those markets. This should also be the case for the T1 market, but isn't because the prices are essentially locked.

Illectroculus Defined
No Bull Ships
Posted - 2010.02.16 21:27:00 - [87]
 

As someone who's making a significant income from insurance fraud right now I can testify that the system is broken and is serving to keep the value of the minerals needed for battleship construction artificially high. I have 2 hulks that have basicly sat in the hangar for the last couple of months because in terms of low-attention activity insurance fraud is vastly more profitable than any mining. (I do this at work, so the amount of attention I give the game during the day is limited).

I'd suggest that insurance gets switched from being an ISK faucet to being an ISK sink. When you buy an insurance policy for your ship and you lose it instead of getting a bunch of cash, you get a mail from the insurance company offering you a replacement ship delivered to the system of your choice. Depending upon the level of insurance you paid for you might have to shell out some cash to accept this offer. The net effect is that cash is removed from the game, no new minerals are created because they disappeared when the ship was destroyed. Your modules and cargo are of course still lost....

Furthermore reprocessing loot to 100% of their source minerals is a source of much pain, I'd prefer to see some limitation on this, either a hard cap of 90%.... or... How about changing the reprocessing algorithm so that less than perfect refines lose more of the high end minerals instead of losing equally across the whole 'spectrum' of minerals. So if a module refines into 70% trit, 15% pye, 8%mex, 4% iso, 2% zyd, 1% mega
then a base 50% refine will only yield trit,
a 75% refine rate gives you all the trit and 1/3 of the pyerite
90% gives you trit, pye and mex
99% gives you everything except megacyte.

etc
So only the elite scrap metal refiner will be able to pull the megacyte out of those cap booster charges littering the market, the mission runners will get the low end minerals instead.

Just an idea.... or two.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2010.02.16 21:35:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
This would be a LIVING free market, finding its own natural state. In contrast, we have todays market that is totally locked (very little variation) against a fixed (high) price floor that encourages people to keep pumping minerals into an already oversupplied market.


Actually, all you'd do is replace the price floor created by insurance with the price floor created by the fixed rewards from mission running.

Insurance fraud generates a limitless demand for labour indirectly, via providing limitless demand for minerals (which require labour to produce), at a fixed price. Missioning simply skips a step and offers limitless direct demand for labour at a fixed price (yes there are some elements of mission rewards that flex with the market, but there is a core guaranteed minimum income).

You would end up with mineral prices pegged at the "minimum wage" level defined by mission running, because all you have done is move the excess labour around the economy from one "labour sink" to another.

Originally by: Kerfira
The T2 market, the T3 market, and the rig market works well without any limits on it. They flow freely, and this enables people to enjoy playing those markets. This should also be the case for the T1 market, but isn't because the prices are essentially locked.



Are you complaining about the T1 market, or the minerals market? The mineral market being locked to insurance-fraud prices does not preclude the T1 market flowing freely. Of course, the reason the T1 market is not more fluid is closely related to why the mineral market is as it is, in that it again comes down to excess labour eroding profitability down to the minimum level at which further labour will divert into other professions.

The other markets you mention work differently because there are significantly larger barriers to entry in those markets. Excess labour will tend to prefer to flow into easier markets, such as mining, missioning and T1 production. This is especially true where those low barrier to entry professions have unlimited capacity to absorb labour.

If you removed the infinite capacity from these professions (as your proposal would do to mining), the resulting greater pressure of excess labour is likely to render the barriers to entry to those other markets less effective, and simply spread the problem to those markets as well.

Namak Bulu
Gallente
Villore Regional Industries
Posted - 2010.02.16 23:09:00 - [89]
 

After reading three pages worth of replies, learned a lot BTW, I have, perhaps, a seperate theory. It its no secret to anyone the vast amount of mineral inflo these days, even with my limited experience in EVE I can see it. Heck, I get all my low & null sec minerals from refining rat loot from the few missions my group does. Now these arn't in significant supply to warrent much in the way of production on a large scale but I would think the pattern holds true.

In any event, It also seems that there is massive amounts of ISK to be had in W-Space, and fairly safe as well. Why not scale back the abundence of W-Space? I would imagine if the risk of PVP goes up in W-Space, the people out for refinables & ore goes down from those who wouldn't solo-mine or what have you. May not fix the problem entirely, i'd also think that a small cut to reprocessing would be warrented as well, as has been mentioned plenty of times.

My thoughts...

Caldari Citizen20090217
Posted - 2010.02.17 01:39:00 - [90]
 

What about: nerf highsec refining. 100% refine in <0.5 POS/outposts only. Mission loot is effectively nerfed unless you want to cart it to a lowsec POS array, lowsec/0.0/wh miners get a better refine rate, macro miners hit too.

Awaiting the well reasoned obvious answer that I somehow didn't manage to think of when typing this...


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (10)

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