open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked Who's excited about imminent deflation?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

Atrei Capital
Posted - 2010.05.12 16:52:00 - [1]
 

So, minerals/tech1 ships are already overproduced to the point where the only thing keeping a shred of value in them is the arbitrary insurance value.

I wonder how happy the miners will be that mission minerals are nerfed, when they realize every mineral price is going to plummet anyway, bringing their income to all new lows.

Or the industrialists now that, without a practical 'floor' for ship prices, prices and profit margins can keep right on dropping. Sure, insurance will hold them up again, for a bit.. until the next 'period' of insurance, when the value can drop again. And the next one. And the next one.

People don't value their time, minerals I mine are free, macros, etc etc.

Tech2 stuff, faction stuff, meta stuff.. should still be alright. The market going crazy will certainly cause them to shift, but it'll be an indirect effect, rather than the fact that mineral prices will see a direct nerf.

Maybe we'll see a surge in supercapitals from all the near-worthless minerals. Insurance changing on them won't matter much, but when the floor drops out on mineral prices...

I guess the real winners will be cap pilots. Very Happy Maybe people who like to throw away lots of tech1 battleships, too. I know I won't be fretting the loss of 100% insurance if a tier2 battleship suddenly costs 50m Laughing.

The cruel joke is on the miners.. Sad

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:00:00 - [2]
 

There's going to be a wild ride on the minerals markets and that's for sure. But things will eventually settle out, and miners will be paid what their efforts are worth to other players. Why should it be any other way?

CCP have been steadily transitioning to a more player-run market (cue Akita T longpost) over the years, and this is a large and very necessary step on that road.

Once player miners are truly in competition with each other, perhaps we'll see a change in certain attitudes...

Atrei Capital
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:03:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Atrei Capital on 12/05/2010 17:05:12
Originally by: Malcanis
There's going to be a wild ride on the minerals markets and that's for sure. But things will eventually settle out, and miners will be paid what their efforts are worth to other players. Why should it be any other way?

CCP have been steadily transitioning to a more player-run market (cue Akita T longpost) over the years, and this is a large and very necessary step on that road.

Once player miners are truly in competition with each other, perhaps we'll see a change in certain attitudes...


You know, that's an interesting thought. Mining could become an interesting conflict drivers... provided miners won't just run to the NPC corps.

I have a feeling that most hardcore miners won't be coaxed to fight even if it means doubling their profits.

As for the industrialists.. well, I guess being able to run production by yourself means the market will be saturated. That happens in pretty much every game. At least EVE has some more complex/profitable paths than tech1 production..

Edit: But what value does a bounty from an NPC add to the players? :s I guess the isk has to start somewhere..

Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:04:00 - [4]
 

Although this might be a troll post, I'll bite anyways.

Yes, minerals and overall income on the manufacturing side will decrease while the current glut of minerals are still being traded. Eventually, the prices will lower to the point of the new insurance low. Minerals will be consumed at the rate they are now, only with considerably fewer minerals being introduced to the market. Eventually, the glut of minerals will disappear, and prices will begin to increase, slowly at first yes, but what you will most likely see is a 2 or 3 month slump in manufacturing income and then it will begin to climb back up.


Also IB4AT

De'Veldrin
Minmatar
Norse'Storm Battle Group
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:04:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Malcanis


Once player miners are truly in competition with each other, perhaps we'll see a change in certain attitudes...


And, heaven help us, it might be worth it to actually go mine stuff again at some point.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:05:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
CCP have been steadily transitioning to a more player-run market (cue Akita T longpost) over the years, and this is a large and very necessary step on that road.

Once player miners are truly in competition with each other, perhaps we'll see a change in certain attitudes...
…question is, when will they work up the courage to make highsec less safe and reduce the number of S&I slots in NPC stations? That alone should make people value their time and effort more.

Andrea Griffin
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:06:00 - [7]
 

*Sacrifices a goat!*

Akita T, I summon thee to this thread!

Pharago
Gallente
Nughat Corp
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:06:00 - [8]
 

-1/10

Atrei Capital
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:11:00 - [9]
 

I worry that the excess minerals will not drop, simply because of attitudes and investments.

Someone who wants the most money isn't going to be a miner. They mine because they want to. If they play EVE to mine, they will not stop mining because of a price drop. PVP is a net loss usually, and people still do it.

In a game, the typical "If it's not profitable, no one will do it" doesn't hold water. People generally do what they find the most enjoyable, regardless of whether or not it's the most profitable.

So, 'miners' will keep mining, unless they quit EVE.

Then you have macros. A macro, unless it becomes so unprofitable that it can't pay for a GTC a month + profit, will continue to macro. They won't say "Oh, I only make 50m a day now, instead of 100m. I'll just give up my afk isk making bot.".

Maybe combat characters with mining alts, who aren't too into mining, will stop... but the majority of mining will continue as normal.

tl;dr: People will do what they like. If it was all about the money people would be avoiding mining already. You absolutely cannot count on 'it's less profitable, no one will do it, profits will rise' in a video game. No one is feeding their space-family here, they may complain about an income lowering, but they won't change professions over it often.

Nika Dekaia
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:13:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Andrea Griffin
*Sacrifices a goat!*

Akita T, I summon thee to this thread!
You sure Akita likes goats? Maybe a muffin and a six pack will yield better results. Very Happy

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:16:00 - [11]
 

Ok, say mineral prices drop along with the overall price of stuff on the general market. Would you not still be making about the same relative amount of income? I mean if the stuff you want to buy is cheaper then having less isk isn't a big deal as you still can buy the same physical amount of stuff off your lower income as before with the higher prices and higher income. *shrugs*

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:16:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Atrei Capital
I know I won't be fretting the loss of 100% insurance if a tier2 battleship suddenly costs 50m Laughing.

You _DO_ realize that actually losing a T1 ship will become (much) more expensive compared to now, even if the initial purchase price will be (significantly) lower, don't you ?

Taxesarebad
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:20:00 - [13]
 

about 50% of minerals are from reprocessing mission loot.
since the meta 0 loot is being removed i wonder what happens when 50% of the minerals on the market stop coming in... oh wait.

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:22:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Taxesarebad
about 50% of minerals are from reprocessing mission loot.
since the meta 0 loot is being removed i wonder what happens when 50% of the minerals on the market stop coming in... oh wait.
shhh.

Atrei Capital
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:23:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Atrei Capital on 12/05/2010 17:24:04
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Atrei Capital
I know I won't be fretting the loss of 100% insurance if a tier2 battleship suddenly costs 50m Laughing.

You _DO_ realize that actually losing a T1 ship will become (much) more expensive compared to now, even if the initial purchase price will be (significantly) lower, don't you ?



For about ten minutes.

Until the price of ships drops to match.

It's a terrible assumption to think ship prices will stay the same.

If losing an insured Mega only nets you 70m, you'll probably end up paying something like 50 for the ship and 20 for the insurance.

And then, the next insurance cycle, insurance rates drop again.. ships drop until they bottom out.. equillibrium, rinse repeat. Until they're so cheap that no one will care about losing the investment.

If ships magically stayed the same price, then yes, you'd lose more. Except the ships will just drop, once again, until they hit that self destruct value/ship cost equillibrium.

Capt Fossil
Gallente
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:23:00 - [16]
 

One more time......

The problem with mineral prices is not only insurance, it's not only mission loot.

It's MACRO MINERS! 23/7 all over the place. If you say it isn't so, you haven't been buying BILLIONS of units of minerals over the last 5 months like I have. 60% to 70% percent of my low ends (Trit, Pye, Iso and Mex) come from the same 7 or 8 people every day.

And no I am NOT introducing proof on the forums.....I have a plan. Twisted Evil

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:26:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Atrei Capital
I know I won't be fretting the loss of 100% insurance if a tier2 battleship suddenly costs 50m Laughing.

You _DO_ realize that actually losing a T1 ship will become (much) more expensive compared to now, even if the initial purchase price will be (significantly) lower, don't you ?



To name but one of the major benefits of this change.

TheLordofAllandNothing
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:26:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Atrei Capital
I know I won't be fretting the loss of 100% insurance if a tier2 battleship suddenly costs 50m Laughing.

You _DO_ realize that actually losing a T1 ship will become (much) more expensive compared to now, even if the initial purchase price will be (significantly) lower, don't you ?



I demand akita t maths to back this up as i am a lazy tard who can't be bothered to check out sisi. You can do it akita, you are my only hope.

Mme Pinkerton
The pink win
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:26:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Taxesarebad
about 50% of minerals are from reprocessing mission loot mods.

not all T1 mods that get reprocessed are mission/rat loot.

Space Pinata
Amarr
Discount Napkin Industries
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:29:00 - [20]
 

The only thing holding ship prices up now is insurance. They'd cost much less if they wouldn't be self destructed.

Lowering insurance payouts will lower ship costs, making the only net accomplishment a lower investment and lower income for miners and industrialists.

Crumplecorn
Gallente
Eve Cluster Explorations
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:31:00 - [21]
 

In before the loot nerf and the insurance nerf cancel each other out and nothing happens.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:32:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 12/05/2010 17:32:40
edit god damb CP, fix your forums.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:35:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 12/05/2010 17:36:50
Originally by: Atrei Capital
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Atrei Capital
I know I won't be fretting the loss of 100% insurance if a tier2 battleship suddenly costs 50m Laughing.

You _DO_ realize that actually losing a T1 ship will become (much) more expensive compared to now, even if the initial purchase price will be (significantly) lower, don't you ?

For about ten minutes. Until the price of ships drops to match.
It's a terrible assumption to think ship prices will stay the same.
[...]the next insurance cycle, insurance rates drop again.. ships drop until they bottom out.. equillibrium, rinse repeat.

At that time (at the equilibrium), every time you lose one ship, you will always lose 30% of the mineral cost PLUS the manufacturer markup.
Right now, you can even occasionally make a profit when you lose a T1 ship... so, in comparison, T1 ships will certainly become much more expensive to lose compared to now.

Quote:
Until they're so cheap that no one will care about losing the investment.

If we ever get to that point where you can just shrug off 30% of material cost plus manufacturer markup as if it's nothing, you can pretty much ban every miner out in the asteroid fields, because you will be almost certain they're macros, not people.

Zions Child
Caldari
The Resident Haunting
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:39:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Akita T


Quote:
Until they're so cheap that no one will care about losing the investment.

If we ever get to that point where you can just shrug off 30% of material cost plus manufacturer markup as if it's nothing, you can pretty much ban every miner out in the asteroid fields, because you will be almost certain they're macros, not people.




/don tin-foil hat

THATS CCP'S PLAN!!!! MAKING MINING SO UNPROFITABLE ONLY MACROS WILL DO IT!!! THEN ALL THE MINERS WILL BE BANNED!!!


Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:39:00 - [25]
 

OP obviously needs a lesson in economics.

Lesson 1 supply and demand.


Removal of meta 0 items from missions.
Reduces supply of minerals by 50%

Changing of drone drops to lower the amount of nocxium and isogen produced
Reduces supply of those minerals by another %

Changes in insurance pay out
reduces any hope of profit from losing your ship, especially if you have expensive mods. you might break even but highly doubtful.


Demand for these minerals - remain the same especially with lots of 0.0 wars going on.
Demand for ships will remain the same and will probably increase since minerals will not be flooding in.


Therefore, with an overal supply reduced by 50% and demand remaining the same only 1 thing will happen. Prices will go up up up!.

However, the market will crash when people like me who have been stocking up on minerals for the past month will flood the market when a high point is reached and will sell them for less to make quick sales and lots of profit.

CCP Navigator


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.05.12 17:45:00 - [26]
 

Moved from General Discussion to Market Discussions. This is a much more suitable area for discussing inflation and deflation within the mineral market.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.05.12 18:03:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Obsidian Hawk
Removal of meta 0 items from missions.
Reduces supply of minerals by 50%
No.
That oft-quoted 50% figure comes from the reprocessing of all modules in EVE. Now take away the reprocessing that is done as mineral compression. Then take away the reprocessing of Meta 1 through 4 modules. Then add the fact that it's not nearly 50% across the board…

Reduces supply, but not as much as you suggest.
Quote:
Changes in insurance pay out reduces any hope of profit from losing your ship, especially if you have expensive mods. you might break even but highly doubtful.
Reduces demand, relative to the current situation, since minerals can't be exploded (as much) purely for ISK any more.

Illfindyou
Posted - 2010.05.12 18:03:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Akita T
you can pretty much ban every miner out in the asteroid fields, because you will be almost certain they're macros, not people.



Solution to macro miners = MOAR HULKAGEDDONS!

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.05.12 18:09:00 - [29]
 

1. It must be seen if miners income is going to decrease, since the loot tables are going to be changed

2. If miners income will decrease, they will hopefully reduce mining.


I think that empire miners should organize in a syndicate that decides how much tritanium/pyerite one can sell, and thus dictates the price. This is the only thing that can save the miners. This syndicate should have the power to forbid mining to those who don't follow the rules imposed by the miner syndicate, with suicide ganking or any sort of griefing.
veldspar must be left in the belts.

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2010.05.12 18:20:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk
Removal of meta 0 items from missions.
Reduces supply of minerals by 50%
No.
That oft-quoted 50% figure comes from the reprocessing of all modules in EVE. Now take away the reprocessing that is done as mineral compression. Then take away the reprocessing of Meta 1 through 4 modules. Then add the fact that it's not nearly 50% across the board…


But remember no one reprocesses meta 3 and 4 loot anyway, so you can't account minerals from that.

well i take taht back some meta 3 and 4 loot you do reprocess but that is stuff like scanners and useless items.

Quote:


Reduces supply, but not as much as you suggest.
Quote:
Changes in insurance pay out reduces any hope of profit from losing your ship, especially if you have expensive mods. you might break even but highly doubtful.
Reduces demand, relative to the current situation, since minerals can't be exploded (as much) purely for ISK any more.


That area is a very minimal market, mostly suicide gankers. and insurance fraud, but those people are also minimal because they are the ones with the bpo and bpcs and can nail the maximum profit from it, not the average pvper/ganker.


Pages: [1] 2 3

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