open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked T2 Invention Prices and the Market
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Grim Mercy
Heretic Logistics
Heretic Nation
Posted - 2008.08.30 20:27:00 - [1]
 

After countless threads on Invention and T2 BPOs, I came upon one prevalent theme over and over again: some Inventors are undercutting the market by considering their own self-gathered materials "free," and putting up sell orders for far less than it takes other Inventors to buy all the materials, invent, and sell. So, in effect, they are robbing themselves of isk by using their materials in invention as opposed to selling them outright.

My point, and my question:

If self-gathered materials are being used in this way, making invention a profitless enterprise for those that pay attention to market prices of materials, why hasn't the market price of said materials fallen?

I feel this is a legitimate question that needs looking into. This is NOT a "Remove T2 BPOs" thread.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2008.08.30 20:41:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Grim Mercy
If self-gathered materials are being used in this way, making invention a profitless enterprise for those that pay attention to market prices of materials, why hasn't the market price of said materials fallen?



Supply and demand. most of those materials can be used on other inventions, on items/ships where profit is still possible, so there's still a demand for those materials.

Grim Mercy
Heretic Logistics
Heretic Nation
Posted - 2008.08.30 20:51:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Grim Mercy on 30/08/2008 20:51:38
So, should invention be re-looked at on an item-by-item basis to bring costs back into line?

Is the basic problem one of the amounts of x material needed for certain items? For example, a T2 drone would use need 100 units of x to produce, and a Marauder would need 1000 units of x, but a marauder costs way, way more than 10 times a T2 drone costs. I know this is an over-simplified scenario, but does it reflect the general problem?

Clair Bear
Ursine Research and Production
Posted - 2008.08.30 21:50:00 - [4]
 

If you feel they're well under construction cost and the items actually have a market then buy and re-list.

Otherwise, suck it up buttercup. Their cost basis may be far lower than yours -- simply looking at jita sell order pricing to compute their cost basis is as bogus as it would be for any other manufacturing job.

Could also be they're using up promethium and dysprosium themselves in order to keep the amount on the market limited and expensive. There's a billion reasons other than 'datacores I get are free' to have some t2 items cheaper than what you can make them.

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2008.08.30 22:07:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Clair Bear
If you feel they're well under construction cost and the items actually have a market then buy and re-list.


Heh, if this was possible, there wouldn't be a problem. Most of the costs involved with producing a T2 item are from datacores, which can't be retrieved via reprocessing. It doesn't help that it's a bit tricky to calculate exactly how much profit you can make on invented items, and a lot of people just prefer to dive straight in rather than look for something worthwhile.

There are lots of people who do this with T1 ships and modules, and no-one with reasonably deep pockets complains quite so much about people who think that minerals they mine themselves are free.

Forget the dysprosium idea - it's far simpler just to hoard it.

Tellenta
Gallente
versic LLC
Posted - 2008.08.30 22:15:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Grim Mercy
Edited by: Grim Mercy on 30/08/2008 20:51:38
So, should invention be re-looked at on an item-by-item basis to bring costs back into line?

Is the basic problem one of the amounts of x material needed for certain items? For example, a T2 drone would use need 100 units of x to produce, and a Marauder would need 1000 units of x, but a marauder costs way, way more than 10 times a T2 drone costs. I know this is an over-simplified scenario, but does it reflect the general problem?


No, I consider the issue to be a player caused problem. Removing T2 BPO's will not help this issue in the least. For example a Hammerhead 2 following the market over the past 2 years the general acceptable price has been between 800,000 isk and 1,200,000 isk. Currently people are selling the drones in the low 700,000's. While there is still somewhat of a profit made at this price it is nothing to scream about.

How did prices get so low? People make the drones and want to be the cheapest on the market not realizing that they are in fact hurting their profit margin as well as others by trying to be the least expensive guy on the block. This will be self correcting eventually as people move from producing something that doesn't make as much profit to something else. CCP can not fix this if they make said t2 hammerhead less expensive to create people will just lower prices down to the new isk loss scenario. Why? Because there are a lot of people out there that are stupid, and they crap it up for the rest of us.

Grim Mercy
Heretic Logistics
Heretic Nation
Posted - 2008.08.30 22:19:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Grim Mercy on 30/08/2008 22:24:26
Clair Bear, you kind of missed the topic of the thread.

The question was that if people are using their own materials (data cores, minerals, moon stuff, whatever) and considering them "free," because they gather them themselves, and in turn producing T2 goods at lower than the market price of all of the goods put together, then why haven't the base prices of the materials fallen?

I'm not refuting the fact that people are, in fact, using their own gathered materials in this way. I'm just wondering why it hasn't effected the demand of materials. If people are supplying their own, and not using the market to buy them, then demand should go down, thus reducing the price, right?

That doesn't seem to be the case. As pointed out in the first response, a lot of those same materials are used in other items, so some invention items are well worth the effort and produce a good profit, while others are not. This leads me to the conclusion that some items are using a disproportionate number of high-demand materials.

Edit: Also, market saturation plays a big part I imagine. In order to produce those high-end, high-demand items like Marauders, you'd probably have to have quite a bit of start-up capital. I bet there are a lot more people inventing ammo and drones than there are inventing battleships.

Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2008.08.30 22:23:00 - [8]
 

I think they should actually start seeding T2 BPO's of some of the 'older' T2 items/ships.

Tellenta
Gallente
versic LLC
Posted - 2008.08.30 22:33:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Grim Mercy
Edited by: Grim Mercy on 30/08/2008 22:24:26
Clair Bear, you kind of missed the topic of the thread.

The question was that if people are using their own materials (data cores, minerals, moon stuff, whatever) and considering them "free," because they gather them themselves, and in turn producing T2 goods at lower than the market price of all of the goods put together, then why haven't the base prices of the materials fallen?

I'm not refuting the fact that people are, in fact, using their own gathered materials in this way. I'm just wondering why it hasn't effected the demand of materials. If people are supplying their own, and not using the market to buy them, then demand should go down, thus reducing the price, right?

That doesn't seem to be the case. As pointed out in the first response, a lot of those same materials are used in other items, so some invention items are well worth the effort and produce a good profit, while others are not. This leads me to the conclusion that some items are using a disproportionate number of high-demand materials.

Edit: Also, market saturation plays a big part I imagine. In order to produce those high-end, high-demand items like Marauders, you'd probably have to have quite a bit of start-up capital. I bet there are a lot more people inventing ammo and drones than there are inventing battleships.



If I understand what you are getting at, you are asking for example if the cost of a coffee bean rose/fell by %400 why doesnt it effect the price of a coffee brewer? I mean after all it is in a related market.

Jinx Barker
Caldari
GFB Scientific
Posted - 2008.08.30 22:36:00 - [10]
 

Quite frequently, when I see them, I find sell orders that are bellow "current" manufacturing price by as much as 20%. In those instances I buy them ALL. And either re-sell, or reprocess and use for my own means. You should do the same.

Grim Mercy
Heretic Logistics
Heretic Nation
Posted - 2008.08.30 22:37:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Grim Mercy on 30/08/2008 22:44:13
Originally by: Tellenta
Originally by: Grim Mercy
Edited by: Grim Mercy on 30/08/2008 22:24:26
Clair Bear, you kind of missed the topic of the thread.

The question was that if people are using their own materials (data cores, minerals, moon stuff, whatever) and considering them "free," because they gather them themselves, and in turn producing T2 goods at lower than the market price of all of the goods put together, then why haven't the base prices of the materials fallen?

I'm not refuting the fact that people are, in fact, using their own gathered materials in this way. I'm just wondering why it hasn't effected the demand of materials. If people are supplying their own, and not using the market to buy them, then demand should go down, thus reducing the price, right?

That doesn't seem to be the case. As pointed out in the first response, a lot of those same materials are used in other items, so some invention items are well worth the effort and produce a good profit, while others are not. This leads me to the conclusion that some items are using a disproportionate number of high-demand materials.

Edit: Also, market saturation plays a big part I imagine. In order to produce those high-end, high-demand items like Marauders, you'd probably have to have quite a bit of start-up capital. I bet there are a lot more people inventing ammo and drones than there are inventing battleships.



If I understand what you are getting at, you are asking for example if the cost of a coffee bean rose/fell by %400 why doesnt it effect the price of a coffee brewer? I mean after all it is in a related market.


Well, more like why the selling price of coffee is going down when the price of the beans is staying the same.

Or, more appropriately, why is the selling price of coffee less than the cost of beans.

Daddy Xerox
Posted - 2008.08.30 22:45:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Jinx Barker
Quite frequently, when I see them, I find sell orders that are bellow "current" manufacturing price by as much as 20%. In those instances I buy them ALL. And either re-sell, or reprocess and use for my own means. You should do the same.


If I want to destroy a local market (out of annoyance at a consistent 0.01 undercutter) I might unload a huge quantity of the items I produce by T2 BPO at considerably below the current market just to blow the averages.

Or I'll go back and forth with the bot until it's costs drop below my manufacturing costs and buy the lot. I just hate that I'm paying the undercutter, even if he is selling at a considerable loss.

One decent thing about the many market bots out there (Yes, like miners, CCP lifts no fingers to eliminate them) is that they'll go far below build cost just to keep below their nearest competitor. At 0.0001 ISK, tho, it takes a while.

Grim Mercy
Heretic Logistics
Heretic Nation
Posted - 2008.08.30 22:51:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Daddy Xerox
Originally by: Jinx Barker
Quite frequently, when I see them, I find sell orders that are bellow "current" manufacturing price by as much as 20%. In those instances I buy them ALL. And either re-sell, or reprocess and use for my own means. You should do the same.


If I want to destroy a local market (out of annoyance at a consistent 0.01 undercutter) I might unload a huge quantity of the items I produce by T2 BPO at considerably below the current market just to blow the averages.

Or I'll go back and forth with the bot until it's costs drop below my manufacturing costs and buy the lot. I just hate that I'm paying the undercutter, even if he is selling at a considerable loss.

One decent thing about the many market bots out there (Yes, like miners, CCP lifts no fingers to eliminate them) is that they'll go far below build cost just to keep below their nearest competitor. At 0.0001 ISK, tho, it takes a while.


Heh, according to a lot of people on this forum, all financial wizards and back yard economists in their own right, you can't do this Wink According to them, T2 BPOs have absolutely no effect on the market. At all. Period.

Daddy Xerox
Posted - 2008.08.30 22:57:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Grim Mercy
Originally by: Daddy Xerox
Originally by: Jinx Barker
Quite frequently, when I see them, I find sell orders that are bellow "current" manufacturing price by as much as 20%. In those instances I buy them ALL. And either re-sell, or reprocess and use for my own means. You should do the same.


If I want to destroy a local market (out of annoyance at a consistent 0.01 undercutter) I might unload a huge quantity of the items I produce by T2 BPO at considerably below the current market just to blow the averages.

Or I'll go back and forth with the bot until it's costs drop below my manufacturing costs and buy the lot. I just hate that I'm paying the undercutter, even if he is selling at a considerable loss.

One decent thing about the many market bots out there (Yes, like miners, CCP lifts no fingers to eliminate them) is that they'll go far below build cost just to keep below their nearest competitor. At 0.0001 ISK, tho, it takes a while.


Heh, according to a lot of people on this forum, all financial wizards and back yard economists in their own right, you can't do this Wink According to them, T2 BPOs have absolutely no effect on the market. At all. Period.


Nowadays they don't, at all, period. I agree.

You don't know which order is put up by someone who owns a BPO and who is inventing. OFC, seeing someone selling F/E Aurora S by the 500 lot when everyone else is selling less than 50 tells you who the inventors are. But the price margin on them is pointlessly narrow. The guy with the 500 crystals can, though, if he wants cut his costs to below the total manufacturing costs of invented ammo (whereupon his stock will vanish, he'll only make a 200% profit, and 550 crystals will pop up in the same station for 0.0001 ISK below the nearest competitor).

Grim Mercy
Heretic Logistics
Heretic Nation
Posted - 2008.08.30 23:00:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Daddy Xerox
he'll only make a 200% profit


What the hell are the margins on T2 BPOs, anyway?!?

Clair Bear
Ursine Research and Production
Posted - 2008.08.30 23:01:00 - [16]
 

Materials haven't fallen because it's not possible to reprocess t2 loot and recover all the build components. I can't buy praetor IIs, reprocess them and make ogre IIs instead like I can with ship hulls.

That's why. Someone with a monopoly on a good which constitutes 80% of the item build cost can afford to make the unpopular t2 items at far far FAR below 'cost', offload them and make a profit while still selling you that good at a good markup for your own uses.

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2008.08.30 23:09:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Grim Mercy

The question was that if people are using their own materials (data cores, minerals, moon stuff, whatever) and considering them "free," because they gather them themselves, and in turn producing T2 goods at lower than the market price of all of the goods put together, then why haven't the base prices of the materials fallen?


And how do you know those prices haven't fallen?

Looking at the price history says nothing about this, because under different circumstances - if those people (assuming they exist) would have priced their materials correctly - those prices might have been much higher than they are now.

You say that prices aren't affected. But how do you know that?

Grim Mercy
Heretic Logistics
Heretic Nation
Posted - 2008.08.30 23:10:00 - [18]
 

Ok, then... If there is this cabal artificially keeping the prices of certain things high (which, in the case of moon minerals, I can totally see it, but not so much data cores) then why are those people "wasting" their own supply of their carefully orchestrated gold mine producing goods at a lower cost? Why not just sell the materials, and make more isk, instead?

Kil'Roy
Minmatar
The Rat Patrol
Posted - 2008.08.30 23:19:00 - [19]
 

It's nice to see an in-game market so similar to real life markets, failed enterprises and all. Laughing

If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.


Ogul
Caldari
ZiTek Deepspace Explorations
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.30 23:24:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Clair Bear

That's why. Someone with a monopoly on a good which constitutes 80% of the item build cost can afford to make the unpopular t2 items at far far FAR below 'cost', offload them and make a profit while still selling you that good at a good markup for your own uses.


Wouldn't he make more selling that good directly (and at market value) instead of manufacturing it into something to sell below build costs?

Daddy Xerox
Posted - 2008.08.30 23:36:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Grim Mercy

The question was that if people are using their own materials (data cores, minerals, moon stuff, whatever) and considering them "free," because they gather them themselves, and in turn producing T2 goods at lower than the market price of all of the goods put together, then why haven't the base prices of the materials fallen?


And how do you know those prices haven't fallen?

Looking at the price history says nothing about this, because under different circumstances - if those people (assuming they exist) would have priced their materials correctly - those prices might have been much higher than they are now.

You say that prices aren't affected. But how do you know that?


Spreadsheets and Eve-Central (among other sources).
Using a page for raw materials (minerals, advanced materials, datacores, the lot), and a sub-page for T1 module build costs based on Page One, and then a third page that factors in Page One and Page Two, plus other factors on other pages, one comes up with an idea how much it costs to produce an item, be it a T1 module or T2, and how profitable it is compared to the price averages provided by third-party market comparison resources.

F/E: Aurora S, as I said before.
Let's say, taking all materials into account as 'purchased' (nothing mined or otherwise produced), it costs 100k per unit (this is not accurate, only an example). Now, looking at the cost to produce of 100k per unit and then looking at the low market median sales average (lowest market buy orders by region) I can determine if it's profitable for me to bother inventing Aurora S.
Let's say that in this example it's selling in Jita 4-4 for 87k p/u, so I don't go there, but it's selling in Zinkon for 130k p/u, so I'll lean my sales in that direction. But I'm not just looking for how much I can sell Aurora S for, because Zincon might have little/no market movment on those 130k crystals. I'm also looking at Zincon for the market averages on all of the other 150 modules/ammunitions I can produce.

Zincon, as it turns out, has very handsome profit margins but the turnover rate is extremely low on all goods with some unusually active market adjustment bots preventing healthy competition so I avoid that region entirely. Turns out that Motsu has both a modest market margin, and decent turnover, so I choose to sell there at somewhat less profit but at a higher turnover. Turns out there's some good agents in the area, so I slap up buy orders for high-meta items I can use in invention that mission runners can provide me. That increases my per-invention costs, but improves* my invention chances.

*
Footnote:
Meta-3 items seem to provide no adjustments to invention. Success using meta-3 has locked at 48.7%, exactly the rate provided by my skills. Meta-2 is also somewhat lower than expected, while meta-1 provides no success increases. Meta-4 is not used in my invention cue so no calculations have been taken on those.
Based on 1342 invention runs over 2 months using meta-2 and meta-3 items. CCP does not provide any in-game ability to examine invention successes, so these have been determined by yet another spreadsheet out-of-game.

Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
Posted - 2008.08.31 06:31:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Grim Mercy
Originally by: Daddy Xerox
he'll only make a 200% profit


What the hell are the margins on T2 BPOs, anyway?!?


Some are 200%, some are 2%

Originally by: Quesa
I think they should actually start seeding T2 BPO's of some of the 'older' T2 items/ships.


Would kill invention. The less of them there are the more market there is for inventors, there is currently a plenty big market to make money in invention, you just need to look around occasionally and not expect the same item to be 'the' item to make all the time, it varies.

Originally by: Daddy Xerox
F/E: Aurora S, as I said before.


It's a really bad example of invention as a whole, but certainly one of the few items you could use to show how there is absolutely no market for many items. Who uses Aurora S anyway ? The thing about ammo is that there are alot of T2 BPOs for it (alot less for modules / ships), and the demand for it is farily low, so the prices are fairly low. The larger / medium sized ammo has alot more demand than the small, and the production is less, while amarr ammo has the least demand from all the races. As well large ammo has a higher proportion of build costs to invention cost, small ammo alot of the invention+build cost will be taken up by the invention cost.

I would totally ignore small drones/small modules/small ammo for invention as you are unlikely to find a good reward for your time there, regardless of if a BPO existed or not, and doubly not so because they do. The same goes for the medium/large damage bonus based ammo which has drawbacks and is easily replaced by faction ammo that doesn't have the drawbacks.

The fact that there are items that aren't worth inventing isn't a problem that invention was put in place to solve. What invention does is twofold a) it places a cap on the highest price a T2 item can achieve before there is competition b) it provides a profession for people to partake in.

The fact that many of those BPOs that are unprofitable to invent are making the BPO owners between 5 and 10 million isk per MONTH is a sign that it's the item that is broken and not the invention. There isn't enough demand for them so the BPO owners are competing with each other to try and move their supply. If there becomes more demand than the BPO supply then the price will rise until enough inventors think it is worth inventing to equalise the supply with the demand.

Part of the reason alot of borderline items take longer to jump up is because for alot of inventors, the price they're willing to invent for may infact be at a loss compared to simply buying the cheapest ones available on the market. If people want to waste time and effort doing that, let them, it just means more profit for the rest of us on the profitable items.

Quote:
Meta-3 items seem to provide no adjustments to invention. Success using meta-3 has locked at 48.7%, exactly the rate provided by my skills. Meta-2 is also somewhat lower than expected, while meta-1 provides no success increases. Meta-4 is not used in my invention cue so no calculations have been taken on those.
Based on 1342 invention runs over 2 months using meta-2 and meta-3 items. CCP does not provide any in-game ability to examine invention successes, so these have been determined by yet another spreadsheet out-of-game.


I know CCP hasn't offically told us the extent these effect invention, but I'd look here for a very good 'hint' established with even more examples and possibly even some inside info:
Invention Chance


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.31 07:00:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Grim Mercy
If self-gathered materials are being used in this way, making invention a profitless enterprise for those that pay attention to market prices of materials, why hasn't the market price of said materials fallen?

Who said the price hasn't fallen ?
Datacores, you could get for mechanical engineering ones over 2.5 mil a piece a good while AFTER the *10 yield patch, now you're lucky to get more than 250k a piece.
T1 BPCs, those are also slowly getting slightly cheaper again, at the high point of invention madness they were worth far more than ever, and nowadays they're worth less than before invention.
Decryptors, ever since they were removed from static plexes, the "good" ones dropped like a rock, while the "bad" ones slowly climbed back up (difference between a handfull of people getting most of them, or many more people getting a little bit of each).
And so on and so forth.

Basically, you're asking "why can't I see that", I'm answering "because you don't know your history".

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2008.08.31 09:59:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Daddy Xerox
Footnote:
Meta-3 items seem to provide no adjustments to invention. Success using meta-3 has locked at 48.7%, exactly the rate provided by my skills. Meta-2 is also somewhat lower than expected, while meta-1 provides no success increases. Meta-4 is not used in my invention cue so no calculations have been taken on those.
Based on 1342 invention runs over 2 months using meta-2 and meta-3 items.


Chruker used a sample 10 times the size of yours, fyi, and has come up with a formula that appears to be highly accurate. He claims to have been given informal dev confirmation that it's the one that's actually used, but there hasn't been a post on these forums to that effect.

Quote:
CCP does not provide any in-game ability to examine invention successes, so these have been determined by yet another spreadsheet out-of-game.


On the science & industry jobs screen, set the filters to 'invention' and 'delivered'. This information is also available via the API.


SPIONKOP
Caldari
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.08.31 10:38:00 - [25]
 

When calculating the true cost of invention I always include market cost of cores and decrptors for inventions that fail as well as work.

Some items are more proffitable than others but I have yet to find anything that is sold as a "loss" in bulk volumes.

Jita represents the low end of prices and I use this as a benchmark but sell in other hubs were possible as the margins are greater. I have also found it proffitable to buy cheap in jita and haul the stuff to market hubs, much quicker than inventing/building.

Having some market alts (with a smattering of trade skills) within the corp and located in other market hubs is the key to managing market PVP.

I like people who sell at a loss, if I find the stuff then I will buy it, move it, sell it. I once made 1 Bill in a day doing this but I also got it wrong a few times and lost millions. Win a few and lose fewer is what I try to achieve.

Darwin's Market
Posted - 2008.08.31 18:50:00 - [26]
 

Nothing wrong with people giving stuff away for free if it's from their labour.

You sound more like a T2 BPO holder that wants the prices to rise for bigger profits.

Grim Mercy
Heretic Logistics
Heretic Nation
Posted - 2008.08.31 22:42:00 - [27]
 

Is the market then completely influenced by stupidity?

I'd call selling something for less money than it's total component worth on the open market stupid, as you're not only missing profits from just selling the materials outright, but you're also effectively doing the invention "labor" for free.

I do not own any T2 BPOs, and do want to see them removed from the game, but this thread isn't about that. It's about trying to figure out why people would, could, and do sell some items for less than it costs them to produce, mainly from the stance that the market hasn't reflected a drop in the price of basic materials commensurate with the drop in price of the finished product because of self-supplied materials. While there has been an overall drop in price of minerals over the years (yes, I did do some homework:) I don't feel it has been in direct response with invention. I think that if invention "free-mat" undercutters really do have the influence on the price of T2 goods (carried on over the years at a total staggering loss) that the lowered prices would also be reflected much more profoundly in the selling price of the basic materials themselves.

Valan
Posted - 2008.08.31 23:02:00 - [28]
 

The only cost most people can't consider as free is the cost of T2 components because it's difficult to get a complete POS chain for everything unless you have access to that of an entire alliance.

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2008.08.31 23:41:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Quesa
I think they should actually start seeding T2 BPO's of some of the 'older' T2 items/ships.


For all of them. Tech II is quite old at this stage.

ShardowRhino
Caldari
Torque Theory
Posted - 2008.09.01 04:03:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Grim Mercy
Edited by: Grim Mercy on 30/08/2008 22:24:26
Clair Bear, you kind of missed the topic of the thread.

The question was that if people are using their own materials (data cores, minerals, moon stuff, whatever) and considering them "free," because they gather them themselves, and in turn producing T2 goods at lower than the market price of all of the goods put together, then why haven't the base prices of the materials fallen?

I'm not refuting the fact that people are, in fact, using their own gathered materials in this way. I'm just wondering why it hasn't effected the demand of materials. If people are supplying their own, and not using the market to buy them, then demand should go down, thus reducing the price, right?

That doesn't seem to be the case. As pointed out in the first response, a lot of those same materials are used in other items, so some invention items are well worth the effort and produce a good profit, while others are not. This leads me to the conclusion that some items are using a disproportionate number of high-demand materials.

Edit: Also, market saturation plays a big part I imagine. In order to produce those high-end, high-demand items like Marauders, you'd probably have to have quite a bit of start-up capital. I bet there are a lot more people inventing ammo and drones than there are inventing battleships.




I think your missing the point yourself. You're referring to the finished product then asking why the base materials' prices are unaffected. You answered your own question but didn't realize it.


The people that undercut everyone because of their ignorant view of the value of materials are using their own stuff. They aren't buying it off of the market. IF they did that would force them to rethink things.

If these people are using only the cores they get themselves through agents they are not going to effect the data core market. Those cores are being used up ,never to see the market.


Now if people that were to say " i got them myself so they are free and i can charge 2 isk for them" were to sell their cores that would be fine. It would be fine because it would be far easier to buy them out and resell. Its harder to do that with t2 goods since your talking about the finished product which is always going to cost more then the matierals.

Of course I have to say that players can only get so many cores themselves, unlike mining. You can get core alts I suppose but even that is limited and controlled by the number of days that pass. If a player were to mine and used alts to also mine they could bring in far more minerals since the only cap on them is how long they want to mine.


Pages: [1] 2

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