open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Greyscale Blog: Alchemy
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author Topic

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2008.10.27 13:50:00 - [1]
 

As EVE Online’s playerbase grows, so does its economy. Supply and demand can’t always be naturally met, and from time to time we have to make changes to the system to make sure supply and demand is well- balanced and healthy. Greyscale’s newest dev blog, “Alchemy,” explains some of the upcoming changes to limited resources and industry. You can read Greyscale’s blog here.

Stork DK
Minmatar
Risky eXplosion
Death or Glory
Posted - 2008.10.27 13:52:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Stork DK on 27/10/2008 13:59:33
/First
Edit: gave up trying to understand what it actually says about halfway down but if it gets me cheaper stuff to pewpew with i say yay! YARRRR!!

Bob Niac
Gallente
freelancers inc
Imperial 0rder
Posted - 2008.10.27 13:54:00 - [3]
 

Really interesting ... I hope this works out for the best!

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2008.10.27 13:59:00 - [4]
 

Gold gold gold!

Salisuka
Caldari
98.4
Posted - 2008.10.27 14:10:00 - [5]
 

Greyscale got the example all wrong....

Nexus Kinnon
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2008.10.27 14:13:00 - [6]
 

Intriguing, but it could have been so much more exciting Confused

ArmyOfMe
Hysera.
Posted - 2008.10.27 14:16:00 - [7]
 

sounds good.

Iog Krugar
The Rising Stars
Cosmic Anomalies
Posted - 2008.10.27 14:20:00 - [8]
 

guess that will cut the dyspro price cleanly in half?

Sophie Daigneau
CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society
Posted - 2008.10.27 14:35:00 - [9]
 

Quote:
We've created six new reactions which allow you to create key intermediate materials without relying on the rarest moon minerals.


First we're talking about new reactions to create intermediate materials.

Quote:
Let's take ferrogel as an example. Currently it takes 100 hafnium and 100 dysprosium to make 200 ferrogel. With the new reaction, you'll take 100 hafnium and 100 cadmium to make 100 unrefined ferrogel, which can then be refined down to give 10 ferrogel and 95 hafnium. The final ratios at the end of the process see you using 100 cadmium and 5 hafnium to create 10 ferrogel, per cycle. The proportion of hafnium stays the same, but the amount of cadmium is 20 times the amount of dysprosium you'd normally use per unit, and it takes ten times longer to make 1000 units of ferrogel.


Then you are talking about turning 2 common raw minerals into an advanced material.

Quote:
The four pairings are cadmium/dysprosium, vanadium/thulium, chromium/promethium and platinum/neodymium. The final output of each of the reactions will be ten units per cycle, and the common mineral always replaces the mineral at a 20:1 ratio.


Then down here it sounds like you are turning a common rare mineral into a rare raw mineral. Did you actually mean to say ferrofluid instead of ferrogel in the second quote? That would seem to make more sense, especially since there are six intermediate reactions that require the rare minerals.

CCP Greyscale

Posted - 2008.10.27 14:42:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Sophie Daigneau
Quote:
We've created six new reactions which allow you to create key intermediate materials without relying on the rarest moon minerals.


First we're talking about new reactions to create intermediate materials.

Quote:
Let's take ferrogel as an example. Currently it takes 100 hafnium and 100 dysprosium to make 200 ferrogel. With the new reaction, you'll take 100 hafnium and 100 cadmium to make 100 unrefined ferrogel, which can then be refined down to give 10 ferrogel and 95 hafnium. The final ratios at the end of the process see you using 100 cadmium and 5 hafnium to create 10 ferrogel, per cycle. The proportion of hafnium stays the same, but the amount of cadmium is 20 times the amount of dysprosium you'd normally use per unit, and it takes ten times longer to make 1000 units of ferrogel.


Then you are talking about turning 2 common raw minerals into an advanced material.

Quote:
The four pairings are cadmium/dysprosium, vanadium/thulium, chromium/promethium and platinum/neodymium. The final output of each of the reactions will be ten units per cycle, and the common mineral always replaces the mineral at a 20:1 ratio.


Then down here it sounds like you are turning a common rare mineral into a rare raw mineral. Did you actually mean to say ferrofluid instead of ferrogel in the second quote? That would seem to make more sense, especially since there are six intermediate reactions that require the rare minerals.


WHOOPS.

Fixed Embarassed

Gallerian
Posted - 2008.10.27 14:56:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Gallerian on 27/10/2008 15:04:57
Will this be extending to r32 minerals as well? They're more common, but there's an extreme difference in the valuation of Technetium compared to the other r32's - roughly four times the value of the other r32's, and more valuable than the "lesser" two of the r64 moons.

Wadaya
Trailerpark Industries
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:03:00 - [12]
 

I foresee this becoming just another cog in the price manipulation of moon mins and materials. You are just creating a system where the common materials will be bought up and bulk and relisted counting on other people to try for the rares, and still keeping the rares high. It's win/win for the market manipulators and lose/lose for the common player.


Sounds like none of the Devs play chess very well, since they only think 1 move ahead.

Wad

Aeon Jonas
Caldari
Point Blank.
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:04:00 - [13]
 

I approve this product and/or statement.

Haradgrim
Systematic Mercantilism
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:05:00 - [14]
 

Very cool, will be interesting to see how this affects the moon mineral market.

ChaosOne
Caldari
Lux Vitae
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:11:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Originally by: Sophie Daigneau
Quote:
We've created six new reactions which allow you to create key intermediate materials without relying on the rarest moon minerals.


First we're talking about new reactions to create intermediate materials.

Quote:
Let's take ferrogel as an example. Currently it takes 100 hafnium and 100 dysprosium to make 200 ferrogel. With the new reaction, you'll take 100 hafnium and 100 cadmium to make 100 unrefined ferrogel, which can then be refined down to give 10 ferrogel and 95 hafnium. The final ratios at the end of the process see you using 100 cadmium and 5 hafnium to create 10 ferrogel, per cycle. The proportion of hafnium stays the same, but the amount of cadmium is 20 times the amount of dysprosium you'd normally use per unit, and it takes ten times longer to make 1000 units of ferrogel.


Then you are talking about turning 2 common raw minerals into an advanced material.

Quote:
The four pairings are cadmium/dysprosium, vanadium/thulium, chromium/promethium and platinum/neodymium. The final output of each of the reactions will be ten units per cycle, and the common mineral always replaces the mineral at a 20:1 ratio.


Then down here it sounds like you are turning a common rare mineral into a rare raw mineral. Did you actually mean to say ferrofluid instead of ferrogel in the second quote? That would seem to make more sense, especially since there are six intermediate reactions that require the rare minerals.


WHOOPS.

Fixed Embarassed


Good to see that the devs dont perhaps have a grasp on moon mining....

Whats the point in keeping everything the same. some of the higher ends like thulium and neodryium have very little use.

CowsCANBark
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:12:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Sophie Daigneau
Quote:
We've created six new reactions which allow you to create key intermediate materials without relying on the rarest moon minerals.


First we're talking about new reactions to create intermediate materials.

Quote:
Let's take ferrogel as an example. Currently it takes 100 hafnium and 100 dysprosium to make 200 ferrogel. With the new reaction, you'll take 100 hafnium and 100 cadmium to make 100 unrefined ferrogel, which can then be refined down to give 10 ferrogel and 95 hafnium. The final ratios at the end of the process see you using 100 cadmium and 5 hafnium to create 10 ferrogel, per cycle. The proportion of hafnium stays the same, but the amount of cadmium is 20 times the amount of dysprosium you'd normally use per unit, and it takes ten times longer to make 1000 units of ferrogel.


Then you are talking about turning 2 common raw minerals into an advanced material.

Quote:
The four pairings are cadmium/dysprosium, vanadium/thulium, chromium/promethium and platinum/neodymium. The final output of each of the reactions will be ten units per cycle, and the common mineral always replaces the mineral at a 20:1 ratio.


Then down here it sounds like you are turning a common rare mineral into a rare raw mineral. Did you actually mean to say ferrofluid instead of ferrogel in the second quote? That would seem to make more sense, especially since there are six intermediate reactions that require the rare minerals.



sophie daigneau csm 2008, he tells devs whats up

CowsCANBark
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:18:00 - [17]
 

Also when I thought about a reworking of moon minerals I was guesing you would rebalance how much and what goes into each t2 final product. As it stands now we have an r32 moon mineral (technetium) as being the third most valuable. This is way off as you have thulium and neodymium which are crap compared to tech. You need an extra tower to react nanotransistors (neodymium) as you would for fulleride (tech). So your profits are cut into because of fuel/ time issues.

Wouldn't a rework of what goes into each be better for the overall market and not just people who don't have towers?

Machine Delta
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:22:00 - [18]
 

Maybe you could make a typo in the next blog that makes Neodymium and Thulium not worthless.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:28:00 - [19]
 

Well... This was... unexpected.

I'm sorry to say, but this won't do anything beyond creating a tiny bit more complexity and havoc on the market. While it will increase supply, it doesn't change the *fundamental* problem that it faces: It's eventually a totally static supply.

Greyscale, is this the "final" solution? It seems very much pre-nerfed if it is. While I'm glad you are finally doing something, I have a feeling it's simply not enough.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:31:00 - [20]
 

Sound good. We'll see how it play out.

But I think you could also change one reaction or two to give a bit more importance to neodynium and thulium.

Valrandir
Gallente
Distant Thunder
Perihelion Alliance
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:37:00 - [21]
 

\o/

CowsCANBark
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:37:00 - [22]
 

This post has been cleared of inappropriate content.

Regards,
The EVE Online Moderation team

Manfred Rickenbocker
Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters
Important Internet Spaceship League
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:38:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 27/10/2008 15:39:20
Quote:
In a real-world economy, shortages and bottlenecks drive R&D teams to find new and better ways of doing things. If oil prices rise, people start looking harder for reliable alternative energy sources, and the higher prices go the harder people look.


Quote:
The four pairings are cadmium/dysprosium, vanadium/thulium, chromium/promethium and platinum/neodymium. The final output of each of the reactions will be ten units per cycle, and the common mineral always replaces the mineral at a 20:1 ratio.


So, effectively, you are pinning the price ratio of the four parings such that they wont vary? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of what Dr. EyjoG was pointing out? The fact that you are locking the price ratios together removes some of the innovation involved in trying to regulate the economy. For example, if the price of Cadmium falls or Dysprosium increases, its likely any excess Cadmium will be converted into Dysprosium (functionally) keeping its price level. "Why should we sell it at a loss when we can make a profit elsewhere?" However, if Cadmium increases, not only will the reactions stop but the price of Dysprosium will increase. "No more competition from Cadmium, lets hike our prices more!" Now we've created a new price equilibrium with still nothing left to bring down cost. Sounds like a form of inflation to me. Since Dysprosium is the lynch pin in this scenario, while it has the potential to fix the issue with its rising cost, it also gives it the ability to bring up the price on another moon material: Cadmium.

Extreme scenario: Dysprosium is no longer produced/sold. Bottleneck now becomes Cadmium. All Cadmium moons become occupied. Maximum potential supply reached. Back to where we started.

Tl;dr: If the intent is to remove the bottleneck, all you are doing is shifting the bottleneck somewhere else.

An alternative suggestion would be to introduce a new material type that can be converted into all moon minerals. This provides a fixed ratio independent of current moon materials but still gives suppliers the advantage if the conversion/production/replacement costs are high enough.

ChaosOne
Caldari
Lux Vitae
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:38:00 - [24]
 

could a dev please reply and state how the unrefined reaction to make Fluxed condensates is going to work??

It uses both Neodymium and thulium...

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:41:00 - [25]
 

It's difficult to say how much of a difference that this is likely to make without knowing what proportion of moons bearing the alternate minerals are already being mined. CCP has access to these data, but no-one else currently does.

Given the dilution factor of 20:1, it might not make that much of a difference, as it still might not be worth setting up a dedicated POS for mining the paired minerals. The fact that it also takes 10 times as long to produce the same amount via the reaction cycle is also going to be a huge disincentive for people to set up shop as dedicated alchemists; the required POS will still require the normal amount of fuel, but it might only bring in a fraction of the profit per hour of doing other reactions.

Vio Geraci
Amarr
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:44:00 - [26]
 

This isn't very insightful as far as changes go, and is a step in the wrong direction as far as making 0.0 worth fighting over. It also do not especially allow a good time:moon mineral transfer. I was really hoping for something small moon mineral yields in refined high-ends.

Oh well, one more reason to run L4s in high sec.

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:51:00 - [27]
 

If it works as intended, it will make a large number of moons a bit more valuable at the expense of making a few moons substantially less valuable. If it can lift replacement mineral moons over the mining profitability threshold, it'll do some good.

Machine Delta
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:53:00 - [28]
 

You don't really want people to have a reason to stay in true 0.0 do you.

Clansworth
Good Rock Materials
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:56:00 - [29]
 

While this does look nice for a short term solution, I still feel in the long run, the only thing that is going to truely fix things, is the exhaustion/build-up of moon mins. As moons are mined, the rare materials are depleted, and the base ones become more abundant, and as they are left alone, the rare ones will slowly develop. This would lead to a more balanced effect, and actually give a reason for there to still be moon probes in game. There should not be any end-games in eve, and moon exploration is there, as everything is currently scanned and used. The moon mineral market needs to shift regularly.

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2008.10.27 15:57:00 - [30]
 

*pokes her head in*

Guys, let's keep this discussion civil and on topic please. This is an interesting change to our economy, so let's focus on that rather than name calling and such.

Thanks :)


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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