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


 
Pages: [1] 2 3

Author Topic

CCP Fallout

Posted - 2008.11.28 01:32:00 - [1]
 

In lieu of its next QEN (which is sadly delayed at this time), our crack economics and statistics team has taken a look at our newest, fabulous ship: the Orca. Point your browsers here to get all the statistical goodness on the newest ship in the universe.

Montaire
Krusual Developments
Posted - 2008.11.28 01:44:00 - [2]
 

No QEN ? Thats sad.

Gerard Deneth
Caldari
Pavlov Labs GmBH
Independent Faction
Posted - 2008.11.28 02:20:00 - [3]
 

It says in the first or second paragraph that they've delayed it one week to further assimilate data and in the meantime we're getting this mini-update on the Orca specifically.

Babbette
Lunar Sanctum
Eternus Imperium Alliance
Posted - 2008.11.28 04:25:00 - [4]
 

What kind of reliability can any numbers in the QEN have when it's authors have proven more than once they can't count to ninety correctly?


LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.11.28 04:58:00 - [5]
 

It's very much amusing to see how much this resembles perfect competition which economists theorises about

Miyamoto Uroki
Caldari
Sarum Industries
Posted - 2008.11.28 07:06:00 - [6]
 

I am not an economist, nor in real life and eve, but weren't these conclusions obvious for anybody with some experience in eve and an eye on the market?

You're assuming that about 2000 orca bpos went into research. First, there should be a database from which the actual numbers could have been gathered, no?
And second, did you consider the possibility that there just weren't enough components on the market so that many small producers with an orca bpo weren't able to produce them at all?

Wasn't meant as smack,I just think that the economy reports should contain deeper insights. Like real world studies for economy. Somehow it should pay off that I voted for LaVistaVista.. Embarassed

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.11.28 07:36:00 - [7]
 

11 orca bpos met a fiery explosion according to one c&p thread YARRRR!!

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2008.11.28 07:49:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Chribba on 28/11/2008 07:58:55
Nice blog /me likes! woot woot!

edit/I'm curious, this news post states the first Orca was completed November 14th at 07:43, by the Brotherhood of Sparta Corporation. The devblog states November 15 at 17:07... which one is correct? Is the news post based upon player facts or actual DB completion facts? Sparta lying?

And doh I was 4 min late with my sale - Linkage Laughing

CCP Spectrum

Posted - 2008.11.28 09:25:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: CCP Spectrum on 28/11/2008 09:27:50
Edited by: CCP Spectrum on 28/11/2008 09:25:56
Originally by: Chribba

edit/I'm curious, this news post states the first Orca was completed November 14th at 07:43, by the Brotherhood of Sparta Corporation. The devblog states November 15 at 17:07... which one is correct? Is the news post based upon player facts or actual DB completion facts? Sparta lying?
Linkage Laughing


I ran all the queries for this so I can answer that. :)

Basically, without giving away any super db secrets, there's a production log available to me for every production. From that log the date '2008-11-15 17:07' is the one logged as the minimum value for ending a production when filtering on the Orca explicitly. I can also add as a fun note that the next finished Orca production didn't finish until roughly 2 and a half hours later and then not another one until much later in the night. My answer for all data related issues has always been that databases never lie....unless correct data isn't put in there. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the latter is the case (especially since the first market transaction including the Orca doesn't happen until many hours later) :)

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2008.11.28 10:07:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: CCP Spectrum
I ran all the queries for this so I can answer that. :)

Basically, without giving away any super db secrets, there's a production log available to me for every production. From that log the date '2008-11-15 17:07' is the one logged as the minimum value for ending a production when filtering on the Orca explicitly. I can also add as a fun note that the next finished Orca production didn't finish until roughly 2 and a half hours later and then not another one until much later in the night. My answer for all data related issues has always been that databases never lie....unless correct data isn't put in there. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the latter is the case (especially since the first market transaction including the Orca doesn't happen until many hours later) :)
Ok thanks! So that only leads me to belive that the ISD reporter doing the news piece then was using numbers from pilots rather than actual DB figures - in conclusion Sparta was lying. Would be interesting to know weather the DB production job was Sparta's or someone elses.

Who claimed first Orca really?

Ethidium Bromide
Amarr
ZEALOT WARRIORS AGAINST TERRORISTS
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.11.28 10:30:00 - [11]
 

i still got no idea what the orca is actually doing...

well good work and congratulations on delivering a popular ship though!

oh and more statistics 'crap' like this would really be fun!

ships built, fotm ore, form whatever.... might be funny to see some details 'specially considering all the changes in QR!

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.11.28 12:11:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Chribba
Ok thanks! So that only leads me to belive that the ISD reporter doing the news piece then was using numbers from pilots rather than actual DB figures - in conclusion Sparta was lying. Would be interesting to know weather the DB production job was Sparta's or someone elses.

Who claimed first Orca really?

I think what's important here, Chribba, is that there's a difference between finished and delivered. In this case Sparta delivered it at 47 past, but the actual build job was ready at 07 past.

Rosalina Sarinna
Intergalactic Syndicate
Nulli Tertius
Posted - 2008.11.28 12:17:00 - [13]
 

An interesting article, and it confirmed for me that the market would be saturated with Orca developers, which is why I never entered the Orca building market in the first place (never bought a BPO). I'll stick with more limited issue construction and development Cool

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2008.11.28 12:35:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
I think what's important here, Chribba, is that there's a difference between finished and delivered. In this case Sparta delivered it at 47 past, but the actual build job was ready at 07 past.
You think Sparta waited over one and a half day to "deliver" the ship? Sure, seems odd though.

If that is the case then @ CCP Spectrum, did you use the value of "delivered" rather than "completed" in your DB query? Altho imo it should be the same value, at least if you go by the API exports - 'endProductionTime' is the same no matter if you have delivered the job or not.

I, as the carebear I am is only interested in knowing who managed to build the first ship and tbh anyone trying to claim those rights makes the two dates too far away from each other, expecially when the blogs mentions more ships some hours after - but still Sparta's was 1 day before anyone elses. Sounds like numbers got mixed up or someone is making up figures.

Anopheles Leet
Posted - 2008.11.28 12:42:00 - [15]
 

As you can see, the Orca blueprint sales were a great deal higher - over ten times the number of Orca Blueprints were sold compared to freighters when they were released, with almost three trillion ISK being spent on Orca blueprints.

Can someone compare this to the population of Eve at those time points? Or general sales of bpo's? An alternative explanation is not that there was a huge demand for Orca blueprints, but that there are more people doing production of capital ships for this release than at the time of previous capital releases.

CCP Spectrum

Posted - 2008.11.28 15:16:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: CCP Spectrum on 28/11/2008 15:16:50
Originally by: Chribba

If that is the case then @ CCP Spectrum, did you use the value of "delivered" rather than "completed" in your DB query? Altho imo it should be the same value, at least if you go by the API exports - 'endProductionTime' is the same no matter if you have delivered the job or not.



I used the value when it was delivered, since that is defined as being a completed production in the db. the API export column 'endProductionTime' for the same row shows the date '2008-11-15 15:35:00' and is also the minimum value for that field filtered explicitly on the Orca. There is a difference of only 92 minutes between these two values and I can see how it's debatable which one is used. My sources pointed out that using the "completed" (delivered) date was more correct so I went with that. I hope this explanation is clear :)

Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
Posted - 2008.11.28 16:50:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: CCP Spectrum
Edited by: CCP Spectrum on 28/11/2008 15:16:50
Originally by: Chribba

If that is the case then @ CCP Spectrum, did you use the value of "delivered" rather than "completed" in your DB query? Altho imo it should be the same value, at least if you go by the API exports - 'endProductionTime' is the same no matter if you have delivered the job or not.



I used the value when it was delivered, since that is defined as being a completed production in the db. the API export column 'endProductionTime' for the same row shows the date '2008-11-15 15:35:00' and is also the minimum value for that field filtered explicitly on the Orca. There is a difference of only 92 minutes between these two values and I can see how it's debatable which one is used. My sources pointed out that using the "completed" (delivered) date was more correct so I went with that. I hope this explanation is clear :)
Much more clear, many thanks for that! Smile

May I also request another db query? Since we are speaking of first Orca here, the date that then ISD reported being Sparta's Orca is wrong - as '2008-11-15 15:35:00' is the definite EARLIEST ship completed? So I understand right that the earliest ever completed (delivered or not) Orca has the timestamp of '2008-11-15 15:35:00'?

Much thanks for your time Spectrum.

/c

Kweel Nakashyn
shadow and cloaking
Yggdrasill.
Posted - 2008.11.28 18:15:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 28/11/2008 18:18:34

I don't know if the crack economics and statistics team worked a lot or not so much on this devblog, but I'd like to say to them that I've got a lot of interest in reading things like these.

If only we could get a little more... For exemple, could they explain one ore price variation ? How behaved the cruise launchers' prices after recent changes ? And so on.

Each topic could lead to a devblog.

gj

Kweel Nakashyn
shadow and cloaking
Yggdrasill.
Posted - 2008.11.28 18:17:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: CCP Spectrum
My answer for all data related issues has always been that databases never lie....unless correct data isn't put in there.

...and unless you're using bad queries Cool

gj

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2008.11.28 19:12:00 - [20]
 

"As you can see, the Orca blueprint sales were a great deal higher - over ten times the number of Orca Blueprints were sold compared to freighters when they were released."

But to have a fair comparison one would need to take the total players at this time into account. If we have only 1/3 of players then we already need to scale down the number to 1/3 there.

Also it needs to be taken into account that over time there are already many established capital ship manufacturers around here which have all the components easily available.

And, that is my guess, I think that a lot of people have lots more isk available at hand to do some investments or just pure trading.

I know quite a couple of people who bought the bpo's from the npc as soon as they got available, waited that the npc price automatically due to the high demand went up and then resold the bpo's for a nice profit.

So, how many of these blueprints were just traded for pure profit and how many blueprints went into actual production, copy and research?


Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2008.11.28 19:45:00 - [21]
 

Is it possible for the CCP magic tricks to look into the logs or database and see how many of those orca BPOs actually entered into research rather then being used to produce orcas?

That would be very interesting to me.

Jason Edwards
Internet Tough Guy
Spreadsheets Online
Posted - 2008.11.28 19:48:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: CCP Spectrum
Edited by: CCP Spectrum on 28/11/2008 09:27:50
Edited by: CCP Spectrum on 28/11/2008 09:25:56
Originally by: Chribba

edit/I'm curious, this news post states the first Orca was completed November 14th at 07:43, by the Brotherhood of Sparta Corporation. The devblog states November 15 at 17:07... which one is correct? Is the news post based upon player facts or actual DB completion facts? Sparta lying?
Linkage Laughing


I ran all the queries for this so I can answer that. :)

Basically, without giving away any super db secrets, there's a production log available to me for every production. From that log the date '2008-11-15 17:07' is the one logged as the minimum value for ending a production when filtering on the Orca explicitly. I can also add as a fun note that the next finished Orca production didn't finish until roughly 2 and a half hours later and then not another one until much later in the night. My answer for all data related issues has always been that databases never lie....unless correct data isn't put in there. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that the latter is the case (especially since the first market transaction including the Orca doesn't happen until many hours later) :)


CCP spectrum is a name unknown to me. But certainly 1 to look out from now on.

Top notch props.

Cheers as the brits would say Spectrum.

CCP Spectrum

Posted - 2008.11.29 01:26:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: CCP Spectrum on 29/11/2008 01:32:08
Edited by: CCP Spectrum on 29/11/2008 01:27:54
Edited by: CCP Spectrum on 29/11/2008 01:26:30
Jason: Good point regarding the production vs. research. I will most definitely look into it after the weekend. If I find something interesting I will be posting it as an addendum to the dev blog here in this thread. If not then I didn't find something Wink

Kweel: Of course, a very valid point. Bad queries are always an option. Over confidence is never good when doing db stuff. I've learned over time that double checking and testing works better than being over confident.

Thanks for all the comments. Some of them help us think outside of our box and I love how EVE players are smart like that. Regarding my name...it is of course related to my first love...the Sinclair Spectrum 48K. Atic Atac FTW! Wink

Edit: Chribba: Yes, you are understanding it correctly.

Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
Posted - 2008.11.29 11:27:00 - [24]
 

Interesting blog, much as I expected actually. Having done the numbers, I decided not to enter the Orca market at this time. I think I made the right decision.

I don't mind the QEN to be delayed for a week or so. As long as it includes a discussion about T2 BPOs and their effect on the market, as promised here: Linkage.

Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
Posted - 2008.11.29 12:08:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Bartholomeus Crane on 29/11/2008 12:08:29
One last thing about producing the Orca. I expect the profitability for the Orca to drop to the same relative level as for the freighters (Obi etc.), that is, not very interesting for production.

One consideration is the price of components. Having to buy ready-made components off the market for freighter and Orca production, to a large extend, destroys profitability. In order to compete in the freighter market, as well as the Orca market in due time, it is therefore necessary to invest in either component BPCs, or component BPOs. The latter option is the more profitable in the long run, but represents a big investment now, both in acquiring the BPOs and in researching them (along side researching the Orca BPO). Regrettably, the research market (BPCs) is very underdeveloped in EVE, making the BPC option rather non-viable.

Even if most of the BPOs have already been acquired (in the case of freighter production), these cost have to be written off. In other words; taken out of the mark-up. Even at cost this will make the relative profitability pretty low for such a sizeable investment.

This is not a problem as such, it is a sign that the market works and that competition in the market is fierce. However, if the numbers from this blog show anything, it is that there is an abundance of competitors, surely a result of the fact that there is so much Isk going round. So much in fact that a sizeable number of competitors can make rather irrational decisions in what to invest their Isk into. This happens in the real world as well but I would guess to a lesser degree and with smaller investments. In the real world, larger, and therefore more risky investments, usually have a high profiability.

I wonder if one couldn't argue successfully that what is needed is less injection of Isk into the market. Players would be more careful where to invest their Isk, which could/would lead to more specialised producers (as opposed to just producing everything) and a more differentiating market and a more natural return-of-investment profile for the market as a whole.

There is ofcourse the question if this is what you want to achieve. But I always had the impression that EVE distinctly lacks what can be called 'middle-men' producers. Producers that specifically produce components and half-fabricates, and do it so well that the investment needed to compete in that market would be so high as to be unprofitable in the short to medium term. Colloquially speaking, I think that the EVE market is too 'one-size-fits-all'. Ofcourse, I only have anecdotal evidence to support this belief, but that's only because I have no access to wider information.

I wonder if it would be possible to get a QEN that addresses market structure in the future. The EVE market is well-defined and structured afterall, so information like this should be attainable. Not for the next QEN though, as I think the T2 BPO aberration deserves more immediate attention. But perhaps after this long standing oversight has been put right?

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2008.11.29 13:56:00 - [26]
 

Very interesting blog. With the graph, it would have been interesting to extend the timeline backwards to a point before the announcement of the Orca caused a spike in component prices, for an indication of where the component prices are eventually likely to return to relative to mineral costs. Similarly, the same graph for freighters would have made an interesting comparison.

In terms of Orca losses (or anytime you're reporting loss rates really), it would be interesting to split the high-sec losses into those where a war declaration allowed the attack, those where other criminal flagging (e.g. theft) allowed the attack, and those where the attack initiated concord response (i.e. suicide ganks).

In terms of the purchase rates of the Orca BPO's, a couple of things to bear in mind:

1) The Eve economy was a lot smaller when these other ships were released. Hence less available capital for dropping on these BPOs immediately

2) The other capital ships were generally released in large patches, where there were many other things to spend isk on as well. For example, the release of carriers came alongside motherships, titans, fighters, interdictors, recon ships, command ships, T2 barges, and the allowing of POS in high-sec. Dreads and freighters were released together, and as the first capital ships a lot of investment would have gone into the component rather than ship BPOs initially (and were also released alongside Outposts). The Rorqual had less in it's patch to compete with, but has a smaller market than the Orca anyway.

With the Orca, it was the only significant new thing to invest in for this patch, and for quite a while really. And investment could go more into the ship blueprints, as there are already a significant stock of component blueprints that could be utilised at a higher rate, or diverted from other production, to meet the initial Orca demand.

It would be interesting to see the evolution of those sales figures over time, to see whether the stock of the other capital ships BPOs built up more slowly over time, while pretty much everyone who wants an Orca BPO may have splurged on it in that initial 13 day period.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2008.11.29 14:00:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
One consideration is the price of components. Having to buy ready-made components off the market for freighter and Orca production, to a large extend, destroys profitability. In order to compete in the freighter market, as well as the Orca market in due time, it is therefore necessary to invest in either component BPCs, or component BPOs.


Even if you do that, you're not technically competing in the freighter market, because you are generating your margins from the component production, not the freighter production.

Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
There is ofcourse the question if this is what you want to achieve. But I always had the impression that EVE distinctly lacks what can be called 'middle-men' producers. Producers that specifically produce components and half-fabricates, and do it so well that the investment needed to compete in that market would be so high as to be unprofitable in the short to medium term.


Certainly true in the capital components market, though I think other areas with intermediate component steps are getting better in this regard. Though I do note that there was a surge in volume traded on the Forge market, corresponding to the price spike triggered by the Orca's announcement. I think there are a few reasons for the component market not being great:

1) The "Things I do myself are free" crowd. Basically this is the tendency for people to see making their own components as a discount on their ship production, not a separate source of revenue in it's own right. Essentially the same as the "minerals I mine myself are free" crowd, it leads to a tendency for component producers to not look to sell their produce on the open market, even if it could be more profitable than using them to produce final goods. And because there isn't significant supply being offered, potential new final good producers look to the "produce it yourself" option because they can't rely on the market to supply the quantities required.

2) Restricted demand. The most extreme form if this we've seen in Eve is probably the T2 component production chain when T2 BPOs were the only source of demand for these, and were a fairly predictable rate of demand. This led to private off-market agreements (whether with another player, or with yourself) for the production of these components. This has certainly eased with invention bringing more dynamic demand. In the capital market, I suspect this effect will ease in components needed for the freighter and orca, but not necessarily those required exclusively for the combat capitals.

3) Transport costs. Particularly relevant for capital components, due to their large volumes, both in absolute terms, and relative to the materials required to make them. With an additional factor to the components unique to combat capitals, due to the low-sec/0.0 construction requirements of the ship.

Wynteryth Fett
Posted - 2008.11.29 19:59:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Wynteryth Fett on 29/11/2008 20:34:22
Moved to correct forum.

Bartholomeus Crane
Gallente
The Crane Family
Posted - 2008.11.30 05:45:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
One consideration is the price of components. Having to buy ready-made components off the market for freighter and Orca production, to a large extend, destroys profitability. In order to compete in the freighter market, as well as the Orca market in due time, it is therefore necessary to invest in either component BPCs, or component BPOs.


Even if you do that, you're not technically competing in the freighter market, because you are generating your margins from the component production, not the freighter production.


There are different ways of looking at this. You could for example 'sell yourself' the components at cost. And because you components will never hit the component market, you're also not competing. However, by not buying from the market, you have an absentee influence there. But I don't mind conceding the point.

Quote:
Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
There is ofcourse the question if this is what you want to achieve. But I always had the impression that EVE distinctly lacks what can be called 'middle-men' producers. Producers that specifically produce components and half-fabricates, and do it so well that the investment needed to compete in that market would be so high as to be unprofitable in the short to medium term.


Certainly true in the capital components market, though I think other areas with intermediate component steps are getting better in this regard. Though I do note that there was a surge in volume traded on the Forge market, corresponding to the price spike triggered by the Orca's announcement. I think there are a few reasons for the component market not being great:

1) The "Things I do myself are free" crowd. Basically this is the tendency for people to see making their own components as a discount on their ship production, not a separate source of revenue in it's own right. (snip)


Undervaluing you own effort/cost happens in the real world as well, but clearly not as irrationally as in EVE. Otherwise, a supreme example of players behaving irrationally on the EVE market. Problem is ofcourse that no measure can be taken to remove this behaviour. At least, no reasonable measure. At least, I know of nothing that can force people to behave rationally.

Quote:
2) Restricted demand. The most extreme form if this we've seen in Eve is probably the T2 component production chain when T2 BPOs were the only source of demand for these, and were a fairly predictable rate of demand. (snip)


Restricted demand is only one side of the coin. Again, this happens in the real world as well. The difference is that it usually leads to fewer suppliers. This doesn't happen in EVE. The reason it doesn't happen, I think, is because the loss of profit doesn't hurt as badly, simply because there is so much easy available Isk in the market that decreased profit doesn't hurt as much.

Quote:
3) Transport costs. Particularly relevant for capital components, due to their large volumes, both in absolute terms, and relative to the materials required to make them. With an additional factor to the components unique to combat capitals, due to the low-sec/0.0 construction requirements of the ship.


A true statement. Players, unlike in the real world, have no problem spending extraordinary amounts of time getting their supplies. Except in special occasions (low-sec maybe, 0.0 more likely) is transport cost a factor. But again, this is hard to counter, as it goes back to irrationality, and irrational behaviour.

There is simply no two ways around it, as much as we like to tell ourselves otherwise, the EVE market is fundamentally different from the real world market. Although there are similarities, the differences are too great to just generalise.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2008.11.30 12:18:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Undervaluing you own effort/cost happens in the real world as well, but clearly not as irrationally as in EVE. Otherwise, a supreme example of players behaving irrationally on the EVE market. Problem is ofcourse that no measure can be taken to remove this behaviour. At least, no reasonable measure. At least, I know of nothing that can force people to behave rationally.


True, to eliminate this behaviour you'd have to move to a complete command economy. Which is not in the spirit of Eve, and of course assumes that the person in command behaves completely rationally, which is unlikely to be the case.

Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
Restricted demand is only one side of the coin. Again, this happens in the real world as well. The difference is that it usually leads to fewer suppliers. This doesn't happen in EVE. The reason it doesn't happen, I think, is because the loss of profit doesn't hurt as badly, simply because there is so much easy available Isk in the market that decreased profit doesn't hurt as much.


I wouldn't say it's so much that the market is awash with isk - it's that it's far too easy to cross-subsidise. This can be within the same production chain (e.g. selling components to yourself at build rather than market cost), or across professions (e.g. a manufacturer that also runs missions).

In the real world, the requirement to keep accurate accounts for tax purposes means someone with the ability to spot this problem will hopefully look at your books at least once a year. So you would at least become aware of it. In Eve there is no requirement for competent accounting, so many players won't even realise it's happening, and tend to continue doing things unless they begin to run critically short of isk as a whole.

Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
A true statement. Players, unlike in the real world, have no problem spending extraordinary amounts of time getting their supplies. Except in special occasions (low-sec maybe, 0.0 more likely) is transport cost a factor. But again, this is hard to counter, as it goes back to irrationality, and irrational behaviour.


Well, in high-sec, transport costs can become minimal due to afk hauling (provided you keep the value of your load below attractive ganking levels). While this sucks up a lot of time, it is time that the player does not value, because they are doing something else in real life anyway.

And especially with 0.0, you're likely to find production being kept in-house even if outsourcing with transport costs would be more efficient, simply for military/security reasons. So not necessarily irrational, but not perfect market competition either.

Originally by: Bartholomeus Crane
There is simply no two ways around it, as much as we like to tell ourselves otherwise, the EVE market is fundamentally different from the real world market. Although there are similarities, the differences are too great to just generalise.


I quite agree. I think most of the difference comes from it being a much more free market than the real world. In some ways this freedom is great, encouraging more perfect competition. In other ways it isn't - the lack of any sort of regulation, down to even the level of basic bookkeeping skills, means that many irrational decisions are made without the player even realising they are irrational. Though I'm not sure quite how you would impose accounting regulation within Eve.


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