open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked CCP, does it feel good to waste a lot of your developer time ?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 : last (18)

Author Topic

Sidrat Flush
Caldari
Eve Industrial Corp
Posted - 2009.06.05 15:25:00 - [421]
 

This thread has kinda of gone off topic slightly, however Akita T is correct with the statement that the mineral prices are totally out of alignement due only to the fact that (especially) ships use 75% of the total minerals to build it consists of Tritanium alone. No one can mine tritanium that fast, so the price has gone up. When you have another six items (pye,mega,mex etc) making up around 25% of the rest of the input materials it makes you realise that CCP has lost their way.

It was okay when tritanium had a base price, but they took that out and now it's over 4.0 in empire, goodness knows what it's like to obtain in 0.0, refining modules will only take you so far, and hauler spawns can't be relied upon, although they do come in handy I'm sure.

So what is this thread asking?

For CCP to concentrate on what's already in the game and balance it before progessing on to other areas?

I don't know about employee sizes, but I think the way they're doing it now, smaller teams focused on one particular aspect will work out just fine, as long as the team is responsible for all aspects, not just a small sub-section. Communication breaks down with a team too large, and you'll end up spending more time in meetings than actually getting anything done with a team too large, I hope they're looking at this and taking steps to ensure the best approach is being carried out periodically.

If they change the game too much too quickly in the name of balance, there will be an uproar. Probably more so than if they leave things as they are.


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.05 15:29:00 - [422]
 

Originally by: Mara Rinn
Originally by: Akita T
Let's see... and let's compare apples with apples...

No, you miss the point again.
Lowsec rewards are not about ISK/hr. Lowsec rewards are about killmails, and the pleasure of blowing stuff up.

Today, yes. Two or three years ago, no.
It's called "rationalisation" : you give yourself an excuse for doing something you have some misgivings about, and in time, you end up believing that yourself.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2009.06.05 15:49:00 - [423]
 

Originally by: Akita T
It's called "rationalisation" : you give yourself an excuse for doing something you have some misgivings about, and in time, you end up believing that yourself.



Let me put this proposition to you: CCP introduces some activity which can only take place in lowsec. This activity can return hundreds of millions of ISK per hour invested, but only in the form of materials that must be hauled to market to be sold. Press the button, your ship's cargo is instantly filled with as much of this material as you can carry, and off you go to haul it back to market.

Do you believe for a second that such an opportunity would lure more hisec dwellers out to lowsec?

I expect that what would actually happen in this instance is that big alliances would end up moving into lowsec, pushing out the pirates, and keeping font of ISK locked down tighter than Fort Knox. Alliances would have even more income than they do now with Dysprosium moons, but now you'd have this population of pirates that have nowhere to go, and hisec dwellers would have even more reason to not go to lowsec.

Bigger blob wins.

Now amongst my group of friends we have people who run level 5 missions for kicks. We'd probably run them more frequently if they paid more ISK, and didn't require killing Empire factions so often.

We're already messing about in lowsec, we just need slightly more incentive to get out there more frequently. The reward is almost good enough already - there's just the faction penalties we suffer (both from successfully completing the mission, and from completing the mission successfully), and the 100% risk of being jumped by pirates. We aren't typical hisec carebears - most of us have nullsec experience, most of us will head out to lowsec looking for adventure when we're not busy hauling produce to market.

At least missions provide an income stream that is scalable, and gangs of mission-runners might be able to effectively coordinate a defense force.

I don't dispute that making lowsec more ISK-rich will draw more people to lowsec. I'm just concerned about the types of people you'll actually attract versus the types of people you believe will be attracted.


Mara Rinn
Posted - 2009.06.05 15:57:00 - [424]
 

Originally by: Sidrat Flush
... Akita T is correct with the statement that the mineral prices are totally out of alignement due only to the fact that (especially) ships use 75% of the total minerals to build it consists of Tritanium alone. No one can mine tritanium that fast, so the price has gone up. When you have another six items (pye,mega,mex etc) making up around 25% of the rest of the input materials it makes you realise that CCP has lost their way.


It's not a matter of being able to mine it fast enough - it's a matter of being able to ship it to market in the required quanitites. Reducing the volume of Tritanium, or perhaps introducing ore/mineral carriers that can stuff prodigious quantities of the stuff in their holds, would lead directly to more Tritanium flowing in the market, and ultimately to the price coming down.

Quote:
goodness knows what it's like to obtain in 0.0, refining modules will only take you so far, and hauler spawns can't be relied upon, although they do come in handy I'm sure.


One hauler spawn will drop tens of millions of tritanium - that is, the tritanium equivalent to a pair of hulks mining for several hours on end. Veldspar is rarely mined in nullsec because (a) hauler spawns drop most of what you need, and (b) in the limited time you have to mine safely, you're better off mining ABCs, selling some and buying tritanium to haul down to nullsec from Empire.

Quote:
If they change the game too much too quickly in the name of balance, there will be an uproar. Probably more so than if they leave things as they are.


I can see a couple of simple fixes to the mineral situation that won't require undoing the drone regions, won't require adding huge juicy "carrots" to lowsec that will end up putting hisec denizens in direct competition with organised armies. The first step is to make minerals transportable in the quantaties that are required for manufacture.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.05 16:01:00 - [425]
 

Originally by: Mara Rinn
Let me put this proposition to you: CCP introduces some activity which can only take place in lowsec. This activity can return hundreds of millions of ISK per hour invested, but only in the form of materials that must be hauled to market to be sold. Press the button, your ship's cargo is instantly filled with as much of this material as you can carry, and off you go to haul it back to market.
Do you believe for a second that such an opportunity would lure more hisec dwellers out to lowsec?

Believe for a second ? Obviously.
Not just that, but I am certain it would become THE main activity instead of highsec L4s if the revenue level doesn't drop too harshly (in other words, ISK/hour remains significantly higher than highsec L4s) when too many people do it (say, if a noticeable portion of those materials are sold to NPCs instead of just to players, or if a big portion of those materials would be minerals, so that "insurance fraud" could kick in).

Quote:
I expect that what would actually happen in this instance is that big alliances would end up moving into lowsec, pushing out the pirates, and keeping font of ISK locked down tighter than Fort Knox. Alliances would have even more income than they do now with Dysprosium moons, but now you'd have this population of pirates that have nowhere to go, and hisec dwellers would have even more reason to not go to lowsec.

If those materials would have a decreasing value the more people do it, such a scenario would be probable ; but then again, that would only happen if the rewards would be TOO high compared to 0.0 possible rewards and TOO variable with the amount of people doing it.
The answer is in a balance between "too much" and "not enough", of course.

Quote:
We're already messing about in lowsec, we just need slightly more incentive to get out there more frequently. The reward is almost good enough already

Almost good enough = not good enough yet Twisted Evil
So basically you're saying the same thing I'm saying, afterall Laughing

Quote:
I don't dispute that making lowsec more ISK-rich will draw more people to lowsec. I'm just concerned about the types of people you'll actually attract versus the types of people you believe will be attracted.

Well then, isn't that the point of buffing 0.0 revenue levels too ?
And I don't mean the punctiform dyspro/prom moons, I mean the lousiest 0.0 if properly exploited being just as good as (of not better than) the best lowsec, income-wise.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.05 16:05:00 - [426]
 

Originally by: Mara Rinn
It's not a matter of being able to mine it fast enough - it's a matter of being able to ship it to market in the required quanitites.

If you make it so that you can mine it locally in large enough quantities, there is no need for serious hauling.
I mean, seriously, if you could get not just 3-5 mil trit per hour, but anywhere from 30 mil to even 80 mil trit per hour mining in some deep 0.0 system per Hulk used... would you still really need to import Tritanium from anywhere else, especially since the largest Veldspar reserves in belts are in 0.0 to begin with, untouched because it's so unprofitable compared to whatever else lies in the belts there ?

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2009.06.05 16:19:00 - [427]
 

Originally by: Akita T
If those materials would have a decreasing value the more people do it, such a scenario would be probable ; but then again, that would only happen if the rewards would be TOO high compared to 0.0 possible rewards and TOO variable with the amount of people doing it.


I'm fairly certain that if a large organised group was determined to keep people out of their cash-crop systems, they'd achieve it. Just look at how any NBSI space works at present - the only people who go out there who aren't on the "blue list" are the ones looking for a fight, or who believe that the returns on ratting in nullsec belts are better than anything else they could do with their time.

Make lowesec juicier than it is now, hisec people will actually be locked out of it - not just scared out of it.

Quote:
Almost good enough = not good enough yet Twisted Evil
So basically you're saying the same thing I'm saying, afterall Laughing


Not at all. We're already playing about in lowsec, nullsec and w-space. More incentive to go there will get us into lowsec more often, but we are already in the frame of mind that level 5 missions are basically just something to pass the time while waiting for PvP targets to stumble into our mission space.

That is, level 5 missions are bait. The rewards we get from running missions in lowsec are non-ISK rewards.

Quote:
And I don't mean the punctiform dyspro/prom moons, I mean the lousiest 0.0 if properly exploited being just as good as (of not better than) the best lowsec, income-wise.


I'm pretty sure folks in nullsec are there for reasons that they enjoy already. Do you really want to pollute their game so badly that you'd give irresistable lures for the ISK-oriented hisec induhviduals?

Mac Maniac
Caldari
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.06.05 17:20:00 - [428]
 

Edited by: Mac Maniac on 05/06/2009 17:22:20
Isn't this thread dead yet?

OP started off with the same tired assumptions that L4 missioning is the baseline for player income. Ok.. fine.. whatever.. so that they could continue with the bashing of T3, FW and wh space, 15 pages later and multiple posts by people DOING the T3 and WH's.. OP admitted defeat..

and has continued with the risk v. reward, and isk per hr, balance beatdown.. IT'S ALL SUBJECTIVE!!

OP clearly stated that:

Quote:
I am merely measuring my enjoyment of EVE in terms of HOURS OF NON-ENJOYABLE GAMEPLAY NEEDED TO OBTAIN THE ISK FOR SAID MENTIONED ENJOYMENT.


This is the yardstick by which OP has chosen to measure their game enjoyment.. Unfortunately or in my case fortunately, this is NOT true for everyone that plays this game.

Op continues to pound on CCP about making economic changes when it is the PLAYERBASE that runs the economy.

CCP does not set trit or zydrive or morphite prices.. the players do.
CCP does not set the T3 prices.. the PLAYERS do.

Why is T3 expensive?? because there are players out there that are willing to spend billions on a T3 ship and if a supplier of T3 can get someone to pay those prices that is exactly what is going to happen. If I were a T3 supplier that is exactly what I would do

CCP's obvious choice here was to remove themselves from "price fixing" and let the PLAYERS decide what items should cost.
When the PLAYERS decide it is not worth their time to mine, they will stop mining, ore supplies will start to dry up and then the price will rise.. or not .. that's the beauty of a player driven market... What a concept ....supply and demand
When T3 becomes more available the price should drop.. or not .. that will be up for the PLAYERBASE to decide

Pvs post..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
for the non-believers:
Comparison of level 4 missions us npcing in 0.0:

level 4

+tons of battleships in each mission.
+tons of wrecks to salvage next to each other.
+tons of items to take from wrecks( refining them and selling mins gives really nice isk)
+No risk from pvpers.
+close to ressuply.
- bit Lower bounty then 0.0 npc.
+Addditonal awards (loyalty points, isk,implants etc.)

0.0 npcing

- Not in each belt battleships , sometimes its even rare.
-In each belt 2-3 battleships at best , got to hop between belts.
-Some 0.0 got not that many belts to hop
-Pvpers can enter system any time , forcing you to fight or hide.
-Not major alliances 0.0 isnt well supplied, you got to orgnise your supplies.
+bit higher bounties then level 4 missions

Imho its plain level 4 missions beat 0.0 npcing in belts by far.

Mac Maniac
Caldari
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.06.05 17:21:00 - [429]
 

Edited by: Mac Maniac on 05/06/2009 17:24:52
My opinion.. this poster is WRONG but hey, I'm OK with that.. to each his own... It's certainly not my job to convince him otherwise nor am I going to make it my job.

I make more isk with less risk ratting and mining in 0.0 than L4 missions. That is MY statement, MY opinion..
I have no problem with anyone who wishes to believe otherwise.. more power to them. That's their playstyle. I don't begrudge it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Op further states:

Quote:
What people should NEVER be free to do nor should they ever have the right to is to earn a lot of ISK taking practically zero risks, when somebody who takes significant risks only earns a bit more.

Who determines what is "a lot of isk"?
Who determines what is "zero risk"?

Obviously the OP has chosen to take on this role.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Having read the OP and some of the replies I just want to say this:
All to often people think that their way they play a game is the only way.
Therefore the game obviously has flaws because not everyone is playing the game as they are playing it.. right.

Then they think a bit more about it and come with a huge wall of text, trying to make a point and convince others they are right.

Resulting in a discussion leading nowhere.

It might be a shock but there are a lot of different people playing this game.
People who like to stay in high sec and don't care about low sec or 0.0 space.
People who like to mine and produce things.
People who like to check the market and haul things all over the universe.
People who like to do missions.
People who like to do missions for fast ISK.
People who like a bit of everyting.
Etc. etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This poster has it dead on.

OP will continue to roll these arguments out looking for an audience and if all else fails responds to post with this:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
I will not deem any posts by you worthy of a reply due to failure to think coherently. People like you can not be reasoned with, so any further discussion is pointless. You do not respond to logic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears to me that OP has chosen that L4 missions are in their category of "NON-ENJOYABLE GAMEPLAY" is jealous of their rewards and has chosen a crusade of NERF L4 missions.

Where and when does it stop?
Nerfing 0.0 ratting because OP somewhere determines that ratting in 0.0 is making too much isk for zero risk?
Nerfing the guys who stay in empire checking market and buying low , transporting to other regions to sell high because it is making too much isk with zero risk?
Nerfing WH space because OP determines that WH is too profitable?

When OP has made a determination that some level of balance (in their eyes) has been achieved?

IT IS STILL ALL SUBJECTIVE.

Thankfully it appears that CCP has chosen a different route by ADDING L4 agents as a way of relieving the load on the currently available agents and systems. In the blog they stated that the majority of mission runners do so in Caldari space therefore we are adding them mostly to that space. What a concept... adding instead of subtracting.

CCP has given players a broad canvass that allows players of different playstyles to add to that canvass in many different ways and telling another player that their addition to the game is wrong because it does fit into their narrow view of what is balanced

This is afterall CCP's game and what OP is missing is an attitude of gratitude and until that happens what this will continue to be is a discussion leading nowhere. No DEV response needed.

What the the OP is selling, I'm not buying

OP's post does not belong in General Discussion and IMHO should be moved to something more appropriate like "Features and Idea Discussions" but hey.. on that I could be wrong.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.05 18:09:00 - [430]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 05/06/2009 18:15:59

Originally by: Mac Maniac
CCP does not set trit or zydrive or morphite prices.. the players do.

Actually, CCP sets the ROUGH price levels by setting the field - manufacture ratios, ore ratios, availability of materials, insurance system, etc.
The players merely compete for the optimal ways (which might differ slightly from person to person) of obtaining and using said minerals for a profit, which results in the mineral prices we see.
The players can only determine the price of each mineral TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, but it's only CCP that can make any changes that would result in any dramatic shifts in mineral prices.

Quote:
CCP does not set the T3 prices.. the PLAYERS do.
Why is T3 expensive?? because there are players out there that are willing to spend billions on a T3 ship and if a supplier of T3 can get someone to pay those prices that is exactly what is going to happen. If I were a T3 supplier that is exactly what I would do

Again, incorrect. Or, at least, only very slightly correct.
The players compete for the resources needed for T3, and the prices for each material required for T3 reflects the difficulty level (time, effort, risks) required to obtain said materials with respect to the need of that material in T3 production.

Would the rate at which T3 materials can be acquired suddendly increase by one order of magnitude overnight, the downward pressure on T3 materials price would be huge.

There suddendly would be 10 times more materials coming in even if the number of people running w-space sites would not change, but the risks and effort required haven't changed much, so the initial result would be a tendency towards a nearly ten-fold drop in price... however, as prices would drop, more and more people would start buying T3 ships, so the actual price would NEVER reach a level ten times lower as long as the number of people engaged in w-space activities wouldn't change... yet the volume of T3 ships manufactured (and traded/used) WOULD increase ten-fold.

But if the rewards of w-space would increase because of that, the AMOUNT of people that run w-space would also start increasing, so the supply of materials would not be just ten-forld, but slowly and surely getting higher... so prices would drop a bit further, until the reward level would be a bit higher than it is today, yet more people would take part in it... at the same time, supply rates would have gone through the roof, and adoption levels would be soaring, with final prices settling SOMEWHERE close to 1/10 of the current ones... not quite there, but close enough, maybe at 1/9 or just 1/8 of current ones.

...

This is not true just for minerals and T3 components, it's true about ANYTHING that requires player ingame time.
The rate at which things can be acquired will determine the end price of a product, as soon as enough people have enough information about it, and everybody settles into the new "earning a living" patterns.

So, no, it's NOT the players that set prices, it's CCP.
Players are merely driving the economy towards the equilibrium point (not always fast, not always smoothly, and not always precisely to an equilibrium, but rather an oscillation around the equilibrium point), but it's CCP and ONLY CCP that sets the rules which result in that equilibrium point in the first place.
Heck, MULTIPLE slightly different equilibrium points can exist, and the players would be dragging the economy from one to another... so it wouldn't really be an "equilibrium point", but rather a "rough equilibrium area"... but the idea is still the same : CCP sets prices, not the players.

chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2009.06.05 18:51:00 - [431]
 

Originally by: Akita T


There suddendly would be 10 times more materials coming in even if the number of people running w-space sites would not change, but the risks and effort required haven't changed much, so the initial result would be a tendency towards a nearly ten-fold drop in price...



dude. Not only do you have a very wrong knowledge of risk adversity, your economic expertise also lacks alot. why don't you just stop it? Did you do some econometric studies about elasticities in t3 production? No? Hell why not just make wild claims without any foundation!

Originally by: Akita T

I have yet to meet anybody in EVE that is noticeably more risk-adverse than I am.
Give a carebear enough money to cover the cost of a fresh ship plus fitings (minus insurance payout) and the clone cost, give him a bit of time to jump in an implantless clone (or promise to pay for implants too), and he WILL come with you into 0.0 to have some PVP, no matter how carebearish.



That is the exact opposite of what you are campaigning. in this examle you did not increase the reward but rather remove all the risk. So risk adverse people will venture to 0.0 if you remove all the risk? wow, your a genius.

Originally by: Akita T

Nobody is actually "risk averse". People are only averse to DISPROPORTIONATE risks.
Taking risks is fun, but only as long as you can expect (on average) to earn just as much as taking no risks... otherwise it's not "taking risks", it's GAMBLING (and in the end, the house always wins, not you).



THIS is utter nonsense. A risk adverse person will BY DEFINITION have an variance term in his utility function. There is NO WAY a risk adverse person will take the risky job when it on average yields as much as the static payout.

Stop talking about things you actually have no idea of.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.05 19:34:00 - [432]
 

Originally by: chrisss0r
dude. Not only do you have a very wrong knowledge of risk adversity, your economic expertise also lacks alot.

"dude", just read the rest too, don't stop at the first thing in the entire explanation chain. It's only just common sense, really. Oh, wait, you read it, but if you would look at it all you would have no counter-argument... gotcha', carry on.

Quote:
That is the exact opposite of what you are campaigning. in this examle you did not increase the reward but rather remove all the risk. So risk adverse people will venture to 0.0 if you remove all the risk? wow, your a genius.

Hey, how about if you use the OTHER example I gave, the one with the insanely increased reward for a risky thing ?
The only difference is in what you increase or what you decrease, the RATIO of it is what matters.

Quote:
Originally by: Akita T
Nobody is actually "risk averse". People are only averse to DISPROPORTIONATE risks.
Taking risks is fun, but only as long as you can expect (on average) to earn just as much as taking no risks... otherwise it's not "taking risks", it's GAMBLING (and in the end, the house always wins, not you).

THIS is utter nonsense. A risk adverse person will BY DEFINITION have an variance term in his utility function. There is NO WAY a risk adverse person will take the risky job when it on average yields as much as the static payout.

Wow, so close yet still missing it. OF COURSE he won't take the riskier job if the average payout is roughly the same. The average payout for the high-risk thing needs to be ABOVE the average payout of the no-risk thing.

Mac Maniac
Caldari
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.06.05 19:53:00 - [433]
 

I'm really sorry Akita.. You are truly economically ignorant if you are trying to pose the statement that CCP set pricing. CCP merely makes resources available to the playing community. What the community does with those resources is up to the community. I don't seem to have ever seen a buy/sell contract or order put up by CCP.

What you're trying to sell, I'm still not buying

But good luck with it anyways

chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2009.06.05 20:08:00 - [434]
 

Originally by: Akita T

"dude", just read the rest too, don't stop at the first thing in the entire explanation chain. It's only just common sense, really. Oh, wait, you read it, but if you would look at it all you would have no counter-argument... gotcha', carry on.

No it is cause the rest is irrelevant. There is no relation whatsoever that would lead from 10x droprates to 1/10 prices. You don't have to consider second round effects at all. Unless by chance the elasticieties are in the specific range. which of course you know cause your ultrasuperdupersmart

Quote:

Hey, how about if you use the OTHER example I gave, the one with the insanely increased reward for a risky thing ?
The only difference is in what you increase or what you decrease, the RATIO of it is what matters.


No it's not. As already stated you have no freakin idea about modeling utility functions. Giving a certain baseline or just increasing the rewards is not at all the same thing.
That's to begin with the reason why so many people live in empire although you can make alot more iskies in 0.0. But yeag for people whining about missions the faction spawn/officer spawn and plexes don't count cause they are not certan. haha :P

Quote:

Wow, so close yet still missing it. OF COURSE he won't take the riskier job if the average payout is roughly the same. The average payout for the high-risk thing needs to be ABOVE the average payout of the no-risk thing.



yeah too bad that contradicts the very thing you said before.

baltec1
Posted - 2009.06.05 21:06:00 - [435]
 

Edited by: baltec1 on 05/06/2009 21:06:57
Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 05/06/2009 18:15:59

Originally by: Mac Maniac
CCP does not set trit or zydrive or morphite prices.. the players do.

Actually, CCP sets the ROUGH price levels by setting the field - manufacture ratios, ore ratios, availability of materials, insurance system, etc.
The players merely compete for the optimal ways (which might differ slightly from person to person) of obtaining and using said minerals for a profit, which results in the mineral prices we see.
The players can only determine the price of each mineral TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, but it's only CCP that can make any changes that would result in any dramatic shifts in mineral prices.




You are using seriously flawed logic to back up your theory. Using the same logic I can say that CCP is in control of all player alliences because they made the mechanics.

The real reason why trit has a reasonably good price is because it is used to make just about everything, AKA, it is in very high demand. It is quite possible that supply could out strip demand in the future and bring the prices down to 1.0 isk per unit or it could go the other way if supply drops off.

The reason why a Bhaalgorn is so expensive is due to a mixture of things, difficulty to obtain it, what the market price is, what people are willing to pay and what they think it should be worth. The most important of them being the market.

The reason why t3 is so expensive is because the people who first got the stuff on the market put it up for as much as they thought they could get for it. After then everyone followed suit, putting up theirs for slightly less, myself included. The result is a highly inflated price which will slowly drop till it reaches somewhere closer to the actual build cost.

Mad0ne
Caldari
Enterprise Estonia
Cult of War
Posted - 2009.06.05 21:50:00 - [436]
 

Akita, why do you waste time arquing with these guys?

comon... half of them dont give a crap and randomly spam ****... some who do, cant understand basic economics. Some know a little bit more but they cba to read or understand the point.


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.05 21:50:00 - [437]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 05/06/2009 21:53:09
Originally by: Mac Maniac
I'm really sorry Akita.. You are truly economically ignorant if you are trying to pose the statement that CCP set pricing. CCP merely makes resources available to the playing community. What the community does with those resources is up to the community. I don't seem to have ever seen a buy/sell contract or order put up by CCP.

You claiming that shows that YOU have absolutely no clue about anything related to the EVE economy whatsoever.
To give you the simplest example possible, if only Tritanium and Pyerite existed, and there would be only two ores, one containing only Tritanium, the other half Tritanium and half Pyerite, how much would each of them cost ?
The answer is "NOT ENOUGH DATA".
But then if I also told you the ratios of Trit:Pye needed to build ships, you WOULD have an idea of how much each of the two minerals would cost.

Originally by: baltec1
You are using seriously flawed logic to back up your theory. Using the same logic I can say that CCP is in control of all player alliences because they made the mechanics.

No, using the same train of thought you could not possibly arrive at the conclusion that CCP is in control of any alliances whatsoever.

Quote:
The real reason why trit has a reasonably good price is because it is used to make just about everything, AKA, it is in very high demand. It is quite possible that supply could out strip demand in the future and bring the prices down to 1.0 isk per unit or it could go the other way if supply drops off.

The real reason trit is so high in price over the base price is NOT ONLY because it's used in just about everything (pretty much every mineral is in almost every ship past a certain size), it's because it's used in just about everything IN SUCH LARGE QUANTITIES, and because the ways to obtain it in such large quantities are not profitable enough compared to obtaining something else instead, and trading some of it for the needed tritanium.
Would Tritanium become far more easily obtainable (OR the rest of the minerals less easily obtainable), THEN and only then would Trit prices start dropping.

Quote:
The reason why t3 is so expensive is because the people who first got the stuff on the market put it up for as much as they thought they could get for it. After then everyone followed suit, putting up theirs for slightly less, myself included. The result is a highly inflated price which will slowly drop till it reaches somewhere closer to the actual build cost.

IT IS already close to the actual build cost. Have you even LOOKED at T3 and related component prices lately ? There's a handful of "chokepoint" materials that are very slowly dropping in price still, after some larger initial drops, but they're still a vast majority of the total cost of production. Oh, and the fact at least half of the subsystems barely sell for the component costs can't be healthy no matter how you look at it.

Originally by: Mad0ne
Akita, why do you waste time arquing with these guys? comon... half of them dont give a crap and randomly spam ****... some who do, cant understand basic economics. Some know a little bit more but they cba to read or understand the point.

Sometimes I ask myself the same question Twisted Evil
But hey, free bumps ?

baltec1
Posted - 2009.06.05 22:21:00 - [438]
 

Originally by: Akita T


Originally by: baltec1
You are using seriously flawed logic to back up your theory. Using the same logic I can say that CCP is in control of all player alliences because they made the mechanics.

No, using the same train of thought you could not possibly arrive at the conclusion that CCP is in control of any alliances whatsoever.


Explane please because what you put down are the base mechanics of the game.

Quote:
The real reason why trit has a reasonably good price is because it is used to make just about everything, AKA, it is in very high demand. It is quite possible that supply could out strip demand in the future and bring the prices down to 1.0 isk per unit or it could go the other way if supply drops off.

The real reason trit is so high in price over the base price is NOT ONLY because it's used in just about everything (pretty much every mineral is in almost every ship past a certain size), it's because it's used in just about everything IN SUCH LARGE QUANTITIES, and because the ways to obtain it in such large quantities are not profitable enough compared to obtaining something else instead, and trading some of it for the needed tritanium.
Would Tritanium become far more easily obtainable (OR the rest of the minerals less easily obtainable), THEN and only then would Trit prices start dropping.


So you agree then that when players supply more or demand from players goes down the prices will respond. Economics 101 and nothing to do with CCP taking charge.

Quote:
The reason why t3 is so expensive is because the people who first got the stuff on the market put it up for as much as they thought they could get for it. After then everyone followed suit, putting up theirs for slightly less, myself included. The result is a highly inflated price which will slowly drop till it reaches somewhere closer to the actual build cost.

IT IS already close to the actual build cost. Have you even LOOKED at T3 and related component prices lately ? There's a handful of "chokepoint" materials that are very slowly dropping in price still, after some larger initial drops, but they're still a vast majority of the total cost of production. Oh, and the fact at least half of the subsystems barely sell for the component costs can't be healthy no matter how you look at it.


Based upon your own words, this is how a player economy works. CCP are not in charge of how much we players will value the base minerals and thus the things that are made from them. However I would like to see the nubers you are using.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.05 23:56:00 - [439]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 06/06/2009 00:01:19
Originally by: baltec1
So you agree then that when players supply more or demand from players goes down the prices will respond. Economics 101 and nothing to do with CCP taking charge.

Ok wiseguy, answer me this simple question :
WHO EXACTLY decides how much the volume of 1 unit of Veldspar is (in other words, how many Veldspar units you can mine with a certain ship per cycle), who decides how many Veldspar units go into a refine batch and how much Tritanium one Veldspar batch yields upon refining ?
Hint: it's NOT the players.

Now, answer this : if one batch (333 units * 0.1 m^3/unit = 33.3 m^3) of Veldspar would no longer refine into 1000 Tritanium, but let's say that a refine batch would be just 200 units of 0.05 m^3/unit (so only 10 m^3) and refine into 1500 Tritanium... would the Tritanium price drop like a rock or stay exactly the same ?

chrisss0r
The Lowbirds
Posted - 2009.06.06 00:40:00 - [440]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 06/06/2009 00:01:19
Originally by: baltec1
So you agree then that when players supply more or demand from players goes down the prices will respond. Economics 101 and nothing to do with CCP taking charge.

Ok wiseguy, answer me this simple question :
WHO EXACTLY decides how much the volume of 1 unit of Veldspar is (in other words, how many Veldspar units you can mine with a certain ship per cycle), who decides how many Veldspar units go into a refine batch and how much Tritanium one Veldspar batch yields upon refining ?
Hint: it's NOT the players.

Now, answer this : if one batch (333 units * 0.1 m^3/unit = 33.3 m^3) of Veldspar would no longer refine into 1000 Tritanium, but let's say that a refine batch would be just 200 units of 0.05 m^3/unit (so only 10 m^3) and refine into 1500 Tritanium... would the Tritanium price drop like a rock or stay exactly the same ?



again it's quite funny how you make up theories and do not know what you are talking about. Since minerals in eve are contemlempary goods you cannot predict that easily what the effect will be. I don't know if that is the case but if all things in eve you can build have the same ratios for different materials the price won't drop at all.
If that is not the case it will drop a few steps and producers will produce more stuff that uses the more abundant factor intensivly. How much it will drop depends on the elasticities for the demand of trit-intensive goods. People won't begin to by slashers(no idea, just an example) just because they are trit intensive and therefor cheaper.

but ofcourse you knew that mr ohmagagi'msosmart

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.06 02:17:00 - [441]
 

Quote:
I don't know if that is the case but if all things in eve you can build have the same ratios for different materials the price won't drop at all.

Just an FYI, ships in EVE need (very roughly) the same total base value in each individual mineral. Variations exist from ship to ship, tier to tier and race to race, but all within certain relatively tight margins. Even worse, capital ships use up EVEN MORE tritanium (percentage-wise) than non-capital ships do.
This piece of information will prove useful later.

Originally by: chrisss0r
Originally by: Akita T
[...]short version : if Tritanium would be about 5 times more abundant when mining Veldspar[...] would the Tritanium price drop like a rock or stay exactly the same ?

again it's quite funny how you make up theories and do not know what you are talking about. Since minerals in eve are contemlempary goods you cannot predict that easily what the effect will be.

You can not predict EXACTLY where price would drop, but you CAN predict that the price WILL drop, can't you ?
Now, let's ATTEMPT to predict the APPROXIMATE price level where Tritanium would stabilize in the given example. An exact pinpointing would be impossible, especially since minerals also come from many other sources, not just mining, but a rough estimation should be quite easy.

Right now, Veldspar mining pays around 120 ISK per cubic meter, the highest out of all "highsec ores", and coindicentally also the highest out of all lowsec ores too. Arkonor, the most valuable 0.0 ore pays around 450 ISK per cubic meter, while Crokite (normally a 0.0 ore, but which can be found in lowsec exploration) pays around 250 ISK per cubic meter.

If you look above, I made a mention as to the base prices of minerals and ship make-up. Right now (and for that matter, most of the time except right after expansions), manufactured ships sell at somewhere in between 75% and 85% of their base price, let's say 80% because it's a nicer figure and we're doing rough calculations only anyway.
According to BASE mineral values therefore, a ~88 mil platinum insurance ship would sell for ~70 mil ISK, and would contain ~10 mil ISK worth of each mineral, at base value, give or take a milion or two at most.
HOWEVER, mineral prices are hardly close to their base values... if you take 80% of base price of each mineral, then the prices would be looking like this : trit 1.6, pye 6.4, mex 25.6, iso 102.4, nox 409.6, zyd 1638.4, mega 6553.6.
As you can easily see, compared to those adjusted "fair mineral prices according to base price" (which would only exist if a PERFECT balance of mineral supply would exist, and capital ships would either not exist at all, or have a non-capital-ship-like mineral makeup), we have only two mineral which are anywhere near the expected price (mexallon slightly higher, zydrine slightly lower), two minerals roughly one third below expected prices (pyerite, megacyte), one at barely half (isogen) and one below one FIFTH of expected price (nocxium). The one and only mineral that is FAR ABOVE is Tritanium, at over two and a half times the expected price range.
Obviously, you can see there's a huge oversupply of Nocxium, some serious Isogen oversupply, and a MASSIVE tritanium shortage.

Now, back to the initial point... suppose that suddendly you could mine Veldspar and get Tritanium 5 times faster.
That would mean AT THE CURRENT PRICES that you would make nearly 600 ISK per cubic meter of Veldspar. Since at that pricetag, Veldspar would actually be more profitable to mine than any other ore, we can only assume every miner with half a brain would focus on mining Veldspar and almost only Veldspar, which would have two separate effects : on one hand, the supply of Tritanium would increase, while on the other hand, supply of other minerals (in particular highends) would decrease.

[...continued in next post...]

Steve Hawkings
Posted - 2009.06.06 02:22:00 - [442]
 

why should it have to be " economically/financially smart to do so" ?
The only reason its empty is because alot of the players think like the OP and care not for the game just the occumulation of monopoly money.
Why play if all you want to do is make virtual cash ??

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.06 03:00:00 - [443]
 


[...continuing from previous post...]

Even in the off-chance the supply of other minerals would NOT decrease at all (the absurd scenario in which only additional miners would bother mining extra Veldspar wherever they can spawn some more because belts have been run dry - nevermind the fact lowsec/0.0 belts are full of Veldspar, and with Veldspar suddendly becoming more valuable than Arkonor everybody would mine Veldspar instead anyway), the Tritanium price will STILL decrease.

Granted, I have no idea on the EXACT shape of the supply and demand curves for minerals, as there's simply not enough data available to me to form such graphs in the first place.
However, it doesn't take a genius to realize the shapes for Tritanium can't be TOO FAR away from the classic shapes of supply and demand (they're either almost linear, or only slightly concave) in the price ranges we could possibly be interested in, with the only possible exception (a rather peculiar one, but still of some interest) of shuttle "insurance scam" price bottom for Tritanium. I call that one peculiar since manufacturing, insuring and then self-destructing shuttles isn't exactly an activity you'd be willing to engage in on a massive scale, and other ships use more minerals than just Tritanium.

Bottom line is, while Tritanium now accounts for almost 2.5 times more price than it's supposed to in ships, a 5-fold increase in supply will certainly lead to a decrease in Tritanium prices.
OF COURSE we can't know for sure exactly just how low it will go, but we can be certain of one thing : AT WORST, in the most unlikeliest of possible scenarios, it will still account for at least half of what it's supposed to - in other words, its current price can not possibly go below one fifth of its current price.

Now, depending on the exact shape of the Tritanium supply and demand curves, depending on just how much more miners start mining just because Veldspar became (at least for a while) even more profitable than ever, depending on how many miners switch over from other ores to Veldspar, one thing is almost certain : tritanium prices would very likely drop to somewhere slightly below HALF of the current value in a very short while.
Reason ? Well, in the above example, Tritanium will very likely cease being the main bottleneck material for production, with Mexallon (or maybe also Zydrine) becoming just as scarce, or maybe Mexallon becoming the new bottleneck instead altogether... so Tritanium should be dropping close to or even below 80% of its base value, as Mexallon starts climbing above its base price, and Zydrine stabilizes close to, but below its base price, while pyerite and megacyte drop a little.

Bottom line, if Tritanium becomes 5 times easier to obtain from Veldspar, we can expect prices for it to drop so low that it would be profitable to manufacture and blow up shuttles. Actually, considering the fact you need a lot of effort to do that, I would fully expect tritanium prices to drop noticeably below the point where doing that with shuttles and other ships that have a slightly higher tritanium makeup would make "fiscal sense".

In other words, in the above scenario of "5 times more Trit from Veld", Tritanium would drop anywhere between 1.6 ISK per unit in major hubs and even as low as 0.8 ISK per unit in remote areas, while Mexallon would get a rise to around 40 ISK per unit, with a small Zydrine increase and a slight drop in Megacyte prices.


Eh, I am sure you will find fault with just about everything I've said so far, even if you have absolutely no logical counter-argument to any of it, and you will not even attempt to fake one that's remotely believable... correct ?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.06 03:10:00 - [444]
 

Originally by: Steve Hawkings
alot of the players think like the OP and care not for the game just the occumulation of monopoly money.Why play if all you want to do is make virtual cash ??

Hmm.. let's see... the game is ABOUT conflict built around the accumulation of virtual power, power which is composed out of territorial control (to gain more virtual money faster), virtual posessions (which enable you to make more virtual money AND have some fun) and virtual cash (which allow you to purchase virtual posessions or services in order to be able to have some fun).
[sarcasm]So, yeah, I couldn't possibly figure out why making some of those virtual cash could possibly be relevant to anybody that plays this game...[/sarcasm]

Of course, maybe you're one of the "stuff I get myself is free therefore worthless" people, so any logical discussion with you is moot.
Or, you could be one of those "I don't care about ISK, I sell GTCs/PLEXes to make some", in which case we'd be talking about how much real-life money you're willing to spend. But maybe you are actually a NORMAL player, yet somehow you managed to miss the focus of the game somehow and unilaterally decided EVE is a single-player game for you ?
Oh, or maybe you're one of the lucky few that made it into a PVP corp that runs a very comprehensive "ship replacement" program ? If you personally don't care about ISK, let me assure you, the people that RUN that ship replacement program SURE DO CARE enough for you too, even if you don't know it.

If none of the above applies, you HAVE to care about the ISK to some degree.
So why exactly DON'T you ?

baltec1
Posted - 2009.06.06 06:32:00 - [445]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 06/06/2009 00:01:19
Originally by: baltec1
So you agree then that when players supply more or demand from players goes down the prices will respond. Economics 101 and nothing to do with CCP taking charge.

Ok wiseguy, answer me this simple question :
WHO EXACTLY decides how much the volume of 1 unit of Veldspar is (in other words, how many Veldspar units you can mine with a certain ship per cycle), who decides how many Veldspar units go into a refine batch and how much Tritanium one Veldspar batch yields upon refining ?
Hint: it's NOT the players.

Now, answer this : if one batch (333 units * 0.1 m^3/unit = 33.3 m^3) of Veldspar would no longer refine into 1000 Tritanium, but let's say that a refine batch would be just 200 units of 0.05 m^3/unit (so only 10 m^3) and refine into 1500 Tritanium... would the Tritanium price drop like a rock or stay exactly the same ?



What will happen to goons if CCP put a cap on the number of pilots that can be in an allience at 500? See, we can both sit here and change the base mechanics of the game to make an arguement but they both hold no water in the real world.

The economy you see in this game is entirely player run, CCP is only responsible for building the mechanics.


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2009.06.06 06:49:00 - [446]
 

Originally by: baltec1
What will happen to goons if CCP put a cap on the number of pilots that can be in an allience at 500? See, we can both sit here and change the base mechanics of the game to make an arguement but they both hold no water in the real world.

The argument DOES hold water for several reasons.
First off, CCP does manipulate mineral sources all the time (the introduction of drone regions, tweaking the refining yield of drone alloys, the removal of many NPC refineables, tweaking of asteroid make-ups in missions, mineable sites in normal space and wildspace to name but the most obvious ones) - now, if they do not UNDERSTAND exactly what they are doing when they do that, that's a completely different problem. So, from that standpoint, the argument that has as a result CCP modifying things in the mineral supply side is not at all absurd.
Second, your argument about Goons... hey, who do you think finally put the skill "Sovereignty" into the game (and set it to as many extra members as it's set nowadays), WHY and when? Let me tell you : it was CCP, it was BECAUSE the goons were complaining they would like to have more members than it was possible at the time. So, again, a change in game mechanics WAS made, and it was made to accomodate specific needs.
You should try to learn a bit about EVE history and mechanics before telling me my arguments are absurd and could never hold water.

Quote:
The economy you see in this game is entirely player run, CCP is only responsible for building the mechanics.

And precisely because CCP is responsable for building the mechanics and setting the ratios, whenever a problem that directly results from an imbalance in said ratios, not because of something people are doing "wrong", it's CCP's fault, and they should be the one to fix it.

CanI haveyourstuff
Posted - 2009.06.06 07:03:00 - [447]
 

Damnit guys you all go a bit offtopic here....

The point is: lvl4's give so much T1 crap loot which can be reprocessed.... but also you can just sell this T1.

Therefore you have two problems:

1. T1 items are in so large quantityes that there is no point to build them. T1 prices are so low that they almost cost nothing. (I'm not talking about meta 4 items)

Therefore producin T2 items is alot more cheaper again, which makes T2 in whole much cheaper.


2. Reprocessing T1 items gives insane amount of minerals and its pointless to mine low end stuff.

I'm saying that nerfing t1 loot drop would make mining more profitable again. This would up the low end mineral prices and whole T1-T2 gap would balance alot more out.


You see: you do lvl4, you get isk, you get loot, you sell loot, you sell minerals.. now someone makes new ship out of minerals and t2 stuff using your loot - you actually supported the whole process that got you your new ship. And those guys who like mining and industrial side of game are just let out because their mining effort or t1 building does not pay off. <- this is the point!

AND THATS the freaking problem why high sec EVE IS ONLY ABOUT lvl4 whoring... overcrowded systems full of chinese farmers.

finally people who say "nono lvl4 should not be nerfed or any other mission loot stuff" they actually do not realise that they dig hole to themselves... nerfing this mission loot crap would up all prices and you dear lvl4 farmers would gain alot more isk because faction items would COST A LOT LOT MORE! But hey.. you just do not reach the level to understand it or whats the problem?

CanI haveyourstuff
Posted - 2009.06.06 07:20:00 - [448]
 

IMO the best idea to balance all out would be:

Mission levels depend on sec status:
1.0...0.5 = lvl1...lvl4 (sometimes good named drops and higher rewards _LESS MINERALS_)
0.5...0.1 = lvl5

Mining income:
1.0...0.5 = same income as lvl4's but in minerals.
0.5...0.1 = again same stuff as lvl5's overally. just from another sources.


I'm saying that mining in different sec systems should be same profitable as doing missions!!! Yes ccp can control markets and prices.. therefore its their responsibility to balance it all out!! (if they want to make this game more about economy and variety of stuff rather than mission whoring)

outcome: no one gets hurt.. everyone is happy...

logeoff now
Posted - 2009.06.06 07:27:00 - [449]
 

We can only dream about it!

Acording to ccp's actions lately how they balance game out by doing idiotic things and how good they are at patching and whole this sorta things. I dont have good hopes :D

"omg flash news... NEW LVL4 agents, omfg this is uber!"

CCP..... seriously?????+??? wtf?

Steve Hawkings
Posted - 2009.06.06 08:51:00 - [450]
 

Edited by: Steve Hawkings on 06/06/2009 08:51:32
Op is still talking **** 16 pages on,
he doesnt know squat hes on the forum more than hes in game.


Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 : last (18)

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