open All Channels
seplocked Market Discussions
blankseplocked Trit Prices? Where are they headed in Sept?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Nyota Sol
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2009.08.22 11:44:00 - [1]
 

I sure do miss the 4.00 trit prices.

I looked at the data on past years and concluded that there's a regular cycle during the summer, which probably reflects a combination of more mining and inconsistent production over the summer. Perhaps everybody relaxes on 0.0 wars and wanders off to mine while corp-mates vacation? I don't know, but there appears to be a natural supply-driven cycle behind this (and i don't accept the QEN argument that this is some type of post-expansion "hangover").

Trit demand has been steady, thus it isn't a matter of wars or a significant drop in overall manufacturing. Macro-miners got the ban-hammer in June, yet supply obviously continued to grow. I suspect there are massive stockpiles of trit right now, with miners holding onto supplies with the expectation of higher prices.

Even with significant amounts of buy orders in the 3.30 range, sell order prices have been slow to respond. Why?

Could we see another big dip in trit prices given the likely massive stockpiles out there? Could we instead see massive investment and speculation begin?

What do people predict in Sept for trit prices?

I'm hoping for slow increase to 4.0 levels, but I do worry about the overall market implications.

adriaans
Amarr
Ankaa.
Nair Al-Zaurak
Posted - 2009.08.22 14:35:00 - [2]
 

/me misses 1.5-2.0 trit prices...


and trit crashed because other mins went up, look at mexallon and megacyte

Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
Posted - 2009.08.22 15:35:00 - [3]
 

Well I would estimate it climbed up around 3.6 - 3.8.

The summer seems to be a period of either/or those playing in that period seem to supply at a lower price, the "mine it its free" crowd. A hit on opportunity cost due to surplus of time.

The holidays are over less playtime ahead for many, thus a lower supply and prices should climb a bit..

Also it could look like its the last peak on an Eliot wave, so when that ends we might expect levelling out or a reaction to all the current changes thrown at us lately.. I would not be surprised if we got a climb up above earlier year high, and might see TRT all the way up at 4.5 marker..

Just my take with current information..

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2009.08.22 15:36:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: adriaans
/me misses 1.5-2.0 trit prices...


and trit crashed because other mins went up, look at mexallon and megacyte


True, but there is more to the equation than just that.

We have continued pressure on trit because of capital demand, so in reality trit is floating aloft higher than what the mineral basket would determine... all things being equal.

So because of that pyrite/iso/noc stay relatively flat compared to the percentage changes elsewhere.

Nyota Sol
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2009.08.22 16:35:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
Well I would estimate it climbed up around 3.6 - 3.8.

The summer seems to be a period of either/or those playing in that period seem to supply at a lower price, the "mine it its free" crowd. A hit on opportunity cost due to surplus of time.

The holidays are over less playtime ahead for many, thus a lower supply and prices should climb a bit..

Also it could look like its the last peak on an Eliot wave, so when that ends we might expect levelling out or a reaction to all the current changes thrown at us lately.. I would not be surprised if we got a climb up above earlier year high, and might see TRT all the way up at 4.5 marker..

Just my take with current information..



Great points.

I think we maybe should expect some more ups AND downs in the coming few months, and the more i think about it the more i share your "elliot wave" sensibility. I think think it will be a bumpy ride even if the end is 4.5 prices down the road.

I know many miners and mission runners have been stockpiling their trit, knowing that prices will come back up. Not hoping. Knowing. Regardless of how we all may feel about that sense of confidence, it's out there and it has market implications.

I've been chewing on the question of what all this stockpiled trit might mean for prices, but then in discussing this in CAS just now, it sunk in... that the people stockpiling are doing so because of the belief in >4 prices! That supply is thus dead until higher prices come about. The point there being that today's prices are perceived to be "cheap" by many on the supply side.

So, we have a large portion of consumers who think trit is SUPPOSED to be at 2.5 or less because of the old days. We have a large portion of both consumers and suppliers who feel these are really low prices and that the floor should be back at 4ish.

There are people putting in massive buy orders in the 3.3 range... and in a week i suspect we'll see even larger orders in the 3.5 range. Volume has actually dipped significantly in the last week. I'm curious about what's going on with the demand side of things.

Regardless, once all the freighter pilots come back from vacation and calculate how to make fast 15% by moving trit 4 jumps to jita... we'll see... hehehehehe

But seriously, i think even if prices DO move up to the 3.8-4.0 range, we could see a lot of people dumping from stockpiles. So, we could see a big dip before it ever climbed above 4 and beyond.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2009.08.22 17:50:00 - [6]
 

Hm. September. A bit early for the regular prepatch manipulation/stockpiling so probably somewhere around the same area as currently or perhaps slightly higher, say 5 to 10% or so. Depends a bit if any major capital battles happen in september as news of that often bump it slightly higher (I doubt that the real effect of losing 100 dreads would be big enough to actually shift EVE market, I suspect it's slight manipulation/expectation).

Then again it's going to be probably a bumpy ride for mineral market during fanfest as CCP will most likely release additional information about that dust 514 project. For example what kind of interactions there actually will be and hints how new sov warfare will be (and that in turn might have major effect on the prices of higher end minerals).

Steve Thomas
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.08.22 22:07:00 - [7]
 

I hate to say this but I suspect that a lot of what happens with things like trit prices is a person will pop onto the forums and ask whats the most valuabel mineral to mine or where to find it,(with Veldspar you can get lots of nice roids in misisons and be out of everyones way) and then part there semi macro semi afk or whatever you want to call it mining op with an alt to mine untill they are sick of it but never bother to check back in to see what the actual best thing to mine is currently.

Coleoptere
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.08.23 00:19:00 - [8]
 

There was a thread last May (or early June maybe) in the Industry forum. I can't find it anymore (you know how the search engine is great!). Well, according to what I remember, in order to lower the prices of tech 3 and stop 00 players to come to higher sec for tritanium, CCP made the veldspar roids bigger and changed the respawn rate.

According to my experience as a miner, it is much less rarer than it was to find 90k roids in high sec. Meaning, more trit on the market.

I wish too the trit price increase. Mining (high sec at least) is not very appealing anymore. Since the prices of tech 1 ships are almost the same, I rather buy minerals to manufacture than mine.




Teras Menac
Gallente
Tarantula LLC
The Ancients.
Posted - 2009.08.23 01:03:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Teras Menac on 23/08/2009 01:15:16
Edited by: Teras Menac on 23/08/2009 01:06:39
Originally by: Coleoptere
There was a thread last May (or early June maybe) in the Industry forum. I can't find it anymore (you know how the search engine is great!). Well, according to what I remember, in order to lower the prices of tech 3 and stop 00 players to come to higher sec for tritanium, CCP made the veldspar roids bigger and changed the respawn rate.

According to my experience as a miner, it is much less rarer than it was to find 90k roids in high sec. Meaning, more trit on the market.

I wish too the trit price increase. Mining (high sec at least) is not very appealing anymore. Since the prices of tech 1 ships are almost the same, I rather buy minerals to manufacture than mine.



When you say last May you mean this immediate past May or the one before that, 09 or 08?

I'm curious as to how the elimination of macro miners would have impacted the tritanium prices. I took a bath on Cruise missiles I was dealing hundreds of thousands per day, I went on vacation with a stock of around 1m. When I got back the price had dropped by about 30-40 isk, well below my cost prior to the drop in the price of Tritanium.

I am very intrigued by how Operation Unholy Nerd Rage impacted the prices in the game.

The graph graphic in the marketing window is kind of clunky but it seems like there is a drop in Trit volume that occurs THE DAY of the bans in Sinq Laison. The Trit market seems to have come up steadily over the last year with a little bit of barely perceptible decline in the last month or so.

Trit Sales volume in Sinq Laison
6.21 2,368,698,429
6.22 1,687,108,966
6.23 2,381,139,575

Doesn't make any sense really unless demand has dropped recently. I know this doesn't answer the OPs question but this has put a bug up my ass this evening and this was the thread I saw about the price of trit. If this is too much of a tangent I'll gladly start a new thread.

Coleoptere
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.08.23 01:10:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Teras Menac


When you say last May you mean this immediate past May or the one before that, 09 or 08?


I am talking about May 2009 (could be early June too - I am still looking for the thread to link it)

And, yes, the "war" against macro miners can be part of the explanation too.

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2009.08.23 01:20:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Teras Menac

Doesn't make any sense really unless demand has dropped recently. I know this doesn't answer the OPs question but this has put a bug up my ass this evening and this was the thread I saw about the price of trit. If this is too much of a tangent I'll gladly start a new thread.


Also look at mex, now work out the workable cost of a typical capital ship and how its cost is distributed across the minerals.

Now look at the volumes of minerals since the unholy rage day, for both Mex, Iso, Noc, and Pye

Understand that all minerals are linked as one goes up the others must fall or rise in relation to them.

....makes sense now doesn't it?

Demand never went away, which is the reason why trit hasn't fallen below 3... yet.

Coleoptere
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.08.23 01:47:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria


Demand never went away, which is the reason why trit hasn't fallen below 3... yet.


Depends of where you are. I bought a lot of trit at 2.90 and even under in Heimatar and Metro yesterday.

I can't find the thread I was referring to in my other posts but this one is of interest too: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1127007


Teras Menac
Gallente
Tarantula LLC
The Ancients.
Posted - 2009.08.23 02:37:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Teras Menac on 23/08/2009 02:45:44
Tritanium is below 3 in Sinq Laison. I don't understand why the price of other minerals has to rise just because the price of trit fell. So no, it doesn't make sense now. Confused

Shadarle's explanation doesn't help much either. He's making a whole lot of assumptions that sell-offs of high-end minerals would be the main method by which commodity speculators would maintain liquidity. I'm not convinced.

I do believe it's possible that there has been a discernible trend for a sort of tidal relationship between high/low minerals but I don't see a sufficient explanation. I'm trying to keep an open mind though.

It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense that commodity speculators would drive the prices too high/low with their actions. Anyone who is buying megacyte is looking for a bargain, so yes they go after it when the price is low, and the price rises yes that is true, but there is a point of diminishing returns where most experienced investors become risk averse and so the people working with billions of isk in trades are going to stop playing the game because they want to leave the unexperienced people holding the bag, IE that's their intended market when they sell their minerals in order to make the profit from the speculation.

I just am not seeing this tidal relationship between the minerals like you all seem to accept as gospel. Not saying it's not there, I just don't see it. I'll have to look at this more seriously over time.

Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2009.08.23 04:09:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Teras Menac
Trit Sales volume in Sinq Laison
6.21 2,368,698,429
6.22 1,687,108,966
6.23 2,381,139,575


Trit was over 6 in Sinq Laison? Shocked

Steve Thomas
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.08.23 04:21:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Super Whopper
Originally by: Teras Menac
Trit Sales volume in Sinq Laison
6.21 2,368,698,429
6.22 1,687,108,966
6.23 2,381,139,575


Trit was over 6 in Sinq Laison? Shocked


thats Day and volume not price.


Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2009.08.23 04:46:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Steve Thomas
Originally by: Super Whopper
Originally by: Teras Menac
Trit Sales volume in Sinq Laison
6.21 2,368,698,429
6.22 1,687,108,966
6.23 2,381,139,575


Trit was over 6 in Sinq Laison? Shocked


thats Day and volume not price.




You mean it's supposed to be 21/6-23/6? Cute way of confusing people because that looks like price.

cosmoray
Perkone
Posted - 2009.08.23 04:49:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Teras Menac
Edited by: Teras Menac on 23/08/2009 02:45:44
Tritanium is below 3 in Sinq Laison. I don't understand why the price of other minerals has to rise just because the price of trit fell. So no, it doesn't make sense now. Confused

Shadarle's explanation doesn't help much either. He's making a whole lot of assumptions that sell-offs of high-end minerals would be the main method by which commodity speculators would maintain liquidity. I'm not convinced.

I do believe it's possible that there has been a discernible trend for a sort of tidal relationship between high/low minerals but I don't see a sufficient explanation. I'm trying to keep an open mind though.

It also doesn't make a whole lot of sense that commodity speculators would drive the prices too high/low with their actions. Anyone who is buying megacyte is looking for a bargain, so yes they go after it when the price is low, and the price rises yes that is true, but there is a point of diminishing returns where most experienced investors become risk averse and so the people working with billions of isk in trades are going to stop playing the game because they want to leave the unexperienced people holding the bag, IE that's their intended market when they sell their minerals in order to make the profit from the speculation.

I just am not seeing this tidal relationship between the minerals like you all seem to accept as gospel. Not saying it's not there, I just don't see it. I'll have to look at this more seriously over time.


To cut a huge story short, insurance & reprocessing.

If the price of ALL minerals dropped you could build ships buy insurance leave station explode and profit.

Every ship is made up of a mineral basket. If the price drops too low, producers make money without actually selling anything.

People will buy minerals up close to the point of break even of production and platinum insurance.
So if tritanium is very low, people will pay more for mex,zyd, mega to make their ships.


If any of trit, mex, zyd or mega changes in price significantly then the prices of the others has to change to compensate.

Teras Menac
Gallente
Tarantula LLC
The Ancients.
Posted - 2009.08.23 04:52:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Super Whopper
You mean it's supposed to be 21/6-23/6? Cute way of confusing people because that looks like price.


Welcome to America.

Teras Menac
Gallente
Tarantula LLC
The Ancients.
Posted - 2009.08.23 04:54:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Teras Menac on 23/08/2009 04:55:17
Originally by: cosmoray
To cut a huge story short, insurance & reprocessing.

If the price of ALL minerals dropped you could build ships buy insurance leave station explode and profit.

Every ship is made up of a mineral basket. If the price drops too low, producers make money without actually selling anything.

People will buy minerals up close to the point of break even of production and platinum insurance.
So if tritanium is very low, people will pay more for mex,zyd, mega to make their ships.


If any of trit, mex, zyd or mega changes in price significantly then the prices of the others has to change to compensate.


I understand the insurance floor for mineral prices, but I don't understand why that means one mineral price is inversely linked to another. I just don't get it. Why is it not governed by supply and demand?

I am sitting here thinking, "Corrolation is not causation.", inevitably at any given moment the price of one thing is going down and the price of another thing is going up, but that doesn't mean one causes the other, just that with your handful of minerals the prices are fluctuating in different directions at any given moment.

cosmoray
Perkone
Posted - 2009.08.23 05:22:00 - [20]
 

Example (theoretical figures):

1. Minerals required to make Raven = 50M ISK
Platinum insurance = 30M
Payout = 110M
Profit from destruction and insurance payout = 30M ISk (for no work)

People would continue to make Raven (in this example) until the price of the raw material + insurance = 0 profit.

If trit price stayed very low, people would happily buy up more Mex (25% by value of most ships) at higher prices while they made this theoretical profit. In fact they would buy HUGE quantities of minerals to keep production running for months if possible to make insurance profits.
In this scenario the price of mex would HAVE to go up as supply went down, while people carried on purchasing as the price approached the 0 payout point.

On the flip side, if the prices of all minerals go up, then mass reprocessing of ships and modules already made will occur, along with loot from missions. This will again bring the price of some of the minerals down to hold the mineral basket roughly stable.

The insurance and to a degree reprocessing puts a HARD cap on the total mineral basket cost that makes up production. So if the price of one mineral goes up or down the other mineral price has to change to compensate.

Steve Thomas
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.08.23 05:43:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Teras Menac
Edited by: Teras Menac on 23/08/2009 04:55:17
Originally by: cosmoray
.


I understand the insurance floor for mineral prices, but I don't understand why that means one mineral price is inversely linked to another. I just don't get it. Why is it not governed by supply and demand?

I am sitting here thinking, "Corrolation is not causation.", inevitably at any given moment the price of one thing is going down and the price of another thing is going up, but that doesn't mean one causes the other, just that with your handful of minerals the prices are fluctuating in different directions at any given moment.


Bascialy lets say that Item X has 1 of each mineral A B C and D (each of which is produced by miners A B C and D, each of whom produces say 100 of there mineral each a day.

but you can only sell it for no less than 100 because you can destroy it via insurance fraud, but because its fairly easy to get into production that the most it will sell for is say between 120 125

now on Day 1-1-111111 you can buy each mineral for 25

now lets further say that on Day 12-12-121212 you can buy A for 12.5, because someone new (miner A1 Darned macro bots!) showed up and started mining A, but the base price is still the 100-120-125 I mentioned earlyer. you now have an extra 10 per, if you sold 10 of them you would have enough to produce an extra unit and still have some more cash to spare. . . but because A and A1 (great on pork too!) had a surpluss that 3 other miners did not have its easy to get A, but harder to get B C and D who will will not be able to keep up with the new demand for minerals untill miners B1 C1 and D1 (ARG macro bots incoming!) show up to cut in on the demand for minerals wich is futher confused by Producers looking at the temoporary surplus and thinking hmm I can make this and make a bit better profit. .. hey the price of B C and D is going up! better stockpile while its "cheep"

and on and on it goes


Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
Posted - 2009.08.23 06:05:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Teras Menac
Originally by: Super Whopper
You mean it's supposed to be 21/6-23/6? Cute way of confusing people because that looks like price.


Welcome to America.


Which part? Brazil and Bolivia have always interested me.

Now back on topic. I, personally, hope Trit falls down to the 2.5 mark.

Teras Menac
Gallente
Tarantula LLC
The Ancients.
Posted - 2009.08.23 06:14:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Teras Menac on 23/08/2009 06:16:19
Ok so if the price of Tritanium gets to be high enough that it is profitable to reprocess a Raven then it puts more Tritanium on the market, but it also puts more megacyte on the market. There is no mechanism involved in the reprocessing of that raven that requires you to expend Mexallon, Zydrine or Megacyte.

I understand that if a ship is too cheap to produce it opens up insurance fraud but I am not sure how the lower limit is enforced. Is there a point at which you simply cannot lower the price of tritanium any lower? At what point is that?

It seems to me that you are saying that within the game code there are price controls worked into it so that the price of minerals can be rigged by CCP, am I getting that right? That it's not some function of the market but a function of game balancing within the software?

Lecherito
Posted - 2009.08.23 06:31:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: cosmoray
Example (theoretical figures):



On the flip side, if the prices of all minerals go up, then mass reprocessing of ships and modules already made will occur, along with loot from missions. This will again bring the price of some of the minerals down to hold the mineral basket roughly stable.




Speaking from experience, as mineral prices go up, the prices of recyclable modules climb aggressively as well. This is due to the insane competition that is the recycling market, and garbage men trying to push each each other into frivolous margins. Thus, I don't believe your "hard cap" theory to be correct.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2009.08.23 06:36:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Carniflex on 23/08/2009 06:36:51
Any single mineral does not have lower bound. Ie in theory you could get mega as low as 0.01 isk - what is "stable" is mineral basket price. Current stability of is caused by insurance as the mineral basket price is more or less pressed hard against it's lower bound set by insurance fraud. There is occasional fluctuations but market is very effective in reacting to them.

Now on the other hand hard upper cap for mineral basket is damn high. I'm not talking about people reprocessing built ships and selling minerals for profit as that is not hard cap. It just adds some more inertia should something force mineral prices up. Hard upper cap is caused by NPC sell orders for "stuff" you can reprocess. For example a while ago tritanium had upper cap's at 2.4 and 3.6 isk (pos gadgets and npc shuttles), when CCP removed those price caps on trit it went up. Not sure where current trit cap is, somewhere around 6 isk or so propably. Pyerite upper cap was at 12 isk a while ago (NPC supplied missile launchers) etc. Ie all minerals (other than morphite) have some hard upper cap, it's just so high price that market under normal conditions does not reach them. Especially for higher end minerals.

Jordon Spikes
Gallente
Mineral Traders of Eve Korp LLC.
Posted - 2009.08.23 11:26:00 - [26]
 

my theory on trit

Trit will go down big time for at least 6 - 9 monthes before rebounding no higher than 3.25.

why the big drop in price, well all those macro miners out there held on to a percentage of trit to artifically inflate the market, even though the ba hammer came in june (sold the trit on the market weeks or days before this happen, maybe trying to cash out because of some insider info) the effects will be slow on the market until miners slow down the mining of trit or switch to a another mineral to mine for.

how do i figure this, the astroids are bigger because they are not getting mined to death.

basically in a nut shell the Macro Miners sold pye, & mex, and held on to the trit. end result and sell off and ban hammer = lower trit prices higher pye & mex.

Nyota Sol
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2009.08.23 14:00:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Nyota Sol on 23/08/2009 14:01:12
Originally by: Jordon Spikes
my theory on trit

Trit will go down big time for at least 6 - 9 monthes before rebounding no higher than 3.25.

why the big drop in price, well all those macro miners out there held on to a percentage of trit to artifically inflate the market, even though the ba hammer came in june (sold the trit on the market weeks or days before this happen, maybe trying to cash out because of some insider info) the effects will be slow on the market until miners slow down the mining of trit or switch to a another mineral to mine for.

how do i figure this, the astroids are bigger because they are not getting mined to death.

basically in a nut shell the Macro Miners sold pye, & mex, and held on to the trit. end result and sell off and ban hammer = lower trit prices higher pye & mex.


That would be a great explanation if there was a shred of evidence supporting it. I don't see it in the trit charts.

That said, the removal of them certainly is going to have an impact and it looks to be more of a long-term one. Rather than thinking it will somehow imply MORE trit on the market, I'm going with the theory it will mean less.

cosmoray
Perkone
Posted - 2009.08.23 14:51:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Carniflex
Edited by: Carniflex on 23/08/2009 06:36:51
Any single mineral does not have lower bound. Ie in theory you could get mega as low as 0.01 isk - what is "stable" is mineral basket price. Current stability of is caused by insurance as the mineral basket price is more or less pressed hard against it's lower bound set by insurance fraud. There is occasional fluctuations but market is very effective in reacting to them.

Now on the other hand hard upper cap for mineral basket is damn high. I'm not talking about people reprocessing built ships and selling minerals for profit as that is not hard cap. It just adds some more inertia should something force mineral prices up. Hard upper cap is caused by NPC sell orders for "stuff" you can reprocess. For example a while ago tritanium had upper cap's at 2.4 and 3.6 isk (pos gadgets and npc shuttles), when CCP removed those price caps on trit it went up. Not sure where current trit cap is, somewhere around 6 isk or so propably. Pyerite upper cap was at 12 isk a while ago (NPC supplied missile launchers) etc. Ie all minerals (other than morphite) have some hard upper cap, it's just so high price that market under normal conditions does not reach them. Especially for higher end minerals.


This is correct. It doesn't matter about individual prices it matters that the overall mineral basket is fairly constant.
If ones goes up something must go down, and vice versa.

Akita's explanations on this are best

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2009.08.23 20:42:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Lecherito
Originally by: cosmoray
Example (theoretical figures):



On the flip side, if the prices of all minerals go up, then mass reprocessing of ships and modules already made will occur, along with loot from missions. This will again bring the price of some of the minerals down to hold the mineral basket roughly stable.




Speaking from experience, as mineral prices go up, the prices of recyclable modules climb aggressively as well. This is due to the insane competition that is the recycling market, and garbage men trying to push each each other into frivolous margins. Thus, I don't believe your "hard cap" theory to be correct.


Every mineral has a module with a rough 'compression' number on it. Those are the modules most sought after. Most of them are mex heavy and most are sought after because.. capital production is very freaking mex heavy.

Akita put a formula to it, if I have time unless someone beats me to the punch he more or less proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that generally speaking the system is setup to allow prices to fluctuate within a 20% up or down variance.


This is why a Domi still costs roughly the same amount it does now as it did 3 years ago. Despite the fact that 3 years ago the monthly average trit price was 2.

But when you compare those historical averages to other minerals it makes that much more sense. At the same time frame isogen was averaging around 145, nearly double the amount it is now. Megacyte was nearly double, and zydrine was almost 50% higher than now.

So as trit has risen, the other minerals must fall, but in relation to their supply and demand points as well.

It just so happens that for the most part, not a whole damn much uses iso and noc, but its also the second most fed mineral out those same mex modules mentioned above.

So we have oversupply driving price down on some, demand driving price up on others, and the general basket driving prices in relation to all others.

Think of it in terms of hydraulics and it makes perfect sense.

Teras Menac
Gallente
Tarantula LLC
The Ancients.
Posted - 2009.08.23 21:53:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: cosmoray
This is correct. It doesn't matter about individual prices it matters that the overall mineral basket is fairly constant.
If ones goes up something must go down, and vice versa.

Akita's explanations on this are best


Can you link me to some of Akita's explanations? I'm still not getting it though I think thanks to Carniflex I am getting closer.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only