open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked Insurance reform: it's time
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2009.12.24 20:33:00 - [91]
 

Cron: let me clue you in.

If insurance was removed (or modified as OP proposal suggests) the prices of T1 ships would drop rapidly.
(and T2 ships would drop slightly, as T1 ships are a component of their T2 variant)

This is not being debated here, it is simply fact.

Diluting the thread and wasting our time by stating that you are NOT CONVINCED, with no supporting evidence - is much like saying you aren't convinced that gravity exists because you can't see it.

There may be other ways to fix the problem - or other ways of tinkering with insurance, that aren't the OP's...
but denying that a mineral price floor exists? Thats like....Shocked


Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.12.24 21:08:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Dr Cron
Edited by: Dr Cron on 24/12/2009 19:30:46
Originally by: Malcanis


You could read through the thread to find out. If you buy anything made from minerals, then the current insurance system is costing you ISK, because insurance artificially inflates the cost of minerals. It is basically an NPC buy order. That's why the market cant "sort this out" - players can't compete with NPCs with infinite funds who dont care about value.

As for the MASSIVE production capability, plenty of people have that capability. Read the thread linked to in the OP. The biggest time sink was actually destructing the ships.

The problem that this causes is that it's a vast ISK fountain, with no comparable ISK sink, it's scalable, and that it keeps ship and module prices artificially high. It also means that suicide ganking is OP, because you can buy and T1-fit a ship for free. Whilst I do believe that suicide ganking is absolutely necessary at the moment, it should cost something to lose even a T1 ship. Pegging insurance at around 85-95% of ship mineral value means that it will always cost at least a few mil to lose even an unfitted ship.

However the bonus side of that is that T1 ships will almost certainly become quite a bit cheaper.




I did read most of the crap and I'm still NOT CONVINCED from an economic standpoint that the price of ships (incl insurance payout or lack thereof) would be cheaper if your proposal succeeds.

So... not supported.


The point of insurance reform/removal shouldn't be to make anything cheaper/easier. Everything is already cheap and easy.

Eve needs to be harder and more difficult, particularly when it comes to loss, as right now the majority of players seem to be fat with ISK and a BS loss means literally nothing due to 110% insurance payout.

Everyone whines about 'less PVP', but most of the players that I know fly T2 in 0.0, which doesn't benefit from insurance in the first place, so that's an empty argument.

I'd say 90% of the posts out there regarding insurance are selfish: they want more protection from suicide ganks, or they want less expensive ships for PVP because they're a bunch of losers and can't hack PVP without the free ride of insurance. Fail more.

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2009.12.24 21:38:00 - [93]
 

Really, man - its like that Upton Sinclair quote:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

The ignorance in these posts suggests that most of the naysayers are just clueless, though I suspect a certain number do 'get it' but are simply self-serving.

Dr Cron
Northern Lights Number 5
Hydroponic Zone
Posted - 2009.12.24 22:25:00 - [94]
 

Edited by: Dr Cron on 24/12/2009 23:24:54
Edited by: Dr Cron on 24/12/2009 23:24:12
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Dr Cron

Originally by: Malcanis


You could read through the thread to find out. If you buy anything made from minerals, then the current insurance system is costing you ISK, because insurance artificially inflates the cost of minerals. It is basically an NPC buy order. That's why the market cant "sort this out" - players can't compete with NPCs with infinite funds who dont care about value.

As for the MASSIVE production capability, plenty of people have that capability. Read the thread linked to in the OP. The biggest time sink was actually destructing the ships.

The problem that this causes is that it's a vast ISK fountain, with no comparable ISK sink, it's scalable, and that it keeps ship and module prices artificially high. It also means that suicide ganking is OP, because you can buy and T1-fit a ship for free. Whilst I do believe that suicide ganking is absolutely necessary at the moment, it should cost something to lose even a T1 ship. Pegging insurance at around 85-95% of ship mineral value means that it will always cost at least a few mil to lose even an unfitted ship.

However the bonus side of that is that T1 ships will almost certainly become quite a bit cheaper.




I did read most of the crap and I'm still NOT CONVINCED from an economic standpoint that the price of ships (incl insurance payout or lack thereof) would be cheaper if your proposal succeeds.

So... not supported.


The point of insurance reform/removal shouldn't be to make anything cheaper/easier. Everything is already cheap and easy.

Eve needs to be harder and more difficult, particularly when it comes to loss, as right now the majority of players seem to be fat with ISK and a BS loss means literally nothing due to 110% insurance payout.

Everyone whines about 'less PVP', but most of the players that I know fly T2 in 0.0, which doesn't benefit from insurance in the first place, so that's an empty argument.

I'd say 90% of the posts out there regarding insurance are selfish: they want more protection from suicide ganks, or they want less expensive ships for PVP because they're a bunch of losers and can't hack PVP without the free ride of insurance. Fail more.


Thanks for the confirmation that the existing system provides less expensive T1 PVP ships and your goal is to hurt PVP by making it more expensive. You've essentially made my point with this post.

As such... still NOT SUPPORTED!

Honestly, let the market sort out a 2M difference in Tier3 BS and stop your pathetic whining and attention whoring. Otherwise make it worth my while as a ship consumer. Do I like fully insurable cheap T1 battleships? Yes. Do I care that some hardcore industrialist has a fulltime job managing multiple alts to make a measily 2M profit off a Tier3 battleship manufacturing job? No.

I think the perpetuators of this insurance "fraud" should go right ahead with their exploits, and keep putting the word out for everyone to follow. When profits drop to 1M/BS then down to .5M/BS they can decide whether its a career path they wish to stick with.

My conclusion is that the insurance system is working perfectly because the insurable return of a T1 battleship should be roughly manufacturing cost + a small margin... also known as replacement cost.

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2009.12.25 00:15:00 - [95]
 

Edited by: Herr Wilkus on 25/12/2009 00:16:28
Ok, Cron I see where you are coming from now.

WE SAY, change/remove insurance, remove the mineral price floor, and a Tempest drops from 70M to perhaps 55M.
But when you lose the Tempest - you may lose all 55 million ISK + fittings (or at least a portion of it.)
After all, your ship was destroyed - shouldn't that mean, like, you take a hit?

YOU, on the other hand, prefer a system where you
-buy the Tempest at 70M, (-70M)
-then insure it at 31M, (-101M)
-and get +104M when the ship dies. (+3M)

Meaning, of course, that you clear a profit for every ship that is lost.
No matter how inflationary it is.
No matter how unrealistic it is.
As long as you get your profit and ships are free.

OK, got it. Clearly, no convincing you - but merely clarifying your position so people with a sense of game balance will ignore your posts in the future. Thanks for playing. Rolling Eyes

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2009.12.25 01:43:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Herr Wilkus
Edited by: Herr Wilkus on 25/12/2009 00:16:28
Ok, Cron I see where you are coming from now.

WE SAY, change/remove insurance, remove the mineral price floor, and a Tempest drops from 70M to perhaps 55M.
But when you lose the Tempest - you may lose all 55 million ISK + fittings (or at least a portion of it.)
After all, your ship was destroyed - shouldn't that mean, like, you take a hit?

YOU, on the other hand, prefer a system where you
-buy the Tempest at 70M, (-70M)
-then insure it at 31M, (-101M)
-and get +104M when the ship dies. (+3M)

Meaning, of course, that you clear a profit for every ship that is lost.
No matter how inflationary it is.
No matter how unrealistic it is.
As long as you get your profit and ships are free.

OK, got it. Clearly, no convincing you - but merely clarifying your position so people with a sense of game balance will ignore your posts in the future. Thanks for playing. Rolling Eyes



This. Herr, can you also address all the rest of the self serving opponents of insurance removal as well? You've done such an excellent job here. Please don't stop.

Daemonspirit
Six Degrees of Separation
Posted - 2009.12.25 04:39:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Herr Wilkus
Edited by: Herr Wilkus on 25/12/2009 00:16:28
Ok, Cron I see where you are coming from now.

WE SAY, change/remove insurance, remove the mineral price floor, and a Tempest drops from 70M to perhaps 55M.
But when you lose the Tempest - you may lose all 55 million ISK + fittings (or at least a portion of it.)
After all, your ship was destroyed - shouldn't that mean, like, you take a hit?

YOU, on the other hand, prefer a system where you
-buy the Tempest at 70M, (-70M)
-then insure it at 31M, (-101M)
-and get +104M when the ship dies. (+3M)

Meaning, of course, that you clear a profit for every ship that is lost.
No matter how inflationary it is.
No matter how unrealistic it is.
As long as you get your profit and ships are free.

OK, got it. Clearly, no convincing you - but merely clarifying your position so people with a sense of game balance will ignore your posts in the future. Thanks for playing. Rolling Eyes


/me checks wallet....

42M...

I have:
One Hurricane
Two Ruptures
One Scythe
(1) BPC for Rifters

Buncha Mods from missioning. Right now I'm running (eye bleeding music) missions to get standings for RP's...

Yeah, I loose that Tempest (can't even afford a Tempest yet...Crying or Very sad) and Fittings, and I'm pretty much back to running lvl 3's... Wait... Crying or Very sad

I can't support this change.


You guys may or may not be "old toons" and have TONNES of money, but a lot of us don't. A lot of us are (oh noes!) casual. This would hit us HARD. Think about that.


Casiella Truza
Ecliptic Rift

Posted - 2009.12.25 06:03:00 - [98]
 

The OP really just says "we need a better system". That's the CSM's job: bring issues to the attention of CCP for prioritization, not present detailed design docs.

As such, supported.

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2009.12.25 10:02:00 - [99]
 

Certainly 'static' insurance rates and payouts is inherently simplistic and flawed, though the problem can be solved in multiple ways. Really, insurance is a variable-rate ISK faucet, and in theory can also act as a SINK.

Think about it - if everybody insured their ships - and none of the ships died before policy expiry - we actually have ISK being removed from the system.

In reality, insured ships tend to die in combat, but some of them survive and the policy expires. When minerals/ships are expensive, the ship is worth more alive than dead. Under these conditions, insurance is an ISK faucet, but its not out of control at this point.

Right now, we have a perverse situation: Due to carebear overproduction and lack of demand (except for insurance fraud demand) - minerals are extremely cheap and T1 ships are actually profitable to self-destruct. (because of the static insurance rates.) What does it mean? Insurance fraud.

The % of 'policies redeemed vs expiry' is approaching 100%. Furthermore, the number of policies created is skyrocketing. Both of these conditions lead to massive injections of ISK into the economy. The 'ISK faucet' is now a firehose, supporting a huge population of resource gathererers, which then continue to over-produce minerals.

This problem can be solved by either reducing/removing insurance across the board OR driving up mineral prices. One or the other needs to happen, though I prefer the latter. But as far as I'm concerned - doing nothing would be a disaster.

Kenji Ryoku
Caldari
Posted - 2009.12.25 20:41:00 - [100]
 

Offering my support. Both sides of the issue have valid points, but most important to get this into the CSM for discussion and let them find a middle ground that the majority can live with.

Hamano Walker
Posted - 2009.12.26 02:57:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Herr Wilkus
Cron: let me clue you in.

If insurance was removed (or modified as OP proposal suggests) the prices of T1 ships would drop rapidly.
(and T2 ships would drop slightly, as T1 ships are a component of their T2 variant)




Actually, I debate it, at least in the long term. Remember that while insurance provides a floor to mineral and ship prices, it also provides a ceiling. Most larger T1 ships tend to hover around insurance profit plus or minus 1% for those ships which can be produced cheaper. With that incentive gone, shipbuilders are going to leave the large T1 game. Removing insurance would, long term, drive up prices on large T1 ships while driving down low end mineral prices. The net result is new players make less while older players make more.

The truth is that a player willing to accept the boredom of mass suiciding himself can make 1-2mil per battleship buying off the market. The builder supplying him can make perhaps 3-5% but to produce in quantity requires considerable time, effort and seed capital. As a relatively new player with only nine figures in my account I can't see how the high end of that equation is especially meaningful. The low end, though, serves only to accelerate the new players. If someone has 1bil to buy a BPO at market, puts the time into researching it to proftability, makes the effort to collect the materials and find factory slots he can burn 24/7 for weeks I don't see how a profit of roughly .5mil/hr/slot (based on four hour per ship production) is going to be a big deal. Maybe if there was a way to bid for factory slots. . .

Allen Ramses
Caldari
Zombicidal Mania
Posted - 2009.12.26 07:59:00 - [102]
 

Edited by: Allen Ramses on 26/12/2009 07:59:32
Originally by: Kenji Ryoku
Offering my support. Both sides of the issue have valid points, but most important to get this into the CSM for discussion and let them find a middle ground that the majority can live with.

How it is now: Payout = (2 * Premium) + (Basevalue * 0.4)
How it can be: Payout = (2 * Premium)


I think removing the 40% unconditional payout while leaving the double premium compensation alone would be what the majority can live with. It would require the ship's market value to be 30% of base value to break even with insurance instead of the current 70% of base value. I don't see ship prices dropping that low in the foreseeable future.

Hamano Walker
Posted - 2009.12.26 08:21:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Allen Ramses
I don't see ship prices dropping that low in the foreseeable future.


My only problem with the idea of modifying the base payout in any way is that right now T1 ships and by extension their components are pegged to insurance plus or minus 1%. The more you believe that overproduction for suicide is propping prices up, the more true this is. If 10% of the ships constructed are sold as suicides no insurance change in any direction will change much else. If 90% of battleship production is for suicide then changing insurance rates will directly change the prices those builders are willing to pay for minerals so they can still make suicide ships.

Raise payouts, mineral prices go up, directing more filthy lucre from the mega-rich mass suicide builders to the newb miners. Lower payout and you won't change the big boys' balance sheet much, but you will change the new guys'. An alternate theory is that there is a magic number below which the big boys will stop. In that case they'll probably stop building ships entirely, raising the price on a BS even as the mineral prices plummet.

Randomness888
Posted - 2009.12.27 00:28:00 - [104]
 

Regarding averages ccp could easily monitor this by average price SOLD, rather than current orders open on the Market, this is somewhat subject to fraud but notably less so than the current system, apologies if this is a repost.

Victor Papa
Posted - 2009.12.27 13:50:00 - [105]
 

I have thought about this for over an hour, my conclusion is: I don't care. There are long term advantages to keeping and to getting rid of insurance. Short term is bad in either scenario. The danger like someone mentioned before lies in whether or not some PvP players will stop paying subscriptions. So CCP what is it going to be? Are you going to risk some subscriptions in an effort to make the player driven economy rely on NPC bounties and rewards, or do you keep a welfare system in place? Both are good in long term, but there will be termoil in the short term.

Lyssae
Caldari
Posted - 2009.12.27 15:09:00 - [106]
 

I agree with the issue and the facts exposed by Malcanis and others.

As such, I fully support Malcanis' proposal.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.12.27 18:55:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: Hamano Walker
Originally by: Allen Ramses
I don't see ship prices dropping that low in the foreseeable future.


My only problem with the idea of modifying the base payout in any way is that right now T1 ships and by extension their components are pegged to insurance plus or minus 1%. The more you believe that overproduction for suicide is propping prices up, the more true this is. If 10% of the ships constructed are sold as suicides no insurance change in any direction will change much else. If 90% of battleship production is for suicide then changing insurance rates will directly change the prices those builders are willing to pay for minerals so they can still make suicide ships.

Raise payouts, mineral prices go up, directing more filthy lucre from the mega-rich mass suicide builders to the newb miners. Lower payout and you won't change the big boys' balance sheet much, but you will change the new guys'. An alternate theory is that there is a magic number below which the big boys will stop. In that case they'll probably stop building ships entirely, raising the price on a BS even as the mineral prices plummet.


The "magic number" you speak of is obtained by pegging the net insurance value of the the ship to slightly below the mineral value at the time the ship is insured. Thus at any given time, it will always pay someone better to sell or reprocess a ship than it will to insure it just to suicide it. It will never be worth building of ships just to suicide them, because the net payout will be less than the cost of the minerals you used to build it.

If you peg the net payout at, say, 90% of the mineral cost, the effect on player who use the ship 'normally' will be fairly minimal. Without the artificial price floor, the market will be able to set a true value to minerals, and prices will probably fall. I reckon by at least 30%. This means that a tier 1 BS will probably sell for around 40M ISK. Given that it costs about 20-40M to T2 fit a BS, increasing the post-insurance cost to 24-44M isn't really going to make a big difference to most people's willingness to use them. Even if prices stay the same, we're looking at 25.5 - 45.5M instead of 20-40M.

Gah'Matar
Posted - 2009.12.28 20:45:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
If you peg the net payout at, say, 90% of the mineral cost, the effect on player who use the ship 'normally' will be fairly minimal. Without the artificial price floor, the market will be able to set a true value to minerals, and prices will probably fall. I reckon by at least 30%. This means that a tier 1 BS will probably sell for around 40M ISK. Given that it costs about 20-40M to T2 fit a BS, increasing the post-insurance cost to 24-44M isn't really going to make a big difference to most people's willingness to use them. Even if prices stay the same, we're looking at 25.5 - 45.5M instead of 20-40M.



This works if something provides stability to the mineral price from manipulations. Probably something along the lines of the median price paid over the last 7 days throughout all of new eden (can be computed during downtime / offline). Payout and premium would become static as off when the policy was subscribed. So if BS prices went up 30% then net payout would become something like ~66%. If price went down significantly, you could strip the ship, blow it up and buy a replacement for a small one-time profit.

Another thing is that with insurance "guaranteed" to pay less then replacement cost, daily or weekly premiums would make sense improving the affordability of insurance to new chars (while being mostly irrelevant for old chars).


Hamano Walker
Posted - 2009.12.28 21:35:00 - [109]
 

I disagree. Even if pegging insurance to mineral costs were not subject to manipulation, the cost of ships would likely hang around the current insurance value. So now it would be not only profitable to make suicide ships, it would be profitable to make speculative suicide ships and hold tham until their insurance value goes up.

Also note that the amount by which individual minerals are below their base value does not bear out the theory that suicide ships are the problem. The higher the base value of a given mineral the greater the percentage deflation. In other words Tritanium and pyerite are produced in quantities closer to demand than Megacyte. Since the total value of a constructed ship remains the same (because of insurance) you would expect that the most expensive (as a percentage of base cost) minerals would be those that are produced in the least quantity. The numbers show that, for whatever reason, the less experienced players are actually getting a better deal than the lowsec miners.

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises
Posted - 2009.12.28 21:47:00 - [110]
 

Edited by: Bagehi on 28/12/2009 21:49:12
Recently made about 100m while watching a movie using this insurance fraud method. Pretty silly if you ask me, but I can't really complain as it benefits me.

Like many real world corporations, insurance should be handled by the corporations (or maybe on an alliance level). If CCP wanted to be nice about it, they could do most of the maths for us so CEOs don't fly to Iceland and go postal. Allow corps/alliances to set reimbursement levels - a percentage of risk burden the corp/alliance takes for a ship. This could be set negative to dissuade players from flying certain ships (or to create income for the corp/alliance).

The cost of insurance would then be calculated by the risk of ship loss for that ship type for that player, minus/plus the risk taken on (or added) by the corp/alliance - this should easily be able to be calculated when a player opens the insurance window for that ship. It shouldn't take much computing for the servers (especially if the average market values for ships were tabulated daily at downtime).

Let's be honest, many alliances/corps are already doing something along these lines already (as insurance for t2 ships is a joke and insurance barely covers the cost of caps, let alone the piles of much more expensive mods required to fly them). Along those lines, it might be best if there was a "fit check" that reimbursed based on specific fittings.

Of course, all of this would leave the NPC corp players without insurance. So something would need to be in place for them, such as insurance with an across the board loss per ship.

It wouldn't be an easy or quick fix to the system, but it would be a true fix.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.12.28 23:05:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Gah'Matar
Originally by: Malcanis
If you peg the net payout at, say, 90% of the mineral cost, the effect on player who use the ship 'normally' will be fairly minimal. Without the artificial price floor, the market will be able to set a true value to minerals, and prices will probably fall. I reckon by at least 30%. This means that a tier 1 BS will probably sell for around 40M ISK. Given that it costs about 20-40M to T2 fit a BS, increasing the post-insurance cost to 24-44M isn't really going to make a big difference to most people's willingness to use them. Even if prices stay the same, we're looking at 25.5 - 45.5M instead of 20-40M.



This works if something provides stability to the mineral price from manipulations. Probably something along the lines of the median price paid over the last 7 days throughout all of new eden (can be computed during downtime / offline). Payout and premium would become static as off when the policy was subscribed. So if BS prices went up 30% then net payout would become something like ~66%. If price went down significantly, you could strip the ship, blow it up and buy a replacement for a small one-time profit.

Another thing is that with insurance "guaranteed" to pay less then replacement cost, daily or weekly premiums would make sense improving the affordability of insurance to new chars (while being mostly irrelevant for old chars).




Have you any idea how much ISK it would take to move the whole mineral market by more than 10%? Trillions wouldn't be enough. And you'd need to move it rather more than 10% to actually make a profit, and do it quite fast as well. That kind of manipulation would not only require vast capital, it would also be fantastically susceptible to outside interference. If the dynamic insurance price is based on market sales, that means you can only change the mineral basket price by actually buying or selling minerals. Unfilled buy/sell orders wont affect the insurance price. Even if you're just selling them back and forth to an alt, the quantities involved would rack up inconceivable broker fees, and people would start to notice long before you'd moved the basket price 2%, let alone 20%.

Asuri Kinnes
Caldari
Adhocracy Incorporated
Posted - 2009.12.29 04:14:00 - [112]
 

Going to have to support Malcanis on this one.


I understand that prices on ships will go down, but I can't help but think that when/if there were *no* insurance payout, a LOT of people would do MUCH less pvp.

If, in effect your making isk when a ship is blown up, taking insurance right out (as Fillius wants) would up the cost to *me* to where I would really step back and either fly something much smaller, or stop flying pvp at all... vOv

I still support modding/removing insurance because insurance fraud as an industry is wrong!



Hamano Walker
Posted - 2009.12.29 11:49:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Malcanis

If the dynamic insurance price is based on market sales, that means you can only change the mineral basket price by actually buying or selling minerals. Unfilled buy/sell orders wont affect the insurance price. Even if you're just selling them back and forth to an alt, the quantities involved would rack up inconceivable broker fees, and people would start to notice long before you'd moved the basket price 2%, let alone 20%.


So you want to base it on. . .let's say 90% of the mean price of completed orders for a given mineral in the last. . .week (month, six months, year)? The basic problem is the same one as pegging it to actual ship price. I may not be able to manipulate the real sell price, the price that someone else pays for minerals, I grant.

Two operators with a few billion between them can drive the value of completed orders of Tritanium up pretty quickly, though. Depending on the calculations, you might be able to throw them off by having one sell many units to the other at slightly higher than market value or by selling a very few units at an insanely high value.

No matter what the system is, static or dynamic, someone will find a way to game it. I consider most of this immaterial, though, after looking at actual price vs base price of minerals. The entire argument that insurance is a problem is based on two assumptions:

Demand for minerals exceeds non-fraud supply.

Mineral prices are artificially high as a result of this.

Its also taken as a given that the amount of low skill highsec mining taking place vastly exceeds high skill lowsec. I agree with that.

Based on these givens, one would expect that higher base price (ie rarer) minerals would be more inflated above their base price while low end minerals would be less inflated or deflated. Since all of them together have to add up to the price of one ship, the adjustments have to balance out somewhere. If you look at the actual numbers, Tritanium actually sells for more than its base price while Megacyte sells for about a third. This is not a result that supports the two fundamental arguments.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.12.31 20:43:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Hamano Walker

Two operators with a few billion between them can drive the value of completed orders of Tritanium up pretty quickly, though. Depending on the calculations, you might be able to throw them off by having one sell many units to the other at slightly higher than market value or by selling a very few units at an insanely high value.


I seriously doubt that they would be able to do this. Those broker fees will add up fast, for one thing. And basing the basket price off of market sales means that this toing and froing with minerals is susceptible to other players ninjaing in their own orders. One tiny slip by the would-be market manipulators would leave them with billions of units of someone else's 25 isk trit.

Have a look at the weekly mineral sales volume over the whole of EvE, and work out how much you'd have to spend to raise the aggregate mineral price by, say, 20% using the methods you outline. The sums involved are almost inconceivable. And there's no way you can do it stealthily, and there's no way you can prevent other people profiting by at least as much as you but without spending all that ISK.

Asuri Kinnes
Caldari
Adhocracy Incorporated
Posted - 2010.01.10 12:24:00 - [115]
 

/bumping this, because of the Emo-Rage in all the "NERF SUICIDE GANKS" whines...

Tools...

Dariah Stardweller
Gallente
NO U111 Enterprises
Posted - 2010.01.10 14:42:00 - [116]
 

Needs to be reworked.

Hamano Walker
Posted - 2010.01.10 16:37:00 - [117]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Hamano Walker


I seriously doubt that they would be able to do this. Those broker fees will add up fast, for one thing. And basing the basket price off of market sales means that this toing and froing with minerals is susceptible to other players ninjaing in their own orders. One tiny slip by the would-be market manipulators would leave them with billions of units of someone else's 25 isk trit.




Absolutely agreed that raising the overall average completed order price by any appreciable amount is nigh impossible. Lowering it, on the other hand, requires nothing more than a freighter full of Trit (or whatever), two characters that could even be on the same account and one station anywhere that either has no trit up for sale or can be bought out efficiently. 0.0 offers any number of these. The higher base cost the mineral, the easier it is to tank this arbitrary average figure.

The cost in fees (with no trade skills at all) would be roughly 3ISK/10,000 units to set up a local sell order for .01/unit with the left hand and to buy it with the right. I leave it to you to figure out what effect this bizarre indirect manipulation of insurance and mineral prices would do.

Of course all of this is entirely beside the point since the mineral prices do not justify the logic that insurance inflates them. I invite you to compare which minerals are the most overpriced and the most underpriced. If insurance were bouying mineral prices, you would expect the high end minerals (low supply) to be the ones reaping the most benefits. Yet Tritanium is the only mineral that can not be readily acquired for less than its base value and the highest few can easily be had for 1/2-1/3 their base value. Those aren't artificially high prices based on insurance fraud.

Big Bit
Posted - 2010.01.10 16:52:00 - [118]
 


Chilton Haynes
Posted - 2010.01.11 03:31:00 - [119]
 

Insurance needs to be re-worked or elimintated.

I don't think it is fair to the game for people to optimize loopholes and abuse it.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.01.11 05:02:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 11/01/2010 05:04:18
Originally by: Hamano Walker


I seriously doubt that they would be able to do this. Those broker fees will add up fast, for one thing. And basing the basket price off of market sales means that this toing and froing with minerals is susceptible to other players ninjaing in their own orders. One tiny slip by the would-be market manipulators would leave them with billions of units of someone else's 25 isk trit.

Absolutely agreed that raising the overall average completed order price by any appreciable amount is nigh impossible. Lowering it, on the other hand, requires nothing more than a freighter full of Trit (or whatever), two characters that could even be on the same account and one station anywhere that either has no trit up for sale or can be bought out efficiently. 0.0 offers any number of these. The higher base cost the mineral, the easier it is to tank this arbitrary average figure.

The cost in fees (with no trade skills at all) would be roughly 3ISK/10,000 units to set up a local sell order for .01/unit with the left hand and to buy it with the right. I leave it to you to figure out what effect this bizarre indirect manipulation of insurance and mineral prices would do.

Of course all of this is entirely beside the point since the mineral prices do not justify the logic that insurance inflates them. I invite you to compare which minerals are the most overpriced and the most underpriced. If insurance were bouying mineral prices, you would expect the high end minerals (low supply) to be the ones reaping the most benefits. Yet Tritanium is the only mineral that can not be readily acquired for less than its base value and the highest few can easily be had for 1/2-1/3 their base value. Those aren't artificially high prices based on insurance fraud.


It's trivially obvious that ship insurance does provide a price floor (minus a small percentage for production costs, etc) for the aggregate value of minerals, since there's no real limit to the amount of minerals you can use this way. If insurance was not bouying the price of minerals then the aggregate price would have to be higher than the insurance value, since insurance is effectively an unlimited NPC buy order.

As the price of one mineral rises, the others fall to compensate. High-end minerals have been depressed far below their base value for 2 years now for the simple reason that vast quantities of them are easily available from the rats in drone space. (The huge amounts of high-ends available in W-space didn't help prices either) When I started playing back in 2006, Zydrine and Megacyte were a lot closer to their base values, and ships typically sold for 10-20% above net insurance value. After the drone regions opened, high end prices went in to free fall, and T1 ship prices sank to insurance value, never to rise more than 2-3% above it again.

The facts are there for anyone to see.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

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