open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked CRITICAL issue : the risk/reward balance of minerals and moonstuff
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

Author Topic

Brainless Bimbo
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.14 13:37:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Frecator Dementa
Edited by: Frecator Dementa on 14/06/2008 08:47:10
Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
slow the server down

slow a database down a by significant amount by adding a FEW more rows to a table? (he didn't say he wanted to duplicate every BPO in existance, just T2 components)
you might as well argue that CCP should not accept new players since they will slow the servers down...
true to your name, as always

also, you don't actually have to duplicate DB entries, just have a universally applicable procedure like "turn 50% of trit requirements into pyerite for this particular manufacture job"
Re read what the OP said plz, they bought up Shuttles which don't happen to be T2 do they, a BPO called Shuttle II is an additional line?, they cost more and are also worth less (reprocess) and that undermines thier utility.
OK so slow the server down may be so slight you may not notice, it it all adds up eventually. All that is added is a new BPO, that generates additional buy and sell orders for them, it also reduces availability of Science and Industry lines as more competition for them. It doesn't matter how much of whatever is comsumed making the good database wise does it as they already exist in the game and already have their buy/sell order lines etc.

Adding a duplicate item therefore adds a greater database load for no real phyical end benifit, the item could have been made at a different price using existing methods, thats the mechanic of the game and the real world the substitution is a duplication as no addition attributes are held by the goods.

You may notice that i elaborate the T2 BPC modification above which is a good idea, they could use difering amounts of existing materials without which actually gives a far great effect to the game for the same amount of effort, it deals with over supplied minerals and reactions to a degree for inputs and it undermines Tech 2 BPO holders advantage by offering a Meta lvl version of a tech 2 item as they have to use the BPC route to get them. far more of a win win don't you agree.

Yes its small scale, effects only high end players, but the risk reward ratios will always be broken because its a game and people sell at well below cost at times as they don't put a value on thier time or datacores etc, thats because its a game, understand its for fun not making shed loads of ISK's. Anyone however can take advatage and turn a profit by becoming a factor for such goods, if you can cover your losses, buy what you want when you want, having 500 trillion ISK doesn't add to the fun of the game, it just makes wannabe captialst slave owners get an erection.

Daelin Blackleaf
White Rose Society
Posted - 2008.06.14 13:45:00 - [32]
 

A most important issue.

Brainless Bimbo
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.14 13:47:00 - [33]
 

Akita T>..

cost benifit!

They (new BPO's and associated items as outlined above) are calls for no purpose, the good already exist, additional load for no real benifit apart from market regulation, but yes its very slight, Jita will be 1 nano sec later, but it is an effect none the less. They are less attractive to the market as imput cost is higher and reprocessing value is lower % than existing.

Did i say changing ppl's behaviour is bad, nope i did not, i said it would change i gave no comment on what type of change it would be or the effects on the individuals, you have assumed something from nothing, the implication is yours alone from my nuetural observation.

Ratios are set by market availabity and customer demand across the board, yes removal of insurance will make the free market take over, you have stated that you like Free Markets not communist co-ops that are regulated, but you now admit that you don't want to have a free market as prices will change in ways that may cause chaos in game, but whats a little choas in a sandbox?

Its cost benifit / impact on game, storage costs money, CPU cycles costs money, bandwidth costs money, writing code costs money, testing that code costs money, deploying it costs money, if it can be done better and cheaper they will, they want the greatest effect for the lowest price, they run a business too you know.

Prices will never be zero unless everyone stops being greedy, stops blowing other ppl up etc, you fail with that straw man, its a totally bogus argument, a better one would have been a market crash and re adjustment to eve perceived values which would hurt lots of people while enriching others at thier expense, but having it otherwise is communism isn't it.

LOL you don't understand a Free Market and why you have never lived in one, its a nasty, nasty place, the Amarr mixed with the Caldari stories are loose demonstrations of what a Free Market will acheive (mega corps and thier elites and slaves with a hint of religon to make it palatable and soothe the soul).

Veldspar may be best ISK/hr but only until miners exploit it and drive the price down, as i said the risk reward time ratio can be tweaked by roid and loot manipulation, 15% less chance of NPC loot, would have a greater effect than what you propose.

Siona Windweaver
Placeholder Holdings
Posted - 2008.06.14 14:16:00 - [34]
 

I agree.

BlondieBC
Minmatar
Galactic Exploration and Missions

Posted - 2008.06.14 14:23:00 - [35]
 

Definately need adjustment to minerals to make ores have correct risk/reward. Nocx needs a boost, trit needs a downgrade in price. I would recommend adjusting drone drops by replacing nocx with trit in some of the drone alloys.

As to moon metals, i think the exploration system could bring additional supply.

I would also love to see moon metal hauler spawns. If they carry mins around, why not moon metals.

Mundem Pashdale
Sacred Templars
Black Star Alliance
Posted - 2008.06.14 14:35:00 - [36]
 

Supported

The current moon materials market is getting increasingly like the T2 BPO monopolise of old. Those with the moons have the resources to do as they please with the market but the rest of the market suffers; it would be OK if other lower end moons where less profitable, but still profitable, but the extreem value of a few moons is badly unbalancing industry atm

I'm not sure what the solution is persoanly, but I would like to maybe see the demand for rare resources fall and lower end ones increase, like the way you need a great deal of tirtanium to build a battleship, so that those with low end moons or doing processing of moon materials have the ability to turn some sort of profit, whilst those who worked for the high ends still enjoy a high value for those assets

-This is my personal view and is not indicative of any views heled by my alliance or corperation-

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2008.06.14 16:48:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Mundem Pashdale
Supported

The current moon materials market is getting increasingly like the T2 BPO monopolise of old. Those with the moons have the resources to do as they please with the market but the rest of the market suffers; it would be OK if other lower end moons where less profitable, but still profitable, but the extreem value of a few moons is badly unbalancing industry atm

I'm not sure what the solution is persoanly, but I would like to maybe see the demand for rare resources fall and lower end ones increase, like the way you need a great deal of tirtanium to build a battleship, so that those with low end moons or doing processing of moon materials have the ability to turn some sort of profit, whilst those who worked for the high ends still enjoy a high value for those assets

-This is my personal view and is not indicative of any views heled by my alliance or corperation-


What's most amusing by this turn of events is that Akita predicted the bottle neck would be moved to moon minerals instead of where it was (read BPOs) before the advent of invention.

And I'd have to go looking... but I'm pretty sure Akita also predicted which T2 moon mins would be the bread winners.

This is what Brainless Bimbo is missing. The only true influence anyone has in totality over the market is CCP. We players think we have a free market... but we still play within the guided and fenced areas that CCP sets.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.14 17:33:00 - [38]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 14/06/2008 17:46:25

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
What's most amusing by this turn of events is that Akita predicted the bottle neck would be moved to moon minerals instead of where it was (read BPOs) before the advent of invention.
And I'd have to go looking... but I'm pretty sure Akita also predicted which T2 moon mins would be the bread winners.

Made that prediction so long ago I have trouble finding the post myself Laughing
Of course, back then, I had no idea just how skewed the demand:supply ratios for moon materials were, so I considered it a desirable change.
It would still be ok, if the ratios of demand in products would be (inversely) proportional to scarcity of material, not the current situation.

A possibility (actually, make that "most likely") would be that I made that prediction in the now-deleted forum subsection that handled "Kali pre-release issues" (the codename for "Revelations"), so you'd only be able to find those posts on eve-search.
EDIT: Hmm, not there either. Just checked.


Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.06.14 18:49:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Herschel Yamamoto on 14/06/2008 19:26:04
The "problem" with ores in the OP is not actually a problem - price fluctuations are not a bad thing. Ore prices are relatively reasonable now. The highsec ores are worth about 60-90 isk per m3, lowesc are 60-100, and 0.0 are 130-450. Lowsec needs a boost(I've suggested putting Gneiss, Dark Ochre, and Spodumain in scannable belts, to up the lowsec peak to about 220), but the 5:1 ratio between Bistot and Veldspar is just fine. They have value in proportion to their rarity and difficulty of access, and ores with similar availability are pushed to similar prices for obvious reasons. I don't think loot refinement has yet managed to meet the demand for any mineral(though I don't have data to back that up), so there shouldn't be any bottoming-out going on because of it.

Also, I'll specifically say no to alternate blueprints - I don't want to deal with the astoundingly large headaches that would cause.

As for moons, I'm open to moon concentration being expanded upon, because the current system is both too unbalanced and too hard-limited for my liking. I don't know exactly what the right fix is, but there does seem to be a problem.

Edit: One thing I forgot to mention. Calling this a "CRITICAL" issue is a filthy lie.

hennep
Institute for the Harmonious Development of Man
Posted - 2008.06.14 19:33:00 - [40]
 

Akita T has been around a lot longer than I, her prediction of a new bottleneck with moon materials would replace the T2 BPO monolopy ISK printing press was known to CCP before they even anounced Kali, if they didn't the game designer wasn't doing his job.

Remember we don't know the long story do we, CCP dev's are reading this thread laughing at our squabling, have you noticed that they are recovering the story line regarding the Amarr succession that went astray (lolz), so they got a long term plan albeit sketcky and flexiable, but they aren't flying by the seat of thier pants.

There are so many ways that the moon material bottleneck inducing market issue can be solved, but it has to adhere to an over all concept and add a lot to the game play in a radically diferent and rewarding way for evryone for it to divert attention to the next build in bottle neck which is there to replace it.

Bottlenecks have to exist in the game, control of criticial items drives game play, for that not to happen makes the game carebear central, if high end moon minerals weren't a premium they would lose the value needed to drive Alliance conflict.

High end moon materials just got a boost, more is available in Black Rise, so supply has increaced in high ends, but the Alliances set the Price and Availability of high end minerals and control the bottleneck. If ccp can see that its politically engineered why should they act, its part of the player driven content ffs.

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2008.06.14 19:49:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 14/06/2008 17:46:25

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
What's most amusing by this turn of events is that Akita predicted the bottle neck would be moved to moon minerals instead of where it was (read BPOs) before the advent of invention.
And I'd have to go looking... but I'm pretty sure Akita also predicted which T2 moon mins would be the bread winners.

Made that prediction so long ago I have trouble finding the post myself Laughing
Of course, back then, I had no idea just how skewed the demand:supply ratios for moon materials were, so I considered it a desirable change.
It would still be ok, if the ratios of demand in products would be (inversely) proportional to scarcity of material, not the current situation.

A possibility (actually, make that "most likely") would be that I made that prediction in the now-deleted forum subsection that handled "Kali pre-release issues" (the codename for "Revelations"), so you'd only be able to find those posts on eve-search.
EDIT: Hmm, not there either. Just checked.




It was well before Kali had sections dedicated to it, and at that point invention was just a glimmer in some Dev's eye done on a blog or some such.

In any event, tbe best solution is to create a better ratio of moon minerals for T2 components and then ALSO include alternate prints that mirror.. say... the locales in space.

For instance northern regions are heavy gas but in the end with the right prints can produce the same thing. Southern regions are metal heavy, but again with the right prints can produce the same thing.

In this regard, no single location has complete control and bottle neck.

With regard to ores, the solution is simple and has been presented nine hundred times over. Eliminate insurance, and eliminate high end minerals from loot drops.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.06.14 20:18:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
With regard to ores, the solution is simple and has been presented nine hundred times over. Eliminate insurance, and eliminate high end minerals from loot drops.


Do you mean eliminating insurance entirely, or just its price-fixing aspect? And if it's the former, why? As for loot drops, loot drops are items, and refine as such. What you're suggesting is to remove high-end minerals from all item blueprints, and that's crazy.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.14 20:42:00 - [43]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 14/06/2008 20:57:34
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
The "problem" with ores in the OP is not actually a problem - price fluctuations are not a bad thing. Ore prices are relatively reasonable now. The highsec ores are worth about 60-90 isk per m3, lowesc are 60-100, and 0.0 are 130-450.
[...]
Calling this a "CRITICAL" issue is a filthy lie.


Recent prices - galactic averages

Mineral - base value , actual value ; deviation
ANY HIGHSEC -> Veldspar - 60 , 84 ; +40%
hisec -> Scordite - 100 , 81 ; -19%
hisec -> Pyroxeres - 116 , 65 ; -44%
hisec -> Plagioclase - 110 , 77 ; -30%
highsec Gal/Min, mostly lowsec -> Omber - 136 , 66 ; -52%
highsec Amarr/Ammatar/Khanid, mostly lowsec -> Kernite - 156 , 89 ; -43%
LOWSEC -> Jaspet - 168 , 57 ; -66%
LOWSEC -> Hemorphite - 201 , 80 ; -60%
LOWSEC -> Hedbergite - 225 , 101 ; -55%
0.0 -> Gneiss - 200 , 216 ; +8%
0.0 -> Dark Ochre - 240 , 200 ; -16%
0.0 ONLY !!! -> Spodumain - 287 , 133 ; -54%
deep 0.0 -> Crokite - 382 , 402 ; +5%
deep 0.0 -> Bistot - 653 , 453 ; -31%
deep 0.0 -> Arkonor - 957 , 515 ; -46%
deep 0.0 -> Mercoxit - 1737 , 484 ; -72%


Of course, in highsec hubs, the deviation is even stronger : Veldspar can be worth up to almost 100 ISK/m^3 there.
Omber and Kernite have alternative desirability, needed for "Materials for War" mission that rewards you with an implant.
Other than that, you can easily see the things are quite far away from initial base values... even if you take an almost -20% as the norm for mining yield, a LOT of ores are well below that too, with Veldspar practically almost double of what you'd expect it to be if -20% would be the norm (even above double in the hubs).

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
As for loot drops, loot drops are items, and refine as such. What you're suggesting is to remove high-end minerals from all item blueprints, and that's crazy.


Eliminating T1 loot drops altogether from the loot tables while keeping all named loot drops would pretty much reduce the mineral level income from mission loot to one half, maybe even one third of current levels.
Reworking the mineral make-up of ALL drone alloys to ensure a more "balanced" distribution of all mineral tiers would mean two things : one, the mission-runners will not have any further mineral imbalancing effect at all, and two, the drone regions will be a lot more self-sufficient mineral-wise (which is a good thing, since they're lacking quite a bit in performance) while at the same time reducing their impact on the highend mineral market.

Removing, altering or leaving insurance as it is will only serve to establish a certain overall minimal value for minerals, the ratios (and therefore their relative prices) are only slightly affected by the absolute level.

Stanley B
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.06.14 21:52:00 - [44]
 

after ready this topic for the last three days. (yes i am a slow reader) I dont claim to be an expert but most of the suggestions seem complicated.

My idea for the mineral debate would be to ad a new elite class of Veldspar. that refined into more tritanium and only spawned in lowsec and 0.0

Reasoning I see is 0.0 would not need as much of the highsec mined trit and for lowsec it would be more reward vs risk to mine it in lowsec

Brainless Bimbo
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.15 00:31:00 - [45]
 

Yes the overall trend is the erosion from the base price, an average of 33% across the board, but as only 1 effectively out of the 16 have not fallen (trit), without the rises it shows a 45% decreace on average.

Mercoxit could also be left out as its a T2 not a T1 base item and at a -72 from base it may give an indication that base price may have lost it's meaning or the market is well over supplied.


The question as i see it is really;

As supply and demand set the price why is Veldspar in short supply (high price) even though it is the most plentful of ores in the lowest risk areas (high sec)?.

If supply was plentliful it would be following the overall trend, which has to be downward as the base ammount present of everything in new eden is always being added too no matter how many ships get blown up, the available quantity grows daily.

Veldspar is the basis of life and source of all profit, maybe Chribba has it sussed with the Veldnought, people see no glamour sitting in high sec chewing Veld even though thats where the money is, it could be a simple as that!


Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.15 01:19:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 15/06/2008 01:24:11
Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
As supply and demand set the price why is Veldspar in short supply (high price) even though it is the most plentful of ores in the lowest risk areas (high sec)?

It's all about opportunity cost.
ON AVERAGE, as time goes on, more and more people will do whatever it is that gets them more cash in the long run, if the risk levels are relatively the same... or might take on a higher risk if the reward is proportional.

Is mining Veldspar better than running L3 mission at your skills ? You'll mine Veldspar.
Is ratting in the drone regions more profitable than mining Arkonor in some 0.0 ? You'll rat in the drone regions.
Is running L4s in highsec better than ratting in some 0.0 ? You'll run L4s in highsec.
And so on and so forth, given equal risk levels, more and more people will do whatever is more profitable.
Yes, exceptions exist, people that keep doing whatever it was they were doing without checking and re-checking (like, for instance, people mining Jaspet in lowsec like crazy, because they used to do that for a good profit a long time ago, and they didn't bother veryfing if it's still the case), but like I said, ON AVERAGE, more people will do the more profitable things, and a lot less the less profitable ones.

And to answer your "why" question more clearly : because the only RELIABLE and SUFFICIENT source of Tritanium in the VAST QUANTITIES that Tritanium is required (compared to the other minerals) is mining Veldspar.

Want Pyerite ? There's a vast surplus of Pyerite from mission-runners and people reprocessing NPC-sold items that contain both Tritanium and Pyerite, as they need Tritanium but have no use for the Pyerite.
Want Nocxium or Megacyte ? There's a vast surplus of all of these coming over from the drone regions, slightly less Megacyte lately, so it corrected a litle bit.
Mexallon was very high for a while, as it was needed in significant quantities in the drone regions. As a little bit of Megacyte was replaced by a chunk of Mexallon in one of the alloys dropped there, Megacyte prices rose and Mexallon prices dropped.
And so on and so forth, for each rise and fall of mineral prices, there's always a trivial explanation on how changes made by CCP, and ONLY those changes alone fully explain all the deviations in price of individual minerals.

Sophie Daigneau
CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society

Posted - 2008.06.15 03:23:00 - [47]
 

I don't totally agree with some of the solutions suggested, but I do very strongly agree that this is one area that could use some attention so I'll support the idea anyways.

Oakrayven
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2008.06.15 03:32:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Original thread.
Short version

Problems :

1* slowly/constantly tweaking the blueprint/reaction inputs requirements so that they require less of the over-evaluated materials and more of the under-evaluated ones
2* adding alternative blueprints/reactions which use a lot more "currently undervalued" materials, with very little or even none of the "currently overevaluated" ones, which would output the same (or virtually identical) products
3* for moons, revamping extraction on a "per concentration" basis, with most (if not all) materials present in each and every moon, just with different rates of extraction
4* for minerals, a multitude of sub-solutions, ranging from a revamp of drone alloy drops (no more abundance of highends and lack of lowends), or rethinking ore make-up (in terms of refining yields) or even a total revamp of the mining system (all ore available everywhere, just with different concentrations - i.e. different extraction rates for various ores, depending on system security).



ok in order

1* Ok first off how the hell do you plan to impliment this given the kind of database they use? Never mind that, this solution is so childishly simple to game its rediculous, simply set up in one of the bascialy empty stations in low-00 and swap say Veldspar at 1,000,000,000 per to put artifical preasure on that mineral to drive the price down, or if you want help freeze people out, just endlessly trade thousands of Nocxium at .01 per thus causing the BPs to suddenly demand more nox.

the second problem? it does nothing about the seemingly ever growing supply of minerals. lets face it, given the combined fact of Improving ME = Fewer minerals used with the reality that between improved skills and better modules and better ships running missions, theirs more minerals hitting the marketplace

The other problem with this idea? Its a (surprisingly lame) attempt to price fix. bascialy what your trying to do Akita is casping your little producerce hat in your hand and begging CCP to please please PLEASE make it so that nothing can sell for under this price because if anyone does their only cutting there own necks.

2* (SIGH) where do I even start with this one. . .

A: again, how the hell do you plan to do this with EVEs database? First, Every time you creat a "new" BPO with this system your actualy creating a new basetype in the reference database. both the normal BPOs, the Researched BPOs, and the BPC all refer to the base type in the database after all. Second, how OFTEN do you do this to the reference database, Daily? Weekly? monthly? once a year? With the system they use the fewer calls and searches on it the better, and the smaller you can keep it (the basetype database) the better. Third

B) what about the person with the older and now mutch more expensive (or cheeper depending on how prices go) BPO? force them to buy a new one perhaps?

C) incidentaly you also managed to combine the problems with your previous sugestion!

3) ok so you bascialy want to just spread out and randomise moon resources a bit more?, bascialy thats just going to **** off the people who have the monopolies, (see the never ending arguments about why people were allowed to keep their T2 BPOs once they put invention into the game) and force people to go looking for other moons to work because some of the moon they have are suddenly worthless, and odds are some of thoes moons will be just like they are, left undeveloped because its still not cost efective to mine 1 unit of the current high priced mineral a day. (yes their are moons with no POSes by them for whatever reason)

4) ok first off, taking away the rewards from mission runners-ratters plex runners is generaly considered to be a non starter,

Second, a better idea might be to shift respawn on roids based on the maket value

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.06.15 03:41:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
The "problem" with ores in the OP is not actually a problem - price fluctuations are not a bad thing. Ore prices are relatively reasonable now. The highsec ores are worth about 60-90 isk per m3, lowesc are 60-100, and 0.0 are 130-450.
[...]
Calling this a "CRITICAL" issue is a filthy lie.


Recent prices - galactic averages

(prices)

Of course, in highsec hubs, the deviation is even stronger : Veldspar can be worth up to almost 100 ISK/m^3 there.
Omber and Kernite have alternative desirability, needed for "Materials for War" mission that rewards you with an implant.
Other than that, you can easily see the things are quite far away from initial base values... even if you take an almost -20% as the norm for mining yield, a LOT of ores are well below that too, with Veldspar practically almost double of what you'd expect it to be if -20% would be the norm (even above double in the hubs).


The mineral prices you're using are slightly different than the ones I based my numbers off, but sure, we'll use yours. What is wrong with any of those numbers? As I said above, and in a couple other threads, lowsec needs a boost, but the values seem to line up well with the risks aside from that. The only problem I see here is that you're treating "base prices" like they mean anything - to my understanding, they're relics from a half-decade ago when CCP was trying to manage the economy. Delete the "base prices" columns from all your tables, and you'll get an accurate representation of the real situation. Their only actual utility is in insurance calculations, and that needs to change to a market-based system instead of a fiat-based system. I've got a thread on that very topic lurking in these forums.

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
As for loot drops, loot drops are items, and refine as such. What you're suggesting is to remove high-end minerals from all item blueprints, and that's crazy.


Eliminating T1 loot drops altogether from the loot tables while keeping all named loot drops would pretty much reduce the mineral level income from mission loot to one half, maybe even one third of current levels.
Reworking the mineral make-up of ALL drone alloys to ensure a more "balanced" distribution of all mineral tiers would mean two things : one, the mission-runners will not have any further mineral imbalancing effect at all, and two, the drone regions will be a lot more self-sufficient mineral-wise (which is a good thing, since they're lacking quite a bit in performance) while at the same time reducing their impact on the highend mineral market.

Removing, altering or leaving insurance as it is will only serve to establish a certain overall minimal value for minerals, the ratios (and therefore their relative prices) are only slightly affected by the absolute level.


So you're advocating that we make bad items more expensive. I'm generally opposed to that - I like the fact that newbies can fit up ships for dirt cheap. You're also suggesting that we remove a sizable proportion of the income from combat with NPCs - I do L4 missions, and I'd say unnamed loot drops are somewhere between 10% and 20% of my income. You seem to dislike the fact that CCP changes cost/benefit ratios for various activities, but are encouraging it in this case because it fits in better with how you want the game to look. I could conceivably support this, but I'd need hard data suggesting that the reason for certain minerals being dirt cheap is that reprocessing is fulfilling the vast majority of the demand, not just supposition.

Oakrayven
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
Posted - 2008.06.15 03:54:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Oakrayven on 15/06/2008 04:01:46
Edited by: Oakrayven on 15/06/2008 04:00:57
a modest proposal

make the static roid belts more dynamic with their spawning in that "low Current value" ores spawn in higher security belts than more valuable ores, currently that would mean that

Empire ores:
Jaspet 64.90 ISK
Omber 69.60 ISK
Pyroxeres 74.92 ISK
Palagioclase 87.97 ISK
Hemorphite 89.53 ISK
Scordite 90.84 ISK


Low sec ores :
Note due to the demand for it, Velspar may be treatable as a "special case" ore in that the roids spawn "denser" the lower the security level needed to force them to spawn)Veldspar 97.60 ISK
Kernite 98.37 ISK
Hedbergite 112.47 ISK
Spodumain 140.69 ISK
Dark Ochre 231.04 ISK


0.0 Ores :
Gneiss 248.60 ISK
Arkonor 447.29 ISK
Crokite 464.52 ISK
Bistot 505.73 ISK
Mercoxit 530.00 ISK


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

a bit of a modification for thoes refer to their being "2" 0.0, normal 0.0 and "Deep" 0.0
Empire ores:
Jaspet 64.90 ISK
Omber 69.60 ISK
Pyroxeres 74.92 ISK
Palagioclase 87.97 ISK
Hemorphite 89.53 ISK


Low sec ores :
Scordite 90.84 ISK
Note due to the demand for it, Velspar may be treatable as a "special case" ore in that the roids spawn "denser" the lower the security level needed to force them to spawn)Veldspar 97.60 ISK
Kernite 98.37 ISK
Hedbergite 112.47 ISK


0.0 Ores :
Spodumain 140.69 ISK
Dark Ochre 231.04 ISK
Gneiss 248.60 ISK
Arkonor 447.29 ISK


"Deep" 0.0:
Crokite 464.52 ISK
Bistot 505.73 ISK
Mercoxit 530.00 ISK

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.15 08:33:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Oakrayven
Originally by: Akita T
slowly/constantly tweaking the blueprint/reaction inputs requirements so that they require less of the over-evaluated materials and more of the under-evaluated ones

Ok first off how the hell do you plan to impliment this given the kind of database they use? Never mind that, this solution is so childishly simple to game its rediculous, simply set up in one of the bascialy empty stations in low-00 and swap say Veldspar at 1,000,000,000 per to put artifical preasure on that mineral to drive the price down, or if you want help freeze people out, just endlessly trade thousands of Nocxium at .01 per thus causing the BPs to suddenly demand more nox.
the second problem? it does nothing about the seemingly ever growing supply of minerals. lets face it, given the combined fact of Improving ME = Fewer minerals used with the reality that between improved skills and better modules and better ships running missions, theirs more minerals hitting the marketplace
The other problem with this idea? Its a (surprisingly lame) attempt to price fix. bascialy what your trying to do Akita is casping your little producerce hat in your hand and begging CCP to please please PLEASE make it so that nothing can sell for under this price because if anyone does their only cutting there own necks.

Where do I start ?

First off, you assume that I meant some automatic method of adjusting prices on a daily basis or somesuch.
I certainly didn't mean that, but ok, let's even assume for a second that this would indeed be the case.

Considering your presented "exploits", the outliers (materials traded far above or far below recent averages, or traded volumes far above regional averages in a single location and so on) can easily be discarded for this calculation's purposes.
In the case of low-valued minerals, setting an insanely high price means you lose quite a lot on trade taxes, so I can only question the utility even if those prices wouldn't be filtered out ; in the case on high-valued minerals, you either have to spend a lot of time (and taxes) in order to slowly adjust regional average prices and average volumes, while risking that somebody could just come in and swipe all your low-brow orders, or you are easily filtered out because your prices are insignificant.

Either way, what I actually meant by "slowly/constantly" was "every week/month, somebody from CCP will look at things and decide what this week's/month's adjustments should be, if any, to some high-demand product blueprints". It makes sense from multiple perspectives : you tweak the least amount of blueprints so it's not a big deal to follow in patchnotes, but you generate the most impact on the mineral market, also, as you only slightly, but often tweak them, it even sort of follows RP-wise (those in high demand get "improved" by the empires in terms of cost-effectiveness).

To your "second problem" and third "other problem", NOTHING you can possibly do with mineral price ratios will do anything about the "ever growing supply of minerals".
As long as the insurance system remains in place, the aggregate price of minerals in the average ratios used in ship construction will always hover somewhere above 70% of the base price of the same aggregate. So it would be at best a futile attempt to even try to "solve" this problem in any other way except reducing insurance payouts... but I'm pretty sure some people would be insanely upset in case that's ever going to happen.
It's pointless of you to claim I would have some vested interest in keeping goods above or below a certain price, when insurance already does it marvellously... and in case insurance would go away and these changes proposed would go live (fast and often), the end-result would be a lowering of prices, not an increase.
Still, I don't see insurance getting any changes any time soon, so your two "issues" here are completely moot.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.15 08:41:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Oakrayven
Originally by: Akita T
2* adding alternative blueprints/reactions which use a lot more "currently undervalued" materials, with very little or even none of the "currently overevaluated" ones, which would output the same (or virtually identical) products

2* (SIGH) where do I even start with this one. . .
A: again, how the hell do you plan to do this with EVEs database? First, Every time you creat a "new" BPO with this system your actualy creating a new basetype in the reference database. both the normal BPOs, the Researched BPOs, and the BPC all refer to the base type in the database after all. Second, how OFTEN do you do this to the reference database, Daily? Weekly? monthly? once a year? With the system they use the fewer calls and searches on it the better, and the smaller you can keep it (the basetype database) the better. Third

B) what about the person with the older and now mutch more expensive (or cheeper depending on how prices go) BPO? force them to buy a new one perhaps?

C) incidentaly you also managed to combine the problems with your previous sugestion!


A: You couldn't possibly know all that much about databases, because if you did, you wouldn't say that. In this particular case, of a TYPE addition, the added computing requirements are minimal, if even noticeable at all in case no instances of it are spawned... and in case any are instanced, it would be not more CPU-intensive as instancing just about any other item type.

B: Nobody's forcing them to do anything. And given enough time (not that long, actually), the fact that the output products are identical, market forces will cause the two blueprint variants to end up being equally valuable.
The ONLY advantage anybody will have will be for those who buy the alternative blueprint and use it massively before the opportunity to use it at higher profits has passed. Translation, not a problem at all.

C: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this... that is to say, I fail to see a connection between what's been said so far by either of us and this remark here by you. Maybe you could explain what you mean or just drop it altogether in case the above answers have cleared things up.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.15 09:05:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Oakrayven
Originally by: Akita T
3* for moons, revamping extraction on a "per concentration" basis, with most (if not all) materials present in each and every moon, just with different rates of extraction

3) ok so you bascialy want to just spread out and randomise moon resources a bit more?, bascialy thats just going to **** off the people who have the monopolies, (see the never ending arguments about why people were allowed to keep their T2 BPOs once they put invention into the game) and force people to go looking for other moons to work because some of the moon they have are suddenly worthless, and odds are some of thoes moons will be just like they are, left undeveloped because its still not cost efective to mine 1 unit of the current high priced mineral a day. (yes their are moons with no POSes by them for whatever reason)


You mush have misunderstood this quite badly too.
The ORIGINAL moon material distribution ratios would remain exactly the same as they are right now, or would even be BOOSTED, if anything.
All that happens is that most other moon materials will be added to all moons in very small quantities.
So, for instance, instead of having an extractor that extracts EXACTLY 100 units per hour, you could have extraction rates anywhere from 1 to 100 or even from 1 to 500 per hour, depending on concentration.
The whole point is that overall, adding all concentrations of all of one type of material, the ratios of totally available/moon-mineable materials should be almost identical to the overall requirement ratios in the whole industry.
This would still keep the moons that are now valuable the most valuable (even boost their value a bit in case due to concentration one allows more than just 100 units to be extracted hourly), but will be adding some value to a lot more moons that previously had next to none.

Yes, a lot of moons that only extract 1 dysprosium per hour will probably be left alone in the LONG run... but then again, at the current prices, that's almost 60 mil ISK per month, so you'd be silly not to mine it as long as prices keep so high. After a while, when dysprosium, promethium, neodymium and thulium all start settling in roughly the same price range, the moons with just traces of dysprosium will either be abandoned or switched to mine something else instead on the same moon, something that gives a better profit per hour.

This way, you get a self-regulating system while at the same time maintaining value differences.


Originally by: Oakrayven
Originally by: Akita T
4* for minerals, a multitude of sub-solutions, ranging from a revamp of drone alloy drops (no more abundance of highends and lack of lowends), or rethinking ore make-up (in terms of refining yields) or even a total revamp of the mining system (all ore available everywhere, just with different concentrations - i.e. different extraction rates for various ores, depending on system security).

4) ok first off, taking away the rewards from mission runners-ratters plex runners is generaly considered to be a non starter,
Second, a better idea might be to shift respawn on roids based on the maket value

"First off", you have a bit of trouble understanding the concept of how mineral prices fluctuate, it seems.
No, the *overall* VALUE of the loot and alloys a ratter/missioneer will be getting NOT be changing significantly in this whole set of changes, just like how a Raven doesn't change value regardless of how each individual mineral fluctuates.
All that would change will be where exactly they're getting their value from, in terms of mineral in the reprocessable loot.

"Second", just moving ores around willy-nilly wouldn't solve all that much.
So, what do you really plan to do, move Veldspar to lowsec, for instance ?
You do realize that by doing that, you create a lot more problems than you solve ?!?
Veldspar prices would go up even further. Then what, move it to 0.0 only ? That's just silly.

Brainless Bimbo
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.15 11:02:00 - [54]
 

I understand about opportunity cost, but if they have the ISK then no matter what the price of trit is they will pay as they can afford it, keeping set prices and static differentials be buggered, Veld/Trit in short supply so pay noobs to mine it in 1.0.

Large Corporations don't worry about minerals, they can go strip a system to meet their building requirements, they don't need the market, cost don't really matter to them, they are a collective and their existance is strenght through co-operation in all things, if they can't get enough Trit or maon about relative worths they are poorly inspired, managed and motivated tbh.

What segment of the player population actually buys minerals and ores off the market, Traders, Industrialists, PvP corps and Pod Pilots who have no mining (refining) skills, Opportunists and Ppl who make time value judgements on how to wipe thier arses based on how l33t they think they are (/sounding like a goon) in a game they can never win.

As they don't have the skills or feel its below them to work at the roid face for little reward in the saftey of 1.0 they deserve to pay well over the odds for it, they made a decision that sitting in Jita undercutting by 0.01 while waiting on their Science and Industry job lines to complete when they could be in a Hulk nice and safe in 1.0/0.9 mining veld and remotely manipulating them and contributing to their botton line even more (OK thats just a rant not an actuality.. or is it?).

Drops put only 10% of minerals in the game at best, i'm sure CCP have an exact value, they are not tweaking drops/loot so they don't think its a problem as its a very easy thing to do.

The Ore price differentials you give are still remaining basically the same in relation to each other to a great degree its just veld that is under supplied and so up in value.
IF Veld is a bottleneck so be it, its a market driver that helps new players to make ISK to pay for books etc, new players are the reason for Insurance in the first place, thier losses and lack of profit opportunity literally makes the game unattractive to play for them so its mitigated/compensated.

Base price must go to be replaced with Daily Universial Mean and insurance should be linked to that.

Again i say its presently a perceived not a real issue and it is under devolopment within a much larger framework which is not yet advanced or stable enough for announcement, the time scale on stuff like this is long as its complex to get it right and presentable so it can be announced and greeted with a "about time, good work, can't wait for it" player reaction.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.15 11:34:00 - [55]
 

So, wait, you're telling me that Veldspar, the most widely available (and on the intended baseprice listing the least valuable) ore being 40% more valuable (on average, in hubs up to 60% more valuable) than the base, and relatively up to 75% more valuable overall than the "basket" (or, double in hubs) is not a problem ?
Or the fact that it's equally valuable to one of the rarer, limited-availability bottom highsec ores (Kernite), one that's supposed to be 2.6 times more valuable than Veldspar ?
Or, heck, the fact that it's MORE valuable than two lowsec-only ores (Jaspet, Hemorphite) that are supposed to be 2.8, respectively 3.35 times more valuable ? Damn it, even the last remaining valuable lowsec ore (Hedbergite) is barely worth 20% more, when it's supposed to be *3.75 in value !
Screw that, what about Spodumain, a 0.0 only ore, which should have been worth ALMOST 4.8 times more, and it's now barely worth a bit over 50% more ?!?

Yeah, "all is fine", my ass...

Brainless Bimbo
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.15 15:24:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Akita T
So, wait, you're telling me that Veldspar, the most widely available (and on the intended baseprice listing the least valuable) ore being 40% more valuable (on average, in hubs up to 60% more valuable) than the base, and relatively up to 75% more valuable overall than the "basket" (or, double in hubs) is not a problem ?
Or the fact that it's equally valuable to one of the rarer, limited-availability bottom highsec ores (Kernite), one that's supposed to be 2.6 times more valuable than Veldspar ?
Or, heck, the fact that it's MORE valuable than two lowsec-only ores (Jaspet, Hemorphite) that are supposed to be 2.8, respectively 3.35 times more valuable ? Damn it, even the last remaining valuable lowsec ore (Hedbergite) is barely worth 20% more, when it's supposed to be *3.75 in value !
Screw that, what about Spodumain, a 0.0 only ore, which should have been worth ALMOST 4.8 times more, and it's now barely worth a bit over 50% more ?!?

Yeah, "all is fine", my ass...

Yes IT'S NOT A PROBLEM, its a reflection of lack of supply, its the limiter to a degree on production, you said your self its the most plentiful ore in existance, but it is expensive as ppl don't mine it enuf to meet demand, it stays locked in a rock.

THE MARKET HAS SPOKEN, it is in low supply (not enuf miners) so it carries rariety value even though its everywhere.

As i said before, BASE PRICE (and to a lesser extent differentials) IS NOT A GUIDE TO ANYTHING APART FROM THE DAY IT WAS WRITTEN ON A WEB PAGE, eve ecomonics are player driven within basically unlimited resources (WE are only talking about roids here so don't start on moons), its our choice to gravitate towards x or y, we do what we think is sexy and will provide fun/profit.

Take a look at Chribba, the "king of Veldspar" he has more intelligence in his little finger than we have collectivly as he was wise enough to know ppl won't mine Veld as its not thought of as sexy and its the limiter of supply as so much is required, he's win win.

Alliances control all the high end stuff that resides in null sec and to a lesser extent low sec, they could force the price up of basic high end ores and minerals if they formed an effective Cartel or cartel groups to control supply (think Oil Industry). If they made sure only very limited supplies of Zydrine or Morphite reaches the Empire market they could cripple Empire totally, the potential for it to happen is there, the game mechanics exist to do it, but, it doesn't happen (it could if so many ppl didn't polish thier e-peen by Meta Gaming), should that be changed?

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.06.15 15:39:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Akita T
So, wait, you're telling me that Veldspar, the most widely available (and on the intended baseprice listing the least valuable) ore being 40% more valuable (on average, in hubs up to 60% more valuable) than the base, and relatively up to 75% more valuable overall than the "basket" (or, double in hubs) is not a problem ?
Or the fact that it's equally valuable to one of the rarer, limited-availability bottom highsec ores (Kernite), one that's supposed to be 2.6 times more valuable than Veldspar ?
Or, heck, the fact that it's MORE valuable than two lowsec-only ores (Jaspet, Hemorphite) that are supposed to be 2.8, respectively 3.35 times more valuable ? Damn it, even the last remaining valuable lowsec ore (Hedbergite) is barely worth 20% more, when it's supposed to be *3.75 in value !
Screw that, what about Spodumain, a 0.0 only ore, which should have been worth ALMOST 4.8 times more, and it's now barely worth a bit over 50% more ?!?

Yeah, "all is fine", my ass...


Yup, that's exactly what I'm telling you. You have this strange obsession with irrelevant numbers pulled out of a dev's ass in 2002, and it's leading you horribly astray when you look at the market as of 2008. None of those ores are "supposed to be" worth more than any other - there's size, refine amounts, and availability, and the prices follow from that. It's like saying that pork is supposed to be worth twice as much as beef, because of a government agriculture subsidy established in 1930, and then complaining about how out of whack the market is when pigs cost half as much to raise and slaughter. The flaw here isn't with the free market, it's with your command-economy baseline.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.06.16 05:57:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Brainless Bimbo


Drops put only 10% of minerals in the game at best, i'm sure CCP have an exact value, they are not tweaking drops/loot so they don't think its a problem as its a very easy thing to do.



I would love to know where the hell you pulled that figure from.

Bimbo is way too free market and Akita T is way too game balance.

I'm happy with how the t1 market is working. should missions drop less t1 loot probably, even though I like all them reprocessed mins.

t2 market well prices are well better than pre-invention at least. and there should definitely be something out there worth fighting over.

Morgenrei
Wildlands Heavy Technologies
Posted - 2008.06.16 12:56:00 - [59]
 

In some way Akita is an Avatar of Reason. Smile

Great job, especially in the original thread.

Dramaticus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.06.16 14:58:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Mundem Pashdale
Supported

The current moon materials market is getting increasingly like the T2 BPO monopolise of old.


Yet completely different in that these moons can be fought over.


Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

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