Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
info specialist
|
Posted - 2009.04.21 23:55:00 -
[1]
Well I was shocked about the eve-central price for Promithium while at work today reflecting a spike. But logging in when I got home to check and WOW. To my surprise Dysprosium is about 240,000 with only about 100,000 units available for sell.
Now, I know CCP has said they would step in if they found after the POS scandal, that if material ran out then they would step in and do something about it. Well, I would define this as running out since there is always a small amount going to be for sell as the moons pump it out.
At what point will CCP determine there just isn't enough raw materials for the customer base as it is. We have more and more pilots without the ability to increase the raw materials. This imbalance will also throw the entire structure as it is out of wack. It used to be only the gases were not profitable to harvest and then react but it has moved to the racial specific simple reactions for some time now. With the overpriced high end materials, there just won't be as many T2 products and as such all the other materials are over mined and over reacted.
How High is too high CCP? |
Julian Koll
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 00:30:00 -
[2]
someone want to get rid of his dyspro stock?
|
Triliian Bebelbrox
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 01:07:00 -
[3]
just learn how to fly t1 ships or stop loosing them no problem ;) |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 01:36:00 -
[4]
/me mumbles something about "buy Cadmium"...
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
PublicRelations Kwint
Lothian Quay Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 01:47:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Akita T /me mumbles something about "buy Cadmium"...
/me cries about the 12 Cadmium moons he use to run and how he sold off 2M units at a fraction of their current value....
Purchasing and Shipping Moon Minerals |
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 02:54:00 -
[6]
Originally by: info specialist
This imbalance will also throw the entire structure as it is out of wack. It used to be only the gases were not profitable to harvest and then react but it has moved to the racial specific simple reactions for some time now. With the overpriced high end materials, there just won't be as many T2 products and as such all the other materials are over mined and over reacted.
How High is too high CCP?
Working as intended. At some point producers of lowends should get a clue and STOP producing them at a loss. At that point their prices go up, excess dysprosium/promethium products go down, and a new equilibrium is reached.
Or so goes the theory. In practice people keep producing at a loss but making it up in volume.
|
Terrible Karma
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 03:21:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Clair Bear
Originally by: info specialist
This imbalance will also throw the entire structure as it is out of wack. It used to be only the gases were not profitable to harvest and then react but it has moved to the racial specific simple reactions for some time now. With the overpriced high end materials, there just won't be as many T2 products and as such all the other materials are over mined and over reacted.
How High is too high CCP?
Working as intended. At some point producers of lowends should get a clue and STOP producing them at a loss. At that point their prices go up, excess dysprosium/promethium products go down, and a new equilibrium is reached.
Or so goes the theory. In practice people keep producing at a loss but making it up in volume.
On the one hand, T2 prices can get a lot higher before anyone will care. T2 items sold for far more before invention.
On the other hand, Clair Bear is an 1d10t and doesn't understand what market forces are at work on low end moons materials. I'll explain: all the sov. claiming POS's mine whatever materials there are and dump them on the market. Mining low ends is high risk and a lot of work for either no profit or a loss. Only morons try to mine low end moons for profit. In addition, there is no game mechanic to force any particular 'moon mineral basket' price (no reasonable T2 insurance). Higher prices for common moon minerals will not force down high end prices. Higher low end prices will simply force up T2 prices since there is no real cap in force (like insurance for T1 ships). |
PublicRelations Kwint
Lothian Quay Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 03:41:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Terrible Karma On the other hand, Clair Bear is an 1d10t and doesn't understand what market forces are at work on low end moons materials....
Welcome to Market Discussion, Mr. Alt.
Feel free to speak your mind but at least have the dignity not to hide behind an alt. If you're going to call someone an idiot, do it to their face and leave the leet-speak at the door.
By the way, you are right. The great bulk of low ends come from two sources, towers that have nothing to do with mining but that are employed in such a capacity in an effort to defray their operating cost and the reactor operators themselves who position their chains so as to directly integrate low ends. That's why their will never be a market for things like atmospheric gases and why the most common metals are likely to always sell below the fuel costs to mine them.
Purchasing and Shipping Moon Minerals |
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 03:48:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Terrible Karma
I'll explain: all the sov. claiming POS's mine whatever materials there are and dump them on the market. Mining low ends is high risk and a lot of work for either no profit or a loss. Only morons try to mine low end moons for profit.
And yet, they do. You can find plenty of reaction poses in lowsec, stubbornly cooking at a loss.
Quote:
In addition, there is no game mechanic to force any particular 'moon mineral basket' price (no reasonable T2 insurance). Higher prices for common moon minerals will not force down high end prices. Higher low end prices will simply force up T2 prices since there is no real cap in force (like insurance for T1 ships).
You just contradicted yourself. There is no need for insurance, since as you pointed out players are happy to pay higher prices. The basket effect is as plain as the nose on your face -- look at price histories. As advanced materials spiked the lowends dropped.
Higher prices have had an effect on demand. 100M isk HACs aren't enough to force equilibrium of low to high ends, but I can bet you 10 billion ISK HACs would be.
The T1 insurance is not a cap on T1 hull prices -- it's a floor. Unlike T2 I can singlehandedly satisfy the battleship demand of an entire region.
|
PublicRelations Kwint
Lothian Quay Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 03:55:00 -
[10]
We seem to be getting into the realm of reactors operating at a loss, now that's a much more interesting discussion to have. There are indeed some low end complex materials being cranked out at a loss right now. In fact, there is at least one that is seemingly seeing more production the lower it goes. There have always been peculiar transients in the complex materials and the large stocks and long manufacturing chain tend to exacerbate them but I have to say I'm a bit confounded by one of the present trends. That said, I have the strongest of inclinations that there's good money to be made in it, much as there was with ice. I got called a fool then; we shall see how I fair this time.
Purchasing and Shipping Moon Minerals |
|
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 04:08:00 -
[11]
Originally by: PublicRelations Kwint That said, I have the strongest of inclinations that there's good money to be made in it, much as there was with ice. I got called a fool then; we shall see how I fair this time.
As with ice, agreed. There is a great cycle building up here. At some point the lowsec reactors and moon miners will realize just how much ISK they're losing with current ice prices and stop stockpiling hoping for a correction. Or, it could be producers simultaneously ramped up production at a loss hoping to force competition out of the market. Either way there's got to be plenty of people either ready or already throwing in the towel.
If this coincides with increased dyspro/promethium production we could very well see a reversal of current trends.
|
PublicRelations Kwint
Lothian Quay Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 04:18:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Clair Bear
If this coincides with increased dyspro/promethium production we could very well see a reversal of current trends.
Do keep in mind that low end complex materials are not completely coupled to high end complex materials. A lot of T2 does not actually require dysprosium/promethium and as such it is possible to have independent and even conflicting movement. We saw that around last summer, a good share of the T2 mods were dropping in price while the T2 ships were climbing. Then throw in the racial carbides and it's a real mess. Just thinking about all the annoying little quarks and complexities makes me remember why I stopped producing the stuff.
|
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 04:30:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Clair Bear on 22/04/2009 04:32:27
Originally by: PublicRelations Kwint
Do keep in mind that low end complex materials are not completely coupled to high end complex materials. A lot of T2 does not actually require dysprosium/promethium and as such it is possible to have independent and even conflicting movement. We saw that around last summer, a good share of the T2 mods were dropping in price while the T2 ships were climbing.
The amount of moon goo used in t2 modules is trivial compared to ship hulls. The lion's share of t2 module cost is datacores. At the moment I'm running about 50 t2 module production pipelines and I use less moon slime in a week than I'd use stapling together a single marauder. Cheaper modules wasn't enough of an effect to offset the lowend price dive caused by rise of highends. Module building is really a nonevent. I think a lot of module price drops were caused not by lower moon goo prices, but by t2 builders shutting down t2 hull production and building hundreds of modules per day instead. This also explains the rise of certain datacore prices over the same period.
Now, if CCP announces decoupling of POS operation from sov mechanics -- then we would see some fireworks. At the moment the floor on lowend material prices is the price of jump fuel to haul it to empire. If there was an additional cost...
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 04:43:00 -
[14]
Fishy parent posters aside, I do think it's a good point. This can't go on forever, at some point there has to be a "when" (and not alchemy, which has driven up Cadmium and done jack-all for Dysprosium-reactant supply). 240k/unit (4bil/week) is getting pretty silly. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Null-Sec Player Influence Map http://dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/Veritefw/FWinf |
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 04:58:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Verite Rendition Fishy parent posters aside, I do think it's a good point. This can't go on forever, at some point there has to be a "when" (and not alchemy, which has driven up Cadmium and done jack-all for Dysprosium-reactant supply). 240k/unit (4bil/week) is getting pretty silly.
Let's put that in perspective. It takes a fairly sizable alliance to capture and defend r32/r64 moons. I'm going to pull numbers out of my behind and say 500 active players (judging from 300+ members per side in some conflicts) plus alts. If they were to abandon 0.0 and simply run a single L4 mission every other day instead they'd be looking at 3B a *day*.
As incentive to fight over 0.0 16B/month per moon seems reasonable. At least from my industrialist perspective -- without such cash cows it'd be difficult for alliances to lose hundreds of cap ships and untold thousands of batttleships a week.
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 05:02:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Clair Bear
Originally by: Verite Rendition Fishy parent posters aside, I do think it's a good point. This can't go on forever, at some point there has to be a "when" (and not alchemy, which has driven up Cadmium and done jack-all for Dysprosium-reactant supply). 240k/unit (4bil/week) is getting pretty silly.
Let's put that in perspective. It takes a fairly sizable alliance to capture and defend r32/r64 moons. I'm going to pull numbers out of my behind and say 500 active players (judging from 300+ members per side in some conflicts) plus alts. If they were to abandon 0.0 and simply run a single L4 mission every other day instead they'd be looking at 3B a *day*.
As incentive to fight over 0.0 16B/month per moon seems reasonable. At least from my industrialist perspective -- without such cash cows it'd be difficult for alliances to lose hundreds of cap ships and untold thousands of batttleships a week.
We managed just fine before the price of R64s went nuts. It's very much a positive feedback loop; the more a moon is worth, the more you're going to commit to it to hold or take it. Dysprosium was always nice to have, but it didn't generate mega cap fleets of doom like it does now.
At some point CCP will have to break the loop to stop both rising Dys prices and rising T2 prices. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Null-Sec Player Influence Map http://dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/Veritefw/FWinf |
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 05:12:00 -
[17]
But mega fleets of doom are a feature! Destroying assets is at least as fundamental to the health of the game as producing them. It looks interesting in the news when particularly hot blob on blob action happens. It gives industrialists something to do other than build and SD battleships for insurance.
And it provides incentive for the have-nots to sell GTCs to try and compete.
I fail to see where there is a lack of win with ever higher dysprosium prices.
|
Tal Kjelthorne
Kjelthorne Industries
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 06:20:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Verite Rendition
At some point CCP will have to break the loop to stop both rising Dys prices and rising T2 prices.
If CCP were benevolent, they won't let that happen. I'm not a dysprosium holder, but T2 prices do need to rise, a LOT, especially on hulls. There's multiple issues going on there, but inventing and building T2 hulls is less profitable than just building T1 cruisers.
Let the market do its own thing on this one. |
Shadows Timi
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 11:45:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Clair Bear
Originally by: Verite Rendition Fishy parent posters aside, I do think it's a good point. This can't go on forever, at some point there has to be a "when" (and not alchemy, which has driven up Cadmium and done jack-all for Dysprosium-reactant supply). 240k/unit (4bil/week) is getting pretty silly.
Let's put that in perspective. It takes a fairly sizable alliance to capture and defend r32/r64 moons. I'm going to pull numbers out of my behind and say 500 active players (judging from 300+ members per side in some conflicts) plus alts. If they were to abandon 0.0 and simply run a single L4 mission every other day instead they'd be looking at 3B a *day*.
As incentive to fight over 0.0 16B/month per moon seems reasonable. At least from my industrialist perspective -- without such cash cows it'd be difficult for alliances to lose hundreds of cap ships and untold thousands of batttleships a week.
Rofl those 500 people in their alliance have 10-40 of these moons ! so multiply the 4B x 10-40 40-160B/pw "some alliances have more" the dysp WEEKLY server turnover is around 300 moons... thats 1.2 trillion weekly 1200billion weekly...
Now add in Prom moons, and people understand what alliances live and die over... a weekly turnover of 1.5-2 trillion "or if they dont understand they at least get a glimpse"
Some of the Bigger wars and territory changes have disrupted the supply of Dysp for weeks taking trillions out of the economy...
Eve is no different to real life... Pessants think in millions Wealthy think in Billions While the world is controled by the Elite playing with trillions...
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 12:09:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Tal Kjelthorne inventing and building T2 hulls is less profitable than just building T1 cruisers
Considering the exact thing holds true even for some hulls that don't have BPOs, the only logical conclusion is that it's the inventor's fault, and ONLY the inventor's fault.
|
|
Amond Starsmoke
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 15:32:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Shadows Timi Eve is no different to real life... Pessants think in millions Wealthy think in Billions While the world is controled by the Elite playing with trillions...[/quote
I prefer being called a have-not to a peasant Shush with your downtalking, you're gonna wake up the kids!
|
Dzil
Caldari Pirates in Silk Suits
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 20:41:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Verite Rendition
We managed just fine before the price of R64s went nuts. It's very much a positive feedback loop; the more a moon is worth, the more you're going to commit to it to hold or take it. Dysprosium was always nice to have, but it didn't generate mega cap fleets of doom like it does now.
At some point CCP will have to break the loop to stop both rising Dys prices and rising T2 prices.
On the one hand, I agree dys sources need to expand with the growing playerbase. At some point. On the other, there's no contest between the popularity of empire vs 0.0 right now. A stronger pricing of 0.0 elements against the isk makes high sec missioning relatively less profitable, providing more of the necessary market influence to drive players into low/null sec. Which is a direction CCP has pushed continually.
So - what gives reason to believe they would step in anytime soon?
|
Sophie Daigneau
CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 20:45:00 -
[23]
The "fix" for dysprosium prices is for T3 hulls to drop in price enough for people to decide they're worth the extra cost over T2. The cost of T3 is almost entirely dependent on the number of people living in wormhole space and as such has a much greater ability to scale compared to T2 production.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 20:59:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Sophie Daigneau The "fix" for dysprosium prices is for T3 hulls to drop in price enough for people to decide they're worth the extra cost over T2. The cost of T3 is almost entirely dependent on the number of people living in wormhole space and as such has a much greater ability to scale compared to T2 production.
Patently false. First off, CCP in their wisdom has decided to make respawns of sites where T3 stuff would be obtainable in w-space that's occupied/farmed relatively small, so there's a negative feedback loop on T3 supply when people actively try to get the most out of it. Second, you have the baseline of L4 missions, if w-space is not noticeably better for ISK income, not enoug people would bother going there since it's significantly more dangerous, so when combined with the above and the requirements in materials for a T3 hull and subsystems, you get the pricetag of T3 not even having a smudge of a chance to become even remotely similarly-priced with T2.
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
Fitz VonHeise
Foundation
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 21:52:00 -
[25]
Seriously people.
CCP said there was a problem with Dys/Prom prices before the scandal and before they introduced the cad --> Dys process.
Prices are still higher. What they attempted did fail. What are they going to do now?
|
Frenden Dax
Dax Acquisitions
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:04:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Fitz VonHeise Seriously people.
CCP said there was a problem with Dys/Prom prices before the scandal and before they introduced the cad --> Dys process.
Prices are still higher. What they attempted did fail. What are they going to do now?
One possible option would be to introduce trace amounts of the higher end moon minerals into lower end moons. For example, a moon that mostly produces howling garbage (i.e. atmospheric gases) might give a tiny portion of dyspro or prom or something else. Another would be to adjust alchemy to be more efficient.
|
Verite Rendition
Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 09:44:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Dzil
Originally by: Verite Rendition
We managed just fine before the price of R64s went nuts. It's very much a positive feedback loop; the more a moon is worth, the more you're going to commit to it to hold or take it. Dysprosium was always nice to have, but it didn't generate mega cap fleets of doom like it does now.
At some point CCP will have to break the loop to stop both rising Dys prices and rising T2 prices.
On the one hand, I agree dys sources need to expand with the growing playerbase. At some point. On the other, there's no contest between the popularity of empire vs 0.0 right now. A stronger pricing of 0.0 elements against the isk makes high sec missioning relatively less profitable, providing more of the necessary market influence to drive players into low/null sec. Which is a direction CCP has pushed continually.
So - what gives reason to believe they would step in anytime soon? I agree with the generalalities of that statement, but not the specific. Increasing the wealth of 0.0 is a good way to lure people out there, but moons in particular are a poor choice to lure individuals out of Empire; such valuable R64s are owned by alliances and go in to the pocket of alliances (or their high command), the individual rarely gains anything. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Null-Sec Player Influence Map http://dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/Veritefw/FWinf |
Sky Grunthor
Minmatar The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Balance of Judgment
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 21:56:00 -
[28]
just make the WH rats drop loot that can be reprocessed into the high end materials. Adds an entirely individual based influx of those elements into the market place and removes or mitigates the corp/alliance/mega alliance monopoly on them.
However you also need to increase the spawn rate of wh's and wh sites as well. ------------------------------------------------- Search: Sky Grunthor |
Lieutenant Obvious
Thundercats RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 04:12:00 -
[29]
All they had to do was substitute some t2 components' dyspro/prom for thul/neo. Instant, massive reduction in demand.
But no, alchemy was the fantastically useless idea they decided upon. And then flawed it even more than they possibly could have.
|
Sophie Daigneau
CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.04.24 04:20:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Akita T
Patently false. First off, CCP in their wisdom has decided to make respawns of sites where T3 stuff would be obtainable in w-space that's occupied/farmed relatively small, so there's a negative feedback loop on T3 supply when people actively try to get the most out of it. Second, you have the baseline of L4 missions, if w-space is not noticeably better for ISK income, not enoug people would bother going there since it's significantly more dangerous, so when combined with the above and the requirements in materials for a T3 hull and subsystems, you get the pricetag of T3 not even having a smudge of a chance to become even remotely similarly-priced with T2.
Yes, wormhole space has some issues with site respawns and so forth, but what I'm saying is that from a gameplay perspective, T3 has the potential to be a relief valve for too much demand on T2. T3 prices need to come down first, and yea, maybe that also means we need site respawns to be fixed as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |