Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Aurum Bellator
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 11:03:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Aurum Bellator on 28/05/2010 11:13:43 Edited by: Aurum Bellator on 28/05/2010 11:06:21
Originally by: cosmoray Mining is genuinely the only thing in the game that is 100% profit. Its certainly a faucet for me.
If I didn't mine I wouldn't make any profit, so if I do mine while I am AFK working then what I mine is 100% profit. This in turn makes the profit on my ships I sell bigger because I value the mineral at less than market price because it was spare time anyway. Its win-win.
And this, my friends, is one of the many reasons why an MMORPG economy will never work like a real life economy. Cosmoray views his time and assets in game the way I suspect many do - as fake things and monopoly money (which of course they are). When you subsidize your ship production with minerals you mine yourself, you aren't 'increasing' your profit margin, you are simply acquiring your raw materials for bare cost.
Which is fine, and happens in vertical monopolies in real life as well - but is only truly useful if your ships are still selling at a total value that exceeds the market value of the raw materials AND justifies your time, effort and cost producing the finished good (e.g., research, blueprint, etc.). If you sell your ships for cheaper than you could have sold the raw materials, then why build the ship in the first place?
AUB
EDIT: Also . . . the terms 'faucet' and 'sink' are terms used to describe mechanisms whereby isk or things enter and leave the gaming world. Mining is a material faucet and bounty rewards are an isk faucet. Reprocessing inefficiency is ship destruction are material sinks, while market taxes and fees are isk sinks.
|
Yiulian
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 11:18:00 -
[62]
Originally by: cosmoray Mining is genuinely the only thing in the game that is 100% profit. Its certainly a faucet for me.
If I didn't mine I wouldn't make any profit, so if I do mine while I am AFK working then what I mine is 100% profit. This in turn makes the profit on my ships I sell bigger because I value the mineral at less than market price because it was spare time anyway. Its win-win.
Please explain.
I trade for which I don't have to buy a ship, which you do.
I make money while AFK/Asleep and would go so far as to say that with AFK mining you still need to move stuff around occasionally and bring minerals from A to B, which could be seen as the same as me checking and modifying my orders.
How is mining then the only thing that's 100% profit?
With the bankroll for your exhumer or hulk you could market trade and make much more than you do when mining, possibly with less work too, and then your minerals would be even cheaper! (by your logic anyway)
|
israus
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 11:58:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Yiulian
Please explain.
I trade for which I don't have to buy a ship, which you do.
I make money while AFK/Asleep and would go so far as to say that with AFK mining you still need to move stuff around occasionally and bring minerals from A to B, which could be seen as the same as me checking and modifying my orders.
How is mining then the only thing that's 100% profit?
With the bankroll for your exhumer or hulk you could market trade and make much more than you do when mining, possibly with less work too, and then your minerals would be even cheaper! (by your logic anyway)
its fairly simply really when ever you sell your goods as a trader you have had to buy them. so your profit on an item is the sell price - the buy price. so you can never get 100% from trading unless you get all your goods for free
however ore you don't buy you have start up costs but after you bought that ship put mining lasers on it you have no futher costs so all the ore you mine you sell on the market for 100% because you have got those goods in terms on money for free. the only expense is your time.
so while you as a trader will make more money then a miner you never run at 100% profit.
the whole argument here is about understanding how eves economy differs from the real world economy. Aurum Bellator makes the point just above about how they will never be the same. and he's right in the real world economy goods have a value because there is always a real cost for the production of them
in the real world you want to mine coal. you have to pay miners to get that coal out of the ground pay maintence costs. replace broken equipment. in eve you just don't have those costs at the start of the whole production cycle. the only costs are start up costs ships don't wearout and break down. you don't have to pay anybody else but yourself. so the person mining the ore decides what his time is worth.
so thats why at the start of it the ore for that first person is for all intense and purpose free. he then exchanges that ore for a price he thinks his time is worth. its at that point the ore has a value and no before. and because of that ships and modules getting blown up will never be sinks for isk.
|
Yiulian
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 12:12:00 -
[64]
yeah ok, but since you still need an initial investment (ship, skills, etc) which needs to be earned back first, it's not 100%. Also, you pay broker fees if you put up sell orders, that is money you have to invest. So unless you sell solely to buy orders, it's also not 100%.
But let's assume it is, then that statement at least is true. That still doesn't make it a good decision, but yeah, you can say that mining margins are higher than mine per invested unit of time. May it bring you much joy since your actual isk/hr is still nowhere near as high.
I think someone has a sig that basically covers this: Just because you get something for free, doesn't mean it has no value.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 14:13:00 -
[65]
I can't believe people still bite on my bad trolling attempts!!
All minerals are free if mined!
|
Nahkep Narmelion
Gallente CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 17:49:00 -
[66]
Originally by: israus
no this is the key point on where our views differ. I agree the minerals have a value yes. but the miners only effective running cost for getting the ore out of the rocks is crystals and that's only if he's using strip miners. and even then the he spends on crystals isn't a sink for the economy it simply goes back to into the cycle of miner - producer - Buyer.
You've covered some of his variable costs, but not the fixed costs. The variable costs of crystals and his time is probably why high minerals are so damned cheap. A high sec hulk is likely to live for a very long time (assuming the pilot isn't totally gormless and puts at least some kind of tank on his set up).
By contrast null sec mins have miners who's variable costs are much higher since the life of their "plant and equipment" is so much shorter and they might actually need some sort of help with the rats--i.e. now you have two people putting in time and effort.
So I disagree with your description of the variable costs.
Quote: so the miner while having start up costs has very very little in the way of any running costs. he's simply exchanging his time for ore. now he could get a million megacyte and he could sell that ore for 1 million isk for 100 million isk and either way he's in profit because he hasn't truely spent anything to get that ore.
See, time plus the variable costs associated with crystals, and from the miners perspective he is going to also look at those start up costs as well such as the cost of a hulk and even training times. So
Quote: so when the ship gets blown up the ore gets destroyed but the isk is still there all thats gone missing in the whole process is the ore.
This strikes me as broken window fallacy type reasoning. Something of value has been destroyed and the fact that earlier payment for the destroyed item still exists does not negate the claim that there has been a net loss. For example:
Ship + payment > payment.
What you are saying is that ship destruction has no impact on the overall wealth in the game. This is patently false. This is precisely why countries don't bomb themselves to get rid of their old factories/buildings and make brand new ones. That is really what you are arguing for.
Quote: which at the start of the process cost nothing to produce just the miners time.
If you go talk to the miners it is all about isk/unit of time. This suggests that your claim of costing nothing but time is overly dismissive.
|
Nahkep Narmelion
Gallente CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 18:06:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Merouk Baas They're giving the ISK faucet to the mission runners, they're giving the minerals faucet to the miners,...
Okay, this is both right and wrong, at least as it applies to the miners (and I'd argue mission runners, but they are everyones favorite whipping boy).
Sure mining is a source of isk, but miners provide a valuable service. They take ore that is unusable in its current form and location and make it usable and put it where it can be used. This obviously has value to everyone who builds something or other. Because if it didn't you wouldn't build anything.
Is it an "isk faucet" yes, but so what? Your job in real life is a "money faucet" so go into work and tell your boss he can keep your paychecks. I'm sure he'll be delighted, he'll think your a fool, but I'm sure he'll happily keep the money.
Implying this part of something is broken implies that it is your understanding that is broken.
Quote: I can't believe people still bite on my bad trolling attempts!!
All minerals are free if mined!
One person here thinks you are on to something.
|
israus
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 19:21:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Nahkep Narmelion
You've covered some of his variable costs, but not the fixed costs. The variable costs of crystals and his time is probably why high minerals are so damned cheap. A high sec hulk is likely to live for a very long time (assuming the pilot isn't totally gormless and puts at least some kind of tank on his set up).
By contrast null sec mins have miners who's variable costs are much higher since the life of their "plant and equipment" is so much shorter and they might actually need some sort of help with the rats--i.e. now you have two people putting in time and effort.
So I disagree with your description of the variable costs.
i'm not saying that null sec farming doesn't involve more people my point is though that there is no cost to getting those minerals out of the roids. expect the small expense of crystals. and crystals like any other mod in the game unlike ships do take wealth out of the game in there sales tax.
Quote:
See, time plus the variable costs associated with crystals, and from the miners perspective he is going to also look at those start up costs as well such as the cost of a hulk and even training times.
yeah but the only cost you have there is the use of crystals which can be produced from the minerals that are mined anyway. so if the miner produces his own crystals the only cost to him is 1000-2000k isk for the hiring of the factory to produce them. that there is an isk sink and takes away from the system but when those crystals die. they aren't taking away any wealth. the only time those minerals gain any value at all is when they are traded to another play for isk.
Quote:
This strikes me as broken window fallacy type reasoning. Something of value has been destroyed and the fact that earlier payment for the destroyed item still exists does not negate the claim that there has been a net loss. For example:
Ship + payment > payment.
What you are saying is that ship destruction has no impact on the overall wealth in the game. This is patently false. This is precisely why countries don't bomb themselves to get rid of their old factories/buildings and make brand new ones. That is really what you are arguing for.
no i'm not saying a ships destruction has no impact on the overall wealth in the game i'm saying a ship getting blown up adds to the wealth of the game. your saying it takes away from it. mineral wealth doesn't exist. I read somewhere chirbba has a billion veldspar in a hanger in amarr. now take away the fact he has billions in the bank. if that was all he owned all that veldspar and he never sold it does it make him a rich man? no because unless that ore is exchanged for money it has 0 value. ships on the other had when they are blown up you are making an exchange you are exchanging the minerals in that ship for insurance money. which is why insurance fraud worked in the first place. that hasn't changed at all.
Quote:
If you go talk to the miners it is all about isk/unit of time. This suggests that your claim of costing nothing but time is overly dismissive.
i'm trying to demean what the miners do but look at it this way to break it down to the very basic level. you start with a newb ship with a mining laser. now you tell me what does it cost that player there to get those minerals out of the roids. now if that same player mined for 10 minutes that destroyed that ore no wealth has been lost. that players times been wasted. but he hasn't lost any money for doing so he's simply lost the opportunity to turn that ore into wealth.
|
Nahkep Narmelion
Gallente CALIMA COLLABORATIVE
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 21:23:00 -
[69]
Okay this is really simple and I'll try it this way.
S = ship IP = insurance payout IC = insurance cost SP = ship price
Now, if S > IP then it is the case that blowing up a ship results in a net loss. So we start with
SP > IP,
now add to both sides SP to get,
SP + SP > SP + IP.
Now subtract IC from both sides to get,
SP + SP - IC > IP + SP - IC.
Now, if S >= SP at the time the ship blows up then we can write,
S + SP - IC > 2*SP - IC > IP + SP - IC, or
S + SP - IC > IP + SP - IC
The left hand side is before the ship blows up, the right hand side afterwards.
If it is the case that the current price (S) of the ship is greater than the insurance payout then it is a net loss. So, buy a battle ship and insurance and tell me which way the inequality goes. Of course, the insurance payout is no longer fixed, and we could redo all of the above with probabilities distributions and expectations, but my guess is that the nothing would change save adding more notation.
|
israus
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 22:29:00 -
[70]
Quote: If it is the case that the current price (S) of the ship is greater than the insurance payout then it is a net loss. So, buy a battle ship and insurance and tell me which way the inequality goes. Of course, the insurance payout is no longer fixed, and we could redo all of the above with probabilities distributions and expectations, but my guess is that the nothing would change save adding more notation.
i'm not arguing that buying a ship off the market , insuring it and blowing it up will mean a net loss for me. i'm saying to you that buying a ship off the market blowing it up means a NET increase in the overall money in the game.
all your arguments are based on the idea that minerals and isk are one in the same. that the simple process of mining generates wealth. when mining does not generate money for the economy in any way shape of forms
the only way for isk thus wealth can flow into the game is through ratting. mission running, and insurance payout.
the simple fact is all that formula you just wrote is not wrong. but are starting that formula based on the end of the process. you go an mine all that ore, build a ship insure that ship blow it up you get profit not as much profit as you could from mining that ore then selling it on the open market i'd agree. but the simple fact is blowing up the ship creates money out of thin air as such thus it creates wealth. where as selling on the market doesn't create wealth it simply moves the money pot about some what.
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.05.28 22:37:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Akita T on 28/05/2010 22:44:44
Originally by: Nahkep Narmelion results in a net loss.
doublefacepalm.jpg
Net loss of WHAT and to whom ? Money is money, goods are goods. You are butchering every possible economic theory.
If you have 1 bajilion kreditzÖ and 3500 widgets as the only relevant things in a closed system... ...the "net value" of your entire closed system is exactly 3500 widgets OR 1 bajilion kreditzÖ, NOT double of that. If 3500 extra widgets suddenly appear out of thin air, your "net value" is now 7k widgets OR 1 bajilion (not 2 bajilion). A widget now costs half as much. That's deflation. If you still have only 3500 widgets total but the "government" decides to issue 1 extra bajilion, your total "net value" is 3500 widgets OR 2 bajilion. A widget now costs double. That's inflation. And so on.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 00:33:00 -
[72]
Your analysis once again is correct, but only when applied to a closed system.
Do it again on an open system, where your widgets are for all practical purposes infinite.
|
Gimmeurisk
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 03:54:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Ambo
It's kind of like the otherwise perfectly reasonable people who don't think that climate change is at all due to human factors or those that think evolution is incorrect.
So scientists finally found the missing link between monkeys and men have they heh? I love how you just state it like it's a fact and that people who don't believe it are just simply wrong and misinformed, lmao. Honestly. Just wow.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 04:21:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist only when applied to a closed system. Do it again on an open system, where your widgets are for all practical purposes infinite.
See, this is where your argument has a problem. Two kind of problems, actually.
First problem : if widgets ARE for practical purposes infinite, they would become practically worthless. Second problem : EVE is *not* a wide open system.
Returning to the first problem, the only thing preventing them from totally crashing into oblivion would be labor costs. In which case, they're not practically infinite, but bound by the availability of workforces willing to work for how much you offer them. If this sounds familiar, it's because it's the old story of "minerals are free". Yes, they ARE free, but they're not worthless. They are worth the time it takes you to get them, when compared to what else you can spend your time on. And now we're back to the second problem, EVE *is* a closed system. It's just very, very large.
It all comes down eventually to the RATE at which new widgets (minerals) can be obtained, compared to the rate of desired widget usage (ship/item manufacture). It DOESN'T MATTER that there are theoretically an infinite amount of minerals out there, it only matters how much working to obtain them pays, and the more it pays, the more people do it. The more people do it, the less it pays. It all reaches an equilibrium when it pays just enough to satisfy the demand.
If the DEMAND drops (or it gets less labor-intensive to obtain minerals), the equilibrium point (mineral price) drops too, and we call that deflation. If the demand rises (or it gets more labor-intensive to obtain minerals), the equilibrium point (mineral price) rises too, and we call that inflation.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Steve Thomas
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 04:45:00 -
[75]
to this you in all honesty should add in a modifyer for how easy it is to do somehthing AFK or semi afk
otherwise there would be no industrial haulers in 1-9-8 betls sucking away with 1 mining laser on random roids
*.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* *.* a (Long) Guide to Pi
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 06:55:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Akita T See, this is where your argument has a problem. Two kind of problems, actually.
First problem : if widgets ARE for practical purposes infinite, they would become practically worthless. Second problem : EVE is *not* a wide open system.
1. Minerals are infinite, both literally and practically. They are literally because they're reseeded every day. They are practically because of macros, bots, and the overall ease of mining, which results endemically in greater supply than demand.
I've never said minerals are "worthless" its just we have different opinions on the source of their worth (or more accurately, how minerals will be priced now that insurance is gone). Mineral prices will not be set by "cost-push" forces - i.e. by the time value of the miners, because it approaches zero (1 guy running 15 macro accounts just doesn't translate into a very high labor cost). They will be set by "demand-pull" forces, that is - what someone is willing to pay so that they don't have to mine themselves. This is slight but important difference.
2. EVE is an open system. I don't know what "wide" adds to it, but its open because minerals reseed every day. That makes it an open system, by definition. In a closed system, there can be no influx of new "value" into the sytem at all and the in game resources (like minerals) would be fixed - you could recoup minerals or change their form (asteroids to modules to ships back to minerals) but you couldn't interject more - there would always be X minerals in the game, in one form or another. [If asteroids are only reseeded based on ships destroyed, as someone mentioned in another thread, then its a closed system.]
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 06:58:00 -
[77]
Discussion has evolved to the difference between cost and value. Rare that both match.
Wealth, howsoever got, in Eve makes Lords of morons and gentlemen of thieves; Aptitude and intellect are needless here; 'Tis impudence and money that grants fame. |
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 08:32:00 -
[78]
Well, at least we're finally getting to a point we can (sort of) agree on
Thrasymachus TheSophist, yes, you are mostly correct in what you just mentioned, with a small but important distinction, and one (nearly irrelevant) observation. The distinction is that I was using that overly simplified logic in the previous two posts to explain to Nahkep Narmelion the difference between the NAV of one person (where it makes sense to add the cash in wallet to the value of assets held) and his naive view of the so-called NAV of the system that is EVE (where it's pointless to do so).
The observation is that you CAN'T simply claim minerals are both theoretically and practically infinite, for two reasons : * each miner has a maximum yield he can obtain (there *is* an upper bound to the amount of minerals that can enter the system per time unit due to the available workforce), so even if you have X macro-miners that really do value their own time to practically nothing, it would take a radically drastic drop in mineral demand to have those people be the only type of person that participates in mining * the respawn of ores is neither instantaneous nor limitless (so there is another upper bound there too, and the added cost of moving minerals and/or manufactured goods away from the mining location to wherever they can sell makes this even more of a practical limit). There clearly is a theoretical limit to how many minerals can enter the system. In practice, sure, you don't really notice it much, but the limit also clearly does exist, even in practice.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Zey Nadar
Gallente S0utherN Comfort
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 11:30:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/05/2010 11:35:48 Edited by: Zey Nadar on 29/05/2010 11:31:02
Originally by: Akita T
There clearly is a theoretical limit to how many minerals can enter the system. In practice, sure, you don't really notice it much, but the limit also clearly does exist, even in practice.
Only a limit on amount of ore / unit of time. And people seem to be forgetting the effect of time on these examples of simplified logic a lot. If time was not taken into account, the total amount of ore that can be introduced to the system is infinite..
ps. I agree with Thrasymachus, Eve is definitely an open system. There are minerals introduced to the system (various methods) and taken out of it (ship and module destruction), and the rate that this happens fluctuates creating fluctuations on prices and value.
|
Aurum Bellator
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 11:52:00 -
[80]
Minerals (Eve's version of commodities) have not 'entered' the system until they have been harvested. An asteroid is not part of the economy until it is harvested into ore.
Thus, minerals are not infinite, but are at any given point in time finite. Through gameplay, players are constantly adding minerals to the game through their behavior.
AUB
|
|
Slavemaster
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 13:02:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Slavemaster on 29/05/2010 13:03:53
Back on Topic. The Prices on the low end Minerals is on the Rise faster than I predicted.. Trit at 2.80 sell, Py at 5.90-6(low volume at 5.90) ATM 29.05. GMT 14.01 Mex is way to low,(26.50 or so) and can be the a good thing to invest in...
In short: The marked predictions was wrong (Post patch), and low end Minerals will spike. New Predictions. Trit at 3.20, Pye at 8(still) Mex 31-32. Within 10-14 days....
|
Aurum Bellator
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 13:49:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Slavemaster
In short: The marked predictions was wrong (Post patch), and low end Minerals will spike.
Whose predictions were wrong? Can you link the thread and cite the page discussing your analysis for why you thought they would go up in the first place? I never saw it . . .
AUB
|
Slavemaster
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 13:57:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Slavemaster on 29/05/2010 14:00:55 Edited by: Slavemaster on 29/05/2010 14:00:16
Originally by: Aurum Bellator
Originally by: Slavemaster
In short: The marked predictions was wrong (Post patch), and low end Minerals will spike.
Whose predictions were wrong? Can you link the thread and cite the page discussing your analysis for why you thought they would go up in the first place? I never saw it . . .
AUB
Sure: here*Postet during DT/Patch
Originally by: Slavemaster Hmm.... I did the opposite. I bought 2.5Bil Trit at 2.61. And Still believe I will get 2.82 for it in less than 10 days....
|
Taram Caldar
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Warped Aggression
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 19:17:00 -
[84]
It is far too early to tell which way mineral prices are going to wind up trending post-patch. In fact from reports from my corp members many meta 0 mods are still dropping both from rats and from missions so either CCP screwed up and forgot to take mods out or they mis-stated what they were doing.
We have seen some scraps as loot but there are still LOTS of meta0 mods dropping as loot.
So which way mineral prices go is still a bit foggy. I think they're going to trend downward as ship demand will be lower but could be wrong. It's really too early to be trying to analyze any trends in my opinion.
Market Alerts Mailing List |
Aurum Bellator
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 21:43:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Aurum Bellator on 29/05/2010 21:43:50 They only nerfed a specific identified set of loot tables. Read: battleship sized modules. These were the ones responsible for "40%" of minerals being traded on the market . . . so you will still see the tech 0 drops from NPC frigates. Don't know if they nerfed medium sized tech 0 drops though.
AUB
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.05.29 22:06:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Aurum Bellator These were the ones responsible for "40%" of minerals being traded on the market
Now just wait a second there. I don't recall them actually saying it _exactly_ like that anywhere, so you're putting words in their mouths. If you are referring to the things posted last year about the mineral market situation about almost two years back, and THAT remark of "about 40% of minerals come from reprocessing", you're still off quite nicely, because that was not just the loot they eliminated/changed now, but ALL (non-alloy) loot _PLUS_ all items manufactured for mineral compression purposes plus ship reprocessing and so on. So for all we know, they could have eliminated as little as just 5% (if loot percentage dropped from the past and/or if mineral compression was the major factor in that snapshot) or as much as 60% of the minerals (highly unlikely, but you never know). The truth probably lies somewhere below the middle. Either way, the only thing we know for sure is that we don't know the exact percentage of minerals that change affected.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Aurum Bellator
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 11:30:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Akita T Now just wait a second there. I don't recall them actually saying it _exactly_ like that anywhere, so you're putting words in their mouths.
You are correct and I apologize. I had the 40% figure stuck in my head for some reason and it was late and I didn't feel like digging up the dev blog to look at the exact language Chronotis used. I should have just quote CCP Chronotis' "Circle of Life" Dev Blog.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
NPC Loot
We identified a core set of loot tables which are responsible for contributing to the majority of the NPC loot sourced minerals and these are the first ones we want to adjust with Tyrannis, reducing the quantity of the Tech 0 items being dropped and substituting it with a variation of scrap metals or tags, for example. There will still be the same amount of Tech 1 meta 1-4 modules being dropped and these will still act as mineral faucets if you desire a source of minerals still from NPC combat.
Whilst this will reduce one of the secondary incomes from NPC combat initially, this is weighted against all the potential rewards of NPC combat activity. With less overall mineral supply, the lower quantity of minerals still possible from loot reprocessing will eventually be worth more.
Nobody knows for sure how much of the total mineral trading volume came from this source.
AUB
|
Kephael
Caldari SERENDIPITY INC R-I-P
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 17:38:00 -
[88]
Mineral volume has dropped greatly in the citadel while at the same time prices have plummeted. I think it's safe to say those who bet on a crash post-patch won. __________________________________________
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 21:32:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Akita T Also, people heavily overestimated the impact on NPC loot changes - a HUGE amount of materials that came out of reprocessing actually came from items that were *specifically*manufactured* for the sole purpose of mineral compression. There are people around here that compressed enough minerals on a daily basis to keep a supercapital production line going.
Make that 20 supercap production lines --- 34.4:1 mineral compression |
Tehg Rhind
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 23:51:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Kephael Mineral volume has dropped greatly in the citadel while at the same time prices have plummeted. I think it's safe to say those who bet on a crash post-patch won.
Is it? The insurance mineral basket is well below the prices for Trit and Mex. Pyerite has definitely taken a hammering but its still not that low (dropped ~20% vs the insurance drop of ~30% I believe?)
If the only thing holding the prices up was the mineral basket then they should have tanked. It could go down over time as the market stabilizes a bit more, but it could just as easily go back up. Right now I would say the score 1-0 for anyone betting on prices not tanking. There's still a couple more rounds to go to figure out who won though.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |