Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kitex
Blacktag Test Labs
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 17:30:00 -
[1]
From Dr. E's new blog:
Quote: It is a strong recommendation on behalf of the chairman of the economic board that price of shuttles, and other items which create artificial price barriers, be increased or other measures taken in order to avoid price caps on the market for minerals (and any other market for that matter).
By far the most interesting part of the blog for me, though I did find it interesting overall as someone who mass-produces ships.
Whether you agree with the recommendation or not, it does seem to indicate that Dr. E may be making some hugely influential recommendations after all, rather than just crunching numbers and reporting on them.
Blacktag - Buy ships / Fittings / Drones / Ammo in BULK with Delivery! |
jongalt
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 17:40:00 -
[2]
it's quite possible the dr. knows something none of the players know.
that "something" is, of course, up for debate...
-jg.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 17:45:00 -
[3]
Ah, yes, let's remove insurance (bottom basket price caps), NPC mineral buy orders (bottom individual mineral price caps) and each and every NPC-sold refineable item (weird combination of individual and agregated top caps for all minerals except morphite) ! That'll do the economy REAL GOOD !
Notice: your Sarcasm II is already Sarcasm. _
[CNVTF] is recruiting | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 17:56:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 30/09/2007 17:47:52
Ah, yes, let's remove insurance (bottom basket price caps), NPC mineral buy orders (bottom individual mineral price caps) and each and every NPC-sold refineable item (weird combination of individual and agregated top caps for all minerals except morphite) ! That'll do the economy REAL GOOD ! Notice: your Sarcasm II is already Sarcasm.
On second thought... hell, why not ? Just for the heck of it, see what happends. X-Treme eXperiment !!!
I'm all for it. Market destabilization means money.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 18:02:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Shadarle I'm all for it.
Same here. I'm tired of all these newbs and trolls saying that us old timers cheat or keep them down. Let's remove all the "training wheels" and then we can really start showing them why we are at the top of the food chain. I've got nothing better to do than to destabilize the market for my own gain. And that's what the caps do, if none of you had noticed. They leave entry room for new blood. Without those caps...
Do you sell gtc's? Then perhaps we can do a deal. |
Kitex
Blacktag Test Labs
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 18:06:00 -
[6]
The bottom basket price caps have never had any significant impact on the market. I don't believe he was suggesting that insurance would be screwed with.
As for removing NPC refining "top caps", I'm all for it. Why should miners have to compete with an infinite supply of NPC minerals at fixed prices? (No, Im not a miner).
NPC top caps are not a natural part of the market. Refinable NPC items in general are a drawback to the days when EVE's economy was not yet fully self-sufficient, and I highly doubt they were ever intended to be mineral price caps.
Blacktag - Buy ships / Fittings / Drones / Ammo in BULK with Delivery! |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 18:26:00 -
[7]
In case ALL the top caps get removed (or set sufficiently high as to not interfere at all), care to speculate on the prices each individual mineral will go to ? First assume all the individual mineral bottom caps remain in place however (at 1/2 of base value). Then assume those bottom caps also get removed, and only the bottom "basket price" of insurance remains
I'll kick off with Tritanium, at an estimated price of around 6.5 ISK per unit, the very least, quite possibly over 7 ISK per unit soon _
[CNVTF] is recruiting | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 18:53:00 -
[8]
This is something I've sometimes wondered about as well. My view is that if all NPC-imposed caps on mineral prices were removed, then mineral prices would settle at the point where it would be just as profitable to mine (solo) as it is to do salvaging or level 4 missions. Numbers to follow when I have time... My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 19:12:00 -
[9]
That's where the 6.5-7 comes from _
[CNVTF] is recruiting | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 19:22:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Akita T That's where the 6.5-7 comes from
That works for low-ends (ignoring hauler spawns), but for high-end minerals I think we need to look at the 0.0 equivalents- exploration and ratting. What's your guess there? My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats |
|
Treelox
Amarr Frontier Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 19:35:00 -
[11]
lets not forget how uncapped mineral prices will be of great benifit to the macro miner population, and I guess indirectly isk sellers. -- http://www./sigs/Treelox/sig.png [orange]signature removed (change the zombie gagging sig) - please email us (with the signature URL) if you want to know why - Pirlouit([email protected] |
Sprzedawczyk
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 19:58:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: Akita T That's where the 6.5-7 comes from
That works for low-ends (ignoring hauler spawns), but for high-end minerals I think we need to look at the 0.0 equivalents- exploration and ratting. What's your guess there?
500 for zyd and 900 for megacyte. Insurance is providing max cap for ships - noone will pay 250M for raven when insurance payout is 80M, so high end prices will have to cut down.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 20:03:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Sprzedawczyk
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: Akita T That's where the 6.5-7 comes from
That works for low-ends (ignoring hauler spawns), but for high-end minerals I think we need to look at the 0.0 equivalents- exploration and ratting. What's your guess there?
500 for zyd and 900 for megacyte. Insurance is providing max cap for ships - noone will pay 250M for raven when insurance payout is 80M, so high end prices will have to cut down.
This isn't exactly true. The reason high ends will drop is due to other dynamics, not insurance.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 20:13:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Sprzedawczyk noone will pay 250M for raven when insurance payout is 80M
Which is also why no one paid 250m for a Cerberus. Oh wait...
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 20:41:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Sprzedawczyk noone will pay 250M for raven when insurance payout is 80M
Which is also why no one paid 250m for a Cerberus. Oh wait...
The best part about Cerb's were that they were never all that hot. At least not for mission running, which is what a lot of people used em for. The Raven was always better. But a lot of people were overcome with the T2 factor.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 20:44:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Shadarle The best part about Cerb's were that they were never all that hot. At least not for mission running, which is what a lot of people used em for. The Raven was always better. But a lot of people were overcome with the T2 factor.
Did the increased resists not make it better?
|
Auri Hella
The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 20:47:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Shadarle The best part about Cerb's were that they were never all that hot. At least not for mission running, which is what a lot of people used em for. The Raven was always better. But a lot of people were overcome with the T2 factor.
Did the increased resists not make it better?
The tank might be better. I've not bothered to compare. However the loss of firepower compared to a Raven makes the process of running mission so much slower that I don't see why you'd want to use a Cerberus.
|
Zolcan
Amarr Praetoria Shipyards
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 21:07:00 -
[18]
Quote: 'm tired of all these newbs and trolls saying that us old timers cheat or keep them down. Let's remove all the "training wheels" and then we can really start showing them why we are at the top of the food chain. I've got nothing better to do than to destabilize the market for my own gain.
Damn Shar.... you're brutal!
Zolcan
PRAETORIA WEBPAGE
|
Ramblin Man
Empyreum
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 21:09:00 -
[19]
People will pay what they have to, no question about that.
As for removing the price caps, I'm all for it. You people are looking at macroers all wrong. The reason we have macro miners isn't because veldspar is valuable, but because it isn't. Ergo, no one is in competition with them and they can just macro their hearts away. Let the price of trit float, give them some player competition, and I'm guessing you'll see them having a much harder time of it.
|
Vrizuh
Eve Defence Force Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 22:28:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Ramblin Man People will pay what they have to, no question about that.
As for removing the price caps, I'm all for it. You people are looking at macroers all wrong. The reason we have macro miners isn't because veldspar is valuable, but because it isn't. Ergo, no one is in competition with them and they can just macro their hearts away. Let the price of trit float, give them some player competition, and I'm guessing you'll see them having a much harder time of it.
What will be the overall effect of these changes on the competition between GTC & illegitimate isk sales? I'm not trying to make a point, I'm genuinely curious. Would 0.0 miners find little increase in profits, but empire farmers make enough profit that they can finally widen the gap between their sell price and the gtc sell price? I haven't done the numbers in a while, but I think it was like a US$10 difference before.
|
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 23:29:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ramblin Man Let the price of trit float, give them some player competition, and I'm guessing you'll see them having a much harder time of it.
I doubt if player competition can even remotely compete with Macro-er's. After all, I watched macro-er's kill the mining profession, low end, repeatedly. Every time low end mining starts becoming profitable... there they go sucking it dry. What I do hope is that with the supposed newer tools that CCP has created this will bring the macro-ers back out into the open thus getting them all banned over time. That would be nice but imho mostly wishful thinking. Still, it would be interesting to see if the doctor can help CCP make the market adjust according to global, or even regional, mineral prices. This would eliminate alot of artificiality in the market... making people have to work for their money. Work harder and/or smarter. I'm actually excited if this happens. This kind of environment shift is more throwback to an earlier Eve than many will remember. An Eve I miss not that the current Eve isn't a distinct improvement. Just too many "training wheels" for newbs and/or morons in place. New players need it and I concur with the choice. The morons profit from it and that makes me mad. Save the genepool, give a moron a chainsaw today!
Do you sell gtc's? Then perhaps we can do a deal. |
Hanoi Hana
Mitsubishi Group
|
Posted - 2007.09.30 23:50:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Hanoi Hana on 30/09/2007 23:50:32
Originally by: Shar Tegral What I do hope is that with the supposed newer tools that CCP has created this will bring the macro-ers back out into the open thus getting them all banned over time. That would be nice but imho mostly wishful thinking.
Does CCP really want to kick out the macro miners? Potential in-game market problems are possible, but with a cap on trit, there will always be cheaply available empire low-ends. This means the removal of macro-miners will have only a dampened effect on the in-game market.
However, it's been said it's possible that CCP doesn't want to take the $$$ hit every month for not having new accounts and GTC cards purchased. How many macro-miners use trial accounts? I don't know the answer to this, but it's obviously important to the macro-miner problem.
I wondered from the beginning if Dr. EyjoG was also brought on to help shed some private light to CCP Devs on macro-miner issues, and frankly, I find Dr. EyjoG's complete and utter silence on the matter strange enough to use italics.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 00:31:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Shadarle The best part about Cerb's were that they were never all that hot. At least not for mission running, which is what a lot of people used em for. The Raven was always better. But a lot of people were overcome with the T2 factor.
Did the increased resists not make it better?
Nope. The tank on the Cerb was no better than a Raven's. In fact I believe it was a bit worse, but it has been 6 months since I've run the numbers. Tho they may still be in one of the links in my sig. I believe the Raven and Cerb had similar tanking ability, but only against Kin/Therm, against EM the Raven won hands down. It's the Nighthawk/Vulture that have ubertastic tanks. But when you compared damage the Cerb was WAY behind the Raven, even if the Raven only used heavy missiles (which was a good idea for level 3's for some players). I ran thousands of missions back in the day and the Raven > Cerb > Ferox imo. But now it goes Nighthawk > Drake > Raven > Cerb > Ferox for level 3's and CNR > Nighthawk > Raven > Drake for level 4's, the other two aren't worth using.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Toria Nynys
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 05:31:00 -
[24]
In a totally free market (read: no insurance 'bottom' or NPC item 'top') all minerals would go into freefall.
The suddenly higher PvP cost due to no insurance payout would restrict most PvP to frigates and cruisers. Older players with an industrial base providing a firehose of ISK could still fly t2 and larger ships. They are not the majority of the playerbase however.
Vastly higher cost of suiciding would likewise not only reduce the demand for suicided ships but also increase safety of empire dwellers -- two pronged fork of less demand.
Broke PvPers would return to the belts to shoot rocks or rats ensuring the mineral supply increases.
IMO battleships would have to sell at around 20M a pop or less for them to be kerploded at anywhere near current rates without insurance. I'm sure you can do the math which follows.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 06:49:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Toria Nynys In a totally free market (read: no insurance 'bottom' or NPC item 'top') all minerals would go into freefall.
The suddenly higher PvP cost due to no insurance payout would restrict most PvP to frigates and cruisers. Older players with an industrial base providing a firehose of ISK could still fly t2 and larger ships. They are not the majority of the playerbase however.
Vastly higher cost of suiciding would likewise not only reduce the demand for suicided ships but also increase safety of empire dwellers -- two pronged fork of less demand.
Broke PvPers would return to the belts to shoot rocks or rats ensuring the mineral supply increases.
IMO battleships would have to sell at around 20M a pop or less for them to be kerploded at anywhere near current rates without insurance. I'm sure you can do the math which follows.
Even if I were to accept this scenario, which I don't, who cares? A massive deflation would be insanely profitable for people with massive amounts of money currently. ISK would be worth more, thus the rich get richer buying power wise.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 07:03:00 -
[26]
Here's my thoughts.
In real life, mineral prices are uncapped, obviously. This makes lots of sense in an economy. If Mineral X becomes too costly, people will use a substitute that while ordinarily more expensive, now becomes more useful. Or, they'll use a more costly but higher yielding method of extracting Mineral X that is otherwise not economically viable.
However, in EVE, things are different. All high-mineral items cost nearly the exact same proportion of minerals, and there is no way to substitute anything ever. Its also impossible to use "higher yield" mining methods; the only way to deal with price rises is to shift mining towards a specific mineral, which just means that highsec farmers will make even more ISK macro mining.
Now, removing mineral price caps would work if mineral makeups of items and ships were changed. Imagine Megathrons used a lot more tritanium than Tempests? Perhaps this would yield to demand changing to fit the supply! Currently, demand tritanium is completely inelastic--no matter how high tritanium prices go, people will still need just as much of it. If one could make a choice as to what minerals used, even if just by choosing a different product, removing mineral price caps would be an option.
In summary, without changing the current economy and manufacturing system considerably, removing mineral price caps would effect the economy quite negatively, since the minerals in short supply would rise in price quickly and all the others would collapse by comparison.
23 Member
EVE Video makers: save bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder! (updated) |
Eliza Hacklehaber
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 07:53:00 -
[27]
following on from you DS - why not have production requirements fluid - i.e 1 pyrite = 2 trit, so if you needed 1k trit to build something, you could substitute it with 500 pyr?
That would balance out the minerals across the board and also give regional differences due to ore distribution in those regions. It means you would also get a lot more production being based in 0.0 as the need for mass quantities of low ends are reduced by those requirements being filled by high end minerals.
Hell, why not make it similar to invention in the sense that you need to use a 'ore decryptor' or something similar in the production chain to convert the mineral req's? basic decryptors giving basic conversions, rare/ultra-rare decryptors giving slightly better ratio's?
/end brainfart
|
Vrizuh
Eve Defence Force Praesidium Libertatis
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 08:48:00 -
[28]
Oops, went I posed my question I obviously forgot about insurance. Perhaps then I should say, what will be the most valuable ore if min prices aren't max-capped?
I had initially thought "Veldspar" as was replied, for the simple reason that you need so much of it, and in nearly every product. Plus the size of trit means there'll be logistics delays etc.
But veldspar can be mined in empire. Surely the mission runners couldn't supply the entire highs demand alone?
I really hope they release a new veld roid. Trit is such a goddamn pain to mine.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 08:56:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Vrizuh But veldspar can be mined in empire. Surely the mission runners couldn't supply the entire highs demand alone?
The equilibrium is reached when income from Veldspar mining roughly equals the income from L4 mission-running. Besides, Veldspar amounts generated daily in belts is finite regardless of number of wannabe miners... ISK from bounties however, not capped. So, I might even go so far as to claim Veldspar mining (IF you can find any) might even be more profitable as highsec L4 mission running. _
Caldari N.V.T.F. is recruiting... |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.01 09:06:00 -
[30]
Posted this in the devblog comments too, but to be honest, I'd rather not go in that thread anymore
One of the possible solutions. Worth a read though, thread initially started by Nyphur. If you want to remove ALL price caps, THIS is a must. _
Caldari N.V.T.F. is recruiting... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |