EVE Search - Veldspar is the best empire ore?

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Science and Industry

Veldspar is the best empire ore?

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Topic
Oakrayven Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.06 18:19:00 - [31] Edited by: Oakrayven on 06/06/2008 18:32:49 Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Verite Rendition The only mineral roughly where it should be is Megacyte You're joking, right ? The base prices for minerals are the following : Trit 2 (too high now) Pye 8 (too low now) Mex 32 Iso 128 Nox 512 Zyd 2048 Mega 8192 based on MMIs index Tritanium 2.72 908,638,003 +.72 Pyerite 4.11 297,534,233 -3 Mexallon 23.06 71,362,922 -9 Isogen 59.66 7,035,586 -68 Nocxium 91.48 2,495,477 -420 Zydrine 2,429.79 689,595 +382 Megacyte 3,753.72 272,572 -4438 eh fairly close localy *** ** Trust Aura. Aura is Your Friend. If your too paranoid to play EVE. . . Then your not paranoid ENOUGH to play EVE
Pwett QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony	Posted - 2008.06.06 20:47:00 - [32] Aye, my numbers are based on minerals that change hands, so they're fairly consistent throughout all high-sec space. _______________ Pwett CEO, Founder, & Executor <Q> QUANT Hegemony
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.06.07 11:23:00 - [33] Doing a bit of digging and calculating (I used the MMI 7-day average figures): Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. = Linkage As you can see, compared to base price, only Tritanium and Zydrine are above, with Nocxium being worth a whooping FIFTH of what it's supposed to, and Isogen/Megacyte at barely half. Still, looking at volumes, comparing both to base price and actual price, we see some interesting stuff. For instance, with base price value in consideration, Megacyte is heavily trades, same for Pyerite, but Nocxium and Zydrine change hands a lot less often. Again, I repeat, for base price values. However, for actual prices (and therefore actual values), the picture is quite different : Tritanium is so heavily traded that is overshadows pretty much everything except Zydrine (due to the heavy price bias on both), and poor Nocxium is basically a dumping item.
Verite Rendition F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.06.07 13:00:00 - [34] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Verite Rendition The only mineral roughly where it should be is Megacyte You're joking, right ? The base prices for minerals are the following : Trit 2 (too high now) Pye 8 (too low now) Mex 32 Iso 128 Nox 512 Zyd 2048 Mega 8192 While I generally agree with that price structure, Mega at 8k and Zyd at 2k makes little sense, no matter what the build ratios are. Zydrine is the staple mineral of 0.0, but at less than 3k you're virtually always better off ratting/exploring/pvping/anthing-but-mining. Meanwhile Megacyte isn't found in large quantities in most of 0.0; Spod is a joke, Bistot is mostly Zydrine, so that only leaves Arkonor which isn't found in most places. Mega and Zyd really should be near equals, not one going for 4x the other. The ideal mineral prices, IMHO, are those near where we were in early 2006. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.06.07 13:39:00 - [35] Originally by: Verite Rendition While I generally agree with that price structure, Mega at 8k and Zyd at 2k makes little sense, no matter what the build ratios are. Zydrine is the staple mineral of 0.0, but at less than 3k you're virtually always better off ratting/exploring/pvping/anthing-but-mining. Meanwhile Megacyte isn't found in large quantities in most of 0.0; Spod is a joke, Bistot is mostly Zydrine, so that only leaves Arkonor which isn't found in most places. Mega and Zyd really should be near equals, not one going for 4x the other. The ideal mineral prices, IMHO, are those near where we were in early 2006. I wasn't talking about "desired" prices, neither about "recommendable" prices, but simply about the base prices for minerals that the devs picked when they designed the mineral make-up of ore. Going by those base prices, a m^3 of ore would be worth (aprox): Veldspar60 ISK Scordite100 ISK Plagioclase110 ISK Pyroxeres116 ISK Omber136 ISK Kernite156 ISK Jaspet168 ISK Gneiss200 ISK Hemorphite 201 ISK Hedbergite 224 ISK Dark Ochre 240 ISK Spodumain 287 ISK Crokite382 ISK Bistot 653 ISK Arkonor957 ISK and separate from those (separate mining yields) Mercoxit 1,732 ISK So, yeah, the devs intended Arkonor to be quite a bit more valuable than Bistot, and a lot better than Crokite, with the intention of promoting territorial disputes over valuable resources. However, this all turned to bite them in the ass when they so carelessly introduced the drone regions, with their HUGE mineral value loot drops, most of them focused on highend minerals, and both Zydrine and Megacyte tanked heavily in a matter of weeks, with the tritanium reprocessing cap of old reached almost immediately. In a bout of brainless glory, they decided to remove that cap, but at the same time do absolutely nothing about the reasons why the price cap was reached, and the tritanium spiked. Luckily, they "sort of" corrected a minor issue, and they removed some Megacyte from one of the drone alloys, adding Mexallon to compensate... this caused Megacyte to start climbing again, and caused Mexallon to tank a bit. All in all, the devs seem like a headless four-legged chicken : they twist and tug in separate, seemingly random directions, making one bad call after another, removing stopgap measures from the market without readjusting the things they broke in the first place... Oh well... 1\|2\|3\|4\|5
Oakrayven Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.07 14:42:00 - [36] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Verite Rendition While I generally agree with that price structure, Mega at 8k and Zyd at 2k makes little sense, no matter what the build ratios are. Zydrine is the staple mineral of 0.0, but at less than 3k you're virtually always better off ratting/exploring/pvping/anthing-but-mining. Meanwhile Megacyte isn't found in large quantities in most of 0.0; Spod is a joke, Bistot is mostly Zydrine, so that only leaves Arkonor which isn't found in most places. Mega and Zyd really should be near equals, not one going for 4x the other. The ideal mineral prices, IMHO, are those near where we were in early 2006. I wasn't talking about "desired" prices, neither about "recommendable" prices, but simply about the base prices for minerals that the devs picked when they designed the mineral make-up of ore. Going by those base prices, a m^3 of ore would be worth (aprox): Veldspar60 ISK Scordite100 ISK Plagioclase110 ISK Pyroxeres116 ISK Omber136 ISK Kernite156 ISK Jaspet168 ISK Gneiss200 ISK Hemorphite 201 ISK Hedbergite 224 ISK Dark Ochre 240 ISK Spodumain 287 ISK Crokite382 ISK Bistot 653 ISK Arkonor957 ISK and separate from those (separate mining yields) Mercoxit 1,732 ISK So, yeah, the devs intended Arkonor to be quite a bit more valuable than Bistot, and a lot better than Crokite, with the intention of promoting territorial disputes over valuable resources. However, this all turned to bite them in the ass when they so carelessly introduced the drone regions, with their HUGE mineral value loot drops, most of them focused on highend minerals, and both Zydrine and Megacyte tanked heavily in a matter of weeks, with the tritanium reprocessing cap of old reached almost immediately. In a bout of brainless glory, they decided to remove that cap, but at the same time do absolutely nothing about the reasons why the price cap was reached, and the tritanium spiked. Luckily, they "sort of" corrected a minor issue, and they removed some Megacyte from one of the drone alloys, adding Mexallon to compensate... this caused Megacyte to start climbing again, and caused Mexallon to tank a bit. All in all, the devs seem like a headless four-legged chicken : they twist and tug in separate, seemingly random directions, making one bad call after another, removing stopgap measures from the market without readjusting the things they broke in the first place... Oh well... Kind of like the US congress eh? LOL *** ** Trust Aura. Aura is Your Friend. If your too paranoid to play EVE. . . Then your not paranoid ENOUGH to play EVE
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.06.07 15:02:00 - [37] Edited by: Akita T on 07/06/2008 15:05:26 Or if you prefer, a relative (percentual) valuation of ores against BASE ("intended") values... using the same mineral values taken from the Matari Mineral Index for "actual price"... Mineral-base value,actual value;deviation Veldspar-60,84;40% Scordite-100,81;-19% Pyroxeres-116,65;-44% Plagioclase-110,77;-30% Omber-136,66;-52% Kernite-156,89;-43% Jaspet-168,57;-66% Hemorphite-201,80;-60% Hedbergite-225,101;-55% Gneiss-200,216;8% Dark Ochre-240,200;-16% Spodumain-287,133;-54% Crokite-382,402;5% Bistot-653,453;-31% Arkonor-957,515;-46% Mercoxit-1737,484;-72% Veldspar is HEAVILY overevaluated, Gneiss and Crokite are slightly more valuable than intended, and most others are in the gutter. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5
Tamarana	Posted - 2008.06.07 19:09:00 - [38] The main point of the high value of the tritanium is because it is costly to move it. So you have the biggest differences of prices of tritanium from 1.8 or less to 4 or more. A simple JF is able to move 30 million units of tritanium and this let to do a profit of 32-33 million isk minus the costs of the jump fuel and cyno fuel (and compound the risk of low sec). This simply not happen with the other minerals, as you are able to move them and obtain a bigger profit. There are many untapped sources of tritanium, but it is difficult to exploit them without the ability to move them faster and at lower cost-risks.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.06.07 19:18:00 - [39] You can still move tritanium compressed up to x12 via Purgatory Torps (on top of several other minerals). You can easily move PURE trit compressed at x5 via Passive Targeters. Several other options to move compressed trit (between x5 and x12) exist, with varying degrees of "other minerals" mingled in. 1\|2\|3\|4\|5
Oakrayven Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.07 20:29:00 - [40] If you took out the cost of compressing-transporting from trit the price would actualy be higher for Trit. Currently in 0.0 it makes more sence to mine the other ores, sell them(even at a "loss" per m3 from the base price) then buy Trit in empire, compress and ship it back to 0.0 than to mine Trit at home. *** ** Trust Aura. Aura is Your Friend. If your too paranoid to play EVE. . . Then your not paranoid ENOUGH to play EVE

Qaedienne	Posted - 2008.06.07 21:30:00 - [41] Originally by: Akita T You can still move tritanium compressed up to x12 via Purgatory Torps (on top of several other minerals). You can easily move PURE trit compressed at x5 via Passive Targeters. Several other options to move compressed trit (between x5 and x12) exist, with varying degrees of "other minerals" mingled in. That's true, but that increases the cost and lengthens the time it takes to ship. And it still doesn't completely resolve the problem of shipping uncompressed trit, as it needs to be gathered together in order to manufacture those items in volume. It only makes transferring trit long distances more palatable.
Siadyu Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.06.08 23:22:00 - [42] Quote: However, this all turned to bite them in the ass when they so carelessly introduced the drone regions I don't think this is really a reasonable analysis. It's true that originally, the devs expected players to fight over mineral wealth, static complexes, and high-quality rat spawns. However, with the introduction of moon mining, the focus shifted toward fighting over valuable moons. Moon mining allowed CCP to introduce the drone regions, tanking mineral prices and therefore decreasing the costs of engaging in pvp. It's true that this may seem like a bad thing from the perspective of miners and some industrialists, but most would probably agree that CCP has shown little interest in making improvements to the production side of the game, except with respect to lowering prices in order to reduce the barrier to entry for pvp. In short, it's not that the devs didn't know what they were doing; their goals simply do not coincide with yours.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.06.09 01:21:00 - [43] Right, because they did such a bang-up job with the supply and demand side of moon minerals too, right ? And how about rigs and such ? I never tend to attribute malice where simple incompetence explains the situation properly. So... please, do tell, what exactly do you think their intentions were ? And if you think they wanted to simply reduce "mineral prices" and "PvP entry level", they're not doing that either. First off, the "basket price" of minerals is (as it has been for a VERY long time, barring post-patch day when new ships are introduced and demand spikes for a short while) pretty damn close to "insurance fraud" levels. The T1 ship "PvP entry level" is and has always been damned low in the past 3 years or so, the fitings make that higher (especially the rigs). Second, if they really wanted to decrease both mineral prices and PvP entry level heavily, they would remove insurance and ramp up both mining yield (or at least refined amounts from ores) and salvage material drops by a huge factor. Miners and salvagers would STILL earn just about the same amount per hour (or, arguably, a little bit more actually, since with lower prices comes higher demand from those who tend to lose them now that they're so cheap), but everything else would be dirt cheap. Sorry, Siadyu, but you either have no idea what you're talking about (i.e. the dev's intentions) or you have no clue how the prices evolve from the "status quo" of the game rules (i.e. how the devs could actually accomplish those intentions easier). 1\|2\|3\|4\|5
Siadyu Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.06.09 01:49:00 - [44] Quote: Right, because they did such a bang-up job with the supply and demand side of moon minerals too, right ? Again - you are writing from the perspective of the industrialist. I would suggest that the rare moon situation has done an excellent job of inciting alliances to fight each other despite the risk of huge losses. Quote: And how about rigs and such ? The issue is that some rigs are much better than others, and CCP has historically been very reluctant to nerf items once they have been released, at least when compared to certain other MMO-producing companies 8). Quote: So... please, do tell, what exactly do you think their intentions were ? I think that they hired an economist and he told them that too much money would be injected into the economy. So, they decided the new regions would provide minerals instead of isk. Mineral prices were largely superfluous because people would fight over moons anyway. Sound reasonable? Quote: First off, the "basket price" of minerals is (as it has been for a VERY long time, barring post-patch day when new ships are introduced and demand spikes for a short while) pretty damn close to "insurance fraud" levels. I don't believe it is correct that the "basket price" will always remain the same. There is a price cap on tritanium, so it can only increase so much even if the markets are flooded with higher-end minerals. In other words, the lowest-end mineral isn't completely free to increase its price when the market is flooded with higher-end minerals.
Pwett QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony	Posted - 2008.06.09 04:31:00 - [45] Ravens have always taken x minerals to build and they have always been worth y insurance. Since the beginning of time the value of x minerals / y insurance has been constant. If mineral a rises in value, than mineral b tend to fall to maintain an equal basket. Nocx is our mineral B since it is so completely, absolutely, positively oversaturated. The biggest source of nocx is from drone loot. Q.E.D... I agree with Akita. _______________ Pwett CEO, Founder, & Executor <Q> QUANT Hegemony
Siadyu Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2008.06.09 15:43:00 - [46] Quote: Since the beginning of time the value of x minerals / y insurance has been constant. If mineral a rises in value, than mineral b tend to fall to maintain an equal basket. Imagine that the supply of all minerals in the game except tritanium is infinite. All minerals except tritanium will plunge in value. Will be price of tritanium increase? No, of course not - it will remain at its current price, slightly below the price cap of 3.8. Tritanium has been selling for 'just below the existing price cap' for a very long time now.
Oakrayven Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.09 16:46:00 - [47] the base problem is that what Mining and hauling ends up doing is covering the local shortfall in minerals that come from other sources(mostly the people like me who loot missions and rats for minerals and salvage) *** ** Trust Aura. Aura is Your Friend. If your too paranoid to play EVE. . . Then your not paranoid ENOUGH to play EVE
Kyle Cataclysm	Posted - 2008.06.09 17:58:00 - [48] I never understood the crowd of ppl that said "if mineral x rises in price, other minerals must drop in price". That sentence could only be true if the market was totally driven by supply and demand. In reality that was never the case. We always had mission runners, ratters and miners who don't care about mineral prices and who kept producing their minerals even when they made alot less isk.
Oakrayven Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.09 23:11:00 - [49] Edited by: Oakrayven on 09/06/2008 23:12:27 Originally by: Kyle Cataclysm I never understood the crowd of ppl that said "if mineral x rises in price, other minerals must drop in price". That sentence could only be true if the market was totally driven by supply and demand. In reality that was never the case. We always had mission runners, ratters and miners who don't care about mineral prices and who kept producing their minerals even when they made alot less isk. The diference is that the people who do that are only part of the total package, The reality is the rest of the miners who are serious about makeing a profit will always go for the best ISK yeild for their risk level. Bascialy its the ships and insurance payouts on said ships that ultimatly influence the price of minerals. In theory, the price of a ship will almost never drop below the "Insurance fraud" price (at least it will not for long). when it does people will build the ships, insure them, then destroy them. Theirfor in theory, minerals as a whole cant realy drop too far below the insurance fraud price because you have a way to convert them into ISK with a product that can be "sold" as fast as you can insure and destroy the ships, thus creating an instant demand for new minerals to build new ships. *** ** Trust Aura. Aura is Your Friend. If your too paranoid to play EVE. . . Then your not paranoid ENOUGH to play EVE
Ques Test	Posted - 2008.06.12 23:30:00 - [50] Edited by: Ques Test on 12/06/2008 23:35:00 Edited by: Ques Test on 12/06/2008 23:34:16 I do not know how to make my Main show up, it always used Que's Test for some reason. Not that it matters much as I am new. BUT, here are the current m3 numbers using the average market price at eve central (assuming 100% effeciency and 0 tax). These are per m3 of ore. Veldspar__________97.60 ISK Scordite___________90.43 ISK Pyroxeres_________75.73 ISK Palagioclase________88.67 ISK Omber_____________69.58 ISK Kernite___________99.04 ISK Jaspet____________65.88 ISK Hemorphite________90.38 ISK Hedbergite_______113.18 ISK Gneiss___________248.64 ISK Dark Ochre_______231.50 ISK Spodumain________140.69 ISK Crokite__________464.77 ISK Bistot___________505.72 ISK Arkonor__________447.29 ISK Mercoxit_________530.05 ISK

dodge2005 Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2008.06.13 12:35:00 - [51] Are my calculations right that mining trit still only works out to be about 2mil a hour. If so who is going to do this, people just run a lvl 4 mission and made more than that much isk easy!
Oakrayven Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.13 14:37:00 - [52] Originally by: dodge2005 Are my calculations right that mining trit still only works out to be about 2mil a hour. If so who is going to do this, people just run a lvl 4 mission and made more than that much isk easy! Which frankly is as it should be. After all your getting shot at in thoes missions. whos doing it are a lot of AFK alts and macroers who are trying to make a bit of extra scratch while their doing something else on their main. *** ** Trust Aura. Aura is Your Friend. If your too paranoid to play EVE. . . Then your not paranoid ENOUGH to play EVE
procurement specialist	Posted - 2008.06.13 17:58:00 - [53] saying it again. veld will never be mined with teh exception of possibly drone regions and mandatory ops. more trit is harvested from rat loot while both getting bounty isk, salvage parts, and other minerals. yes veld beats everything outside of 0.0. The only way to balance the isk vs reward of mining in low sec is to make the yeild of low sec roids and then 0.0 roids higher than high sec roids. maybe the corporations already killed teh good stuff. it explains the lack of arkonor in high sec so why not the lack of super crystalline veldspar in 0.0? this approach forces all minerals to be minable at higher ratios in lower security status than higher sec status space. the market can fluctuate all it wants and you can still get better yield from risker space. Just do it in bands of say .5 for math's sake. if ark shows up at -.7 then normal ark is in -.7 to -1 space. at -.2 to -.7 you have weaker ark. at .3 to -.2 it gets weaker again until at 1.0 space its yield is ridiculously low and not worth it. veld goes the other way and in 0.0 you would get like 5x to 10x yield veldspar and it would worth mining again because ratting wouldn't get you trit faster.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.06.13 18:49:00 - [54] Edited by: Akita T on 13/06/2008 18:53:20 Originally by: dodge2005 Are my calculations right that mining trit still only works out to be about 2mil a hour. You can easily mine close to 60k m^3 of Veldspar in a T1-only fit Covetor at minimum skills required to fly it and no gang bonuses nor mining drones. Even at barely above 80 ISK per cubic meter, that's still almost 5 mil ISK. Now, with a "fully pimped" Hulk, the two yield implants, maxed out skills and a mindlinked commander running the cycle time link (also, preferably the capacitor reduction link too), plus a flight of T2 mining drones, that's around 160k m^3 of Veldspar per hour, so even at 80 ISK/mc, that's closer to 13 mil ISK per hour. Heck, if you could somehow not miss one single second of actual mining (deactivating laser as asteroid is just barely depleted) and no delay in drone travel times (sitting on top of some asteroids where you only send the drones, but you mine with your strips other roids), and if you could somehow ONLY mine the +10% refine yield version of Veldspar (unlikely, but still), and IF you would sell your minerals in a hub instead at the average galactic prices, you could theoretically get up to 17 mil ISK per hour that way. Of course, the 17 mil per hour is purely theoretical, but still... a far way from 2 mil per hour. Where the heck you get your 2 mil per hour from, no idea. Mining in a mining frigate ?!?
Sir Que Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.06.13 23:48:00 - [55] Todays per m3 results (Given 100% refine and no tax) based on eve central median prices. Veldspar97.60 ISK Scordite90.84 ISK Pyroxeres74.92 ISK Palagioclase87.97 ISK Omber69.60 ISK Kernite98.37 ISK Jaspet64.90 ISK Hemorphite89.53 ISK Hedbergite112.47 ISK Gneiss248.60 ISK Dark Ochre231.04 ISK Spodumain140.69 ISK Crokite464.52 ISK Bistot505.73 ISK Arkonor447.29 ISK Mercoxit530.00 ISK
Oakrayven Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.14 05:30:00 - [56] Edited by: Oakrayven on 14/06/2008 05:31:10 Originally by: procurement specialist 1>>>)saying it again. veld will never be mined with teh exception of possibly drone regions and mandatory ops. more trit is harvested from rat loot while both getting bounty isk, salvage parts, and other minerals. 2>>>)yes veld beats everything outside of 0.0. The only way to balance the isk vs reward of mining in low sec is to make the yeild of low sec roids and then 0.0 roids higher than high sec roids. maybe the corporations already killed teh good stuff. it explains the lack of arkonor in high sec 3>>>)so why not the lack of super crystalline veldspar in 0.0? this approach forces all minerals to be minable at higher ratios in lower security status than higher sec status space. the market can fluctuate all it wants and you can still get better yield from risker space. Just do it in bands of say .5 for math's sake. if ark shows up at -.7 then normal ark is in -.7 to -1 space. at -.2 to -.7 you have weaker ark. at .3 to -.2 it gets weaker again until at 1.0 space its yield is ridiculously low and not worth it. veld goes the other way and in 0.0 you would get like 5x to 10x yield veldspar and it would worth mining again because ratting wouldn't get you trit faster. 1>>>) take a look in a few empire systems, look for even vanila Veld roid in a 1-+ belt system before they reset the system, you will not find ANY Veldspar, but often lots of other roids hanging their untoutched, I guess nothing is mining them eh? 2>>>) while the developers are looking into ways to make mining more interesting, from the sound of things what they ARE NOTlooking at is ways to make it yeild mutch more than it currently does, they are looking at diferent ways to bring NEW minerals used to make NEW items into the game. 3>>>)realisticaly ramping up the yeilds just means that more minerals are out their cloging up 90 day sell orders as the price drops lower, (and Im already picking up ships for less than the insurance payout as it is,) and 0.0 seems to have no problem keeping up with Supercap ship orders. add in the fact that the developers want traid to happen between high and low sec so any idea to spread the minerals around even more is bascialy a non starter. *** ** Trust Aura. Aura is Your Friend. If your too paranoid to play EVE. . . Then your not paranoid ENOUGH to play EVE
Cor Aidan KNIGHT'S OF THE ROUND ROOM ReZZerecteD AlckemisTs	Posted - 2008.06.23 00:17:00 - [57] Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 07/06/2008 15:08:17 Or if you prefer, a relative (percentual) valuation of ores against BASE ("intended") values... using the same mineral values taken from the Matari Mineral Index for "actual price"... /* snip / Veldspar is HEAVILY overevaluated, Gneiss and Crokite are slightly more valuable than intended, and most others are in the gutter compared to where the devs initially intended them to be, and as you can see, ALL lowsec ores, without exception, have been heavily affected, same for a lot of other ores. Overvalued compared to what? It's what the market is supporting; can a market be overvalued compared to itself? That's a philosophical question for which I don't have the brainpower. I don't believe you can use the 'base price' of minerals as anything other than a starting point - there's no intention (as far as I know) to try and force things to those prices. In fact, forcing things to a given price seems to be against the sandbox mentality. That observation is supported by the removal of NPC shuttles, which removed an artificial barrier. I'd also expect to see an update to the insurance system as that's an artificial floor for things - but I'd hope to see that only after they tie the money supply to actual wealth, else everyone will finally see the inflation everyone thinks we currently have but don't. Anyway, those are more of my opinions based on my observations... *This isn't something that can be fixed by adjusting faucets and sinks. It can really only be fixed by having an amount of currency in circulation related to the material goods in circulation. For instance, if you blow up a ship, less new isk is injected into the system. If you refine ore into minerals or create loot/salvage from ships, more new isk is injected. I don't have a good idea for removing isk from the system over current sinks, though, but those might work. Basically, mission rewards and rat bounties should increase and decrease based not on mission and ratting activity, but on wealth-creating activity. Insurance should do nothing other than circulate isk around, using standard insurance rules, rather than create isk.
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2008.06.23 09:50:00 - [58] Originally by: Siadyu Edited by: Siadyu on 09/06/2008 16:09:34 Quote: Since the beginning of time the value of x minerals / y insurance has been constant. If mineral a rises in value, than mineral b tend to fall to maintain an equal basket. Imagine that the supply of all minerals in the game except tritanium is doubled. All minerals except tritanium will plunge in value. Will be price of tritanium go through the roof? No, of course not - it will remain roughly at its current price, slightly below the price cap of 3.8. Tritanium has been selling for 'just below the existing price cap' for a very long time now. Not true from the prospective of the buyer or that of the at least a bit market aware builder. In your example trit cap at 3,8 (+transportation cost as that cap is true in station selling civilian modules). Builder buy trit at capped price, other minerals at deflated prices and build ship, insure the ship and destroy it, getting the insurance payout. As the minerals price is deflated he get a return without need to sell the ship, so without added costs broker and tax (and maybe even some half decent salvage). The ship sold on market stay at a price higher than platinum insurance payout-platinum insurance cost. After some time the miners get the drift and do the same, cutting put the builder (it they weren't the same person from the start). Those that don't want to do that do some math and sell the minerals at a higher price as they want the same return. So at the end the price of minerals will not plunge, simply the quantity mined and sold will be reduced while builders use the insurance fraud to gatehr isk.
Slashamite	Posted - 2008.07.08 14:47:00 - [59] Originally by: Venkul Mul So at the end the price of minerals will not plunge, simply the quantity mined and sold will be reduced while builders use the insurance fraud to gatehr isk. LOL @ the newb.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.07.09 00:03:00 - [60] Originally by: Slashamite Originally by: Venkul Mul So at the end the price of minerals will not plunge, simply the quantity mined and sold will be reduced while builders use the insurance fraud to gatehr isk. LOL @ the newb. I don't exactly know what you're "LOL"ing at since, well, he's right (at least partially, that is). As long as insurance exists, mineral prices overall can't drop below a certain minimum aggregate level, determined by the "insurance fraud" income. _ *The mineral/moonstuff balance \|\| THE* nanofix**

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.