| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Clair Bear
Perkone
   |
Posted - 2009.04.22 02:54:00 -
[1]
 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.
|
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 03:48:00 -
[2]
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.
|
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 04:08:00 -
[3]
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.
|
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 04:30:00 -
[4]
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...
|
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 04:58:00 -
[5]
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.
|
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 05:12:00 -
[6]
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.
|
| |
|