EVE Search - Dysprosium 4/21/2009

All Channels

Market Discussions

Dysprosium 4/21/2009

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2009.04.24 08:13:00 - [31] When CCP first released alchemy mechanics, they had their numbers completely wrong - they were based on the ferrogel pos exploit where immense amounts of stuff was created out of nowhere and injected into the game. CCP promised to watch the alchemy stuff closely and if necessary to adjust it. After the pos exploit and removal of the buggy mechanics nothing happened to the alchemy though. Latest at that time CCP should have stepped forward and should have adjusted numbers for alchemy. But nothing happened. Except just another broken promise. So, nothing new there.
Zerv UK1 Zero	Posted - 2009.04.24 17:07:00 - [32] If they just change the insane 10:1 ratio on building in alchemy its all fine. Currently making dysporite to replace dysprosium in ferro/fermi chains takes way way to long even tho dysporite is now cheaper to buy than to make.
Azerath Brotherhood of Suicidal Priests KIA Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.26 06:59:00 - [33] 2 more r64 moons taken yesterday. evil grin Prices will be right where goons want em in the current and near timeline me thinks. Buckle down :) --------------------------------------------
Ravenja	Posted - 2009.04.26 07:44:00 - [34] Originally by: Frenden Dax 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. Seconded.
Caelum Mortuos Gallente Zero G Research and Development	Posted - 2009.04.26 09:13:00 - [35] Originally by: Azerath 2 more r64 moons taken yesterday. evil grin Prices will be right where goons want em in the current and near timeline me thinks. Buckle down :) I will lol if CCP nerf's dyspro moon income right after you all secure the last moon
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2009.04.26 11:21:00 - [36] Originally by: Caelum Mortuos Originally by: Azerath 2 more r64 moons taken yesterday. evil grin Prices will be right where goons want em in the current and near timeline me thinks. Buckle down :) I will lol if CCP nerf's dyspro moon income right after you all secure the last moon The thing is, that even if they nerfed it 15 minutes after, they still would have been worth taking. The incentive to hold space vs the incentive to hold particular moons is no longer there. There once was a time when you needed to occupy and manually exploit your area of space, now just controlling a moon for a few weeks is more than enough. Quite obviously cadmium > dysprosium was a huge mistake, because all the cadmium in game only equals 20% more dysprosium, and you still need the cadmium for the other reactions. It really should have been an R8 or even a heap of gasses. The replacement should have been basically effort based, not again material based, just like T2 invention is based upon more people doing it as it becomes more profitable - without limit. The replacement here was even more limited than what it is supposed to be replacing.
Mystafyre Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2009.04.26 11:31:00 - [37] Edited by: Mystafyre on 26/04/2009 11:31:47 Originally by: info specialist 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? There is few things going on now. T3 production Many people who had been exhausted on T2 invention with small profits are now focusing more into T3 production since profits are still high. This gives traders a good chance for manipulation and large scale T2 manufacturers. Delve Goonswarm just got it's first sov 4 in Delve. It's not yet a fortress. But if this napfest continues, the supply starts kick in with high gear, and don't forget the north. It's been in stable condition for a long time. T2 scam The reactor scam left it's mark to supply. The lost supply was massive portion of the whole supply. I highly doubt that the T2 prices will ever be so low level that they were at January 2009. Only thing what is ****ing me off is that even when the T2 scam went public I didn't start buying large stocks of T2 ships. That was probably the best market opportunity in the New Eden for years. Marauders from 600 -> 300, BlackOps from 450 -> 750, assault frigs from 10 to way over 20 and so on... And there is always a fear of large scale invasion against low sec POSs. We all know that lowsec is filled with research POSs owned by alt corporations who can't defend themselves.
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2009.04.26 14:11:00 - [38] humm i just came up with a funny theory.... could dysprosium and tritanium prices be slightly connected? alliances generally pump up their cap fleet with the money from those moons and i'm sure somebody can pull some numbers from the databes as to how much tritanium goes into capital components. - putting the gist back into logistics
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.04.26 14:26:00 - [39] Originally by: Mystafyre Only thing what is ****ing me off is that even when the T2 scam went public I didn't start buying large stocks of T2 ships. That was probably the best market opportunity in the New Eden for years. Marauders from 600 -> 900, BlackOps from 450 -> 750, assault frigs from 10 to way over 20 and so on... Anyone who reads here with regularity will know that Akita pointed out the coming spike well before the exploit was made public. He also was one of the few to note that the mats had to be coming from somewhere and there was an unusual influx of materials on the market.
Petyr Baelich Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness	Posted - 2009.04.26 15:46:00 - [40] Originally by: Lord Fitz Quite obviously cadmium > dysprosium was a huge mistake, because all the cadmium in game only equals 20% more dysprosium, and you still need the cadmium for the other reactions. It really should have been an R8 or even a heap of gasses. The replacement should have been basically effort based, not again material based, just like T2 invention is based upon more people doing it as it becomes more profitable - without limit. The replacement here was even more limited than what it is supposed to be replacing. Exactly.
JanSVK	Posted - 2009.04.27 07:26:00 - [41] Originally by: Petyr Baelich Originally by: Lord Fitz Quite obviously cadmium > dysprosium was a huge mistake, because all the cadmium in game only equals 20% more dysprosium, and you still need the cadmium for the other reactions. It really should have been an R8 or even a heap of gasses. The replacement should have been basically effort based, not again material based, just like T2 invention is based upon more people doing it as it becomes more profitable - without limit. The replacement here was even more limited than what it is supposed to be replacing. Exactly. I agree. Now with dispo, cadmium prices are also rising. I thought that as Cadmium is a r16 min there is 4 times more then Dyspo. Anyway as a large amouth of this Cadmium is being already comsumed by the standard T2 reaction production there is not much left for alchemy(20:1) anyway. As the amouth of moon materials is limited and probably already reached the limit of how much can be produced I think the idea of alchemy using moon material as input is wrong. Right now I don't see any way for players to meet the increasing demand. I would suggest to change the input to minerals which can be mined and when demand increases ppl can go out and mine to meet the demand.
Midas Man Caldari Dzark Innovations	Posted - 2009.04.27 15:36:00 - [42] Edited by: Midas Man on 27/04/2009 15:40:43 Originally by: Gnulpie When CCP first released alchemy mechanics, they had their numbers completely wrong - they were based on the ferrogel pos exploit where immense amounts of stuff was created out of nowhere and injected into the game. CCP promised to watch the alchemy stuff closely and if necessary to adjust it. This was a poor excuse on CCP's part tbh. 1) CCP knew about the shortages of certain materials. 2) CCP stated that they didn't have any numbers on how much material was being created by the exploit. And needed more investigation. 3) CCP know how many moons there are 4) CCP knows how much can be harvested from those moons. Now ask yourself when CCP were thinking about implementing alchemy did they a) use the unknown numbers of exploited materials or b) use very bad maths on known numbers.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.04.27 16:26:00 - [43] Originally by: Midas Man Edited by: Midas Man on 27/04/2009 15:40:43 Originally by: Gnulpie When CCP first released alchemy mechanics, they had their numbers completely wrong - they were based on the ferrogel pos exploit where immense amounts of stuff was created out of nowhere and injected into the game. CCP promised to watch the alchemy stuff closely and if necessary to adjust it. This was a poor excuse on CCP's part tbh. 1) CCP knew about the shortages of certain materials. 2) CCP stated that they didn't have any numbers on how much material was being created by the exploit. And needed more investigation. 3) CCP know how many moons there are 4) CCP knows how much can be harvested from those moons. Now ask yourself when CCP were thinking about implementing alchemy did they a) use the unknown numbers of exploited materials or b) use very bad maths on known numbers. Very bad maths on current numbers given that all new T2 that has been introduced actually uses the same ratios despite a proven pattern of original T2 using varying racial ratios. Someone pretty much copy pasta the mat requirements when creating jump freights, marauders, etc.. which is just **** poor game design IMHO.
Dzil Caldari Tritanium Science and Research	Posted - 2009.04.27 17:25:00 - [44] Originally by: Caelum Mortuos Originally by: Azerath 2 more r64 moons taken yesterday. evil grin Prices will be right where goons want em in the current and near timeline me thinks. Buckle down :) I will lol if CCP nerf's dyspro moon income right after you all secure the last moon CCP cheat and/or change game mechanics to grief griefers? Inconceivable! /jedi mind wave You've never heard of goonswarm or the privateer alliance /end jedi mind wave
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Wildly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.04.27 22:42:00 - [45] Originally by: JanSVK I think the idea of alchemy using moon material as input is wrong. I disagree, I don't think the idea is wrong, the design is wrong. There are plenty of R8s and gasses, and some of the R16s, R32s, and even R64s are overabundant compared to their use. The problem is that in attempting to solve the R64 supply issue, they created a 1:1 mapping of R16s to R64s, at a reaction ratio of 1:20. This resulted in the entire supply of the associated R16 only being enough to increase R64 production by 20%, and causing only that severely constrained R16 to be usable in alchemy for the R64 it is to replace. In other words, by limiting the creation of any given R64 to a single R16, they made it impossible to actually meet demand. It's possible to keep alchemy and meet demands, but the inputs need to be widened. Those undervalued/oversupplied minerals need to be convertible. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Null-Sec Player Influence Map http://dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/Veritefw/FWinf
Mara Rinn	Posted - 2009.04.28 08:39:00 - [46] T3 materials will be available in greater supply with an exponential increase in production relative to the number of parties hunting for those W-space sites.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.