Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
tartan pixie
Minmatar Connoisseurs Of Hallucination
|
Posted - 2009.06.25 13:26:00 -
[1]
Just back from a few months break and had a small heart attack when i saw the price of ferrogel, a quick trawl with eve search highlighted reasons why however i'd be grateful if people could clarify a couple of points:
If the total amount of ferrogel produced from r64 minerals in a month = F, how much more volume can be added by alchemy?
Info from other threads suggests that there are twice as many r32 moons as r64 ones and that alchemy gives a 20:1 ratio of r32 minerals in to r64 minerals out therefore (F x 2)/20 = F/10.
In other words if all the r32 minerals in the entire game were reacted into r64 minerals then supply of r64 minerals would increase by 1/10th.
I don't moon mine or do alchemy so may be way off, maybe some kindly person could confirm / deny my numbers?
My other question is this - The overall trend in the eve economy is currently one of inflation according to the QEN. In the area of T2 manufacture where i am active there seems to be inflation in material costs but deflation in price of the end product, are other people experiencing the same thing?
Thx in advance. |
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2009.06.25 14:23:00 -
[2]
Originally by: tartan pixie In other words if all the r32 minerals in the entire game were reacted into r64 minerals then supply of r64 minerals would increase by 1/10th.
This is why Alchemy was stillborn. Even though it now can be profitable, it can never be a supply solution, particularly given that supply was a problem before they worked out that people were creating R64's from thin air, and that R32s are already very much needed for other reactions.
Alchemy SHOULD take more time/effort/POS fuel than the R64 reactions, but they should have never been bound to R32's. It should have been R8's or Gasses. Force people to actually hold wider areas of space, and actually provide some isk sinking with more POS's required. |
iP0D
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 07:47:00 -
[3]
And keep in mind, Alchemy was designed with faulty numbers in mind as nobody bothered to check on things - the now infamous pos exploit.
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Coalition of Free Stars
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 07:53:00 -
[4]
One small, nagging problem with your theory - alchemy doesn't use R32s. It uses R16s, which are about 20x as common as R64s. |
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 12:09:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto One small, nagging problem with your theory - alchemy doesn't use R32s. It uses R16s, which are about 20x as common as R64s.
Twice as common actually, but that still makes their supply limited. Plus, they're already needed in three other reactions each. You can't possibly use all the R8's because there are already twice as many as there are R16's to react with, and the R16's react with R32's as well, AND alchemy.
So forgetting that he got R16's vs R32's wrong, he's actually still right about everything else. Including that all the R16's in the game would still only increase the equivalent amount of R64's by 20%..... Since they're only 4x as common as R64's, and you need 20x as many for an equivalent. Of course since they're needed in three other reactions, the end result is they will only increase the supply by 2-3%. Compare this to invention, which in many cases increased the supply by over 600%, in ships alone.
|
tartan pixie
Minmatar Connoisseurs Of Hallucination
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:08:00 -
[6]
Thanks for the replies and for setting me straight about the moons.
Now for the demand side of the equation does anyone know where i can get more eve population statistics other than this site? Essentially i'm trying to get an overview of the current T2 market and how it's changed in the last 6 months though it looks roughly like:
Supply - Major reduction in minerals since the end of the pos exploit and no change likely in the near future, alchemy has failed. Prices are rising and will continue to do so until there's a drop in demand.
Manufacture - Increased number of inventors is pushing up raw materiel costs while keeping end product sales prices down. This situation will persist until dropping profits squeeze people out of manufacturing.
Demand - This is where i'm a bit sketchy, i'd guess that the boxed release gave the playerbase a boost and those people are now beginning to fly T2 but i need to find out more numbers.
Overall - Demand will only drop when T2 becomes too expensive and players choose to fly T1 ships with named mods instead and the last time that happened i remember hac's costing over 300 mill. The only other option is for CCP to intervene and increase the supply of raw materials.
Have i missed anything blindingly obvious? |
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:49:00 -
[7]
Originally by: tartan pixie
Overall - Demand will only drop when T2 becomes too expensive and players choose to fly T1 ships with named mods instead and the last time that happened i remember hac's costing over 300 mill. The only other option is for CCP to intervene and increase the supply of raw materials.
Have i missed anything blindingly obvious?
Yup. Many if not most PvP specific modules don't use ferrogel or use a very small amount. As ferrogel goes up the prices of everything NOT ferrogel decrease as a function of less demand for the end product. This makes t2 modules ever cheaper -- damage mods for example have been hovering around 700-800k for a while now.
What this means: t2 fitted t1 hulls are more attractive than ever. The win strategy is not to fly an omgwtfbbqwinz0r setup -- it's to blob people in disposable, insured, unrigged t1 hulls + t2 fits.
And in summary, bigger blobs are the answer. Now what was the question? |
Vilgan i'Lakin
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 06:16:00 -
[8]
If t3 did hit the 500 mil mark, would that ease up on demand a little bit?
Rotate over to a t3 cruiser, which does not tax things like ferrogel nearly as much. Obviously it wouldn't make much of a difference and certainly would not reverse the trend. However, it might make a super tiny difference!
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.06.27 08:05:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Vilgan i'Lakin If t3 did hit the 500 mil mark, would that ease up on demand a little bit?
500 mil ? No snowflake's chance in hell. At 250 mil, MAYBE you might start to notice a tiny, tiny difference. At 200 mil, you'd start to see a negligible, but somewhat noticeable difference. At 100 mil, yeah, it might start reversing the trend. You'd actually need some T3 battleships that would end up costing 800 mil tops (and be able to compete with Marauders performance-wise), preferably even less... and THEN you'll really start to see a significant difference.
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |