| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vendorella
Montreal Irishmen
   |
Posted - 2009.09.15 19:24:00 -
[1]
There has been lots of talk around how the value of moon-goo will be lowered, specifically centered around the most recent dev blog.
While I don't see CCP reseeding moons, there remain a couple of possibilities:
1. Make moon-mining in highsec possible, thus increasing supply and lowering price (assuming constant demand).
2. Decreasing demand by lowering the T2 component requirements of T2 modules.
3. Playing with the reaction equation so that the base 100 units you get per hour results in more product... thus increasing the supply and lowering the value per unit. This would effectively halve the value of r64 moons... but even half value moons still represent loads of ISK.
Here's my question to the masses: how do you think that CCP will go about lowering Moon-Goo values?
Please note that this is not a "whine" thread... lets leave the "should they or shouldn't they" debate in another thread. I'm interested to see how close our educated guesses will be to what actually is implemented.
----------------------------------------------
You are now reading my sig.... have a nice day! |
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
Minor Threat.
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 19:27:00 -
[2]
Just a guess:
Any moon will produce any mineral depending on how much you upgrade you system. With the bottleneck gone on high-end moon minerals, the free market will fix it all!
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 19:31:00 -
[3]
Adding non-static sources of moon-goo, like prospecting on existing moons, new mining methods on asteroids, adding other new mining sources like comets or other traveling planetoids.
Or they decrease demand by adjusting manufacturing requirements.
Ideally, they add settlements to sovereignty as system upgrades that need low value moon-goo as upkeep/construction materials and can produce POS fuel/other commodities and/or some higher value moon-goo.
--------
Ideas for: Mining
|
T'san Manaan
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 19:38:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Just a guess:
Any moon will produce any mineral depending on how much you upgrade you system. With the bottleneck gone on high-end moon minerals, the free market will fix it all!
This, free markets cure all.
|
Ukucia
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 19:49:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Vendorella
While I don't see CCP reseeding moons
Why not?
Their blogs mention repeatedly that 0.0 space can be 'upgraded' to be worth more. So you upgrade, and a "moon mineral deep scanner I" is attached to your trade hub. Now you can mine better moon goo. Add more Roman numerals to the end of the module and you'll get better and better goo, but you'll have to spend more time upgrading to get there.
So while not technically "re-seeding", it's effectively seeding high-end moons everywhere.
|
Governor LePetomane
Rock Ridge Brokerage Solutions
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:09:00 -
[6]
Ideally, I'd think that the value of the material itself would remain roughly the same but the cost of mining it would increase significantly to reduce the actual profit potential.
As I understand it, right now a R-64 yields x billions/ month and (excluding military expenses you'd have anyway) the only cost to extract that is the same fuel cost as any other large tower. Well, what if Dyspro/ Prom mining burned up egregious amounts of fuel?
That would allow for increased potential supply and help the market regulate itself, because at a certain point it would become more profitable to mine R-32s (which would also have fuel costs but not as high) than it would to keep churning out R-64s; R-64 supply would then drop off and the price would go back up.
That way you maintain the current hierarchy of value, you may avoid a crash in T2 prices, ice products don't crash to nothing due to POSes coming out of the sov equation, and you've effectively cut the bottom line in moon mining.
|
Proto TC
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:16:00 -
[7]
What CCP will do:
Increase fuel/materials usage on POS for various high value "goo".
That fits with their wish to put more folks into low sec and make military alliances poorer.
As a result this will "screw" hi-sec invention POS folks.
What CCP should do:
1. Re-balance manufacturing components to drastically reduce dysrpo/prom usage.
2. Another set of reactions to create hi value materials from lower value ones. (A very long shot)
|
Vendorella
Montreal Irishmen
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:21:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Governor LePetomane
Ideally, I'd think that the value of the material itself would remain roughly the same but the cost of mining it would increase significantly to reduce the actual profit potential.
As I understand it, right now a R-64 yields x billions/ month and (excluding military expenses you'd have anyway) the only cost to extract that is the same fuel cost as any other large tower. Well, what if Dyspro/ Prom mining burned up egregious amounts of fuel?
That would allow for increased potential supply and help the market regulate itself, because at a certain point it would become more profitable to mine R-32s (which would also have fuel costs but not as high) than it would to keep churning out R-64s; R-64 supply would then drop off and the price would go back up.
That way you maintain the current hierarchy of value, you may avoid a crash in T2 prices, ice products don't crash to nothing due to POSes coming out of the sov equation, and you've effectively cut the bottom line in moon mining.
Any solution that results in an increased cost of production simply means that producers will increase their sale price... and pass the increase on to the consumer. This would happen across the board, and the only outcome would be to increase the cost of the end product while not reducing potential profits for the moon holders.
There needs to be a way to dilute the value of existing moons... either by reducing the demand for the product, or increasing supply (through alchemy or empire mining, for example).
----------------------------------------------
You are now reading my sig.... have a nice day! |
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:26:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Vendorella
how do you think that CCP will go about lowering Moon-Goo values
The most pertinent two ways to do it (preferably both at the same time):
1. The "economic upgrades" they talked of could simply have new resources be "discovered" on existing moons, increasing supply and therefore lowering overall unit market value (and individual moon value) even if the total ISK volume for that particular material (and total value of all moons with that material) keeps going up.
2. Tweaking of the old alchemy reactions ratio (20:1 was really ridiculous, 10:1 would be much more adequate), adding NEW alchemy reactions that link more common materials (now, here 20:1 could be a half-decent ratio) to the in-demand materials by yielding other "bottleneck" intermediate or advanced materials.
This will also mean "lesser" moon minerals (the ones linked this way, anyway) will slightly increase in price, while the "top" ones go down even more.
Both these things combined will mean a lot more moons become somewhat profitable (and even the "junk" ones could actually support their own fuel cost), while the (right now) "insanely profitable" ones could eventually become just "fairly profitable".
_
Info about our corp | Beginer's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper |
Governor LePetomane
Rock Ridge Brokerage Solutions
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:33:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Vendorella
Any solution that results in an increased cost of production simply means that producers will increase their sale price... and pass the increase on to the consumer. This would happen across the board, and the only outcome would be to increase the cost of the end product while not reducing potential profits for the moon holders.
There needs to be a way to dilute the value of existing moons... either by reducing the demand for the product, or increasing supply (through alchemy or empire mining, for example).
Yeah, that's true if current availability of R-64 moons is maintained. On the other hand, if you only increase supply or reduce demand then that also gets passed on down through the economy and you'll probably see a crash in T2 prices. Great for HAC pilots, not so great for inventors and producers and potentially harmful to the economy as a whole.
If R-64 goo becomes an available upgrade under the new sov system such that everybody who wants to can get into the Dyspro business (ie, an increase in potential supply) then my proposed increased cost of production will serve as a price support and should keep things somewhat as they are currently while reducing moon income.
|
|
|
Farrellus Cameron
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:34:00 -
[11]
I agree that a likely solution would be to allow players to upgrade a system so that they are able to harvest rare moon-goo there. This might be tied to moons in the system, or some simply some sort of giant synthetic reactor that doesn't even require a moon.
If not that, then some other system that allows players to generate moon-goo outside of the moon mining system, more similar to invention then alchemy. I don't think it will involve wormholes or high sec moon mining. It has to be something that will scale with the population of eve, not just be a finite number of moons.
----------------------------------------------------
|
Zartanic
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:54:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Zartanic on 15/09/2009 20:55:47
Well from what they have said I would guess:
There will be a base value for all moons or a narrow range.
These can be improved independent of the moons place in the EVE universe.
Corps/Alliances will be restricted in the number of systems they can economically hold and develop.
So the result is everyone gets a slice of the cake and prices will be a lot more competitive, probably bringing the price down.
EDIT: Of course it may not be moons any more, planets or whatever may play a role, but that is not really relevant.
|
Vendorella
Montreal Irishmen
|
Posted - 2009.09.15 20:58:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Vendorella on 15/09/2009 20:58:54
Originally by: Governor LePetomane
Originally by: Vendorella
Any solution that results in an increased cost of production simply means that producers will increase their sale price... and pass the increase on to the consumer. This would happen across the board, and the only outcome would be to increase the cost of the end product while not reducing potential profits for the moon holders.
There needs to be a way to dilute the value of existing moons... either by reducing the demand for the product, or increasing supply (through alchemy or empire mining, for example).
Yeah, that's true if current availability of R-64 moons is maintained. On the other hand, if you only increase supply or reduce demand then that also gets passed on down through the economy and you'll probably see a crash in T2 prices. Great for HAC pilots, not so great for inventors and producers and potentially harmful to the economy as a whole.
If R-64 goo becomes an available upgrade under the new sov system such that everybody who wants to can get into the Dyspro business (ie, an increase in potential supply) then my proposed increased cost of production will serve as a price support and should keep things somewhat as they are currently while reducing moon income.
Though, if the cost of T2 components goes down (due to a drop in moon-goo prices), that will allow CCP to kill another nagging problem with the same stone: the issue of T2 BPOs.
The major advantage that T2 BPO holders have is that they don't have the same wastage that inventors do. However, by decreasing moon-goo prices and lowering the cost of T2 components, there will less of a difference between BPOs and lower ME BPCs (from invention).
Or.... they could mess with the requirements on the low-end of moon-goo also... make components take more low ends and fewer high ends... thus increasing the value of gases, for example, while at the same time lowering the value of high ends.... resulting in a more even distribution of wealth across regions.
Hell, I remember when Zydrine was ~3600 and trit was ~1 isk. While not the same cause... as Trit has increased in price over time, the prices of all other minerals has come down. (yes... I know the drone regions played a factor... and how ship insurance and refining shuttles played a role too... but I'm just ignoring them here for the sake of argument).
----------------------------------------------
You are now reading my sig.... have a nice day! |
zzCoins
UK1 Zero
KrautbreaK
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 08:34:00 -
[14]
Invented BPC should be ME0 instead of ME-4, reduces demand for moon stuff, and nerfs T2 BPO
Alchemy ration should be 4:1 instead of 20:1
Upgraded systems should allow super efficient manufacturing POS facilities, which require 0.9 of normal materials
|
m3rr
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 08:45:00 -
[15]
they should make t2 versions of all of the items that currently dont have t2 versions (like the drone upgrade mods, probe launchers, ect) and make them require thulium and neodymium (fluxed condensates) to make.
also make an moon harvesting orca. quite simply, it would be able use a harvesting module which on each cycle it would mine a small amount of the available types of material from that moon and deposit it into the moon harvesting orca's cargo bay. it wouldn't steal it from the poses moon harvester and it wouldn't always succeed either.
so each 10 minutes it *may* mine 5 (or however many they decide) random units of the material types available on that moon.
it would allow small corps to prospect moons and it would also provide supplementary income from moons. however since you would have to be outside the pos to harvest the moon, it would leave the moon harvesting orca at great risk. because it could mine for hours undisturbed, pilots could just leave themselves at the pos. however we all know how that ends :P
|
Rashmika Clavain
Gallente
Shadows Of The Federation
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 10:20:00 -
[16]
Originally by: m3rr
blah
Yesssss because Orca's will happily tank a POS Deathstar guarding a Dyspro moon and small Corps can field a fleet of Dreads to take out said POS defense.
Removed. Please keep your EVE signature related to your EVE persona and not that of a real life politician. Navigator |
SeismicForce
Terra Incognita
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 11:01:00 -
[17]
Alchemy needs a significant boost, the players will then take care of the rest.
Originally by: Allisie
In a recent interview, a dev mentioned that ships and skills cause lag and will be removed in EVE 2.
|
Killitt
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 12:45:00 -
[18]
A Free Market will sort it all out.
Ron Paul 2012
|
BlondieBC
Minmatar
Galactic Exploration and Missions
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 12:50:00 -
[19]
Edited by: BlondieBC on 16/09/2009 12:50:54
A Guess:
Moon minerals will have a dynamic part, that can be found through exploration.
The lesser two R64 moon components will be used more.
|
Ana Vyr
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 14:17:00 -
[20]
I'd like to see some kind of non-static moon mining system that does not require POS's, but rather some kind of ship module or ship type that would allow the operator to collect moon minerals at a low rate. Keep the existing POS moon mining system intact, but add this new feature to the game so that everyone can take part in moon prospecting to some degree. Add associated skills as well. Add moon minerals to all moons in varying degrees...with the quality increasing in inverse proportion to the sec status (low yields/quality mins in high sec, better in low sec and wormholes, and best in 0.0 security space).
Such a mechanic would add to the mining end of the game which is something that is desireable across the board. This would also potentially entice folks into lowsec a bit more for juicy pirate targets.
The existing mechanic should remain the system that generates the majority of the moon minerals, but having a trickle of minerals coming from the other sources I described should lower prices I would think because of increased supply.
The key thing about this proposal would be that moon mining would then become something everyone could train for, expanding the number of paths every player could take. Typical yields would need to be balanced to keep things in line with regular asteroid mining, with the risk level dictating the profit level.
|
|
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 15:20:00 -
[21]
They could simply do it with alchemy.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Junko Togawa
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 19:20:00 -
[22]
System upgrades give the ability to get moongoo from any system, alchemy results in much better refine rates for reprocessing materials. Market self-corrects itself.
|
Shadowsword
Epsilon Lyr
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 19:48:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Shadowsword on 16/09/2009 19:49:59
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Just a guess:
Any moon will produce any mineral depending on how much you upgrade you system. With the bottleneck gone on high-end moon minerals, the free market will fix it all!
Now that would be a very stupid thing to do.
There's an unwritten law in offer/demand MMOs economies. That law say, basically: "ANY activity that is accessible to many players will end up as barely profitable".
Invention is a good exemple of that law. The prerequisites in Isk and SP are signifiant, which should have serisouly limited the offer, and thus guaranteed decent profits, but it still became barely profitable.
The day R64 moons can be duplicated without limit, even if the upgrades cost a lot, is the day the whole T2 market crash, and every step, for mmoon extracting to final production, end up as barely profitable.
And the idea is to make null sec more attractive, not less...
I suspect the main change to lower dyspro/prom price will be to denerf alchemy.
Making Neo and Tech more important in reactions would be a great help, too. They're R64 moons, too, yet pale beside the insane income of a dyspro moon.
------------------------------------------
|
Marlenus
Caldari
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
Tear Extraction And Reclamation Service
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 19:53:00 -
[24]
I think "invention-fixing-t2-bpos" is the template here. The solution will widely available, will scale with the EVE population, and will let people target (probably imprecisely) their harvest of specific desired moon minerals.
I like the idea of a large moon-mining vessel that has to sit at moons and suck up the goo, because that means a broad distribution of fat soft targets throughout the universe. Excellent!
However, I don't think this is very likely. I think CCP will balk at allowing widespread moon mining without fixed infrastructure, and I think they'll balk at putting R64 goo on moons that don't currently have any.
What I'm hoping for is vessel-based moon mining at non-fixed locations that have to be discovered. Wormhole moons would be possible, but as pointed out, W-space doesn't scale, so it's a temporary fix. Instead, I expect some sort of "comet mining" or other transitory exploration-based content.
Maybe this could be the impetus to give us a barge-based gas harvester?
------------------
Ironfleet.com |
Nova Fox
Gallente
Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 20:05:00 -
[25]
i think they're just going to spread out the material use more instead of making a constant.
Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 1SEP09
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 22:45:00 -
[26]
I would expect that system upgrades will "reseed" moons, but each moon in a system upgraded this way will produce less of the materials than current R64 moons. Thus in order to maintain the current T2 economy, alliances with R64 moons will end up having to upgrade multiple systems to the appropriate level.
This technology doesn't have to scale with the player-base, it only needs to scale to the number of systems that currently exist.
[Aussie players: join channel ANZAC] |
hi mommy
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 23:34:00 -
[27]
Edited by: hi mommy on 16/09/2009 23:39:44
Edited by: hi mommy on 16/09/2009 23:34:33
ok stupid question 
but does this mean t2 prices will crash? i know t2 components are pricy and big ships need many.
does anyone know how much percent of the cost of a jump freighter is for the t2 components? if its a lot then maybe its better to sell it for 3-4b now and buy a new one after dominion with +500m on the wallet maybe?
or will they add other costs like more high end mins to keep the prices of t2 items and ships up?
|
m3rr
|
Posted - 2009.09.16 23:42:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Rashmika Clavain
Originally by: m3rr
blah
Yesssss because Orca's will happily tank a POS Deathstar guarding a Dyspro moon and small Corps can field a fleet of Dreads to take out said POS defense.
well obviously you aren't going to be mining a moon you dont control or have access to...
|
Vendorella
Montreal Irishmen
|
Posted - 2009.09.18 13:26:00 -
[29]
Originally by: m3rr
Originally by: Rashmika Clavain
Originally by: m3rr
blah
Yesssss because Orca's will happily tank a POS Deathstar guarding a Dyspro moon and small Corps can field a fleet of Dreads to take out said POS defense.
well obviously you aren't going to be mining a moon you dont control or have access to...
Actually, the idea of ninja-mining in someone else's system is kinda funny!
I still think that they're going to play with either the ratio of T2 components that are required to make T2 stuff, or they will increase the low-end goo requirements while lowering the high-end goo requirements, thus increasing the value of low-ends and decreasing the value of high-ends.
Combine this with alchemy, and basically the value of your system becomes more related to the amount of work you're willing to put in.
You need way more trit in a BS than you need megacyte.... and Trit is way more common a product for miners all over the place than is any megacyte-producing rock. Following the same model, low end metals and gases are super common, but should be needed in far larger quantities. This would help drive up their cost, making mining these more profitable (or at least able to pay for the fuel cost of the tower).
----------------------------------------------
You are now reading my sig.... have a nice day! |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |