| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Citizen 121
   |
Posted - 2010.01.01 04:20:00 -
[1]
What would be the implications of such an act on the part of CCP?
Would the whole economy go to pot or just settle on a slightly lower, equilibrium price?
Why would it be a bad idea?
I'd like to hear your ideas...
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 06:00:00 -
[2]
Except for Pyerite, all mineral prices are allready below equilibrium price. Without insurance mineral prices will crash. I guess ccp could remove insurance and go back to placing NPC buy orders like in the past. However, insurance fraud is a player driven activity that requires research, time, skills, and some effort. NPC buy orders will be against a player driven economy. If anything, insurance fraud is encouraging economic activity which has been lacking in eve for a while.
I heard a lot of people complaint about insurance and very little complaint about mission runners. Beleive it or not, insurance fraud is more benign to the economy than missions.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
EvilCheez
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 06:13:00 -
[3]
Mission runners rarely have to use insurance. I am not even sure I would bother insuring a mission running ship that never left high sec.
It might be nice if all the plag was moved to low sec though.
|
Lord XSiV
Amarr
Digital Research - Omega Protocol
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 06:17:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Block Ukx
Except for Pyerite, all mineral prices are allready below equilibrium price. Without insurance mineral prices will crash. I guess ccp could remove insurance and go back to placing NPC buy orders like in the past. However, insurance fraud is a player driven activity that requires research, time, skills, and some effort. NPC buy orders will be against a player driven economy. If anything, insurance fraud is encouraging economic activity which has been lacking in eve for a while.
I heard a lot of people complaint about insurance and very little complaint about mission runners. Beleive it or not, insurance fraud is more benign to the economy than missions.
Why are you calling it fraud? There is nothing fraudulent about it.
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 06:28:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Lord XSiV
Why are you calling it fraud? There is nothing fraudulent about it.
Yes, I agree; it is not fraud. However, it is the name commonly used to refer to that activity.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Lord XSiV
Amarr
Digital Research - Omega Protocol
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 06:47:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Originally by: Lord XSiV
Why are you calling it fraud? There is nothing fraudulent about it.
Yes, I agree; it is not fraud. However, it is the name commonly used to refer to that activity.
Well don't perpetuate a wrong....
Call it something else - maybe insurance exploitation or just plain 'good business practice' will do.
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 06:55:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Lord XSiV
Well don't perpetuate a wrong....
Call it something else - maybe insurance exploitation or just plain 'good business practice' will do.
IER - Insurance Exchange Rate
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Lord XSiV
Amarr
Digital Research - Omega Protocol
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 07:30:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Originally by: Lord XSiV
Well don't perpetuate a wrong....
Call it something else - maybe insurance exploitation or just plain 'good business practice' will do.
IER - Insurance Exchange Rate
You deserve a cookie for that one.
|
Erimisha
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 07:35:00 -
[9]
Originally by: EvilCheez
Mission runners rarely have to use insurance. I am not even sure I would bother insuring a mission running ship that never left high sec.
It might be nice if all the plag was moved to low sec though.
No, once you get to a certain SP then missions no longer bother you enough to insure your ships. If no mission runner *EVER* lost their ship than why is the blob for ships lost on the EVE map bigger around places like Motsu than, say, NOL?
|
EvilCheez
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 08:06:00 -
[10]
Quote:
No, once you get to a certain SP then missions no longer bother you enough to insure your ships. If no mission runner *EVER* lost their ship than why is the blob for ships lost on the EVE map bigger around places like Motsu than, say, NOL?
I agree. I lost 2xbrutix and 1 myrmidon when I sprinted to lev 3, but still.
I think my major point is that either plagioglase or pyrox should be found exclusively in low sec. That would make things really interesting and solve several problems at once.
|
Hamano Walker
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 10:27:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Except for Pyerite, all mineral prices are allready below equilibrium price. Without insurance mineral prices will crash.
Tritanium is actually above base price. You may be right that everything above pyerite is below base price*.7, though. If insurance were bolstering mineral prices you would expect that higher end minerals would be closer to base price*.7 while tritanium and pyerite would be considerably lower to balance it out.
The prices do not support an argument that insurance fraud (or anything else) is artificially bolstering mineral prices. On the other hand, it may control ship production quantity since anyone who can produce ships for below base cost*.7 has a no lose proposition.
---
How to deal with issues in EVE:
Fight it, avoid it, run from it, buy it off, cry about it or learn from it. |
Citizen 121
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 12:44:00 -
[12]
How can you say that all the minerals except tritanium/pyerite are below equilibrium price? What is this equilibrium? The cost of the minerals that the insurance is based on? I'd argue that that is no indication of the equilibrium price - prices have never looked similar to that and I don't think CCP ever intended them to.
I agree that mineral prices would crash - as ship prices fell (due to some players initially with holding purchase, and the removal of the bottom limit to price competition) the corresponding demand for minerals would fall and with the effective price floor that is the mineral basket it would fall hard and fast.
However, there will be industry professions relatively unaffected by minerals - namely ice mining, and in turn POS mining (as insurance does not directly act as a floor for these). Not only this, but mission running and bounties are unaffected. With this in mind, manufacturers will flood to these other professions and so price of ice and moon materials will also fall. This will also have the effect of stabilising mineral prices.
Also, that the price of BPOs remains constant will also mean, to an extent that the price of BPCs will stay the same which will act as another price floor.
And so prices will fall to their free market ( ) true equilibrium price. Which depending on how far miners and manufacturers are able to switch may not be that low at all. They might crash initially, but then pick up again.
Ships will be more expensive to replace, but carebearing professions such as missioning (well, less so), ratting and anomalies will be more profitable; still, net loss for tech 1 pilots.
TL:DR: no insurance => mineral prices fall => miners/manufacturers move elsewhere / quit => price stabilises => actually prices don't fall all that much. Which sucks a bit.
Am I talking *******s?
|
Hamano Walker
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 13:52:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Citizen 121
How can you say that all the minerals except tritanium/pyerite are below equilibrium price? What is this equilibrium? The cost of the minerals that the insurance is based on? I'd argue that that is no indication of the equilibrium price - prices have never looked similar to that and I don't think CCP ever intended them to.
Base prices (that NPC agent theoretically used to buy/sell at) are available here. Platinum insurance costs 30% of the total mineral base price of a given ship made with perfect skills. It pays out 100% of the base price value. So the point at which mineral costs is the same as insurance payout is when the total mineral basket of a given ship costs 70% the total base price of all minerals needed.
So IF (big if) insurance is bolstering mineral prices, you'd expect to see tham all at slightly less than 70% of base price, less for cheaper minerals (greate supply) and more for more expensive ones.
---
How to deal with issues in EVE:
Fight it, avoid it, run from it, buy it off, cry about it or learn from it. |
raukosen
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 14:38:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Hamano Walker
Base prices (that NPC agent theoretically used to buy/sell at) are available here.
Heh I was looking around for that info earlier but couldn't find it. It's pretty easy to calculate though since the insurance payouts and mineral compositions of every ship is known. Glad to see I got it right :D
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 17:10:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Hamano Walker
Tritanium is actually above base price. You may be right that everything above pyerite is below base price*.7, though. If insurance were bolstering mineral prices you would expect that higher end minerals would be closer to base price*.7 while tritanium and pyerite would be considerably lower to balance it out.
First off, NPC base price is something ccp came up with out of the blue to get the game started. NPC base price is NOT mineral equilibrium price. BSAC developed a novel method to determine the equilibrium base price. Our entire Mineral Reserve is based on that theory.
Megacyte and Zydrine are under equilibrium base price because of their increased supply. In contrast, Pyerite is in high demand due to IER.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
Dors Venabily
|
Posted - 2010.01.01 18:56:00 -
[16]
Just a question would not the market regulate it self?
Meaning without insurance the new bottom will be the reprocessing cost of the minerals for the ships?
Ships are not are not influenced by mission runners dumping t1 loot on the market.
Also IF someone would think that minerals are free he would just provide the market with source of cheap minerals. 
|
Demolishar
H Y E N A
|
Posted - 2010.01.02 00:49:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Demolishar on 02/01/2010 00:49:46
I'm more worried about "isk lost" on my killboard than losing isk, so removing insurance wouldnt bother me at all. So nothing changes.
|
Brock Nelson
Caldari
Flux Technologies Inc
SRS.
|
Posted - 2010.01.02 00:55:00 -
[18]
Afaik, the mineral market today is heavily used by those who are involved with Insurance Fraud (Btw, its called fraud because if it happens in rl, its fraud). If you take away insurance, two things will happen. Firstly, the market will start to get over-supply which will lead to price collapse.
Insurance is one way to ensure that the mineral prices doesn't bottom out.
Closed until further notice
|
raukosen
|
Posted - 2010.01.02 00:59:00 -
[19]
If pyerite follows its current trajectory the 'insurance fraud' will be unprofitable within a week, at max
|
Brock Nelson
Caldari
Flux Technologies Inc
SRS.
|
Posted - 2010.01.02 01:11:00 -
[20]
Originally by: raukosen
If pyerite follows its current trajectory the 'insurance fraud' will be unprofitable within a week, at max
After that, people will just stop buying minerals, price drops and the cycle starts again.
Closed until further notice
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |