| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Andreus LeHane
Gallente
Mixed Metaphor
   |
Posted - 2010.01.15 11:56:00 -
[31]
You do realise that this plan is absurd because it expects all miners to co-operate, despite the fact that mineral cartels are often in direct opposition to each other? If everyone except you is selling tritanium at 100 isk/unit, all you need to do to make an absolutely absurd amount of ISK is to sell your stockpile at 99 isk/unit. Heck, you can undercut by just a single cent if you want. To be honest, you could go even lower and sell at 50 isk/unit and still guarantee yourself a massive windfall. If we place the price of a Hulk at 150 million ISK (which I think is fairly reasonable), at 50 isk/unit, all you need to do is sell 3000000 units of tritanium and that's your Hulk, right there. Mine for a few hours in a hi-sec system it's awkward for the Hulkageddon to reach (trust me, I know a few) and then freight it to a market hub.
Your proposed mineral embargo requires two things that will never happen:
a. All the miners in EVE agreeing on something (And yes, it really does have to be all of them. Even one silly sod undercutting your 100 isk/unit embargo will screw it over)
b. People in EVE not betraying other people to make money
I WOULD like to see miners performing some sort of market-manipulation-as-blackmail scheme, but what you propose simply isn't feasible. It violates not only every principle by which EVE players operate but the very realities of economics themselves.
-----
|
Winterjack
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 12:44:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Andreus LeHane
I WOULD like to see miners performing some sort of market-manipulation-as-blackmail scheme, but what you propose simply isn't feasible. It violates not only every principle by which EVE players operate but the very realities of economics themselves.
That is mostly true. Yet, even if 5% of miners actually sold at half embargo price, that wouldn't really change anything if the vast majority agreed to keep price up: what one miner can provide is not going to offset the effect of a cartel - that's how cartels work in RL as well. We're selling commodities that have a limited availability: if 80% of the market demand is priced at thrice the usual value, anyone pricing it at the usual value will cut a share, but not impact market much.
Of course, any cartel or sindication must have its way to policy their own: it'd be fun to see 16k miners take a frigate each and gank the "offender", wouldn't it? lol.
|
Andreus LeHane
Gallente
Mixed Metaphor
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 13:20:00 -
[33]
True point, but let's face it, the cartels are never going to form an agreement in large enough numbers to make this embargo remotely feasible.
-----
|
Seriya
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 15:24:00 -
[34]
What was the total damage inflicted ? (in isk)
|
MasterBungle
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 15:57:00 -
[35]
278,865,104,560 ISK
|
Seriya
Caldari
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.01.15 16:56:00 -
[36]
Originally by: MasterBungle
278,865,104,560 ISK
|
Abulurd Boniface
Gallente
Construction Cabal
|
Posted - 2010.01.18 09:51:00 -
[37]
Originally by: MasterBungle
278,865,104,560 ISK
I don't know how accurate this number is. That is a really big number. However, Hulks cost between 175 to 210 million on the market now. That's the price for the naked space frame. It needs to be fitted and rigged, that will easily add between 20 and 30 million to the cost. And it doesn't keep into account how much ore in the hold is destroyed.
If this number is close to the actual cost of ships lost, it would prove my point rather handsomely: the cost of production is rather dramatic, this should be reflected by the cost of goods produced. It has been mentioned that any initiative to increase costs of raw ore and minerals would be offset by the reprocessing of mission/rat loot. I think I have a case here for unfair competition. If mission/rat loot were changed into other residuals [tritanium bars / armor plates / ...] it would give the miner and the manufacturer a solid basis to compete on. As things stand now the miner gets stifted at both ends of the equation. Risk versus reward balanced it isn't.
For good to survive it suffices for evil to acquire a deadly, incapacitating disease. |
Dimitryy
Gallente
Ever Flow
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.18 15:02:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Abulurd Boniface
That merry time is again upon us. After the wonderful chiming of the Christmas bells it is now the season for the sounds of hot lead [or the ordnance of your preference] to hit the fragile shell of the exhumer and mighty groans of frustration to erupt from the throats of miners who see their 150/200 million investment being reduced to really charmingly rendered debris amidst the harsh, vast beauty that is the New Eden scenery.
As ever when the light of such dire times [for miners] reaches us many tactics are mentioned that will help alleviate the situation:
- tank the Hulk/Mackinaw
- fly a fleet of ships that will be able to tackle/destroy the attacker before they can do their deadly chore
- align the ship so that warp out is easier [which is actually never a bad idea]
- some brilliant scheme to increase the effectiveness of exhumers in huge numbers
At any rate the miner's game is livened up by having their experience raised to that of level 5 missions while hanging in ye randomme mining belt every time they go out there to eke out an existence in the EVE demesne.
The chortling attacker greatly appreciates the fine irony of calling a miner in a defenseless ship a carebear while they attack them with a 100% chance of victory. Risk versus reward, is it not, my wonderful ganking friends?
A remedy against this commendable game mechanic which I rarely, if ever, see mentioned is not of tactic deployment which will rarely work for the lone miner / small mining corp, but rather basic economics.
We have seen the prices of Hulks rise by up to 125% post Dominion deployment, and they are now actively hunted so as to inflict massive losses for trivial cost. Fun for all. I wonder what will happen to the prices of Exhumers post "Hulkageddon". I would be very surprised if the price was not raised even further.
Now, in any working economy the cost of doing business drives the price of goods. In real terms the risk of mining has become so expensive that it has to be reflected in the cost of goods produced. Therefore the only sensible approach to covering the cost of mining is to sell the product at a price point which reflects the real risk endured while acquiring it. For that reason I propose selling Tritanium at 100/1000 isk/unit. If one producer does that with a small amount of product, they will price themselves into oblivion. If enough producers do it, they will increase the average price of Tritanium and they will be able to recuperate the cost of their loss sooner. Tritanium need not be the only product affected, the price point is just a suggestion.
The proposition is for the overall raising of the price of basic bulk goods to reflect the cost of acquiring the bulk good. It is sound economic practice to be properly compensated for the risks endured. It is also a form of warfare for those to whom warfare does not come easy. Pain becomes more bearable when it is shared by as many people as possible.
Thats dumb, because there are people out there who (gasp) dont mine in highsec. So even if all the highsec bears made trit expensive, the nullsec miners would just cash in on the market till you bankrupt yourself.
------------------------------------------
Jack Blackstone > Dimitryy I hope you die. |
Helicity Boson
Amarr
The Python Cartel.
The Jerk Cartel
|
Posted - 2010.01.24 07:05:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Abulurd Boniface
Originally by: MasterBungle
278,865,104,560 ISK
I don't know how accurate this number is. That is a really big number. However, Hulks cost between 175 to 210 million on the market now. That's the price for the naked space frame. It needs to be fitted and rigged, that will easily add between 20 and 30 million to the cost. And it doesn't keep into account how much ore in the hold is destroyed.
If this number is close to the actual cost of ships lost, it would prove my point rather handsomely: the cost of production is rather dramatic, this should be reflected by the cost of goods produced. It has been mentioned that any initiative to increase costs of raw ore and minerals would be offset by the reprocessing of mission/rat loot. I think I have a case here for unfair competition. If mission/rat loot were changed into other residuals [tritanium bars / armor plates / ...] it would give the miner and the manufacturer a solid basis to compete on. As things stand now the miner gets stifted at both ends of the equation. Risk versus reward balanced it isn't.
The number is actually much lower than the actual value destroyed, since griefwatch undervalues hulks and macks by about 40 and 20 mil respectively. so in reality it's closer to 350 bil or somesuch
|
Carniflex
StarHunt
Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.01.24 09:35:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Artemis Rose
The Goonswarm "jihad" against Hulks had a negligible effect on their prices as shown in one the Economic quarterly reports (or w/e its called), so its safe to expect the same results from Hulkageddon.
Trit will never hit 100 ISK. A rifter would take 2 mil in trit to make, and the Armageddon would be over 450 million ISK in trit.
Killing few hundred hulks a day is too low number to really effect EVE mineral market. All it does it to ruin the target miners day - nothing more nothing less. Hulkageddon does not affect (1) Drone regions (major source of minerals) (2) Loot from missions (also non negliable in some mineral categories) (3) Zero zero and wormhole mining (main provider of high ends) (4) Hauler spawns in 0.0 (I have seen them drop 30 mil trit per day in good quality 0.0 systems, that is a lot).
If you look at market volumes then mineral amounts traded are still the same as before hulkageddon. So any effect on mineral market is from other factors (speculation or shifts in high ends supply) than hulkageddon. Now if one would target ice belts in empire specifically there might be some mild effect on ice prices, but even that effect would be relatively minor.
|
Kei Gravatid
|
Posted - 2010.01.24 23:04:00 -
[41]
Why is Julkageddon fail? I didn't see any 0.0 kills. Now since that is the area with the toughest fighters and the richest resources it stands to reason that a hit to those supplies would disrupt the EVE economy more than anything else. Perhaps there should be a POS - a -geddon where easy targets are considered off limits
|
Jadwina Kerkova
The Artificial Intelligence
|
Posted - 2010.01.25 17:54:00 -
[42]
Quote:
yeah if 5 cruisers aren't enough, next time they'll come with 5 bships. When cost is not an issue because you'll get paid back, there's no limit to the amount of resources you can spend in a raid.
The problem is already known: Lack of consequences... |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |