EVE Search - The Insurance Nerf... I Am Surprised No One Is Up In Arms About It Yet

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The Insurance Nerf... I Am Surprised No One Is Up In Arms About It Yet

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Amberlamps	Posted - 2010.03.13 13:45:00 - [121] Originally by: Norsefire Edited by: Norsefire on 13/03/2010 13:42:40 I don't understand. Why will insurance payouts being lower decrease the price of minerals? How are they connected? Yes ships are built with minerals but if I lose a ship and get less insurance for it why does that mean the price of minerals will decrease? 5/10 Would read again!
Cyclops43	Posted - 2010.03.13 13:46:00 - [122] Edited by: Cyclops43 on 13/03/2010 13:48:58 Originally by: Akita T Yeah... it DOESN'T quite work that way. The rebound part, I mean. It's never coming back anywhere close to the level they've been before. Sure, they might settle a bit higher than they used to be at in the lowest drop area of this whole ordeal, but still much lower than where they are now. Why ? First and foremost because the price drop will be disproportionate - highend minerals will be those dropping in price the most, and lowends might even barely budge. I really don't see the huge problem in that.... To me it just seems you're afraid of change... Why is it wrong for the EVE supply/demand economy to determine how much the effort expended to get the different minerals should be paid? It's a FAR better method than some artificial number set back in 2001... As long as the circumstantial generation of minerals is curtailed, it'll work out just fine. The thing that also should be done is that the amount of 'roid types should be reduced to 8 (one for each mineral), and that each belt should only contain one type. That way players could target their mining and the mineral price would reflect the value the effort was worth... EDIT: We also don't have one crucial piece of the puzzle, which is WHY CCP is doing this! My guess is they're seeing a massive ISK faucet that is unbalancing the game economy, and have decided to stop it...
Zartrader	Posted - 2010.03.13 13:48:00 - [123] Edited by: Zartrader on 13/03/2010 13:53:29 Originally by: Norsefire Edited by: Norsefire on 13/03/2010 13:42:40 I don't understand. Why will insurance payouts being lower decrease the price of minerals? How are they connected? Yes ships are built with minerals but if I lose a ship and get less insurance for it why does that mean the price of minerals will decrease? Insurance sets the minimum price a ship costs to buy and therefore minimum mineral value, which is roughly where mineral values are now. Of course humans do not always follow common sense which insurance fraud exploits, but the principle is there. If the number of ships destroyed (from Insurance fraud and suicide ganking for instance) goes down due to a bigger loss on ships then demand for minerals goes down. With supply fixed this will lead to a reduction in prices of minerals. As it is now, this price is fixed at a level too high. In a free market is is an aberration as it distorts the market, it's only there for game play purposes.
Arec Bardwin	Posted - 2010.03.13 13:49:00 - [124] Originally by: Norsefire I don't understand. Why will insurance payouts being lower decrease the price of minerals? How are they connected? Yes ships are built with minerals but if I lose a ship and get less insurance for it why does that mean the price of minerals will decrease? Perfect bait for Akita T
Jagga Spikes Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2010.03.13 13:53:00 - [125] Originally by: Norsefire Edited by: Norsefire on 13/03/2010 13:42:40 I don't understand. Why will insurance payouts being lower decrease the price of minerals? How are they connected? Yes ships are built with minerals but if I lose a ship and get less insurance for it why does that mean the price of minerals will decrease? lower insurance payoff will remove suiciders and create surplus. lower demand + higher supply = lower prices. and circle begins again. ________________________________ : Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.13 13:54:00 - [126] Originally by: Cyclops43 EDIT: We also don't have one crucial piece of the puzzle, which is WHY CCP is doing this! My guess is they're seeing a massive ISK faucet that is unbalancing the game economy, and have decided to stop it... …what, missions are getting nerfed? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Norsefire	Posted - 2010.03.13 13:58:00 - [127] Originally by: Zartrader Insurance sets the minimum price a ship costs to buy and therefore minimum mineral value I thought I had it; ships are cheaper because insurance is lower, ships are built/refined into minerals = minerals are cheaper. Except for the bit where the ships become cheaper. is everyone who makes ships going to think "I have to sell for this for less because insurance is lower"? Or is that exactly what will happen and CCP has made the same mistake I am?
Zartrader	Posted - 2010.03.13 13:59:00 - [128] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Cyclops43 EDIT: We also don't have one crucial piece of the puzzle, which is WHY CCP is doing this! My guess is they're seeing a massive ISK faucet that is unbalancing the game economy, and have decided to stop it... àwhat, missions are getting nerfed? Nerf bots first.
Cyclops43	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:00:00 - [129] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Cyclops43 EDIT: We also don't have one crucial piece of the puzzle, which is WHY CCP is doing this! My guess is they're seeing a massive ISK faucet that is unbalancing the game economy, and have decided to stop it... àwhat, missions are getting nerfed? I WAS thinking about the insurance fraud ISK sink, but if removing that also involves reducing mission income, you'll not see me crying about it I've always found it weird that I could make more money in almost complete safety in high-sec than I could ratting in 0.0....
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:05:00 - [130] Originally by: Cyclops43 I really don't see the huge problem in that.... To me it just seems you're afraid of change... Afraid of change JUST for the sake of change ? Oh, you sure bet I am afraid of something like that. No, "afraid" isn't really the proper word for it though. More like, disgusted. Appalled. Sick and tired. You know, stuff like that. Quote: Why is it wrong for the EVE supply/demand economy to determine how much the effort expended to get the different minerals should be paid? It's a FAR better method than some artificial number set back in 2001. Because most miners don't "play fair", and everybody that DOES play fair will end up paying the price. Do you really want an economy where the main mineral source is either people that run 6-12 accounts at the same time mining with the aid of supervised macros/bots or people that really have nothing better to do with your time ? Sure, if you revamp mining so that player interaction (one that wouldn't be easily replicated by a run-of-the-mill macro/bot) could result in vastly increased mining yield, I'm all game for that, but before, not really. Quote: EDIT: We also don't have one crucial piece of the puzzle, which is WHY CCP is doing this! My guess is they're seeing a massive ISK faucet that is unbalancing the game economy, and have decided to stop it... My magic crystal ball tells me they're changing it for the sake of "realism" at the expense of gameplay, thanks to encouragements from their economist and/or god knows what other non-gameplay-related pressures. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Turiel Demon Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:08:00 - [131] Originally by: Cyclops43 Originally by: Akita T Yeah... it DOESN'T quite work that way. The rebound part, I mean. It's never coming back anywhere close to the level they've been before. Sure, they might settle a bit higher than they used to be at in the lowest drop area of this whole ordeal, but still much lower than where they are now. Why ? First and foremost because the price drop will be disproportionate - highend minerals will be those dropping in price the most, and lowends might even barely budge. I really don't see the huge problem in that.... To me it just seems you're afraid of change... Why is it wrong for the EVE supply/demand economy to determine how much the effort expended to get the different minerals should be paid? It's a FAR better method than some artificial number set back in 2001... As long as the circumstantial generation of minerals is curtailed, it'll work out just fine. The thing that also should be done is that the amount of 'roid types should be reduced to 8 (one for each mineral), and that each belt should only contain one type. That way players could target their mining and the mineral price would reflect the value the effort was worth... Bolded important part. It won't be. This reeks of kneejerk, it's a reaction to the few tens of thousands of battleships that have been self destructed over the past 4 months or so. The only way that this change doesn't crater mineral prices and in so doing eviscerate mining as a player profession is if they cut T1 loot out of missions, or flat out delete the drone regions, or remove belts from highsec and make mining an exploration activity like Akita mentioned. If they don't do at least one of those things then yeah, this is mineralocalypse. It's all well and good wanting a fully player-driven economy, but the situation does not exist right now in which that would be good for EVE. T2 works thanks to the hard limit on T2 production. The T3 market doesn't really work... prices are still dropping and will continue to do so; it might work if there was some more tweaking of drop rates. Salvage works because drop rates are just about right to sustain the population's demand for rigs. T1 does not belong in that group because of all the mineral inflow so drastically outpacing demand. Insurance has so far functioned as an overflow valve: turning excess minerals into ISK. Think of it this way: if there were no incentive what so ever to mine there would probably still be enough minerals entering eve to support the player base's needs. How's it good for the eve economy to remove that overflow valve at this point? Mineral influx has to be fixed first, or else this is a very very big mistake. If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap
Zartrader	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:09:00 - [132] Originally by: Cyclops43 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Cyclops43 EDIT: We also don't have one crucial piece of the puzzle, which is WHY CCP is doing this! My guess is they're seeing a massive ISK faucet that is unbalancing the game economy, and have decided to stop it... àwhat, missions are getting nerfed? I WAS thinking about the insurance fraud ISK sink, but if removing that also involves reducing mission income, you'll not see me crying about it I've always found it weird that I could make more money in almost complete safety in high-sec than I could ratting in 0.0.... As an occasional Missions Runner it is weird but it's necessary. It happens to suit some players play styles including many PVP players who use it to fund their activities. Not everyone is smart enough to earn bigger ISK and if it's nerfed it will affect a lot more than carebears. I wouldn't care if they nerfed it but that should be a properly thought out argument rather than this continuous and tedious sniping from a few PVP players who hate others play style and do not care one bit how they screw others over to suit their preferred method of play. If they do nerf it then they should nerf ratting too, that's hardly unsafe in a secure Alliance area most of us would not be allowed to get near.
Cyclops43	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:09:00 - [133] Edited by: Cyclops43 on 13/03/2010 14:14:43 Originally by: Akita T Do you really want an economy where the main mineral source is either people that run 6-12 accounts at the same time mining with the aid of supervised macros/bots or people that really have nothing better to do with your time? shrug I don't see anything inherently wrong with it.... It is, after all, not really different from how it is today..... The only real difference is that these people will be paid less.... Originally by: Zartrader As an occasional Missions Runner it is weird but it's necessary. It happens to suit some players play styles including many PVP players who use it to fund their activities. Not everyone is smart enough to earn bigger ISK and if it's nerfed it will affect a lot more than carebears. I wouldn't care if they nerfed it but that should be a properly thought out argument rather than this continuous and tedious sniping from a few PVP players who hate others play style and do not care one bit how they screw others over to suit their preferred method of play. If they do nerf it then they should nerf ratting too, that's hardly unsafe in a secure Alliance area most of us would not be allowed to get near. How does it hurt you that your mission income is reduced if EVERYONE's mission income is reduced? Relatively you're just as well off.... All it'll be is a realignment between professions... Adapt!
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:11:00 - [134] Edited by: Tippia on 13/03/2010 14:13:16 Originally by: Norsefire Originally by: Zartrader Insurance sets the minimum price a ship costs to buy and therefore minimum mineral value I thought I had it; ships are cheaper because insurance is lower, ships are built/refined into minerals = minerals are cheaper. Except for the bit where the ships become cheaper. is everyone who makes ships going to think "I have to sell for this for less because insurance is lower"? Or is that exactly what will happen and CCP has made the same mistake I am? What happens is that, if people are selling the minerals (or entire ships) at less than mineral values, others will instantly pick them up and have them blown up for ISK at a profit. This means that only minerals (and ships) that sit at or slightly above the insurance-mandated minimum value remains at the market for any period of time, and as others come along and try to get their stuff sold, they'll use this value as a hint of what they should sell it at as well. As they'll want their wares sold, they'll put in a price just below what the market seems to say – if it's below insurance value, it gets snapped up, if not it stays. On the one hand, we have traders pushing the price down to get their stuff sold; on the other we have the insurance determining how low they can push it, which is maintained by long-running buy orders. If insurance payout is lowered, the threshold at which minerals will get insta-bought is lowered as well. As people push to get their minerals sold, same as they always have, they'll constantly undercut each other until we once again hit the lower value that the new insurance rates dictate. In short, they don't have to think "I need to sell for less because insurance says so" – they just have to think "I want to sell at all some time before the game shuts down", and then the market takes care of the rest. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:14:00 - [135] Originally by: Cyclops43 shrug I don't see anything inherently wrong with it.... It is, after all, not really different from how it is today..... The only real difference is that these people will be paid less.... You start with the assumption you can't get rid of all macroers and/or botters, no matter how hard you try. You can keep catching and punishing some, or even most, but some will always escape, either just unpunished because of "lack of evidence", or downright undetected. Then, you realize that if you have something in your game (no matter what it is), it should be useful also for non-botters/non-macroers, or you might as well get rid of it altogether. This goes directly against that idea, and that's what's wrong with it : it turns mining into something that's increasingly attractive more and more just for macroers and botters as opposed to legitimate players. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Cyclops43	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:17:00 - [136] Originally by: Akita T ...it turns mining into something that's increasingly attractive more and more just for macroers and botters as opposed to legitimate players. How is smaller returns attractive to macro'ers?? I'd think they'd turn to 0.0 ratting or mission macro's instead....
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:20:00 - [137] Originally by: Cyclops43 Originally by: Akita T ...it turns mining into something that's increasingly attractive more and more just for macroers and botters as opposed to legitimate players. How is smaller returns attractive to macro'ers?? Returns matter less than AFK:ability. Bots don't particularly care about the boredom:income ratio – players do. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:22:00 - [138] Edited by: Malcanis on 13/03/2010 14:23:37 Originally by: Akita T Do you really want an economy where the main mineral source is either people that run 6-12 accounts at the same time mining with the aid of supervised macros/bots or people that really have nothing better to do with your time ? lolwut? Are you seriously proposing that this isn't what we have now? There are only 2 ways to increase mineral prices, and really they're almost the same thing: (1) Reduce the available supply of ore (2) Make mining more difficult. You said it yourself: Mining is a very low effort activity. Low effort activities in a non-competitive resource will always be low-reward. The ONLY reason that mining is remotely rewarding is because of NPC buy orders aka Insurance. So either we accept that mining is very low effort and poorly rewarded, or we make it higher effort and better rewarded. CCP attempted to do both by making "hi-sec" minerals and "lo-sec/0.0 minerals", but now that ABC ores are so widely available, there is hardly any difficulty variance between them. Make insurance dynamic, and the ore prices will spiral down to the lowest level that miners are willing to accept, because of the huge oversupply situation. (It is easy to infer that mining in 0.0 is roughly twice as demanding as mining in hi-sec). CCP can try and improve miner pay by nerfing alternative mineral sources and increasing demand, but in the absence of NPC buy orders, these will be temporary measures. Because if miing ISK/hr is perceptibly improved, people can just create more mining alts, because mining is such low effort - as per your question. In the end, miners must ask themselves: how much ISK is my mining time worth.
Cyclops43	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:23:00 - [139] Originally by: Tippia Returns matter less than AFK:ability. Bots don't particularly care about the boredom:income ratio û players do. True, but there's no real inherent difference between a 0.0 ratting macro and a mining macro... The same economic reality that Akita claims will drive players from mining will also drive macro'ers from mining.
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:29:00 - [140] Originally by: Cyclops43 The same economic reality that Akita claims will drive players from mining will also drive macro'ers from mining. True enough, but that will happen much later for macros than for players, leading to his claim: that this kind of change only pushes us closer to where only macros will be able to provide us with minerals and still remain sane. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Cyclops43	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:35:00 - [141] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Cyclops43 The same economic reality that Akita claims will drive players from mining will also drive macro'ers from mining. True enough, but that will happen much later for macros than for players, leading to his claim: that this kind of change only pushes us closer to where only macros will be able to provide us with minerals and still remain sane. I beg to differ... Macro'ers have a KEEN interest in how much money they make. They'll be the first to change away from something not profitable, not the last... Besides, the production rate doesn't change, and as less minerals will be needed (no need to supply the insurance fraud'ed ships), less mining is needed... If players are keeping sane today, they should keep sane after this change... Besides, I really don't think it'll be much different from today. My guess is that 90% or more of low-ends mined are already done by macro'ers....
Akita T Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2010.03.13 14:43:00 - [142] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Akita T Do you really want an economy where the main mineral source is either people that run 6-12 accounts at the same time mining with the aid of supervised macros/bots or people that really have nothing better to do with your time ? lolwut? Are you seriously proposing that this isn't what we have now? We might have that now to SOME degree. Implementing the SiSi changes (and only those changes we see now) will only make it even worse. After it (and either subsequent manual periodic adjustments or an automated adjustment system), that will almost exclusively be the only types of "players" left in that activity type, and then you might as well remove it altogether since it's no good anymore. Quote: There are only 2 ways to increase mineral prices, and really they're almost the same thing: (1) Reduce the available supply of ore (2) Make mining more difficult. You said it yourself: Mining is a very low effort activity. Low effort activities in a non-competitive resource will always be low-reward. The ONLY reason that mining is remotely rewarding is because of NPC buy orders aka Insurance. I do not disagree those are two possibilities, but as some other people mentioned, those aren't the only two options, and ideally, you'd take a bit of every possible option (including those named below) and combine them all into a single solution. You also have (3) increase demand for minerals by making them useful in producing previously NPC-only sold products (4) introduce more T1 hulls on a regular basis (even if the models are identical to existing T1 hulls, only changing some bonuses and the texture color scheme) (5) make "regular" minerals a (more or less significant) part of the T3 production cycle and introduce more T3 ships (destroyer and battlecruiser class would be most attractive, but frigate and battleship would be nice too) Quote: So either we accept that mining is very low effort and poorly rewarded, or we make it higher effort and better rewarded. Or, how about this novel idea, make it so it can be both, depending on attention level given. You could leave mining on "automatic" and get a nominal yield, or you could engage in some challenging, attention-intensive optional things that would heavily boost yields. You could even add a danger element (damage to your ship) if you get stuff too wrong. However, that alone will not really be enough, you also need to ramp up the usage rate of minerals too. Ideally, a miner using top-notch gear and paying close attention to what he does should more or less match the payment of other attention-intensive activities in the equivalent security rating, and his chance of critical failure should also be vaguely similar. _ Beginner's ISK making guide \| Manufacturer's helper \| All about reacting _
Amberlamps	Posted - 2010.03.13 15:42:00 - [143] Rabble rabble rabble!
NEMESIS SIN Method In Khaos	Posted - 2010.03.13 15:59:00 - [144] Edited by: NEMESIS SIN on 13/03/2010 15:59:39 This is my very first Threadnought No threadnought however is complete without an ample dose of Rico Suave universally accepted as one of the most gifted singer song writers of the 20th century. God I love that man On a more serious note The more that things get nerfed, the more things stay the same. People are like ZOMG tech II prices are ridiculous, forgetting that the cost to rig them is now much less. Outcome = nothing changed People are only perceiving changes because they are utterly short sighted. What will this do to the market? Well... since no one here has much of a clue about planetary interaction, no one here has a clue about what this will do to the market. People are already loving what they are seeing coming off of the planets, which may very well offset any loss miners might receive from a nerf like this. Might I go so far as to say planetary interaction will be so lucrative that raw isk from mining needed to get nerfed to balance it all out? I don't know... and neither do you. But CCP sure does. Nerf missions, Nerf mining, Nerf nanos, Nerf tracking, Nerf cruiser missiles, BUFF rockets ex.) ex.) ex.) and what do you get? NOTHING CHANGING Its all the same dribble and at worst we will have a few months of growing pains along the way. Now Commence Threadnought my minions \0/
Leocadminone	Posted - 2010.03.13 16:10:00 - [145] The only price support for minerals is insurance payouts. Drop those and mineral prices will drop - not instantly, it'll take a bit of time for the word to get around - but probably less than a month. And not too long after that quite a few miners will quit the game, as the price of GANK SHIPS will also drop, thus mining will not only become less worth doing, but the risk of losing your mining ship will increase - but this probably will NOT drive mineral pricing up due to the widespread "macro miner" issue. Hopefully it's just a Sisi glitch/difference like others that have happened in the past.
Leocadminone	Posted - 2010.03.13 16:19:00 - [146] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: Cyclops43 shrug I don't see anything inherently wrong with it.... It is, after all, not really different from how it is today..... The only real difference is that these people will be paid less.... You start with the assumption you can't get rid of all macroers and/or botters, no matter how hard you try. You can keep catching and punishing some, or even most, but some will always escape, either just unpunished because of "lack of evidence", or downright undetected. Consider the lengths that Blizzard went to in an attempt to shut down Glider and ISX and other bots - and that they had to resort to a lawsuit (which right now looks like it is going to go in Glider's FAVOR on appeal) to succeed at all - and that it only worked because Glider used a 'server authorization' model. Consider that bots ae STILL not dead in Diablo II despite more strong efforts on Blizzard's part. Then factor in that Blizzard pulls in more money in a MONTH than CCP has grossed off of Eve during the entire existance of Eve, and you realise that CCP can't AFFORD to go to those lengths. That also ignores how big of a hit CCP would take to it's income if it managed to ban ALL macro users, rather than just targeting RMT-related ones. Looks to me that "the assumption you can't get rid of all macroers and/or botters" is a perfectly correct assumption.
Evelgrivion Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance	Posted - 2010.03.13 17:04:00 - [147] There's important information to weigh against the rabble fodder here: Proportions of materials supplied by mining, loot drops, and drone compound reprocessing Raw information courtesy CCP Relative market quantity is unweighted Mining is already bordering on insignificant; it's the mission runners who grab all their loot and the drone regions full of ravens that log off when someone else enters local and otherwise spend all day mining with guns that need to be dealt with to fix the problems with mineral prices and oversupply.
mygirl2 Caldari Hell's Horsemen	Posted - 2010.03.13 17:39:00 - [148] Look at all the crying... This is a good thing, get rid of the NPC market stuff. The players can build it. Get rid of the insurance, people can afford to lose ships. In the long run this is great, the mineral prices will go up since demand will. How do I figure that? Once everything is built by the players as intended in EvE, there will be more mineral requirements to sustain everything in eve. So stop *****ing and play the game... WoW has kids EvE has Cry Babies
Marko Riva Adamant Inc.	Posted - 2010.03.13 17:49:00 - [149] I like it, more people will pay ransoms then. ----------- I think, therefore I'm single. Want to learn combat/PVP? Alliance creation service
Tippia Reikoku IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.13 17:53:00 - [150] Originally by: Marko Riva I like it, more people will pay ransoms then. Unlikely. Ship loss cost will be the same. In fact, it's likely to be less if you're using player-built modules. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.

Raw information courtesy CCPRelative market quantity is unweighted

Raw information courtesy CCP
Relative market quantity is unweighted