Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Letrange
Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:07:00 -
[1]
Batten down the hatches, at some point in the soonÖ future we'll be treated to a CCP Chronotis dev blog.
Originally by: CCP Soundwave CCP Chronotis is working on a dev blog about insurance which should detail the how's and why's.
(from this thread here)
Now we know CCP Chronotis is probably the "industry game designer" over at CCP and is one of the more consistent game designers. He's got his quirks (a little too enamored with bottlenecks) but overall some great things have come out of his dev blogs:
- Orca - Sized Rigs - Most of the T3 industry (although we reserve the rights to quibble about salvage drops)
So at least after the dev blog we'll have a sound basis to discuss the impact of the changes (we'll also find out if it's a straight across the board adjustment or if it's going to be floating and pegged to the entire mineral market and/or a 5/20 day average of same).
Here's hoping the insurance changes are associated with other changes. But we'll know for sure soonÖ.
I'm expecting a "vigorous" discussion in the blog thread following it's posting.
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:27:00 -
[2]
I hope is more than a simple insurance fix. Simply changing the IER rate will not solve the real problem.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:32:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Block Ukx
I hope is more than a simple insurance fix. Simply changing the IER rate will not solve the real problem.
Yes, I hope so.
If the IER is just reduced in line with current Sisi adjustments I won't be holding a single T1 item (ship, module or minerals) come patch time.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:45:00 -
[4]
Melting and Selling everything I own as I type this.
Amarr for Life |
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:48:00 -
[5]
Originally by: SencneS Melting and Selling everything I own as I type this.
I was thinking of doing so too but on examining my assets (which I avoid as much as possible) it turned out i don't actually have any unrigged t1 anyway, nor enough to make it worth contracting them off.
I'm not seeing many ways to make isk off of any insurance changes unfortunately, only ways to avoid losses, which is ok I suppose...
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Companion Qube
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 19:22:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Turiel Demon I'm not seeing many ways to make isk off of any insurance changes unfortunately, only ways to avoid losses, which is ok I suppose...
You're not thinking outside the box, I see at least three ways already.
|
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 19:34:00 -
[7]
As soon as I saw that CCP Chronotis was writing the blog I started reviewing his old blogs. I fully agree that he's been very consistent, especially after reading some of the older blogs and comparing his intent to the actual results. Out of everything I read, there was one comment, from a pre-Dominion blog, that caught my eye:
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Future additional sources besides moons
Beyond Dominion, we are looking towards adding new sources of moon materials so that we will have a dynamic supply which can respond to the changing needs of the marketplace and help resolve the static supply issues we currently see. Some potential routes we have already mentioned previously here and are common suggestions on the forums. We are definitely looking hard at doing something cool here in the future along these lines.
While I'm not much for speculation, I found that comment, in context with Chronotis's previous blogs and the economic changes made by the last few expansions, to be very interesting. Your thoughts?
|
Mme Pinkerton
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 19:40:00 -
[8]
Originally by: RJ Nobel While I'm not much for speculation, I found that comment, in context with Chronotis's previous blogs and the economic changes made by the last few expansions, to be very interesting. Your thoughts?
When reading this comment by CCP Chronotis at the time it was posted I mentally connected it to the possible introduction of comet harvesting mentioned at Fanfest.
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 20:08:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Companion Qube
Originally by: Turiel Demon I'm not seeing many ways to make isk off of any insurance changes unfortunately, only ways to avoid losses, which is ok I suppose...
You're not thinking outside the box, I see at least three ways already.
Sell all your stuff, and re-purchase 30% cheaper after a few weeks post patch
|
Companion Trollin
You are going too fast
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 20:09:00 -
[10]
Originally by: cosmoray
Originally by: Companion Qube
Originally by: Turiel Demon I'm not seeing many ways to make isk off of any insurance changes unfortunately, only ways to avoid losses, which is ok I suppose...
You're not thinking outside the box, I see at least three ways already.
Sell all your stuff, and re-purchase 30% cheaper after a few weeks post patch
That's one of them.
|
|
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 20:19:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton
Originally by: RJ Nobel While I'm not much for speculation, I found that comment, in context with Chronotis's previous blogs and the economic changes made by the last few expansions, to be very interesting. Your thoughts?
When reading this comment by CCP Chronotis at the time it was posted I mentally connected it to the possible introduction of comet harvesting mentioned at Fanfest.
Yup, that's a possibility. I tend to think that something that big would have been blogged about and appeared on SISI by now though.
Here's what I'm thinking: CCP has a couple of major resource-related issues:
An overabundance of static-supply minerals A "perceived exploit" in insurance fraud (which is actually just the result of an oversupply of minerals) A bottleneck in T2 moongoo The desire to eliminate NPC-supplied trade goods
So, how do you fix all those issues in an dev-time-efficient manner?
You create a system in Planetary Interaction that allows you to harvest planetary resources, input T1 minerals, and produce moongoo and NPC goods.
Insurance levels are dropped to eliminate insurance exchange, while support for mineral prices is replaced by the new demand for minerals in planetary reactions. The new source for moongoo allows T2 prices to fall, and the entire system becomes somewhat dynamic through the increased number of arbitrage opportunities.
Thoughts?
|
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 20:45:00 -
[12]
Originally by: RJ Nobel Insurance levels are dropped to eliminate insurance exchange, while support for mineral prices is replaced by the new demand for minerals in planetary reactions. Thoughts?
Again, no need to mess around with IER if you simply address the oversupply issue. What I'm afraid is that people have complaint so much about IER that ccp perceives it as the problem and avoids working on the real problem.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 20:47:00 -
[13]
Originally by: RJ Nobel
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton
Originally by: RJ Nobel While I'm not much for speculation, I found that comment, in context with Chronotis's previous blogs and the economic changes made by the last few expansions, to be very interesting. Your thoughts?
When reading this comment by CCP Chronotis at the time it was posted I mentally connected it to the possible introduction of comet harvesting mentioned at Fanfest.
Yup, that's a possibility. I tend to think that something that big would have been blogged about and appeared on SISI by now though.
Here's what I'm thinking: CCP has a couple of major resource-related issues:
An overabundance of static-supply minerals A "perceived exploit" in insurance fraud (which is actually just the result of an oversupply of minerals) A bottleneck in T2 moongoo The desire to eliminate NPC-supplied trade goods
So, how do you fix all those issues in an dev-time-efficient manner?
You create a system in Planetary Interaction that allows you to harvest planetary resources, input T1 minerals, and produce moongoo and NPC goods.
Insurance levels are dropped to eliminate insurance exchange, while support for mineral prices is replaced by the new demand for minerals in planetary reactions. The new source for moongoo allows T2 prices to fall, and the entire system becomes somewhat dynamic through the increased number of arbitrage opportunities.
Thoughts?
To clever by far. Your actually proposing a sensible solution to multiple problems.
CCP just like to see a problem and smash it with a sledgehammer and wonder why down the road that the obstacle just moved.
|
Illectroculus Defined
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 20:50:00 -
[14]
Well in theory this will have a minor impact on the supply of salvage since there won't be all those battleship wrecks being generated.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 20:59:00 -
[15]
It would be far easier for CCP to reduce the supply then go to the lengths of creating Planetary Interaction that consumes it.
On the grand scale of everything all CCP would need to do to fix what is wrong is..... Drop Vanilla T1 loot drops. Which fixes a lot of other problems..
Amarr for Life |
Companion Qube
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 21:17:00 -
[16]
Originally by: SencneS It would be far easier for CCP to reduce the supply then go to the lengths of creating Planetary Interaction that consumes it.
On the grand scale of everything all CCP would need to do to fix what is wrong is..... Drop Vanilla T1 loot drops. Which fixes a lot of other problems..
IIRC they've stated a few times that the preferred fix for t1 loot drops is to reduce the number of rats in any given mission, give them better AI (ala sleepers) and reduce loot drop per rat by ~30% or so. I've been waiting to see that happen for a while, I'm halfway expecting it in the next year or so.
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 21:27:00 -
[17]
There is no need to "reduce supply" - just remove the price support (insurance fraud) and the market will correct any "oversupply" that exists.
|
Aixa Syal
Minmatar al-Syal Brigade
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 21:39:00 -
[18]
Insurance has been needing a fix for a long time, it should be updated daily dynamically and payouts match to market averages of mineral build costs.... not only that but a better tech2 payouts of around 70% of build costs for t2 (to prevent fraud). like a panther gives same payout as a typhoon.. balance it or get rid of it, and this would nearly remove exploitation of insurance fraud.
But if you look past the problem of just insurance and look at mining and minerals, mining is becoming an obsolete profession, you can get more minerals from reprocess from 0.0 belt ratting or lvl4 missions spending the same time mining, something is unbalanced when you can build a battleship from ratting for two nights in 0.0 and get a 100mil tritium drop... same for lvl4's . i didnt even mention the 0.0 drone regions... lol
No one mines low ends in 0.0 cause its a joke, you get more minerals ratting and from the occasional hauler drop. so Mining should be more of a profession and more needed to be realistic. nerf reprocessing for modules... ? lower drop rates, not sure
|
Umega
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 21:52:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist There is no need to "reduce supply" - just remove the price support (insurance fraud) and the market will correct any "oversupply" that exists.
Yes.. but CCP is a business, that wants real money.
I'll be stunned if their only 'fix' is simply adjust insurance. It comes down to the value of the Isk.. resulting in less subscriptions for Industrial characters. To drop the floor and create cheaper mods n ships, while leaving the flow of isk into the game the same (mission rewards/rat bounties - L4).. would mean you could accomplish what you need with one mission/exploration running character instead of multiple Indy characters. Why bother running back n forth between different 'passive' Indy/miner alts when you could aquire the same/more value of isk in one mission run, as well as save isk from purchasing multiple plex. The difference in time devoted becomes skewed and meaningless.
CCP is in the business to be a business, and make money. IMO that should be approach number one in discphering their intentions and goals.
---------------------------------------- -Treat the EVE Market like you're a pimp and it is your 'employee'.. freely fondle it as you wish and make it pay you for it- |
Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 22:48:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Block Ukx on 19/03/2010 22:49:26
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist There is no need to "reduce supply" - just remove the price support (insurance fraud) and the market will correct any "oversupply" that exists.
Wrong. The EVE market will never correct "oversupply". Supply and demmand model assumes supply is constrained by fix resources, which is not the case in EVE.
BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk |
|
Kanatta Jing
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 22:57:00 -
[21]
It could be that insurance is going to be 30 odd % below median moving price for the past 30 days.
There for allowing for a more reflexive mineral market.
At least that's what I'd do.
|
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 23:03:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Companion Qube IIRC they've stated a few times that the preferred fix for t1 loot drops is to reduce the number of rats in any given mission, give them better AI (ala sleepers) and reduce loot drop per rat by ~30% or so. I've been waiting to see that happen for a while, I'm halfway expecting it in the next year or so.
As someone who has had their behinds kicked by Sleeper AI on multiple occasions I can say without a shadow of doubt that I would scream at the top my lungs like a little school girl getting back stage passes to the Jonas Brothers, if that was so..
Amarr for Life |
SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 23:05:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Kanatta Jing It could be that insurance is going to be 30 odd % below median moving price for the past 30 days.
There for allowing for a more reflexive mineral market.
At least that's what I'd do.
While that would seem logical, the effect would still be the same. Crashing mineral prices.
Amarr for Life |
Syds Sinclair
J0urneys End Journeys End Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 00:14:00 -
[24]
..Well that stinks. If the minerals I mine are free, after the insurance nurf, will the minerals I mine be worth negative?
|
Xenofur
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 00:44:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Syds Sinclair ..Well that stinks. If the minerals I mine are free, after the insurance nurf, will the minerals I mine be worth negative?
Yes, you will be paid not to mine.
(I think a similar thing happens irl with agriculture?)
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 01:26:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Block Ukx Edited by: Block Ukx on 19/03/2010 22:49:26
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist There is no need to "reduce supply" - just remove the price support (insurance fraud) and the market will correct any "oversupply" that exists.
Wrong. The EVE market will never correct "oversupply". Supply and demmand model assumes supply is constrained by fix resources, which is not the case in EVE.
I don't think you've thought that through. If all ore was only worth 0.00001 ISK/unit, but was still infinitely available, do you think people would still mine? Limited supply exerts an influence on the supply/demand curve - this is true without doubt. But infinite supply does not render the model invalid - it merely means something other than scarcity is setting the price - namely the time value of the labor to collect the resource.
|
Xenofur
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 01:34:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist I don't think you've thought that through. If all ore was only worth 0.00001 ISK/unit, but was still infinitely available, do you think people would still mine? Limited supply exerts an influence on the supply/demand curve - this is true without doubt. But infinite supply does not render the model invalid - it merely means something other than scarcity is setting the price - namely the time value of the labor to collect the resource.
Honestly, I can't help but think that CCP considers there to be too many miners and wants to push them into PVP. One might say that this would cut into the number of subscribed accounts, but anyone who has multiple accounts will most likely be using them in 0.0 for production reasons and will be unaffected by this.
The people affected will probably be mostly high-sec solo miners.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 01:36:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist If all ore was only worth 0.00001 ISK/unit, but was still infinitely available, do you think people would still mine?
Yes, just like people sell items for less than the cost of minerals required to build them.
|
Xenofur
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 01:49:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Breaker77
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist If all ore was only worth 0.00001 ISK/unit, but was still infinitely available, do you think people would still mine?
Yes, just like people sell items for less than the cost of minerals required to build them.
Misconception. Sales like that occur because missioning tends to accumulate trash in one's hangar by means of loot. That stuff can either be reprocessed and the result sold or sold directly. Some people will decide that they're more likely to get a profit out of it if they sell it so they do that. They do not care about it because it makes up a miniscule percentage of their income.
This behavior does not apply to miners, since mining is the entirety of the income instead of only a small percentage.
You might counter that RMTers will keep mining, but even for those there's a break-even point, which is defined by the cost of the account, hardware used to run the account and power used to run the hardware.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 02:16:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist If all ore was only worth 0.00001 ISK/unit, but was still infinitely available, do you think people would still mine? Limited supply exerts an influence on the supply/demand curve - this is true without doubt. But infinite supply does not render the model invalid - it merely means something other than scarcity is setting the price - namely the time value of the labor to collect the resource.
This person speaks the truth. Now, we have to determine what that lowest common denominator might be - and I say, it's gametime cost (PLEX price, which might not remain stable either, but actually drop in value more than just a little). Let's be generous and assume PLEX stabilizes at around 250 mil ISK. Let's also assume a highsec miner finds it "tolerably fair" to pay 2 hours a day, 5 days a week worth of time for a PLEX, and about 1 hour a day for a 0.0 miner... and you get a little under 6 mil/hour for most highsec mining and a little under 12 mil/hour for most 0.0 mining... that's where mineral prices will probably end up settling at, or prety close to that anyway.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |