| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
   |
Posted - 2010.04.01 22:13:00 -
[1]
I like everything proposed even if we don't know what the effects will be. Stability results in complacency and this is definitely going to shake things up one way or another.
First, there have been several claims that the market will be manipulated and those are rubbish. It would take 10's of trillions of isk to effect it even a tiny bit because outliers are excluded from the median average. That's a fact when almost a billion in trit is traded every day. A person or group would have to try and monopolize the majority of the market over a 6 month period. Driving the prices up at heavy cost in liquidity for 3 months to raise the average by over 30% of the median average and back down in the following 3 months in order to commit the fraud. During this time they will be competing against market mechanics of players taking advantage of higher and higher mineral values for the first 3 months and cheaper and cheaper ship costs in the last 3 months. A market with this volume simply can't be manipulated in EVE's current state. The only way to do it is drive out competition and that's impossible to do since they wouldn't be able to adequately control supply or demand. Read the http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/community/QEN/QEN_Q4-2009.pdfQ4-2009 QEN[/url] if you don't believe me.
Second, insurance should be renamed to "subsidy" and given the actual name of pod pilot expansion subsidy or exodus subsidy or something like that instead of insurance just to stop the idiotic ranting of some folks who simply refuse to accept insurance not functioning like it's real world equivalent in a game where you are an immortal space faring pilot using technology capable of defying the laws of Newtonian physics. 
Third, meta 0 production will consume minerals (hopefully) due to the need for meta 0 modules in tech II production. The trick is to reduce insurance as an ISK faucet due to the deflationary effects fraud has on the buying power of ISK. We donÆt need a fixed amount of ISK but an oversupply isnÆt good for prices in the same way that an oversupply of minerals isnÆt good for prices so removing a faucet also removes inflation as well as demand but since meta 0 is being reduced then supply is also being reduced and the net effect should be negligible. Though I am admittedly guessing as to whether CCP has even tried to calculate this. Yes I realize that missions are THE faucet but as the player base expands the supply of ISK must also expand or else a few ISK could buy a Marauder and taxes would be crippling. I am sure the good Dr. has probably brought this up to his benefactors more than once.
Fourth, if there is going to be a massive surge in tags that replace meta 0 loot then can we please get more outlets for the tags? I like hiring gankers to fight proxy wars since actual high sec wars are broken and the insurance nerf makes this very costly on top of the fact that many of these agents suffer significant security losses that are tough to recover from. If itÆs now going to cost me 30 million isk more per hulk gank can I at least get something that I can provide my gankers with that curbs my associated costs ahead of time rather than just selling to an LP store or buying a tiny amount of standing somewhere? I would love for tags to be able to be turned in for LP, Faction Standing, Corp Standing, or Security Standing. I think I am shoot on sight in Gallante space but say I turn in a crap ton of pirate dog tags or half a crap ton of Caldari dog tags to a Gallante agent in low sec to boost my standing with them. Hauling a bunch of objects that pirates would love to get their hands on into low sec is certainly a risk is it not? Do the same for pirate factions so pirates can get brownie points with GuristaÆs or Serpentis. Do something to keep the cost of tags from crashing due to oversupply.
continued...
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.04.01 22:19:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Red Raider on 01/04/2010 22:20:40
 Originally by: Mara Rinn
I would suggest though that new characters get 3 instant insurance renewals, which then reverts to one renewal every two months, with a maximum of one ship insured per character at any time - the same kind of timed activity as neural remaps.
This would be a very bad idea simply because it wouldn't stop insurance fraud without programming in massive limitations thus making something much more complicated than need be. I mean whatÆs stopping a person from taking his day one alt and flying it to null to SD titans for insurance fraud?
If CCP is making a dynamic subsidy system why not simplify it to no insurance or platinum and gear it towards pvp by basing the payout off of the security status of the system the ship is destroyed in(excluding WH space since it's already very safe)? This would mean suicide gankers in high sec would waiting outside Jita 4-4 would get nothing or virtually nothing, yes I understand that neither would the victim(though it could be based on ship type that haulers and such are excluded as they are non-combat ships), providing incentive to find targets of opportunity in lower security as it also lowers the cost without reducing the mechanic to zero functionality for the purpose of logistical warfare and tears.
To back this up for new players create an inverse mechanic based on time in game at a set time.
Example: Fifth month in game
1.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 50%(-cost of policy)x1
0.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 100%(-cost of policy)x1
First month in game
1.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 50%(-cost of policy)x 2
0.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 100%(-cost of policy)x 2
Second month in game
1.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 50%(-cost of policy)x 1.75
0.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 100%(-cost of policy)x 1.75
Third month in game
1.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 50%(-cost of policy)x 1.50
0.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 100%(-cost of policy)x 1.50
Fourth month in game
1.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 50%(-cost of policy)x 1.25
0.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 100%(-cost of policy)x 1.25
Seem like a reasonable solution to still keep nubs in the loop while providing the PVP'ers incentive to PVP? It punishes the gankers like the carebears want and most carebears don't insure their ships anyways so they don't have a hell of a lot of room to *****.
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.04.01 22:37:00 -
[3]
Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Red Raider
Third, meta 0 production will consume minerals (hopefully) due to the need for meta 0 modules in tech II production. The trick is to reduce insurance as an ISK faucet due to the deflationary effects fraud has on the buying power of ISK.
Nope. This is not an across the board removal or even reduction of meta 0. This is a targeted reduction in the drop rates of the items that were contributing the most to reprocessed ISK. So, when I farm Angel's Extavaganza L4, I'm going to expect 1 or 2 1400mm arty instead of 3 or 4 (hyperbole).
Please stop saying this you are making yourself look stupid because it says it literally in the dev blog that this is exactly what they are doing. You are parsing words trying to look smart.
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
We identified a core set of loot tables which are responsible for contributing to the majority of the NPC loot sourced minerals and these are the first ones we want to adjust with Tyrannis, reducing the quantity of the Tech 0 items being dropped and substituting it with a variation of scrap metals or tags, for example. There will still be the same amount of Tech 1 meta 1-4 modules being dropped and these will still act as mineral faucets if you desire a source of minerals still from NPC combat.
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.04.02 16:38:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Probably Tarawa is right.
The problem is that CCP will remove most of the items used for compression and then (as compressions will still be used) say "Doh! there are still to many of those modules and reprocessed minerals, nerf again."
So long as they will not get a clear picture of how much of those mineral from "reprocessed loot" come from compression items and reprocessed ships/T2 this whole change is based on imaginary numbers.
I can only understand this argument based on the fact that we do not have access to the statistics but I seriously doubt that they are including modules that were manufactured, never placed on the market, and then reprocessed. Not to mention it's very likely that they know exactly how many modules drop and are basing the adjustment on that and not on anything else. It's only prudent to exclude certain values and despite the constant whining on the forums about CCP screwing up they have rarely done so on TQ. They did exactly what they wanted to do whether people liked it or not doesn't make it a mistake. Anything is possible but it's highly unlikely IMHO.
Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Red Raider
Third, meta 0 production will consume minerals (hopefully) due to the need for meta 0 modules in tech II production. The trick is to reduce insurance as an ISK faucet due to the deflationary effects fraud has on the buying power of ISK.
Nope. This is not an across the board removal or even reduction of meta 0. This is a targeted reduction in the drop rates of the items that were contributing the most to reprocessed ISK. So, when I farm Angel's Extavaganza L4, I'm going to expect 1 or 2 1400mm arty instead of 3 or 4 (hyperbole).
How is his statement even remotely related to what he quoted from me? Not to mention it being parsing words because he is falsely promoting the idea that I and others thought this is a removal of meta 0 products, which has yet to be claimed in 17 pages of reading, and then spouting the obvious that everyone has been discussing for 17 pages. It's a completely and totally irrelevant statement and has no contextual relation to the quoted passage at all.
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.04.02 20:09:00 -
[5]
Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Red Raider
Third, meta 0 production will consume minerals (hopefully) due to the need for meta 0 modules in tech II production. The trick is to reduce insurance as an ISK faucet due to the deflationary effects fraud has on the buying power of ISK.
Nope. This is not an across the board removal or even reduction of meta 0. This is a targeted reduction in the drop rates of the items that were contributing the most to reprocessed ISK. So, when I farm Angel's Extavaganza L4, I'm going to expect 1 or 2 1400mm arty instead of 3 or 4 (hyperbole).
How is his statement even remotely related to what he quoted from me?
The only way that meta 0 begins to consume rather than contribute minerals is if they are virtually eliminating them entirely. From my reading of the dev blog, this is NOT happening. This is a targeted reduction (not elimination) of just the tables (I think BS rat drops) that contribute most of the reprocessed minerals.
On first reading, I too had the knee jerk reaction of thinking they were going to eliminate the drop of many items so that it would be possible to profit from manufacturing them (meaning they would consume rather than contribute minerals). Upon rereading, as well as reading other posts, I'm now convinced this was not the intention at all. The rate of contribution will diminish, but meta 0 is still going to be a contributer not consumer of minerals.
Thats an assumption since we have no idea how much they are curbing the figures. If you read my statement again I said it will consume them (hopefully). Your reply took my (hopefully) and turned it into fact which is not what I stated. The hope here would be that they curb the drop rates down low enough that production of meta 0 modules is necessary to fill Tech II demand.
Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Red Raider
Not to mention it being parsing words because he is falsely promoting the idea that I and others thought this is a removal of meta 0 products, which has yet to be claimed in 17 pages of reading, and then spouting the obvious that everyone has been discussing for 17 pages. It's a completely and totally irrelevant statement and has no contextual relation to the quoted passage at all.
Meta 0 has very low demand. Even a SIGNIFICANT decrease in the drop rate, across the board, would still make meta 0 be a contributer rather than consumer of minerals.
So, explain to me how you think minerals would be consumed rather than contributed, without elimination, or atleast across the board near elimination? I thought it an obvious implication, but perhaps I'm just miss infering.
Meta 0's demand is not as low as you think since it's required to build Tech II which has significant market share in modules. Look at the demand for tech II modules in the QEN. 28k Tech II 1400mm howitzers in December and 37k Tracking Computer II's in December. Thats a lot of meta 0 modules being consumed.
As I have already stated and as CCP has stated in the blog that mission loot should not adversely effect specialist activities that rely upon mineral costs(mining and production). How do you get that they are not reducing it by much out of that statement? My bet is that its a 80-90% reduction in the targeted loot. If for whatever reason they can't seperate reprocessed loot from mineral compression then the safe bet would be to reduce it by 90% and see the effect on those modules being repro'd. If the qty of modules being repro'd only drops by 10% then mission loots effects on the mineral market is slim. Problem is we all know that's not true.
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.04.02 20:47:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
You know some T1 module or ship that has morphite in its BPO?
If I do what do I get?
Prototype Cloaking Device
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.04.05 21:20:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: Venkul Mul
You know some T1 module or ship that has morphite in its BPO?
If I do what do I get?
Prototype Cloaking Device
Good find. So 2% of all morphite come from reprocessing Prototype Cloaking Devices?
And can you give us a link to the NPC that is dropping them?
I found what you requested though by luck because I just happened to be looking at it already. I have no idea if it drops because I don't pay attention to the loot, most of the time I don't loot missions at all and I thought it was 1% not 2% which due to CCP's method of rounding would mean if even one dropped a day and got repro'd it would be 1% per day. I don't recall it ever dropping in my experience though but I have also never looted a Gisti X Type shield booster either.
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Red Raider
Meta 0's demand is not as low as you think since it's required to build Tech II which has significant market share in modules. Look at the demand for tech II modules in the QEN. 28k Tech II 1400mm howitzers in December and 37k Tracking Computer II's in December. Thats a lot of meta 0 modules being consumed.
You have an idea of how incredibly tedious and inefficient is running around to gather the meta0 modules you use for T2 production? you do that only if you have a small production going.
If you produce some large number of T2 items you will have a semi skilled alt using some production slot to produce them in the same location where you produce the T2 ststuff.
You get some from buy order but it is secondary to what you produce.
Thats all well in good but you are missing the point.
Originally by: Red Raider
Third, meta 0 production will consume minerals (hopefully) due to the need for meta 0 modules in tech II production. The trick is to reduce insurance as an ISK faucet due to the deflationary effects fraud has on the buying power of ISK.
Right now a ton of minerals are being injected into the economy via meta 0 loot. The MD forum has a post laying out a single module's actions supplying .5% of the trit moved every day. Right now how T2 producers get their meta 0 modules is irrelevant because the consumption is being offset by mission loot at least a little but probably in full and then some. If you reduce meta 0 drop rates to introduce less minerals to the market than T2 production consumes you create a positive demand factor on minerals. Any reduction creates positive demand but what we need is a meaningful reduction which if I was pushing the buttons would be a 90% reduction in ALL meta 0 loot.
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 16:29:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Gunner77
Edited by: Gunner77 on 05/04/2010 22:21:47
Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: Red Raider
Third, meta 0 production will consume minerals (hopefully) due to the need for meta 0 modules in tech II production. The trick is to reduce insurance as an ISK faucet due to the deflationary effects fraud has on the buying power of ISK.
Right now a ton of minerals are being injected into the economy via meta 0 loot. The MD forum has a post laying out a single module's actions supplying .5% of the trit moved every day. Right now how T2 producers get their meta 0 modules is irrelevant because the consumption is being offset by mission loot at least a little but probably in full and then some. If you reduce meta 0 drop rates to introduce less minerals to the market than T2 production consumes you create a positive demand factor on minerals. Any reduction creates positive demand but what we need is a meaningful reduction which if I was pushing the buttons would be a 90% reduction in ALL meta 0 loot.
Supply and Demand Curves
First, cutting supply does not "create a positive demand factor", it simply shifts the supply line to the left, increasing the equilibrium price.
Yes and no. It doesn't create a positive demand factor for meta 0 modules but it does for minerals because some of the meta 0 modules used in manufacturing of T2 components are coming from mission loot. The demand for meta 0 modules stays the same but an erroneous supply source is removed. As long as it is scaled back enough to be below the needs of demand(which I have stated several times as my premise and is quoted and bolded above) you create a positive demand factor for minerals. I label it as a factor because though it may increase demand the insurance nerf may increase supply. We don't know what the actual effect on the price will be.
Originally by: Gunner77
Deflation
Second, Insurance does not create deflation. Insurance 'fraud' creates a floor for the mineral prices, keeping items at a higher price than they would otherwise be, if they were at the equilibrium price. Deflation in Eve is caused by increasing supply and isk hoarding.
Again this is arguing semantics. Insurance doesn't create inflation(deflating the buying power of ISK) but ISK faucets do. Not necessarily in the mineral market but as more and more ISK is introduced into the game that isn't countered by ISK sinks it does and insurance was never intended as an ISK faucet.
Originally by: Gunner77
The effect I am most interested in, is how far will the mineral prices fall? With the price floor removed on minerals, will the entire market crash? Everything will be cheaper to build as mineral prices fall. Or, will the simultaneous removal of meta0 loot cut supply enough to keep mineral prices where they are currently at?
TL;DR: Interesting stuff in the market is coming, if the changes go through.
I agree. I can't wait to see if meta 0 loot was supplying enough minerals to significantly impact the market or not or if the demand created by insurance fraud was as much as it is reported to be.
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
DeMoN's N AnGeL's
|
Posted - 2010.04.06 16:38:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
You are really speaking of stuff you don't know. It is 1% (you are right in that) of all morphite produced in game, but there is nor rounding error:
|| Morphite || 77% || 1% || 22% || total 100%
CCP here has probably rounded the values normally, so morphite from reprocessing was at least 0.51% of all the morphite produced.
1 or even 100 prototype cloak (BTW they are produced by players from BPO, no NPC drop them) won't cover even 0,01% of all the morphite traded in a day. and as they are produced by players morphite from reprocessing come only from player build items.
Actually I am speaking about something neither one of us know about. We don't know how they came up with a 1% figure but if I was trying to describe the amounts in whole numbers than any amount below 1% would be listed as 1% even if it was .001% and the other figures adjusted accordingly.
As for whether it drops or not I already said I don't know but you didn't know any BPO for tech I that had morphite in it before I pointed that out and you are now claiming that you know for a fact that those don't drop from rats? You were using the morphite to discredit the CCP numbers but I have proven morphite can drop in a tech 1 module per your request. Either prove it doesn't drop from rats now that I have disproven (with links) your theory or accept the possibility that the numbers are accurate. Without knowing the loot tables I doubt we are going to find out either way.
|
| |
|