|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
zz01shagsme
   |
Posted - 2010.09.20 11:30:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Brock Nelson
I was making nanotransistors for 2 months when there was a nice tidy profit but now that I see the price of materials going up, I'm going to err on the side of caution and stop producing it.
sell it for the new calculated price... e.g. i reacted to make a t2 material, price of one of the materials has risen by 50% - to continue with the investment sell your t2 material for 50% more...
Secret is to keep your eye on the market of your reacted materials if they rise you need to rise the price of your product to compensate continuous investment in the product... if you don't you'll be always playing catch up.
|
zz01shagsme
|
Posted - 2010.09.21 13:25:00 -
[2]
interesting read so far:
Couple of points if i may...
Ever thought that the so called bottleneck being in the north of the game creates the need for conflict? (points finger at CCP and says sort the lag out)
With current sov mechanics being what they are how are other areas of the game being affected? e.g. is it still plausible to cap moons in the south and still make a nice passive income? Income that can be used for other in-game activity and not just to pay sov bills.
I can't decide if the tweaks the December patch brought has really worked. I mean there are still plenty of moons out there that just aren't worth the effort... the ones that are, have been capped (for a while) the moons that were are now used to pay for sov so asks the question "do i really need sov"... Plenty of positives just as many negatives... highly frustrating for those trying to run a t2 operation which used to be a source of nice passive income so you could play the game the way you wanted instead of grinding.
Personally I enjoy running a pos... or two, but as quoted by ccp "humans are always looking to do things quicker for less" and i think the t2 market is very dynamic. e.g. you have something here - you do that - you get this...Alchemy reactions were supposed to give us peasants the ability of what the big boys do and that never really happened did it?
At the moment i think the comments of "supply and demand" is about right, i dont think we have enough opporunity to differientiate ourselves.. If you look at the real world markets are dictated by supply and demand but its not as simple as that..what about time and quality..why do you think there are some companies that can charge a premium for something - becuase of the service they provide... Technetium dwellers are supplying the demand, but thats all they do...a technetium dweller that provided a grade A technetium - now thats providing a service... equally a technetium dweller providing a grade c is also providing a service.
The bigger picture is this... its getting increasingly difficult to make passive isk and the richest part of the game for passive isk making is living in north where the tec moons are.
How nice it would be to scan a moon and have a chance of getting a nice high end to mine rather than using dotlan
|
zz01shagsme
|
Posted - 2010.09.21 14:08:00 -
[3]
Edited by: zz01shagsme on 21/09/2010 14:15:36
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
Ever thought that the so called bottleneck being in the north of the game creates the need for conflict? (points finger at CCP and says sort the lag out)
It creates a blobtastic mono-directional flow to the concentrated golden egg systems.
If the moons would be spread in clusters and then placed at the 4 corners of EvE, the objectives would naturally stretch competing alliances to keep and defend them denying super-easy logistics and huge blobs at few jumps of distance.
I won't deny that it could stretch the competing alliance. Playing devils advocate though, would you not be closer to creating stale mate... We have our moons you have the same - we are all happy. At the moment Eve is all about supply and demand and prices are the 0.1isk games that nobody likes doing. However, have the ability to differientiate yourself and you have a term "Value based pricing" which is not based on profit versus loss but is based on the value of your product to your customer. a drake is a drake but a drake-rof gives you a higher rate of fire, a drake-sr gives you a speedy recovery a Va Va voom Vagabond is extra lighter and gives bonus to your agility...
|
zz01shagsme
|
Posted - 2010.09.21 14:28:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 21/09/2010 14:18:53
This kind of strategies have been covered over the years in FPS games, where you can play "king of the hill" or any variation of terrains + valuables to hold while trying to catch the opponents'.
In our case concentrating the good stuff in one place makes EvE lag and crash plus (like for FPS games) it causes the whole holder gang to entrench in hedgehog mode and hold forever. This goes just to stack with the current issues where the defenders are heavily advantaged vs the attackers who jump in.
I dont agree. However, I do agree that game mechanics are causing issues and in most cases who ever gets in the system first usually wins. In most casesI say that becuase I remember the battle for EWOK in March just gone - epic fight where NC was seriously outnumbered to begin with until half way through the 4 hour battle numbers were even I seem to recall local was at 1000 with approx. 500 on either side. Non the less the server ran fine... Do you agree that if having an Eve that runs without game mechanic interferance - making one part of the game more profitable than the other is the best way to create conflict?
|
zz01shagsme
|
Posted - 2010.09.21 15:35:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
Do you agree that if having an Eve that runs without game mechanic interferance - making one part of the game more profitable than the other is the best way to create conflict?
I don't agree completely. Imho putting all the good stuff in one place results in one alliance getting hugely richer and stronger than the others. If the "battleground" and game mechanics are not perfectly designed to make defending difficult, then we easily slip into a trenches game, where the guy with the resident BFG 9000 just vaporizes the others who don't stand a chance.
I can agree with that "the BFG 9000" :) I've played most of my eve career as a member of alliances that were pets. It was so f-ing frustrating seeing the overlords sit on moon goo and not be able to do anything about it - becuase (agreed) I bring a fleet and they'll bring a bigger one. I will however say that defending should not be difficult, just to level the playing field. Attackers should find it difficult - pick the wrong target and your campaign could be over as quickly as it started. Take the KSC, if they had done their homework they would have found Deklien to be the easiest target out of the onces they attacked. They could have done better, they should have done better than they did. Everyone in the North new TCF were in no fighting condition and even their pets put more isk into that war than they did. Props to Molle for packing H-W, wrong move in my opinon should have hit Deklien - Bobby had the right idea of hitting vale, although I don't think he had the backing of his men. PB is the motorway to the north and logistic routes but with the capabilities to jump **** right into the danger zone PB was a wasted effort of resource and moral. |
zz01shagsme
|
Posted - 2010.09.23 09:17:00 -
[6]
Edited by: zz01shagsme on 23/09/2010 09:23:48
Originally by: Illfindyou
Whoever is making this nanotransistor spike, I love you. Please continue doing it.
Isn't the reason for the spike the result of a spike in the price of technetium...The problem is, now that tech is so volite how do you keep a t2 chain running if what you are making is not seeling at a price that will cover the cost for re-investment. e.g. Buy tech at one price make nano..whilst you are making nano - tech goes up 20% - 30% although the original sell price meant i was able to re-buy tech the spike in tech price now means my nano's will not cover the cost for re-buying tech.. comparethemarket.com...simples..
|
zz01shagsme
|
Posted - 2010.09.23 11:49:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Business Classy
Originally by: zz01shagsme
Edited by: zz01shagsme on 23/09/2010 09:23:48
Originally by: Illfindyou
Whoever is making this nanotransistor spike, I love you. Please continue doing it.
Isn't the reason for the spike the result of a spike in the price of technetium...
I'd say the reason for the spike is because of people speculating thanks to the spike in price of Tech, it's not a direct thing, that doesn't happen quite this fast :)
Personally I'm just going to stick to working Tech a little longer rather than the products. Maybe once it has reached a new stable price sell off tech and work the products while those catch up... fun times ahead 
Tech products i think are about to explode, its hard making them and selling for a profit with current tech and selling rates.
|
zz01shagsme
|
Posted - 2010.09.23 15:34:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Julian Koll
Well, to justify a price of 6k tech would have to climb to about 145k. that is of course only valid if all other input materials stay the same value. atm nanos build for about 3,5k and with current buyorders a single chain makes about 1,6b profit a month. go nano!
Are you assuming the manufacture is sat on , or doesn't have to buy technetium... a price of 6k is probably a fair reflection on re-buying techneitum, for the next batch... Im doing it at the moment and i can tell you if you think i'm going to invest 1.4b in tech to make 15m profit a day your aving a laff!
|
zz01shagsme
|
Posted - 2010.09.24 13:26:00 -
[9]
what about fullerides?
|
|
|
| |
|