Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 20:29:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Cheekyhoe I read your thread but since you declared it as mathematical proof and most of it is assumptions and wrong whilst being declared as fact I decided to ignore it.
No, apparently you HAVEN'T properly read that thread, if you're saying anything like that. At best you skimmed it, extremely superficially, maybe just the very first page, if even that. There's a reason I told you the latest spreadsheet is on page 9 - many changes were made, assumptions were tested and either refined or rejected, data was continually added, mistakes were corrected. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Passageway
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 20:39:00 -
[32]
I went on holiday for two weeks and the NC disappeared? Point me to a thread please :)
|
stoicfaux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 21:32:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Passageway I went on holiday for two weeks and the NC disappeared? Point me to a thread please :)
Go read the Russian forums.
----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
|
Avraham Avinu
Children of Noah
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 21:54:00 -
[34]
It was mentioned by devs in the Dev Q&A a week ago and the AT that there is a problem with tech and they're going to fix it. I'm betting it will be within the next 6 months.
I don't know how it will be altered. I'm assuming by either a new alchemy reaction or a re-balance of blueprints.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 22:14:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Akita T on 20/06/2011 22:20:32
WE have known it was going to be a problem since before it actually WAS a problem, and we have screamed and shouted about it 19 months ago, and even proposed some alternatives in which it wouldn't be quite so much of a problem. What's 5-6 more months, for a grand total of more or les two whole years before THEY actually do something about it ? Not like they couldn't do it (speaking from a purely technical standpoint) even this month, if they wanted to and had a clue WHAT to do exactly... or could have done it at any time in the past year and a half. So one can only conclude that they're grossly incompetent as far as this particular matter is concerned, and I would not be convinced their "solution" (like Dominion was supposed to be) won't be just another problem waiting to fester yet again. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Elise DarkStar
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 22:19:00 -
[36]
My guess is that it will be closer to 6 months minimum rather than maximum. It will most likely be an attempt at a total rework of the entire system, as opposed to another doomed rejig, so it will get tied into the larger process of looking at the entirety of 0.0, thereby dragging it out long beyond what it would take to fix it as an individual issue.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 22:26:00 -
[37]
All they really need is fiddle around with alchemy to make it far, FAR less of a problem practically overnight.
Boost the alchemy links between tier 1s and tier 3s to 4:1 replacement ratios (from 5:1, once upon a time it was 20:1). Add new alchemy linking tier 2s with tier 4s, at 3:1 replacement ratios. Add new alchemy linking tier 3s to tier 5s (moonjunk) at 2:1 replacement ratios.
TADA ! You've just set a very soft top cap on the vast majority of moon mineral prices, a cap level which depends on POS fuel costs. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Avraham Avinu
Children of Noah
|
Posted - 2011.06.20 23:00:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Akita T
All they really need is fiddle around with alchemy to make it far, FAR less of a problem practically overnight.
Boost the alchemy links between tier 1s and tier 3s to 4:1 replacement ratios (from 5:1, once upon a time it was 20:1). Add new alchemy linking tier 2s with tier 4s, at 3:1 replacement ratios. Add new alchemy linking tier 3s to tier 5s (moonjunk) at 2:1 replacement ratios.
TADA ! You've just set a very soft top cap on the vast majority of moon mineral prices, a cap level which depends on POS fuel costs.
I was just getting ready to make such a post, so QFE. A ratio to ratio to ratio scheme would solve everything in that aspect it seems.
|
CheekyBabey
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 05:15:00 -
[39]
I'd just like to say that due to the nature of eve it's impossible to calculate anything when it comes to moon mining, just like it's impossible to do the same with regular mining.
The only constant is supply against demand.
There is more than enough supply, granted the demand increased but not enough to cause a massive upset.
I mean if everyone stopped using 1 ship it's price falls no matter what it cost to build it (search for thread about how some guy made a fair bit of profit from reprocessing cerbs or eagles i forget which).
Also there is no pure way to see the amount of actual Tech being used in factories nor how much is being mined a month nor any way to see how much is actually used for anything.
Yes you can make assumptions but that is all there is, your 50 page thread is well thought out but is actually *******s.
The only reason Tech is high is because it was starved from the market, sorry to crash your dreams but it was.
How do I know this, well that part would be telling, however I'd like to say that I know fully well that Caesium could of and still could be the new tech. |
Tanaka Kharn
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 10:56:00 -
[40]
Dear god please just stop.
|
|
Gillaboo
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 11:50:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Breaker77
It's the new alchemy coming this Tuesday.
You can react 100 Thulium into 10 Tech.
That is why Thulium is going up in price.
Those crazy alchemists...what a marvelous modern age of invention we live in... next thing you know they'll be taking those 3 or 4 nearly-worthless P0 planetary materials and turning them into Thulium...or Tech...or spiffy red couches for your CQ's.
What will they think of next?
|
Shailo Kato
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 14:52:00 -
[42]
As someone in an a alliance who holds a fair bit of tech currently. It is a reason for conflict. If everything was fair, we'd not have a solid aim or motive to go to war.
Eve would be boring. You guys would get bored when you didn't have stuff to build or sell to us. The station traders would need to get real jobs and the highsec bears wouldn't have anyone buying their faction ammo.
Eve would cease to be, with out something that drives others to attack and take resources from others.
Tech's paying for supercap, which is keeping the miners in business. Which is keeping my buddies busy hauling bits in space. All where there is risk of things blowing up.
Tech's just fine where it is right now thanks.
Eve's a sandbox, but there's still some parents to scoop up the sand and put it back in the box after the kids throw it all around. The effort some of you guys go into would be better spent working & trading forex or shares...
|
Elise DarkStar
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 15:28:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Shailo Kato As someone in an a alliance who holds a fair bit of tech currently....
You're confusing analyzing the situation with actually giving a **** about bottlenecks. It's getting nerfed because CCP said it's getting nerfed; we're just discussing how best to profit. No point in coming here to cry about it, nobody cares.
|
Gillaboo
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 15:53:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Shailo Kato It is a reason for conflict.
So please get on with it then, and conflict some more. I look forward to the next wave of carnage that will once again create those "perfect storm" conditions on the Market.
|
Cheeba Don
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 16:06:00 -
[45]
wololo.
Tech was never cartelled. ---------
oOk! |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 16:38:00 -
[46]
Originally by: CheekyBabey I'd just like to say that due to the nature of eve it's impossible to calculate anything when it comes to moon mining, just like it's impossible to do the same with regular mining.
No, you are incapable of comprehending the calculations, that's a huge difference. And "calculating" moon mining is actually a lot easier than calculating regular mining - unlike ore (which respawns like mad and most of it across the game universe remains unmined, even the most valuable types have quite a bit of leftovers), moon minerals which are rare are tapped to the absolute maximum allowed by the game. You can't make more of it no matter how much you struggle, if there are 600 technetium moons in EVE (optimistic number), that's 43-some million units per month mined MAXIMUM. That might sound like a lot, but it's not. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Herman Klaus
Caldari Touched By Klaus
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 17:19:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 21/06/2011 17:08:30
Originally by: CheekyBabey I'd just like to say that due to the nature of eve it's impossible to calculate anything when it comes to moon mining, just like it's impossible to do the same with regular mining. [...] Also there is no pure way to see the amount of actual Tech being used in factories nor how much is being mined a month nor any way to see how much is actually used for anything.
No, you are incapable of comprehending the calculations, that's a huge difference.
And "calculating" moon mining is actually a lot easier than calculating regular mining - unlike ore (which respawns like mad and most of it across the game universe remains unmined, even the most valuable types have quite a bit of leftovers), moon minerals which are rare are tapped to the absolute maximum allowed by the game. You can't make more of it no matter how much you struggle, if there are 600 technetium moons in EVE (optimistic number), that's 43-some million units per month mined MAXIMUM. That might sound like a lot, but it's not. Raw technetium cost can easily represent the vast majority of a finished T2 ships' cost, and that's including all other moon minerals, reaction fuel costs, component manufacture profit, invention profit, base T1 ship cost and so on. Now look at how many T2 ships (and T2 ammo) get traded on a monthly basis, and how much that represents in terms of ISK, then compare to how much ISK 43 mil tech represents.
But the beauty of it all is that you don't even really need to know the AMOUNT that gets mined. You only need to know the PERCENTAGE of maximum possible to be mined (i.e. moons that have it in 0.3 and below compared to moons that have something else) that gets used up in T2 construction. You just take a normal sample of whatever it is that's getting built, and for that while not 100% accurate, what's getting traded is a good enough approximation. Then you "reverse-track" that to the total moon mineral needs FOR THAT SAMPLE, as a percentage. Then you look at percentages of moons available, and scale total production up until ONE mineral (right now, technetium) gets to 100% usage, then look at the rest in comparison.
Or, to put it in a very simplified form you can understand. You don't know for sure how many of "item X" gets produced, but you know that the market trades 1000 of them per day on average. The only assumption is that if market traded volume jumps to 2000 per day traded on average, the production counts have also doubled (you have no idea what the initial production amounts were, you don't know how high they're now, you just know there's roughly two times more built). Then, say, one unit of "item X" needs 1 mineral A, 10 mineral B and 100 mineral C. You also know that the entire galaxy can produce 1 A : 5 B : 75 C. You DON'T know whether it can produce 1 mil A or 10 mil A, but it doesn't matter ! Scaling up production needs (2A : 10 B : 150 C) until you hit one material's limit you get a total usage of 50% A, 100% B and 66% C. This obviously means B will be now the most valuable one (since without more of it, you're sitting on As and Cs but can't build a damn thing). The question of what's more valuable between A and C is more complicated, since while C is rarer as a percentage, it can also be produced in far greater numbers, so in reality, C will probably be much cheaper than A in spite of the higher rarity (heck, C will probably barely be worth the best case extraction cost). But B will always be the single most valuable one, far more valuable than either A or C.
In this case, B is technetium right now. Before dominion, it was a draw between promethium and dysprosium.
After 12 hours work my brain just fell out my ear reading this....
Thanks tho Akita
|
CheekyBabey
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 21:39:00 -
[48]
I never said your method was wrong, just your results.
Sadly just watching the market is not a great insight into eve, everything can look better than it is with spreadsheets, pie charts and fancy colours.
Tech will crash, so don't feel too bad when it happens.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 21:59:00 -
[49]
Originally by: CheekyBabey I never said your method was wrong, just your results. Sadly just watching the market is not a great insight into eve, everything can look better than it is with spreadsheets, pie charts and fancy colours.
There are only three possible explanations for you saying the method is correct but the results are wrong.
In decreasing order of absurdity:
* least likely, you have super-special secret information regarding the actual percentage of mineable moons of each kind in EVE, and you know for a fact the technetium moon percentage is higher than even our most generous estimates
* you have a good reason to assume that there is a heavy, HEAVY percentage discrepancy (in favour of T2 items that contain very little or no technetium, as opposed to those who contain an average or high quantity of technetium, relatively speaking) between the ratios of T2 items built in a certain longer time period and those of T2 items traded on the market in roughly the same time period
* or, most likely, you STILL don't understand the finer aspects of the method used in spite of the pretty damn clear example given
_
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
CheekyBabey
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 22:54:00 -
[50]
It is annoying when someone knows something you don't.
Still carry on guessing.
|
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.06.21 23:17:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Akita T on 21/06/2011 23:18:41
If you say so. Doubt it, but feel free to believe whatever the heck you seem to think you believe you know. Not like I really give much of a damn financially, I have liquidated the vast majority of my technetium stocks a good while ago, and haven't touched the moonmin markets at all in months.
P.S. If you really must know, what annoys me is people who make unsubstantiated claims. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
Cheekyhoe
|
Posted - 2011.07.16 18:41:00 -
[52]
Slower than I though but it is happening just saying.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2011.07.16 19:35:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Cheekyhoe Slower than I though but it is happening just saying.
We'll see in 2-3 months. _
Make ISK||Build||React||1k papercuts
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |