|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 45 post(s) |
Juin Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
0
   |
Posted - 2014.04.29 21:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
you mention the stations individual tax rate. is standing with that corp going to affect this?
sorry if it has been asked before, did not see it answered. |
Juin Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 22:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
if I am not mistaken. you were stating that hi pop areas such as nonni will be getting better prices for job starts then say a back water system with only 2 stations.
if this is the case. wont that kill some of the desire to go out to some of the farther hi sec systems? I go out there cause of the room on the lines for copy, manufacture and the like. with the way it sounds. it would be better to flood a place like nonni instead of spreading out.
TD in those areas will then get like jita as will gankers since they will know where the best place to get the goods will be. |
Juin Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.04.30 23:00:00 -
[3] - Quote
ElectronHerd Askulf wrote:
Systems with a lot of industrial activity will be rather more expensive than systems with little activity. Systems with a lot of facilities will be somewhat cheaper. A system like Nonni will wind up finding a balance between the two - probably at the point where additional players basing there derive no benefit. That point will depend on the specialities of teams resident in that system compared to what that industrialist is interested in building, but there will come a point where the 'push' overwhelms the 'pull' for any given player.
And yeah, gankers and wardeccers might start camping those systems. They might even follow teams whose specialities are lucrative. That's Eve.
I am not worried so much on those. my concern is population shift as an unintended consequences. I like to run missions. many people do. but those very same systems with many stations is exactly where many mission runners go.I personally don't know many people who run missions from trade hubs because of the over pop, possible td and lag from pop.
this is the problem I am wanting to address |
Juin Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 19:23:00 -
[4] - Quote
invention costs based on output.
output is a t2 bpc, market value... there is none.
input value, cost of datacores, R.db, reports or datasheets, etc
invention sounds cheap
then you move onto manufacturing of said t2 bpc costs of input v's output argument |
Juin Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 20:06:00 -
[5] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Juin Tsukaya wrote:invention costs based on output.
output is a t2 bpc, market value... there is none.
input value, cost of datacores, R.db, reports or datasheets, etc
invention sounds cheap
then you move onto manufacturing of said t2 bpc costs of input v's output argument Any time the output is a blueprint, then the value of the output is 2% of the cost of the item that the blueprint creates. So, if a DC II is 700K, and the invention job produces a 10-run copy, then the "value for cost calculations" of the 10 run BPC is 10 * 700K * 0.02 = 140K. That 140K then gets multiplied by the system usage and then 1 + the NPC station tax. Say 5% and 10%.... 140K * 0.05 * 1.1 = 7700 ISK. Yes, compared to the 100Ks to Ms for other inputs, the actual invention job cost will be a rounding error.
editted for clarity forgot to add in the price of the original bpo.
so it would be cost of original bpo, datacores, various assundries then per hour and installation costs as the price. why the value of the item being created when that is actually considered in the manufacturing cost.
thats like taxing the same item twice. once in invention then again in manufacturing. |
Juin Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 20:31:00 -
[6] - Quote
LHA Tarawa wrote:Juin Tsukaya wrote:editted for clarity forgot to add in the price of the original bpo.
so it would be cost of original bpo, datacores, various assundries then per hour and installation costs as the price. why the value of the item being created when that is actually considered in the manufacturing cost.
thats like taxing the same item twice. once in invention then again in manufacturing. No, the BPO cost plays NO part in the calculation. NONE of the cost calculations are based on cost of inputs. They are based on the value of the OUTPUT! For most things, that means the market value of the item produced by the job. BPO/BPC are special things since the BPO market price is very high and the BPC doesn't have a market price. SO, for BP, the "value of the output" is 2% of what the BP produces (times runs for BPC copy job). The value of the OUTPUT (or fake value based on 2% of what it creates in the case of BP) is then multiplied by the cost scaling, discounts, tax, etc. Cost of INPUTs only plays a secondary role, in that it effects the market price of the output item. So, the cost of input to an invention job gets spread out over the runs of the output BPC, effecting the price of the output item... Then 2% * usage based cost % of those costs get added back in the next run. Because copy/research is such a tiny % of total cost, and then only a small fraction of that cost ends up in the next round, costs added to items will quickly become a rounding error rather than an inflationary spiral.
ah, I didnt make myself understood. was talking the change of using input price versus output price instead.
It would just make better sense in my opinion on the use of input v's output arguement and possible implementation. Apologies if I frustrated you on that.
|
Juin Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 20:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:Korthan Doshu wrote:Barton Breau wrote:So im reading trough the thread and this is not the first time this has appeared.
I am confused, i was under the impression that the 100-400m fuel cost was per month, 30 days, isnt it?
Thus it begs the question, as WHY you would choose to have a industry POS, if you are unable to gain the worth of 4-16 HOURS of l4 missioning using it over the course of 30 DAYS ?
What am i not getting? /snip Outside of the invention world, getting to make 25% of a T1 commodity might be a huge deal. If there's some frigate out there (not saying there is one) where you make 3% margins on 400,000 ISK at 22 units per day, you can suddenly make 29 units per day for a 31% increase in total profit. Those benefits could apply in the invent world if you make your own T1 items and components, too. /snip I guess my confusion stemmed from my lack of comprehension of why you would set up, move and click stuff for 264k a day thus making even a relatively small cost of the fuel very significant. Is the situation that hardcore or is it a playstyle choice?
I think playstyle choice and possibly the small time manufacture for self v's huge corporation manufacturing in the billions for strategic cruisers and the like |
Juin Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 22:39:00 -
[8] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:
Make like a hojillion ammo and put it in the ammo box. Cease manufacturing in W-space. Top up as needed.
Why does 5 seconds of thinking produce a better logistics system than your entire corp's existence?
perhaps they make more than ammo? |
Juin Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.01 22:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
Loraine Gess wrote:Juin Tsukaya wrote:Loraine Gess wrote:
Make like a hojillion ammo and put it in the ammo box. Cease manufacturing in W-space. Top up as needed.
Why does 5 seconds of thinking produce a better logistics system than your entire corp's existence?
perhaps they make more than ammo? See: "Cease manufacturing in W-space."
don't see it, please link. not trying to be difficult
|
|
|
| |
|