| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Extreme
Eye of God
Circle-Of-Two
18
   |
Posted - 2014.12.29 00:32:56 -
[1] - Quote
The hulk should had been the number 1 miner, at least it still is when you see the total costs for costruction parts, but it got badly nerfed by poor cargohold. So for a few years now the Mackinaw has become the most populair miningship just because the cargohold is better and way cheaper to build and way nicer profits to make.
But Mackageddon?
Seriously, the Hulk should get some love from CCP and so do the 'Hulka Gankers'
CCP make Hulkageddon possible again, fix what you broke 2.5 years ago!
/Extreme
|
Extreme
Eye of God
Circle-Of-Two
18
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 13:51:17 -
[2] - Quote
When CCP, 2.5 years ago, made new roles for Skiff, Mack and Hulk they "forgot" to take a look at the build requierements/ the total cost of build vs time to build vs market demand vs profit per ship.
This is really unbalanced and should be reviewed by CCP.
The Hulk cost way more to build, takes way longer to build but meanwhile there is way less market demand vs the Mack.
You can produce 50 Macks a month vs 21 Hulks a month.
Profit for a Mack is around 70M isk vs 8M isk for a Hulk.
So even if the mining / cargo outcome is ok to some, CCP really have to look over the cost to build/ time to build.
8M profit for a Hulk while only 21 can be produced a month vs a Mack 70M profit while able to produce 50 and then also take into notice the number of sales per month 50 hulks vs 200 Macks tells me there is something broken here! |
Extreme
Eye of God
Circle-Of-Two
18
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 21:10:24 -
[3] - Quote
Jean Luc Lemmont wrote:Damn you CCP and your player driven economy.
Oh..wait...
Totally missing the point here  |
Extreme
Eye of God
Circle-Of-Two
18
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 03:03:04 -
[4] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:I think I understand where the OP is coming from.
I don't think it's a matter of what the ships are capable of, but more a matter on, since they're all pretty well balanced, why does the Hulk still require substantially more time and costs to produce?
If they all have even trade-offs, why do they not cost the same general amount of time and isk to produce?
There's always going to be a bit a variables when it comes to production costs, but they should be more evenly balanced.
Perhaps the Hulk should mine everything better, and cost slightly more to produce, and maybe even slightly longer to produce.
But the key word there is slightly....
If you did this, then the profit margin would be determined by supply and demand instead of manufacturing costs and time.
That's right Joe |
Extreme
Eye of God
Circle-Of-Two
18
|
Posted - 2014.12.31 14:31:42 -
[5] - Quote
I just checked the bpo's of skif/mack/hulk and they do have the same production times now.
BUT
Using the industry information it will cost 239.5M isk in materials to produce 1 hulk (BPO original with no research)
and can sell it at 216M isk on market.
(exclusive 6.6M production costs and exclusive 1.5M sales tax per ship)
Mack bpo with no research, at the Industry tool, it costs 203M to produce a mack and it sells at 200M on market
Skiff, BPO with no research, 165M to build and selling 165M on market
Conclusion:
Hulk 23.5M loss per produced ship
Mack 3M loss per produced ship
Skiff breaks even
As i used bpo non researched and same market materials (Jita), market fluctuations have no role nor influence on this basic outcome.
Question is why the Industry tool generates at best a break even on the Skiff and a 10% loss (excluding production costs and sales tax of 8M isk). The loss on a produced Hulk is 23.5M plus 8M production costs and tax, 31.5M per ship!
There is also a huge overstock on market so i can conclude Exhumers have become way to strong and/or the penalties in Empire ganking Exhumers have become too strong? |
| |
|