| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Maximillian Power
Minmatar
The Dark Protectorate
   |
Posted - 2007.03.12 08:54:00 -
[1]
My suggestion late last week is here
I think that this could really work if implemented as described.
--------------------------------
So.... |
Maximillian Power
Minmatar
The Dark Protectorate
|
Posted - 2007.03.12 09:06:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Mr Xofar
EDIT: Akita, yes, sorry I missrepresented the bounty payout. It is as you indicated. However, the profit still stands at 1.42 mil for having bought the minerals, or 20.8 for mining them yourself.
Minerals mined are not free minerals no. But, they ARE minerals you don't have to buy. If I mine and refine 1000 minerals of any mineral and sell them, then it's 100% profit to the time I spent mining. If I buy 1000 of the same minerals at 10% lower than cost and resell them, then it's only 10% profit. Now we could compare which is more profitable, mining or trading. But for the sake of this argument, mining your own minerals will yield a much higher profit than if you spend the money to buy them.
Gotta call you on this one. Its opportunity cost. Fact. You are at a loss because if you sold the mins then you would have the 19.4 mil. Just because you decide to sell at a lower cost does not mean that you are making more of a profit. Therefore the new cyclone cost you that 19.4 mil. Yes, if you want the cyclone, then selling the mins and buying a cyclone on the market would be a foolish waste of time, however you could do it.
Lets say you did not want another cyclone - you want a muninn instead. Suddenly you have to sell those mins. What do you sell them for? - 19.4 mil. This goes towards the cost of the other ship. And so the opportunity cost of building the cyclone is losing 19.4 mil towards your muninn or whatever other ship you want.
So - in your example - the profit is 1.42 mil - regardless of whether or not you mine the mins yourself or not.
--------------------------------
So.... |
Maximillian Power
Minmatar
The Dark Protectorate
|
Posted - 2007.03.12 09:24:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Mr Xofar
 Pays for the bounty in part or in full based on the value of the ship destroyed, including the modules or not doesn't matter:
Why? The cost of ships/modules/resources can sometimes vary drastically from one region to the next. Pilots can pod themselves for the bounty, gaining the market value (regional or galactic makes no difference) then rebuy the destroyed items and realize a profit.
I have to call you on this also - as long as the payment made out on any single T1 ship is less than the amount that is required to be paid to insure that ship then the idea is not flawed. Note that you can probably get a lot more out of it without breaking the mechanic.
A ship with a 6 million payout (rupture for example) costs about 2 mil to insure. That means it costs 2 million base price to lose the ship. If the bounty is less than that 2 million then there is no way to profit off of this. Note that Opportunity Cost MUST be factored into this equation. Now all things being equal if you think that there are regional variations where it is possible to buy a rupture for 5 mil (not particularly likely) then drop the bounty to 1 million. This works perfectly.
T2 ships can have much higher bounties.
--------------------------------
So.... |
Maximillian Power
Minmatar
The Dark Protectorate
|
Posted - 2007.03.12 10:46:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Mr Xofar
Originally by: Maximillian Power
Gotta call you on this one. Its opportunity cost. Fact. You are at a loss because if you sold the mins then you would have the 19.4 mil. Just because you decide to sell at a lower cost does not mean that you are making more of a profit. Therefore the new cyclone cost you that 19.4 mil. Yes, if you want the cyclone, then selling the mins and buying a cyclone on the market would be a foolish waste of time, however you could do it.
Lets say you did not want another cyclone - you want a muninn instead. Suddenly you have to sell those mins. What do you sell them for? - 19.4 mil. This goes towards the cost of the other ship. And so the opportunity cost of building the cyclone is losing 19.4 mil towards your muninn or whatever other ship you want.
So - in your example - the profit is 1.42 mil - regardless of whether or not you mine the mins yourself or not.
Purely on the grounds of a technicality, I'll yield to you on this one.
However, I still am of the opinion that if it is my intent to mine the minerals so I don't have to buy them, and then use said mins to build the ships myself, then that saves me that amount of money. It's no different than providing the minerals to another manufacturer to build the ship for you at a discount equal to the cost of the materials.
More to come...
Hehe - its not a technicality as you put it (well it is a technicality) - It is an economic fact.
You are right - it is exactly the same as supplying the minerals to a manufacturer to build the ship at a discount equal to the cost of the materials.
In this case you have paid (cost of materials that you did not sell) + (manufacturing charge for building). The fact that you did not sell them is immaterial - You could have and chose not to therefore you paid that amount for those minerals.
--------------------------------
So.... |
Maximillian Power
Minmatar
The Dark Protectorate
|
Posted - 2007.03.12 10:53:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Mr Xofar
Originally by: Maximillian Power
I have to call you on this also - as long as the payment made out on any single T1 ship is less than the amount that is required to be paid to insure that ship then the idea is not flawed. Note that you can probably get a lot more out of it without breaking the mechanic.
A ship with a 6 million payout (rupture for example) costs about 2 mil to insure. That means it costs 2 million base price to lose the ship. If the bounty is less than that 2 million then there is no way to profit off of this. Note that Opportunity Cost MUST be factored into this equation. Now all things being equal if you think that there are regional variations where it is possible to buy a rupture for 5 mil (not particularly likely) then drop the bounty to 1 million. This works perfectly.
T2 ships can have much higher bounties.
Rupture (estimated)
Base: 6,000,000
Platinum insurance payout after cost: 4,000,000
Bounty 25% of Base: 1,500,000
Total Payout: 5,500,000
If is costs me less than that to build/buy a new Rupture, then I made a profit. It's just that simple.
Lower the base bounty any more than that, and the target becomes less attractive. Either a waste of time, or risk > reward.
I disagree - in this case - pay what you feel comfortable on the bounty. 1 to 1.5 mil for a t1 cruiser like a ruppy or stabber sounds fair to me. The risk v reward kicks in with T2 cruisers/frigs/bc.
You can easily set a bounty of 30 mil on a muninn for example and know that there is no way to make a profit on farming these ships.
The point is you put the flexibility in the hands of the person taking out the contract.
To be honest - None of your arguments hold water against this. I don't want your ISK - although I'll take it if you want to give - but I do want you to recognize that this is a viable system if implemented - unless there is another flaw that you can point out.
--------------------------------
So.... |
Maximillian Power
Minmatar
The Dark Protectorate
|
Posted - 2007.03.12 11:27:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Mr Xofar
The moment you start figuring the value of the ship into the equation, you run the possibility of the pirate finding a profitable situation.
No no no no no.
Please stop ignoring opportunity cost. It is a REAL expense. There is no profitable situation with the correct figures because opportunity cost means that they would always have had a MORE profitable scenario by not destroying their own ships.
--------------------------------
So.... |
| |
|