| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
SoldierOfFortune
Caldari
Sheepish R and D
   |
Posted - 2007.09.12 00:29:00 -
[1]
Edited by: SoldierOfFortune on 12/09/2007 00:29:45
Anyone think the Trit prices will go back down soon? :/ starting to get annoying xD
"RAWR" is my keyword, and also my second language |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 01:09:00 -
[2]
Nobody that has a clue thinks that.
The major source of Tritanium was reprocessing of "Coupling Arrays" (NPC-sold POS structure), which yielded tritanium at around 2.3 ISK per unit (average market price was around 2.5 ISK)... source which was "nerfed" in one of the rcent patches.
To the best of my knowledge, the best current reprocessing rate is for 3.6 ISK per unit (I might be wrong here), so I fully expect the market price to go closer to 3.5 ISK/unit soon, or even above 3.7 ISK per unit of Tritanium eventually.
_
EVE GOLDEN RULES | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Danari
Amarr
Viper Squad
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 01:33:00 -
[3]
As usual, the composite index of all minerals continues to hold pretty steady, actually slightly lower even in the face of trit and mex pushing up. As long as you buy and hold minerals in their natural proportions, you're never hurt by individual movements.
|
Vrizuh
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.09.12 04:18:00 -
[4]
Enlightening. <3 Akita.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 01:36:00 -
[5]
9000isk shuttle -> 2750 trit, 3.27 as the ceiling, with a perfect refine.
|
Lock out
Bald Industrial Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 02:27:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
9000isk shuttle -> 2750 trit, 3.27 as the ceiling, with a perfect refine.
Isn't it 2500? |
Dr Slurm
General Commodities
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 02:36:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Lock out
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
9000isk shuttle -> 2750 trit, 3.27 as the ceiling, with a perfect refine.
Isn't it 2500?
The item database on this site says its 2500, dunno if its correct though.
Tired of the inane ramblings of the incompetent? Click here |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
Total Comfort
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 04:22:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Dr Slurm
Originally by: Lock out
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
9000isk shuttle -> 2750 trit, 3.27 as the ceiling, with a perfect refine.
Isn't it 2500?
The item database on this site says its 2500, dunno if its correct though.
The refine panel in-game says it's 2500 for a perfect, untaxed refine. I could swear I saw 2750 somewhere, though.
Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened. |
Galgorth
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 06:52:00 -
[9]
Because of reprocessing wastage, even with perfect skills shuttles will refine to 3.6 trit/u.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 07:03:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Galgorth
Because of reprocessing wastage, even with perfect skills shuttles will refine to 3.6 trit/u.
What reprocessing wastage? There would be none with perfect skills and standing. 9000/2500 = 3.6. Nothing else should be playing a factor there.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Neko Sornan
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 09:49:00 -
[11]
Refining the coupling arrays was listed in the 2.2 patch notes under exploits fixed.
Quote:
Coupling arrays and other silos no longer reprocess into too many minerals compared to their buy price.
So I guess reprocessing a lot of shuttles and whatever comes after them will be too. But can anyone tell me what qualifies this as an exploit? It's perfectly within game mechanics and why shouldn't you be allowed to refine the 100000 shuttles you bought ...
--------------
EVE Development Network Wiki |
Galgorth
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 09:52:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Shadarle
Originally by: Galgorth
Because of reprocessing wastage, even with perfect skills shuttles will refine to 3.6 trit/u.
What reprocessing wastage? There would be none with perfect skills and standing. 9000/2500 = 3.6. Nothing else should be playing a factor there.
A lot of people use the 'blueprint' value of 2750 when computing shuttle reprocessing. 9000/2750 = 3.3. The blueprint value, however, includes the 10% waste you can't get back.
|
Jon Asus
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 10:18:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Neko Sornan
Refining the coupling arrays was listed in the 2.2 patch notes under exploits fixed.
Quote:
Coupling arrays and other silos no longer reprocess into too many minerals compared to their buy price.
So I guess reprocessing a lot of shuttles and whatever comes after them will be too. But can anyone tell me what qualifies this as an exploit? It's perfectly within game mechanics and why shouldn't you be allowed to refine the 100000 shuttles you bought ...
The exploit bit comes from the fact that the arrays refined into more minerals than they should have.
|
Neko Sornan
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 10:23:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Jon Asus
Originally by: Neko Sornan
Refining the coupling arrays was listed in the 2.2 patch notes under exploits fixed.
Quote:
Coupling arrays and other silos no longer reprocess into too many minerals compared to their buy price.
So I guess reprocessing a lot of shuttles and whatever comes after them will be too. But can anyone tell me what qualifies this as an exploit? It's perfectly within game mechanics and why shouldn't you be allowed to refine the 100000 shuttles you bought ...
The exploit bit comes from the fact that the arrays refined into more minerals than they should have.
But ... if the trit price rises to 3.7 would then refining shuttles not also be an exploit because you get more trit then the buy price is?
--------------
EVE Development Network Wiki |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 11:48:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Neko Sornan
Originally by: Jon Asus
Originally by: Neko Sornan
Refining the coupling arrays was listed in the 2.2 patch notes under exploits fixed.
Quote:
Coupling arrays and other silos no longer reprocess into too many minerals compared to their buy price.
So I guess reprocessing a lot of shuttles and whatever comes after them will be too. But can anyone tell me what qualifies this as an exploit? It's perfectly within game mechanics and why shouldn't you be allowed to refine the 100000 shuttles you bought ...
The exploit bit comes from the fact that the arrays refined into more minerals than they should have.
But ... if the trit price rises to 3.7 would then refining shuttles not also be an exploit because you get more trit then the buy price is?
I think, but could be wrong, that the reason coupling arrays were considered an exploit is because they refined into more m^3 of minerals than they took up in completed form.
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Neko Sornan
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 12:22:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Shadarle
[...]
I think, but could be wrong, that the reason coupling arrays were considered an exploit is because they refined into more m^3 of minerals than they took up in completed form.
No, I think a coupling array could be bought from the NPC market for 3000 isk (don't have any number so they're just an example) and when you refined it you got trit units worth 3000 isk at a trit value of 2.3 isk. So if you sell the trit then for anything > 2.3 isk, you make isk with doing not much for it.
--------------
EVE Development Network Wiki |
Block Ukx
KDM Corp
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 13:41:00 -
[17]
Read the patch notes again: ôCoupling arrays and other silos no longer reprocess into too many minerals compared to their buy priceö.
Therefore, refining shuttles ôinto too many minerals compared to their buy priceö would be considered an exploit.
|
Cker Heel
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate Operations
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 13:59:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Neko Sornan
you make isk with doing not much for it.
The function of the price cap items like Coupling Arrays is to suck ISK out of the game when price levels rise. It takes player activity to perform this economic service. Those who do so would have trained reprocessing and market skills, and spent time monitoring the market.
Until the next price cap is reached, the ISK formerly sunk in Coupling Array orders will now stay in the game. We will see if general price levels rise and if miners migrate to 1.0 systems to shoot at Veld instead of whatever work they engaged in before the patch.
|
Neko Sornan
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 14:03:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Read the patch notes again: ôCoupling arrays and other silos no longer reprocess into too many minerals compared to their buy priceö.
Therefore, refining shuttles ôinto too many minerals compared to their buy priceö would be considered an exploit.
You're sure? I don't make assumptions and considerations any more when it comes to CCP, sorry. They're sometimes beyond my logic. 15000 shuttles sold in 'The Forge' yesterday ... and please everyone raise a hand who reprocessed a shuttle before, you're exploiting! On a more serious side, where are the going to draw a line?
--------------
EVE Development Network Wiki |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 14:06:00 -
[20]
Whenever reading patchnotes, especially the "exploit fixes" section, always take it with a grain of salt (funny blast from the past, worth reading)... it doesn't always mean what it says literally.
Oh, and apparently, memory halflife of devs is definetely under 1 year :P
Coupling arrays are a 4000 m^3 volume item, with a NPC sales price of 2.25 mil ISK.
It *USED* to refine into something like a bit under 900k tritanium and some trace highends, and after selling the highends you'd end up with tritanium somewhere around 2.3 ISK per unit.
So yeah, it was also slightly compressed (9:4 rough ratio) tritanium.
Now, it refines into peanuts, because, apparently, after almost 2 years of the devs being aware of it, it suddendly became "inconvenient" for some reason.
Shuttles and other items, yes, don't look at "BPO showinfo" values, those are with 10% waste included.
So if you're looking at it nowadays, you'll find tritanium to "cost" (via reprocessing) at least 3.6 ISK per unit.
That is, unless you can find another source of "cheaper" tritanium.
_
EVE GOLDEN RULES | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 14:09:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Block Ukx
Read the patch notes again: ôCoupling arrays and other silos no longer reprocess into too many minerals compared to their buy priceö.
Therefore, refining shuttles ôinto too many minerals compared to their buy priceö would be considered an exploit.
Block is correct.
Coupling arrays weren't considered as part of the mineral ratio reprocess nerf as they have approximately a 1:1.75 ratio. I believe CCP specifically stated that anything about the 1:5 ratio would be hit with the nerf.
Coupling arrays were a stealth nerf, but a few of us anticipated this and reprocessed ours before the patch. Others werent so lucky as can be seen by hundreds for sale in Jita below npc price.
Either way, if CCP deem it an exploit, they definetly should be removing shuttles ability to limit the price of trit as well. Let miners determine the price, CCP should have no input on it whatsoever.
Obviously this means my production costs will increase considerably, but in turn I will adjust my selling prices to suit.
Need Empire Research Slots. Click here |
Neko Sornan
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 15:10:00 -
[22]
Found a funny thing to quote from http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=251438&page=4#100, Posted - 2005.11.24 18:59:00, on players requesting the pos modules refining yield to be changed:
Originally by: CCP Oveur
No, you just missed the point. I CAN make it 1 tritanium meaning when you recycle it you will get 1 tritanium. That is something I don't WANT to do because players would be ****ed after recycling one.
There is no chance we're going to refactor the system to take into account the few cases where the ~250% roof is hit. There would have to be more factors coming into this.
--------------
EVE Development Network Wiki |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 16:39:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Ricdic
Let miners determine the price, CCP should have no input on it whatsoever.
Obviously this means my production costs will increase considerably, but in turn I will adjust my selling prices to suit.
Wrong.
If trit "ceiling" price is removed, all you'll see is a crash of highends, and only a slight increase in production cost.
The overall "basket price" of minerals remains nearly constant barring huge demand fluctuations (i.e. post-patch day, when everybody's scrambling, buying minerals and components to manufacture the newwly appeared ships and modules).
_
EVE GOLDEN RULES | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 18:41:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Ricdic
Let miners determine the price, CCP should have no input on it whatsoever.
Obviously this means my production costs will increase considerably, but in turn I will adjust my selling prices to suit.
Wrong.
If trit "ceiling" price is removed, all you'll see is a crash of highends, and only a slight increase in production cost.
The overall "basket price" of minerals remains nearly constant barring huge demand fluctuations (i.e. post-patch day, when everybody's scrambling, buying minerals and components to manufacture the newwly appeared ships and modules).
If all NPC refinable items were changed to yield very small amounts of minerals would the "basket price" still remain constant? The only reason it does now I thought is because of the limit some minerals would hit. If trit continued to rise in price... eventually the high ends would drop a bit as overall production would decline due to increased costs. But this would eventually drive up the prices of all produced items... which would increase the profit for producing those items... which increases the amount of items produced... which increases the demand for minerals again. It's a cycle... and without limits on the max prices of any minerals it would continue to spiral upwards, would it not?
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 18:45:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Ricdic
Let miners determine the price, CCP should have no input on it whatsoever.
Obviously this means my production costs will increase considerably, but in turn I will adjust my selling prices to suit.
Wrong.
If trit "ceiling" price is removed, all you'll see is a crash of highends, and only a slight increase in production cost.
The overall "basket price" of minerals remains nearly constant barring huge demand fluctuations (i.e. post-patch day, when everybody's scrambling, buying minerals and components to manufacture the newwly appeared ships and modules).
While this may be true in past circumstances and the market generally does structure in some way, it has also never had such a drastic change as the ceiling being removed from the most sought after mineral in Eve.
Sure, more people would mine it as profits for them would increase, and the price would filter back down a bit but calling my conclusion wrong is a very bold statement and one I would be happy to wager on not always being true.
When building capital ships you may see that the majority of costs do come from those lowends so even drastic changes in high ends (either positive or negative) have nowhere near the effect of a trit spike 50-90% above the norm.
Need Empire Research Slots. Click here |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.13 19:56:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ricdic
Sure, more people would mine it as profits for them would increase, and the price would filter back down a bit but calling my conclusion wrong is a very bold statement and one I would be happy to wager on not always being true.
Only if tritanium ceiling (and just the tritanium ceiling) was removed is your conclusion wrong.
Originally by: Shadarle
If all NPC refinable items were changed [...] without limits on the max prices of any minerals it would continue to spiral upwards, would it not?
Correct. If most ceilings were removed, not just the tritanium one, the basket price will start rising upwards too.
_
EVE GOLDEN RULES | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 04:43:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Akita T
Only if tritanium ceiling (and just the tritanium ceiling) was removed is your conclusion wrong.
What other ceilings are in effect? I vaguely remember something about isogen but was under the impression that ceiling isn't hit until about 120 isk. I can't think of any others.
Need Empire Research Slots. Click here |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 05:34:00 -
[28]
Everything except morphite has a ceiling.
However, only tritanium has a fully independent ceiling, all the rest are mixed-up together, the higher tier the mineral, the more mix-ups you have.
_
EVE GOLDEN RULES | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 08:25:00 -
[29]
Has anyone looked at the relative values of the high-sec ores in relation to this (in terms of isk per m3, as that's what determines mining income). All the high-sec ores offer pretty much the same risk in terms of mining, so there should be no price distortion from that.
While there's always some difference between the ores, it's actually not that large - and from experience the best price seems to move cyclically around the ores - probably because miners don't refresh their assesment of which is the best ore frequently. These cycles seem to correspond well to cycles in the mineral prices.
The coupling array price cap on trit was also showed up clearly in the ore values, with veld sitting significantly below the others. With the price cap removed, I'd expect there to be an adjustment in ore values to bring veld back up to competitiveness, which if memory serves is at around 100isk/m3. This would result in a trit price of 3.3 isk. So I'm expecting we are likely to get close to the shuttle refine cap.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Ray McCormack
hirr
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 08:50:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Akita T
Everything except morphite has a ceiling.
However, only tritanium has a fully independent ceiling, all the rest are mixed-up together, the higher tier the mineral, the more mix-ups you have.
I would presume that all other mineral ceilings are based on the tritanium value alone though.
Proud steward of more public ISK than Motivated Prophet. Ask me about Secured ISK Loans. |
Kitex
Blacktag Test Labs
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 09:33:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Matthew
The coupling array price cap on trit was also showed up clearly in the ore values, with veld sitting significantly below the others. With the price cap removed, I'd expect there to be an adjustment in ore values to bring veld back up to competitiveness, which if memory serves is at around 100isk/m3. This would result in a trit price of 3.3 isk. So I'm expecting we are likely to get close to the shuttle refine cap.
I think your conclusion is correct, but I don't think you're getting there the right way. Veldspar value is a function of trit value, not the opposite.
Originally by: Ray McCormack
Originally by: Akita T
Everything except morphite has a ceiling.
However, only tritanium has a fully independent ceiling, all the rest are mixed-up together, the higher tier the mineral, the more mix-ups you have.
I would presume that all other mineral ceilings are based on the tritanium value alone though.
I can see the pyerite ceiling based on the trit value alone, but not so for the other minerals. As the mineral scales up, its ceiling should be based on the ceilings of all minerals below it in the scale, ie the mexallon ceiling is dependent on the trit and pyerite ceilings, and the megacyte ceiling is dependent on the ceilings of all the lesser minerals. This is based on the assumption that every npc item that refines into megacyte will also yield some quantity of the lesser minerals. There may be exceptions, but it should apply generally to most situations.
Though the trit ceiling may be staring us in the face in short order, I personally don't see us reaching a pyerite ceiling (though I may change my mind if anyone can actually identify it). If we do ever reach the pyerite ceiling and beyond, I can see production and mineral acquisition becoming a mathematical mess. But unless the pyerite ceiling is significantly lower than I'm guessing it is, I don't expect we'll ever see it.
Blacktag - Buy ships / Fittings / Drones / Ammo in BULK with Delivery! |
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 11:37:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Kitex
Originally by: Matthew
The coupling array price cap on trit was also showed up clearly in the ore values, with veld sitting significantly below the others. With the price cap removed, I'd expect there to be an adjustment in ore values to bring veld back up to competitiveness, which if memory serves is at around 100isk/m3. This would result in a trit price of 3.3 isk. So I'm expecting we are likely to get close to the shuttle refine cap.
I think your conclusion is correct, but I don't think you're getting there the right way. Veldspar value is a function of trit value, not the opposite.
Well, really it's a far more complex web of interdependancies that control the price of both items, and these can all work both ways. In terms of considering the single interaction I picked out on it's own, my approach is perfectly valid. Certainly in terms of deciding what to mine, miners look at the value of veld, not the value of trit. While the value of veld is largely constrained by the value of trit, there are other elements which may affect it (though admittedly these factors have limited influence at this point in time).
Originally by: Kitex
I can see the pyerite ceiling based on the trit value alone, but not so for the other minerals. As the mineral scales up, its ceiling should be based on the ceilings of all minerals below it in the scale, ie the mexallon ceiling is dependent on the trit and pyerite ceilings, and the megacyte ceiling is dependent on the ceilings of all the lesser minerals. This is based on the assumption that every npc item that refines into megacyte will also yield some quantity of the lesser minerals. There may be exceptions, but it should apply generally to most situations.
The trouble is that you're also assuming that any item that refines to yield one mineral type will not act as a ceiling on any of the minerals below that. It is entirely possible that the item that forms the Pyerite ceiling would also refine into some mex and nocx (this is a hypothetical item for sake of argument). Clearly the level of that Pyerite ceiling would then depend on the price of mex and nocx, breaking your rule. Now, depending on the levels of mex and nocx produced, it's possible that refining of the ceiling item to meet the pyer demand would put enough mex and nocx on the market to crash the prices of those, which would consequently inrease the pyer ceiling that item represented. Of course, the lower mex and nocx prices, along with the increasing price ceiling on pyer, would also cause a transfer of mining away from plagio and pyro towards scord, which would increase mex and nocx prices again, while pulling pyer prices down. Of course, as soon as pyer prices go down, less of the ceiling item is refined, so supplies of mex and nocx go down, increasing prices again and shifing mining back the other way.
While the item above isn't acting as a real ceiling on mex or nocx, the higher mex and nocx prices go, the lower the pyer ceiling is going to be, and once the pyer ceiling gets low enough, mex and nocx prices are going to be constrained. So it can be seen as acting as a ceiling on mex and nocx prices relative to pyer, as well as an absolute ceiling on pyer.
Predicting the stable state of that sort of interdependant system would certainly be interesting, but not easy. Then there's the question of if the system is stable in the first place, and if it is how long it would take for the oscillations to die down.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Kitex
Blacktag Test Labs
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 15:47:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Matthew
Well, really it's a far more complex web of interdependancies that control the price of both items, and these can all work both ways. In terms of considering the single interaction I picked out on it's own, my approach is perfectly valid. Certainly in terms of deciding what to mine, miners look at the value of veld, not the value of trit. While the value of veld is largely constrained by the value of trit, there are other elements which may affect it (though admittedly these factors have limited influence at this point in time).
Sorry, still not seeing it. The true value of Veld will always be precisely the value of it's refined trit. I acknowledge there may be small percentage points of difference in sale value between veld and trit, but it's still backward to suggest that climbing veld prices will result in higher trit prices.
Originally by: Matthew
The trouble is that you're also assuming that any item that refines to yield one mineral type will not act as a ceiling on any of the minerals below that.
My argument is not dependent on this assumption at all.
Originally by: Matthew
It is entirely possible that the item that forms the Pyerite ceiling would also refine into some mex and nocx (this is a hypothetical item for sake of argument). Clearly the level of that Pyerite ceiling would then depend on the price of mex and nocx, breaking your rule. Now, depending on the levels of mex and nocx produced, it's possible that refining of the ceiling item to meet the pyer demand would put enough mex and nocx on the market to crash the prices of those, which would consequently inrease the pyer ceiling that item represented.
The item that forms the pyerite ceiling technically can NOT contain any higher end minerals. A pyerite ceiling that is dependant on the price of mex and nocx is not a true ceiling. The ceiling can't climb or fall, it is an absolute constant.
Theoretically, mineral ceilings would have to be reached in order. The pyerite ceiling can not be established or reached unless the trit ceiling is reached first. There may be oddball npc-sold items that blow this theory and refine into isogen and nothing else, but I'm not aware of them.
Blacktag - Buy ships / Fittings / Drones / Ammo in BULK with Delivery! |
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 17:43:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Kitex
Sorry, still not seeing it. The true value of Veld will always be precisely the value of it's refined trit. I acknowledge there may be small percentage points of difference in sale value between veld and trit, but it's still backward to suggest that climbing veld prices will result in higher trit prices.
It's not backwards to say that climbing veld prices result in higher trit prices, though really the caveat "in the absence of sufficient alternative trit supply at that price point" should be added (which neatly covers the existence of price cap items). It's the price of veld that controls it's production balance with the other ores, not the price of trit. Yes, in this particular case there is a direct relationship between the price of veld and trit that simplifies the interaction considerably, but that does not invalidate the fact that the relationship can be looked at from both sides. My analysis would still hold if there was another use for veld other than refining it into trit (think of the storyline missions that exchange omber for +3 implants for example), yours would not.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Ki Tarra
Caldari
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 18:46:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Matthew
It's not backwards to say that climbing veld prices result in higher trit prices, though really the caveat "in the absence of sufficient alternative trit supply at that price point" should be added (which neatly covers the existence of price cap items). It's the price of veld that controls it's production balance with the other ores, not the price of trit. Yes, in this particular case there is a direct relationship between the price of veld and trit that simplifies the interaction considerably, but that does not invalidate the fact that the relationship can be looked at from both sides. My analysis would still hold if there was another use for veld other than refining it into trit (think of the storyline missions that exchange omber for +3 implants for example), yours would not.
It is backward to say that Trit prices are controlled by Veld prices. Please stop to think about it. If Veld prices controlled Trit prices there would be no reason for the current rise in Trit prices, as nothing has changed directly with regards to supply or demand on Veld.
It is because Trit prices are dependant on other sources of minerals that have been removed, particularly recycled NPC goods, that the price of Trit is rising.
Remove a key source of Trit and Trit prices will rise and all other sources of Trit will increase with it. Veld is just coming along for the ride. If we still had lower price-fixed source for Trit, Veld prices would have stayed in line.
The price of Veld will follow because it is basicly the same as Trit. The demand for Veld outside of producing Trit is negligable.
**************************
Ki Tech Industries - Bond Offer |
Ricdic
Caldari
Corporate Research And Production Pty Ltd
Zzz
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 18:49:00 -
[36]
You are both basically arguing the same point. Get a room and let's move forward with this discussion.
Need Empire Research Slots. Click here |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 20:32:00 -
[37]
Ok, so, for argument's sake, the PURE FACTS are like this...
Until the "T1 reprocess nerf", people with sufficient skills and standings can and will reprocess just about anything they want without a mineral amount loss compared to perfect build needs for the same item.
Each and every mineral has a base value of 2^(2*MineralTier-1), or in other words 2,8,32,128,512,2048,8192,32768.
NPCs sell products anywhere from 137.5% (Shuttles) to 180% (Strip Miner I) of total base value of "perfect build" materials needed (might be even more or less, just gave two examples).
Ships at least, they are "composed" of roughly equal-value subtotals for each of the minerals.
Let's take a Raven for instance, its base price (and platinum payout) is 108,750,000 ISK
Subtotals (for "perfect build" are 15,155,26(trit) 15,158,416(pye) 15,189,600(mex) 15,170,432(iso) 15,152,64(nocx) 14,458,88(zyd) and 18,464,768(mega)...
...so, roughly 15 mil each except 18+ in mega (14% each and 17% mega).
At the current average market prices however, the distribution is more akin to 23/12/16/9/6/15/6 for 87 mil total... or, in percents, roughly 26%/14%/18%/10%/7%/17%/7%.
_
[CNVTF] is recruiting | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Kitex
Blacktag Test Labs
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 21:29:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Kitex on 14/09/2007 21:30:22
Originally by: Ricdic
You are both basically arguing the same point. Get a room and let's move forward with this discussion.
Not the same point, but an admittedly inconsequential point. I'm certain I'm right, so I'm moving on 
Originally by: Ki Tarra
It is backward to say that Trit prices are controlled by Veld prices.
/highfive Ki Tarra! Though I almost wish you disagreed with me. Some observant forum posters may mistake you for my alt (or vice versa) based on the striking (but coincidental) similarity of my name to your corp name, thereby concluding that we're losers who use alts to support our own forum posts.
I don't mind anyone thinking I'm a loser, but I'd rather it at least be for legitimate reasons
Anyway, back to semi on-topic, I'm still curious about the pyerite price cap. Anyone able to identify it, or narrow it down?
Blacktag - Buy ships / Fittings / Drones / Ammo in BULK with Delivery! |
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 22:51:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Ki Tarra
It is backward to say that Trit prices are controlled by Veld prices. Please stop to think about it. If Veld prices controlled Trit prices there would be no reason for the current rise in Trit prices, as nothing has changed directly with regards to supply or demand on Veld.
It is because Trit prices are dependant on other sources of minerals that have been removed, particularly recycled NPC goods, that the price of Trit is rising.
Which is of course why I added the caveat in my last post about alternative trit supply.
Originally by: Ki Tarra
Remove a key source of Trit and Trit prices will rise and all other sources of Trit will increase with it. Veld is just coming along for the ride. If we still had lower price-fixed source for Trit, Veld prices would have stayed in line.
Of course if the balance between sources of supply remained unchanged veld prices would stay in line.
Remove a key source of trit, and demand for the other sources will increase. The relative abilities of the individual sources, veld included, to fulfill this demand will determine how much of this demand each of those sources supplies, and how the prices of those sources increase in response to this increased demand. The combined price adjustment required in the markets of each individual source to fulfill the increased demand combine to determine the marginal increase required in the price of trit for each unit of extra demand (and this will vary depending on the demand and price levels we're talking about). There is also an effect of demand suppression as the price of trit increases. Eventually it will all find a balance, and that is the new price of trit.
So the supply markets, like Veld, determine things just as much as the trit market itself, and it is perfectly valid to examine the relationship from both sides. I approached it from the veld side as I was specifically investigating the effect of miners transitioning between ores.
Also, when I'm referring to the "veld market", I'm talking about all trit that ends up on the market that originally comes from veld. Most of the veld market supply is "hidden", as it's refined and introduced to the formal market as trit directly, rather than passing through the formal veld market first. Of course, as with the whole "what you mine isn't free" principle, the value of the veld at the veld stage still needs to be taken into account.
Originally by: Ki Tarra
The price of Veld will follow because it is basicly the same as Trit. The demand for Veld outside of producing Trit is negligable.
And it's that which makes both our approaches equivalent in this case. If there was significant demand for veld for other reasons, then the differences in our approaches would become very clear.
Originally by: Akita T
Ships at least, they are "composed" of roughly equal-value subtotals for each of the minerals.
True, but very few of the NPC-sold items (and thus those capable of acting as price caps) are ships. Price-cap items are very likely to introduce an out-of-ratio level of minerals into the market.
Now, if we assumed that universe demand fitted the base ratios (as you've demonstrated the raven does fairly closely) we would expect (taking 1 for morphite): 16384/4096/1024/256/64/16/4/1 ratio of quantities. Splitting into high and low ends and taking percentages gives the same pattern for both groups:
75.3%/18.8%/4.7%/1.2%
And while I know referring to the econ dev blog will probably incur your wrath, and the graphs are hard to read accurately, the graphs of share of mineral trade by quantity seem to indicate that the high ends are following this ratio well. On the other hand, trit tends to be a bit low, with pyer taking up a larger share, and this has got more pronounced recently. Mex and iso look about right (I've eyeballed this, so happy to yield to more accurate pixel-counts etc).
Am interested in any thoughts as to why this might be so.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
|
Pirlouit
Forum Moderator
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 22:59:00 -
[40]
Jita trit price is already at 3.01 buy order....
I sense an opportunity in the trading force.....
Oh and please keep this thread on topic and focused thks...
forum rules | email |
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 23:15:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Matthew
And while I know referring to the econ dev blog will probably incur your wrath, and the graphs are hard to read accurately, the graphs of share of mineral trade by quantity seem to indicate that the high ends are following this ratio well. On the other hand, trit tends to be a bit low, with pyer taking up a larger share, and this has got more pronounced recently. Mex and iso look about right (I've eyeballed this, so happy to yield to more accurate pixel-counts etc).
Quite simple why, actually. Tritanium ALWAYS gets very close to whatever ceiling is imposed on it, so many people that use up tritanium heavily don't rely on market supply but rather self-"production" through reprocessing.
On the other hand, pyerite is very closely linked to tritanium (via modules mostly), and is usually gained massively in "unwanted" quantities as a side-product of NPC loot reprocessing, so it makes perfect sense people try to "dump" it on the market more aggressively.
_
[CNVTF] is recruiting | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 23:38:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Kitex
Edited by: Kitex on 14/09/2007 21:30:22
Originally by: Ricdic
You are both basically arguing the same point. Get a room and let's move forward with this discussion.
Not the same point, but an admittedly inconsequential point. I'm certain I'm right, so I'm moving on
As we're getting the same conclusion, I think we can agree to disagree on how we're getting there
(yes I did spend so long writing my last reply that I missed this  , entire essays ended up routed to dev/null)
Originally by: Akita T
Quite simple why, actually. Tritanium ALWAYS gets very close to whatever ceiling is imposed on it, so many people that use up tritanium heavily don't rely on market supply but rather self-"production" through reprocessing.
On the other hand, pyerite is very closely linked to tritanium (via modules mostly), and is usually gained massively in "unwanted" quantities as a side-product of NPC loot reprocessing, so it makes perfect sense people try to "dump" it on the market more aggressively.
That certainly makes sense, and matches when you compare the quantity graph with the price index graph - the proportion of trit goes down any time there's a long-term flatline in trit prices (which i believe correspond to price caps). Interestingly, trit got nearest to it's base proportion when trit prices were approaching 3 isk per unit (which if memory serves was the last time shuttles were flying off NPC shelves like there was no tomorrow. There was a lot of moaning about NPC price caps back then too - I feel old for remembering that ). Which if Pirlouit's price check is right sounds like the region we're heading for again.
It would certainly be interesting to get those graphs updated frequently, and see whether the trit proportion bounces back up in sync with the price, and then see it bounce back down again as soon as shuttle reprocessing kicks in.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 23:40:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Akita T
P.S. You might want to exclude morphite in your "demand" ratios, and consider Megacyte as "1".
Unfortunately if I do that the percentage proportions aren't then comparable to the high-end graph in the dev blog, which is the only real reason I calculated them in the first place.
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 23:43:00 -
[44]
Well, the demand ratio "thingy" only applies to ship manufacture.
For ammo and other consumables like that, it's not quite the same.
_
[CNVTF] is recruiting | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
|
Posted - 2007.09.14 23:48:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Akita T
Well, the demand ratio "thingy" only applies to ship manufacture.
For ammo and other consumables like that, it's not quite the same.
True, but as soon as you move away from ships, it's all a bit messy, so using something like that as an approximation of the market is a good starting point. What I was trying to determine with comparing the "thingy" with the dev blog graphs was how representative the ship model was of demand as a whole (though I recognise the dev blog graphs themselves have some limitations).
-------
There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines. |
Chainsaw Plankton
|
Posted - 2007.09.15 01:31:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Pirlouit
Jita trit price is already at 3.01 buy order....
I sense an opportunity in the trading force.....
Oh and please keep this thread on topic and focused thks...
that freighter is carrying trit... GANK IT!!!!!
3.00 in the citadel.
hmm time to buy all the trit in a region and start selling for 3 a unit, yay price fixing.... hmm that would cost about 60 million to do, just an eyeball figure,
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 08:20:00 -
[47]
Seems prices have leveled off a bit from what I'm seeing. Perhaps they need to settle for a few days for investors to feel confident enough to invest more to drive the price to 3.5/6
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Kelso Bluebane
Minmatar
Un4seen Development
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 11:54:00 -
[48]
All the presumptions are based on npc prices staying stable. Might be wrong but i'm pretty sure the npc price on shuttles used to be 6,000 isk and was moved to 9,0000 isk, just to stop people reprocessing every shuttle in eve.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 15:41:00 -
[49]
NPC prices fluctuate in time with demand, trend back towards the baseline value, but also a top value regardless of purchases.
_
[CNVTF] is recruiting | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 17:20:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Akita T
NPC prices fluctuate in time with demand, trend back towards the baseline value, but also a top value regardless of purchases.
Don't they only fluctuate up to 10%-20% or so? The value listed in the database being the cap value?
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 20:27:00 -
[51]
Baseline NPC sell value is around 120-180% of base price, depending on item.
Baseline NPC buy value is around 40-60% of base price, again depending on item.
"Trade goods" (non-refineable) are an exception to that rule, getting sold under and bought over base price, depending on NPC corp.
_
[CNVTF] is recruiting | Char creation guide | Stack-nerfing explained |
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2007.09.16 20:32:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Akita T
Baseline NPC sell value is around 120-180% of base price, depending on item.
Baseline NPC buy value is around 40-60% of base price, again depending on item.
"Trade goods" (non-refineable) are an exception to that rule, getting sold under and bought over base price, depending on NPC corp.
Ok... if you look up a capital component BPO's listed value in the database and remove 10% from that number you get the price NPC's actually sell it for if I remembered correctly. I suppose it makes sense that refinable items sell for much higher amounts though...
Tanking Setups Compared
Stacking Penalty / Resists Explained |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |