EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Dr. EyjoG and the fight for the Economy.

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Dr. EyjoG and the fight for the Economy.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)

CCP Saint C C P	Posted - 2008.04.17 15:03:00 - [1] Have we completely lost our mind? Removing NPC sell orders on shuttles? How on earth are you supposed to travel around EVE without shuttles if you donÆt like the color of your ship? WonÆt shuttles end up costing a fortune? A fear not dear plebeian, our very own economist, Dr. EyjoG, is here to explain just why we did this and how you can still roam the galaxy even if you canÆt always find a shuttle. As an added bonus the good doctor will also explain the importance of Veldspar (stop drooling, Chribba) and how manufacturing and selling shuttles can be the next big thing in the world of EVE. Head over and read all about it in Shuttles no longer sold by NPCs. Saint Community Representative CCP Games, EVE Online Email / Netfang Do Not Click Here "Contrary to what most people say, the most dangerous animal in the world is not the lion or the tiger or even the elephant. It's a shark riding on an elephant's back, just trampling and eating everything they see." Owner of the most green grey beanie ever. P.S. This is green.

ThisAlt IsUseless	Posted - 2008.04.17 15:16:00 - [2] nice
Gold Rogers Solitude Empires United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.17 15:20:00 - [3] Sounds interesting
Louis DelaBlanche Cosmic Odyssey Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.04.17 15:35:00 - [4] I sense a Chribba related conspiracy at the real heart of this change
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.04.17 15:44:00 - [5] Good to see that the good Doctor is still alive! Good blog, right to the bone and all that. Moar blogs with my favorite dev please!
Manfred Rickenbocker The Elliance Delta.Green	Posted - 2008.04.17 15:48:00 - [6] Perhaps now we can get invention runs on shuttle BPOs to make T2 shuttles? ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times.
Kappas. Galaxy Punks Black Core Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.17 16:27:00 - [7] Awesome
LancerSix Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2008.04.17 16:29:00 - [8] This is actually one of the smarter changes made to EVE in recent memory. I've had a lot of RL friends that wanted to join EVE, but quickly lost their way and quit due to the inability to make any real money out of the gates. Some of them I ended up just giving handouts and paying for their gear (I, at the time, was Torp Raven ratting in Fountain ), but that sort of defeats the whole purpose of playing the game in the first place. This is a damn smart change, it will probably cause a bit of inflation (production costs go up, profit margins on T1 gear already effectively nill, prices go up), but in the long run it makes it far friendlier to newbies who don't know 0.0 PVP Alliance members.
Vek NaVek	Posted - 2008.04.17 16:37:00 - [9] Fight for the economy .. really? CCP Chronotis said 4 months ago: Quote: We do agree that the demand for components will only increase due to invention removing the limiting factor of a fixed original blueprint supply and new tech II ships being introduced. This has warranted a fresh look at the moon mining and construction component processes which has been ongoing for a while since we first confirmed we were introducing so many new ships and also making some big changes to invention which have lead to a very in-depth look at the industry from top to bottom. Linkage What about putting that Doctor brain of your into a higher gear, and comment on some of the more complex issues of the market, rather than the babystep attempt of removing a trit price cap. Notice I didn't say do something, just comment on it
Potes Amarr Dkiller Delta Force Corp. CORPVS DELICTI	Posted - 2008.04.17 16:38:00 - [10] Dr. EyjoG... i really love this guy! good move on behalf of ccp 4 getting him involved! Onwards with EyjoG! potes
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand	Posted - 2008.04.17 16:57:00 - [11] My shuttle BPOs and I support this change 100%.
Princess Morenta Minmatar Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.04.17 16:57:00 - [12] Quite a stupid change... Who will buy a shuttle now when you can get a free rookie ship and fit some mods to improve your survivability? Shouldve just removed refine amounts from shuttles but as usual ccp sledgehammers the solution.
Hebik Fane Havoc Inc	Posted - 2008.04.17 17:38:00 - [13] Originally by: Princess Morenta Quite a stupid change... Who will buy a shuttle now when you can get a free rookie ship and fit some mods to improve your survivability? Shouldve just removed refine amounts from shuttles but as usual ccp sledgehammers the solution. Shuttles have significant speed and sig radius advantages over rookie ships. --------------------------------------------- Havoc Inc
Paddlefoot Aeon Neogen Industries Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.04.17 17:57:00 - [14] While I think that a ready/unlimited supply of tritanium (as supplied by the shuttles) gave us was bad, I still stand by what I wrote in my thread on how this breaks the risk/reward model for EVE. Now Recruiting. Join "Neogen" channel for details
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.04.17 18:19:00 - [15] Originally by: Princess Morenta Quite a stupid change... Who will buy a shuttle now when you can get a free rookie ship and fit some mods to improve your survivability? Shouldve just removed refine amounts from shuttles but as usual ccp sledgehammers the solution. by your logic why would you get a shuttle before change? rookie ships have always been free.
SPIONKOP Caldari Imperial Technology	Posted - 2008.04.17 18:22:00 - [16] You could have put the price up rather than simply remove them. I make stuff and simply can't be arsed making shuttles that take up valuble factory slots and market slots. To much like hard work for very little reward.
Romanee Conti	Posted - 2008.04.17 18:40:00 - [17] Removing the ability to reprocess Shuttle would have led to the same effects, without removing the convinience of finding a shuttle everywhere. Smart move ? Mindless move I'd say !
Aslann Gallente Win and God	Posted - 2008.04.17 18:41:00 - [18] Another great example of devs having no ******* clue how the game works, great that there is warp to zero and free rookie ships, but if you want to autopilot a lot of jumps a shuttle is vastly superior to the rookie ship, as their speed is way higher. ______________________
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.04.17 18:43:00 - [19] Quote: But again, the beautiful workings of the invisible hand will help us (thank you Adam Smith) due to the greed we have for ISK. With higher tritanium prices, mining of veldspar will become very profitable, and since it is readily available in safe areas, needing only low cost equipment to mine, we should see the veldspar flowing very soon and tritanium prices stabilize, but at what level? At this point your guess is just as good as mine. The macro miners who mine a signifiant part of the high-sec ores mined each day are sooo going to love that... While I agree the price cap had to go, there are some things that are more a bit more pressing. For example, the 100+ billions that a handfull of alliances make each month with the moons of a single region. Or why, more than 6 months after the low supply of dysprosium bacame apparent, you still haven't done anything about it. ------------------------------------------
Zaiyo Modi	Posted - 2008.04.17 18:49:00 - [20] The blog didn't say anything about number of titans or motherships were produced did it? :D
Ishina Fel Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2008.04.17 19:34:00 - [21] A good change overall. Let us hope that the fight against RMT progresses well enough to avoid macro-miners profiting from theoretically increasing tritanium prices.
Silver Night Caldari Naqam	Posted - 2008.04.17 19:49:00 - [22] Originally by: Aslann Another great example of devs having no ******* clue how the game works, great that there is warp to zero and free rookie ships, but if you want to autopilot a lot of jumps a shuttle is vastly superior to the rookie ship, as their speed is way higher. And pretty much anywhere you should be auto-piloting (read: Not 0.0 or low sec) you should be able to find a cheap tech 1 frigate and a couple ODs and go even faster than a shuttle. Only reason to AP is if you are afk. And if you are afk anyway, why do you care that it takes a little longer?
Alz Shado Ever Flow	Posted - 2008.04.17 19:51:00 - [23] Originally by: Hebik Fane Shuttles have significant speed and sig radius advantages over rookie ships. Except it appears that shuttles do not, in fact, tank very well. As a result, the alt spy who loses a shuttle will now have a much more difficult time replacing it. This might even lead to a downward trend in the use of alt spies in shuttles.
Myrdyr	Posted - 2008.04.17 20:17:00 - [24] Call me lazy, but what's the price cap lifted to, and by what module?
Becq Starforged Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.04.17 20:21:00 - [25] This seems pointless to me; it will just mean that the new price support moves up a bit, to the next best NPC-produced refinable, and has the cost of making shuttles unavailable in any low-populated area. Instead of this, the refine value of shuttles -- and all other NPC-built refinables -- should have been dropped, as was done with bombs (ie, the ones allegedly used on stealth bombers).
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2008.04.17 21:24:00 - [26] Dr. EyjoG, can you please explain, why you didn¦t change the mineral composition of shuttles? Each other ship consists of at least 4-5 minerals, only the shuttle is completly made out of trit. If this would be changed, you could still sell shuttles by NPCs without any problems with the trit-price. Btw: The building time of a shuttle is too long to make profit out of it (with selling at reasonable prices)
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.04.17 22:41:00 - [27] The part I haven't heard a good explanation for yet is what prevents the market from simply finding another cap based off some other fixed price NPC module? Seems like a better (and more consistent) solution would have simply been to remove NPC sell orders for refinable items completly rather then one particular item that does wonders for convience.
Mara Rinn Minmatar	Posted - 2008.04.17 22:50:00 - [28] Edited by: Mara Rinn on 17/04/2008 22:51:34 I, for one, welcome our new player-driven-economy overlords! edit: FWIW, I prefer scooting around with my Slasher, even for one-way trips. Every now and then I get the Hoarder out and pick up the two or three frigates I've got lying around the place (along with the ammo, books and modules).
Poco Curante Blueprint Haus Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.04.17 22:56:00 - [29] Good. Excellent. Thank you!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.18 00:53:00 - [30] Quote: The benefit from removing this price cap is that the price of tritanium will be more in line with the underlying demand for tritanium at any given time. This makes the mining industry more profitable in the long run and will balance the benefits between mining and other professions in EVE. The problem is that this is just plain not true. The cap on trit was holding up the other minerals this increased their profitability. Mining Bistot is likely still going to be more profitable than mining veldspar. Because of this the cap was a net benefit to miners who could mine bistot, sell bistot at a rate above the mining rate of tritanium, then buy and refine shuttles netting more tritanium with less effort. Ergo mining nerf. If the prices on other things don't move and only trit increases then its simply a general nerf to the economy, by increasing the cost of all ships. This is a relative advantage to people flying tech 2 ships and using tech 2 items[since the base price of the ship has very little correlation to the cost of the final item] Dr. E is confusing "effect" with benefit and clearly doesn't understand domestic markets with imports and exports Why? Well, the best model for eves economy is as a domestic market with importers and exporters selling at fixed prices[so its equilibrium foreign markets]. I.E. NPCs. When you remove the ability of these foreign markets to trade with our domestic market you decrease the general welfare of the entire population. To put this in language Dr. E can understand, you just put a Tariff or Quota on tritanium and tariffs and quotas are universally bad because they disrupt the free market.
Haradgrim Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION	Posted - 2008.04.18 01:32:00 - [31] This Dev blog delivers. Notices Chribba dancing in a corner -- Originally by: CCP Oveur ...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed
Montaire Genbuku. Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.04.18 03:44:00 - [32] Just bear with the change for a while and I think people will be really happy. A lot of thought went into this, and the economy as a whole will benefit long term from this and other changes.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.18 04:15:00 - [33] Originally by: Montaire Just bear with the change for a while and I think people will be really happy. A lot of thought went into this, and the economy as a whole will benefit long term from this and other changes. No, it won't, and if you think that it will you are a terrible economist. There is no economy in the world that is going to get "better" by turning off a machine that takes money[and it doesn't even need physical cash! It can simply destroy money in bank accounts] and turned it into electricity[or rather an externality free energy or material] at a cost lower than the current production costs for that economy absent that device. Its as hair-brained as thinking that trade is bad in the general case[and hey, in this case, that is exactly the model that shows us why this machine is good!] This is at best an explicit a balance change away from high end mining[with a possible reduction in the number and size of ships produced to tack onto that], and at worst, a balance change to make everything produced more expensive while also being a nerf to high end mining. But if they really wanted to make everything more expensive they could have just increased the isk faucets. This would cause inflation which would drive prices up, but since trit couldn't increase much past its cap the other high ends would increase to compensate. This would have the effect of making high end mining[and other high end production] lucrative again and push the cost of t1 ships above insurance. Short answer "No, its not good for the 'economy', and its likely not even decent for typical game balance goals"
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2008.04.18 05:37:00 - [34] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Montaire Just bear with the change for a while and I think people will be really happy. A lot of thought went into this, and the economy as a whole will benefit long term from this and other changes. No, it won't, and if you think that it will you are a terrible economist. There is no economy in the world that is going to get "better" by turning off a machine that takes money[and it doesn't even need physical cash! It can simply destroy money in bank accounts] and turned it into electricity[or rather an externality free energy or material] at a cost lower than the current production costs for that economy absent that device. Its as hair-brained as thinking that trade is bad in the general case[and hey, in this case, that is exactly the model that shows us why this machine is good!] This is at best an explicit a balance change away from high end mining[with a possible reduction in the number and size of ships produced to tack onto that], and at worst, a balance change to make everything produced more expensive while also being a nerf to high end mining. But if they really wanted to make everything more expensive they could have just increased the isk faucets. This would cause inflation which would drive prices up, but since trit couldn't increase much past its cap the other high ends would increase to compensate. This would have the effect of making high end mining[and other high end production] lucrative again and push the cost of t1 ships above insurance. Short answer "No, its not good for the 'economy', and its likely not even decent for typical game balance goals" I could say it again but he said it better trits been going up and pretty much everything else has been going down. veldspar was damn close to the best ore to mine in empire, and now theres a damn good chance of it becoming the best choice to mine in empire. not to even mention the ores in lowsec, where veld is still better than most stuff... omber or jaspet anyone?
Hugh Ruka Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.04.18 05:59:00 - [35] Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 18/04/2008 06:04:29 Hmm I think I support what Goumindong said. The price of tritanium will take to the next cap and all items dependant on it will increase in price. This will reduce the profit of builders, as fewer people will buy the new priced ships, so price has to go lower and this is only possible by reducing the highend mineral prices - nerf to highend miners. Also shuttles were a damn convenient thing. I'd advice the nice doctor to go out and try to mine tritanium needed for a Raven (just to take the most popular ship). I am not a very skilled miner, but hold mining with a Hulk a few hours a day, it took me almost a week to mine enough trit for a Dominix. So this will also have a secondary effect where you pay for the time invested. Tritanium requirements in some cases are very high and just the time it takes to get hold of the amount of trit will make it expensive. Waiting for the patch that patches the last patch ...

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2008.04.18 06:31:00 - [36] Dr. EyjoG delivers! Moar Veldspar blogs! Can't talk must mine moar! Secure 3rd party service ■ Do you Veldspar?

Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.04.18 06:35:00 - [37] Originally by: Hugh Ruka Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 18/04/2008 06:04:29 Hmm I think I support what Goumindong said. The price of tritanium will take to the next cap and all items dependant on it will increase in price. This will reduce the profit of builders, as fewer people will buy the new priced ships, so price has to go lower and this is only possible by reducing the highend mineral prices - nerf to highend miners. Also shuttles were a damn convenient thing. I'd advice the nice doctor to go out and try to mine tritanium needed for a Raven (just to take the most popular ship). I am not a very skilled miner, but hold mining with a Hulk a few hours a day, it took me almost a week to mine enough trit for a Dominix. So this will also have a secondary effect where you pay for the time invested. Tritanium requirements in some cases are very high and just the time it takes to get hold of the amount of trit will make it expensive. I'm in general agreement with this. I'm not particularly happy that this is a nerf to 0.0 mining* (although I can live with that), but I'm basically livid about the loss of shuttles in Empire. They were damn handy and rookie ships/pods are not a good replacement because they're so slow. If you want to remove the trit cap that's fine, but getting rid of NPC sold (read: widely available) shuttles was a bad idea. * I'm not looking forward to Zyd/Mega crashing in the coming months ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Garia666 Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E White Core	Posted - 2008.04.18 08:06:00 - [38] this is a chriba boost..
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2008.04.18 08:29:00 - [39] Originally by: Goumindong edit: You need to understand that everything you are doing with regards to the economy is a balance change and not an economic change. Making economic change for the sake of economic changes does not work in a system where the gods could come down and spawn stuff for everyone[I.E. the devs could add stuff to the game for everyone]. Indeed, in a virtual economy such as eve, maximum economic welfare would be achieved by spawning everything on the market in every station in infinite quantities for 0 isk per unit. It is a game design decision that Eve's economy should have as little "produced" via the magic wand as possible. Economic decisions can then be made within those constraints. Personally, I think people are vastly overestimating the effect shuttles were having in the current trit market. Yes, in the past trit prices have reached the shuttle cap and shuttle-produced trit had a massive effect. But that was not happening at the moment. Removal of the shuttle-supplied trit, and increased demand for trit for making shuttles will have an impact, but that impact is only going to be 0.5% of traded trit quantity at most (check my recent posts for postings of the maths behind this). Yes, the existance of the cap will have chopped off the top of the market where it was cheaper to buy&refine shuttles than set the buy order to a price that would get someone to ship it in for you. The evidence of shuttle sale volumes indicates that this is a negligable part of the trit market. Yes, with the cap removed, the highest prices on the market will be higher. But these higher prices will be for relatively small volumes, and will have a negligible effect on the overall clearing price of the market. The other effect of lifting the cap will be to generate room for more market speculation. This will undoubtably lead to a more volatile trit market (as we are seeing right now), but it should not be able to push up the trit clearing price in the long term. Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton veldspar was damn close to the best ore to mine in empire, and now theres a damn good chance of it becoming the best choice to mine in empire. not to even mention the ores in lowsec, where veld is still better than most stuff... omber or jaspet anyone? If the trit price moves as you expect it to, then this will exaserbate the problem. But that's all - the problem was already there. It's going back to one of my pet peeves, the link between ore quality and mineral quantity. If you decouple the quality of ore from the quality of mineral (i.e. SuperVeld etc), then this problem goes away. While it would have been nice for both changes to be made at the same time, hopefully this will make the need more obvious and urgent, and get it done.
Ambien Torca	Posted - 2008.04.18 10:04:00 - [40] Make Civilian Afterburners refine to nothing as well if you want to really change trit prices. Those are currently cheapest source.
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.04.18 10:25:00 - [41] Edited by: Kerfira on 18/04/2008 10:32:09 Great change. Anything that makes the EVE player-driven market bigger is good! Now, there's more work to be done. Get going on: 1. All the other refinable and player buildable NPC sold items. There's no reason to have those with NPC's either. 2. Remove the price FLOOR on minerals by removing insurance (and get rid of a large ISK faucet too). :facepalm: Civilian Afterburners...... Same refine as shuttles..... Just go through all NPC sold items and if they refine, remove them from NPC's!
Hamfast Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.18 12:36:00 - [42] Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 18/04/2008 10:32:09 Great change. Anything that makes the EVE player-driven market bigger is good! Now, there's more work to be done. Get going on: 1. All the other refinable and player buildable NPC sold items. There's no reason to have those with NPC's either. 2. Remove the price FLOOR on minerals by removing insurance (and get rid of a large ISK faucet too). :facepalm: Civilian Afterburners...... Same refine as shuttles..... Just go through all NPC sold items and if they refine, remove them from NPC's! Or, if like Civilian Afterburners, they can't be built... remove the refine part... --------*****-------- Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter... So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
Paddlefoot Aeon Neogen Industries Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2008.04.18 14:44:00 - [43] Lets rephrase it this way: 1. Mining is highsec should be pretty safe 2. Mining in lowsec should be dangerous 3. Mining in 0.0 should be very dangerous 1.1 - Highsec is rich in Trit, Pyerite, and some Mex. 2.1 - Lowsec has the above, plus good sources for Isogen and Nocxium 3.1 - 0.0 has both of the above, plus Zydrine, Megacyte and Morphite. I remember in December 2005 (when I started playing), prices were as follows: Trit: less than 2 isk Pyerite: ~4 isk Megacyte: ~ 8-10 isk Isogen: 100-110 isk Nocxium: ~500 isk Zydrine: 3900-4200 isk Megacyte: 4600-4900 isk Morphite: ~10,000 isk... though there was not demand for this due to 0.0 T2 cartels. If you look at those prices, and what minerals were available in which areas of space, you get: 1.3 - Highsec being safe, but not that profitable 2.3 - Lowsec being dangerous, but you could nicely clean up on Isogen and Nocx 3.3 - 0.0 being very dangerous, but a proper mining op with a tank and scouts could pull in great ISK. So... the riskier you got, the more ISK you could stand to make. Lets look at today: While 0.0 still remains the best ISK/hour location for mining, 2 things have upset the balance: A. Trit greatly increasing in price B. Isogen and Nocxium greatly dropping in value As it stands now (in the ISK per m3 calculations), veldspar is worth more than any roid found in lowsec. So here is the current situtation: 1.4 - Highsec is mostly safe, and fairly profitable 2.4 - Lowsec is dangerous, and is not as profitable as highsec 3.4 - 0.0 is the most profitable mining area, but far below previous levels. Doing anything to constrict the supply of trit will only serve to further imbalance this risk/reward model. Now, I agree that minerals should come from miners, and I agree that price caps are bad (free market ftw). But since the Devs are Removing the economy's method of producing large amounts of trit (from shuttles), another mechanic has to be introduced to allow people to mine larger amounds of trit over a particular time period. Give a mining barge (skiff, lets say) a role bonus to trit mining. And while you are at it, increase the capacity of Veld roids so that they don't pop in 2 cycles. Seed way more trit in the game (by increasing veld quantity), so that you still need miners to meet supply (not just perfect refiners). Cut the Nocx and Isogen quantities dropped from Rogue Drones, in an attempt to help lowsec recover some profitability. Again, I agree with all the reasons that NPC shuttle orders were removed. BUT... the side effects of this decision need to be addressed. I eagerly await the dev blog announcing this solution. Now Recruiting. Join "Neogen" channel for details
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.18 15:11:00 - [44] Originally by: Matthew Indeed, in a virtual economy such as eve, maximum economic welfare would be achieved by spawning everything on the market in every station in infinite quantities for 0 isk per unit. It is a game design decision that Eve's economy should have as little "produced" via the magic wand as possible. Economic decisions can then be made within those constraints. Which is why its not an "economic" decision its a balance decision. And seen in that light its quite perplexing considering the effects its going to have[a reduction in the profits of high end mining] when there are other "better"[defined as creating an ideal environment as defined via risk and reward payoffs]options that could have been enacted Quote: The trit cap wasn't binding If the trit cap wasn't binding[and it very likely was] then removing shuttles will have zero effect on the economy and all it will do is remove shuttles from the market Vote Goumindong for CSM
Letrange Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2008.04.18 15:33:00 - [45] 1st) Good blog Dr.E 2nd) I love how all the people who depended on subsidized tritanium (which is essentialy what the trit cap did) are *****ing that it's the worst change ever.
Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2008.04.18 15:53:00 - [46] Edited by: Letouk Mernel on 18/04/2008 15:53:35 The tritanium cap has been raised from 3.6 to 3.8 (civilian afterburners). A 0.20 ISK "lift". Whoop-de-do.
Letrange Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2008.04.18 16:48:00 - [47] Originally by: Letouk Mernel Edited by: Letouk Mernel on 18/04/2008 15:53:35 The tritanium cap has been raised from 3.6 to 3.8 (civilian afterburners). A 0.20 ISK "lift". Whoop-de-do. Well the previous cap was 2.4. At some point CPP is just going to have to bite the bullet and remove all caps by seeding all refine-able items as BPOs.
Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2008.04.18 17:29:00 - [48] They probably are working on that. As far as I know, Civilian modules were involved in some pre-Trinity newbie quests (as in., the newbie had to buy a civilian module in order to learn how the market works). I think they can just remove them now (though they are nice for less-than-a-month-old newbies). Next scheduled patch. CCP is very reluctant to do emergency patches, even when it seems obvious (to us) that something should be patched right away. Maybe they disagree with us about priorities. In any case, we can increase the pressure by being derisive whenever they make "oops" mistakes like this, and otherwise *****ing up a storm on the forums, and that's about the only thing we can do. I petitioned about Civ AB's the day of the shuttle patch, cause it seemed like they missed it, and figured they might want to fix it right away. Didn't post here until others figured it out (and posted about it). I colored my statement about the 0.2 ISK increase in yellow to bring contrast to all the players above who were praising Dr. Eyjog's changes as revolutionary. The idea is, the implementation isn't. Nor is this type of "oops" a first occurrence. Anyway, moving on.
Dav Varan	Posted - 2008.04.18 17:38:00 - [49] So the producers who pay more fot there trit will pass the cost on to there consumers. so while miners may make more isk they will need to spend more isk to buy there ships and lasers. will the miners still be happy when they pay 30 - 40M for there covetors ? Havnt you just removed a barrier to inflation ?
Danari Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.04.18 18:00:00 - [50] Welcome to EVE Online, where our motto is never use a scalpel when you have a perfectly good chainsaw. This is ******* stupid. All that was needed was to change the npc order to sell shuttles one at a time.
Aslann Gallente Win and God	Posted - 2008.04.18 19:10:00 - [51] Edited by: Aslann on 18/04/2008 19:11:09 Originally by: Silver Night And pretty much anywhere you should be auto-piloting (read: Not 0.0 or low sec) you should be able to find a cheap tech 1 frigate and a couple ODs and go even faster than a shuttle. Only reason to AP is if you are afk. And if you are afk anyway, why do you care that it takes a little longer? No, at best they will be as fast as a shuttle (except maybe the slasher), but the frigate alone will twice as expensive as the shuttle at least (and most frigates over 10 times). Plus not everybody can fly all races frigates so you are dependent on what you can fly, plus t1 frigates and OD's are hardly sold at every station. And the speed does matter, just because you are AFK doesnt mean the time it takes is irrelevant. If I'm AFK flying somewhere while eating, I'd like to be at my destination when I'm done, and not being only 1/4th-1/2 way there because my ship/pod is slow as ****. Shuttles you'd easily trash if you didn't need em anymore, 100-200k costing frigates on the other hand.
plasmaster Cryogenic Consultancy Black Sun Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.18 19:40:00 - [52] why didnt they tell us this ahead of time! all the shuttles i had instantly sold so i lost tons of possible isk. not nice either as the shuttles i had there were a service to teh eve community cause i was selling at a normal price in a place where there were no shuttles. Wish there was some sort of buy limit we could add like stores run (limit of 3 per person per day or something - which as other people said could have been applied to npcs as well). so i guess my customers in that low sec area are gonna have to deal with whatever price the dude that bought mine sets them at. i understand this situation could have happened before this shuttle thing but im pretty sure this is the reason cause it happened exactly teh same day.
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.04.18 20:53:00 - [53] Originally by: Danari This is ***** stupid. All that was needed was to change the npc order to sell shuttles one at a time. No. This is a GOOD move! With one stroke, CCP removed a source of non-mined trit (now they just need to do the other ones) since most shuttles eventually would be reprocessed, they created a player-driven market where none was possible before, and they reduced a price cap on an important resource (now they just need to remove the price floor set by insurance). With your 'solution', only the last would (partially) happen. This even has the advantage that the market opened up is most attractive to new builders (due to the limited profit per unit). Again, a very good move by CCP, now they just need to follow up on it for the other NPC-sold refinable items and insurance. Originally by:** CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Draekas Darkwater Moons of Pluto	Posted - 2008.04.19 00:44:00 - [54] I still think that getting rid of the convenience of shuttles is a huge negative in my book. Travel is long and annoying enough in the game.. there was no need to make it worse. Removing the Trit subsidies are fine.. remove all of them for all minerals, and let the market sort it out. Then you can work on balancing the risk/reward or whatever from high/low/null sec mining, AFTER these artificial controls are history. Frankly, I'd like to see low sec having the best mining, and null sec having the best moon mining. But that's another discussion. =P However, if the poster above is correct and civ afterburners refine into 3.8 trit, as opposed to shuttle's 3.6, then this is just a really stupid change in isolation. Really, REALLY stupid.
Daan Sai HAZCON Inc	Posted - 2008.04.19 05:05:00 - [55] The civ afterburner cost 216 isk and refines to 60 trit with perfect refine, so theoretically it is 3.6 isk as well. They are only available in quanties (8.333 million! tho) at noob school stations, so they are not as wide spread as shuttles were by a long shot. Also most people could expect to get 50 or more trit due to lower skills and standing, so 3.8-4.0 is more likely, getting 7 standing with the noob schools just for trit might be a pain :)
adriaans Amarr Advanced Capital Ship Designs Hephaestus Rising	Posted - 2008.04.19 12:22:00 - [56] Originally by: Paddlefoot Aeon Lets rephrase it this way: 1. Mining is highsec should be pretty safe 2. Mining in lowsec should be dangerous 3. Mining in 0.0 should be very dangerous 1.1 - Highsec is rich in Trit, Pyerite, and some Mex. 2.1 - Lowsec has the above, plus good sources for Isogen and Nocxium 3.1 - 0.0 has both of the above, plus Zydrine, Megacyte and Morphite. I remember in December 2005 (when I started playing), prices were as follows: Trit: less than 2 isk Pyerite: ~4 isk Megacyte: ~ 8-10 isk Isogen: 100-110 isk Nocxium: ~500 isk Zydrine: 3900-4200 isk Megacyte: 4600-4900 isk Morphite: ~10,000 isk... though there was not demand for this due to 0.0 T2 cartels. If you look at those prices, and what minerals were available in which areas of space, you get: 1.3 - Highsec being safe, but not that profitable 2.3 - Lowsec being dangerous, but you could nicely clean up on Isogen and Nocx 3.3 - 0.0 being very dangerous, but a proper mining op with a tank and scouts could pull in great ISK. So... the riskier you got, the more ISK you could stand to make. Lets look at today: While 0.0 still remains the best ISK/hour location for mining, 2 things have upset the balance: A. Trit greatly increasing in price B. Isogen and Nocxium greatly dropping in value As it stands now (in the ISK per m3 calculations), veldspar is worth more than any roid found in lowsec. So here is the current situtation: 1.4 - Highsec is mostly safe, and fairly profitable 2.4 - Lowsec is dangerous, and is not as profitable as highsec 3.4 - 0.0 is the most profitable mining area, but far below previous levels. Doing anything to constrict the supply of trit will only serve to further imbalance this risk/reward model. Now, I agree that minerals should come from miners, and I agree that price caps are bad (free market ftw). But since the Devs are Removing the economy's method of producing large amounts of trit (from shuttles), another mechanic has to be introduced to allow people to mine larger amounds of trit over a particular time period. Give a mining barge (skiff, lets say) a role bonus to trit mining. And while you are at it, increase the capacity of Veld roids so that they don't pop in 2 cycles. Seed way more trit in the game (by increasing veld quantity), so that you still need miners to meet supply (not just perfect refiners). Cut the Nocx and Isogen quantities dropped from Rogue Drones, in an attempt to help lowsec recover some profitability. Again, I agree with all the reasons that NPC shuttle orders were removed. BUT... the side effects of this decision need to be addressed. I eagerly await the dev blog announcing this solution. This! :D instead of goign ahead with 0.0 plans we may just as well stay mining trit in high sec now.... mining trit also pays better than almost ALL lvl 4 missions... much stuff using trit will rise madly in price too i think...i hope not though...stuf is expensive enough as it is, i don't want to see cruisers costing 50 mill, battlecruiser 500 mill etc (ok overdone example but you get the point). -sig- Support the introduction of Blaze M crystals for Amarr!
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.04.19 15:46:00 - [57] Edited by: Kerfira on 19/04/2008 15:46:40 Originally by: adriaans mining trit also pays better than almost ALL lvl 4 missions... This is only true if you're INCREDIBLY inefficient at running L4's. Using a top skilled, top fitted Raven pilot at L4 missions versus using a top skilled, top fitted Hulk pilot at mining Veldspar, you still earn 3-4x or more doing missions. Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2008.04.19 21:59:00 - [58] Ug, great backhand nerf to 0.0 and especially to LowSec. This shuttle deal now only makes sense to me if you make the WILD ASSUMPTION that other changes are coming to all (very low end) npc sold mods and to LowSec rewards. PITA QOL nerf to joe average though, tbh.
floater666	Posted - 2008.04.20 12:43:00 - [59] One question awaiting an answere: Why would we want to subsidize space travel through NPC corporations at the expense of the mining "profession"? The price evolution of trit in the last couple of days showed no real improvement for the mining "profession"(or the most borring thing in EVE) eventhough a lot of speculative buying was going on that will have to become sell orders sooner or later. So here are some real answeres for the question: -This is a computer game meant to be convinient, fun. Also if you want new player base you cannot build upon already addicted "junkie" players, so yes convinience is a huge factor. -You would subsidize it as you still subsidize death; Why not make cloning, clone making a player based business? You would have to make contract for clone with a clone manufacturing player corp that may or may not have clone bays at your next planned reborn place.They would have to produce clones... Yeah it would be a big hassle for the average player costumer, but right now you are subsidizing reborn at the expense of industrialists. The list could go on. -The dear doctor of economics likes to bring real world economics to EVE. So I have a HINT: Most of the countries, municipalies do subsidize mass transportation. Becasue it would be not "fair" that if you lived in a sparseley populated area you had to pay much more for the trasportation in a full ADAM SMITH economy. I dont know how old is the dear professor, but the super capitalist, ADAM SMITH and friends economic model theories are outdated by many decades. But I repeat again this is a GAME that should be fun for non addicts as well. So keep out most of the **** of RL world if it is possible, thanks. Traveling is already the second most borring thing in EVE after mining, why did you want to force us into noob ships with 3AU warp speed instead of 6AU of the shuttles? I think you guys(DEVS) should make again a reality check that this is a game, and some of the things of a RL economy should not be transcribed to EVE. After all we all have our RL with its good and bad sides, have we? PS: If you really want industrialist to supply shuttles even at remote low player density areas, you have to make their repackaged size much smaller.
BlondieBC Minmatar Ardent Industrial Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.20 13:33:00 - [60] I rate this effort a ***FAIL*** CCP, please do your homework on changes next time. You should have also fixed the civilian afterburner, and whatever else is a trit cap. Over 20 million units of civilian afterburners (1.2 Billion) units of trit were secured from NPC orders in Forge. Please make civilian items non-reprocessable, immediately.
Caligulus Legion of Lost Souls Ivy League	Posted - 2008.04.20 21:51:00 - [61] I say we create a petition to change the good doctor's title to "Dr. Dumbass". How does someone of such a title and someone with a "database query" fail to use such a powerful and simple tool to find ALL NPC items that are propagating the 3.6 isk tritanium price ceiling? It boggles the mind how dumb some of the developers and educated individuals are at CCP. Not only did you utterly FAIL to solve the simple problem you had but you ingeniously inconvenience the player base because of your vast incompetence. Every change the developers of this game make the more respect they lose from the community. ------------------------------------------------- ** You're out of your mind! ** Well that's between me and my mind.
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.04.21 15:39:00 - [62] sigh This is an example of where a CCP response would be a really good thing. Players found a massive hole in either the reasons or implementation of a change.... silence on CCP's part communicates one of a small set of things: (1) There was actually a different reason that they do not wish to mention, thus the logic is sound but the goal is something else. (2) They realize the mistake but do not wish to appear 'wrong' and thus show weakness. (3) They don't care and have moved on to other things. Notice none of those are positive? Silence allows people to read the worst in. Unfortunately immediately jumping to OTHER topics in the dev blog doesn't help much. It's the same tactic a politician uses mid-scandal. It's true removing shuttles isn't a 'huge' deal, it's not a make or break change.. but it's such a stinging example of where the feedback loop seems very broken,..... CCP made a change that, after some basic player research, doesn't make sense... doesn't match the explanation, and CCP ends up simply not responding to something they don't feel like responding too.
floater666	Posted - 2008.04.21 18:10:00 - [63] (1) There was actually a different reason that they do not wish to mention, thus the logic is sound but the goal is something else. (2) They realize the mistake but do not wish to appear 'wrong' and thus show weakness. (3) They don't care and have moved on to other things. I am a relative new subscriber to EVE (3 months). Was the above mentioned always the case with CCP? Since I am a costumer they never admit making wrong decisions, and every patch makes as much bad as good. The problem of not admiting is that the ****ups stay in the game. If it was always the case I had better not to waste my time in the forums, and the game?
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.04.21 19:17:00 - [64] Originally by: floater666 I am a relative new subscriber to EVE (3 months). Was the above mentioned always the case with CCP? Since I am a costumer they never admit making wrong decisions, and every patch makes as much bad as good. The problem of not admiting is that the **ups stay in the game. It varies. Big things they tend to own up to pretty quickly (the boot.ini problem, looking into the FPS slam, etc), but balance and mechanic changes tend to not be handled as well. The shuttle one they did partially well at least. By keeping it quiet till the last minute they avoided some of the speculation craziness that has been an irritant in the past.... so they are learning some lessons at least ^_^. And in theory this new representative council will help with the feedback loop (or provide a rubber-stamping scape goat. hard to say at this stage). The horrible 'breaks the game' issues however have been much worse since Trinity then they were in the past, so the last 3 months have not been a very good representative slice of stability. It will probably get better as Trinity ages.. or could get worse as the problems get more esoteric due to an aging code base. We will see. Quote:** If it was always the case I had better not to waste my time in the forums, and the game? I would recommend answering those as two separate questions. If the forums and feedback loop are frustrating then by all means don't bother with them ^_~ However that is separate from the game,... so judge if you are going to stay in the game based off the game alone.

CCP Dr.EyjoG	Posted - 2008.04.21 20:28:00 - [65] As noted in this blog we did realize that there were other price caps in the game and that the removal of the shuttle would only lift the price cap rather than remove it. It is also true that with perfect refining skills and good corp standing, civilian afterburners can be refined for 3.6 ISK per unit of tritanium, which is the same level as shuttles before; but there is a catch. As has been noted in this thread by pilots, the civilian modules are not as widely available as shuttles and we can also confirm that the dynamic pricing kicks in much sooner than it did for the shuttles (yes, the shuttles were also dynamically priced). When does the dynamic pricing kick in? We cannot tell you since that could cause a havoc on the market. Hence, with lower quantity available in fewer places the price cap has effectively been lifted. Other price caps will be removed in due time, but for the same reasons that we kept the shuttle change very quiet we cannot announce when these caps will go away, but they will.

Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.04.21 20:36:00 - [66] Edited by: Nyphur on 21/04/2008 20:41:15 Edited by: Nyphur on 21/04/2008 20:38:42 Originally by: Nekopyat The shuttle one they did partially well at least. By keeping it quiet till the last minute they avoided some of the speculation craziness that has been an irritant in the past.... so they are learning some lessons at least ^_^. Except that since the cap hasn't been lifted, the players now have ample opportunity to buy up and refine civ afterburners before they get fixed and since they released a devblog, their intent is clear and it's obvious that the civ abs were an oversight that will be fixed. They're caught between a rock and a hard place. Either they fix civ abs and assume that the supply of trit from speculators buying them is not significant compared to the amount of trit currently hoarded or they leave the cap in place. The latter represents design hipocrisy in light of the recent devblog but that's not something CCP are going to lose any sleep over. The annoying part is that the economist inadvertantly misreported market conditions to the playerbase and this has increased the fallout from the problem by encouraging people to play the trit market when nothing significant at all has really changed. Originally by: CCP Dr.EyjoG As noted in this blog we did realize that there were other price caps in the game and that the removal of the shuttle would only lift the price cap rather than remove it. No, you're missing the point. It hasn't moved at all. Shuttles gave trit for 3.6 with perfect refine rates and civillian afterburners give it for 3.6 per unit with perfect refine rate. All that's changed is that people now have to haul the afterburners to where they're used to refining. And don't kid yourself that dynamic pricing will affect this module at all. Millions of units can be purchased daily for the base price of 216, refining into billions of tritanium. Additionally, you personally misinformed the eve community that the cap had been raised and you had no idea where it would settle. You even suggested it would settle at a price based on supply and demand and that the market post-change reacted to increased prices with increased supply from people hoarding trit. None of that is true. The market reacted to raise the price due to speculation and then dropped it again once the afterburner problem became widely known. Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened.
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.04.21 21:40:00 - [67] Originally by: CCP Dr.EyjoG As noted in this blog we did realize that there were other price caps in the game and that the removal of the shuttle would only lift the price cap rather than remove it. While I am in the camp that thinks the dev post was misleading and the change kinda sketchy, I really have to give Dr. EyjoG serious props for commenting on the criticisms. CCP really needs more posts like this. 2 way discussions, even if they don't resolve, are superior to the frustration of feeling like you are arguing into the void.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.04.21 22:07:00 - [68] Originally by: Nekopyat Originally by: CCP Dr.EyjoG As noted in this blog we did realize that there were other price caps in the game and that the removal of the shuttle would only lift the price cap rather than remove it. While I am in the camp that thinks the dev post was misleading and the change kinda sketchy, I really have to give Dr. EyjoG serious props for commenting on the criticisms. CCP really needs more posts like this. 2 way discussions, even if they don't resolve, are superior to the frustration of feeling like you are arguing into the void. Agreed, but I'd prefer if he logged into the game and actually took a look at the market rather than taking people on their word. He's taken people in this thread on their word that the trit supply from civ abs is much lower than that from shuttles and much more difficult to get but if you take a look at the market, it's clear that this isn't the case. Look at the market data in The Forge for civ afterburners. On the 16th, people bought over 8 million of them and on the 18th, people bought 12.6 million units. Sales for both days had a high, low and average value of 216, meaning it's perfectly feasible to millions of units without raising the price. Only one sell order out of 14 in the entire region shows a price greater than 216, which is 225.09 and which will reduce every day until it hits 216 again. We'll see how long it takes for that sell order to hit 216 again but with over a dozen sell orders per region, it honestly doesn't matter. Right now, if I wanted to buy out all the sell orders at 216, I could get over 108 million afterburners just in The Forge, producing 6.5 billion tritanium at 3.6 isk per unit. There's enough supply within empire to supply the entirety of eve's demand for tritanium at 3.6 isk per unit and there are enough people in a position to offer that recycling service for tiny profit margins (3.61-3.7) that the market will remain supplied with npc-generated trit. Mark my words, the standard price of trit in highsec trade hubs will not rise significantly until the remaining caps are removed. In my opinion, it's better to remove that cap now to minimise the fallout to the trit market than to wait a few months hoping people won't expect it when the afterburner-recycling is eventually fixed. Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.22 01:07:00 - [69] Originally by: CCP Dr.EyjoG As noted in this blog we did realize that there were other price caps in the game and that the removal of the shuttle would only lift the price cap rather than remove it. It is also true that with perfect refining skills and good corp standing, civilian afterburners can be refined for 3.6 ISK per unit of tritanium, which is the same level as shuttles before; but there is a catch. As has been noted in this thread by pilots, the civilian modules are not as widely available as shuttles and we can also confirm that the dynamic pricing kicks in much sooner than it did for the shuttles (yes, the shuttles were also dynamically priced). When does the dynamic pricing kick in? We cannot tell you since that could cause a havoc on the market. Hence, with lower quantity available in fewer places the price cap has effectively been lifted. Other price caps will be removed in due time, but for the same reasons that we kept the shuttle change very quiet we cannot announce when these caps will go away, but they will. Do you have any comment on why you are doing this and possibly messing up risk/reward balance between various activities which is a legitimate game balance point or is this just for jollies? Vote Goumindong for CSM
BlondieBC Minmatar Ardent Industrial Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.22 06:39:00 - [70] Edited by: BlondieBC on 22/04/2008 06:43:53 Edited by: BlondieBC on 22/04/2008 06:41:48 Originally by: CCP Dr.EyjoG Hence, with lower quantity available in fewer places the price cap has effectively been lifted. Other price caps will be removed in due time, but for the same reasons that we kept the shuttle change very quiet we cannot announce when these caps will go away, but they will. The price cap has not been lifted, it has only been adjusted. This is the same thing as OPEC changing its production quota. Quota change not equal to quota lifting. All one has to do is look at the increased sales of civilian afterburners to see that the price cap has not been lifted. I believe the totality of the communication has been misleading. The handling of the change seems to have needless added volatility to a market with no major benefits. The effective 0.2 isk rise in trit prices has no major impact on mining practices, imo. All these issue could have been fixed by make civilian afterburners more expensive or non reprocessable.
Kerfira University of Caille	Posted - 2008.04.22 07:35:00 - [71] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: CCP Dr.EyjoG Snip... Do you have any comment on why you are doing this and possibly messing up risk/reward balance between various activities which is a legitimate game balance point or is this just for jollies? I think they're trying to remove as many game-imposed restrictions on the player-driven market as they can, leaving the only restrictions the availability of the basic building materials (minerals, moon materials...). This is working well for the moon material market as prices go up and down as demand requires. Some may complain over high prices of certain materials, but that's not a bad thing, just a consequence of high demand. Ideally, it shouldn't be possible to acquire ANY type of building material without doing the required grinding. This would make price setting purely dependent on supply, demand and the effort required to produce the minerals. The 'effort' part is screwed if minerals can be effectively acquired with just a click on a 'buy' button. Imho, over time they should also replace basic T1 mission loot with other stuff that can't be refined. I've mentioned this before, but I think part of it should have been replaced with the new 'Nanite Compound' instead of this being sold by NPC's. Another idea is to cut maximum reprocessing effectiveness to 50%, with refining remaining at 100%. I've always thought it 'wrong' that you can get the same out of an item that you put into it. If the maximum reprocessing was 50%, it would first of all make much more sense, and secondly be of benefit to the mining profession. (just for the record, I DON'T mine!) Originally by: CCP Wrangler EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.04.22 12:56:00 - [72] Edited by: Nyphur on 22/04/2008 13:06:13 Originally by: Kerfira (just for the record, I DON'T mine!) I don't mine as a profession either because as you say the risk versus reward is out of whack. I did go on a huge mining spate and come up with a complex alternative mining system that the devs seemed to enjoy before completely dismissing: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=579110 What's a big shame is that CCP seem content to do everything in baby steps. Remove shuttles today, remove civ afterburners in a month or two, remove other caps as the months progress... all in a misguided attempt to keep markets stable during the changeover. A mere mention that the cap was rising by CCP caused havoc on the markets even though it wasn't true, each tiny change will cause similar market speculation. In addition, none of these little baby steps are addressing the wider issue. Hell, they aren't even addressing one issue in its entirety. Why weren't ALL caps removed instead of just just shuttles? The wider issue at hand here is that several game mechanics (such as NPC sale of goods) rely on certain mineral values which are held as constants. Trit, according to these constants, is worth 1 isk per unit and since NPC sold goods cost over three times their base value (a measure implemented at eve's inception to avoid reprocessing for profit), trit can't rise above about three times the base value (when I say three times, it is of course 3.6 times). Some modules refine into ONLY trit, meaning regardless of other mineral prices, they can provide tritanium at 3.6 isk per unit. Other modules use an array of minerals and will only be profitable to refine if the combined refined minerals are worth more than three times (3.6 times I think) their total npc base value. CCP have this habit of only patching up the most visible *****s in the game and taking months or even years to do so. Here's a list of things that rely on NPC values which are no longer valid: - Insurance cost - Insurance payout - Value of minerals given an oversupply (via insurance and ship-build batch prices) - Value of minerals given an undersupply (via refining of npc-sold items) - The risk-reward scheme in place for mining. Highsec ore was intended to be worth more than the best ore found in lowsec but this isn't the case any more because of the price of minerals being completely out of whack. Distribution of ore depends on the npc base values. - Probably some other ideas I'm forgetting. And the worst part is that despite some players like myself continually bringing problems to their attention, CCP often dismiss them because they think they know better. They can do database queries and have access to private test clusters but those are a poor substitute for experience. The CSM idea, if pulled off correctly, should mitigate this somewhat but we'll see how they handle that. EDIT: And before someone suggests it, gaining the npc values from the market average is an inherently abusable system. And yes, there are people with hundreds of billions of isk who would manipulate entire markets to abuse it for profit (or even just for fun). All systems relying on NPC base values need to be completely replaced by alternative systems which don't rely on mineral value.
Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2008.04.22 16:08:00 - [73] Edited by: Letouk Mernel on 22/04/2008 16:21:02 Originally by: CCP Dr.EyjoG Hence, with lower quantity available in fewer places the price cap has effectively been lifted. In my opinion, you are wrong about the price cap being lifted. It is set at 3.6 right now in Jita, and it will stay that way for as long as Civilian Afterburners are present on the market, sold by NPC's. The trader in Jita may or may not know that your dynamic pricing will kick in, but it doesn't matter. People see millions of Civ. AB's available on the market at 216, and that's what they're basing their price cap of 3.6 on. Nobody's buying the afterburners, it is not the item that matters, it's the comforting thought that it is available, that's what matters. It's the current, visible price that matters. I think that tritanium prices will continue to stay at 3.6, and Civ. AB's will continue to stay on the market, untouched by anyone, and so your dynamic pricing won't kick in, and the situation is in an equilibrium based on appearances... ... until you either create a scare to make people buy Civ. AB's so that they can see the effects of this dynamic pricing first hand, and learn it the hard way, or you remove Civ. AB's thus shattering the perception that they're readily available. Bottom line, you have NOT lifted the cap above 3.6. Jita prices are proof.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.04.22 16:56:00 - [74] Originally by: Letouk Mernel Nobody's buying the afterburners The market data disagrees but for the most part, you're correct. People are only buying them whenever price rise above 3.6 in jita, pushing it back down again. That's the way the cap works, the same way the shuttle cap worked and the removal of shuttles hasn't affected anything at all. Nobody's suggesting that all of Eve's trit comes from recycling shuttles/afterburners but I think I've already demonstrated that there is atually enough to supply the whole of eve's demand at 3.6, meaning the cap still exists for any amount of trit sold per day in eve. This makes it feasibly impossible for the price to go above the cap, regardless of the demand.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.04.22 21:23:00 - [75] First off, the whole direction this thing is headed looks like a complete disaster to me. I would like to take this opportunity to RE-POINT to an older thread about a total revamp to mining, that would actually (and finally) "fix" the whole risk-vs-reward thingy associated with mining, and automatically fix a lot of the price-cap issues. The thread was originally started by Nyphur about 8 months ago, and the shortcut links to a concise proposal I've elaborated based on how the discussion developed in that thread. So, in other words, it's useless to bicker about individual mineral pricecaps or lack thereof, when it's the mining as a whole that's actualy broken.
Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2008.04.23 03:02:00 - [76] A total revamp to mining is even less likely to be implemented than other fixes suggested here and elsewhere. Just the words "total revamp" give them shivers, I bet.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.04.23 11:59:00 - [77] Originally by: Letouk Mernel A total revamp to mining is even less likely to be implemented than other fixes suggested here and elsewhere. Just the words "total revamp" give them shivers, I bet. Most likely you're right but that's part of the problem. CCP have a propensity to implement tiny changes more readily than larger ones, to the point where they'll introduce rubbish changes that don't even solve the problems they're supposed to. This is one case of that, where they looked at the problem of trit supply from refining shuttles and decided to ducktape it up rather than actually investigating what the problem was and implementing a complete solution. It's obvious to me and many other players that there's a problem with all systems that are based on the now invalid npc base mineral prices and that the refining of shuttles was just a symptom of that much larger problem. The problem with implementing partial solutions is that they often don't solve the problem they're intended to. As a point of order, removing civ afterburners won't even lift the cap much. There are lots of modules that are made of mostly trit and every single npc-sold one will have a low valuation for the trit it produces if the other minerals it uses are close to npc value. For example, civ armour repairers give trit and some pyerite. This gives trit for 4.4 isk per unit after selling the pyerite for current market value. I haven't checked all npc-sold refinables because frankly, that's CCP's job and since I don't have access to the database, it'd take me all day to look at the problem but SHOULD take them only a few minutes. A total revamp to mining would be nice but that's a much wider scope than we're talking about here. Is it really too much to ask that when they try to raise the trit cap, they examine all modules instead of just the currently most-abused one? And the thing is that there's no reason to wait and hold-off on fixing the rest of the most easily abused modules. They've already announced that their intention is to remove the cap altogether in the longrun and raising the cap in stages makes sense but they haven't even raised it. They've even said that that civ afterburners will be removed soon. All they're doing by delaying the rest of the changes is giving people time to exploit them. Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened.
Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2008.04.23 13:56:00 - [78] How long does it take CCP to push and approve a change through the regular QA process? It looks like that's what they're doing. Edit: Obligatory comments about how the QA process is slow AND ineffective (must be really cheap then), blah blah blah etc. Also, fix the Overview! I'm done.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.04.23 14:14:00 - [79] Originally by: Letouk Mernel How long does it take CCP to push and approve a change through the regular QA process? It looks like that's what they're doing. Edit: Obligatory comments about how the QA process is slow AND ineffective (must be really cheap then), blah blah blah etc. Also, fix the Overview! I'm done. I was going to mention this, CCP's turnaround on changes is very slow. Especially considering how ineffective their QA department has proven itself to be. The shuttle change was suggested by Dr eijogogogog back in his last quarterly newsletter, wasn't it? Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened.
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.04.23 14:25:00 - [80] Originally by: Nyphur I was going to mention this, CCP's turnaround on changes is very slow. Especially considering how ineffective their QA department has proven itself to be. The shuttle change was suggested by Dr eijogogogog back in his last quarterly newsletter, wasn't it? One wonders if they have simply become too heavy-weight in terms of model and process. One of the big advantages of an on-line format like this, normally, is the ability to push out rapid content updates and changes. Yet they are slowing down. If they don't deal with their process issues then all it will take is one small nimble company to enter their niche to cause them serious hurt.
Alcair Dovienya TheDoctorIsIn	Posted - 2008.04.24 07:11:00 - [81] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 18/04/2008 00:58:19 Quote: Well, the best model for eves economy is as a domestic market with importers and exporters selling at fixed prices[so its equilibrium foreign markets]. I.E. NPCs. When you remove the ability of these foreign markets to trade with our domestic market you decrease the general welfare of the entire population. The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores the fact foreign markets were trading an unlimited supply of a product at a price that was fixed irrespective of the demand for the component materials. i.e. the dynamics of the free market were being bypassed, placing an arbitrary and artificial cap on the price of the component material - in this case Tritanium. Alcair
Alcair Dovienya TheDoctorIsIn	Posted - 2008.04.24 07:16:00 - [82] One general question I would like to ask: To what extent is tritanium produced through the refining of veldspar and other ores versus reprocessing of manufactured items? Of the 20bn or so units traded each day, what are the sources? Alcair
Daelin Blackleaf Naqam	Posted - 2008.04.24 16:11:00 - [83] Shouldn't efforts have been made to restore a degree of balance to mining before making further changes that impact it as heavily as this. Max skilled 0.0 mining typically nets less than mission running in a low-skilled raven (unless you have near unlimited access to the highest grade ores), the most common empire ore is worth more than any other ore found in empire or lo-sec, refining mission loot provides far more of EVE's mineral supply than it should. Risk vs reward needs to be restored here, not allowed to spiral further out of control. The primary benefactor of the shuttle cap removal will likely be empire macro-miners. I can't help but feel that very little thought has been put into the actual impact of the changes. Sort out the mission loot, sort out the drone regions, sort out the ore values, and put minerals back in the hands of the miners.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.24 16:43:00 - [84] Edited by: Goumindong on 24/04/2008 16:45:03 Originally by: Kerfira I think they're trying to remove as many game-imposed restrictions on the player-driven market as they can, leaving the only restrictions the availability of the basic building materials (minerals, moon materials...). I am going to be short here and not really give an in-depth explanation Whether they like it or not by having control over the money supply and material supply they are directly influencing the prices of the materials. In combination with insurance which creates a price floor on baskets of goods that make up ships this has direct effects on the prices of minerals. But even if insurance wes not around, they would still have direct control over the mineral prices at all times. So the argument that they want to get rid of price controls is fairly thin. Price controls easily allow them to drive players in the directions they want to be[be that geographically or socially], and they are controlling prices anyway. So on one hand we have Dr. E saying that the lack of people in low-sec and 0.0 is a problem that needs to be fixed, and on the other hand we have Dr. E implementing a change to the game that makes low-sec and 0.0 space less profitable, a change that creates a disincentive for players to live in those areas.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.24 16:55:00 - [85] Edited by: Goumindong on 24/04/2008 16:56:12 Originally by: Alcair Dovienya The problem with this line of reasoning is that it ignores the fact foreign markets were trading an unlimited supply of a product at a price that was fixed irrespective of the demand for the component materials. i.e. the dynamics of the free market were being bypassed, placing an arbitrary and artificial cap on the price of the component material - in this case Tritanium. Incorrect. So long as the foreign market is willing to supply as much or more at the price that the domestic market the price will be set. Essentially, "the supply in the foreign nation is not fixed and will simply look to be infinitely elastic when that supply is greater than the demand in the domestic market." Shuttle prices are "dynamically" balanced by CCP. Had, based on the availability, that not been artificially caped at 9000 isk at the low end, the import of tritanium would have been produced an even lower price cap on tritanium with higher amounts of import materials. In this model there was a government price floor imposed on the importers which would be artificially raising prices and the removal of the cap would have been seen as even harsher protectionist policy.[or a foreign monopoly keeping prices up] This is just another example and description of why this change has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with balance. Its the goals of the balance that seem so perplexing to me. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.04.25 14:06:00 - [86] Edited by: Nyphur on 25/04/2008 14:06:43 Originally by: Goumindong This is just another example and description of why this change has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with balance. Its the goals of the balance that seem so perplexing to me. Since when have CCP ever used goals? Something I have actually noticed is that often the dev in charge of something is put into a position of having to justify a change within his domain of expertise because the higher-ups had an idea that they won't let go. Take bombs for example. Tuxford was put in the unenviable position of having to release a devblog all about bombs and what they're good for. They weren't required, there was no role that they could really fill in combat and since release I haven't heard of them ever being used to good effect where another ship or tactic wouldn't have been better but someone high up obviously wanted them to go live and so they did. The devblog touted the role of the bomb in anti-blob warfare, as if a justification of their existance. However, when I started to actually think about it, I realised that bombs wouldn't do anything for blob warfare and that Tuxford didn't even appear to know what a blob was, let alone how to counter it. I don't mean to call his ability into question, only to point out the fact that he was left holding the bag and having to justify the existance of bombs when I'm almost certain they weren't his idea. At first glance, many of us assumed they were anti-blob weaponry and we went along with it so it's no surprise that he did too. From what I can tell, they don't set goals and work toward those goals. Instead, someone high up decides he wants a massive ship that can blow up a whole fleet in one shot and it gets done. Someone high-up wants bombs and they get made. Someone high-up wants a tier 3 battleship despite roles not existing for them and they get made (and shoehorned into the game by fiddling with the other battleships roles). Someone high-up's favourite system is being jumped into because the patch broke cyno jammers? Let's bypass the normal bugfixing procedure and get GMs to declare that POS warfare is offlimits until that one bug is fixed, ignoring other more critical issues. Remember that? To be fair to CCP, their current approach has worked pretty well and this new CSM thing should get info from the playerbase as a whole that should improve eve for everyone. But right now I can't shake the feeling that we're all playing in the devs playground and they design all the toys for themselves.
Letouk Mernel	Posted - 2008.04.25 17:36:00 - [87] - Someone high-up prefers the UI as it is. - Someone high-up is a mouse clicker and prefers to work with right-clicks and left-clicks, and hates the keyboard. - Someone high-up has a 40 in. screen, and the fonts are fine for him/her. - Someone high-up isn't bothered by the overview windows switching place because he/she uses the default settings for the overview (because he likes the UI as it is). - Someone high-up doesn't mine. - Someone high-up doesn't haul **. - Someone high-up has gotten it into his/her head that if they just present us with a(nother) way to completely ** up our faction with two of the empires, and thereby become unable to enter half of the EVE universe, then we'll just jump all over that and do it as fast as possible, all the while cheering the creativity of the CCP.
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.04.25 19:53:00 - [88] Originally by: Nyphur To be fair to CCP, their current approach has worked pretty well and this new CSM thing should get info from the playerbase as a whole that should improve eve for everyone. But right now I can't shake the feeling that we're all playing in the devs playground and they design all the toys for themselves. This is, unfortunately, a natural consequence of having devs play their own game. In general you actually do not want the final balancers being people who also play the game. You need designers and QA people who are disconnected and thus able to look at 60,000ft issues. When your team plays the game you get a lot of 50 ft perspectives and those get filled quite well but the whole suffers.
BlondieBC Minmatar Ardent Industrial Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.26 13:43:00 - [89] Originally by: Nyphur Right now, if I wanted to buy out all the sell orders at 216, I could get over 108 million afterburners just in The Forge, producing 6.5 billion tritanium at 3.6 isk per unit. There's enough supply within empire to supply the entirety of eve's demand for tritanium at 3.6 isk per unit and there are enough people in a position to offer that recycling service for tiny profit margins (3.61-3.7) that the market will remain supplied with npc-generated trit. Mark my words, the standard price of trit in highsec trade hubs will not rise significantly until the remaining caps are removed. [/quote The impact i have seen is in low sec, away from trade hubs. The price has went up 0.60 isk, presumably low sec capital buildiers.
BlondieBC Minmatar Ardent Industrial Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.26 13:46:00 - [90] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: CCP Dr.EyjoG As noted in this blog we did realize that there were other price caps in the game and that the removal of the shuttle would only lift the price cap rather than remove it. It is also true that with perfect refining skills and good corp standing, civilian afterburners can be refined for 3.6 ISK per unit of tritanium, which is the same level as shuttles before; but there is a catch. As has been noted in this thread by pilots, the civilian modules are not as widely available as shuttles and we can also confirm that the dynamic pricing kicks in much sooner than it did for the shuttles (yes, the shuttles were also dynamically priced). When does the dynamic pricing kick in? We cannot tell you since that could cause a havoc on the market. Hence, with lower quantity available in fewer places the price cap has effectively been lifted. Other price caps will be removed in due time, but for the same reasons that we kept the shuttle change very quiet we cannot announce when these caps will go away, but they will. Do you have any comment on why you are doing this and possibly messing up risk/reward balance between various activities which is a legitimate game balance point or is this just for jollies? I agree that the free market is messing up the balance between security status, and I would like to see a post on what ccp is doing to fix this. Also, there are many easy fixes. For example in low sec, increase the mins per m3 of high sec ore by 50%. In 0.0, add another 50% to high sec ores and add 100% to low sec. This type of fix has been done with ice and would be easy to implement.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.27 03:51:00 - [91] Originally by: Nyphur Someone high-up's favourite system is being jumped into because the patch broke cyno jammers? Let's bypass the normal bugfixing procedure and get GMs to declare that POS warfare is offlimits until that one bug is fixed, ignoring other more critical issues. Remember that? Not sure what to say about the rest of this. But for this point, the bug did not break cyno jammers. The bug set the RoF on all weapons targeting POS to 0. So anyone shooting a POS could destroy it pretty easily.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.04.27 17:06:00 - [92] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Nyphur Someone high-up's favourite system is being jumped into because the patch broke cyno jammers? Let's bypass the normal bugfixing procedure and get GMs to declare that POS warfare is offlimits until that one bug is fixed, ignoring other more critical issues. Remember that? Not sure what to say about the rest of this. But for this point, the bug did not break cyno jammers. The bug set the RoF on all weapons targeting POS to 0. So anyone shooting a POS could destroy it pretty easily. From my recollection, the bug yoiu're referring to wasn't that all guns targetting a POS had their ROF dropped to 0, it was specifically a bug with siege modules that reduced the dreadnought's ROF to 0. There were a number of bugs in play and the official word was that some cyno jammers were not working and this was the reason POS warfare was disallowed. The 0-rof thing was just another of those dozens of bugs like force fields turning off that wasn't part of the decision but should have been. If you can show me strong enough evidence that the 0-rof bug was the primary reason for the POS warfare ban and that it was fixed before POS warfare was allowed again, I'll gladly concede that it was a major contributing factor. Until then, the evidence disagrees.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.27 18:30:00 - [93] The reported evidence says nothing except that a specific action would be considered an exploit. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.04.27 18:36:00 - [94] Edited by: Nyphur on 27/04/2008 18:37:21 Originally by: Goumindong The reported evidence says nothing except that a specific action would be considered an exploit. The reported evidence says that the issues were fixed and then goes on to say that people using ships that were jumped into a system while their cynojammers were broken would be considered to be exploiting. The logical implication of these facts is that one of the issues which was fixed was non-functioning cyno jammers. It makes no mention of 0-ROF dreadnoughts and if eve-search weren't timing out every time I try and search for the old thread on the issue, I think I could prove that 0-rof problem still existed for some time after POS warfare was reallowed. From memory, I believe that particular issue with 0-rof dreads was not fixed before POS warfare was reallowed and neither were the other critical issues like the force field problems and labs having 0 resists and 1000 HP. If eve-search calms down enough for me to find that thread, I can confirm or deny that memory. However, I suggest that the burden of proof is on you to to show that the 0-rof problem was the sole or main reason that POS warfare was banned. Given the evidence I linked which clearly implies that cyno-jammers were nonfunctional (not destroyed, just nonfunctional) and that this was a big issue which was fixed, I don't think you can prove your assertion. Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.27 20:17:00 - [95] You're memory is faulty and this is off topic. Though i did indeed forget that jammers et all were broken. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Segge Bolled Caldari Dirty Sexy Pilots New Age Solutions Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.04.28 06:11:00 - [96] What I would like to know, is whether it was considered to simply lower the amount of Tritanium used to construct Shuttles. Wouldn't that have potentially increased the price cap (increased, since it seems there is always something which will apply a cap to some degree) markedly, yet without widely compromising player convenience, like simply removing Shuttles has? It certainly seems more sensible then policy akin to going at a nail with a wrecking ball - and knocking down the house across the road by mistake.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.04.28 16:50:00 - [97] Originally by: Goumindong You're memory is faulty and this is off topic. Though i did indeed forget that jammers et all were broken. The initial post was perfectly on-topic, it's you that's dragged it off course by challenging the validity of one particularly inconsequential fact. And I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that the 0-rof bug was why POS warfare was banned. Just telling me that my memory is faulty isn't good enough. If you can't find evidence of your previous assertions, they should be considered incorrect until evidence is found. I found the thread again and my memory is not fauly. The post I was referring to states that 0-ROF dreads were still a problem after the fix. They weren't fixed when POS warfare was re-allowed and were therefore not the bug that they were referring to. ALL evidence suggests that the bug they shut POS warfare down for was specifically cyno jammers not working and there is no evidence that any other bug was fixed, including the 0-rof bug or shield issues. This upholds my original assertion that the devs bypassed normal bugfixing procedure for a specific bug. That suggests to me that the cynojammer bug affected a dev and he sounded the alarm. Eve-Tanking.com - We're sorry, something happened.
Tasko Pal Heron Corporation	Posted - 2008.04.29 00:15:00 - [98] Edited by: Tasko Pal on 29/04/2008 00:15:52 Since we're on the subject of shuttles, I suggest CCP both decrease the size of the packaged shuttle (it currently is 500 m3) and the build time (currently I can build somewhat over 500 in about a month on one manufacture slot). In other words, the shuttle occupies about 20 times the volume of its mineral content and builds maybe 3 times as fast as a raven battleship. That's pretty pathetic. In low sec (and in 0.0 of course), it means that it's not too bad to build shuttles in a station with a manufacture line. You bring the trit in and make the shuttles. Slowly of course. But if you need to bring shuttles to other stations? Well a blockade runner might be able to carry 20. And you're going to need an escort for anything else. Only something like a freighter or jump freighter can move significant numbers of these shuttles at a time in low sec. The cargo doesn't seem that valuable to justify the risk. For example, suppose I can sell shuttles for 100k each above the cost of the shuttle. Max skilled freighter can carry almost 2000 shuttles. So that's almost 200 million isk in profit assuming you can sell those shuttles for that high a price. If you can only sell them for 10k profit, then that would be 20 million isk which isn't so bad for high sec, but pretty pathetic for low sec or 0.0. And someone still needs to deliver them to all the stations (which is more a problem in low sec since 0.0 doesn't have that many stations). My take is that the logistics of making and moving shuttles suck badly at the moment. I don't really care that the shuttle market is less convenient than it used to be. But it should be easier to supply the needs of the Eve community. My recommendation? Increase production time on shuttles by a factor of 10. And decrease the volume of the shuttle by at least a factor of 2. Maybe up to a factor of 10.
Kimbeau Surveryor	Posted - 2008.05.04 12:32:00 - [99] Hmm. So, if NPC items are to become no longer re-processable, what about station containers? Make them cheaper? Make them transportable when repackaged? It's annoying enough that you can't get rid of them for three weeks, it would be even worse if you just had to trash them...
Kane85	Posted - 2008.05.04 19:15:00 - [100] one of the dumest ideas to date from ccp; good work you've out done yourselfs once again. making everything player prodused will only mean that peeps will be able to further take hold of the market and mess it up. you are truely doing a great job at killing eve ccp
vipeer Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2008.05.06 07:30:00 - [101] Lemme add my 5 cents; 5 euro cents that is: Why was there a problem with shuttles? There were 150.000 available in a station, 9.000 isk each ready to be bought. Their intended use was to make a convenient travel possibility for players. Why was there a need to have 150.000 units on the market anyway? The way I see it whoever decided on the change made a cardinal mistake here. Last time i checked when a NPC order was bought out new sell order replaced it at a higher price. Now, Robotics for example are in much larger demand yet there were up to 22k units available in a batch. If one bought out the batch a new sell order at a higher price replaced it. One was able to keep the price down by setting up a buy order just above the NPC price and each day when the market order was renewed by the NPC one would buy the resulting supply at a "low" price via the buy order and a new batch instantly appeared on market with a bigger price tag. After some time the price would drop down automatically due to noone else buying the stuff and the buy order would buy again and the circle would go around again and again. Now shuttles were readily available in batches of 150.000 units which nobody needed for their intended purpose. The amount of shuttles was insanely high compared to the demand so alternative uses of readily available resource were quickly found. High security is heavily mined out so the price of trit went up. I remember times when one could find 20k omber rocks in .6 and 35k kernite in .5. I havent seen either in well over a year now. Plus; why would one want to mine and waste time for a marginal gain when there is a moderately priced trit available? During the times of my own 0.0 operations we were importing trit from empire en masse just as everyone else with brain did. We mined Arkonor and Bistot shipped a hauler full of it into empire and in exchange got a freighter full of trit. As long as it was availabe in the billions of units @ 2 isk why not... We were supporting the empire players at the same time. Lately the price of trit went up up up so the demand turned to melting shuttles rather than mining and hauling around highends. There was an easier way to curb them. Sell 100 units and NOT 150.000 @ 9k and when those are bought out raise price by 10% and when the 100 @ 9.900 sell raise price for 10% again and so on and so forth. This way you cut out the buyers for trit. Speculators buying up the shuttles to ruin the market and make a profit would also quickly find that someone is undercutting them by selling home made shuttles too and bye bye market dominance. Though i have no idea how the database works so it might be impossible to implement this... It is too late now. P.s. The invisible hand is really great and all but also very cruel. We pay Ç15 a month for a game and having a ready and fast means of transport should be a luxury we have and not something left to the market since it is essential and everyone needs it. Just like water. If privatized...well look at what happened in Bolivia... True, we can travel in a capsule but we can also carry water from a well 6 miles away yet we stick to inhouse running water and see no need to walk 12mi every day for a quick shower. Next time please, a list of 5 pros and 5 cons as you see it for every change so you know the issue and not just emphasize the good sides while ignoring the negative consequences. Im confident the EVE community can easily digest graphs and cold hard facts rather than hype. Sorry for negative criticism but i just don't see why you had to kill the cow to get the milk out if there is an easier way to get it out - just pull&squeeze. -------------SIG STARTS HERE------------- Chaining BoBo in south Feyth: Your Neutron Blaster Cannon II perfectly strikes Dukath [EVOL]<BOB>(Vindicator), wrecking for 741.0 damage.
Windryder Caldari New Fnord Industries Black Scope Project	Posted - 2008.05.15 06:43:00 - [102] Congratulations, you've just lowered the price cap on Tritanium. "Lowered? We've freed the Economy! Fly economy, be free!" I hear them cry, "Shuttles getting bought in bulk at 9,000isk and melted down to provide Tritanium at 3.7isk per unit? Stop NPC buy orders! Halt the madness! Free the Economy!" But it would seem our illustrious Invisible Hand didn't think things through - or at least thought it had more brains than the rest of Eve. Maybe if the Invisible Hand had put itself in the shoes of your typical entrepreneur it would have had a better view of things on the factory floor. Maybe it might even have saved me from grabbing this metaphor and running too far with it. Maybe the Invisible Hand might have stopped and asked of the Economy; "What else do NPC stations sell that can be melted down for minerals?" And this is not a leap - this nerfing of NPC items to remove artificial supply has happened before... something to do with starbase storage silos? So you thought you had it this time eh? Wrong, because we can still buy Civilian Afterburners in bulk and melt them down. And you know what? Tritanium farmed this way is cheaper than via shuttles. So third time lucky. Except next time - remember Civilian Armor Repairers or you'll be going through this all again. It's bad enough that someone discovered that they recycle to cheap Pyerite and have effectively capped that market to 4 or 5 isk per unit. In fact why not go through all NPC items now (including starbase structures) and calculate where the future price caps are going to be? As a suggestion, why not triple the NPC prices and supply BPOs on the market to seed a player-driven economy? I think you will find that the player demand for, say, Starbase Control Towers, is so high that it is artificially inflating the value of the ISK itself. Starbase Control Towers are effectively currency in nullsec - as they are firmly linked to the value of real estate. You want real-estate? You buy it using Towers. Can you make your own basic Towers from their minerals? No, you have to pay ISK. So the value of the ISK is directly linked to the value of real estate in Nullsec. Which is the same relationship that kept the old Deutschmark valuable and powerful. If you truly want the value of Tritanium to run free then you will have to allow it to be valuable not because of how much a Tower is worth on the NPC market but because you can *make* Towers with it. I do not mean to be harsh or unfair to the good doctor but I think that to really appreciate or understand the economy of EvE you have to be immersed in it. I would be honoured to give him a tour. Dr. Windryder. (Yes, I am actually.)
Windryder Caldari New Fnord Industries Black Scope Project	Posted - 2008.05.15 07:21:00 - [103] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton veldspar was damn close to the best ore to mine in empire, and now theres a damn good chance of it becoming the best choice to mine in empire. not to even mention the ores in lowsec, where veld is still better than most stuff... omber or jaspet anyone? If you use a calculator like this: http://eve.grismar.net/ore/index.php and simply plug in the current Jita prices for minerals you will see the current value of all the refinable ores, *per cubic metre mined. This is an important point because for a given mining set-up the value per cubic metre is absolutely proportional to the time spent mining. So the values per cubic metre mined have exactly the same relationship as the values per minute spent mining them. From here you will see what your time* can most profitably be used to mine. You'll notice that Veldspar is already more profitable than everything more common than, and including, Spodumain. Now think about that. Spodumain is uncommon even in 0.0! And Veldspar is found everywhere up to and including Deep 1.0 Newbie Space. This isn't a problem that can be fixed by nerfing NPCs or making things more or less common - this is about TIME and maximising it's in-game profitability. The only way to fix this problem is to change the relative profitability of mining ores PER MINUTE. My simple proposal to solve this particular issue would be to make ALL ores the same size per unit as Veldspar - so they are mined FASTER and thus more attractive to spend your all-too-limited time allowaance on. But meh - I doubt anyone is listening.
Forte Hauler	Posted - 2008.05.22 15:40:00 - [104] Originally by: floater666 Edited by: floater666 on 20/04/2008 12:55:14 Traveling is already the second most borring thing in EVE after mining, why did you want to force us into noob ships with 3AU warp speed instead of 6AU of the shuttles? I think you guys(DEVS) should make again a reality check that this is a game, and some of the things of a RL economy should not be transcribed to EVE. After all we all have our RL with its good and bad sides, have we? I KNow!! (Raising Hand)...:)..Conspiracy Theory of the Day.... Because now, new players who start to venture out it will take twice as long to get there so they are more likely to move from a trial account to a real account...this is about economics, but not EVE market, RL CCP bottom line...lol
Ertai Vodalion Gallente LifeLine Solutions	Posted - 2008.07.14 10:55:00 - [105] desperately looking for quarterly econ devblogs Q1 & Q2 2008 - anyone seen them ? "NPCs no longer sell shuttles" isn¦t an economic devblog - try harder !
Allvan Harl	Posted - 2008.07.14 12:32:00 - [106] I agree! I'm thirsty for more EVE economic news. Hopefully all the "I hate capitalism" and "The invisible hand is stupid" posters didn't dent our economist's resolve to study and post. I was enjoying the subject thoroughly.
Callib Gor'Karrithe Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.14 19:09:00 - [107] Originally by: Forte Hauler Originally by: floater666 Edited by: floater666 on 20/04/2008 12:55:14 Traveling is already the second most borring thing in EVE after mining, why did you want to force us into noob ships with 3AU warp speed instead of 6AU of the shuttles? I think you guys(DEVS) should make again a reality check that this is a game, and some of the things of a RL economy should not be transcribed to EVE. After all we all have our RL with its good and bad sides, have we? I KNow!! (Raising Hand)...:)..Conspiracy Theory of the Day.... Because now, new players who start to venture out it will take twice as long to get there so they are more likely to move from a trial account to a real account...this is about economics, but not EVE market, RL CCP bottom line...lol I seem to remember a time when we could not "warp to zero" without using specially crafted bookmarks that had to be made for each specific system. In the end, a potentially "forced" switch from a 6AU to 3AU warp speed still doesnt' slow you back down to that level. EVE is about adaptation... adapt.
Cheru'bael Amarr Ordo Ministorum	Posted - 2008.07.17 12:02:00 - [108] the lack of quarterly reports, plus the rather surprising jabber about shuttles, reminds me of Life of Brian. I do hope there's another installment of Dr. Eyj='s musings, since it's a much better way to pass the downtime away than reading navel gazing crap like i just did in this thread. shrug ever since 2004 i've found it better to reprocess my shuttles and sell the tritanium, not because of profit, but because the refined amount gave me more than what PLAYERS were buying shuttles for, regionally...and it is still the case. So i see no effect for myself that changed at all, except for a really satisfying feeling that CCP is making it seem as though the economy is more player controlled than npc controlled. ___________________________________________ Ordo Ministorum (backup)
Cheru'bael Amarr Ordo Ministorum	Posted - 2008.07.18 09:18:00 - [109] i take that back. i can sell shuttles for more than what it would give me by refining it into tritanium. that's an improvement. =) ___________________________________________ Ordo Ministorum (backup)
Callib Gor'Karrithe Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.11 15:43:00 - [110] Edited by: Callib Gor''Karrithe on 11/08/2008 15:43:45 So what the hell happened to the QEN, anyways? Another failed experiment? I thought this Dr. EyjoG was goign to be writing these quarterly?
Allvan Harl	Posted - 2008.08.11 22:54:00 - [111] Hey CCP - what's the scoop? What happened to the QENs? A lot of us want to know.
Strom Nekth	Posted - 2008.08.13 00:28:00 - [112] Shouldn't all npc built items be priced according to (a multiple of) the current market value of the minerals that they are made from? Preferably with those minerals actually being acquired by the npc either through missions or purchase orders.
Callib Gor'Karrithe Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.14 14:29:00 - [113] Originally by: Allvan Harl Hey CCP - what's the scoop? What happened to the QENs? A lot of us want to know. At this point, it seems to me CCP could just care less. They really like to abuse miners and industrialists. Dangle a cookie over our head and then snatch it away. I mean... come on, we're more important to EVE than allt he people who like to run around and go "pew pew." You have nothing to "pew pew" with if we don't build shit.... stuff like the QEN helps with more intelligent building. If we can't at least have regular improvements to mining and industry, we shoudl at least have a freaking quarterly news letter to show that we're still loved. Is that too much to ask?
Allvan Harl	Posted - 2008.08.18 13:39:00 - [114] I would agree - make the prices set based upon the market rather than a static number. However, simply letting the players make the items is more preferable than having the system examine market values and crunch the numbers through a formula. That can be manipulated by other players because the good ole' EVE servers won't know a crappy deal when they they see it (but, for the most part, humans will.) I like what they did. I wish they would follow it up for the other items as well. I've seen other people talking about the civilian shield boosters being the new "buy, reprocess" items now. As for CCP not caring less, I disagree. There's a ton of work on their plate and not everything gets 100% attention as some think it should. Chewing them out isn't going to help either. Miners aren't the most important part of the EVE universe, but they are an important part, just as the mission runners and the PVPers. Someone has to mine and make equipment, just as someone has to buy it and lose it in a mission or blow it up (pvp) to make sure there's demand for more mining and production. CCP - what happened to Dr. EyjoG? I still pull out the other two QENs and refer to them. I loved the snapshots on who's flying what, how the skills are broken down by race, skill point and money amounts across the player base and the economic snapshots on items in general: ore, cruise missiles vs torpedos, etc. Is your Economics Program with the professor still on track? Or did he get some other hot project and had to shelve this one? Don't make me get in my Ibis and come looking for some answers...... :-)
Zukira Al'Kalish	Posted - 2008.10.01 17:39:00 - [115] :( No QEN anymore, I'm guessing? I mean... don't get me wrong, I like hearing the good Doctor talk about the economy in all of these interviews and such... but those don't hold a candle to the awesome data found within the QEN's... Was it just one of those good ideas that ended up vanishing? :(
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong	Posted - 2008.10.01 18:33:00 - [116] um posting wondering where the quarterly report is.
Athre Minmatar The Higher Standard	Posted - 2008.10.02 00:08:00 - [117] Didnt you hear, its now the annual (at least thats best guess considering the time the last one was out)
Icarion	Posted - 2008.10.04 02:18:00 - [118] MAKE ISK A REAL CURRENCY! I havent thot this out and it may be very nieve but here goes... What if the ISK had real value in the real world? Think about it. Possible? What would be the ramifications? It would make Eve that much more real! The stakes would be high! Eve would be a LITERAL, thriving, "breathing" community. How about its own soverign RECOGNIZED Country and Government? LISTEN! For any Entity to have its own currency in the real world...it would have to be a recognized state or country. Soverign countries can make up their own currency. Would, if given the opportunity, CCP create its own real currency...Im talking your online WALLET balance would be hooked to your real world BANK ACCOUNT. Maybe not directly (i dont know, why not) but, maybe via transfer like Paypal does. THERE IS A SMALL MANMADE STRUCTURE THAT IS AN IT CENTER OFF THE COAST OF ENGLAND THAT IS RECOGNIZED INTERNATIONALLY AS ITS OWN COUNTRY. Here is wikipedia on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand This little structure already has a datacenter in it! It is considered its own country! IT HAS ITS OWN CURRENCY! CAN SWITCH IT TO ISK! GOOGLE IS EYEING IT UP! http://www.sealandnews.com/ ITS STILL FOR SALE! CCP should find itself the authority to make ISK a real currency on international markets so people can live off Eve--LITERALLY! Imagine people in destitute economies who have no means of making a living, getting on Eve and doing so! Imagine Eve being RECOGNIZED as a LITERAL GOVERNMENT (change name whatever from Sealand) This would be history in the making! I realize there are all sorts of variables that need to be thot through...but isnt this the end all of virtual worlds? Icarion Here is a bookmark I JUST found the other day for whatever reason! Who Knows! http://www.lawresearchgroup.com/cart/product.php?productid=154&cat=0&page=1
Illwill Bill Minmatar Scandinavian Carebears AB	Posted - 2008.10.07 12:45:00 - [119] Edited by: Illwill Bill on 07/10/2008 12:45:50 Nerf necromancers! It would be better if you created new threads for questions like this.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.