Originally by: deadmaus

---

Because by the time we had calmed Plague down after he heard BoB were back in the vicinity it was too late to do anything

Quote:

---

We've created six new reactions which allow you to create key intermediate materials without relying on the rarest moon minerals.

---

Quote:

---

Let's take ferrogel as an example. Currently it takes 100 hafnium and 100 dysprosium to make 200 ferrogel. With the new reaction, you'll take 100 hafnium and 100 cadmium to make 100 unrefined ferrogel, which can then be refined down to give 10 ferrogel and 95 hafnium. The final ratios at the end of the process see you using 100 cadmium and 5 hafnium to create 10 ferrogel, per cycle. The proportion of hafnium stays the same, but the amount of cadmium is 20 times the amount of dysprosium you'd normally use per unit, and it takes ten times longer to make 1000 units of ferrogel.

---

Quote:

---

The four pairings are cadmium/dysprosium, vanadium/thulium, chromium/promethium and platinum/neodymium. The final output of each of the reactions will be ten units per cycle, and the common mineral always replaces the mineral at a 20:1 ratio.

---

Originally by: Sophie Daigneau

---

Quote:

---

We've created six new reactions which allow you to create key intermediate materials without relying on the rarest moon minerals.

---

First we're talking about new reactions to create intermediate materials.

Quote:

---

Let's take ferrogel as an example. Currently it takes 100 hafnium and 100 dysprosium to make 200 ferrogel. With the new reaction, you'll take 100 hafnium and 100 cadmium to make 100 unrefined ferrogel, which can then be refined down to give 10 ferrogel and 95 hafnium. The final ratios at the end of the process see you using 100 cadmium and 5 hafnium to create 10 ferrogel, per cycle. The proportion of hafnium stays the same, but the amount of cadmium is 20 times the amount of dysprosium you'd normally use per unit, and it takes ten times longer to make 1000 units of ferrogel.

---

Then you are talking about turning 2 common raw minerals into an advanced material.

Quote:

---

The four pairings are cadmium/dysprosium, vanadium/thulium, chromium/promethium and platinum/neodymium. The final output of each of the reactions will be ten units per cycle, and the common mineral always replaces the mineral at a 20:1 ratio.

---

Then down here it sounds like you are turning a common rare mineral into a rare raw mineral. Did you actually mean to say ferrofluid instead of ferrogel in the second quote? That would seem to make more sense, especially since there are six intermediate reactions that require the rare minerals.

---

Originally by: CCP Oveur

---

...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Originally by: Sophie Daigneau

---

Quote:

---

We've created six new reactions which allow you to create key intermediate materials without relying on the rarest moon minerals.

---

First we're talking about new reactions to create intermediate materials.

Quote:

---

Let's take ferrogel as an example. Currently it takes 100 hafnium and 100 dysprosium to make 200 ferrogel. With the new reaction, you'll take 100 hafnium and 100 cadmium to make 100 unrefined ferrogel, which can then be refined down to give 10 ferrogel and 95 hafnium. The final ratios at the end of the process see you using 100 cadmium and 5 hafnium to create 10 ferrogel, per cycle. The proportion of hafnium stays the same, but the amount of cadmium is 20 times the amount of dysprosium you'd normally use per unit, and it takes ten times longer to make 1000 units of ferrogel.

---

Then you are talking about turning 2 common raw minerals into an advanced material.

Quote:

---

The four pairings are cadmium/dysprosium, vanadium/thulium, chromium/promethium and platinum/neodymium. The final output of each of the reactions will be ten units per cycle, and the common mineral always replaces the mineral at a 20:1 ratio.

---

Then down here it sounds like you are turning a common rare mineral into a rare raw mineral. Did you actually mean to say ferrofluid instead of ferrogel in the second quote? That would seem to make more sense, especially since there are six intermediate reactions that require the rare minerals.

---

WHOOPS.

Fixed

---

Originally by: Sophie Daigneau

---

Quote:

---

We've created six new reactions which allow you to create key intermediate materials without relying on the rarest moon minerals.

---

First we're talking about new reactions to create intermediate materials.

Quote:

---

Let's take ferrogel as an example. Currently it takes 100 hafnium and 100 dysprosium to make 200 ferrogel. With the new reaction, you'll take 100 hafnium and 100 cadmium to make 100 unrefined ferrogel, which can then be refined down to give 10 ferrogel and 95 hafnium. The final ratios at the end of the process see you using 100 cadmium and 5 hafnium to create 10 ferrogel, per cycle. The proportion of hafnium stays the same, but the amount of cadmium is 20 times the amount of dysprosium you'd normally use per unit, and it takes ten times longer to make 1000 units of ferrogel.

---

Then you are talking about turning 2 common raw minerals into an advanced material.

Quote:

---

The four pairings are cadmium/dysprosium, vanadium/thulium, chromium/promethium and platinum/neodymium. The final output of each of the reactions will be ten units per cycle, and the common mineral always replaces the mineral at a 20:1 ratio.

---

Then down here it sounds like you are turning a common rare mineral into a rare raw mineral. Did you actually mean to say ferrofluid instead of ferrogel in the second quote? That would seem to make more sense, especially since there are six intermediate reactions that require the rare minerals.

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Well... This was... unexpected.

I'm sorry to say, but this won't do anything beyond creating a tiny bit more complexity and havoc on the market. While it will increase supply, it doesn't change the *fundamental* problem that it faces: It's eventually a totally static supply.

Greyscale, is this the "final" solution? It seems very much pre-nerfed if it is. While I'm glad you are finally doing something, I have a feeling it's simply not enough.

---

Originally by: CowsCANBark

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Well... This was... unexpected.

I'm sorry to say, but this won't do anything beyond creating a tiny bit more complexity and havoc on the market. While it will increase supply, it doesn't change the *fundamental* problem that it faces: It's eventually a totally static supply.

Greyscale, is this the "final" solution? It seems very much pre-nerfed if it is. While I'm glad you are finally doing something, I have a feeling it's simply not enough.

---

look at da fuggin pubbie whine.

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Originally by: CowsCANBark

---

Originally by: LaVista Vista

---

Well... This was... unexpected.

I'm sorry to say, but this won't do anything beyond creating a tiny bit more complexity and havoc on the market. While it will increase supply, it doesn't change the *fundamental* problem that it faces: It's eventually a totally static supply.

Greyscale, is this the "final" solution? It seems very much pre-nerfed if it is. While I'm glad you are finally doing something, I have a feeling it's simply not enough.

---

look at da fuggin pubbie whine.

---

Look at the troll trolling!

Hurray

---

Quote:

---

In a real-world economy, shortages and bottlenecks drive R&D teams to find new and better ways of doing things. If oil prices rise, people start looking harder for reliable alternative energy sources, and the higher prices go the harder people look.

---

Quote:

---

The four pairings are cadmium/dysprosium, vanadium/thulium, chromium/promethium and platinum/neodymium. The final output of each of the reactions will be ten units per cycle, and the common mineral always replaces the mineral at a 20:1 ratio.

---

Originally by: CCP Fallout

---

*pokes her head in*

Guys, let's keep this discussion civil and on topic please. This is an interesting change to our economy, so let's focus on that rather than name calling and such.

Thanks :)

---

Originally by: Vio Geraci

---

I hope this is only a stop gap measure to buy time for wider changes in the future, because otherwise you might want to seriously consider finding a new economist.

---

Originally by: CCP Fallout

---

*pokes her head in*

Guys, let's keep this discussion civil and on topic please. This is an interesting change to our economy, so let's focus on that rather than name calling and such.

Thanks :)

---

Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker

---

So, effectively, you are pinning the price ratio of the four parings such that they wont vary? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of what Dr. EyjoG was pointing out? The fact that you are locking the price ratios together removes some of the innovation involved in trying to regulate the economy. For example, if the price of Cadmium falls or Dysprosium increases, its likely any excess Cadmium will be converted into Dysprosium (functionally) keeping its price level. "Why should we sell it at a loss when we can make a profit elsewhere?" However, if Cadmium increases, not only will the reactions stop but the price of Dysprosium will increase. "No more competition from Cadmium, lets hike our prices more!" Now we've created a new price equilibrium with still nothing left to bring down cost. Sounds like a form of inflation to me. Since Dysprosium is the lynch pin in this scenario, while it has the potential to fix the issue with its rising cost, it also gives it the ability to bring up the price on another moon material: Cadmium.

Extreme scenario: Dysprosium is no longer produced/sold. Bottleneck now becomes Cadmium. All Cadmium moons become occupied. Maximum potential supply reached. Back to where we started.

Tl;dr: If the intent is to remove the bottleneck, all you are doing is shifting the bottleneck somewhere else.

An alternative suggestion would be to introduce a new material type that can be converted into all moon minerals. This provides a fixed ratio independent of current moon materials but still gives suppliers the advantage if the conversion/production/replacement costs are high enough.

---

Originally by: ChaosOne

---

could a dev please reply and state how the unrefined reaction to make Fluxed condensates is going to work??

It uses both Neodymium and thulium...

---

Originally by: Evileene

---

This is a good thing and very much overdue, and should bring to a close the "Moon Wars" of 2008.

It also should reduce the cost of T2 items and ships. Which is about damn time, especially for T2 BS's.

The people who will cry about this of course are BOB, Goons, AAA/"Ze Russians" who have spent the last year muscling smaller alliances out of the high end moons in their regions, taking space they have no intention of using except for moon mining.

However, I still believe this is an imperfect solution. I think that moon minerals should spawn in varying values and quantities, deplete, and respwawn. This way ANY mineral could at any time come from any moon.

---

Originally by: Evileene

---

The people who will cry about this of course are BOB, Goons, AAA/"Ze Russians" who have spent the last year muscling smaller alliances out of the high end moons in their regions, taking space they have no intention of using except for moon mining.

---

Originally by: Machine Delta

---

The endgame of EVE will be comparing macro hauling bots in jita whilst your alts do afk courier missions.

---

Originally by: Patripassion

---

I'm not even sure why CCP decided that this bottleneck is an undesirable one. Ever heard of "peak oil?"

In real life, there is a bottleneck around petroleum products very similar to the dysprosium one, in that there are only a finite amount of them available and that there is only a finite amount of output possible, with only a few new sources being every now and then. Do some research on "peak oil" and you will see a lot of similarities.

I'm not sure why CCP decided that scarcity or a finite amount of product in this case was a bad thing.

---

Originally by: Patripassion

---

I'm not even sure why CCP decided that this bottleneck is an undesirable one. Ever heard of "peak oil?"

In real life, there is a bottleneck around petroleum products very similar to the dysprosium one

---

Originally by: Falkrich Swifthand

---

Do you WANT T2 stuff to get even more expensive?

This change will increase the demand for the more common moon minerals. Eventually they may even be profitable to moon mine! At the same time the crazy-valuable moons will come down in price, the cost of T2 ship-building will go down, and the prices of T2 ships will go down. Despite the price reductions, the only people who will lose profit will be the super-high-end moon owners, and they will still be more profitable than the lower moons.

---

Originally by: Shadowsword

---

Why don't you just create some reaction requiring 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium = 200 ferrofluid? The T2 production cycle is already complex enough as it is without having to add some new unrefined reactions.

---

Originally by: Ryuga VonRhaiden

---

actually, in real life there is a workaround (though still inefficient), as you can burn coal instead of oil, use solar, wind or nuclear energy for most tasks oil is normally used for.

CCP is just adding this kind of things in Eve. though in real life we are not reverting to coal, but trying renewable sources, while CCP is only adding the "coal alternative" as for now.

---

Originally by: Karina Bellac

---

Edited by: Karina Bellac on 27/10/2008 17:21:06

Originally by: Shadowsword

---

Why don't you just create some reaction requiring 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium = 200 ferrofluid? The T2 production cycle is already complex enough as it is without having to add some new unrefined reactions.

---

A product cannot be manufactured from two different blueprints with differing material requirements. I would hazard a guess that reactions suffer from the same piece of awful design*. The workaround, instead of actually fixing things, is to react something that can then use refining definitions to create a product that has an existing reaction/blueprint defined.

(* Materials needed to build item <x> using blueprint <y> are indexed under item <x> itself. Common sense would say you would index the Bill of Materials by <y>, the blueprint being used.)

---

Originally by: Shadowsword

---

Fine, then a simpler reaction to do the same thing: 200 Cadmium = 10 Dysprosium. Yes, both are raw materials. Does it matter?

---

Originally by: Olorin O'Maiar

---

Way to screw up the Cadmium market with all kinds of speculators, since it is now the Dyspro 'substitute'. It was around 900 a week ago and now you cannot find anyone selling for under 4500. You should have allowed for multiple different cheap minerals to pair with the higher end minerals to distribute the pressure.

---

Originally by: Aprudena Gist

---

Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 27/10/2008 18:31:35
are you guys brain dead or something why not add more reactions for ferrogel from r64's and nothing else to make 64's useful?

---

Quote:

---

This happened in a big way two years ago when we added the invention mechanics - essentially an innovation that allowed you all to bypass the T2 production bottleneck imposed by the limited supply of BPOs.

---

Originally by: CCP Fallout

---

(...) This is an interesting change to our economy, so let's focus on that (...)

---

Originally by: Aprudena Gist

---

Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 27/10/2008 18:31:35
are you guys brain dead or something why not add more reactions for ferrogel from r64's and nothing else to make 64's useful?

---

Originally by: Verite Rendition

---

Edited by: Verite Rendition on 27/10/2008 18:48:34

Originally by: Aprudena Gist

---

Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 27/10/2008 18:31:35
are you guys brain dead or something why not add more reactions for ferrogel from r64's and nothing else to make 64's useful?

---

Oh don't be so negative. I can exchange my worthless Thulium with equally worthless Vanadium; this is great.

---

Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans

---

CCP is a greedy money chewing monster

---

Originally by: Lord Fitz

---

This sounds very sub-optimal compared with what Chronotis was throwing around months ago. You're not removing the bottleneck at all, you're just shifting it a whole 1 pace to the left until we come up with the same problem again in 3 months time, and then you get another 12 months to fix it.

Contrary to what people are saying, this is still 1 step in the right general direction, and ISN'T going to make 0.0 less valuable but more, because most of it is filled with these 'alternate' moons which largely at the moment aren't all populated. It is simply going to require more people to fully utilise, instead of the current situation where a single person can manage a 200b/month network.

---

Originally by: Recluse Viramor

---

Limited supply of high end moons however are not restricted in the same ways that T2 BPO's are, obviously. Currently high end moons are the cause of large 0.0 conflicts and represent a large portion of the value of holding 0.0 space. Alliances wage wars for control of these moons alone; I hope CCP has seriously considered the ramifications of this change to the worth of 0.0 and the impact of the entire EVE community at large.

IE. Less Valuable moons = less reasons to fight = less ships being blown up = less demand for ships being made = less demand for materials to build ships = ....

---

Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn

---

Originally by: CCP Fallout

---

(...) This is an interesting change to our economy, so let's focus on that (...)

---

Well, the problem is dysprosium/promoteum selling concerns, say, 100 players ? 150 ?
I think you won't have many applauses, then.

It won't be the same if you told this about salvaging materials (for exemple)

Good idea anyway. Too bad only 100-150 players (the same as before) will profit.

---

Originally by: Aprudena Gist

---

Well they are supposed to be r64's for some reason right? i mean its not like they are supposed to be rare or useful or anything.

---

Originally by: Serenity Steele

---

This is a creative game mechanic that is obviously achievable using "item type" modifications, and in this case the attributes of a reaction.

While it's a highly creative solution that requires minimum programming effort, it is nothing more than that;

...

Obviously now that it's announced it's a CCP policy no-go to un-announce it, so the EVE-universe is stuck with it.

---

Originally by: Vio Geraci

---

A more effective solution would be introducing quanitites of moon minerals in gravimetric sites,

---

Originally by: CCP Fallout

---

As EVE OnlineÆs playerbase grows, so does its economy. Supply and demand canÆt always be naturally met, and from time to time we have to make changes to the system to make sure supply and demand is well- balanced and healthy. GreyscaleÆs newest dev blog, ôAlchemy,ö explains some of the upcoming changes to limited resources and industry. You can read GreyscaleÆs blog here.

---

Originally by: Machine Delta

---

You don't really want people to have a reason to stay in true 0.0 do you.

---

Originally by: Bane Glorious

---

Originally by: Vio Geraci

---

A more effective solution would be introducing quanitites of moon minerals in gravimetric sites,

---

I like this idea.

---

Quote:

---

and from time to time we have to make changes to the system to make sure supply and demand is well- balanced and healthy

---

Originally by: fiber0pti

---

So any ccp comment on why the moon products involved surged massively by up to 4x usual volume the day BEFORE the blog ?

---

Originally by: Gnulpie

---

Alchemy *sigh* What next? Elves? And if you really would want such a (borked) change, couldn't you just have it named nucleosynthesis instead?

---

Originally by: A Sinner

---

dyspro and promethium prices going down ? \o/ BOB nerf

---

Originally by: Ryuga VonRhaiden

---

A dyspro (or whatever) moon has a limited amount of a given resource (say, enough for 3 to 6 months extraction, at random). Each time it is exhausted (or very near to exhaustion, say 3-7 days worth of minerals), another resource of the same kind and a random amount spawns elsewhere in the region. It will also simulate the natural exhaustion of resources, and discovery of new deposits, as in real economy.

CCP would then have a better direct control over the resource, adding more resources as the playerbase grows, at pre-fixed intervals (it could be N rare minerals, N*Y uncommon, N*Z common per 20.000 active subscribers, automatically adding or removing respawns as the playerbase changes, so the amount of resources would automatically adjoust in a 3 to 6 months span.

Also, prospecting would be a viable profession (so you could be able to sell information), as there would always be possibilities to find rare resources (now AFAIK there are no undiscovered rare mineral moons).

---

Originally by: Redback911

---

This is the same as removal of static complexes. You are removing things worth fighting over. Static resources are one of Eve's main selling points imo, stop removing em!!!

---

Originally by: Aprudena Gist

---

Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 27/10/2008 18:57:29

Originally by: Lord Fitz

---

This sounds very sub-optimal compared with what Chronotis was throwing around months ago. You're not removing the bottleneck at all, you're just shifting it a whole 1 pace to the left until we come up with the same problem again in 3 months time, and then you get another 12 months to fix it.

Contrary to what people are saying, this is still 1 step in the right general direction, and ISN'T going to make 0.0 less valuable but more, because most of it is filled with these 'alternate' moons which largely at the moment aren't all populated. It is simply going to require more people to fully utilise, instead of the current situation where a single person can manage a 200b/month network.

---

The only people that can hold that many moons are alliances and war happens because of them if you dont think there are huge costs associated with holding the moons then your crazy. Most wars in 0.0 happen over moons/space Or Grudge matches because we just dislike the other side.

---

Originally by: A Sinner

---

dyspro and promethium prices going down ? \o/ BOB nerf

---

Originally by: Trading Bunnz

---

Steps should have been taken to address the discrepancy in valuation between the moon materials.

---

Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans

---

CCP is a greedy money chewing monster

---

Originally by: Lord Fitz

---

Given that you bought up a heap of the other R64's I can understand why you think that ;)

---

Originally by: Trading Bunnz

---

bought r64's was simply because the *logical* solution is to make these scarce resources more useable and balanced.

---

Quote:

---

Allow r8's to replace r16's, allow r16's to replace r32's, allow r32's to replace r64's. Additionally or alternatively, allow r64's to replace r64's.

---

Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans

---

CCP is a greedy money chewing monster

---

Originally by: Lord Fitz

---

Originally by: A Sinner

---

dyspro and promethium prices going down ? \o/ BOB nerf

---

Dyspro might go down 20%

---

Originally by: zzCoins

---

"...10 reactors turning that into proper ferrofluid...

---

Originally by: akirahayase

---

I have found it always strange that a moon can give forever moon minerals and never get depleted ,like rl mining amine goes depleted once right ?

---

Originally by: Evil Zeb

---

is there a plan to add more minerials to all the empty moon out there?

---

Originally by: Evil Zeb

---

is there a plan to add more minerials to all the empty moon out there?

---

Originally by: brinelan

---

Let us mine high security moons at a reduced rate, and base the rate on sec status if thats what it takes to balance it out. This just seems to be adding too much complexity to the system.

---

Quote:

---

Let's take ferrofluid as an example. Currently it takes 100 hafnium and 100 dysprosium to make 200 ferrofluid. With the new reaction, you'll take 100 hafnium and 100 cadmium to make 100 unrefined ferrofluid, which can then be refined down to give 10 ferrofluid and 95 hafnium. The final ratios at the end of the process see you using 100 cadmium and 5 hafnium to create 10 ferrofluid, per cycle. The proportion of hafnium stays the same, but the amount of cadmium is 20 times the amount of dysprosium you'd normally use per unit, and it takes ten times longer to make 1000 units of ferrogel.

---

Quote:

---

100 unrefined ferrofluid, which can then be refined down to give 10 ferrofluid and 95 hafnium

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

- The use of the word "refine" in the blog is, as pointed out by some other players in this thread, used because that's exactly what it means. Unrefined materials need to be refined, in a refinery. Currently this will only work in station refineries; if there's a need to extend this to starbase refineries we can add that in future but the inefficiencies would seem to make it something of a lost cause.

---

Originally by: ChaosOne

---

could a dev please reply and state how the unrefined reaction to make Fluxed condensates is going to work??

It uses both Neodymium and thulium...

---

Originally by: Recluse Viramor

---

IE. Less Valuable moons = less reasons to fight = less ships being blown up = less demand for ships being made = less demand for materials to build ships = ....

---

Originally by: Karina Bellac

---

Edited by: Karina Bellac on 27/10/2008 17:21:06

Originally by: Shadowsword

---

Why don't you just create some reaction requiring 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium = 200 ferrofluid? The T2 production cycle is already complex enough as it is without having to add some new unrefined reactions.

---

A product cannot be manufactured from two different blueprints with differing material requirements. I would hazard a guess that reactions suffer from the same piece of awful design*. The workaround, instead of actually fixing things, is to react something that can then use refining definitions to create a product that has an existing reaction/blueprint defined.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

On reflection this probably wasn't made sufficiently clear in the blog: this is step one. The goal for this initial release of the Alchemy concept was to make the minimal necessary change to relieve some of the pressure from the system. We'll be watching how things pan out and seeing where the system reaches equilibrium, and then deciding if there should be a second step and, if so, what it should be. The scope is, therefore, intentionally limited. For the same reason, we deliberately avoided changing or supplementing existing dependencies between intermediate and advanced materials, or switching up which high-end raw materials are used in which intermediates. Changing these dependencies would have an extremely large impact on existing producers in terms of logistics and so on.

Some other things:

- Note that in terms of fiction, as it was brought up briefly from a couple of different angles, despite the name this is not transmutation. Instead it's simply utilizing different raw materials for the same product. There's a reasonable parallel here with biofuel, I think, although more in terms of running diesels on pure chip fat rather than the 5% ethanol fuel or whatever.

- The use of the word "refine" in the blog is, as pointed out by some other players in this thread, used because that's exactly what it means. Unrefined materials need to be refined, in a refinery. Currently this will only work in station refineries; if there's a need to extend this to starbase refineries we can add that in future but the inefficiencies would seem to make it something of a lost cause.

- The 20:1 figure is roughly approximate, with the emphasis on roughly

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Originally by: Karina Bellac

---

Edited by: Karina Bellac on 27/10/2008 17:21:06

Originally by: Shadowsword

---

Why don't you just create some reaction requiring 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium = 200 ferrofluid? The T2 production cycle is already complex enough as it is without having to add some new unrefined reactions.

---

A product cannot be manufactured from two different blueprints with differing material requirements. I would hazard a guess that reactions suffer from the same piece of awful design*. The workaround, instead of actually fixing things, is to react something that can then use refining definitions to create a product that has an existing reaction/blueprint defined.

---

Actually, that's not a restriction of the reaction system - the inputs and outputs can be entirely arbitrary, subject to certain limitations based around universal batch sizes that necessitated the extra step of refining the unrefined product. The reason there's no 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium reaction is that at that rate you could fit five hours of Cadmium into a silo at default capacity, and we came to the conclusion that that wasn't a reaction that many people would want to use.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Originally by: Karina Bellac

---

Edited by: Karina Bellac on 27/10/2008 17:21:06

Originally by: Shadowsword

---

Why don't you just create some reaction requiring 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium = 200 ferrofluid? The T2 production cycle is already complex enough as it is without having to add some new unrefined reactions.

---

A product cannot be manufactured from two different blueprints with differing material requirements. I would hazard a guess that reactions suffer from the same piece of awful design*. The workaround, instead of actually fixing things, is to react something that can then use refining definitions to create a product that has an existing reaction/blueprint defined.

---

Actually, that's not a restriction of the reaction system - the inputs and outputs can be entirely arbitrary, subject to certain limitations based around universal batch sizes that necessitated the extra step of refining the unrefined product. The reason there's no 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium reaction is that at that rate you could fit five hours of Cadmium into a silo at default capacity, and we came to the conclusion that that wasn't a reaction that many people would want to use.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

On reflection this probably wasn't made sufficiently clear in the blog: this is step one. The goal for this initial release of the Alchemy concept was to make the minimal necessary change to relieve some of the pressure from the system. We'll be watching how things pan out and seeing where the system reaches equilibrium, and then deciding if there should be a second step and, if so, what it should be. The scope is, therefore, intentionally limited. For the same reason, we deliberately avoided changing or supplementing existing dependencies between intermediate and advanced materials, or switching up which high-end raw materials are used in which intermediates. Changing these dependencies would have an extremely large impact on existing producers in terms of logistics and so on.

Some other things:

- Note that in terms of fiction, as it was brought up briefly from a couple of different angles, despite the name this is not transmutation. Instead it's simply utilizing different raw materials for the same product. There's a reasonable parallel here with biofuel, I think, although more in terms of running diesels on pure chip fat rather than the 5% ethanol fuel or whatever.

- The use of the word "refine" in the blog is, as pointed out by some other players in this thread, used because that's exactly what it means. Unrefined materials need to be refined, in a refinery. Currently this will only work in station refineries; if there's a need to extend this to starbase refineries we can add that in future but the inefficiencies would seem to make it something of a lost cause.

- The 20:1 figure is roughly approximate, with the emphasis on roughly

---

Originally by: Greyscale

---

The goal for this initial release of the Alchemy concept was to make the minimal necessary change to relieve some of the pressure from the system.

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

I'm not sure I buy the assertion that there was substantially less conflict in the EVE universe in the past than there is now (which this implies). I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but that doesn't match up with my current understanding of the cluster's military history. I wouldn't argue that contemporary conflicts weren't larger in scale than many past ones have been, but I'm not convinced that the actual amount of conflict has increased rather than simply consolidated.

---

Originally by: Vigilant

---

Vio, anybet that every prom and dispo moon has a tower on it ?

---

Originally by: Trading Bunnz

---

People coming in here and saying "ZOMG, seed more Dyspro!" or, even worse, "ZOMG, let me make dysprosium from atmospheric gases" really aren't looking at the big picture. Nor is this likely to happen in the short term, as its something that can't easily be "tinkered" with.

---

Quote:

---

Originally by: Sahara Eternity

---

Why did you make moon minerals unlimited ?

Why not make them ... like asteroid belts ... in roids for example. You mine 2 - 3 months and the moon becomes ... empty - worthless crap. I am sure this will bring you the dynamism we are all looking for.

---

___________________________________________________________________________________________


I agree with limited moon minerals deposits. I would say that a moon, after a random period of moon mining (i meant that it will consider the dimensions of the moon and the quantity of moon mineral extracted), it will desintegrate and the residuu will float around the same spot (as barren asteroids or something) and in few weeks, a new moon will arise from scratch, with new mineral deposits (diferent minerals). Before desintegration, the corp administrating the tower, will recive a warning message that the moon has changed her stabile trajectory and in 24 hours, it will colapse. If the corp will not intervine to unanchor the tower, this will be put offline, unanchored and will float in space for a period of time. if nobody will pick up the POS, it will be integrated in the new moon and it will be lost.

Btw, When scaning a moon, the result must indicate an aproximate time of mining for every mineral or, the aproximate quantity of the mineral deposit and u will do the math...
That's how i see this and i don't say it's the best aproach but... i think is best this way than to give someone posibility to monopolise the moon mineral market and to have unlimited acces to some resources.
Sorry for my bad english and i hope u understand what i meant

Originally by: Vio Geraci

---

...allowing players to tranform labor ...

---

Originally by: CCP Greyscale

---

Actually, that's not a restriction of the reaction system - the inputs and outputs can be entirely arbitrary, subject to certain limitations based around universal batch sizes that necessitated the extra step of refining the unrefined product. The reason there's no 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium reaction is that at that rate you could fit five hours of Cadmium into a silo at default capacity, and we came to the conclusion that that wasn't a reaction that many people would want to use.

---

Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans

---

CCP is a greedy money chewing monster

---

Originally by: Chribba

---

Gold gold gold!

---

Originally by: Vigilant

---

That will upset the dispo "cartel" :p

---

Originally by: CCP Fallout

---

(Snipped Commentary about CCP GreyscaleÆs blog)

---

Originally by: Vengal Seyhan

---

I've been watching the moon mineral market lately and it's been pretty fail. For example : Solerium in Jita currently costs less than the underlying ingredients. There is no point in making it vs selling the components. Caesium, an R32 mineral, is significantly cheaper than Chromium or Cadmium. Caesium seems to be the next Thulium.

---

Quote:

---

- 20 : 1 is excessive. It means your fixed cost of production on a medium POS goes from about 375ISK per unit to about 7500 ISK / unit for the reactions (these costs drawn from our own simple POS operations). 10:1 is

---

Quote:

---

- Introducing even small amounts of moon minerals to be found in Magnetometric sites would break the monopoly market to some extent, and would be dynamic and reactive to player effort. It'd also buff exploration, and mag sites, which have always been sub-par in my opinion. It would also create a global buying market for moon minerals, so that other market hubs might start seeing some minerals buy orders, other than just Jita.
(I think this is an awesome idea TBH!)

---

Quote:

---

- Introduce reaction schemes that use the two under-valued R64 materials! [/

---

Quote:

---

- Introduce 6 new moon minerals for these reactions and bias them to spawning on moons that have have NO valuable minerals on them.

---

Quote:

---

- Allowing people to moon mine in high sec with an extremely high sec status. Tax this heavily (eg 90% tax), to control abundance. I foresee people will control supply by war deccing 1 player corps to smash their POS operations because they're valuable and vulnerable.

---

Originally by: Vio Geraci

---

Edited by: Vio Geraci on 03/11/2008 05:16:45

Originally by: Vengal Seyhan

---

I've been watching the moon mineral market lately and it's been pretty fail. For example : Solerium in Jita currently costs less than the underlying ingredients. There is no point in making it vs selling the components. Caesium, an R32 mineral, is significantly cheaper than Chromium or Cadmium. Caesium seems to be the next Thulium.

---

A lot of the moon mineral and component market is going to be screwed up because of speculation having to do with this next patch. A few months from now it will settle down, but in the meantime people will get confused and think that the weird prices are the problem CCP is trying to fix, or that the moons being profitable or too controlled by a cartel. None of these is the problem, the problem is that the moon mineral mechanic does not scale well with the increasing size of the game. Only a method to transform labor into moon minerals will do that.

Quote:

---

- 20 : 1 is excessive. It means your fixed cost of production on a medium POS goes from about 375ISK per unit to about 7500 ISK / unit for the reactions (these costs drawn from our own simple POS operations). 10:1 is

---

They probably want to not influence the market too much at first, but see if it affects it or not. I bet the ratios will get better over the next six months, so long as there isn't a huge enough price spike to make the 20:1 ratio profitable.

Quote:

---

- Introducing even small amounts of moon minerals to be found in Magnetometric sites would break the monopoly market to some extent, and would be dynamic and reactive to player effort. It'd also buff exploration, and mag sites, which have always been sub-par in my opinion. It would also create a global buying market for moon minerals, so that other market hubs might start seeing some minerals buy orders, other than just Jita.
(I think this is an awesome idea TBH!)

---

Thanks!

I would hope that CCP had those sites be more prominent in "good moon space" and not just smeared all over the map, though. As you may be aware, some regions have better moons than others, just like some have better minerals or rats. Or perhaps only have them in COSMOS constellation gravimetric sites, at first, to test their impact on the market.

Quote:

---

- Introduce reaction schemes that use the two under-valued R64 materials! [/

---

It would be neat if we could devise something for them to be good for, even if it wasn't as chokingly overvalued as Dysp and Prom.

Quote:

---

- Introduce 6 new moon minerals for these reactions and bias them to spawning on moons that have have NO valuable minerals on them.

---

That wouldn't make as much difference as you think. The new moons would probably be divided among 0.0 alliances in roughly the proportions that the old moons are.

Quote:

---

- Allowing people to moon mine in high sec with an extremely high sec status. Tax this heavily (eg 90% tax), to control abundance. I foresee people will control supply by war deccing 1 player corps to smash their POS operations because they're valuable and vulnerable.

---

I hope they never do this, because it would be a complete gimme for empire people, one could not use capitals against the easily fueled POS, and moon minerals are one of the very few areas in which empire depends on 0.0.

---

Originally by: JanSVK

---

dysprosium: 40300 isk/unit
cadmium: 2290 isk/unit
With 1:20 ration -> 2290*20 = 45800
You loose 5500 isk/unit just on the input materials.

We not finished yet

1x L POS = 193 000 isk/ hour.
Large POS can support 2 simple reactors.
193 000 (POS fuel cost/Hour) / 20 (produced ferrofluid/hour) = 9650 isk/unit.
Total production costs: 45800 + 9650 = 55450

55450 - 40300 = 15150 isk/unit loss !!!

Well we have see a big increase in the cost of cadmium since this was announced, it used to be at 800 pu and now over 2k

Working with your figures but at 800 pu I get a cost of ferrofluid at 25650 which is about 15k less the market value atm. There was always going to be a increase in cadmium price as speculators waded in on the market, however i think this will stabalize once the patch is released and more people start to moon mining these often over-looked moons

Originally by: Aprudena Gist

---

Originally by: Vigilant

---

That will upset the dispo "cartel" :p

---

the dyspo "cartel" will just be forced to take all these moons too v0v.

---

Originally by: sparroth

---

How 'bout adding something cool to exploration, like the ability to scan down "comets" or something w/ grav probes. They would be a "mini moon" not attached to a planet that is only around for a couple months. Long enough to be worth setting up a POS at, but not permanent so CCP can adjust their rate of spawn to balance the economy.

It would go something like "guy scans down a grav site in system X, turns out to be a comet instead of a normal hidden belt. Guy grabs some survey probes and sees what the comet will yield (and how long it will be around) decides it's worth setting up a POS to mine knowing he will have to take it back down in a couple months, or decides to just leave it for someone else to find.

---

Originally by: Kara Rhane

---

So, Quantum Rise was released with 20 to 1 ratio.

Since this ratio calculated by every single industrialist means we'll take a loss no matter how it's made we need CCP to step in and do one of four things.

1. Make the ratio better
Other 10 to 1 or better so there's profit, without which no one in their right mind will do.

2. Make a new 'Inefficient Reactor' series
These reactors would alot less CPU (so we don't have to run 20 towers to get the same result as someone using 1 tower to our 20), and these inefficient reactors only work on alchemy reactions. This way people can't abuse em for regular reactions all being on a single POS or whatnaught.

3. Make better usage of the other rarity 64 mins
As a better ratio (say 2 to 1) or something where all rarity 64 moons will be useful. This combined with the old moons and alchemy would lead to a great increase in availability eventually.

4. Allow some mechanism for moon mining in 0.4 and 0.5
Not sure how, maybe 'moon charters', massive standings with various new controlling empire 'moon commissions' or even just saying 'screw it lets let the players just do it to fund the massive wars that are going on'. The moons in these systems have tons of moon mins that no one can touch. It would put new moons into play and even give empire corps/alliances something more to fight over.


TL:DR version
Alchemy will not work in it's current format of 20 to 1 ratio. The fuel costs are astronomical, please rework it to something more sensible, considering reactors take 3,500 CPU each and at 20 to 1 that's 70,000 CPU to match someone that's using 3,500. Please consider this as players that aren't in the mega alliances will not be able to come up with that sheer amount of equipment, and isk when the end product results in a (current) loss.

Respectfully,

-Kara Rhane

---

Originally by: Driven

---

Originally by: Kara Rhane

---

So, Quantum Rise was released with 20 to 1 ratio.

Since this ratio calculated by every single industrialist means we'll take a loss no matter how it's made we need CCP to step in and do one of four things.

1. Make the ratio better
Other 10 to 1 or better so there's profit, without which no one in their right mind will do.

2. Make a new 'Inefficient Reactor' series
These reactors would alot less CPU (so we don't have to run 20 towers to get the same result as someone using 1 tower to our 20), and these inefficient reactors only work on alchemy reactions. This way people can't abuse em for regular reactions all being on a single POS or whatnaught.

3. Make better usage of the other rarity 64 mins
As a better ratio (say 2 to 1) or something where all rarity 64 moons will be useful. This combined with the old moons and alchemy would lead to a great increase in availability eventually.

4. Allow some mechanism for moon mining in 0.4 and 0.5
Not sure how, maybe 'moon charters', massive standings with various new controlling empire 'moon commissions' or even just saying 'screw it lets let the players just do it to fund the massive wars that are going on'. The moons in these systems have tons of moon mins that no one can touch. It would put new moons into play and even give empire corps/alliances something more to fight over.


TL:DR version
Alchemy will not work in it's current format of 20 to 1 ratio. The fuel costs are astronomical, please rework it to something more sensible, considering reactors take 3,500 CPU each and at 20 to 1 that's 70,000 CPU to match someone that's using 3,500. Please consider this as players that aren't in the mega alliances will not be able to come up with that sheer amount of equipment, and isk when the end product results in a (current) loss.

Respectfully,

-Kara Rhane

---

What he said.

The output pace on this - 10 units per hour - just makes the entire process untenable. That's the real killer.

No one who can add is going to do this.

---

Originally by: PuRuSkA

---

Originally by: Driven

---

Originally by: Kara Rhane

---

So, Quantum Rise was released with 20 to 1 ratio.

Since this ratio calculated by every single industrialist means we'll take a loss no matter how it's made we need CCP to step in and do one of four things.

1. Make the ratio better
Other 10 to 1 or better so there's profit, without which no one in their right mind will do.

2. Make a new 'Inefficient Reactor' series
These reactors would alot less CPU (so we don't have to run 20 towers to get the same result as someone using 1 tower to our 20), and these inefficient reactors only work on alchemy reactions. This way people can't abuse em for regular reactions all being on a single POS or whatnaught.

3. Make better usage of the other rarity 64 mins
As a better ratio (say 2 to 1) or something where all rarity 64 moons will be useful. This combined with the old moons and alchemy would lead to a great increase in availability eventually.

4. Allow some mechanism for moon mining in 0.4 and 0.5
Not sure how, maybe 'moon charters', massive standings with various new controlling empire 'moon commissions' or even just saying 'screw it lets let the players just do it to fund the massive wars that are going on'. The moons in these systems have tons of moon mins that no one can touch. It would put new moons into play and even give empire corps/alliances something more to fight over.


TL:DR version
Alchemy will not work in it's current format of 20 to 1 ratio. The fuel costs are astronomical, please rework it to something more sensible, considering reactors take 3,500 CPU each and at 20 to 1 that's 70,000 CPU to match someone that's using 3,500. Please consider this as players that aren't in the mega alliances will not be able to come up with that sheer amount of equipment, and isk when the end product results in a (current) loss.

Respectfully,

-Kara Rhane

---

What he said.

The output pace on this - 10 units per hour - just makes the entire process untenable. That's the real killer.

No one who can add is going to do this.

---

Exactly, we are now 12 december, cadmium price somehat raised by 4 time it's precious value without droping price much on other raw moon material
+ with the moon exploit been cut down, all price went up when it was supose to go down
so our corp decided to finaly have a look into these alchemy
it is simply not profitable enought to do it even with the curent price crisis, i wonder if there is people actualy doing it, and if they are doing it did they do the math before !!!

I like the idea of having another kind reactor that could simple convert some more common material into rare material we need, a FUSION reactor to be logic with physic :)

---

Originally by: Kara Rhane

---

Please consider this as players that aren't in the mega alliances will not be able to come up with that sheer amount of equipment, and isk when the end product results in a (current) loss.

-Kara Rhane

---

Originally by: Warrio

---

Originally by: Kara Rhane

---

Please consider this as players that aren't in the mega alliances will not be able to come up with that sheer amount of equipment, and isk when the end product results in a (current) loss.

-Kara Rhane

---

Oh boohoo.
Yes, you can play Eve in any career that you wish. Doesn't mean it will be effective.
Want in to big projects? Join a big group.

---