Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 13:30:00 -
[1]
I notice that we've got to the point lately where people are finding it profitable to purchase, insure and self-destruct ships. I personally witnessed one pilot purchase over 20 Rokhs and blow them up, one by one, outside 4-4.
Every time an NPC game mechanic has started to seriously alter the nature of the market, CCP has nerfed it. Over the last few years, we've seen the demise of NPC buy orders, coupling arrays, shuttles, and most recently civilian afterburners. The only difference is that these were mineral sources, rather than sinks. Why should CCP be so wary of artificially cheap minerals, but not artificially expensive ones?
So, would EVE be any better off if the mineral baseprices were updated? Would we see players grind a bit longer to replace their ships, or would mineral prices just drop until we reached the same situation again, a few months later?
--- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 13:55:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Kerfira on 28/09/2009 13:56:21 Most likely CCP are aware, but is leaving sleeping tigers alone.....
Any change in base mineral price will be seen as a nerf on insurance. Players will be screaming and threatening to quit in large numbers! Forum flames! etc. etc.
More importantly, it'll not achieve anything! The current low mineral price comes from one main issue: 0.0 is a big nap-fest, and not many ships are blown up!
This means that minerals are are not leaving the game economy, ISK are not leaving the game economy as fast (few POS blown up), meaning that both are piling up (mineral being worse).
If base prices are lowered, that imbalance will still exist and will just cause mineral prices, thus ship and equipment prices, to drop to the new level set by the new base price + insurance.
So in effect, 'ze goons HAVE managed to find a way to ruin EVE, simply by getting most of the big 0.0 powers not shooting at each other.... Unless Dominion actually do manage to change this, the situation will continue and get worse.
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.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 14:03:00 -
[3]
Death by stagnation.
|
Claire Voyant
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 14:18:00 -
[4]
Except nap-fest was caused by the upcoming sov changes, not the goonies.
|
Andron Blaxcor
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 14:20:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Venkul Mul Death by stagnation.
I hope not, I like EVE . The base mineral prices are there to prevent mineral prices sinking too low, with the self-destruction of insured ships as its mechanism. What you have observed is simply the mechanism working because various player forces have pushed mineral prices low. This mechanism of self-destruct will keep mineral prices from sinking lower. Changing mineral prices now would only de-stabilise the economy further. Not a Good Thing.
Give it time and mineral prices will increase from rock bottom again.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 14:41:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Claire Voyant Except nap-fest was caused by the upcoming sov changes, not the goonies.
It started months before anything was announced about Dominion.....
Even so, there should be lots of fighting around high-end moons since this source of wild ISK-printing supposedly comes to an end with Dominion.... There's isn't, mainly because of the napping....
Tbh, NC are probably (much) more at fault than Goons since they're carebears at heart... Goons are just the ones who've said they wanted to 'ruin EVE', and this is a good way of doing it....
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.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 14:56:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Claire Voyant Except nap-fest was caused by the upcoming sov changes, not the goonies.
Yeah, pretty much this. In fact the big NAP coalitions have both been shrinking lately. But POS warfare is so horrible, no-one in the right mind is going to do any more of it than absolutely necessary. There is some fighting in the East, but it's virtually all sub capitals.
By Christmas, the fighting will be intense again.
|
Kerfira
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 15:33:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Kerfira on 28/09/2009 15:33:33
Originally by: Malcanis By Christmas, the fighting will be intense again.
IF Dominion works as intended.... Tbh. I have some doubts whether it'll actually break the stranglehold of the big alliances on 0.0, but it's really impossible to know before we see it in action....
Lets just all hope for TOTALHELLDEATH!!!!!
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.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 21:48:00 -
[9]
What it seems to boil down to is whether with reduced mineral prices, ships would be cheap enough for people not to mind about reduced insurance, whose purpose, after all, is to make it easier to recover from losses. It might be interesting to gradually reduce insurance payouts and see at what point mineral prices stop falling, if at all. I'd suggest maybe 1-2% per month. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |
cosmoray
Cosmoray Construction
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 21:57:00 -
[10]
Mineral prices ALWAYS adjust to the break even ship cost quickly.
As soon as it is profitable to self destruct ships manufacturers step in and buy up the minerals to make ships and pop-em. They will purchase minerals upto the minimum ship price that is linked to insurance.
What is usually easier to do is to not produce ships when the prices get out of line. Purchase the really cheap minerals and sell the expensive ones and allow the market to readjust. Remember cheap and expensive doesn't have to be Trit and Mega, but how they relate to their historical averages.
|
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 22:37:00 -
[11]
Originally by: cosmoray Mineral prices ALWAYS adjust to the break even ship cost quickly.
Do you think they would converge to zero if insurance was removed altogether? --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |
HawkBlade
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 22:40:00 -
[12]
I totally appreciate your attempt here but I think this is as effective as barking at the moon. Mineral prices have to be pegged somewhere arbitrary and right where they are is as good a place as anywhere else. Insurance farming comes and goes, this is not new. If someone wants to spend the useless time it takes to do all of it, let them.
Truly told, considering the time involved the profits are not really worth it. IMHO they could do better offering a navel cleaning service and be more actively engaged at the same time as increased profit.
Additionally, no matter how low you set the bar someone will strive to slide under it. It is the nature of mediocrity. It allows as many winners as feel like doing as little as possible. Aiming for mediocrity is part of CCP's design mandate.
You hadn't noticed?
See my twitterings about Eve Online. Be the first to hear me toot.
|
Andron Blaxcor
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 22:54:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Kerfira The base mineral prices are there to prevent mineral prices sinking too low, with the self-destruction of insured ships as its mechanism. What you have observed is simply the mechanism working because various player forces have pushed mineral prices low. This mechanism of self-destruct will keep mineral prices from sinking lower.
But at the same time it'll pump much more ISK into the economy which is an EQUALLY bad thing. One resource is pretty much like another and having too much of ANY of them is a bad thing!
Insurance provides a conversion of minerals to ISK. This is probably a bad idea in itself as it links one resource type to another, but only in a one-way exchange. If insurance wasn't there, the different resources would find a natural balance between inflow and outflow determined by supply and demand. This happens for T2 materials (though somewhat restricted by low availability of R64's), T3 stuff, rig components, and to a lesser degree faction/complex modules. It SHOULD probably also be the way for minerals....
You're quite right, I hadn't thought of the injection of isk this provides to the market which is definitely a bad thing. I do wonder how large an effect it is though. Seeing a dozen rokhs pop in a few minutes is a billion or so isk, but I'm willing to bet that in the same period ten times as much was paid in New Eden in bounties and agent rewards etc. If people popping themselves for insurance becomes widespread it would reprensent a major obstacle to the economy. I have a feeling that the market will stabilise before this problem becomes too large.
Are there any places in industry where items can be bought from NPCs which can be converted into minerals? I'm thinking of LP store items and NPC sell orders, but none spring to mind. I can't remember off-hand if there are ways to buy faction ships etc for a mix of LP and isk. Even if the trade between minerals and isk was purely one way both have sources (mining for minerals and bounties etc for isk) and sinks (ships going boom for minerals and sales taxes etc for isk) which are independent that over time, barring large jolts, the system will stabilise.
So I agree that the extra isk injection is a bad thing but am not sure it will have much of an impact. I think the stabilising effect provided by the lower bound on mineral prices is more important to a stable economy than preventing this small isk injection. It would be interesting to see some figures on isk generation and isk sinks.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
|
Posted - 2009.09.28 23:04:00 -
[14]
Originally by: HawkBlade
Mineral prices have to be pegged somewhere arbitrary and right where they are is as good a place as anywhere else.
I suspect that there is a non-zero equilibrium that would eventually be reached without insurance as a major stabilising factor. If this also happens to be at a point which makes ships as easy to replace as they are with the current insurance mechanism, I'd prefer the simpler option, which would never make it profitable for people to blow up their own ships. --- 34.4:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |
Krathos Morpheus
Gallente Legion Infernal
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 00:08:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: HawkBlade
Mineral prices have to be pegged somewhere arbitrary and right where they are is as good a place as anywhere else.
I suspect that there is a non-zero equilibrium that would eventually be reached without insurance as a major stabilising factor. If this also happens to be at a point which makes ships as easy to replace as they are with the current insurance mechanism, I'd prefer the simpler option, which would never make it profitable for people to blow up their own ships.
The problem with that is imo the miner profesion, given the current situation it needs to be protected if we want it to exist. A lot of players like mining (don't ask me why) and removing it completely would be very bad for ccp. It's not worth it. Also removing insurance can work right now, but you don't know how the prices are going to evolve in the future, they could go up enough to kill pvp or they could go so low that people lose the emotions involved in fighting and the game could die. If the insurance is going to be removed we need a complete revamp of minerals, economy and mining to ensure the health of the game.
EVE Knowledge
|
Selene D'Celeste
Caldari The D'Celeste Trading Company ISK Six
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 03:24:00 -
[16]
One of the reasons we haven't seen insurance disappear is most likely due to its effect on the mining profession. It's a questionably worthwhile profession as is, and if insurance was gone and minerals could fall out lower than they are now .... that would not be something CCP would want. My guess is we'll see a revision of insurance the day we see a revision to mining (and mineral acquisition as a whole).
While minerals don't always push below insurance prices, they push against it often enough that the real equilibrium would make mining less profitable.
|
Durente Galaica
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 05:10:00 -
[17]
I'm as big a carebear as the next guy but "protecting the miner's income" is a weak reason not to create a new insurance system.
Also in response to the OP, I've got dozens of BSs that I've built that if I were to take the value of the ship excluding everything but the mineral value they'd be averaging 5-10 mil below what was profitable to just insure and blow up myself. I kept buying minerals and now I have billions and billions of isk in minerals and ships that I'm tempted to just insure-trash myself.
Once they get to the point where they are hardly selling for (insurance - insure cost) * ( 1 + my % to place on market ) I assure you I will be destroying them by the dozen. The minerals just keep getting cheaper. And to make this worthy of market discussion, pyerite is the only mineral I have faith in right now.
|
Haraldhardrade
Amarr Pax Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 06:02:00 -
[18]
EVE needs her AIG, Goldman Sacks, ****tybank and so on
Caveo of Minmatar , torva vacuus regimen of deus es plurrimi periculosus of bestia
|
Yristor
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 06:39:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Yristor on 29/09/2009 06:43:30 There are two ways CCP can fix this, if higher mineral prices are what they want: reduce supply, and increase demand:
Reducing supply could be accomplished by leaving only regular asteroids in high sec, and moving all the dense, condensed etc. 'roids to low sec and 0.0. This would have the twin benefits of re-populating low sec, causing miners to make a risk vs reward decision, and reducing supply.
Also, there are still macro-miners out there - there's one in Aldrat (all the hulks are named "Sonic <something>", and they seem to run 23-7.
Another idea would be to give minerals a "half life" so that they start to decay after a certain amount of time - therefore, corps couldn't sit on huge stockpiles.
To increase demand, make Dominion's new sov system (where corps have to build infrastructure to increase their hold on a system) use a TON of minerals.
|
clixoras
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 09:45:00 -
[20]
Edited by: clixoras on 29/09/2009 09:50:13
Originally by: Yristor Edited by: Yristor on 29/09/2009 06:43:30 There are two ways CCP can fix this, if higher mineral prices are what they want: reduce supply, and increase demand:
Reducing supply could be accomplished by leaving only regular asteroids in high sec, and moving all the dense, condensed etc. 'roids to low sec and 0.0. This would have the twin benefits of re-populating low sec, causing miners to make a risk vs reward decision, and reducing supply.
Also, there are still macro-miners out there - there's one in Aldrat (all the hulks are named "Sonic <something>", and they seem to run 23-7.
Another idea would be to give minerals a "half life" so that they start to decay after a certain amount of time - therefore, corps couldn't sit on huge stockpiles.
To increase demand, make Dominion's new sov system (where corps have to build infrastructure to increase their hold on a system) use a TON of minerals.
Although in theory this makes sense but removing the availability in hisec will prove very! impopular to miners as they choose this profession for the semi-afk aspect. Also, a lot of players start as miners. As they start they don't have the organization or the knowledge to move to more profitable area's.
The latter proposal i'll give a thumbs up!
edit: concerning the self-destruction of ships. Look at the ships destroyed on the eve-map. In Jita there are currently more ships destoyed than the most contested area's in eve.
|
|
Covert Kitty
Amarr ISK Solutions
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 16:38:00 -
[21]
The halflife idea is a cool idea I think. However there are technical reasons why it certainly wont happen. One complication is that you would have to track each unit's halflife, which would take a huge amount of ram. Alternatively they could do it in cycles like many other aspects of eve, but that causes other complications.
Too much peace = too many ships = prices fall. If the next expansion stirs things up a bunch youll see prices rise quickly. Insurance provides a fairly important means of flushing minerals out of the system, without it during peace like there is now there would be no downward limit on prices, and stockpiles of minerals even larger than there are now would form which would lengthen the time it would take for prices to recover.
Insurance certainly isnt the only way of doing it, but one way or another you need some way for these resources to exit the game.
|
Mobius Fierce
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 20:14:00 -
[22]
Originally by: clixoras Although in theory this makes sense but removing the availability in hisec will prove very! impopular to miners as they choose this profession for the semi-afk aspect. Also, a lot of players start as miners. As they start they don't have the organization or the knowledge to move to more profitable area's.
This argument is lacking. He didn't say remove all asteroids from high sec. According to his suggestion the normal ones will still be there. Newb 'roids for newb miners doesn't seem out of context with the rest of the game. Plus there's only a 10% difference between normal and condensed if I recall correctly. So afkers will still be able to make a profit... just a slightly lower profit than those who are willing to go to low sec (as it should be).
|
hecaeta
|
Posted - 2009.09.29 23:35:00 -
[23]
This argument is lacking. He didn't say remove all asteroids from high sec. According to his suggestion the normal ones will still be there. Newb 'roids for newb miners doesn't seem out of context with the rest of the game. Plus there's only a 10% difference between normal and condensed if I recall correctly. So afkers will still be able to make a profit... just a slightly lower profit than those who are willing to go to low sec (as it should be).
So, what you are saying is you want to force players, against their will, into low sec? Just how are they to replace the mining ships that get gankrd by PVP's looking to grief? Not everyone is in the game to PVP. For me, PVP is not the reason I play.
|
Andron Blaxcor
|
Posted - 2009.09.30 00:03:00 -
[24]
Originally by: hecaeta
This argument is lacking. He didn't say remove all asteroids from high sec. According to his suggestion the normal ones will still be there. Newb 'roids for newb miners doesn't seem out of context with the rest of the game. Plus there's only a 10% difference between normal and condensed if I recall correctly. So afkers will still be able to make a profit... just a slightly lower profit than those who are willing to go to low sec (as it should be).
So, what you are saying is you want to force players, against their will, into low sec? Just how are they to replace the mining ships that get gankrd by PVP's looking to grief? Not everyone is in the game to PVP. For me, PVP is not the reason I play.
I think he was actually suggesting that there should be an incentive to go to low-sec, not a necessity. As he said, basic ores could remain (i.e. Veldspar) whilst the enhanced versions (i.e. condensed Veldspar etc) be moved to low-sec so those willing to take more risk get more profit. Afk miners could still mine basic Veldspar in high-sec, just not as much as if they were willing to move to low-sec. In my opinion, this makes a reasonable amount of sense.
Personally, I think Dominion may provide the solution by changing sov mechanics. Any big change is going to stir up war as the system of alliances re balances. For a time, at least. This increased demand, etc etc. What I will be interested to see is how long the alliances will squabble for and who comes out on top.
|
Tomoyuki
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 05:03:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Tomoyuki on 03/10/2009 05:03:40 The issue for miners in going to low sec is there is a very low return for mining in belts in low sec. Because pirates that operate in those systems know exactly the location of the belts and so they will just sit there and scan and wait until an unlucky miner starts mining. I understand people talk about taking precautions but I hope you realize that I treat time much more differently then everyone else and that less time I am mining is lees profit for me and no I don not afk mine (I enjoy mining alot). To the OP do not worry about it as the new Dominion patch will easily increase the price of minerals and I am predicting prices of minerals to be high as hitting 4.00p/u for just trit minimum. Reason you ask? Because the new sov mechanics will force alliances to
1. Split up so they can make puppet alliance which will mean they have to bolster there ranks to fill the loss of players. 2. They abandon territory because the alliance can not spare the manpower which will leave space for smaller alliance to take for themselves. 3. Moon goo is taking a massive hit so alliances that have a weak industrial arm is going to suffer the most since alliance will have to take advantage of their resources (asteroid fields) to increase their war chest which in turn will increase small gang warfare since it only takes a few stealth bombers to ruin a mining fleet FC's day. This will also in turn make a massive rush for alliance to buy off market until they can strengthen their industrial arm. You will see a rush for resources once the Dominion patch hits and takes into effect as the stockpiles that older alliances and new run out because of the conflicts that will erupt by next year.
*edit to make it easier to read.
|
Ebanni
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 09:08:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Every time an NPC game mechanic has started to seriously alter the nature of the market, CCP has nerfed it.
The overall balance of the ISK supply (bounties, insurance payouts, etc) is way out of whack with the consumption of ISK (various minor taxes, skillbooks, npc-produced items), that's the real problem rather than one symptom of it (ie, insurance payouts). Ergo, CCP introduces new taxes such as that rumoured 11% for "living" in NPC corps.
What next... a "VAT" style tax on npc item purchases?
|
Aurorae Andromedae
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 09:26:00 -
[27]
Instead of whining, stack, stack and stack for Dominion
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 09:26:00 -
[28]
Maybe something like this idea below would help.
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1189024
The Real Space Initiative - V6 (Forum Link)
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 10:08:00 -
[29]
Quote:
Do you think they would converge to zero if insurance was removed altogether?
I played way too many MMOs. Most of them had a shallow economy model. Without baseline checks and barriers, 80% of the whole game items basket quickly drops to about zero value. Only harvested material used to "skill up" maintains a typical "demand vs offer" market. These games continue to go on thanks to the fact their items are largely not crafted and thus no one is really devastated by this broken economy but end-crafters.
In EvE the typical MMOtards and china farmers would just dump prices until minerals and thus modules etc. are all valued zero. And in EvE almost all is crafted, the consequences would be dire to say the least.
- Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Space Pinata
Amarr Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2009.10.03 23:25:00 -
[30]
Oh god, there is so much money and the current rate of production provides an abundance for everyone.
This is terrible! Please make the economy worse so I can feel hardcore!
Also: Did someone just blame low prices on inflation?
Pro tip: Reducing the total ISK in game reduces prices. If there was an excessive amount of ISK in circulation, to the point where it was a problem, mineral prices would be through the roof, and not crashing. (ISK becomes worth less, then, afterall.)
In other words: ISK fountains are stopping the economy from deflating massively. Deflated economies are terrible. It's much, much better to have everyone making a decent income than everyone starving for a few scraps of deflated ISK as the economy grinds to a halt.
There is something you have to realize: The average person in a virtual economy is a moron. Much moreso than a real economy, since one would simply starve if they acted the same way with real money. People are entirely willing to undersell the value of their own work, because things they produce themselves are 'free'. So, no, they won't stop doing something if it becomes unprofitable, they'll keep flooding the market themselves because the resources are 'free' (in their own, slow little minds.). The only thing which stops this from happening is a bit of 'artificial' pricing.
Is it somewhat unpleasant? Sure. Would I prefer to see 0.1 isk tritanium, because your average player doesn't value their own time? No. No I would not. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |