These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Retriever reprocessed mineral value

Author
Pipa Porto
#21 - 2012-09-06 16:56:29 UTC
Moraguth wrote:
Truth. Which is why I think that there should be some sort of time limit, and then all retrievers switch to the actual mineral value instead.

If nothing else, than for consistency's sake.


Why? All that would do would cause people to hoard their ships and artificially prop up the price.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#22 - 2012-09-06 17:12:52 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Moraguth wrote:
Truth. Which is why I think that there should be some sort of time limit, and then all retrievers switch to the actual mineral value instead.

If nothing else, than for consistency's sake.


Why? All that would do would cause people to hoard their ships and artificially prop up the price.


except that "artificially propped up price" would be closer to the actual price of the ship. like i said before, the actual build cost right now is over 3 times (and closer to 4 times) the old mineral value. right now they're selling just under 3x the value.

It doesn't make sense compared to (damn near) every other item in the game!

I got a Feature Added!

Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

Sun Win
#23 - 2012-09-06 17:35:06 UTC
Moraguth wrote:


except that "artificially propped up price" would be closer to the actual price of the ship. like i said before, the actual build cost right now is over 3 times (and closer to 4 times) the old mineral value. right now they're selling just under 3x the value.

It doesn't make sense compared to (damn near) every other item in the game!


That's because before the patch industrialists who were paying attention built these ships in vast numbers. They are now slowly selling off their stock which were built at pre-patch mineral costs. Of course the ships cost close to the old mineral value.

Eventually, those ships will all be sold and the cost will climb.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#24 - 2012-09-06 17:43:24 UTC
I don't think they particularly care if people manage to make money on the switch-over — the mineral injection is a bigger issue.

So all they have to do is wait until the number of ships that have been destroyed or recycled post-patch match the total number of ships in circulation pre-patch… P
Pipa Porto
#25 - 2012-09-06 18:01:28 UTC
Moraguth wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Moraguth wrote:
Truth. Which is why I think that there should be some sort of time limit, and then all retrievers switch to the actual mineral value instead.

If nothing else, than for consistency's sake.


Why? All that would do would cause people to hoard their ships and artificially prop up the price.


except that "artificially propped up price" would be closer to the actual price of the ship. like i said before, the actual build cost right now is over 3 times (and closer to 4 times) the old mineral value. right now they're selling just under 3x the value.

It doesn't make sense compared to (damn near) every other item in the game!


The value of any commodity is the price people who have it are willing to sell it for and people who don't have it are willing to buy it for. The amount it costs you to build it is irrelevant.

By the way, every T2 item and almost every Faction/Deadspace item has a value that is entirely divorced from its reprocessed value. Mining Barges are simply another in the long list of items whose prices are not strongly connected to their reprocessed value.

By the way, why do you care if the reprocessed value of an item is different from the build value?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#26 - 2012-09-06 18:04:53 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
By the way, why do you care if the reprocessed value of an item is different from the build value?
…because every now and then, it allows you to pick up some free minerals, which is always nice. Big smile
Moraguth
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#27 - 2012-09-06 18:18:23 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Moraguth wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Moraguth wrote:
Truth. Which is why I think that there should be some sort of time limit, and then all retrievers switch to the actual mineral value instead.

If nothing else, than for consistency's sake.


Why? All that would do would cause people to hoard their ships and artificially prop up the price.


except that "artificially propped up price" would be closer to the actual price of the ship. like i said before, the actual build cost right now is over 3 times (and closer to 4 times) the old mineral value. right now they're selling just under 3x the value.

It doesn't make sense compared to (damn near) every other item in the game!


The value of any commodity is the price people who have it are willing to sell it for and people who don't have it are willing to buy it for. The amount it costs you to build it is irrelevant.

By the way, every T2 item and almost every Faction/Deadspace item has a value that is entirely divorced from its reprocessed value. Mining Barges are simply another in the long list of items whose prices are not strongly connected to their reprocessed value.

By the way, why do you care if the reprocessed value of an item is different from the build value?


With very few exceptions, meta 0 items have a price that is very VERY close to the build cost. But in other terms... the value of the minerals of a reprocessed retriever is about 25% of the value of the minerals required to build one. It should be much, MUCH higher than that to be in line with pretty much every other meta 0 item in the game (modules and ships).

I got a Feature Added!

Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn".  It is "uh-bad-in" dictionary.com/abaddon

Zanarkand
Primal Instinct Inc.
The Initiative.
#28 - 2012-09-06 18:40:05 UTC
I think they will ninja-fix it in the future, when they are confident that activity in the retriever market becomes normal.
Pipa Porto
#29 - 2012-09-06 21:01:31 UTC
Moraguth wrote:
With very few exceptions, meta 0 items have a price that is very VERY close to the build cost. But in other terms... the value of the minerals of a reprocessed retriever is about 25% of the value of the minerals required to build one. It should be much, MUCH higher than that to be in line with pretty much every other meta 0 item in the game (modules and ships).


Hey, guess what, Barges are now part of that list of exceptions. Tah Dah.

CCP's not likely to free up a huge amount of minerals that came from nowhere. You're not likely to convince CCP to flood the market with free minerals with the ever so convincing "but almost every other item (besides T2, POS modules, Bombs, auto-targeters, etc) is reprocess-able and I want to have an artificial price floor so I can make a profit on this BPO that I bought to cash in on the materials increase."

By the way, Bombs have an even lower percentage return.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Herr Hammer Draken
#30 - 2012-09-06 22:05:40 UTC
Moraguth wrote:
Okay, so instead of just bitching about it, maybe I should ask questions instead.

Does anyone else feel that it should be fixed like I do (even if that is at some point in the future)?

Assuming you do, how long do you think they should wait before making the reprocessed value comparable to the build value?

If you don't, why not?

==========

as a side question, since I can't log in for a few more hours, is the max insurance payout close to the current mineral value or the old?

Should that change if it isn't (close to) the current mineral value?


I am kind of in the opposite camp I think everything should have a large nerf when reprocessed. Everything should be like the retriever is. A huge mineral sink in the game. If you reprocess something at best you should get back 50% of what went into building it.

But that will not fly with CCP so then when if ever to restore the reporcessing of the mining barges?
At least 1 year maybe even 1.5 years. So maybe for the winter expansion of 2013/14.

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"

Dystopia Arkaral
Doomheim
#31 - 2012-09-06 23:08:22 UTC
Moraguth wrote:
James 315 wrote:
Why would you reprocess a retriever? I'm sure there are plenty of new botters who would like to purchase one at a discount. Blink


heh, i've already sold all 100 of my old-build-cost retrievers ... now i'm working with the new values, and it is NOT pretty.


I know a guy who had 1500 assorted exhumers which he built purchased prior to the patch
Charles Baker
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2012-09-06 23:47:02 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Charles Baker wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Charles Baker wrote:
To be honest, any created post-patch (Note construction starting post-patch) should have full mineral reprocessing, those with ID's created before hand are forever stuck at old values.


The Devs have said many times that any time something is packaged and stacked, it becomes impossible to trace back to before that time.

Also, you'd have to split the market and a bunch of other annoyances.


Then i have one answer to them, code your database better.


Why should you keep track of individual units of commodities?


To resolve problems such as these.
Pipa Porto
#33 - 2012-09-06 23:54:00 UTC
Charles Baker wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Charles Baker wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Charles Baker wrote:
To be honest, any created post-patch (Note construction starting post-patch) should have full mineral reprocessing, those with ID's created before hand are forever stuck at old values.


The Devs have said many times that any time something is packaged and stacked, it becomes impossible to trace back to before that time.

Also, you'd have to split the market and a bunch of other annoyances.


Then i have one answer to them, code your database better.


Why should you keep track of individual units of commodities?


To resolve problems such as these.


Why is it a problem?

The massive stockpiles of pre-patch mining barges would provide the exact same downward pressure on prices as it currently provides.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Anya Ohaya
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-09-07 00:06:03 UTC
Moraguth wrote:
The current build price of a retriever is well over 20m isk in raw minerals since the change in requirements. However, if you reprocess a retriever, it only gives you the old build value of about 7m back. I have perfect refine and am looking at mineral prices in Amarr.

How long till this is planned on being fixed?


Once the stockpiles run out, and the market price exceeds the build price CCP might do it.

Until then, you're stuck with them.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-09-07 02:32:41 UTC
Pipa Porto wrote:
Moraguth wrote:
With very few exceptions, meta 0 items have a price that is very VERY close to the build cost. But in other terms... the value of the minerals of a reprocessed retriever is about 25% of the value of the minerals required to build one. It should be much, MUCH higher than that to be in line with pretty much every other meta 0 item in the game (modules and ships).


Hey, guess what, Barges are now part of that list of exceptions. Tah Dah.

CCP's not likely to free up a huge amount of minerals that came from nowhere. You're not likely to convince CCP to flood the market with free minerals with the ever so convincing "but almost every other item (besides T2, POS modules, Bombs, auto-targeters, etc) is reprocess-able and I want to have an artificial price floor so I can make a profit on this BPO that I bought to cash in on the materials increase."

By the way, Bombs have an even lower percentage return.

It is part of the exception, but that alone isn't a good reason to keep it there. I'm of the frame of mind to think that excessive special casing is bad. While short term mass infusion does need to be avoided, as the reprocessing value does here, it doesn't create a case where, in the future, possibly a year or more down the line that the lingering but inconsequential possibilities of any mineral infusion justify keeping more special exceptions.
Pipa Porto
#36 - 2012-09-07 05:38:01 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Pipa Porto wrote:
Moraguth wrote:
With very few exceptions, meta 0 items have a price that is very VERY close to the build cost. But in other terms... the value of the minerals of a reprocessed retriever is about 25% of the value of the minerals required to build one. It should be much, MUCH higher than that to be in line with pretty much every other meta 0 item in the game (modules and ships).


Hey, guess what, Barges are now part of that list of exceptions. Tah Dah.

CCP's not likely to free up a huge amount of minerals that came from nowhere. You're not likely to convince CCP to flood the market with free minerals with the ever so convincing "but almost every other item (besides T2, POS modules, Bombs, auto-targeters, etc) is reprocess-able and I want to have an artificial price floor so I can make a profit on this BPO that I bought to cash in on the materials increase."

By the way, Bombs have an even lower percentage return.

It is part of the exception, but that alone isn't a good reason to keep it there. I'm of the frame of mind to think that excessive special casing is bad. While short term mass infusion does need to be avoided, as the reprocessing value does here, it doesn't create a case where, in the future, possibly a year or more down the line that the lingering but inconsequential possibilities of any mineral infusion justify keeping more special exceptions.


I think you missed the part where vast numbers of items have extra materials in their bill of materials. Extra materials are not a special case when some half of the blueprints in the game require extra materials. A number of those cases were put in to prevent reprocessing abuse (POSes and POS modules for instance), others for other reasons.

And spending extra effort keeping track of stockpiles and prices, consulting with Dr EyoG, etc, is much more work on CCP's part than not touching it anymore.

What value does converting the extra materials to normal materials add to the game?

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2012-09-07 06:08:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Pipa Porto wrote:

I think you missed the part where vast numbers of items have extra materials in their bill of materials. Extra materials are not a special case when some half of the blueprints in the game require extra materials. A number of those cases were put in to prevent reprocessing abuse (POSes and POS modules for instance), others for other reasons.

And spending extra effort keeping track of stockpiles and prices, consulting with Dr EyoG, etc, is much more work on CCP's part than not touching it anymore.

What value does converting the extra materials to normal materials add to the game?

I didn't miss the part about it not being the only special case so much as I wonder if it's relevant considering the item being looked at. If there are a number of other tech 1 ships in the same boat (aside from the procurer which was changed in the same way for the same reason) and I am mistaken then I admit fault there, but to my knowledge there aren't. This makes this a special case for T1 ships. Other items pulling from a different pool of materials would have their own set of general rules so the comparisons are less than fair.

As far as what it adds, it add the same thing that having the ability to reprocess other T1 hulls does to the retriever (and procurer for that matter). While the value of an items potential mineral return may seem inconsequential I'm sure it could have ramifications for the hulls affected. I can't theorize as to whether they are worth considering, but it makes no sense to have the option on some hulls but not others to recover a significant portion of their worth when another hull of the same class can (covetor to my knowledge does not suffer the same issue).

And really, what major need is there to do collection of information beyond what CCP is likely already doing? Given the magnitude of the change to the tools of the mining profession, CCP is already very likely doing all the research you mention above as they observe people's reactions to what has been done. In any case, after a year or so any real financial gains would be minimal and reprocessing would leave a person very little better off then simply selling on the market, at which point why not make this not to complicated change.
Pipa Porto
#38 - 2012-09-07 13:50:46 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
it could have ramifications for the hulls affected.


Like what?

What value does converting extra materials to normal materials add to the game? (Saying that it adds the ability to reprocess efficiently is tautologically true, but meaningless because tautology)

Again, some half of all blueprint produced items have extra materials in them. Consistency isn't a compelling argument in the face of that.

Quote:
And really, what major need is there to do collection of information beyond what CCP is likely already doing? Given the magnitude of the change to the tools of the mining profession, CCP is already very likely doing all the research you mention above as they observe people's reactions to what has been done. In any case, after a year or so any real financial gains would be minimal and reprocessing would leave a person very little better off then simply selling on the market, at which point why not make this not to complicated change.


Assuming CCP tracks data like that and would have Dr. EyoG spend his time figuring out the market ramifications of making the change anyway, what value to the game does making the change to the blueprints have to justify the development time (including such problems as: what to do with builds in progress since the bill of materials will decrease*)?


*Extra Mats aren't affected by ME, roll them into normal mats and they are, so the build cost will drop.

EvE: Everyone vs Everyone

-RubyPorto

Buck Futz
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2012-09-08 00:01:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Buck Futz
I'm not sure I understand what the whine is.

Started build orders totalling 1000 Retrievers once I heard the build cost would be revised upwards about 4x.

The current price is below build cost, but well above the old 5M or so the Retriever used to cost.

So bleed the Retrievers into the market, or just hold them and collect your easy profit at a later date.

-I mean, isn't tripling or quadrupling your investment good enough?

-Are you mad just because you can't reprocess your Retrievers and instantly multiply your mineral stockpile?

-Am I reading this thread correctly?
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2012-09-08 00:23:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Pipa Porto wrote:
*Extra Mats aren't affected by ME, roll them into normal mats and they are, so the build cost will drop.

When build costs are comparable between 2 ships and one stands to gain from ME research more than another, that is an issue in and of itself.

And as far as build in progress, what was done during the change? We didn't suffer catastrophic failure when the materials were changed last month and I'm sure there were more than a few individuals who were trying to take advantage of the ships imminent increase in value down to the last possible moment. How is this change any different?

Also, what, after significant enough time has passed for stockpiles to dwindle to the point where the ship begins to gravitate back up in price to better reflect it's current mineral cost and is freed from the influence of speculative dumping, is the actual issue with making the change? This isn't a massive rewrite and re-balance. I'd anticipate this was very few man hours of actual work and a sort decision making process if you don't try to inflate the effort involved.

Given the data that CCP has been gathering, per sources such as the CSM and more directly evidence to the player base at large by CCP Diagoras, it most likely already falls well within the gathered data and even more so if CCP expends any tangible effort to track and interpret data based on their recent changes. In fact I would be surprised if the very analysis, which given minor re-purposing and drawing from the same already collected data would apply to the subject at hand, wasn't already underway.
Previous page123Next page