These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Specific Examples of Where Risk Should Be Inserted Successfully Into High-sec

First post
Author
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#281 - 2012-10-10 04:16:11 UTC
Touval wrote:


Gankers can't make a profit - EVERYBODY ELSE is doing fine.....

My production profits have halfed in the last few months because the markets are flooded with raw materials. Your numbers in fack back up what I am saying as they show a big rise in value at the start of the year then a drop off after the sumer changes.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#282 - 2012-10-10 04:41:36 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Touval wrote:


Gankers can't make a profit - EVERYBODY ELSE is doing fine.....

My production profits have halfed in the last few months because the markets are flooded with raw materials. Your numbers in fack back up what I am saying as they show a big rise in value at the start of the year then a drop off after the sumer changes.


That big rise was caused by CCP removing material flood from drone regions. No, it wasn't because of gankers. Unless you're saying that you were there flooding the market with gun mining...
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#283 - 2012-10-10 05:27:03 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Touval wrote:


Gankers can't make a profit - EVERYBODY ELSE is doing fine.....

My production profits have halfed in the last few months because the markets are flooded with raw materials. Your numbers in fack back up what I am saying as they show a big rise in value at the start of the year then a drop off after the sumer changes.


That big rise was caused by CCP removing material flood from drone regions. No, it wasn't because of gankers. Unless you're saying that you were there flooding the market with gun mining...

Just to be clear, you're saying when supply went up, prices went up.

That's not correct.

Value = Demand / Supply

So when supply goes up, value goes down if demand is constant.

I hope this was helpful.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#284 - 2012-10-10 05:33:06 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Touval wrote:


Gankers can't make a profit - EVERYBODY ELSE is doing fine.....

My production profits have halfed in the last few months because the markets are flooded with raw materials. Your numbers in fack back up what I am saying as they show a big rise in value at the start of the year then a drop off after the sumer changes.


That big rise was caused by CCP removing material flood from drone regions. No, it wasn't because of gankers. Unless you're saying that you were there flooding the market with gun mining...

Just to be clear, you're saying when supply went up, prices went up.

That's not correct.

Value = Demand / Supply

So when supply goes up, value goes down if demand is constant.

I hope this was helpful.


When people were gun mining in drone regions and reprocessed their meta 0 mission loot there was way more materials in market (= high supply) and that caused prices to stay low.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#285 - 2012-10-10 05:35:07 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Touval wrote:


Gankers can't make a profit - EVERYBODY ELSE is doing fine.....

My production profits have halfed in the last few months because the markets are flooded with raw materials. Your numbers in fack back up what I am saying as they show a big rise in value at the start of the year then a drop off after the sumer changes.


That big rise was caused by CCP removing material flood from drone regions. No, it wasn't because of gankers. Unless you're saying that you were there flooding the market with gun mining...

Just to be clear, you're saying when supply went up, prices went up.

That's not correct.

Value = Demand / Supply

So when supply goes up, value goes down if demand is constant.

I hope this was helpful.


When people were gun mining in drone regions and reprocessed their meta 0 mission loot there was way more materials in market (= high supply) and that caused prices to stay low.


You conveniently neglect the reactionary flood of materials from speculators sitting on large supplies.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful posting.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#286 - 2012-10-10 05:37:19 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
You conveniently neglect the reactionary flood of materials from speculators sitting on large supplies.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful posting.


If drone regions weren't the problem then why did CCP remove drone stuff?

It clearly was a problem.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#287 - 2012-10-10 05:38:06 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
You conveniently neglect the reactionary flood of materials from speculators sitting on large supplies.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful posting.


If drone regions weren't the problem then why did CCP remove drone stuff?

It clearly was a problem.

In an attempt to lower supply for the future.

Lower supply with consistent demand should yield higher prices in the future.

Which is what we were seeing for a while, predictibly.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#288 - 2012-10-10 05:40:47 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
You conveniently neglect the reactionary flood of materials from speculators sitting on large supplies.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful posting.


If drone regions weren't the problem then why did CCP remove drone stuff?

It clearly was a problem.

In an attempt to lower supply for the future.

Lower supply with consistent demand should yield higher prices in the future.

Which is what we were seeing for a while, predictibly.


Then can you prove supply is currently the same as it was before removal of drone stuff and meta 0 loot?
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#289 - 2012-10-10 05:44:14 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
You conveniently neglect the reactionary flood of materials from speculators sitting on large supplies.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful posting.


If drone regions weren't the problem then why did CCP remove drone stuff?

It clearly was a problem.

In an attempt to lower supply for the future.

Lower supply with consistent demand should yield higher prices in the future.

Which is what we were seeing for a while, predictibly.


Then can you prove supply is currently the same as it was before removal of drone stuff and meta 0 loot?

We can watch prices and not only predict what the supply is, but also the demand, through market history.

At the end of the day, vast speculative mineral stores were opeend up when the game changed in a way that favored selling them at inflationary prices.

I believe some of those reserves still continue to have an impact on prices, for the time being.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#290 - 2012-10-10 05:45:25 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Then can you prove supply is currently the same as it was before removal of drone stuff and meta 0 loot?
Same old strawman.

Why should he prove something he didn't say? Why are you incapable of posting without lying?
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#291 - 2012-10-10 05:48:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Darth Gustav wrote:
We can watch prices and not only predict what the supply is, but also the demand, through market history.

At the end of the day, vast speculative mineral stores were opeend up when the game changed in a way that favored selling them at inflationary prices.

I believe some of those reserves still continue to have an impact on prices, for the time being.


That would cause prices to go down, not up like they did. Tier 3 BSs are still at ~250M (~150M before the change).

And no, hisec "mining bots" can't keep highend supply as high as it was before the change. Remember that drone regions were great source of highends.

Tippia wrote:
Why should he prove something he didn't say? Why are you incapable of posting without lying?


He says that supply of materials has gone up after removal of meta 0 loot and drone stuff.

In reality supply of especially highends has gone down.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#292 - 2012-10-10 05:57:17 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
We can watch prices and not only predict what the supply is, but also the demand, through market history.

At the end of the day, vast speculative mineral stores were opeend up when the game changed in a way that favored selling them at inflationary prices.

I believe some of those reserves still continue to have an impact on prices, for the time being.


That would cause prices to go down, not up like they did. Tier 3 BSs are still at ~250M (~150M before the change).

And no, hisec "mining bots" can't keep highend supply as high as it was before the change. Remember that drone regions were great source of highends.

Tippia wrote:
Why should he prove something he didn't say? Why are you incapable of posting without lying?


He says that supply of materials has gone up after removal of meta 0 loot and drone stuff.

In reality supply of especially highends has gone down.


Your causality is broken and I see the cause of your misconception now.

I say supply will go up without end because there isn't sufficient risk to prevent success at certain high-sec activities anymore.

Which is a statement about two things:

1) The propensity for humans to take the easy, low-risk, common-denominator option and

2) The principles expressed in Value = Demand / Supply.

There's a difference between saying supply went up due to something that obviously cut it off long-term but caused a brief spike, and another thing entirely which can adequately be predicted to increase supply ad infinitum.

I hope I've clarified my position. Thanks again for your thoughtful post.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#293 - 2012-10-10 06:00:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Still false. All benefits newbies receive from NPC corps, veterans also receive, and receive more of. Newbies and newbie-accessible ships have the least EHP of anyone, which is the only mitigator in committing to a suicide gank. It's absurd to assert that something that puts new players at an effective disadvantage is for their benefit.

This would only stand true if suicide ganks were the only way of getting at these players. They aren't. I at no point claimed they protected from all types of aggression, but they do protect from one. The one you mention is again odd because being in a player corp in no way makes you more or less susceptible to a suicide gank. So let me ask, why does suicide ganking even matter since it can be done to both veterans and new players of player corps and NPC corps alike?
Your argument is that NPC corps need to stay in place because 'they protect newbies'. I point out that newbies and their ships are totally susceptible to things like suicide ganking at negligible costs for the ganker. The question is, if anyone can kill newbies for any reason without any real difficulty or warning, then NPC corps are really **** poor at fulfilling the purpose you say justifies their existence, right? And if they aren't doing that, then why bother keeping them considering all the harm they do? Remember, the helpful chat channel can easily exist outside the gamebreaking wardec-immune supercorp.

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Again, an npc corp channel can just pop up with chargen. With that in mind, "the npc corp channel" s a poor justification for all the other problems NPC corps bring to EVE - NPC corp channels can exist independent of NPC corps themselves, new characters just automatically log into them.

A good solution, but then what becomes the new system in which new players are to be introduced to the game as being a part of?
I imagine them as freelancers, able to be dec and be decced as individuals, going about their business however they like while asking questions in some NPC corp chat channel. Newbies and casual players wouldn't be worth the dec, while the AFK autopilot freighter alt would be. It'd be up to the players to decide whether they wish to take their chances and fight their battles alone or join a group and work towards collective security. You know, a sandbox. As opposed to now where it's the small newbie player-run corp that doesn't know about decshields and NPC corp PvE alts that are eating the brunt of the griefdecs (more ways that NPC corps harm newbies and should be removed). Zipping around in a noobship with no safety net isn't a big deal. Heavily ratting with a officer-fit pimpboat might be another story though ;).

Tyberius Frank wrote:
To be specific, I'm talking about protections to new players only, not veterans.
The 'protections' afforded to 'genuinely new players' by NPC corps are pitiful. Again, anyone can roll out with a catalyst and snuff out the t1 hull carrying a new player's worldly goods at any time for any reason, wardec or no, NPC corp or no. That's not real protection, it doesn't even come close to justifying the gross harm and distortion a wardec-free mode in EVE does. In practice, NPC corps serve to protect experienced players able to afford ships with buckets of EHP that remove the threat of ganking in all but the most extreme of pilot error. Players that can't exactly hide under a cover of 'noobness' as justification for exemption from wardecs that everyone else in EVE has to deal with. Players like yourself.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#294 - 2012-10-10 06:00:38 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
There's a difference between saying supply went up due to something that obviously cut it off long-term but caused a brief spike, and another thing entirely which can adequately be predicted to increase supply ad infinitum.


Supply was way higher when people could "gun mine" in drone regions.

Oh, and could you give me a location of hisec asteroid belt with ABCs in it? I pay you 30M.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#295 - 2012-10-10 06:05:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Darth Gustav
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
There's a difference between saying supply went up due to something that obviously cut it off long-term but caused a brief spike, and another thing entirely which can adequately be predicted to increase supply ad infinitum.


Supply was way higher when people could "gun mine" in drone regions.

Oh, and could you give me a location of hisec asteroid belt with ABCs in it? I pay you 30M.

Demand for ABCs is relatively low due to their low composition requirement in most production.

To the point, the vast majority of low-end minerals come from high-sec mining.

Also, "way higher" doesn't matter if models of causality predict a rise in supply ad-infinitum.

Infinity is greater than "way high." Runaway supply is bad for Eve's market health (and arguably Eve itself).

Risk adds value. Taking risk away removes value.

In real life that can be a real bummer.

Fortunately we're HTFU'd immortal humans in another galaxy in this game. Twisted

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#296 - 2012-10-10 06:07:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Darth Gustav wrote:
Demand for ABCs is relatively low due to their low composition requirement in most production.


If drone regions didn't have any effect on supply why prices stayed low for years?

Drone stuff was also good source of lowends for those who think mining is boring.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#297 - 2012-10-10 06:09:49 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Demand for ABCs is relatively low due to their low composition requirement in most production.


If drone regions didn't have any effect on supply why prices stayed low for years?

Demand for ABCs is relatively low due to their low composition requirement in most production.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#298 - 2012-10-10 06:11:26 UTC
Darth Gustav wrote:
Demand for ABCs is relatively low due to their low composition requirement in most production.


Drone stuff was also good source of lowends for those who think mining is boring.
Darth Gustav
Sith Interstellar Tech Harvesting
#299 - 2012-10-10 06:12:57 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Darth Gustav wrote:
Demand for ABCs is relatively low due to their low composition requirement in most production.


Drone stuff was also good source of lowends for those who think mining is boring.

It doesn't matter how high supply of anything was.

Infinity is higher than that.

Regardless of where we happen to be right now.

He who trolls trolls best when he who is trolled trolls the troller. -Darth Gustav's Axiom

Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#300 - 2012-10-10 06:18:46 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
He says that supply of materials has gone up after removal of meta 0 loot and drone stuff.
No. He said “Lower supply with consistent demand should yield higher prices in the future. Which is what we were seeing for a while, predictibly.”

Notice how nothing in those two statements make any kind of claim that supplies are currently the same.

So why should he prove something he didn't say? Why are you incapable of posting without lying?