EVE Information Portal

Because the CA energy marekts, specifically electricity went through a rather recent problem regarding price manipulations...and the solution was to set the price cap at the least efficient (in terms of costs) producer necessary to clear the markets.

That is how markets work. Pure and simple. The price is not set by the most efficient producer, but the least efficient necessary to ensure markets clear.

The interesting part about this fee increase is that it is inflation. Whatever the cost before the rollout, the markup is an increase that simply put is isk leaving the game. The greater the frequency of the jobs, the faster isk is destroyed (doesnt go from player to player). Unlike losing a ship or risking an asset, this is simply the cost to "tread water". What does this look like if someone produces a t2 ship all the way down a distribution chain? That loss of isk is significant especially because no game value is exchanged for it.

It seems this along with the lower barrier to entering the competitive market space (losing the sunk effort for grinding standings is very discouraging), those who attempt to produce based on short term relative market changes are at an increased disadvantage over those who work in longer cycles based on absolute changes. The logic of constantly producing goods to increase a wallet balance by a relative R.O.I. goes upside down because of the arbitrary inflation.

1) LOL They broke NEX store.

2) I hope noone uses them.

Has anyone considered what will happen when we have major shocks to the system, such as the destruction of 164 titans, or other major battles that leads into the depletion of a major number of ships, or a type of ship?

Depending how agile the ship pricing system will be, you could end up with an insanely expensive production cost before you've even sent the item to market. And those who build later, will pay an even higher price as the items roll out at increasingly higher prices to fill the void in supply. But how can the system correctly interpret what that void is? How will it deal with that temporary, artificial pricing?

Then think about the ways to bring the price back down to 'normal' values. How will the system interpret that? Someone is going to have to tank major losses in order to have the prices stabilize. But that could take months, before (if even) the prices stabilize to their previous values.

Whatever they have planned might work for factional warfare, but that's because factional warfare is supported by the rest of EVE. People decide what, and how much to risk. Sometimes, you just don't have a choice. As major battles have shown, constant reinforcement leads to massive destruction because you just simply have to defend to the last if your home system is attacked.

Make that system global, (a system that as far as I am aware, has not been tested against major shocks), then add PLEX into the mix and well.... We are in for fun times ahead.

I believe the price won't alter much as it's average over the last 28 days. So short sharp spikes may not have that big an impact in the cost of manufacturing the item.

However if you can nudge that 28 day average up a bit constantly then positive feedback will start to kick in and manufacture costs will just constantly spiral upwards causing sale price to go up and therefore manufacturing costs and so on.

That assumes people don't sell at a loss which isn't always a good assumption to make and that all the items manufactured are actually sold.

2013 June 3rd
2014 - scheduled for June 3rd - read the newest devblog by Fozzie, says it in the first sentence

1. People have already complained that many industrials won't want to move much after they set up in a system. That's not lost on anybody. That just highlights the importance of wisely choosing an initial system, and it also highlights the opportunity for leaner industrialists to have more flexibility.

2. Why would reprocessing reduce margins from 5% to 1%? If all of your profit margin comes from reprocessing, all I can say is that you're doing it wrong.

3. Many people are excited? There has been a huge amount of criticism.

4. Why would this update allow station traders bigger cuts of the profits, exactly? I mean it seems possible, but I'm ears on a concrete theory for that.

5. This will stop fights from happening on roams? Please.

Has Dave Stark considered posting in the relevant thread, rather than flooding this thread with irrelevant posts?

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=341290&find=unread

If not the details, I certainly empathize with the sense of frustration. Publications and research out of Harvard indicate it is less expensive to keep an existing customer happy than it is to acquire a new customer. This business truth brings to mind the question of how one measures success for a series of changes such as these, especially because as someone else observed in this thread, some of the changes appear to be trying to solve problems that does not exist? I am down to one paid account from my original four after the scan probe UI bug forced me out of WH. Change for change's sake, especially where discretionary income is involved, literally profits from a justification concerned with user satisfaction.

Some of these changes actually remove incentives to maintain play continuity too. For example, it seems like having a consistently fueled pos with an uninterrupted subscription seems to be less significant now because having a high sec pos will have less value too. Again, is the measure of success here one that involves subscription retention, new accounts with shorter retention cycles, an interesting statistical model, or ???

Couldn't the same be said of the large nullsec groups? The ones that will have perfect control over their new industrial advantages and will ummmmm make even more profitable and stable industry under far fewer peoples control?...Seems entirely fair, knacker an area of the game and give the benefits to those already in a position to exploit them