These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Market Discussions

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Equilibrium Mineral Prices

Author
Block Ukx
420 Enterprises.
#1 - 2012-04-26 11:25:59 UTC
Equilibrium Mineral Prices


I published this several years ago, so long ago that nobody remembers it. Due to a recent thread, I figure is probably a good time to revisit this topic.


[1] This solution assumes that miners will maximize their income by mining the best ore available. As a guide I created an ore income table to help miners determine their best choice of ore.
http://www.bsacse.amxg4.com/ore.php


At equilibrium, supply must equal demand. No assumptions there, as that is the very definition of equilibrium. Solving the demand side is too complicated as we have thousands of items. However, the supply side is fairly easy to solve given [1]. By equating the ore income we can find that:


[a] price_of_Pyerite = price_of_Tritanium * 667/416
[b] price_of_Mexallon = price_of_Tritanium * 7,875/832
[c] price_of_Isogen = price_of_Tritanium * 392,717,417/14,176,032
[d] price_of_Nocxium = price_of_Tritanium * 385,043/4,576

Equilibrium_Hourly_Income = Mining_Rate * price_of_Tritanium * 600,000/333



These numbers are a bulk park and should be used with caution. Patches and ccp changes can affect the outcome. How long will it take for markets to reach equilibrium is another story.



Tekota
The Freighter Factory
#2 - 2012-04-26 11:48:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Tekota
Yep can see the same maths I arrived at (albeit via potentially different methods), which I have to say gives me some hope :o)

To repost from the other thread - Can I ask how you resolve the "omber problem" (or whatever the red headed stepchild ore of a time is)? Can this simply be put down to the safety valve effect - ie. demands are driven by changing mineral weights of desired goods and one ore must always float free to accomodate changing FOTM - coupled with the variance in equilibrium (ie we never see perfect equilibrium)?

Actually I might have gotten isogen wrong as my equilibrium price of isogen is trit price * c.17.51 rather than the ratio you state of trit price * 27.70

edit: nevermind, correct me if I'm wrong but I think, from digging up http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=448254&page=1 - that your ratios are based on veld, scord, plag and omber with kernite and pyrox assumed to break free in one direction or another (going to guess in 2007 kernite and/or pyrox were the fruity looking ores) wheras mine worked off veld, scord, plag, pyrox and kernite with omber left to dangle. Which I think explains why we've got near identical results on trit/pye/mex but a difference on iso.
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#3 - 2012-04-26 12:31:47 UTC
That is such a nice piece of info you created there..

Might be cool if it more clearly showed the data source and mineral values used. Might even make it possible to put in people own values, to get both the "official" and a private version?

This brings another nice question. Would it not make sense to ask ccp to put in industrial info. Yields on mining ship read outs, fits? So its showed cycle times (average) and total cubic meters per cycle? This would really be useful in unison with your data.

Yes I know, people can just make their own spread sheets and calculations. That is just equivalent to saying people can just test drive their own car to get its top speed and general performance.. EVE should develop to a bit less spreadsheets in space, and make these types of data simpler to operate.

Block Ukx
420 Enterprises.
#4 - 2012-04-26 12:43:15 UTC
Tekota wrote:


edit: nevermind, correct me if I'm wrong but I think, from digging up http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=448254&page=1 - that your ratios are based on veld, scord, plag and omber with kernite and pyrox assumed to break free in one direction or another (going to guess in 2007 kernite and/or pyrox were the fruity looking ores) wheras mine worked off veld, scord, plag, pyrox and kernite with omber left to dangle. Which I think explains why we've got near identical results on trit/pye/mex but a difference on iso.



My results are based on high-sec ores; Vel, Scor, Plag, Omber, and Pyro. Isogen was derived from:

Income_Veldspar = Income_Omber


Right now, there is no incentive to mine Kernite, when Pyro and Veldspar yield a much higer income.


Tekota
The Freighter Factory
#5 - 2012-04-26 12:46:20 UTC
I've uploaded the spreadsheet (I know, another spreadsheet) I knocked up after I ran out of space on the back of my phone bill:

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1204/minerals.zip

(thanks to chribba for the hosting!)

It's in OpenOffice .ODS format which should be openable by just about any Excel-a-like.


As it's set up just alter the values in the yellow boxes (mining isk/hr and mining m3/hr) - everything else is either static ore/mineral values or calculated figures.
Tekota
The Freighter Factory
#6 - 2012-04-26 12:54:56 UTC
Block Ukx wrote:

My results are based on high-sec ores; Vel, Scor, Plag, Omber, and Pyro. Isogen was derived from:

Income_Veldspar = Income_Omber

Right now, there is no incentive to mine Kernite, when Pyro and Veldspar yield a much higer income.


That makes sense, yours based on all but kernite, mine based on all but omber. Right now I'd say kernite has much more incentive than omber, with veld being about 10% higher than kernite but about 75% higher than omber, but it does illustrate nicely how these things change over time and the dangers inherent.
Block Ukx
420 Enterprises.
#7 - 2012-04-26 13:27:17 UTC
The reason I chose Omber over Kernite is that Omber has a better Isogen yield than Kernite. If Isogen were to spike, Omber will be the ore to mine.



@Caleb Ayrania
The values used came from ore's refining yileds (Ri), batch size (B), and unit volume (V).

The ore income (I) is given by:

I = M * B * Sum(Ri*Pi) / V,

where M is the mining rate, Ri is the refining yield of mineral i, and Pi is the price of mineral i.

Notice that when you equate income, the mining rate (M) drops from the equation.



For example Veldspar yield 1000 units of Tritanium (R1) per batch, Scordite yields 833 Tritanium (R1) and 416 Pyerite (R2) per batch. By equating the ore income you get the following equation:

333 * 1000 * price_Tritanium / 0.1 = 333 * (833 * price_Tritanium + 416 * price_Pyerite) / 0.15

solving for price_Pyerite gives :

price_Pyerite = price_of_Tritanium * 667/416



You can get the rest of the values by equating income from Plagio, Omber, and Pyro to Veldsvar.



Liberty Eternal
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2012-04-26 13:29:36 UTC
Block Ukx wrote:


I published this several years ago........ that miners will maximize their income by mining the best ore available.





Woah... that's an amazing and ground-breaking piece of research that you 'published'. What inspired you to break new ground and see what no-one else in EVE has seen before?
Tekota
The Freighter Factory
#9 - 2012-04-26 13:38:56 UTC
Block Ukx wrote:
The reason I chose Omber over Kernite is that Omber has a better Isogen yield than Kernite. If Isogen were to spike, Omber will be the ore to mine.


That's actually a damn good point.

I guess what I was getting to as I referred to "the omber problem" is that the mineral weights simply don't mathematically line up for all hi sec minerals:

If veld_income = scord_income = plag_income = pyrox_income = kernite_income = (eg) 200isk/m3
... then omber_income simply cannot mathematically also = 200isk/m3

I haven't run the maths but I suspect this also means that if:
veld_income = scord_income = plag_income = pyrox_income = omber_income = (eg) 200isk/m3
.... then kernite_income simply cannot mathematically also = 200isk/m3


Will get a chance later tonight to rerun with kernite and see if that is indeed the case.
Caleb Ayrania
TarNec
Invisible Exchequer
#10 - 2012-04-26 13:58:57 UTC
Liberty Eternal wrote:
Block Ukx wrote:


I published this several years ago........ that miners will maximize their income by mining the best ore available.





Woah... that's an amazing and ground-breaking piece of research that you 'published'. What inspired you to break new ground and see what no-one else in EVE has seen before?


WHoa.. so your saying there might be a need to repeat old things, for potential new players? That is an awesome idea.. how did OP think of that..

Javajunky
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2012-04-26 14:18:10 UTC
Yeah, like all miners run around doing nothing but chasing the perfect ores in empire. Serious miners, multi-boxers and fleet ops where the real m3 will come from now that bots are under seige will not chase the ISK they will take on the volume targets in empire where they can vaccuum up an entire belt in 30-45 minutes while someone is setting up the bookmarks for the next move.

Fail assumptions....Again another graduate of Obamanomics.... living completely in the academic and not a single day spent in the trenches with any real experience on how things work.

Java

Because Mining is what the cool kids do...
Tekota
The Freighter Factory
#12 - 2012-04-26 14:25:28 UTC
Javajunky wrote:
Yeah, like all miners run around doing nothing but chasing the perfect ores in empire. Serious miners, multi-boxers and fleet ops where the real m3 will come from now that bots are under seige will not chase the ISK they will take on the volume targets in empire where they can vaccuum up an entire belt in 30-45 minutes while someone is setting up the bookmarks for the next move.

Fail assumptions....Again another graduate of Obamanomics.... living completely in the academic and not a single day spent in the trenches with any real experience on how things work.

Java

Because Mining is what the cool kids do...


Except history has shown that hi sec ore prices actually *do* track eachother, albeit with a fairly wide (as already conceded) margin and with quite some lag on changes. Right now, to the extent that they exist, those multi boxer fleets you describe will be setting up bookmarks for the next belt to vaccuum up, they'll be setting them up for belts that contain pyrox and not omber.

Do love your little attempt to crowbar in your egocentric political view however, like one political ideology in one country has deep and meaningful significance in a game about spaceships :o)
VaMei
Meafi Corp
#13 - 2012-04-26 15:28:32 UTC  |  Edited by: VaMei
The problem with assuming that isk/M3 of all hi-sec ore (excepting either Kernite or Omber) will balance out is that the supply basket will not match the demand basket.

If we assume that in terms of isk/M3 Veld = Scord = Pyro = Plag = Omber/Kernite, then 30.03 Trit (1m3 refined veld) must equal 16.68 Trit + 8.33 Pyr (1m3 refined Pyr), and so on.

If this is true, then we can generate a basket containing 1m3 of generic hi-sec ore which will contain:
(Omber) 11.67 Trit, 2.74 Pyr, 0.68 Mex, 0.20 Iso & 0.02 Nocx
(Kernite) 11.63 Trit, 2.66 Pyr, 1.00 Mex, 0.16 Iso & 0.02 Nocx

The above baskets normalize to give us:
(Omber) 530.15 Trit, 124.62 Pyr, 30.86 Mex, 9.29 Iso, 1.0 Nocx
(Kernite) 528.16 Trit, 120.90 Pyr, 45.48 Mex, 7.30 Iso, 1.0 Nocx

Compare that miner supply basket to a normalized manufacturer demand basket containing the 12 battle ships:

253.54 Trit, 64.13 Pyr, 15.52 Mex, 3.96 Iso, 1.0 Nocx.

As you can see, this demand basket contains roughly half of the Trit, Pyr, Mex, & Iso of the supply baskets.

While this basket is not a true indicator for the broad market, and miners won’t all move in a perfect heard or cherry pick ore, I’m predicting significant upward pressure on Nocx vs. what the generic supply basket would indicate.
This upward pressure could be offset by 0.0 mining while Crokite is in favor.
Tekota
The Freighter Factory
#14 - 2012-04-26 16:04:21 UTC
VaMei wrote:
The problem with assuming that isk/M3 of all hi-sec ore (excepting either Kernite or Omber) will balance out is that the supply basket will not match the demand basket.


Damn important point, and I think one that both myself and Block have conceded, and definitely the reason I don't consider my bet to be anything like a sure thing. The demand basket is just so hard to accurately gauge and is something that will change so regularly due to events and FOTM demand.


VaMei wrote:
Compare that miner supply basket to a normalized manufacturer demand basket containing the 12 battle ships:

253.54 Trit, 64.13 Pyr, 15.52 Mex, 3.96 Iso, 1.0 Nocx.

As you can see, this demand basket contains roughly half of the Trit, Pyr, Mex, & Iso of the supply baskets.


I really like this, it's an attempt at analysing the demand basket which is certainly further than I got. As another set of data I took a similar approach to make an ME3 "freighter basket", normalised to nocx and weighted with a 2 to 1 favour of Charon/Obelisk versus Fenrir/Prov to take into account relative popularity:

482.62 Trit, 62.92 Pye, 23.36 Mex, 3.39 Iso, 1.0 Nocx.


Still not doing my pyerite bet any favours it has to be said :o) But as said I'm finding it really hard to accurately gauge the demand side - I'd *love* to know how much of total mineral consumption has lately been made up by (nocx-less) Tornados for example.
VaMei
Meafi Corp
#15 - 2012-04-26 16:12:11 UTC
Re-thinking it, what I posted above is actually hogwash.

While it is usefull to indicate what ore miners will favor while seeking equilibrium, it doesn't have squat to do with what the long term equilibrium price of ore will be. As long as enough miners can keep on Pyro then equilibrium of hi-sec ore can be found.
Block Ukx
420 Enterprises.
#16 - 2012-04-26 18:30:40 UTC
VaMei wrote:
The problem with assuming that isk/M3 of all hi-sec ore (excepting either Kernite or Omber) will balance out is that the supply basket will not match the demand basket.



By definiton, in equilibrium, supply = demand.



Alain Kinsella
#17 - 2012-04-28 10:38:36 UTC
For those not familiar with the Omber issue - there is a L3 Storyline mission that trades 6000 m3 of Omber for a +3 implant. That tends to cause an interesting floor on Omber, though I've wondered if the cost of a +3 implant would rise instead. *crossing fingers*

This occurs also with the +1 and +2 implants (Veld?), but those are easily mined by any character. I'm guessing the +4 is also gained this way, but I've never seen one of those storylines.

"The Meta Game does not stop at the game. Ever."

Currently Retired / Semi-Casual (pending changes to RL concerns).

Wyke Mossari
Staner Industries
#18 - 2012-04-28 12:26:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Wyke Mossari
I'm not sure the demand side is that difficult, if instead of looking at finished goods we look at the Mineral market its self.

Annual mineral volume for Jita with various ratio. (Extracted from the market history using the new cut & paste feature.)

Tritanium: 267.21, Pyerite: 53.92, Mexallon: 15.41, Isogen: 3.63, Nocxium: 1


* The figures are for Jita for 364 days starting the day before yesterday, since volume for today is incomplete and for yesterday is often zero.

** I had to look it up, 10^15 or 1,000 Trillion is a Quadrillion, so that 10Quadrillion of Tritanium traded in the last year.
Ike Snicklefritz
Pink Fuzzy Dice
#19 - 2012-04-28 16:59:17 UTC
Alain Kinsella wrote:
For those not familiar with the Omber issue - there is a L3 Storyline mission that trades 6000 m3 of Omber for a +3 implant. That tends to cause an interesting floor on Omber, though I've wondered if the cost of a +3 implant would rise instead. *crossing fingers*

This occurs also with the +1 and +2 implants (Veld?), but those are easily mined by any character. I'm guessing the +4 is also gained this way, but I've never seen one of those storylines.


I've gotten a level 4 equivalent a few times, and it required kernite, which adds the same price floor idea to that particular ore as with omber.
Chingyz
Perkone
Caldari State
#20 - 2012-04-28 18:11:49 UTC
Wyke Mossari wrote:
I'm not sure the demand site is that difficult, if instead of looking at finished goods we look at the Mineral market its self.

Annual mineral volume for Jita with various ratio. (Extracted from the market history using the new cut & paste feature.)

Tritanium: 267.21, Pyerite: 53.92, Mexallon: 15.41, Isogen: 3.63, Nocxium: 1


* The figures are for Jita for 364 days starting the day before yesterday, since volume for today is incomplete and for yesterday is often zero.

** I had to look it up, 10^15 or 1,000 Trillion is a Quadrillion, so that 10Quadrillion of Tritanium traded in the last year.


Actually that doesn't show true demand. Part of those figures are due to speculators trading minerals for short or long term investments. You can't even use finished goods from the market as some people buy up goods for reprocessing, thus reentering the minerals to the market.

Demand is affected in the same way with both speculators and reprocessing having an effect, however the chase for most valuable ore will, to some degree, show equilibrium (with some lag).

All this, however is based on a prerequisite of stability.
123Next page